Good morning.

I'm like to call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the March 23rd regular city commission meeting.

Next, we'll have first we'll have the invocation by City Auditor and Clerk Greeks.

Um, those who can stand, please do so.

Heavenly Father, we affirm our faith in thee.

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.

And Vice Mayor, will you lead us in the pledge?

Yes.

One drive.

Thank you.

Ms.

Griggs, are there any changes to the order of the day?

Yes, Mayor, thank you.

Please add under Cassette agenda item number one, agenda item number six point seven, approval rate, acceptance of plaintiff proposal for settlement in the amount of 40,000 in the lawsuit captioned Latoya Collier versus the City of Sarasota and Circuit Court of the 12th Judicial District.

Sarasota Case Number 2024 CA6138 MC.

Purther request of City Attorney Polls Act.

Please add under new business agenda item number 12.4 approval rate employment agreement between the City of Sarasota and Carly Frylein for a formal appointment as city manager of the City of Sarasota further request of City Attorney Polls Act, and that's all Mayor.

May I have a motion concerning the uh agenda?

Move approval of changes to the order of the day.

Second.

Okay, moved by Commissioner.

Second.

Um Commissioner Batti already seconded it.

Oh sorry.

Okay, so moved by Commissioner Aher and Kotch, seconded by Commissioner Batti, and we may have your votes.

And it passed unanimously.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next up, uh please join it, Mayor.

Is it the motion?

Um motion to approve.

Okay, so we and the schedule.

Yeah, I'll add that.

Well, no, we have a motion to approve the advised schedule.

Can we have a motion to that approach?

We don't even need the motion, we have a consensus.

Okay.

Everybody's good.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

So if you will join me up front, we are going to present uh to the employee and team of the month for March.

I have to cut silence.

Thank you, Miles.

Okay.

Um excuse my voice, I've got a little bit of a frog in my throat this morning, but um we want to recognize Louisa Patton as employee of the month.

So if she will come and join us down there.

Louisa has demonstrated exceptional commitment, growth, and leadership that embody the highest standards of public service.

After receiving her master's degree from the University of Denver, Louisa became began her career with the city in human resources.

Her insight and professionalism quickly distinguished her as a rising talent.

Her instrumental role in the successful workday implementation showcased not only her technical expertise, but also her ability to guide complex organizational change.

In recognition of her outstanding contributions, she advanced to her current role as the manager of workday data.

As her director notes, Louisa is an exceptional employee, and her growth and professional development have been extraordinary.

Louisa's impact is evident in both her daily responsibilities and her proactive problem solving in response to the recent implementation of one big beautiful bill.

She swiftly and thoroughly developed a report that enables payroll to accurately retrieve data for reporting premium overtime wages on W-2s.

Her ability to translate complex requirements into clear, functional solutions demonstrates her technical mastery.

She continues to deepen her expertise in workday while actively collaborating with teams throughout the organization to enhance system functionality.

Beyond her technical accomplishments, Louisa is widely respected for her kindness, patience, and willingness to help others succeed.

She is a trusted resource for the city, someone who colleagues turned for guidance.

We want to congratulate Louisa Patton for her outstanding achievement as employee of the month.

Louisa truly exemplifies the city's values of integrity, accountability, teamwork, and respect.

Her remarkable contributions not only strengthen our workforce, but also inspire us all in our mission to serve the city with excellence and pride.

Thank you and congratulations, Louisa.

Give me an opportunity to say a few words.

Good morning.

I always joke, so I started my career in human resources working on training, onboarding, employee recognition programs.

So I was always a bridesmaid, never a bride when it came to employee of the month.

So I appreciate that.

I also appreciate Sarasota giving me the opportunity to bring my human resources prowess with technology and joining the finance team and getting some more finance behind as well.

But really throughout my career, I'm about supporting the employees and the organization for a better workplace all around.

So thank you so much.

All right.

Okay, thank you and congratulations.

Oops.

And now we have the team of the month is the FEMA Public Assistance Support Team.

And if you'll join me up here, it is with great appreciation that we recognize the FEMA Public Assistance Support Team as Team of the Month for the extraordinary dedication, collaboration, and service to the city during a critical time of need.

The outstanding members of the team are, and why don't you raise your hand when I mention your name?

Jake Brown, Prynn Campania, Michelle Kenner, Susan Ryan, Aliah Garrett, Mia Strickland, Alexis Brickner, and Lisa Shea.

They demonstrated exceptional commitment by stepping forward as volunteers to support the city's emergency management efforts while continuing to fulfill their regular public professional responsibilities.

Their willingness to serve beyond their assigned roles exemplifies the very best of public service.

In response to urgent FEMA of public assistance reimbursement requirements, the team came together to learn complex program requirements and take on the critical responsibility of collecting, organizing, and documenting incident information for more than 40 disaster-related projects, with reimbursement funds at risk and only 15 days to compile and submit the initial project documentation.

The team rose to meet the challenge with professionalism and determination.

Balancing their day-to-day duties with the demanding workload of FEMA documentation.

Even after some members returned to their regular assignments, their commitment remained steadfast.

They continued supporting the effort by uploading documentation, tracking costs, and ensuring that essential information was properly recorded.

As shared by the nominator, the team's work was an amazing experience that ultimately safeguarded the city from losing eligible funding.

Their dedication not only preserved financial resources, but demonstrated the strength of collaboration and shared purpose across departments.

Please join us in recognizing and congratulating the FEMA public assistance support team for this well-deserved honor.

Their actions embody the city's value of teamwork, integrity, accountability, and respect.

Through their resilience, cooperation, and commitment to service, they have made a lasting and meaningful impact on the city and the community it serves.

Thank you and congratulations to all of you.

And hey everyone, I'm Rachel Ingle.

I'm the emergency manager for the city.

And not only are these folks amazing, I refer to them as the Dream Team.

But they all stepped up to learn a program they knew absolutely nothing about.

And all of its intricacies and their commitment to help regardless of their day, regardless of their other workload.

And so they're amazing.

And to me, as a new employee, I will say I've been here six months now.

This type of volunteerism and support and dedication to the city has just shown me right away how all city employees come together to support our community and do what's best for the city.

So thank you guys.

I appreciate you more than you know.

Yes, thank you.

Um depositos, general manager, Parks and Rec.

Um, when Rachel came to us uh and asked for our assistance, uh I knew Prynn would step up and I know as others did as well.

Um Prynt is the consummate professional and team player, and I think uh we're really happy to have everybody here on our team to do this.

So thank you all.

Thank you.

And shall I give my congratulations?

Thank you so much for what we do.

Congratulations.

This isn't great.

How about a new step in front of the following?

Thank you.

Thank you to all of the jump.

Okay.

So next up is we've got uh minutes to approve.

And whoops.

Oh, forgot.

How did I miss that?

I skipped a page.

Thank you.

So it is time for public comment, and I will ask uh Ms.

Griggs to re-recite the Pledge of Public Conduct.

Thank you, Mayor.

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.

Okay, thank you.

And we have two people who have signed up to speak.

Bradley Warren and Virginia Maloro.

If you'll both come up and uh give us your name, whether or not you're city resident, and whether or not you're representing someone else.

Yeah, any big chair.

Any chair.

Okay.

Yes.

Of course.

Mr.

Warren.

Oh, we just decided she was going to go first.

Oh I'm prepared to go first if you'd like to.

All right.

Well, good morning, commissioners and uh city employees and community.

My name is Bradley Warren.

I am the administrator for leadership and innovation for Charter Schools USA.

And I'm proud to be here today and give you a brief introduction to our newest school that we're opening this fall.

Sarasota Classical Preparatory Academy.

We're a tuition-free public school that's opening in East County right off Rootville Road.

We're a school built on strong academics and student character and developing the whole child, which means our students know how to think critically, act responsibly, and proactively serve our community positively.

Our mission is simple, but it's bold.

We create we create strong minds and good hearts.

That means we have students who are academically capable and they're ethically grounded and ready to serve this community.

And this community has long been lauded for its appreciation for the arts, its respect for history, and its strong civic identity, and our school reflects those values.

We're not a cookie cutter one size fits all.

We're a school designed and built to reflect the values of this community.

Now we are a classical academy, so yes, there's a strong foundation and emphasis on reading and writing across all curriculums, including Latin instruction, which gives them a strong foundation for vocabulary and reading comprehension.

But in addition to that, we want students who can think.

So our school is not a place where students come to answer questions, old questions that we know the answers to because they're in red in the teachers edition.

Our school is a place where students come to ask new questions, collaborate with their friends, find solutions, and create more compelling questions.

So we infuse that with the latest technology so that our students not only know how to think, but they have the tools to change the world.

So the learning doesn't stop inside the walls of our school.

We also have outdoor gardens, an outdoor amphitheater, and many hands-on uh learning spaces for our students to really apply what they've learned in a real-world context.

We are supported by Charter Schools USA, a company with 27-year positive track record of creating A-level schools.

Uh we provide academic organizational accountability support uh to make sure there is strong teaching and learning in all of our schools.

So enrollment is open at Sarasota Classical Preparatory Academy, but space is limited for this founding uh families.

So we encourage anyone who's interested to visit Sarasota Classical.org, sign up for one of our information sessions, or just register to get your questions answered, meet with one of our uh team leaders.

Uh I want to thank uh the community today for partnering with us because we want to build the next level of scholars, leaders, and engaged citizens.

I want to thank the commission for your time, your service, and your commitment to the future of Sarasota.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Uh Ms.

Maloro.

Good morning.

Um I am a resident of Sarasota.

I've been here for 12 years, and I love my city.

I also love the neighborhood I live in, uh, which is Indian Beach Sapphire Shores.

I um I bought a home with my husband and we renovated it, and I met quite a few people who also love our community and our neighborhood and have invested to make it more beautiful and uh bring more value and beauty to the neighborhood.

So we um I partnered with two people and we purchased two properties, and then we were hired uh by another couple to renovate the third property next door to it, and after investing over a million dollars into making it beautiful, we um we were next located next to a lot on 41.

Uh right the Ringland College owns the lot, and um we were uh surprised by a huge huge chain link fence, six-foot chain link fence that had gone up after actually clearing some of the lot that the college refused to do that we did to make the neighborhood more beautiful, um, and then slowly started seeing construction um being packed into the lot, and now it looks like a junkyard.

It has caused the property value to go down.

It has caused major quality of life to go down for the neighbors.

There's blocking of an intersection, there's blocking of a school zone.

There is, we called code enforcement many times for issues, and unfortunately, I think that there's a conflict of interest because obviously it's the water main staging zone for the construction that's going on in 41.

And we're very concerned.

I know that you spoke today, and you spoke about the accountability and integrity and support of community, and that's what the city that I thought that I lived in.

And when I asked why they chose that lot, uh Metro, the company that's then leased the project, said because it was grass, and they only have to resolve it when it's done.

Instead of using a lot north, which backs up to an empty strip mall that buffers the residential locations that wouldn't hurt neighbors, um, they've used this lot, which is really causing a conflict for all those who live around it.

So I'm trying to ask the city to look into this, see if they can be moved to another place.

It is zoned for commercial, and commercial is retail space or something that brings brings benefit to the community.

This is being used for industrial purposes, which I do not believe is legal, and it is hurting the neighborhood.

Um I've reached out to our president of our association, he was never consulted, no one in our community was consulted.

I met with the president of the college, Ringland College.

I was told it was temporary, meaning six months.

So we looked, we turned the other cheek, we looked the other way, we kept investing in these properties, making them beautiful, and now it's to find out it's a three-year project.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for coming in.

Thank you.

And now we are at approval of the minutes of uh February 17th regular city commission meeting.

Um Mayor, for the record, um I did receive a couple of substantive suggestions that I wanted to bring up on these minutes, starting with um Commissioner, I'm sorry, Vice Mayor Ulrich me.

One substantive that we do see that needs to be changed, and that is for the unfinished business item of charter official evaluations, and it was stated that um noted that we did not put the motion there, and that is correct.

So we want to make sure that we I mean the vote actually, I'm sorry, not the motion, but the vote.

So we want to make sure we add the vote.

The vote was 5-0, so that is a substantive change that we will add.

And then the other substantive change that I think we need to discuss, because after um discussing with um Miss Johnson here, I don't think that we should make the substantive change, but I want to make sure the commission is good with this.

Commissioner Aaron Koch brought up the fact that um in the charter officials same item evaluation that it says fiscal year 2025-2026.

And her suggestion is saying that it should be 2026-2027.

The reason why if you go back and look at the backup material, the charter of official valuations is for the period of 2024-2025 is behind.

Got it.

So that's why it says 2025-2026.

Got it.

Okay.

So we don't think that that should be changed.

Perfect.

Okay.

Other than that, that is all.

Okay.

So can I have a motion to approve the minutes with the change of adding the results of the vote?

So move by Commissioner Bad T.

Seconded by the Vice Mayor.

May have your votes, please.

And it's unanimous.

Thank you very much.

Uh and now we move into approval of the minutes of the special uh commission meeting of February 24th.

Move approval.

Second.

Uh moved by the Vice Mayor and seconded by Commissioner Batti to approve the minutes of the 24th.

I just had a non-substitution.

Yes.

And that was it.

Okay.

And that is unanimous.

Thank you very much.

Uh we now have reached uh the point with uh item number 5.1, which is a report from the Human Relations Board there annual annual report.

Hello, I'm ADA coordinator Jake Brown.

I'm Janet Stern Solomon, Chair of the HR advisory board.

The Human Relations Board was created to foster fair and equal opportunity for everyone.

It serves as a resource for individuals who believe they have experienced discrimination in employment, housing, or public accommodations, providing a formal process for submitting complaints.

The formal process begins with a conciliation process.

And if this is unsuccessful, a public hearing is held, which can result in a right to sue letter being issued.

The board is only able to assist with alleged discrimination complaints that occurred within city limits.

And complaints from outside of city limits are typically referred to the Florida Commission on Human Relations, which is a statewide entity.

Otherwise, the EEOC, Department of Justice, or HUD are other options for individuals outside of city limits.

Complaints must be filed within 90 days of the event of discrimination and cannot be filed with another organization at the same time as the Human Relations Board.

And on that note, the board has heard no complaints in the year of this board report.

And as a result of that, our board meets as needed.

So we meet once per year just to you know get together.

And then if we do have a complaint, we do meet per our normal meeting schedule, which would be every other month.

And we will review the complaints at that time.

If we have a public hearing, we will meet at our regular meeting and then schedule special meetings as needed for that public hearing.

Okay.

Thank you.

Martin Hyde, would you like to come up?

So my name is Martin Hyde.

I don't live in the city.

I also don't live in the Twilight Zone, and uh what I just heard qualifies.

So one might assume if the city human relations board presents a report stating zero complaints in the last year, that might indicate that HR is without problems in the city.

Why then the city manager at the time commission, excuse me, so it's straight, this $40,000 report into allegations of malfeasance in HR within the city.

Why then was the nearly 20-year HR direct summarily booted out of City Hall?

This report, if you've read it, contains a myriad of allegations of complaints, specifically and most concerning alleging that uh complaints of cronyism, where complaints against senior managers were not addressed.

This comes into the category of hear no evil, speak no evil.

I understand the distinction that frankly doesn't make a difference that this board has to have stuff referred to it, but lest anybody in this room or in this city be under any illusions, the HR in this city has been a nightmare.

You commissioned a report that said so, and you dismissed the HR director as a result.

So before we all start singing Kumbaya and what a wonderful time we're having, those are the facts.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Hyde.

Commissioners, uh questions?

Uh Vice Mayor.

I just want to, I know you haven't met much very often, but I would like to thank you and everybody else on the committee for being available to meet if we needed to appreciate that.

And your expertise come to the table as well, Jake.

Uh Commissioner Ahern Koch.

Yeah, thank you as well.

Um I appreciate um your gathering and doing the work that you do.

And um the next report, may I suggest that um I know there was probably nothing in there, but the minutes from that one meeting that you had, sometimes these reports come with uh like at least a summary of the meeting and what happened.

And then I guess my standard question is is there anything else that you think this board could become part of its its uh purview or uh change to make you more efficient and any suggestions you have for the commission?

I have no suggestions, but I will say that in this is my sixth year on this board.

And in the first two years, we did have complaints.

We did have a full hearing, which went over a week, and we have had other complaints that were reviewed, and I think the the board served a very good purpose in keeping those complaints out of the court system and out of off the docket, which is presumably very backed up as always.

Yeah, I I had a question.

It seems like there may be a little bit of a misperception as to whether this board is for concerns internal to city government or external to the entire city.

And my belief is really the purpose is the entire city, so if anybody in the city feels that they're discriminated against in housing or in any other way.

Um I can't believe that there have been absolutely no problems, so it leads me to wonder do you think it would be valuable to have some sort of publicity or outreach just to let the people of sit the sits of Sarasota know that you are an outlet for them to pursue um corrections to problems?

Um I think that would make sense.

Um we have had calls from county residents seeking information, um, and we have had quite a few of those.

Um so I do think that there is knowledge of the board, um, but maybe it's just limited in that scope.

Okay, okay.

Thank you.

Um and I guess I probably had a question uh about it in the reports from all of them, and I believe that there was an indication that uh the state also had uh a board that would address some of these problems.

Yes, the Florida Commission on Human Relations.

Um it's just another entity that individuals can go to if they maybe aren't comfortable going to the federal level at the EEOC.

Um I do provide the contact information for that board, um, largely to the county residents who call and I can't assist them.

And then you also mention their other outlets with the federal level.

Well, do you think it would be worthwhile to disband this board and just refer every everything to the state?

Um I'm not sure on that, honestly.

I think it's valuable to have a city level board because as um as Janet noted, we do uh keep things out of the court system.

Um and I think that I think we serve a valuable purpose, even if we don't meet very frequently.

Um so those are my thoughts.

Okay.

Um I'd also like to add that it's not just the complainants that have to be in the city, it may be the respondent.

So uh any business um housing uh employer that is in the city can be uh can have a complaint brought against them by somebody who is not a city resident, but because the respondent is a city entity, we will hear or review the case.

Yeah.

Yeah, I I see it it's a valuable board to have.

I just would like people to be maybe more aware and more receptive to reaching out to you.

So any other questions, commissioners?

I do.

I just wanted to comment as well because I also served several years on the Human Relations Board and I was on the very first board um when it started, and you know, the the um concern we had was making sure that people found out about the board because obviously we can't imagine that in the entire city of Sarasota there's been no discrimination.

I think it's more an issue of people not being aware that the board is there.

So I I think um a lot more publicity about it.

I know we did flyers, we did uh different things to try to make people aware, and you know, maybe on our social media um there could be some emphasis on making uh you know letting people know that there is this board where they can come in the city to um you know report their discrimination complaint.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Okay.

I'm wondering, do we need to have a motion to accept this report?

Yes.

So then I'll make that motion.

Second.

Motion by the Vice Mayor, seconded by Commissioner Aaron Kotch to accept this report.

And it's approved unanimously.

Thank you very much for the your board's work.

Okay.

We are at consent agenda number one.

Are there items to be pulled?

Um yes, Mayor, I'm aware of two items.

Item number six point one to be pulled by Mayor Tries, and item six point two to be pulled by Vice Mayor Ulrich, and that is all that I am aware of.

Okay, let me get to the right page here.

What was the second one?

Six point two by the Vice Mayor.

If you don't want to take it.

Did you pull that?

No, I did not.

Uh you want to take it off?

I didn't pull it.

Oh, I thought I had an email, but I'm gonna take it off.

Okay, so the only one that was pulled was six point one by me.

Um so how are we going to handle he can still come, he just have him come up and speak now if you like.

Okay.

Well, yeah, Mr.

Hyde, sorry I didn't get you while you're still on your feet.

My age often down.

So my name obviously remains from five minutes ago, Martin Hyde.

Uh similar bad tidings, I'm afraid.

Um item 6.4 is a uh 10 million dollar construction contract.

Um yet again, just one bid.

Obvious question to any sane person would be why.

Could it be that the competition has seen the website of the sole bidder, Jonathan Swift, which has on it the endorsement of A.

G.

Lafley?

Uh let's just push that up so we can see it.

Oh no, this one is uh a city employee, Susan Blake, and uh forgive me, the other one is A.

G.

Lafley, the CEO of the Bay Park Conservancy, you know, by any standard that is horrifically unethical.

In any event, could it also be that the bidders were put off by the recent award of the Bobby Jones Clubhouse to this same firm?

Close to 10 million dollars, again, with no competitive bid.

You know, you can all look away.

You can all pretend it's not happening, but the truth is this has to go to the state.

And that's exactly what I come to talk to you about today.

I'm gonna pass this off to Blazon Oglia.

I'll be speaking to him personally.

This is absolute fraud.

Absolutely outrageous.

How you can call this what do you call it?

Procurement?

How is it procurement?

Nearly 20 million dollars to the same firm, not a single bid, and endorsements on that firm's website.

Now, you go ahead and pass it and see how that works for you.

Thank you, Mr.

Hyde.

Um so shall we have a motion to approve uh the balance of consent agenda number one minus uh six point one?

So move.

Um wait uh I was gonna ask if we could pull that item as well and just have our procurement director come and speak to that.

Oh, so we're pull so would you care to restate your motion as approving the balance of consent one with the exception of six point one and six point four.

So move.

Second.

Move by the vice mayor, seconded by Commissioner A.

Hearn Kotch.

Um we have your votes.

And it passed unanimously.

Thank you.

Uh so six point one, I pulled um because this was the annual reports of all the boards, and several of the boards had items that um needed to be addressed.

And several of the boards had items that needed to be addressed.

So rather than just go past, I thought it would be a good idea.

I actually marked three to just highlight.

And the first one was the DID on the their, it was page 20 of 60.

It was their second page.

And they indicated that an ordinance needed to be amended to instill board term limits to be consistent with other city boards.

