[0:11] Okay, good morning. It's April 7th, 2026. We're here at the Robert L. Anderson Administration Center for your regularly scheduled Board of County Commissioners, meaning all five commissioners are present. If you're able, please stand. We'll be led in the indication by Sean Yeager.

[0:31] Good morning. Thank you. We come together today with gratitude for the opportunity to serve the people of Sarasota County.

[0:42] May we be guided with wisdom, clarity, stewardship,

[0:46] leadership and fairness as we consider the matters before us.

[0:53] Help us work in the spirit of unity, listening with respect and collaborating for the good

[0:58] of all.

[0:59] Keep us focused on the purpose and the responsibility we share to strengthen and support our community.

[1:05] Amen.

[1:06] Thank you.

[1:08] We have Sergeant Marcus Summers with us today to lead us in the pledge he served four years

[1:13] in the United States Air Force, earning the Air Force outstanding unit award, good conduct

[1:19] Tech Medal, Longevity Service Award, and the Air Force Training Ribbon.

[1:24] In 1986, he deployed to Central America, Honduras, as part of Joint Task Force Bravo.

[1:32] Supporting exercise and training missions aimed at countering Soviet and communist influence

[1:37] in Nicaragua and Honduras.

[1:40] For the past six years, he has worked with Sarasota County as a business security analyst

[1:45] in the risk management department, providing expertise and security analysis and risk mitigation.

[1:53] And I saw this little note here, additionally, prior to joining Sarasota County government,

[2:00] it had more than 30 years of experience in law enforcement and public safety.

[2:05] And he retired as deputy chief of the Prince George's County Maryland Police Department after 20 years.

[2:12] Thank you for your service, sir.

[2:13] Thank you, sir.

[2:14] Please take this in the pledge.

[2:18] Our pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic

[2:22] for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

[2:30] Thank you.

[2:34] All right, with that, we have some proclamations starting with 100 who care giving circles

[2:38] day and that will be presented by Commissioner Smith.

[2:58] Okay.

[2:59] Good morning.

[3:00] Sure, everybody come on up.

[3:02] I'm just glad there isn't a hundred of you.

[3:08] That was the rumor.

[3:09] No, anyway, in all seriousness.

[3:12] This proclamation today is for 100 who care,

[3:17] giving circle day, whereas the 100 women who care chapters

[3:22] in Sarasota County have demonstrated exceptional commitment

[3:25] to community service through collective giving

[3:28] and whereas their philanthropic efforts

[3:32] that provides substantial support to local not-for-profits,

[3:36] enhancing the well-being of residents

[3:37] throughout Sarasota County,

[3:39] and whereas recognizing April 10th

[3:42] as 100 who care giving circle day,

[3:46] will honor the spirit of generosity

[3:48] and community engagement,

[3:50] exemplified by these organizations.

[3:53] Now therefore, we, the Board of County commissioners

[3:55] to Sarasota County, Florida, do hereby proclaim

[3:58] April 7th, 2026 to be 100 who care,

[4:02] They're giving Circle Day presented on this 7th day of April of 2026.

[4:08] Debbie?

[4:08] There you go.

[4:10] Thank you very much.

[4:12] I want to thank the Sarasota County Commissioners for this honor.

[4:15] 100 women who care was originally founded in Jackson, Michigan in 2006 and the organization

[4:22] has grown to over 700 chapters worldwide.

[4:25] The three local chapters were formed in 2018, 2019, and 2020 in Sarasota, Venice, and Manatee,

[4:34] all three serving Sarasota County.

[4:37] We have contributed nearly $800,000 to the local nonprofit community.

[4:43] We consider ourselves a grassroots movement where each of our nearly 550 members

[4:49] commits to a $100 donation twice a year.

[4:52] It's the fact that this proclamation has honored us on April 10th is significant in that it is the 100th day of the year.

[5:01] We very much appreciate your recognition of our contribution and thank you very much.

[5:07] Anybody else?

[5:09] Hello, Keith Doug.

[5:11] I am.

[5:33] Next we have National Public Safety Telecommunications Week and Commissioner Knight.

[5:39] Commissioner?

[5:40] All

[5:47] right, just trying to get you.

[5:50] There's some push-ups for having her phone on.

[5:53] I know.

[5:53] Who's going to hold it?

[5:55] Dan?

[5:56] I'm sorry.

[5:57] I'm going to come back.

[5:58] I'll slide in here somewhere.

[6:00] Rich, where are we at?

[6:01] Good morning, everyone.

[6:02] I'm Tom Knight.

[6:03] I'm your district three county commissioner.

[6:05] I get the honor of completing a proclamation today on behalf of our board of county commissioners

[6:10] for National Safety Public Telecommunications Week.

[6:14] telecommunications week, whereas emergencies can occur at any time that require law enforcement fire or emergency medical services and whereas the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office Public Safety Telecommunications are the first and most critical contact our citizens have with emergency services and servings a single vital link for law enforcement firefighters, EMTs, and paramedics by monitoring or activities by radio, providing them information and ensuring their safety and whereas each public safety telecommunicator

[6:45] Exhibited compassion, understanding, and professionalism during the performance of their job,

[6:50] fielding over 630,500,000 overall calls to assist our community in 2025.

[6:58] Whereas, the Sarasota County 9-1-1 Center is a primary public safety answering point for

[7:03] law enforcement and fire rescue agencies serving our community, including an uncorporated Sarasota County,

[7:08] the cities of Sarasota, Venice, and Northport, the town of Lombokia, as well as Inguid Fire Department,

[7:15] Nacoma's Volunteer Fire Department, Sarasota County School Board Police, and now therefore,

[7:19] we, the Board of County Commissioners of Sarasota County, Florida, do hereby proclaim April 12th through

[7:25] April 18th, 2026 to be National Safety Telecommunicators Week, present a seventh day of April 2026.

[7:33] Thank you very much. I'll just make one quick comment is, I used to say when Kurt and I worked together

[7:38] If you can't get the call in and get it out, you can't give service.

[7:42] And these individuals, and I know the sheriff will talk about it, is in ritual, is probably

[7:49] the most important thing in public safety is the people who take the phone calls that come

[7:53] in every day, or how they come into the center now with technology advancements, is no service

[7:58] can be given by any agency unless these individuals get it out the right way.

[8:04] That is your beginning of your safety and security in this county.

[8:09] In this county has the premier public safety communication center by far.

[8:15] So I just wanted to say that and I don't know who we're going to pass it off to the sheriff or do you want it first?

[8:21] Thank you commissioner and thank you commissioners for recognizing these hard working men and women.

[8:25] There's over 100 folks that work in our public safety communication center.

[8:29] The bureau commander for our emergency operations bureau is Captain Dan Tutko.

[8:34] Michael Spiegel has been with us.

[8:36] I believe since 2008 is a manager.

[8:39] Kathleen is helping train our new recruits over there.

[8:42] She's coming up on 10 years with us I think.

[8:45] Christine is pushing 30 years with us, been doing it for a long time.

[8:50] I told Christine she could either give a speech or sing a karaoke song because she's a really good karaoke singer.

[8:55] She doesn't want to do either one of them, so I'm just going to recognize her for

[8:58] where the consummate professional that she is working in the Public Safety Communication Center.

[9:04] As Commissioner Knight said, there's hundreds of thousands of calls that come in and out of that center.

[9:09] They are the first first responders.

[9:12] They watch over us, they check on me when I'm sitting too long on my computer and

[9:16] check on all of us that are out there working in the field of fire, EMS, and law enforcement.

[9:21] I just can't say enough about the work that they do extremely proud of the way that they conduct their business.

[9:27] I'll just say one final thing as well.

[9:29] The Denise Amber Lee case has been in the news recently, and I don't know if folks understand that the Denise Amber Lee Act was modeled off of the training program here at the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office about 90% of what the state made everybody mandate and training they had to go through came from the training curriculum that we built here at the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office.

[9:50] So, very proud, also want to think your County Administrator Jonathan Lewis, Rich Collins,

[9:56] Sally Lawrence, our partners over at the county.

[9:58] If you don't know, we always kind of divide the labor this way.

[10:02] The folks work for the Sheriff's Office, all of the infrastructure, the building, the computer

[10:07] aided dispatch, all of the equipment that's in there as the county's and it's a great partnership.

[10:12] So, thank you Rich for that as well.

[10:15] I'd just like to say thank you to the men and women that work in the dispatch center there,

[10:19] the unsung heroes, and 24-7, they are making sure that not only the citizens are safe, but the

[10:25] men and women that respond to those calls for service are safe also. So thank you to them.

[10:31] There's not much more than I can say other than the support of our Board of County Administration,

[10:36] the partnership with the sheriff to give the tools to our telecommunicators to us. The commissioner said

[10:42] get the call and get it out. The work in Sarasota County puts us at the forefront of next generation,

[10:48] I want one to get the information out to our partners in the field to get them there as quickly as possible.

[10:54] And I'll tell you as a former firefighter that I can go back 36 years and tell you the names of every telecommunicator that I worked with.

[11:03] Scott, Mary, Steve, Beth, they were calm voices when you arrive on the scene and it's chaos.

[11:11] They're the key back to getting the information and getting it taken care of and without them, we would be in a much worse place.

[11:18] so thank you for all you do every day.

[11:40] Next we have Earth Day presented by Commissioner Nunder.

[11:44] Okay, great.

[11:46] I can chair and Lee Hayes.

[11:48] Would you guys all come up?

[11:52] Good morning.

[11:54] So I think I know Lee Hayes, we've rehearsed this.

[11:58] I heard karaoke from the sheriff.

[12:00] That's the trigger word.

[12:01] So we're going to perform our karaoke this morning,

[12:03] cue the music chair.

[12:04] I'm okay.

[12:05] All right, very good.

[12:06] Well, good morning ladies and gentlemen.

[12:08] This morning we are presenting

[12:10] the proclamation for Earth Day, and whereas since 1970 Earth Day has brought people together

[12:15] from around the world to support environmental protections and to deepen our connections

[12:19] to the natural environment, whereas Sarasota County has a long standing commitment to environmental

[12:24] conservation through programs and actions that support sustainable living, environmental

[12:30] lands preservation, green building practices, and energy and water efficiency strategies

[12:36] resulting in cleaner air and utility cost savings.

[12:40] Whereas Sarasota County provides residents, visitors, businesses, and other array of educational programs,

[12:47] and activities designed to raise environmental awareness and implement opportunities,

[12:52] including a planned April 18th Earth Day celebration at the Bay,

[12:56] where people can learn how to get involved and protect our local environment.

[13:01] Now, therefore, we the Board of County Commissioners of Sarasota County, Florida,

[13:05] Do hereby proclaim April 22nd, 2026, to be Earth Day here in Sarasota County, presented this 7th day of April, 2026.

[13:16] And I will turn it over for some comments for everyone that he has.

[13:20] Thank you commissioners for this recognition and for your continued support of environmental protections in our beautiful county.

[13:27] We have some exciting partnerships for Earth Month this year and I'm going to pass it off to

[13:33] Michelle Miran Angel are a sustainability outreach coordinator to share some of those.

[13:38] Thank you. Good morning. Since 1970, people around the world have come together to celebrate

[13:44] our planet and support environmental action on April 22nd. This Earth Day, the hour-power

[13:50] our planet theme, reminds us that environmental stewardship depends on daily decisions and

[13:55] actions of individuals. The benefits of environmental stewardship extend beyond supporting the planet

[14:02] and wildlife, they also enhance human health, strengthen economic stability, save money,

[14:08] and improve overall quality of life.

[14:10] Sarasota County continues to incorporate sustainable design into new county buildings.

[14:16] Since 2005, we have certified 17 county buildings through the USGBC Lead Green Building Program,

[14:23] and installed solar PV at eight locations with more underway.

[14:26] Aliyah Garrett is here to represent the city of Sarasota who has surpassed its 2024 goal

[14:33] of powering municipal operations with at least 50% renewable energy, now sourcing about

[14:40] 80% of its power from solar power.

[14:43] These projects are an economic driver for our community, reduce air pollution, and save

[14:48] tax fair dollars on electric bills.

[14:51] Thank you to our county and city leadership and boards for supporting these initiatives.

[14:56] There are many actions you can take to

[15:00] Let's practice environmental stewardship in your home at work and in our community. First, we hope residents will join our upcoming community event to celebrate Earth Day with engaging activities and find for families to learn about local organizations, striving towards a more sustainable future at the Bay on Saturday, April 18 from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. They can also reduce energy use, save money, and conserve power through efficiency improvements in their homes and businesses.

[15:28] And look, and you can learn more on sustainable practices from you of IFA's extension of Sarasota County.

[15:35] Our office is beautiful gardens and staff that can provide a well-developed information on how to take action.

[15:43] Thank you so much.

[16:10] Okay, thank you.

[16:12] I'm moving on to agenda item number one, open to the public time as reserved for person's desire to comment on items not scheduled for public hearing.

[16:19] The person's wishing to speak it open to the public shall complete a request to speak card including the number of the agenda item or if not an agenda item the topic to be addressed comments unscheduled agenda items will be heard first followed by up to five speakers related on topics not on the advertised agenda any remaining speaker cars will be held for the final open to the public session at the end of the meeting with that we have a few cards here so I'm going to call up the first five names if you'll make your way forward

[16:49] to help us move through efficiently. Kelly Bowman, PJ Brooks, Brian Joseph, Jim Uletowski

[17:01] I believe, and Lotus Ramirez.

[17:10] If you would push the button on the mic there to turn

[17:14] and on. There you go. Thank you.

[17:16] All right.

[17:17] If we could wait till I get this on the screen.

[17:20] I appreciate it.

[17:25] You chart it.

[17:26] There you go.

[17:30] Good morning commissioners.

[17:33] My name is Kelly Bowman.

[17:37] I appreciate the discussion around community workshops that will be item number 20

[17:42] because the public does want to be involved.

[17:45] But I need to clarify something for the record.

[17:47] The obligations tied to the 30% design phase under the public private partnership agreement

[17:52] for the Manusota Beach Road expansion, we're not fulfilled.

[17:57] We have correspondence from the county, state, no design plans, models, or environment.

[18:02] The analysis have been submitted that is dated September 19th.

[18:07] We have course, at the same time we have internal correspondence from the consultant, Frank Domingo, who's the most expensive engineer for record, that's great.

[18:23] was submitted and the workshop was held in Spencer Anderson references, August 19th of the Jackaranda library.

[18:30] Both those facts cannot both be true in a meaningful way.

[18:34] Because a valid 30% design phase is not just a meeting, it requires actual deliverables,

[18:39] models, reports, and supporting analysis.

[18:42] Without those, the public is not participating in a real design phase.

[18:46] They are participating in something incomplete.

[18:48] and the agreement clearly states for the economic stimulus working groups obligations to 30% design workshop as well as a 90% design workshop based on the county's own statements they were not.

[19:04] And I would also say this, if those obligations are not met then this is a failure of the contract.

[19:10] This acknowledgement needs to be acknowledged.

[19:15] It's not just a failure, it's an opportunity.

[19:17] It's an opportunity for this board to demonstrate that there is no preferential treatment.

[19:22] That the contracts apply equally to the process and the process matters.

[19:28] Because from the outside, it appears the project is being allowed to move forward despite those requirements, not being fulfilled.

[19:35] Addressing that now would go a long way to restoring public trust.

[19:39] I would ask this board to consider that this is probably appropriate time to pause, halt, and the advancement of this project into those obligations are verified.

[19:51] You can see in this email, Paula Wiggins, states that they have not received the 30% design documents.

[20:03] It's larger there.

[20:05] Stan Tech has not submitted, you see the date September 19th.

[20:10] The project was approved on August 27th, the Jacaranda library that it was the 30% design meeting was August 19th.

[20:24] And they did not advertise as a 30% design.

[20:27] So please, amongst other things, concerns, stop the project.

[20:33] All right, thank you, PJ Brooks.

[20:41] Good morning, I'm PJ Brooks, the Chief Operating Officer for Castle,

[20:45] Community Assistant and Supported Living.

[20:47] I'm speaking to you today really as a show of gratitude for item number seven.

[20:52] As Castle has been moving forward with creating affordable housing,

[20:56] many of you know that we just recently opened up Neutral Plaza that you all supported us.

[21:01] And you were instrumental in making sure that we could bring that to fruition.

[21:05] And our goal is, with Rosedale down in Northport, that you are also supporting, is to create an opportunity to build off of what we learned with neutral plaza, with our family focus sent approach for families who are struggling with affordability to do the same in Northport, but to also create a gateway to the south of Sarasota County that mirrors the gateway to the north of Sarasota County with neutral plaza.

[21:30] We're honored that you've been supporting us all along, including Nancy's Village, and we just thank you for not just for us and what we're doing, but also for the total focus that you've taken on affordable housing in general, and I'm grateful that you're continuing to look at that as well, so thank you for your time.

[21:51] Thank you. Brian Joseph.

[22:01] Good morning commissioners. My name is Brian Joseph.

[22:04] This is my wife Valerie Joseph. Thank you guys for the opportunity to speak.

[22:08] We are residents and property owners and unincorporated Sarasota County.

[22:13] Today we're asking you to bring back a vote to remove the 30-day minimum rental requirement for short-term rentals in unincorporated areas.

[22:21] This is an outdated rule, it's hurting our local economy, violating basic fairness and

[22:28] treating many of us like second-class county residents.

[22:32] Right now, RMF zone properties in our barrier islands, CSDA Casey and

[22:38] Manisota Key are allowed short-term rentals under 30 days.

[22:43] And that's great for them, it brings dollars tourism to the county.

[22:47] But the exact same county code bans it everywhere else in unincorporated areas including single

[22:53] family homes on the islands themselves.

[22:56] We feel that it is better served for the deed restricted communities to implement these

[23:01] type of laws as opposed to a broad ban across the county.

[23:05] We feel it's a little bit of disparate treatment.

[23:08] Why should one group of county taxpayers and property owners get to participate in tourism

[23:14] economy while the rest of us are locked out. It's not fair and it's not consistent with the way

[23:20] we treat other residents. Tourism, as you all know, is Sarasota County's biggest economic engine

[23:27] generating roughly $4 billion in impact annually and supporting over 24,000 jobs.

[23:34] These funds be tree nourishment, arts, infrastructure through tourist development, tax revenues,

[23:39] as you guys well know, short-term rentals, expand lodging, options beyond hotels for

[23:46] families, track families, longer-staying visitors who spend more at local shops,

[23:52] attractions and services.

[23:54] They increase property tax values and tax revenue for owners who choose to rent.

[24:00] Other Florida tourist destinations thrive with short-term rental rules keeping this ban

[24:06] again, in unincorporated areas means we're leaving money and jobs on the table while our

[24:11] city and barrier island neighbors capture the benefits.

