Good morning.

I would like to call this uh July twentieth, twenty twenty six regular city commission meeting to order.

And I just remembered to silence my phone, so I'm gonna request that everyone else do the same.

Um first next we will have the invocks, followed by the uh pledge led by the vice mayor.

Oh, those who can stand, please stand.

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 our name we pray, amen.

Thank you very much.

Uh Ms.

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

Um yes, Mayor, thank you.

Um please remove agenda item quasi judicial eleven point one, public hearing rate, appeal application number twenty six-a pp dash zero four, an appeal to reverse the decision of the historic preservation board regarding twenty-six dash FMSF dash three nine.

Okay, so just to confirm that uh item eleven point one is being removed from today's agenda.

Correct.

And that's the only change.

That is the only change that I have.

Okay.

May May I have a motion to approve.

So moved.

Second.

Uh moved by Vice Mayor, seconded by Commissioner Ahern Koch.

Your votes, please.

And uh it's unanimous of four to zero vote.

Thank you.

So we can move right along.

Um we are at the point where we're about to accept citizens' input concerning city topics, and I'm going to ask Ms.

Griggs to read 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.

I'm sorry.

That is the old way.

Um, and we've got quite a few uh comment cards, so I will start with the first five and invite you up.

Tammy Hauser, Catherine Hermes, and Darcy Jacob.

Mr.

Hyde, would you begin?

And as you know, yeah, we'll do it the right way.

My name is uh Martin Hyde.

No, Mr.

Bachey this morning.

Um I don't live in the uh the city.

Uh it's not particularly why I came, but uh the hairs on the back of my neck went up when I read this uh particular item mooted.

It's been mooted that to streamline meetings, public comments on all items except public hearings should be held at the start of meetings.

This would require commissioners with loaded agendas to recall hours later any comments that they heard, and it would also negate any response to presentations by staff, quite apart from and with due respect, because I don't, none of you having photographic memories.

This is a thinly veiled attempt by your new city manager to streamline citizens out of meaningful and timely comment.

Why not just stop us coming all together?

Oh, replace us with AI.

As well as silencing uh phones at the start of the meeting.

Is the plan here to effectively silence citizens?

For those who haven't lived here for very long, Florida has a rich history of open government.

This city has always at least given the impression of hearing citizens.

Please accept my gift.

One for the new city manager, one for each of the commissioners as a reminder of a constitutional pocket book that again reminds us that our founding fathers already settled the issue of free speech, and is not something a city manager of Sarasota, two months into her job, should be insulted.

Thank you, Mr.

Hyde.

Uh Chip Beaman.

Well, good morning, Commissioners.

My name is Chip Eaman.

I am the owner of uh the main bar sandwich shop on Main Street, and I've owned it for 22 years.

I also own pastry art on Main Street for eight years.

I've uh seen many chapters of our city's history.

And welcome back, huh?

And uh, you know, I want to talk to you about the current parking policies are strangling us.

Uh we are the merchants uh, excuse me.

I don't mean interrupt more than a mic.

We can barely hear you.

There you go.

I'll add some more time.

Very well.

Thank you.

Um we are the golden goose of downtown, yet we're uh being treated without consideration.

When the city implemented the parking program downtown, uh the first uh the first two months, my business lost $10,000 in sales month over month, year over year for two months straight.

Because of the program, I've been forced to downsize my staff from 18 employees to 15 employees.

This isn't just a minor policy dispute, but it's directly impacting the livelihoods of my staff, former staff in city uh Sarasota families.

Let's look at the simple math of how this destroys low-cost high-volume merchants.

Today, anyone choosing to do business in downtown Sarasota faces a minimum parking charge of $2.50 plus if they use the app another 35 cents.

Uh forcing the customers to pay for an hour minimum, regardless of how long they stay.

If a customer comes to my restaurant and they buy a $12.50 sandwich, and they get the mandatory $2.85 uh minimum parking charge, um, that acts as an immediate 23% tax in addition to the 7% that they already got to pay the governor.

It's no wonder we have seen our sandwich sales drop by 75 sandwiches a day.

By enforcing this rigid punitive program, you're actively driving our downtown customers straight to the arms of places like UTC, making it very difficult for dress shops, jewelry stores, and even high-end steakhouses that can't make it.

Shoppers and diners are leaving the city core for the ease of parking and zero worry about getting a ticket.

Remember, when they leave, their spending leaves, and the city's tax revenue goes with them, and all of us lose.

As if parking isn't enough, we also discussed the removal of over a hundred parking spaces and to replace them with parallel parking and wider sidewalks.

Main Street does not need wider sidewalks and needs accessible parking.

A wider sidewalk does not sell me one more sandwich.

Angle parking is more superior, it's more space efficient, allowing us to pick a maximum of vehicle density in front of our storefronts, and furthermore, it offers unmatched ease of use.

The reality is most people can't parallel park efficiently.

Forcing parallel parking on a main street news drivers will constantly block active traffic lanes while trying to back in, backing up cars and grinding flow to a halt and frustrating the locals so much that they use other downtown entirely.

Meanwhile, the city claims parking fees are put to good use by funding that downtown trolley.

It's cute.

But in an additional operating cost of 100.

Thank you very much.

Tammy Hauser.

Good morning.

I'm Tammy Hauser.

I'm the uh owner of Discover Sarasota Tours.

I'm here representing the other four businesses at the 1899 Fruitville uh location, which is Siegfried's German restaurant, the breakfast house, cookie cottage, and the artful giraffe.

I wanted to just come this morning and give you a brief update.

We're moving forward with our plans to create the new Sarasota Bungalow Village about a mile east at Fruitville and Tuttle Road.

So a couple of fun things.

Um people are coming out of the woodwork and wanting to donate cottages to us that are part of another development, uh, which is exciting.

We have one that um we're speaking with right now that is located at uh would be raised with the new auto park in the Rosemary district.

Um the developer has said that we can have the cottage and he'll even contribute the cost of the demolishment towards our moving of that cottage.

And it's a really nice cottage from the 1920s.

So that's exciting.

In order to do oh uh secondly, we have finally spoken to the developer.

He was gracious enough to contact uh with us.

He has agreed to sell us our current cottages uh once the development starts and we are trying to negotiate that he might also consider doing what the other generous uh developers have done and help us uh with the costs that are gonna cost him to demolish it, certainly with the asbestos abatement and all the other uh things that are involved with that, if he would consider giving us that money that we can use towards moving those cottages.

So that's the next thing.

In order to do that, we have needed to start a fundraising campaign, and I'm excited to say that our website has just launched, designed by Tess at Creative Um The Art for Giraffe.

It's the Sarasota Bungalow Village dot com.

We're working on a giving um QR code that people can donate to.

We are not a nonprofit, so these would not be tax-deductible donations.

But they would go to support the costs uh of this moving project, uh, which are quite extensive.

Third, uh, we could really use a great real estate attorney who might provide some pro bono support for us because we have a lot of real estate issues related to the moving of the cottages and the creation of this new village.

So if anybody uh has uh any interest in doing that, I can be reached at Tammy at Discover Sarasota Tours dot com.

Final note, I just want to have a uh very publicly say thank you to Commissioner Um Koch and Ulrich who have stopped by weekly, kept us in the loop, helped us with resources.

We're very grateful for that.

Thank you, everybody.

Thank you very much.

Uh Catherine Hermes.

Hermes.

Okay.

Hi, my name is Catherine Hermes.

I am both a shop owner here in town and I'm also a resident.

I live at 235 Coconut Avenue.

So I live in town 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Um as a shop owner, just a little background on me.

I came to Sarasota about five years ago.

My husband had passed away.

I came to Florida because it was a more sane state than the crazy place where I was living.

And I opened my business, a wellness and alternative care wellness.

I work under five different physicians.

I take care of people from everything from weight loss to um arthritis.

Uh we manage all kinds of people, and I will say with the new city plan.

Um there is a there is a big concern for my business because they want to put a parklet right out front.

Well, I have people who are on walkers coming into my business on a daily basis.

Um I've asked for someone to please reevaluate.

I need that access right in front of my store to take care of sick people.

So that's the first thing.

The other thing I've been looking at is the costs associated with parking in Sarasota, because I used to have up until a month ago, about 10 to 15 people every morning came to me between 9 and 10 a.m.

to get a shot of treatment, and they left before it cost anything to park.

And I will tell you the meter wis lady was right there.

So I was forever coaching people on their free ten minutes because she would wait until 10 o'clock and come right after my clients.

So I watched this.

Well, last week on Wednesday morning at 10 o'clock.

That business is gone.

It's completely dried up.

I don't have those clients anymore.

In fact, I walked out there with my cell phone and I took a picture of a completely empty street, and I put a little video out there saying, look what happened.

You drove everybody away.

So I um that that video, by the way, has had 435,000 views.

The city has currently got about 58,000 residents.

So I looked into the cost of managing 3,000 parking spaces.

In 2017, the operating budget was operating at a deficit for parking of 700,000 dollars.

In um 2022, uh the budget became positive, and you actually had an operating excess of 700,000 dollars.

By 2025, the cost of managing those 3,000 parking spaces has gone up 40%.

We had a parking division commissioner or person for those three years who has recently resigned.

And what I would like to do, and I can explain, we've increased staffing by 22 percent, we've increased ticketing by 22 percent, we've increased rates by greater than 25 percent, all for the same 3,000 parking spaces.

So I would like us to uh um possibly put a commission together, a completely independent commissioner.

What happened between 2017 and 2025 that changed the cost of parking and drove it up 40 percent on the same 3,000 parking spaces?

And thank you for your comments.

And finally, in this group, Darcy Jacob.

Hi, I'm Darcy Jacob.

Can you hear me okay?

Okay.

I'm Darcy Jacob.

I own a woman's clothing store on Main Street in downtown.

I'm also on the board of the downtown merchant group with Ron Soto and Harmony Cruising.

We're the group that hosts the New Year's Eve Pineapple Drop, uh Rocktoberfest, Seafood Festival, and numerous craft fairs in downtown.

Uh it's a volunteer job, we don't get paid for all our hard work.

Our only efforts are to promote this city and to bring people downtown.

Um with a strong downtown, we'll have a strong community.

Uh where all mom and pops that donate to the charities and local nonprofits here in Sarasota.

With the recent changes, changes that the parking division implemented online has exploded with negativity, and locals who keep us alive in the summer are now boycotting downtown.

Our season was mediocre, even, and the summer is worse.

Um I know of one store closing on palm, one on pineapple, and one store owner on Maine took another job to supplement his income.

Uh with these added changes, you will never get out of subsidizing it with the general fund because no one will come down here and you keep going into the hole.

So I know we're having an open house on August 24th at 5 30 at City Hall, and then a workshop on the 31st, but our businesses cannot wait until the end of August.

So I'm here today to beg the this commission to please go back to the old parking program until this is further discussed, and we can hopefully come up with a better solution.

And I do have all the not all, but about a hundred of the online boycotting downtown.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um five more people.

Nicholas D Elsey, uh, Chris Volker, Brian Madison, John Harshman, and Ross McGaugh.

Okay.

Ms.

Okay, Mr.

DLC, you may start while they get organized.

Thank you very much.

My name is Nicholas DLC.

I am a manager of downtown Sarasota Caffiamici.

That's been an establishment for over 27 years in Sarasota.

We are one of the longest restaurants that have been downtown.

We've catered to many numerous residents and locals.

In effect, in the past over two weeks, I've been on the news.

I've contacted the district commissioner of the parking himself, spoke to him and went over conversations to find an agreement where we can settle this and make residents and tourists feel welcome in Sarasota without a problem of parking.

In the past two weeks, businesses have been suffering.

We've lost clients.

I have lost clients after eight o'clock at night until midnight where clients do not want to come downtown and support businesses because there is a parking uh situation after eight o'clock.

We've lost businesses in the night crowd where people and clients have told me directly we will not longer come to Sarasota downtown.

We would rather go to UTC Mall, Lakewood Ranch, where there's free parking, and they get more accommodated than anything else.

The parking situation is so overwhelming that I have my own friends telling me that's supported us for over many years, they will not come downtown.

It's hurting our businesses.

I have lost staff.

We've lost money.

And to compensate the residents of Sarasota, as of today, Cafe Michi will be paying three hours of parking for anybody that dines with us for how much we're suffering to get clients and locals back into town to support our downtown community.

I've spoken to ABC News.

I've been on the news.

I've contacted them myself not to put pressure on the city or to go against the city, but we need help and we need the help fast.

We already removed our outdoor dinings on the streets.

We used to have outdoor dining on the streets to accommodate people that want to sit outside.

City City parking lot took it away from us, or overcharging us $4,000 a month to have an outdoor seating on a parking.

When meanwhile there's other restaurants that are grandfathered in to have outdoor seating on the streets.

We need to find a solution.

We cannot wait until August.

We're going to lose tourists, residents, and locals that will not support downtown.

And remember, empty businesses means empty parking spots.

Empty parking spots means no money in your pockets.

So as of today, we will offer three hours parking.

We will pay for it.

We'll take the hit as much as you're hitting us right now.

But we're going to encourage our customers to come back downtown, and no matter what it takes for us to do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chris Falk.

Good morning, everybody.

Good to see you all.

First of all, I'd like to thank you for recognizing the concerns of the residents and downtown businesses by scheduling both a public workshop and on parking and a town hall meeting for the business community.

These are important steps, and I appreciate your willingness to listen.

As those discussions move forward, I hope they can focus on the question that matters.

This isn't simply a debate about parking management.

It's a discussion about the future health and competitiveness of downtown Sarasota.

The public isn't asking for better parking maps or marqueas or additional technology.

They're asking a much simpler question.

Have these parking changes made downtown more attractive to place to visit or less attractive?

Downtown no longer exists as a vacuum.

We now compete with vibrant shopping districts throughout our region that offer outstanding restaurants, attractive fit retail, convenient free parking.

Consumers have choices they didn't have a couple of years ago.

Parking is no longer just a transportation issue.

It's an economic and human issue.

Many const customers have told you now they now see downtown as more expensive, less convenient, and less welcoming.

Some have already chosen to spend their time and money elsewhere, as you have heard.

They need policies that encourage customers to visit, not create additional barriers.

As you conduct the workshop and the town hall, I respectfully ask that you keep two objectives in mind.

First, evaluate the parking program through the lens of economic vitality.

Measure success, not by how efficiently parking is managed, but what by why whether these policies are increasing visitors, supporting local businesses, and strengthening downtown.

Second, if the evidence shows that the current program is discouraging visitors, while the review is underway, I encourage you to consider providing temporary relief by restoring the parking policies that served downtown successfully just a few years ago by with by providing two hours of free parking, free free Sundays, and previous enforcement hours until a final plan can actually be developed.

The workshop and the town hall represent an opportunity to build public confidence and ensure future parking policies support the broader goal we all share a thriving, welcoming downtown.

Parking should be a tool that supports downtown, not an obstacle that keeps people away.

Thank you for your time and your considerations.

Thank you, Chris.

Brian Madison.

Good morning.

Would you state your name?

Oh, Brian.

I am Brian Madison, as you turns out.

I too have uh joined our group of uh local downtown merchants.

Um I operate the Madison City Grill on the corner of Lemon in Maine.

What I've seen since coming back to Sarasota after uh elongated uh time away and now being responsible for a business in the center of town.

I talk to my regular customers daily basis.

We have got tremendous amount of uh business over the past few weeks when the new uh plan that is temporarily in place or in place now was announced.

Uh the announcement that reppled through the the community was we're gonna increase enforcement thereby making spots available and solve our parking problem.

Um what it's done is it's chase people away from coming down in the first place.

So that was the first piece that I noticed right away.

Uh increased enforcement scared people from even coming down thinking, well, we're gonna go down there, we're gonna get tickets to make up a budget shortfall.

That's not the way to do that.

Um we're gonna put in more hours of enforcement.

Um I highly would doubt that that expense of having that taken care of would solve any budget for shortfall that would exist.

Um at the same time, I am baffled by the fact that there is still a proposal working, which is to eliminate over a hundred parking spots in most of the downtown area by going to parallel parking.

You several years ago, Florida eliminated parallel parking as a part of the original driver's test, given the demographics that we have in this community and the people's ability to drive that uh in parallel park.

That seems kind of a far-fetched thought process.

The parking garages have been in disrepair for several years, which customers tell me on a regular basis, and again the demographics of our area don't warrant people after dusk deciding to park at the third or fourth floor and walk a few blocks to either window shop or go to some of the vibrant restaurants downtown.

So we've all suffered equally.

What I would suggest is at least a moratorium on whatever things have just changed recently until uh workshops can be completed and people can work through what really works the best for all parts concerned.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Harshman.

Um Good morning, Madam Mayor, Commissioners, and uh Ms.

Freeling, nice to see you.

This is the first time that I've seen you at the DIA, so uh welcome to Sarasota.

Um obviously if you ever.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

For the record, my name is John Harshman.

I'm city resident, and I'm here speaking for myself.

Um if you ever want to uh wake people up to the summer, light a fire underneath them, talk about parking, or better yet, change the rules on parking.

So obviously you have done that, you've gotten everybody's attention.

Umfortunately, it's not the positive kind of attention that you want to get.

So um it is good, and I um applaud you all for setting up the workshop and the and the uh uh open house on parking.

But again, as others have mentioned, that's not until uh the 24th of August.

Something needs to happen now.

And the simplest thing to do would be to roll back the ordinance that you had just passed so that we go back to at least the stasis that we were used to.

Um and then by uh um setting the the workshop and the and the open house.

Clearly you're gonna do something about it.

So you're gonna have to make a change in the future.

So make a change to what we had before instead of uh um having people go along and suffer the way they are.

When you see the amount of open parking spaces at eight, nine o'clock in the morning that used to be filled by people that went to the coffee shops and so forth, it's it really is disheartening.

Um I know you all have a very full agenda.

I saw that one item on the agenda had 2,003 pages worth of backup documents, so um uh I feel sorry for you for uh for having to go through all of that.

Um but um I'm sure that you're up to the task, but please do look at rolling back the parking ordinance.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And Mr.

McGaugh.

Morning.

Um Ross McGaugh, thank you for listening.

I'm a resident of downtown Sarasota.

When I moved here, I didn't realize my truck will not fit my garage, which I need for my business.

Not a problem.

Park out on the street.

I live on coconut.

But now because of the new rules, I can't do that.

So my options are buy another vehicle that won't suit my business or move out of the city, which suits nobody here.

I wouldn't be frequencing the restaurants or the entertainment downtown, because now I'm gonna be out in say the mall where it's free to park.

You know, years ago it was free to park here, or you didn't have this new up till midnight that you're ticketing cars.

It's just uh ridiculous.

Maybe it's an idea might be to have for residence a permit.

I'm not the only person that has to park on the street here.

So if you have a monthly permit for residents, that might be a good idea.

Because I can't go out at nine, ten o'clock and move my truck to another parking spot because I'm asleep.

So the two options are buy something that won't suit the business or move out of the city.

So that's it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for your time.

Okay.

Moving along.

We've we've come to the point where we're going to uh review the minutes of the special Sarasota City Commission meeting of May 6, 2026.

Mayor, I move approval of the minutes of the special Sarasota City Commission meeting of May tw May 6th, 2026.

Second.

Move by the Vice Mayor, seconded by Commissioner A.

Hern Kotch to accept the minutes of May 6th.

May we have your votes, please.

And it passes unanimously.

Thank you very much.

Next up is we're going to have the annual update from the public art committee.

Unless I missed something.

No, it's fine.

Public art administrator Coleman and Public Arts Committee Chair Gorman and Pest Public Art Committee Chair Parks are joining us for this presentation.

