Property Tax Ballot Watch
To: Longboat Key Town Commission
I hope everyone is having a nice summer break. Please see the update below regarding the property tax ballot initiative. We will continue to watch and monitor where this lands!
Maggie Mooney
Town Attorney
Town of Longboat Key
Judge Tosses ‘Biased’ Ballot Language
To: Longboat Key Commission
I am very happy to report that Leon County Circuit Court Judge David Frank entered the attached order last nigher at 10:54 p.m. finding that the ballot title and ballot statement are biased and inaccurate and enjoining the Secretary of State from putting it on the November ballot. He ordered the Attorney General to rewrite the language to correct the specific defects within 10 days. He agreed with us on all of the substantive issues that we raised. We shall see whether the defendants choose to appeal the decision or comply.
Jamie Alan Cole
WSH Law
Finance Director Gets a Gold Star
To: Longboat Key Finance Director
You are fabulous. Thank you!
BJ Bishop
Commissioner
Town of Longboat Key
The Comp Plan Hot Potato
To: Longboat Key Commission
Just a follow up from Allen Parsons with regards to the City’s Comp Plan Amendment.
See below.
Sue Smith
Finance Director
Town of Longboat Key
Engaging the Public on Transportation
To: Longboat Key Finance Director Susan Smith
Thanks Sue. You can follow-up with the Commission the email below from the City of Sarasota that there will be a public engagement session related to the City’s Transportation Chapter amendments in the fall. Staff here will also have the opportunity to provide review comments on the amendment as part of the Comprehensive Planning process that includes review by state agencies and adjacent local governments.
Allen Parsons
Planning and Zoning Director
Town of Longboat Key
City Commission’s 3-2 Comp Plan Vote
To: Town of Longboat Key Planning Manager Elma Glisson
The City Commission voted 3-2 to transmit the document to the State, with one addition: Page 60 of the Resolution, 11.7–Parking, add #5, ‘City will explore the need for parking impact fees.’
Before the adoption hearing later this fall, there will most likely be a City Commission Workshop specific to this item as well as another public engagement session related to the Transportation Chapter updates. Project team is cc’d here in case there are additional questions.
Ryan Chapdelain
Planning Department General Manager
City of Sarasota
Passing the Comp Plan Baton
To: Longboat Key Planning and Zoning Director Allen Parsons
Below is what I sent to BJ and the Commission yesterday. You should be getting the amendment from David Smith.
BJ wrote back this morning: “Touch base with Allen and Elma and see if we can do anything at state level on SRQ’s comp plan amendment. Understand it squeaked thru 3-2.”
Susan Smith
Finance Director
Town of Longboat Key
Comp Plans, Stop Work Orders, and Silt Fences
To: Longboat Key Commissioner BJ Bishop
A quick update on City of Sarasota Transportation amendment.
The motion passed 3-2 to submit the transmittal to the State, with the intention that it will continue to be a work in progress and make changes to make it better before adoption. With regards to your public comments regarding our interlocal agreement and coordination efforts, David Smith said they will be forwarding the documents to Allen Parson and LBK for review and comment. They did delete section 6.2, which I believe you may have questioned, because it would be too complex to coordinate and go through two processes.
Also regarding Silt 610 Buttonwood – see message from Allen:
“We have contacted the contractor on the lack of silt fences. Because that was not addressed over the weekend, we have issued a Stop Work Order on the property, which includes a $500 fee to remove the Stop Work Order. We will continue to follow-up with the contractor on getting those measures in place.”
Susan Smith
Finance Director
Town of Longboat Key
June Tourism Numbers Sizzle
To: Longboat Key Commission
I hope you’re having a wonderful summer. We’re pleased to share that Sarasota County’s tourism performance continued its positive momentum in June, with increases in both visitation and visitor spending. Below you’ll find a snapshot of this month’s tourism metrics, along with a brief overview of what we’re seeing across the industry. As always, our team remains committed to strategically investing Tourist Development Tax dollars to generate measurable economic impact for our community, support local businesses, and help sustain jobs throughout Sarasota County.
I’d also like to encourage you to take a moment to nominate an individual for our annual Haley Hall of Fame Awards using the link at the bottom of this email. The nomination process takes just a minute, and it’s a meaningful opportunity to recognize someone who has made a lasting impact on Sarasota County’s tourism and hospitality industry. Award recipients will be honored at our annual Indicators & Insights Summit this fall, where we’ll also welcome nationally recognized speakers who will share the latest trends, research, and best practices to help all of us make more informed decisions as we continue marketing and strengthening our community.
