Good morning.

Got the memo too.

Oh, yeah, I got it.

Black and white.

Kidding.

Look.

I'm sticking with black and white until I get to get that yes.

What did you do?

I didn't have a pacemaker event.

Are you kidding me?

Emergency.

Oh my God.

My doctor called me here.

And said, listen very carefully to me.

Stop what you're doing.

Oh my god.

Folded the ER.

Check in and stay overnight, and tomorrow you will have a heart stopped even for eleven seconds.

All right.

But they didn't call her till the next morning.

Right.

We all said oh my gosh.

All right, go ahead, Mayor.

Okay.

We ready?

Okay.

All right, everybody.

I'm gonna call to order this uh Monday, September 15th, 2025, regular city commission meeting, and call on the city auditor and clerk for the invocation.

Heavenly Father, we affirm our faith in the we seek your divine strength, wisdom, and guidance in the deliberations that affect the lives of each of the citizens of our community.

In the name we pray, amen.

All right, and Commissioner Aaron Cox, if you would please do a pledge.

I pledge allegiance.

And to the republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice.

Are there any changes to the order of the day?

Yes, Mayor.

I have a couple here.

Thank you.

Um please move agenda item number two point one presentation rate 2024 annual report for the intersection safety program for scheduled presentations to new business as agenda item number 12.4 per the request of interim city manager bullet.

Please move agenda item number two point two presentation rate 2024 annual report for the school zone safety program from scheduled presentations to new business as agenda item number 12.5 per the request of city manager bullet.

Also, please remove agenda item number eleven point one public hearing rate, proposed ordinance number twenty-five, five five seven nine to rezone that certain parcel of real property totaling approximately one point two seven plus minus acres, located on the south side of Alderman Street, bordered by Hudson Avenue to the West Pine Street Lane to the south, and road place to east from the residential multiple family five RMF zone district to the downtown Edge D T E zone district per the request of City Interim City Manager Bullet.

And that's all Mayor.

Okay.

Could you repeat what the first two that were what was changed?

The first two, um, they were originally in scheduled presentations.

Um we found that that they had to be a new business, so we moved to this.

And you've already got them moved.

Yes, we're already got them moved.

All right, that's that's what I thought.

Okay, thank you very much.

And do we excuse me?

We're good.

Commissioner Albrecht, did you?

Well, I was anticipating what you were gonna say next.

Yes.

Oh, okay.

That's what I was.

Okay.

Uh the approval the approval of the proposed agenda schedule.

Move approval.

Second.

All right, Commissioner Ulrich moved approval of the proposed agenda schedule.

Um Vice Mayor Trice seconded if you'll vote, Commissioners.

Okay, now go ahead.

Thank you.

Is that your vote?

Yes, it is.

All right.

Um the motion is passed.

So let me get this.

Okay, and we'll start with the um pledge of public conduct, Miss Griggs, and we're gonna go to citizens input concerning city topics.

Thank you.

We may disagree, but we will be respectful to one another.

We will direct all comments to issues.

We will not engage in personal attacks.

All right.

We've got one person signed up to speak.

Uh Kelly Brown, if you want to come forward.

Is she here?

Okay, there she is.

Good morning.

My name is Kelly Brown.

I am a resident of Sarasota in the neighborhood of Glasby Park.

I am here this morning to speak on the behalf of the Coalition of City Neighborhood Associations, representing over 20,000 households within the city.

Regarding the special events ordinance that is currently being worked on by city staff.

C C ⁇ A board members representing districts one, two, and three met with city staff to review their outreach to residents affected by the ordinance recommendations, as well as the plan changes within the ordinance.

As with any ordinance, there are many opinions and ideas for creating CCNA believes that the updated ordinance that city staff will be presenting took into account the needs of the downtown residents, St.

Armand's residents, and city neighborhood residents, as well as keeping the downtown alive area alive with opportunity for growth.

CCNA supports the ordinance that will come before you for approval at a future commission meeting.

And we would ask that the City Commission give direction to city staff to speed up the process to get the sound ordinance done.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

All right.

Um before we go into the rest of the agenda, um, I wanted to have you know acknowledge the passing of uh legendary Booker High School coach Fred Gilmore.

Um he was an iconic figure and would read what was uh published about him, an iconic figure in the history of Booker High School and the city of Sarasota.

He graduated from BHS in 1980 1984 and later returned to his alma mater, where he was coach in football, baseball, and weightlifting for 32 years.

He also had a stint as the school's athletic director.

He's mostly known for what he did as the school's head football coach for 10 years from 2002 to 2012.

He coached the tornadoes to the state championship game during the 2005 season, where they fell short against St.

Augustine.

Booker High School released a statement on social meetings saying in part, Coach Gilmore was more than an icon at Booker High School.

He was a pillar of strength, wisdom, and heart for generations of students, athletes, and staff.

His impact is immeasurable, his legacy undeniable.

Um there is no word yet said on special ceremonies that are being planned in Gilmore's honor, and once we have that information, I'm sure we will be updating you.

So thank you all very much.

Um silence.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Okay, let's move into approval of minutes.

And we'll go into the um minutes of the special Sarasota City Commission meeting of August 11th, 2025.

Move approach corruptions.

I'm sorry.

No.

Before we go into that, is there anything you wanted to say?

Commissioner Batty?

Yeah.

Fred and I grew up together.

And you know, as you so aptly stated, uh Mayor, you know, it was a pillar in the in our community.

Uh great athlete.

Um, you know, can you know posted on Facebook remembering the times that's in my living room cracking jokes and talking trash to one another and so on.

But uh again, you know, is an immense loss, you know, to the community of Newtown and uh you know for Sarasota as a whole, you know, he was uh a great individual, a great human being, and uh always had nothing but but kind words and words of empowerment and an upliftment, you know, to anyone that he came across, but particularly the youth.

And uh he was a tornado at heart, you know, until until he left, you know, this earth he was a tornado.

So but thank you very much, Mayor, for allowing me to speak.

Thank you.

All right.

Again, going back to the special uh City Commission meeting of August 11th.

Are there any corrections to the minutes?

Move approval.

Second.

All right, Commissioner Ulrichman is approval of the special Sarasota City Commission meeting minutes of August 11th.

Um Commissioner Ahern Koch second, if you'll vote, Commissioners.

Is that your vote?

Okay.

It passes unanimously.

Okay.

Approval of minutes for the um regular City Commission meeting of August 18, 2025.

Any corrections?

Madam Mayor.

Yes.

Um I have no um uh uh uh Scrivener's heirs.

Um, but I did want to just bring to the Commission's attention that um it's my understanding that the minutes are accurate representation of the meeting.

But I wanted to bring to our attention the minutes um how the motion was made with the purple with respect to the Purple Ribbon Committee.

The motion was made by Vice Mayor Trice to tell the page, please.

Yes, page four of thirteen by Vice Mayor Trice to forward the uh thank you first thank and then the acceptance, which we already had a discussion about that.

And then recommend items one through ten of the report, go forward to the city manager to create an action plan.

And I specifically asked during that meeting, one to twelve, you said no, one to ten, and I repeated one to ten.

However, in the motion it was not stated one to ten, and the minutes accurately reflect the discussion.

However, I wanted to just reiterate that if it's not repeated in the motion, it doesn't count.

It must be repeated, I think.

And I just want it clear for future reference that if the motion doesn't say move items one through ten forward, then the whole thing one through twelve is moved forward.

Except the difference is my motion was immediate recommendations as opposed to for the future.

And the 11 and 12 were for the future.

But they were included in the for the future.

So you wanted one.

But my motion was the immediate action items.

I excluded in my motion the future recommendations.

Are you sure about that?

Because I thought it was Yeah, I I just read them this morning.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, I just wanted to be clear that it's it doesn't repeat.

We it was not repeated in the motion one through ten.

And so let's just my my point being is that let's just be crystal clear.

Our discussion is one thing.

The motion is the motion.

And if you want it codified, it has to be in the motion, which is what Ms.

Griggs constantly says to us when we sort of get excited about making the motion and moving things forward and voting, we have to be clear on our motions exactly what's in there.

But we also need to recognize that sometimes we misunderstand what was stated.

Correct.

So let's leverage the problem also.

Exactly.

So whoever the maker of the motion is just to make sure.

But there's still no guarantee that the way it's heard might not be misunderstood.

True.

True.

True.

Right.

But let's just be clear in our motions, is what I'm I'm just saying.

This for me is an example of where I thought I was voting on one thing and it's in the motion is something completely different.

So that was all I wanted to say about that.

So with that, I would move approval of the minutes.

Second.

All right.

Commissioner moved approval of the minutes for August 18th.

August 18th.

And Vice Mayor Trice, second, if you'll vote, Commissioners.

Is that your vote?

All right.

The motion passes unanimously.

All right.

Consent agenda number one.

Is there anything to be pulled?

Yes, Mayor.

Excuse me.

Commissioner Ulrich pulled is is pooling as of right now, I know.

Item 6.1 and 6.2.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

And that is all I that I am aware of.

Okay.

Can I get a motion for the balance of consent agenda number one, which is item 63, 64, 65, and 66.

So moved.

Second.

Okay.

Commissioner Batti moved approval of consent agenda number one for item 63, 64, 65, and 66.

Vice Mayor Trice seconded.

If you'll vote, Commissioners.

Okay.

Is that your vote?

All right.

The motion passes unanimously.

You didn't vote?

I didn't see it.

It just went quick.

It was 5-0, yes.

Sorry.

All right.

Item 6-1.

Commissioner Ulrich.

I'd like a brief presentation, please.

I believe this is the a big presentation.

Brief.

Oh.

Sounds better.

Okay.

Thank you.

So, Mayor, I do have uh with us, I have uh Bill Robertson present who's just come up to the diocese our outside counsel for this is a class action.

And I do have another one of his uh colleagues, Bill, or David Ackerman by Zoom, if we can be connected.

Thank you.

Um I start.

I asked for a presentation because I think this settlement agreement and the opioid settlement in general are uh egregious enough for us to put it forward today to the public to hear.

And there are some details that I'd like confirmation of as you do your presentation.

I'll ask the questions, two of them.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

David, connected.

Let's see.

Yes.

By way of a background, my name is Bill Robertson.

I'm with the Robertson Law Firm.

And we started this journey back in 2017 with 10 original defendants in this process and my co-counsel, the Motre Rice Frau firm and David Hackerman.

Um Joe Rice is the kind of the brain trust behind this whole movement.

And as everybody knows, with the opioid uh show of hands today would would would show that everybody in this room has had somebody impacted by the opioid uh situation that it was created.

So we we embarked upon this journey to try to hold accountable the various parties involved in the opioid manufacture distribution.

Um I think we're getting there.

It's been a long journey.

We started with 10 uh defendants, we're up to 26 uh potential settlements.

The gross settlements to date uh nationwide are in excess of 50 billion dollars.

Um I would have to uh say that the the primary culprit in starting this whole process were the Purdue uh pharma and the Sackler family.

And if anybody has watched the Netflix special on how this came about and why this came about, it was transitioning the opioids, which are very good for uh postoperative care for a few days or palliative care, end-of-life care, but they're not good for an appropriate for uh chronic pain.

And that's where they pushed this to all the physicians nationwide to prescribe these for chronic pain, and that's what created our opioid crisis, which is still killing a hundred thousand uh United States citizens every year now.

Uh we finally shut down the pill mills, uh, but everybody who was an addict by that time uh went to the streets to the uh other drugs that are available, and then we have the the other things that are coming across the border.

So it's been a crisis that's still killing 100,000 uh U.S.

citizens a year.

Uh the settlements that we have before us today uh is is uh David on?

David.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we got you now.

Okay, excellent.

Bill Robertson is at the diet, so I'll appreciate you two uh doing a little introduction.

Yeah, I'll I'll I'll let David take the lead on the current settlements that are are proposed right now with Purdue, which is uh in the $7 billion range, as well as some other uh manufacturers, generic manufacturers, and then we'll take questions as to where we are.

The journey is not over, and it even out lasted Bob Fournier, who retired during the process.

Albert has been there since the beginning as well.

Uh so uh uh David, if you want to take the lead on the current settlements that we are bringing to the commission today for approval, uh, and then we'll take any questions that you all have.

Yeah, sure.

I'm happy to do so.

And I am David Ackerman uh with the law firm of Motley Rice.

My apologies for not being able to be there in person with you today.

Um I have uh the some business to attend to in Texas.

Unfortunately, especially given that my wife is from Sarasota, I never try to miss an opportunity to head down there if I can.

Um but what we have before you today, I believe, on two agenda items are separate settlement packages.

And they're just to um talk about the background, there have been a number of settlements already with a number of different defendants, the distributors, um Jansen and Johnson and Johnson were kind of the first set of of um settlements to go forward.

There were settlements with various opioid manufacturers, um, and then there were settlements with pharmacies, all of those have uh coalesced within the last two or three years.

Um as you may recall, um, and as uh Bill mentioned, uh, one of the primary defendants in the city's case, and then frankly, most defendants' cases was Purdue Pharma.

Purdue Pharma has a rather nefarious history, which included uh pleading guilty to misbranding oxycontin, um and was frankly probably one of the larger largest um opioid manufacturers.

Um Purdue filed for bankruptcy in 2019 in the midst of litigation.

Um there was originally a bankruptcy plan that included um the Sackler family who owned and operated Purdue.

Um the Supreme Court in June of last year vacated that plan, finding that because the SAClers themselves weren't declaring bankruptcy, they could not be included in the bankruptcy plan.

So the parties went back to the drawing board and have effectively now agreed, of course, pending the city's agreement and other uh litigating uh municipalities across the country, um agreed to what are uh essentially companion agreements.

There is an agreement, there is a bankruptcy plan, uh which would be the bankruptcy for Purdue, and then there is a separate agreement with the Sackler family, which would involve the Sacklers providing a significant sum of money, um an aggregate of uh $6.5 billion in 16 payments over 15 years, uh including one and a half billion on the settlements effective date, uh, which is expected to be in 2026, and we would expect around $900 million from the Purdue estate.

So that um of course the city would be giving up its right to uh pursue further action against Purdue with their sacklers.

Um it is our recommendation that the city uh agree to the Purdue settlement uh and the Sackler settlement, given the significant uh sums that will come to the city for abatement of the opioid epidemic.

Um why don't I stop there and ask whether are there any questions on the Purdue and Sackler settlement before I move on uh to the second set of settlements.

Okay, Commissioner.

I do have questions.

Four.

Um in our backup materials on page nine of twenty-six, toward the at the bottom, um the paragraph beginning second, it says not all subdivisions eligible to participate in the settlement will receive packages to vote on the plan.

Do you know if Sarasota will receive the package and will be a voting participant?

Yes, Sarasota will be a voting participant, and I believe we have already received the package, which is why we have brought it to you today.

Ah, very timely.

Thank you.

Um then on page four, um, there's a paragraph, one sentence that reads.

You must participate in the Purdue direct settlement by returning your participation form in order to receive the benefits of the Purdue settlement.

Um so if we don't agree to the settlement today, we're out, right?

David can address that, yeah.

Yeah, and and there are kind of two levels to that.

So the payments to be made to the varying states are dependent upon participation of the subdivisions.

So if only 60 percent of the Florida subdivisions agree to participate in the settlement, then the payments that would be made to the Florida Attorney General and then distributed to municipalities and counties would be lower than if say 75, 85, 95 percent of the jurisdictions agreed to participate.

If this so that's the first aspect to that.

The second aspect to that is if the city did not participate, it could pursue its claim against Purdue and/or the stacklers.

However, I think there would be significant questions about the ability to recover for a variety of reasons that I don't feel comfortable addressing in an open forum.

Thank you.

Those are my two questions.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

I don't see anybody on the board.

Okay.

Do you want to go into the second part?

Let me address the second um set of circumstances, which is what we call secondary manufacturer settlements.

And these are generally settlements with opioid generic opioid manufacturers.

So the way this litigation has progressed is that in the first stages of the litigation back in 2017, 17, 2018, 2019, um before many of us knew that Zoom was even a thing.

Um the litigation was against the branded manufacturers of opioids, Purdue, Johnson and Johnson.

Um had a branded um opioid called OPANA.

Um those were the ones who were really out there doing marketing.

In connection with that litigation in 2017, the plaintiff's executive committee, of which Motley Rice is a part and Joe uh Rice serves as the co-lead, was able to obtain a set of data from the DEA called the ARCOS data.

Arcos data is data that every manufacturer or distributor of opioids must submit to the DEA and allows you to trace the flow of any controlled substance throughout the distribution chain.

So we could tell who was shipping opioids, which pharmacies were dispensing opioids.

It was very valuable.

Um frankly, a lot of that information is now online.

I know the Washington Post has a um had a database, I assume it's still up, where you could search in your in your locality to see you know what pharmacies were dispensing what kinds of opioids and what distributors were shipping to your town, et cetera, et cetera.

Um we obtained that information in 2018, uh the data only went up to, I don't know, maybe 2016 or 2017.

So more recently we obtain an updated uh set of opioid data for later years.

And what happened, what we realized is that a number of these opioids had um become generic and gone off patent, and generic manufacturers had started uh shipping and distributing opioids in large quantities.

So the PEC reached out to these generic manufacturers and had negotiated and has negotiated a number of settlements.

I believe there are either six or eight, there are eight in total.

Um the names of the generic manufacturers are set forth in your materials.

Um the settlements combined provide payments totaling approximately numbers I have are 744,500,000 in cash and 355 million um in opioid addiction and overdose treatment drugs.

These settlements should work the same way as the Purdue settlement would, in that uh funds and drugs would likely be distributed to the attorney general, who then would distribute them to uh municipalities and counties throughout the state consistent with the Florida allocation plan.

So that is a uh a general overview of what we call the secondary manufacturer settlement package.

Um voting works j the same as the Purdue package, and uh and the uh city has already received its voting materials, believe the deadline to um and I neglected this on the Purdue, so I'll put them both in.

The deadline to approve the Purdue settlement is September 30th.

The deadline to approve the secondary manufacturer settlement is October 8th.

So with that, if uh open to the commission, if you all have any questions.

Any other questions?

Okay.

And logistically, uh the attorney general of the state of Florida is the clearing house for the funds that do come from the nationwide settlements down through the municipalities and including Sharasota.

And I think our estimate, according to the chart, if we get sufficient participation on a Purdue out of the $7 plus billion, only $314 million goes to the State of Florida, some of which will get to Sarasota.

We don't know what that number is on that's going to actually trickle down based upon the voting, but there are big numbers nationwide at $50 billion and counting.

But at least it's a start, at least it's something we're able to do.

And so we feel like it's appropriate to approve these settlements and move forward.

We're not done yet, but we're still fighting it since 2017.

Thank you.

And let me just let me just add on to what Bill says, because we are not done yet.

There is ongoing litigation against pharmacy benefit manufacturers and other entities.