Somebody lost a lot of that one.

Unless that was a gift, I don't know.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Sierra Colman.

I'm the public art administrator for the City of Sarasota.

My name is Jonathan Parks.

I'm the past chair of the public art committee, Sarasota.

I'm Heather Forman.

I'm the present chair of the Public Art Committee.

And uh in the interest of time, we have a bit of a long PowerPoint, so I'm gonna go through it as quickly as possible and then open it up to Chair Gorman and former Chair Parks for questions.

So a brief overview of the public art plan.

It is guided by, or excuse me, the public art program.

It is guided by the public art plan, which was approved in August of 2023.

Um under the city's zoning code, new construction and major renovations of mixed-use multifamily or commercial projects.

Over one million dollars must contribute to public art with exemptions for affordable housing.

And all public art projects are reviewed and approved by the public art committee to ensure quality, durability, and alignment with community goals.

So we're gonna go through the projects that were completed in 2025.

So this is calendar year 2025, just to orient you.

This project was actually approved in 2019 in the uh 14th Street roundabout.

Then we have the performers in Fun in the Sun.

This was the first of our Call for Walls program, which puts public art murals on private walls.

Uh this was by local artist David Lee.

Um we also hosted the Florida Highwaymen in City Hall that year.

Uh this was the year it ended in February, uh, as part of our City Hall Cultural Heritage Exhibit.

Uh and in February we held a special lecture for Black History Month.

Then we welcomed uh Touch by Zachary Oxman.

This is a uh developer-initiated public art project in the entryway to the Astor and Lynx development at 1991 Main Street.

Our next City Hall Cultural Heritage Exhibit was the it's called Now You See Us, Sarasota's own petticoat painters.

Uh we welcome the petticoat painters, which is one of the longest running exhibiting women's arts group in the country, and they're based right here in Sarasota.

That exhibit was on display from March 25th through uh March 2020, excuse me, March 2025 through March 2026.

We then had the Reverend Lewis and Irene Colson girl by Swerley Painter.

Uh this was also part of our Call for Walls program at the Sarasota School of Arts and Sciences of uh uh neighborhood and city leaders, Reverend and Lewis and Irene Colson.

Um this is also part of the Call for Walls initiative.

We also hosted a some a student intern for the first time, Anna Lazara from New College, um, who transformed our GIS status systems and actually uploaded our entire collection into a back-end collection uh management system that she created, as well as a public-facing uh tour that we've been using to promote the collection and help spread the word.

And we've got some postcards for this tour in the back.

Uh then we are very proud to host the Ringland College Department of Motion Design Projection Mapping Partnership on the Palm Avenue parking garage.

That was a part of Fresh Friday's Arts on Palm in November of 2025.

Uh, we had many event partners to thank uh to make this event possible as they're listed on the slide here.

This was our first major uh public art project for District 3, the Rhapsody and Bloom mural by Alyssa Silvers uh from Sarasota.

This is located at Arlington Park and Aquatic Complex at 2650 Waldemar.

It was painted with the support of more than a hundred community members during our first ever community paint day.

And as you can see, we had everyone from our vice mayor to our neighborhood leaders, all ages.

We had a two-year-old that was going, we had to go and correct behind, and it was wonderful.

The very patient, beautiful artist.

We also installed a smaller mural.

This was the first public art installation for the Bayou Oaks neighborhood by local artist Edward James Walsh at Northwater Tower Park called Harmony in Motion.

And then now we're going to get to projects that were approved in 2025 and either completed this year or to be completed.

So Mr.

Red, you're probably very familiar with, was previously located at the intersection of Gulf Stream and Coconut, but after damage from multiple hurricanes, including significant damage from Hurricane Milton, the decision was made to relocate it to City Hall for long-term preservation.

So as you may have seen, it's outside on the northwest corner of City Hall.

And we're in the process of planning a call for artists for the former site at the intersection of Gulf Stream and Coconut.

Also in Arlington Park, we installed Wild and Wonderful and Camo Bunny's designs on the free Wi-Fi in the park boxes.

This is another local artist, Jennifer Geiger.

And then on 10th Street, another part of our Call for Kalls initiative.

We hosted a national call for artists that received 133 submissions.

And after ample community feedback, actually, they selected a local artist Truman Adams for the design niche art, which plays into the architectural elements of this wall.

Here we have Creative Seeds by Swirley Painter.

This, the previous Reverend Lewis and Irene Colson mural references the neighborhood's past, and this mural is a tribute to the children of the school and the future of art and the neighborhood and the community.

This is a unique project.

This is Exotic 10 by deceased local artist David Perrick.

This was out of this in storage for quite a while.

And when it discovered, you can see actually it was previously installed by the Public Works Department.

And so I spoke with the one of the leaders in Public Works who was like, we'd be happy to have that here.

And so this is a unique sighting, kind of representing recycling at our public works facility and a really unique opportunity for not only the public but our staff to get to experience public art on a daily basis.

And coming very soon, we have Swing by Michael DeCarlo to be located at Pain Park Tennis Center in District 3.

I will tell you we are planning the dedication ceremony for July 30th.

Save the date.

We hope to see you there at 11 a.m.

And we'll have the artists installing the day before, so wish us luck that that goes well.

Then next we uh we uh back in 2025, the public art committee approved a call for artists for the Amaryllis Park Place development on Orange Avenue in the Amarillo's Park neighborhood.

We hosted a national call for art, or excuse me, a call for artists for artists up to 100 miles from the city of Sarasota.

We had a stakeholder group composed of community members and residents who selected or after they selected five finalists, excuse me, the public art committee selected five finalists based on that feedback.

Those five finalists produced final concept designs, which were then also put to community feedback, and this design was selected for the Orange Avenue location.

Because I focused so much on 2025, I didn't include they also at our previous meeting selected a second mural, the runner-up for uh a uh wall on the 21st Street on the opposite side of the property by Zulu Painter.

This is Carlos Jefferson, who is from Valrico and Zulu Painter is from St.

Petersburg.

And then we're working on siding plans for Dr.

Eugenie Clark.

This is a bronze sculpture by artists Gillian Mark.

It's to be installed on City Island at the Marine Research Laboratory area entrance by and uh part of their Statutes for Equality initiative, which increases the amount of uh bronze sculptures featuring uh notable women.

And then uh last but not least, this is coming soon to the Pain Park Town Homes Development at 537 South Washington Boulevard.

This is Beacon of Infinity on the top here.

On below, you can see some of the previous artworks by artist Yala Ford, who's from the Tam Bay area.

And then here is uh just a quick list of the maintenance and restoration projects that we worked on in 2025.

There was quite a bit of a backlog of maintenance, uh, especially with the hurricanes that had occurred the previous years, and so we're still working toward getting everything in tip top shape.

And then also just covering community wide advocacy is a really big part of what I do, as well as the public public art committee meetings.

I make myself as available as possible to our city neighborhood associations.

Anytime we have a project, we work closely with the neighborhood association or the business district to do uh community outreach as well as to gather ideas from the community.

Um we uh have a pretty active newsletter uh readership as well.

And last but not least, I'll just close again on our public art tour.

Um this is where you can learn about all of the more than 100 pieces of art in the collection, um, as well as access the audio guide, which features the artists um speaking about their work themselves.

All right, you guys have a minute.

Well, we uh have been very, very, very busy, as you can see.

Um, you asked me to get involved in this committee.

Uh I was approached by a bunch of commissioners.

I was happy to do it, and we've kind of created a new, I think a new golden era for the public art committee right now.

Um a lot of it comes down to the three most important things, and that is funding, funding, and funding.

So I applaud your efforts to kind of um help us reimagine that.

Uh, whether it's you know, focusing on maintenance, which was many ways past due.

Uh that's a can potentially be a big, big burden in the future.

We also looked at deacquisition the projects that really aren't uh suiting the permanent collection, and also just a vision on the future of where we want to go.

Uh we've put a real great foundation in place.

But don't forget, we're in competition with other cities, other communities for artists and having the sense that this is an arts community.

Uh when we did a study, and Sarah can probably talk uh in a future time about this, that we are underfunding this compared to other communities, and they're starting to get more attention about arts.

You know, there's a lot of places in Florida that have beaches, a lot of places in Florida that have sunshine and palm trees, but there's not a lot of places that have the arts in arts is Sarasota superpower, and let's make sure we don't miss out on that to other communities.

Thank you.

Oh, do I have an opportunity?

Is that okay?

It's been such a pleasure getting to know the committee and working with Sierra.

I am astounded at what she can accomplish as a single person.

She reminds me of um Harry Potter, being in multiple places at once somehow.

But I would love to share with you guys and the public at large with um the echoes of Sarasota Cultural Exhibit that's coming up.

So the as you guys have passed through City Hall, I'm sure you've noticed the exhibit features large-scale artworks that highlight Sarasota's cultural and historical character with the artists uh Frank Hopper and Reagan Dunneck.

Um, presented in partnership with the Thompson Fine Art, uh was supporting works by the um Sarasota Artist Colony artists featured by the arts advocates.

Uh included is a virtual tour featuring historic photographs provided by the Sarasota County History Historical Resource Center, which I don't know if you guys know a little bit about my background.

I'm assistant manager at Selby Library, so we are in partnership with the Sarasota History Center.

They're part of our department, and they're just lovely, lovely people over there.

There's an expansion happening out on Fruitville by Fruitville Library, so that'll be happening towards fall.

Um the opening reception is going to be Thursday, September 17th, 4 to 6 at in City Hall.

The date aligns with Constitution Day and supports the city's America 250 recognition.

Please visit SarasotaFL.gov slash public art for more information.

Thank you very much.

Commissioner's questions.

Did she state her name?

I didn't.

No, I'm Heather Gorman.

Thank you.

Um Vice Mayor is up first.

Thank you.

Um First of all, congratulations on the job well done.

Uh singularly and collectively.

Thank you.

Um page 26 of your PowerPoint, you listed the 2025 sculpture restorations.

Yeah.

Would you explain to us the process you follow to identify which pieces need maintenance and restoration on an annual basis?

Sure.

You know, that's actually something that we've been working toward having better systems in place for as part of that uh that GIS-based collection management system.

We've also built in a condition survey tool.

So in the past, we've sent out uh volunteers, sometimes public art committee members, to go out and do paper condition surveys.

Now we've actually built a tool and we're we're testing it out right now.

Now we've actually built a tool and we're we're testing it out right now we've we've had our intern do it last summer uh through GIS that she can actually take a phone, go to each piece, take pictures, and it will log that condition survey into our database.

Then we basically can uh prioritize uh the works that need to be uh addressed uh we've got like a red yellow green coloring system um and eventually do hope to build in um and we're we're working toward for this next budget year our annual maintenance plans with some of the artists that we already know um have either worked with these pieces for a long time or in many cases they are uh relatives or are in as you see in some of the pictures children of the original artists and we allow them to work on the pieces as uh as appropriate great thank you um I'd like to put you in touch with somebody I know who's doing that same thing for a huge piece in her community in Poland.

Oh okay wonderful so um and my second question is on page thirty I noticed that attendance by board members has not been great has that impacted your quorum and presented problems holding meetings no um we did have one member with some health issues last year um so that was part of it um but we've managed to have quorum at every meeting no I I think that we don't have a problem with that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Those are my questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Aher and Kotch Yes.

I'm gonna first ask um the city manager the uh the status of SB 180 it does sunset in if we all things being equal.

Okay.

October 2027.

October 2027 all things being equal your budget should improve maybe October November or December That's important.

Yes and and that would have to do with the master plan that was adopted right okay.

So um there's something to look forward to.

My question was along the lines of the Vice Mayor on page 26 I don't see complexes is so that was completed actually this year.

Oh it was completed.

Yes yeah recently somewhat recently back in June.

Okay, go see it looks great.

Yeah we had Adam Gary studios work on it who was the uh he was actually one of the original uh he's he worked with John Henry on the creation of the sculpture so um he addressed some of the the issues with there was a pass coding that was put on that was incorrect as well as hurricane damage uh from Hurricane Milton as you may remember.

Okay.

And that's staying at the Sarasota art museum for now?

For now, yeah.

It is on a long-term loan.

Um we are working with the public works department to explore uh getting a variance request to potentially reinstall it at the Gulf Stream and US 41 roundabout that's the dream.

It's a little tall for their typical requirements so we're working through the process um to see what we can do.

Yeah I think Miss Jorgensen and I spoke to the folks in Tallahassee about that as well put a little bug in their ear about that not too long ago.

So and then the question of um is there anything else you see the board can do differently do better any changes you would like to see us talk about well meeting more often with you.

Okay.

I think that would be important to really have an understanding of where we're at, what we're doing.

I mean once again it's uh a huge uh responsibility taking public funds and putting them to these and so that you guys don't wonder what we're doing.

I think that would be important.

So you'd like to make a presentation more often than once a year?

Absolutely.

Okay.

Okay well that's definitely something I think the commission can talk about and my question is just out of curiosity maybe forgive me I don't know too much about this process but I would love for our committee to have little working groups so we could ask volunteers to go out and make surveys in a more organized fashion.

It's a lot for um Sierra to do or to try to organize.

So what within the the board's power can we elicit volunteers to help us to have working groups that have a beginning and an end so they're not committed to it forever you know.

And also when um the committee does make a recommendation to the city commission in the past if you go back 10, 15 years a lot of times it just completely got ignored after many many hours of people working on it.

And so it felt very disingenuous to those people that have volunteered to be on the committee.

I think recently the committee is making really good choices and bringing things to the commission that maybe are easier easier to let's call it approve.

But a lot of times we're looking at the permanent collection.

And we're trying to bring something different to the permanent collection, something that might be a little bit more adventurous.

And so there's all these hours and time and days and weeks and months that go into those decisions, and then we bring it to the commission, and they're wondering why doesn't it look like X, Y, and Z?

And we already have seven of those.

So I guess sometimes, you know, have a real conversation with the public art committee about why the selection is being made.

And sometimes honor that would be nice.

I don't generally think in terms of maintenance.

So I was wondering with the developer contribution to the public art fund.

Is that solely for acquisition or is maintenance included in their funding?

No, maintenance is part of our zoning code is to be uh one of the ways that the funding can be spent.

We're very fortunate to have maintenance built into our program through the zoning code and the public art program.

So that's actually one positive I think that we're kind of trying to say as well is that we're positive to have that funding available.

I know that many programs have to fight for that funding and you know think a lot a lot more about deaccessioning when we are able to maintain and prevent potential long-term uh future costs as well.

But you know, normal maintenance is really within the narrative.

And then when you have two hurricanes, then there's other issues that come up.

Um some of the complexness um it was already sort of being taken care of, but I can't imagine what was happening, would happen to that if you know we weren't already taking care of it during those storms.

So the other half then of my concern is as we're about to approve a budget, are is maintenance of the public art in the general fund, or is the public art fund able to the public art fund.

Everything, all the activities of the public art program.

Um the the acquisition and maintenance are accounted for in there.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

Uh anything else?

Oh, Commissioner Albert.

Yeah, I just I just wanted to say um very, very impressive um you know, group of work over the past year, year and a half.

So keep it up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you all very much.

And thank you both for the show and also for the art that was in the show.

Thank you.

Much appreciated.

Okay.

Okay.

So we are now at consent agenda number.

Oh, sorry, we need a motion to accept the report.

So move.

Second.

Okay.

Move by the vice mayor, seconded by Commissioner A.

Hern Kotch, where we have you to accept the report.

And Commission Commissioner Howper.

Can you should button?

Oh, sorry.

I was waiting for it to come up on the screen.

And the vote is unanimous.

Thank you all very much.

Madam Mayor, can I make a second motion?

Certainly.

I just want to make a motion that we um uh direct the city manager to um agenda at some point in time, a discussion about the two items that the public art committee would like us to consider.

One of them is them making a presentation to us more often and what that would look like.

Um then the second one would be to look into the possibility of creating committees, uh, committee and working groups and have volunteers.

Um Mayor, can I just make one statement regarding that motion?

Any advisory board can come to you all at any time.

I don't think you need to make a motion to do that.

They have the privilege to all they have to do is just say we want to come and meet with the commission.

So I just want to still do it, but I just want you to know that too.

You don't have to you don't have to make a motion for that.

They can just come and do that.

Okay.

But uh they I think here they want to present here.

I get you they can still do that without the commission saying that they can do that.

And and I was wondering whether we needed a motion or whether we just asked Ms.

Fryling to make a recommendation.

I mean if there's consensus and we don't need to be as formals that.

I mean everybody has a consensus for that.

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

So we are now at consent agenda number one.

Are there any items pulled?

Yes, there was.

Sorry.

Item number six point two was pulled by Commissioner Aaron Kotch.

And that is all that I am aware of.

Okay.

May I have a oh, do we have anybody signed up to speak?

For that item particular, so we can go ahead and approve the balance in there.

Okay.

So uh may I have a motion to approve the balance of consent one?

So move.

Second.

Uh move by Vice Mayor, seconded by Commissioner A.

Hearn Kotch to approve the balance of consent agenda number one and your votes, please.

And that was unanimous.

Thank you very much.

Um item 6.2 was pulled by Commissioner Ahern Kotch.

Um do we take comment first, or does Commissioner Ahern Kaj indicate why she wanted it polled?

Um well, first if she would like to go ahead and state why she wants the pool and that she need a presentation first.

I would like to I ask for this to be pulled for a presentation.

Um it's quite an important long coming uh project, and I think it's deserving of a presentation so the community is aware of the work um that is going on here that is very uh forward thinking.

I would say go ahead and take your public comment and then go ahead and go into your presentation.

Okay.

So Mr.

Hyde has requested to speak on this.

Okay.

So I'm Martin Hyde, I still don't live in the city.

Um this is uh is about a consent agenda, thanks to uh Commissioner Ahern Cotch.

It absolutely does merit discussion.

It's an item to spend $51 million on wastewater infrastructure.

It's eleven million dollars more than an estimated cost for this project just two years ago.

Though what I want to talk about is the backup material, which runs to 2,200 pages, uh which compares to War and Peace, or the Bible, both testaments, which are much shorter at about 1,400 pages.

This is how staff buries information that you and the taxpayers need.

If the justification here is that it's okay because staff knows best, what are you here for?

If that was true, why are you already having to reconsider another staff idea on paid parking weeks after it was introduced?

Uh what about the millions in taxpayers' money wasted on design for a performing arts center you haven't got the money for?

Or the millions spent on land for an affordable housing project, which also you have neither the money or the expertise to complete, all driven by staff suggestions.

If this is a part of the streamlining of meetings that you knew 275,000 a year plus benefit city manager is looking for.

Are you even curious how something goes up by three times the compound rate of inflation?

I know the inflation the I know the answer, and it's not in the 2275 pages.

It comes into the category of the famous if you want to know what's in it, you'll have to pass it in 2010 by Nancy Pelosi on the Affordable Care Act.

If you haven't read this backup material in full, and I don't believe most of you have, how can you possibly agree to this when it's 51 million taxpayer dollars?

And just a thought, because last week we had 130,000 views of your faces as uh you cut off water.

Um you're about to go on the record as to whether the unelected staff run this city through deliberate obfuscation.

Well you do.

Thank you, Mr.

Hyde.

And and now I'm going to request uh presentation by Mr.

Hall and his staff.

Good morning, Madam Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, Vern Hall Utility Director, City of Sarasota.

With me is Mark Nicholas, the general manager of administration.

He handles the financial aspects for us.

The other three projects, excuse me, that was all part of a SRF funding package.

And that would be the reason why the documentation was so large, because the state has very specific guidelines that they require for their funding process.