An ordinance amendment is proposed to establish board term limits for the downtown improvement district district aligning its government's structure with term limits applied to other city of Sarasota boards.

Is there any movement to do that?

So we we'll follow up on those as they come up.

Obviously, that will be a motion of the board themselves to take that action and we'll work with the city attorney's office to make sure that gets accomplished.

Okay.

So that somebody will move forward to at least bring it to us.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

And now that we have to start with the board first.

They need to bring it to the board, and it has to be proved there first.

Right.

But they they highlighted that in their report.

Another one was again, well, I mentioned the human relations board that we just spoke to.

Uh that was a concern.

And then the third one that I picked up was the individual independent police advisory panel and the police complaint committee.

Uh that is sort of like on hiatus because of the uh state statute.

And I was wondering, is their research continuing to see if it the IPAP of the PCC can be re-established within in compliance?

So I'll I'd be happy to answer that.

Thank you.

That's a great question.

Um and I can tell you that uh Mr.

Polzak, myself, and two other previous city managers have been working through that in its current format.

The state language of the law will not allow those boards to be reconvened under their current makeup with their mandate.

However, we have proposed some uh changes to the boards that we might be able to consolidate them into one to move it forward in a in a good and productive manner that wouldn't violate any state uh state law.

So I think we it we're just a matter of getting that cleaned up, dusting it off and bringing it back down.

But I know that Ms.

Salzman, uh Mr.

Polzak and I have been working on that probably for about a year and a half since it was actually passed.

So there is movement on that, but you know, unfortunately we've had uh a couple of different uh bosses.

But I'm sure Ms.

Jorgensen will uh will help us get that across the finish line.

So we'll dust that off and bring it forward and get that up and running because I think it is uh something that's a great tool for the community, very, very beneficial for the police department and the community back when they were both put in place.

So to see that come back in something that won't put us in jeopardy as far as the state law is concerned, I think is very beneficial, so we'll make sure that gets taken care of for.

Thanks.

Uh do any of the other commissioners have any other items on the board reports that they wanted to highlight or question?

Okay, then uh can we have a motion to accept um item consent item number one.

6.1.

Approval of consent 6.1.

Second.

Uh move by vice mayor, seconded by Commissioner Batte.

May we have your votes please.

And it passed unanimously unanimously.

Thank you.

So now we are at item 6.4 uh regarding the bid that uh Mr.

High just questioned.

Thanks.

Hi.

Renee Hayes, procurement official.

Hello?

Okay.

Um so regarding this bid, this was posted in November on our prior uh platform bid net.

It was posted for 45 days.

We actually extended an additional 10 days as well.

There was a lot of activity as far as the questions and answers period for you know potential addendums.

There um it actually went to 3,556 appliers, 179 plan holders downloaded the bid, looked at the documents, and 10 um were engaged in the QA.

The budget for this project was 13.4 million dollars.

The bid that we received was 25 percent less than that.

We did cost estimates that were over 14.4 million and another 13.1 million.

So when we looked at the bid, it is in line and it's also under the budget.

Um this is grant funded, and there's a lot of due diligence that occurred, you know, with this particular um bid.

The contract, as you probably saw in your packet, is I think 1,092 pages because it's a very complex, you know, um, way of getting funding, you know, getting approval from the state.

Um the bid was just a basic, you know, construction bid.

Um all of the plans were you know outlined in the solicitation.

Um it was open, transparent.

Um, and so the one bid was acceptable and actually approved by the state as well.

Uh questions?

Uh Mayor, I was just gonna say as well.

Um I can speak to this because Renee and I did a lot of work on this procurement specifically because it is federal grants.

And when you get a bid that um is paid for by federal grants, the vendors have to follow quite a few specific federal rules that are very onerous for vendors to do, and so it does limit the number of vendors that apply or bid on these type of um procurements.

Because we only got one bid, we actually did our due diligence to reach out to the state um department that is issuing this federal grant.

It is a federal grant, but it comes to the state, and then the state issues it to us, and we actually talked through them.

Hey, we got one bid on this, should we rebid this?

And we walked through all the due diligence that Renee and her team did.

Um, the fact that it came in under budget.

Um, we got two independent appraisers on this work to and again, like Renee said, the bait the bid came in under those appraisers.

So we did a lot of due diligence to make sure that that um we were moving forward in a fair and um equitable way, only having one bid on this.

So we just wanted to make sure you were aware of all the work that was done on this as well.

Thank you.

Questions, commissioners?

Ah, yeah, Vice Mayor.

Um my question was answered, so let me just repeat it and make sure I understand it correctly.

It's a federal grant administered by the state.

You had discussions with the state about it, and it was approved.

Yes, they can't give an official approval, um, but they can when you walk through all the due diligence, um, they felt comfortable that we did not have to go back out to bid for this.

They asked us to note all the due diligence and keep it in our files in case anything ever comes up.

So they don't officially approve it, but we did talk it through with them.

Thank you.

Okay, and Commissioner Batti.

Oh no, I mean sorry.

Um I think my question was answered Mayor Wabby.

That was regarding you know the uh statement by the gentleman.

Um happened to go to the state, but you said that it went to the state and it came back.

So I just want to clarify it went to the State Department who issues the grant.

Um it didn't go to any other State Department except for the one that issues the grant.

Okay.

Um no more questions from the commissioners.

Thank you very much.

Um can I have a motion?

Move to approve consent one six point four.

Second.

Move by vice mayor, seconded by commissioner bat T.

May we have your votes please?

Oh, try to leave.

Sorry, hit it again.

Sorry.

I hit the wrong button.

My apologies.

Okay, so um the motion to approve passed unanimously.

Thank you very much.

And we are now at consent item consent to, and there's actually only one item.

Was it pulled?

No.

I'll go ahead and read the um title, Mayor.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, resolution number 26R 3383, a resolution of the city commission of the City of Sarasota, Florida, amending the budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2025 by providing for supplemental appropriations in the amounts identified in exhibit A provided for server ability if any of the parts here are declared invalid, providing for reading by title only and providing an effective date.

Thank you.

Uh and I don't see that anybody signed up to speak.

So may have a motion to adopt uh consent agenda number two.

So one at a time, so we can be clear.

Okay.

Okay.

Well we'll let Commissioner that one.

And Commissioner Padge seconded.

Uh can we have your votes, please?

It will also be roll call.

Aaron Cratch?

Yes.

Alpert, yes.

Betty.

Yes.

All right.

Yes.

Yes.

And it passed unanimously.

Thank you very much.

Uh we are now at board appointments.

Um, and the first item there is the Bay Park Improvement Board.

And call upon City Auditor and Clerk Griggs to make a presentation.

Thank you, Mayor.

The City of Sarasota and Sarasota County completed the execution of the interlocal agreement for cooperative funding of the Bay Park on November 4th, 2020.

This agreement calls for the creation of a Bay Park Improvement Board of Five members, two of each city and county commissioners.

And the fifth selected by fourth year for I'm sorry, selected by four commissioners.

Agreement calls for annual budget submission by from the Bay Park Conservancy to the BIP and both commissions annually by May 1st.

In 2024, May Trice was appointed to serve a two-year term that expires April 2026.

The appointment of one city commission to Bay Park Approval Board is what we are seeking for today.

You think Mayor, if if I can say um just make one statement.

So the mayor is um what we talked about or what we um had discussed is uh reappointing the mayor through the end of her term, which would be um in November of 2026, and then potentially putting Vice Mayor Ulrich on the Bay Park Improvement Board after the mayor's term expires in November of 2026 to serve the remainder of the two-year term.

Would that be can we actually vote on both today or would we have to wait?

See why we couldn't, yeah.

We can vulnerable.

Okay, would that be acceptable to everybody for me to continue and then when I'm off uh commission to vice mayor slot in?

I would ask mayor since there's two things that we're asking for, let's make an actual motion and not a consistency.

So let's can we get an actual motion to what we're trying to do.

Move to um appoint the mayor uh to the board until the end of her term.

And all right.

Go ahead.

And that was moved by Commissioner Aaron Koch, second and by the vice mayor, and uh it was passed unanimously.

Thank you very much.

Can I also just add and include in that motion move to appointment?

Well, we already voted.

I just wanted to add to include her name.

Oh, okay.

Mayor Trice.

I got you, okay.

And then my next motion would be moved to appoint Vice Mayor Ulrich uh to uh the board upon the resignation or stepping down of Mayor Trice.

Second.

Okay, move by Commissioner Aaron Koch, seconded by Commissioner Batti to uh appoint Vice Mayor Ulrich at the end of my term.

And it's unanimous, thank you all very much.

The next item is appointment to the parks recreation and environmental protection advisory board for star program member and Ms.

Griggs, will you make the presentation?

Thank you.

A vacancy is this on the parks recreation and environmental protection advisory board for the seat designated for star student um program participant.

This is coordination with the um leadership of the boys and girls club of Sarasota County, and we have um an application for your consideration and vice mayor.

So I've learned that um the boys and girls club does not use the last name of their participants.

Thus, on the application we have we have the students' first name and their last initial.

Um I don't know that there's any other discussions, so I would move to appoint Sebastian Kaye to the parks, recreation, and environmental protection advisory.

Second.

Okay, it was moved by the Vice Mayor, seconded by Commissioner Batti to appoint Sebastian Kaye as the star student to the prep board.

Okay.

And it is unanimous.

Thank you all very much.

Congratulations to Sebastian K.

Yes.

And welcome to the board, Sebastian Kay.

Um I think we have time for the first unfinished business item before a break.

Um it is item 9.1, and I will ask uh department head Dominique Anderson to come to the dais to discuss the um compensation for city the city auditor and clerk.

Good morning, commissioners.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Okay, Dominique Anderson, General Manager of Human Resources, currently acting director of HR.

At the last or February 17th meeting, the commission had reviewed the evaluations for the city auditor and clerk, and it was asked of me to review the salary information.

So I do have a presentation here.

Alright, so just starting on the agenda.

So I'm going to provide an overview of the city auditor and clerk's position and history with the city.

I'm then going to discuss the salary information, comparisons to the surrounding area that we did, also charter official salaries, and then some considerations for you.

Alright, so here's the city auditor and clerk's overview.

So Ms.

Greg started with the city August 14th of 2017 as the deputy city auditor and clerk.

And then December 4th of 2018, she became the interim city auditoring clerk.

And then on November 6th of 2019, she was promoted to city auditoring clerk.

The city auditoring clerk supports the city commission and Ms.

Gregg's role oversees the following areas.

The pension department and acts as the pension administrator.

She oversees the internal audit area, public broadcasting, records and management for public records requests, records and information management, and election administration.

And as we know, the additional tasks that she took on was managing and supporting the recruitment of the city manager.

Okay, here is the clerk's salary history, and this is just starting from the time that Ms.

Griggs was promoted as the city auditing clerk.

So that was on November 6th of 2019.

You'll see her base pay is 160,000.

And then March 10th of 2021, a general wage increase was received, bumping that up to 164.

October 6th of 21, another general wage increase was received.

And then August 10th of 22, Ms.

Griggs received longevity pay, which is being with the city for five years, she earns a 2% on top of her base rate of pay.

October 5th of 22, she received a general wage increase.

And then October 4th of 23, the same general wage increase.

And then October 2nd of 2024, general wage increase as well.

So her current base salary is 196,247.

That is her base pay.

Okay, so what we did was some market comparisons to the local jurisdictions.

This page has a lot of information, so I'll just go over it at the top.

So what we did was City of Sarasota, Ms.

Gregg's position is city auditing clerk, obviously, and she's a charter official.

Base pay is listed, and what I had done is just checked off the current job duties that she handles and then compared that to the surrounding market.

So the custodian, um, Ms.

Griggs is the custodian of official records.

She prepares agenda minutes and notices.

She handles public records requests, also oversees the pension department, public broadcasting.

She's the election official, oversees internal audit, and then administers the oath.

So we went out and got all this information from the other jurisdictions to compare.

So City of Northport, they have a city clerk, and that is a department head.

The base pay for that position is 157,000, $4.

That position is a custodian of official records, prepares agendas and minutes, and then public records requests.

They also are the election official and administers the oath.

They do not oversee pension, public broadcasting or internal audit.

The same goes for City of Venice.

They have a city clerk, so it's not city auditor and clerk, again, just city clerk.

That is a charter official position.

That pays 164 or 52.

City of Bradington, they have a city clerk.

It's a department head, base pay is 116,150.

That position is the custodian of official records and then prepares minutes and agendas.

City of Naples, they have a city clerk.

That is a charter official position.

That position pays 180,000.

That position handles the first three items, official records, minutes, public records requests.

And then is also the election official.

City of Fort Myers, they have a city clerk, charter official base is 126.

And then obviously the first three items in addition to election official and administering the oath.

City of Clearwater, they have two separate positions.

They have a city clerk, which is the charter official at a base pay of 120,459, and then this a separate position, which is a city auditor, which is a department head.

And then you'll see the check marks there.

The base pay for the auditor is 169-219.

That position is only handling public records requests and internal audit.

Sarasota County and Manatee County, I wanted to include those, but those are clerk of the circuit court and county comprollers.

Those are constitutional officers that are elected.

And there you can see they handle public records minutes, public records requests, and then internal audit for those.

So as you could see, just looking at the chart, a majority of them are not handling pension broadcasting and internal audit.

Okay, on this slide, you asked for information on charter officials' salaries.

So our current interim city manager Jorgensen and also previous interim city manager David Bullock were 228,000.

The previous interim city manager with uh Jeff Coat was 205,000.

And then I also included the previous city manager Brown, the base pay was 235,137.

City attorney independent contractor, I listed here.

And then as previously mentioned, the city auditor and clerk's base pay at 196,247.

These are some considerations I just wanted to bring to your attention for your decision.

But as we know, the performance and success in the role as stated in the performance reviews that you reviewed on February 17th, including managing the city manager recruitment assignment.

Also wanted to point out that currently the city auditor and clerk's base salary is below the director of planning at 201,000, and the executive director at the Van Weasel 204,039.

After reviewing the other municipalities, most of them, as previously mentioned, they only have a city clerk position and do not combine both the auditor and clerk roles.

Several do not oversee pensions and auditing and public broadcasting.

So also reviewing the salary comparison with the charter officials.

The recommendation is a 10% to 15% pay increase onto the current base pay of 196,247, which would then the new base range depending on what the commission decides would be a range of 215,871 between 225,684.

And I should have mentioned also at the beginning of this that I did meet with Ms.

Griggs before starting to review to understand her role a little bit more and go over anything that she wanted to point out, but that was a direction of the commission.

So I believe that is my last slide.

Thank you.

And Vice Mayor has questions.

I do.

Oh, it might be clear for me.

Okay, so I do.

I do.

So you got the advantage of that.

I don't want to barge in here, but I guess I am.

So this would you put page five of seven up the market comparisons?

This is a very interesting page to me.

We know now what we thought we knew, but we didn't have any evidence of it.

That in our area does any one person do the job that our auditor and clerk does.

The closest is the city of Clearwater that has two people.

Right.

And those two people still do not do what our one person does.

Well, are you tired all the time?

What?

No, I have a great staff, so it is what it is.

So to me, the other page that's important is page six of seven.

I think when we do an analysis it's important to compare charter officials, Ms.

Griggs, to other charter officials here in Sarasota, not charter officials in other municipalities.

And so is that why you put these figures down on six and seven to provide an in-house comparison?

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Those are my two questions really.

Okay.

anybody else?

Okay.

No more questions?

Okay.

Well thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is somebody prepared to make a motion?

I'm just trying to understand like how do we go about doing this?

I mean did we pick on the money?

Yeah exactly.

Yeah.

Yeah but pick a number and I'm not saying nothing.

Commissioner Batti, are you ready to say something?

No, no, I mean I'll just kind of confuse how you know how they go about doing this.

I mean do you choose on a you know the the range that the the high end the low end I mean whatever.

Commissioner Betty um so I gave you a range because I just didn't want to lock you in to a specific number but I would say at the minimum based on you know I think it's pretty clear that Ms.

Griggs is doing a lot more comparing to the surrounding areas.

So and based on her last performance evaluation I would say at minimum the the 10 percent and then if you're fully satisfied with her work you can go up to 15 percent if you choose if you want a percentage in between I can get you that number.

But I I would say between those 10 to 15 percent.

Yeah um because as I said you know stated before for me it's not necessarily like a raise or whatever as it is being made whole and I have no issue or qualms with going to the uh the 15 percent I mean you give that to your server and we're not at a restaurant so and Lord knows she does you know a merit of functions within her department um and as you s as we saw before you know with the as you what you say vice mayor the the the closest one was the city of Clearwater and they have too you know doing the job of one.

Right.

You know for our city and she does a tremendous job.

You know that I mean that just goes without saying I don't even think I can really express the the the the work that she does and the the quality in which she does it.

So um you know that's so are you going to make a motion for 15 percent?

I can make a motion for pay increase of to 15 percent yes I can so you're saying um 225684?

Yes ma'am second.

Okay moved by Commissioner Batti, seconded by Commissioner Ahern Kotch to increase the city auditor and clerk's salary by 15 percent I'd like to speak to it.

Okay.

But make her the motion making a motion.

No I just you know um first off I think each and every one of us can agree that we truly appreciate the work that the city and clerk's office does and her team I mean she did still one of our our team members from Alexia down.

But um but yeah but personally you know she she uh does a tremendous job in in being engaged with the public making sure that she's responsive to to emails and their concerns and their questions um meeting with us on a regular basis um and answering our questions and and getting us the information that we need you know to do our jobs and what we've been elected to do and uh you know I can't say thank you enough and and um and how much I appreciate the work that you do and and uh you know that's that's thank you.

She does eight of them, and the average is four.

Um and the average pay for four is one fifty.

So if you're gonna double it, that's three hundred.

I say we're getting a really good deal.

Um so uh aside from that, um the professionalism that's put into this job and into the department is invaluable.

You can have a a worker be do everything efficiently, but if the integrity and the service to the community spirit is not there, it's a very different kind of a job.

And that speaks to what Commissioner Betty was talking about.

There's a little something extra there, and um it's a well-deserved um compensation.

We're really getting a good deal.

Bye Smith.

Thank you.

So if we look at the two people from Clearwater who do not do as much as Ms.

Griggs does, their salaries combined are 2896.

So I agree with Commissioner A.

Hern Kotch, we're getting a real good deal here.

Um the thing that moves me about our auditor and clerk is about how she motivates her staff.

Uh they like to operate below the radar.

And that's who she is, and they just do such a good job without bringing any attention to themselves.

They just work above and beyond.

So we have a good deal here, and we ought to take care of that.

Okay.

Commissioner Alpert.

Amen.

Well, I think everybody's pretty much said what what I was uh thinking because I think it's important to have somebody in that office that not only does the work well and efficiently, but with uh good humor and with knowledge, professionalism, and has an office where the staff is not disgruntled, that you know they enjoy coming to work and working for her and having experienced um, you know the opposite of that previously.

I think it's important to make sure that we keep going with Ms.

Griggs at the helm.

Thank you very much for your work.

Thank you all.

So I I will go one step further because while I agree with everyone that she's running a department that does its job efficiently, effectively, happily, but she has also introduced new programs, new efficiencies, just this shred stock thing that we start she started and then she expanded to include uh small electronics.

I mean this is not your average run-of-the-mill clerk who just does the job.

She goes above and beyond and makes us better.

So I think this is really well deserved.

I appreciate that.

And can I make a statement?

I just want to say I can't do this without my staff.

They are really everything.

I would cry if I want if I started really talking.

They are everything to me, they mean everything to me, they mean everything to the city, they do their job without complaint.

I never had to ask that they have my back because they know I have theirs.

Um perfect example was the stress doc.

Nick came up with an idea, he wanted to do it, we made it happen, and now it turned into honestly craziness on Saturday to now we have to probably get a second truck.

Um so we really appreciate it, and we all we're all about providing a service to the community.

And we're everybody's our customer, whether it's the commissioners, the public, staff, everybody's our customer.

So thank you.

Can I add one more thing?

Mayor, if I may.

You know, and I and just looking at this, we're just talking about Clearwater.

I mean, they have two people that that you know in that department as well, and they still fall short, you know, of uh, you know, f doing everything under her purview, and not to mention the job that she did with the and and uh our city attorney with um taking over uh the city manager search.

So, you know, I think you know that's all I have to say.

But I just wanted to bring that to everyone's attention as well.

Thank you.

So I guess we're ready for a vote.

Thank you.

And it's unanimous.

Thank you all, and thank you, Ms.

Griggs.

Uh well earned.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um I have a feeling that the next item is going to take a while, so why don't we take a 15-minute break?

It is now 10.15.

Be back at 1030.

Okay.

Good morning.

We are back in session for the regular uh March 23rd City Commission meeting.

And we have reached the second item on unfinished business, uh, which has to do with uh our sound regulations, and I will ask City Attorney Joe Pulse Act to introduce the item.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh here today is going to give a presentation to us as Gary and Keely Seabine with C Vine Acoustic.

Um there's obviously a lot of backup material that I'm sure the commissioners have reviewed, but they're going to do a quick 20-minute presentation running through some of that and the uh resource they could provide us as acoustic experts as we look to amend our sound code.

Great.

Thank you.

And thank you for coming, and the microphone is yours.

Well, thank you for having us.

Uh my name is Gary Seabine.

This is my daughter Keely.

We are from C Bine Associates Inc., we're a specialty soundscape architectural acoustic noise and AV design firm in Gainesville, Florida.

Uh we're partnered with the University of Florida School of Architecture, Professor Martin Gold, uh, to address what we call the soundscape of Sarasota and noise ordinance development.