So the fight on behalf of the affected communities throughout the country continues.

And I have to give a kudos to Joe Rice, who is his senior partner at Motley Rice.

He is the brain trust behind this nationwide push.

Brilliant lawyer and an amazing guy to work with.

So I want to give him some kudos today.

All right.

And we're still included in that ongoing litigation.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Yes.

Anything else?

Thank you, David.

Does it look like it?

Thank you.

For appearing.

We had a short window to execute these settlement agreements, so that's where we're bringing for today.

Okay.

All right.

Can I get a motion, please?

Move to approve both settlement agreements.

Second.

Okay.

Oh Kyle.

Second.

All right.

Vice Mayor Trice move to approve item 6.1, the opioid settlement agreements, both of them.

Commissioner Batti seconded.

Any discussion, Commissioners?

Hearing none, if you will vote, please.

Is that your vote?

Yes.

Motion passed unanimously.

Thank you all and keep fighting.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Bye.

All right.

Item 62, Commissioner Ulrich.

I did pull this one.

The agenda request page was a little confusing to me.

And so I need some clarity.

The originating department is economic development.

In the narrative under explanation, it says the city's financial administration has recently determined the lease rental payment rate per square foot.

In the not too distant past, we've had economic development negotiate leases for us for might even be ongoing.

Marine Max and the Bait Shop.

I don't know the real name.

I call it the Bait Shop.

So who's doing what here?

Is what I need to know.

Good morning, Julie Ryan.

Economic development real estate for the record.

As you know, real estate and leases recently have come over to the economic development office.

So there has been some transition in responsibilities.

With this particular case, as you know, the Federal building is a unique property for the city.

It's not a typical single tenant space.

It's a multiple tenant building, as it does house the city attorney's office, the Sarasota Bay Estuary program is in there, as well as there is some city space.

They have used in the past the market beat Tampa Bay office report, which is a commercial real estate research publications.

So when the city attorney's office was looking for space there, we did reach out, the economic development office did reach out to the financial office and ask them to prepare a rate.

So when the Sarasota estuary program came up for renewal, we had an established rate from January looking at their lease renewal conditions, meaning it was a short-term lease for a year with a 30-day termination, meaning there was less exposure.

It was determined by the economic development office to use that established rate for this renewal period.

Had this been a longer term or more significant one, it would be, you know, our practice and policy going forward to seek an appraisal for longer term.

But in this particular case, given the circumstances, we thought it would be best to use what was already established.

And that's good, and that's clear to me.

It seems that it is a good thing to be consistent and have one department take the lead for all leases, unless there are extenuating circumstances like this one.

Mr.

Bullock, can we confirm that it is economic development that has the lead in lease?

Indeed it is.

And you are used to seeing Wayne on these larger, more complex leases, and he is hiding in the back and has sent Julie to be the sacrificial lamb here on this.

Somewhat modest lease.

Okay.

Thank you.

That was my only question.

Anyone else have questions?

I don't see any.

All right.

Can we get a motion?

Move approval of consent number one six point two.

Second.

All right.

Commissioner Ahern Coach moved approval of McKenzie item 7-2 regarding the lease for the Tampa Bay Estuar or Sarasota Bay Estuary Program.

Commissioner Batti seconded, if you'll vote, Commissioners.

And just to be correct that it was 6-2.

I think you said something else, but it is 6-2.

Okay.

All right.

I think I said 6-2.

Okay.

Anyway, it is 6-2.

Okay.

All right.

Is that your vote, Commissioners?

Yes.

All right.

The motion passes unanimously.

Okay.

Let's move on to consent agenda number two.

Were there any items to be pulled?

I believe so.

If I am correct here, Commissioner Ulrich is pulling item 7.4 in is that all?

That's correct.

And I'm not aware of any anyone.

All right.

If you want to read all of the narratives, please.

Yes.

Thank you, Mayor.

Resolution number 25 R 3352, a resolution of the City Commission of the City of Sarasota, Florida, amending the budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2024, by providing for supplemental appropriations, any amounts identified in Exhibit A, providing for a syllabus if any of the parts here are declared invalid, providing for reading by title only and providing an effective date.

Resolution number 25R 3353, a resolution of the City Commission of the City of Sarasota, Florida, amending the budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2024, by providing for supplemental appropriations in the amounts identified in exhibit A, providing for servability if any of the parts here of are declared invalid, providing for reading by title only and providing an effective date.

Resolution number 25R 3354, a resolution of the City Commission of the City of Sarasota, Florida, amending the budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2024 by providing for supplemental appropriations in the amounts identified in exhibit A, providing for server if any of the parts here of are declared invalid, providing for reading by title only and provide an effective date.

Resolution number 25R 3355, a resolution of the City Commission of the City of Sarasota, Florida, amending the budget for the fiscal year beginning in October 1, 2024, by providing for supplemental appropriations in the amounts identified in Exhibit A, providing for servability if any of the parts here are declared invalid, providing for reading by title only and providing an effective date.

All right.

Thank you.

Can I get a motion to approve the balance of consent agenda number two, items 7172, and 7-3.

Second.

All right.

Mr.

Batti moved to Batti move to approve consent agenda number two for item 717273.

Vice Mayor Trice seconded.

If you'll vote, Commissioners.

And also it will be roll call.

Aaron Kotch.

Yes.

Albert, Betty.

Yes.

Ulrich Price.

Yes.

All right, Commissioner Ulrich, item 74.

The motion passes 50.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mayor, I pulled this for a brief presentation to state for the public's benefit, the dollar amount of this protection agreement, the match amount and its source, and a listing of projects that will be involved.

Good morning, Commissioners.

Nick Patell, for the record, public works director.

Good morning.

My name is Robert Hagan.

I'm the city surveyor with the Public Works Department.

So this the consent item was intended to formally amend the city budget to account for $1 million, which there was a second amendment done.

There was a first amendment done on November 18, 2024, where the Florida Department of Environmental Protection provided additional million dollars.

So that brings the total grant amount to three approximately $3.58 million.

And the city's match for this is $2.64 million.

And the projects that are associated with this is part of this FDEP resiliency grant titled the Sarasota Bay Resiliency Initiative, and the three projects associated with that is the citywide topographic mapping, Bayfront Park Seawall Rehabilitation, as well as Ken Thompson Park Living Shorelines.

With that, is there any questions associated with it?

One more.

The match amount, where will it come from?

So the match amount is going to come from the Smart City Initiative and also the C Wall.

And how is the penny sales tax involved in this?

So the penny pennies sales sales taxes through the Bayfront, the seawall line item in the CIP.

Penny tax will match for that project.

That's correct.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Seeing none, can I get a motion, please?

Yep.

Mayor I move adoption of proposed resolution 25R-3355.

Second.

All right.

Commissioner Ulrich moved adoption of proposed resolution number 25R 3355.

Vice Mayor Trice seconded if you'll vote, Commissioners.

Okay.

Roll call.

Alpert?

Yes.

That's E?

Yes.

Ulrich?

Yes.

Rice?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Is that your vote, Commissioners?

Motion passed 50.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Legislative public hearings.

Start with item 10.1.

It's a public hearing regarding the proposed resolution number 25R 3346 certifying that Sarasota County Agricultural Fairgrounds serves a public purpose.

And let me get to that page.

Okay.

And I'm going to call upon the City Auditor and Clerk to administer the oath.

Thank you.

Anyone who plans to speak at any public hearing held today, please take stand and take a note.

Okay.

Do you swear or affirmative evidence or factual representations which are about to give to this commission during any public hearing held this 15th day of September 2025 are truthful?

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

I am going to open the public hearing on proposed resolution number 25R 3346.

And call upon the City Auditor and Clerk to read the title.

Thank you, Mayor.

Resolution number 25R 3346.

A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Sarasota, Florida, certifying that the Sarasota County Agricultural Fairgrounds serves a public purpose, providing for reading of this resolution by title only and providing for an effective date.

All right.

And now Attorney Polzak, can you make a presentation regarding this?

Yes, Mayor.

This uh we have done this type of resolution previously, and it is simply to uh certify their their public purpose so that they can obtain a grant as referenced in the resolution.

It is a pretty ministerial act of this Commission.

Like I said, we have done it before in supporting the fairgrounds.

Okay.

I don't think we have anybody signed up to speak, correct?

Okay.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

All right.

Hearing none, I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for a motion.

Move adoption of resolution number 25R-3346.

Second.

Commissioner Ulrich moved adoption of resolution number 25R 3346.

Commissioner Ahern Koch seconded.

If you'll vote, Commissioners.

Also roll call.

That's E.

Yes.

Ulrich?

Yes.

Yes.

Alpert.

Yes.

Okay.

Moving on to the motion passes 500.

Motion passes 50.

Trying to move this.

Sorry.

It's okay.

Item 10 to this is a public hearing regarding proposed ordinance number 255578.

And that's regarding the adopting the table of organization.

And I'm going to open the public hearing on that and call on the city auditor clerk to read the title.

Thank you, Mayor.

Ordinance number 25R5578.

In ordinance of the City of Sarasota, Florida, adopting a table of organization for city government for fiscal year 2025-2026, as required by charter, providing for diservability of the Part Zero, providing for reading by title only, and providing for an effective date.

All right.

And I'm going to call on interim city manager Bullock to make a presentation on this.

Thank you, Mayor.

As required by the Charter I'm to propose and a table of organization each year that is in your packet.

There are no substantive changes from previous years.

And then each charter officer's area of responsibility is outlined in the diagram.

All right.

I hadn't planned on speaking to this item today, but I have written to you before about it.

And it's something that I think uh Mayor Alpert might recognize because she was a communications undergraduate at USF, where I did some of my work towards a PhD in communications.

And one of the first rules of interpersonal communications, the axiom, the main one, is you cannot not communicate.

Lack of presence speaks as loudly as presence.

I bring this up with regard to this item because I'm sure that Mr.

Bullock didn't mean to make an inaccurate statement, but he did.

He said there are no substantive changes in this org chart.

And there were very substantive changes, maybe four or five years ago.

When the name of the department, neighborhood and development services was changed to just be development services.

And systematically throughout all of the language in the zoning code, as new changes come forward, neighborhoods have been edited out through the last four or five years.

And that physical editing has been felt, at least by me and the folks in my neighborhood, as a pushing the public out of the public realm, out of the decision making process.

We don't exist.

I mean Nancy Kelly is still there and she's great, and I'm not in any way meaning to complain about her.

But I think there's a mindset when a government defines itself as servicing developers first and not the public first that bears looking at.

And I don't expect that you're going to change this chart of organization today or that an interim manager would do that.

But it is something that I would ask that you guys, as the elected leaders of this city take seriously.

And when a final permanent city manager is hired, I would ask that you give serious thoughts to putting neighborhoods and the people they represent, the people you represent back into the language and back into the top of mind for our neighbors, the public servants that work for all of us.

We are the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ehrencoach.

Yes.

So the table of organization here.

Like the it's not clear that the city auditor and clerk, city manager, and city attorney report to the commission.

In the way it's written sort of or designed like this.

And I don't I don't know if there's a better way to do that.

But also the departments under the city manager.

The sustainability department used to be a separate department.

And for some of the reasons that it was it was not under planning.

It was its own independent department.

And there are a handful of departments that I would request that this next city manager, because I've spoken with Mr.

Bullock about this, and he's would like this to be a conversation for future city manager.

There are a handful of departments that should uh potentially we should have discussions or the city manager should have discussions about being independent and not under the planning department.

Um so uh I just want to put this out there that um in for future commission meetings uh this would be uh an important point of discussion.

Thank you.

Um, change your mind.

Okay.

All right.

Um if there is nothing else, Commissioners.

I would close the public hearing and ask for a motion.

Move to approve ordinance 25-558 78.

Second.

All right.

Um Commissioner Ulrich move to approve proposed ordinance number 25578, Vice Mayor Trice seconded.

If there is no discussion, Commissioners, a few vote, please.

Oh sorry, I was supposed to do roll call too.

I apologize.

Ulrich, yes.

Yes.

Alpert, yes, Betsy.

Yes.

That your vote, Commissioners?

Yes.

All right.

Uh the motion passes 50.

Um our next item is a quasi-judicial.

Um are we to go Okay to start this, uh Commissioners, or did anybody need a break?

I'm good.

I'm okay.

Good.

Okay.

Thank you.

Let's let's start then with item 111, and that's uh proposed ordinance number 25579.

Mayor, yes, that's the one that was removed.

Oh that's one sorry, I didn't cross it off here.

Okay.

It is item 112, proposed ordinance number 255580.

And um I am going to call on the city auditor and clerk to read the proposed ordinance.

Thank you, Mayor.

Or the title, I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Ordinance number 25-5580, an ordinance of the City of Sarasota, Florida to rezone that certain vacant parcel of real property totaling approximately 1.35 plus minus acres located at the southwest corner of the Aspen Wall Street and Rhodes Avenue with a street address of 351 North Rose Avenue from the Office Regional District ORD zone district to the Urban Mixed Use 1, MU-1 Zone District, approving site plan application number 24-sp 11 to allow construction of a 17 unit I'm sorry, single family attached townhome development to be platted as individual lots upon the rezone real property, all as more particularly set forth hearing, providing for reading by title only and providing for an effective date.

Okay.

I am going to open the public hearing on the proposed ordinance and call on the city attorney to explain the quasi-judicial process, including time limitations for applicants.

Thank you, Mayor.

I've assigned this matter to Deputy City Attorney John Shamsy, and he'll take over from here.

Okay.

Thank you.

As you know, a quasi judicial hearing is more formal than a legislative public hearing.

There are parties to a quasi-judicial hearing.

The parties include the applicant, the city, and anyone who has applied for and qualifies for affected person status under the criteria of the zoning code.

Parties may proffer evidence, testimony, expert testimony, and documentary evidence.

Parties have the opportunity to cross-examine opposing parties and to present a closing or rebuttal argument.

The decision of the city commission in a quasi judicial hearing must be based on the competent substantial evidence in the record.

At the beginning of a quasi judicial public hearing, commission members indicate if they have had any ex parte communications, which is contact with any parties outside of this public hearing today.

And I believe today the city attorney would like to uh expound a little bit more on the ex parte uh uh communication process and the required disclosures.

Yeah, so there's been some questions about um ex parte communication disclosure.

And just to be clear, those requirements come from Florida statute, which is applicable to quasi judicial hearings such as this one and that alone, and that's pursuant to Florida statute section 286.0115 specifically governs ex parte communications in the local land use and zoning matters when they're handled in a quasi-judicial posture.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um the recommend recommended time limits for this.

I actually don't have time to see uh Mayor, it's going to be, I think we set aside 20 minutes for the applicant, 20 minutes for this for staff, um, five minutes for affected persons.

And then three minutes of public comment.

Rebuttal followed by Commissioner QA.

Okay.

Mayor?

Uh yes, Commissioner Ulrich.

Did we declare the question?

I was just gonna say I think that I think the um the board members do do need to disclose that they had any ex particular.

We talked about it, but we didn't declare.

Right.

I hadn't gotten to that part on uh agenda.

Okay.

All right.

Um let's see.

Do we have any affected persons?

I don't believe we have any on this slide.

Okay.

All right.

Ex parte communications.

I had none.

Commissioner Yarnkoch?

Yes.

Um I did a site visit with staff, and then I also um was at a Habitat for Humanity ribbon cutting a while ago, and as I was uh walking into and out of, um I had a uh actually Cindy Mshoff had a brief discussion with me to point out down the street here.

We're going to be coming back and townhouses and habitat for humanity, and so I was introduced to the topic and didn't have any substantive discussion with her, just I did want to uh disclose that she did mention it to me.

Okay.

Would that in any way affect your ability to be impartial and fair today?

No, anyone else?

Well, I mean this is why I asked for uh more specifics on what ex parte is.

I have in the past attended uh habitat ribbon cuttings.

I helped build a couple of habitat houses.

I've had several conversations with Cindy M.

shoffs, but nothing about this particular development.

So, you know, in my lifetime I have donated to habitat.

So that's why I asked what is ex parte for these purposes.

Yeah.

For this purpose, it would be related to this application, and you had either a visit or some substantive communications or were present for some related to the second.

I had no communications in regard to this project.

Okay.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Appreciate your uh I know you're trying to be as transparent as possible, so appreciate it.

Um obviously, Mayor, uh since you don't recall, they're not affecting your ability to be impartial here today.

If any, yeah.

Okay.

Um I have a question.

Uh Commissioner Heroncock.

Um so my site visit was really informative for this application.

It really impacted my um viewing of this application.

So I don't know if I need to speak about that further or when the time comes.

Um but my it did very much help form my information about this application.

Yeah.

Um actually Section 286.0115 Florida statutes actually discusses your ability to conduct a site visit and inform yourself.

Um so that's not but my question is should I share what I learned from my site visit so that the other commissioners have access to what I have access to that help form my um picture of this property.

I mean that's a good question, Commissioner, but I I think um that would be kind of getting into you you kind of presenting that as evidence, and I don't I don't really think that's appropriate in the quasi.

Now you you can explain you you can get into that maybe if it's um at the time when you're explaining your decision making process, but I I don't think it should be introduced before that as sort of evidence that you that you might have obtained that the others haven't.

I I just don't think that's the you know the way the way a quage digital hearing is typically held in uh under Florida law.

So at the motion stage?

Right.

At the discussion of the of the motion, if you'd like to get into it there maybe.

Okay.

Um so I don't know if this is ex parte or not, but I too did a site visit.

Um and I also requested the large drawings from the site plan, uh, which were very helpful to me.

Um I don't know that either one of those are ex parte communication.

Yeah, and actually um let me just jump in here again uh referring back to Section 286.0115.

It's uh subsection one C three.

Oh quote, local public officials may conduct investigations and site visits and may receive expert opinions regarding quasi-digital quasi judicial action pending before them.

Such activity shall not be presumed president prejudicial to the action if the existence of the investigation site visit or opinion is made part of the record before final action on the matter.

So you've done that.

Um you've done that to inform yourself.

I have to do that.

What's the requirement?

Oh, sorry.

May I mayor I was just gonna say just what a record that I have had no communications pertaining to this application of this project.

Investigations.

That's the first time I hear that commissioners can conduct investigations.

But you can do your own research.

Uh Mr.

Friedman.

Good morning, Joel Friedman.

I have been sworn.

This is unusual.

Um most of my folks aren't here yet because you you got rid of the one item.

You don't normally move this fast.

Obviously, I could do it.

Phil Smith is here, but the engineer, the uh Renee.

So I'm wondering if we could wait.

I think you've got one more item.

So we're close.

Yeah, let's take a break.

And you don't want to prejudice your case.

So in recess until uh ten fifteen.

Okay, everybody.

We're gonna call the Monday, September 15th, 2025 regular city commission meeting back to order.