The other three projects are well underway.

In fact, the Verna Ourall water line relocation is actually complete.

This is a big step for us going forward on the wastewater plant.

Everything that we have done with these four projects is all based on resiliency and growth anticipation and making sure that we meet the needs of our community.

There's a great deal of planning that goes on into these projects.

We don't just willy-nilly decide, hey, let's go spend $51 million of the ratepayers' money.

Everything that we do is done for a reason that is resiliency, environmental protection, and this is all part of the original master plan we did back in 2019 that takes us to 2040.

What we're doing right now is we're updating that plan to take us to 2055, and we're planning on unless I use that word planning.

We're planning on working with Stephen Cover's group, who's also updating their master plan to 2055.

So we want our master plan to dovetail in with Stevens' plans.

So with that said, uh I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Okay.

Commissioner Heron Kotch.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um I appreciate you uh coming before us and making a presentation.

I think it's important for the community to understand exactly what we're going on, what we're doing here.

We hear a lot of comments about our growth and and are we planning for this, especially for something as essential as water and wastewater.

Um the plan that we're working on is to take us to 2055.

Is that correct?

That's what the update would be, yes, ma'am.

Right.

And in the description of this, it talks about improved capacity uh to meet future demands.

Can you just clarify that a little bit?

Yes, ma'am.

Uh currently the wastewater facility has three clarifiers.

At the end of this project, it will have four.

The increased capacity there we intend, once this project is complete, to sit with DEP and request a re-rate for the facility.

It is currently rated at 10.2 million gallons a day.

We intend to ask for 12.

The intent is that buys us a little bit more planning time, because one of the things that we're looking at right now is obviously system capacity and treatment technologies and changing regulatory requirements.

We know PFOS is the current issue.

Microplastics will be right behind that, and there are other things down the road that the DEP and EPA are all looking at.

So when we did the original master plan, we used in-house utility staff, and we looked at everything because what we were doing was assessing our equipment, our processes, and what condition they were in and what work we needed to do.

This process we're actually engaging external consultants because we're looking outside of the organization at what are those changing regulations, what are those expected process improvements, and what technologies are out there.

Because the the utility site is actually a pretty small footprint.

So whatever we're going to do there is going to have to fit in that area.

And with changing technology technologies, they get smaller, they get faster, they get better.

So the consultants live in that world.

We don't.

So we want their perspective to be out there looking at what's coming, what's on the horizon, and what's going to fit in our existing footprint, because we have to keep that facility functioning while we do the upgrades.

So that's all an important part of that process is how are we going to do that?

And how do we maintain operations while we do those things?

I thought you had uh it was my understanding that it was 12.5 was the hope to go to 12.5 or is it 12?

12 point two.

12.2.

Okay.

I don't think we could get the other three.

Okay.

100,000.

Um and also with this upgrades, it's also uh it was mentioned that there are going to be cost savings.

Yes, ma'am.

Um we spend uh a lot of time maintaining that facility because it's old, and a lot of times when you go to work on this component, the component that's right next to it is just as old and it breaks, and so your crew has to spend time doing that, or you may have a project planned and an older piece of equipment decides it's time to go, so you have to divert your resources there.

So the intent is let's go in there.

Uh let me back up a minute.

We spend we have a uh an R and I renewal and replacement fund, and we spend about a million to a million and a half a year on the wastewater plant doing improvements.

But we decided that that's not a big enough bite.

We've got to get ahead of the curve with this facility, so that's why we did the SRF loan.

So that will buy us that time for that planning horizon, what we need to do, and that will reduce our maintenance costs because we'll be working with much newer equipment.

Thank you.

Um can you just explain a little bit about uh the bill that passed um per PFOS and testing?

Oh uh sh well it's it's much like the unregulated contaminants rule that EPA issues where they wanted us to test on the drinking water side.

This is a similar thing on the wastewater side because PFOS, once it gets into the system, it has a tendency to what we refer to as interference.

It gets into the solids and it stays there.

So their DEP has us doing quarterly testing on our solids because they want to assess some information on what is the P.

Excuse me one second.

You can't hear.

What's no PFAS?

Yeah, I think we shouldn't use APR.

You're right, you're right, because people don't know what that means.

Polyfloral alkyl substance.

Yes, ma'am.

It's um forever chemical.

That's the forever chemical.

Yes, ma'am.

That's what PFOS is.

Uh sorry.

Good, good, good judge.

Sorry about that.

Yes, okay.

Um DEP is sort of doing their own study on the wastewater side.

They want to see what the buildup is in the solids and what sort of regulatory DEP, uh Department of Environmental Protection.

Um they want to see what's the impact and what sort of regulatory environment are they gonna have to set up to handle the solids.

And again, we've been working for three or four past four years with UCF on evaluating our sludge and finding out where in our process does the PFOS get captured, and are there opportunities for us to remove it, and what are those technologies?

So we've been well ahead of this curve knowing that this was coming.

So when they passed this bill, uh Jennifer and I had discussed early on that this was one that was definitely gonna go through.

We have that testing already in our budget, so it's it's not an issue for us.

Thank you.

One last question.

Will any of this work impact the community outside of the facility?

Uh no, ma'am, that's not our intent.

Uh this is an inside defense project.

So that's where all the activity will be.

Okay.

I just wanted to clarify that.

Yes, ma'am.

Those are my questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Alpert.

Okay.

I just wanted to give you the opportunity to um explain why the cost is higher than the original estimate.

Well, that was uh uh again, uh construction estimate, and uh there's a lot of educated engineers that do their best when you have a project to estimate what those costs are, but always when it goes out to bid, those costs can be different.

And in this instance, um we originally bid the project, it did not get any bidders.

We had to go back and rework the project, and that's why it took us the two years to get here.

And unfortunately, those prices for construction costs do go up rapidly.

Okay.

Uh other commissioner questions.

Um I then did want to ask for to give you the opportunity to clarify the funding source.

This is a state revolving fund loan from the State of Florida.

The low interest loan.

It's a well actually why don't I let Mark talk about that?

This is actually going to be for the record your name.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Mark Nicholas, General Manager Utilities Administration.

Like Vern had mentioned, it's a state revolving fund, SRF loan.

Initially, we were approved for 40 million dollars.

But when the project was awarded, we went back to the state and let them know.

And there is a item on consent to for the budget amendment.

The state is in agreement.

It recognizes the situation.

It can happen in scenarios like this.

So this is a 20-year loan, and I believe the interest rate on the 1.73.

1.

1.73.

So it's a clean water loan, and it's uh 20 years, and uh the loan doesn't have to start repayment back until it's totally the construction is totally complete.

Thank you.

1.73 and the in a sense that interest is going to our state government, right?

Yes.

To the program.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Um, may I have a motion?

Thank you, gentlemen.

I would move approval of uh item six point two.

Second.

Uh motion by Commissioner Ahern Koch, seconded by the Vice Mayor to approve item six point two.

Is the uh can we have a vote?

Because this is a consent item.

Yes, just a second.

Sorry.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Passed unanimously.

Thank you very much.

Uh I think we have time for consent uh number two items.

Um is there have any been pulled?

Yes, Mayor.

Item number seven seven point one has been pulled by Commissioner Ahern Koch.

And item number seven point three has been pulled by Commissioner Ahern Kotch.

Uh okay.

So the only remaining one is 7.2.

Okay.

Uh may I have a motion.

Let me read.

Oh, sorry.

Yes, read all of them.

Yes, I will read um two here.

Thank you.

All right.

Resolution number 26R 3409, a resolution of the City Commission of the City of Sarasota, Florida, amending the budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2025, I provide for supplemental appropriations.

Any amounts identify in exhibit A.

Provide for severability if any of the parts here are declared invalid, providing for reading by title only, and providing an effective date.

Ordinance number 26-5597, ordinance of the City of Sarasota, amending Chapter 24, personnel, Article 2 Pensions, Division 4, General Employees, Define Benefit Pension Plan, the Code of Ordinances of the City of Sarasota, amending Section 24-116, re-employment after retirement, repoing our ordinances in conflict here with, provided for servability of the parts here of if declared invalid, provide for reading by title only, and provide an effective date.

Okay, thank you.

Then may I have a motion concerning the balance of consent agenda to, which is item 7.2, which happens to be the funding source for the consent item we just that we just passed.

Move approval of second second.

Motion by Commissioner Albert, seconded by Commissioner Ahern Koch to approve the balance of uh consent to consent to.

Um H.

Blen's enroll call.

Aaron Kotch.

Yes.

Albert?

Yes.

That's E.

Yes.

All right, yes.

Yes.

Uh passed unanimously.

Thank you very much.

Did we have any comment cards on okay?

So I'm going to turn to Commissioner Alpert, who um pulled Commissioner Aaron Kotch.

Excuse me.

Ahern Koch.

I just uh pulled it for an express vote, and uh with that I would move approval second.

Okay.

Uh motion by Commissioner Ahern Koch, seconded by the Vice Mayor to approve consent item 7.1.

So moved.

Yeah.

That wasn't we need to say thank you.

Oops.

That's he.

Yes.

Oh, right.

Yes.

Yes.

Aaron Cotch.

Yes.

And it passed unanimously.

Uh, Commissioner Ahern Cutch also pulled item uh seven point three.

Um, and just for an express vote, uh, move approval of item seven point three.

Second.

Okay, motion by Commissioner Aheron Kotch, seconded by the Vice Mayor to approve consent item seven point three.

Yes.

All right.

Yes.

Yes.

A Her Cot.

Yes.

Albert.

Yes.

And it passed unanimously.

Uh I think it is quarter after ten.

Do we want to take a ten minute break at this point?

Yes.

Okay.

Uh official apple time.

It is currently ten fourteen.

We will be back at ten twenty-five.

Meeting is in recess.

Welcome back.

The uh July 20th.

Yes.

Regular City Commission meeting is back in session.

And we are now at unfinished business item nine point one.

Um and I will call upon oops.

I've do I need you to have to read on this one.

Okay.

So the I will call upon Capital Projects Manager Corales, City Engineer Kamiya, and I see that Director Public Works.

Patel is here and and oh, okay.

So we are changing the lineup.

So and uh director of finance, Kelly Strickland is here.

So calling upon the three of them to make a presentation.

And thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh before we get started, I would like to ask the Commission if we can combine um 9.1 and 9.2 together because they interconnected.

And we'll we'll do the presentation together to just kind of move things along if that's okay.

I was going to suggest that is is that appropriate?

I don't think it's a problem as long as you vote separately on them.

Um but I will say this for nine point two is a resolution.

Can I go ahead and read that then?

Okay.

Sounds good.

Okay.

If the commission is good with that, we have a consensus to do that.

Okay.

All right.

Good.

All right.

I will go ahead and read the resolution in.

Resolution number 26R 3408.

A resolution of the City Commission.

I'm sorry, a resolution of the City of Sarasota, Florida, authorize the issuance of the not to exceed eight million City of Sarasota, Florida capital improvement revenue note, Series 2026 to provide interim funding to pay costs related to the St.

Armand's Key and Lethal Key undergrounding projects, and to pay associated transactional costs, providing that the note shall be limited obligation of the city payable from non-ad Valorant revenues.

Budgeted appropriated and deposited as provided herein.

Approving the form and authorizing the execution and delivery of a non-revolving credit agreement with Regions Capital Advanced Advantage Inc.

Authorizing certain officials and employees of the city to take all action required in connection with the sale issuance and delivery of such note and execution and delivery of such credit agreement.

Making certain covenants and agreements in connection therewith, provide for reading by title only, and provided for an effective date.

So today we're going to talk about agenda item nine point one as well as nine point two to address the next steps in evaluating a potential under utility underground program for St.

Armand's Key and LEDO key areas.

Well, next um we'll begin with two action items before the commission today.

So first is agenda item 9.1.

We asked the commission to approve the professional service agreement with utility consultants of Florida.

The total agreement is approximately close to approximately $8 million of that amount, $3.2 million is required required for phase one services.

Including the phase one includes the assessment method, preliminary engineering cost estimate, utility coordination, finance planning, fight financing planning, and public outreach.

This approval begins work needed to evaluate the proposed assessment district and develop a parcel level cost information.

The remaining $4.8 million for optional phase two services cannot proceed without future city commission approval.

Second is agenda item 9.2, asked for the commission to authorize interim financing in the amount not to exceed $8 million.

The established financing capacity, it's not to authorize the city to draw and spend the entire amount immediately.

That's not the intent.

The funds would be drawn only as eligible costs are incurred, and the city would pay principal and interest only in the amount actually drawn.

Most importantly, no assessment district parcel assessment or construction is being approved today.

I just want to be clear on that.

You know.

I now turn it over to the presentation to Mr.

Camilla to explain the contract structure and the decision process.

Morning.

So just to get in a little bit on specific the scope of the services mentioned.

Phase one, as Nick was talking about, focuses on the program management itself, public-private uh property ownership engagement and assessment methodology.

So what does it look like for the assessment and the process for thinking of that?

Uh special benefit analysis, preliminary engineering and surveying cost estimates as well, coordination with FPL and all their communication providers to develop the implementation framework, and that's the almost 3.2 million.

So that's the phase one required to get it started.

The results of that will be uh parcel level information uh for each of the property owners to be able to make an informed decision and for you all to make that informed decision as well.

Phase two of that is optional services and would be part of the implementation phase.

And so not a decision for today, but information.

And that's how we get to the remaining 4.8 million.

That would include final design, procurement, bid support, construction administration, utility cutovers, poll removal, assessment true, just making sure we're all good for that next that next and final phase.

And that, of course, is also requires financing and approval by the commission.

Um the agreement also permits termination uh for convenience, the city responsible only for services earned throughout the effective termination date.

The next slide talks a little bit more about moving forward for approval of today's items, kind of like a timeline format.

So kind of as mentioned for the commission's consideration is following the approval, the consultant would begin the required services, and they would include their preliminary concepts, cost modeling, utility coordination assessment methodology, public engagement, all of that would be kind of the that first step.

Hope for goal during summer and then fall.

Um staff and the consultant would refine that proposed district boundaries, make sure that makes sense, um, develop a planning level cost estimate and conduct the first phases of the public outreach.

And then the winter of 26-27, staff would then return with a more detailed cost information, preliminary, parcel level, again, specific property owner assessment ranges, um, followed by, of course, the public outreach component and community support process to be able to present that to you all.

And then at that time, uh the Commission then would provide direction to staff to proceed or not.

Um we would make sure that we would meet statutory assessment resolutions, notices, public hearings, and the like, and that final uh financing process then would occur in 2027.

So the current target for the first assessments would be to appear on the November 27 tax bill if approved.

The schedule is, of course, tentative, um, depends on your all's direction, of course, the public's input, utility coordination, and the completion of statutory milestones.

With that, I'll turn it over to Kelly to explain the interim financing structure.

So the financing is a tax-exempt non-revolving credit facility with a maximum capacity of $8 million.

It has a two-year draw period and permits unpaid balances to be term funded for up to another 10 years.

However, it is a city obligation and it's secured by the covenant to budget and appropriate legally available non-advalor revenues.

The intended path for the special assessment revenues is to repay the amounts drawn if the districts are approved.

If the districts do not proceed, phase two would stop, but the city would remain responsible for the principal and interest and eligible costs that have already incurred or been drawn.

The required services contract sealing is $3.1 million, although the actual exposure depends on the work earned and the amounts drawn.

The proposed five-year CIP includes $1.3 million of penny four funding for undergrounding of $400,000 in each of the fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009, and 100,000 in fiscal year 2031.

The allocation provides partial feedback, fallback, but does not cover the full phase of phase one ceiling.

Any remaining obligation would require other legally available non-advalorum revenues and future budget action.

So at that time, we even intend that the special assessment had gone through in the special assessment we'd be making these payments.

Okay.

So today staffs recommend approval for both agenda items for agenda item number 9.1, approve the agreement with Utility Consultants of Florida.

And for agenda item uh 9.2, that is adopt the resolution number 26R-3408 to authorize a capital improvement revenue note and a non-revolving credit agreement in the amount not to exceed $8 million.

And uh with that uh happy to answer any questions that the Commission has.

Well, thank you, but first we do have two members of the public who have requested to speak.

Um but I'm sure we will have questions for you after they finish.

Uh the uh Carl Schaustall and Chuck Half.

Mr.

Schostal, your name and city resident.

Um my name is Carl Shelfstall.

I'm a resident of Leto Key for the past 24 years, and I am a citizen of Sarasota City.

Um just to want to reiterate to everybody uh that uh we had a our board discussed this as the Leto Key Residence Association, and it was unanimously approved that we are in favor of getting this done.

And uh as our residents out there, I'm getting a lot of emails and everything asking, you know, how's it going?

And we're telling that we had this meeting today, or you guys are on the agenda for today, and uh we wholeheartedly hope you approve this going forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Half.

Yes, my name is Chuck Kalf.

I'm the Vice President of the St.

Armands Residents Association.

Thanks for giving us the opportunity to speak today.

Um I've been the vice president for two and a half years with LEDO.

There's 3,500 homes approximately, condos and businesses on St.

Armands Key and Leto Shores.

Uh and our public involvement and support is very important.

Collectively, uh the St.

Armands Residents Association, which I'm on the board of, uh we have regular updates with our members, open to our all of our membership.

And uh we project progress at each of our meetings.

We remain very supportive, very supportive and excited about undergrounding of utilities.

Today's approvals would be very helpful for all of our residents and eventual next steps.

For example, public outreach and education, easement approval process, draft budgets and timelines.

Finally, I'd like to thank Nick Patel and Sajay and their entire team for the terrific work that they've done.

They've been very good to work with.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, so we're ready for QA.

And as soon as you get settled, the vice mayor is first on the list.

Thank you.

But I have a few more questions based on your presentation.

When you talked about phase one, you said there would be parcel information obtained during phase one.

And does that mean that individual parcel owners would know what does it mean?

So Nick Patel Public Workshop for the record.

Essentially, we're going to have a GIS layer for the public to access, and they'll be able to click on a property, specific property, and be able to know what the assessment would be for that.

So individual property owners will be assessed per what is discovered during phase one on their property.

Yes.

So essentially it will show preliminary cost estimate as to what each parcel would have to pay for that assessment.

All right.

So moving, thank you for that.

Moving from phase one to phase two.

Is that a vote of the people or a vote of the city commission?

So it would be both.

It would be initially would get a vote for the for the community impacted, and then once we get that support, then it will go to the commission for the final approval for that.

Thank you.

Those are my questions.

Thank you.

Okay.

Commissioner, Commissioner Albert.

Can you clarify again what happens if this doesn't go forward that you know we've spent over $3 million?

And you said it comes from non-advalorum taxes.

Where are we going to get that?

I think that's a very good question.

So right now we have in the penny four scheduled to make any uh debt service payments we have before a special assessment.

In the event that the it is not approved, and we we have that 3.1 million, we'll have to find it from other sources.

In what we do when we issue uh covenant to budget and appropriate non-advil and revenues, as we do what is our capacity for making those payments.

Um we have to be at least at 2 percent.

We're at 7.65 right now.

Um that's a long way of saying that we will have to look at the general fund, we will have to look at other sources because penny sales tax is strictly for infrastructure.

I mean, I really want this to happen.

I want the undergrounding, but um 3 million to just explore, it seems a lot of debt for the city to take on.

That's that's my concern.

So to really give an accurate assessment of what the district is, and based on, we also did a comparison with what the town of Lomboukey went through as well as other municipalities.

It's the initial cost to really get a comprehensive assessment of the district and the impacts of the property owners.