[24:15] This is also about respecting private property rights.

[24:19] These are our homes.

[24:20] We've paid the taxes, maintained the properties, and followed the rules.

[24:24] Owners should have the freedom to rent them responsibly, obviously.

[24:28] The city of Sarasota has already shown it can be done right.

[24:32] They allow short term rentals with registration, inspections, occupancy limits, strong enforcement for noise and parking.

[24:41] We can do the same here, smart rules, not a blanket ban.

[24:46] Commissioners, this is an easy and easy win for fairness for our economy and county residents.

[24:53] Please bring back four vote to remove the 30-day minimum and

[24:57] unincorporated rent service out of county.

[25:00] Let's treat all of our residents equally and unlock the potential of responsible short term.

[25:06] Thank you, sir.

[25:07] Okay, thank you.

[25:07] I'm sir.

[25:09] Jim Lotowski.

[25:17] Morning commissioners.

[25:20] So a couple of things here.

[25:23] Agenda number, item number 20, reinstating the requirement for in-person neighborhood workshops

[25:28] regarding development petitions.

[25:30] If this is a requirement, then why has it not been being done?

[25:35] The first meeting held for a Manisota Beach Road at the Jacque Ronda Library was not promoted,

[25:40] and it certainly wasn't a neighborhood meeting.

[25:43] It was more like a show and tell held by Pat Neill and all his people telling us what was

[25:48] going to happen.

[25:49] No commissioners present, there was no community input, there was no debate.

[25:54] These so-called workshops need to be a highly publicized, held in public spaces with community

[26:00] the input questions and answers in regards to the projects with commissioners present.

[26:06] The upcoming so-called workshop on rezoning property on MBR East is scheduled as a Zoom

[26:13] call.

[26:13] This is ridiculous.

[26:14] The whole point of a community meeting is to get the community out to attend and voice

[26:20] their concerns directly and get answers.

[26:24] The Zoom call doesn't have the same impact as in person meeting.

[26:31] It is this we don't really want to hear from the community. The community that

[26:35] elected you, the community that pays your salaries. To us out here it seems like

[26:42] you're trying to dodge our input. Just as you've done here in these meetings when

[26:46] you push public comment to the end of the day, then you work yourselves through

[26:51] the lunch hour and end early to avoid hearing from those of us that were pushed

[26:55] to the end of the day. I've been there. I've been here. It's happened to me.

[27:02] We see

[27:02] What's happening here? It's very apparent. We are not fools. We all voted you into office, and we will certainly be voting you out of office.

[27:12] I don't get why you're so hell-bent on pushing all this development in Anglewood and Venice. You're pushing it down our throats.

[27:19] We don't want it. The people are fed up with it all. You hear about it all over the state. Over development, over development.

[27:27] in the impact that we have.

[27:29] We don't have the infrastructure to handle it.

[27:31] We don't have the drainage capacity.

[27:33] We have more and more flooding that we never had before,

[27:36] taking of the wetlands and the natural drains

[27:39] that take care of the flood waters is disappearing by development.

[27:43] We now have communities suing Sarasota County

[27:45] over flooding in their communities.

[27:48] The traffic is at nightmare at all times of the day and night.

[27:52] Accidents everywhere.

[27:53] We're taking your life into your hands every day

[27:55] on the Sarasota County roads and interstates.

[28:02] A prime example of this very process is MBR road extension.

[28:06] Spending taxpayer money on a road that the people in this community do not want, do not need.

[28:13] I've spoken in the past about this at this very chamber.

[28:17] In the overcrowded beach, the overcrowded parking, and the issues that go with that.

[28:22] That's too late to do the right thing.

[28:25] Stop this road.

[28:26] So, Lotus Ramirez,

[28:30] and I may call the last two cars.

[28:32] I have a Martin Hyde and Barb, maybe, that's all right.

[28:38] Good morning, my name is Lorde's Ramirez.

[28:41] I'm representing Kona.

[28:42] I want to talk about three things in the three minutes.

[28:44] First, if we're serious about protecting our neighborhoods,

[28:47] then we have to be serious about enforcement.

[28:50] On illegal rentals, we don't need more regulations.

[28:53] We already have them, what we need is some enforcement.

[28:56] And that means investing in additional personnel

[28:58] to keep up with all the illegal rentals.

[29:01] Second, I imagine there may be a discussion

[29:03] about the Liv Local Act during the county attorney's reports,

[29:06] especially following his recent memo.

[29:09] I want to specifically reference page seven

[29:11] of that memo under contextual framework.

[29:15] The county attorney's office acknowledges

[29:17] that the law may be interpreted to require

[29:19] that a parcel may be meaningfully zoned

[29:21] as commercial industrial or mixed use,

[29:24] not merely because they have some limited

[29:26] non-residential uses in RE or OUE districts, and that's an important distinction.

[29:32] And for the record, I'm also relying on a legal analysis by well-known land use attorney

[29:37] Richard Grasso, who has opined that the presence of certain uses in RE and OUE districts

[29:42] does not make those districts commercial.

[29:46] But the use is being cited, animal boarding, stables, planners, or even some veterinary

[29:50] uses are being labeled as non-residential, but that does not make them commercial.

[29:55] In fact, these uses are categorized by the property appraisal.

[30:14] I understand that there is concern about litigation. But the real question is not whether we might get sued. The real issue is the cost of getting this wrong. If higher density is allowed in these areas, we are talking about major infrastructure impacts, roads, roads.

[30:29] emergency services, that is tens of millions of dollars of infrastructure costs.

[30:36] So this is not just a legal issue, it's a fiscally responsible issue.

[30:41] Hillsboro County has chosen to legally challenge the state because they believe the

[30:45] LEAF Local Act conflicts with the Community Planning Act, and that is a responsible way to see clarity.

[30:51] And even the City of Sarasota has listed on their website commercial industrial misuse districts that are applicable under the act.

[30:59] And we also must remember the comprehensive plan still matters.

[31:03] So I really recommend enforcement on illegal rentals and proper application of the Live Local Act.

[31:10] And protect our community from unintended consequences.

[31:13] And finally, for the third, we also support commission or smith's recommendation to return to in person, perhaps hybrid workshops.

[31:21] I will be distributing documents that include grassos and conas memo, a list of NICS categories and

[31:27] city of Sarasota live local page. Thank you.

[31:31] Thank you. Martin Hyde.

[31:40] Good morning, everyone. April is National County Government Month.

[31:47] What should we bring? More taxes? By way of example, Manatee County today is looking for

[31:55] board approval for a new contract for its administrator. The salary is admittedly 12% less than

[32:01] the Sarasota Administrator gets, but still 250 grand on top of which is a car allowance

[32:07] and 30 days of paid time off. The parts in that which are relevant to you two are the

[32:13] most disturbing, which is that he is asked for a clause, which means it requires a super

[32:18] majority to remove him. Interestingly, any unused paid time off can be, quote, unquote, banked

[32:26] indefinitely. That means if he took three weeks a year off instead of the six he's entitled to,

[32:32] he'd be paid twice for the unused three weeks on retirement or dismissal,

[32:37] so possibly over $75,000 at the end in five years.

[32:41] Taken logically, that is a 5% plus bump in pay accumulating as some kind of hidden gold and handshake.

[32:51] The reason I mention it is, I believe, you have a similar system here for everyone.

[32:58] That is in staff interest, but it is not in taxpayer's interest in the same way that 14

[33:05] percent plus taxpayer funded FRS pension contributions are in staff interest.

[33:11] As are negligible contribution, blue ribbon health care plans that many of your constituents

[33:17] could only dream of.

[33:19] The Sarasota school board is presently laying off over 200 staff per class because they

[33:24] live beyond their means.

[33:25] They have six assistant superintendents now where they are used to have two.

[33:29] This them and us thing has to stop.

[33:32] Taxpayers are tired of providing a better living for public servants than they have for themselves.

[33:39] This board serves constituents not staff.

[33:42] Paying a fair wage for a fair good job is fine.

[33:45] 98 grand into a pension for an administrator making 80, 280 grand a year, not so much.

[33:52] There are dozens of county employees making 150 grand plus benefits of 75 grand while

[33:57] you constituents worry about the price of gas.

[34:01] This is why property tax reform is popular.

[34:05] You are not elected to be friends with the administration, you are elected to do the best

[34:09] you can for taxpayers.

[34:10] Stop concerning yourself with whether staff will like policies and start thinking about whether your constituents will.

[34:19] As it stands, many of us don't, and the consequences of that will be felt this year and in 2028 at the ballot box.

[34:27] If you all don't shape up, it will be most of you getting the proverbial cardboard box to remove your belongings from your office in due course.

[34:37] Thank you.

[34:38] Thank you.

[34:39] Barb, maybe?

[34:41] Maybe.

[34:41] Okay.

[34:42] Got it.

[34:46] Good morning.

[34:46] I apologize for earlier.

[34:48] I couldn't get my phone to shut off.

[34:51] And I'll do those 10 push-ups later.

[34:56] Commissioners, since you don't come to Manusota Beach, we want you to see the opposition

[35:00] that Pat Niel states, and as clearly stated, does not exist.

[35:05] Killy?

[35:09] There is opposition to the way you are doing business in this county.

[35:38] We oppose all the building without updated infrastructure.

[35:42] We as citizens are asked to conserve, we are asked to conserve on a daily basis.

[35:49] As a matter of fact, we are now in a level three water conservation issue for all of us.

[35:53] We're not even allowed to water our grass except on certain days or secar do anything else

[35:59] here.

[36:00] And yet, you set up there and approved development after development.

[36:03] You seem to ignore the fact that no one in this area is interested in more development.

[36:08] You approve and we the citizens pay for the developer to get richer.

[36:13] We have to pay to build the roads to their mega subdivisions.

[36:16] We have to pay for all the infrastructure that needs to be put into place once they get

[36:21] these things built.

[36:22] It all ends up on us on something we didn't want.

[36:25] It's time for you to realize that the wasteful spending and the emptying of every green space

[36:30] we have left in this county is bad for our town and for the people in this town.

[36:36] Thank you.

[36:38] Thank you.

[36:39] All right.

[36:40] With that, we're going to move to the consent section of our agenda.

[36:45] We have consent items 2 through 12.

[36:49] No commissioners indicated they want any item pulled that I'm aware of and so with that looking

[36:56] for a motion, you would do it.

[36:58] You would do that.

[36:59] So looking for a motion for consent agenda items 2 through 12.

[37:02] So motion by Commissioner Smith, do you have a second?

[37:07] Second by Commissioner Nunder, being no further discussion, go ahead and call the question on favor.

[37:13] Aye.

[37:14] Chair votes, aye, that moves forward unanimously.

[37:17] All right, with that, we'll move on to our discussion section, planning and development services.

[37:21] Provide policy direction on illegal rentals, and for that we have Mr. Ostrout.

[37:28] morning.

[37:33] Morning Chair, commissioners for the record matters around the director of the

[37:36] county's planning development services department. Are you able to see actually it looks like

[37:41] we're still not on the screen. If I could have a little there we go. Okay. But today's

[37:46] conversation is on vacation rentals. There's a little bit of backdrop the board most recently

[37:51] talked about this concept back on February 11th to arrange your workshop on CS to key.

[37:56] and as part of that workshop, the Board did request today's discussion item.

[38:00] And this topic has been a topic of concern and interest of the Board for many years now.

[38:05] It goes underneath the title of vacation rentals, sometimes it's short-term rentals, sometimes

[38:10] it's even transient accommodations, those terms are used synomously, sometimes in this conversation.

[38:15] But the Board has talked about this several times.

[38:17] Not going to go through this list, this is in your packet.

[38:20] The Board has not just requested information, but you've taken action several times as

[38:24] part as the county code. One of the things that you did actually was increase the opportunity

[38:29] for penalties for illegal short-term rentals. You've also at one point in time added the

[38:33] provision regarding advertisement and I'm going to come back to that later in my conversation

[38:37] today with you about how advertising illegal rentals is a violation by itself. So, this

[38:43] information is all in the report especially for our viewing audience so it's all online.

[38:48] So these are the county's rental regulations that's contained within the Unified Development

[38:52] element code, section 124, 131. This is word for word on your screen. You can see here

[38:57] that rental of dwelling units in those zoning districts at the top and bold are the ones

[39:02] that we're talking about. And the real interesting point, of course, here is A1. Dwelling units

[39:08] may be rented as a whole for periods of greater than 30 days, provided that its dwelling units

[39:12] shall not be rented more than once every 30 days. Now, we do have one place zoning district

[39:19] which is RMF that does allow for shorter durations than the 30 days.

[39:24] So I'm going to come back to that with regard to a state preemption about how you can change that,

[39:29] can you change that, what does that mean, so forth.

[39:31] If you look down to the bottom of your slide here, number five is the one the board most recently amended the county code

[39:38] to say that any attempt made to solicit advertised is in itself a violation.

[39:43] And I'm going to come back to that regarding enforcement.

[39:44] So this is the state preemption that exists in Section 509-0327B of the Florida Statutes.

[39:52] I'm just going to go ahead and read it for the record.

[39:54] A local law ordinance or regulation may not prohibit vacation rentals or regulate the duration or frequency of rental but vacation rentals.

[40:03] The next line is applicable to us.

[40:06] This paragraph does not apply to any local law ordinance or regulation adopted honor before June 2011.

[40:12] That's us. Our rental regulations preceded that. So you've been able to keep that regulation on the books and be enforceable

[40:19] Regardless of that state law change right there. So long as that grandfather and provision remains you'll be able to enforce your regulations

[40:25] If you did not do that there is no time limit in the state

[40:29] whatsoever. So

[40:31] If you wanted to change it from 30 to 20 the state law would say no, you can't do that. The only thing you can do is either keep it the same or

[40:38] where you can dump it and just defer to the state on it.

[40:41] Those are your options.

[40:42] As a result, you can't change the dirt,

[40:44] rake, or frequency, but I'm going to come back

[40:46] to a concept called registration programs a little bit later

[40:48] because that does not regulate the duration or frequency.

[40:51] That's an administrative procedure.

[40:55] This slide here just talks about the normal code enforcement

[40:57] process that we go through in the counting.

[41:00] This is relating to short-term rentals,

[41:02] but it's also relating to things like improper outdoor storage,

[41:05] unpermated work, and so forth.

[41:06] In general, we do receive complaints from neighborhoods about illegal rentals, and that's

[41:12] really how we focus on certain types of neighborhoods that might have that problem occurring.

[41:16] While we do initiate our own investigation, that's where they generally come from, it's

[41:20] from a complaint.

[41:22] Then we start with something called a notice of violation pursuant to our code that gives

[41:26] a certain amount of time, usually it's 30 days to comply, then you go to something called

[41:31] an affidavit of violation if they haven't complied, that's usually about 30 days, and then

[41:36] Then you move to what's called a special magistrate hearing, that special magistrate acts

[41:40] as a quasi-judge, and therefore they make an actual finding of violation and then impose

[41:45] those fees or penalties that go along with it.

[41:48] Now when you're talking about that process, that could easily be 90 days, so that is not

[41:53] a quick fix, if you will, that county code is not designed to do that, it's designed to

[41:58] be able to have evidence provided and therefore go through that judicial process.

[42:03] As I referenced earlier, those fines were increased many years ago by this board to say that

[42:08] if you do have some sort of egregious behavior that's irreparably causing harm to a neighborhood,

[42:13] you can increase those fines pursuant to the special magistrate.

[42:16] So they do have that ability right now to levy harder fines, as well as if you have something

[42:21] called a repeat violation.

[42:22] If you do have a repeat violation, which is called a recurrence, we're able to smooth line streamline

[42:27] that process and go right back to the special magistrate who can then impose fines.

[42:32] Now, this is the flip side of that.

[42:34] There are some challenges with regards to enforcement.

[42:37] In order to be successful in court, we have to have substantial evidence.

[42:42] Those things are listed right there on the bullets, right?

[42:44] Whether it's be receipts, bookings, records, lease agreements, we do have witnesses participate.

[42:49] We do have neighbors who get involved in that code enforcement procedure and say, I am willing

[42:54] to testify at a magistrate hearing.

[42:56] That is also a very helpful substantial evidence.

[42:59] So, neighbors, and I mentioned the advertisements, advertisements of rentals is alone a violation

[43:04] pursuant to the county code, and staff has made progress in implementing it just based

[43:08] on that advertisement.

[43:10] Now, one of the interesting parts about that is advertisements don't usually say I'm at

[43:15] 555, you know, this street.

[43:17] They don't say that.

[43:18] I myself have used rental platforms and going on vacations, and same thing, you only find

[43:23] the address once you're actually through the process, and the owner is saying this.

[43:26] Now, they do have pictures online and staff are able to go through those pictures and say,

[43:31] okay, that is that property that we're talking about and has been successful in just using the advertisement.

[43:37] Generally speaking, people learn pretty quickly and they're adjusting their advertisements based on that implementation of the code.

[43:43] So now, one thing that I mentioned earlier is the registration program.

[43:48] Some communities have adopted this. It's not universally being adopted.

[43:51] but many communities in our areas such as the City of Sarasota,

[43:55] Annamaria Island and Collier County serve as local examples.

[43:59] So a registration program in itself is not statutory preempted by the state statute that I mentioned earlier.

[44:05] So long as that program does not regulate the frequency or duration, that's that 30-day period.

[44:11] And that third bullet, this is a really important piece.

[44:13] A program for registration could be simply focused on requiring that a rental probably register with the county.

[44:20] It might have an applicable fee or that local governing body could add other additional

[44:26] regulatory requirements.

[44:27] You could have things like who is the responsible party for the rental.

[44:31] That's a pretty easy administrative thing.

[44:33] Maybe it's not the property owner, maybe it's an agent that manages the property, but you

[44:37] could also include other things like ongoing inspections, parking arrangements, macular

[44:43] occupancies.

[44:43] There's a lot of other regulations that local governments have applied.

[44:47] So if you're thinking about a registration program and I have one slide to think about that in a second

[44:53] There's a mere act of doing a registration program and then there's the layers of regulations you want to hide a part of that registration program

[45:00] One thing that other communities have done to help track all of this, because as you can imagine, we have several thousand in Sarasota County from a rental standpoint. Other communities would be the same. There are software programs that are out there that help manage that inventory of rentals, as well as the required administrative procedures. Let's say you have an annual renewal requirement. How does that administrative process? So there are software programs out there that help local government manage those types of situations. And as you can imagine, the cost of that software would depend on how complex the system is.