When we went to break, we were just getting ready to start with item 112, um a quasi-judicial public hearing regarding proposed ordinance twenty-five fifty-five eighty.

Um had gotten to the point where we were calling on the applicant to present, but they're still waiting, so we're gonna do uh city staff first.

Maybe that's what I would suggest if you're okay with that.

I see he's up there.

Okay.

Umsky.

All right, good morning.

Uh for the record, Tom Sakarski certified planner representing development services.

I have not yet been sworn.

Sorry, I know your mouth's and actually I think there's some other members of the applicant's party that need to be sworn.

Okay.

Anybody else that needs to be sworn?

Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth today at this public hearing, September 15, 2025?

Thank you.

All right.

You will have 20 minutes.

All right.

The item before you is the rezone subdivision for application 24 R.

E.0.

Two, 24 SP 11 and 24 S UB02.

It's the Rhodes and Aspenwall the Rhodes and Aspen Wall project located at 351 North Roads Avenue.

It's south of Aspenwall, west of Rhodes, and it's currently zoned office regional district, ORD with a future land use of urban mixed use.

Uh the applicant is proposing a rezone to mixed use one, which is an implementing zone district of the urban mixed use future land use designation.

The applicant's proposing to rezone subdivide the 1.35 acre subject property to construct 17 single family attached townhomes platted as individual lots.

Vehicular access will be provided directly to each lot from Rhodes Avenue.

And the site is proffered as part of the rezone, which is before you.

And what I'd like to do right now is just have Renee give a little bit brief talk about Habitat and why they decided to do this.

Well, most of you are familiar with Habitat for Humanity Sarasota, so I won't go too much in detail on that.

But we're very excited to have the opportunity to provide 17 affordable townhomes on this site.

And then we think this is just the highest and best use for this parcel.

And we're partial to that.

And we're very excited that we're going to be able to continue to provide our our traditional habitat financing of 0% interest mortgages to families.

Thank you.

So as I was mentioned, we have three applications before you here.

We have the rezone from Office Regional District to the MU mixed use one district.

That's one of the three implementing zone districts.

A site plan for the 17 single family attached townhomes.

And then the final plat is before you too, showing the 17 individual lots.

How we're done that.

We'll get into that in a minute.

Here's your land use and zoning map.

You can see that when the city came and changed the land use plan to urban mixed use.

The um this is part of that.

Everything to the south and west and partially east is all urban mixed use now.

To the north of Aspenwall, of course, is single family.

Much of the neighborhood that Renee mentioned about is up there.

The MU district allows 13 units an acre.

The existing zoning district of ORD actually allows 25 units per acre, but that has to be done in a mixed use configuration where you have office on the ground floor, and then you can do 25 units per acre.

So obviously this is a much lower intensity development.

What I'm going to do is show you the site plan, because I want to make sure everybody can see that.

Okay.

So again, here's Aspenwall and here's roads.

You can see that what we have is we have shared driveways for uh several most of the units.

You can see there's two uh shared driveway for these two here, here, a single driveway here.

So there isn't a driveway for each individual lot.

It's a shared driveway.

So I'm going to go now into the rezone criteria of Section Roman No.

41106.

So the question is, is a proposed change contrary to the future land use plan.

Actually, the rezoning is implementing the future land use plan.

So this is one of the three districts.

Uh we could actually go for either MU1 or MU2.

MU2 is a higher density.

We found the MU1 satisfies the needs of the of habitat for the 17 homes, so that's why we went with that.

Compatibility with existing land use pattern.

The everything to the east, I mean to the west and directly east is commercial uses.

So we we think that this townhome development is fine and in scale with what's going on to the north of Aspenwall, of course, a single family.

However, that that's again that's the transition location.

You can see we have a pretty good setback here along this.

These are just two-story structures, so they're actually you know lower than what could be done even in the single family development.

Possible creation of an isolated district.

Well, this is gonna be one of the first MU-1 districts anywhere in the city, so it's not isolated because again it's implementing the uh the land use plan.

Population density change, over taxing of public utilities or sewerage systems.

Again, this is actually less intense than what could happen under the existing zoning.

We receive DRC sign-off that we meet all of the level of service requirements for this rezone.

Boundaries are illogically drawn.

Well, again, this is implementing the future land use plan change, so this is just logical that we would rezone to that.

Whether changing or change conditions make the passage amendment necessary.

We all know we talk about affordable housing all the time.

Habitat was able to acquire this project property, and they are able to produce this.

I think it's a one of your first townhome type projects, which is nice to have a little variety for habitat to provide, but again, it's there it's going to be a very nice addition to their inventory.

This is the uh elevation of the of the plan or rendering, I should say, of the plan.

Um whether the change will create a drainage problem.

Um again, this is actually in my opinion going to help the situation because it'll help control the drainage situation better.

It's very unusual on that site where literally there is some public drainage easement area along the street.

We've got to incorporate that.

So again, our plan meets the zoning code and and uh engineering design criteria manual requirements.

So the one person that's not here right now is our civil engineer.

Um hopefully he'll get here.

If not, um I'll try to answer the questions as best I can.

Uh will the channel change seriously reduce the flow of light and air, and again, these are two-story buildings.

Um it's not going it'd be actually the if we use the existing zoning, it'd be a much larger structure.

So I don't believe that we're impacting this.

The flow of light and air.

Number 10 is whether the change will be a deterrent to the improvement of the adjacent neighborhood.

This is going to improve the whole neighborhood and upgrade everybody's uh ability to understand what's happening there.

It's going to be a beautiful building.

Uh again, habitat's a great neighbor.

Whether the change will constitute a grant of special privileges, we're following the rules.

We're following the process.

So I don't think that that can be found that we're doing anything unusual.

And whether or not the scale, the change is out of scale with the neighborhood, again, these are single family homes.

Yeah, they may be attached, but they're it's a two-story structure.

And um again, it's very much in scale.

And the final one is whether it's impossible to find other properties.

I can tell you that Renee is one of the most aggressive people trying to find properties for her organization.

She'll call me, Joel, what's this look like, you know, and we talk about it and she I don't know how you do it, but you find it.

And so she found this one that was available, and here we are.

So now for the uh site plan um talking about the site plan itself.

Um as I said, um all you know, Phil is in the audience if you want to talk about anything specifically about landscaping, but all landscape and mitigation requirements have been met.

Each unit will have access to roads uh via shared driveways or some one of them has a single driveway.

Uh we did hold the community workshop as was mentioned, and the traffic impact was deemed a minimus.

This is again 17 units is not very intense.

So now let me go through the um the criteria for the site plan.

Whether the proposed plan is in keeping with the intent and standards of the district and land development regulations, we meet every code requirement of the MU-1.

Again, there haven't been many, very many of the MU projects yet.

Um I think there's only been one, maybe.

So we meet all the requirements.

Whether on balance the proposed development layout are compatible with the Sarasota City Plan.

And actually there's a, you know, we meet all the requirements.

This is what the MU district and the future land use of uh urban mixed use is talking about, providing affordable, more affordable housing um in the community.

So again, we are compatible with the Sarasota City plan.

Whether the required information has been submitted, we wouldn't be here if we weren't deemed complete.

And um glad you were able to get the larger plans to help you review that.

I know these small plans can be tough.

Uh you got to zoom in on their computer or whatever, so whether there are ways to change the configuration intensity to mitigate or improve the development.

We believe we have done that.

Uh one of our original plans did have driveways to each of the individual individual homes, and that did seem a little intense, so that's why we ended up combining driveways to share driveways, and it'll be a much better, provides more green space along the street.

Um I think we've done that.

Does the plan make adequate provisions for vehicular and pedestrian access?

We do have uh parking for each of the units.

Uh access to the front doors from uh roads has been provided.

Does the plan make adequate provisions for parking and loading?

Yes, we don't have to have a loading zone because we're under 20 units.

Does the plan um take into account and preserve the natural features of the site?

We went through an extensive review of that, and again, Phil is here to talk about any of that if you want to talk about that, but we have done that, and it again it's an unusual site, but we've we've done a good job in preserving the trees as you see here up in this area right there.

Those are large trees.

Does the plan take uh into account the natural features?

That's what that is.

Um and then the subdivision plat is a straightforward situation.

It's just each each lot, each unit will be its own lot and uh owned fee simple by the future buyers.

So in conclusion, as you uh you know can see, I think we're implementing the future land use plan.

We're meeting all the land development regulation requirements.

Um we respectfully request your approval.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Um we don't have any affected persons I take it.

No, and I don't think we have anybody signed up to speak.

Um we don't really need any rebuttal.

Not yet.

So we're at Commissioner Questions.

Uh Commissioner Aaron Cotch.

Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation.

Um I don't know if this is a question for staff or for um for you, Mr.

Friedman.

Um per the um well, let me ask you this.

Has that property ever been occupied or developed?

No.

No, not to our knowledge.

Right.

And is there any infrastructure existing that you can tie into or work with that's under the property right now?

There is a strange situation along the frontage with drainage that we are incorporating to our project.

So that leads me to my next question, which is stormwater.

Um and how is that being?

I know it's on page 11 of the site plan, but if you could just in words tell me how the stormwater is going to be um held, treated, distributed, dealt with.

I know your engineer is supposed to be here.

I apologize.

Phil gets more into the design of the project, so he he has to work around stormwater all the time.

So maybe you can elaborate on that a little bit.

Good morning, Phil Smith, landscape architect certified officer.

I'm not an engineer, but we do work with them as far as drainage.

Um in this particular site, there are there is floodplain, and so there is a section of the site that is floodplain management based on what the civil engineer provided, and then there is a separate retention area that connects to that.

There's approximately two feet of fill that's going into the site on the southern side of the site.

There we go.

And so, and what they've got to do from a drainage standpoint is they have to submit everything to the uh Southwest Florida Water Management District and make sure that that all the drainage that falls you know into the site, they they meet those standards for state review.

So they have done that working around the grand trees that we have shown to be preserved.

You can see on this graphic here.

This is the floodplain here, I believe, Phil.

Yes.

Yeah.

And then there's a a retention area here that connects to that connects to it.

And is that above is that underground or above ground?

They're all surface.

They are all surface.

Okay.

And um the retention area that is is natural or is it the proposed one that we're going to be building?

Correct.

So it would be man-made.

Man-made.

Okay.

But it will be open.

Yes.

Okay.

And the fill, where is the fill going to go?

All underneath this the building.

Okay.

But not on the uh surrounding edge there.

It would be southwest portion, right?

No, and that's what we've got because it's floodplain.

We have got to be careful of that, right?

Right.

Right.

Okay.

I just wanted to really understand that because the um the site is like a swamp.

Uh and uh I wanted to understand how you were going to to do that.

So it's are you expanding that on the south side?

Is that expanded or you're just leaving it natural as is?

This uh yes.

What I understand the engineer has put together, it's expanding.

It goes all the way to the property line, so they have to you know take into consideration that.

And then we have a couple of grand trees that are we're preserving, so they kept all the drainage away from there.

So any of the earth work and drainage work is all done to the south of those trees.

Okay.

Okay.

Those are my questions had to do with stormwater and um basically stormwater and and and uh Phil.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh Commissioner Ulrich.

Thank you.

Um these will be owner-occupied residences.

Yes, ma'am.

Are there any restrictions on somebody buying a unit and then renting it?

Uh all of our habitat homes have a deed restriction that they must remain owner-occupied.

Thank you.

Um I noticed on page A 2.2 of the large drawings thing.

You don't have to put it up because I think I'll explain it.

Okay.

Is it correct that these are all three bedroom?

Correct.

And so three bath.

Yes.

And so then I noticed that in all units but the end units, it's bed against bed of an adjoining unit in the drawings.

My headboard in one unit abuts the headboard of a bed in another unit for all of them in multiple bedrooms.

I was concerned about that.

I mean, it's one thing if it's my brother so snoring so loudly in the room next door and I can bam on the wall and or go there and tell them to be quiet.

But it's something else if it's your neighbor who you may know or not know who's snoring so loudly that you can't sleep.

So I wonder what plans did you ever have and reject that did not have bed abutting bed in almost every unit in multiple bedrooms?

Well let me can I d defer to my BPF construction Rose Brascala?

And I did not hit the point.

Yes.

It's all out here, here.

You want to swear?

Excuse me.

Do you swear our affirm to tell the truth today?

Yes, I think.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yes, good morning.

I'm Rose Brascal.

I'm the Vice President of Construction for Habitat, and uh that's a great question.

Fortunately the homes are um it's two stories of block construction.

So that sound transfer is not something that would be a concern.

Because the walls are it's block.

If it was wood frame, yes concrete block masonry.

And that does make a difference.

Yes.

Oh, a huge difference.

Yes, it does.

Yeah, if it was wood, it would be different.

But so when I saw that, I thought, did you consider three groupings of five, not have seventeen units but fifteen units to have a little s more space in between the groupings.

Um it seems to me that you're squeezing a lot into a little bit of space.

Any comment on that?

Actually, our plans were very thoughtful.

We reviewed a number of market rate products.

And actually our units are consistent with market rate products built by other major builders in the area.

And um we're a list a little over 1,400 square feet in each unit.

So our single family homes that we build are right at the same size.

Uh and we thought that was um uh certainly acceptable.

And we uh we did toy with, we did review looking at reducing the number of units.

However, we thought that um uh weighing the number of affordable units, uh achieving two additional units was much more of a priority than um having um adding another hundred or 150 square feet per unit.

So uh it was a very thoughtful plan.

Uh this was like probably number five of our of our plans before we we we internally uh were satisfied with the plan and the exterior design, if I may speak to that, was also very thoughtful and that we wanted our design to be sharp and have a an urban look to it.

Um we think we've uh achieved that too.

We thought that the keeping the colors rather muted, uh more modern looking would lend to a less busier look on the exterior than having each unit having its own color palette.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, it looks lovely.

Uh Mr.

Smith.

Yes.

Trees six and seven are off-site.

Okay.

Why are they included?

Because their canopies come onto the site, so the grand trees.

Um we look at the root system and the canopy to make sure we preserve those off-site as well when we're dwelling.

I see.

That's what I thought you were going to say.

Okay.

And so the reason I asked for the large drawings was and the reason I did a site visit is because when I started reading the backup materials, I was absolutely shocked that you're removing 150 trees and leaving a total of six 168.

So when I went to the site, I saw that it was full of trees.

Yet that was part of the reason that I wondered why didn't you do a few fewer units and save a few more trees?

Can you address the tree situation?

So most of the trees that you see in this in the site area.

I'm sorry.

Most of the trees you see in this site area that are being removed are actually in the area where the floodplain management is.

Most of them are smaller.

Predominantly laurel, some live oak, and a lot of exotic trees are in the so there's a lot of exotic trees in that area that's very wet.

So yes, there are a lot of trees coming out.

They are mitigated both on site and then they are going to be mitigated on other properties that the habitat Remandes owns in the area.

Thank you.

I might have a few more questions.

Mayor, they're all over my pages, so I'm going to cross the question.

Okay.

I might be back.

We'll let we'll let uh Vice Mayor Trice ask hers while you're looking.

On the site plan, um I had a question about the area to the west behind the buildings, you know, that look like open green space, and I was wondering if it will stay open green in perpetuity.

Yeah.

That's the floodplain area that has to remain open.

Okay.

So I mean it's green space.

Green space.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Thank you.

That's a little ahead.

Okay.

Um Commissioner Ulrich, did you have to?

I don't think so, Mayor.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Um we don't have since we don't have any other commissioner questions that I can Commissioner Feisch, you don't move your name?

Okay.

Then I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for a motion.

Move approval proposed ordinance number 25-5580 to rezone the parcel.

Along with should we take them all at separate motions?

We need to.

There are three three items.

The site plan, the rezone, and the plat.

I don't think so.

Not the plat.

I believe it's just the rezone and the subdivision plat.

Yeah.

It's in our backup material anyway.

If you just to be safe, you guys want to I can do them separately.

Yeah, I I think the the rezone and site plan can be together since the site plan is part of the rezone, but the subdivis the plat needs to be separate.

Okay.

Then I would uh move approval of um proposed ordinance 25-5580 to rezone the parcel.

Um from Office Regional District to Urban Mixed Use 1, along with approving the site plan application number 24-sp to allow the construction of 17 single family attached townhomes.

Uh second.

And I'll speak to the motion.

Okay.

Uh go ahead.

Um in reviewing this uh in the standards for review, I found that this on balance met the standards for review for both a rezone and a site plan.

I did uh visit the site, like I said, and that uh completely changed my impression of the challenges that they had in front of them to develop this from a stormwater and tree perspective and um the the work that had to be done to achieve this project.

And so um normally where I would be screaming about trees, um I realized with this project it it you may have been able to move a building, but there's going to be infrastructure, there's going to be all kinds of other things that are happening underground that needed to be taken into consideration.

And the value of these 17 townhomes weighed against some of the other items in our standards far uh exceeded that.

So I I um I very much support this project.

And I say well done to Habitat for Humanity.

Anybody else want to speak to the motion?

All right.

Commissioner Hernkotch moved approval of the rezone 24-RE-02, site plan 24-SP-1-1 and final subdivision plat 24-2.

It was not included.

You don't want to include that?

No.

They asked us to do a separate motion.

Okay, that one.

All right.

So the first two, the rezone and the site plan, uh, Vice Mayor Trice seconded.

If there are no other discussion, Commissioners, if you vote.

Also roll call as well.

Trice.

Yes.

Yes.

Alpert, yes.

That's he.

Yes.

Yes.

Is that your vote, Commissioners?

The motion passes five zero.

All right.

And then you're going to do a separate motion.

Yes.

Move approval of twenty-four um dash SUB-02 for subdivision plat.

Second.

Did you want to speak to the motion?

Met the standards for re standard for review.

Okay.

All right.

If there's no other discussion of y'all vote, Commissioners.

All right.

Also roll call as well.

Aaron Kotch.

Yes.

Alper Backine.

Yes.

Ulrich?

Yes.

Rice.

Yes.

Is that your vote, Commissioners?

Motion passes five zero.

Thank you all.

Looking forward to seeing that.

All right.

New business item 12-1.

And this is a presentation regarding the 2025 state leg legislative end of session report and discussion of the City of Sarasota's 2026 state legislative priorities.

And I'm going to call upon Jennifer Jorgensen, our governmental relations director, and Todd Josco, partner with Ballard Partners and a state lobbyist.

And he is the managed part managing partner.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, Jennifer Jorgensen, Director of Governmental Affairs.

And as the mayor just said, Todd Jasco is here with us as well.

Todd is our lobbyist with Ballard and Partners.

And today we're going to go through a two-step presentation.

The first one is going to be Todd going through the legislative report, a presentation that covers most everything that was in the legislative report.

The legislative report that Ballard and Partners completed for us was attached to the backup material.

We're not going to go through the entire uh report.

He'll just touch on some of the highlights.

And then the last thing in the presentation is a draft format of the fiscal year 26 legislative priorities, and I'll go through those.