There's a lot of cost estimates that go into initially, like, for example, um they have to locate all the utilities out there ahead of time and know where that is, so when we procure the construction contract that we have all those details laid out.

Uh the other aspect of it is, you know, there's a lot of work going on in the background with the bond council as well, and also um legal statutory requirements.

So, yes, it is a big big cost associated with it.

However, you know, that that is a risk that the city would have to decide on on what they want to do with that.

One thing I will say is that the benefit from a technical standpoint is that would have a good data source of what's out there on the Barry Island.

I mean, it's not like we're not going to get anything at the end of the day, but there's gonna be some value associated with it.

Three million, and if it gets rejected, we just spent three million for nothing.

So the information we would get would help us in what way.

Um for the property owners to support the assessment district, as well as to uh for us to know what utilities and you know future infrastructure, if we're gonna do any future infrastructure improvements, we'll know all that information for the Barry Islands.

Um that's the benefit.

All right, thank you.

Okay.

Commissioner Aheron Koch Yes.

What's the percentage of the residents, how does that work to approve this?

Like how does that how do they approve it?

So it's up to the Commission to decide on the amount of support but a minimum is 60% but the Commission can decide if they want 75% support or 60 percent it's up to the Commission.

And what we'll do is that as we once we hire this consultant we'll provide all those options to the Commission to make a decision on what that threshold needs to be or how we're going to collect the votes and that aspect of it as well.

Do you know what it's what it's like a random straw poll they've done up to this point.

So we've got three associations so we got uh uh St.

Armand's um association we also have Lido Key um association as well as um LEDOSHORS that's the other aspect so we do have support from all the uh stakeholders including St.

Armand's Merchants Association so we do have support from all four stakeholders at this point and uh you know in general the the folks uh it that live out there um they do support um the the the assessment district move moving that moving that along and do you know what at what percentage they support it um I don't want to speak on behalf of the association um I think they can provide it but I believe in the letters original letters there was some of them were up to 80 percent to 90 percent support on on that they were in the letters that were provided in the original when the city manager gave us direction to move that forward.

Okay I think that would be important information for us to have is this going to be if it does go forward is it going to be coordinated with the storm water improvements for St.

Armand's that are being planned.

So it will be coordinated with two agencies uh it's going to be with Sarasota County Stormwater as well as uh recently got uh state appropriation uh for St.

Armand's with with FDOT so there will be two coordination while this project moves along okay so there is going to be that's part of the job of this consulting firm is to coordinate all of these efforts right that is correct yes okay I wanted to make sure that we're not digging up filling in and digging up again and repeating work and just doing it all at once.

Okay that's really important.

It mentions in the actual agreement here solar lights the solar lights are it is that in reference to the lights that we have now those lights?

It's in reference to the entire barrier island because once we underground all the power lines and stuff all those FPL polls would go away.

So essentially you will have um you know uh environmentally friendly lights out on the entire Bayer Island.

But the ones that are there now are those going to be replaced?

Our intent is since we're moving forward with that project and it's federally funded is to leave those the way they are and then the remaining residential streets and and those aspects of it will be updated with the uh the the the environmental friendly lighting.

Okay.

And I know this is uh a reach for a question um I'm aware that on Longbow Key there were at least two different assessments for folks one had to do with Gulf of Mexico Drive and one had to do with like their special their specific neighborhood and it had to so there was an assessment for just the Gulf of Mexico Drive portion of it and then if there was if they lived on there then that was it.

If they lived in the neighborhood then they also had to pay for Gulf of Mexico and their neighborhood undergrounding is that the same process that's going to happen that there'll be one for the main roads and one for their specific neighborhood or is this a different assessment process or you don't know?

Initially our intent is to do it holistically because there's also part of the assessment is there's there's um government buildings that are there like on City Island for example so our intent is to assess it as as the entire Barrier island.

However we can certainly look into those aspect of it once we get the consultant on board but our intent is to is to do the entire as as one whole assessment.

But but the intent is Lombo Key is a different in geographic terms versus what we have.

So I think there's there's a lot more different um analogies to to make it all one as a one assessment district.

Okay.

Um and then I did want to convey to the commissioners that this um, you know, I did have sticker shock when I saw this and reached out to some folks, one of them being Howard Tipton from um Longboat Key.

And I did send him this item, and he did say that this is in line with what they had um done as well.

So just another layer had expressed that you all had coordinated with his Longboat Keys team to sort of garner that knowledge that they've already gone through this, what to expect, and that you're working very closely with them, and so that's really appreciated, no sense in us reinventing the wheel and uh and trying to learn something new and we we we have them there to help guide us through this.

So thank you for working with them.

But I wanted the commissioners to know that I did that one other layer of outreach and also um reached out to some of the folks on St.

Armand's as well, um, just to make sure that they were all aware of of this.

Uh and I do appreciate the two phases.

The first phase, when you look at the overall cost, it's big.

Um, but I like taking it in the two steps so that we can measure it.

Um I too am concerned about the cost of doing this and then it not passing.

Um but um anyway, I'll wait till we have a motion and talk about it then.

Those are my questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Battifice.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Um You said that it it it doesn't was still on doesn't pass, it was still on the hook for uh what was it?

The the principal.

Okay.

Do we do we have any um uh uh uh the number of like parcels that the that that we're looking at out there?

Um I did have it in my initial assessment.

Um I don't have it with me at this point, but I can certainly give that information back to you.

Yeah, because I I mean I don't have any issue, you know, with you know uh supporting this because it has to be done.

Look at what's going on out there right now and uh with what happened with the storms that it that we have to start doing something regarding the underground and of utilities out there and so on.

So um I have no issue with it.

Pardon by me.

Okay.

Uh actually my questions have sort of been answered already, but I will go over them again.

Um I was gonna ask if there would be multiple assessment districts because we do have LEDO, we have St.

Armands, but you're suggesting you're looking at a single assessment district.

That is the initial intent, but certainly can as once we get the consultant on board, we can look at all those options as well.

Okay.

Because I was also thinking again, after the consultant makes suggestions, recommendations, and the voters in the barrier islands have an opportunity to see their numbers, you may see that maybe LEDL will say, oh yes, we definitely want it, and maybe St.

Armands would say no.

We're not so sure.

So I was wondering if there's a potential for saying, okay, we're going to have mu we would have opportunities for multiple assessment districts and this one passed and this one didn't pass.

Therefore we can move forward with one of them or two of them and not with another.

And could we then prorate that 3.17 million dollars to the ones that agreed?

Of course.

We would pay the portion that the assessment went forward on with the assessment funding, and then the difference would be somewhere else.

So that's why I'm I'm thinking if we leave the potential for multiple assessment districts, that would potentially enable us to recoup if some if enough people in a group said no.

So keep in mind the assessment is for the purpose of paying for the undergrounding.

Right.

So it's it's for that purpose.

So but if it but having us have some flexibility in recouping the money.

And and Mayor, to address that uh great points that you made up, and we certainly can look at that once we get the consultant on board.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And again I guess it's something related to what Commissioner Albert asked about.

I was wondering the effect of if the property state property tax referendum passed would that have any impact since you're saying it's non-advilor.

It could not be paid with property taxes.

So the property where we may have to you know shift cost of other things to use our non-advalorum, the pledge is non-advilorum.

Okay.

So I mean if the property tax goes through then we're going to be shifting our current services.

Yeah I I was just thinking maybe in terms of financial stress if we had less revenue coming in so just yeah so City Manager Kerry Franley.

No, this would not what happens in November when I impact this completely separate.

Okay.

Thank you.

So uh because that was my other thing is it prudent to move forward before we know what's happening in November but that's irrelevant.

So um so that was um that was my questions.

Thank you.

And Commissioner Ahern Kotch is back on the board.

Yeah just one more I was wondering if we could ask Mr.

Schaffstall and Mr.

Half to come down.

I know that they did um uh uh reach out to their residents to see um if there was support before before we set down this road if we could I don't want to make up the numbers but I remember them being relatively high which may give us a a better sense of calm in going forward with something like this is would it be okay if they came down and just shared that information with us is it consensus among the Commissioners?

Okay.

Yeah.

So come on I have questions of this group is just there and one can sit there.

Answer Commissioner Ahern's Kotch's question.

So there are two seats here and here.

Yeah you guys don't have to move stay where you are so yeah Mr.

Heff Mr.

Schalfstell yeah and Mr Just from Lido Key we were over 90 percent well over 90%.

Just go ahead and announce your series your interest all Lido Key Residence Association President yes we had overwhelming support of this Charles Haff, Vice President St.

Armand's Residence Association.

We regularly talk about this issue in our monthly meetings with all of our residents and we also do an uh annual survey and this has been on our annual survey so we've quantified this I can't remember the exact number but it's above 80 percent that were in favor of underground and utilities.

People have been through a lot with these storms and they know they need resiliency with their electricity.

The big question ultimately is going to be once is a price tag?

Yeah the numbers I think that have been floated during these uh during these meetings is approximately 10,000 maybe a little higher um and so those are the numbers that have been um discussed in our meetings to all of our residents and that's the the number that people are kind of prepared for when they when they made that uh survey and that being over 20 years I mean it's we did we we floated those numbers out there as Chuck said and nobody seemed to have anything you know negative to say about it.

It's got to be done.

It's got to get done.

It's going to save money with storms on the back end of things too so thank you.

Thank you I think that gives us a better level of support community support.

And uh Vice Mayor thank you.

Could we back up to the very beginning why are we proposing to underground the utilities on our barrier islands.

Could you give us some historical information as well as information specific to the storms, the weather events of 2024 that answer that question.

Why are we proposing to do this so in uh 2024 um six different events cause flooding out on the Barrier Islands and also cause some um specifically Hurricane Milton and Hillane caused um you know big impact to the Barrier Islands during that time and um the residents Lomboky was finishing their undergrounding about you know clo they were about close to be done and uh the residents after the 2024 impacts and there were days and days uh out without power and they um advocated to the City Commission to um to to follow similar formatting as the town of Longbow Key to underground uh and provide resiliency for the entire Barrier Island for that so did you say that there were days and days that people were without electricity actually there were people didn't have houses right so

So did you say that there were days and days that people were without electricity?

Actually there were people didn't have houses, right?

So there it didn't matter if the electricity came.

But days and days, weeks would you say?

I would say it's about a week to some about a month roughly, and um I do recall that um the contractors trying to get out there to to get the work done and couldn't get it done because they had no power out there on certain properties.

And that's why this sounds like a really good idea, not just to us, but to the residents who suffered through that.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Thank you.

Um any other commissioner questions.

Okay, I I have a quick one for Ms.

Strickland.

Um Mr.

Half mentioned uh a figure of $10,000.

Does that sound like that might be in the ballpark for individual um units, residences?

I wasn't involved in this.

I'm not trying to say ever to do it.

Um I do not want to speculate on that.

Um they did their individual assessments, the the uh the you know, St.

Armand's Association, but um that's why initially we're trying to get the consultant on board to get that um data and information what it will cost.

But the numbers of the floated are comparable again to Town Longbow Key.

That that's my understanding.

That's how they did their assessment.

But again, I don't want to speak on behalf of the the residents to guesstimate what that actual cost would be.

Okay.

I I was just wondering whether that's somewhere in the ballpark or whether you'd have to add another zero to the end of the I don't want to speak on that behalf.

I don't want to make that commitment right now.

Because if you added another zero, I have a feeling it wouldn't be agreed to.

So that's that's my concern.

And do you have a number from Longboat?

Um it was different for everyone.

So they like I said, their assessment was um uh Gulf of Mexico Drive and then their neighborhood.

So it was different depending upon your proximity to Gulf of Mexico Drive and then your actual neighborhood, and when they would dig down, what did they hit?

Was it easy, was it difficult?

They fig they finished ahead of time.

I know that on Longbow Key.

Um, and their biggest challenge was coordinating and permitting.

I believe that was the one of the biggest things was per was coordinating with the other agencies that were were out there, but it wasn't the actual construction project itself.

Um but you know, I think what they projected and what they actually uh ended up with was very close.

Thank you.

Anything else you want to add?

I think that covers it all.

Okay, thank you very much.

Um we have two motions ahead of us.

Uh one of the motions is on item 9.1 regarding uh approving the agreement.

Move approval of item 9.1.

Second.

Okay.

Uh motion to approve by Commissioner Alfred, uh seconded by Commissioner A.

Hearn Kotch.

Uh is there any discussion?

Uh I would like to speak to it if that's okay.

Uh Commissioner Albert, did you want to speak to that?

Um just uh, you know, I I I think that it's more than likely that this will get approved by the residents.

I think getting the 80 to 90 percent um initial survey, you know, results, I think gives, you know, should give us some comfort that it it will happen.

And I know the residents out there really want this, so um I think we have to do it.

Okay.

Commissioner Aaron got um, yeah, I agree.

I I uh I'm very confident that the residents will um uh since they brought this forward, this is what they want, and that they know that it's um you know it's going to cost money uh and they're well aware of the process and that it takes time.

Um so they're not going into this blind and hopeful and thinking that it's going to be something that it's not.

I I think that the neighborhood associations have kept them well informed about what to expect.

I think that the neighborhood associations have kept them well informed about what to expect and you know, not just Longbook Key and Leto and St.

Armand's flooded, but so did a lot of the rest of the city.

And I think that they're fortunate to be able to work with FPL and be able to have this as an option to do this.

So Commissioner Batti.

Thank you, Mayor.

In actuality, I think this is far in a way long overdue.

As we see we the representatives of the neighborhoods and the residents out there on St.

Armands.

And still that there's people on LEDO that are still recovering from those storms or whatever.

I see sometimes in the city, uh the Sarasota has a uh hard time of preparing for the uh unknown and planning for the unexpected.

And that's what happened with these storms.

And you heard someone just sit here and say that uh there were people out there without electricity for so long, and we pride ourselves on uh trying to be a uh a smart city and uh city that that uh works in sustainability and resiliency, and this is the the first step in that again that should have happened uh long ago and what have you.

So they brought this to us.

They uh I think that they that they are in favor of it.

They need it, not just that they want it, but they actually need it out there, and uh it behooves us as a commission to go ahead and and move this forward.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Okay, thank you.

Vice Mayor, did you want to say anything?

No, it's been said.

Okay, so it is time to vote to approve the agreement RFP 26-15 JS.

And it passed unanimously.

Thank you very much.

And now we need a motion regarding resolution 26R-3408, which is agenda item 9.2.

Move approval.

Second.

Uh motion by the Vice Mayor, seconded by the Commissioner Ahern Koch to approve the uh resolution 26R 34-08, and uh is there discussion?

No discussion.

No discussion, so let's vote.

Also, roll call, Aaron Kotch.

Yes.

Albert, yes.

Betty Ulrich, yes, price.

Yes.

And it passes unanimously.

Thank you very much.

Uh we are now at agenda item nine point three regarding uh the second reading of proposed ordinance number 26-5585 on the special events.

And I'm going to ask uh Ms.

Griggs to read the title of that proposed resolution.

Thank you, Mayor.

Ordinance number 26-5585.

An ordinance of the City of Sarasota, Florida, amending in Sarasota City Code, Chapter 29.6 entitled special event permits, amending definitions, application process, and requirements for special events, creating section 29-8, special events lasting more than 96 hours.

Creating section 29.6-9 pertaining to litter at special events, creating section 29.6-10 pertaining to city co-sponsored events, creating section 29.6-11 pertaining to security deposits.

Creating Section 29.6-12 pertaining to identification and liability insurance.

Creating Section 29.6-13 pertaining to nonprofit special event permit status.

Amending to Sarasota City Code, Chapter 20, Section 6, and Section 7 pertaining to sound permitting and for special events.

A meaning of Sarasota City Code, Chapter 22, Section 22, and Section 23 pertaining to special events.

Deleting Chapter 23, Section 23.5 pertaining to commercial vending during special events.

Amending is Sarasota City Code, Chapter 33, Section 121 pertaining to valet parking as special events, providing for the repeal of ordinances and conflict, provide for the separability of the parks who wrote if declared invalid or uh enforceable, providing for reading by titler only, and providing for an effective date.

Thank you very much.

I will call upon special event manager Wormley and Special Event Supervisor Benson to make a presentation.

Good morning.

Jim Warmley, Special Events Manager.

Uh good morning, Lori Benson, Special Events Supervisor.

And Joe Meladnik, uh, City Attorney's Office.

Okay.

Um thank you guys again for uh hearing us out.

Um Lori's gonna go over a uh brief um PowerPoint and just go over the things that uh needed to be updated from our uh first present or our first presentations.

All right.

So on April 20th, 2026, uh during the city commission meeting for the proposed ordinance changes, it did pass the first uh reading.

And the city commission requested the following changes in the motion prior to the second reading.

Uh to define St.

Armand's Circle right-of-way as a park, uh St.

Armin Circle Park for the purposes of this ordinance.

Special events with commercial vending are not required to give a list of all vendor names at the time of application.

However, this will be required five days prior to the event.

The event organizer for a city co-sponsored event must be the downtown improvement district or a nonprofit entity.

Place a warning on the special event permit about complying with state law regarding the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco permits for alcoholic beverages.

Staff to review city co-sponsored event locations and possibly prohibit an adjacent non-city co-sponsored event in regard to the number of events allowed per month and consecutive weekends.

Staff to review the impact of defining directly adjacent as one-eighth of a mile radius, and then additional minor grammatical corrections.

So then the proposed ordinance changes.

So defining St.

Armand's as a park, we did add language here.

So as it relates to special events and public right-of-ways, the green space found within St.

Armand Circle, also known as St.

Armand Circle Park, shall be considered a public park.

Commercial vending, special event permit applications, which intend to allow for commercial vending, must provide an estimated number of vendors and their approximate location during the special event.

Subsequently, the event organizer must identify the name and location of each vendor participating at least five days in advance.

City co-sponsored events are established by resolution adopted by the city commission.

So for an event to be considered for co-sponsorship by the city commission, they must either be a nonprofit or the downtown improvement district.

And then here it just shows that we added language at the very bottom of the agreement that they are to comply with all the rules for the state alcohol permits.

So adjacent clarification.

We did look into the eighth of a mile.

It was a little more difficult to manage, but uh Joe came up with some good language to add here that uh we will not issue a special event permit on consecutive days, weeks, or weekends for any of the right-of-ways which are directly adjacent to each other, but also no special event permit will be issued on consecutive days, weeks, or weekends on a right-of-way which abusts any parcel of property if such property had an abutting right-of-way closure the previous day, week, weekend.

So it keeps one building from being overly impacted.

And that's the presentation.

Okay, thank you.

Uh we have four individuals who requested to speak, so um we will see you back here in a few minutes.

And what one last item I just would point out is that um we didn't make any changes to uh the sound ordinance in here.

There was some cleanup to make it more clear regarding you know what we are presently doing, but uh you know, those sound ordinance changes will come after we get the expert report, so just for the benefit of the public on that item.

Okay, and I also like to mention that we did there were several places where applicant uh needed to be changed to event organizer, so we did fix that.

It will still say applicant in some of the city park permits because those are separate from special event applications, it's kind of towards the end of the backup material, but anything that applies to special events was changed to event organizer.

But anything that applies to special events was changed to event organizer.

And there was uh question about the 364 versus 374 days.

We didn't make any changes to those.

That just stayed as it was uh in the ordinance.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

So requesting to speak are Chris Volcker, Patrick, uh NAC McNamy, uh John Bordeaux, and Yevgeny Kodorovsky.

And Chris will start us off.

Oh, I'm back again.

Chris Vulker.

I'm a city resident and owner of State Street and Vesso.

When I first heard that the event ordinance was being revised, I was genuinely excited.

