Regular City Commission Meeting

up the zoom in the room, please. And remove that. Are you going to have your video on there? >> I unfortunately might video does not work. >> Okay. We'll survive. That's fine. Just want to make sure we can hear you. We're all good. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We're going to be until we get started and then calles go into a chair. Obviously. ? ? ? CITY OF SARASOTA. ? ? ? [ SOUNDING GAVEL ] >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS AUGUST 17, 2026, REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER. THE FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS IS FOR EVERYONE TO SILENCE THEIR CELL PHONES. NEXT, WE'LL HAVE THE INVOCATION BY CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK FOLLOWED BY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. >>Shayla Griggs: 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 THY NAME WE PRAY, AMEN. [PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE] >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: FOR THE RECORD, MAYOR TRICE IS A LITTLE UNDER THE WEATHER TODAY. SHE WILL BE PARTICIPATING BY ZOOM. MAYOR, CAN YOU HEAR ME? >>Mayor Trice: YES, I CAN. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: GREAT. AND WE CAN HEAR YOU. SO WE'RE GOOD TO GO. IF I FORGET ABOUT YOU OVER THERE, YOU KNOW, HOLLER. >>Mayor Trice: I'LL SCREAM OUT. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU MUCH. ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY, MS. GRIGGS? >>Shayla Griggs: NO, VICE MAYOR. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU. NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AGENDA SCHEDULE. IS THERE A MOTION? >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: MOVE APPROVAL. >>Liz Alpert: SECOND. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU. MOVE APPROVAL AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER AHEARN-KOCH AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALPERT. IS THERE DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, LET'S VOTE. >>Shayla Griggs: VICE MAYOR, EVERYTHING WILL HAVE TO BE ROLL CALL TODAY BECAUSE OF THE MAYOR BEING ON ZOOM. THANK YOU. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: YES. >>Liz Alpert: YES. >> BATTIE? OHLRICH? >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: YES. >>Mayor Trice: YES. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THE MOTION CARRIES 4-0. MS. GRIGGS, WOULD YOU PLEASE RECITE THE PLEDGE OF PUBLIC COMMENT? >>Shayla Griggs: WE MAY DISAGREE BUT WE WILL BE RESPECTFUL TO ONE ANOTHER. WE WILL DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TO ISSUES. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS. THERE ARE NONE TODAY. SO WE MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 3, CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS. WE HAVE ONE PERSON SCHEDULED TO SPEAK. IF THAT PERSON COULD PLEASE COME UP, HENRY KAHWATY. GOOD MORNING. FOR THE RECORD, WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND WHETHER YOU ARE A CITY RESIDENT SPEAKING FOR YOURSELF OR SOMEONE ELSE. >> CERTAINLY. MY NAME IS HENRY KAHWATY. I AM A CITY RESIDENT AND I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF.We'r >>Shayla Griggs: YOU CAN GO AHEAD, SIR. >> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, CITY ADMINISTRATION, I'VE COME HERE THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS A NUMBER OF TIMES TO TALK ABOUT FLOOD REMEDIATION STRATEGIES IN THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE. I'D LIKE TO CHANGE THE TOPIC A LITTLE BIT TO FOCUS LESS ON THE OVERALL CITY ISSUES AND ON OUR SPECIFIC SITUATION. ON THE SLIDE, YOU'LL SEE TWO PICTURES. ON THE RIGHT IS A PICTURE OF OUR HOUSE BEFORE THE STORMS, NICELY LANDSCAPED. THE HOUSE LOOKED WELL MAINTAINED. ON THE LEFT IS A PICTURE I TOOK ON SATURDAY. THE FOUNTAIN HAS A TARP, DAMAGE ON THE ROOF. AIR CONDITIONING THAT HASN'T WORKED AND HASN'T WORKED SINCE HELENE. WE HAD A FOOT OF WITH A YOU ARE IN OUR HOUSE DURING HELENE AND A FOOT FROM MILTON. INTERIOR OF THE HOUSE DESTROYED. EVERYTHING TORN OUT. HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO DO REPAIRS WITH ZONING ISSUES I'D LIKE TO CHAT ABOUT. I KNOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DRAFT REPETITIVE LOSS AREA ANALYSIS. THERE ARE A LIST OF STRUCTURAL THINGS ONE CAN DO TO MITIGATE FLOOD RISK. ONLY ONE THAT I HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW THAT IS ACTUALLY OF ANY VALUE TO US AND THAT IS PROPERTY ELEVATION. NOTHING ELSE ON THIS LIST ACTUALLY HAS ANY VALUE TO IT. THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION TO LET PEOPLE KNOW WHO HAVE REPETITIVE LOSSES ABOUT REACHING OUT TO ELEVATE FLORIDA. I'D LIKE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT OUR SITUATION. THIS IS A DIAGRAM OF THE BACK OF OUR HOUSE. YOU'LL SEE IT'S GOT KIND OF AN ODD SHAPE. I HAVE YELLOW BOXES ON IT. THE YELLOW BOXES HIGHLIGHT DOORWAYS. SIX DOORS IN THE BACK OF OUR HOUSE INTO THE LANAI. OUR STRATEGY IS TO ELEVATE THE HOUSE 12 FEET OFF THE GROUND. IF YOU HAVE A DOOR THAT IS 12 FEET OFF THE GROUND AND YOU WALK OUT OF IT, OF COURSE, YOU WILL FALL AND HURT YOURSELF. WE EITHER NEED TO TAKE OUT THE WINDOWS, TAKE OUT THE DOORS AND PUT IN WINDOWS OR BLOCK OFF THE DOORS, FILL THEM IN, PUT IN RAILINGS OR WHAT PEOPLE DO IN THIS SITUATION IS BUILD A BALCONY THAT CONNECTS THEM AND HAVE AN EXTERNAL STAIRCASE. SO YOU HAVE EGRESS. IF THERE WAS A FIRE, YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO GET OUT OF THE HOUSE. YOU NEED ACCESS TO THAT PART OF THE HOUSE. WE HAVE SIX DOORS THAT WILL BE UNUSABLE POST-LIFT. THE ZONING ISSUE TIED WITH THAT IS WE HAVE A 35% BUILDING COVERAGE LIMITATION ON ST. ARMANDS. BALCONY COUNTS AS STRUCTURE. WE ONLY HAVE SEVEN SQUARE FEET OF EXTRA SPACE, WHICH IS NOT ENOUGH TO BUILD A BALCONY. AND THERE'S NO VARIANCE AVAILABLE AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THIS. THE CITY CODE LIMITS THIS. WE ACTUALLY DESIGNED WHAT THE BALCONY WOULD LOOK LIKE. SUPPORTED BY FIVE COLUMNS. NO BARRIERS TO WATER FLOW AT ALL. FULLY WITHIN THE SETBACKS, NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. ALL DOORS HAVE EXTERIOR ACCESS. WHAT IS A BALCONY. IT IS TAKING THE IMPERVIOUS DECKING SURFACE AND LIFTING IT UP. WE CAN'T DO THAT. WE NEED A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO BE ABLE TO BUILD THIS. ASK STAFF TO CONSIDER WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE SO WE CAN EVALUATE IT. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. KAHWATY. THERE IS ONE MORE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK, IF THAT PERSON WOULD COME FORWARD. CHIP -- I'LL GIVE IT A SHOT -- VEMA. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: NO, I'M NOT. [ LAUGHTER ] SIR, WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, IF YOU ARE A CITY RESIDENT. >> CHIP BEEMAN, BUSINESS OWNER ON MAIN STREET. TALK TO YOU ABOUT PARKING, KIND OF. THE CITY CHANGED THE BACK-IN PARKING IN THE GARAGES BACK TO NO BACKING IN. ERIC ARROYO SEVERAL YEARS AGO, WE GOT TOGETHER AND I EXPLAINED TO HIM THE DANGERS OF HEAD-IN PARKING AND MAKING YOU BACK OUT. HE WAS ABLE TO GET THE COUNCIL OR THE COMMISSION TOGETHER AND CHANGE THAT. I SEE THAT NOT ONLY IS BACK-IN PARKING CHANGED NOW, BUT IT'S ALSO GONE TO $50 AS A SAFETY THING. LET ME TELL YOU WHAT, THE SAFEST THING TO DO IS TO BACK INTO A PARKING SPOT. I GOT STUFF HERE FROM THE NATIONAL COUNCIL -- SAFETY COUNCIL ABOUT 20% OF ALL ACCIDENTS HAPPEN IN A PARKING GARAGE. ALSO, THERE IS ROUGHLY 500 FATALITIES HAPPEN EVERY YEAR IN A PARKING GARAGE. LET ME SPEAK TO THAT. I HAD A CUSTOMER AT ONE OF MY OLD RESTAURANTS BACK IN 2010 OR SO. SHE WAS A LADY IN HER 70s. WENT TO CHURCH. AFTER CHURCH, HER AND HER HUSBAND GOT IN THE CAR. THEY BACKED OVER SEVEN LADIES, KILLED THREE OF THEM BECAUSE SHE PULLED IN, INSTEAD OF BACKING INTO THE SPOT. SIMPLY BACKED INTO THE SPOT, SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE EVERYTHING SHE GOT IN THE CAR, AFTER SHE GOT DONE PLAYING WITH HER PHONE, ADJUSTING MIRROR, SHE WOULD HAVE SAFELY PULLED OUT. ON THE PERSONAL SIDE, I LOST A NEPHEW TO THE VERY SAME THING. BY TRAGICALLY HIS FATHER. THE LADY I DESCRIBED TO YOU, SHE DIED A YEAR LATER. SHE WAS HEARTBROKEN. MY BROTHER-IN-LAW, SISTER-IN-LAW BOTH DIED -- WELL, ONE DRANK HIMSELF TO DEATH AND ONE PUT A GUN IN THE MOUTH BECAUSE OF THE TRAGEDY OF THEIR SON. YOU GOT TO RETHINK WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE. WE HAVE ALL THE TELEMETRY THAT YOU CAN READ THE PLATES WHEN THEY GO IN AND OUT. I DON'T THINK 50 BUCKS IS WORTH PUTTING THINGS, YOU KNOW, PUTTING MONEY ABOVE SAFETY. THE LAST THING THAT I GOT HERE IS FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE LAWYERS, I ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THE SEVERITY OF THIS NOW THAT YOU ALL HAVE BEEN PRESENTED WITH THESE EXACT FACTS AND STATISTICS, KNOWING THE DANGER SHOULD SOMEONE BACK OVER SOMEBODY IN A CITY-CONTROLLED PARKING GARAGE, THERE MAY BE LIABILITY FOR US AS A CITY BECAUSE WE'VE CHANGED IT SO IT IS MANDATED THAT YOU CAN'T BACK IN AND SAFELY PULL OUT. