Deputy City Manager Appointment
To: Sarasota City Commission
I am pleased to share that I have appointed Jennifer Jorgensen as the permanent Deputy City Manager for the City of Sarasota. The city has many opportunities and challenges facing us both short and long-term. During the last 4 months, Jennifer and I have worked closely together on many of these competing priorities and have developed a relationship built on mutual respect and trust. I am confident this relationship will only strengthen over time, resulting in our office providing the best support we can to the Commission, our city departments, and the public. Based upon this appointment, we have divided up areas of responsibilities and reporting as follows:
City Manager – Departments Direct Reporting
Development Services
Planning
Finance
Parks & Recreation
Police / Independent Police Panels
Emergency Services
Communications
Human Resources
Deputy City Manager – Departments Direct Reporting
Utilities
Public Works
IT
Governmental Affairs/Legislative
Procurement
Grants
Homelessness Response/Services
Van Wezel
Special Events
As I finish up my third week, I truly believe this appointment and organizational alignment will help us stay focused on the needs of both our community and our internal organization/team. Please let me know if you have any questions. Have a great weekend!
Karie Friling
City Manager
City of Sarasota
Deputy City Manager Appointment
To: Sarasota City Manager Karie Friling
Great news! Congratulations to Jennifer!
Liz Alpert
Commissioner
City of Sarasota
Boil Water Order: When Will We Be Notified of Lifting?
To: Sarasota Deputy City Manager Jennifer Jorgensen
Scott and I met with staff today to go over the events of last week involving the water shut downs on Beneva. There were several events that were taking place during the week. On Monday the 15th and Tuesday the 16th Utility staff were exercising the distribution system valves in preparation for a scheduled and permitted valve replacement project that would take place late in the evening of the 17th and in the early morning hours of the 18th.
Yellow door hanger tags were placed on the residences that were anticipated to be impacted by the work in advance of the valve exercising work. Residents did experience fluctuations in pressure which is standard during a valve exercising operation. Yellow door hanger tags were also placed prior to the valve replacement project that started on the evening of the 17th.
When staff began the shut down for the valve replacement project at approximately 9 p.m. on the 17th , they received word that residents in Glen Oaks had lost water pressure. They immediately opened the system back up to restore system pressure. At approximately 12:30 a.m. on the 18th staff again shut the system down so the contractor could complete the valve replacement project. Water service was restored at approximately 4:30 a.m. on the 18th. Once staff had determined the full extent of the impact area a boil water notice was issued via Alert Sarasota/Everbridge because the impacted area was too large to issue door hangers. That biol water notice was rescinded using Alert Sarasota/Everbridge on Saturday the 20th at approximately 12 noon after both sets of BACT samples had passed.
The larger area impacted by the shutdown was the result of an error in the GIS maps of the distribution system in that area. There is a 16” water main and an 8” water main on Beneva that feeds that area. Staff were able to confirm that the 16” main feeds the Gen Oaks area and not the 8” as originally believed. The error in the GIS map has been corrected.
Separately, an unrelated 6” water main break in the same general area occurred at approximately 5:30 a.m. on the 21st requiring an emergency shut down of the same 16” water main. Repairs were completed and a boil water advisory was issued via Alert Sarasota/Everbridge at approximately 7:30 a.m. The water service was restored in the area at approximately 8:30 a.m. on the morning of the 21st. Staff have updated our standard operating protocols to ensure timely overnight boil-water notifications are sent through Alert Sarasota/Everbridge prior to water service being restored.
Verne Hall
Utilities Director
Facilities Director
City of Sarasota
Boil Water Order: When Will We Be Notified of Lifting?
To: JoAnn Jordan
I apologize for any miscommunication regarding the recent Utility work that was being done in your area. I know the Utilities department takes notifying our residents of any work being done in their areas very seriously. I have copied Verne Hall, our Utilities Director on this email. He can address your immediate questions. Verne and I will work on any needed changes and improvements regarding the communication process for future utility work throughout the city.
Thank you JoAnn for your email.
Jennifer Jorgensen
Deputy City Manager
City of Sarasota
Boil Water Order: When Will We Be Notified of Lifting?
To: JoAnn Jordan
I am copying the city manager and deputy city manager with this response so the appropriate staff can respond to your concerns.
Liz Alpert
Commissioner
City of Sarasota
Boil Water Order: When Will We Be Notified of Lifting?
To: Sarasota City Commission
On Monday 6/15, I noticed low water flow in the morning, though it returned that afternoon. On Tuesday 6/16, there was no water in the morning. I called and was told work was being done on valves on Beneva. The workers reportedly had no idea which homes would be impacted, so no one had been contacted about the potential disruption. I was told outages would only last 30 minutes at a time.