Over the past couple of years, I've watched as the staff worked hard to streamline the event process while seeking meaningful input from the community.

I think they've done a great job at that.

And I appreciate the effort.

However, throughout every discussion I attended, and there were many, I consistently raised one issue.

Local businesses should be given the first right of refusal for vendor opportunities at city-sponsored events.

Each time I received essentially the same response.

We're not addressing that.

That's it.

I have to admit I don't understand the reasoning behind the decision.

I've seen PISA vendors set up directly in front of Padlining's Pizza on Maine, and barbecue vendors competing just steps away from brick smoke meets.

When businesses invest in our downtown every day of the year, it doesn't seem right for city events to bring in outside vendors selling sometimes the very same products right in front of them.

Although this issue is not included in the proposed ordinance.

This is already the approach used by next mark marketing for Fresh Fridays.

And it is demonstrated that supporting local businesses and ho and hosting successful events go hand in hand.

Our event should showcase and strengthen the businesses that have already invested in our community and not unintentionally compete with them.

Thank you.

Um Patrick Matthew?

Hi, Patrick McNamy.

I'm a resident of downtown at the Boulevard and also president of the downtown Sarasota Condo Association.

Just a few considerations I think you all should take into account for this ordinance.

First of all, I think it's important to note that there can be up to three high impact events in one month.

That would be two permitted events as well as a fresh Friday.

That that's pretty pretty intense.

I I know downtown residents they many live downtown because they like the vibrancy and support it, but three big events in a month I would argue is is excessive.

Secondly, I think the ordinance is a little bit light on enforcement.

You know, what are the procedures?

What are the fines?

What's the clear method to distinguish responsible event organizers from repeat violators?

And then third, I I know you realize that sound is a big issue for many downtown residents.

And the maximum sound levels, they're not clearly noted.

And I think more importantly, they can be changed administratively through a separate special sound permit process.

And then further, when it comes to road closures, which are obviously a key concern to downtown residents.

The notice of the street shutdown only goes to the condo reps.

That doesn't go to the individual coundo unit residents or owners.

I I know community workshop notices are sent to all affected parties.

I think the downtown residents would like to be notified when there's a proposed street closure.

And then finally, I don't see any limits on the teardown activity time frames.

Teardowns block streets, they're noisy, and I suggest there should be some rules on some constraints on rules and time and on other components of the teardone.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Bordeaux.

Good morning.

Uh my name is John Bordeaux.

I'm a full-time uh downtown resident and a uh DISCA member.

It I think uh Patrick and I were reading from the same notes.

Okay, since I have the same basically the same comments.

But what I'm going to reference is an email that was sent to all of you and to all and to Ms.

Freeling and Ms.

Jorgensen on July 9th from Peter Bland, who couldn't be here today.

Peter is a member of the DISCA board, actually.

Okay.

And in this very comprehensive email, which I'll cite in a moment.

Okay, he outlines the key positives and the negatives in this proposed ordinance.

Okay.

And as P as Patrick said, up to three, and these are the remaining concerns for downtown residents.

So I apologize in advance for the if I'm repeating.

Up to three, these are the negatives.

Up to three high impact events could occur in the same block in one month.

Okay.

This could result from two permitted events plus fresh Fridays, which are not frequency limited.

No enforcement provisions.

The ordinance does not specify enforcement procedures, fines, or a clear way to distinguish repeat violators from responsible event organizers.

Sound levels can be changed administratively.

Maximum sound levels are not codified in the ordinance and may be changed through a separate special sound permit process.

There's no limit on tear-down timing of teardown activities.

And the big uh a big issue that uh Patrick also raised is the approval of street closures, okay.

Uh the uh small business that may not even be open during the time frame of a of a uh an event, okay, gets the same weighting as a condo with 150 uh 150 units.

Okay, it doesn't seem uh correct that the uh the condo with 150 units should have more weighting in the decision on street closures.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Kodorkovsky.

Hi, my name is Ivan Konakrovsky, City Resident.

So I have an issue with one section that is added but uh conveniently left out of the presentation.

It says uh applicant can be denied if the event organizer has been convicted of a crime or found in violation of city or county ordinance within the last two years.

So I don't know if you know, but uh convicted felons now can run for office and serve in public office, uh, but we want to deny them uh running a farmers market, right?

So but let's say no criminals running events.

Uh what so equating minor civil infractions like ordinance code of ordinance violations is kind of an overreach.

Uh under this proposal, upstanding citizens could be disqualified from organizing charity run or community festival for mundane uh nonsense neighborhood infractions.

For example, we have code 16-50, having a vehicle with a flat tire park in more than three days, and your driveway is a violation, humanely trapping a and relocating a nuisance squirrel from your veggie garden is a violation, taping a lost cat flyer, which I've seen a lot recently is uh is a violation.

So code enforcement exists to manage neighborhood aesthetics, not to act as a sweeping disqualifier for civic engagement.

Um a flat tire missing pad poster should not should have no bearing whether you can throw an event downtown.

And uh I know these are not typically enforced, and we would never do that.

Then why do you need the the this kind of discretion?

So uh please strike this phrase uh at the very least the the court code ordinance violation.

Uh I would strike it all together.

And uh this is kind of a culture thing.

Uh like why would we uh want to gatekeep civic engagement for mundane things?

Thank you.

Thank you all very much.

And I will invite Mr.

Wormley, Ms.

Benson, and uh City Attorney, Deputy City Attorney back for questions.

And uh the Vice Mayor is up first.

Thank you.

So um my note to self here is long haul.

Uh this is your third time?

Feels like the first time.

Seems like the first time really.

So let's clarify.

There is a separate ordinance related to sound that will be brought forward at a later date.

Yes.

And it was very difficult for me to accept that, I must say.

I kept wanting to amend this ordinance to include some maximum sound levels.

I'm going to try really hard to refrain from doing that.

And I'll have the opportunity to do that, as we said, at a later date, right?

Yes.

Okay.

So I was pleased to see that you were very diligently to use a phrase consistently throughout, and that is event organizer.

Why did you do that?

I don't know what the original intent was.

But just to keep it very consistent with the ordinance with the forms that we'll redo and change once it passes, just to make it very clear that the event organizer is the one responsible.

So it's not put off on a on a separate sponsor who maybe or maybe is not involved with the event.

We want the person who's running the event to be the person applying and being very involved in the application process.

And the responsible responsible party, yes.

So nobody can say, well, it's not me.

It's no, you're the event organizer, you are the responsible party.

Yes.

Makes sense to me.

On page 16 of your PowerPoint under recurring events.

Do you mean that there are absolutely no zero changes to a recurring event?

I think there's some flexibility in there.

You know, it has to be the you know, the same type of event, same location, same time of day.

Um, but you know, as far as uh, yeah, I think if there were substantive changes, it it would not qualify.

But I I think there is some little room for very minor changes.

All right.

Um on page 17, also related to recurring events.

What's the rationale for giving precedence to a recurring event?

Am I on the you seem to be looking at the same thing?

Yeah, I don't know where the ordinance of the backup material, Lori.

Um she's talking about the 375 to the 364, if you can explain the difference.

So that was already in the ordinance.

I'm not sure what the original intent was.

Um but if you are a brand new event organizer, you can apply 364 days in advance.

But we do want to give repeat event organizers a little leeway to have their same events again, so they get 374 days in advance.

And and I do recall something uh where this came from originally.

I think it was the last time the special events ordinance was amended, which was over 10 years ago.

I think uh basically when someone has an annual event, they should be given an opportunity to continue doing their annual event, I think was was the thinking on that.

So that you know, for instance, if you had a uh a successful, I don't know, St.

Patrick's Day event every single year, and you did it on this date and at this location and and you ran it for 10 years straight, someone couldn't sneak in and basically reserve that date and time and location and basically uh you know take over the the event because they submitted an application in earlier than anyone else because it's first come first serve.

So you know, if if you already been granted a permit in years past, you know, you should have at least some minor um accommodation to to do it again the next year.

I think that that's where it came from originally.

So our our office doesn't hold dates for anyone.

Um so like Joe said it's first come first serve.

Um so I'm gonna tell you, I think we mentioned this before that uh typically the event organizers um had not really taken advantage of the 10-day uh opportunity, but we are starting to see that more as people are getting uh more aware of the changes in the um what's happening uh with events in the city.

Okay, thank you.

Um I think I have the right page here now.

Page 1940, subsection 10.

I brought this up at the last meeting, I think, but I'm still wondering if the term previously planned event should be previously approved.

Yeah, I mean that could be changed to a previously submitted special event permit application, just to make that crystal clear.

Yeah, we wouldn't um so we get applications uh but they're not approved upon receipt.

So they still have to go through the departmental review.

So once we get the application, uh we would hold that time because you know something paid for that date and time, but that doesn't guarantee them that their event's gonna happen on a date because it still has to go through the department or view.

So do you agree that there might be some terminology that could be substituted for what is currently there?

Yes that would make it more clear?

Yeah, so I mean basically we could strike the the planned event language and just say uh previously so instead of saying uh the user activity intended would conflict with the previously planned event, we could just say previously submitted permit application for a special event.

So that it's more narrowly defined.

So we can make that change and it just when you make uh a motion on passing the balance of the ordinance, if you just want to note that um that change language to planned event, um, then we'll go ahead and make that change.

Thank you.

Oh, I still have a little bit of time.

Um would you clarify at what point the event organizer is required to provide documentation of a Florida issued permit for the consumption of alcohol?

At what point in your process?

So they have to submit it before the application is approved.

We would like to have everything completed and done for the every event 45 days in advance, um, if possible.

Earlier is great.

We will do it as soon as we have everything, we'll approve the event.

But 45 days is where we would really like to have everything.

And do you have a deadline date?

It's not a good idea.

After which it won't be 30 days is really like after 30 days, it's it's really hard to keep accepting things.

And we can approve the event application without the alcohol permit.

They just can't serve alcohol.

And most events, if they're planning to serve alcohol, don't really want to move forward without it.

Um with that permit, they are at the mercy of other entities, right?

So it has to go to the Department of Revenue.

We've recently been told that the Department of Revenue will not sign off on those permits until 90 days in advance.

Um I haven't heard that directly from them, but that was what we were told.

It also goes to our city zoning, and then it has to go to the state.

So it does have several steps, so we always encourage people to start it right away.

Like as soon as they have applied, they can start applying for that permit.

Okay.

And a couple of questions based on comments from the public.

Um would you address the lack of enforcement provisions?

Well, I think uh as far as enforcement, um there are provisions in there that uh, you know, if a person um you know violates uh the you know city county federal state state law, they may, it's not a shall, they they may not be um given a uh special event permit.

It's a basis for denial in the future.

Um, you know, if they violate uh a permit condition during the event, you know, the the event can be you know shut down or the permit can be terminated.

Um, you know, if they're in violation of any law, they can be, you know, prosecuted for that uh or cited or um so you know I I don't think we've had a great deal of problems with making sure people follow the rules.

I mean there there are enforcement mechanisms, you know, in place.

Okay, thank you.

And then finally, um, would you address maybe you want to wait until your next round on that?

I'll wait until my next round on that.

Uh Commissioner Aher and Kotch.

Thank you.

Commissioner, before you can start if you don't mind.

Um Mr.

Worley, can you like get closer to the mic?

Because I'm getting some feedback that people can't hear you, so thank you.

Thank you.

Yep.

All right.

Go ahead.

Sorry.

Okay.

Um page 15 of our uh ordinance, um, the third whereas paragraph, because we are wordsmithing this, um I'll point this out here.

Whereas on April 8th, 2024, the City Commission workshop was held at which proposed changes to the Sarasota City Code relating to special events were to the City Commission.

We're presented, we're discussed, we're something is missing there.

Okay, we I think we could add uh presented.

Okay.

Presented.

Okay.

Um and then one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.

Ninth paragraph down in the whereas clause, the last line has the next two weeks.

Typically you spell out the word two and you put in parentheses the digit.

Where are you, Commissioner?

Page 15.

The third to last whereas clause, last line.

The July 31st one.

Yeah.

Yeah, we can add that too.

Okay.

I'm not going to point out the commas.

We did add a lot of Oxford.

I know, but there are some missing still.

And then on page 18.

It's seven at the bottom and it goes up to top of 19.

The event organizer has so these are reasons to deny.

Right?

The event organizer has on prior occasions to damage city property and has not paid in full for such damage.

What if they damage city property and then they paid?

And that that's not a reason to deny them.

We have had events in the past that have had minor damage that they have paid for, so they pay the contractor directly and they can still have events.

It's something that they take care of after the fact.

Okay.

So maybe that should be instead of and it can be or event organizer has on priority damaged city property, comma, or or has not paid or has outstanding unpaid.

Well, I think I think the intent is sometimes something breaks.

And if someone's responsible about it and pays for it, that it's not necessarily going to be uh, you know, an impediment to to the future event.

What if they keep breaking stuff and keep paying for it?

It's this cost of doing business, for example.

I just don't want to tie our hands.

I mean, enforcement, I think I agree with the comment.

I think enforcement is kind of lacking in here.

Um Mr.

Malad, you were talking about when the Vice Mayor asked the question that they may be fined, they can be fined.

That is not sounding like it's got a lot of teeth in it.

Um, you know, there have been some of our rights of way and they do get damaged.

And just because they pay for it, it's I mean, if they if they're a repeat offender, we should have the ability to say no.

Just because you broke it and you paid to fix it.

If we think you're a bad actor, we have the ability to say no to you.

Well, let me um let me look through some of these subsections to address that.

If we could keep moving on, maybe I'll take a look and see if there's something else in here that may be applicable.

Okay.

On page 20.

Um number six.

I think I I brought this up last time about the notification when a special event application for is at St.

Armand's Park, that it's to the residents and to the circle association.

Could we either have, I know the city auditor and clerk has lists where citizens sign up to receive notifications of things that are going on in the city.

Um what about the Leto Key Residence Association?

What about Longboat Key residents?

What about Leto Shores residents?

Because those events on St.

Armands can bottleneck and really clog up that traffic.

People on Longboat, people on LEDO may want to know, not when the event is necessarily happening, but they probably do.

But even if someone has applied for it, that this could be happening.

They, you know, that's a it is a bottleneck, and people may want to know something's going on there.

And even re regular residents, you know, if you want to go out to St.

Armand's and have lunch, uh, you should be able to know, oh, wait, there's an art fair or there's a whatever Corvettes in the circle.

Not this weekend, I'm going next weekend, because I want to avoid the traffic.

So I'm just trying to expand the notification possibilities for other groups who may want to know what's going on out there.

So Commissioner, can I just mention really quick?

I I just want to note this is a second reading on approval of an ordinance, and we addressed the items that were asked to come back for second reading.

This wasn't one of the items that was asked to come back for second reading, so I don't want to hold up an approval of a second reading on an item where we weren't asked to update that.

Now with that said, I can let Jim and Lori discuss what is out there as far as notifications for our residents to get special event notifications.

Um just so we aren't confusing previous requests that weren't asked to come back on second reading with additional changes today.

So I just wanted to state that.

Okay.

Okay.

Um but do you think there there are tools for us to um we to notify folks who want to be notified.

Yeah, so we have the newsletter for special events and road closures.

Um I think we are over seven thousand.

7,317.

Uh they have signed up for it and when we started this back uh it's been a few months.

Yeah, a few months it's gone from like 4,000.

So it's increased at like 3,000 over the last few months of uh folks signing up for that notification.

And that's when the event's gonna happen, not the application though.

It's about a month in advance for events happening the following month.

So I think at a month at a time.

Okay.

Okay.

Um I think that's an important thing that we let others know what's going on on the the islands.

Um but if the other commissioners don't agree with me, that's that's okay too.

Um then um the comment that was made about three events.

So I think that's hits on page 21 is where we are, and I think that's where that is.

Can you just explain the three events?

Um I think it's item two, two um how that can happen with three events, and if is there any tweak or fix we can so the way that it's written right now is that it is limited to two events per month if it's within the bounded area that we had, you know, for downtown.

Um that could happen.

There could be two on the same block if they're not on consecutive weekends.

We have not received applications like that previously.

That's not happened before.

And then I think they're also including uh city co-sponsored, possibly like the Fresh Fridays.

Um we have already spoken to you know, next Mark and to Julie about kind of keeping things away from where we know we have these types of events, don't put Fresh Fridays in that same area for that month, and they're very open to that.

So if we have an event on Lemon, then they won't have Fresh Fridays on State Street on the following weekend.

So even though they they have um an exception for city co-sponsored events, they're willing to to move around.

The only kind of area where New Year's Eve is so large, it's a large footprint that Fresh Fridays is about 10-ish days after New Year, so that's going to be within the two weeks, but there really isn't anywhere that they can go that isn't on an adjacent street, because New Year's Eve is such a large footprint.

Okay.

So if if this does become a problem, we can always bring it back and add language and say whatever we need to say to to fix it, right?

Yes.

Okay.

Um the teardown and timing, that that is well as something that you know that that can be extremely impactful.

Um and I know we discussed it last time, and I don't think the commission agreed with that either.

But if that is turns out to be something impactful, we can change that and fix that as well.

We can always bring it back and allocate if we need to, yes.

Okay.

And we've already had discussions with um our organizers about um using less time for setup and breakdown.

Uh they have been pretty receptive to hearing that.

So some of them have also uh are going to adjust to uh I'm not gonna put this large stage up anymore that's gonna take me eight hours to do uh you know, if we can work it within the three or four hours, they're willing to do that and then take down's less.

So they're willing to do that, and then also remember that um with the noise after hours, they have to abide by the current um sound ordinance and stuff.

So once the event's done, um they're not protected by the um Okay, so the sound ordinance will pick in at that point.

Okay.

Um there was a uh a notification comment brought up about not notifying the individual condos, um, which uh i is also an issue I think is an issue as well, but I brought that up in the first reading, and I don't think that was also supported by the commissioners.

Um but the new suggestion of um which is new to me about um local businesses being having first right of re refusal for for vending.

Can you speak to that?

I think for for our event organizers, I believe it was brought up specifically with city co-sponsored events, uh, but for our regular event organizers, it's they're using the space as they see fit essentially.

So we didn't add that for regular events, and I know for for city co-sponsored Fresh Fridays does that.

Um I don't know.

Uh it's not in there, and um I don't think it's something that has been contemplated or uh approved by the commission at this time for all special events.

I think it's it starts to get a little difficult when you're um trying to control the activities of a third party and requiring them to use local you know, pizza vendors or or whatnot.

So I'm I'm that would be a little challenging and and uh it's it's not in the ordinance currently.

Right.

I I don't think it's requiring, I think it's giving them first right of refusal.

I mean, and I think that that was a really sensitive comment about supporting our businesses.

So my time is up, but um in my second run, I'd like to discuss that.

Commissioner Alkridge.

Um that was going to be my question is there is there a reason why we can't include the right of first refusal for the local businesses in, you know, not in the second reading, but you know, to bring it back with maybe something like that to be considered or included.

I think we would have to look into it because I'm not sure how we would enforce it.

Like how could we prove that they asked and they refused and and and how does that work?

Especially for like if a New Year's Eve is so large and there's so many vendors, I don't know that they would get the participation.

Um and we're not really involved on that side of things and planning and hiring vendors, so I wouldn't we would need to reach out to the event organizers and see how that process would even happen.

So maybe that's something that we can at least explore to see if it's something.

I think part of this goes back to years ago.

Um so I'm going on five years here, so my first uh um I think this is more about the New Year's event, and I do remember some of the vendors that were set up that were very similar to what was uh you know, right there in the same area.

