Water/Sewer
To: Ray Rajewski
Good morning, Ray. I’d be happy to stop by and answer any questions you have. I am available today at 1:30 p.m. and can meet you at your residence if that works for you. Please let me know. Thank you.
Jessie Camburn
Utility Manager
Town of Longboat Key
Water/Sewer
To: Ray Rajewski
Jessie is copied on this and I’m sure will reach out.
Ken Schneier
Mayor
Town of Longboat Key
Water/Sewer
To: Longboat Key Mayor Ken Schneier
I would very much like to meet Jamie or Jessie! I’m available anytime and place (welcome to host them at my home).
Ray Rajewski
Longboat Key
Water/Sewer
To: Ray Rajewski
I received your note concerning your recent water/sewer bills and have reviewed your correspondence with the Town on that subject. I also spoke this morning with Jessie Camburn, Director of our Utility Department within Public Works.
While Jamie and Jessie are the experts on the utility mechanics and billing practices, I do know that we have increased rates recently due to increased charges from Manatee County water/sewer service, maintenance expenses for our LBK utility infrastructure (especially after last year’s storms) and, most important, preparations to finance the replacement of our sewer line under Sarasota Bay, which experienced a serious leak several years ago.
Jamie stands ready to provide you with any further information you may need, and Jessie told me he would be happy to visit with you to discuss the matter. I hope this leads to a satisfactory resolution.
Ken Schneier
Mayor
Town of Longboat Key
New TDC Support Liaison
To: TDC Members
This email comes to you with a mixture of emotions as I announce my upcoming retirement. November 13, 2025, will mark the last TDC meeting I will attend. While I am filled with excitement for this new chapter in my life with my husband and family, it is also with a touch of sadness that I say goodbye.
It has been an incredible honor and privilege to serve as the TDC support liaison for the past 17 years. I have cherished my time working alongside so many remarkable community leaders, and I am grateful for the relationships and experiences we have shared.
Moving forward, all TDC correspondence will be handled by Ann Hinkle, who will be transitioning into and assuming the TDC support liaison duties. I have full confidence in Ann’s abilities and know that she will continue to provide exceptional support to the TDC.
Thank you all for your support and friendship over the years. I will treasure the memories and carry them with me as I embark on this new journey.
Anna C. Madden
Business Professional II
Office of Financial Management
Sarasota County Government
2025 Sarasota County Delegation Meeting
To: Longboat Key Town Manager Howard Tipton
I will be attending as the rep for the Manasota League of Cities – Andrew has sent the note to our new executive.
BJ Bishop
Commissioner
Town of Longboat Key
2025 Sarasota County Delegation Meeting
To: Longboat Key Commission
FYI from Representative McFarland. As you know, we typically have representation (usually the Mayor and myself) at both county delegation meetings. We will be discussing legislative priorities in an upcoming workshop meeting.
Howard N. Tipton
Town Manager
Town of Longboat Key
2025 Sarasota County Delegation Meeting
To: Longboat Key Town Manager Howard Tipton
Pleased to share an invitation from Representative McFarland for the Mayor and Town Council to attend this year’s Sarasota delegation meeting. Note that it will be taking place in Venice. Attached is the presentation request form should the Mayor like to speak at the meeting. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!
Andrew Parker
Legislative Aide to Representative Fiona McFarland
District 73
Selection process for the next Director
To: Longboat Key Commission, Sarasota City Commission
Last Friday, we closed the door on our advertising for the new Executive Director.
It’s been a while since we went over the process involved with selecting the Director, and so I figured I’d take the time to go over some details with you about who is doing what, and when. Cheryl will be the day-to-day contact for logistics, but I wanted to provide you with a review of the next steps, based on what we’ve received.
First off, our advertisement for the new Director was seen by literally thousands of people, based on a combination of social media posts about the job, employment boards, etc. We’ve received lots of applications from folks who didn’t do their basic homework – some who “applied” without reading our clear language about how to do so. Those applications have not been forwarded for further consideration.
However, six applications meet the basic requirements. Our next step is for the Screening Committee to go through those six and come up with a list of five to be passed on to the Policy Board for their consideration. This step was set up so that the Policy Board would not have to interview what could have been a much higher number of “qualified” applicants.