We understand that uh you're really seeking to achieve a balance between citizens living in the city, businesses, and city staff, uh, law enforcement, uh, planning, uh, code enforcement, uh, legal team, uh, to really deal effectively with the mix of activities in the urban context, live, work, learn, play, that makes Sarasota such a wonderful place to live.

Uh, in addition, uh issues with some outdoor and indoor entertainment sounds, uh, loud cars and street performers.

We understand that the noise ordinance needs some development, uh, that there are some dynamics of enforcement and maybe measurement issues.

Vertical sound propagation is possibly an issue with a number of mixed-use buildings and districts where different acoustical communities, i.e., people with very different goals, uh, live in and work and play in close proximity to each other.

And you really need a way to move forward to provide input into decisions and strategies uh to resolve issues.

We've given you a synopsis of uh our proposal uh in detail and the materials that have been submitted.

I'll go over an outline form uh what we have presented.

Uh we're scientists at heart uh will obtain qualitative and quantitative data with evidence-based conclusions uh driven by data and analysis.

We like to engage stakeholders at every level in forums such as this with large numbers of people, but then in smaller and smaller groups to the point where we would actually walk through the community daytime, nighttime, late night, with people to basically put our ears in their places so that we understand what the issues are so we can bring our technical sophistication of measuring, mapping, modeling, analysis, and prediction to the issues that you're trying to deal with.

We see this as a multi-tiered solution involving possibly more than just a noise ordinance, but moving into possibly some planning and zoning considerations, building code improvements.

Uh and we partnered with the University of Florida to broaden our imagination and possibly look at the real positive potentials in urban development that can be provided to a city that embarks on this process.

So we consider the noise ordinance as one of multiple tiers used to sculpt the soundscape of Sarasota today and moving into the future.

We want to provide a framework for you so that you don't have to call us up every two or three years when two new buildings are being built or something.

Uh we work to encourage post-project and evaluation with lessons learned.

Uh we suggest that when you make adjustments to the any of these ordinances that you do it for trial periods to really find out if this is what you'd like to do, and with some tiered enforcement of warnings within strategies for improvements, civil penalties, and maybe uh more severe penalties for chronic issues.

It's possible, given the nature of Sarasota, that there might be some requirements tailored to individual districts in the city because one size doesn't always fit all.

And above all, we bring a respect for and a balance between multiple points of view, city and their staff and all their activities, the residents, the building owners, venue operators, and others in the community.

This is our firm.

Keighley and I will be people on the ground.

We'll be here in meetings.

We'll be the ones to write the reports and make presentations, along with Martin Gold, professor at the University of Florida School of Architecture, and his students.

We're in Gainesville, but we know Sarasota.

A little few examples of projects we've worked on, Marie Selby Gardens, when they did their recent uh expansion, Sarasota Memorial Hospital, their central energy plant with Dan Bailey, projects at Ringling College, their Chiller Plant, the nice sound stages and screen rooms, library, fine arts buildings, Booker High School Performing Arts Center, which is a beautiful facility you have here.

Patriot Plaza at the National Cemetery, Sarasota Library, and many condominiums right here in downtown where maybe residents live with Gary Hoyt, college classmate of mine, the Florida Studio Theater and all their venues with Richard Hopkins, the Oslo Theater, rehearsal building in the airport fly zone, as well as a lot of residences in that area.

The Rich Carlton residences with David Gurley to help with sound issues when they turned over from the developer.

And a lot of really nice homes in the surrounding areas with Carl Abbott and Guy Peterson.

Martin Gold was director of the U.S.

Research and Education Center here for a number of years in town, and he just completed a really nice research study for the residents of Longboat Key on resilient planning.

Synopsis of the proposal, and I'm not going to go over it in detail, that's kind of laid out in the materials we sent.

But we'd like you to allow us to guide you through a process, the city and its various departments, the residents, business owners, venue operators, to help shape this evolving community.

We want to meet with a broad base of stakeholders to identify issues and areas of concerns.

This takes time.

Takes us being here, and it takes us to have open ears so that we hear what everyone has to say.

We want to meet in larger groups to get initial ideas and then meet in smaller, more individual groups in each area of the city with the residents, city staff, businesses, and so on.

And we're going to take sound walks.

This is a very interesting process, Keely will talk about in a little while, and brainstorm ideas with each group for potential resolution.

Our proposal contained basically doing a pilot study during a site visit.

We usually do this over a weekend, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, so we can participate with quiet times, busy times, and the times when events of concern occur.

We call this midnight acoustics, typically we're up late at night.

We'll share the findings with the individual groups, identify other study areas.

The second part would be an additional site visit.

The areas of town that we've had initial discussions about concerns to address are downtown, Newtown, the neighborhood around Sarasota High School, St.

Armand's, and then some issues with street performers and loud vehicles.

I'm sure there are others that once we get to meet with people, kind of come to the surface in more detail, but this is at least an initial place to start.

We'll provide a framework for the city and its citizens as it grows and evolves over time so that they can move forward.

We'll likely include recommendations for planning and zoning processes, maybe some amendments to comprehensive plan with some subtle acoustic language, maybe some ideas in the building code, certainly the noise ordinance review and recommendations.

We understand that you're considering adopting plainly audible language along with other measurement metrics, operational administrative control recommendations for facilities, such as maybe sound monitoring of entertainment venues by themselves.

We'll review it each step of the way with our focus groups in the city, and then respond to that and revise any recommendations we have.

So we view this as a very interactive process where we really get to know you, get to know your neighborhoods, and get to know the concerns that need to be addressed.

Hi, I'm Keely Seabine, principal with C Bine Acoustic.

And so Gary talked about why and what I'm going to talk a little bit about the how.

So the methods that we like to use when we're doing these kind of citywide soundscape studies.

So one of the methods that Gary mentioned is soundwalks, and those are basically a really important tool for us.

We see them as a way to document basically how the various user groups and constituents use the space on a day-to-day basis.

So we like to start off doing sound walks with stakeholders so that we can get oriented, get the lay of the land, understand you know what the issues are.

Then we like to also have focus group soundwalks on the next level where we're going, we're talking through the issues, we're getting taken down various residential streets, various commercial streets, various mixed use streets.

And then we like to go back undercover, as we like to call it, uh, without anyone, and and try to just observe, we're also taking sound measurements on each of these sound walks so that we're we're logging basically as as we're moving through space, how the sound levels and the frequencies are changing over time.

Uh so it's an important tool for us.

Um we also like to take short-term measurements.

We like to do these when we uh are performing the sound walks, but basically they're just any noise, noises of concern or sounds of concern, we like to take short-term measurements of them all at different times of day, day, night, weekday, weekend, so that we can understand are the are these noises uh are they consistent, are they changing over time?

And uh one of the uh very important parts of what we do uh, we do long-term measurements.

So these long-term measurement locations are usually selected in conjunction with the client, um, and they're selected very specifically to try to understand what the sources of concern are and what the receivers are of concern are so that we can strategically place sound level meters.

Uh you can see the one here sitting out on the balcony of someone's residence who has a direct sound path to uh some areas of concern so that we can understand and measure exactly what the sound sources are and exactly what the residents are hearing.

Um looking at the verticality of cities is a really important component when you have a city such as Sarasota where it's not just one-story buildings everywhere.

Uh, the verticality component just changes the dynamic of how sounds propagate.

Something that we know we understand, we have tools of looking at this is uh an example of an entertainment district uh where there were about 10 uh venues all operating at very loud sound levels, um and the uh one of the main areas of concern was a residential tower that was even 600 feet away, so you know, quite a ways away across the river.

Um of the issues was when code enforcement was measuring, they were measuring the sound levels on grade.

Um, however, there was no issue on grade.

But when you got up above the tenth floor, you had a direct line of sight to all of these venues.

They were indeed above the sound level uh limit in the noise ordinance at that point.

So just an interesting uh thing to understand about the verticality.

We also talk about the idea of hidden sound sources and the idea that some things may not always be as they seem.

Um we uh in this particular case study, there was a kind of lower rise residential area, uh, two stories or so, and uh residents were complaining about what appeared to be a restaurant uh bar that um was playing loud music.

Well, what we indeed found after doing some sound walks and some observation was that the only time that venue was uh having any kind of sound coming out was when the doors were opening and closing, but they kept the doors closed most of the time.

But what we found was that there was a pop-up venue that was popping up kind of directly behind it, but shielded from view for most of the residents that were kind of on the other side of the street.

So they were hearing all the sounds from these pop-up venues.

They were trying to go outside, localize where it's coming from.

They couldn't see the pop-up venue behind it, and so they were uh kind of thinking that it was one venue when it was really the other.

Um so you know, just certain little nuances that uh we can help you understand.

We use what's called 3D acoustic computer models as a way to kind of diagnose and communicate what's going on in the city.

Similar to how a doctor might use an MRI or CT scan.

They want to use the latest tools and technology to be able to visualize like what's going on behind the surface, what's actually going on.

And for us, we need to understand what's happening at our sources, what's happening along the path that they're traveling, and what's happening at their receivers.

And so using these kinds of 3D computer models, we're able to map out the fabric of what's going on in the urban structure, all the different buildings at the different heights.

How does that impact all of our source path receivers?

We had one case where we had a venue that was located kind of behind and around a few residential towers.

And again, similar to the case that I had spoke about, the code enforcement would come and would try to take measurements, but the code enforcement was located.

If you see the arrow where the where the green is, where it says residential tower property line, that's where the code enforcement was standing.

The green area is showing that it's very low sound levels.

They're getting shielded, they have a shield effect from the building that's just in front of them.

But the residents that were complaining were way up in the tower where you see residence location in yellow.

And those are basically sound contours being propagated up, and you can see those are spilling over, whereas where code enforcement was measuring, there's there's not sounds, it's not audible, it's not registering as high.

So we use these as very specific tools to be able to just take snapshots through the city to be able to look at, understand, and analyze what's actually going on.

This was a case study of uh another city where we also had uh similar uh issues with uh loud vehicles as well as street performers.

So this is something that we're very familiar with.

And we like to try to make sure that we take enough data so that we can look at means, we can look at standard deviations, we can look at all kinds of statistics so that we're making sure that uh we're understanding how the sound levels are being distributed over the zones of the city and understand uh how best to make recommendations from a very uh data uh centric model.

So I was a university professor for 37 years, uh, and myself, my master's and doctoral students, we love data.

Um anyway, uh we try to gather enough that we can categorize the types of sounds, the locations of them, the frequency of them, and the kind of range and what's an outlier and what's part of the context, so that when you go to draw lines in your noise ordinance about what's permitted and what becomes an exception, that there's actually an objective basis for doing that, which is fairly important.

Our recommendations, we really hope to work with you so that we can utilize the full palette of sound control strategies to address the issues in each area of the city.

We think this is important because if you only deal with a noise ordinance, setting sound levels or having a plainly audible, that we're putting a big burden on that.

Because if I've built a restaurant and I've spent all my money and I got my loan and I put these beautiful materials inside that you're gonna love to go eat at, it looks just wonderful.

But sound is coming out, I've already spent all my money.

I don't have the opportunity to come back and make retrofits after the case.

So this is where we say we think we should start with planning and zoning.

And so that when you're doing new projects or renovations that you have to get permits for, that looking at acoustical issues as part of that process should be included.

That when you have a building code, if we know how loud it is, and by the time we take measurements in your city, we'll know how loud it is in each different area.

We as acoustic technicians can tell you what sound ratings I have to make my walls and windows of if I have a restaurant to keep my sounds in, if I have a residence to keep your sounds out.

Uh it's a technical issue that's pretty easy to solve.

But again, if I've spent all my money on my condo tower and I haven't thought of this, I can't go back and retrofit after the fact.

Administrative controls are where the noise ordinance fits in.

And with all the subtleties that are in there, developing a noise or good noise ordinance is actually pretty difficult for many communities that's tuned to the actual community.

What we hear from our legal colleagues is that uh for an ordinance to be justifiable, that it needs to reflect the specifics of that locale.

And then we have specific sound controls for individual establishments.

By operational controls, we mean things like hours of day usage, uh considering possible sound monitoring, where the person is operating the mix at a at an entertainment venue actually has feedback as to how loud it is and what the quality of music is, not only for his patrons, but also at the apartment across the street.

These are all very technically feasible and very economical.

We do these in facilities all the time.

So in summary, I think we've outlined an iterative scientific process that evolves with the city.

We really want to engage participation, and we hope that all the stakeholders are interested in vetting our uh findings at every step of the way.

We'll have qualitative and quantitative data with ears on the street and in the neighborhoods, working with you and your business owners and your residents to develop an evidence-based approach for this multi-tiered conclusion.

And our partnership with the University of Florida, I think is very unique to help develop positive potentials for the future so that you can see that this is not just about like you know, throwing up a second sliding glass door on top of my nice condo that now I can't get out to my balcony with, but that there are some real design possibilities to be taken advantage of.

Uh we try to encourage post-project evaluation and lessons learned in a forum like this, so that the community understands this advantages and disadvantages of what happened on this project.

That you have trial periods for any proposed ordinance adjustments, tiered enforcement, requirements tailored to individual districts in the city if needed, and respect and balance of multiple points of view.

So thank you for your attention.

We really appreciate it and would gladly respond to any questions.

Thank you both.

Thank you.

And first we're going to get some comments from the public, and then we'll ask you back to the dais for questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we have six people signed up to speak.

The first five are uh Mike Quillen, Paul Madison, Alex Thompson, Martin Hyde, and Jim Lample.

This is my best slide.

And you will each have three minutes, and we'll start with Mr.

Quillen.

So thank you, uh Mr.

Mayor of the Commissioners, um giving us this opportunity.

I think we're in a unique position to hire a very high quality company, uh, one of the best, if not the best, in the state of Florida, that has worked with many communities, uh cities, towns in the states of Florida.

Um we have uh spoken and research this company, and uh you know it what really stuck out in my mind that what they seem to do is to work for solutions, you know, long-term solutions that we won't be doing this again in five, ten years.

Um, you can find companies, we can probably all do it on our phones, measure decibels, and you know, but you know, that that can be done, but what they're trying to do is give a solution that people in an urban urban environment can coexist.

We as restaurant owners, retail businesses.

We need the residents, and I would contend that the residents need us for nice places to go.

So these folks know Sarasota.

Again, they've worked with uh SMH, Ringland College, uh Selby.

Um, but I think it's a very thorough study.

Uh you know, I might not like the results they come, I have no idea.

But I think we're at least doing our best shot that what we have found so far to get a long-term solution that we can coexist.

So Mr.

Quillin, I neglected to ask you to officially identify yourself for the record.

Mike Quillen, I've been in Sarasota since early 70s.

I own uh Gecko's Grill and Pub, Gecko's Hospitality has some locations in the city, and uh watershed hospitality, which has uh couple of places on Main Street, Cascana, Pio, Maine, Lefty's Oyster and Seafood Bar or Lemon, and uh so I have have a good interest in uh you know our we we follow the rules to a T.

And our doors are supposed to be closed at 11 o'clock, they are closed at 11 o'clock.

Um we have a I I can remember back years and years ago when Main Street you could we all know the cliche that you could bowl the ball down Main Street or it closed up at five o'clock, and we hired uh Mr.

DeWaney to come and tell us how to create a nice environment, uh you know, energetic environment.

We have an incredible city.

Uh I was raised here, raised my children here, and we've done a great job of getting a vibrancy in this community and lots of wonderful restaurants, and uh I think this was uh a really unique opportunity to hire a class, uh a class group that's gonna really put a lot of time into uh help solve our problems.

Thank you very much for coming in.

Um and now uh Mr.

Madison.

Paul Madison, Madison City Grow, um, corner of Main Street and Lemon Avenue.

Um we've been on that corner for 23 years, and um we have had a wonderful run.

We came 23 years ago at the request of this commission, predecessors to all of you, um, that wanted to improve downtown, uh, to create a vibrant environment.

Um and I think we've done that.

And um we're unique because we're completely outdoors.

Um so that proposes a challenge as we have live music every night, but I think we do a very good job of that.

Um we have added acoustical panels to our space, all of our our staff, all of my management staff carries a decibel meter and make sure that we control the volume and and uh and do it the right way.

And it's funny is uh as Mr.

Sabine was discussing um hidden sound sources.

We've we often get blamed because we're outdoors and and sometimes they're from from different sounds and different locations.

But um at the end of the day, in my opinion, for 23 years, um what we have is pretty good, and it works pretty well, but there's areas that it doesn't work.

Um a few months ago I was I was at uh in front of this commission and there was this this conversation came up and there were nine residents and myself that spoke and I said, Oh god, I'm outnumbered.

I'm the only I'm the only restaurant guy here.

But uh at the end of the day, most of the complaints were about engines revving and street racing and a trunk load full of speakers out at South Plato Park, um just serving you know residential areas.

And I think what's happened a little bit is we have one code for the entire city, and I think we need to talk about zones and areas and and different needs in those different areas.

And um uh, you know, again, again for us, I feel like the process has worked and worked well because we're responsible about it, but when people aren't responsible about it, we have to look to enforcement to make sure that people understand what the rules are and that they're following those rules and doing it responsibly because we have to coexist.

And I echo what Mike said, he's right.

I mean, we need the residents and the residents need us.

It's uh it's a vibrant community and an exciting environment, and people want to live here because there's there's activity and things to do, but it also needs to be respectful.

And um so I uh I support highly um Sabine Acoustic.

I I feel like of all the terms that I've the uh firms that I've seen out there, they seem to be very comprehensive about understanding how to make things work.

I love the idea of when buildings are being built, making sure those residential buildings have thick enough glass that the outdoor environment isn't disturbing them.

I mean they chose to live in an urban environment, you're gonna have sound different than than living on a golf course.

So um they just seem to take so many approaches that um that I think will solve our problem, give us some insight on how to make good decisions and and how to keep this vibrant city moving forward.

So I hope that I can participate in the process.

I volunteer to be a part of their studies in their the different areas and uh and highly encourage you to uh to consider this firm for for this project.

I think it'll be great.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Alex Thompson.

Hi, Doug.

Um so I'm with Watershed Hospitality Concepts, and we have three locations in downtown Sarasota.

And um we definitely want to do our part to make all of the residents that live around us and near us um as happy as possible and not to infringe on them and uh to have a coexistment.

Uh Ivan I mean he's written most of the textbooks that go with acoustical studies that exist in every major engineering architectural university out there.

So I mean kind of makes more sense just to go with the guy who wrote the book on it.

Um but other than that, uh the control measures that are in place.

I mean, he has technology where if someone revs an engine and snaps a picture of their plate and they get a ticket for um a sound noise or it's violation, so and um like Mr.

Madison said that a lot of the complaints were um people were having engines two or three in the morning and really loud music at two or three in the morning, and um I mean obviously restaurants we're all of our locations, we stop music exactly when we're supposed to.

Yeah, but we would love any sort of measurement technology that exists out there that tells us if we're a little bit too loud, so we don't infringe upon anyone.

Um what he did in Fort Lauderdale with their ordinance and how it coexists to go for a long period of time rather than just four or five years, like some of the other companies that are out there.

I think that would be very beneficial for everyone to promote downtown Sarasota.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Uh Mr.

Hyde.

Okay.

Well, um the same guy I was an hour ago.

In any event, uh fairly obvious statement, which uh we should all be reminded of uh simple solutions to complex problems don't always exist.

Um might make the argument that the simplest solution would be a strict decibel limit.

But per the three previous speakers, clearly that might impact on their ability to run their businesses.

Bottom line is the conflicting interests will continue to be in conflict regardless of any report that uh that you might have.

Let me say, I don't like noise.

I like the sound of my own voice, but I don't like noise.

Um scientific, quantitative, what was that?

Qualitative data.

Barely say it, let alone understand it.

Um because it looks great on paper.

Practical enforcement though, is going to be difficult.

Word salads are very expensive.

No disrespect, but all of these reports are word salads.

And so really, I've only got one specific point to make because it wasn't mentioned.

I guess we're into the whole how long's a piece of string.

Well, how long before you go bankrupt.

But can we limit this to an amount of money?

Um I've been given various ballpark estimates leading up until around 200,000 that you'll never see again and won't settle the argument.

Surely somebody might want to say a hundred grand is enough.

How many sounds or you know, meters can you run?

I mean, obviously it is infinite and you know potentially indefinite.

Slightly concerned, I think, as a reasonable objective observer, um, that they mentioned in their report relationships with people who are involved in one side of this argument.

Uh the previous three speakers to me absolutely legitimately and rightly in America, the First Amendment right, want things to come out a certain way, and they seem to think this is the guy.

That gives me pause for concern.

That does give me pause for concern.

Why this guy?

We have uh 200,000 water odor report on the shelf.

We have a hundred thousand plus dollar water taxi report on the shelf.

Can we call this one a hundred grand and call it quits?

I hope so.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Lample.

Martin, limit on budget and noise, I guess.

Uh Jim Lample, downtown resident, 15 years.

Uh we're not really NIMBY in to the extent that businesses need to operate.

I owned a restaurant.

We were more like the quiet place like Bijou Cafe.

Um we expect fire, EMT, we expect police.

We expect garbage trucks at seven or seven thirty in the morning.

That's city living.

That's new town.

It should the problem is the deliberate noise.

We have bars, a few bars downtown that have tracked an element of loud cars, jacked-up trucks with neon wheels that just cruise the city, especially on Friday and Saturday and Sunday nights.

We've all heard this.

Anyone who is sat outside trying to enjoy an outside cafe meal at Madison's or anywhere has been overcome by the popping and deliberate noise.

A few of the bars on Main Street are problem bars.

Some of these gentlemen own some of them.

You shouldn't hear a bar music or noise from two blocks away, two blocks away.

And we walk main street most evenings after our dinner outside.

So we do patronize downtown people do patronize a lot of these places.

And we are regular.

Cars, trucks, motorcycles, what they do is they deliberately check trick out their mufflers.