So each year we had to follow up with the um event organizers to talk to them about that.

These are the complaints that we heard.

Uh it's I think it's gotten better where they move those type of vendors or don't even have those type of vendors in the event.

And actually I feel like they've uh reduced the amount of food vendors that they actually have within the footprint and don't really have uh duplication of a lot of the um you know establishments that are already in the footprint.

But you know, we do also talk to them about it would be nice uh that you work with you know some of the folks to maybe have an opportunity to be part of the event.

So that's just it's kind of an ongoing discussion.

I think it's gotten better from when I first started here, um, but I think there could be some work done.

Okay, yeah.

And the the other thing I was gonna ask about, I think you you answered it um earlier, uh, you know, about the idea of um having you know the provision in the in the ordinance about not having adjacent events like this this year for July 4th, we had Fresh Fridays, a fresh Friday on July 3rd, and then um you know the Fourth of July event um you know for the Gator Club, and I just don't want there to be like something that prevents them from being able to do that.

Those are not next to each other and none of the property above the same road, so that would have been okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

And uh Commissioner Bad T.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Um I think uh you know, a few of my questions have been answered somewhat.

Um but one of them is I mean you was saying that we don't really give preference to uh to anyone in this kind of a first come, first third uh situation with those that of reoccurring events or whatever.

Um if they give them kind of like a head start or whatever, it doesn't necessarily give anyone else a real opportunity to participate if um if they don't get their theirs in by well providing the the the individual that did the reoccurrent event doesn't get theirs in, doesn't really give them an opportunity to participate or to even do an event like let's say I wanted to do New Year's Eve next year.

You know, if that that group did it or whatever, um they're always going to do it because no one would be really given the opportunity because they have a head start on them, right?

I think specifically for city co-sponsored events, it's a little different because those are a lot larger.

But for an event like let's say on Lemon, it would only apply if you wanted to do an event on the exact same street on the exact same date as somebody else.

So you could have an event somewhere else, you know, a couple weeks later, but you wouldn't be able to have it at the same, you know, at the same place.

So it just gives precedent to the events that have happened successfully in the past.

Yeah, I think what it's designed to counter is if if someone over many years builds up an event and goes through the growing pains of creating an event and and then uh you know, after doing it for six, seven years, then someone else just puts in an application and attempts like a hostile takeover of the event essentially.

You know, that uh that's I think what was trying to be avoided is just to give a little bit of a heads up to the person who did it before.

But you know, I guess the counter to that is is yeah, that person has a leg up on on other event sponsors.

So that's kind of the balancing act on on that particular one.

Okay.

Uh all right.

Um then the other was uh um regarding, you know, this this was answered as well as asked in answer to some degree.

And I don't know, as you said, how you enforce it or how you um sort of make a uh an individual that's put in on the event get the participation from you know from the local businesses downtown.

But that is I can see that being a concern, you know, and whatever way we can do to kind of allay that is uh um I think is best practice because you know the the people do invest in downtown, they spend money downtown, um they own property downtown, they pay taxes downtown, um especially when it comes to the did, you know, and and um and them being self-taxing and the money that they put into to make sure that even somebody that's putting on an event downtown, that downtown is nice because of the money that they put into it.

How do how do those businesses you know um get verse writer refusal in terms of you know participating in in this, you know, you got a business like just you know, as uh you know Mrs.

Volker spoke of like a um what is it, uh BRICS barbecue, and then somebody's putting the barbecue stand like right out in front of their business or whatever.

You know, how do we how do how do we sort of you know those are think we talked about that a little bit um again, we try to talk to the organizers and you know, whenever big phrases, you know, be a good neighbor.

Um we talk about this if we've seen this in the past.

I think our organizers are pretty aware of what businesses are um set um around the event footprint and try not to have uh similar um types of uh offerings uh that's already there so that these uh businesses can still thrive uh during the event.

So I think we've done a really good job internally of uh communicating that to um both the event organizer and um you know the folks that are involved in the event uh around so that they don't have duplication of this.

You know, we can't I mean at this point in time we don't or can't enforce that they have the same thing, but again, we've seen that in the past, but we really haven't seen that really uh in the last few years uh that you're having that kind of activity.

Okay, so let's say a situation like New Year's Eve.

Like what's the cost for a permit, you know what I mean, to put on put on that event?

It's a city co-sponsored event.

Okay, so no cost.

No cost.

So if if uh if I'm putting on that event with the city at no cost.

Do I pretty much own all the property downtown where like no business down there can participate or like put out because like a couple of years ago I was at Eevee's and they tried to put a bar out right in front of their business or whatever, and they weren't allowed to do it.

So at no cost to that individual.

Are we so as a city, are we making any money for New Year's Eve?

Since it's a city co-sponsored event.

So we make no money.

No.

Does the person putting it on, are they making money?

We don't um audit their books for that.

Okay.

So they get all of downtown for free.

And they're a nonprofit organization.

Exactly.

And they get all the revenue.

They own pretty much for that for that time, all the property downtown.

And no business can participate in it or whatever.

I don't I don't necessarily, I would say EBS once and they couldn't put a bar out in front of the.

Let me just answer that really quick, Commissioner.

So when we do special events, the event organizer is taking all legal responsibility for that entire site map.

So they, as part of their application, they put a site map in and they ask our requ our approval to hold their event in that specific location.

As Ms.

Benson said, the New Year's Eve is larger than any of our other special events.

So that event organizer is taking legal responsibility for that entire site map.

So if every single organiz if every single business within that site map was allowed to put out alcohol, put out extend their business, that becomes the legal responsibility of the event organizer, not the business.

And so we want to be very careful that not every business gets to do that without approval of the event organizer since they have legal responsibility.

They have to get insurance for all of that.

Mr.

Wormley and Ms.

Benson does encourage the event organizer to work with local businesses, but we can't require it for one reason, most specifically for a liability issues as well.

Yeah, and just to add to that, um some of the the specific example that you are talking about, um some of these establishments try to set up a bar uh which doesn't fit under their uh alcohol license that they shouldn't be setting up.

So that's code enforcement telling them they can't have the bar outside.

Um you can have your cafe permit.

They can serve you alcohol outside if you have a cafe permit uh from the inside.

But you can't set up a bar outside uh because their alcohol permit does not cover that.

So that's it's two separate things.

Um but it also gets confused because when they do try to set up some of these bars, they're handing out um bottles, and now you got people potentially taking bottles into a a footprint where they're serving from plastic cups and stuff like that, and then you have some issues with maybe broken glass.

I mean, um, you know, it's just something you have to monitor.

We work with SPD as well as code enforcement during that time to uh help monitor that.

Because I'm just trying to try to get um an understanding of the co-sponsored event by the city.

We don't make any money of it, I mean, from it.

Uh I know that they they they take, you know, the the um the responsibility of liability and everything.

But for them to be able because someone sat here today and said that they participate, they're one of the participants in the New Year's Eve, you know, celebration.

And they said, oh yeah, we volunteer, we don't make any money.

You all have all of downtown and whatnot.

You get the whole footprint of downtown.

How do you not make any money and whatnot?

You know what I mean?

So and you know, to the mayor's point, like they're also a nonprofit and whatnot.

Um I'm just trying to figure out the the fairness in it all, particularly like when it comes to them making money on local businesses, not making money and you know, because it is hard for you to even make money down there.

The only way that I see businesses making money downtown on New Year's Eve is if they charge a cover charge to get in and what they make at the bar inside, or whatever, you know.

So yet they can't really participate or whatever unless the uh unless the people that are putting it on, you know, see fit to go to them and um give them virtual writer refusal or or ask them to participate or whatever.

So I'm just trying to find some kind of uh balance with that, you know, within the ordinance.

And they they may already ask local businesses, but we just don't, we're not aware of if they go to them first.

So that is a possibility.

They are downtown Sarasota Enrichment, Inc., so they do have participation from the downtown businesses, but I don't know if they ask them first, but we can we can find out.

We can do some research, see how that how that works.

I'm just trying to understand it because when you're talking about New Year's Eve, that's about 40,000 people downtown, whatever, you know, on on just that night.

So I I yield mayor.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I really think you guys did a really good job translating what we said at the last meeting for the first reading and and uh made the changes for today.

Um I was one of the people who wanted to make sure that residents in multi-unit housing got notified of what was happening, and I s I interpreted that you have that on the bottom of page 26 of 40 and continuing on to the top of page 27, in that where impacted property representatives are members of a condominium association, and association representative shall be notified on behalf of the residents, and that association representative shall be responsible for providing the notice to all residents and or posting the notice in a location accessible to all residents, where impacted property representatives are residents of a rental property, the property manager or property management company shall be notified on behalf of the residents and the property manager or

Where impacted property representatives are residents of a rental property, the property manager or property management company shall be notified on behalf of the residents, and the property manager or property manager management company shall be responsible for providing the notice to all residents and/or posting the notice in a location accessible to all residents.

I believe that addresses the concern that was expressed in the comments.

The only thing that I might suggest is that somehow there be a notice added by the event organizer to clearly state to the association representative, you must post this where all your residents can see it.

Otherwise, the association representative might just stick it in their drawer.

But just to make sure that the association representative knows their responsibility.

So could we add this a CRA to that?

We could.

So the sponsor will be replaced with event organizer on the application.

So what would be the entity that would be getting the insurance and et cetera in the entity's name?

The event organizer.

So the I that's where my confusion is.

I mean, I'm I'm thinking the entity, the sponsor would be all children's, you know, LLC, you know, 501c3, and Mary Smith would be the organizer.

So the event organizer is the actual legal entity who is getting the insurance, getting the temporary alcohol permit, who's agreeing to all the legal, and that is a most typically a corporation.

Now you can be an individual and do that, but I would say 99% of our applications are nonprofits or corporations.

There is a section on the application of the on-site contact, and so that is the individual who the event organizers would look to if there were issues during the event, our special event monitor would call that person if they're doing something wrong, if they're violating the sound or something like that, that would be the individual that we would contact.

So that's the person who's on site and responsible to for the event that day.

But all the legal requirements fall back to that event organizer.

The event organizer being the corporate nonprofit or the and because I I'm wondering if that was clear to me in the definitions.

Yeah, I think.

Because it says it's the person who is applying.

Right.

Person is in oh, sorry, too.

But then we also define person more broadly than a human being.

So a few places down it says person means the state or any agency or institution there of a municipality, a political subdivision, public or private corporation, individual partnership association, or so but if if I'm reading it, you know, I'm seeing event organizer means the person who is applying.

I I would not recommend using the word person.

Well, since person is then to to Mr.

Milladnick's point, um, since person is then defined later on, that's why we use the word person there.

Because person is actually used throughout the ordinance as a general term, and then to define person, you go back to those definitions.

Maybe personal person higher up.

It's it's a legal term.

Yeah, but you know, I'm I'm an event organizer.

I don't I'm not a lawyer, you know.

But uh I it maybe person or entity or else put the definition of person higher up.

Um and then so I was even wondering with the agreement um you know I just would suggest that you maybe re look at the agreements and as you said you haven't updated it for this language because it might be confusing because as I was looking at it, I said, oh, better make sure that the applicant who signs is legally able to sign for that sponsor, which probably would not be the on-site contact person.

So the um special event team, when they get an application, they do look at who the event organizer is.

Um they'll do a Sunbiz check on it to make sure they're a legal entity, um, and they'll also work with that event organizer.

So if they fill it out incorrectly or there's some concerns about if they're legally obligated or authorized to sign that, the special event team would work with them on that.

Okay, thank you.

And and I'm only have a couple of seconds, and it's a quick question on the um page, the app with the first page of the application, very bottom of the page, uh $500 special event application fee received uh 59 to 30 days prior to the event, and then there's an asterisk, which doesn't goes nowhere.

Yes, as a typo.

It may have been referencing that we don't accept applications under 30 days previously, and that was removed at some point, but we'll take that out.

This whole form will have to change.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, second round, um, the vice mayor is up first.

Thank you.

Um in my mind I'm trying to wrap this up.

And um I see a category of very small word changes that we could wordsmithing, as we've said, that we could make that don't really change the content of what we presented today.

I wrote them all down here.

And I also see you coming back to us after the 2026 season.

That's some date to be defined later.

Um with an update.

How'd it go regarding enforcement teardowns?

Um more information on giving local vendors uh an opt-out.

And I'd be ready to vote on this motion with uh on this ordinance with those changes.

The little wordsmithing and the recommendation to come on back and give us feedback after the 2026 season.

27 season.

Commissioner Aaron.

I would go along with that.

Commissioner Aaron Kotch is up for her.

Yeah, and I wanted to address a comment that you brought up, Mayor, on the 26 to 27 about the language for notification.

I do think it does in rereading it, it does sound pretty ironclad because the word shall is in there.

You know that the um the condominium association, association representative shall be notified on behalf of the residents, and that the association representative shall be responsible for providing the notice to all residents and or posting the notice.

So I I'm I'm I think that's pretty strong language there, um that it it it will be posted.

I don't know what the follow-up to check to make sure they do it is on that, but um at least that's pretty strong uh language.

So thank you for for for bringing that up.

Um on that permit application.

So I know that we you had said that this is like not at all uh ready to go.

I did want to point out well I didn't want to ask you, is it gonna be called special event permit application?

Is that the new name?

Yes.

Okay.

Um and then uh um I wanted to point out on that agreement in the very back.

Um let's see, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven.

Eleventh line down, it begins on the left with the word of the event sponsor, including not limited to, I think the word but should be in there.

And then the second to last line, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Florida Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Just while we're getting wordsmithing in here.

Um then for for me the um the word event organizer should I think that it's important to continue with that identification instead of applicant signature and things like that.

Yes, that will all change.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um I think you all have done really great work.

You know, what what we have is is is not working, and this is really getting us to a much better place.

Um you've all done some incredible work on this.

So thank you.

And I know it's not everything is going to be perfect, speaking about what the Vice Mayor said.

We're and we're not all going to agree on what's where to go with with everything.

You know, that's clear from the last meeting.

So I wanted to thank you all for that.

And um later point out a couple of the Oxford commas.

But nothing more substantive than that and a paragraph return as well.

But other than that, um, thank you.

So no additional comments.

Vice Mayor, you sounded like you wanted to make a motion.

Oh, I want to make a motion.

I move to approve ordinance number 2655 on second reading.

Second.

With changes on page 19 sub 10.

Do you want me to be specific regarding the changes or do you have a No, I think you put it on the record pretty well.

So I'll just state the pages.

Sure.

Uh Page 19 sub 10, page 15, pages 18, 19, and page 20 number six.

Um my pages are for some reason not corresponding to yours.

Oh, okay.

And um with the recommendation that you come back following the 2627 season with an update.

Did you want to throw a date on that?

What did you mean by 26-27 season?

Well, after all the seasonal people go home.

April.

Next next.

April.

I apologize, but when you're referencing some of these, maybe we should go into a little more detail of what you're talking about.

Yeah, because I was going to say I don't know what we're doing.

Yeah, so just to clarify things.

So on page 15, we had um I think Commissioner Aharin.

Add the word presented in a warehouse class clause and put the number two in in parentheses.

Yes.

Okay, so those are those two changes.

On page 19 sub 10.

19 sub 10, which is where we're taking out planned event and put putting submitted special event permit application.

So that one is clear.

Pages 18, 19.

At the bottom of 18.

Going over to 19, Commissioner Ahern Koch.

That was your Was that accepted by the group?

I'm not so necessarily.

Yeah, I don't necessarily think that was.

That's a substantive change.

That's not just wordsmithing.

I don't agree with that.

So that is a substantive one that maybe need to discuss.

And it really changes the uh that paragraph has to do with an event organizer owing the city money and failing to pay.

So if anything, I would think you would want a paragraph 20 that gives you the right to disallow bad actors or you know organizers who have a pattern of mayor in there.

Mayor Mayor have it.

We have a motion and a second on the table.

If we are going to go down this rabbit hole, I think we need to maybe pull this motion back and clarify exactly what needs to be stated.

I think it's not clear.

No, because it should be just, you know, her motion is wordsmithing, so not changing the substantive.

Should I re reiterate my motion?

So let's let's take this motion off the table.

Yes.

We draw the motion.

Withdraw the motion.

Okay.

Let's start over.

I move to approve ordinance number 265585 on second reading with changes on page 19 sub 10.

On page 15, add the word presented.

And on the third from the bottom where I was clause.

And on page 20 number six.

Those were all non-substantive changes?

Yes.

I eliminated what I said previously on page pages 18-19.

A second.

I'm sorry, it's page 19.

Um page 20.

I think that's a I think what we're asking for there is a substantive change as well.

That's adding additional notifications that we haven't been able to discuss yet.

So what we would rather use the newsletter that we talked about before and then leave that change off.

So let me clarify for the final time now that we got this.

Move to approve 2655 85 and second reading with changes on page 19 sub-10.

Add the uh were change previously planned.

On page 15, add the word presented and change the third whereas clause from the bottom.

Second.

Period.

Okay, so motion made by the vice mayor, seconded by Commissioner Batti to approve uh the resolution 26R-5585 with specific non-substantive changes.

Okay.

Is that the motion?

Yes.

That's the motion.

And uh and so uh does the maker of the motion make wish to speak to the motion?

No.

I'm going to make a follow-up motion for them to come back.

Okay.

So Commissioner Ahern Cosh.

My my thoughts where I'm having a hard time is not accepting that suggestion.

If there is a historic property, for example, or art, um Paul Thorpe Park that gets damaged again and again and again and again, and they just pay for it.

I think we should have the ability to say no to them.

Just because you damage something and pay for it should not give you the right to keep coming back at us.

And if we don't allow our staff the ability to say, these are bad actors, they're damaging things that are historic or art.

Just because you pay for it doesn't give you the rights.

Accidents sometimes happen.

And then to say, well, you can never now have an event because you had an accident, I think is wrong.

So I think for now, let's just approve this with the wordsmithing, non-substantive changes.

And when they come back, if we want to have this discussion about this, then we should have it.

But also we don't even have the information.

How often has that happened?

How often, you know, like how big an issue is this anyway.

So I I think for now I I think adding this just um, you know, we're working off of information we don't have, and I think it just is wrong.

Commissioner Batti.

No, um I hear what it is, uh Commissioner Aher and Kajisan is basically saying that this is a reoccurring theme within with uh in a vendor or an individual or whatever.

And I also hear what uh the what Commissioner Albert is saying as well in terms of like just bring it back, and we'll have a discussion about that now, but let's just go ahead and move this forward and uh get this get this going.

So I concur with the both of you and and I will be looking forward to the vice mayor's next motion because I think that will give us an opportunity to see how this is working and introduce some possible amendments at that time.

So um call the question.

Yes, and it will also be roll call as well.

Hit your buttons.

Albert.

Yes.

Betty?

Yes.

Ulrich?

Yes.

Price and Kotch.

Yes.

Okay.

Pass unanimously, thank you very much.

And I believe the vice mayor would like to make another motion.

I would like to make another motion, Mayor.

Um move that the special events team come back to commission with an update at the end of April 2027 with feedback.

Second.

And whatever you want to say, I'm saying with feedback specifically on enforcement, how it's going, teardowns, how it's going, feedback from downtown businesses and residents.

And um recommendations for potential amendments to the motion to the special events ordinance.

Okay.

Motion made by the vice mayor seconded by commissioner.

Well, I'm Claire Boyne.

I knew what she was going to say.

Uh which includes uh the special events team coming back with um a report on how this worked out and coming back to us in April of 2027.

So any discussion?

Okay, so call the question.

Passed unanimously.

Thank you very much.

Um it is now 1223.