[45:29] want? Do you just want people to register or do you want to also have these other reoccurring

[45:34] things like inspections and so forth? Now this is the list that I put into the board packet

[45:40] regarding if you were thinking about doing a registration program here for unincorporated

[45:44] service at accounting these are the things that you probably want to consider and of course if you

[45:48] want to consider these things we probably need to provide you an updated report on that. First and

[45:53] foremost we do have a set code enforcement team that have certain types of areas for their

[45:58] code enforcement zones, if you did want to implement a registration program, we would most

[46:02] likely need staffing resources. As an example, it's my understanding the City of Cirrus

[46:06] that I have a handful of staff that manage their registration program that's outside of

[46:10] their normal code enforcement. So that's something that, how many? We'd have to take a look at

[46:14] and really do that analysis to say that it would take two staff, three staff. What is that

[46:19] number of staff that would adequately manage a program? You talk about the registration

[46:22] software. We'd probably want to bring back some information on what software is available,

[46:27] what do they offer, who's the best practice, and what not.

[46:31] Ultimately, that would all relate back to a budget amendment as far as the cost.

[46:36] There would also be a flipside cost to the property owners who would have to comply with the regulations that you then put on the books through that county code amendment.

[46:44] Ultimately, there would be a communications plan that would have to go out to the public to inform them of this change.

[46:50] And then from a timeline standpoint, if you did want to go through that process to create a communication program,

[46:55] all the way back to the staff and resource on this slide.

[46:58] We're talking about nine to 12 months.

[47:01] So if you were to give guidance today,

[47:03] we'd probably talk about nine to 12 months

[47:04] to get to a registration program.

[47:07] But with that, today's conversation

[47:09] is really board policy direction.

[47:10] I'm just here to answer any questions that you may have

[47:13] and staff will certainly proceed

[47:14] with implementing your direction.

[47:15] In the meantime, we'll enforce as I outline

[47:17] to hear in the presentation today.

[47:19] So with that chair, I'm glad to answer any questions

[47:21] that you may have.

[47:22] Okay, thank you, Commissioner Smith.

[47:23] Yes, on the board.

[47:25] Yeah, thank you, Matt.

[47:28] And thank you for the reports and I know Deja Vu for you

[47:33] considering the number of times this and previous boys

[47:36] brought it up.

[47:37] But I would hope that maybe we're gonna make this bring this in

[47:41] for a landing this time.

[47:45] I'm having experienced living and working on CSDK

[47:50] for over 30 some odd years.

[47:52] and talking to the folks out there about the short-term rental issue. I believe strongly

[48:03] that we do need a registration program.

[48:08] And in that program, I believe we need to include

[48:14] include in their parking, on-site parking requirements, and as well as maximum occupancy.

[48:28] And in hearing you, my thoughts are in favor of pursuing the software to aid an assist

[48:37] in this.

[48:39] And I understand this is going to be additional staffing.

[48:41] And my hope is that perhaps with the registration fees and subsequent penalties, I'm sure that we're going to be out there, especially initially that that would help offset the cost of those additional staff members.

[49:02] So, I guess I would keep that in mind when you come back with your report saying that the

[49:10] board requests that, that whatever fees you think would help reduce the budget, you know,

[49:24] hit by doing this would be appreciated.

[49:26] I know you're going to have to figure out how much staff and so on and so forth.

[49:29] There's a lot of math to do here.

[49:31] But anyway, I'm totally in favor of a registration program and feel it's been necessary and it's time for us to join our neighbors and doing that.

[49:43] Thank you.

[49:44] All right, Commissioner Mast.

[49:46] Thank you, Chair.

[49:47] There's just a few questions that I have from the perspective of some experience that how many times this has come in front of us.

[49:54] So if a house is currently homestead exempted, and now they turn it into a or a portion of it into a short-term rental.

[50:05] Do you know what happens to that homestead exemption?

[50:08] So there is sharing of data between our agencies, but I am not the expert on that commissioner.

[50:15] Because my understanding is that they lose their homestead exemption.

[50:25] I don't know what I'm supposed to do here. There we go. I do know during the time that we were providing federal funds to those who wanted rental assistance, that when they told us they wanted rental assistance and they had homestead.

[50:47] We reported that to the property appraiser, and that does cause a problem for their status of homestead.

[50:53] Thank you.

[50:54] So that's something that I want to make sure that those of us that are making this decision to understand because some of our citizens may not understand that and I would not want them to have that type of impact can be quite a shock to that $50,000 being taken off your tax bill.

[51:09] So the other thing is, I wholeheartedly agree with the number of individuals because one of the number one concerns especially in my district has been complaints when a house is rented and multiple families then are there and it becomes very problematic to the neighborhood as a whole from the perspective of most homes or single family homes.

[51:38] and when you start ending up with 6, 8, 10, 12 cars, it does cause a bit of a riff in communities

[51:46] whether a deed restricted or non-need restricted.

[51:48] Because if it's deed restricted, then I think we'll let them deal with their own internal

[51:55] issues.

[51:56] If it's a non-need restricted community, we are now basically taking onus of that.

[52:02] Another concern that I have is that when it comes to either the 30 days or nothing, that's

[52:11] a pretty big jump especially for a lot of,

[52:16] this is a mixed bag.

[52:18] You have those that are very supportive of it and you have those that are like, we don't

[52:21] need more rentals because it increases traffic, it does all kinds of things.

[52:25] So, I think that needs to be very clearly understood before that is just implemented.

[52:34] And then the other thing that's very interesting is if you look at like Airbnb and VRBO and

[52:41] some of the other platforms, my understanding is I went back to my notes and I looked at

[52:46] it when the property browser was here, he said that he gets like a once a year payment from

[52:51] from those that have collected the taxes, so to speak.

[52:55] But he said there's absolutely no way to verify what those are for.

[53:00] So it's just in a one-lumps check.

[53:02] So if there was a registration, at least he could try and merge who is participated and paid and who is not.

[53:11] So I think that's something we have to really think about.

[53:13] Last but not least, I looked into the cities, they have increased their prices for

[53:19] their registration to continue to support staff

[53:24] because of the impact that it's had on their budget.

[53:27] And so I would want to be very cautious on that

[53:30] because I believe what the intent of this is

[53:34] is so that we can remove some bad actors

[53:36] and not necessarily punish those that are abiding

[53:39] by the rules and regulations.

[53:42] And so for me, I would want to be very thoughtful of that

[53:45] because I think what it happens then is you are no longer

[53:48] You're incentivizing people, you're kind of punishing those that are playing by the rules.

[53:53] So those are just some of my thoughts, thank you Chair.

[53:56] Okay, Commissioner Knight, very similar Matt.

[53:59] And I kind of look at it more from operational is when your group is built in a case on somebody,

[54:08] it's probably not that easy to build a case, right, to break people to compliance.

[54:12] is that why we're here in such so much such public comments on this is that I

[54:19] don't believe that it's that easy to the Edith's call code enforcement you

[54:24] come up and shut them down that that's why we're here today. So if you get the

[54:29] new software and everything how much do you think that that will cure the problem

[54:34] of I've used in the software I know you probably looked at different

[54:38] and organizations, different governmental bodies, doing this.

[54:42] One, for me, it's got to be net neutral.

[54:44] Our budget is 1.6 growth.

[54:47] And if we're going to come in at that, we can't have a budget.

[54:50] So of course, you guys are always hearing about the budget, right?

[54:53] So certainly net neutral on the budget, for me,

[54:57] what does that look like in other communities

[54:59] about this software?

[55:00] Would that take kind of a computer driven person,

[55:04] my old life, we had these people for our intellectual

[55:07] the policing stuff that were just different type of people that could read all that data and

[55:12] understand that do you are you able to use that with the type of team you have now or what's

[55:16] that look like from the hiring process of the type of person you would need to operate this type of

[55:20] software. From a tech standpoint I'm going to go and reverse order right there. When you look at

[55:28] the staffing that would be needed to implement this program my initial hunch is that it's more on the

[55:33] business side, right? It's managing data, it's managing inventory and that's not

[55:38] necessarily the same skills as a code enforcement officer. So that would have

[55:43] to be analyzed. I'm really interested to see how other municipalities have

[55:46] set it up, what kind of skill sets they need. But when you think about it from that

[55:49] perspective, my hunch is probably more on the business administration side rather

[55:53] than a new code enforcement officer. That's just because of the data management,

[55:57] right? Curving behavior is still at the heart of one of your questions that you

[56:01] we were just talking about.

[56:03] I haven't talked with some of these jurisdictions

[56:05] to see whether or not the behavior change

[56:07] or they're just simply making sure

[56:09] that their properties are registered.

[56:11] Those are two different things.

[56:13] One, you could be fully compliant

[56:14] with their registration program

[56:15] and still causing a neighborhood nuisance.

[56:18] Now, one of the big things still is,

[56:20] you might still have a notice the violation that goes out,

[56:23] get it to a special magistrate

[56:24] and that kind of court proceeding

[56:26] and the special magistrate may even do a penalty

[56:28] which is a lien on the property, a recurring.

[56:31] It still might be part of the, just cost of doing business for somebody

[56:34] if they're still making the amount of money they're making.

[56:37] Those are still all factors that play into.

[56:39] If you do a registration program, you might get some real positives out of it.

[56:43] You might still have some issues that are still going on,

[56:45] with that's with any regulation.

[56:47] You can get a certain success rate automatically with the regulation

[56:50] and then you just have the noncompliance.

[56:52] Yes, that was my big issue is if we create more operations, is that definitely going to provide the relief, the expectations of the community?

[57:03] Is it very real? Are they seeing that? Well, this software, how big is that going to make your workforce?

[57:09] But how does that work together with your code enforcement team and these other type of people?

[57:13] That's what I was thinking for my whole life is. This group's here, they give it to this group here.

[57:19] Is that going to solve the behavioral issues that we're looking at solving?

[57:23] Or I don't want to give a false security to people that we're going to fix this problem at a board meeting.

[57:29] I mean, what are your thoughts on that?

[57:30] I mean, do you believe you're still researching it or what are your thoughts about the ability to research it?

[57:35] One thing is, don't think of those two separate teams that be part of the same team as just different skill sets.

[57:40] Right.

[57:40] Now, one thing that most registration programs have done that's very helpful is,

[57:45] I mentioned earlier, they say that you have to have a designated point of contact that's

[57:49] available all the time.

[57:51] Code enforcement's biggest challenge always is when they get compliant or even are proactive,

[57:56] finding the responsible person for that rental just takes time by itself.

[58:01] And rentals are temporal, right?

[58:03] People come and they go.

[58:04] And if you don't, if you aren't able to take an action document while it's happening,

[58:07] it's already gone.

[58:09] So having an inventory of those registration rental properties that then has a designated

[58:14] a point person, co-inforcement isn't able to pick up that number and call them 24 hours a day

[58:19] and say, I'm having a problem with your registration rental. So that bypasses a lot of the process right there.

[58:24] The way I see it, Krippner Wong, we're looking for a resolution, so we're kind of asking you about

[58:29] to square one about a different way to monitor this, and what's that look like, what's the cost

[58:37] going to be how big your team going to be, and certainly we want those people to have

[58:43] relief and protect their property and people. I want them living next to me to be quite

[58:47] honest for what I pay for my house. And so, yeah, we want our citizens to have relief,

[58:53] we want it, but we, to me, I've learned over my 34 years in my fourth term in elected positions

[58:59] that creating a unit doesn't solve the problem. Is that making sure that it's well researched

[59:04] and look at that we know, or you know, you can come to us and say I'm confident that we can cure this issue of the bad actors.

[59:13] And that we can do this with this amount of money needs and here's where we can provide that.

[59:19] Where do you want the money to come from, board, do you want to create more revenue?

[59:23] Or do you want to cost zero of the people who are going to participate, pay for it?

[59:27] So I kind of agree that we need to move forward with a lot of things you've heard here.

[59:34] I think you know we'll wrap with that is, but certainly I would like to see it being net zero.

[59:38] I won't be in favor of creating any new programs or going to take anything from a general fund

[59:42] or any type of funding sources that has to be one for me, at least one person or five,

[59:49] and to trust your thoughts on whatever that program looks like if you believe it can create better actors

[59:57] better behavior out in the community.

[1:00:00] And then we kind of work off of your lead with it and go from there. So creating a new unit doesn't always resolve the issue. It's part of the program. But, you know, when you research these other governmental bodies, has it resolved their issues or not? I mean, your boots on the ground, you know best. That's where I'm at with it. And we don't want to create something that's not effective and have a fault since the security of the people who are relying on us to help them. So, that's all I have, Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Nunder.

[1:00:30] Thank you, Chair.

[1:00:31] Thanks, Matt, for bringing this forward.

[1:00:34] I just kind of wanted to get a little more down the rabbit hole, maybe on the software

[1:00:37] component.

[1:00:39] And my question would be, is there going to be an opportunity for the public to kind

[1:00:44] of self-police here?

[1:00:45] Do you know, for example, you know, you have some bad actors in your neighborhood?

[1:00:49] Will they have the ability to self-report and go ahead and highlight some of these properties

[1:00:53] for then the point of contact that might be created without the staff level to go ahead

[1:00:58] I had to investigate, and so just, I was curious if you knew how powerful the software was.

[1:01:03] Based on AI and technology, is this going to be something that might be fairly streamlined and

[1:01:09] effective in a short period of time, or do you feel like something with the components of the software

[1:01:15] it might take a little longer?

[1:01:16] That for me is something I'd like to know, but I support moving this forward for

[1:01:21] sure, because I know from the half of the key that I represent, there are residents there that have had conversations with me about

[1:01:27] I'm happy to at least move it forward, and then also if there is a way to quantify what the

[1:01:34] additional staffing cost would be. How much the software is, as far as the one-time fees

[1:01:39] at annual licensing, and then of course some of the more appropriate fines and or fees that

[1:01:45] will be collected from the bad actors. For me, just kind of getting a little more granular in that

[1:01:50] area would be helpful to have a thoughtful discussion on it. I appreciate I don't have the answer

[1:01:55] those questions, but I wrote them down in a moment.

[1:02:02] I'll start by saying I'm always very hesitant to start a new government level bureaucracy.

[1:02:10] I think we need to be very careful and very thoughtful if we're going to do that because

[1:02:13] we need to understand completely what that means and you've listed a lot of things but we don't

[1:02:19] have any numbers or understanding of what that really looks like.

[1:02:22] I would absolutely agree with Commissioner Knight that whatever it is whatever registration program

[1:02:28] we need we if we move that forward it has to pay for itself

[1:02:31] I mean if you you know in all areas of government if you're getting a permit you pay a fee to cover the cost of

[1:02:37] Implementing that and moving through the process same thing for me here would be if we do registration the other issue is

[1:02:45] From his public safety you talk a lot about you know the home being safe and secure home with of probably needing a

[1:02:52] You know, some sort of minimal inspection or something to verify that these things are safe.

[1:02:58] The pool has a cover and a fence and we've got a fire extinguisher and you know the things are safe for Reynolds.

[1:03:05] So that's important to me as well.

[1:03:09] And the other issue is I'm wondering, you know, so when they do a 30-day rental then they collect whatever amount of dollars, $5,000 or whatever for that rental.

[1:03:21] They pay a 6% tourist development tax on that, don't they?

[1:03:26] I see somebody with their pencil on it.

[1:03:28] They didn't want to interrupt the board, but hand in hand with this issue that's independent

[1:03:32] from code enforcement is there is no effective way to audit whether you are getting your tourist

[1:03:37] tax monies and you've accepted responsibility to collect it.

[1:03:41] So we have agreements out there which need to be really redone in my opinion.

[1:03:46] what the tax collector was talking about, really that one lump sum he was talking about was a lump sum self-reported failure to comply by a platform.

[1:03:59] And they made a payment that looked similar to the agreement that they made with the state to pay back taxes based upon their self-reporting.

[1:04:12] And it really has to do with which intuitively it doesn't sound accurate, but it is.

[1:04:18] You are owing the tax at the time you reserve the place, not the time you occupy it.

[1:04:24] So if you reserve it before you occupy it, which everybody does, and if it's a substantial time that tax starts ticking from there, I cannot audit this stuff because there's no numbers to go back to.

[1:04:39] I don't know how many they're out there, and the platforms some do alleged to collect and some don't.

[1:04:46] So, you know, to be effective and to be in compliance, we really have to have the registration,

[1:04:53] otherwise it's impossible to do. Right now we have a letter out to one of the platforms

[1:04:59] asking them to comply with the current agreement. We haven't received the data. We're asking for

[1:05:04] five years of data and then we'll see if we can do anything with the data to go back to tying to

[1:05:13] income that came into the county. So yeah, I raised the issue because I wonder how much of

[1:05:19] this is going on reported and it could be very significant. So I completely grand know the task

[1:05:26] collector is saying look we move forward this we need to work together to get these things

[1:05:30] which is set correctly so for that alone the registration thing makes sense then just to be able to know how many of these are being rented, what kind of money is being spent and whether or not we're collecting that tax so for me that's a big issue so what work with you you're talking about updating some of the some of the we just need to work together Matt and I've been talking about this I'm happy to go look at the city to understand what they've done and how effective it's been.

[1:06:01] but whatever systems built, let's do it together.

[1:06:04] So it maximizes the benefit to the county.

[1:06:07] Yeah, and I think, you know, given our data-driven society,

[1:06:13] some sort of software program is gonna be

[1:06:14] absolutely necessary to track this and follow up.

[1:06:16] So it seems to me that that would be part of it.

[1:06:18] So it seems like we all have work to do here,

[1:06:20] but I think ultimately that makes a lot of sense then.

[1:06:24] So what's the pleasure of the board here?

[1:06:27] What do we do?

[1:06:27] We move forward with, get a motion here and maybe move forward with the beginnings of a registration program coming back to us with the next steps, Jonathan and Jen.

[1:06:40] Yeah, so what would be useful is if you give us where you guys think you're heading, understand any formal program is not only going to have to be coordinated as the clerk said, we have other entities, we have to work, yeah, that we would have to work with, but if you get it, it's hard for us to start building something out of you.

[1:06:57] We don't give us the framework of, hey, this is what we think we want.

[1:07:01] And then the questions commissioned or none are, well, we don't even have that conceptualized yet.

[1:07:05] That would have to be part of anything that would come back to you all.

[1:07:09] I think it would be as another discussion item before you implement a public here.

[1:07:14] So some consensus or vote around, yeah, this is where we think we're going.

[1:07:22] We're knowing that you'll have the opportunity to review, edit, approve or disapprove as we go forward.

[1:07:27] Okay, I've got everybody on the board, but Mr. Smith has hit his button first, so commission Smith, and if we want to have a motion, then have a follow-up discussion that we find as well.

[1:07:37] Sure, I'd be more than happy to make the motion,

[1:07:42] and in that, Matt, it's obviously imperative that your department work with the clerk of the court and with the property tax collector.