Once the Screening Committee comes up with its list of five recommended applicants to review, then those come to the Policy Board, which will conduct interviews on September 12th. We have, with your input, allowed the interviews to be conducted either in person or via Zoom or similar. If one of the five applicants cannot make either in-person or Zoom, it is up to the Policy Board to decide whether to consider that person for the position. We understand that plans can change, and people may not be able to dedicate their entire day – perhaps they have an important event or will be on vacation. But that’s why we kept the Zoom meeting option. As an aside, I was a pall bearer at the funeral for a good friend’s father a few hours before my interview – the timing wasn’t ideal for me either. But if you REALLY want the job, you’ll find a way to free up the hour or so.
The Screening Committee will not be asking questions of the applicants, but the Policy Board will. I know that many of you are used to hiring people in the private sector, for example. But as a Special Independent District, and being a recipient of Federal dollars, there are certain guidelines on the types of questions that can be asked that need to be considered. This guidance is intended to ensure that neither the Policy Board nor the SBEP will be tripped up by litigation from someone who might think that they were unfairly discriminated against.
For example, and on the advice of our outside counsel, here are questions that cannot be asked during the interview, either directly or indirectly:
You cannot discriminate based on age, so you cannot ask “What year did you graduate high school/college?”
You cannot discriminate based on religion, so you cannot ask seemingly innocuous questions such as “Are you looking forward to Christmas?”
You cannot ask personal questions, such as “Do you have children? Or, “Are you planning to have additional children?”
You cannot ask questions that are related to a protected class.
Questions that can be asked should be based on information provided by the applicant. Since the Policy Board is acting as a panel, the questions should cycle between members, rather than having only one individual ask the question. Relevant questions should focus on education, experience, and getting at questions related to claimed employment or educational experience and background. These can include, for example, the following:
Have you submitted all information requested by the application fully and accurately?
If you do not currently live within Manatee and Sarasota Counties, are you willing to move here within the time frame listed in the advertisement?
Are you able to perform all the tasks required for this position?
May we contact your previous employers?
Can you describe the basic functions of the SBEP?
Its organizational structure
Its priorities
Its funding sources
Major success stories and/or continued challenges facing stakeholders
Situational questions
Describe your experience working with elected officials.
Are you comfortable with your knowledge of Florida’s Sunshine Law, and could you advise an elected official that their speech or behavior may violate such?
Describe your experience interacting with members of the public/stakeholders regarding a subject or action.
What do you consider the most difficult management scenario you have experienced as a manager, and why?
Describe your experience with an organization’s budgetary process. What was your role?
Have you ever had to terminate, lay off, or place an employee on a management plan? Describe each instance if you have had an experience.
Describe your experience working with contracts for construction and professional services.
What is your experience with public speaking and presentations? Give two examples of recent experience.
Then, you can switch to a sort of post-formal interview mode, with questions like:
1. Do you have anything additional you would like to add?
2. Do you have any questions for any of us?
The exact questions can be modified, but this list represents guidance from Jan, reviewed and modified a bit by me for specificity for SBEP-related issues. It is very important to highlight that while follow-up questions can certainly be asked, the same list of questions needs to be asked of all interviewees. You cannot, for example, ask someone about adhering to Sunshine Law based on a “feeling” that one individual might not know about it. Because it could well be that none of them knows much about it! Similarly, you cannot ask one individual if you can contact their prior employer without asking all of them the same question.
It’s important to note that once the Policy Board makes a selection, that may or may not be the final step. The last time, after the selection was complete, the Board gave the Policy Board member from FDEP and SBEP’s legal counsel the authority to negotiate a contract, as long as the salary and benefits, etc., are within the range listed in the advertisement. Members from EPA and FDEP share chairing the Policy Board, but since EPA is a non-voting member, it is more appropriate for that task to fall to the EPA member.
During this negotiation phase, the SBEP will conduct a criminal background check and will check on their employment status to ensure that it meets Federal and State criteria.
If the first choice does not agree to the terms, or if there is a red flag raised through the background check, and/or their employment status is problematic, then the Board could pre-authorize the FDEP member and the legal counsel to move to the second-ranked applicant, after informing the Policy Board about the need to do such. This approach, the delegation of authority to negotiate and guidance to be able to move to the second-ranked choice if negotiations fail with the first choice, could be covered in a motion from the Policy Board on September 12th.
This sounds like a lot of steps, but it’s not going to be too problematic. Cheryl Dexter onboarded me, and Cheryl and I onboarded Heather, who then assisted when we onboarded Megan, and also Ryan. We’re kind of used to the steps, but the decision on who the next Director is going to be – that’s entirely on the Policy Board.