A neighbor two doors south of me reported a water outage on Wednesday 6/17 beginning around 9 p.m. He was told valves were being replaced. When he called again at 1am, he was told service would be restored in the morning. There was no mention of a need to boil water after this.
On Thursday 6/18 at 8:35 a.m. — after I had already brushed my teeth and gotten drinking water — I received a text about a boil water order. When I called later that day, I was told the order would be lifted at the 48-hour mark at the earliest.
This is not a minor inconvenience for me. I am currently in post-surgical recovery, and keeping my wound area and surroundings free of bacteria is essential to avoiding infection. A boil water order that arrives late — after I’ve already used the tap — and notifications that reach only some households put people in exactly my situation at real risk. I need to be able to trust that the water is safe and that I’ll be told promptly when it isn’t.
What concerns me most is that these alerts have only been reaching some residents, not others. Throughout this entire stretch, notifications about outages and now the boil water order have gone out in a piecemeal way — some neighbors got texts, some of the Manor had stickers on their doors but not all, others got nothing, and the timing has been inconsistent across homes on the same block. In a situation where people are drinking, cooking with, and brushing their teeth using this water, partial distribution of safety alerts is a serious problem.
My most pressing question, given that offices are closed today for Juneteenth: Will we actually be alerted on Saturday as to whether this order is lifted or continued?
My other concerns:
Why weren’t residents alerted to the potential outage in advance?
Why was there such a long delay before the boil water order was announced?
Why did the alert reach only some affected residents rather than everyone?
I’d appreciate a response addressing both the immediate question and these larger communication failures.
JoAnn Jordan
Sarasota
The Wine Concierge
To: Alan Ross
This issue is best addressed by the City Manager and City Attorney (both copied), and I am confident they will look into this issue and respond accordingly (and copy me as well).
Jen Ahearn-Koch
City Commissioner
City of Sarasota
The Wine Concierge
To: Sarasota City Auditor and Clerk Shayla Griggs
My wife Bonnie Ross and I are original residents of the BLVD of Sarasota. According to the above application, there is a request for a Minor Conditional Use since alcoholic beverage stores are not permitted within the applicable zoning district. Similarly, the same applicant requested an MCU for the private club under construction in our building. Both applications require a site plan and ask whether any external construction is proposed. Very substantial exterior construction is currently underway at our building despite the fact that the site plans do not identify any such exterior construction. It appears that the applicant chose to intentionally mislead the City in applying for the conditional use.
Our understanding is that the applicant also refused to supply our building manager with any plans for their facility and has refused to comply with the condominium documents to obtain prior approval from the residents as required by those documents.
Therefore, we believe any conditional use approval must be denied until the proper application has been made to the BLVD condominium association. Furthermore, you should be aware that the developer who represents the applicant continues to treat our building as if it is still the owner even though the building was turned over to our condominium association over five years ago. The City of Sarasota needs to ensure that this application not subvert the zoning requirements as well as the condominium declarations and other contractual documents.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Alan and Bonnie Ross
Sarasota
The Wine Concierge
To: Donald Goldsmith
This issue is best addressed by the City Manager and City Attorney (both copied), and I am confident they will look into this issue and respond accordingly (and copy me as well).
Jen Ahearn-Koch
City Commissioner
City of Sarasota
The Wine Concierge
To: Sarasota City Commission
I am a resident of The BLVD Sarasota Condominium and am writing regarding the Notice of Filing Development Application referred to above, mailed June 11, 2026.
The request is for a Minor Conditional Use since alcoholic beverage stores are not permitted within the applicable Zoning district. The same applicant also requested an MCU for a private club that is presently under construction in the same building which is also known as 540 N. Tamiami Trail. The building is a condominium also referred to as “The BLVD Sarasota” and condominium owners and lessees are governed by and subject to a Declaration and By-laws of the BLVD Sarasota Condominium and Association. The proposed wine facility is located in space immediately adjacent to the proposed Club separated only by a common interior wall. Neither application nor plans disclose that exterior construction is proposed, as the Applicant is required to do. In fact, very substantial exterior construction has been commenced and is ongoing on the Building’s Common Elements, in violation of the BLVD Association governing documents and without approval of either the members of the Association or the Board of the Association. Such construction has confiscated over 5,000 square feet of Common Elements for the Applicant’s personal use, interfering with the loading dock and related areas used for various Association purposes, including deliveries, trash collection and recycling services.
In addition to investigating the Applicant for its unilateral actions and deficient filings, the City should immediately require the Applicant to suspend its unlawful construction activity.
