Parks & Rec District: Less Leslie Knope, More Legal Memos
To: Commissioner Kyle Battie
As discussed, please find a draft ordinance establishing a City of Sarasota Parks and Recreation District that was prepared pursuant to previous direction from the City Commission. The draft ordinance reflects the required elements under Florida law, including the purpose, powers, geographic boundaries, governance structure, financing methods, and compliance considerations.
Additionally, attached is an accompanying legal memorandum prepared by one of our subject matter experts, special counsel Chris Roe, which outlines the statutory process and timing for creating the Parks District, the implications for millage allocation under the City’s ten‑mill cap, the potential impact of Amendment 3, and preliminary analysis regarding special assessment authority. This memorandum is intended to support your review of the draft ordinance and assist in preparation for upcoming discussions.
Please let me know if you have any questions, would like clarification on any portion of the draft, or wish to discuss proposed revisions before scheduling the item for Commission consideration.
Joe Polzak
City Attorney
City of Sarasota
Homelessness Models: Taking a Field Trip to Utah
To: Sarasota City Commissioner Jen Ahearn-Koch
Approaches to homelessness vary radically across the country. We’re exploring bringing leaders from those different models together at The Other Side Village in Salt Lake City, Utah.
This would be a symposium of ideas: a safe space for people to analyze different approaches honestly, think critically, challenge assumptions, and disagree.
The goal is simple: to learn from one another and improve how we approach chronic homelessness nationwide.
We’re currently gauging interest for a Spring 2027 gathering in Salt Lake City. I’ve attached a one-pager with more info. Would you or someone from your organization be interested in participating?
Hyrum Grenny
Director, The Other Side Leadership Institute
Salt Lake City, UT
Transportation Chapter Questions: 399 Pages of Traffic-Induced Panic
To: Sarasota City Manager Karie Friling
Thanks for allowing staff to meet with me two weeks ago and for agreeing to schedule another meeting to discuss questions on the proposed Transportation Chapter.
My last meeting with staff was half an hour (I should have asked for more time), and our next meeting is also half an hour. I know it is difficult to ask for much more than that with our busy schedules. So, I thought it would be more efficient if I submit questions in advance, and request that answers be responded to, in writing, in advance, with time for me to digest the responses. Our next meeting is on September 16, so, clearly we will need to rescheduled.
I thank you all in advance for your patience, you work, and your time on this with me.
I am trying to work within an imposed deadline (October first or second Commission meeting) and continue to work through the applied implications of the 399+ pages of a dense document which could have major impacts on our City and our growth, safety, quality-of-life, and future.
Transportation Chapter Plan Amendment Questions: The Interrogation Begins
September 14, 2026
On August 3, I asked what the “fundamental shift” described on page 9 of the backup is, and I said that running the models against real cases would make it easier to understand what we are doing. Neither has been answered yet.
The questions that follow are the specifics.
Three labels are used throughout. Adopted means the plan in effect: the 2017 Transportation Chapter and the Future Land Use Chapter as published March 9, 2026. Transmitted means the 399-page package sent to the Department of Commerce and proposed for adoption. The Support Document is transmitted but not proposed for adoption, and is named as such wherever it is cited.
Question 1.
On August 3 I asked how a “fundamental shift” can be an update. Staff answered that the two metrics are “very similar … instead of giving it a letter grade, we’re giving it a numerical grade” (Note 1). The Evaluation Matrix says “the pivot from LOS to V/C ratio marks a fundamental shift in how transportation capacity and performance are assessed, which is clearly defined and explained within the chapter” (p. 9 of 399; identical in the voted package).
Which transmitted provisions constitute the fundamental shift, and where in the transmitted text is it defined and explained?
(a) List the transmitted provisions that constitute the shift. (Provision numbers)
(b) Where in the text proposed for adoption is the shift “clearly defined and explained”? (Page/Provision)
(c) Does the transmitted amendment require anything of an applicant that adopted Action Strategy 1.1 does not? (Yes/No; Requirement)
Notes:
1. August 3, 2026, captions. Commissioner Ahearn-Koch, 2:36:35–2:37:09 PM: “On page 9 of our backup material, it talks about this is a fundamental shift … How is it that it’s a fundamental shift … but still an update?” Staff (unnamed), 2:37:13–2:37:31 PM: “It’s very similar except that we’re now being more specific on the traffic that’s on that road. Instead of giving it a letter grade, we’re giving it a numerical grade.” Staff (unnamed), 2:38:24–2:39:06 PM: “the level of service is nominal, whereas the volume to capacity is a ratio, it is the numerical value to the level of service … we did dedicate an entire public engagement effort to that very specific thing. So that way we could help the public understand that shift.”
Question 2.
Slide 26 of the Staff Presentation at the August 3, 2026, hearing (Bahia Vista Street at S. Tuttle Avenue) reports:
Scenario
LOS
Highest V/C
2025 Existing
D
0.90
2028 No-Build
D
0.92
2028 Build (with Development)
D
0.92
Slide states:
• Corridor meets current LOS standards.