I'm going to suggest that we have a lunch break until 1.30.

Yep.

All right.

So we are on recess till 1.30.

The meeting is back in session.

I hope you had a nice lunch and are drying off from the rain that delayed this start from by about two minutes.

And I will we are at the point where starting our public hearings today, and we've got two of them ahead of us.

So I'm going to ask City Auditor and Clerk Griggs to administer the oath.

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

If you plan on speaking at all, thank you.

Do you swear or burn it to evidence of factual representations which you're about to give or present to this commission during any public hearing held this 20th day of July 2026 are truthful?

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

So the next item on the agenda is a public hearing on proposed ordinance number 26-560.

And I'm opening the public hearing and calling upon City Auditor and Clerk Griggs to read the title of proposed ordinance number 26-560.

Thank you, Mayor.

Ordinance number 26-560.

Clarifier requirements for future land use map app map amendments, I'm sorry, and codifying the detailed review methodologies.

But based on development application type, providing for salvability of the parts here out, providing for reading by title only, and providing for antifit debate.

And uh lasting here is there's some existing language that's in the code that's really just being relocated to a different section of the code, so you'll see a lot of red underline.

Uh not all that language is brand new, and we can point that out.

And I know in the back of the material you'll see the noteboxes that hopefully help you uh and guide you through the changes in the rationale for those changes.

So uh with that I'll turn it over to Alex.

Thank you very much for the record.

Alex Davishaw, acting assistant city engineer.

And as um Ryan said, we'd like to provide some additional clarity on our concurrency plan.

Um, and that's what resolution 26 ZTA01 will cover.

But before we do that, we wanted to give a little overview of the traffic um concurrency requirements and our traffic studies for the viewing public because not everybody is familiar with this process.

So we'll go over a little bit about transportation concurrency.

We'll touch on traffic reviews and land uses, traffic studies, and then we'll actually get to what we're really here for is the zoning text amendment.

So every development that comes through is required to get a certificate of concurrency, and basically when the city develops their trans their comprehensive plan, they determine what level of service for various utilities the city should be providing.

And one of those is the roadway network.

So when a development comes through, they have to show that once they have their additional trips on the network, that the network will still operate within the adopted level of service.

The first step in that process is what we um call a traffic review, and that's done by staff, and here's an example of what one looks like.

In this, we use the current edition of the ITE, that's the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, and that is really the standard of uh transportation studies is using the trip generation manual produced by ITE.

Currently, it's online, um, so we don't have a current physical manual, but this is just a cover of what it looks like.

And what we look at is we look at using that information, what that site produces now versus what that site would produce in the future, and see what the difference in that impact is.

And that's our first step.

And as a part of that, we've got continued uses, and those would be before and after, so those really don't change the equation.

We look at discontinued uses versus the proposed uses.

We also look at site access because if it stops here at the initial traffic review, we want to make sure that we've evaluated site access for both vehicles and well for vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, and if there's a transit stop nearby, if we need to take that into consideration.

So we want to look at that at this phase just in case it doesn't go to traffic study phase.

And then we also look at an off-site impact of the first adjacent thoroughfare.

If that evaluation determines that the traffic that's placed on the first adjacent thoroughfare is not more than one percent of the trips, it's considered a de minimis impact, which means it has a very little impact on the thoroughfare.

Here's an example.

We did this evaluation, and you can see here that um one percent of the capacity of free bill road was a little more than 27 trips, but this development produced 39 trips, so therefore it was more than that one percent threshold.

And so this particular project then had to move forward for a full traffic study.

So if when we do our initial review, it's determined that it's de minimis.

That means that the project does meet concurrency and it can move forward through DRC.

If when we do the traffic review, it's not de minimis, then it has to go forward to the traffic study phase, and then whatever requirements are produced in that traffic study, they have to include in their plans and commit to before they can get sign off from DRC.

So in the initial traffic review, again, we look at um, it's a high-level review.

We look at driveways.

It's done really just to see how large the impact is, and this is done by staff, and the cost is $631 and change.

If it's determined that it needs a traffic study, then it goes to the next phase, and that's quite a bit more uh costly.

So that's why we do the initial evaluation so a developer knows you know where they are and whether they want to try to make modifications that time, or they want to go forward with the full-fledged traffic study.

If they need a traffic study, we contact one of the consultants we have on our list, and we have an independent list of consultants that are not associated with the developer.

We ask them for their price for that evaluation, then the developer actually pays that fee, and then the applicant or then the consultant actually performs that study.

And what question we get from the public is you know, okay, so what are they going to have to do?

If it's going to a traffic study, they're going to have to do something.

So the question is do all traffic studies require improvements?

And the answer is no.

Just because it is required to do a traffic study does not mean the traffic that's going to get on the network is such that it's going to impact the functionality of that roadway.

It may, but it may not.

But this gives us the ability to determine that, and if so, what's the best course of action to correct that?

And when they're when the study is done, they'll give us recommended stipulations.

And then those we put in our staff report that goes before the DRC.

Oh.

Development Review Committee, I'm sorry.

Um now we'll talk a little bit about zoning text amendments and the development application type.

And that's really basically what we've talked about thus far.

The developer comes in, they've got a site plan, they tell us what they're proposing to build, how much of it they're proposing to build, and we utilize that both in our traffic review and in the traffic study.

So what we would like to do now is provide better direction for what happens for a site plan for rezoning with or without a site plan for rezoning with or without a site plan, or for an application for future land use.

So with rezoning, if they have a site plan provided, then it basically follows the same process because we already know what they're planning.

We know it's on the site, we'll know their access points, and so it'll follow the process we just discussed.

If they propose a rezoning without a site plan, then we don't have the specifics to do that level of detail.

So what we do is we evaluate the most intense use that could be built in the current zoning versus the most intense use that could be built in the proposed zoning.

And we evaluate it that way.

So we're looking at apples and apples.

Now, once they come back with a site plan, then they have to go through the process again.

Because then we'll know specifically what they're placing on the site and where their access points will be.

And similarly with the future land use, um, we want to be able to compare apples to apples, so it would be the most intense use that could be built in the most intense zoning district in the current classification versus the most intense use that could be built in the most intense zoning in the proposed classification.

Again, comparing apples to apples.

And with that, that concludes the presentation, and we'll take any questions you may have.

Okay.

Thank you.

We do have one request to speak.

Umgeny Kodorovsky.

Thank you.

So I'm here today to urge you to vote no on the amendment as proposed.

It's uh totally understandable to want policies that accurately measure and mitigate development impact.

However, this amendment introduces calculation methods that effectively lower our traffic concurrency standards.

Traffic is the worst it's ever been, and it will make it even worse than that.

By the way, I'm a software and systems engineer, so uh I understand I read the entire amendment.

Okay, so first uh this ordinance reduces the mitigation analysis requirement for development.

So it establishes an exemption for changes of use in downtown, the busiest place, right, for those uh hundred peak hour trips, peak hour trips or less.

And it creates a small-scale project designation uh exempting these developments from conducting a complete off-site traffic impact analysis.

So, for example, development generating up to 100 ed peak hours uh on a four-lane road, uh an acceptable level of service, it's a small scale and completely bypasses off-site evaluation.

And uh skipping traffic studies for these small projects, we're ignoring the cumulative impact.

So many small projects add up to one big traffic jam.

Um, this amendment alters the baseline of the calculation for rezoning uh in uh submission without a site plan.

So you're crediting theoretical unbuilt capacity, it reduces the calculated uh traffic load because it's not based on actual current reality on the road.

Now uh the another big problem, so as B 180, yeah, uh if we adopt this, we're letting up on the regulatory tightrope.

So if we're if we reduce concurrency today, uh as V180 prevents us from reversing or modifying it until basically 2028.

And it would be sound engineering and planning practices to wait until we can actually holistically evaluate development impacts when SB180 expires.

So uh preserving the current requirements ensures that we retain the flexibility to either tighten or loosen regulations based on actual infrastructure performance, not some you know theoretical whim.

Um piece is actually reasonable, so I'm not here to only complain.

Uh aging out historical trip credits uh is a logical strategy.

It basically ensures that the capacity calculations reflect actual on-the-ground conditions rather than some historical use that was there you know five years ago.

While most of the proposed text reduces analytical requirements for applications, this specific provision reasonably improves the accuracy of the traffic model.

So I recommend the commission reject the broader reduction in capacity requirements and adopt only this trip credit phase out alongside the grammatical text correction.

You like you guys like wordsmitting uh I I think I would not include the unpinning of the handbook version, so the 2012 version versioning uh pinned versioning, I'm sorry, is there for a reason.

It's sound engineering practice that uh it ensures that we're making conscious decision when we switch to a certain set of standards instead of having some other organization somewhere in maybe a different state determining when we actually switch standards.

Um to summarize, our current infrastructure capacity does not support reducing our analytical requirements.

Traffic is already the worst it's ever been the city history, is the debt of summer, it's election year, SB 80 is in place.

If you vote yes, you're telling everybody in the public, I don't care that you're sending traffic.

I'm gonna make it worse for you anyway.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And you may now return for Commissioner questions.

Commissioners, who wants to go first.

Yeah, me.

Okay, Commissioner Albert.

I'm sure I'm misunderstanding this, but um you talked about um if they if they looks like it's you know the the rezoning uh without a site plan, and then you know, we we figure out the trip credits and that sort of thing, decide whether there's a traffic study that needs to be done.

So then they're required to do a traffic study at that point, or wait until they've actually done a site plan.

They're not having to do two traffic studies, in other words.

They potentially could have to do two traffic studies if they request a rezone without a site plan.

So depending on what that impact is, they could have to do a traffic study initially, but we don't have the level of detail at that point to know specifically what's going on that site and where their driveways will be, so we don't know you know how many trips might be on road A versus road B.

So if they do it separately, they may have to do two traffic studies.

If their site plan does not differ from the calculations that you came up with previously, let's say you know you're using the most intense use.

And um they're doing the most intense use or lesser, wouldn't that calculation come out the same?

I'm just trying to understand what we're doing.

Potentially um if they don't, you know, if what they put on there is less and um but it also depends on where those trips are located, right?

So if they are on an intersection, say and they put all their trips on one street, and we assumed it was split between the two because we didn't have that information, then more trips could be on road A and not in the on road B, and that could impact potentially.

So road A.

So it they're so if they're making a change, it could happen.

But if they're pretty much doing what you kind of assumed and it comes out the same, then they would not.

So if it doesn't add any more trips, then minor traffic review would acknowledge that.

Okay.

Okay.

And this change really isn't lowering the traffic concurrency requirement, is it?

That's correct.

Um I know you will see in the future a change from level service to volume over capacity.

This doesn't change anything.

We've relocated things because sometimes um developers were getting stuck where we had credits in one place and um demanded another.

We tried to reorganize it so it's easier for them to follow that flow, but we haven't changed any of the thresholds, we haven't changed um any of the requirements for that or the site plan requirements.

All we've done is try to make it more clear for a rezoning without a site plan or a future land use request.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's all there.

Okay.

Um Vice Mayor.

Thank you.

Um page 10 of your PowerPoint presentation.

You talk about um who is allowed to do a traffic study.

You say that the city has a less a list of consultants.

Um you know, some consultants are affiliated with developers sometimes, and people who do projects.

What happens if uh somebody on your list is affiliated, associated with a project?

So if we have somebody on our list of consultants that's working for the developer in question, then they can't be the one selected for this project.

There could be selected from a different project someplace else, but for the project that we're looking at, it has to be a consultant that is not affiliated with that developer.

Okay, that's good.

Um I think at the planning board level, this has been made pretty clear over the years that uh rezone request without a site plan has to you uh consider the most intense use possible in the new zone being requested.

I'm not so sure it's been as explicit at the city commission level where decisions like this are sometimes made.

And so as we go forward, I would encourage the explicit to be for the planning board and the developer and the traffic people, but also for the city commission.

Uh I might have another question, but I don't know what it is right now.

Okay.

Um Commissioner A.

Heron Kotch.

Um I have a couple of questions.

On page 12 of uh 63.

I think we I brought I brought this up when we chatted.

Um at the very bottom, and it talks the the red text, which is new.

It says permitted by right.

So it talks about um uh transportation engineer trip generation manual or any other method approved by the city engineer to be generally recognized and accepted in the field of transportation engineering.

This analysis will be based on the most intense traffic generated use of the proposed land use permitted by right.

Can we clarify uh what is permitted by right, i.e., is live local permitted by right?

Technically, you know, it is they can go through administrative review process.

Um they have to go through you know a process, a review.

Um but it you know per the state statute.

If they meet all those requirements, we're required to allow it.

But I don't think it's being used for traffic calculations.

In the context of traffic calculations.

Great.

So Brianna Dodd's chief planner um for the record, and I think that we could qualify that because when we are looking at the traffic generation concurrency, we wouldn't be using the LIP local for that calculation.

So it would just be what's permitted by right.

Under our code.

Under our code.

So I I think that, yeah.

So you mentioned saying exclusive of local um for density bonus project.

Just to add clarity to what what we're all talking about here.

And if we can say it hopefully just one time, because I know it is mentioned by by right throughout the zoning text amendment, somehow we clarify that carries through the entire CT.

Or an asterisk with a little you know, refer to the asterisk every time you say it, and then it's it's defined.

Yeah.

Mr.

Polzek, what do you think?

Yeah.

I mean we can we can do that if that's the will of the commission.

And what would that language you're proposing be?

Um I think they would want to discuss that a little bit.

Um but I think they're essentially just mentioning exclusive of Live Local Act or other density bonus programs.

Except density bonus programs aren't by right.

Well that they're not.

I mean, I don't know that you would even need to qualify that because they're not by right.

Live local is a different animal, if you will, so yeah, I think we could try to put in some qualifying language for that.

Okay.

Maybe just permitted by right under our code or sure.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Great.

Um and then um there is talk of the adjacent roadways.

I know we had had that discussion.

Um can you just explain that?

So uh I think a lot of times when you if you can picture like um Baya Vista or North Tammyami Trail, and uh something is going in, what is the impact on adjacent roadways?

If you're the business or the development, um you're thinking, you know, 41.

If you're the neighborhood that accesses their neighborhood from one of those tiny little substandard streets, you're thinking the impact of that development on my little tiny street, which is an adjacent roadway.

And the issue is that the review is not done, right, on the little tiny substandard street.

It's done on the big thoroughfare throughway collector artery street.

So the review for concurrency is done on the thoroughfare street, the RTOs and collectors.

We do evaluate for safety and access, so that would be done on the whole site.

Um so if we see that it looks like there's going to be a safety issue, then that can be addressed whether it's a collector arterial or a local road.

But the concurrency requirements are for the thoroughfare streets.

But is it done at the review stage, the safety?

Um we do look at that initially at the review stage, but they'll also look at that during the traffic study if it goes to that next level.

But if it doesn't go to the next level, just the review stages.

So we would be looking at site access for safety and access for all modes.

Is it um is it uh uh measured as far as volume of traffic, or is it just theoretically is it safe or not?

Or is it it you know this development is going to create um 500 more trips in a two-hour period?

So is it quantified or is it just for so we will have information, but we won't we won't equate it to a level of service.

Right.

So if we showed that there was going to be a lot of stacking and someone was trying to make a left turn and there was going to be an incident, then we would look at some impacts for that.

Like um, you know, does the access have to be modified so that you can't make a left in here or I mean it would be case by case, so it's sort of hard to say, you know, an abstract situation, but we would be looking at that from a safety perspective, even though we wouldn't be looking to see are the trips above the level of service adopted for the city.

Okay.

Okay.

Um and then I just wanted to clarify it talks about here um comparing uh if there's a proffer, right?

And then you have a proffered use, that's what you're looking at.

If the proffers change, the whole thing is done again, right?

If the proffers increase the threshold, increase the traffic, they have to do it over again.

Okay.

I just wanted to be to be crystal clear on that one.

Um just because I've mentioned it before, um, there are two spots in here where the his and the he are.

Let's make sure we correct that, please.

Um and uh let's see, let me go ahead and pass and uh have another commissioner ask a question and see if I can't find my other one that I could add here.

Did you have anything?

Um would you care to address some of the concerns that Mr.

Eugene brought up.

I mean, some of the language regarding trip credits that already exist today, that's not being changed.

Um terms of making sure we're usually utilizing the most recent manual.

I don't think we want to use a manual that could be 10 or 15 years old if it's been updated multiple times since that date.

So those were the reasons for those changes.

I think Alex spoke to the concurrency issue earlier.

Yeah, and I think you know, we spell out the type of manual, the specific manual, but not the data publication, because you know, as Ryan said, unless we update the code, then we're continuing to use whatever that last referenced document is.

And you'll see that in our engineering design criteria manual and others, where we say, you know, this or um the most current version.

What about his comment about multiple small uh projects add up to big issues?

So currently we're not making any proposed changes on how we handle de minimis projects, what a large a large traffic study versus small traffic study would be.

Those are adopted, and we're not making any changes to that.

Um some of that could be discussed, I think, more appropriately with the um transportation chapter modifications, but we're not making any changes to that with this.

One of the things that concerns me all the time about the traffic studies and when it comes to development, is the people in the surrounding area, they are used to current conditions.

So, and in some instances, it's a large plot of land that either was never developed or what was there was demolished 10 or 15 years ago and they've been sitting on it, so there's been non-existent traffic generated by that land.

So we're now saying that the traffic study would be based on the most intensive use of that land if if they're going for a the zone change.

So it's comparing most intensive use to most intensive use, even though it's been non-used for 15 years.

For the zoning review, we would look at most intense use that they could build versus most intense use that they want to build.

Now, when they come in with a site plan, you know, there are no trips accessing that site currently.

So we would look at what's being used on that site today versus what's going to be used on the site in the future.

And then we would see what the impact is for driveway A, driveway B, driveway C at that point when we have enough detail to look at what's really there versus what's you know really going to be there.

So so the traffic study in an instance like that would likely be generated with the site plan review as opposed to any zoning change request.

Right.

Um and then I guess I'm a little bit confused if the are there instances where the developer would not be required to take any action to mitigate traffic, but the city would.

You know, I'm thinking about a vacant piece of property which has heavy traffic around it right now, and then once it's developed, it's going to be super heavy traffic.

Would the city have to take any action to mitigate that traffic?

So the developer is only responsible for their impact.

So if the intersection is already operating below the level of service, then the city is the responsible party to bring that up to the adopted level of service.

Um if the improvement that was proposed puts twice as many trips as the developers required to provide, then the city would look at a proportionate fair share where we'd pay our share and they would pay their share.

Um so there are times where the city would have to do work on an intersection beyond what the developer's responsibility might be.

Okay.

And I know that that's not part of this, but I think that would be useful to tell the commissioners and if the planning board doesn't already know that, that this development will add some cost to the city's you know requirements.

Um that's pretty much what I had.

Thank you.

And Commissioner Ahern Cotch.

Yes, just one more question on uh 22 and 23 of um the exhibit A.

We had talked about I just want to make sure that I understood it that the developer shall provide accessible convenient pedestrian path from the entrance of their site to the public sidewalk, and the development shall provide a sidewalk along the frontage of the development, et cetera.

And then it goes on to say right away consistent with the city's land development code and EDCM.

And the scenario I was talking about with you all was in the case that the neighborhood does not want a sidewalk in their neighborhood because they like their substandard street with the trees and so on and so forth.

And you said that there's a technical deviation allowed in the EDCM.

Do I understand that correctly?

So there's a technical deviation process provided in the ED in the engineering design criteria manual.

And they would have to look at safe access.

I mean, so I can't promise in every situation that that request could be accommodated, but there is an avenue for a request to come through.