We can have a discussion of those.

Any changes that may be needed, we can I can bring those back, make those changes, and then at the next um City Commission meeting present that for approval.

So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Todd to go through the legislative report.

Thanks, Jennifer.

Good morning, uh Madam Mayor, Commissioners.

Uh it's an honor to be here and to represent the City of Sarasota.

Um this was our first session um representing the city and uh it seemed to go well.

I think we had some good wins.

Um myself, I don't want to take all the credit.

Um myself and um one of my partners, uh Matt Forrest are the point people uh for um interactions with Jennifer in the city, but um our whole um Tallahassee office, we have 23 professionals um are um you know uh able to be pulled in as needed to help advance the city's interests.

So um it's an honor to represent the city, I think uh many of you know I grew up in Sarasota, graduated from Riverview High School, so it's a special pride to represent my hometown.

Um I guess get going.

And as Jennifer said, we um we do a a pre-session report, uh, we do a mid-session report and a post-session report that really goes into detail on legislation uh in the interest of time.

I'm gonna kind of take a 50,000 foot level, but uh certainly refer back to the um to the written reports um to go into much more specifics.

Um the the 2025 legislative session um eventually ended, um a lot later than I think a lot of people thought.

Um it it right around the corner things are gonna start up again.

Um committee week start in October 6th.

So already working with um with Jennifer on kind of getting our ducks in a row and looking at um appropriations asks and things of that nature.

So um we're really starting up again.

So uh this is a great time to not only look back, but also look forward.

Um just some kind of again uh highlights about uh session by the numbers, um, you know, and the budget.

Um this was the second session in a row where the budget has come in, I think two billion dollars less than the previous session, um, which is uh you know interesting on a couple of levels.

Um going into last session, um the legislative long range forecast had uh this year being the last surplus and then going to deficits.

Um because of budget cuts last year, that's changed a bit.

The the joint legislative uh budget commission met Friday, actually.

And um, you know, then the new outlook has us at a surplus again for the next fiscal year, and then going into deficits the first year about a billion, and then you know, it really goes off a cliff um in year two for several billion.

So um, you know, what that means is we're probably looking at another tight budget year, um, probably looking at budget cuts.

Um I know that the legislature has said, you know, that this specifically want to look at uh you know their state employee health uh insurance system and look if they can save some money there.

But um, you know, it's gonna be a fight uh like it is every year for dollars, and you know, but we're we're up for the task.

Um which is actually a good transition to like the good news.

Um I think we did okay uh last year.

Um you know, we were able to get um two projects um funded and surviving uh gubernatorial vetoes both of them were were pretty big big swings.

Uh both of them were uh 3.5 million for the citywide coastal resiliency hazard mitigation, which um comprised uh a lot of different uh mitigation still sustainability repair um efforts for different assets along the coastline, and then another three and a half million specifically for Van Wazel.

Um I know that I just heard a presentation at Tiger Bay where um the city manager was uh talking about uh you know the needs and uh hopefully that's a good puts a good dent into uh getting the Van Wasel uh where it needs to go and understanding that you know, kind of the final plan is is still to yet to be determined.

But um, you know, want to thank our delegation for that first and foremost.

Um Senator Joe Gruders, Representative Um James Buchanan, Representative Fiona McFarland, Representative Danny Nix, uh, you know, they're the ones that were really fighting for these dollars.

So you couldn't have done it certainly without their strong support.

Key bills, um again, this is a 50,000 foot um look um, you know, in our in our um report, we we go into a lot more detail.

Um Senate Bill 180 um has got a lot of talk.

Um, you know, it's very um ambiguous, I guess, the language in terms of I think that uh you know when it went through there was really no opposition from you know the League of Cities, uh associated counties, so like you know, uh we didn't really see a lot of controversy, but I think nobody really um tuned in on to how ambiguous some of the language was and does it really prevent um you know um things that are affected by true emergencies um from not being more stringent than they were before the hurricane hit.

Um you know, it's been interpreted a lot more broadly, as you probably know, and uh you know it's it's really questioned um a lot of just comp plan changes and and just uh things that that people would argue have nothing to do with emergencies.

Um that's something that you know our last slide is is things to look ahead for next session.

I'm gonna kind of conflate the two because certainly um you know I think there's been a lot enough noise about Senability, I would be shocked if if there's you know some type of glitch bill to to look at some of those things and really clarify legislative attent.

Um taxation, sorry, I I can either see here or here.

So I gotta keep doing the the the taxation.

Um probably most um noteworthy on um the tax bill that was passed last year is what wasn't included.

Um you know, you may remember there was talk about doing a 0.75% um across the board sales tax reduction.

Um that that didn't make it over the finish line.

There was talk about um taking tourist development tax dollars, bed tax dollars, and really taking them away in full from some of the tourism bureaus and giving them to the counties to let them spend them on what they see fit.

Um, you know, that didn't go through.

Um and the you know, the the governor was pitching things um uh a thousand dollar uh rebate for every um property tax bill.

That that didn't go through either.

Um but some of the things that weren't included in the tax bill, we eliminated the sales tax and commercial leases.

That's something that has been kind of chipped away in recent years.

Florida was the only state that had a sales tax on commercial leases, so we eliminated that.

And then there were some things about back-to-school holidays, or is it back to or not a back to school, a tax holiday on hunting and fishing equipment that just uh kicked off last week and that was in the news a lot.

Um kind of quickly on on some of the things, um Senate Bill 1080 um is um um kind of just yet another bill that speeds up the the shot clock, if you will, when people apply for permits.

You know, there's so many times so many days that the local government has to respond to the permit, so many days they have to approve it, um, things of that nature.

So, you know, the that that's not a surprise.

There's been a lot of uh legislation that really tries to get that clock going and get permits turned around quicker.

Um affordable housing is the live local.

Um, you know, some of the things that that were included this year were um allowing uh religious um uh uh institutions to be eligible under uh live local um allow PDs, um, you know, uh sometimes you know it was commercial industrial, they were eligible, but a lot of times uh a property isn't zoned industrial or commercial.

Uh it's kind of a combination of the two, so that was kind of a quirk.

Um construction regulation, uh that is really a a preemption of synth that synthetic turf in residential.

Um certified recovery residences was a big topic in South Florida.

Those are sober homes.

Um, you know, I think when you know something was introduced, it really scared a lot of folks that are like, oh my gosh, you know, that was such a problem.

But um it really just requires local governments um by like the beginning of the year to have an ordinance that has a uh a codified process for review and approval of uh sober homes.

And then transportation, that was just um the big FDOT bill that has just a ton of stuff in there.

Um a lot of stuff fails.

I mean it's it's a lot easier to uh kill a bill than pass a bill.

Um I would put all of these in the you know, could come back next year, um, might very likely to come back.

Um the CRA bill um originally sought to eliminate basically sunset all CRAs, a lot of pushback on that.

Um, you know, we kind of move towards like restricting some um activities of CRAs, but that still didn't make it across the finish line.

Um suits against the government um is uh sovereign immunity.

Um, you know, that's something that uh is comes back every year, and you know, I think a lot of folks agree that we need to raise those limits.

They haven't been raised in quite some time, but like you know, what those limits are and if there's some type of metric there is kind of the sticking point.

Um local business tax, another thing is probably gonna come back.

That's like you know what used to be called occupational taxes.

The intent is to not make those like you know, uh revenue generators to uh, you know, if if they cover the costs, then the the difference needs to be refunded back to um the the taxpayers.

Um affordable housing, that was about um accessory dwelling units and um you know making sure that local governments have some type of process to approve um accessory dwelling um units.

Um local government um impact fees um and uh orders um has to do um that was actually something that was pretty specific to the cities here.

So there was a prohibition of art-related requirements as a condition of um development permits.

Um not all cities do that.

I know that the that's something that the city does, so we're able to um to push back on that with the strong help of our delegation, I should say.

Um stormwater management system, that was a requirement to like, you know, every year annually inspect a lot of stuff and then display of flags, um, you know, um uh looking to eliminate um local government's ability to fly like political uh flags um you know that express political viewpoints.

So you know, certainly any of those things can come back um next year.

Um property taxes is something that you've you know certainly have heard about.

Um there is a select committee, the houses is is convenient select committee on property taxes.

They're actually gonna convene next week.

Um they have said that um they at this time they're not considering the two gubernatorial um proposals of one eliminating all property taxes in the state uh and also the $1,000 across the board uh reduction.

But there's a whole host of things that they're gonna be looking at.

It kind of seems like they want to increase the homestead exemption and maybe an additional homestead exemption increase if for folks that are 65 and over.

Um, you know, certainly adjust the Save our homes uh cap is something they'll be looking at and then you know what to do about um non-homesteaded properties.

Um anything that they pass will have to go to referendum and be on the November ballot, but you know, that's probably a pretty lock that people are going to vote to reduce their um their property taxes.

So you know, that really kind of kicks off uh next week, that process.

And again, that's just the House.

The Senate hasn't really said, you know, do we support these or do we not?

But um, you know, what to expect, probably something in property taxes will come out.

Um other things, you know, since we went to press, um other things have kind of like dominated the headlines.

Um we've talked about the budget cuts that might be coming, um, talked about vaccines has been in the news a lot.

Um the the um executive branch has the ability to eliminate requirements for um a few vaccines, but most of them are in uh they're codified in legislation.

So it would take the legislature to to make those changes.

Um, you know, haven't really heard um uh consensus saying that that's something that uh you know everybody wants to do, but we'll see what happens.

Um, you know, we may have some more talk about redistricting.

Um, you know, that's something that different states have done to redistrict um to give more representation at the federal level.

Um sovereign immunity probably will come back.

Um, you know, that's uh representative uh McFarland was one that sponsored that.

So you know it's great that we have the ability to dialogue with her and and really um you know come up with um you know fair um numbers.

Um we talked about seven seven Senate Bill 180, um local business tax probably come back as well too.

So um, you know, expect anything really.

Um I guess that leads into um as we are restarted that uh now is the time that um you know for the city to start um putting together legislative priorities, um both policy and appropriations, um working with Jennifer kind of to start the appropriations process, and I think she is going to present kind of a draft of um legislative priorities um on the policy side.

So I'm gonna turn it over to her and uh certainly I'm available for any questions and again appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning.

Thank you.

Perfect.

And I put the priorities up on the overhead, so if we could get the overhead up and make sure I have them the right way.

Yep.

Perfect.

Okay.

Um I won't go through every one of these as some of them, as some of them um are just repeats that we had in last year's.

So I'm really going to highlight the new ones that we um talked through.

Mayor am I okay to keep it?

Yeah.

Um I I would I was expecting 15 minutes for him, 15 minutes for her.

Okay, that's fine.

Okay.

For however long because we'll then we'll discuss it.

She probably only needs five.

Okay.

I'll do 10.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Um I'll just go over the new ones that we added for this year.

So if you look under home rule, the second one, the second bullet um support legislation preserving reasonable sovereign immunity liability caps.

We had this last year, but again, I think we're going to, since this is um Representative McFarland, we did speak with her later in the session last year about a formula that we believe would be a good um cap on sovereign immunity.

So we are going to speak with her earlier in the session, kind of have a better discussion about that cap.

Um the number two, the state legislative priorities, the fiscal responsibility, this one, both of these are new for this year.

Um just asking for support of local government's ability to levy our property taxes to support critical services.

Um that's obviously a big one for us because most, I think over 50 percent of our um property taxes that come in do go towards supporting the SPD.

So we want to ensure the legislation understands that those go to our critical services, um, and also advocate against legislation that acts as a funding shift of taxes for local government.

So again, if you're gonna take away a tax and we need it to fund critical services, we're just gonna have to do a tax shift.

So really have those um discussions with the legislation this year.

The environmental resiliency and water quality, those did not change from last year.

We condensed some, um, and so it's a little bit more of a simplified list, but none of the ones on there are new.

Affordable housing, same.

This is the same as last year, nothing new on this one.

Um, the emergency preparedness and response is new to this year.

And again, just to address some of the concerns that SB 180 has introduced from last year, um, sort of support legislation that provides for effective and appropriate emergency reactiveness and responses for local governments.

So again, asking specifically for the legislation um to address emergencies and um not hold back from other things that the city needs in that don't respond to emergency and emergency bill and advocate against legislation that restricts permitting construction and land use, which does not have a direct impact to emergency preparedness or responsiveness.

Um arts and culture, again, arts and culture was one we added last year as a new category because arts and culture is such ingrained in the City of Sarasota.

But one of the things that we want to stress is the support support arts-based community development policies, most specifically, and we are actually working with the Florida League of Cities.

We have asked the Florida League of Cities to potentially add a priority to their list this year that addresses the FDOT um conversation about no artwork on sidewalks.

And again, the city has respectfully followed all of the requirements from FDOT, um, and we respect that they have the right to do that.

We are asking FLC to just look at that requirement from FDOT specifically as it relates to sidewalks, um, and only if it um is in compliance with any safety measures.

We do not want to obviously affect anything from a safety perspective, but just be able to do um a little bit of research into that and ask FLC to look at that as a priority.

So those are the main um legislative priorities for 2026, and we are here for any questions you may have.

Okay.

Um I don't think we have anybody signed up to speak, so I'm gonna call upon Commissioner Ulrich.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh first of all, uh I thought the legislative priorities were clearly written and well done.

Thank you for that.

Um Mr.

Jasco, I have three questions for you.

Um in your report regarding Senate Bill 180, you recommended that the city attorney review and opine as to how the bill may affect the city, especially the provisions affecting permitting and land use following storms, and then report to the city commission.

So I guess I look to Ms.

Jorgensen, are you working with the City Attorney to review Senate Bill 180 and report back to departments as well as the City Commission if necessary?

I I just wanted before Jennifer uh jumps in to just kind of maybe a caveat.

So like when we um kind of analyze the bills, we we we kind of put that language in there like for for everything because we're not attorneys.

Um so I mean that's kind of a blanket recommendation that like here's what like it seems like it does, but like, you know, like knowing legislative intent is really like beyond like our capabilities.

Like so, like I think any legislation that passed, like I think it's a good practice to like you know, talk to um in-house legal counsel and and you know, kind of decide like what you think it says.

Uh, because there's unfortunately there's really no opportunities to clarify um, you know, as it relates to Senate Bill 180, I think folks are finding like how it's being interpreted when you know, like complain amendments are being transmitted to the state.

Um, you know, the the state will write and say, like we feel that this violates 701 Bill 80.

So um, you know, it's all uh ambiguous.

Um, you know, I I I just want to make sure that like that recommendation wasn't specific to what Senate Bill 180.

I think we said that for like everything that was in there.

So just even the bills that failed.

Well, I mean, there's really nothing to talk about the bills that failed, um, but um i i anything that passes, like it's it's really above our uh I think um it's it's above our expertise to interpret them because we're we're not attorneys.

I mean, we're just telling you what passed, and like here's the language, but like you know, as a general rule, like it's up to you all to like you know interpret like how how this like may or may not apply.

Um so then I look to Ms.

Jorgensen and Mr.

Polzak, you're on this?

Yes.

Um, I'm working with Mr.

Polzak on so many things.

But um yes, Mr.

Polzak and his team um have already reached out to our departments, Commissioner, to set up meetings to talk about all the bills, not just S B 180 um that affects the departments and and what they need to potentially do and understand.

Right.

And this is a big one and requires us to really work with uh Jennifer and the office of the city manager on the operational side as well, which we're doing.

Thank you.

And so regarding the bills that failed, some of them uh gain momentum toward the end of a session, uh yep they fail.

And so, as you said, we can look to them to come back next year in a revised form or format.

And so I I had a question about that, but you answered it, that you're beginning to work with Ms.

Jorgensen now on what were to get us ready for the next legislative session, including bills that failed that had momentum.

Yes, absolutely.

I would say anything that was on that list of bill bills that failed potentially could come back.

I mean, you find that like when um you know we're kind of like in a mid-year, if you will, there's not going to be that many changes in committee structures.

So there'll be some tweaks, but it's not the wholesale changes that you'll see like uh after an election where there is different House and Senate leadership and they do different committee structures.

So I would say it's it's much easier to kind of carry the momentum forward on things that failed in years like this than you know when there's wholesale changes to leadership and and priorities change.

Thank you very much.

Welcome.

Commissioner Aaron Kotch.

Thank you.

Excellent job.

Um thank you for the report and the update and sort of 1,980 whatever bills and condensing it into language that is digestible as we continue to, you know advocate uh year after year.

Um it's it's very hard to keep track of the details of these.

So thank you for really a great job and a great presentation.

And the um the language of the priorities is just spot on, and usually if it's like covered in ink, and I only have a few little suggestions, but really great, really great job on that.

Um for the uh Senate Bill 180, and you talked about a glitch bill.

I do believe the league is talking about uh uh filing a glitch bill.

So um uh you know, I just wanted to share that information with you.

And I wanted to give an example um that is uh you know, a very real Sarasota example of that and how it's impacted the city.

A lot of folks have heard about um our um challenges with U.S.

recycling and the concrete crushing going on in the central coconut neighborhood.

And one of the neighbors uh reached out to me and said as we continue to deal with this situation, could we make it so that this doesn't happen again anywhere else in the city of Sarasota?

So could you change what you're allowed to do in industrial zones and exclude that going forward?

So I had some discussions with the attorney and with the city staff and the city manager.

And this is where SB 180 says no, in fact, you can't.

So, you know, this these are folks, health safety and welfare, we're trying to work with all the different entities to to manage this and resolve this issue.

But going forward, they're thinking about other folks, our hands are tied.

So it's a it's a very simple example of how we're stuck in our tracks.

And not just this example, but there are many, many, many others.

So the implications of that and the unintended consequences are endless, I would think.

The items coming back, um sovereign immunity.

Um Ms.

Jorgensen, what?

What are your proposals as far as um discussing this and advocating for it?

So we will be able to That's a big one for us, right?

For all municipalities.

So our plan is to obviously meet with with um Representative McFarland um before session starts, propose a formula um similar to what we proposed last year, which is take the sovereign immunity from the last time it was um increased, apply a um inflation calculation to it, and start there with the that's what the limit would be to go forward, not retroactive.

We don't obviously want to apply it retroactively.

And then from there, we would also agree to um an inflation percent that would be applied to it on an ongoing basis, so we don't get to this point where it's been 10, 15 years since an inflation has been put on it, and now we have such a great jump that they're trying to reach um.

So that would be our starting point for sovereign immunity.

Okay.

Thank you.

And then for the local business tax, you had mentioned that coming back.

Um for example, for the City of Sarasota, we use our local business tax for economic development.

And if that went away, we wouldn't have funds directly related to it.

And there is a rational nexus between paying your business tax and then that those funds being used for economic development to benefit businesses.

Um is that a situation where they would say you can't that's not covering your expend your your expenditures or or would that be exempt?