June 2026 Visitor Numbers:
Here are all the numbers comparing 2026 to 2025:
Visitors were 145,900 compared to 130,600 in 2025
Visitor direct expenditures were $147,875,400 compared to $138,630,500 in 2025
Lodging occupancy was 61.6% compared to 62.0% in 2025
Lodging average room rate was $304.78 compared to $286.81 in 2025
There were 252,900 room nights sold compared to 244,100 in 2025
As always, thank you for your continued partnership and support. If you have any questions about the information below or would like to discuss tourism trends in greater detail, please don’t hesitate to reach out.
Erin Duggan
President
Visit Sarasota County
Staff Sounds the Alarm on ‘Dangerous’ Transport Rewrite
To: Longboat Key Commission
You should have all received the email from Mr. Lobeck. We have asked Elma and Allen to review the proposed policy changes being considered at the City of Sarasota Commission meeting. Below are Elma’s comments regarding the proposed changes. Elma and Allen are also available to discuss any questions you may have on this topic.
I will also let you know if any additional staff comments are shared.
Savannah Cobb
Assistant to Town Manager
Town of Longboat Key
Unpacking Deleted Transport Policies
To: Longboat Key Planning and Zoning Director Allen Parsons
Narrowing the recipient list as I put my thoughts together. I’ve done a quick review of the policies specifically related to LBK, and my thoughts are below. Allen, we can discuss further after our staff meeting, if you are available.
Policy 5.1 – Joint Planning and Coordination (Retained)
The City has retained Policy 5.1, which continues to recognize the importance of coordinating transportation planning efforts with the Town of Longboat Key, FDOT, the Sarasota-Manatee MPO, Breeze, Sarasota and Manatee Counties.
Policy 6.2 – Interlocal Agreement for Transportation on Barrier Islands (Deleted)
The City proposes to delete Policy 6.2, which encouraged pursuing an interlocal agreement with the Town of Longboat Key to establish an inter-jurisdictional transportation concurrency process for development on Longboat Key. The City’s rationale is that it has moved away from concurrency-based transportation management, has not pursued such an agreement, and believes regional planning is a more appropriate mechanism for addressing barrier island transportation issues.
Because the policy specifically referenced the Town, consultation regarding its removal would have been beneficial. Although the policy was never implemented through an interlocal agreement, coordination on amendments affecting shared planning objectives remains consistent.
Policy 6.8 – Additional Access Serving Longboat Key (Deleted)
The City also proposes to delete Policy 6.8, which supported planning for an additional bridge connection between Longboat Key and the mainland to relieve congestion on the John Ringling Causeway. The City’s rationale is that such a project is not currently supported, would require regional consensus, extensive environmental review, and funding beyond the City’s authority, and is inconsistent with current transportation and resiliency planning priorities.
Although a 1981 referendum supported this project, I do not believe the Town currently supports planning for an additional bridge connection. The deletion of this policy does not appear to conflict with the Town’s current transportation planning direction. While the outcome may not differ, consultation with, or notification to, the Town during the amendment process would have been appropriate.
Elma Glisson
Planning Manager
Town of Longboat Key
The Battle Over Sarasota’s Streets
To: Longboat Key Commissioner BJ Bishop and Town Manager Howard Tipton
A Sarasota City Commissioner has suggested that I provide my Alert email below to you on a shared concern. On Monday, the Sarasota City Commission will hold a public hearing and vote on a write of the Transportation Chapter of the City’s Comprehensive Plan that would allow increased traffic congestion on City streets. It would adopt by reference the proposed Transportation Plan that your Town Commission effectively opposed and Sarasota Commissioners rejected in 2020 and would enact even far worse changes.
Those measures include, although inadvertently not mentioned below, deleting a policy which calls for joint transportation planning between Sarasota and the Longboat Key Town Commission.
I know this is short notice, but if you and perhaps others can make your opposition to approval of this rewrite known at or before Monday’s meeting, that could make a substantial difference.