Please reach out to me with any questions or comments, and remember – since the SBEP is covered by Florida’s Sunshine Law, questions regarding an applicant have to be made in a public forum that is advertised beforehand, with meeting minutes provided and accessible to the public for their review. You cannot discuss applicants among yourselves.
David Tomasko
Executive Director
Sarasota Bay Estuary Program
June Tourism Numbers from Visit Sarasota County
To: Longboat Key Commission, Sarasota City Commission
Writing to share our June, 2025 tourism numbers for Sarasota County.
A few notes about this month:
· ADR increased significantly (+8.8%) year-over-year, and occupancy increased (+4.7%) resulting in a significant increase in RevPAR (+13.9%).
· The year-to-date number of visitors from the Central Europe, Other Europe, and Other International regions has increased year over year, while the number of visitors from the United Kingdom and Canada has decreased.
June 2025 Visitor numbers
Here are all of the numbers comparing 2025 to 2024:
Visitors were 130,600 compared to 133,700 in 2024
Visitor direct expenditures were $138,630,500 compared to $145,529,700 in 2024
Lodging occupancy was 62.0% compared to 59.2% in 2024
Lodging average room rate was $286.81 compared to $263.71 in 2024
There were 244,100 room nights sold compared to 240,600 in 2024
As always, if there is anything we can do for you or your business at Visit Sarasota County, do not hesitate to reach out!
Erin Duggan
President/CEO
Visit Sarasota
Sunset Drive to Bird Key Drive
To: Longboat Key Commission
Below is information coming to our attention about a resiliency and capacity project that FDOT is conducting. The FDOT project is located primarily at the east end of the John Ringling Causeway and some work on the west side as well. Below are the details of the work, which is planned to span from January 2026 through December 2026. According to the scope information below, it appears that the goal of the project is to improve resiliency elevations at the signalized intersections, improve transit movement through the intersections, and separate bicycle/pedestrian mobility from the transit lanes. Town staff will monitor the function of the intersections during construction and contact FDOT reps for any adjustments/improvements to the MOT, as needed, as was done during the Gulfstream Roundabout construction.
Isaac Brownman
Assistant Town Manager
Town of Longboat Key
Sunset Drive to Bird Key Drive
To: Longboat Key Public Works Director Charlie Mopps
Please see my responses below, in blue. Please feel free to ask any follow up questions!
Jeff Mednick
Project Manager
FDOT
Sunset Drive to Bird Key Drive
To: Sarasota City Engineer Nik Patel
Nik and Jeff, can you provide an update on this project, please.
What is the existing scope of the project?
The project’s construction limits:
SR 789, either side of the Ringling Bridge, but no work on the bridge itself.
East of the bridge: From the west side of the Gulfstream roundabout up to the east end of Ringling Bridge
West of the bridge: From the west end of Ringling Bridge to west of the Bird Key Dr. intersection.
The scope of the project is multi-fold:
Mitigate drainage issues by raising the signalized intersection elevations:
Full re-construction of the Sunset Dr. intersection; overbuild pavement of approaches
Overbuild the pavement at the Bird Key intersection, partial median & outside re-construction, as needed.
Widening of the roadway as needed to extend the transit lanes through the project limits
Separate the bicycle lanes from the transit lanes by adding sidewalk-level separated bike paths adjacent to the concrete recreational trails.
Add fiber in Ringling bridge to add physical connection for signals East & West of Ringling Bridge (currently depending on wireless).
Raise top of seawall section between along Gulfstream between Golden-Gate & the Roundabout
What is the updated timing of the project?
Bids received from contractors: June 11, 2025
Construction Contract Awarded: Late-June
Construction Contract Execution: Expected August 29, 2025 (subject to change)
“Pass-the-Torch” Meeting: Next Week (internal meeting between the Design & Construction teams to discuss many project-specific details; intended to ensure continuity from Design to Construction)
Construction Kick-off Meeting with Contractor: Date to be Determined
What is the current construction schedule?
Construction Start: Currently expected January 5, 2026 (it could start sooner if the contractor elects to waive their 120-days of contractually allowed material acquisition time. A decision has not yet been communicated to Construction; I should learn more soon, as we get closer to contract execution.)
Construction End: Currently expected December 14, 2026 (assuming Jan 2026 start).
Lane Closures or other impacts to traffic (MOT)?
To accomplish everything mentioned above, there will be five phases of construction, each with different work zones.
Two lanes of traffic in each direction will be open most of the time, and single lane closures will be allowed only in designated hours:
Lane closure Restrictions:
Weekdays; distance of 600’ or greater from the signalized intersections: single-lane closures allowed 7 p.m. to 9 a.m.