[1:07:52] because we're talking about enterprises that can collect between $5,000 to $10,000 a week.

[1:07:58] So it's a-

[1:08:00] Is that your motion?

[1:08:01] Yes.

[1:08:03] That's kind of unclear, so make that concise.

[1:08:06] All right, I'll just make a motion to direct Matt to work with the clerk of the court in

[1:08:15] from the property appraiser's office, and come back.

[1:08:19] Thanks so much, I'm sorry, thanks so much to his office.

[1:08:22] Bring it back.

[1:08:22] And bring back to the board for discussion, I don't know.

[1:08:25] Okay, I'll second it.

[1:08:26] Okay, we have motion and a second.

[1:08:27] Further discussion, Commissioner Knight.

[1:08:30] Just real quick, thanks Mark.

[1:08:32] I'm on board with it.

[1:08:34] I think when you bring it back, keep it as much under one roof as we can.

[1:08:38] When you start getting three or four different organizations and

[1:08:40] our operations that I was on both sides of the fence.

[1:08:44] It's like it's so whatever working with everybody that even the motion was made to work with but when you bring something back to us

[1:08:51] I would like to see it as much under one roof that the this organization's roof that makes it easier for us to

[1:08:57] Retrieve information have provide guidance without having to go through two or three different operations or organizations

[1:09:03] So that's all that I agree with moving it forward

[1:09:06] Sheriff

[1:09:06] I may also clarify

[1:09:08] That in addition to of course working with the clerk the tax collector and property prazer's office throughout this

[1:09:14] process. When we come back, you'd be looking for more information on how is the city of

[1:09:19] Syracida doing, how effective has it been, what are the software types of options, all

[1:09:24] of the things that we've talked about. As part of the registration program, as a package

[1:09:28] for you to look at. Okay, great.

[1:09:30] Mr. Mayor.

[1:09:31] Thank you. I also think it would be imperative that as we move through the question and

[1:09:38] research, is that when you come back to do your presentation, it would be very helpful

[1:09:42] to have those other elected officials present because there's going to be very specific questions

[1:09:51] that we might ask and it doesn't put you in a precarious situation than to answer it.

[1:09:55] And I think full transparency is always very helpful.

[1:09:58] I just want to be very clear.

[1:10:00] I think there are going to be two areas that are going to be huge for our citizens.

[1:10:03] If they lose their homestead exemption on this, that is critical to a lot of individuals

[1:10:09] individuals that are not aware that that might be part of the impact if it's implemented.

[1:10:15] And second of all, if it cannot be one that is self-sustained without a continually increase

[1:10:24] to those that are participating and not being the bad actors, then I think you're implementing

[1:10:30] things just to pay for bad actors and not those that are playing by the rules.

[1:10:35] So that's important.

[1:10:36] Thank you.

[1:10:37] Okay, so we have a motion in a second.

[1:10:39] I think we've had a good discussion about this, so I'm going to call the question all in favor.

[1:10:44] Aye.

[1:10:45] Chair votes, aye.

[1:10:46] That moves forward unanimously.

[1:10:47] Thank you, Chair.

[1:10:48] All right, thank you, Matt.

[1:10:49] All right, moving on to our public hearings, presentations upon request.

[1:10:53] Item 14, parks for recreation natural resources, to adopt a resolution.

[1:10:59] Budget amendment number B, 2026-041, amending the fiscal year 2026 budget,

[1:11:04] to appropriate funding to capital improvement program project number 85021 playgrounds and shade structures program to in the amount of $223,000 and for that we have Sean Yeager.

[1:11:20] Sir? It is a PUR. So does any commissioner request a full presentation? We do have a quick question. I knew that that's why I called you up Sean.

[1:11:34] Thank you, Chair.

[1:11:36] Sean, my question for you is really, really simple.

[1:11:39] When we, when we see these come forward, could you in the future please show what the increase percentage wise to your annual budget it does so that it helps us to understand.

[1:11:49] Once we approve something, it's like a .001% increase to your overall budget for the year, because I think they start to add up after a while and it'd be helpful for me.

[1:11:58] Thank you.

[1:11:59] Absolutely.

[1:12:00] Okay.

[1:12:01] All right, I have no cards.

[1:12:02] I have no cards on this.

[1:12:03] So close to public hearing and look for a motion.

[1:12:07] All right.

[1:12:07] I have a motion.

[1:12:08] I have a second.

[1:12:09] Seconded by Commissioner Smith.

[1:12:10] All in favor.

[1:12:11] Aye.

[1:12:12] Chair votes.

[1:12:13] Aye.

[1:12:13] That moves forward unanimously.

[1:12:15] Item 15, Parks Recreation, National Resources.

[1:12:18] This is also PUR.

[1:12:19] Public hearing to adopt a resolution.

[1:12:21] Amending Sarasota County Fiscal Year 2026 through 2030.

[1:12:24] Capital Improvement Program.

[1:12:26] Resolution number 2025-164.

[1:12:28] 4, to modify the scope of the Capital Improvement Program Project No. 93-130,

[1:12:35] NACOMUS Riverview Doc Lott's Acquisition Program to account for a change to include future

[1:12:40] acquisitions.

[1:12:42] B, to adopt Resolution Budget Amendment No. B, 2026-037, amending the fiscal year 2026 budget

[1:12:49] to appropriate funding for the Capital Improvement Project No. 93-130, NACOMUS Riverview Doc Lott's

[1:12:56] acquisition program in the amount of $50,000 and see, not a public hearing, to adopt

[1:13:02] a resolution authorizing the acquisition of real property located at South Riverview

[1:13:07] Drive, Nacomas, from Julie Trimp and Ross Peachie in the amount of $4,500, authorizing

[1:13:15] the execution of the contract for sale and purchase and authorizing the county administrator

[1:13:20] your or designee to execute any necessary documents to effectuate the closing and

[1:13:25] providing for applicability and an effective date.

[1:13:29] With that, does any commissioner wish a full presentation?

[1:13:34] Seeing none, I have no cards on this as well, so I'll close the public hearing and look for a motion on item 15.

[1:13:41] And so, A, B and C, okay.

[1:13:45] We have a motion by Commissioner Smith, second by Commissioner Mass, any further discussion?

[1:13:50] Seeing none, I'll call the question.

[1:13:51] All in favor, aye.

[1:13:53] Chair votes, aye.

[1:13:54] Moves forward unanimously.

[1:13:55] Great work, Sean.

[1:13:56] Thank you.

[1:14:00] All right, moving to our report section.

[1:14:02] Court of the Court.

[1:14:03] No additional report.

[1:14:05] Thank you.

[1:14:06] County Administrator.

[1:14:07] Thank you, Chair.

[1:14:08] I'd like to ask Ben Quirterman to come forward and continue our,

[1:14:13] basically monthly updates and where we're at with the most things stormwater related.

[1:14:18] So Mr. Quirterman.

[1:14:20] All right, welcome.

[1:14:21] So, for the record, Bank Quarter Main, Director of Stormwater, good morning.

[1:14:28] This is a challenging job, one of the most challenging jobs I've ever had, but the good

[1:14:34] news is I love it, we've got great staff, and we're doing a lot of great things, having

[1:14:39] a lot of fun.

[1:14:41] The Florida Stormwater Association recently awarded us an award for an outstanding achievement

[1:14:47] for our web app that was all planned and developed by staff internally, so we're going to come back to you in a...

[1:15:00] Not a future board meeting to present that award, but that was, that was nice.

[1:15:05] Phil, be quick, dredge update. The phase one, from Taldo to Beniviz on track, it were about 75% complete. The contractor's been awesome.

[1:15:16] Haven't heard much complaints about the contractor or the work that he's doing. He's got a lot of trucks running in and out of residential areas, but it's all been very smooth, very happy with that contractor.

[1:15:29] The maximum allowable dredge contract phase two is the work that we're permitting currently.

[1:15:38] There's a series of permits that we have to get.

[1:15:40] One was granted yesterday.

[1:15:42] We're still working on the main permit that we expect towards the end of this year.

[1:15:48] We're working through, we've got a great engineer that's working on that for us too.

[1:15:52] She's been on track with everything that she's planned so far.

[1:15:55] We expect plans later this month and permits the middle and May.

[1:16:04] The WCI and D is also working on their portion of the dredge right at the mouth.

[1:16:07] You see the fence at the Philpick Creek mansion and there will be often running shortly.

[1:16:14] So we're going to have two dredge contractors going on at the same time in the creek.

[1:16:20] Steve Swas has been working diligently with our staff to update our CIP.

[1:16:25] We're almost there, we had a really great meeting last week.

[1:16:28] We'll present that to you, but effectively what we've done, re-emphasize the board direction and re-emphasize the CIP effectively shortening or reducing the number of CIP, but also better defining them and the money is associated with those specifically.

[1:16:50] The sediment abatement program is one of the programs that we've developed as part of

[1:16:54] this CIP review that is in addition to the Swerp program that we currently have, the

[1:17:00] five years CIP, and then what we call the Ruff Order to Projects plus five years out.

[1:17:08] The interlocal agreement is something that we're going to get to talk about soon with the new

[1:17:15] city manager, we expect some conversations with her and her staff shortly to discuss

[1:17:21] the interlocal, but what we've been doing in the meantime is working through a detailed

[1:17:26] account of what we do in the city and when we do it and what the schedule is for that

[1:17:30] work.

[1:17:33] We're also reviewing the cap and slew, specifically

[1:17:36] the areas adjacent to Phil Be Creek. We've developed a scope for surveying. We're moving forward

[1:17:42] with that scope of services to determine structural confirmed structural integrity and will

[1:17:50] update you as those survey results come in. Golfgate is another item that we work

[1:17:56] indiligently on. We met with the property owner, Matt Staff and his property acquisition

[1:18:02] team. The client has provided us an appraisal. We're currently reviewing it and we're also reviewing

[1:18:09] and bringing a contractor on board to help us through the termination of the cost of remediation and the current scope of remediation as it relates to that project.

[1:18:25] We're moving forward with scoping with capital projects, all of the resilient SRQ projects, they're all moving forward.

[1:18:33] We've got three of them within the city that we're that we're defining those roles as we go

[1:18:39] But the work that we're doing within the county is moving forward calls for services and scoping of those projects

[1:18:46] We're going to be meeting with the community both with the five

[1:18:49] Hurricane expose will have a good presence there. We're also doing our own stormwater three scheduled

[1:18:58] store water-specific workshops, both North County, Central County and South County.

[1:19:04] And I continue to meet with residents on a regular basis.

[1:19:07] I've got another meeting with Pomeranians this week, so we're having fun.

[1:19:12] I know that was quick, but if you've got any questions, let me know I can go in the morning.

[1:19:16] No, great.

[1:19:16] Thank you, Ben.

[1:19:17] So we've got several on the board, Commissioner Smith.

[1:19:20] It's that button first.

[1:19:21] All right.

[1:19:22] Well, thank you, Ben.

[1:19:23] I'm glad you're enjoying yourself.

[1:19:24] of.

[1:19:26] The Philadelphia Creek maximum allowable

[1:19:30] dredge. And I've read some emails. I'm the do with the islands. Could you maybe expound

[1:19:40] on that a little bit? So there were some emails from the community members.

[1:19:45] And I will just say that they may not understanding the permitting process as well as our staff

[1:19:51] We have to develop a scope to go into permitting, develop how we want to attack these items, and that's effectively what it was.

[1:20:00] But the scope hasn't changed.

[1:20:03] It's maximum-level dredge, 10 foot off on each side.

[1:20:07] And regardless of how we define it or what we call it during the permitting process, it's still 10 feet off each side.

[1:20:14] That's about it.

[1:20:15] And just to be clear, the islands are going to be leaving us during that.

[1:20:19] That's right.

[1:20:19] That's part of it.

[1:20:21] Thank you, just wanted to confirmation.

[1:20:22] Thank you.

[1:20:23] Okay, Commissioner Mast.

[1:20:25] Thank you, Chair.

[1:20:26] Can we go back to the interlocal agreement for just a minute?

[1:20:29] And I know that that's something that they do have a new city manager on board.

[1:20:33] Welcome to their new administrator, hope that she settles in nicely.

[1:20:39] I really would like to see some data.

[1:20:41] I've been asking this for quite some time and I know that it's going to take some collaboration with you.

[1:20:46] and I believe also probably Kim Ratke's group.

[1:20:52] There's a $4 million approximately collection

[1:20:56] that is made every year from the city.

[1:20:59] And I would like to know how far that $4 million

[1:21:01] is getting when it comes to actually implementing

[1:21:03] the work that the county is doing on that

[1:21:05] in our local agreement.

[1:21:07] And I know that it's gonna take some time.

[1:21:10] I know you guys are working on it.

[1:21:11] I just don't want it to be forgotten.

[1:21:13] Oh no, and to that point, for the last couple of years, now 25 was a bit of a anomaly because we had extra contractors working.

[1:21:23] But if you look back at, we've got the breakout of the work that we've done, and the cost estimate of the staff costs and our cost to provide those services relative to the collections.

[1:21:37] So, I can make sure that I summarize that and make sure that you have that data, but we've got a good handle on the last couple of years and we can go back as far as you want, but we've got a good handle last couple of years.

[1:21:50] Thank you, Chair. One more question. When you come back next time, could you let us know how the design is going for the St. Armand's pumps? I've had some questions regarding that, and I would just like to have maybe an update on that as well.

[1:22:01] Well, sure, I can give you just a real quick update now.

[1:22:06] That's better.

[1:22:07] What we're doing currently is developing a project charter so that we understand what our roles are and what the city's roles are.

[1:22:15] The city has taken the lead on communications.

[1:22:19] They've met with several different groups.

[1:22:22] We feel like we've come to a really good consensus on what the scope of the project is.

[1:22:26] It's effectively hardening and providing resilience and redundancy to the current system and where we can upgrade that system, but that's a primary focus.

[1:22:37] Secondarily we'll look at sea wall expansion and other items that will add additional resilience, but the primary focus is the depth of flooding and the duration of flooding.

[1:22:49] We want to, you know, we want to limit the elevation of the flooding, but we also want to limit the timing which is flooded.

[1:22:55] And that's been communicated to us from the residents.

[1:22:59] And last but not least, from a vegetarian perspective, are we staying within what anticipated

[1:23:08] bids were to be in some of our very heavy hit areas?

[1:23:13] Are we finding that they're coming in higher than had it been anticipated?

[1:23:17] Because I think it would be helpful to continually kind of revisit that so that we go, hey, we're off.

[1:23:22] We think we're going to be okay, we're short here, we're not short here.

[1:23:27] Specifically, I'm very concerned about the Kaupen-Sluery.

[1:23:30] As you know, we've talked multiple times.

[1:23:33] I want to make sure that we have the resources and the funding to do that.

[1:23:40] Most people do not realize in the 1950s, it was done by several of our farmers and

[1:23:45] cattlemen out there, and it's never been surveyed, it's never had an engineering done of it.

[1:23:50] And so for us to get best practices in a baseline, it's got to be done, so it's very critical.

[1:23:55] It is, and we're moving forward with that analysis, but I'll make sure that I update you on that as well.

[1:24:00] Thank you.

[1:24:01] Thank you, Chair.

[1:24:02] Mr. Knight.

[1:24:03] Now, very similar to everybody else, I think we've been hyper-focused on on Philippi justifiably so.

[1:24:10] So Everglades of States, down here in Venice, I think I talked about, but they're concerned out there now.

[1:24:16] it's moved to storm season. They got hit, they got flooded as much as anybody. And so I've had

[1:24:23] good relationships there, everybody out there. And so I know I appreciate I sent you some stuff

[1:24:29] up Blackburn Canal. That was the one. Yeah, good. And thank you for doing it. I haven't pushed. I know

[1:24:35] there's a lot more creeks. I got Shack at Creek Blackburn Canal. And I know. So, but thank you for that.

[1:24:41] But, you know, I communicate with them a lot, I said, I just tell them to trust me, we got this.

[1:24:50] Yeah, I'm going to get the right guy, I said, this is common.

[1:24:53] And I know we deal a lot with golf gate and everything so that, you know, we're all on edge now as we're moving towards the season.

[1:24:58] So thank you for that, and you'll see Blackburn can now, and that was like Commissioner Masa, that was in the 20s, when that was just dug out.

[1:25:06] So it's hard to go back and re-engineer everything that was done back then.

[1:25:09] But certainly to get your eyes on it and let them know that, yeah, we're here, and we're hearing you, and that's an old established area.

[1:25:18] And one other, too, is like South Venice, and I visited a gentleman he's been calling, visited him Sunday, and a lot of those areas are old established areas, those houses were built in the 60s on right on grade.

[1:25:32] But I haven't sent it, I'll send it in just you can get your eyes on maybe some it can take a look at it

[1:25:37] It's just an area of London road that's over the years

[1:25:41] They probably just had some local person come over the backo and they're doing their own thing in the 60s and 70s

[1:25:49] But it's I'm not an engineer, but there's a problem there that got into their house

[1:25:54] And so you'll see it come in whoever your destiny would be, but you know, I'm dealing with a lot of that now with people

[1:25:59] But certainly Everglades estates is, like I said, I've told them we got this, we got the right guy.

[1:26:06] We're out on Jackson Road this week.

[1:26:08] Yeah, perfect.

[1:26:09] Yeah, they appreciate seeing you, so.

[1:26:11] Thanks for what you're doing, a lot of work to do, a lot of maintenance to do and stuff, but

[1:26:15] thanks for everything you're doing and get us where we need to be in the future, so.

[1:26:18] Thank you.

[1:26:20] Mr. Nunder.

[1:26:21] Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Ben, for the report.

[1:26:24] Appreciate all the hard work you're doing.

[1:26:25] You know, you mentioned Palmer Ranch area, there's some culverts in there that I think need some attention or up sizing on the pipes.

[1:26:31] So, they know you're coming and they're very appreciative.

[1:26:34] Can you just tell me a little bit more about this software award that you got?

[1:26:38] I think in the Palmer Ranch meeting I had last week, I think we used it.

[1:26:43] And it's fascinating and it seems to be the merging of, is it cartograph?

[1:26:49] or whatever.

[1:26:49] Part of graph?

[1:26:51] And then some form of variation of the GIS.

[1:26:54] So they're familiar with it out there.

[1:26:56] They pull it up.

[1:26:57] So that's up and running.

[1:26:59] And I just wanted to note, are you hearing from the residents that they like it as a tool

[1:27:04] because it gives some sort of a history and the background of when the maintenance was

[1:27:07] done, that type of thing?

[1:27:08] Yeah.

[1:27:09] We especially hear from them when we're delayed.