So it's I g it's hard to say because nothing's nothing's been filed, right?

And you know, these bills change over time.

I think that you know, Representative Botana, um, the architect of this bill, and I think he's he said that he does intend to bring it back.

Um, he his his concern was looking at um, you know, the money that has grown over years, and you know, in his opinion that it is now like a you know a money generator as opposed to fulfilling needs.

So certainly that's a reasonable conversation to have.

I think that you know, where it left off before it kind of just disappeared was um capping fees at like last year's level or 2004 levels.

So it did it did change a little bit from like you know, getting in the nitty-gritty for like can't do this, can't do that, to like let's just like roll it back and like it just can't exceed this, you know, in order to give more flexibility to the cities.

But um, you know, when we start all over again, we we you know sometimes start all over again.

So those are certainly um you know good good conversations to have.

And certainly, you know, um you know, as as we work with Jennifer and get the that feedback, you know, those are good talking points for us when we when we um you know speak to representatives that are filing legislation and also to give ammunition to our delegation members when they um speak with their their colleagues.

Okay.

Um I th I think the property tax is the biggest challenge for us and um, you know, and the language that you had in here addressing that I thought was was really excellent just to say the fact that, you know, any change in in taxes is a shift and it's just a shift.

And so that's really important to reiterate that and I was very impressed with that language.

Um the art impact fee.

Um we have five percent.

If we were to raise that to one percent, would Senate Bill 180 kick in or from 5 percent to 1 percent would be.

I'm I'm sorry, point point five percent.

So half a percent to 1 percent.

I I don't know that I can answer that.

I mean, like, you know, legislative intent is really it's interpreted like when you like, you know, when you do something and someone says like no.

Um so like I I don't know that I can say like, yes, that is like okay or it's not okay.

I think like you need to like decide that it is or it isn't applicable to Senate Bill 80 and proceed forward and see what happens.

We do have a public art master plan.

And what I like to say is that when we had multiple presentations about that master plan, and it to implement it, it requires raising that fee.

And uh it was accepted community-wide.

And so you know it is now the time to discuss that, um, or would we be in breach of SB 180?

Well, we'll definitely work with the City Attorney on it, um, Commissioner, to see if it uh if 180 would uh keep us from doing that, but I think we also have to have the discussion of because the the prior bill would remove that ability altogether, and we want to make sure, even if we can't increase our fee, we want to make sure we can keep the fee that we have.

So I think we have to look at it almost you know in two parts.

Um not only would 180 keep us from actually increasing it, but will a new bill this year keep us from even doing it at all.

So we're kind of measuring those both as we look into the session upcoming session.

Okay.

Just to reiterate, though, that the commission did adopt that master plan.

Yes, right.

So we s we voted and we said, yes, the community supports this, we support this, let's go ahead and raise that fee.

So it would be a matter of when I think that was introduced and how far back 180 um pulls or or keeps you from it goes pretty far back.

It goes back and before Ian Irma, Irma?

I think it just goes back to EM.

I don't know a hundred percent, so don't quote me on that.

But this was post-EM.

Right.

Was it post-EN?

I think so.

Yeah.

So we just have to look at the timing of it and then see how it applies to SB 180, not only this year, but from past versions as well.

Okay.

And then the CRAs, that's another discussion that I think is really important for us to stay on top of and stay ahead of.

I mean, there are so many of these, but um excellent job on the legislative priorities and the language.

I do have just a couple of little items we can discuss if it's okay with the city manager.

Um thank you very much.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you.

And I appreciate the focus, the fact that the way it's laid out focused on seven topics and within them the bullet points, I think, and makes it clear and to everyone involved.

Um I am throwing this out there, I don't know how it can be worked in.

I have a problem with the uh property tax homestead exemption increases, and at the same time, focus on affordable housing.

So when under the fiscal responsibility, avoiding the funding shift, the shift of taxes, if homeowners get ad valorum tax relief, either services are going to decline, or we're going to increase the taxes on non-advilor non-homestead exempt uh uh places, many of which are affordable housing.

So that's even more pressure on developers, builders who are trying to supply affordable housing that we're asking for, and then we're saying, oh, and by the way, we're going to increase your property tax.

So these legislatures looking at these as two separate buckets.

So if there's some way of bringing them together to help them notice the overlap, uh one of the thoughts that I had is if you had rental housing, especially if it's rental affordable housing, where many of those residents would qualify for homestead exemption based on the length of their lease, they are signing some affidavit saying, you know, I'm a permanent resident, somehow providing a partial tax relief to the owner of that commer that building with the with the proviso that unless it's affordable, that they have to, you know filter the savings to the tenants, or if it's affordable that they have, you know, they're not charging more than they are allowed to, and that their savings will keep them in business.

But I'm I'm this is all sort of to say if we could include in the affordable housing bullet something regarding property tax relief for affordable housing complexes, so that we're not shifting the tax burden to homesteaded proper from homesteaded property to affordable housing, which we would be doing.

I think I think they are, you know, under the affordable housing, some of the legislation, I think they do have some property tax relief if you are building affordable housing.

But I could be wrong.

So I'll leave it up to you guys.

All right.

Commissioner Batti, will you finish?

Yeah, I'm gonna finish.

Oh no.

Uh again, thank you so very much.

Thank you for the work that you are doing, um, particularly in Tallahassee and uh as we spoke about a number of times about winner could buy you and uh the the money that you've allowed um or got to us for that and have had conversations with uh with rooters about that, you know, countless conversations about that.

So thank you for that.

I wanted to get wanted to ask you just a general question, and that is you know, being there in Tallahassee and and working with other municipalities and so on in your line of work.

Uh if you have uh a general read or or temperature on this thing with property taxes and what have you and the elimination of them.

I try and tell people all the time when I'm having conversations with them that you know they are the this a lot of people are like, oh man, that's great, they're gonna get rid of property taxes or whatever.

And I'm like, okay, well, you're gonna be paying somewhere, trust me.

You know.

And uh and you definitely don't want to rely on the state for for your services and so on.

So but I just wanted to get um uh ask you ask you what you if you have a general.

Sure.

Uh you know, it it takes all three chambers, right?

The House and the Governor's office to have consensus to uh you know pass something that's going to go on the ballot, then certainly, you know, um it has to go through legal review to make sure it's you know single map with single issue and everything.

Um, the the governor's office and the House have been, I guess, the most vocal on their um proposals.

Um the Governor's executive branch, I mean, you know, he's suggesting up to like elimination of all property taxes altogether.

Um, you know, um back of the envelope calculations, if we were to eliminate property taxes, you'd probably have to have an increase of sales tax of like 12 percent, I think, to like you know, get to parity, which would be you know pretty high.

Um the House is the entity that is really kind of you know putting pen to paper and convening a committee um starting next week on uh property taxes.

Uh you know, they they've said that um that proposal um is not something they are considering at this time.

Um that uh you know, they feel that um you know it would just be just awful for local governments and the services that local governments provide.

Um similarly, they um seem to have dismissed the Governor's suggestion to just like take money out of reserves and give uh a one-time um credit.

Um but everything else is is the the the um the the dialogue is really just starting.

Um but again, you know, the Senate has to go along and the governor has to approve it.

You know, the governor could think, you know, it's not enough.

The governor could think it's it's too much.

Um so you know, a lot of things can happen.

Uh but it just seems like from conversations, um I think the most likely would be some type of additional exemption for homesteaded properties.

That's just that just seems like that's where um everybody thinks that that's probably the the most logical first step.

Uh excellent.

Yeah, thank you for that.

Thank you for the explanation because uh just for public consumption, give people a wherewithal as to what's happening, but I appreciate that and appreciate the work that you do as well as you, Mrs.

Jorgensen.

Thank you so very much.

Thank you, Mayor.

All right, thank you.

I think we're um there's nobody else.

Um we don't need a motion for this.

This is just to give some feedback regarding the direction I think we have done that.

So thank you all, and thank you for a really good support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

And this is an appeal of the planning board decision of August 7, 2025, which approves site plan application number 25 SP09 to permit the redevelopment of approximately 3.96 acres of the 14.73 acre Selby Botanical Garden site at 1534 Mound Street, as more particularly described in the application.

And I'm going to call upon City Attorney Poles Act.

Thank you, Mayor.

This hearing is regarding this as you stated, the City of Sarasota Planning Board decision of August 7, 2025, which reviewed site application number 25 SP09 under our code, including relevant testimony, and rendered an approval to permit the redevelopment of approximately 3.96 acres of the 14.73 acre Selby Botanical Garden site at 1534 Mound Street, as more particularly described in the application.

Per the City of Sarasota zoning code, it says, quote, an agreed person may take an appeal from the decision of the planning board to the City Commission within 10 days after that decision was rendered.

Specifically in Division 5, Section 4-505 of our code, it talks about of our zoning code, talks about City Commission review.

I quote, if an appeal by an aggrieved person of a decision of the planning board relating to a site plan described in the sub paragraph is filed with the City Auditor and Clerk's office within 10 days of the Board's decision.

The City Auditor and Clerk so schedule that before the City Commission by placing the item on their agenda.

The request to hear an appeal must be approved by a supermajority vote.

That is one of your standards here today.

Ms.

Franklin timely filed her request for appeal.

She did not have a grieved person or other party status at the planning board level, which at that level would have been labeled affected party, affected person status.

And kind of a confusing iteration of our code.

A grieved person is defined in Section 2-201 of our code and have handed that out and it's in our backup material.

And I'll just read it for the record for the purpose of these regulations within our zoning code, in other words, the following words in terms of the meaning specified here in accrued person.

One, the city.

So in other words, the city could appeal in the decision of the planning board if it wanted to.

Two, the applicant for a development permit in this case.

And three, which bears today, any person or entity which will suffer to a quote greater degree than the general public, an adverse effect to a legally recognized interest protected or furthered by our land development regulations or comprehensive plan.

In the past, a similar hearing as this one has been scheduled to determine the matter of a grieved person's status versus an administrative review.

Although I would note that our code in no way and nowhere provides for either of these paths.

Here, Ms.

Franklin did not apply for such standing at the planning board level and then thus was not a party and thus did not have traditional standard standing, the the kind of standing that our Florida appellate rules would contemplate.

However, having said that, it's been the practice of the city to bring these matters before the City Commission, as I previously mentioned.

So in an abundance of caution and fairness, that's what we are doing here today.

The focus then today is the definition of the aggrieved person under section 2-201, subsection three, as I quoted in handed out, and then our backup to determine if Ms.

Frisk Franklin, excuse me, qualifies as an agreed person under our code and such should be allowed to take an appeal of this matter forward.

Each side has indicated that 15 minutes is sufficient to make their arguments.

Although that may not necessarily use all 15 minutes, but I think that's more than reasonable.

And the presentations may include a mix of legal arguments and maybe some factual recommend ref referen preference to convince the commission whether this standard is met or not.

And I will speak further on this issue later in terms of the broader city policy and rules.

So we would start with um the request request or Ms.

Franklin.

She'd have 15 minutes.

Okay.

Ms.

Franklin.

Hello again.

It's been 10 years since I've done this.

I think Mayor Alpert, it was her first year on the Commission when Laurel Park, in fact, um appealed a planning board decision to the City Commission involving the women's exchange.

I think I had been president of Laurel Park and a resident of the.

I think I was a resident of Laurel Park for about 10 minutes.

And Kate Loman, who was uh longtime neighborhood president, wrote me in and said, hey, you're going to be president.

So I quickly learned what a zoning code was.

And since then, you know, I have not actually objected to any development in the city except this one.

And the reason I brought it forward today, the reason I'm here, is I am affected more than most, but this decision was an error.

I'm not sure how to use the overhead, should be there.

Okay.

And I'm the only one who noticed it in time.

So that's why I'm here.

But we're all aggrieved.

The city is aggrieved.

Um this really was, I believe, a mistake.

So I want to outline why I've come to believe that.

Um my basic rationale for the appeal is that on its face, this site plan violates the city's grand tree ordinance.

It's taking away seven healthy grand trees that are live oaks.

And the language in the city's ordinance is crystal clear.

You cannot remove a healthy grand live oak from private or public property unless certain very specific conditions are met.

And those conditions do not apply to these trees.

So I saw that when I read the site plan before the planning board approval, and that was the first time the public had any way of weighing in on this project.

Um I knew it didn't meet the grand tree ordinance, and then the more I dug into it, it really doesn't meet the compatibility standards to grow in a way that complements the neighborhood for botanical gardens.

And more importantly, it doesn't meet the city comprehensive plan, which has very specific and quantitative guidelines for canopy coverage and grand tree protection.

So if on its face, this plan doesn't meet the city's code, how did it ever get approved?

Why are we here?

And as far as I can tell, it was a mistake.

Um there was staff turnover in the key position of senior arborists between the time the DRC reviewed this in April and it made its way to the planning board in August.

And in fairness to the planning board, they were never given the senior arborist report.

The only reason I know about it, the only reason you're going to know about it, is a neighbor of mine who used to work at Selby and knows these trees well, did a freedom of information request to ask for all documents related to this particular site plan, and it surfaced among them.

And I'm not saying anybody did anything wrong.

I'm just saying when you lose staff, you lose knowledge.

And that knowledge that this plan didn't follow the Grand Tree ordinance was lost when Donald Olam left the city's employment.

So this is a mistake.

And your zoning code and state statute provides this process to address these mistakes.

As your city attorney just outlined, you could have brought this forward.

You as the city commission as affected parties.

The planning board could have.

I guess the city writ large would ever could have.

But I'm the only one who did.

So I have this extra burden of proving that if these 102 trees and seven grand trees are removed, it's going to harm me more than the other 57,000 people who live here, and I think I can do that.

But what I really want to focus on is the reason I'm doing it, isn't to make trouble for Selby, isn't to say don't make a great new conservatory for all these exotic plants.

It's to say you can do better.

And this particular plan doesn't meet the city code, and you need to follow it.

So I'm following the process you've laid out to do that.

Okay.

As I outlined, um the Greed Party really is you.

These are it's a highlight of the section of Donald Olam's report that was never actually included in the packet.

He read aloud from it at the April 2nd DRC meeting, but it wasn't even in the backup there.

And then the conversation between Donald Olam and Selby's representatives on April 2nd was we're going to go talk about this because this plan as presented does not meet the Grand Tree protections.

You're required to build around Grand Trees, not through them.

And then he left, and like I said, it just seems like it fell through the the cracks.

Next up here.

So I'm sure Joe can explain this better, but I took my understanding of it from reading the Florida State statute.

In my mental model of this, you're an affected person before the development decision occurs.

And then once somebody gives the green light, whether that's administrative review or its planning board, or in some cases its city commission, if you disagree with the decision that kind of terminus body had, the next recourse for you is to go up to the next higher body of the food chain, and that's that's you all.

But I believe that you have to meet five criteria for agreed party status.

The first three are identical, I in my understanding to affected person.

That is proximity.

You've got to live nearby or work nearby the property where the development's going to occur.

Second, you have to suffer some harm either to environment or aesthetics or property value as a result of what that other project is going to do.

Third, you have to have participated in the public process through letters or public comments.

And those are the things for affected persons, sorry.

And then once you get to that decision point, which happened when the planning board approved this, then you have to, if you file for agreement, you have to say, hey, the thing I'm objecting to is something that you as a city are guaranteeing to me as a resident as part of the city's comprehensive plan.

And that can be something related to health, safety, environment, natural resources, all of which are covered in our con plan.

And then finally, even though the damage, the harm is going to apply to all of us, if 102 trees, seven of which are grand go, I have to be in a position where it's going to harm me more.

Again, because of my proximity or my habits or I'm a nearby worker or property owner.

It's got to harm me more than everybody else.

So I think I can show that it will, because they talk about stomping grounds, or at least we did when I was in New York, but these are my paddling grounds.

This is my neighborhood.

Pretty much every morning for the last five years, you can find me rolling my kayak down the Mert across Osprey, over to Ohio Place where my sister-in-law used to live, and my former neighbor who's a realtor in Laurel Park and has probably sold almost every one of the houses there at some point.

She lived on Ohio Place.

And one of the reasons that people move there is its proximity to that kayak launch.

The ability to have walkability to great vibrant downtown, leafy trees, because we still have canopy there, interesting architecture, and a straight out path to the bay is the real appeal of Laurel Park.

That's one of the reasons it's always been billed as, even by Dewani, as like the quintessential walkable neighborhood.

And the elements that make it walkable and paddleable include the ability to roll your kayak down the mirror.

Where else can that happen?

And it's not just that I have proximity to the water and out to Selby and out to the island that I call Kelican Island.

I know the habits of every bird that we see every morning.

I can tell you which days I spotted which manatees.

Yesterday we saw three spoon bills.

There's only been one, so that's a new development.

It's not just that we have existing flora and fauna that call be home.

It's that it's a migratory bird path.

There were something like 300,000 birds that flew over Sarasota last week.

They need someplace to rest, particularly in an urban landscape.

And then I remember Canopy Meg when she ran Selby, she used to talk about oak trees in particular as being condos for critters.

She said there were over 2,000 forms of life that call an oak tree home.

So that's really why I'm here today, because they can't speak for themselves, and because I can, and if we lose that canopy, they're gonna lose their home.

I'm gonna lose the natural beauty, and the ability to take photographs of wildlife, and uh I even won a contest at Selby once for uh bird photos.

Um, so that's the greater harm.

And then public participation.

I've certainly been a vocal advocate for keeping these trees.

I did write to all of you and to the planning board and to the press and to Selby's management before the planning board rendered its decision.

Once I read the backup and I said, wait a minute, this doesn't follow the plan.

I I raised that flag then.

After the planning board decided, without the benefit of the competent substantial evidence from the city's own experts, after they made the wrong decision, I wrote to the Herald Tribune and published a letter to the editor outlining the specific quantitative targets that the city has set for canopy coverage and the requirements of the Grand Tree Ordinance and said, wait a minute, rethink this, because you can solve this a lot of different ways, and you don't have to take down these trees.com.

I created a neighborhood petition.

I developed an interactive video game which was meant as a lighthearted way to illustrate a very serious consequence when you destroy habitat.

I've given press interviews and I've run ads.

So I've certainly been active in trying to educate.

If we look at the city plan, this is a comprehensive plan.

And I I mentioned neighborhoods earlier because I just reread the neighborhood chapter.

I didn't count, but it would be interesting to do a word count of the number of times compatibility is mentioned and quality of life is mentioned.

And a guarantee is made to we as residents that you're going to do everything you can to keep us healthy, keep the city livable, maintain a high quality of life for all residents, keep us safe, develop interesting and efficient transportation networks, including waterways, and protect and preserve the things that drove all of us to choose this to be home in the first place.

The aesthetics and the natural resources, the ambiance.

Then there's the environmental chapter, and that's where you start to get quantitative rather than qualitative.

You all recognize and your predecessors have how important protecting our natural environment is given how vulnerable we are to climate change and to hurricanes.