These aren't off out-of-the-box corvettes or anything.

These are tricked-out cars and Mustangs that are trying to get attention and they just cruise around downtown.

The backfiring is a new thing.

It's a new phenomenon.

We've all heard loud cars and trucks, but now they backfire.

So when you accelerate the gases back up and they deliberately pop it over 100 decibels.

No license plate.

So it's it's a real problem, and it would help the outside seating bars and cafes to have some restrictions.

Saturday night is an example.

Just these are people who are not your customers.

These are people who are just there to get notice.

So if this prospective company works up enforceable limits, and if Trochet or whatever, Chic Chochet or whoever uh can control it and enforce it and actually give tickets, I'm all for this.

Controlling deliberate noise for us is uh a real issue.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um we have two more requests.

Um John Harshman.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for the opportunity to give different perspectives on this complex issue.

I'm Ann Rawlings, I work for the Watershed Hospitality Concepts family of restaurants.

Before that, I worked for Mike Quillin at the Geckos Hospitality.

Um family of restaurants.

And before that, I worked for a global urban and planning design firm.

We did a lot of work in Sarasota, a lot of public realm work.

And I can remember the time to the city's credit when we were sitting in a very similar situation with urban planning, and we hired uh very, very well-respected new urbanist named Andres Dwayney.

Now, Mr.

Dwayney is a controversial figure.

He was not inexpensive, but he was the expert in his field.

And because of his recommendations and the study and the report that he did, the city accomplished many of its complex goals.

Walkability, mixed use, a vibrant downtown, uh different uh components for housing.

We in the 90s we didn't really have much housing downtown compared to what we have today.

And I think all the prior speakers spoke eloquently to the issues between the housing and the businesses.

But the goals that were stated and the goals that were uh aspired to were met.

And that is part of the reason we find ourselves in the situation we're in today.

We're in a growing pain situation.

And uh a very adept consultant who does this every day of their lives, is well positioned to be the expert to give us solutions to these complex issues.

It's not as easy, and I'll I'll use the metaphor of of throwing a cast net over the whole urban core.

There are offenders.

There are people who object and their objections are valid.

And I think this is an opportunity, like we did in the 90s to bring in an expert to help us get on the same page, coexist, continue to have a vibrant hospitality-driven, retail-driven, housing-driven, walkability-driven downtown.

So I hope you'll consider hiring an expert to help us get to where we need to go.

Thank you.

Mr.

Harshman?

Thank you, Madam Mayor, uh, Vice Mayor and Commissioners.

Uh for the record, I'm John Harshman and I've been here forever.

Um I'm speaking for myself.

And usually I'm down here talking about the the downtown issues.

Um, but I think that you've heard from a number of people, and you continue to hear from a number of people about the noise issues downtown.

And it it's it's broadbase.

I'm very encouraged that you're that you're looking to hire this consultant.

I like the fact that they they talked about evidence-based decision making that's fundamental in most business, and I really like to see somebody put that up front.

Um, but I want to talk about one of the other areas that are are of noise concern that maybe we don't hear of so much.

Um, and that's with all the new construction that we have in the neighborhoods where people are taking what existed was a smaller house and demolishing that and then building a larger house.

That larger house has much larger mechanicals, uh, much larger pool equipment, whereas maybe the house before had one pool pump and now they have multiple pool pumps and bubbles and yada yada yada.

Um and they also have the larger air conditioners.

There are ways of mitigating the noise that's emanating from those machines.

Uh when we constructed um our house three years ago, we put our air conditioners on the roof of our garage.

And I was a little concerned that there might be vibration in there.

We spent a little bit more money and just a little bit to get um higher quality, more efficient air conditioning systems.

Um, but you can't hear them when you're down downstairs, either outside next door.

My neighbors are very appreciative of that.

And I'm hearing this from people in the uh Gillespie Park neighborhood where they're getting pressure from some of the new houses, and it's just a natural evolution of things that happen.

So the people that are building the houses are not bad people are not trying to hurt their neighbors, but the code doesn't require that they pay attention to this like they should.

And we see it in Arlington Park, we see it in in uh Paradise Shores, all of them, all the neighborhoods that have you know 50, 60-year-old homes that are have have seen their lifestyles or have seen their their lifelines.

So I would encourage you to have the consultant can um include that in as we're talking about making recommendations on um building code adjustments and so forth.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And um so now we've reached a point where we can have Commissioner questions.

And if the Vice Mayor is first up.

Thank you.

Uh thank you for your presentation.

Really appreciated that.

So we've been talking about this for a long time.

And uh specifically amending our special events and our sound ordinances.

And things have come up during the discussion that weren't on our radar when we began the discussion.

Um, we have a lot more residents living downtown than we used to.

So now we're trying to find the new and right balance for residents while maintaining the vibrancy that we want.

So my question, have you for any other municipalities looked at their existing ordinances, and before you go into your detailed analysis and your process, made some recommendations for changes to the ordinances that are meant to be short-term changes that will make improvements while you're doing your study.

Uh there's there's a possibility that that could be done.

Generally, we like to see the outcomes of our work be the result of the data-driven process, so that there's in the vetting of these ideas from multiple stakeholders so that there's consensus and that there is a rationale on why these should happen.

If there are, you know, kind of major issues, and it sounds like maybe you've already gone through a preliminary vetting process for a period of time, uh that could be something that could be potentially looked at.

And if we asked you to, you could include that in your scope of work?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um hold on a second.

Um if we look at pages page five of 171 of our packet, uh we see at the bottom the cost of your work ranging from 175 to 250,000 dollars.

And then if we go to page 34.

Yeah.

Well, on page 34, we see your detailed process.

Um is there any way to abbreviate the process, thereby reduced without jeopardizing the validity of the work.

Yeah, we we've discussed this internally with our team, and there are some ways of dealing with this to a certain extent.

Um there are it depends where you want to try to bookend it.

Um there are some contractual arrangements, like for example, with the University of Florida that we could possibly work out to reduce some of their overhead costs.

Um for some of our work, yes, there's there's some possibilities for that.

So key for me is without jeopardizing the validity of the work.

I'm a big data person too, so I get what you're doing.

Yeah.

But when every time you spend the people's money, you try to find a cheaper way to do it.

We certainly appreciate that.

Yeah, no, we certainly understand that.

But yeah, I I think there's some latitude uh within the proposal to make some adjustments within boundaries, because one of the things that's important, um, you know, when we we put out sound level meters, and maybe some are outside clubs, and maybe some like the slide are up on balconies of people's homes that overlook some of these areas.

Um, we usually put them out for at least about a week.

Um we've got a week of wave files, 44,000 samples a second and numerical data that comes out every one second.

Uh I don't even know how many seconds there are in a week, but anyway, there's a lot of them.

Uh and you know, we we try to give fair analysis to those with some comments like if we're on somebody's balcony where they can maybe keep a diary of, oh, you know, Saturday from 11 p.m.

till 1230 was just really bad.

Can you take a look at that?

I mean, and that's why we do these things.

So we get specific feedback.

Um you say without jeopardizing the solutions, the ability to have the time for our staff to go back and look at these when we get comments from people, uh, we think is what gives us the ability to give you insights in terms of where to start drawing lines.

And then it's the same, you know, when you mention about maybe making some adjustments to things before the study is done.

That certainly is possible.

Uh, but we'd like to have with the caveat that if we get information during the study that maybe we come back and revisit that.

And that's what I meant too in my question that there might be some glaring flaws in our ordinance that you'd say, well, if you only did this, it would improve greatly.

Sure.

So on page eight of 171, you have a slide entitled Rapidly Evolving Issues in a Large Urban City and a Medium-sized city, and you address perception versus measurement.

Would you talk a little bit about that?

So when we look at these, what people hear in their reactions sometimes is substantiated by the measurements that we take.

And sometimes it's not exactly the situations that Keely described a little bit earlier of where I'm a code enforcement official, and in the city that she was talking about, they were required to take their measurements on the ground of whether or not there were disturbances in residential buildings.

Well, so if I'm in a suburban community and it's all one or two-story houses, this is possibly very legitimate.

When I'm in a downtown and I've got, you know, tall buildings all around me, and I've got people living 20 floors up in the air, it's a whole different story.

That's why we think verticality is very important and that we account for this.

So your perception, if I'm walking around on grade, is everything's okay.

I'm not disturbing anybody if I'm the owner of a club.

But when I go into whatever Mrs.

Jones living unit, 20 floors up above, and it's like, whoa, I had no idea this was what's happening.

So it's these kinds of what we observe and what we perceive relative to the actual physics.

And so when Keeley was talking about the models that we do, we want to be able to bring diagnostics and communication.

Because we think if people understand, like a number of the people at the desk said, we want to try to comply with all the laws.

And our experience is that for most people who are serious about their businesses, this is what they want to do.

They want to bring in people, they want to keep a vibrant atmosphere, but they want to be cognizant of the legal environment.

Well, if they don't know, they are not aware, you know.

So we need the information to be able to come back and say, well, you know, yeah, it's okay on grade, but maybe it's an issue over here, or if you go out the front door, it's not so much.

But we've had other cases where sound going back across an alley because the kitchen doors were open, and then the loading dock doors are open, and the sound is coming out backwards across an alley to two homes.

And the perception when the two homeowners come in is that they're cranky individuals.

Uh and you know, and it's just that they just happen to be like this funnel of sound that's coming out, and then they're the noise barrier for the next three rows of houses that don't hear a thing.

So using the data that you acquire and people's perception, uh, both are important to what you do.

We think that's essential.

And I think once you get the diagnostic, so we our practice in addition to this urban soundscape issue and noise ordinances in architectural and building acoustics.

If I understand the physical cause of something that's related to building infrastructure, we have the tools and techniques and analysis to be able to understand the sound propagation and solve those problems.

That becomes very easy, and it's not like I hear this, you don't hear it, we don't have magic ears.

Um, but you know, so it's it's really trying to get at, just like the MRI of the surgeon.

I mean, beforehand, I want to see what's beneath the surface.

We want to understand the structure of your community that lets sound go from this point to that point and either stops it or lets it through at disturbing levels because that's where you can make interventions that begin to work.

Thank you, Mira.

I'll um yield my time and save it.

Nice seconds.

Commissioner Aaron Kotch.

Thank you.

Uh thank you for this comprehensive presentation and for your work, your work that you do.

Um, it's really fascinating and interesting.

Um, and I think uh I'm I'm very interested in um what results you find and how uh deep you can go into our city to figure out the pain points and the solutions.

But my first question is to the city attorney.

Um if we engage with them and we um spend whatever money we uh agree to spend, and we do this 26-week uh consulting work, and they come back with recommendation A, B, C, D, E, F, G.

Um, because of SB 180 and the plethora of other uh preemptions, are we going to be able to implement their recommendations?

Yeah, I I talked to them about that.

We'll obviously work within the constraints of state law.

Um some of it could be future-facing, um, we'll we'll see what opportunities there are within that.

I mean, that's right now has a sunset provision.

So those those are things we'll work through together, um, but be informed by their expertise.

And they've been doing this in other Florida cities, so that shouldn't be too much of a task.

I mean, it's an ever-changing landscape.

Sure.

Um, you know, working within those parameter parameters, some of your recommendations may be doable and some of them may not be doable.

So that's uh a concern that I have, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't address it, right?

It just is a parameter and a constraint that we have to work within.

And then the other thing is uh enforcement as well.

I mean, you know, that's a challenge for us already with the decibel readers, with who's who's doing the the readings, what are they?

Are the systems calibrated?

All of these things are very complicated.

Um are you going to propose methods of enforcement that are streamlined, easier, achievable?

Well, yes.

Uh and with the qualification that when we get to understand your city and its characteristics a little bit more, we can I think make informed recommendations.

So some of the cities that we work with, for example, have a nighttime entertainment group within the city that if I'm going to open up a new restaurant, there's somebody at the city who can say, look, while you're doing your renovation, here's a checklist of things that you should do.

So we can provide the information that should be in the checklist, but we're not going to be there day by day when people come to fill out building permits, right?

So that they are not going to build an establishment that's going to necessarily create more problems.

You have a noise overlay zone out at Sarasota Airport, and we've worked on a number of really nice houses in that area of people who want to build basically glass boxes in the airport fly zone.

Um beautiful bay views and so on.

Um but the idea that there might also be an analogous type of consideration for people who are in, you know, in or near the boundaries of mixed use urban areas where you know, if I'm going to build here, I need this kind of rating for my walls, for example.

Um again, that's maybe in a checklist form.

So when the developer comes in to get a permit or a planning and zoning approval that it says, oh, you're in this site, this is within that area.

These are some things that you need to do ahead of time.

Well, that's the key word, right?

Need to do, must do, can do, should do.

I mean, that's where uh my the practicality of you know, your recommendations can be very comprehensive and very real, but our ability to actually put the thumb down and say you have to or you should, or you could, there's a big difference there, right?

And so that's why I'm you know, we can spend money and do a great study, which I think is a good idea.

I just want to know the reality of us actually being able to require things and then be able to enforce what we do.

Um that that's where the this uh concerning area is for me.

And to your point, I think the focus of his study will be the operational environment downtown, the establishment of zones, things that don't intersect with Senate Bill 180, um, and looking at, and I he and I and Keely, we've talked about the when you talk about enforcement, whether that should be the police department or code enforcement looking at all those issues, the capacity within departments, and the effectiveness of each possibility.

Yeah.

Yeah, uh it's just um, you know, I know we've experienced some frustration.

You gave an example, I think you did, Keely, of um measuring.

So we have an a new thing is rooftop bars.

And so when the residents in the condos are unhappy about the noise coming from the rooftop bars, the police go to the ground and they measure ground level.

Well, obviously it's not going to measure anything.

Yeah.

So this is where words matter, details matter, practicality matters, and the ability of us, the police to not put them in a bad position.

Right.

Like they can't elevate themselves up.

So, you know, that's why I want to make sure that we think about this in a real practical um situation.

Um we have some interesting ways to actually be able to monitor sounds at funny places.

Uh I'm interested to hear about that.

Yeah.

Um and then the other point that's been brought up again and again and again are is this new trend.

Well, I guess it's not new, I I don't know, um, cars and their mufflers and not only the sound of the cars, but also the music.

I know we try to get our hands around enforcing that.

What can we do?

Um, and that seems to be a really, really big issue along with the base.

So those are the two big ones that we can talk about a whole bunch of other stuff, but those are the two that are really really impactful.

And the restaurants and bars and events get blamed a lot of times for those cars that are going by and you know, either their music or their mufflers, and how would you propose we weave that into everything?

Well, I think that's a that's a great point.

And um there are a number of devices that can measure transient sounds from vehicles, for example.

Uh there are some that are equipped with cameras uh to, you know, almost like traffic light cameras, but with acoustic things uh integrated with them.

There are Florida existing Florida statutes for motorcycles and cars to have factory mufflers on them.

And I mean that certainly is a threshold starting point to look at that.

That the idea of straight pipes or removing mufflers and so on is uh anyway.

Um especially on motorcycles, because you could have two big Harleys, one that a police officer is driving that has the factory muffler on it, and one that some guy is standing there who's got the straight pipes and it's you know, same engines and everything, two different entirely sounds that come from that.

So there are a number of technically feasible ways of of trying to deal with this.

Um, you know, one city we were working with put up signs on the main street.

I mean, they had it's a it was a one-street town, so it's smaller than Sarasota, but you know, when people would come down the one street and they have all these outdoor dining cables and stuff, very beautiful environment, tree-lined streets and so on.

And it just said, you come down this weekend and we're gonna give you a ticket if you do this stuff.

And they did this for three or four weeks, and they had signs up at both ends of Main Street, and it seemed to decrease the problem.

I don't know.

Anyway.

Okay.

Um and one of the questions that the Vice Mayor um was hinting about uh the range in your price.

It's 75,000.

It's a pretty big range.

Yes.

Can you add some clarity to that?

Sure.

Well, so we don't know exactly how many areas of the city you're going to want us to look at at this point.

So that's variable number one.

We've included the activities with the University of Florida, and there are a couple of different ways that they can be contracted that affects their overhead rates.

That's variable number two.

Um so I think those are probably the two big kind of items that you know we could discuss and work out with you all.

Well, I mean I mean, for the city of Sarasota, like Mr.

Harshman mentioned, you know, we have a sound ordinance that's citywide, we have the downtown, and then you have quiet neighborhoods.

They also have their own set of issues.

So, you know, I I think it's a wide range of topics that we're gonna need to be addressing.

If we're going to be doing this, we need to do it right, and um just to give you a heads up on that.

Yeah, sure.

Well, I mean, like the areas that we listed, which were downtown, Newtown, St.

Armand's, uh, the uh the loud cars and the uh the Sarasota High School neighborhood and the uh street performers, I think were the ones that we're aware of at this point.

I don't know if there are other areas that you've heard about in some of your other.

Well, like was mentioned, you know, like i so our zoning code we were allowing people to lift up their air conditioners and lift up some of the the items on the outside of the house, generators and things like that, but then that sound now goes straight into the to the window of a uh of a house that's on the ground.

Sure.

So it's complicated.

Yeah, well, those are those are interesting issues, and again, but those are building infrastructure issues that are I mean it's especially in the houses that are likely being built there, uh they're pretty easy to take care of technically.

Uh ask them to or make them.

Well, so you know, anyway, that's our discussions with Joe.

Um but you know, those, like I said, they're easy technical issues, and in the budgets of most of those houses is within the realm of feasibility.

Feasibility.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Batti.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

And uh thank you very much uh for your presentation.

I thought it was uh very thorough and comprehensive.

Um I find this would be uh very interesting science.

You know, is is there a name for this?

Uh whatever.

Well it's acoustic.

Yeah.

Well, so we call it soundscape, urban soundscape design.

Okay.

Um there are actually international standards that kind of talk about this.

I worked as a consultant to the European Union for about 15 years or so uh because they were the ones that started this because they're very interested as cities change and as automobiles replace public transportation there to maintain the livability of their cities.

And it's just now being really carried over to the United States.

So like to me or to us, maybe i it it seems like a very unique situation.

Um do you see it that way with what it is we're confronted with right now?

Well, so we see it, we see a framework or process that is very applicable to your community.

The specific results and the outcomes are likely very local and responses to the specific conditions of you know Newtown I think is different than downtown and both of those are different than St.

Armin's possible.

So yeah there's some general principles and procedures that apply but that the uh recommendations and the ways of dealing with it might vary some from area to area.

Yeah because I mean you know I'm look just looking at the environment that we live in now compared to the landscape that we lived in before.

You know um where you know there was you know a lot of uh events downtown you talk about noise good grace of life we had Thunder by the bay and reving the engines and and uh and and so on and the sound of coming out of mufflers and and that was an issue I I didn't have a problem you know I loved Thunder Body Bay when it was downtown about women coast.

Yeah limit coast yeah exactly you know so I mean they don't even realize what was here before or whatever you know um so I'm trying to understand like how you know how this is done and how how you strike the the balance I mean you talked about um qualitative and quantitative and so on and uh how that works how you strike the balance with subjective and objective or what have you you know um which is going to be uh a a task in itself in I I would think in in my estimation because one of the things that that I kind of take have reception to is like Newtown you know because we have one individual one person that comes and speaks about the noise in Newtown.

The rest of the community I haven't heard now one thing from anyone you know in the community not one except this one individual and now you have to go there and try and you know figure that whole situation out when there's not necessarily a problem with the rest of the community you know how how is how does that work?

Well that's kind of interesting because a lot of times what we have found in in some of the other communities that we've gone into is sound is very specific to the source so what's making the sound the path that it travels along and the receiver um there can sometimes be just maybe one person maybe it's two people maybe it's three or four that are the receiver and their their path to the sound source is so direct they're basically receiving the majority of the sound and so with the tools that we have we're able to actually figure out if that is the case because uh like Gary had mentioned before and like we were kind of showing in some of the slides you know sometimes you just happen to have like buildings or other infrastructure that are kind of blocking sound path creating shadows we call them acoustic shadows where you're not getting any kind of effect in the acoustic shadow but there may just be one residence or two or just a handful and what Gary was saying that they they appear to be cranky neighbors they're not actually cranky neighbors they just happen to be the ones that are actually physically receiving a majority of the sound energy.

So it's really interesting that you're bringing that up because maybe it is the case maybe it is just one person who's very sensitive but maybe it's not maybe they are actually receiving somehow because of the path because of the changes in verticality that a lot of the cities have we're able to kind of go in and and dissect that and see that.

So if there are other cases like that in other areas we can kind of go in and investigate and and and really try to tease out what what's actually happening with the physics of sound.

So it it's a really great point really great question.

Thank you.

Because I'm it seems like a big part of the issue is enforcement and enforcing you know where you know where the sound is coming from who's making the sound you know Mr.

Um but I just see that that that we kind of placed ourselves in this situation and it's time that we move forward, you know, to to pay whatever price that we have to pay because uh um to get this going and uh take tackle this issue.

So I do maybe okay, thank you.

Thank you all again for for you know for your work.

So um I was wondering I'm you've done studies in other cities, I suspect some of them with characteristics similar to Sarasota.

So what kind of feedback have you received from them in terms of they've implemented your recommendations, how they've worked out, are they happy with them, are they changing what have you heard back?

Well, so with all cases, I would say that we'll make a series of recommendations, and some of them will be included right away.

Some of them will be mulled over for a period of time, and some of them will be temporarily put over on the side.

I mean, that's the reality of it.

Um and we hear good things about what uh ideas so in in the cases that Keeley had shown a couple of slides of, that was in Fort Lauderdale, and they had a previous rule of allowing code enforcement officers to uh respond at the actual complaining residents.

And then because they had to send two people out to do this for safety and just observation uh to make sure things weren't being done, uh they decided for budget reasons that everything had to be done from the street.