Weekdays; within 600’ of the signalized intersections: single-lane closures allowed 9 p.m. to 7 a.m.
Weekends; entire project limits: single-lane closures allowed 9 p.m. to 7 a.m.
The existing posted speed limits will remain in effect for the duration of construction (35 MPH)
The contractor shall maintain pedestrian and bicyclist continuity along the corridor, and when required for construction, detour them to existing shared use paths on either side of the corridor using designated crosswalks.
Charles Mopps
Public Works Director ,Town of Longboat Key Public Works
Suncoast Waterkeeper Sampling Results for Aug. 5
To: Longboat Key Commission, Sarasota City Commission
On August 5, the enterococci survey was carried out during a high tide to an outgoing tide, from 2.25 feet to 1.2 feet. Thick wrack was present at Caples, Indian Beach, The Bay Park, Herb Dolan Park, and Longboat Key Bayfront Park. The water was visibly murky at Caples, Indian Beach, and The Bay Park. Horses were on the shore at Palma Sola Bay at the time of sampling.
Our Southern Region water quality testing started last week! The weekly results are posted on our website and social media channels (Facebook and Instagram) for our new sampling sites, from Siesta Key to Indian Mound Park.
The results for sites sampled in Manatee County are as follows:
Longboat Key Bayfront Park (bay side): Undetected
Town of Longboat Key Boat Ramp: Undetected
Herb Dolan Park: 134/100 mL
Palma Sola Causeway North: 246/100 mL
Braden River: 52/100 mL
Palmetto Bridge: 20/100 mL
Emerson Point: Undetected
Terra Ceia Bay: 73/100 mL
Any count exceeding 71 is considered unsafe for swimming, indicating a potential health concern. The standard for enterococci in Class II and Class III Marine waters is “MPN or MF counts shall not exceed a monthly geometric mean of 35 nor exceed the Ten Percent Threshold Value (TPTV) of 130 in 10% or more of the samples during any 30-day period. Monthly geometric means shall be based on a minimum of 10 samples taken over a 30-day period,” (62-302.500 F.A.C.). The two Longboat Key sites are located in Class II waters (https://geodata.dep.state.fl.us/datasets/FDEP::surface-water-class-boundaries-areas/explore?location=27.336358%2C-82.433979%2C10.00)
We are committed to bringing these critical issues to your attention and believe your active involvement is crucial. The official reports for this week’s sampling activities, courtesy of Benchmark Enviroanalytical, are attached to this email. We want to encourage you to direct all questions, suggestions for additional analysis, and feedback to Dr. Abbey Tyrna at Executivedirector@suncoastwaterkeeper.org and Pia Ronquillo-See at waterquality@suncoastwaterkeeper.org. Your input is invaluable in our collective efforts to address these water quality issues.
Pia Ronquillo
Water Quality Specialist
Suncoast Waterkeeper
Short term rental
To: Longboat Key Commissioner Sarah Karon
Thank you for listening. I am beyond my wits-end here with 501 General Harris and 501 Norton Street. The residents here are taking pictures of all the different people and cars that are exchanging each week. Residents are also picking up the trash every week.
Katherine Girle
Longboat Key
Short term rental
To: Katharine Girle
Thank you for bringing this to our attention, it sounds highly problematic. I will see if I can get some more information and circle back with you.
Sarah Karon
Commissioner
Town of Longboat Key
Short term rental
To: Longboat Key Commission
To all, I have spoken to John Simmons at code enforcement about the weekly rental at 501 Norton Street. I explained to John that every Saturday 10-15 new people arrive for a week’s stay. My backyard has become a campground with 5 canoes, multiple chairs, rock climbing walls, mini golf, ping-pong table, flashing arcade games, floats and towels all spread out and of course the nightly pool gatherings until late night. The residents on Norton have to put up with the 6-7 garbage bins that the raccoons have a blast with. David Woods just ignores my calls and John Simmons told me that there was nothing he could do because it is advertised as a 28-day minimum stay. We have residents who have taken pictures of all the different cars that change each week, and the property manager moves garbage bins in front of vacant homes to look better for him. John Simmons was almost making me defend myself for even complaining, by saying could I not just let it go through the summer?
This is not a residential neighborhood when you have 10-15 New People every Saturday. John told me that I did not understand how difficult it was to make the short-term rental program
stay in line. That’s his job and David Woods job. Therefore, if the job can’t be enforced (which John claims in cannot) then we don’t need a code enforcement division.