[1:27:12] Everything's transparent.

[1:27:16] But that's how I know they're using it.

[1:27:18] And that's what it's intended for.

[1:27:20] Okay.

[1:27:20] And so staff really has done a great job putting that together.

[1:27:24] Yeah, that's quite a lift on the technology side there.

[1:27:27] And then the other only question that I had is subsequent to the Palmer Ranch.

[1:27:31] Meaning, what do you feel about our relationships?

[1:27:34] There was an issue that they brought up about some of the FPL easements that they have

[1:27:38] and some of the, in their opinions, the piping that was there maybe only 18 inches as opposed to something.

[1:27:43] Do you feel like you have good relationships where that might be pertinent with FPL to go ahead and look at that?

[1:27:49] Do we need to upsize it? Is it something that's on the maintenance or to your point though?

[1:27:54] There's a critical crossing just east of the Oaks and

[1:27:58] We're going to upsize that from an 18 inch pipe to 336 inch pipes

[1:28:03] It's a it's a very big bottleneck that staff identified and we're moving forward in coordination with FPL

[1:28:11] but they're open to it, and they've got standards for their easements and we're working through that, but they're amenable to that, and that's moving forward.

[1:28:18] That's a priority.

[1:28:19] Okay, and then the last thing, and then I'll be quiet, is during the conversations, just continuously educating and reminding the public that, you know, as rain events come,

[1:28:28] a lot of what I've seen is that the trash and the garbage that accumulated in the stormwater ditches and the drainage system, so making sure that, you know, they take their trash in pallets, chairs, etc.

[1:28:38] And I think specifically in that Palmer Ranch meeting there was a little bit of that and people just did not assume that it was going to happen but

[1:28:46] Continually educating the public about you know things come. We got to pick it up and make sure it doesn't clog our system

[1:28:50] To your point and I'm glad you brought that up because as much as we talk about

[1:28:55] The maintenance and the floodplain water quality is still a huge piece of what we do and it will be moving forward and

[1:29:03] And either whether it's floating debris or whether it's water quality in our base and systems.

[1:29:08] So it's something that we harp on a lot and it's part of what we do.

[1:29:14] But I just wanted to make sure that I acknowledge that water quality is not taking it back seat.

[1:29:19] It's 1A and 1B.

[1:29:22] Okay.

[1:29:24] Yeah, absolutely.

[1:29:25] My kids are here and getting to the beach and to the bay and it's never been better.

[1:29:29] the water quality, the visibility is amazing and so that's a really important

[1:29:33] pin. Thank you for a great report and it is a tough it's a tough job but we

[1:29:38] got the right man at the helm and thank you for what you're doing and how you're

[1:29:42] you're very patient and you're everywhere and you're doing all you can and thank

[1:29:47] you very much for that. All right with that thank you with that it's 1030 we're

[1:29:52] take a quick 10-minute break and we'll be back.

[1:39:44] Let's move on with the agenda item number 18. As soon as our county attorney gets over here and

[1:39:54] county attorney.

[1:39:59] So I sent a memo out on Friday and I didn't regarding the local act. I don't know if there's any questions or concerns with it or if there's any follow-up discussion needed.

[1:40:10] Thank you, Commissioner. Yeah, thank you, Josh. Thank you, staff on that. I bring something up under my commissioner report for the board's consideration. But yes, thank you for doing that with your team and trying to give us a better consent.

[1:40:23] actualization of exactly what we're dealing with so just thanks anything

[1:40:28] further?

[1:40:29] Well, that's it at this time I'll wait for under Commissioner Nunders report.

[1:40:32] Okay, Commissioner Schmidt.

[1:40:34] I just wanted to say thanks to you and staff for putting this together.

[1:40:39] And I believe strongly that we as a commission should protect our neighborhoods,

[1:40:52] I would protect the rural areas and understanding the, perhaps the challenges and the potential

[1:41:04] risk. I do think the contextual interpretation is the one that we should be defending, and

[1:41:14] so that's just my thoughts on it. Thanks.

[1:41:17] Okay.

[1:41:21] Any further?

[1:41:23] No?

[1:41:24] Mr. Masked.

[1:41:27] Mr. Reports.

[1:41:28] Oh, thank you.

[1:41:29] I was like.

[1:41:29] Any questions?

[1:41:32] So there was an article that just came out about Center Stone and I wanted to really bring

[1:41:40] it up just because I want to make sure that we're doing some checks and balances to make sure

[1:41:44] or that, especially when there are public dollars being used, these are services that they

[1:41:52] provide a very vital service to a very vulnerable population and I just want to make sure that

[1:41:58] when public dollars are being used, how do we do our checks and balances on projects like

[1:42:02] that to make sure that they're going where they need to go?

[1:42:06] Because I think it's so important that our public feels very secure in knowing that we're

[1:42:12] We're working diligent to make sure those individuals are being taken care of.

[1:42:16] Yeah.

[1:42:18] County Ministry.

[1:42:20] So it's a couple stage process.

[1:42:23] Of course, on the back end, the clerk and

[1:42:25] comptroller's office is very diligent about making sure that we pay in terms with the contract as they should.

[1:42:32] On the front end also, we have performance standards that are in the contract that they have to perform to, and

[1:42:38] they have to submit those to us.

[1:42:40] We do it on a reimbursement, but they have to submit and meet it.

[1:42:44] So it's not just the Health and Human Services team verifying, but it's also in the clerk

[1:42:51] of the court and control or its function as the controller to make sure that we've paid

[1:42:56] in the court and it's with the contracts.

[1:42:58] Okay.

[1:42:59] And it's chair for me.

[1:43:01] Is there, I don't want to call this like maybe a probation period, but a time where we

[1:43:07] I might want to maybe have some extra hands on deck

[1:43:09] when it comes to observing best practices

[1:43:13] because I just want to make sure

[1:43:14] that that vulnerable population

[1:43:17] is really being cared for.

[1:43:19] Yeah, and in that particular case,

[1:43:22] staff doesn't know a lot about the specifics of that one

[1:43:25] and do process would be like a problem process,

[1:43:29] but that would be pretty too probably.

[1:43:31] So that one, when I became aware of it this morning,

[1:43:34] I did send it over to staff to keep an eye on, so.

[1:43:38] Thank you, that's it for me.

[1:43:39] Thank you for bringing it to the attention.

[1:43:41] All right, Commissioner Smith.

[1:43:44] Thank you, Chair.

[1:43:45] I'll skip this.

[1:43:46] Here we are.

[1:43:47] Thank you, Chair.

[1:43:48] We've got a couple items here I wanted to bring up.

[1:43:51] One of them is the in-person workshops.

[1:43:55] We brought this up a couple of times.

[1:43:59] And what I'm sharing with you is as

[1:44:06] What I was attempting to do here, and if you just see a lot of circles on there, that's because that's what they are.

[1:44:14] It shows the, if we were to have public workshops in county facilities, which are in red, that I've listed and then houses of worship, of which we have some confirmations of.

[1:44:31] and I've talked to ministerial groups about helping us out and getting confirmation of

[1:44:37] these others that are let me close.

[1:44:39] And then the neighborhood centers we do have confirmation on is that we can bring back

[1:44:45] neighborhood workshops and we should.

[1:44:49] And my thinking is in person and also hybrid.

[1:44:52] So it's a combination.

[1:44:55] But they do need to be in person with the hybrid option by the applicant.

[1:45:00] And I'm talking to the county attorney. These are two, the smaller circles are two mile radius and then the larger circles are the five mile radius is that maybe out in the rural areas. And talking to Josh, she said that if we so want to pursue this, we could also give direction to actually because of the virtual component that we could have these greater than two mile radius.

[1:45:30] miles. So that's something for the board to consider. But I would like to look at, request

[1:45:40] the board direction to have staff go back. And also, if Rich is here, he also owed me

[1:45:50] some fire stations there, confirmation of the fire stations. The libraries are available,

[1:45:56] talk to Renee, so I believe strongly that we can bring these neighborhood workshops back

[1:46:02] in person.

[1:46:04] Like I said, with the hybrid option, and I'd like to get staff direction or board direction

[1:46:11] to give staff an opportunity to proceed.

[1:46:14] Thank you.

[1:46:14] So, maybe a motion to make this a regular agenda item as a discussion, I come back to us.

[1:46:21] Okay.

[1:46:22] Commissioner and under.

[1:46:22] in the board? Yeah, I just thank you, Chair. Mark, certainly you did your homework here.

[1:46:28] A lot of options just wanted to throw out that, you know, I think our high schools, you

[1:46:32] can run out high schools also. Some of the middle schools, Laurel and the Comis is one that

[1:46:37] we use in our area. So there are options there to consider above and beyond your copious

[1:46:42] amount of work that you put into this to define some locations. So that's my own comment

[1:46:46] and then I'm happy to support it.

[1:46:48] Okay, so you know, make a motion.

[1:46:50] I go, bring it back, I'm sorry.

[1:46:53] I just have a commission for mass.

[1:46:55] The only thing that I would just like to,

[1:46:57] I love the idea of it being optional,

[1:47:00] because I will tell you years ago when I worked for the county,

[1:47:02] I did a ton of public meetings in the intent

[1:47:04] that these were always to be informational,

[1:47:08] keyword, informational.

[1:47:10] And sometimes there are individuals

[1:47:12] that are very passionate about items

[1:47:13] that doesn't turn into an informational meeting.

[1:47:16] So it becomes very unfair to those that have come to gain information.

[1:47:21] So I love the idea of it being an optional one or the other.

[1:47:26] And I think the other thing that's very important to note is,

[1:47:29] I have tried a multiple times myself to rent a library.

[1:47:33] And it's very challenging to get in a timely fashion that same thing with the churches.

[1:47:40] So, I just, I don't want to deter anybody's ability to be able to participate from an informational perspective, so I love the optional idea.

[1:47:52] Well, maybe I should make clarification.

[1:47:55] All these will be in person, and the applicant has the option to make it virtual also, so it's a hybrid, so it's not either or.

[1:48:05] What I'm proposing here is that all neighborhood workshops will be in person with the applicant having an option of doing virtual as a component of the neighborhood workshop, just to make sure I'm not giving this a choice as far as to the applicant.

[1:48:24] Yeah, anyway, that's my thought.

[1:48:26] Yeah, Commissioner Knight.

[1:48:28] I think one, yes, I agree with it.

[1:48:30] One, I believe too, as I understand it, this won't create any extra, or any cost or

[1:48:38] budget to do these, it's zero.

[1:48:41] My question would be and recommend it that it would also include our live local.

[1:48:47] Is that that would be an opportune time for our staff to be able to talk to the decision making process of the citizens.

[1:48:53] when this live local goes through with the developer, whoever it's going to be,

[1:48:57] for the decision makers on our staff to be able to communicate how that decision was made on live local and

[1:49:03] in the legislative intent of live local.

[1:49:06] That would be included, too, not exempted.

[1:49:11] Well, we can done require, but we can do it.

[1:49:14] We're preempted from live local, from communicate with the community.

[1:49:20] We're regarding the, so right now under our code, we require that the applicant do a neighborhood workshop.

[1:49:28] That's part of the process to then get to planning commission and then before this board.

[1:49:32] If something does qualify under the local, it just goes straight for a administrative review and process.

[1:49:37] It would not go through a process of a neighborhood workshop or planning commission or come before this board.

[1:49:43] But it doesn't prohibit us from the standpoint of going out into the community and

[1:49:48] talking to them about the decision.

[1:49:50] I mean, we're not slowing the process down.

[1:49:52] We're not violating the laws.

[1:49:53] There's something the law that says it preamps the type of a program.

[1:49:58] I'm sure you're talking specifically under this neighborhood workshop provision.

[1:50:02] Because right now it's only an applicant that comes in.

[1:50:05] That's a great question.

[1:50:05] It might be something for us to include with Mark when he does this motion.

[1:50:10] but that, you know, the transparency of the decisions of live local, and I think that we all know we're going to get a question about it is.

[1:50:21] And the community is, I mean, having staff explain the decision on live local would be important to a community so they understand the preemption that's happened in our government and how this decisions are made.

[1:50:34] It doesn't, we're not violating any law by being out in the community as a staff.

[1:50:40] I don't know, I'm just throwing it up, but certainly, if we're looking to go back to

[1:50:47] neighborhood workshops, having the decision making explained is as important as having

[1:50:54] them available to question developers under product, I don't see anything that we're violating

[1:51:02] in any law, we're simply asking for operational for our staff to explain it.

[1:51:07] So I think right now the neighborhood workshop is for an applicant coming in and

[1:51:10] it's their workshop, it's not a county workshop, it's the applicant's workshop.

[1:51:14] That's why they, you know, we can't do them virtually, there's, you know, the normal requirements

[1:51:17] of chapter 26 don't apply to them because they're not a governing board, right?

[1:51:22] I think something you're talking about is more outreach, maybe like we said on the website,

[1:51:26] what's it being done with emails?

[1:51:29] Yeah, I mean, they can all be inclusive, I mean, yeah, exactly.

[1:51:33] I think that the first level of co-act to get approved is certainly going to have community concerns.

[1:51:39] And that would be important for our staff to explain how that decision was made.

[1:51:43] So, because we can't explain it, we're not allowed to interpret it.

[1:51:47] I read the law, so I think that that would be something that maybe that would be a motion to do that.

[1:51:51] We'll live local, be a separate one, but I know John, our county minister wants to say something.

[1:51:56] Let's have the county administrator.

[1:51:57] And I just want to be clear, the way your neighborhood workshops are currently structured, staff has almost no involvement in that.

[1:52:05] And I just want to make sure that it's abundantly clear.

[1:52:07] We may help do the notice requirement, they submit the publication to us, but staff isn't there.

[1:52:14] I would say on the issue of some of the county locations on the list, we would have to take a look at it if it's okay with the board.

[1:52:22] So, for example, fire stations, I don't have somebody there and when my people have to

[1:52:26] run a call, they have to run a call.

[1:52:28] So, if you're holding a, I mean, you know, they're not up for rental, per se.

[1:52:34] And if the other locations were for rental, that would be okay because then they would be paying

[1:52:38] a cleaning fee and all those kind of.

[1:52:40] But if it's not a place that's currently doing that, we'd either have to create it, right

[1:52:45] have to pay for a staff person to be there to do those things.

[1:52:48] So I just wanted to make that clear.

[1:52:52] On the live local, I know a lot of people like to say that staff doesn't really have an interpretation role on live local either.

[1:52:58] It either meets the requirement or it doesn't.

[1:53:01] So even staff's not really interpreting.

[1:53:04] It's pretty prescriptive onto the law.

[1:53:07] You know, the only good things kind of left to us are stormwater and things like that.

[1:53:11] Utilities, but even there that it's really preemptive from staff, too.

[1:53:16] It's more of an administrative function for the UDC administer.

[1:53:22] Okay, I'll be brief because I know we got to get this move.

[1:53:27] Jonathan, I have a question, as a matter of policy from the board, if there was, say,

[1:53:33] a will of the board, to have on these live local projects that come through, do a public meeting on,

[1:53:39] I mean, it's not required, it's administratively approved, as we all know.

[1:53:43] But a lot of times there is not, in my opinion, transparency and public awareness of these things so far.

[1:53:50] And if we were to, as a board say, Jonathan, we would like a policy that would direct you and your staff to go ahead and update the particular area where there is a project as an informal method of communication and transparency, is that a possibility?

[1:54:05] Yeah, I think as long as you stay within the parameters of the time restrictions the state has put on you, I think you could probably do that, you know, we'd have to figure out a schedule, things like that, I would just be very hesitant for staff to be just like we don't present on developers, projects in front of the board, I would be very hesitant to have staff presenting because then it starts to become its staff's idea.

[1:54:28] And so, you know, the factual as you, as Commissioner Knight said about why we had to approve it or why we are allowed to deny it, you know, that could, that could be possible.

[1:54:39] But interpreting a developer's project, I don't think that's a good role for staff.

[1:54:44] Other than as it relates the law.

[1:54:46] I understand that, but given the fact that all of this currently is going through the administrative process and staff is the one directly involved in this process,

[1:54:56] doesn't make a little sense that if the Board will, and we wanted to go out there to give a public

[1:55:00] meeting on a project that staff would have the most subject matter expertise to deliver

[1:55:04] the way that these projects A, B, C, or in this case, step 1, 2, 3 get checkmarked,

[1:55:10] et cetera.

[1:55:11] They could present on why it was approved or why it wasn't approved.

[1:55:14] I mean, they can't really present on the details of the, because even they're not,

[1:55:18] they're not reviewing those details either.

[1:55:20] Maybe the site either meets the requirement, or the site doesn't.

[1:55:23] Yeah, and I didn't, I think, I kind of understood, I think we're Commissioner Knight was trying to go with that, and I'm certainly, I don't want to speak out a turn, but that's just something that as a matter of transparency for our community in my mind, it kind of makes a little more sense that if the board decided to have anybody present on any of the live local projects, it would be clear in my mind as day that staff would be the one doing it because they're the, we're not seeing it unless we're going on the website following it and talking with your staff to kind of get the update so.

[1:55:51] It just understand there's lots of things about the project staff doesn't see either.

[1:55:54] Okay.

[1:55:55] Well, I just, I'm just, for conversation, I just, I wanted to bring that one.

[1:55:58] But yes, I think if you wanted to do, why was, why could it be approved or why, why it wasn't approved?

[1:56:03] I think certainly those types of things could be done, yes, sir.

[1:56:05] All right, I think we transitioned here.

[1:56:08] We went from neighborhood workshop to live local and we're having discussions all over the page here.

[1:56:13] So let's go back to your original comment regarding that.

[1:56:18] Yes, neighborhood workshop.

[1:56:19] Let me just weigh in for a minute, you know, my eight-year-old grandson helped me download an app yesterday and get it working and all that because they're we're living in an absolutely digital age and anybody that doesn't realize that you're not you're you're you're not leaving your house or something because we can't even you can't even apply for a permits or sort of counting without doing it digitally you can't go in and talk to a person you got to go through the cell and do that everything we do is is online and I kind of think about

[1:56:48] you know the traffic circles where you know we started building these

[1:56:53] never was like what are we doing here these are terrible and this is a problem

[1:56:57] and all that now you know over time we've come to realize and I'm sure some have

[1:57:01] not yet but we come to realize they're you know these don't shut down in

[1:57:05] hurricane these move traffic more efficiently generally and we've come to

[1:57:11] understand that and it's the same thing with with online every you know once

[1:57:18] COVID came, we were doing all our meetings on teams and we were doing Zoom meetings and

[1:57:22] we're doing this on a regular basis and you have much more participation.

[1:57:26] You have folks not having to get out in the evening and in the dark and drive and to

[1:57:31] take 100 people and get them to a fire department.