So oak trees are about the best you can have in terms of tolerating flooding, absorbing runoff, protecting us from storm surge.

They set a canopy coverage goal of 40% citywide.

Last time you got a report on it, uh was last May, and we were at 31% as an overall average, and the downtown zones were at 15 to 20 percent due to all the development.

And then we got hit with the hurricanes.

I don't even want to know what it is now, but I don't think it's exaggerating to say we have a canopy crisis.

Now we get to the zoning code, and this code was crafted with Selby's input.

I remember them working on the language.

It was important to everyone that as that garden grew from a green space to a more of an event center, that it grow in a way that kept its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods.

So they even wrote right into the code, sensitive and coherent matter which preserves the quality of life and integrity of the surrounding neighborhoods.

If I lose those trees and we lose that habitat, my quality of life is going to be diminished.

And then last, I just wanted to flag this as more a substantive argument, not for a standing one, but I think there was a real disconnect in terms of what the phrase botanic garden display area means.

It's in the mitigation section, and it was when it was discussed, it was about whether they would have to pay the same way anybody else would if they were removing plants.

But the whole concept is sort of left over from you can see pieces in the code where there's talk of nurseries and nurseries having outdoor display spaces.

And the only place in the city code that display area is defined is with regard to retail.

And this is about removing trees, not taking them down.

So my best guess, not having been here 30 years ago when they wrote this, is that the intention was to allow people to sell potted palms if you're a nursery without having to get a permit to remove the plant or to pay a mitigation fee.

And in Selby's documents, they even talk about the display area as pertaining to mitigation when they give you their tree inventory.

And then I'll just close by flagging.

There's few absolutes in life, but the third bullet here is why I've brought in this brought this forward.

It's not debatable.

The grand tree ordinance prohibits removal of healthy grand trees from private or public property unless specific criteria were met.

Now, a lot of trees were taken out, and maybe some were grand in phase one of Selby, but that was for a garage that had to be proximate to a road.

They don't need to do that here.

As a matter of fact, and I'd like just one more minute, if you could, because I think it's important.

Is that okay?

Very quickly.

Okay.

If you look in the map in the upper right corner, that's a representation of Selby's current site plan.

All the little green spots are grand trees.

A lot of the ones that are slated to go aren't even in the footprint of that structure.

And they're really only replacing, if you do the math, the new conservatory under air will only be 2100 square feet more than the current undercover.

So one solution would be move those plants off-site for a year while you build and reorient the greenhouse.

But it's not up to me to solve it.

I just want to flag that with 15 acres and only 2100 square feet.

There's a lot of ways to solve that problem without violating the Grand Tree Ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Now it is the applicant's turn.

I'm going to call upon Dan Bailey as the registered agent representing Selby Gardens.

Madam Mayor and Vice Mayor and Commissioners.

I'm Dan Bailey, the Wheels Parker Law Firm representing Selby Maurice Shelby Botanical Gardens.

To my right is Crystal Bailey, who is the general counsel and COO of the Gardens.

Chris Chin uh Cenfilone, our landscape architect, will join us up here in a moment.

Also here today is uh Morgan Bentley, who was a trustee of the gardens.

I want to call to your attention and invite your uh reading of the response that we filed on August 25, which outlined four reasons why we suggest this appeal should not move forward.

I want to uh uh commend Ms.

Franklin on her passion and her interest in this.

It's not the kind of interest that's going to entitle her to uh an affected a uh aggrieved person's status.

I'll get into a moment, but I think it's commendable that she is interested in this topic.

The uh tree protection is, of course, uh call for in the uh conference of plan and your land development regulations.

Uh by the same token, uh you also have in your comp a property rights uh provision which calls for the right of a property owner to physically possess and control his or her interest in the property, uh the right to use, maintain, develop, and improve his or her property for personal use or for the use of any other person subject to state law and local ordinances, which would include the tree protection ordinance, of course, the right uh to exclude others from the property, to protect the owner's possessions and property, the right to due process, which I'll get into in a moment, uh, the right to relief when a regulation or ordinance unfairly affects one's uh an owner's property.

Now, you've got a lot of provisions in your comp plan, and they all have to kind of be balanced against one another.

So I'm not saying one prevails over the other, but that is one of your uh elements in your conference of plan.

Um we uh uh uh uh regret to tell you some un inconvenient truths, and that is that uh Ms.

Franklin is not does not meet the test for an agreed person.

Uh the city attorney has read that to you.

Only an aggrieved person can appeal.

She indicated that the real aggrieved person here is the city, but uh but the city did not appeal it, and the time has already run for that, and I don't think the city would have been inclined to appeal it since your own uh planning board unanimously approved the site plan after you know due deliberation, public hearing, taking public comment, etc.

Section uh 2201 is that definition uh shows that a green person has to be someone who suffers to a greater degree than the general public, uh, an adverse effect to legally recognize interest protected.

Well, there are a lot of problems with that from the standpoint of uh Miss Franklin's position, uh, notwithstanding her zeal for uh trees, I think, and birds.

I think all of us share that zeal.

uh shows that a grieved person has to be someone who suffers to a greater degree than the general public uh an adverse effect to legally recognize interest protected well there are a lot of problems with that from the standpoint of uh uh miss uh uh franklin's position uh notwithstanding her zeal for uh trees I think and birds I think all of us share that zeal uh but um uh she also it alluded I think in some of her written materials to another definition that's a state statute that a little bit broader definition of aggrieved uh person but that does not apply here you you're using your own definition that your city attorney has read to you uh we contend that she does will not suffer a negative effect to a protected interest uh she uh indicates that she shares private moments with birds that are perched in the trees on the campus of Shelby Gardens that she can see when kayaking out in the water uh that's no different than the thousands of people who drive past Selby Gardens on Mound Street every day and can look over and see those same trees and those same birds I have a eight-year-old uh granddaughter who is a who loves birds and can identify all manner of birds she lives over near pinecraft but I don't think she has standing to come in here and and uh uh be an interloper in a proceeding uh such as this um it has to be a particularized interest and it has to be a particularized harm that is demonstrated by the uh so-called aggrieved person and that normally occurs when you have a project that's going to create off site impacts like stormwater runoff like traffic like noise um uh like lights and that kind of thing and in this case uh we're we're talking about uh tree preservation which happens on the campus it doesn't push impacts off the campus and so it really is inconceivable there could be an aggrieved person under this category when you're talking about tree preservation the city is charged with responsibility for enforcing that tree preservation uh code and it does it through a collegial body that is appointed by this commission namely the planning board and those are carefully selected people who follow carefully selected procedures and their uh deliberations and that's what happened here um here in this case miss franklin lives a half a mile away so in terms of a property interest it would be affected by this project it's a little bit too remote certainly be beyond the 500 feet that we talk about for the the status of an affected person um and and her interest does not exceed in degree the general interest it doesn't exceed the interest of my granddaughter in making sure birds have a place to live or that I have all of us I think share in that that concern and too many of them too many of us do to have one person step forward as an interloper and say my interest in that exceeds everybody else's interest therefore I ought to be at the table.

There have been a couple examples um locally where we uh the city has had to determine whether someone has an agreed uh person status uh most recently uh last December in the uh project at 1260 North Palm Avenue uh the Bay Plaza Owners Association which coincidentally was represented by my by Mr.

Bentley um they were able to establish a grieved person status it was a uh uh uh a close call it was a three to two vote but in that instance his client the association surrounded the subject property on three sides so I mean they were like the project like the hole in the doughnut and so they were determined by three two vote by the planning board to be an aggrieved person and able to proceed.

A better example would be 2019 when the EPAC uh condo at 605 Gulf Stream you had 22 residents next door in the Royal St.

Andrew challenging that approval and the planning board unanimously determined that that next door neighbor was not an aggrieved person right next door not a half mile away now a bigger problem that Ms.

Franklin has is that she was a no-show at the planning commission the planning board um she had she indicates that she did participate through social media uh she wrote emails uh but use of cyberspace as your platform to put forward and push out your ideas may be commendable but it doesn't meet the standard we have in the city for deliberations over site plans um you have a pr uh that I mentioned due process a little bit earlier due process procedural due process for the applicant uh requires certain things to be done your your planning board has its own procedures and they call for notice of the meeting they call for witnesses to be sworn and present live testimony they require that we as the applicant have the ability to cross examine any of those witnesses we were not afforded that opportunity here with Ms.

They call for witnesses to be sworn and present live testimony.

They require that we as the applicant have the ability to cross-examine any of those witnesses.

We were not afforded that opportunity here with Ms.

Franklin.

Why?

Because she wasn't there.

I think it was Woody Allen said that 80% of success is showing up.

And by the same token uh failure is failure to sh failure to show up.

So that that is the situation here.

Um she didn't seek status as a person, much less an affected person, much less an aggrieved person at the lower tribunal.

That's one of the most basic concepts of an appeal.

If you're complaining about what the lower tribunal did, you have to be there at the Little Tribunal to say what you think they ought to be doing instead.

Uh and then the third thing is there was ample competent substantial evidence that was presented at the planning board.

Yes, there were some questions.

Uh uh, there were two different uh arbors.

One had stepped down and another taken their place, but there was a robust discussion of that by the planning board members at the end of the day, they unanimously found compliance with the tree protection ordinance uh the DRC had earlier signed off.

And uh so at that point the burden shifted to any opponent.

We made our case, burden then shifted to an opponent to show why the site plan should be denied.

There was no opponent.

There was no opposition.

There was a neighborhood association uh to the south who had a spokesman come forward to ask some questions, but they weren't unfriendly questions, and we had good answers.

So there was no opposition.

So at this point, I want to call on uh Chris to talk a little bit about the uh issue of the uh trees.

Thanks so much, Dan.

Uh for the record, Chris Chun Filone with Kimley Horn and Associates.

I have been sworn, uh, and I am a certified ISA arborist as well as a licensed landscape architect.

Um if I could go through the presentation, I just wanted to call out uh a couple of the points related to the trees, as well as throughout the appeals application and presentation this morning, several statements uh citing and and and I think in a misleading way, and maybe just in a in a in a um in a confused way, the city code.

So I think it's important to note this is the this is with regards to tree requirements for exempt trees, the division of the entirety of the tree preservation criteria and code application or uh code applicability.

And what this says, and there's no there's no ambiguity on what it is applying to retail or not, that it says trees grown in institutional botanical gardens as part of the display area are exempt.

So all of those trees that are a part of that display area grown in the institutional botanical gardens are exempt.

So this was very clear uh as demonstrated in the site plan application.

There was an exhibit that's shown on the bottom left that highlighted where this display area is uh as well as the enlargement on the screen.

Basically everything to the left on your screen to the west of uh the Palm Avenue uh roadway that was historic there has uh everything to the left of that is that uh botanical garden, that institutional botanical garden, and that uh the applicability of any of the tree code is exempt from that section.

That's not to say the entirety of the project.

We are very clear that portions of the project um are um uh under applicability of the code.

But this site plan criteria for review um also is not an absolute, and it's one of seven.

There are many applicable criteria for review for site plans.

Trees are not the only one, they're really important one.

Um but there's things in here that states um with regards to the attractiveness of the property and environs if they were preserved.

Um talking about buffering and other techniques for preservation and enhancement of the environment.

So that's exactly what this project is doing.

It's enhancing it.

And so as a part of the tree protection strategy, um the proposed improvements and the alternatives were evaluated on site with two city arborists back in 2024.

Um this included uh first a visual examination of the trees from the ground, then an arborist report with that visual examination, and then resistograph testing that is required by code of any of the grand trees that are within the project area for improvement.

That resists the graph testing that was performed by a separate party, found decay in all of the trees that are being proposed to be removed.

So Selby's gonna go make multimillion dollar investment, tens of millions of dollars for this new conservatory.

The last thing we want to do is have trees in the vicinity of this new building that are susceptible to failure and decay.

And at the end of the day, this was a project that was a very collaborative process from world-class designers looking at the pros and cons of how do we cite this building.

And again, it's not just the trees.

It's all of the criteria that we have to consider.

It's emergency access, protection of existing buildings, FEMA flood zones, and velocity VE zones.

It's setbacks.

It's other proffered setbacks to from phase one that are included and that go above and beyond the water course setback.

And again, there's a bit of misleading information in there, and because of the fact that those trees are all exempt, we don't have to demonstrate what's being done within the gardens in that display area.

While the plan showed the removal because they're exempt, sixty-eight of those trees and palms are already in the process of being relocated.

They're the collections.

So uh nor do we show our enhanced plans as a part of this project, which uh add 167 trees and palms to the project.

And so when you look on your screen here and you see what's required in black through the process, through the code, not there's there's no skipping any of the requirements here.

The project is removing 20 trees, which requires a replacement of 37 trees.

Over 130 trees are being proposed on the enhanced plan, meaning nearly 200 trees are going back in on this project.

Almost 600 caliper inches are going back in.

And there is no confusion between the city arborists.

We met on site with Donald Allem.

Um he was the DRC uh arborist during review.

That's his signature on the DRC sign-off sheet before uh his retirement, and then uh the new city arborists who testified during the planning commission.

Um the application also uh is pretty misleading in some of the sighting sources that it's using, including like citing downtown with with Selby lumped into this.

As we showed during the planning board hearing, the canopy coverage that's actually proposed on site is quite extensive.

And and at the end of the day, it doesn't really take um, you know, degrees or or uh professional guidance to obviously see buildings that are in the footprint of this you know marvelous flip to keep the buildings that are there to remain.

There is no easy solution.

And at the end of the day, simply put, when it comes to trees, there is no there.

The project was reviewed by city staff, current and previous city arborists, and was found to meet all applicable criteria for review, which resulted in the unanimous planning board approval.

And frankly, the rationale for being granted a green person status simply that we enjoy kayaking along the public waterways adjacent at Selby's by waterfront is baseless.

This is not established a minimum requirement that she will suffer to a greater degree than the general public in adverse effect, especially considering more than 2,000 linear feet of mangroves and the entirety of the 30-foot-wide water course buffer are preserved in this plan.

Thank you.

Yes, Tanya.

Since I um the you know, the appellant got an extra minute, I allowed an extra minute there.

All right.

Um we have two people signed up to speak uh before we get to the commission questions.

Um Catherine Antunis and Morgan Bentley.

Okay, Miss Antounus.

Mr.

Battley, you're not gonna speak or yeah.

You really want me to, I will now.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Okay, I will need the overhead.

Can just pass um there.

Okay.

Um just a clarification.

This is a quasi judicial hearing.

Is it five?

Oh, it's not.

Okay.

All right.

Okay, well, good morning, everyone.

It's great to see you, Mr.

Bullock.

It's been a long time.

Good to see you too.

All right.

I support the appeal by Kelly Franklin.

I believe her standing is clear.

Franklin's habits, kayaking by these trees each morning is vastly different than driving by them, notwithstanding the attempt to conflate these two things.

Lord is Ramirez did not live next to the sites where mega hotels were planned for CS to key.

Her daily habits were relevant and accepted to validate her standing to successfully litigate against those proposed hotels, which clearly violated the county comprehensive plan.

Why wouldn't Kelly Franklin's habits be relevant here?

Marie Selby Botanical Gardens must be required to abide by the grand tree ordinance.

Selby Gardens must abide by grant trees protections.

I understand, and I think we need clarification that the Grant Tree Ordinance is not covered by that code which exempts Selby from tree removal.

That they are that it supersedes that.

And I think you need to clarify that.

If Selby Gardens has to spend money to revise their plants with complies with the law, you know, that's on them.

Maybe they are betting that the City Commission will overlook the Grant Tree Protection Laws and allow Selby Gardens to break them.

That should be a bad bet.

The plan, it's hard to believe that citizens must come out to hold a botanical garden accountable to follow a grand tree protection law.

It's amazing.

But here we are.

Which begs the question is this really a garden or is Selby Gardens becoming a Bayside Botanical Office Park.

This is Selby Gardens in 2018, before phase one.

They asked to remove over a hundred trees at that time.

And they were removed to make space for their garage.

Here is an aerial view of Selby Gardens now.

Well, it's actually 2023.

Um denuded of over a hundred trees, looking more like an office park than a garden, quite a loss for our urban tree canopy.

In addition, the impact on the aesthetics of Selby Gardens and particularly Selby Mansion is significant.

What was once a stately urban oasis landscape dominated by the mansion, which was flanked by a deep swath of trees, is now dominated by a massive garage, which has mitigated the grandeur of the mansion by completely changing the scale of it in in um relation to its surroundings and dwarfing it.

Please validate the appeal.

Please uphold the Grant Tree ordinance.

There are seven Grand Oaks which require protection.

Finally, the City Arborist clearly stated last spring that this plan violates the Grant Tree Protection Law.

This is very concerning.

Thank you.

Okay.

Commission questions.

Can I take my three minutes now?

Oh, okay.

Go ahead.

Yeah, you did sign up.

Go ahead.

I do want to talk about identify yourself.

Morgan Bentley and I have been sworn.

And I I did want to just say one thing about my my friend Kathy and Tunis.

Two things actually.

One, the difference between Lourdes Ramirez's application in this one is there's two different standings, standards.

One's the county one's yours.

Yours is pretty unique, and we've dealt with it before.

Um it's it's got its own kind of uh case law around it, and it's it is stricter.

Um, and part of that is because you have a more dense population, so your your standing is stricter, makes sense.

Uh the second thing is I don't think that picture was from 2023.

I think it was from 2024, at least on social media that was what it was identified as, which was post-hurricane.

So I would take some exception to that.

But more importantly, um I would get you back focused on what this hearing is about.

This hearing is not about whether or not there was a substantive issue below.

This this hearing is only about the agreed party status, and as Dan mentioned, that does have to do with a particularized standing.

I know it's tough because we all want to kind of open the door, but uh I think the Epoch one is a is a good one.

Um those guys were right next door as a building full of people, and it was a majority of people in that building, and it was denied, and it was upheld on appeal.

So if that's where we're and I don't mean this appeal, I mean the court appeal.

So uh if we're going there, that that's that's the the law that you guys have created.

So I th I encourage you to follow it.

And I still have a minute and a half left.

Thank you very much.

All right, Commissioner questions.

Vice Mayor Troyes.

Yeah, uh actually I have a question from Ms.

Franklin.

Is Ms.

Rip Bottle?

How does that happen?

No.

There's no quasi-judicial, so that's not rebut.

Okay.

Okay.

Um some of your arguments for being a grieved status is you reside in Laurel Park.

Do you think that your status as a Laurel Park resident is significantly different from the other people who live in Laurel Park?

Are you different from the other people in Laurel Park?

I think we probably use the kayak launch more than anybody else.

I've never seen anybody else go out daily, but it's a benefit to the whole neighborhood.

Okay.

And then the other thing is you you brought up the fact that you kayak and photograph the birds.

Are you a professional photographer?