In addition to the bad content, there is an issue of timing, which is detailed in another email which I will share with you next. I have asked that if the proposed rewrite is not defeated outright, that the Commission pass a motion to continue it indefinitely, perhaps to be considered at a time of year more proper than the dead of summer and after an opportunity for study and deliberation among the public and Commissioners. Even if the amendment is approved on Monday, it will come back for a final public hearing and vote after state review. It takes a supermajority (at least 4 to 1) vote to be adopted. Thank you very much for your considerations.
Dan Lobeck
Law Offices of Lobeck & Rowe, P.A.
Sarasota
Why the Transportation Rewrite Needs the Brakes
To: Longboat Key Commission
This coming Monday, August 3, at 9 am (following some brief business) the Sarasota City Commission will hold a public hearing and vote on a truly horrible rewrite of the Transportation Chapter of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
It is designed to repeal or gut requirements on developers that limit traffic congestion.
Transportation concurrency would be repealed, and replaced with a new system that deems 100% congestion as acceptable in downtown districts and certain corridors, and close to it (95% and 90%) elsewhere. Levels of service E and D would effectively be replaced with F, sanctioning bumper-to-bumper traffic.
On point after point, developer obligations are changed from “require” to “request” or are deleted entirely. Even parking is attacked, with a new policy requiring the City to research and consider expanding paid parking in the City.
This all relates to a pro-developer bent by City planning and development staff and their decades-long dogma to be hostile to motorists. Back when staff and their consultants were being more transparent in their goals, on April 28, 2015 the Sarasota Herald-Tribune quoted City transportation engineer Alex Davis Shaw (who is now back working for the City) as stating for the City at a workshop on similar policies, which the City Commission then rejected, “It’s going to take some congestion and some discomfort before people make a choice to do something other than get in their car.”
While the City should enhance walking, biking and buses (although buses get caught in traffic too), 94% of City trips are made by driving. So that form of transportation should be accommodated as well – an “All of the Above” policy. To do otherwise is harmful to residents and businesses in the City, as no one likes to get caught in traffic gridlock.
Please see my email yesterday to the City Commissioners, below. I know these changes are unbelievable, so if you want to see them yourself, check the backup to Agenda Item X.1 for the August 3 meeting at https://www.sarasotafl.gov/City-Services/Meetings-Agendas-Video.
If you will, send the City Commissioners an email (at their addresses above) and if possible attend and perhaps speak at the hearing on Monday.
It only takes two Commissioners to stop this, under the supermajority requirement for Comprehensive Plan amendments in the City Charter. This is too important not to care.
Thank you for your considerations.
Dan Lobeck, Esq.
Law Offices of Lobeck & Rowe, P.A.
Sarasota
Deep Dive into the Transportation Rewrite
To: Longboat Key Commission
Again, this is a long one and you are very busy, but I hope you place some value in reviewing this reveal of the Transportation Chapter amendment you are being asked to vote for on Monday. My previous email was about timing. This is about content.
References are to Policy numbers in the Transportation Chapter. Also, I have now listed the page numbers in the most important document for review, if you want to fact check my analysis. That is the final strikethrough-and-underline Evaluation Matrix you received last Thursday as Agenda backup, a copy of which is attached hereto.
Keep in mind that the theme throughout this change in policies is two-fold: (1) reduce constraints on developers, and (2) allow more traffic congestion and otherwise make driving difficult (i.e. paid parking), so as to somehow compel people to walk and bike wherever they need to go, and to take buses that get caught in traffic too.
This approach has been described by staff and their consultant (paid $350,000 by City taxpayers for this rewrite) as a “paradigm shift,” by all appearances away from combatting traffic congestion to embracing it.
On April 28, 2015, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune quoted City transportation engineer Alex Davis Shaw (who is now back working for the City on this project) as stating for the City at a workshop on similar policies, which the City Commission then rejected, “It’s going to take some congestion and some discomfort before people make a choice to do something other than get in their car.”
They have since mellowed their messaging to just say they want to give people “options” to walk, bike or bus, but all of their policies are aimed at reducing the option of driving, which they acknowledge (with regret) is how 94% of all trips in the City are made. And, it should be considered, usually must be made, because of distances, destination objectives, personal abilities, timing and weather. My wife and I live downtown and walk often, but often we must drive. And I don’t expect my law firm clients to walk, bike or bus to my office, nor do other local businesses expect that of their customers and clients.
Logically, it is impossible to defend a “Yes” vote on this package to your constituents.