[1:57:34] I can't even imagine how that would happen, you know, at a fire station and they get a call

[1:57:39] for service and you've got 100 folks in there and cars all over the place that doesn't make

[1:57:43] any sense at all to me.

[1:57:44] It just seems to me that if the purpose is to get more people involved and make it more

[1:57:50] efficient, the online neighborhood workshop is the way to go.

[1:57:55] And the hybrids, I've never seen them work very well at all.

[1:57:58] We have some people in a building and I don't know just the logistics of getting that done

[1:58:02] correctly where you got everybody participating equally and people online get overlooked or

[1:58:09] not noticed or and it seems to always be glitchy when you're trying to set it up in a

[1:58:14] place where it's not really set up for it.

[1:58:17] So I'm going to struggle with the idea.

[1:58:19] I like the idea of hybrid if, but I think it creates a lot of problems.

[1:58:25] So this is an issue I think that doesn't need to come back for discussion, get the stakeholders

[1:58:30] and the people who are involved in it, their opportunity also to address it, so that's

[1:58:36] my thought on it.

[1:58:37] But you have a motion, and then we'll...

[1:58:40] you need a motion.

[1:58:44] All right. All right. I'd like to make a motion to give staff direction to bring back neighborhood workshops in person neighborhood workshops with with a hybrid of having virtual also included.

[1:59:00] Okay, we have a motion and a second any further discussion.

[1:59:05] I just want to make one comment.

[1:59:07] Okay, only that this is not necessarily for more people to come to own, but to communicate.

[1:59:16] Oh, sorry, push the button again.

[1:59:18] Thank you.

[1:59:20] This is why hybrid doesn't work, no, I'm sorry, virtual.

[1:59:24] Anyway, no, it's not for the number, it's for listening, listening to the neighbors and

[1:59:32] the neighborhoods.

[1:59:32] And that's what this is about, and the folks that can't make it in person, they could get on virtually.

[1:59:40] But I just wanted to make that clarification.

[1:59:42] Commissioner, no, and I agree with Commissioner Smith is, and I know it's going to come back for a final discussion is,

[1:59:48] I think perception is not always reality, but the citizens we serve and

[1:59:52] remind it is, and that simply is government going to them and

[1:59:56] them have an access if they should choose to go to government when we make.

[2:00:00] The government available to them. And I think COVID is still coming out of some of the changes that have been made. So I think we'll know after, if we decide to reamp them, and it will know within a year, if it's, if it is something that dispels the notion that community that we're not hearing them. And that's, I agree with Commissioner Smith on it. So I just want to say that, you know, we, we need to dispel the notion that we're not being heard in certain, certain issues. That's, that's all I want to say.

[2:00:31] I know that there was an MPO meeting commissioner Smith, I'm happy to support your motion and the concept behind this, but in our MPO meeting, a couple of times ago, there was a snafu with citizen involvement, right, with an in-person meeting, there was absolutely zero question for participation from the public and that ancillary component of having the technology there is nice as we have people that live all around the country, but there will be no excuse and there's not going to be anybody saying anything if there is an in-person meeting.

[2:00:59] and meeting for people to physically attend.

[2:01:01] If they don't attend, then that's on them.

[2:01:04] And if they have the option of the technology, that's great.

[2:01:07] But with an in-person meeting, I think it spells it out relatively clear.

[2:01:11] The meeting was held, the public is involved, and there can be no argument past that.

[2:01:15] So, thank you, Chair.

[2:01:17] Okay, do you say another item?

[2:01:20] Oh, that'd be good, yeah, that's it.

[2:01:24] Motion, you have a motion, and we have a second.

[2:01:29] Did you second it? Okay, I'm going to go ahead and call the question on the favor.

[2:01:32] I, Chair votes. I, that moves forward unanimously, bring it back.

[2:01:37] Thank you, Chair. The second item is much shorter, I believe.

[2:01:43] And this has to do with the SISCII trolley.

[2:01:47] As we know, we're stopping the trolley, leaving SISCII and going downtown and back, which I'm in favor of.

[2:01:54] However, one of the positives of it was that the trolley was going to the north end of the village.

[2:02:00] instead of stopping at the midpoint and so what I would and so I had met with staff on

[2:02:10] the key and with the idea of rerouting instead of stopping right there at the Casibo in the

[2:02:19] center of the village that would continue north and go down Avenue to Madera, make a left

[2:02:25] Collin, Minorga, and then Avenue to Milano have a trolley stop there and then have it make a left and head back to the village again.

[2:02:37] And so, again, I'd like to ask the board to give staff direction to look at that possibility.

[2:02:48] And my thought is it would, they need to look at the streets and make sure it works for them.

[2:02:56] But this would help greatly in getting that trolley to the northern businesses in the village.

[2:03:03] And so that's what I'm bringing for.

[2:03:04] So I'm looking for consensus of the board to give staff direction to look into this and see if we can make it happen.

[2:03:11] So you're asking for a board assignment, right?

[2:03:13] I'll board a assignment. Yes. Okay. Do we need a motion on board? Okay. Do you want it to be a board assignment? Yes, sir.

[2:03:20] You need a motion to it. All right. I'd like to make a motion for a board assignment to

[2:03:27] extend the CSQ trolley to the north end of the village.

[2:03:33] And we'll recirculate the assuming the board vote yet. Well, either way, I would recirculate

[2:03:38] the memo that we board a assignment we did previously on the stop.

[2:03:43] Okay, we have motion in a second.

[2:03:46] We have a second.

[2:03:48] Second by commission and under.

[2:03:50] Any further discussion on that commission tonight?

[2:03:52] Just when the Board of Simon is to add any additional cost that may be incurred,

[2:03:55] that would create any additional budget requirements.

[2:04:00] Sure.

[2:04:01] Okay.

[2:04:02] Is that understood?

[2:04:03] Sure.

[2:04:04] All right.

[2:04:04] Is that okay?

[2:04:06] Got that?

[2:04:07] Okay.

[2:04:08] All right.

[2:04:08] With that, we'll then call the question on favor.

[2:04:10] Aye.

[2:04:10] Sure, what's that most forward?

[2:04:12] Thank you, that's all right.

[2:04:14] Thank you.

[2:04:15] All right, with that, Commissioner Knight.

[2:04:17] Thank you, Linda.

[2:04:18] I'll be brief, and I had handed out, I found another, I'd just been doing my research in a live local.

[2:04:23] Of course, it's a hot topic all across the state.

[2:04:25] And City of Hollywood had a deck action where they prevailed in the deck action down in Hollywood.

[2:04:33] And I think there's one up in Tampa, the Hillsborough County area.

[2:04:36] And now we're municipalities and the county governments are challenging through deck actions interpretation of the law.

[2:04:46] And most of the cases I'm seeing are prevailing.

[2:04:48] I saw one growing nice one up in Manatee County that was the intent that I believe of the law in just north of University Parkway and industrial area that they approved.

[2:04:58] But like everybody we're having a discussion here is a lot of anxiety in our communities and

[2:05:03] established neighborhoods that we're hearing from, and I think that's really important

[2:05:07] why that we would require our staff to go out in those communities and explain and how

[2:05:16] that's going to impact their staplish neighborhoods if it meets the requirements of live local.

[2:05:22] And so there is going to be interpretation on it that we're not going to have input on as

[2:05:28] a elected board and that we're not going to have the ability to represent our community

[2:05:32] on these type of developments, and so I think it's important that they understand from our staff why the decisions were made, and why the intent was met if such decision was made.

[2:05:45] I think we have seven in the hopper now, they're all moving forward, and I'm hearing from my constituents, I certainly have my opinion on the interpretation of a moving, but I don't have any say in it.

[2:05:57] So I just wanted to make sure we got that liberal co-act, that document there to show that

[2:06:03] communities are challenging the law, and they are going to deck actions, and they are prevailing in the best interest of the community.

[2:06:11] So that's all I have, Chair.

[2:06:13] I actually have a follow-up to that, so we did send a memo out last Friday.

[2:06:20] You know, basically it was in our office memo 1901, addressing the board's question on whether properties on RE1

[2:06:27] We want an OUE, have to be treated as qualifying districts under live local act.

[2:06:31] Max explained in the memo, the plain text of the new statutory definitions tends to

[2:06:35] strongly support the argument that RE1 and OUE districts do qualify under that live local act.

[2:06:40] However, using the contextual as applied interpretation, the board could adopt a good faith policy interpretation that RE1 and

[2:06:47] OUE districts do not qualify for development under live local act.

[2:06:52] And then that would give the developer the opportunity of the applicant, the opportunity to

[2:06:56] then do a deck action against us, just have somebody to sue to do a deck action.

[2:07:01] Just know that if the board does go down that policy interpretation, that already want to know you districts do not qualify.

[2:07:07] It is uphill battle because it does go against the strict language of the statute, and it does go against legislative history.

[2:07:14] And the local act also provides for attorneys using costs of the $250,000 to eight prevailing party, which the county would be subject to each time it's owned to be in violation of the local act.

[2:07:25] So there is an opportunity if this board wants to make that policy direction regarding the international interpretation.

[2:07:32] And what could do that?

[2:07:33] And I was just going to, and I'll turn it over is the deck action removes it.

[2:07:37] There is interpretation.

[2:07:38] I think a couple of months ago when we had Matt provide us with an update, did a PowerPoint.

[2:07:43] I think, you know, I asked, was the Florida Association counties have any type of thoughts on it?

[2:07:49] And I think everybody's gone their own way, and so really the interpretation is, I guess what staff's interpretation is on it.

[2:07:58] And I know there's a lot of anxiety in our community about what's going to go up next to their houses.

[2:08:03] I mean, we could have an interpretation of something like that mentioned last board on an established neighborhood in the Harbor acre areas,

[2:08:12] which is not in the city or in the county, but a similar type of high profile areas that we can interpret it.

[2:08:17] And they can put an apartment complex up next to under-live local.

[2:08:20] I mean, we can draw it that long if we want to.

[2:08:23] I don't want to do that, but I think there's just so much anxiety out there about the interpretation that this board has no say in that we owe it to the citizens to have our staff make sure that they provide very good reasoning for the interpretation.

[2:08:40] and that would be why we go out and the staff goes out in the community and answers to the public and why that is.

[2:08:47] So I'm not opposed to doing, you know, Josh, like you were recommending, I do know, I do know attorneys and they have different opinions on the letter that they saw.

[2:08:59] Of course, everybody's got a different opinion and my job is to represent the community and certainly lawsuits go both ways.

[2:09:08] if we, if the staff decides that one does meet love local and

[2:09:12] community gets a powerful attorney out of Tampa and they sue us.

[2:09:16] What's our, what's, what do we look like then, once the grounds have been broken?

[2:09:20] I would think it's well over $250,000 that we would be exposed to if, if we lose that case too.

[2:09:26] So it goes both ways, yeah, we're identifying.

[2:09:29] And to be clear, it's pretty clear the board cannot make any, cannot take any action on specific developments.

[2:09:33] Right.

[2:09:33] Submitted pursuant to Level Local Act, they must be administratively processed.

[2:09:39] However, this board may adopt a policy interpretation to guide that administrative process for the application of Local Act.

[2:09:48] And so, again, I think, after being asked at the last meeting, do we have to treat RE1 and

[2:09:54] OUE districts as qualifying districts under Level Local Act under the pure textual language of it in the legislative history?

[2:10:01] It looks like, yes, it does qualify under-level local.

[2:10:05] However, the board could make the policy decision regarding the statutory interpretation that we could,

[2:10:13] this board could vote to have the county treat RE-1 and RE districts as not being qualifying districts under-level local act.

[2:10:19] Just keep in mind that that does come with being in a whole battle and also subjects the board potentially to, or the county to attorneys fees and costs, up to $250,000 per each time it's funded violation.

[2:10:30] So, again, so I want to make sure you understand your options and what you guys can and can't do.

[2:10:33] If we don't ask them, if we don't do that, it just falls back to you and Jonathan.

[2:10:39] I think right now, after the memo, we're kind of stuck and kind of need some kind of policy

[2:10:43] director from the board.

[2:10:44] How do you want to start interpreting this or not?

[2:10:46] And I think, Joe.

[2:10:47] I have everybody on the board here.

[2:10:49] You want to just briefly, just to add to what I said earlier, the real only interpretation

[2:10:57] that staff wouldn't do normally as things went to the board is really the issue and this was in the December memo to the board and I think the January presentation when we were looking for some direction on how the board wanted to deal with process and notification was the determination on whether the project qualifies under the level of law that really is that's kind of the big piece of it, right?

[2:11:23] And to the question that was asked earlier, certainly staff could do a video, they could do a meeting about why our project did or didn't qualify.

[2:11:33] But that's really the part we could comment on why under the law we felt that did or didn't qualify.

[2:11:40] The other things that people normally do in their projects that they present to the board, we don't present those now.

[2:11:46] We provide it to the board, but in terms of how they either comply with the hundred year or they don't comply with the hundred year, they're either meeting the requirements by a certified engineer for a utility system, or they're not, right?

[2:12:02] I mean, those are the things they typically present to your guys.

[2:12:04] Okay, commission Smith.

[2:12:08] Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to have a policy direction to staff that CUE and RE are not part of the live local as far as are.

[2:12:26] Yeah, so I think the vote would be that the board's policy decision regarding the statutory interpretation would be that the county treat RE1 and OUE districts.

[2:12:34] districts as not being qualifying districts under the local act.

[2:12:37] Right, that's the motion.

[2:12:40] I mean, I'm going to second it.

[2:12:42] I think you were reading my notes prior to the meeting, so that's what I think.

[2:12:45] But I'm happy to speak to it after Commissioner Smith.

[2:12:48] Okay, we have a motion, and I think I have a different motion in a second.

[2:12:52] Our Commissioner Smith to your motion.

[2:12:55] Well, I know there's a certain amount of danger involved here, but

[2:12:58] I believe that I would rather be on the side of our citizens and on the side of the development

[2:13:03] community on this to protect our neighborhoods and to protect our places out east and so I'm

[2:13:11] wholeheartedly in favor of this and we'll see how it goes.

[2:13:15] Do you have a second?

[2:13:16] Yeah, thank you Chair.

[2:13:17] In Commissioner Smith, I appreciate the effort.

[2:13:19] I spent a little bit of time researching this and I think I actually, with all due respect,

[2:13:23] I have a motion that's a little bit clear, more definitive, and I'm going to throw this

[2:13:28] out to you because this is very important.

[2:13:30] This is very important.

[2:13:31] And my suggestion would be that we draw Josh and Jonathan prior to any administrative

[2:13:37] action on OUE or RE1 or residential land applications that are OCA file appropriate legal

[2:13:46] action to the court system for a declaratory judgment on a zoning determination under

[2:13:52] the Live Local Act, again, on OUE, RE1 and residential.

[2:13:56] That will, I think, blanket all of the current applications that could be in conflict.

[2:14:02] There are three other communities that are currently expanding their scope and

[2:14:07] their purview to challenge it.

[2:14:08] Like you said, Commissioner Smith, this is to protect our citizens.

[2:14:11] This is not a constitutional challenge.

[2:14:14] This is merely an interpretation to allow a judge to put a deck action out there.

[2:14:20] And it also protects citizens that may be affected as far as standing goes to come up with the money to go ahead and challenge it.

[2:14:26] I think this is a great thing to do.

[2:14:28] I applaud you for putting it forward.

[2:14:30] However, respectfully, if you would not mind changing the motion because I believe our staff in the attorney's office needs very clear direction from this board, if that's the way it's going to go, because, quite simply, you know, we need to measure twice, cut once and dot all the T's, dot all the eyes here, and then just put it in a judges hand.

[2:14:49] I think that's probably the best way to do it.

[2:14:50] That's the best way to get the interpretation and I think that's that's one man's opinion so we get our county attorney to weigh in on that because

[2:15:00] We need somebody to sue who are, you know, in disagreement with right now. And so I, all the cases that I've seen has been when the county makes an interpretation, and then the applicant then does the action, the debt action in return. The only debt action I've seen with the county has initiated was against the state, basically saying that it's unconstitutional and challenging the state. I don't know if this board has an appetite to do a debt action with the state. I think you still have the concern of even if you did a debt action against the state and you sued the state.

[2:15:30] You saw the issue of how do you treat the ones locally here?

[2:15:32] They'd still be there.

[2:15:34] So I'm not sure there's a process, we can look into it,

[2:15:36] if there's a process for us to initiate a deck action versus-

[2:15:39] In other words, if we eliminate those zones,

[2:15:44] then that-

[2:15:45] And if they come to us, then they're going to say,

[2:15:47] wait a minute, you've done that a league of the day.

[2:15:49] And then they go to the judge and ask,

[2:15:50] can't judge what are our rights.

[2:15:51] I want to be very clear, if I may just jump in and share real quick.

[2:15:54] My ask and commissioners and that your motion might be different,

[2:15:57] But to preempt any sort of, and to make it very clear, any applications that come in under OUE-RE1 or residential classifications that you, your department, Josh, the OCA, you file legal action immediately do not pass go, I mean you pass go do it and make sure that you get a judge's determination on a declaratory action for these zoning determinations on these products, that's what I was looking forward to do, that was going to be my motion in the future, that's where I am.

[2:16:26] I'm not necessarily concerned with, you know, anything subsequent to that, I think we need to get ahead of this.

[2:16:32] Our public is, I mean, Commissioner Knight, after last week, I don't know how many, with yours, I've had dozens of conversations from individuals in our community that are, I rate, they're in the dark on this, and this is an opportunity, I think, and there's three other communities that I had researched that are not expanding into those zone categories.

[2:16:51] And I believe, Josh, and Jonathan, this is a question for both of you when the

[2:16:55] initial 2023 live local act came through.

[2:16:58] What was our determination at that point?

[2:17:00] That's a question.

[2:17:02] We're guarding what?

[2:17:02] On the OUE, OUE, RE-1-7.

[2:17:06] What's that?

[2:17:06] The definition was that it was based on the district heading.

[2:17:10] And so back then, it was based on it being a commercial industrial heading.

[2:17:13] The reaction was the definitions changed to say commercial codes and any district

[2:17:18] that has other for-profit uses.

[2:17:21] And so it's basically the change in 25 was changing the definition of industrial and commercial.

[2:17:25] So I mean, our interpretation in 23 from, you know, county staff here was that the OUE RE1 and residential was not included, right?

[2:17:34] 25, I think the opinions change and you might have some notes, hold on a second, wait a second.

[2:17:39] You might have some notes and some memos to go back and re-look at there, right?