Um you know, in a big city with a lot of high rises, this presented a lot of the challenges that we were facing.

Um with regard to the multiple sources of sound from the entertainment district, um there are technologies that can be used to sort them out to sort out those sound sources, and so some of these are easy to deal with.

Uh as we had the first focal focus group meetings, there was just discussion about you know, uh having our code enforcement guys who work eight to four uh and are out at building sites all day long, get a call at two in the morning on a Saturday night to come out and you know, because there's nightclub noise, probably isn't fair.

Uh and the overtime is okay, but you know, still whatever, they're gonna be at work on Monday morning, and you know, then we've got the Sunday night call.

Um and so they actually developed a position based on their feasibility of oh, we need somebody who's trained in the meters because they have quantitative sound level limits, uh, who knows how to calibrate them, who it's you know, the meter's not sitting in the trunk of a car or in somebody's locker for six months, and somebody's bringing it out, you know, and go, well, what do I push?

Uh and am I gonna get in trouble or not?

That you know, they're trained and they have recurrent training.

Uh and these were done before we ever finished the study, actually.

So I mean, you know, there are some things that are you know, low-hanging fruit that are kind of for them anyway, those were easy to do.

When we did work at Marie Selby, one of the things we did with them was lay out, for example, where they could have their wedding venues, and where to get a house sound system, instead of letting every DJ just bring in their own stuff, and somebody has bigger speakers and somebody has smaller speakers, and then they put them here and they point them right across the bayou at somebody's living room and rattle the glass and anyway, you know, to control these things, and then we did training for them so that their staff uh learned how to use sound level meters.

We got high-quality sound level meters for them that record data and are calibrated and can present reports that can stand up in a legal proceeding that says that might be coming from somewhere, but it's not coming from us.

And indeed, we were out there one time at Christmas, right?

Marie Selby has their Christmas light thing, and so there's Christmas carols coming from Marie Selby, and people were complaining about this kind of you know, like raunchy bar music.

And when you go out on the point that's kind of around the corner, right on the bay, you can localize a source of sound coming from one of the clubs that like is right over there.

And I mean, it was loud.

It was actually louder than the Christmas music, even though it's coming across the whole bay.

And these things about finding hidden sources of sound are so important.

But anyway, these are things that you know, within a short period of time, people can enact and start to deal with problems, and just even identifying these phantom sources of sound helps clarify the discussion.

The other thing we did with them and with Sarasota Hospital in Ringling, when there was public concern, we set up calibrated oral demonstrations.

So we do the computer model of how sounds propagate, for example, from uh Sarasota's chiller plant or from Marie Selby.

And then we we brought in at Sarasota Hospital literally two trucks worth of loudspeakers.

We set them up on the top of a parking deck where the central plant was going to be located, and they played the computer generated sounds of the power plant for a week.

Sarasota Hospital had people in golf carts with a hotline, and when residents heard what they thought were mechanical sounds, could call up the hospital, the hospital would drive around, and they'd find that oh this was from some neighbors pool pumped at the bearing was shot.

Oh, this is from a doctor's office rooftop unit that had a failure.

And so for a week they could walk their dogs, they could have their coffee or their cocktails in their patio, and experience what was going to happen after this was built.

And that has worked out very well there.

Uh it's probably one of the quietest power plants that you know you could ever find.

So these kinds of techniques and technologies to help build consensus and to make acoustics real and tangible are what we bring to the discussions.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Albert.

I just have one question.

I'm sure in other cities that you've come across Reving engines and you know, tricked out mufflers, uh, as Mr.

Lample said.

So what have been your solutions to resolve that?

Because that's that's kind of a tricky issue to be able to um you know, because they're cut they're gone before anybody can do any kind of enforcement.

So uh back some years ago when Daytona Beach was first kind of building up, I mean, because it used to be kind of very low density, and then all of a sudden they started putting really nice residential buildings along the beach.

And then of course there's bike week and uh I don't know, the college reunion and this and that and the other that goes on there time after time, and people with all these bikes make the circuit and go around.

And that's when we found out that Florida actually has a law that says that motorcycles are not allowed to have straight pipes.

Um and their police did a demo of what their motorcycles sounded like anyway.

Uh so state statutes are certainly one item in the in a line of defense.

Uh the uh traffic camera traffic sound level meters that record license plates and uh and associated sound levels are certainly another one.

And periodically targeting uh targeted enforcement actions are another strategy that we've seen some communities use for this.

So, like in Fort Lauderdale along the beach, there's a circuit where you can go over a bridge, and I should know the name of the street, but I don't, but anyway, you go over the bridge, you drive down the beach for a couple of miles, and then you go over the other bridge, and then you come back through the city, and you know, you anyway, you can do the circuit thing.

Um you can do it northbound and you can do it southbound if you want to.

And you know, periodically uh officers there, because it's very heavily developed, uh, would have kind of targeted enforcement weekends uh to just try to deal with this as one way, in addition to the uh the cameras that they have.

So I mean, you know, that's it's got to be a multiple of strategies, I think, to try to do it, and it's not easy.

Um it's a very much cultural thing, I think.

I mean, you know, somebody had said earlier that these are kind of new items.

I mean, you know, we when I was a kid, I did a some work on automobiles with my friends.

And you know, you might do this in your driveway.

Uh we lived in the woods up in Connecticut anyway.

You know, you would do this in your driveway, and but you never dream of driving downtown and making all this racket.

Um state law allows the sound cameras.

So state law allows the sound cameras.

Uh I don't know.

No, it does not.

That's what I'm saying.

Well, not for enforcement.

Thank you.

Exactly.

Um if you wouldn't mind, Mayor.

Um just just because it's been discussed uh ad infinitum at this point.

Um we do none of the things that we're talking about are not employed by the Sarasota Police Department.

So I just want to make sure that all of all of us have gotten the complaints from some of the parties in this room, and we are responding.

We do target enforcement, we do have officers downtown, we do do things.

There is an aspect uh to the doctor's point, omnipresence is not a real thing.

Um, and that's why a lot of communities go to sound enforcement cameras.

Currently, the State of Florida preempts that technology.

So we can use it for monitoring, but we cannot use it for enforcement.

So I think everybody keeps talking about I think it's Palm Beach that deployed those cameras.

They can they basically get like a nasty note in the mail.

It doesn't do anything.

Um, at some point, and I know we've talked about this with the speed camera discussion, red light cameras, as those become more um present in communities.

I think what you'll see down the road, maybe five years from now, you could actually see an enforcement aspect of those uh sound cameras because you really can't have I mean we run uh six traffic officers in the entire city, and we have about but anywhere between 18 and 22 police officers on duty 24-7 in the city.

So the likelihood of having an officer at a location at the very instant where somebody is doing something is very low.

You know, it's the always the cops are there when you don't want them around, and they're never there when you want them around, uh, is actually kind of a real thing.

But I can tell you that Chief Trochet, myself, Sergeant Frangioni, who is here, uh we have legitimately spent our entire career dealing with these issues.

Um I'm gonna try to find Joe, the uh cheat sheet that was produced 25 years ago and handed to me because the noise ordinance was deemed uh too complex for an average patrol officer to decipher on his own, and we can include that in the next backup.

Um I just went through very quickly through all the news articles that I found going all the way back to 1991 about how you know there's a lack of enforcement or there's conversations about this.

So I think that what the ask would be in to summarize from a staff perspective is a understandable, databased, and something that can be actionable on the back end, and with the understanding that it is not going to be a completely curative uh report to Mr.

Hyde's point, there will always be one-offs.

There are very different neighborhoods in this community, we all know that.

Um I I've reviewed some of the the reports that uh the doctor and his his team have put together.

Very impressive, and I think there's things that we can incorporate, and it gives us a better idea of what we need to do as staff to enforce the rules because that's really what it comes down to is enforcement.

And we can do the recommendations, we can we can put all those things in play.

But when it comes down to it, like I I always tell you guys, you know, when we talk about signage, if people followed signs, I'd be out of a job, right?

So, you know, we can make all these rules, but if no one follows it, what is our to Commissioner Hairn Cotcha's point?

What is our legal remedy on the back end?

And I think that's what we'll have to work through based on the data that this uh company will provide.

So just want to make sure the SPD is doing a great job.

Um we we handle all these things, and I just I felt like I need to step up for uh the SPD there for just a little bit.

Perfect response.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr.

Robinson.

Um Vice Mayor.

And we appreciate that.

So does the SPD, you standing up for them.

Um questions from me.

Um on page 10 of 171, you talk about how you'll meet with uh city staff and others selected by the city to help define the specifics of the study.

We know everybody doesn't have the same point of view.

And so the best grouping of people in that room would be as many points of view as you could we can find.

I think.

Do you agree with that?

Well, yes.

So for example, in Fort Lauderdale, they had a noise control advisory committee that worked with us, and that was appointed by the city when they began to talk with us about working with them.

And that included, I think one or two commissioners, it included their code enforcement, included police officer, included the city attorney, it included uh representatives from uh I don't know, five or six different residential areas that had expressed noise concerns, and it included uh business owners, entertainment venue operators from five or six of establishments that were functioning in the city uh with the ratings.

Any motorcycle people once it were subjected to motorcycles.

Okay, so you try to get neglected group with as many points of view as possible.

Yes, yeah.

And I mean, so for us, we're not here, we don't know who those people are.

And so, you know, we would appreciate your assistance in in kind of assembling appropriate people to meet with us.

When we talk about a balanced point of view, I mean we're really sincere in saying this is what we like to do because that's how we can serve you the best because we understand differences of opinion.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um on page 34 of 171, where you identify your process.

I see in the study, um, it says comprehensive sound study, and included in that is a compliance evaluation.

Uh does that mean enforcement evaluating the enforcement procedures?

Well, so I think as we make recommendations which we'd like to explore and again vet with the group that you would assign to us or that who would want to participate with us.

Um when we hear from restaurant owners and entertainment operators, most of them say, you know, we want to comply with the laws that are given to run our business because we get all these people in, and I mean, when you sit down and talk to them kind of just one on one, they go, you'd be kidding, I've got a room full of 400 people, and each one is ordering so many drinks an hour.

I mean, I don't want to get shut down, you know, on a Friday night.

We want to we want to be good citizens.

Teach me how to use a sound meter, teach me what I have to do, help me orient my loudspeakers, help me, you know, do what I can do.

Um, and then on the other hand, you have residents who are seeking compliance.

I mean, we've seen a lot of people go and buy pretty fancy sound measuring devices in some of the communities we work in, uh, and who are very articulate in expressing their concerns.

So when you talk about compliance, ideally, if you have consensus, uh people will do this because it's the right thing to do.

Okay, so I mean, ideally you'd like to get each person to understand the other's perspectives to reach a reasonable boundary.

Um, we build buildings out of, I mean, you know, when you buildings are so expensive to build.

Okay, so if I make intelligent decisions about my buildings and the interiors of my restaurants and so on, while I'm designing and while I'm renovating them or whatever I'm doing, I can alleviate a lot of the kind of conflicts that arise after they're opened without having that kind of knowledge brought to bear.

So ideally that's where it would be, and then compliance ultimately comes down to the noise ordinance, the building codes, the PUD or whatever you get for your zoning and plans approval and so on.

So compliance and enforcement are related but not identical.

Yeah, I think so.

Yeah, I I do too.

Um in your recommendations and your process, I don't see recommendations for enforcement, but I do see recommendations for compliance.

Do you include enforcement recommendations as well?

Yes, and we would like to, I mean, so in other communities where we've worked, we have done this in conjunction with meetings with the city attorney, because they're the ones who write this in legal terms with the police and with the code enforcement officials, I mean the people that are actually going to be the ones to do the enforcement.

And so, you know, their perspectives.

Every time we say the word city, we're meaning like the city as a constituency, your group, the attorney, the legal staff, code enforcement, police officers, and everybody else.

Parks and recreation sometimes are part of this in some communities and so on.

Great.

Got it.

Thank you.

Commissioner Heron Kotch?

Uh thank you.

So what I'm hearing is a recommendation for a noise control advisory committee.

Well, or something like that.

I mean, it doesn't have to be that, but I mean, just some way of getting groups of parties together to work with us.

Right.

And and in your experience, has this been a permanent committee or an ad hoc that sunsets?

Uh it's mostly been one that will operate during the the time of our engagement, maybe for a little bit afterwards to see things through because after we are finished with our work, it oftentimes takes a little bit more time to see things through the city process.

Yeah, thank you.

I mean that's something we've done in the past for other things we've had to tackle, parking meters and things like that.

So I thought that was a really good suggestion.

Thank you.

Commissioner Albert.

I'm ready to make a motion if everybody is finally ready.

Okay.

Um I want to authorize the city attorney's office in coordination with the city manager to retain a recommended qualified acoustic consultant to conduct a citywide sound study and provide technical analysis and recommendations regarding potential updates to the city's sound regulations related code provisions and enforcement practices.

Okay.

Motion by Commissioner Alpert, seconded by Commissioner Batti to authorize the city attorney's office to move forward.

Okay, maker of the motion.

I I don't need to speak to it.

I think we've spoken enough about this issue.

Any other discussion?

Okay.

So do you need a roll call and a no no not a necessity vote?

And passed unanimously.

Thank you all.

Um I'm I'm ready to also make a second motion, I believe, to um unless uh the procedure for creating an ad hoc noise uh control committee.

Yeah, I guess you we would need uh the register of the commission to uh to come back with something for us.

Okay, yeah.

If if is there a yeah, second, yeah.

Let's put it on the agenda or discuss we have the motion to do that by Commissioner Alpert in a second by do you need a we need a vote on that?

Um we can actually I'm okay with um consensus if everybody's okay with that.

Yeah, come back.

And we would thank you.

Have that be informed by the experts that we're gonna say.

That would be great.

Okay.

It is how many minutes afternoon?

Oh, did we vote on this yet?

Yes, yes, yeah.

So we finish this agenda item so we can in fact break for lunch.

It is 1203.

How about 115?

Um turn at 115.

We adjourn for lunch.

Thank you so much.

Welcome back to the March 23rd regular city commission meeting.

I hope everybody had a good lunch.

And we have reached the public hearings portion of the meeting.

So if the Ms.

Griggs will read the um administer the oath, that would be really nice.

Um anyone who plans to speak at any public hearing held today, please stand and take an oath.

All right.

Everybody, everybody.

Do you swear affirmative evidence or factual representations which you're about to give or present to this commission during any public hearing held this 23rd day of March 2026 are truthful?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

So the uh next item is the public hearing on proposed ordinance number 26-5592, and I will open the public hearing and ask Ms.

Griggs to read the title.

Thank you, Mayor.

Ordinance number 26-5592.

In ordinance of the City of Sarasota, Florida, amending Sarasota City Code Section 33-248, Chapter 33, Article 7 to change the speed limits on certain city streets.

As more fully specified herein, setting forth recommendations resulting from the traffic speed study conducted as part of the city's pinning traffic calming plan.

Repealing ordinances and conflict providing for a separability of the parks if declared invalid or unforceable, provide for reading of this ordinance by title only and provide an effective date.

Thank you very much.

So I will call upon Senior Transportation Planner, Ariaga, Capital Projects Manager, Corrales, and City Engineer Kamaya to make a presentation.

Thank you.

Afternoon, thanks for having us.

So uh we'll just do introductions real quick.

I got like a 30-second intro and then we'll just jump into it.

So Sajikami, a city engineer.

Hi, I'm Renato Coletti uh with RKNK project manager and the lead traffic engineer for his study.

Alvy Mary Carales Capital Projects Manager.

Almost went the other way.

Korean Ariaga Chief Transportation Planner.

Thank you very much.

So ready for your presentation.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

So as you probably remember, we were back.

Well, I wasn't.

Staff was here in October.

Presented kind of some uh community idea, community kind of desires, a little bit of research, staff recommendation.

Um and then we received direction to move forward with change in speed limits.

And so today we're here to give you a little bit of a background on that, um, a little bit of overview on our speed study, um, including some findings and recommendations.

Uh we will highlight the proposed ordinance and then share with you our implementation implementation approach.

And then our recommended action, of course, is requesting approval of ordinance number 26-5592 for our first reading.

And with that, I'll turn it over to Corinth.

Thank you, Saji.

So just a little bit of background about this.

Uh staff was uh given direction by the commission to uh to develop a traffic calming plan.

So we worked with RK and K to start that process.

Last year, we kicked off the traffic calming plan development with a town hall as well as a public survey where the community really shared their desire to reduce speed limits on local roadways.

So when we heard that community idea, staff took that back and did research and identified ways that if it could be done and how it could be done.

And so when we uh developed that, we brought those, we brought that research and that community idea to the commission with some recommendations, including to reduce the speed limits to 20 miles per hour on local roadways and then to set maximum speed limits of 35 miles per hour on other roadways, excluding the interstate connectors and US 301 from 17th Street to city limits north.

Um on October 6th, we presented this, then Commission uh gave us direction to move forward.

And since then we have finalized a speed study that supports uh lowering speed limits as well as other uh items in the traffic calming plan.

So with that, I will hand it over to Renato to discuss uh the speed, the speed study.

Thanks, Karin.

So, in order for us to reduce the speed limits, uh we must uh follow the Florida statute, which calls for also to follow the FDOT guidance on speed limiting.

Uh in order to do that, we had to gather a a lot of data, specifically speed data, volume data, crash uh rate data and uh adjacent land uses, etc., to be able to come up with a uh good recommendation for this uh process.

So the way that the um speed limit was conducted is we compared 85th percentile speed data, which is just really quickly, is the speed at which 80 feet 85 percent of vehicles are traveling or below in any roadway segment had to be compared to the current speed limits in the uh in the roadways that we were looking at.

Um in order to come up with a difference in between one of uh in between those two values, which would be the speed differential, which we would use to uh substantiate reviews in the speed limit.

Um we conducted this uh we collected data or we uh uh we got the data for uh collectors, arterials, and local roads.

And in the case of the local roads, we compared um we set the speed limit, not out there, but you know, for our study in the interest of this study to 20 miles per hour, and we compare that to the 85%al data that we gathered in order to identify roadway segments in which the 85%al data was lower or at 20 miles per hour.

So the mayor takeaways is that um there is a good amount of local roadways that are in which vehicles are traveling or 85 percentile speed is below 20 miles per hour.

Uh the Florida Department of Transportation guidelines say that the speed limit posted needs to be within three miles of the 85th percentile speed.

So based on that, we made a recommendation to lower the speed limits to 20 miles per hour from 25 at a specific locations in which uh the 85 percent percental speed was below uh 20.

Thank you.

So next um just to kind of give you some of the this is mine, right?

Okay.

It looked a little different.

Okay.

So just some highlights of the ordinance.

It it's it's only it's an easy read of only 34 pages long.

So just kind of giving you some highlights of that.

Um as Renato said, the focus is um changing roadways that met the 85th local roadways to 20 miles an hour.

And so in your underlying strike through, you'll see that, and so that's a major component of it.

Um the other piece of that is um restricting the maximum speed limit to um non-local roadways to 35 miles an hour.

And then there were some specific locations that we listed specifically.

So one of them is posted speed limits by the change not compliant with 316.189.

So we specifically change those.

Um and then the second one is the speed limit on wringling um between 41 and Lyme be changed from 30 to 25 because that's under redesign now.

And so designing the roadway can allow it to be compliant with that 25.

And then the third one is speed limit on Osprey between Oak and Brother Union Way uh be changed from 30 to 25 because this is currently not posted, and um if it were to remain not posted by statute, it would be 30.

And so this proposes it to be 25 in our ordinance.

And there are also some locations that um some of you are very aware of, I think, um, that are posted at 15 miles an hour that do not comply with state statutes and therefore are not enforceable.

Um those would be raised to 20.

Um in addition, the speed study didn't show that 15 would even fit even if we could do it.

Um so we've coordinated quite a bit with SPD and they do support changing it to 20 because of the enforcement challenges that they have had in the past.

So you might be wondering how do we implement this uh great change, right?

Uh staff has met with the Sarasota Police Department to discuss the implementation and enforcement of um this work.

And they are in support of a phased approach for uh the changes because we need that time to uh do the sign updates, uh, educate the public on those changes, and then creating that enforcement transition.

So it would be split up between the city and um it would be an effort to be able to make those changes by once once this is adopted.

Staff has uh quarterly meetings with uh the Sarasota Police Department.

We have set those up so that way we continue to coordinate on this implementation effort if um the ordinance were to move through.

Like uh Saji mentioned at the beginning, the recommended action is to approve ordinance number 26-5592 on this first reading.

And with that, we'll open it up for questions.

Thank you.

We have uh two people who have requested to speak.

So you'll join us in a few minutes.

And Kelly Brown and John Harshman have signed up to speak.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Good afternoon, Jennifer.

Welcome to the big show.

My name is Kelly Brown.

I am a resident of Glessby Park in Sarasota.

I'm the president of the Glass Park Neighborhood Association and the Sarasota Coalition of City Neighborhood Associations, which represents 22,000 households within the city of Sarasota.

I'm here today to speak on behalf of CCNA regarding ongoing committee work directly focused on neighborhood safety.

C CNA's stated mission is to protect and enhance city neighborhoods at our summits in 2016-2019.

Again in 23, our members reviewed our priorities to set the stage for committee work with both city commission and staff.

Traffic speeds, pedestrian bicycle safety come up as a priority for all neighborhoods at every summit.

As regular attendees at our meetings, our member meetings, the Commission is aware of the committee work done with Ms.

Corrales and Miss Ariaga on traffic calming on local neighborhood streets.

Together we developed a stronger process for evaluation for traffic calming and educating our communities that allows more neighborhoods to achieve positive results.

At our October 20 October 4th, 25 meeting and our March 7th, 26th meeting, members voted unanimously to support the speed limit change to 20 miles per hour on our local streets.