I have lived here 32years and at no time did we ever have a situation like this, nor have I ever been told by a town employee that it was my fault for wanting some type of bliss while residing on Longboat Key. Thank you for listening and I hope we can get a resolution to an unhappy situation for many of us in Sleepy Lagoon.
Katharine Girle
Longboat Key
Gulf of Mexico Drive
To: Longboat Key Commission
Thank you for all that you do for us LBK residents. I would like to add my thoughts on changing the name of Gulf of Mexico Drive and the question of when the name was changed.
We came to LBK in 1963 and the road was called Gulf of Mexico Dr. I realize the 62 years of living on LBK isn’t a very long time. However, my research shows that before John Ringling bought his properties on the south end of LBK, what we know as GMD, was a dirt road with no name. John Ringling named it Ringling Blvd. after his land purchases in the 1920s. I dug deeper (AI) and found that the name Gulf of Mexico Drive dates back to the 16th Century when Spanish explorers arrived on our beautiful island. “Early European maps and documents from the 1500s reference the name, long before the establishment of the United States”.
I also think it’s important to keep in mind that businesses and thousands of residents will have to change legal documents such as wills, trusts, investment portfolios, bank accounts, condo documents etc. to reflect the new name—inconvenient and expensive.
It seems to me that there are bigger issues to be addressed locally, statewide, and nationally other than changing the name of a street.
Bobbie Banan
Longboat Key
Gulf of Mexico Drive
To: Longboat Key Commissioner Debra Williams
Thank you Debra. Since I read an article (LBO) and a letter to the editor in support of name changing, I felt I needed to air my thoughts.
Bobbie Banan
Longboat Key
Gulf of Mexico Drive
To: Bobbie Banan
Thanks for your email and sharing your thoughts about renaming Gulf of Mexico Drive. At this time I’m not aware of any significant effort to change the name. You have stated many valid concerns that will be considered if the renaming becomes something that the town is going to address.
Debra Williams
Commissioner
Town of Longboat Key
FDOT Directive Targeting LGBTQ-Inclusive Crosswalks
To: Sarasota City Commission
My name is Jon Harris Maurer, and I am the General Counsel and Public Policy Director for Equality Florida. We write to bring your attention to a concerning development: Local governments across Florida have received notice from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) ordering the removal of all non-safety-related street markings, including rainbow crosswalks.
This vague directive undermines public safety and intends to create an unconstitutional infringement on free speech by local governments. It has already triggered removals in cities like Boynton Beach without public notice or input. Other local governments are holding off, seeking legal interpretation and exploring alternatives. We strongly advise against rushed compliance.
Here’s what we recommend:
Engage your City or County Attorney. The FDOT memorandum expressly deems as noncompliant and subject to compulsory removal any crosswalk markings or pavement surface art “that is associated with social, political, or ideological messages or images.” This offends the First Amendment prohibition against regulating speech based on its content or message. Municipal counsel must analyze the legal duty to comply with such a constitutionally dubious directive.
Demand specificity. Local governments should request written clarification about the legal authority for this directive. Is this federal law, state interpretation, or bureaucratic overreach? How is compliance determined for “pavement surface art that is associated with social, political, or ideological messages or images”?
Ask who’s paying. If this is a state or federal mandate, is funding provided for removal and repainting? Local budgets should not be hijacked for political posturing.
Insist upon an agency determination. The FDOT memorandum notes that, “Permission to allow non-compliant traffic control devices or pavement markings to remain may be granted at the Department’s discretion” upon a city or county demonstrating good cause for any pavement markings. As noted below, studies readily show the safety benefits of painted crosswalks. Request a determination to place the burden on the state to prove why any removal is needed.
Don’t capitulate. Until there is clear guidance, cities should pause. This is a moment to stand firm and insist on legal review.
Get creative. Some cities, like West Palm Beach, are reimagining how to show LGBTQ inclusion—such as relocating crosswalk designs to parks or public art spaces. Visibility doesn’t have to be erased; it can be reasserted differently.
Of critical importance, the claim that rainbow crosswalks are not “safety related” is not supported by research. In fact, studies show that colorful, nonstandard street markings increase driver attentiveness and reduce speed. In other words: these designs can enhance safety, not diminish it.
This directive appears politically motivated—not safety driven. We know how meaningful a crosswalk can be. We urge you to resist knee-jerk removal and engage your legal teams, city managers, and communities before acting.
We appreciate your close attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions and stay in communication with us as this unfolds.