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU. THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. IS THERE A MOTION REGARDING THE MINUTES OF JULY 20, 2026? >>Kyle Battie: SO MOVED. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: SO MOVE WHAT? MOVE TO APPROVE. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT I DID SUBMIT SOME NON-SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES. WITH THAT, I WILL SECOND THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BATTIE AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER AHEARN-KOCH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 20, 2026. IS THERE DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL VOTE, ROLL CALL. >>Liz Alpert: YES. >>Kyle Battie: YES. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: YES. >>Mayor Trice: YES. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: YES. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU. THE MOTION CARRIES. THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JULY -- THE SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2026. >>Kyle Battie: SO MOVE TO APPROVE. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: MOVE TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER BATTIE. IS THERE A SECOND? >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: WITH NON-SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES SUBMITTED, I WOULD SECOND THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 28, 2026. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BATTIE. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER AHEARN-KOCH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 28, 2026. IS THERE DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL VOTE. >>Kyle Battie: YES. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: YES. >>Mayor Trice: YES. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: YES. >>Liz Alpert: YES. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS BOARD ACTIONS. THE ONLY ITEM IS A REPORT FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2025. IF REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE HISTORIC -- [AUDIO DROP] >> GOOD MORNING. >> GOOD MORNING. >>Susan Dodd: GOOD MORNING. SUSAN DODD, I HAVE WITH ME THE CHAIRMAN FROM THE 2025 HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD, RAMSEY FRANGIE. WE RESPECTFULLY PRESENT OUR ANNUAL BOARD REPORT FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2025 AND WELCOME ANY QUESTIONS. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: I THOUGHT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A PRESENTATION. IS THERE A PRESENTATION? >> I CAN PRESENT IF YOU LIKE. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: WE WOULD APPRECIATE. >> OKAY. I'LL COVER SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS. IN CALENDAR YEAR 2025 -- >>Shayla Griggs: SIR, CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MIKE? THANK YOU. >> BETTER? THERE WERE 20 DEMOLITIONS GRANTED ON THE FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE. THERE WERE 4 CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS GRANTED. THERE WAS ONE HISTORICAL VARIANCE GRANTED. THERE WAS ONE HISTORIC DESIGNATION GRANTED. AND THERE WAS ONE REQUEST TO RELOCATE A HISTORIC PROPERTY GRANTED. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU. IF THAT'S THE END OF YOUR PRESENTATION, BEFORE WE TAKE COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, THERE IS ONE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO SPEAK. >>Susan Dodd: WOULD YOU LIKE US TO LEAVE? >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: NO. YOU CAN STAY THERE. THERE ARE PLENTY OF CHAIRS. ELIZABETH ROSE, COME FORWARD. >> GOOD MORNING. ELIZABETH ROSE. I AM A CITY RESIDENT. NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES I SIT HERE, I ALWAYS GET NERVOUS. SORRY IF I AM A LITTLE FLUSTERED. BACK IN FEBRUARY, I SENT AN E-MAIL TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD STAFF AND MEMBERS BECAUSE I HAD SEEN THAT IT'S IN THE PURVIEW OF THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION BOARD TO PURSUE PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION WITHOUT THE PROPERTY OWNER'S APPROVAL. THEY CAN SEND A LETTER TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. THEY HAVE 15 DAYS TO FILE AN OBJECTION. FAILING TO FILE AN OBJECTION IS NOT THE SAME AS AGREEING TO SOMETHING. A SHORT TIME PERIOD, WHAT IF THEY ARE ON VACATION? WHAT IF THEY ARE IN THE HOSPITAL? WHAT IF THEY WANT TO TALK TO THEIR ATTORNEY, THEIR FINANCIAL ADVISOR? IT JUST SEEMS BARR TO ME. WHY GO THROUGH ALL THAT EFFORT IF YOU DON'T HAVE A PROPERTY OWNER INTERESTED AND WILLING TO DO THAT? OTHER MUNICIPALITIES DO REQUIRE OWNER APPROVAL. TITUSVILLE AND ALSO THE CITY OF WINTER PARK, WHICH IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN THERE IS CHARMING AND BEAUTIFUL. LOTS OF OLD HOUSES. NOT ONLY DID THEY REQUIRE THE PROPERTY OWNER TO APPROVE, ONLY THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THEIR DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE CAN EVEN MAKE THE APPLICATION. I DO THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE CAN DO TO GET AHEAD OF THE CURVE. YES, WE ARE LOSING MANY, MANY, MANY OLD HOUSES IN SARASOTA. THE CHARACTER OF OUR CITY IS CHANGING. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT ALL OF THEM ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DESIGNATION. I HOPE THAT'S NOT MY PHONE. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: IT'S NOT. >> OKAY, GOOD. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON THE FUTURE OF THEIR PROPERTY. IT'S NOT ALWAYS GREEDY DEVELOPERS THAT ARE TRYING TO TEAR AWAY AT THE FABRIC OF OUR CITY. IT'S PEOPLE'S LIFE ESTATE PLAN. IT'S THEM HAVING THE ABILITY TO SELL THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS ON IT. I'M NOT ANTI-PRESERVATION. I JUST THINK A PROPERTY OWNER SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO WEIGH IN AND HAVE THEIR OPINION MATTER MORE THAN MY OPINION. [PHONE RINGING] I THINK THE FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE, NOW TRANSITIONED TO THE CITY WEBSITE IS CUMBERSOME TO USE, DIFFICULT TO FIND INFORMATION. FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN HAS THE MOST CURRENT SITE FILE SURVEY. IN OTHER WORDS, IF GETS AN EVALUATION BY SOMEONE THAT DOES A DRIVE-BY, MAYBE LOOKS AT RECORDS, TALKS TO CITY STAFF. WHEN I REACHED OUT TO TALLAHASSEE, MY PROPERTY HAS BEEN SURVEYED THREE TIMES. ALL THREE TIMES DIFFERENT INFORMATION, DIFFERENT VERBIAGE, NO DEFINITION OF WHAT A FIELD, WHERE A CHECK BOX IS MADE. PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ALL OF THIS MEANS. I THINK WE COULD UTILIZE VIDEO TO HELP A STAFF THAT IS STAFFED BY ONE INDIVIDUAL THAT MUST GET SO MANY PHONE CALLS. AND THEN YOU CONTROL THE MESSAGE THAT'S GOING OUT. DOESN'T MEAN SOMEONE WON'T MISUNDERSTAND IT, BUT THEY CAN GO BACK AND WATCH IT INSTEAD OF CALLING HER AGAIN. MS. DODD HAS MADE LEAGUES OF PROGRESS IN FORMS AND SYSTEMS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I JUST THINK THE OUTREACH PART IS WHERE WE ARE MISSING IT. SO CLOSE. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. ROSE. ALL RIGHT. DULY NOTED. >>Susan Dodd: VERY MUCH NOTED. I'VE SPOKEN WITH MS. ROSE ABOUT THIS AND THE BOARD. PERHAPS A PRESENTATION WOULD HAVE BEEN IN ORDER. BASICALLY, WE ARE TACKLING A LOT OF PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS AND OPTIMIZATION. THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE OPERATION OF THE PROGRAM AS IS, BUT THE IMPROVEMENTS TO HOW WE APPROACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION, HOW WE ENCOURAGE HOMEOWNERS AND HOW TO GET OUT IN FRONT INSTEAD OF BEING ON OUR BACK FOOT, WHICH IS THE CURRENT POSITION. SO THAT IS ALL IN SUCH TRANSITION RIGHT NOW THAT I WASN'T PREPARED TO COMMENT ON IT, IF YOU WILL, BUT EVERYTHING THAT MS. ROSE MENTIONED, I COULDN'T AGREE WITH MORE. HAS BEEN NOTED AND IS PART OF OUR IMPROVEMENTS GOING FORWARD. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. NOW I WILL ADDRESS COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER AHEARN-KOCH. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR SERVING. I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK. I DID WANT TO CLARIFY HERE, IT SAYS CALENDAR YEAR, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR DEMOLITION, CORRECT? >> YES. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: SO IN THE CALENDAR YEAR 2025, THEN 24 STRUCTURES WERE APPROVED FOR DEMOLITION, CORRECT? >>Susan Dodd: NO. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS UNDER THE CALENDAR YEAR 2025 BOARD ACCOMPLISHMENTS ARE FOR ALTERATIONS OR ADDITIONS. THE DEMOLITION IS INCLUDED IN THE FMSF DEMO TOTAL. SO I THINK IT'S ONLY 16. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: HOW DO YOU GET 16? >>Susan Dodd: THAT IS THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES, 1660 21st WALL STREET. THE REST ARE FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE PROPERTIES. SO NO HISTORIC DESIGNATIONS WERE APPROVED. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: PLEASE FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE AND HISTORIC DESIGNATION -- >>Susan Dodd: NOT HISTORIC DESIGNATION. JUST DEMOLITIONS, JUST FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE. FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE DEMOS 20. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS ARE FOR ALTERATIONS OR ADDITIONS. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: I THOUGHT THAT WAS FOR DEMOLITION. >>Susan Dodd: IT CAN INCLUDE DEMOLITIONS. THAT'S WHAT THAT WOULD HAVE INCLUDED. ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH HISTORICAL DESIGNATIONS BUT IT DOES NOT INCLUDE FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE ONLY PROPERTIES. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: I'M SO VERY CONFUSED. >>Susan Dodd: IT'S ACTUALLY VERY CONFUSING. THERE ARE SO MANY DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. BUT I THINK WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS HOW MANY HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED PROPERTIES WERE DEMOLISHED, WHICH IS ZERO. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: HOW MANY WERE GIVEN THE GO-AHEAD TO BE DEMOLISHED -- I MEAN, INCLUDING FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE AND HISTORIC PROPERTIES? >>Susan Dodd: INCLUDING FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE AND HISTORIC PROPERTIES IS 20. AND THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE ANY HISTORIC DESIGNATIONS. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, THOSE FOUR ITEMS ARE FOR -- >>Susan Dodd: NOT DEMOS, ALTERATIONS OR ADDITIONS. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: THAT WOULD BE GOOD, NEXT REPORT, BECAUSE THERE'S DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ALTERATION AND ADDITION AND DEMOLITION. BUT WHEN I HEAR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, I ALWAYS FILL IN FOR DEMOLITION. >>Susan Dodd: NO. THAT'S OUR MAIN MECHANISM FOR REGULATING THE EVOLUTION OF THESE PROPERTIES. THAT IS THE BULK OF OUR COAs, 99% OF THEM IS TO REVIEW AND APPROVE SMALL CHANGES TO THE PROPERTY OR MAJOR CHANGES. BUT THOSE ARE CONSISTENTLY REMAINING HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED. AND BY ISSUING THE COA, THEY RETAIN THEIR HISTORIC DESIGNATION. I WILL CERTAINLY MAKE THAT CORRECTION NEXT YEAR. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. FOR THE FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE, I THINK IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION AND PRESENTATION WITH YOUR BOARD AND EVENTUALLY WITH THE COMMISSION TO CLARIFY, YOU KNOW, THIS FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE PROJECT, WHICH WAS INITIATED, I DON'T KNOW, EIGHT YEARS AGO, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE YEARS AGO, COMPLETED I THINK IN 2020, 2021, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. GOING OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD HERE. IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO HAVE AN OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS, WHAT IT INCLUDES, WHAT PEOPLE -- PROPERTY OWNERS' RIGHTS ARE, WHAT THE CITY'S RIGHTS ARE. WHAT THE HISTORIC BOARD PRESERVATION RESPONSIBILITIES ARE FOR THIS. IF THERE ARE SURVEYS THAT ARE DONE WITH THREE DIFFERENT SORT OF FAIRTIVES -- NARRATIVES ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON. I HAVE THE BOOK IN THE OFFICE. I LOOKED AT MY OWN PROPERTY, IT IS NOT ON IT. IT SHOULD BE ON IT. OLDER THAN 50 YEARS, BUT I WAS CONFUSED BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THE BOOK. WHEN THERE ARE VERSIONS FLOATING AROUND OUT THERE FOR PEOPLE TO LOOK IT UP AND TAKE THE STEP TO LOOK IT UP AND THEY SAY MY PROPERTY IS NOT ON THERE, OKAY, THERE SHOULDN'T BE A DUPLICATE FILE. NOT YOUR FAULT. IT IS A STATE PROGRAM, CORRECT? >>Susan Dodd: YES. THAT'S THE HOLDER OF THAT INFORMATION. ACTUALLY, OUR SURVEY STARTED IN 1977. SO WHEN YOU'RE DEALING DUPLICATES THAT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE UPDATES OF THE PREVIOUS FLORIDA SITE FILE DOCUMENT. THEY ARE A FIRST BLUSH AT DATA COLLECTION AND HEAVILY POPULATED WITH INCONSISTENCIES AND ERRORS. WE DON'T CONSIDER THEM THE DECISIVE FINAL SAY ON A PROPERTY'S DOCUMENTATION. BUT AS TO THE LARGER ISSUE THAT I THINK YOU'RE ASKING, I COULDN'T AGREE MORE. THIS IS A LARGE PROGRAM THAT NEEDS SOME OPTIMIZATIONS, AND WE ARE WORKING ON MUCH OF THE BACKGROUND TO COME TO YOU EVENTUALLY WITH SOME NEW PARAMETERS. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: GREAT. I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA FOR THE BOARD TO WEIGH IN ON THAT. >>Susan Dodd: ALWAYS, YES. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: MAYBE MAKE THAT AN ONGOING THING. THERE ARE OTHER -- YOU KNOW I -- I -- I AGREE SOMEBODY SHOULDN'T BE UNDULY BURDENED WITH NOT KNOWING THAT THEIR PROPERTY HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED BECAUSE THAT COMES WITH PROS AND IT COMES WITH SOME CHALLENGES, RIGHT? PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW THAT, GO INTO IT EYES WIDE OPEN. I AM A HUGE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PERSON PERSONALLY. WE HEAR FROM THE COMMUNITY ABOUT OUR HISTORIC CHARM AND OUR HISTORY BEING ERASED. I THINK THE GENERAL WILL OF THE COMMUNITY IS WHEN WE CAN WE SHOULD PROTECT THESE PROPERTIES TO TELL THOSE STORIES. THERE ARE WAYS WE CAN DO IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER, I THINK. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOME OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS INITIATED BY THIS BOARD AND THEN COME TO THE COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION. ONE OF THEM BEING THE PROCESS FOR DEMOLITION AND FOR DESIGNATION I THINK SHOULD BE OPPOSITES. RIGHT NOW IT GOES TO THE BOARD FOR DEMOLITION AND IT IS A ONE AND DONE. FOR DESIGNATION, IT HAS TO GO THROUGH A TWO-STEP PROCESS. WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE DESIGNATION TO BE EASIER. I THINK IT SHOULD BE THE OPPOSITE OF THAT. WE SHOULD HAVE DESIGNATION, ONE STOP AT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING IT. THEY ARE WANTING IT. WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH A TWO-STEP PROCESS. DEMOLITION POTENTIALLY WOULD BE THE OPPOSITE, HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD AND THEN THE COMMISSION. THAT SHOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE BURDENSOME WHEN THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS ALREADY TAKEN THE EFFORT TO DESIGNATE SOMETHING, THERE SHOULD BE AT LEAST THAT DISCUSSION. MY OPINION PERSONALLY IS MY OPINION BUT THAT DISCUSSION COULD BE HAD AT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD. >> I HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ON THAT BUT IT WOULD TAKE COORDINATION BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY. ONE WOULD THINK THAT IF YOU WERE TO GO TO THE SARASOTA COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER THAT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE IF THIS IS A SPECIAL PROPERTY, A SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY ON THE FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE. THAT CAN EVEN BECOME BURDENSOME TO A BUYER IF THEIR OBJECTIVE IS TO REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY AND THEY FIND OUT IT IS ON THE FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE. THEY SHOULD ALSO DETERMINE IF IT IS SIGNIFICANT IN OTHER WAYS. IN MY OPINION, IF IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR SOME TYPE OF DESIGNATION BECAUSE OF OWNERSHIP, PREVIOUS OWNERSHIP, BECAUSE IT MAY HAVE BEEN A SARASOTA SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE DESIGN, WHATEVER THE FACTORS ARE THAT THE CITY AND STAFF DESIGNATE. SO I THINK WE'RE THINKING ALONG THE SAME PATH. I THINK THAT IS A WONDERFUL THING. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: THANK YOU FOR THAT. ANOTHER SUGGESTION IS THE CRITERIA WITH WHICH STRUCTURES ARE JUDGED AND THE BOARD IS GIVEN TO WEIGH. SOME OF THEM I THINK COULD BE IMPROVED IN THE LANGUAGE AND SOME OF THEM I THINK MAYBE SHOULD BE DELETED, SPECIFICALLY NUMBER 7, WHICH I THINK IS AN OUT FOR ANYBODY TO DEMO ANYTHING. I THINK THAT IS ONE OF THEM THAT SHOULD BE DISCUSSED AND LOOKED INTO BY THE BOARD. >>Susan Dodd: DID YOU WANT ME TO RESPOND ON THE TWO VERSUS ONE WITH HAVING TO TAKE A DESIGNATION OF THE COMMISSION? I WANTED TO INDICATE THAT THE REASON WE HAVE TO GO TO THE COMMISSION IS TO ENACT THE ORDINANCE THAT DESIGNATES. IT IS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD WHERE THE REAL REVIEW IS DONE. THEN IT GOES TO THE COMMISSION ONLY TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION FIRST AND SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE. WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE STRENGTH OF AN ORDINANCE IF WE DIDN'T COME TO THE COMMISSION. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: IS THERE ANY WAY THAT CAN BE MADE EASIER FOR THE APPLICANT? >>Susan Dodd: WE DON'T ACTUALLY ASK THE APPLICANT TO DO ANYTHING FOR THE PROCESS. WE TAKE THAT ON. WE ASK THEM TO ATTEND AND SPEAK ABOUT THEIR PROPERTY. WE DO ALL OF THE PAPER WORK TO GET IT TO THE COMMISSION. I WILL SAY MAKING THINGS EASIER ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION APPLICANTS IS DEFINITELY ONE OF THE PARTS OF THE OPTIMIZATION THAT I'VE GOT IN MY MIND AT THIS POINT. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: THAT WOULD BE GOOD. BETTER COMMUNICATION ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF HISTORIC DESIGNATION. I THINK PEOPLE FEEL IT IS A BURDEN AND THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE MANY, MANY BENEFITS TO DESIGNATION. AND THERE ARE LIMITATIONS. OH, I CAN'T TOUCH MY HOUSE. CAN'T DO ANYTHING. THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND. I KNOW WE TALK ABOUT IT A LOT BUT WE NEED TO BE TALKING ABOUT IT MORE. IF WE WANT TO DO IT, WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON THIS. >>Susan Dodd: THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE WORKING ON AS WELL IS OUR FIRST ACTUAL OWNER'S GUIDE TO HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND ALSO A REALTOR'S GUIDE TO SELLING HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROPERTY TO ASSUAGE FEARS ON REGULATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AND TO ADDRESS THE INCENTIVES WHICH ARE ACTUALLY LARGER THAN FINANCIAL. MANY OF THEM ARE VERY NUANCED AND WE'RE PUTTING THE TIME INTO PRESENTING THAT. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU. MAYOR TRICE, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? >>Mayor Trice: NO. THANK YOU. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU. AND THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER BATTIE. >>Kyle Battie: THANK YOU, MAYOR. PARDON MY BASKETBALL INJURY. ANY CASE, SOMEONE, JUST LIKE MOST OF THE PUBLIC SPEAKING AS A LAYMAN OR WHAT HAVE YOU, TO THE COMMISSIONER'S POINT, BECAUSE COMMISSION'S PRIOR SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND WHAT IT CONSTITUTES AND NOT. SOMEONE'S HOUSE BUILT BEFORE THE '50s, THEY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THIS. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY CAN DO WITH THE HOME. THEY BUY A HOUSE INNOCENTLY. NEXT THING YOU KNOW, THEY ARE HIT WITH SOME SORT OF HISTORIC, YOU KNOW, DESIGNATION THAT THEY GOT TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE, YOU KNOW, HOOPS AND SO ON. TRYING TO GET, YOU KNOW, AN IDEA AND EVEN FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION, LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHAT THAT ACTUALLY IS. EVEN IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN TO ME, YOU KNOW, WHAT MRS. ROSE WAS TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE I WAS A BIT CONFUSED. IT ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE EMINENT DOMAIN, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? YOU'RE LISTENING TO IT, OR WHATEVER. IT'S CONFUSING. SO I DON'T REALLY KNOW, IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN THAT. GIVE ME SOME CLARIFICATION. >>Susan Dodd: SO THE LARGER ISSUE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS IS SOMETHING THAT I'LL BE COMING BACK TO SPEAK TO YOU ON. BUT THE SPECIFIC THING MS. ROSE WAS REFERRING TO, THERE IS A PORTION IN THE CODE THAT ALLOWS THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD TO RECOMMEND A PROPERTY FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND TO PROCEED THROUGH THAT PROCESS GIVING NOTICE TO THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO WHICH THEY HAVE TO RESPOND BACK BY CERTIFIED MAIL WITHIN A VERY BRIEF PERIOD OF TIME IF THEY ARE OPPOSING IT. SO SHE HAS CONCERNS ABOUT THE COMMUNICATION AND PROACTIVITY. I'VE ASSURED HER AT THIS TIME, I WOULDN'T ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN BECAUSE WE WOULD MAKE SURE THAT WE MADE CONTACT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER. BUT IT DOES READ THAT WAY IN THE CODE RIGHT NOW. AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE'D CERTAINLY LIKE TO IMPROVE GOING FORWARD. BECAUSE AS SHE STATED, THE BOARD OR THE CITY COULD MOVE FORWARD TOWARDS A HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND WITH NO CONFIDENCE THAT THE OWNER HAS REALLY BEEN INCLUDED IN THAT DISCUSSION WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE. >>Kyle Battie: THANK YOU. KIND OF SPEAKS TO WHAT IT IS I WAS ASKING. WHY THE SHORT WINDOW OF TIME? >>Susan Dodd: YEAH, I JUST LOOKED UP THE ORDINANCE WHEN THAT CAME INTO PLAY. I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TO WHY IT WAS SO SHORT. THAT WAS ACTUALLY THE STARTING DATE. IT WASN'T THAT WE STEPPED IT BACK FROM SOMETHING. I THINK THAT THERE ARE MANY IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE TO THAT. IT MIGHT NOT JUST BE A TIME LIMIT BUT THE CONVERSATION IS HAD WITH THE OWNER AND NOTHING CAN MOVE FORWARD UNTIL A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME BECAUSE ULTIMATELY WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THIS AS A BENEFIT THAT HELPS NOT JUST THEM BUT THE COMMUNITY VERSUS IN ANY WAY ADVERSARIAL. SO THERE'S SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE TO THAT LANGUAGE IN THE CODE, IN MY OPINION. >>Kyle Battie: THANK YOU FOR THAT. AGAIN, A LOT OF CONFUSION. YOU START TALKING ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS, HISTORIC DESIGNATION, WHERE THE CITY IS GOING IN THE FUTURE ALONG WITH TRYING TO MAINTAIN THIS HISTORIC CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY AND SO ON. TO THE COMMISSIONER'S POINT, I THINK IT BEHOOVES US ALL AS A CITY TO BE KNOWLEDGEABLE AND HAVE INFORMATION IN TERMS OF LIKE WHAT IS WHAT AND WHATNOT, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH YOUR HOME, WHAT YOU CAN'T, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS DESIGNATED, OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE AND WHATNOT. WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD DESIGNATING SOMEONE'S HOME AND ONLY BEING GIVEN A SHORT WINDOW OF TIME OR WHATEVER, NOW, YOU'RE AN INDIVIDUAL THAT IS GOING TO TAKE IT UPON YOURSELF AND TAKE THAT RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU MAKE CONTACT. IT COULD EASILY BE SOMEONE IN YOUR POSITION THAT DOESN'T DO THAT DUE DILIGENCE AND TAKE THAT STEP OR WHATEVER. THE NEXT THING YOU KNOW, THAT PERSON IS OR FAMILY OR WHATEVER IS IN SOME SORT OF SITUATION THAT THEY DON'T PREFER TO BE IN. BUT THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION AND THE WORK THAT YOU DO. THANK YOU. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU. I JUST HAVE ONE COMMENT. AND THAT IS, I REALLY APPRECIATED THE MEETING SUMMARY THAT YOU INCLUDED AS PAGE 4 OF YOUR REPORT. IT REALLY GAVE US A QUICK GLANCE AT THE WORK THAT YOU HAVE DONE. WOULD YOU PLEASE CONVEY TO THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD THAT WE GREATLY APPRECIATE THE WORK YOU DO. AND BASED ON OUR CONVERSATION TODAY, YOUR WORK IS NOT DONE. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>Susan Dodd: THANK YOU. >> GREAT. THANK YOU. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THE COMMISSION DOES NOT APPROVE THE REPORT OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD, BUT WE SHOULD HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT. IS THERE SUCH A MOTION? >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD'S REPORT. >>Kyle Battie: SECOND. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: MOVED BY COMMISSIONER AHEARN-KOCH. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BATTIE TO ACCEPT THE REPORT OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2025. IS THERE DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, LET'S VOTE. ROLL CALL. YES. >>Mayor Trice: YES. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: YES. >>Liz Alpert: YES. >>Kyle Battie: YES. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THE MOTION CARRIES 5-0. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS CONSENT AGENDA NUMBER 1. MS. GRIGGS, HAVE ANY ITEMS BEEN PULLED? >>Shayla Griggs: I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY ITEMS PULLED. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: SEEING THAT THERE ARE NO AGENDA ITEMS -- CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS PULLED, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT 1? >>Kyle Battie: I MOVE TO APPROVE. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: SECOND. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BATTIE. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OHLRICH TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA NUMBER 1. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK TO THIS. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: SPEAK TO CONSENT 1? >>Shayla Griggs: JUST FOR THE RECORD, YOU SAID YOUR NAME AS THE SECOND. COMMISSIONER AHEARN-KOCH. I WANTED TO CLEAR THAT UP FOR THE RECORD. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: I SAID THAT? I'M IN CHARGE OF THE MEETING. >>Shayla Griggs: IT'S OKAY. GO AHEAD. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: IT WAS COMMISSIONER AHEARN-KOCH. THANK YOU. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT ONE OF THE CONSENT ITEMS HAS TO DO WITH OUR SISTER CITIES AGREEMENT. I SEE FOLKS FROM THE CITY CITIES AND WANTED TO THANK THEM FOR BEING HERE. I DIDN'T KNOW IF THEY WANTED TO SPEAK OR MAKE A PRESENTATION. >> WE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION. >>Jennifer Jorgensen: THERE IS GOING TO BE AN AGENDA ITEM AT A LATER TIME WHERE THEY PRESENT THEIR TYPICAL REPORT. THAT WILL BE A LATER AGENDA. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ATTENDING THE MEETING TODAY. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR GOING TO SOPA. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE THE MOTION IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S VOTE. ROLL CALL. >>Mayor Trice: YES. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: YES. >>Liz Alpert: YES. >>Kyle Battie: YES. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: YES. THE MOTION CARRIES 5-0. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS CONSENT AGENDA NUMBER 2. MS. GRIGGS, HAVE ANY ITEMS BEEN PULLED? >>Shayla Griggs: I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY ITEMS TO BE PULLED. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA 2? >>Kyle Battie: SO MOVE MOTION TO APPROVE. >>Shayla Griggs: VICE MAYOR, BEFORE YOU DO THAT, I NEED TO READ THE TITLES. THANK YOU. RESOLUTION 26R-3411, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2025, BY PROVIDING FOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS IN THE AMOUNTS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT A; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY IF ANY OF THE PARTS HEREOF ARE DECLARED INVALID; PROVIDING FOR READING BY TITLE ONLY, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. RESOLUTION 26R-3412, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2025, BY PROVIDING FOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS IN THE AMOUNTS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT A; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY IF ANY OF THE PARTS HEREOF ARE DECLARED INVALID; PROVIDING FOR READING BY TITLE ONLY AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU. AND NOW WE'LL HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT 2. >>Kyle Battie: SO MOVED, MOTION TO APPROVE. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: SECOND. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BATTIE. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER AHEARN-KOCH TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA NUMBER 2. IS THERE DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL VOTE. ROLL CALL. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: YES. >>Liz Alpert: YES. >>Kyle Battie: YES. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: YES. >>Mayor Trice: YES. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU. THE MOTION CARRIES 5-0. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS BOARD APPOINTMENTS. THE FIRST UP IS BOARD APPOINTMENT FOR BOARD OF RULES AND APPEALS. IS THERE DISCUSSION OR A NOMINATION? >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: I CAN MAKE A NOMINATION. I WOULD MOVE THE REAPPOINTMENT OF MR. DAVID PHILLIPS AND WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT HE BE A CITY RESIDENT. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: IS THERE A SECOND? >>Kyle Battie: SECOND. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER AHEARN-KOCH AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONERS BATTIE AND ALPERT. IS THERE DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, LET'S VOTE. >>Liz Alpert: YES. >>Kyle Battie: YES. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: YES. >>Mayor Trice: YES. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: YES. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU. THE MOTION CARRIES 5-0. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM 8.2, APPOINTMENT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD. IS THERE DISCUSSION OR A MOTION? >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. I WOULD MOVE WE APPOINT MR. CHRISTOPHER WILSON TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD. >>Kyle Battie: SECOND. >>Shayla Griggs: JUST TO BE CLEAR, MR. WILSON WILL BE FOR THE CITIZEN AT-LARGE SEAT. THAT'S FOR THE RECORD. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: WHATEVER IT WAS DESIGNATED TO FILL. THREE ARE SERVING BEYOND THEIR TERMS. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THERE IS A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER AHEARN-KOCH AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BATTIE. IS THERE DISCUSSION? REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD. HEARING NONE, LET'S VOTE, BY ROLL CALL. >>Kyle Battie: YES. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: YES. >>Mayor Trice: YES. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: YES. >>Liz Alpert: YES. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THE MOTION CARRIES 5-0. THE NEXT ITEM UP IS 8.3, APPOINTMENT TO THE PARKS, RECREATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADVISORY BOARD. IS THERE A DISCUSSION OR A MOTION? >>Liz Alpert: I HAVE A DISCUSSION. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: PLEASE. >>Liz Alpert: MR. KOFFMAN SEEMS VERY, VERY QUALIFIED, BUT IT'S FOR THE POSITION FOR CONNECTION TO ROBERT L. TAYLOR. I DIDN'T SEE ANY CONNECTION TO ROBERT L. TAYLOR. >>Shayla Griggs: CAN YOU GET MORE IN THE MIKE, COMMISSIONER? WE CAN'T HEAR YOU AT ALL. >>Liz Alpert: THANK YOU. MR. KOFFMAN SEEMED VERY QUALIFIED, BUT THIS POSITION IS FOR SOMEBODY WHO HAS A CONNECTION TO ROBERT L. TAYLOR, AND I DIDN'T SEE IN HIS APPLICATION ANY CONNECTION. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS MORE INFORMATION ON HIM. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU FOR THAT. WE'LL PURSUE THAT AS WE GO ALONG. COMMISSIONER AHEARN-KOCH. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: I MET HIM AT THE RIBBON CUTTING FOR BOBBY JONES, BUT I DIDN'T GET TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH HIM PER THIS EXACT APPOINTMENT. I PREFER TO MEET WITH THE APPLICANTS BEFORE WE MAKE THE APPOINTMENT, SO I WOULD LOVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHAT WITH HIM AND TO ANSWER COMMISSIONER ALPERT'S QUESTION, I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE I DIDN'T DISCUSS WITH HIM. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS ANY CONNECTION TO ROBERT L. TAYLOR. I THINK IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: I NOTICED THAT SAME ISSUE AND WAS GOING TO BRING IT UP FOR DISCUSSION AS WELL. COMMISSIONER BATTIE, YOU DIDN'T CLICK. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? >>Kyle Battie: NO. SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CONNECTION TO ROBERT L. TAYLOR, IN WHAT WAY, IN TERMS OF AFFILIATION? >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: KNOWLEDGE, USE. LIVES IN THE AREA, GOES THERE, HAS BEEN TO EVENTS THERE, HAS PARTICIPATED IN ANY ACTIVITIES THERE, GOES TO THE GYM. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: SO IT SAYS, THE LANGUAGE SAYS A CITIZEN WITH PARTICULAR INTEREST IN OR ASSOCIATION WITH THE ROBERT L. TAYLOR COMMUNITY COMPLEX. >>Mayor Trice: MAY I MAKE A SUGGESTION? >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: MAYOR TRICE. >>Mayor Trice: I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT WE CONTINUE THIS APPOINTMENT AND ASK MS. GRIGGS TO ADVERTISE THIS POSITION SPECIFICALLY MENTIONING A NEED FOR SOMEONE WITH A PARTICULAR INTEREST IN ROBERT L. TAYLOR COMMUNITY CENTER. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: IS THAT A MOTION, MAYOR? >>Mayor Trice: I WILL MAKE IT A MOTION IF YOU WILL ACCEPT IT AS A MOTION. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU. I'M LOOKING FOR A SECOND. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: SECOND. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR TRICE AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER AHEARN-KOCH TO CONTINUE ITEM 8.3, APPOINTMENT FOR THE PARKS, RECREATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADVISORY BOARD. IS THERE DISCUSSION? >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: YES. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: COMMISSIONER AHEARN-KOCH, YOU ARE FIRST UP. MAKER OF THE MOTION, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? >>Mayor Trice: I THINK IT'S JUST VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE GET THE RIGHT PEOPLE INVOLVED SO THAT THEY CAN FOCUS ON A PARTICULAR -- AND THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT PARK, SO THAT IS WHY I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE RIGHT PERSON. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER AHEARN-KOCH. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: I WANT TO THANK MR. KOFFMAN FOR APPLYING FOR THIS POSITION, BUT I WOULD THANK ALSO COMMISSIONER ALPERT FOR THAT COMMENT AND ASK IF WE COULD ALSO HIGHLY RECOMMEND -- AND I KNOW IT'S ENCOURAGED THAT THEY MEET AND REACH OUT TO THE CITY COMMISSIONER AND SCHEDULE AN IN-PERSON MEETING OR ANY KIND OF LANGUAGE. I DON'T KNOW HOW THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS FEEL, BUT I REALLY LIKE TO MEET WITH THE APPLICANTS AND HAVE A SHORT DISCUSSION ABOUT WHY THEY ARE INTERESTED IN DOING THIS ONE ON ONE, PERSON TO PERSON. >>Shayla Griggs: THAT IS IN OUR LETTERS THAT WE DO. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: MAYBE STRONGER LANGUAGE. >>Shayla Griggs: MANDATORY. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: THAT'S PRETTY GOOD. >>Shayla Griggs: IT'S HARD TO MAKE THE PUBLIC DO ANYTHING. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: LIKE, I DON'T KNOW, JUST LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE AND SEE IF WE COULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE IT. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ALPERT. >>Liz Alpert: WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IS, YOU KNOW, MR. KOFFMAN MAY VERY WELL HAVE SOME SORT OF CONNECTION. IF WE CONTINUE IT, HE ALSO THEN HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENLIGHTEN US IF THAT'S THE CASE. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONERS. SO THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO CONTINUE THE APPOINTMENT FOR THE PARKS, RECREATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADVISORY BOARD, MADE BY MAYOR TRICE AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER AHEARN-KOCH. IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? NO. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, LET'S VOTE, ROLL CALL. YES. >>Mayor Trice: YES. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: YES. >>Liz Alpert: YES. >>Kyle Battie: YES. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU. THE MOTION CARRIES 5-0. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS 8.4, APPOINTMENT TO THE SARASOTA COUNTY STORMWATER ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. BOY, THAT'S A MOUTHFUL. IS THERE DISCUSSION OR A MOTION? >>Liz Alpert: I MOVE TO REAPPOINT MR. LINDEMANIS. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU. THERE IS A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ALPERT. IS THERE A SECOND? >>Kyle Battie: SECOND. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BATTIE TO REAPPOINTMENT ARTHUR LINDEMANIS TO THE SARASOTA COUNTY STORMWATER ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. IS THERE DISCUSSION? >>Liz Alpert: HE'S SERVING NOW, AND I DID TALK TO HIM, AND I THINK HE'S A GOOD CHOICE. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BATTIE. >>Kyle Battie: I WOULD CONCUR. HE'S VERY INVOLVED IN THE STORMWATER SITUATION AND SPOKEN TO ME ABOUT IT WHEN I SPOKE TO HIM A LONG TIME AGO. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NO MORE DISCUSSION. LET'S VOTE. ROLL CALL. >>Mayor Trice: YES. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: YES. >>Liz Alpert: YES. >>Kyle Battie: YES. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: YES. THE MOTION CARRIES 5-0. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM 9, UNFINISHED BUSINESS. FIRST UP IS 9.1, ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION 26R-3414 ADOPTING THE CITY OF SARASOTA REPETITIVE LOSS AREA ANALYSIS AS REQUIRED TO ADVANCE IN THE COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM. IF THERE ARE PEOPLE HERE TO PRESENT ON THAT ITEM, PLEASE COME FORWARD. >>Shayla Griggs: VICE MAYOR, WHILE THEY ARE DOING THAT, CAN I READ THAT RESOLUTION OUT LOUD? >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: PLEASE. >>Shayla Griggs: RESOLUTION 26R-3414, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE CITY OF SARASOTA REPETITIVE LOSS AREA ANALYSIS AS REQUIRED TO ADVANCE IN THE COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM, PROVIDING FOR READING OF THIS RESOLUTION BY TITLE ONLY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU. MR. BALTIMORE, THE FLOOR IS YOURS. >> THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. I'M PRESENTING THE REPETITIVE LOSS AREA ANALYSIS FOR ADOPTION. THIS IS THE REVISED VERSION FOLLOWING THE DRAFT PRESENTATION IN MAY. I'LL GO IN THE OVERVIEW FOR A SECOND. REPETITIVE LOSS AREA ANALYSIS PROVIDES AN OVERVIEW OF WHERE REPETITIVE FLOODING IS OCCURRING, WHY IT HAPPENED AND THE MITIGATION AND OPTIONS AVAILABLE. REQUIRED BY PEOPLE TO'S COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM FOR COMMUNITIES WITH 50 OR MOE. PROPERTIES TWO OR MORE FLOOD INSURANCE CLAIMS OF $1,000 OR MORE AND ANY ROLLING PERIOD SINCE 1978. 2024 STORMS, NUMBER OF REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES INCREASED FROM 48 TO 166. THE ANALYSIS GROUP FEES AND SIMILAR PROPERTIES IN THE 27 SEPARATE REPETITIVE LOSS AREAS ACROSS THE CITY. >>Liz Alpert: COULD YOU SLOW DOWN? >> YES. THE DRAFT REPORT WAS RELEASED FOR PUBLIC REVIEW IN MAY WITH COMMENTS ACCEPTED THROUGH JUNE 12. THE FINAL VERSION INCORPORATES COMMISSION FEEDBACK, PUBLIC COMMENTS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. ALL CLAIM INFORMATION SUMMARIZED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRIVACY ACT. GOING TO HIGHLIGHT KEY CHANGES FROM THE DRAFT TO THE FINAL VERSION. SUMMARY PARAGRAPH WAS ADDED IN STEP 5 WHICH CAPTURED THE RESIDENT RECOMMENDATIONS. THIS INCLUDED ELEVATING NEW CONSTRUCTION, INCREASING UNDERBUILDING PARKING, EXPANDING RAIN CHECK INCENTIVES PROGRAM, CREATING MORE WETLAND-STYLE RETENTION AREAS. INCREASING TREE CANOPY AND STRENGTHENING COORDINATION OF THE SCIENCE ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL. LOCATION DESCRIPTION FOR AREA 3 WAS CORRECTED INCORRECTLY IN THE DESCRIPTION -- MAP WAS CORRECT. JUST A DESCRIPTION CHANGE. CLARIFICATION WAS ADDED REGARDING THE COUNTY'S ROLE IN STORMWATER MAINTENANCE UNDER THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ALONG WITH CLARIFICATIONS ON AGENCY ROLES IN CAPITAL PROJECTS. STEP 4 INCLUDES EXPANDED EXPLANATION OF HOW BLOCK FLOODPLAINS CAN CONTINUE TO UPSTREAM FLOODING. MITIGATION FLOODING TO INTERDESCRIBE THE SECTION. ADDITIONAL DETAILS ADDED SUMMARIZING DRAFT REVIEW AND PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS. NO OTHER TECHNICAL MADE. CONCLUSIONS SAME FROM DRAFT. SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE UPDATED, THOUGH. ADOPTION IS REQUIRED FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM. CITY CURRENTLY HOLDS A CLASS 5 RATING WHICH PROVIDES A 25% FLOOD INSURANCE DISCOUNT FOR OUR RESIDENTS. THE REPETITIVE LOSS ANALYSIS SUPPORTS ONGOING MITIGATION PLANNING EFFORTS AND -- ADDITIONAL CREDIT TOWARD A POTENTIAL CLASS 4 RATING INCREASE DISCOUNT TO 30% DISCOUNT. >>Liz Alpert: COULD YOU PLEASE SLOW DOWN? >> I'M SORRY. YES. IN SUMMARY, FINAL REPORT REFLECTS COMMISSION AND PUBLIC INPUT, CLARIFIES OPERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES, AND STRENGTHENS THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ADDRESS ONGOING FLOODING CONCERNS. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. APOLOGIES IF I WENT A LITTLE FAST. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER AHEARN-KOCH. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THIS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS. IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. OF COURSE, WE KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT IS. MY QUESTION IS THAT ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE, I NOTICE THAT 10% ABOUT WERE RETURNED OF A RESPONSE, IT WAS RETURNED, WHICH THE NUMBER THAT WERE SENT OUT AND THE NUMBER THAT WERE RETURNED, THAT'S NOT A GREAT RESPONSE. I'M WONDERING WHAT THAT WAS DUE TO. >> REALLY, OUR CONSULTANT SAID IT WAS A PRETTY GOOD RESPONSE CONSIDERING, A LOT OF TIMES ONLY 10 TO 20 RESPONSES ON THESE. WE DID HAVE A LOT OF RESPONSES RELATIVE TO OTHERS. WE ARE SENDING OUT -- EVERY YEAR WE SEND OUT LETTERS TO THE REPETITIVE LOSS AREAS. BECAUSE OF THE INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF AREAS AND PROPERTIES, WE'RE GOING TO BE SENDING OUT LETTERS WITHIN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS TO EVERYBODY IN THE CITY. SO EVERY PROPERTY THAT WAS IN THE STUDY. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE SUMMARY VERSUS THE QUESTIONNAIRE. IN THE SUMMARY, IT TALKS ABOUT 21% CLAIMED FLOODING WAS DUE TO DRAINAGE FROM NEARBY PROPERTIES AND OVER-BANK STORM SURGE. I THINK THOSE ARE TWO VERY DISTINCT THINGS. IN THE LETTER, IT TALKS ABOUT WHAT DO YOU THINK THE FLOODING WAS DUE TO? IT SAYS STORM SEWER BACKUP, SANITARY SEWER BACKUP, STANDING WATER NEXT TO HOUSE, DRAINAGE FROM NEARBY PROPERTIES, RIVER FLOODING, OTHER. I DON'T SEE STORM SURGE IN THERE AS A CALLED-OUT ITEM. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE ISOLATE THAT BECAUSE THAT IS A VERY DIFFERENT THAN STANDING WATER OR STORM. ONE SPEAKS TO STORM SURGE, RIGHT? THE OTHER ONE IS TO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM. IF THERE'S STANDING WATER, IT'S NOT DRAINING PROPERLY. THOSE ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE IN THE LETTER TO REALLY CALL OUT WHAT THAT IS, AND MAYBE USE MORE COMMON PEDESTRIAN LANGUAGE IN SOME OF THE SURVEY THERE. BUT THIS IS A GREAT TOOL AND A REALLY IMPORTANT INFORMATION IN HERE, ESPECIALLY AS WE TALK ABOUT AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL WITH NFIP TO READ HERE THAT FLOODING IS THE MOST COMMON NATURAL HAZARD IN THE UNITED STATES. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. THAT IS AN IMPORTANT POINT TO REITERATE UP IN D.C. AS THEY TALK ABOUT NFIP. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> I APPRECIATE THAT FEEDBACK. I WILL DEFINITELY LOOK INTO IT AND TRY TO INCORPORATE MORE STORM SURGE AND DIVVYING OUT WHICH -- >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: YEAH, SEPARATE THAT OUT SO PEOPLE CAN ISOLATE EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. MY HOUSE FLOODED IN 2024. I WOULD HAVE HAD TO CHECK "OTHER." >> GREAT FEEDBACK. THANK YOU. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? I JUST HAVE A COMMENT AND QUESTION. WE HAD LENGTHY DISCUSSION OF THIS IN DRAFT FORM, CORRECT? >> YES. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: ALL RIGHT. SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE IN CLASS 5 OR WE'RE APPLYING FOR CLASS 5? >> WE ARE CURRENTLY A CLASS 5 COMMUNITY WITH 25% DISCOUNT. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: CORRECT. WE'RE GOING TO WORK TOWARD BEING CLASS 4. >> YES. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: WITH 30% DISCOUNT. WHAT ARE THE STEPS THE CITY HAS TO TAKE IN ORDER TO MOVE FROM CLASS 5 TO CLASS 4? >> SO ONE OF THE PREREQUISITES WAS THE WATERSHED MASTER PLAN WHICH WE ADOPTED LAST NOVEMBER. AND THIS IS REQUIRED. [INDISCERNIBLE] REQUIRED NOW THAT WE HAVE MORE THAN 50 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES. THIS -- BEFORE OCTOBER 1st OF THIS YEAR AS WE WERE NOTIFIED LAST YEAR. WITH THE WATERSHED MASTER PLAN AND THIS, THIS WILL EARN US APPROXIMATELY ANOTHER 140 POINTS. EVERY ACTIVITY WE DO EARNS POINTS. THIS IS GOING TO -- THIS AND WATERSHED MASTER PLAN SHOULD PUT US INTO THE CATEGORY TO GET ENOUGH POINTS FOR CLASS 4 NOW. HAVE TO APPLY FOR IT AND MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVE OUR. [INDISCERNIBLE] BUT THAT'S IN PROGRESS AND I'M HOPING TO DO IT NEXT YEAR. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: GREAT. SO YOU ARE HOPING TO DO IT NEXT YEAR. >> YES. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: IS THERE A TIME FRAME? LIKE WE HAVE TO WAIT X NUMBER OF MONTHS? >> IT'S A PROCESS. BASICALLY WE SUBMIT IT IN. THEY AGREE WITH OUR POINTS AND THEN THEY VERIFY EVERYTHING AND AWARD US THE NEW CLASS. IT WOULD -- SHOULD HAPPEN NEXT YEAR. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. BALTIMORE. COMMISSIONERS, IS THERE OTHER DISCUSSION? I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION REGARDING RESOLUTION 26R-3414. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: I WOULD MOVE TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION 26R-3414. >>Kyle Battie: SECOND. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER AHEARN-KOCH AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BATTIE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 26R-3414. IS THERE DISCUSSION? >>Shayla Griggs: VICE MAYOR, I WOULD CHECK WITH THE MAYOR TO MAKE SURE SHE DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: MAYOR? >>Mayor Trice: NO QUESTIONS. NO DISCUSSION ON MY END. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, LET'S VOTE ON THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. >>Shayla Griggs: ROLL CALL. TRICE? >>Mayor Trice: YES. >>Jen Ahearn-Koch: YES. >>Liz Alpert: YES. >>Kyle Battie: YES. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: YES. THE MOTION CARRIES 5-0. THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS. FIRST UP, I THINK THERE'S ONLY ONE -- TWO. IS THIS THE ONE WHERE I WONDERED IF WE COULD COMBINE HEARINGS? >> NO. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: IT'S THE NEXT ONE? >>Joseph Polzak: YEAH, RIGHT. THIS IS A PERSONNEL RULE CHANGE. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: YES, IT IS. CERTAINLY. MS. GRIGGS, WOULD YOU ADMINISTER THE OATH. >>Shayla Griggs: THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. ANYONE WHO PLANS TO SPEAK AT ANY PUBLIC HEARING HELD TODAY, PLEASE STAND AND TAKE AN OATH. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE EVIDENCE OR FACTUAL REPRESENTATIONS WHICH YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE OR PRESENT TO THIS COMMISSION DURING ANY PUBLIC HEARING HELD THIS 17th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 ARE TRUTHFUL? THANK YOU. >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. MR. POLZAK AND MS. ANDERSON AND MR. ESCHENFELDER. THANK YOU MUCH. THE FLOOR IS YOURS. >>Shayla Griggs: BEFORE YOU DO THAT, CAN I READ THE ORDINANCE? THANK YOU. ORDINANCE 26-5601, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, FLORIDA, AMENDING ARTICLE 1 OF CHAPTER 24 OF THE SARASOTA CITY CODE REGARDING PERSONNEL MATTERS, MAKING RELATED FINDINGS, PROVIDING FOR READING BY TITLE ONLY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU. >>Dominique Anderson: DOMINIQUE ANDERSON, HR DIRECTOR. NICE TO MEET YOU. GOOD MORNING. >>Shayla Griggs: I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT. I'M SORRY. CAN YOU OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? [ SOUNDING GAVEL ] THANK YOU. >>Dominique Anderson: GOOD MORNING, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, AND COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU FOR HAVING US HERE TODAY. WE DO HAVE SOME RECOMMENDED CHANGES FOR THE PERSONNEL RULES AND REGS. WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS THOSE TODAY, BUT I HAVE OUR NEW EMPLOYMENT LAW COUNSEL HERE, MR. ROB ESCHENFELDER. HE HAS RECOMMENDED SOME CHANGES TO OUR ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 24, PERSONNEL MATTERS. SO I'M GOING TO PASS IT OVER TO MR. ESCHENFELDER, AND HE'LL GO OVER THOSE RECOMMENDED CHANGES. >>Joseph Polzak: THIS IS PART OF OUR ONGOING PROCESS TO GO THROUGH OUR CODE AND CLEAN UP OUTDATED ITEMS AND WHATNOT. MR. ESCHENFELDER HAS BEEN VERY INSTRUMENTAL IN IDENTIFYING A FEW ISSUES. >>Rob Eschenfelder: THANK YOU, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, AND COMMISSIONERS. AS YOUR HR DIRECTOR INDICATED, I'M ASSUMING PRIMARY ROLE AS LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL, AND GOING THROUGH WITH MR. POLZAK AND CITY STAFF WHAT POLICIES MIGHT NEED TO BE UPDATED AND SO FORTH, YOU HAVE TO START WITH WHAT DOES YOUR CODE SAY BECAUSE THAT IS THE TOP SOURCE OF AUTHORITY, SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE LAWS. SO WE NEED TO GET THESE CHANGES IN PLACE. MOVING FORWARD, YOU'LL BE SEEING SOME NEW PERSONNEL POLICY CHANGES AS WELL. IT'S BEEN QUITE A WHILE SINCE YOU TOUCHED THOSE. I WANT TO WALK YOU THROUGH, I'LL BE AS QUICK AS I CAN, WHILE SPEAKING SLOWLY. >>Liz Alpert: THANK YOU. >>Rob Eschenfelder: SURE. I TOTALLY GET IT. PEOPLE ARE LIKE RATTLING AND IT'S HARD TO -- BUT ANYWAY, I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH WHAT CHANGES I'M MAKING. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ALONG THE WAY, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO STOP ME AND ASK. I'LL START ON PAGE 2 OF THE ORDINANCE. WE MADE A COUPLE OF TWEAKS TO 24-2, WHICH IS ENTITLED PERSONNEL SYSTEM ESTABLISHED EXEMPT POSITIONS. SO THROUGHOUT THIS BODY OF LAW IN YOUR CODE, YOU REFER TO THREE APPOINTING OFFICERS IN MOST OF THE OTHER PLACES, CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY AND AUDITOR AND CLERK, BUT IN A COUPLE OF PLACES YOU DON'T. JUST FOR CONSISTENCY, EVEN THOUGH IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE OUR CITY ATTORNEY IS NOT AN EMPLOYEE, BUT IN THE FUTURE, IF YOU HAVE AN INTERNAL EMPLOYEE, THAT PERSON WOULD BE IN THAT ROLE. SO ADDING THE CITY ATTORNEY AS AN APPOINTING OFFICER. AND THEN CLARIFYING IN THE LAST LINE OF THAT PARAGRAPH THERE THAT THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE CONSIDERED EXEMPT FROM THE DISCIPLINARY JUST CAUSE STANDARD OF THE PERSONNEL SYSTEM. WHEN I WAS TALKING TO STAFF, I ASKED, DOES ANYBODY KNOW, WITHOUT THIS CHANGE, WHAT THIS PARAGRAPH, WHAT THIS SECTION OF CODE EVEN MEANS? AND THERE WERE SOME GUESSES, BUT NO ONE REALLY KNOWS BACK IN THE SANDS OF TIME. SO MY GUESS IS THAT THIS PART OF THE CODE WAS INTENDED TO DEMONSTRATE WHO IS ENTITLED TO JUST CAUSE, DUE PROCESS, ENTITLEMENT BEFORE THEY ARE DISCIPLINED OR DISCHARGED VERSUS WHO SERVES AT THE WILL AND PLEASURE OF ONE OF THE APPOINTING OFFICERS. AND WHEN I READ YOUR CURRENT PERSONNEL POLICY, THAT SEEMS TO DOVETAIL. SO THAT'S WHAT WE REALLY -- ADDED THAT PHRASE, DISCIPLINARY JUST CAUSE STANDARD, BECAUSE ALL THE REST OF