[2:17:44] But in the strictest determination of, at least from my perspective, what this needs to be,

[2:17:48] and other communities are doing it, and Commissioner Smith to your point to protect our public, I believe it may not pass, and I'm willing to go ahead and go through it to try to push it through, but we need to be able to clearly define and to give you direction as Jonathan, you want direction from this board and policy that we give you direction and Josh as the county attorney, that any application under these just file suit on it, appropriate legal action, that's your world, and get a judge's determination immediately.

[2:18:15] That's not how that works though, so to have a deck, I mean, what you're asking for is an advisory opinion.

[2:18:19] You're asking the courts to do an advisory opinion on how it applies.

[2:18:24] If you, to do a deck action, a deck judgment, you can't ask for an advisory opinion.

[2:18:28] You have to basically have a controversy.

[2:18:30] So what's the controversy?

[2:18:32] And so that's why I'm asking you guys, if you want to interpret and not include RE1.

[2:18:36] And I'd say all open use districts, not the limited to OUE, but all open use districts.

[2:18:40] I think it was the intent.

[2:18:42] That would be the first step.

[2:18:43] And that's what happened with the plant city one you guys mentioned last time is they said it doesn't apply in that district and then the applicant

[2:18:50] When did the DAC action you have to have a controversy first?

[2:18:53] Just be clear we wouldn't accept an application then it was in one of those districts, correct?

[2:18:59] Well, that's what I guess that's what we're asking you now after the last board meeting you guys wanted a memo on do we have to accept that R.E.

[2:19:04] One and open use districts, qualifying or live local the memo on Friday kind of explains a process to where this board could make that policy interpretation

[2:19:11] No, we don't want those to include it.

[2:19:14] I think you're both saying that, if I may, I'm both saying the same thing.

[2:19:17] It's just a process to get there, if I understand correctly.

[2:19:21] It's that we wouldn't file the action.

[2:19:24] By definition, you will have directed me and my staff on how to interpret it.

[2:19:30] All of them would be not viewed as eligible under lived local.

[2:19:35] The applicant would be notified of that by default because you've given us that policy

[2:19:38] direction, and then they would have the opportunity to file that.

[2:19:42] If they wanted to, or they could just let it, you know.

[2:19:44] I think that gets you to the same spot.

[2:19:47] Yeah, if it goes into a DAC action, I think that's how we get there.

[2:19:52] It is, because it would be so important.

[2:19:54] It's okay.

[2:19:55] Yeah, I just think it needs to be very clear if the board decides that you guys have the

[2:20:00] understanding that OUE, RE1, and residential 2, right?

[2:20:04] We need a judges interpretation filed from the applicant to make sure that, I mean,

[2:20:08] I mean, there's no case history really here up until a couple of cases that we have recently.

[2:20:12] So, we need to know because we're the ones that are forward facing out in the community, you know, talking to the public.

[2:20:17] And keep in mind other jurisdictions that it's very specific of what your districts allow.

[2:20:22] And so, if all of our, you know, RE1 and open use districts didn't allow any for profit use without going through a special exception,

[2:20:29] then they would not apply there, be very clear.

[2:20:31] Here, it's interesting just because we do have some uses that are non-residential that are allowed in those districts.

[2:20:38] And so that's where the question becomes, you know, and so if the board wanted to go down the path,

[2:20:45] the county's argument would be that despite RE1 and OU, and Open Use Districts allowing

[2:20:49] sub-non-residential uses by right, the purpose of the district's show that they are not

[2:20:53] zoned for commercial industrial and mixed use as laid out in the Liberal local act.

[2:20:57] And so that's the motion as I understand it.

[2:20:59] Somebody submits an application in that category, it's denied.

[2:21:04] It's not accepted, they're notified, that this is not accepted.

[2:21:06] Then they can say, well, we believe it is, we're going to sue you, and the judge will weigh in on it.

[2:21:12] Yes, and that's what happened in Plaint City, and I don't, and that's what the ones we've seen that

[2:21:17] had how it's happened, timing-wise.

[2:21:20] If it's the will of the board, the motion passes, does this affect any current applications?

[2:21:25] I don't know how many we have that are at level three.

[2:21:27] Yes, so right now, nobody has submitted for a certain development, which is where the,

[2:21:35] you know,

[2:21:36] to that sign of element process, and so if the board voted today that, again, the policy interpretation

[2:21:41] would be that the RE1 and Open Use Districts do not qualify for development under-live

[2:21:45] local act, then there will be an email that has a notification that goes out to every

[2:21:50] applicant in there in those districts saying these do not qualify under-live local act.

[2:21:55] And that would then be the trigger for them if they wanted to then challenge us in a

[2:21:59] deck action or some other legal action.

[2:22:01] Just motion, when would that, what was the process of getting that in force?

[2:22:05] So I would say because it's a policy, it's a really a policy interpretation,

[2:22:10] and so it would be effective right now if the board made that motion.

[2:22:13] Mr. Knight, are you still on the board?

[2:22:14] No, I think Commissioner Cushing has answered my question by your question was my concern,

[2:22:18] I'm here for my citizens are, they're following the portal, we're trying to be transparent,

[2:22:23] and it appears to them as just being pushed through.

[2:22:27] And Commissioner Cushing is a great question to ask that.

[2:22:29] I think Mark's motion will be where we need to be, and it gives clear direction to our county staff.

[2:22:38] So I support the motion, allows Commissioner Nunder felt like he need to add something to it or modify it.

[2:22:44] If you're good with it, that I'm good with the motion too, thank you.

[2:22:47] Thank you.

[2:22:47] Good with the motion, Mr. President, okay, commissioners, last.

[2:22:50] Thank you, I think the thing that we have to go back to, though, is I think this board still would like to see workshops throughout the communities.

[2:22:57] North, South, Central that are informative, that say this is what is in front of us.

[2:23:05] This is how it came about, this is because I mean, when I'm out and about and

[2:23:09] meeting with all my constituents, they're asking lots of questions about how do this come around,

[2:23:14] how does it happen, who approves it, who doesn't approve it.

[2:23:17] And so I think those informational workshops are just as critical to continue to be informative,

[2:23:23] to continue to be very transparent that staff says, here's how it came about, here's who has purview, who doesn't have purview.

[2:23:32] And I think those being scheduled, no different than our stormwater workshops that say, here's what we're doing, here's how we've got here.

[2:23:40] So that historically people have the opportunity, if they choose to participate, they can understand that, or it can be recorded and put on electronically.

[2:23:50] I just think it's very helpful.

[2:23:53] Okay, so I have a motion and a second, any further discussion?

[2:23:57] Okay, seeing none, are you clear with a motion?

[2:24:03] Maybe.

[2:24:08] No, no, no, no, he agreed to the second, the motion as presented by Commissioner Smith.

[2:24:14] Okay, just real quick, Chair, if I may, could you read the exact motion back to me, I just want to real quick one last time.

[2:24:22] I

[2:24:26] would say that the board's policy decision regarding the statutory interpretation of the

[2:24:38] Level Local Act would be that RE1 in all open use districts are not qualifying districts under

[2:24:44] Level Local Act.

[2:24:48] Okay.

[2:24:50] All right, so I'm going to support the motion.

[2:24:52] and I do, we need to be very aware of the fact that our attorney has indicated he believes

[2:24:58] it's a difficult argument and that we may be on the hook for the fees associated with

[2:25:04] that.

[2:25:05] So just going into it, recognize that I think we need to have eyes wide open on that.

[2:25:09] The other question along those lines is, is July 1st that change is correct?

[2:25:14] So this would only deal with issues that have been in the city?

[2:25:19] So I think we have a motion now, I think we might need a new second just because we re-stated it.

[2:25:24] Okay. All right. Well, let's go ahead and call a question.

[2:25:27] I think we need a second first.

[2:25:28] Well, let's have a second. I think we're a little confused over here. Sorry about that.

[2:25:31] All right. We have a second.

[2:25:33] You're the second?

[2:25:35] Two people have shaken their heads. So, which head is it?

[2:25:41] Joe?

[2:25:41] Commissioner Nunder.

[2:25:43] Commissioner Nunder.

[2:25:44] Okay.

[2:25:48] That's...

[2:25:48] As clerk got that?

[2:25:50] Yes, we're set.

[2:25:51] Okay.

[2:25:52] All right, so we have a motion.

[2:25:53] We have a second.

[2:25:55] Go ahead and call the question.

[2:25:56] All in favor, aye.

[2:25:57] Chair votes, aye, that moves forward.

[2:26:00] Okay, that was under actually Commissioner Nights' report.

[2:26:03] Yeah, and then so I'll be done with it.

[2:26:06] Do we want to do a motion that Commissioner Mass,

[2:26:09] and I discussed about having staff go out

[2:26:13] and explain the decisions to community workshops,

[2:26:17] and I would make a motion that live local decisions that staff will go to community workshops and provide interpretation information of live local upon their decision of live local act.

[2:26:33] Okay.

[2:26:36] Could I question clarification? Yeah. So you talked about workshops like or notifications

[2:26:44] neighborhood things like the stormwater. So we're going to what we're talking about is a community

[2:26:50] workshop or community informational meeting on live local projects, but not specific projects

[2:26:56] correct. Just just informational about the whole live local process, correct? Okay. So that's

[2:27:05] It's clear I can serve the interim this excuse me commissioner cussing that's why I didn't say individual petition

[2:27:10] Okay, I just want to clear that yeah, so that's the motion. All right. Thank you. All right

[2:27:14] So we have a motion and a second go ahead and call a question on favor. I I share votes. I that moves forward as well

[2:27:21] Okay, anything further commission tonight

[2:27:24] Okay, Commissioner Nunder. It's all been taken care of. Okay

[2:27:29] All right, and I have no further reports will move on to item 24 administration

[2:27:39] Okay. Let's move on to a public hearing section of our agenda. We have one here, public hearing item number 26,

[2:27:49] Parks, Recreation, and National Resources. Public hearing to adopt ordinance number 2026-008 for a referendum election relating to the extension of the environmentally sensitive lands and parkland program.

[2:28:01] 0.25 mill ad valorem tax for an additional 20 year period and further relating to a bond

[2:28:08] referendum for the issuance of bonds and an aggregate principle amount not to exceed $250

[2:28:14] million. And for that, we have Kim. Kim, welcome.

[2:28:19] Good morning commissioners. For the record, Kim Huberger, Senior Manager with Parks, Recreation

[2:28:25] and Natural Resources. I'm here this morning to present information on this ordinance for

[2:28:30] for the referendum election to extend the environmentally sensitive lands protection

[2:28:34] program and the park land program.

[2:28:36] And before I begin, I would like to recognize that we have several of our partners here

[2:28:42] with the Trust for Public Land, Big Waters Land Trust, and the Gulf Coast Community Foundation

[2:28:48] who are here today and can assist with any technical questions that you may have.

[2:29:00] I know you're all familiar with the current programs.

[2:29:02] I'll provide just some brief background information on the programs for context.

[2:29:08] The environmentally sensitive lands protection program, also known as ESLIP, was first created

[2:29:14] in 1999 through the passage of a voter referendum.

[2:29:20] The 1999 referendum authorized a 20-year advalorem tax of up to 0.25 mills that would fund the ESLIP

[2:29:30] through 2019. The referendum also authorized at that time up to $53 million in bonding.

[2:29:39] At that time, the S-LOC, the Environment, Sensitive Lands Oversight Committee was created to

[2:29:45] advise the county commission and the S-LOC was first established with 18 protection priority

[2:29:50] sites that were identified throughout the county. That has since grown to 33 sites. These

[2:29:56] These are identified as geographical areas of interest.

[2:30:00] Based on ecological criteria.

[2:30:08] The environmentally sensitive lands protection program was so successful

[2:30:11] that within six years, the second referendum was authorized by the board to extend the program and

[2:30:19] add a neighborhood parkland acquisition program component. That was held in November 2005 and passed

[2:30:26] with 80% majority of voters. This included continuing the environmentally sensitive lands protection program

[2:30:34] for 10 years through 2029 and also expanded the scope to add the Parkland program which was really

[2:30:40] added to allow the acquisition of Parklands that provide water access, trails, and kind of the

[2:30:46] more urban green space that didn't meet the criteria of the SLIP program. That referendum also

[2:30:52] authorized up to 250 million in bonding capacity for the programs.

[2:31:07] Since the Environmental

[2:31:08] The family sensitive lands protection program began in 1999.

[2:31:12] The county has protected over 100 properties of approximately 42,000 acres.

[2:31:21] One of the most recognizable that you'll all remember is the recent 100th acquisition

[2:31:25] of Camp Venice or this in a cave and campground.

[2:31:29] Some other examples are red bug slew preserve, the deer prey creek preserve, and the old Mayaka

[2:31:35] preserve as well as multiple conservation easements such as the Longino Ranch and Carlton Ranch.

[2:31:41] The acquisitions through this program have preserved thousands of acres, safeguarding water

[2:31:48] resources, providing many opportunities for nature-based recreation, environmental education,

[2:31:53] and stewardship.

[2:31:57] Since the addition of the neighborhood parkland acquisition program,

[2:32:02] the county has acquired over 30 properties that expand existing parks, create new parks,

[2:32:07] provide water access and connect people to trails. Some of the notable parkland

[2:32:13] acquisitions are Senator Bob Johnson's Landing, Osprey Junction, Trailhead,

[2:32:17] and even the Bayfront Park Edition up on Longbow Key. This program has provided a

[2:32:22] range of outdoor recreation opportunities through these acquisitions.

[2:32:31] We've

[2:32:31] been working on this process for a while now. In 2023 staff completed a

[2:32:35] department strategic plan item on park referendum planning and at the

[2:32:41] In March, budget workshop that year, the board directed the county administrator to begin planning for a referendum to extend the land acquisition program to be held in 2026.

[2:32:52] In 2024, staff completed a land acquisition and park referendum timeline and implementation plan and last November, our staff provided an update to the board that included staff recommendations for the referendum scope for the board's consideration.

[2:33:07] The

[2:33:14] scope that was presented in November is reflected in the draft ordinance and

[2:33:19] include keeping the up to 0.25 mills ad valorem tax the same as the current program.

[2:33:27] Continuing the environmentally sensitive lands protection program.

[2:33:31] Continuing the neighborhood park land acquisition program with a slight tweak to the name to be the park land acquisition program.

[2:33:37] extending the program for an additional 20 years through 2049 and authorizing a bond

[2:33:43] referendum of up to $250 million in bonding capacity.

[2:33:52] As there were in 1999 and 2005, there will be two ballot questions proposed for this

[2:34:01] referendum.

[2:34:03] The first ballot question is very similar to what was done in 2005.

[2:34:07] live. This includes the advolarm tax of not to exceed 0.25 mills to be continued for 20 years

[2:34:15] through 2049 and to continue the program that would include the acquisition, protection

[2:34:22] and management of environmentally sensitive lands as well as the acquisition and management

[2:34:26] of parklands for conservation and for public recreation.

[2:34:36] And then the second question would be related to the bonding.

[2:34:40] It would be continued for the life of the program in an amount not to exceed $250 million.

[2:34:46] That would be payable from the up to .25 mill advalorem tax.

[2:34:52] This is the same amount as the 2005 referendum and we believe that this amount continues to be appropriate for the current referendum.

[2:34:59] So,

[2:35:04] for next steps, pending adoption by the board, the ordinance would then become effective

[2:35:10] upon filing with the Department of State, and in addition, staff will continue to promote

[2:35:15] community education and awareness of the current successful land acquisition and management

[2:35:20] program is allowed by State Statute.

[2:35:26] This concludes my presentation, and this slide shows the proposed motion and I'm available

[2:35:30] for any questions.

[2:35:33] Okay. Great presentation. Thank you. Do you have a couple of commissioners on the board? Start Commissioner Mast.

[2:35:39] Thank you, Chair. First of all, I want to say what a premier public private partnership this has been and I believe will continue to be.

[2:35:48] I remember when this was first put in place and I know that there are some skeptics and I think we've proven them all wrong.

[2:35:55] For those of you that are here today who are a part of this, you know who you are.

[2:35:58] I thank you for your diligent, relentless pursuit and I thank you for all that you do.

[2:36:06] I just have, I know I preemptive you on this but can you tell us how far we are away

[2:36:12] from being at 40% because I have a goal that I really want to see us get there and I know

[2:36:17] that we have some work to do.

[2:36:19] But I do believe that I will not only be very supportive of this but I would love to make

[2:36:23] the motion for it but I would like to know where we're at and I know we have some additional

[2:36:29] stuff coming on the 21st which I'm super excited about so I don't want to take any thunder for

[2:36:33] anybody but I know there are projections on how long it might take us to get to 40% and hopefully

[2:36:38] that's very quickly so I think we're at like 33, 34. We're currently at just over 34% and we would

[2:36:47] We probably need approximately another 20,000 acres to get to 40% protected within the county.

[2:36:56] That's my goal.

[2:36:56] And that would be county, state, and other plants.

[2:37:00] Yes.

[2:37:01] Okay.

[2:37:02] Thank you, Chair.

[2:37:03] I'll make the motion when necessary.

[2:37:04] Mr. Smith.

[2:37:06] Yeah.

[2:37:06] Well, thank you for the presentation and the efforts of the group that's in the audience.

[2:37:11] As I've stated before, we're on the clock.

[2:37:15] those that believe are overdeveloped, one way to kind of curb that is to make sure that

[2:37:20] we protect the land.

[2:37:22] And so everybody out there listening, please vote for these measures and so anyway, thank

[2:37:29] you and thanks for all that are trying to make this happen.

[2:37:32] Sure, none there.

[2:37:33] Yeah, thank you, Chair.

[2:37:34] Just thank you to staff.

[2:37:35] Great presentation.

[2:37:36] Happy to support this as it moves forward.

[2:37:38] Legally, when and where I can talk about it and not get in trouble, and certainly acknowledge, I know right after, but Christine, thank you both, your true patriots for our community, you love our home, and that means a lot to me, love our home, too, and this is a big step in the right direction for our kids and our grandkids and the fun that we have here, so thank you all very much, and I'm happy to support it.

[2:38:03] I didn't want to be left out wrong, so I just, no, I just, I see John Thacks and sitting back there and

[2:38:11] what this county commission did well before the five of us got here, the vision that was there to start this program and the community's support is, I just find myself honored to be sitting here today and being one to support the motion when the commissioner must makes it, that we continue on with this and protecting our community and protecting this county and making those specials that it really is.

[2:38:32] and so thanks for what you guys are doing.

[2:38:34] Thank you for the presentation.

[2:38:39] Okay, yeah, I mean, I've spoken to this many times.

[2:38:43] I just love this program.

[2:38:44] What a great success.

[2:38:46] Thrilled to be able to support it

[2:38:47] and especially great to work with this group

[2:38:50] who's done so much for Ceresota County

[2:38:51] and the preservation of our beautiful

[2:38:54] and natural environment.