With respect to C CNA member focused on neighborhood safety, we're here today to ask the Commission to support staff's request to approve on first reading the change of the speed limit to 20 miles per hour on local neighborhood streets.

This change will alleviate any confusion when traveling from one neighborhood to the next and provide consistency across our local roads.

We believe the Commission support of recommended staff speed limit changes is also a positive step in the right direction to strive to strive for increased use of other forms of mobility as residents feel safer walking and biking through our city.

And I would just add, you know, CCNA would be happy to take white duct tape and big flat fat black markers and help make those changes on those signs as fast as possible.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Harshman.

Yes, good afternoon, Madam Mayor.

Commissioners.

Appreciate the opportunity to be here today.

So when I'm talking to people out in the community, what I hear from them is excessive speeds.

And that's a problem in lots of different places.

But we do have some choke points around that people talk repeatedly about coming on to St.

Armand's, leaving St.

Armor's, going down to South Leto, MLK, some sections of Osprey Avenue.

I heard the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association complaining about there's there's no four-way stop at 7th Street in Osprey Avenue.

That's a legitimate problem that needs to be looked at.

I kind of question just the overall approach of changing all the signs to 20 miles an hour.

My experience is that the people that are going 35 miles an hour in a 25 mile an hour zone are not going to change their behavior to drive 20 miles an hour now unless there's some enforcement involved.

And I have I've been to the traffic calming presentations and the discussion amongst the audience when we do have time to break out has been where's the enforcement in this.

And I think that's a key component that is not included in this.

We can change the signs all we want, we can put speed bumps in, but bad behavior is bad behavior, and I think that's really what we should we should try to focus on.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And will the transportation team return.

Okay.

Commissioner questions.

Who wants to go first?

Commissioner Alfort.

Okay, I'll ask a question.

This in the traffic study that you talked about, can you explain again the 85th percentile what that means?

That you know you looked at the speed for the 85th percentile.

Yes, of course.

Uh the 85th percentile speed is the speed at the weight at or below which 85 percent of the vehicles travel.

Um we obtained that data and we are able to come up with that specific number for each of the uh local roadways and you know arterials and collectors that we study.

Okay.

So basically what you're saying is the the roads that are being changed to 20 miles per hour.

85 percent of the people have already been driving 20 miles an hour or less on those roadways.

Based on our data, yes.

Based on the data that that you have.

That's why I thought you were saying, because I I I I did get uh one comment um you know, with the at the one of the traffic calming things is you know, do they just want to make the entire city like a school zone?

So if most of the people, if these are roadways that most of the people are already driving that slowly.

Yes, so the roadways that are being proposed today are um have an 85th at or below 20 miles per hour.

The others that have exceed that exceed the 20 mile per hour speed limit uh will be addressed through the traffic calming plan.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Okay, Vice Mayor.

Thank you.

And so as usual, uh enforcement has come up.

Uh you mentioned that you would phase in enforcement with the signage, new signage.

Correct.

And what else?

Yes.

So we would work really closely with SPD to ensure that when we are rolling out and installing new signage, that they are in step with us and able to support the enforcement of that signage as it gets installed.

So as you can imagine, between our staff at public works installing the signs and SPD's staff being able to enforce that, that it might take longer and it won't all happen at once.

So we're looking at a longer process of rolling out so that way we're all moving at a speed at which we can enforce the new speed limits.

The thought is to split the city into quadrants so that way it's easily easily rolled through.

So that way our staff can install the new signs and then SPD can come in and enforce in that first quadrant and then once there's a certain time frame that passes by, then we move on to another quadrant of the city.

And maybe this question is to Mr.

Robinson.

Sir as this new program is unveiled in sections of the city at the time at a time will the police department increase its enforcement in the one particular part of the city?

Sure.

I mean obviously we can schedule those operations in advance as we know as the engineering team is putting the new signage out we would not only do more enforcement but we also do an education campaign right?

So we would get that information out via social media I'm sure through JAN and through Genevieve at their respective outlets put it all on social media give people a week or two weeks notice that those are going to be changing and then we would go into probably a warning time period where we would issue warning citations and then actually issue traffic uniform traffic citations on the back end of that for a specified period until they moved into another area just to make sure everybody sort of has a decompression time period for the new change.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Yes ma'am thank you.

Commissioner Aaron Koch.

Yeah I have a question about something else but just on that topic if 85% of the folks are traveling at a speed lower than 20 that's less of a worry to me than the areas where we're going to be doing traffic calming because those are the areas where people are going higher than the speed limit and so we have to do traffic calming implementations there.

So for me it's much less of a worry with the new signs because the 85% is already going less than 20 miles an hour.

20 miles an hour or less but for the traffic calming piece of it so just to be clear the information we have in our in our backup material the underline and strike through those are that's our code and those that's where it's changing but it's that's not a comprehensive list of everything that is changing.

It is a comprehensive list of what is changing in the code.

In the code.

Right.

But it's not a comprehensive list of everything that's changing.

No.

Right, right, correct.

Okay.

And the big piece I think that is important for the community to know is that the areas where cars were going faster than the speed limit are the areas where we're going to be putting in traffic calming measures and there's a window for them to participate and what is that window?

Yeah absolutely right now we have proposed solutions on all of the corridors that exceed that 85th percentile it's available on the traffic calming plan website and comments are being accepted until April 17th.

We also have two public meetings this week for um people to attend so they can learn more about the process as well as how they can participate.

Okay yeah that's really important uh to get that that information out there as well um yes those are those are my questions and we're going to uh eventually get a list of those streets where the traffic calming measures are being proposed so that the community can because if you don't see your street on here you say what's going on with my area.

Yeah absolutely that interactive map on the website is a really great a really great place to look if you don't see it listed in here today whether your street is receiving traffic calming.

And that's on the city's website and that's on the city's website under the traffic calming plan webpage.

Thank you.

Okay.

So with the streets that are not local streets that are not going down to 25 I mean to down to 20, those are the ones that you anticipate doing traffic calming right?

Correct.

So over a period of time you anticipate that the traffic will be calmed is there any plan to say go back a year from now to do a new study to see if the 85 percentile has gone below the 20 miles per hour so that we could then change the speed limit to be consistent in all the local streets?

So the goal with the implementation of the traffic calming plan is to lower the speed limits as those traffic calming treatments get implemented.

So say we're implementing a project, then we would, after it's complete, we would perform a study and based off of that data provide the code change that year.

And we think about doing that in batches because there's most likely going to be more than one project happening at at a time.

So we anticipate doing code changes annually with the implementation and the track the supporting traffic study of those projects.

Okay, great.

So traffic calming over time will enable us to lower the speed limits on those streets.

Correct.

Great.

Thank you.

Um anyone else.

Um thank you very much.

And I will entertain a motion.

I would um move approval of ordinance number 26-5592 on first reading.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Aher and Koch, seconded by Commission by Vice Mayor.

Um is there any discussion?

Thank you to staff for um working with the community and engaging them and doing this uh incredibly um exhaustive process.

Keep up the work and keep up the energy.

Um it's not over yet, it's just beginning.

Okay.

Well, I guess we're ready to vote then.

Okay.

Um roll call as well.

Albert?

Yes.

Betty?

Yes.

Already?

Yes.

Yes.

Aaron Cotch?

Yes.

And it passed unanimously.

Thank you very much.

And thank you to our transportation dream team.

Okay.

We now are at um quasijudicial hearing.

Um 9.1 and um if 11.

Excuse me, 11.1.

I got my one and my X, my I and X mixed up.

So um call upon uh City City Clerk Auditor and Clerk Griggs to read the item.

Um actually there is really nothing for me to read.

It's just the um this is going to be item number public um 11.1 application, appeal application number 20 20 26 APP 02 and appeal to reverse the decision of the historic preservation board regarding 26-fMSF 17.

There is no title for me to read on this.

So we just kind of go right into the attorney.

Yeah, and and so I'm gonna call on the city attorney to explain the quasi judicial process and the time limits, but also what we will be asked to decide and which criteria we will decide based on.

It wasn't clear.

Sounds good.

Uh asked uh Jay Daniel to help with these two matters, so I'll hand it off to him.

Sorry to write off with that question, didn't you, Mayor?

I appreciate it.

Madam Mayor Commissioners, thank you for having me again uh this morning, this afternoon.

Just a real brief review of your quasi judicial proceeding outline.

This is a quasi judicial proceeding.

In such a proceeding, it is not the Commission's function to make law, but rather to apply law that has already been established by the Commission.

And the Commission may only consider evidence that it can the law considers competent, substantial, and relevant to the issues.

If that evidence demonstrates that the applicant has met the criteria, then the commission should find in favor of the applicant subject to any conditions.

Conversely, if the evidence demonstrates that the applicant or the appellant here has failed to meet those criteria, then the board must find and should find against the appellant.

Each of you on the commission must weigh the competent substantial evidence provided today and reach your conclusion on whether the established criteria have been satisfied.

All witnesses testifying must give their testimony under oath and must give their name and address for the record.

All testimony and questioning must address matters that are relevant and material to the issues under consideration.

We have an established procedure that you all have adopted via resolution uh multiple years ago.

We will be following that today.

So I would ask at this time relative to this application that any members of the board disclose any ex parte communications concerning the present application, if any.

I have not.

I have several.

Okay.

I did a site visit on my own.

I watched the historic preservation board meeting of December 9th, 2025.

I met with the applicant and legal counsel, and I met with city staff.

Okay.

And considering those communications, um are you able to render a fair and impartial decision on this application today?

I am.

Thank you.

Commissioner Aaron Koch.

I watched the historic preservation board meeting.

All right, and same question.

Are you able to render a fair and impartial decision on this application?

I am.

Thank you.

Okay.

I also I met with the applicant and his attorney, and I also watched the historic preservation uh board meeting.

All right.

And considering those factors, are you able to render a fair and impartial decision?

I see you.

Thank you very much.

I believe that the city clerk has already sworn in folks who intend to testify today.

Sorry?

You swore in folks at the beginning of the meeting.

That's okay.

All right, so I want to make sure I was.

Oh, okay.

That's okay, no worries.

No worries.

Yes, are you any of the questions?

All of them.

It's okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Do you swear up on the evidence of factual representation that you're about to give or present to this commission during any public hearing held this 23rd day of March 2026 are truthful?

Thank you.

All right, Madam Mayor, typically you all have established you would establish time limits at this juncture for the presentations.

And you're free to do that now.

Well, I I came up with some time.

And I hope that you all are okay with it.

Um the time limits that we come up with these 20 minutes for the applicant, 20 minutes for staff, five minutes for affected persons, three minutes for public comment.

Any we have rebuttal.

Okay.

And I'm I'm still wondering what the criteria decision is.

And I'm going to start off with the rather helpful admonition to you that your criteria applicable today's appeal are clear as mud.

Okay.

And I say that in in to just to we've done other quasi-judicial proceedings in this room together, and some of your criteria are crystal clear.

Some of them are conjunctive, and the applicant must show A, B, C, and D.

And if any of those are not shown, then the application should not be approved.

It is not approved.

We've had other applications where the criteria are a little bit more flexible, where the criteria requires you to consider certain things, not necessarily to make positive findings, but to make sure that you're reviewing the evidence that is that has been previously established by your code, but not necessarily to make positive findings, only to make sure that you're hitting those those um elements of thought.

This one is even a little bit different than that.

And we're we're proceeding today under section 4-823 of your code, of your land development code.

And I would like to tell you today that there are uh identifiable one, two, three types of things.

But I don't I don't have that today.

You had a similar application before the before the commission a couple of years ago, and then City Attorney Fournier identified the difficulties, attendant to the this particular code section, and gave you some direction in terms of reviewing a similar, though not in all material respects, um application that came before you then.

And I will I think that's in your backup material, and I trust that you've had a chance to read that, though I'm happy to cover it if if that's re requested.

Um I generally agree with Mr.

Fourtier's uh interpretation and application of the criteria.

So it's on page uh boy, I think it's on page 1969 of your backup materials on this item.

And um those criteria are gleaned, if you will, somewhat from the text of the code.

Look, that's not ideal.

And I and as recently as 30 minutes ago I discussed with City Attorney Polzak that look, this is a code section that needs some um needs some attention.

But we have what we have.

Okay, we can't rewrite it here on the fly, but that's not fair to the applicant or to the city itself, so we're not gonna do that.

But uh Mr.

Mr.

Fournier did interpret the code in a way that I find to be uh legally reasonable, legally defensible, and identified some criteria.

Uh one, are there reasonable measures that could be undertaken by the current owner to preserve the structure on site?

Uh two, you've seen them.

Uh are there reasonable measures that could be undertaken by the owner to sell or transfer?

Is moving the structure a reasonable measure that can be considered to avoid demolition?

And if all those three questions are answered negatively and the demolition is to be approved, are there reasonable measures that can be taken to mitigate the impact of the demolition?

Those are the criteria that I suggest you uh apply today.

I also want to add my uh an admonition of my own.

Um preservation is obviously a critical and important component of what you all do here.

Uh but also so is the concept of private property rights.

I have some concerns as I looked over this material in preparation for the hearing today that for property that uh did not seek uh historical designation and is sort of here by an accident of code writing.

I would caution you to be highly uh respectful to, not that you wouldn't be otherwise, but highly respectful to the to the foundational principles of private property rights in our country.

That's sort of a background principle that I just think is good to keep in mind, moving forward.

Are there questions about that before we get into the presentations?

Okay.

Uh with that said, then we can have the applicant, uh the appellant come forward and um before we do that, we've I've got one person that has requested effective.

You do, madam, and that's correct.

So so Would you like to bring Mr.

Cashton down?

Well, no, I just wanted clarification how we proceed with that.

Uh the way that you ordinarily would, um, which is to um make a determination you have an application.

The the the person seeking party status here or affected party status is not within 500 feet.

They are representing uh according to the documentation I have, the Laurel Oaks and Lower Park Neighborhood Association.

Uh my understanding is that Mr.

Cashton is a board member of the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association, and by your rules does thereby qualify.

Uh if there's an objection by the appellant, we should hear that now.

Okay.

For the record, I'm Charlie Bailey, uh land use attorney for uh with Williams Parker here on behalf of the applicant.

I I do have uh two objections to the request that I would like to present to the City Commission before you consider the request.

Um just two things I'd note.

The first of which I will acknowledge is ticky-tacky.

But the request for um affected person status.

Um of course, uh under a qua with a quasi judicial proceeding, due process is to be uh provided, which entails notice and opportunity to be heard.

And we just noted that in the request uh they uh uh Mr.

Cash and uh cited a diff uh uh a home a lot different than the subject.

We're at 1668 Oak Street, he's identified uh 16 uh 88 Oak Street, not the property that's a subject before uh the board today, or the commission today.

Um more significantly I would note um that Mr.

Cashton, he lives uh about a quarter mile away uh from the subject property, lives down um Oak Street at 1878 Oak Street, I'm sorry, 1876 Oak Street, uh east of the subject property, about uh uh almost 1,300 feet away, about a quarter mile, and thus um has made this request on behalf of the association.

Um he is, I know that to him, uh know him to be a board member of that organization.

But the authorization letter uh is uh reads as follows.

Ron Cashton is authorized to represent the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association as an affected party in the quasi judicial hearing on March 23rd, 2026 regarding the appeal of an application number and again 1688 wrong address.

But it signed uh Ron Cashton, a board member, Oral Park Neighborhood Association.

The Laurel Park Neighborhood Association conveniently puts their bylaws on their website, and um it's very clear as to who the officers are and the authorities that individuals have in terms of operating with the authority of uh the association, and it's quite clear that no member or group of members, which would include an officer uh other than the president or uh and and a director says that no member or group of members shall act on behalf of or in the name of the association except when authorized by the president and or the board of directors, which necessarily means a majority vote of the board of directors.

And there is nothing within the four corners of his request in any way evidencing that he was conferred authority by the president uh or the board members, uh the board of majority vote of the board, which typically comes in the form of a resolution.

Um that basis, I I I I question the validity of the request and would respectfully request that it be denied.

That being the case, what that means is they would not be the association could not appear before you as an affected party, but nevertheless, as a member of the public, anybody can appear before the board and still present testimony.

But there is a legal distinction between an affected party and a member of the public opining or providing testimony in a quasi-judicial matter.

So with that, we would respectfully request that uh their request uh for affected party status be denied.

Okay.

Mr.

Cash.

Yeah.

I suggest a year from Mr.

Cashton before you make it the speaker.

Mr.

Cashton.

Sorry for the I apologize door away.

Thank you, Ron Cashton, board member of the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association.

I believe I filed this in accordance to city standards.

I might have had a Scribner's error.

But beyond that, I think everything else would be a rewrite of the way this commission operates and considers affected parties.

But the City Clerk's application doesn't require a formal resolution, certainly not a written resolution.

So I've met all the standards that the City has.

May I ask?

Are we allowed to ask questions?

Yes, you are.

Thank you.

So, Mr.

Cashton, how would you address the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association's bylaws and what they require in this regard?

Absolutely, because we do abide by our bylaws.

I mean Laurel Park is very particular with that.

And I did have authorization.

I reached out to the board, got approval from the board, got explicit approval from the President, but I didn't bring that along with the paperwork because the application for affected parties doesn't require that.

So I didn't think of adding additional paperwork that's never before up until this moment asked for.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Oh, Liz.

Yes.

How do you explain you signed the letter authorizing yourself?

Well, and that seems somewhat self-serving.

Well, I am a board member.

But it would seem that another board member who would be authorized to sign would be the one to sign it and not you to authorize you.

Again, anybody could do that.

It just didn't even occur to me.

You know, because the requirements are that a board member has to approve any anybody representing the Laurel Park neighborhood.

Right.

But you are approving yourself.

Well, if I was President, and if we took Mr.

Bailey's criteria, I would be writing a letter for myself as President to come before.

So I I agree with you.

It's it's strange, but that's the paperwork requirement.

But the key distinction is that he is not president.

And this is not a city requirement thing.

It's not nothing wrong with the city's form.

It's something that is outside of my area of law.

It's a corporate matter that when somebody appears either signs a document on behalf of an incorporated entity or appears on behalf uh to make argument, they must be authorized to do so.

So it's not a I'm not making this up, and it's not the city's requirement.

It is just a fundamental principle of Florida law.

Well, if the applicant would want, I am more than happy to agree to a continuance where we get the proper paperwork and come back.

Commissioner Aaron Coch.

Would you be able to, Mr.

Cashton or your board be able to, or the President be able to establish that you have the authority to represent them as an affected party?

Of course.

So it's documented somewhere.

Swear it by oath and all of that.

Under oath.

Yes.

I am just wondering if you can just get an email zapped over to us from the President.

I mean I can try and reach him.

I just don't know what he is doing right now.

The concern is with all of the neighborhood associations.

They pretty much all have in their bylaws, only the President can speak for the organization or authorize somebody to speak for the authorization.

And if that bylaw is ignored, every single board member can say whatever they think and will just go crazy.

Absolutely.

And it was one of those things that if and maybe this should be going forward that when a applicant when a neighborhood association wants to be an affected party, the letter has to come from either the president or another person on the board other than the one that's coming before.

We could.

Well, I would think it would have to come from the President because that is the bylaws of the organization.

But the bylaws of the organization say only the President is authorized.

But yeah.

No, absolutely.

So let me advise at this at this juncture, Madam Mayor.

You have a few issues.

The first is a scrivener's error.

I would encourage the board to ignore that in determining whether they are going to convey affected parts status.

You have a letter where Mr.

Cashton authorizes himself.

You're required to apply your rules.

Understanding that Mr.

Cashton appears to agree with Mr.

Bailey that there has been that the bylaws require a certain thing.

You all have no ability to and are not called upon by your code or rules to it to enforce those corporate vagaries here.

So you have what you are left with then is some competing evidence as to whether Mr.

Cashton is an appropriate organizational representative here for purposes of party status.

That is in the essence is the essence of quasi letters procedure.

So I at this juncture I would suggest that you sort of take take a motion and a second and determine whether he does or does not have standing here.

In any way.

Vice Mayor?

I'm wondering if we could have a motion granting him affected person status contingent upon us receiving some written documentation email or whatever prior to the time that he's to uh testify here at this hearing I want to give Mr.

Bailey a chance to weigh in on that.

I'll tell you my from my perspective, I don't even interrupt you.

I think that's within your legal purview to do.

I mean, if we get to him and it's his time, and we still do not have anything in writing, then our motion would tell us he does not have affected status.

I I understand where you are going.

I don't uh discree.

I think I think it's lawful to do.

I well, Mr.

Bailey.

I I appreciate the pragmatic uh and kind approach.

Um but respectfully the one thing that the city is very um clear on their regulations is the time frame within which the request must be completed and submitted.

And that was done.

And so what now he is he is asking to do is I guess in co I don't want water in a courtroom.

If I am in a courtroom, I'm in the wrong room, but he's asking for leave to amend his request that was due to be completed and filed in final form uh with it five or ten days prior to today's hearing, and now seeking to supplement it at that point procedurally is not I would submit is uh would be a violation of my client's due process.

But uh in offering a rebut, I take exception to Mr.

Bailey's um uh description of this, because again, I followed the city's rules.

All of the city's paperwork that they had asked for, if there was something to be cured, the one thing I love about Shayla's office is the clerk is very efficient at saying you're missing this paperwork, you have to fill out this.

And I felt that the application, which I had more than enough time, if there was anything that we needed to cure, I would have cured it.

But there was no guidelines that there was anything whatsoever is to be affected.

Defect upon that.

That's why associations have counsel, have attorneys to advise them.

I think sure.

Okay.

Commissioner Aaron Coch and then Commissioner Albert.

Um my question, I guess, is for Mr.

Bailey, uh uh or or for our attorney.

Um I'm not an attorney, so uh as far as I know that this seldom happens that we question the status or the viability of an affected party.