So I can gather that you are not going to be financially harmed if you can't take photographs of birds at Selby Gardens.

Ms.

Franklin, I just need you to speak a little bit more in a mite, thank you.

I don't think I would be directly financially harmed.

I do think those trees and I'm just asking, would you be financially harmed by not being able to photograph birds at Selby Gardens?

It's hard to answer that because it would impact the property value and the proximity.

I can't say any one specific we were talking about photography.

With regard to photography, no.

Okay.

Are you aware of the Roberts Bay Bird Islands that you could take a boat to the Roberts Bay Bird Islands, or you could kayak at the Bay Park and take photographs of birds there.

Yeah.

Okay.

So the what I'm what I'm going at is it does not appear to me that you will suffer to a greater degree than the general public and adverse effect.

That's what I was trying to find out.

That's why I was thinking if you were a professional photographer, you would have a financial loss.

But it sounds like you wouldn't.

The test, as I understand it, and I could be wrong, isn't about whether it hurts me as a professional photographer, which I'm not, but whether I would suffer greater harm than the average bear.

And I do think, and my realtor, if he's still here, could testify that one of the appeals, one of the things that drives property values in Laurel Park, is that ability to connect straight out to the bay through this very natural beautiful setting.

So I I think there might be an indirect impact on the neighborhood overall, and because I use it more frequently than most, I think it would affect my quality of life and property values more than somebody who lives five miles away.

But you just acknowledge that you are not significantly different from the other neighbors in Laurel Park.

So it it's okay.

Thank you.

That's my question.

I'm a little confused.

That's the questions.

That's it.

I understand, but I think they presented information that relates to substance that is incorrect.

It doesn't matter.

The substance is not what we're talking about today.

We're talking about whether you are an aggrieved person.

And so we're at we're at the commission question point now.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I'm saying some of the statements that were made acted as if the planning board had received Donald Olam's April report and they had not.

So that doesn't that's not relevant here.

Well that's not relevant to your status as an aggrieved person.

I agree, but I believe that it doesn't it isn't relevant.

If this appeal goes forward, then you bring those issues.

Each side has had their 15 minutes.

The question questioning has ended.

I think that's unless there's other questions.

Commissioner Ulrich.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um there has been a lot of interesting information presented today.

I find most of it is germane to the appeal itself.

Today we're here to, as we've said multiple times, determine aggrieved status or not.

So I've been looking at the definition over and over again, trying to find in what either the applicant or Selby has said that provides me the information I need.

So I have a question for you, Mr.

Polzak.

I've, of course, narrowed it down to the third component of the definition.

Any person?

All right, we got that.

Ms.

Franklin is a person who will suffer to a greater degree than the general public.

We're hoping to have that information.

An adverse effect, and here's my question to you.

What is a legally recognized interest protected or furthered by blah, blah, blah, blah?

Yeah, it's it's a good question.

We've talked a lot about that.

I mean, I think what that's going at is really some kind of property right.

You know, because you're because it's talking about our land development regulations or comprehensive plan.

Those two bodies of regulation affect the property rights.

Thank you.

That's my question.

Okay.

I don't see any other questions.

Would someone like to make a motion?

I can make a motion.

Okay.

I would move that the City Commission grant Ms.

Franklin aggrieved party status.

I think the motion does for a second.

Can we get another motion?

I'll move that the Commission deny Ms.

Franklin aggrieved party status.

Second.

Okay.

Vice Mayor move to deny aggrieved party status to Ms.

Franklin, Commissioner Batti seconded.

Would the make her of the motion and like to speak to the motion?

Well, I believe my questions to Ms.

Franklin spelled out why, in my opinion, she does not qualify for aggrieved party status.

I can appreciate the arguments and concerns about the tree removal, but we are here today purely on a grieved party status or not.

And I don't see that she qualifies for that.

Okay.

Second or of the motion.

And the applicant, you know, has uh you know legal standing for you know a fair and legal process, you know, where where this is concerned.

So things are are in place in terms of you know who's aggrieved, who is affected and so on.

So you know, I think that that's been established here.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Yarn Kotch.

Yes.

Um thoughts on this are only having to do with the aggrieved party status.

And it's is number three.

And if you look at number three, and it talks about any person who will suffer to a greater degree, what will they suffer to a greater degree?

A legally recognized interest that is protected by the comprehensive plan.

The comprehensive plan in its 12 chapters speaks very specifically to the quality of life.

And she has come down here and testified that her quality of life will suffer to a greater degree.

Citizen testimony is competent substantial evidence that we are to consider.

So her testimony says that she will suffer to a greater degree an impact to her quality of life, which is a legally protected interest in our comp plan.

That is the reasoning for my uh my motion I made before and for not supporting the current motion.

Okay.

Commissioner Batti, did you want to speak?

Yeah, I was just going to say, I mean, you know, to that point, you know, uh whether or not an individual's quality of life is affected.

Greater than that of the general public.

I yield me.

All right.

Yeah, then the notes I poked and and in um you know, in in response to that argument.

Um concerning the I have even if there was a violation of the city code, it's not a relevant to the aggrieved person's status.

Kayaking past the botanical gardens doesn't qualify as someone who suffers to a greater degree than the general public.

I have to believe there are other people who also kayak past Selby Gardens.

Um not being able to take photos of wildlife, number one, there's no proof case, but number two, um that would not be even if there are no wildlife left to take photos of, that would affect everybody else who might want to take photos of that.

So she's still not adversely affected to a greater degree than the general public.

So again, she's not adversely affected beyond anyone else in the city.

I don't think there was any showing that she was an aggrieved person related to Selby Gardens.

All of us can believe that we are harmed more than anybody else by something.

But just because we as individuals believe something doesn't make it so necessarily.

Thank you, Mayor.

I tried to find it.

I didn't see it.

On page 53 of our backup materials, there's an email from Ms.

Franklin to Mr.

Bullock, dated August 13th, 2025, where she said we're all aggrieved persons.

But what we had to hear today is that Miss Franklin will suffer to a greater degree than the general public.

Yeah, and that's where we take the testimony, right?

That is part of one of our residents' quality of life.

And that is specifically a vast very large part of our comprehensive plan in a number of chapters.

Not just the two that were mentioned, but in many other chapters, uh quality of life is mentioned.

And I could access the Bayou and go over there.

I don't.

She does.

It's part of her quality of life.

Not only does she believe it, but she's stating it under oath.

So it's not a question.

No.

There's no old.

Well, when somebody comes to testify before us, we assume that they're not telling a story.

We assume that they're telling the truth.

And when somebody attests to the fact that this is a part of their quality of life, and it's important to them.

We were shown it, we were given it, and it's right here in front of us.

So I don't think anyone's testimony as to their belief about their quality of life being harmed more than anyone else is the only criteria that you pay attention to.

You also look at is that objectively true?

Right.

And I I'm determining that it is.

Okay.

All right.

Let's um I think we're done.

Let's vote.

Oopsie.

Would we repeat the motion, please?

So we can't.

Okay.

I'm sorry.

The motion is to deny a grieved person status to Miss Franklin.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

What what is it?

You wrote commissioners?

Yes.

All right.

Passes four to one.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

All right.

That is definitely time for lunch before we go to anything else, 1230.

Um let's be back at 1.30.

We're in recess.

Okay, everybody, it's one thirty on September fifteenth, twenty twenty five, and we're calling back to order our regular City Commission meeting.

And we are at item twelve three on the agenda, new business, and this is a discussion regarding the City Commission's strategic planning process, and Vice Mayor Trice has a presentation.

Thank you very much.

Uh and Ms.

Griggs is going to distribute a handout.

Uh the first the top of the handout is our final project list, which I refer to as a laundry list of projects that resulted from the process that we began in January identifying things we wanted to accomplish within twenty-four months.

We are now into the ninth month of that.

But I also want to note that we haven't voted to accept this list.

But my objective is for us to discuss, decide whether or not we are satisfied continuing the way that we have been doing things, or whether perhaps we want to look into having a an expert professional consultant guiding us through uh what would be considered a real strategic plan development.

And in addition to that, uh there if there were a goal, there would be prerequisites and co-requisites that would guide us.

But are there prerequisites and co-requisites if the main street redesign reduces the number of parking spaces?

Maybe a corequisite is to establish uh new methods of bringing people from their cars if they're at remote garages to where they actually want to be.

But if we've identified prerequisites and co-requisites, uh when we change the timing on one of the elements, it will trigger us to reflect on what else is affected by the change in timing.

Talking about co-requisites and prerequisites.

When Tesla was first getting started, being introduced to the world, Musk realized nobody's going to buy these things unless there are charging stations all over.

So one of the prerequisites for the company was to bid they were expanding initially in California is Tesla built charging stations all along the California freeways.

So, you know, think what would have happened if there hadn't been a place to charge your car other than in your home.

So we gotta be aware of prerequisites and co-requisites.

So the other thing is how do we measure success?

And how do we monitor progress?

At this point, we really haven't stated, well, I I you know, these are the uh measurements.

These so I'm gonna go back to uh if you turn the page on the project list.

Something that was on our agenda, which we did not follow through on, was to create what are called SMART goals.

Specific, measurable, um achievable, relevant, and time bound.

And we really didn't specify that.

So in many instances with this laundry list, we're not specific enough to guide staff on this is what we want you to develop a plan for and come back to us.

And you know, so that's one of the that's one of the main things that I find a problem with and why I feel that we need to get an expert to guide us.

Um of the things with going to Delray Beach this past week, they actually have a visioning process, which is I believe their strategic planning.

They do it about every five years.

The one they're about to start is Vision 2030, and it involves the entire community.

I suspect a lot of the sessions are like what our transportation planners do and reach out to the community, you know, more than the the usual people who come in, but everybody, to identify what are the things that you'd like the city to do.

We sort of did that with our opinion survey, but we didn't really build upon that.

So I just have a concern about how we are doing it, and I would like us to consider doing it getting more professional.

So that's that's what I had to say.

Okay.

Um questions or comments, commissioners.

I don't think there's anybody signed up to speak.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Ulrich.

Thank you.

Um for me.

I need to wait until I see the finished product before I can comment on what isn't yet.

My understanding is that our job was to develop the broad-based uh not vision, not mission, but broad-based steps, and that now what we did is being taken to department heads where they will develop the measurable components of it.

Column smart goals, column measurable objectives, whatever you want.

But my understanding is that's not our job because we're not the ones who do the work.

It's the department people who do the work.

And so they're the ones who will devel develop the measurable components of this.

Well, I I I guess my belief was that it's our objective to come up with the goals.

And it's their job to figure to make a recommendation on how to achieve those goals.

But I haven't seen us actually state the goals.

We've sort of stated tactics to reach an unstated goal.

And again, I say, for me, I need to wait until I can see the finished product before I can really comment on your concerns.

I will say it's taking longer than I thought it should.

But you know, this has been quite a crazy year here in the city.

And so I'll take a little bit more time because of that.

What do you consider to be the finished product?

Because I was under the impression that we were turning it over to staff at this point.

And we to my knowledge had not voted to agree on these.

Right.

So when staff does their part, it's my understanding that the whole thing will come back to us for a vote.

Now what we got in our backup materials had a lot of nice bells and whistles attached to them.

And I hope we get some bells and whistles too.

But I'm looking at content now.

Sure, there is missing contact content, the measurable part of it, and the action steps, if you will.

But I have to see that before I can make uh a thorough uh in-depth analysis and comment on our strategic plan.

All right, Commissioner Aherncotch.

Uh yeah, thank you.

Um admittedly it is taking longer than we had I had anticipated and hoped, but I don't know what the reason is for that.

Um I'm not sure it really matters at this point.

But what I was envisioning was uh when I was elected in 2017, and Mayor Alpert was a part of this initiative, I inherited it, um, was the strategic plan from 2017 to 2020, um, which I don't know if you've seen it uh is um a I had it as on my desk all the time, and it had you know the the goals and then the action steps to get there, just like you were talking about.

Um it had all of these sort of um prerequisites and co-requisites and then also what is your actually the steps to achieve the big goal.

And as for those three or four years, I still have it in my office right now, I would literally go through and physically check off the things that the Commission accomplished.

So that's what I was imagining was a document like that.

And I it's my understanding this is a first step to getting there.

Um so so in other words, for the past five years, we have not really had that kind of a strategic plan.

Well, not that kind, but we had from twenty twenty till twenty.

That's why it shows up on the um it shows up on the agenda items.

Not all of them.

Yeah, but a lot of them shows up as to what under our same kind of a document, but we had uh the discussion was it was vision and mission as opposed to trying.

No, they it had to uh everything had to meet three, I think, three of the goals.

And and those goals were um, you know, fostering a safe city.

I I don't remember what they were at the top of my line.

We re we renewed those early in the year, but those were our vision statements rather than goals.

Right.

Right.

And so and so those we've been working under those since 2020 it was, right, I believe, 20 or 21, uh until now.

And then I thought this was going to give us the document that we had in 2017 that I very much appreciated having.

See, I I see it as just like it says, a final project list based on the things that we all said were important to us, but I agree that then the whole list really should be um evaluated by all of us to say, do we really all agree on these things before it would go to staff and and have staff spend time coming up with with what would be the action steps.

I think that would be important.

That this is kind of a rough draft final project list that we have a, you know, we what's on the list is on the list as per discussion of how it gets on the list, but I think that then now that these are on there, um we ought to have it on an agenda to talk about it and then have staff give us the sort of measurable SMART goals.

Mr.

Batti.

I mean, it is similar to what we do with like capital improvement, you know, um and so on.

Sorry.

But uh yeah, you know, us getting together and uh coming up with you know, and prioritizing what it is we we would like to see um done in the city, you know.

So um I think right now it's kind of premature, you know, to you know where we are.

Um but you know, this will all come back to us and we'll we'll make those decisions amongst the five of us or have you along with with with the staff and sort of direct them to what is we uh what we would like to see.

And I and I don't think we're limited to, you know, we can reduce this number, we can, and if something is important to all of us, we can increase the number.

You know, I think we just have to look at this as you know, like the first, as I said, draft of a final project list and schedule another meeting to um go over it and discuss what we want to still leave on there, if there's anything we want to add, or if there's anything we want to take off.

Um Commissioner Ulrich.

Thank you.

Um I also think that the timing of this is a little my dad had a phrase, but I won't say it.

Um backwards.

Um perhaps we should have had this available to us in its completed format before we went into the budget process.

Or is it something that we complete after the budget is complete?

I don't know.

You can do it either way.

Well, I think it can be, you know.

But I I think the meeting should be a workshop so that it can be a little less formal in terms of just discussing where we're going.

Um, I I get the Vice Mayor's point that it needs, you know, we need to have a process and we really haven't had a set process, so um maybe that would be a first step is to have a workshop on this project list and then see if there's anything else we want to add to our process.

Yeah, I'm I'm looking for a uh a professional process that and to some extent that keeps us on track.

I think we've had deadlines get your things in and we've skipped deadlines.

I mean sorry more to my and we've skipped deadlines or for that matter, as I said, one of our agendas was to come up with SMART goals using this acronym, and we ignored that entirely, so we don't have SMART goals.

So my objective is not for this specific plan this year, which is really delayed because it was supposed to feed into this year's budget.

Um, but to consider do we want to continue doing things the way we do it or consider maybe going to a five-year visioning plans like Delray Beach is doing, to have a professional municipal strategic planning consultant come in and guide us through it.

You know, I I wanted us to start thinking about how do we want to do it next time.

I think that makes sense.

Sure.

Thank you.

Commissioner Innerkovi.

And um are you suggesting that it become part of our regular schedule so that the Commission is never at a gap without a strategic plan that they're either working towards or working on.

And that may be an outgrowth of whatever we decide to move forward with.

That would make sense.

Commissioner Almer.

I strongly support that.

Um you're walking on wobbly stilts when you don't have a strategic plan in place.

I agree.

Yeah.

I mean, uh and I was just thinking, you know, in the the appointment vice mayor.

Um uh comparing it to Del Ray and whatnot, you know, because they have uh an elected mayor down there, you know, and you're talking about a commission.

He was like us.

Was he?

Yeah.

No, what I didn't see I didn't meet him.

He wasn't either okay.

Okay.

I I didn't I didn't meet him and my night.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yes, yeah, because I thought I I thought I spoke to them and they said that the mayor was elected or whatever.

Okay.

So I guess no, I stand corrected.

My bad.

Well, he might have said to you he was elected, but elected by the other commissioners.

Um what do we we want to do here?

Do we want to um have a workshop and kind of talk to talk about this and decide what we want to do and then we can bring forward an you know, since we can't vote, then we could bring forward an agenda item as to not only um the current list but what we want to do going forward.

Can we ask Mr.

Bullock uh where we are with this current situation?

So uh just to remind us.

Uh there is you know uh alive and well, a 2024 fiscal year strategic plan that does have commission goals, um a restatement of your mission and so on.

It has um the strategic plan statement and commission goals, et cetera.

And then it gets into talks about how they'll be developed and work through.

I can tell you not all those things have been done, but it gets into a pretty good detail about what's to happen within each of those goals.

I'm unable to give you a snappy progress report on each of those.

Um and I think that this is actually a perfect time to update a strategic plan.

You're gonna have uh it's the end of the fiscal year, the beginning of a new one, you're gonna have a new manager here shortly.

And and it's a but it is really a perfect time for the Commission to go through a uh say a five-year planning exercise, try to envision that out, lay out a set of goals, and then at that point it it's the staff can take that and bring back to you uh actions, measures.

Uh there's reference to a balanced scorecard in here where you consider all elements of an issue and of the community.

This is typical strategic planning activity that a municipality would do.

And uh to your point, Vice Mayor, there are uh Florida is rich with uh consultants who would love to come in and help us uh develop that.

But the processes are pretty well known.

And I think much of your staff has been through this over the years and you know is fully ready and able to uh help you update that again.

And then that becomes a part of the work plan that they do and incorporate into their work.

And when they bring you issues, especially new issues, they bring them in the context of a strategic plan and what it is, what goals are trying to accomplish.

So uh I mean this is the timing is right by the by the time you really get into the nuts and bolts of it, I think your your uh uh city manager will be on board and it will be perfect for her or him to to go through that process to have ownership in it uh as it's developed.

Okay.

Um ahead.

Yeah, I I guess one of the questions that we I have for you is in your opinion, what is the next step with this particular plan?

Well what yeah.

So so I would say if this represents the the Commission consensus.

I think that's what we have to uh I think that's what we have to establish is what represents the consensus.

That's why I posed it as a question.

So if it doesn't, then it's a good time to start the a new process, I guess is is what I would how I would answer that question.

So I guess the part two then of that question is uh scheduling a workshop as the next step.

That's what is that what you just want to do.

Yeah, that's what I think.

It would be make sense to just have a workshop so that we can talk about this list.

She proposed it.

We didn't schedule it.

Um, I'm reflecting on the workshop or workshops we had in the Media Center.