[2:38:55] Thank you for the work you do.

[2:38:56] I do have some cards on this, so I'll go ahead

[2:38:59] and move to public testimony.

[2:39:01] I'm not sure I do have the three of you back there as cards are you going to speak to this or you hear us a resource?

[2:39:09] You're going to come forward.

[2:39:10] Okay. All right. So I have Lordes Ramirez, Christine Johnson, Pigeon Handrahan, and John Thachston.

[2:39:25] Right. So I said, are you?

[2:39:29] Good morning. My name is Lordes Ramirez. I'm here represented in protection as the key.

[2:39:33] I want to begin by asserting us something fundamental.

[2:39:36] My right to stand here and speak today. Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,

[2:39:42] I have the right to petition my government for redress of grievances and to speak openly

[2:39:46] on matters that affect my community, that does not disappear because there's a settlement

[2:39:51] agreement. It does not disappear because their decisions are difficult, and it certainly

[2:39:56] does not disappear when public funds and public lands are involved. I'm here today because

[2:40:01] the public deserves transparency, accountability, and another voice in any

[2:40:06] both the parkland program.

[2:40:07] This refers to the potential exchange of the $1.4 million publicly-loan parcel,

[2:40:13] land that was purchased with taxpayer dollars, for lots that are according to

[2:40:17] the 2025 property appraisers websites were valued at above $84,000,

[2:40:22] and are widely understood to be unbuildable.

[2:40:26] This information is easily verifiable on the county website,

[2:40:30] And speaking about it is not only appropriate as we discussed the ballot referendum, it is necessary.

[2:40:36] Because this parcel at 162B Road was not acquired casually.

[2:40:41] It was purchased through the neighborhood Parkland Program.

[2:40:44] A program that funded by taxpayers for

[2:40:46] the very specific purpose to preserve and protect the lands that matter to the community.

[2:40:52] And to be clear, this program has done a great deal of good.

[2:40:56] It has preserved important lands, protected our natural environment, enhanced the quality

[2:41:02] of life for residents across the county, and it reflects a shared community value that

[2:41:08] some places are worth protecting for future generations.

[2:41:12] And now you're asking the voters to extend that program to 2049, and here's an important

[2:41:18] question the public should ask.

[2:41:20] How can we trust that these lands will be protected if they're traded away like that?

[2:41:25] And what about the paying significantly more for the sticky point project using neighborhood park land funds?

[2:41:33] Are we using our funds as efficiently and responsibly as the public expects?

[2:41:39] This is bigger than one or two parcels, this is about public trust.

[2:41:43] If land purchase for conservation is traded for less, or if we overpay for land,

[2:41:48] then it raises serious questions about whether the intent of this program is actually being upheld by our county.

[2:41:53] because the voters need to know as we continue to fund it, how it works.

[2:41:59] So I'm asking you as you consider to move forward and promote this ballot referendum.

[2:42:03] I'm asking you to uphold that promise.

[2:42:06] Protect the integrity of the neighborhood parkland program, ensure that any lands purchased

[2:42:11] reflex fair value is protected and provide the clear public benefit.

[2:42:17] Because once public trust is lost, it's not easily regained.

[2:42:21] And while we support this ballot referendum, we just want to make sure you do things right.

[2:42:27] Thank you.

[2:42:28] Okay.

[2:42:29] Thank you.

[2:42:29] Christine Johnson.

[2:42:36] Good morning, commissioners.

[2:42:37] I'm Christine, Provost Johnson, President of Big Waters Land Trust, and I want to thank

[2:42:41] you so very much for placing this on today's agenda.

[2:42:45] The referendum for November's ballot to extend the environmentally sensitive lands and

[2:42:49] parkland programs, as you all have said, and as you all have vowed, is so important to

[2:42:54] our community.

[2:42:55] You know how wildly successful these programs are and how extremely popular they are with Sarasota County citizens.

[2:43:02] You heard that in 20 2005 it passed by 80%.

[2:43:07] Also the Legacy Trail initiative passed in 2018, another very similar initiative by 71%.

[2:43:14] And Big Waters Land Trust was part of both of those and we will continue to be a strategic partner with Sarasota County.

[2:43:20] Big Waters has protected over 20,000 acres as we partnered with Sarasota County to

[2:43:25] conserve over 9,000 of our 20,000 acres through the out-the-life cycle of the

[2:43:31] environmentally sensitive lands and parkland programs.

[2:43:34] Again, on this ballot measure, Big Waters is partnering with Trust for Public Land,

[2:43:39] Gulf Coast Community Foundation, and many citizens to conserve these lands in public open places.

[2:43:46] We've created a pack that we will educate and advocate for the successful pack passage of the 20-year extension of these programs as well as its bonding which helps us quicken the pace of land conservation.

[2:44:00] It is said that society is defined not only by what it creates but by what it refuses to destroy.

[2:44:08] Sarasota County is defined in great part by the 34% of its properties that this county has

[2:44:16] conserved. Land refused to destroy and we only have a short time window to save the remaining

[2:44:22] natural lands which we just understood is 20,000 acres to get us to that 40%. It's a great goal.

[2:44:30] So thank you very much for putting it on the ballot. Thank you for vowing your support of this

[2:44:35] program, and know that big water's land trust and others here today will ensure that it passes

[2:44:40] overwhelmingly this November. Thank you.

[2:44:44] Thank you. Thank you for the work you do in helping us make that possible.

[2:44:56] Thank you, Chair Cuttsinger, members of the County Commission.

[2:45:00] My name is Peggy Inhandrahan, I'm with Trust for Public Land. I really want to just thank you for the leadership that you continue to show and protecting natural Florida, and especially this beautiful God-given place of Sarasota County. I have worked with about 50 local governments across the southeast, and if they were a graduating class, I think I'm going to call Sarasota County one of the valedictorians. There are a few covaledictorians, but the couple of things that I've seen here in addition to the incredible

[2:45:29] All metrics of your voters saying yes multiple times on these types of measures.

[2:45:34] And we, as you know, chaircut singers and seeers so deeply involved as a citizen at the time.

[2:45:39] We worked very hard with the same groups, big waters land trusts to Gulf Coast Community Foundation.

[2:45:45] And in that case, friends of the legacy trail to help pass the legacy trail referendum.

[2:45:49] What I was so impressed with at this county government and it's a credit to Mr.

[2:45:53] Louis and all of the staff that work here is how quickly the county executed on that project.

[2:45:59] There was a vision created, there was a referendum brought forward, citizens voted overwhelmingly forward.

[2:46:06] And then the county delivered really quickly in partnership with local partners, private funds that were brought together,

[2:46:13] state funds that were brought together, and of course, working with neighborhoods and communities.

[2:46:18] So that execution is what I think really sets you all apart as an incredible organization.

[2:46:25] Trust Republic Land continues to work here in Sarasota County.

[2:46:28] We're continuing through the work of Charles Hines, so I know you know is working out the Florida Gulf Coast Trail and we have additional connections that we're working on here in Sarasota County.

[2:46:39] But this environmental, environmentally sensitive and park land program is a really broader vision than just the trails.

[2:46:45] It does include trails, but includes all of the natural areas, potentially agricultural areas.

[2:46:52] Everyone should see themselves in this picture, whether they're rural residents, suburban residents,

[2:46:58] or urban residents, or something here for them, and the accountability associated with the tight fiscal controls

[2:47:05] and citizen oversight that you've implemented are really to your credit.

[2:47:09] So again, I want to thank you for what you're doing here.

[2:47:13] We will be here with you through election night as you know

[2:47:16] their strict

[2:47:20] Controls on the county expending funds you all still have your first amendment rights to speak out in favor of it

[2:47:26] And we know that you will but thank you again on behalf of the trust republic land and all of us that are here to support you

[2:47:33] well, thank you and

[2:47:35] Yeah, it does bring back great memories and

[2:47:38] Looking forward to the same kind of celebration at the end of this

[2:47:43] So, thank you for helping Mr. Thakson, I did that backwards, I should have had you speak and then let Pagin be the final speaker to kind of cap it off, you know what I mean?

[2:47:53] I think that would have been the right thing to do.

[2:47:56] But.

[2:47:56] I agree.

[2:47:57] No, I agree.

[2:47:59] Yeah, Pagin is amazing.

[2:48:01] She's a great partner for the record, Mr. Chairman.

[2:48:04] My name is John Thachston, and I'm here on behalf of the Gulf Coast Community Foundation.

[2:48:09] And we appreciate the opportunity to have been asked by the county to provide technical assistance

[2:48:15] to get the passage of this referendum.

[2:48:18] In addition, the Gulf Coast Community Board of Directors has dedicated Monday to

[2:48:24] outreach education and advocacy to support the passage of the referendum.

[2:48:30] time and again the voters and the citizens have said that protecting environmental lands and creating new parks is a top priority for this community.

[2:48:41] That's because the community and this board understands that conserved open space not only protects habitat for wildlife, threatened and endangered species and recreation for human.

[2:48:51] It also provides for the purification of air and runoff before entering into Sarasota Bay, as well as stormwater,

[2:49:01] storing stormwater that protects homes from flooding.

[2:49:04] While you will not find the environmentally sensitive lands and parkland's properties on the county's inventory of capital infrastructure assets.

[2:49:13] But in terms of water treatment, flood prevention, clean air,

[2:49:18] These land investments are one of the county's most valuable utilities.

[2:49:25] Seriously, the county's environmentally sensitive land program is one of the most successful in the state.

[2:49:30] It is enthusiastically supported and trusted by its citizens.

[2:49:33] It is a market-driven, volunteer, non-regulatory program, and we encourage the board to adopt ordinance number 26-0-0-8.

[2:49:45] and let's let the voters decide. Thank you John. Okay that was last car ahead on

[2:49:52] that so I'll go ahead and any further questions? Seeing none I'll close the

[2:49:59] public hearing and look for a motion and I will get to Commissioner Mass on

[2:50:06] that. Is there anything further with the motion on the screen for us if you

[2:50:11] She had one. I think the elbows up right now. The wolf has taken over.

[2:50:20] As you can say, the proof has presented.

[2:50:29] There you go.

[2:50:30] I make a motion to adopt number 2026-048 for a referendum election relating to the extension

[2:50:36] of the environmentally sensitive lands and Parkland program with a .25 millage advalorant tax

[2:50:43] for an additional 20 year period and further relating to a bond referendum for the issuance

[2:50:48] of bonds and an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $250 million.

[2:50:53] Motion to have a second.

[2:50:55] Second by Commissioner Smith, any further discussion?

[2:50:59] Seeing none, I'll call the question.

[2:51:01] On favor, aye.

[2:51:02] Aye.

[2:51:03] Chair votes, aye, that moves forward unanimously.

[2:51:06] All right, thank you.

[2:51:08] And thank you for the presentation.

[2:51:11] OK, with that, that was our last public hearing.

[2:51:16] So now we'll move to item 27, which is our closing open to the public. I do have two cards.

[2:51:24] Mary looks like another one. I'll read all three names here and make you way forward.

[2:51:30] Okay, we have Mary Beth Jones, Lordus Ramirez, and Christopher J. Oriel.

[2:51:41] You will have three minutes.

[2:51:47] Good morning. Yes. Good morning, commissioner. Some Mary Beth Jones.

[2:51:50] I signed a speaker's card. I live in Pennington place at 7-7-6. I'm going to speak in the mic. Thank you.

[2:52:00] I was out along Minnesota Beach Road again yesterday taking some measurements. Since we cannot get any specific information about how the county is planning to straighten this right turn lane, 150 feet.

[2:52:14] This is facing out to the dangerous intersection there at 7-7-6 and this

[2:52:20] picture I hope you can see where that curve is. So it's out there with my

[2:52:26] measuring tape yesterday. Walked this whole distance, came up to where we're

[2:52:33] down here at the storm drain.

[2:52:36] 12 feet. This is just my guess from where I would

[2:52:40] assume they're going to do this extension.

[2:52:43] We're 12 feet here from the sidewalk now.

[2:52:46] And how much farther if they tear up the sidewalk

[2:52:48] is that going to come over to these homes?

[2:52:52] It's just crazy.

[2:52:54] This never should be happening.

[2:52:56] My neighbor came out with a welcome sign

[2:52:58] because people are already coming through our villas,

[2:53:01] and this is only going to compound it.

[2:53:07] Yesterday, let me use my other one.

[2:53:10] Yesterday in the mail.

[2:53:11] We receive, we receive more good news, we're going to spend another summer fighting more development while the snowbirds are gone.

[2:53:22] I can name two individuals behind the change from keyway to Manusota Beach Road that knew this is exactly what was going to happen.

[2:53:32] I wish big waters land trusts would come in and buy this property.

[2:53:36] They want to take 18 acres which is mostly wetlands and somehow build 110 unit apartment community.

[2:53:44] with a pool in the clubhouse.

[2:53:48] I wrote cannot take any more of this.

[2:53:52] And it's just non-stop.

[2:53:53] Everything that's left that's green is getting bought up.

[2:53:58] We're just over it.

[2:54:01] We're still against this whole thing.

[2:54:03] It needs to go back to key way.

[2:54:06] This intersection has been bad from day one.

[2:54:10] Ken Stokes redesigned two years ago

[2:54:12] And the current design are not safe, do not take into account resident's homes,

[2:54:18] quality of life, property values, or safety.

[2:54:22] Go back to key way.

[2:54:26] What else do I have to say?

[2:54:28] I guess that's it.

[2:54:30] I just wish this would stop.

[2:54:32] There's still time.

[2:54:34] Thank you.

[2:54:35] Thank you, Lotus Ramirez.

[2:54:42] Good morning.

[2:54:44] I hate to bring up the Live Local Act again, but I need to after this discussion.

[2:54:48] And the one thing that I didn't hear because I know commissioned a new wonder mentioned

[2:54:52] all residential districts and you've limited to the RE and I'm really concerned about the

[2:54:58] other residential districts.

[2:55:00] Okay.

[2:55:00] We'll correct that.

[2:55:01] We'll come back after we're done here and we'll revisit that.

[2:55:05] Oh.

[2:55:05] Okay.

[2:55:05] Great.

[2:55:05] Well, you just got the packet that I have put forth and you notice on the last one in the city

[2:55:10] of Sarasota and they actually list which districts apply and I thought that's really easy

[2:55:16] for anybody to go on the website, look at the live local and see which districts, because

[2:55:22] PUDs obviously is a mixed use and that qualifies for live local. But the way the city of Sarasota

[2:55:28] wrote it out, I thought it would make it very clear. So I was concerned about the rest especially

[2:55:34] since you proved the recent ADUs and all residential districts at the for-profit venture and that

[2:55:41] that might affect other districts, so thank you.

[2:55:44] Okay, thank you.

[2:55:46] Christopher and apologize for mispronouncing your last name,

[2:55:51] I think, go ahead and give us your name.

[2:55:53] Okay, all right.

[2:55:54] This is a letter sent recently to you folks

[2:55:57] on a commission by Jonathan Edwards, the Bell of Hew.

[2:56:02] He's an owner and CEO of Glades and Bay Construction

[2:56:06] incorporated.

[2:56:06] So, basically, he opposes Manisorge Beach Road expansion, and he says, I am writing to you today not only as a resident of this community, but as a fifth generation Floridian in a local builder, investor and developer, having spent my life and career navigating the unique landscape of Florida's construction and real estate industry.

[2:56:29] I am formally stating my strenuous opposition to the $15 million plus expansion and paving of Manasota Beach Road.

[2:56:37] As someone who understands the mechanics of development, it is clear that the project offers no tangible benefit to the existing residents or the local economy.

[2:56:49] Instead, it serves as a taxpayer-funded subsidy for the box developers and mass-scale residential projects like Wall and Park.

[2:56:57] This expansion facilitates the rapid destruction of our remaining precious resources to line the pockets of outside interests while leaving locals to deal with the permanent fallout.

[2:57:09] My opposition is noted in following critical concerns.

[2:57:12] We have severe hydrological impact and runoff.

[2:57:16] Converting a real road into a impervious thoroughfare will fundamentally alter the areas hydrology.

[2:57:23] Natural groundwater allows for 80-90% water infiltration, however paving nearly 100% becomes runoff.

[2:57:33] In a low-lying coastal zone, this final water has nowhere to go but an adjacent private properties.

[2:57:39] Elvenian road by four feet will effectively create a levee, trapping storm surge and rain water

[2:57:46] on residential land, leading to chaos, chronic flooding, and property devaluation.

[2:57:51] Number two, taxic groundwater and chemical exposure.

[2:57:55] When we're going to have 22,000 plus cars daily going on this road, you're going to have

[2:58:00] leaching toxins from the pavement and from tires and vehicle residue, oils, other things.

[2:58:08] And it's going to get into a groundwater.

[2:58:10] Water is precious here in Florida, especially with the drought.

[2:58:16] Exploitation of infrastructure and residential expense from a developer's perspective, I recognize this for what it is.

[2:58:25] The offloading of infrastructure costs from large-scale developers and to the public.

[2:58:31] We are sacrificed in the old Florida character, the very things that makes Anglewood desirable to accommodate high density box development.

[2:58:39] that do not respect the ecological or biological limits of this land.

[2:58:45] The displacement of protective species like the growth for tortoise is not just an inconvenience.

[2:58:51] It is a violation of the environmental stewardess we owe to future generations.

[2:58:56] Okay, thank you.

[2:58:58] All right, we do have one of these business to do.

[2:59:02] We've got a little bit of clarification on the motion, so I'm going to go ahead and

[2:59:06] I have Josh read it as it should be presented and then it can be just corrected as presented.

[2:59:11] Yeah, I think there's a discussion with all residential districts, not just RE.

[2:59:16] So I think we get into two ways.

[2:59:18] The work and just do a motion now just include residential not RE or

[2:59:22] I might just be cleaner just to do a whole new motion, which would be the board's policy decision regarding the statutory interpretation is to have the county treat all residential rural and open use districts as not being qualifying districts under the local act.

[2:59:36] So moved to the motion to clarify and who made the second commission?

[2:59:40] No, I don't care.

[2:59:41] Mr. Knight, go ahead and second to that.

[2:59:44] So any further discussion?

[2:59:48] Seeing none, call the question. All in favor.

[2:59:50] Aye. Chair votes aye. That moves forward unanimously.

[2:59:53] Okay. Is that?

[2:59:54] Yep.

[2:59:55] All right.

[2:59:56] Okay.

[2:59:57] With that, there being no further.

[3:00:01] We are adjourned.

[3:00:02] I'm trying to get the left side a little more.

County Commission - 2026 — BCC-Regular

Agenda

Transcript