OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Sarasota, Florida/City Commission
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Special City Commission Attorney Client Session – September 22, 2026

City Commission — Tuesday, September 22, 2026
BodySarasota, Florida
SessionCity Commission
DateTuesday, September 22, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 49:17

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
21:26

I'd like to call this meeting to order.

21:28

Welcome to the September twenty second, twenty twenty-six special city c attorney client session of the city commission meeting.

21:38

Uh first we will have the invocation by City Auditor and Clerk Griggs, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by the si the Vice Mayor.

22:23

Okay, so moving right along.

22:27

Um first do we have any uh requests for public comment?

22:36

So I you don't need to recite the plans.

22:38

No, I do.

22:40

Okay.

22:46

So um the next item on the agenda is attorney client session.

22:52

And um the agenda item two point one is a special closed meeting of the city commission for the purpose of discussing settlement negotiations and strategy related to the litigation expenditures in the matter of Frederick Rygel versus City of Sarasota and Sarasota County case number twenty twenty-five CA one zero seven four NC.

23:22

And uh call upon City Attorney Paul's act to explain the attorney client session process.

25:00

So uh we are going to recess at one thirty four into the closed session and the closed session will take place in room one oh nine.

47:21

We are now back in open session, and the time is one fifty seven.

47:28

Um, and I'll call upon attorney Polsack to make comments covering the closed session.

47:35

Thank you, Mayor.

47:36

As you stated, we're now back in the open session in the case Frederick Rigel, V City of Sarasota and Sarasota County.

47:44

Case number two thousand twenty-five, CA zero zero one zero seven four NC.

47:51

No votes were taken in the shade portion of the meeting.

47:55

Okay.

47:56

So I believe I will entertain a motion from one of the commissioners.

48:01

Mayor I have a motion.

48:12

Case number twenty twenty five.

48:15

C A.

48:16

Zero Zero O seven four NC.

48:24

In exchange for a fully executed release.

48:33

And I believe you meant Frederick Rygel instead of Joseph Rygel.

48:37

I meant Frederick Rigel.

48:39

Where did I cut?

48:45

Do I need to read it all over again?

48:51

Frederick Rigel.

48:54

Does the second accept the correct motion?

49:00

Okay.

49:00

So do we go ahead and vote?

49:04

Vote.

49:05

And it passed unanimously.

49:07

Thank you all very much.

49:16

So thank you all.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Procedural█████████████████████████████████████████████50%
Pending Litigation█████████████████████████████████████████████50%
Summary of Proceedings

Special City Commission Attorney Client Session – September 22, 2026

The Sarasota City Commission convened a special meeting at approximately 1:30 PM on September 22, 2026, to discuss settlement negotiations and strategy in the lawsuit Frederick Reigle v. City of Sarasota and Sarasota County (Case No. 2025 CA 001074 NC). The meeting consisted of an invocation, pledge of allegiance, and a closed attorney-client session. No public comments were received. After the closed session, the Commission reconvened in open session and took action on the case.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • No members of the public spoke during the Citizens Input portion of the meeting; the Mayor moved directly to the agenda item.

Closed Attorney Client Session

  • The Commission recessed at 1:34 PM into a closed session in Room 109 to discuss settlement negotiations and strategy. Upon reconvening at 1:57 PM, City Attorney Polsack stated that no votes were taken during the closed portion.

Key Outcomes

  • A motion was made and seconded to approve the settlement in the case of Frederick Reigle v. City of Sarasota and Sarasota County, Case No. 2025 CA 001074 NC, in exchange for a fully executed release. The motion was corrected to reflect the correct plaintiff name (Frederick Reigle) and passed unanimously by the Commission.

Meeting Transcript

I'd like to call this meeting to order. Welcome to the September twenty second, twenty twenty-six special city c attorney client session of the city commission meeting. Uh first we will have the invocation by City Auditor and Clerk Griggs, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by the si the Vice Mayor. Okay, so moving right along. Um first do we have any uh requests for public comment? So I you don't need to recite the plans. No, I do. Okay. So um the next item on the agenda is attorney client session. And um the agenda item two point one is a special closed meeting of the city commission for the purpose of discussing settlement negotiations and strategy related to the litigation expenditures in the matter of Frederick Rygel versus City of Sarasota and Sarasota County case number twenty twenty-five CA one zero seven four NC. And uh call upon City Attorney Paul's act to explain the attorney client session process. So uh we are going to recess at one thirty four into the closed session and the closed session will take place in room one oh nine. We are now back in open session, and the time is one fifty seven. Um, and I'll call upon attorney Polsack to make comments covering the closed session. Thank you, Mayor. As you stated, we're now back in the open session in the case Frederick Rigel, V City of Sarasota and Sarasota County. Case number two thousand twenty-five, CA zero zero one zero seven four NC. No votes were taken in the shade portion of the meeting. Okay. So I believe I will entertain a motion from one of the commissioners. Mayor I have a motion. Case number twenty twenty five. C A. Zero Zero O seven four NC. In exchange for a fully executed release. And I believe you meant Frederick Rygel instead of Joseph Rygel. I meant Frederick Rigel. Where did I cut? Do I need to read it all over again? Frederick Rigel. Does the second accept the correct motion? Okay. So do we go ahead and vote? Vote. And it passed unanimously. Thank you all very much. So thank you all.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com