The Applications for conditional use should also be denied as they not only fail to comply with applicable City requirements, but because they do not serve a public use. The establishment of a proposed wine store is admitted by the Applicant to be solely for the use of Club members – not the public. No parking space is provided for retail customers, and the Applicant has acknowledged at a community meeting that no wine will be displayed in the store for inspection by customers nor inventory retained on the premises to sell and provide to walk-in customers. Rather, the Applicant has acknowledged that the intended purpose for the wine store is to provide a facility for Club members to purchase case wine for their personal use away from the Club which is not permitted to be transacted at the Club itself, rather than to provide an opportunity for neighborhood residents to shop for and purchase wine for consumption in their homes. Accordingly, the proposed wine store does not serve any public purpose or provide access by neighborhood residents to a service not presently available. In short, the proposed wine store is inconsistent with any reasonable application for conditional use that would provide a convenience or benefit not presently permitted or available by existing zoning, and, accordingly, the MCU should be denied. Thank you for your consideration.
Donald A. Goldsmith
Sarasota
The Wine Concierge
To: Howard Kilman
Thank you for your email. This issue is best addressed by the City Manager and City Attorney (both copied), and I am confident they will look into this issue and respond accordingly (and copy me as well).
Jen Ahearn-Koch
City Commissioner
City of Sarasota
The Wine Concierge
To: Sarasota City Clerk Shalya Griggs
Addition hearty thank you from me and our Board of Directors from the BLVD Condo Association. We have been frustrated by the lack of clear communications and intentions of these applicants. They clearly know the governing documents of our condo since it was their legal team that created them. They also clearly know the Rules and Policies of our Condo Association as they are members and hold 3 or our 52 votes. They have simply not proactively communicated nor followed any of the Association’s Rules and Policies. To make it clear, they refused to share their building plans and permits and ultimately we had to acquire them directly from the city. To say the least, our association members are extremely frustrated with their lack of coordination and transparency. We as an Association have taken initial legal steps to protect our interest.
What we are requesting is the City step in and make sure that their building permit application is accurate (we clearly think it is not), their private club application is accurate again (we have serious doubts), and their existing as-built aligns with their applications (it clearly does not).
Please feel free to reach out and discuss this or request additional information. Thank you again for your due diligence and support in this matter.
Howard Kilman
President
BLVD Condo Association
The Wine Concierge
To: Sarasota City Clerk Shayla Griggs
Your prompt and thoughtful response is most encouraging. The BLVD community is very agitated by the issues I communicated and will be grateful to have your support in preserving our rights.
Brenda Dunn
Sarasota
The Wine Concierge
To: Brenda Dunn
Thank you for taking the time to share your detailed concerns regarding the development applications at 1224 Boulevard of the Arts and the related notice distribution. I appreciate your thorough explanation and want to assure you that your comments have been received.
Additionally, your feedback regarding the notice distribution and its impact on residents within the required notification radius is duly noted.
We understand how vital it is that these matters are addressed promptly and transparently, given their direct effect on the rights and daily operations of condominium residents. Please know that your request for an investigation into both the application details and the notification process will be forwarded for review as part of our ongoing commitment to ensure all procedures are followed appropriately.
Should you have any further information to share or specific questions, please feel free to reach out. We will keep you updated as we move forward and will respond further once we have additional information. Thank you again for bringing these issues to our attention.
Shayla Griggs
City Clerk
City of Sarasota
The Wine Concierge
To: Sarasota City Clerk Shayla Griggs
I am a resident of The BLVD Sarasota Condominium and am writing regarding the Notice of Filing Development Application referenced above, which was mailed on June 11, 2026, and received on June 18, 2026.
I wish to bring a significant concern to your attention regarding the Accuracy and Scope of the Proposed Applications:
The current applications may not accurately reflect the scope of work ultimately intended by the applicants.
The applicants, Joel Freeman and Kevin Daves, previously submitted Applications 25-ASP-06 and 26-MCU-02 in November 2025 concerning commercial spaces within The BLVD Sarasota condominium. Those applications represented that the proposed work involved interior finishes only.
However, the work subsequently performed extended far beyond interior improvements. Significant alterations have been made to the exterior of the building, including the enclosure and expansion of areas affecting the building’s Common Elements, specifically the loading dock and surrounding areas.
As a result, the applicants have effectively encroached upon and restricted access to areas that serve the condominium’s 49 unit owners. These Common Elements areas have historically been used for essential building functions, including deliveries, trash collection, recycling services, and other resident-related operations.
Such alterations are in violation of The BLVD Sarasota’s governing documents, which require appropriate approvals before material modifications can be made to any Common Elements. The required condominium approvals were not obtained before these changes were undertaken.