THESE PEOPLE ARE SUBJECT TO YOUR OTHER PERSONNEL RULES. THEY ARE SUBJECT TO ANTIDISCRIMINATION RULES, OVERTIME RULES. SO IT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE THE WAY IT HAD READ. OBVIOUSLY, THAT REQUIRES TAKING OUT POLICE DEPARTMENT CIVIL SERVICE PERSONNEL BECAUSE THEY ARE ENTITLED TO DUE PROCESS, JUST CAUSE STANDARD BEFORE THEY ARE DISCIPLINED OR DISCHARGED. SO THOSE ARE THE CHANGES -- >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: EXCUSE ME, SIR. IF SOMEBODY HAS SOME VOICE ON THEIR PHONE, WOULD YOU STOP THAT, PLEASE? CONTINUE. >>Rob Eschenfelder: I THOUGHT YOU WERE MAD AT ME. [ LAUGHTER ] >>Vice-Mayor Ohlrich: NO, NO. YOU ARE SPEAKING SLOWLY ENOUGH. >>Rob Eschenfelder: ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT SECTION 24-3, SAME THING IN THE TITLE, WE'RE ADDING CITY ATTORNEY, JUST TO BE CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT AND IN THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH ADDING CITY ATTORNEY A COUPLE OF TIMES. AND SO THEN IN B, SO THIS DEALS WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, AND THE AUDITOR CLERK. IN B, I AMENDED IT TO TALK ABOUT THAT THE APPOINTING OFFICERS SHALL RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COMMISSION THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES REQUIRED IN, AND THEN I JUST SAID THEIR RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENTS, AND SHALL PROPOSE SUCH OPERATING BUDGETS AS WILL PROVIDE FOR THEIR COMPENSATION. WHAT I'M TAKING OUT IS REFERENCES TO THEIR DUTIES BECAUSE YOU APPOINT YOUR TOP THREE PEOPLE. THEY HANDLE WHAT THE DUTIES OF ALL THE REST OF THE SUBORDINATE EMPLOYEES ARE, THIS COMMISSION DOESN'T GET INVOLVED IN CREATING THE JOB DESCRIPTION FOR MAINTENANCE WORKER 3 OR WHATEVER. THAT'S UP TO MANAGEMENT TO DO. THE FINAL SENTENCE, THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK SHALL ESTABLISH A FORMAL PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING REVIEW REQUESTS OF EMPLOYEES ALLOCATED TO THE GENERAL PERSONNEL SYSTEM. AGAIN, WHEN I WAS TALKING WITH STAFF, I ASKED IF ANYBODY KNEW WHAT THIS SENTENCE MEANT. NOBODY SEEMED TO. AND NOBODY SEEMED TO KNOW WHERE THAT FORMAL PROCEDURE IS OR IF IT EVER EVEN WAS DEVELOPED. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IF SOMETHING DOESN'T MAKE SENSE AND NO ONE KNOWS WHY IT IS THERE, IT SHOULD PROBABLY COME OUT OF YOUR CODE. I'M JUST STRIKING IT FROM THE CODE THERE. THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION TO YOU. MOVING TO PAGE 3 OF THE ORDINANCE, THIS IS 24-3, SUB C. THIS IS NEW LANGUAGE. IT READS, THE ONLY EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY WHO SHALL RECEIVE SEPARATE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS SHALL BE THE MANAGER, THE ATTORNEY, AND THE CLERK AUDITOR. CONTRACTS WITH EACH OF THESE OFFICERS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION, NOTWITHSTANDING THE AUTHORITY PROVIDED FOR IN SUBSECTION A, NEITHER THE MANAGER, ATTORNEY, OR CLERK AUDITOR SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO SEPARATE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS WITH ANY OTHER CITY EMPLOYEE. I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH HOW THIS CAME UP. WHEN YOUR ACTING MANAGER WAS HERE BEFORE YOU ALL SELECTED YOUR PERMANENT MANAGER, I WORKED WITH HIM AND THE CITY ATTORNEY ON THE SEPARATION OF A DIRECTOR WHO IS NO LONGER WITH US. IN THAT INTERACTION, I CAME TO FIND OUT THAT THAT DIRECTOR HAD A SEPARATE STAND-ALONE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT. THEN I CAME TO FIND OUT THAT OTHER DIRECTORS HAD SEPARATE STAND-ALONE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS. SO I INQUIRED, HOW DID THAT COME TO PASS? I'M USED TO THE ONLY EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS THAT ARE ONE-OFFS ARE APPROVED BY THE GOVERNING BOARD. AGAIN, USUALLY YOUR TOP OFFICERS. I THINK -- YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG -- I THINK IT WAS A DECISION MADE BY A MANAGER SOME TIME AGO, SEVERAL REMOVED FROM CURRENT MANAGEMENT, TO JUST START DOING THIS, TO GIVE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS TO DIRECTORS. IT'S MY COUNSEL AT LEAST TO YOU ALL THAT IS A VERY UNWISE PRACTICE. IT'S NOT COMMON. I HAVE ONLY EVER ENCOUNTERED ONE OTHER MUNICIPAL CLIENT WHERE IT OCCURRED, AND IT WAS THE SAME SORT OF THING WHERE NOTHING IN THE CITY POLICIES OR CHARTER PROVIDED FOR IT, BUT A MANAGER JUST MADE THE DECISION I THINK IN THAT CASE TO SORT OF BUY LOYALTY FROM HIS DIRECTORS TO GIVE THESE INDIVIDUALS STAND-ALONE CONTRACTS THAT WERE GENEROUS. IN THAT CASE AT LEAST SUGGESTED THOSE DIRECTORS HAD EMPLOYMENT FOR LIFE. WE WORKED THROUGH THAT AND GOT THOSE CANCELED. OF COURSE, WE HAD A MEETING WITH YOUR NEW MANAGER, WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY TO GO THROUGH THIS DRAFT. I THINK YOUR NEW MANAGER IS OF THE SAME OPINION THAT I WILL FROM TIME TO TIME SELECT WHO MY DIRECTORS ARE, BUT THEY SERVE AT MY WILL AND PLEASURE. IF THE UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCE COMES TO PASS THAT THEY ARE NOT PERFORMING OR WHATNOT TO MY EXPECTATIONS, I NEED TO BE ABLE TO REMOVE THEM WITHOUT A STAND-ALONE CONTRACT AS AN IMPEDIMENT. NOW, WHAT I DID DO IS IN D CREATED LANGUAGE THAT SAYS APPOINTING OFFICERS ARE AUTHORIZED AS TO EMPLOYEES WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE OFFICES OR DEPARTMENTS TO APPROVE LAST-CHANCE AGREEMENTS AND VOLUNTARY SEPARATION AGREEMENTS AS THOSE OFFICERS MAY DETERMINE ARE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY. SO OFTEN WHERE THIS COMES UP WITH A DIRECTOR-TYPE OF A PERSON WHO SAYS, YOU KNOW, I WANT A STAND-ALONE CONTRACT OR WHATNOT, IT'S LOOKING AHEAD TO SEPARATION. AND WANTING SOME SORT OF A SEVERANCE. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AGAIN, I'M A DEFENSE SIDE LAWYER, SO I COME AT IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, BUT I FEEL THAT IF MY CLIENT EMPLOYER IS GOING TO GIVE PUBLIC TAX DOLLARS TO SOMEONE ON THEIR WAY OUT THE DOOR -- AND REMEMBER, THIS IS SOMEONE THAT'S ON THEIR WAY OUT THE DOOR BECAUSE THEY ARE BEING ASKED TO BE ON THEIR WAY OUT THE DOOR, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT PERFORMING WELL OR WHATNOT. IF THEY ARE RETIRING, THEN THEY ARE RETIRING. IT'S ALL WELL AND GOOD. THEY SHOULDN'T NECESSARILY RECEIVE SEVERANCE PAYMENT UNLESS THEY GIVE US SOMETHING IN RETURN. IF THE MANAGER IS EVER IN THAT POSITION, HOPEFULLY HER TENURE IS FREE OF ALL THAT, BUT IF SHE IS EVER IN THAT POSITION, SHE WOULD SIT WITH THAT DIRECTOR AND ARRANGE A SEPARATION AGREEMENT. THE SEVERANCE AGREEMENT THAT'S AGREED TO WOULD BE IN EXCHANGE FOR A WAIVER OF ANY LITIGATION SO THAT THE PARTIES CAN DECIDE, WE'RE PARTING WAYS HERE, BOTH OF US GO INTO OUR CORNERS. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SUE US. IN EXCHANGE WE HAVE AGREED TO THIS, WHATEVER THE DOLLAR AMOUNT IS OF SEVERANCE AGREEMENT. THAT'S THE MODEL THAT I'M RECOMMENDING THAT YOU ALL USE. I THINK THE MANAGER INDICATED THAT WAS THE MODEL THAT SHE AGREED SHE WOULD LIKE TO TRANSITION TO AS WELL. THAT EXPLAINS THOSE CHANGES IN THOSE SECTIONS. LET'S SEE, WE MOVED TO WHAT WAS 24-4, AND THIS IS IN THE MIDDLE OF PAGE 3 OF THE ORDINANCE, SO YOU HAVE A THING -- THIS SECTION WAS APPOINTMENT, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES. SO WHEN YOU GO THROUGH YOUR CODE, YOU DON'T CALL OUT YOUR OTHER DIRECTORS. YOU DON'T CALL OUT WHAT THEIR JOB DUTIES ARE. THEY ARE JUST FOLKS APPOINTED BY THE MANAGER. HISTORICALLY, HOW THIS CAME TO BE IN THE CODE, I DON'T KNOW. BUT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR THEME HERE, THAT WE HAVE THREE APPOINTED OFFICERS, THOSE APPOINTED OFFICERS WILL PICK AND SET FORTH THE DUTIES OF WHO THEY NEED 24-4 AS IT EXISTS NOW, CALLING OUT THE APPOINTMENT OF A DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES IS RECOMMENDED TO BE DELETED. OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE ONE SITTING HERE, SO IT'S NOT LIKE THE POSITION IS GOING AWAY. THIS CODE LANGUAGE IS GOING AWAY. EVEN WHEN YOU READ THIS CODE LANGUAGE AND THE DUTIES THAT ARE PUT ON THE HR DIRECTOR, THESE ARE FAR LESS THAN AN HR DIRECTOR IN CURRENT PARLANCE, SORRY TO HAVE TO TELL YOU, ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PERFORM. SO THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION FOR WHY THAT'S BEING STRUCK. MOVING ON THEN TO THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 3, DIVISION 2, BOARDS, PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS. SO BEGINNING AT 24-5, YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF CODE SECTIONS THAT SET UP WHAT WAS CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD. SORRY, NOT CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD. A CIVIL SERVICE BOARD. AND SO WITH RESPECT TO THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD, I ASKED -- AND I SAW REFERENCE TO THIS BOARD IN YOUR PERSONNEL RULES AS WELL. IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'LL HAVE TO COME BACK AND CHANGE. I ASKED WHO IS THIS BOA