Jon Harris
Public Policy Director
Equality Florida
Stormwater system Bay Shore Rd between Patterson / Bay Shore Circle
To: Matthew Montgomery
I am not sure why you have not gotten any response. I am copying the interim city manager and deputy city manager so that the appropriate staff can respond.
Liz Alpert
Mayor
City of Sarasota
Stormwater system Bay Shore Rd between Patterson / Bay Shore Circle
To: Sarasota City Mayor Liz Alpert
I have called your office requesting a meeting and never received a response. When I sent my father in person—because I am unable to walk right now—he was turned away.
This flooding did not exist when I purchased my home seven years ago. It is the direct result of past actions by the city and is now being made worse by continued inaction. Today’s storm is a small rain event, yet I’m again watching water flood my front porch and the entire road in front of my home. I am done living in fear that my home will flood every time it rains.
Both my neighbor and I have sent multiple emails over the last month regarding this issue—confirmed as received by your assistant—yet no action has been taken. You have previously acknowledged this problem and committed to corrective action, including dredging and drainage improvements, yet those commitments remain unfulfilled. The City of Sarasota’s failure and negligence in addressing this matter will result in it being held responsible for both past and future damages.
Matthew Montgomery
Sarasota
Stormwater system Bay Shore Rd between Patterson / Bay Shore Circle
To: Sarasota City Mayor Liz Alpert
As our commissioner, could you please help coordinate a meeting regarding the ongoing stormwater drainage issues and issues with the pond? We are at our wits’ end and are struggling to understand why the City has gone silent on this matter.
I am currently recovering from surgery while watching water once again flood my driveway and garage due to the lack of drainage. We urgently need a response and resolution.
You personally acknowledged the City’s role in this when action was taken over the weekend to mitigate drainage from the lift station property, and when a commitment was made to dredge—which still hasn’t occurred.
We need clarity, communication, and action. Please let us know how to move this forward. I feel a meeting is now needed due to non-responses from the city.
Matthew Montgomery
Sarasota
Ebony Lake near Indian Beach
To: Sarasota City Commission
Thank you for your efforts to date to improve the stormwater drainage in and about the small private lake on our properties. Matthew Montgomery, another stakeholder with lake property, has shared his communications with the City. He, along with Julia Bredin, the owner of 2850 Bay Shore Rd joins us in this communication.
To understand what is happening relative to the private lake shared by 4 neighbors, over the last several years, we have been gathering information and observing wet weather occurrences in our neighborhood. To follow is a summary of our understanding of events that have impacted the storm water system and some suggestions as to how to improve it. Of course, we rely on your expertise to remedy the insufficient storm drain system and resulting damage.
Prior owners of our home at 2810 Bay Shore Rd managed the lake elevation for many years, both inflow and outflow through a singular 24” culvert located on their property. This culvert is still in place and operational. There is a weir at the end of the culvert at the lake, which properly sets the elevation at a fixed level, draining water into the bay when the water level in the lake is higher than the weir. These prior owners enjoyed coy fish in the lake, lily pond vegetation and a clear, generally freshwater pond.
We have learned that intended modifications to the City’s Lift Station #9, at Tennessee Ave and Bay Shore Circle, prompted a community meeting during which input was solicited. At that meeting, neighborhood residents expressed concerns over “the stormwater system not draining” and not accommodating flow during wet weather events. From the notes of the meeting, we know Mr Greeley responded “We are proposing to build a swale to help with the drainage”. The summary report read:
Paragraph 7 ‘Drainage has been a problem in the area’
‘Site improvements will include maintenance of the existing swale installed by the adjacent neighbor along the north property boundary. Other improvements include construction of a swale to cause storm water that currently ponds near the roadway on the property to the south to drain west along the south property line of the life station side to the surface near the rear. The swale with a vegetative swale. Currently there is high spot behind the lift station that reportedly channels water around the existing lift station building back toward the roadway. Positive drainage will be provided from the proposed paved driveway to a point west of the high point so that the drainage will flow to the pond.’
This work was done, directing stormwater from Bay Shore Circle into the private pond during wet weather events through a sculpted swale and directive concrete culvert.
After further investigation, we have learned that a 2nd culvert on 2850 Bay Shore Rd was constructed. It runs parallel to the initial culvert on 2810 Bay Shore Rd, just feet apart but lower and without a weir. It was built with commercial concrete head walls flanking the culvert entrance at the lake.
These 2 parallel culverts meet at a stormwater vault beneath the sidewalk and join with stormwater flowing south from Patterson Rd. From here, water can flow under Bay Shore Rd to the northern outfall at Indian Beach.