Further, I am unaware of any site inspections conducted by the City during the course of these substantial alterations. Consequently, City staff may not have had the opportunity to observe the extent to which the completed work differs from what was represented in the approved applications.
The practical effect of these actions has been the appropriation of approximately 5,250 square feet of Common Elements property for the exclusive benefit of a private commercial interest, to the detriment of the condominium owners and residents.
I understand that the City has recently been made aware of these concerns. Given the circumstances, I respectfully request that the City thoroughly investigate the matter and consider whether further activity related to these applications should be suspended pending compliance with applicable condominium requirements, in addition to an amendment of the applications to accurately reflect actual plans, and any additional City review and approval deemed appropriate.
Because these issues directly affect the rights and use of Common Elements property by all residents of The BLVD Sarasota, this matter is of significant and immediate concern.
I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience regarding the City’s intended course of action.
Brenda Dunn
Sarasota
The Wine Concierge
To: Abraham Morgentaler
Thank you for your email. This is an issue that is best addressed by the City Manager, (copied), or City Attorney, (also copied). I am confident a response is forthcoming.
Jen Ahearn-Koch
City Commissioner
City of Sarasota
The Wine Concierge
To: Sarasota City Clerk Shayla Griggs
The condominium owners of The BLVD Sarasota are faced with an outrageous situation that demands immediate action from the City: the applicants referenced above provided false plans to the City and have seized property that is not theirs to build on.
I am a resident of The BLVD Sarasota Condominium at 540 N. Tamiami Trail and a former president of its Association board. I write regarding the Notice of Filing Development Application referenced above, mailed June 11, 2026. The Wine Concierge is being developed by the same applicants behind the private club (1000 North Sarasota) now under construction next door — both inside our building, both bound by the Declaration and By-Laws of The BLVD Sarasota Condominium.
A large exterior structure — air-conditioning units, mechanical equipment, and a permanent concrete pad for a generator — is being built in our loading area. The Declaration clearly identifies that area as a Common Element: it belongs to the building’s 49 unit owners, not to the developer. None of this construction appears anywhere in the plans the applicants submitted to the City. To the contrary, their proposal specifically stated that no exterior work would be done — “interior finishes only.” That same “interior only” representation runs back through their prior club applications (25-ASP-06 and 26-MCU-02, filed in November 2025).
This is not minor work. It has confiscated more than 5,000 square feet of Common Elements property, along with the air rights above it, for the exclusive private use of a single commercial owner, and it has closed the entire area — used every day for deliveries, trash disposal, and recycling — to residents and Association staff because of the hazards of active construction.
The applicants knew exactly what they were doing. A structure of this scale- involving a mezzanine built of steel girders that traverses the entire width of the loading area with power and mechanical systems- requires engineering, planning, and forethought. It is not credible that this is some afterthought that followed their submission to the city claiming they would build nothing outside of their unit. A false statement made knowingly, to obtain a government approval, is fraud, and the City should treat it as exactly that. One must wonder whether the applicants failed to mention the exterior construction because they knew they had no right to build on that land?
The Association did not stay silent. It sent the developer a cease-and-desist letter identifying this area as a Common Element under the Declaration and demanding the legal basis for the work. Construction did not pause for a single day. No legal basis has ever been provided — because there is none.
This is not a private matter for the courts. The false documents were submitted to the City, the construction sits on land the applicants do not own, and the City is being asked right now to reward the same applicants with two more approvals.
I demand the following actions be taken:
1. Suspend Applications 26-ASP-11 and 26-MCU-04, and any further activity on this site, until the unlawful exterior construction is removed and the applicants’ filings are corrected to reflect what they have actually built.
2. Order the immediate cessation of all exterior construction.
3. Penalize the applicants for submitting false plans to the City.
4. Require the applicants, at their sole expense, to tear down and remove every exterior structure that does not appear in their submitted plans, and to restore the Common Elements to their original condition.
5. Impose penalties sufficient to deter this developer — and any other — from seizing condominium owners’ property by brute force and daring the City to respond after the fact. The City should ask itself plainly whether this is conduct it wishes to reward.
6. Review the City’s own approval and inspection procedures, which permitted more than a month of substantial exterior construction — on land the applicant does not own, and on plans that disclosed none of it — to proceed without apparent scrutiny.
Finally, this matter and the City’s response to it should be made known to the local media. The residents of Sarasota are entitled to know what has been done here, and to be assured that the City stands behind their rights as homeowners against a developer who treats both the City’s process and his neighbors’ property as his to take.
Abraham Morgentaler
Sarasota