So as far as I know that this seldom happens that we question the status or the viability of an affected party.

In this situation, wouldn't it be normal to say there's something not in order here in your application as an affected party that that this that somebody would let Mr.

Cashton know there's a way to cure your affected party status?

We have this issue with it.

Here's how you can you cure it or not.

If he called me and asked me, I would have, but he didn't call me and ask me to.

Did he know you were going to do this?

He didn't provide me with a copy of it.

He didn't he didn't contact me at all.

In fact, I've never met Mr.

Cashton.

So I mean I'm we're just in this very strange situation where there's a potential motion on the table that some human has to be available at a split second so that we can proceed with this and grant rights or not grant them.

And it just seems to me that there was a solution to this beforehand.

Asking his association's corporate counsel for proper authority to submit a request for affected party status.

So it's not I mean just because he has done it this way before doesn't mean it was right.

Oh, I don't know he's done it before.

I don't know if that has been established.

Listen, in a court of law, which we're not in, this is a matter of standing, right?

Determination of whether a party has standing to be in the room and to assert rights relative to the issue before the court.

Um in that situation, a court probably would bring the proceedings to a grinding halt and say, all right, let's figure this issue of standing out.

We're quasi judicial, right?

The rules are are a little bit different.

What you are really concerned about here is making sure that each of the people that are here and wanting to say you get a get a fair shot, get get due process, which is not going to be in a quasi-judicial setting reviewed according to the same rules that would apply in a courtroom.

We're talking about fundamental fairness.

So my opinion, uh not that you asked for it and when offered anyways, is that you have competing evidence.

You have competing competent substantial evidence.

Um so I would encourage you to make a decision based on that evidence.

I think you can.

I think that um Vice Mayor Ulrich's suggestion is lawful.

I have not seen it done.

But that's one of the fun parts about my job is that I get to go and say, you know, hey, I I've seen this.

Now I get to go tomorrow and say I have seen this happen.

It's kind of interesting.

Here's how it turned out.

I don't mean to make light of it, but I I just want to I want to impart to you that this is we want to stay within the boundaries of quasi judicial process, but they are a bit more expansive than you are going to find in a courtroom.

And I would say, unlike a court of law, if a party doesn't have standing, it's sorry you lost your day in court.

In this instance, because it is a quasi judicial proceeding, if you should deny the request for affected party status, Mr.

Cashin still can stay in the room and provide testimony.

He just can't sue the city if he doesn't like the city's action.

Well, that's withstanding it.

So well aware of that.

Commissioner Alcart.

Um my comment was going to be that um we can't expect the clerk to act as an attorney and make a legal decision as to whether somebody's paperwork meets the criteria or doesn't.

If the paperwork is complete according to our rules, then that doesn't mean that we then it's up to us to decide if they have affected person's status.

It's not up to her to look and see if everything is done to make them so.

So that's, you know, be completing the paperwork as the city requires doesn't say that you are qualified to be an affected person, and she shouldn't be making that determination.

So were you making a motion?

I will, and I'll repeat my motion, hoping I get a second this time.

Um I move to grant Ron Cashton affected person status on behalf of Laurel Park Neighborhood Association.

Contingent that we have some documentation in writing by email or some other way by the time he is to come to the table and pre and speak.

Some documentation from the president.

From the president of the association.

I'll second for discussion.

Look, we're talking about two minutes here.

We're talking about giving the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association a fair chance.

And that's what we're doing with this motion.

What I'm concerned about is the restriction on the timeline.

I mean, we have this motion is based on the fact that a human is available right now to write something.

That's right.

Well, the point in granting him effective person status is because he has earned affected person status.

Well we don't know.

We don't know that.

We don't know that he has been authorized by the president of Laurel Mark.

Let's not over talk each other.

So Mr.

Commissioner Beatty.

Oh no, I mean that was just basically concurring with with uh what the Vice Mayor said, you know, is contingent upon whether or not the the uh president of the association you know notifies us that he's yes then so Commissioner Alpert?

Um I don't you know I'm I'm inclined not to grant affected person status.

Um although I thank the Vice Mayor's um is a reasonable one.

But you know, again that it it's bringing in like a third party now outside the the quasi-judicial hearing.

So I don't know how that could be could be fairer to do that at this point.

That's a that's a valid point as well.

Yeah.

Yeah, I I see that this motion is us bending over backwards to enable him to have affected party status because what was it ten days ago was when the paperwork needed to be complete and the fact that it was not signed by the president by his organization's bylaws, it was not complete.

So we are bending over backwards to enable him to be consistent with his organization's bylaws by extending the deadline to a few minutes from now.

And just for purposes of clarifying our record, uh your rules don't require that.

Your rules require that it be signed by a board member or the president, Mr.

Cashton is a board member.

But you have today received testimony from Mr.

Cashton himself that his application does not comply with the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association's rules.

And that is really the critical feat the distinction that I wish to make for you all.

If you if you hadn't that that information, if you hadn't offered that, I'd be advising you differently.

I didn't hear that.

Can you repeat that, please?

Yeah, you your rules don't require that uh and and and Commissioner Albert made a made an outstanding point is that you can't it's impractical to place the onus on the city clerk or her office to go back through the bylaws, corporate uh documents of uh every organization that may apply for standing as an affected party, right?

We trust those folks are going to comply with them on their own.

That onus is too great.

Um Mr.

Bailey raised the fact that Mr.

Cashton hadn't complied with the Laurel Park Neighborhood Associations.

Mr.

Cashton then agreed with that being the case.

And so you have a colorable issue as to whether there is standing or not, because he said that he didn't maybe complied, maybe he didn't.

He said he got permission from the president.

Uh but he recognized that that rec that permission is not in writing.

So again, you have competing evidence here.

That was not my recollection of what he said.

What he said was that he had the authorization and could produce that in writing from the president and the board.

He doesn't have it now in front of us, but he did say it did happen legally by their by their association.

I think maybe I think what he meant was that he received it verbally.

No.

Maybe it wasn't that that that specific.

The point is there's competing evidence as to whether he has an authorization or he doesn't.

I mean you are about to do that.

We're about to get an email.

Well, uh assuming it's not a script or on the iPhone.

So we can go ahead and vote to see whether or not that email will be adequate.

So we have a motion, yes, we already have a motion in the second on the table, so it's now time to call the question.

Call the question.

Okay.

Oh there you go.

I mean we get an email.

Commissioner Alper.

Did we get an email?

Oh no.

It's done matter.

So what what what do we have to do?

Well, this would be subject to the same thing.

This is subject to getting the email.

It's a subject.

This is our subject.

Yes, and sorry for making a phone call.

So it passed three to two.

So if we get the email in time, so we can continue the meeting and we'll see what happens.

Fair enough.

Okay.

Okay.

So what happens now?

So now Mr.

Bailey would uh come up and make his presentation on behalf of the appellate.

Yeah.

I mean I you voted, and I don't want to say, oh, yeah, and another thing, but uh it would seem evident to those who overheard his phone conversation, the president knew nothing of this, and was he was having to tell the president, here's why I'm here.

This is what the email should say.

Okay.

With that, good afternoon.

I'm Charlie Bailey again.

I'm a land use attorney in Portland Law from Williams Parker, and I've uh submitted a bin sworn.

Um I'm here today on behalf of Oak Street Lot LLC.

I'm gonna go old school and just rely on the uh elevated camera for our graphics.

Subject property is located at 1668 uh Oak Street.

Oh, thank you.

There we go.

Thank you.

Um shown on the in the image before you now.

Uh with me from um uh joining me is Todd DeGarmo, who is a principal and owner of of Oak Street uh lot LLC, uh the subject property containing a bungalow uh single family home that is a subject of the hearing today, together with a detached structure uh which was authorized for demolition by the historic preservation board back on December 9.

Also joined by Miranda uh Almy Kles, who is a principal and CEO of Archaeological Consultants Inc.

uh.

who prepared the very thorough uh analysis that's included in in your uh staff report that accompanied the demolition permit.

Uh this is an appeal of the December 9 Historic Preservation Board decision on the request to describe to do to demolish both structures on the subject property, uh, neither of which happened to be historically designated at the national level or the local level.

Um and um uh their their inclusion in the Laurel Park registration form for the historic district back in 2008 as a contributing structure is a little bit dubious as outlined very uh clearly in in um Ms.

Stodd's memo.

Um rather that because they were identified as contributing structures when the district was formed back in 2008, which is why we were before you today, uh requiring action by the Historic Preservation Board uh with respect to its demolition.

At the time it was included as a contributing structure, the City Zoning Code did not have any requirement for contributing structures to go before the Historic Preservation Board for demolition.

Rather, it would have just been been administrative, but that changed, I understand, in 2020, which is why we're before you today.

Uh at the conclusion of the December 9 hearing, uh the Historic Preservation Board authorized uh demolition of the rear structure, but denied it with respect to the front structure.

This is the image of the rear structure that was authorized for demolition, an accessory building that's now um that has since been converted.

And this is the structure that's before you today, um, the bungalow located um along the Oak Street frontage of the subject property.

And although this is, and it again the the appeal relates solely to the front structure.

Um the location of the subject property, I think you all are all familiar with where it is, but here's a little five points, Orange Avenue, Oak Street, lot fronts on Oak Street, um, which is a uh 50 or 60 foot wide right-of-way, and on its rear um southern boundary is Devonshire Lane, which is just a 20-foot alley.

Um and that also represents the very southern limit of the world park a historic district.

Uh by way of background, and this is Mr.

DeGarmo is a very humble guy, so this is me uh saying things that he himself would not say out loud, so I hope he'll he'll tolerate me.

But but Mr.

Uh DeGarmo has lived in Laurel Park since 2016.

Um he bought the lot at 1702, it was a vacant lot in 2013 and built a very beautiful home uh on that lot, uh, fully compliant with uh the um uh all in all aspects the RSM nine zoning that applies to Laurel Park.

So he he's now uh bought the lot three doors down intending to construct a new home there.

And before moving to Sarasota, uh he's lived in other historic districts, both the Capitol Hill uh historic district in Washington, D.C.

and the Greenwich Village Historic District in Manhattan.

So he was thus very drawn to to Laurel Park for very obvious reasons.

Further, uh he's not just any a normal client for me, he's actually a very uh well-renowned architect with vast experience working within historic districts and on historic structures themselves.

Uh Todd is CEO emeritus of Studios Architecture based in Washington, D.C.

in New York, and they have got offices all over all over the world.

Uh and his projects have included working on the headquarters for Sony for Time, Major League Baseball, but he's also worked uh specifically with and has great knowledge of historic structures, which has included uh in the not too distant past uh the New York uh stock exchange headquarters in the financial district of Manhattan, in addition to uh uh uh the Stuyvesant Fish House built in 1898 for the railroad baron with that same name.

So he is well versed in in working with historic structures when he is presented with a historic structure, and when he's not presented with a historic structure, he knows how to design a new um uh home or building that will be respectful of and enhance the historic district, which is is what's before you uh today.

Uh and since moving to Sarasota, uh he also has participated in part of the visioning process for the IMPA dorms at New College.

So he is uh quickly become a very engaged citizen and has great knowledge with respect to um historic structures.

Um the uh this is his home located um uh 1702 Oak Street.

I'm gonna have Todd talk on it uh here briefly a little bit, but um he'll he'll note that the the this one of the rare you know how he bent over backwards to do to observe all in all respects the the spirit of of rural park uh historic district, including creating the scale, placement, size, and so forth are all consistent with that in addition to saluting the detached structure with a uh a one-car garage and upper story uh accessory dwelling unit.

Um the uh subject property, as I mentioned, is at the very southern edge of um of Laurel Park Historic District, and as noted in in Ms.

Dodd's memo of November 26, 2025, uh neither structure is historically designated, um, neither the front structure nor the rear structure.

Moreover, neither are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and neither are eligible for local historic designation under the city code.

Uh but before uh the registration form for the historic district was completed and submitted uh for consideration.

The uh the uh whoever the preparer of the application actually listed 55 homes on Oak Street, listing, of course, um uh 168 uh 168 and 166, I'm sorry, 1668 Oak Street and 1668 A Oak Street, which represent the uh Bolonga Bungalow uh and garage that are before you.

Leading up to uh the uh historic surveys, there have been at least three historic historical surveys of the area, uh none of which identified these structures as eligible for designation or eligible for for uh as a contributing um uh structure.

Uh nevertheless, when this application form was prepared without any supporting data or analysis, uh it was included.

It's its inclusion is why we're here today.

Um would note that um in actually the last survey that was done in 2003 did identify this as not being eligible for as a contributing structure, but somehow miraculously between 2003 and 2008, somebody included it on the list without the data and analysis.

Um, as noted in in this um Dodd's memorandum of of uh November uh 2025 that's in your packet, um at the time that uh as part of that 2008 effort to create the Laurel Park Historic District, um, the uh and we understand why it was included, because the greater density or greater concentration of historic structures and contributing structures, the greater likelihood that the district will be created.

So I certainly understand why it would have been included.

And at the time that they were doing workshops and charrettes uh discussing with um residents the the creation of the district, um it was represented that a National Historic District does not impose any obligation on the property owner or restrict the owner's right to use and dispose of their property.

In other words, you can tear it down, add on, or do other things.

Um Mr.

DeGarmo seller uh owned the property at the time.

At a time when he closed on the property in 2025, understandably the owner did not disclose the need to um uh go through this process in order to demolish the structure.

He would have had no reason to know that because no notice, from what I understand was the city code uh zoning code was adopted or amended to uh create this process for contributing structures, the uh uh the uh notice was not provided.

So uh and that's that's highlighted in in Ms.

Dodd's uh memorandum before you.

So um thinking all of this is relevant just as you consider our request to demolish the front structure.

Um Ms.

Almy's group at ACI prepared a very uh comprehensive uh report that's contained in your staff report, but I'm gonna ask uh Miranda just to kind of quickly walk through and tell you a little bit more about the structure that is before you today.

And I'm gonna serve as Urbana White.

We can skip to the next one.

Uh as mentioned by Mr.

Bailey, um, the structure was originally noted uh during the 1988 survey, um, at which time it was not considered to be part of a historic district, um, and it was felt there was insufficient information for national or local designation.

Um these early surveys tended to be rather vague on their determinations.

Um during the 2003 survey, again, the structure was updated and it was determined to be ineligible for listing at the national and local level.

Um, and there was no district proposed in this area, um, although the report does propose several other districts throughout the city, um, several of which are recognized today.

Um then so ultimately, uh as it appears, this uh building was added to the the Laurel Park district again as a subjective inclusion, primarily to bulk up the appearance, uh the number of uh resources within the district and not based on any particular professional recommendations by prior surveys.

Um we do know that the building was originally constructed elsewhere, possibly off of shade, and then it was moved to this location in the 30s.

There are a handful of other buildings that are in the Laurel Park district that have been similar stories and have been moved to the area, so it's not unusual.

Um but it is clear that the front porch and the back addition are additions that came after after it was moved.

They were not original to the structure, so the structure has been modified since its arrival.

Um ultimately the interior as well has been converted and updated and changed from its original um form and function, um, as well as the screen, uh the porch being screened, changing the uh original aesthetic.

Uh again, we are on the southern edge of the district.

Um this is not a building with high integrity, um, especially in comparison to some of the other buildings that are uh further into the district and and show much more um you know stylistically appealing um character.

Um of the things that we often have to consider when we're looking at historic resources and deciding if they should be included in a district is whether or not they uh the the historic integrity and setting are maintained, whether the feeling of the historic district is encompassed in this particular area.

And unfortunately, the new construction around this building has has compromised that.

Um there's new construction to the north-south and west, all of Devonshire Lane, which is technically outside the district, but is immediately adjacent to this property, is all new construction.

Um again, it is not considered individually eligible for the National Register or for local designation.

Overall, it lacks unique design texture materials or detail.

It's a rather boring bungalow.

Um there have been interior and exterior modifications and there are no significant historic associations with individuals or events in particular.

And ultimately, um I know it's not the best drawing at the moment, but you can see the subject property is um outlined there, and all of the proper uh numerous properties across the street and adjacent to it that were listed as contributing resources have already been demolished, um, which again is why we've lost that historic aesthetic that um the the cohesion of this portion of the district um has been severely compromised, sort of isolating this particular structure in a way.

And Miranda, would you just note that the homes that are on the south side of Devonshire just outside the district?

Those are all new construction, which they I guess follow the Laurel Park overlay, but are all new construction that are quite large and and different.

Right.

Within the homes of Laurel Park uh subdivision that was platted in 2015.

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um and then as noted at the beginning of the hearing that the it's clear as mud uh that the criteria in the code, uh, we actually analyze it a few different ways, one of which is is the based under the criteria if it were to actually have been a historically designated property, and one of those things, considerations that you give is future utilization of a site.

I touched upon it very briefly what um Mr.

DeGarmo has in mind uh for his uh lot, but I've asked him just to touch very briefly on uh what his vision is for the new home on the property.

One of the things I I really enjoyed about the his the design overlay is it encourages an auxiliary dwelling, which was pretty cutting edge for when this was written.

So and it encourages it, doesn't require it.

But I did do that on my current property, and that is my plans on on the other.

The other thing is um I broke it down into a series of pavilions, so rather than pushing all the bulk toward the front and making it look like it was out of scale.

Um the front, you you would just really what you see, it looks like it's in the scale of the historic.

And we're referring to 1702 Oak Street, his current home.

Uh the new home that he has planned is not going to be identical, but it is going to be of the same of comparable design.

And this is the front of his home, the front facade from Oak Street.

Yeah, and I made a huge attempt to bring the scale down to use a tin roof to take the gable and make it parallel to the street.

So again, to make it as in scale as possible.

And then when you see it from the side, this is where you can see where I've added the the pavilions and push most of the a lot of the program to the center of the site in one story additions, and then so that the garage clearly reads as a separate structure.

And you know, that was is one of the attractions of the new lot is that I can do something similar to this.

And on the subject property, as we noted that um one of the the benefits the way he'll have it, that's not realized in his current home, is that the new home that he is uh plan will be fronting on Oak Street, uh like the like his current home, uh, but it would have uh garage access uh from appropriately from Devonshire, which is a 20 uh foot wide alley, uh likely intended when it was platted way back when uh was intended for that was the the style that uh is within and encouraged within rural park for new construction was that was what they they built in the day, of course.

That was the the type of home.

Um so uh it would be oriented to appropriately uh be designed uh given the the configuration uh of the site.

Um that's I would note a couple of other considerations that uh even though this the structure is not historically designated and not eligible for uh designation, and we would submit, I would submit that it it it falls short of being identified or eligible for as a contributing um structure within the district.

Um nevertheless, Mr.

DeGarmo has taken this very, very seriously, and he even inquired as to his ability to move the structure.

The structure is not itself historic, it's a can it was identified or listed as a contributing structure, and thus it from a uh uh historical preservation standpoint.

If you had a receiving site that would and you were capable of moving it across town, it would have that would have no value because it is not in and of itself historic.

Rather, it contributes to this district.

So if you were to move it, you would logically need to move it, find a receiving site in the district.

You may know it from the aerial that there's a vacant lot here.

Uh Mr.

DeGarmo, to his great credit, uh interfaced with the owner of this lot uh with regard to his ability to move the home here, um, was unsuccessful, unfortunately.

Um, and then about a week and a half ago, I was contacted by a third party, uh, someone that I I know who knew that I was working on this, who expressed an interest to himself purchase this lot and move the the bungalow here.

And of course, Mr.

DeGarmo said absolutely we would we would coordinate that with you gladly and give you additional time to do that.

Unfortunately, on Friday afternoon, I received a call from that individual indicating that unfortunately they were unable to consummate a deal to move the home there.

But that is kind of the uh reflective of the lengths that Mr.

DeGarmo has gone to uh to uh to um work within uh the intent of uh or the vision of of uh the city's code.

Um so I would just note that this comes to you with a you know I I again wasn't at the hearing, but like y'all, I did go back and watch the video of the historic preservation board.

I can't really explain the outcome necessarily.

It wasn't really uh clear uh to me what legal basis, but it did seem as though they were kind of splitting the baby, so to speak, referring to King Solomon, um, and didn't really seem to be based on the criteria of the conference substantial evidence, which I appreciate.

But it it comes to you uh this request to demolish the front structure, comes to you with a recommendation uh of approval uh by your professional staff.

Um moreover, um unsolicited a gentleman that I do not know, unsolicited in your materials is a letter from a Mr.

Daniel Rosenthal, who lives right here immediately across the street.

And um quite impressive.

Again, I I've not met him, wouldn't know him if I got an elevator with him, but he wrote uh uh an email, Mark 17 email that's in your in your materials reflecting his background, his past history and service on the historic preservation committee of his community that he lived in before he came here, um, expressing support of this application and urging that um the uh request to demolish uh the the bungalow uh be granted.

Um so with that we respectfully request uh your approval of the demolition of the bungalow uh to allow Mr.

DeGarmo to construct a new um new home with a detached structure with an accessory dwelling unit that would uh respect and I would submit enhance uh the Royal Park uh historic district.

With that, we'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um I will now call upon Historic Preservation Senior Planner Susan Dodd to make a presentation.

Good afternoon, City Commissioner Susan Dodd, Historic Preservation Senior Planner for the City of Sarasota.

Thank you for giving me 20 minutes.

I think I only need about eight to provide my original materials, but now I wanted to correct a few things to the record if I may, based on Mr.

Bailey's remarks, just to be very particular.

Um Mr.

Bailey had indicated that I had alluded to a dubious inclusion into as a contributing structure to the district.

Uh point of fact, I said irregular.

Now that I might I might be uh splitting hairs.

I'll report the hearing, the testimony I wrap up.

Yeah, but I understand that, yeah.

Um so uh it is irregular that we had we saw the the last minute um uh inclusion, especially based on the previous uh historical surveys.