This beach outfall does not perform well. A large mangrove tree has grown just feet from the release area and collects sand, debris and prohibits water flow from the outfall. Further, without maintenance, an entire telephone pole, several dock posts, a large amount of wood and biomaterial was entangled inside the culvert under the road. County employees told us this culvert is not on their maintenance schedule and had never been cleaned. As a result, frequently, the storm drain holds at 50% full as the water will not drain. Of course, this also prohibits the pond water from draining.
Over the years, as our concerns grew around performance and maintenance failures, we have spoken to various City and County Officials who have stated that the second culvert on 2850 Bay Shore Rd is a private culvert and that it was not put in place by government but instead the owners of 2850 Bay Shore Rd. Research has shown this is not true.
First, no permit had been taken by the owners of 2850 Bay Shore Rd to construct a culvert. Certainly, work that interfaces with stormwater and passes to federal bay water would have required permission.
Further, ‘A Final Report Coastal Fringe Phase 3 Watershed Management Plan’ dated December 2015, specifically describes the system in place at the time and prescribes work to be done as Part of ‘Phase 3—Sarasota Bay, Little Sarasota Bay, and Dona-Roberts Bay Coastal’, area of interest C in particular. This document addresses the storm drain deficiencies and recommended improvements. It makes clear there was only one culvert in place on 2810 Bay Shore Rd. The second culvert was recommended to drain the lake as stormwater was directed into the lake from Bay Shore Rd Lift Station during wet weather events. The culvert on 2850 Bay Shore Rd was installed by, for and at the direction of Sarasota County!
Clearly, our private lake was and continues to be improperly used as part of the storm drain system. A public nuisance has been created by government actions and failures to act. Problems have resulted.
Because the outfall at the bay and contributing culverts are not maintained, stormwater is slow to drain from the lake. Debris, mounding sand and tangled vegetation pushed up with tide, held by large mangroves, have constrained the outfall, causing rotting vegetation and stagnant water to pond. Even on days without rainfall, this constriction frequently causes the elevation of the lake to be too high. On days with rainfall, this constriction causes flooding.
Daily tidal activity passing though the county’s 2nd and low culvert at 2850 Bay Shore Rd into and out of the lake has caused significant erosion of the land around the perimeter of the lake, threatening home foundations. Stakeholders have spent significant amounts of money building seawalls to mitigate loss of land.
As each high tide pushes water into the lake, in addition to beach trash, large amounts of biomaterial come with it. This material rots, smells and raises the floor of the shallow lake. Accumulating material raises the lake floor causing overflow after smaller amounts of rainfall.
It is unclear to us whether these problems, decisions and actions are the responsibility of the county or the city, or both. We have been told that because the city and county do not have a collegial relationship, there is blaming, and little cooperation.
To summarize, in our opinion, there are two related and compounding problems.
Problem One
There is insufficient infrastructure to manage storm water at Bay Shore Circle. The low elevation, in front of the Montgomery property on 2833 Bay Shore Circle and at the confluence of Tennessee and Indiana Avenues, causes flooding even during short rainstorms. Accumulated ponding water stands higher than 12” in the center of the road. This water has caused frequent flooding at the Montgomery home. Government officials knew of this problem. Our private lake is and has been used for this overflow water by government actions, directing overflow water into the lake. Though the city has removed the northerly swale on the lift station property, the vegetative swale and concrete culvert bordering the Montgomery property remains.
Problem Two
While the 2nd culvert on the 2850 Bay Shore Rd releases stormwater funneled into the lake from the City’s Lift Station, it also transports bay water with debris in the opposite direction and into the lake. Big storms and events that flood the streets during periods of high tides has caused flooding in our homes. It is frightening to see ferocious water cascading into the lake from the lift station property while at the same time high tide beach water rushes in from the bay. During high tide with the outfall constrained, neither lake culverts release water.
When these concerns are discussed with neighbors, naive property owners may think ‘Your lake, your problem’. While that is true, we watch as our lake and property is flooded, saving other properties. We would like to be a part of a solution but will not accept the responsibility of storm water management without your contributions, partnership, and participation.
In conversations with various city and county engineers and employees, a few solutions have been discussed.
Specifically, a check value placed in the culvert at 2850 Bay Shore Rd would prohibit bay water and large debris from entering the lake. Further, more constant water level in the lake would reduce erosion of the lake shores. The floor of the lake would have less biomaterial accumulation. Additionally, a manatee cover at the bay outfall would keep large debris from entering the large culvert under the street.