While we all support aiding pedestrians, bicyclists and mass transit, an “all of the above” policy – which also respects motorists who often must drive to local businesses and attractions and to and from their homes – is far preferable to what staff proposes here.
Again, City staff tried to do something like this ten years ago, but it was rejected in a “No” vote by the City Commission at the time, at the transmittal hearing.
That should happen again.
What’s in the Proposed Rewrite of the Transportation Chapter?
· Transportation concurrency, which allows the City to limit traffic from a proposed development on a road or intersection operating within its adopted level of service unless the developer pays its proportionate share for improvements needed to accommodate its traffic (even if above mobility fees), would be repealed. Level of service standards (now D outside downtown and E within it) are eliminated, as well as policies requiring that a developer maintain the standard by payments towards needed road improvements and other measures or that developments which cannot meet the above standards “shall not be approved” (i.e. Policy 1.5). See pages 13-20 of the attachment hereto.
· Instead, traffic congestion would be unlimited and only when a development would exceed total congestion (the volume of traffic on a road segment or intersection equals its capacity, that is V/C 1:00 in the larger downtown area, or close to that elsewhere (roughly equivalent to a level of service F or worse) would a developer be required to implement “reasonable and proportionate multimodal, operational, safety or demand management.”
Table T-1 (on page 96 of the support document) lists those measures, including pedestrian upgrades, bus stops, bicycle facilities and “speed management,” but omits any methodology to determine the effect on congestion of what might be done. There are also no studies nationally or otherwise which prove that such alternative transportation improvements cause any measurable effect on traffic congestion. Most importantly, the City’s right to deny a development due to excessive traffic if it does not pay its share to prevent it, within the limits of state law, is removed. As the amendment Support Document states, “V/C ratios do not serve as a basis for development denial.”
Maps T-10 and T-11 in the amendment package (pp. 129 and 130) show that the current Volume to Capacity ratio on most City streets is well below full congestion (V/C 1.00) or the V/C 9.5 or 9.0 ratios set as standards triggering review in the new policies. Why then accept increased traffic by developers without even the new weak consequences until those absurdly weak new standards are exceeded?
What’s so great about giving a green light to gridlock?
· At the beginning of the Transportation Chapter, it now states that the City’s goal shall be a transportation system which “promotes the mobility of people, not vehicles.” That has been criticized as disregarding that vehicles move people. The proposed rewrite incorrectly presents that current wording as “promotes the mobility of people, not only vehicles” but then seeks to delete it entirely, apparently to avoid any promotion of the mobility of vehicles, even in part. (See p. 11)
· Significantly, the amendment would delete Policy 4.1, Traffic Analysis Program, which reads as follows: “The City shall continue to maintain a comprehensive Traffic Analysis Program to monitor and analyze traffic and road conditions. The program will continuously assess the need for revisions to the Thoroughfare Plan and Capital Improvements Program and their impact upon land use. The Traffic Analysis Program will include an ongoing inventory of the status of roads, in coordination with State and County transportation agencies.” (See p. 38)
· Policy 4.3, which provides, “The City shall consider the Thoroughfare Plan in evaluating future land use decisions,” would be deleted. (See p. 39).
· The amendment encourages “voluntary … improvements on private property to support site access, internal circulation, multimodal connectivity, or demand management.” Not requirements, including existing requirements in the present text to be repealed, but just requests. (See p. 21)
· Present policy 2.11, which states that a developer “shall be required to dedicate right of way when there is a change in land use” which creates a need for that right of way, is amended to replace the word “require” with the word “request.” (See p. 28)
· The amendment also facilitates developers taking public property for their private purposes of site access and otherwise, with no compensation to the taxpayers.