It would need to be done in association with the developer, since it's the developer's responsibility, and if they felt that it was some you know not safe for them to not provide that access, then it would be up to I mean, then they would have to take that measure.

But if they agreed with the neighborhood and wanted to submit that, then staff would evaluate that.

Okay.

I know it's the exception uh to the rule, and I know that it hardly ever happens.

I just wanted to know that there was a path to allow that to happen if all the parties came together and decided it was not in the best interest.

Okay.

That's my last question.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Oh, I'm sorry, I had one more.

Okay.

In the planning board minutes, it it references um questions posed by two planning board members about regarding consultants.

What was that conversation?

I think uh the number of consultants that that we use for the traffic studies, which is six.

And I think they requested the uh the names of those consultants as well.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

And there's a typo in that draft minutes, by the way.

Okay.

Any anything else, Commissioners?

Well, thank you very much for your presentation.

Okay.

And uh I will entertain a motion.

Oh, wait, close the public hearing.

Yes, please.

Move approval of proposed ordinance number 26-560.

On first reading.

I guess I'm on first reading.

And approve the petition.

And I'm sorry.

Say that.

And approve the petition 26 ZTA-01.

Yes.

Okay.

Second.

Okay.

A motion to approve both the ordinance and the um ZTA by Commissioner Alpert and seconded by Commissioner Ahern Koch.

Uh any discussion?

None.

So.

Go ahead and hit you again.

Sorry.

Try again.

And then also too, I'm going to do a roll call on this.

Betty.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Ahern Kotch.

Yes.

Albert.

Yes.

And it passed unanimously.

Thank you all very much.

And it is now time to well.

We finished the legislative public hearing.

We're at quasi-judicial public hearings.

Item 11.1 has been deferred to another date uncertain.

So we are now at item 11.2.

And I'm going to call upon City Auditor and Clerk to administer the oath to those who were not here earlier.

No, at least one.

Is there anyone who didn't affirm to tell the truth today?

Yes, I do.

Thank you, Joel.

Okay.

So the next item is a public hearing on proposed site plan and major conditional use application numbers 24-sp 19, 24-CU04, 25 G ZW-01, requesting site plan and major conditional use approval to construct a new two-story building.

And I will open the public hearing.

And call upon the city attorney to explain the quasi judicial process, including time limits for applicants.

Thank you.

A slight plan and conditional use application is a quasi-judicial hearing.

Quad judicial hearings are slightly more formal hearings than a legislative public hearing.

There are parties to a quasi-judicial hearing.

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

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

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

The decision of the city commission in a quasi judicial hearing must be based on the competent substantial evidence in the record, and the commission must apply the appropriate standards of review in the zoning code relating to the type of approval requested.

At the beginning of the public hearing, Commission members must disclose if they have had any ex parte communication on the matter.

That is contact with any parties outside of the public hearing today.

So we will now ask each of the commission members if they've had any ex parte communications in this matter.

Mr.

Matee.

None.

None.

I did a site visit not only this time, but the last time it came before us as well.

And I spoke with the city attorney about this, but mostly about something else that's not.

Okay.

No, we I'm sorry.

Yeah.

Would it would any of that affect your ability to follow the instructions given today and be impartial?

No.

Thank you.

So my visit last time.

I just yeah, I did a site visit this time and last time it came to the case.

I didn't do one this time, but I did one last time.

I think years ago when I was mayor the first time in like 2018 something.

Um I went out for an event at the sailing squadron, and they had this kind of in the works and kind of showing me where they were hoping to do this for the youth sailing.

So that's so I'm aware of them wanting to do this for a long time.

And would any of that affect your ability to follow the instructions?

Thank you.

Um I guess I need to clarify.

I used to be a member of the sailing squad group.

Would that affect you?

No, no, the sailing squadron.

I refuse to I can be impartial on this matter.

Okay.

Sounds good.

And then for the um proposed time limits, we have uh 20 minutes for the applicant, 20 minutes for city staff, five minutes for any effective persons.

I don't believe there are any though.

Uh three minutes for public comment, and then for a rebuttal if necessary, uh 10 minutes for the applicant and 10 minutes for the city.

Okay.

Is that fine with the commission?

All right.

Sound okay?

Okay.

Then let's proceed.

Um do we have any requests to qualify as affected person?

Yep.

Nope.

Um.

So I guess I'll call upon the applicant for a presentation.

Great.

Good afternoon, mayor, commissioners.

Welcome to the city.

Um Joel Friedman.

I'm with Freedman Consulting and Development, and I've been hired by the youth sailing squadron to help them through the process.

I have been sworn.

I'm going to let the folks here introduce themselves.

Uh Derek Perosi, P.S.

Design Workshop.

Travis Yates.

I'm currently the uh Sarasota Board President of the Youth Sailing Program.

Bobby Claybrook, AM Engineering.

Okay.

So as I said, I'm here representing the youth sailing squadron.

The property in question, if I could have the overhead, is well known to all of us, I think.

It's out there on the point of Ken Thompson Park.

Um it's leased by the sailing squadron, and the youth sailing squadron is uh part of that sublease that I think you'll be talking about next.

Um we have three applications.

And it's non-government using the property.

And then we also have a request for a G zone waiver, which is 25 G ZW01, which is a request to allow us to not have to pave the entire parking lot and driveway.

What I'd like to do uh first is before I get into the minutiae, is let Travis just give a real brief history, whatever mission of the youth sailing squadron.

Sure.

Thank you all for taking the time today.

I'm having sat in the gallery here for quite a while.

I really appreciate everything you guys do and the time you give and the attention you give to our city.

Really fills me with a lot of confidence.

So uh I'm it's my pleasure to be the Sarasidi Youth Sailing Program uh President.

The youth program started in the 70s here in town, uh incorporated as a 501c3 in 1980.

So um our vice mayor could have actually been there as a youth easily.

Uh and as was said around the counter here, you know, we've been working at this for quite a while.

And as was said around the counter here, you know, we've been working at this for quite a while.

Um I've had the pleasure of being on the board for six years and the president for a little bit over two.

Uh and this effort predates me by a long way because uh what we do out there is super important.

As I said, we serve uh youth of our community through uh partnership with the Sarasota Sailing Squadron, which is the tenant, the primary tenant.

But the youth program has been there separate from the squadron uh to be able to give dedication to the youth in our uh in our city and our county and our sistering counties.

Um we have race team programs and sort of advanced competitive programs, but the core of the program is also outreach to the community.

Twenty-five to thirty percent of our students are there on scholarship.

We aim to extend that.

We have lots of new partnerships and older partnerships with making sailing accessible and the bay accessible.

Um if you guys will enter, I will read really quick because I think it's an important one.

It's been our mission to stay for quite a while.

Our mission is to encourage you sailors to experience the joy of sailing in the safe and fun environment.

We strive to impart the love of sailing as a life sport while providing the fundamental skills necessary for participants to advance in the sport as far as their desire, skill, and hard work may take them.

We promote ethical behavior among our sailors and teach lifelong lessons, which build character, foster teamwork, develop self-reliance, and instill a respect for the marine environment.

Uh we serve uh over 400 students a year, um, high school and below.

Uh we have a number of different communities in the community that we reach out to through a couple partnerships with Spectrum Sailing and some local youth programs.

We look forward to expanding, extending, sorry.

Our relationship with the city, because I think there's a big miss here right now for us to be able to access this the city um summer programs and just provide more opportunity for kids to get out on the water in this lovely bay at an early age.

Uh so they get bonded with our city, they get bonded with the environment, uh, and hopefully become great citizens of our county and Satan City.

Thank you, guys.

Great.

Thank you, Travis.

So um if I could have the overhead again.

Um the property is designated community office institutional.

That's that pink.

However, it's zone G, like I said, the whole peninsula out there is zone G.

G zone, because we're a non-governmental agent, we have to meet the most uh restrictive zoning district nearby.

In this case, it's residential single family one.

So that's how the plan has been developed.

So what I'd like to do now is have Derek, our architect, go briefly and kind of show off the building.

I still love this building.

So thank you guys for having us again.

You may remember we were here uh not too long ago, so I'll keep the presentation brief.

Um just to remind you, uh so here on the site plan you can see the existing square footage of the building that is currently there is currently a building here, uh which is basically the existing square footage of uh what's there.

Uh that building will be removed.

Uh there this is currently a parking area as well as sort of a makeshift RV area office space uh there as well.

So we are basically removing an existing building that's there and placing the new building uh in its place, basically.

So when it comes to the new building, obviously we're very proud to present.

Um the new building is designed to very much go with its context and uh the property.

Um the new building is obviously up to date in regards to construction materials, uh, engineering, etc.

Uh the ground floor of the new building is mostly storage, boats, uh equipment, those types of things, uh very easily accessible.

Uh and then the upstairs second floor is uh office space, meeting space, and sort of mixed use space as well.

And then we're very proud to present the building is the way it is because it is highly sustainable.

Uh a lot of aspects of that, such as you know, the the uh solar panels on the roof, as well as uh collection of rainwater for washing off the boats.

Um and then as I've said before, we're very proud that this uh uh building has a war uh this design has been awarded to America Institute of Architects Awards, uh which is very uh uh something that we can all be proud of.

So thank you.

That's brief.

And just uh it's obvious to me, but uh it's been designed to meet all the current hurricane standards, flood standards, everything.

Correct, absolutely.

And so obviously there's always been conversations about the roofs, the roofs are done in the way to provide ample amount of shade, ample amount of rain collection, uh, but everything is uh designed in the way it is, and uh maybe a little misleading that the building is actually a uh a steel structure uh uh very rigid uh and then cladded in uh composite wood materials that uh give it its look, basically.

So the community workshop required for the conditional use was held way back in April 16th of 2024.

There was one person there, but that was back when, remember when everyone's gonna someone was going to do an amusement park out there, so he wanted to make sure we weren't in favor of that.

So he wasn't having he didn't have any problems with the project.

The second community workshop was held on August 13th, 2025 to discuss the G zone waiver.

No one from the public attended that one.

The initial transportation concurrency review was completed by staff and the impact was determined to be de minimis, which is pretty obvious, it's just basically replacing kind of what's out there.

So as I said, there's three code sections that we've got to go through.

So I'm going to go through them.

It's kind of lengthy, but I want to make sure it's on the record.

So okay.

So section 4506 is dealing with site plans.

First one is whether the proposed site plan is in keeping with the intent and standards of the district.

We meet all the zoning district standards.

And if the G zone waiver is approved, then we'll also be meeting all the land development regulation requirements.

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

As I said, we're meeting all the code requirements.

It's an existing use.

So I believe since it's been there so long, we can be considered compatible with the Sarasota City Plan.

Whether the required information has been submitted, as you know, we wouldn't be here before you if it hadn't been provided and staff had been able to review it.

Whether there are ways to change the configuration intensity or density to make this a better project.

Personally, I think this is one of the best uh buildings I've seen.

It's still low scale.

We're meeting all the RSF 1 standards, residential single family one standards, so I believe there's no off-site impact that's going to occur because of this project.

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

We're not changing the access.

The access will remain the same to the to the sailing squadron and the youth sailing squadron.

Does the plan provide enough parking?

We have seven parking spaces required and seven are provided.

No loading space is required for this building.

It's too small.

Does the plan take into account uh natural features and trees?

We're not touching one tree.

So that's good.

There aren't many out there, but we're we're not having we have no impact to the trees.

And we are complying with the waterfront setback of 30 feet.

So now we go into the conditional use requirements.

That's Section 4906.

And the first one of any importance is uh whether the conditional use is consistent with the area's future land use designation.

I think we can all agree with the G zone uh government uses, the public purpose that they're serving.

This is definitely uh consistent with the overall goals of the Sarasota City plan.

Um does the uh whether, if Aqua, the overall residential appearance and function of the area is going to be impacted.

This isn't going, there's no residential anywhere near this.

This will have any impact on the residential character of the area.

Um whether the application will preserve any city, state, or federally designated historic scenic or archaeological or cultural resources.

There are none out here.

Whether the applicant will be, whether the application will be compatible with adjacent residential development.

Again, there are no really adjacent residential development.

So we are compatible.

Whether the application will whether the application will have significant impacts on the livability and usability of nearby land as a result of noise, dust, fumes, those types of items.

Again, this is pretty much an open space area out here.

There's no residential uses, no change in the use of the property, so there will not be any negative impacts.

Whether the transportation system is capable of supporting the proposed project, we're de minimis.

It's uh it's just replacing an existing use.

Whether the minimum off-street parking area is being required is being provided, and again, we're providing uh the required parking, no loading zone is required.

And whether generally the public health safety and welfare will be preserved in any reasonable conditions necessary for the that preservation.

Um the use of the property is not changing again.

Um so we believe that um there's gonna be no negative impact to the public health safety or welfare.

In fact, what the use sailing squadron does actually helps the public welfare.

Whether the applicant has demonstrated the financial and technical cape capacity to do this, uh they've been around since 1980 or longer.

So they've got a great group of people that supports this operation and organization.

Whether the proposed use complies with all the additional standards imposed by the regulations.

As I said, we do meet all the standards except we do need the approval of the G zone waiver.

Now the G zone waiver.

Whether the requested waiver will enhance or improve the site structure or building.

The G zone waiver essentially, if we if we don't obtain the G zone waiver, the costs of that, and in my opinion, the impact from the additional improved surface will be negative.

But the cost of that will probably make this project not feasible and create tremendous design issues out there.

Bobby is here to talk about that if we do pave that area.

Whether the requested waiver will allow the reasonable use of the property.

Yes, it will allow the reasonable use and tremendously enhance it in my opinion.

Whether the requested waiver will be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental.

The way this is being designed, we're not going to be impacting the neighborhood.

Stormwater is still being addressed, and again, Bobby can mention that.

And uh so hopefully you can all agree to grant the G zone waiver.

And Bobby, you just want to talk about the stormwater, how we're dealing with it out there.

Well, one of the main ways we're dealing with it is Excuse me.

You want to use uh give us your name for the record before Absolutely.

Bobby Claybrook AM Engineering.

Um of the main ways we're addressing a lot of the stormwater issues is by trying to minimize the impervious area.

I we are um we do not exceed the existing thresholds that were already on site, but then we're also looking at keeping the elevations to the existing level so that there are not additional issues with buildup or going into the um the V zone, which we cannot do anyway.

We need to keep the elevations at or near the existing levels.

Um we're also collecting um rooftop runoff and um utilizing that for boat washdown and trying to reutilize a lot of that.

Um a lot of the runoff generated by just this particular building to utilize for um for maintenance purposes at the building as best we can.

Great.

Thank you.

So we accept all the conditions on the in the uh staff report that's listed, and um we just hope that you can all find ways to approve all three of these applications.

Thank you.

Um now I will call upon the planner Jenkins to make a presentation.

You guys want to well you stay here, but can you have mic?

Thank you, Joel.

All righty.

Good afternoon, commissioners, uh city manager.

Hope you all are doing well.

Uh my name is Camden Jenkins.

I am a city planner with staff, and I have been sworn.

So Joel covered the basics really well.

Uh I'm just gonna give a quick city side overview.

This is a site plan with a major conditional use and G zone waiver for a subject property about 9.3 acres in size.

The property is located at 1717 Ken Thompson Parkway, has a feature land use designation of community office institutional, and is part of the governmental zone district.

The property is owned by the City of Sarasota and leased to the Sarasota Sailing Squadron, who the applicant, Sarasota Youth Sailing, have a partnership with.

The property is a part of the Coastal Islands overlay.

The adjacent lane use to the north and east is Sarasota Bay.

And to the use and the use to the south and west is Ken Thompson Park.

The property currently hosts an existing two-story storage building, which is uh proposed to be demolished for the construction of a new two-story, approximately 4,230 square foot educational facility containing meeting spaces, offices, bathrooms, and storage rooms.

The proposed G zone waiver would allow the applicant to continue maintaining their crushed shell parking surfaces as they have since 1958.

There were a total of 10 trees on site at the time of the tree survey, and zero are proposed to be removed.

An initial transportation concurrency analysis was completed that determined the proposed site plan was de minimis and did not require a traffic study.

There were two community workshops held, as Joel mentioned, one in April of 2024 for the site plan and major conditional use, and an additional one in August of 2025 for the G zone waiver.

The first workshop was attended by one member of the public who asked about the effect on memberships and regattas for the Sarasota Sailing Squadron, while the second one was not attended by the public.

The application received development review committee sign-off on November 5th, 2025, and both motions were unanimously approved by the planning board on March 11th, 2026.

We find that the proposed project complies with all required standards for review of site plan, major conditional use, and G zone waiver petitions and recommend approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report.

Thank you all.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Do we have anyone signed up to speak?

Okay.

So I guess nobody wants to have rebuttal, right?

Okay.

So I will call for commissioner questions at this point.

Uh and Vice Mayor has signed up first.

Thank you.

Um so the recommendation on our uh agenda request is that we approve application numbers and it lists the numbers.

Is it sufficient to say with the conditions in the staff report to make sure those conditions are included?

Um in this case, yes, because the conditions that are in here were already established in the staff report prior to the planning board, so they weren't amended into the motion.

So yeah, what you've got in front of you still works.

All right.

And just for our information, uh, would you tell us what those conditions are?

On page 30 of 153 of our packet is the recommendation for the planning board, and there are some um conditions.

Would you state them, please?

Yes, of course.

So there are two uh existing conditions uh for this application's approval.

Uh the second one, I'll go a little out of order.

The second one is a standard one that the city uh puts on to make sure that everyone knows there's no right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency that is created by the approval of the city of this application.

The first condition is a little more specific to this one, and it has to do with the G zone waiver request.

So uh this one reads the roadway must be able to support a 38-ton fire truck.

If it is determined during an inspection that the crushed shell or other material has been broken down or washed away, the applicant will be required to bring the roadway back into compliance with NFPA 2417531.

So this condition is a little unique.

Uh as you know, the intent of the applicant is to maintain their crushed shell uh parking and driving surfaces.

It's been that way since the inception of the site.

Uh and as they mentioned, to pave it all over with asphalt not only could arguably decrease the uh perviousness of the property, but also creates an expense that could potentially limit the applicant's ability to succeed in this project.

Um what we did is we had a conversation with the Sarasota County fire departments, and uh they said that they were uh okay with the crushed shell uh with the understanding that if a 38-ton fire truck was not able to successfully drive on the crushed shell uh paving, that the applicant will be responsible for paying uh and reinstating the paved surface to its preferred state.

I see.

Thank you.

Of course.

And also on page 30 of 153, at the top of the page, there is another condition that I see is not part one of the conditions you're recommending in it is the site plan and all related development plans, etc.

Why is that condition not required to be included?

I I apologize.

So uh what what messed me up here is that there are two separate motions that you'll be filing for this one.

Uh the first one, which as you mentioned, I forgot to bring up, uh, relates to the site plan and major conditional use.

So that second one still applies, but then this first one relates to the site plan and major conditional use.

The two that I mentioned relate to the G zone waiver.

Oh, I see.

So there are really three conditions.

Yes.

That standard one that's in everything, and these two that are specific to this application.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Right.

And to clear help maybe help clear things up.

The conditions are in different resolutions, the conditional use uh resolution, which begins on page four of the agenda page three of the agenda backup has the that condition regarding the specific site plan.

That resolution was actually already approved by the planning board, so you're technically only affirming that resolution.

Then the G Zone waiver has its own resolution which has the condition about the fire the uh fire truck issues that's and that resolution begins on page sorry uh of the agenda back up.

And that resolution has not already been approved by the planning board, so you all will will be formally uh approving that resolution.