So I just want to clarify that.

Um Mr.

Um Bailey also indicated that the addition I'm I'm sorry, it was Ms.

Clay Cliss.

Uh the addition added uh was added to the contributing count without professional input, but I didn't say that, and I'm not sure I can say that.

I don't know what the historic background is of the party who added it to the list, and I don't know to what degree it was reviewed by Dr.

Clifford Smith.

So again, I'm being precise.

Um Mr.

Bailey, I think uh just unintentionally misspoke, you said three previous surveys said it wouldn't be contributing, but it was two that said that it wouldn't be contributing.

The 2019 said it could contribute.

Of course, it was already registered as contributing, so it's neither here nor there, but again, just correcting that point.

And um finally, uh Ms.

Clay's um mentioned uh about the uh the loss of historic structures that have that is already taken place in the district.

And for those who listen to the historic preservation board meeting, one of the um things that they indicated is that they don't believe necessarily that uh an ongoing loss to a district is in support of continued demolition.

And I just wanted to put that out there.

Um I'm going to start by providing an explanation as to why the properties at 1668 Oak Street require the review of the Historic Preservation Board for demolition, and then address my original staff memo for these structures.

The Florida master site file is the statewide inventory of buildings and other resources that are generally older than 50 years and which have been surveyed.

Meaning in the case of buildings, someone has reviewed the structure, typically from the right-of-way, and then completed a historical structure form that identifies the construction date, building materials, architectural feature and style, and other relevant attributes.

Most surveys also offer preliminary indications of a building's potential historic value.

Each property is evaluated for their uh potential to be either individually designated at a national level, individually designated at a local level, or a contributing structure to what could become a designated historic district.

A properties evaluation might suggest the building is negative for all three, that it wouldn't contribute to a district and it doesn't have individual historic import, or it could be positive for one, two, or three of those potentials.

Depending on how often a municipality or organization does surveys, the amount of buildings included in each survey and the age of a particular building, it means a building might have been surveyed only once or multiple times.

For example, the city's last comprehensive survey took place in 2019 and included almost all buildings in the city built before 1970, i.e., buildings that would be 50 years old.

So a building built in 1965 in the city most likely has a single historical structure form from the 2019 survey.

Older buildings may have been surveyed multiple times over the years, each time the surveyor updating the previous historical structure form.

The city has acquired architectural surveys starting as early as 1977.

As a result, some properties have more than one historic structure form.

Each consecutive survey assigned the same ID number as the previous property survey and updated to reflect any obvious alterations, additions, and so on.

These historic struct historical structure forms are transmitted to the state, who maintains a comprehensive inventory of these records known as the Florida Master Site file.

It is important to understand that being included in the Florida Master Site file does not mean the surveyed building is historic.

It means it's historical.

It's over 50 years old.

It isn't until a thorough view process is completed and a formal designation assigned for the building that is defined as historic.

The city zoning code, section 4823, is where we take our guidance for the potential demolition of Florida Master Site file listed structures under the section heading of Florida Master Site File Structures is Section B, with a subheading of structures contributing to a historic district.

A structure that is contributing to a historic district is understood to require a historic preservation board review prior to potential demolition.

This review may be waived if the building has been altered such that it is no longer considered contributing, or if a structural engineer attests to the building being beyond reasonable restoration measures.

Both conditions would allow the demolition to then be approved administratively.

The 1668 Oak Street structures were officially recorded with the National Park Service as being contributing structures to the Laurel Park National Historic District in 2008, which is the date the district was officially added to the National Register of the Historic of Historic Places.

The district's registration nomination, a total of 177, excuse me, a total of 170 pages was included in your backup materials by the appellant.

Therefore, as 1668 Oak Street was not beyond reasonable reserve restoration, has not been significantly altered since 2008 and is contributing to a historic district.

Administrative approval is not possible, and the demolition request was brought to the Historic Preservation Board for their consideration on December 9, 2025.

The code provides the staff will evaluate potential mitigation measures as part of its historic review, which in this and almost all cases included a recommendation for the owner to determine if the structure can be relocated, to prepare a current evaluation of the historical significance of the home, and to evaluate the property for potential salvage and reuse of materials.

As you saw in your backup materials, the applicant addressed these issues in their November 2025 application package.

At the December 9th Historic Preservation Board meeting, the board voted three to one to allow only one of the two structures at 1668 Oak Street to be demolished.

The rear property, a two-story converted garage facing Devonshire Lane, leaving the front house, a one-story bungalow facing Oak Street in place.

The code allows that contributing structures may be demolished if the board finds the quote measures required to avoid, minimize or mitigate the adverse effects to the historic resource have been met.

However, the code does not elaborate on the specific measures associated with each of those actions or the degree to which those actions must be demonstrated.

So the board retains the ability to find against demolition if they do not believe those actions have been satisfactorily met, which may be proportional to the value they place on the resource and its contribution to the district.

In an effort to provide additional clarity to the Commission on a topic on which they do not normally deliberate, I provided you with a copy of previous City Attorney Robert Fournier's 2024 memo, which provides additional guidance as to how the Commission might evaluate the applicant's responsiveness to the code.

The staff memo of November 26, 2025 is succinct.

This affirms the applicant's comprehensive documentation, much of the content of which would have otherwise been reported by staff.

The memo therefore incorporated any additional relevant information on the applicant's request, which was not already present in the materials provided.

This included a factual recounting of the national designation process as related to the inclusion of 1668 Oak Street as a contributing structure to the Laurel Park National Historic District and the likelihood that a property owner may not be aware of the board's authority to rest the historic preservation board's authority to restrict what an owner can do with their property.

I also included confirmation that the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association's preservation committee had correctly and factually informed their residents that a district designation would not affect their ownership options, which was completely accurate at that time.

As you read, it was a change they did not make, which led to this no longer being the case.

In closing, I will reiterate my recommendation from the staff meeting that excuse me from the staff memo that within a nationally designated district, it is appropriate to allow owners to make decisions about their own property when those properties are not designated as historic nor found to be eligible for individual designation.

That's all I have.

Okay.

Um do we have any affected parties?

We have Dave received in email.

I didn't see it.

She's going to pass it.

We'll pass it around.

But it was emailed to you all as well.

Um I do have that.

We printed it out so you all can see it.

So I will call we did receive a letter, an email from the President of Laurel Park Neighborhood Association board to give permission for Ron Cashton to speak on their behalf.

So that I believe means we have agreed that Ron Cashton is an affected party as affected party status.

That was your determination, yes, so long as that was received by the time he was to come testify.

May I just ask who the letter is from?

Matthew Arcari Laurel Park Neighborhood Association president.

Okay.

Thank you.

And it's dated 213 p.m.

Today.

Okay.

Okay.

So this doesn't create the better late than never precedent.

So I will invite Mr.

Cashton to come up and speak as an affected party, and he will have five minutes.

No.

No.

Okay.

Oh, thank you, Commissioners.

Ron Cashton, uh City Resident, uh Board Member of Laurel Park, representing the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association.

And uh before I do my prepared comments, I just want to thank the Commission for keeping up with the due process and the rights for the neighborhood association.

I really do appreciate it.

So Laurel Park submitted what we believe were serious procedural concerns regarding this application.

And one of those concerns was the omission of the historic preservation board transcript for your record.

I mean your life is hard enough.

I appreciate the people that spent the time to review the video.

Because had that transcript been included, you would have heard the reasons why your own advisory board reached a swift and unequivocal decision to deny the demolition.

But here we are.

Because it's undisputed that the building is a contributing structure within a designated historic district, the neighborhood asks that you base your decisions squarely on the standards of review laid out by the former city attorney, Bob Fournier.

And you have those standards conveniently on page 197.

But I'm putting it up here on the Elmo just so that you can see.

This will affect Burns Court.

This will affect Newtown.

Because if a contributing structure in an established historic district, which is undisputed, can be demolished, contrary to your own standards, listed right up here.

Then will it signal developers that they can enter in even Newtown or any historic neighborhood, pursue demolition, create gentrification simply because they want to.

And a lot of testimony has been presented before you.

Because by grounding your actions in these standards that you've adopted, you will reinforce that there is a common citywide criteria for demolition of historic in historic districts.

And honor the protections that this commission has spent so much time in crafting.

And we once again just are asking, apply these standards.

Because if you do, it becomes quite clear the way the advisory board came to the same conclusion that you deny this demolition.

Thank you.

Okay.

We have two other individuals signed up to speak.

Aaron DeFasio and Martin Hyde have three minutes each.

Ms.

DeFasio.

Thank you for the record.

I'm Aaron DeFazio, the managing director of the Sarasota Alliance for Historic Preservation.

Thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts today.

As previous speakers have mentioned, it is incumbent on the Commission to utilize the same criteria that the Preservation Board used to turn to determine the best way to avoid minimize or mitigate the loss of the structure for the surrounding community.

When purchasing a historic home that contributes to a national historic district, it is reasonable to anticipate that you may face some resistance.

Should your goal be to scrape the lot in search of profit?

To deny demolition is not a taking.

There is long-standing legal precedent that demonstrates personal property rights as individual and distinct.

The bundle of sticks image is often used.

A taking removes all the sticks.

Should you deny demolition, the owners of the property will still have the other rights afforded to them to use the property, lease it, sell it, bequeath it, etc.

They also have the opportunity to expand the structure.

Should the size be the issue through a sensitive addition.

And I hope that you will examine what it means to be a historic city.

Just because local designation is voluntary, that does not mean that personal property rights allow an owner to do whatever they want.

There are numerous restrictions in the building and zoning go zoning code to guide the outcome of the shape that our built environment takes.

The city does not, for example, notify each and every property owner when the required fasteners for a roof are upgraded in response to the changing conditions for our Gulf Side City.

These restrictions are not optional, nor are they dependent on the profit a builder or owner planned for his project.

You are not obligated to his profit margins when considering what is best for your community.

The same applies here.

You are likewise no more obligated to consider the profit margin of the Oak Street owners in your decision about the future of Laurel Park.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Hyde.

Indeed.

I sat and watched this.

I didn't have a particular interest in it except listening to the evidence, just like you are.

This sounds largely about a seller inadvertently not disclosing this issue, which uh is not something that you're here to remedy with a retroactive revision.

I didn't hear any substantial or competent evidence that was provided.

Um words matter.

Irregular is not the same as uh dubious.

It is dubious for someone to add a term that wasn't used by staff.

Um there's a certain irony, of course, that you spent 40 minutes discussing whether to give someone an extra two minutes to speak, but uh whatever.

Um it all feels rather heavy-handed, doesn't it?

Um, you got the famous attorney or notorious attorney, yeah, you got uh people uh that uh supposedly allegedly uh historic uh preservation fans uh notwithstanding what they're asking you to do is unring a bell, uh change something that was already stipulated, you know, simply because I don't like something.

That's not competent and substantial evidence.

Uh I I I don't know what actually is their concern other than they don't like it.

Um I I I didn't have an opinion on this uh until now, but but uh but I do.

And my opinion is that uh the appellant is using every means possible uh to get the outcome his client wants.

Um but you know what?

That's absolutely right.

That's his job, but it's not your job to facilitate it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um so I will call for rebuttal by um Mr.

Cashton if he so wishes.

Madam Mayor, your rebuttal by the applicant, I think would come before it.

Oh, uh I saw affected persons first.

So I want the applicant was rebuttal first.

Then to your affected party, and then to your city staff.

Okay.

So Mr.

Bailey.

That's all I want.

Goes in.

I don't think that's the R goes in.

No, no, that's not what's written down here.

Uh thank you.

Mr.

Mayor.

Madam Mayor, I'm uh again for the record, Charlie Bailey.

Um, with respect to Mr.

Cashton's uh testimony, uh, would note that the transcript does not need to be included within your the record because that's not an advisory board, it was uh that may is making a recommendation to you.

Rather, this is although it's framed as an appeal, it's a de novo action, and the minutes of that meeting are included in your staff report.

Um would note that um uh also with regard to uh Mr.

Cashton's uh testimony, um noting that um with regard to the uh position taken by Laurel Park, they've got a lot of interesting information on their website in addition to their bylaws, but with respect to this structure, they've got a uh the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association has a very helpful map guide that delineates the boundary of the district, and it identifies all structures that have a historic designation, and it also identifies structures having a that are contributing buildings.

Um if it were shown, uh if it were worthy of identifying for people touring the district, uh Mr.

DeGarmo's house would be right about here.

So it's not even identified as being a uh designated or contributing structure on the the uh information provided by the Laurel Park, a neighborhood district, uh which seems to be somewhat uh inconsistent with the position uh that's taken here today.

Um at the outset, we discussed the different criteria that apply to um different structures under your the historic preservation portion of your zoning code.

You know, the the uh you've the if you're demolishing a historic structure under uh section four-eighteen subsection B, there are seven criteria here uh that that you must meet in order to demolish a historic structure.

Submit that the information included in the original demo demolition application, together with the uh historical uh assessment that ACI prepared hits those criteria and then some.

But then note at the outset because this is not a historic structure, um it's before you because of section eight, I'm sorry, four-eight twenty-three subsection B.

Uh and it it indicates when you've got staff, is what Ms.

Um Dodd noted was that uh if a structure is eligible to be identified as or to be deemed or determined to be a contributing structure, they can't issue the permit administratively.

We submit that it falls short of that standard, but Ms.

Dodd's hands are tied because it's already been listed as contributing by the preparer of that uh application in 2008.

So that's what necess necessitates it coming to y'all.

But then so, okay, if or could the historic preservation board being appealed to y'all.

So if that if that is the case, what are the standards if it doesn't refer back to Section 4-818 B.

It's got just these standards here that Mr.

Fournier um sought to elaborate on in his memo, in which he noted that the language in the code could be clear, says that you if you've got a um you've got to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effect on the historic structure.

It presumes it's a historic structure, but it's not, and it's not even eligible.

Um but then what does that avoid, minimize, and mitigate mean?

And we submit that the information that we have provided does that.

When you've got a structure, we've I've indicated that Mr.

DeGarmo has made efforts to move it, even though it's not historically designated or even eligible for designation.

But then other ways to mitigate, we first mitigate is compensating for a historical for a loss.

Well, you must determine what is the value of that loss to determine the appropriate amount of mitigation.

And I submit that he has gone above and beyond that by seeking to move the structure.

But however, the uh another way that you mitigate is by doing a survey by documenting that structure, which ACI has done extensively in the report that you've been provided.

And they can also make uh to the extent that there are elements of the structure that are worthy of of uh use elsewhere can be salvaged.

Uh there are uh some of those items uh identified in the staff or in the uh the assessment.

Are there breeze blocks beneath the foundation or along the foundation, and there may be other elements that would be worthy uh of uh salvaging.

Uh and of course, Mr.

DeGarmo would certainly support that and cooperate with with anybody who who sought to, and we'd look to the alliance if they wanted to connect us with somebody to do that.

Um based on the the standards being clear as mud, it's it's fundamental in Florida law that that zoning regulations are in derogation of private property rights.

And to the extent that there's a conflict or ambiguity or it's unclear, they are to be interpreted in favor of the landowner.

That's just fundamental black letter law.

And so we submit that whether whatever standard of criteria, whatever criteria are applied, uh we've we've met them and and but would would submit that the competent substantial evidence supports the approval of this um uh request to demolish the structure.

That I would want to make sure that we submit into the the evidence to make sure it's in there the letter of support from our neighbor who has uh background in historic preservation urging this application be approved together with the uh Laurel Park neighborhood or neighborhood association uh map which um uh omits this as being a contributing structure.

Okay, thank you very much.

Um I can call upon Mr.

Cashton for a rebuttal.

Uh thank you.

Ron Cashton wasn't in law resident of the city.

Um a couple of things.

Um it's clear that Mr.

Bailey is using the um practice of let's throw everything on the wall and see what sticks.

Because um a couple of things where uh and I'll beat on Ms.

Dodd's um correction of uh wordplay.

Um I heard Mr.

Bailey say it's not a historic structure.

But that's undisputed, that indeed it's a historic contributing structure in a historic district.

It's listed on the national registry, it's fact.

It's a contributing structure in a historic district.

There is no dispute on that.

And the law was a little confusing, which is why once again Mr.

Fournier issued his memo.

This goes back to, I believe, the Colson, when they were reviewing that.

Because there was a question of when it comes in front of the commission, what do you do with this?

You know, Bob was trying to give you standards that you can make a legally defendable decision.

And so that's why he wrote this.

In regards to the walking map, that was a walking map made by the neighborhood regarding the individual nationally recognized and locally recognized structures.

That's what it was intended for.

It wasn't intended for any other use.

I don't know why Mr.

Bailey would put such a piece of paper up there when as an attorney he knows that at the end of the day, for you to get a decision that's legally binding, that your city attorney can defend, it's gotta go against the standards.

So questioning that it's not a contributing structure in the historic district, I found odd, bordering on possibly a violation of the oath, you know, one wonders.

Um but uh it's attorneys defending his clients' rights, advocating for his client, I get that.

Um but I just wanted to rebut to say that's not being disputed.

And these are the standards that everybody knows, and everybody's been trying to follow since Bob wrote them down.

So thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Cashton.

Um now it's time for uh Stark Preservation Senior Planner Dodd.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just wanted to clarify that staff is in no way suggesting the building isn't registered as a contributing structure to the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association.

That's without question that it is.

I did want to bring to your attention the nuances of national versus local designations that I think you're probably getting more familiar with than you would have liked.

But national designations have often been referred to as honorary.

There's no federal law that restricts demolition of a nationally designated properties or districts.

That is one of the umbrella tenets of national designations is it is a celebration and an honor, um, but it is in certainly in no way taking.

Um it's something unique that we do here that we've uh captured national designations under our local FMSF code.

Um and that's further confirmed by the documentation I gave you that showed that the Laurel Park Preservation Committee very clearly uh indicated that correctly to their citizens when they were preparing the district, that this is uh not going to restrict them in any way from future demolition.

Um I have to apologize to both Martin Hyde and Mr.

Bailey.

Um I wrote irregular in my writing, but Mr.

Bailey is correct.

I used dubious uh when I was uh in speaking at the meeting.

And um, that is why I should not be allowed to go off script and why I wrote um and read my remarks to you.

So my apologies.

Thank you.

So uh time for commissioner questions, and Mr.

Batti who is first on the line.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Yeah, um, I don't know who I would be speaking to, whether it be staff or whether it be the applicant.

Um I guess the staff or whatever.

Uh just uh thank you very much, Ms.

Dodd.

Um I'm just trying to gain some things that I jotted down and listening to the information or whatever.

Uh first off, let me say this, you know, because Newtown keeps coming up, you know, seems today like the hot topic.

And that is there's a huge difference between what happened in Newtown and what we're talking about here when we're talking about uh historically designated local or national, whatever.

Part of the reason why, you know, I know just speaking for myself, I championed putting Newtown in a historic national historic designation, not just because of the history, the history is there, we know what that is.

It was to scave off gentrification because people were selling their homes and an alarm alarming rate.

And when you're talking about uh gentri gentrifying an area such as Newtown, people get displaced.

I don't know if that's gonna be happening in Law Park.

Okay.

So there's a distinct difference.

But that being said, um, when it comes to this structure, I want to ask you.

Um, so is this structure uh eligible for designation?

Not for individual designation, no.

Um is it it's so it's designated.

So you said something regarding um irregular, dubious or what have we included into the contributing structures or what have you.

What what would you mean by that?

So um essentially when you're trying to compile uh a district uh to be designated, you do a survey, and the city paid for a survey to be done, and they collected all of the information, and it is done based on a current assessment.

Now I don't know the mechanics of the exact details, but it's my understanding that members of the Laurel Park Preservation Committee helped to resurvey the properties.

And so even though 1668 Oak had been identified previously as that it would be a non-contributing structure to the to a potential historic district, when it came time to compile all of the documentation, it was included.

Now I don't say that to strike to make a strike against Laurel Park.

Um as someone already spoke to, there's uh value to making your registration uh nomination more dense.

And there's certainly nothing wrong with 1668 oak.

I only provided that information so that you could see the process of how it got included and decide if that is important information to you with regard to its potential future.

Okay, uh, thank you.

And just you know, so that I have some understanding as to what's considered historic, how that works, whether uh a district is historic or whether it's not based on the the structures within it.

Meaning that other old buildings have been demolished and new buildings put there.

How does that work?

Well, um I did some calculations.

It looks like 34 of the original contributing structures have been demolished out of um I think it's 250, 50 252 original contributing structures.

Um 67 of the original contributing structures were garages, so that might not have the same visibility that we expected.

Um the I think the appellant was speaking to the fact that they're outside of the district is new construction.

There's new construction with inside the district.

Um so the um it's certainly allowable.

Um it's not ideal, especially with a very tight district.

Um as Mr.

Casden forgive me, I think I mispronounced his name, but um referred to Burns Court.

You know, it's a very intensive um historic uh experience.

It's a little more diluted in Laurel Park.

Um that happens over time and it was at the beginning as well.

So um did that answer your question at all?

Yeah, thank you.

Um so you mentioned something regarding the Florida historic, what is it, Florida?

Uh the Florida master site file.

Okay, master site file file.

Um this structure or something uh like it, you said it's not necessarily deemed historic, but historical.

Yes, that's the case with uh let's say all of our buildings that are over 50 years, they're historical.

Then they go through the process of someone, the commission saying, or the national government saying that uh yes, it has historic status.

Now, Mr.

Cashton, again forgive me, uh is also right in saying that if it is um included in a National Historic District, it is then considered historic.

But it is that's the nomenclature.

Um all of that being said, you know, how does this work with uh with what Mr.

Fournier outlined, was it Section B or what have you, whether or not this this structure is historic or not, or whether it can be demoed or any of the Yes, so it's it's exactly consistent with Mr.