The catch basin on Bay Shore Circle (Virginia Ave) at the corner of 2716 Bay Shore Rd before the beach is covered by a small grate. Despite community efforts to keep it open and free of debris, it is most often blocked. This catch basin should collect water traveling toward the bay from Bay Shore Rd. Instead, this water passes the catch basin and travels away from the bay, backwards toward Bay Shore Circle, compounding overflow. We believe there would be benefit in modification of this catch basin.
The entire lake must be dredged!
We believe the most efficient and effective solutions will come through thorough understanding of the problem and collaboration. While we are doing what we can to understand, save and care for our properties, we look to you to solve this neighborhood issue.
Towards that end, we look forward to your prompt reply, solutions and actions, as hurricane season is fast approaching. We are available to meet.
Walt Harrs and Barbara Stern, Matthew Montgomery, Julia Bredin
Ebony Lake Stakeholders
Batch 1 – 2833 Bay Shore
To: Sarasota City Engineer Nik Patel
I also agree that the pond is private. Thank you for acknowledging the stormwater runoff issue. This is one of my primary concerns. According to the attached document, the city created a “formal and linear” swale (page 22) that leads into our private pond. On the south side of the property, there is a cut in the curb for drainage that leads directly to the pond, and in the back, there is a ditch/swale that also channels stormwater into the pond.
I’d like to point out that the document incorrectly refers to the pond as a canal, which it is not.
While I am not a lawyer, I understand that deliberately draining water onto private (as noted by Nikesh and Verne) property not owned by you can potentially make you legally liable for any resulting damages. It’s worth noting that all three owners of the pond experienced flooding in their homes during the recent storm. Mick should have photos from his recent visit of the clearly “formal and linear” drainage to our pond.
My second concern is that the current stormwater system seems inadequate even for small rainstorms. My property is frequently flooded up to the front door during minor rain events, resulting in mud and debris accumulation in my front yard/driveway and water inside my garage.
Unfortunately, instead of addressing this with the city, the previous owners installed drainage in the front yard that leads to the pond. However, as the stormwater from city property had already raised above the drainage pipes, there was nowhere for that water to go. The video shows what appears to be water being pumped at a high velocity during the storm.
Regarding the lift stations, I would appreciate access to records supporting their reportedly blemish-free operation. We (numerous neighbors) have previously observed storm drains being lifted out of manholes due to water pressure on our street, which raises questions about the system’s capacity.
I have also cc’d our district commissioner and Mayor, who is likely hearing this for the first time but I hope can assist as well. I have spent hours being bounced around the city switchboard, unfortunately leading to no resolution. My neighbor has probably spent even more time and has met with city officials on site numerous times.
The pond rose an estimated seven feet during that storm. While I understand it was an exceptional storm, it does not negate the fact that our private pond, which I pay to maintain, is being used as stormwater runoff for numerous individuals, including the city, who have no right to do so.
Matthew Montgomery
Sarasota
Batch 1 – 2833 Bay Shore
To: City of Sarasota Code Compliance Director Mick Pierre
I concur with Vern in that the pond and connecting lines are privately owned.
Nik Patel
City Engineer
City of Sarasota
Batch 1 – 2833 Bay Shore
To: City of Sarasota Code Compliance Director Mick Pierre
We’ve visited the site numerous times. This is a lift station site with a contained wet well. There is not now nor has there been a discharge from this site into that pond other than stormwater runoff.
The privately owned pond at this location has two privately owned lines that connect to the City’s stormwater system. If the pond is not draining properly the residents should have those lines inspected and cleared. I don’t intend to speak for Nik but this is not a City issue as the pond and connecting lines are privately owned.
Verne Hall
Utilities Director
City of Sarasota
Batch 1 – 2833 Bay Shore
To: Sarasota City Engineer Nik Patel
We have received a complaint from a resident at 2833 Bayshore Circle Mr. Matthew Montgomery regarding drainage from the city-owned property at 2915 Bayshore Circle. The drainage is reportedly affecting a private pond owned by 2918 Bay Shore Road, 2850 Bay Shore Road, and 2833 Bayshore Circle, causing flooding in all three homes.
The complainant initially contacted the Engineering Department and was referred to us at Code Compliance. Unfortunately, we are unable to assist with this issue. Could you please advise on the appropriate department or individual to address this matter?
Please see previous emails from Mr. Montgomery with videos from the night of the flooding.
Mickerly Pierre
Code Compliance Inspector
City of Sarasota
