OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Flamingo Ditch Workshop: City Council Reviews Feasibility Study and Legal Obligations - June 30, 2025

City Council & BoardsMonday, June 30, 2025
BodyVenice, Florida
SessionCity Council & Boards
DateMonday, June 30, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:41:41

Transcript — Verbatim
0:30

Okay, let's call this meeting to order.

0:33

Madam Clerk, if we get a roll call, please.

0:35

Mr.

0:35

Engelkey.

0:36

Here.

0:37

Mrs.

0:37

Frank.

0:38

Here.

0:38

Mr.

0:38

Howard.

0:39

Here.

0:40

Mr.

0:40

Smith.

0:41

Here.

0:41

Mr.

0:41

Weed.

0:42

Here.

0:42

Vice Mayor Boltz.

0:44

Here.

0:44

Mayor Pichota.

0:45

Here.

0:46

And we'll stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

0:50

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

0:54

And to the Republic for which it stands.

1:05

Okay.

1:08

And then before we begin, we'll be hearing a presentation by Mr.

1:13

Kramer, followed by the attorney Derek Schroth, and then CPE, the engineering firm, and then we'll have some time for audience participation.

1:20

I did receive a request from the clerk for audience participation exceeding the five minute limit, so I wanted to address it with council before we go any further and see if there's any um consensus upon council to extend the five-minute limit uh to something longer.

1:38

We extended it by 50 percent.

1:41

Hit your mic.

1:42

If we extended it by 50 percent, which would be seven and a half minutes.

1:51

Mr.

1:51

Mayor, um we did receive a specific request this morning from an individual, uh, an engineer, I believe, who put together um a thoughtful presentation and asked for 15 minutes.

2:02

Um email came in late this morning, so I don't know if everybody saw it.

2:05

Um I assume the majority of public comment wouldn't want to utilize the entire 15 minutes that this individual requested.

2:11

So I don't know what obligation we are to treat everybody the same.

2:14

If we grant him 15 minutes, what the implications are?

2:17

So that's the exact reason that we're having the discussion is because whatever we offer to one, we have to offer to all.

2:22

Uh is that correct, madam attorney?

2:24

Yes, that is generally how we function.

2:27

So if if we want the time limit to be 15 minutes, everyone would have 15 minutes.

2:32

If we want it to be seven and a half minutes, then uh everyone will get seven and a half minutes.

2:36

It's really up to the council to decide, but the council will have to decide before we move forward.

2:41

Mayor, if I can.

2:42

Mr.

2:43

Smith.

2:43

Is it possible just to let uh two other people grant their time to the one individual and let him have 15 minutes that way rather than have them speak or continue with his comments, and that way uh we could still stick to the five-minute limit.

2:58

Traditionally, we don't by code because then you have to afford everyone that and that does set a precedence, madam attorney.

3:04

Yes, we've talked about that in the past about letting one person donate their time or give their time to someone else, and we have not allowed that, but like again, it is uh council discretion.

3:18

Yeah, mayor.

3:19

I I believe this gentleman does speak for two large groups.

3:22

Um and it would it might be best today just to allow in this instance.

3:29

Uh he's made a prior request.

3:31

I'm sure we could call for a uh show of hands, and there'd be 15 people that would be conceding him their time who might not want to speak themselves, and I so I would ask that we do allow him 15 minutes.

3:44

Um today, Ms.

3:51

Frank.

3:52

Yes, Mr.

3:53

Mayor.

3:54

I um know this is a crucial issue to the homeowners in this neighborhood, and so um I would like to grant the extension of time.

4:04

Anyone in council object with us doing a 15-minute uh allotment for one person only again again.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Flooding And Drainage█████████████████████████████████████████████60%
Engineering And Infrastructure███████████14%
Stormwater Management████████10%
Public Safety█████7%
Public Engagement████5%
Procedural██2%
Grant Management1%
Parks and Recreation1%
Summary of Proceedings

Flamingo Ditch Workshop: City Council Reviews Feasibility Study and Legal Obligations - June 30, 2025

The City Council of Venice held a workshop on June 30, 2025, starting at 1:00 PM, to discuss the Flamingo Ditch flood mitigation project. After setting a 10-minute public comment limit, the Council heard presentations from the city attorney on legal obligations and from Coastal Protection Engineering (CPE) on a comprehensive feasibility study. The meeting included public testimony from four residents and concluded with Council direction to pursue short-term improvements, including potential acquisition of a vacant lot for additional storage.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Luann Wood (resident of 550 West Flamingo Drive, 40-year resident): Stated that the city has maintained Flamingo Ditch for 40 years and argued that maintaining an open outfall is a simple fix. Urged immediate clearing of the ditch mouth.
  • Israel Salinas (resident of 591 Flamingo Drive, chair of Flamingo Ditch Steering Committee): Presented historic photos and studies suggesting that beach renourishment projects in the 1990s contributed to sand buildup at the outfall. Called for a 100% commitment from governing authorities and continuity across future administrations.
  • Loretta Elliott (resident of 601 Flamingo Drive): Quoted the legal memorandum stating the city’s obligation to maintain the ditch as part of its stormwater system. Noted lack of maintenance, overgrown vegetation, and questioned whether the city has walked the ditch. Expressed concern about a June 28 news article that appeared to prelease findings before the meeting.
  • Mary Ann Robertson (resident of 703-705 Golden Beach Boulevard): Described years of flooding from common rainfall, damaging her driveway and stalling cars. She invested $20,000 of her own money for culverts and a retention wall. Noted that neighbors physically unplug the ditch during storms. Called the city’s inaction neglect.