I was sort of surprised that I didn't see fervor from us in developing what we were asked to do.

Uh some of us left early, some of us didn't come, some of us had no input.

And so the dedication on our part to do what we were asked to do.

I didn't see it.

That's true.

Well, Mike.

But now that we have a final project list, we have something we can just.

Right.

And so come on, let's get with it.

All right.

Um is that what you want to do is so I guess to schedule a workshop.

Um I actually would suggest phrasing a goal that goes along in your opinion with each of the line items that you are interested in.

So, like, you know, for the the one with one of my hype buttons was the circulator trolley.

I would make the goal something to do with uh continuing the vital uh downtown economic driver that it is.

You know.

So and recognizing that there can be many projects that would fall under that goal.

And and I can see goals that are above each one of these line items, but I'm I'm just saying if if it occurs to you to have a specific goal associated with each of these projects or each of the projects that interest you that we could also agree on a goal on the ghost goals.

Yeah.

And if you haven't done that work, okay, you haven't, but we at least those who who have put the work in have something to put up on the screen, and you know, people either agree or disagree.

All right.

I think that makes sense.

And I think also um it should be looked at in uh coordination with the 2024 strategic plan that already is in place.

So I guess next step is to just schedule a workshop.

Mayor, if if I may.

Does the commission want to work through these on their own?

Do you want uh someone to help a facilitator to help?

Do you want to do it with staff?

How do you envision it?

I think I think a facilitator would be useful.

Okay.

And then I have to ask, is the uh the current consultant uh satisfactory to to ask if the he can be the facilitator?

Do you want someone else?

I want to make this as productive for you as I can.

I'm fine with that.

I don't know.

Well I would suggest one of the reasons for lack of enthusiasm might have been the current facilitator.

I wouldn't say that.

Uh for myself, I would not say that's the case.

I I wouldn't either.

I don't think I was not enthusiastic to workshops.

So myself, I know I was extremely enthusiastic when I instead of uh casting aspersions on each other, let's just uh let's schedule something, have the current facilitator facilitate it, and uh you know be prepared when we get there.

Um just for the record, we may have to figure out dates because the current the next scheduled workshop, we took that date to have a special meeting.

Okay.

So we just have to find some dates as if I think if I may figure it, yeah.

I'll work with uh Ms.

Griggs and we'll figure out.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Um I don't think we need to make any motions here.

This is just a recommendation to go ahead.

All right.

We're on item 124, new business, and this is a presentation regarding the 2024 annual report for the intersection safety program from our SPD.

And I'm gonna call upon Monica Galliano Bush, our SPD crime analyst to make the presentation.

You're set up here, you got two to the afternoon, Chief Rex Trochet, Sarasota Police Department, and then to my left I have John and Monica.

I'll let you introduce themselves, and then we'll be kicking off the annual report for the intersection safety program.

Good afternoon.

John Lake, I'm the manager of the real-time operations center for the police department.

I'm Monica Galliano Bush, Real Time Operations Center Crime Analyst with Sarasota Police Department.

Monica, if you want to go over why we ended up here with the uh new state statue directing us to uh present this, and then I'll go ahead and start with the uh PowerPoint.

Absolutely.

You all are probably pretty familiar with the intersection safety program or red light camera in the City of Sarasota.

There, this is a new component in administering that program, and it is in response to legislative state changes to the State Statute 316.0083, which occurred during the 2024 legislative session.

Page four of this report does include a required written summary, which must also be read aloud, and John Lake will actually be presenting this information.

So from July 1st, 2024 to June 30th, 2025, under the intersection safety program, we issued 25,861 violations.

There was a 67 violations that were contested, 60 were upheld, and violations dismissed were three.

In the violations issued as a UTC were 3,689.

Violations paid were 20,790.

With those figures, uh the collected funds for the State of Florida was a little over 1.7 million, and the City of Sarasota received a little over 1.5 million.

The annual summary says for the period of July 1st, 2024 from June 30th, 2025.

The City of Sarasota Intersection Safety Program issued 25,861 violations.

Of those 67 were contested, 60 upheld, three dismissed, a total of 3,689 violations resulted in the uniform traffic citations.

As of year end, 2,790 violations were paid, generating funds distributed as followed.

1.71,725,653 went to the State of Florida, and 1,559,267 went to the City of Sarasota.

Madam Mayor, uh I think when you read that you made one error.

I'm sorry.

Uh as of year end, 20,790 violations.

I think you might have said 2,000.

Sorry.

20,790.

Stand corrected.

That entails the presentation.

Again, we have two presentations today.

We have the intersection safety program, and then I can move into the school zone uh safety program.

Okay.

I think that's the next agenda item.

So we'll do questions on this.

We don't have anybody signed up to speak.

Um Commissioner Alright.

Oh, do oop.

I apologize.

Yes, there is one.

Okay.

Um I think we just have one person, so you can stay there.

Uh Patrick McNamy.

We drop something, sir.

Hi, Patrick McNamy, 540 North Tammy Trail.

I'm a uh resident at the Boulevard.

And we watch over very, very important intersection at U.S.

41 and Boulevard of the Arts.

It's uh it's an important intersection because it's the gateway to Bay Park.

The density of the rosemary district is is increasing.

The parking is limited.

People get to the park by walking and cycling, and that intersection is just critical.

Phase two is coming, a new Bayside Restaurant is coming, a new club in the boulevard is coming, a private club.

There's going to be more demand for parking and more people on the streets walking pedestrians.

Northbound vehicles on US 41, they accelerate once they get through the Fruitville intersection.

They really have no incentive to slow down until they reach the 10th Street roundabout.

And this stretch of 41 functions like a raceway.

Drivers fail to yield to pedestrians when turning, and during the season, vehicles stop in the intersection because it's so dense.

Crossing the intersection east to west or west to east, it's a daunting challenge, even for the agile.

If you're um have any physical limitations or you have a stroller, you barely have time to cross and you're terrified.

Drivers don't recognize this as a major pedestrian crossing, though it serves, as I mentioned, the primary access point to Bay Park.

I walk my pets twice daily from the boulevard.

I always go east.

I want to take them to the park.

I love the park.

I'm not going to take the risk.

Driving east was taking a left turn on US 41.

We had the walk sign, we were right in the middle of the road, and they missed us by a couple of feet.

They didn't see us, I suppose.

I I just don't understand.

So people avoid this intersection, and that means they also avoid the park and all the amenities.

The intersection is downtown.

A downtown that is investing in safety and access for pedestrians and cyclists.

Why do we have an unsafe raceway?

We need some meaningful improvements.

I I've I've spoken to many residents, neighbors.

Maybe replacing the green light with a default blinking yellow that turns red when the pedestrians cross.

Maybe raising the intersection to slow traffic.

Maybe installing a single walk button that triggers red lights in all directions, allowing safe truck safe crossing even at a diagonal.

The red the red light crossings similar to those at Fruitville and Gulfstream roundabouts, those work.

The original Bay Park plan included around about a Boulevard of the Arts in US 41.

Maybe that roundabout's not feasible now given the location of the buildings, but we can still put the similar pedestrian crossings.

I'm uh crossings.

I'm not a traffic expert, but we need some real experts to fix this intersection.

It's very dangerous and somebody's going to get seriously hurt.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay.

Commissioner Ulrich.

Thank you, Mayor.

Could you turn to page 305 of your presentation and maybe we can get it up on the Oh it is.

It was.

There.

So as I looked at that slide, I saw sixty-seven violations contested and sixty violations upheld.

And in my mind, I thought I'd see seven for violations dismissed.

But I see three.

What happened to the other four?

I'll let Monica talk about the how this um summary is put together with the with the dates and how people can contest the violation, but then it doesn't show up onto the other until the next year.

So I'll let her elaborate on that.

So you're right.

The the simple math, it's easy to get to and see that it's not whole.

Though that can represent anything that was contested and there is no final order on yet, as of the close of the reporting period.

Eventually they will be seven.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ihr Mc.

Yeah, that was one of my questions.

And my second question my second question is of the um violations that were contested, 67 of them, 60 were upheld.

What were the how were they you know if they were contested and upheld, what's what's the issue?

You're talking about like the seven that would have not been.

No, no.

I'm talking about if 67 people said I'm gonna contest this and sixty were upheld.

What was what's the thing that is there one thing that one common item that the reason why they were upheld?

Like give me an example of why they were upheld.

Uh if someone takes a, you know, first of all, you're dealing with video evidence.

So you have 11 seconds of every red light camera uh violation is recorded, 11 seconds, it shows the red light turning turning red.

So it's very hard to go to court and dispute with your car behind the stop bar when you're looking at 11-second video.

So you know, people don't realize honestly when they go to these violations, a vast majority of these people don't even know that there's video that they can watch online before they go to court.

So that's why a lot of them are upheld.

And I I think what I think what you're saying uh, Commissioner, is uh some people just want to challenge the system right from the start.

They're hoping that the officer doesn't show up.

They're hoping that maybe we don't have the proper information.

Sometimes it's just the roll of a dice why people go and challenge it.

And then once they get there, quite often they change their mind.

That's been my experience in thirty years in any type of traffic court is that people just want to see if the officer shows up.

They want to make sure if in this case different, but your raise your radar and laser, all those certifications are up to date.

Once the judge usually gives the speech about, hey, if I find you guilty, you could be possibly uh committed to pay X amount of money in fines.

A lot of people just throw on the tile at that point once they realize that the officer and the evidence is present.

I just wanted to find out if there was any legitimate reason why somebody would contest it and there's something we need to fix.

No.

A vast majority of them just do not understand that they can look at the video.

I would say that's probably the number one reason we see them come into court and we show we start to show the video, and their first response is I didn't know there was video that I could look at, and then they realize that their cars there on the on the camera running the light.

Well, should we put that somewhere in bold red?

It's it's bold red.

Yeah.

Big link.

It's the link they have here first.

Be surprised at how many people don't even go to the link before they go to court.

I haven't gotten a ticket, so I wouldn't know what it looks like.

We'll get you uh we'll get you an example.

So I can tell you like give her any.

She doesn't drive enough to get one.

But we'll get you uh uh we'll get you an example and uh I can tell you it's not just video, because a lot of times when you think about video, it's grainy or you know it's just the color of the car and you see a white shadow go across.

This is like in 4K.

I mean it is unbelievable.

They've done an excellent job with citing these things.

They are they are high def.

Um, as you can see on social media when we have examples of car crashes or intersection safety issues, the SPD shares those videos, and they are amazing as an educational tool.

So I'm just talking about the ticket piece of it.

So when somebody receives it instead of wasting the time of going to contest it and then showing up and saying, Oh, I didn't know you had video.

Sorry, and leave.

When they get the violation in the mail, the link is one of the first things they have to read.

Uh it's it's very clear.

It's a a notice of violation number with a four-digit pin, and it even says specifically on their violation.

If you would like to watch the video, go to this link.

And that's just uh we don't see that getting done a lot of times.

Do we require them to watch go to the link and watch the video before they can contest it?

It's we're not requiring them.

It's when it's mailed in the middle of the year.

Mail.

I mean, I mean I don't know if we can either, but if it's going to save time and money from our officers going to court, maybe that's something the people, the members are going to the court, the analysts and John are going to court, they definitely specialize uh in this.

Um the other component that I've seen is some people just don't like red light cameras and they simply go there to protest in hopes it will get thrown out.

I mean, people sometimes are just simply angry.

And that's why they do it.

So I can't explain it.

However, we will get you a sample ticket so you can see how it's designed and if you have any input.

And we can make those changes and their per state statute will be more than happy to do that.

So you feel free to use mine.

Uh I watched RVO and I wrote the check a couple years ago.

Perfect.

All right.

Vice Mayor Trice.

Uh quick question.

Is this paying for itself?

Yes.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Um my question is.

Um quick question.

The 5,000 who haven't paid the ticket, is that uh a lag time thing as well, or is it you finding are we having people who are just ignoring paying?

And if they are, are we what are we doing?

Uh I think part of it is lag time.

Part of it is uh we have seasonal uh citizens here that come and go and and quite frankly will get bombarded at one point where they're just checking their P.O.

box or whatnot, and they're like, what is this?

and they're panicking.

So there could be a delay in that.

Anytime we have end-of-year numbers, as you all know, we are gonna have a gap there as far as closures.

We see that internal affairs numbers quite frequently, and we see that in the end of the year when we're closing out.

We try to get you those numbers as best as we can and add up as best as we can.

All right.

I don't see any more questions.

Um we need a motion, I guess, to accept the report.

Move to accept the report and item agenda item 12.4.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Ulrich move to accept the report.

Uh Commissioner Aaron Koch seconded.

If there is no discussion, Commissioners, if you'll vote.

Is that your vote?

All right.

Motion passes unanimously.

Um SPD again.

And this is regarding the annual report for the school zone safety program.

And again, I'm gonna call upon Monica Galliano Bush, SPD crime analyst to make the presentation.

Thank you.

And I do have to politely defer to John Lake.

There was a mix-up on the presenters that he will be presenting.

Thank you.

All right.

School zone safety program, the annual reports started the program uh started on January 6th of this year.

And then the report goes to June 30th of this year.

So violations issued were 23,000.

459 violations contested were 52.

Violations upheld were 22.

Violations dismissed were six.

And violations issued as a UTC was 3,041.

Violations paid were 17,149.

The collected funds, the State of Florida received 394,266.

And then the City of Sarasota received 742,534.

For the annual summary report, we have that for the period of January 6, 2025 to June 30th of 2025.

City of Sarasota School Zone Safety Program issued 23,459 violations of these 52 were contested and 22 were upheld and six dismissed.

Total of 3,041 violations were resulted in uniform traffic citations as of June 30th of 2025.

I will note this is the same thing with the discrepancies on these numbers, is the exact same thing we just spoke about on the intersection safety.

We made a little asterisk down there on both of these presentations indicating that that's the that's the difference between the numbers is because someone can contest it now, but then they move out of this uh period of of when this annual summary is done.

So just everybody knows because of this program being new, uh it it encompasses six schools, eleven school zones, and twenty-two cameras for the school zones.

All right, Commissioner Ahon Kotch.

Thank you.

Um this is a question I was gonna ask for the other one, but it um it applies to the past one, but this one as well.

We do have a rather large population of folks who are part-time.

Uh and to the point before um that was mentioned, if somebody receives a ticket to a P.O.

box and they don't check it in three months or something.

What happens at that point in time?

How does this work?

So the first on the under the school zone program, they have 30 days to take care of the notice of violation.

We have had this come up in the past where someone has gone out.

Uh we do build in a buffer period of uh of 30 days to get that even remedied, does not lock the person out of that 30 days.

So ultimately they do have if they came home, let's say six weeks after they got this and went online, they would be able to pay it.

Uh it does lock them out at the 60-day mark.

It does turn into a uniform traffic citation, and then it goes up to uh the $206 statutory amount for that.

If that has occurred, it has occurred.

Uh they have called into the department.

We have we have actually taken that and brought it back to the hundred dollar uh fee, and so it's basically started over from new, you know, from the reset of if they did get get it in the mail.

So we we did actually have that happen with the gentleman.

He was a truck driver, uh, he was on the road for two months, uh came back, and then he he saw the violation in there.

So that person called in and we we brought it back to the hundred dollars and dismissed the UTC.

And does it ever turn into a situation where you get points?

No.

Neither one of these programs uh assess points on your driving record.

There are zero point ticket.

And so you said it's 30 days and then another 30 days.

Right.

And then the fine goes up and it then you can contest it and then you it could go back down depending upon the situation.

Well, you can contest this in two different stages.

You can contest it while it is in the hundred dollars, and that goes in front of Mr.

Ellis, who is a city magistrate.

If that's cont if the person gets that in the mail and they immediately fill out the hearing request in that 30-day mark, then it goes in front of Mr.

Ellis.

If they wait until it goes to the 206, which is the certified mailing that goes out, then it goes over to the courthouse.

And then it's here heard uh hearing officer.

Thank you.

Vice Mayor Trice.

In an ideal world, I think we would all like to see all traffic violations disappear, uh, especially with the school zone safety program.

I know six months is a short time to see any trends, but have you noticed any trends in you know lowering numbers of violations in the school zones?

Yeah, we've had a great uh reduction uh in that.

So before we started this program, we had the vendor go out to each site uh for five days and they put cameras out there to see what the violations were.

And that was during the spring of 2024.

When we started the program and we started getting some numbers, and I'll give you an example, Cardinal Money High School.

Everybody knows uh Fruville Road pretty well.

Um that is down 80 percent right now.

Overall, the entire program uh is down 60 percent.

So if you took just all the average for for the six for the uh uh 22 cameras.

So 80 percent is a huge uh reduction just for the Carlomini.

Now going back to the I'll just highlight on the red light camera, um, that's down 34 percent this year from last year.

So they're both down uh significantly.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Yeah, that is really good news.

Um my question just goes to I you know hear from people they say, oh, the red light or not the red light camera, the um speed cameras around the schools are in operation the whole time school is open.

Is that is that correct or not just the coming and going time?

That is correct.

That is per state statute, and we discussed that and we wanted to follow the statute accordingly.

It just made it much easier.

Yeah.

You would do that.

And I could add to that, Mayor is uh I drive throughout the city throughout the day and I'm in these school zones.

They're driving like Miss Daisy and in these school zones.

I mean, it's great.

I mean, they're driving 45 miles an hour, 46 miles an hour, and even on the weekends when I'm in the city, uh people are still driving because they just are in the habit of as soon as they see school signs, uh they start to slow down.

So that is having the effect, right?

The the intention was not to make money on this.

The intention is to save lives and keep kids from getting hurt.

Exactly exactly.

Exactly.

That's great if that's having that kind of effect.

Um I don't see any other questions.

So if we can get a motion to accept the report.

I move to approve the 2024 annual report for the school zone safety program.

Second.

Was that approved or accept?

Except.

Except.

All right, yeah.

Commissioner Ulrich moved to accept the report regarding the school zone safety program.

Commissioner Batti seconded.

If you will vote, Commissioners.

Is that your vote?

It is.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks for working on keeping everybody safe.

Thank you.

All right.

Do we have anybody signed up for citizens input?

Okay.

All right.

Remarks of Commissioners.

Commissioner Ulrich.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um earlier today, somebody brought up the sound ordinance.

Could you give us an update on that, Mr.

Polzek?

I think they wanted to hurry it up.

Right.

I heard that.

Noted that myself.

Um I was going to bring this up during my comments that um what I would like to do is spoken about this before is bring an expert into the city that could do a scientific analysis of our city and our code, and so that the final version we bring forward and ask you to vote on is evidence-based.

Um that's my suggestion.

I'd appreciate any input to that here today.

But I think what I would do is bring that the expert down to tell you about what they would do, why that's important, and then if you approve that, then they would come back and do a study.

That sounds like it's not going to be very hurried.