· The amendment is so pro-developer that it even deletes Policy 7.10, which now provides that a certain list of improvements to facilitate bicycle, pedestrian and transit access and movement, in the development or elsewhere, “may be required as a condition of development approval.” (See p. 55)
· Policy 2.11 would be amended to state that “the City shall encourage a minimum two-foot setback from the public right of way.” Just two feet (and even then voluntarily) rather than as a trade-off for concessions? This is consistent with staff’s opposition to adequate building setbacks in new development, even when the City Commission requested action on that at its meeting of June 17, 2019. (See p. 27)
· A new policy requires the City to create “Shared Streets” in which lanes are shared “to prioritize pedestrians and cyclists” and “slow vehicle speeds.” That is not only hostile to drivers, it is downright dangerous. (See p. 29)
· A new Policy 12.8 is created to read, “Paid Parking: The City shall consider research and possible expansion of paid parking zones throughout the city in order to manage parking demand, support turnover for businesses, and provide a sustainable revenue source for transportation and public realm improvements.” (See p. 58)
Also, Policy 10.4, which now provides that “the City will initiate the development of parking garages within Downtown” would be deleted. (See p. 65)
Further, Section 6.3 is amended to broaden the encouragement of reduced parking requirements in new developments, to include any downtown or urban mixed-use development. (See p. 47)
These changes reflect staff’s anti-motorist agenda when you consider not only the benefits to developers but also the fact that a policy to make it difficult to drive — to encourage other forms of travel — would include provisions which make it difficult to park.
· Policy 4.4, providing that the City shall ensure that future development in the Coastal High Hazard Area does not cause excessive evacuation times, is deleted. (See p. 39)
· The speed limit in neighborhoods is deleted, allowing the City to change or delete the speed limit without the public involvement required for a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
· Policy 7.1 is amended to replace eight good reasons for sidewalk construction (including repairs and replacements for deteriorated sidewalks and new sidewalks in places hazardous for pedestrians) with only two, that is to fill gaps and meet accessibility standards. (See p. 52)
· Protection of neighborhoods from cut-through traffic would be weakened by amending Policy 6.4 to delete the 12 specific requirements on developers to reduce cut-through traffic and the specific requirements for a Traffic Calming Program, as well as by amending Policy 6.6 to prohibit the City from initiating closure of a City street, in place of the present option to do so if traffic calming and other measures are insufficient to stop excessive cut-through traffic. The amendment rationale states that the revisions are to “reflect the City’s current approach to neighborhood traffic management which prioritizes speed management and safety over volume reduction and cut-through diversion.” Why not keep all of those objectives in the City’s policies? (See pp. 47 and 48)
And why amend Policy 6.10 to delete the requirement for staff presentations to neighborhood associations and groups on planned transportation changes that would affect the neighborhood, including traffic calming devices? (See p. 50)
And why amend Policy 6.13 to delete a speed limit in neighborhoods and replace a City program to educate drivers about the importance of complying with the speed limit in residential neighborhoods with one to comply with the speed limit “while driving in the City”? (See pp. 47-50)
· A new policy for the City to dedicate public curbside space for loading zones, deliveries and drop-offs would relieve developers from providing such facilities on their property but would decrease availability for parking and driving, and would be less aesthetically pleasing to the public.
· The amendment would delete the Newtown Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA), which today provides reduced constraints on redevelopment as an incentive to help improve that community. That is because those constraints would instead by deleted City-wide. That has the result of destroying a current benefit to the people of the Newtown area. (See pp. 66 and 67)
Perhaps even worse, Policy 11.6 would be amended to change a provision that the City shall every year update its Capital Improvements Program which identifies needed improvements within the Newtown TCMA, to change the word “shall” to merely “should.” (See p. 67)
· Policy 6.8, which now provides City support for planning an additional bridge from Longboat Key to the mainland, would be deleted. It seems doubtful that the Longboat Key Town Commission has been consulted about that, or about deletion of a policy that would coordinate transportation concurrency between Longboat Key and Sarasota. (A 1981 referendum of Longboat Key voters showed that they favored that bridge by a margin of 1,505 to 440). (See p. 49)
Again, let’s reject this embrace of traffic congestion and let the City have an “all of the above” policy of accommodating transportation by automobile as well as by other means.
And if this is to move forward, certainly delay it until this winter and spring, after true public engagement in these proposals as well as meaningful dialogue among Commissioners.
Do you really want your record and legacy to include a vote for these very indefensible and inevitably unpopular measures? Thank you for your considerations.
Dan Lobeck
Law Offices of Lobeck & Rowe, P.A.
Sarasota
Too Late: A Commission’s Disappointment
To: Longboat Key Assistant Town Manager Isaac Brownman
Thanks all for the follow up. The city of Sarasota’s process is disappointing.
Isaac I left a message for you at about 0830 to chat and even then it was too late to actually do something about this at this point. Let’s talk about what we can do after we know the outcome of this morning’s city meeting. Our mayor and vice mayor weight would be valuable. Thanks.
Steve Branham
Commissioner
Town of Longboat Key