Discussion Items

  • Legal Obligations (Derek Schroth): Schroth explained that the city is not obligated to improve Flamingo Ditch but must maintain it at the current level due to historical voluntary undertakings. The city has no duty to upgrade for changed climate and is not liable for extreme weather damages. He noted that if the city makes additional improvements, it would be obligated to maintain them perpetually. He also clarified that the city can use easements for improvements but would then be responsible for maintenance.
  • Feasibility Study (Coastal Protection Engineering): Tom Piero and Joe Morrow presented results of over 100 model runs covering rainfall events, storm surge events, and compound events. Key findings: Flamingo Ditch is a natural depression with a storage capacity of 276,000 cubic feet at the 5.5-foot contour; even a 1-inch rain (346,000 cf) causes street flooding. Storm surge from Hurricanes Helene (9.8 ft peak, between 50- and 100-year) and Milton (11.2 ft, near 100-year) caused severe damage. Five alternative categories were evaluated: (1) pumping systems (not effective for surge without massive, infeasible pumps), (2) raising the entire neighborhood to elevation 9 (effective up to 100-year rain and 50-year surge but extremely costly), (3) increasing storage (requires purchasing multiple properties, modest benefit), (4) upstream improvements (little effect), (5) dune/seawall (blocks surge but traps rainfall, worsening flooding). CPE recommended a combined short-term approach: raise city-owned roads, improve drainage pipes with one-way valves, and acquire a vacant lot (Lot 2) to compensate for lost storage. These measures were estimated to cost less than $5 million (in the "yellow" to "green" relative cost range) and would relieve frequent flood events, though not solve storm surge.
  • Council Discussion: Council members debated the appropriate next steps. Some emphasized urgency and moral obligation to act, while others cautioned about legal liability and the need for careful evaluation. There was consensus to direct staff to pursue the short-term improvements identified by CPE, including negotiating the purchase of the vacant Lot 2 on West Flamingo Drive for additional stormwater storage and future green space. The Council also noted the importance of continued communication with residents and ongoing maintenance efforts.

Key Outcomes

  • Direction to Staff: Council instructed city staff to work with CPE and pursue immediate short-term solutions, specifically: (a) design and implement road raising, drainage improvements (new pipes, grates, one-way valves), and (b) proceed with negotiations to acquire Lot 2 at West Flamingo Drive for additional flood storage.
  • Grant Applications: The city has already applied for a NOAA grant ($5.9 million) and is ranked No. 2 on the Sarasota County LMS list for FEMA HMGP funding. Council supported continued pursuit of these and other grants.
  • Legal Liability Consideration: Council asked staff to ensure that any actions taken do not create additional legal exposure beyond current obligations. The city attorney advised that any new improvements would require perpetual maintenance.
  • Next Steps: CPE will finalize its report by late summer/early fall 2025, incorporating Council input. Staff will provide updates on Lot 2 negotiations and cost estimates for short-term projects.

Meeting Transcript

Okay, let's call this meeting to order. Madam Clerk, if we get a roll call, please. Mr. Engelkey. Here. Mrs. Frank. Here. Mr. Howard. Here. Mr. Smith. Here. Mr. Weed. Here. Vice Mayor Boltz. Here. Mayor Pichota. Here. And we'll stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands. Okay. And then before we begin, we'll be hearing a presentation by Mr. Kramer, followed by the attorney Derek Schroth, and then CPE, the engineering firm, and then we'll have some time for audience participation. I did receive a request from the clerk for audience participation exceeding the five minute limit, so I wanted to address it with council before we go any further and see if there's any um consensus upon council to extend the five-minute limit uh to something longer. We extended it by 50 percent. Hit your mic. If we extended it by 50 percent, which would be seven and a half minutes. Mr. Mayor, um we did receive a specific request this morning from an individual, uh, an engineer, I believe, who put together um a thoughtful presentation and asked for 15 minutes. Um email came in late this morning, so I don't know if everybody saw it. Um I assume the majority of public comment wouldn't want to utilize the entire 15 minutes that this individual requested. So I don't know what obligation we are to treat everybody the same. If we grant him 15 minutes, what the implications are? So that's the exact reason that we're having the discussion is because whatever we offer to one, we have to offer to all. Uh is that correct, madam attorney? Yes, that is generally how we function. So if if we want the time limit to be 15 minutes, everyone would have 15 minutes. If we want it to be seven and a half minutes, then uh everyone will get seven and a half minutes. It's really up to the council to decide, but the council will have to decide before we move forward. Mayor, if I can. Mr. Smith. Is it possible just to let uh two other people grant their time to the one individual and let him have 15 minutes that way rather than have them speak or continue with his comments, and that way uh we could still stick to the five-minute limit. Traditionally, we don't by code because then you have to afford everyone that and that does set a precedence, madam attorney. Yes, we've talked about that in the past about letting one person donate their time or give their time to someone else, and we have not allowed that, but like again, it is uh council discretion. Yeah, mayor.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com