• No transportation capacity improvements required.
• Intersection remains within current transportation concurrency standards.
Bahia Vista Street and Tuttle Avenue are classified Urban General Commercial/Mixed Use (C4) on the Context Classification map, Appendix D, EDCM 2024. Transmitted Table T-1, Context-Based V/C Performance Targets (pp. 114–115 of 399), sets the C4 planning target at 0.75–0.85 and the maximum allowable V/C, with improvements, at 0.90.
The reported 0.92 exceeds the maximum.
Does the transmitted amendment change what the developer owes, or only what the developer may offer?
(a) Would mitigation be required on these numbers under transmitted Table T-1? (Yes/No)
(b) If yes, which transmitted Action Strategy requires it? (Provision) If no, what makes 0.92 acceptable against a 0.90 maximum? (Basis)
(c) Is the 0.92 tested against the planning target or the maximum allowable? (Planning/Max Allowable)
(d) On this slide, what does the 0.92 measure: a segment, an intersection, or the worst movement? (Segment/Intersection/Movement)
Question 3.
Staff’s slides and testimony say V/C is already computed in existing traffic studies – can staff run test drives like the Bahia Vista example against the significant traffic studies of the last five years, so I can see the practical effect before the adoption hearing?
(a) Can this be produced before the adoption hearing? (Yes/No)
(b) If not, what is the reason? (Cost/Staff Time/Data Not Available/Other)
(c) What would be required to produce it? (Data/Hours/Cost)
(d) How many traffic studies accepted by the City in the last five years report a V/C ratio? (Number)
(e) Can a subset be produced in time? (Yes/No)
(i) If yes, which studies? (List)
(f) For each test drive, please provide the outcome under:
(i) Adopted Action Strategy 1.1
(ii) Transmitted Table T-1
Notes:
2. Slide 25 of the Staff Presentation at the August 3, 2026, hearing (“Currently in practice…”) reproduces a page of the Southgate Mall Redevelopment traffic impact analysis with the V/C and LOS results called out.
3. Slide 26 indicates the Bahia Vista Street at S. Tuttle Avenue study also contained V/C and LOS results.
4. Staff testified at the same hearing (captions, 2:20:18–2:20:34 PM; speaker not labelled):
a. “We already do use the V over C ratio because we know there are some roads that are above our adopted level of service.”
b. “In that case, we look to see what is actually happening V over C now and what’s happening V over C with that improvement and what that impact is.”
5. Adopted Action Strategy 1.1 (2017 Transportation Chapter, pp. T-5–T-6) states that for roadways exceeding the nominal LOS standards, “the Level of Service standard for those roadways shall be the volume to capacity ratio of the roadway.”
Question 4.
The City has transportation concurrency. The adopted Future Land Use Chapter, Attachment 5, sets the adopted levels of service for roads and the test a development must meet (Notes 1–2).
The transmitted amendment strikes both from Attachment 5 and from Capital Improvements Action Strategy 1.5. In their place, the transmitted Transportation Chapter’s Objective 1 Action Strategies “shall be used to guide evaluation, prioritization, and implementation of improvements” (Note 3). The amendment does not touch the Future Land Use provisions that still require a rezoning not to degrade “adopted levels-of-service” (Note 4).
Where in the text proposed for adoption is the statutorily required “adopted level of service”?
(a) Future Land Use Action Strategy 3.3 still requires a finding that a rezoning will not degrade the adopted level of service for roads. After adoption, what is that level of service? (Value/Provision)
(b) Transmitted Table T-1 applies “for City-owned streets.” The Support Document lists three road jurisdictions in the City: FDOT, Sarasota County, and “City-owned and maintained” (Note 5). Where is “City-owned street” defined, and does it turn on title, maintenance, or jurisdiction? (Provision)
Notes:
6. § 163.3180(5)(a), Fla. Stat.: “If concurrency is applied to transportation facilities, the local government comprehensive plan must provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies, including adopted levels of service to guide its application.” The transmitted Transportation Chapter lists “Transportation impact analysis and concurrency review” among its implementation mechanisms (p. 109 of 399).
7. Adopted Future Land Use Chapter (publication 03/09/2026), Attachment 5, Concurrency Management System. Standards: LOS D outside the TCEA, LOS E within it, Alternative LOS by volume-to-capacity ratio (pp. LU-100–101). Test: “At least one of the following four options must be met” (p. LU-103).
8. Transmitted: Future Land Use Attachment 5 as amended (pp. 315–319 of 399) and Capital Improvements AS 1.5 as amended (pp. 322–323). Replacement text: “When corridors approach or exceed the planning-level V/C targets identified in Table T-1, the corresponding Action Strategies located under Objective 1, including Table T-2, of the Transportation Plan shall be used to guide evaluation, prioritization, and implementation of improvements.”
9. Adopted Future Land Use Chapter, not amended: AS 3.3, Items for Consistency Review (pp. LU-15–16) – rezonings and conditional uses are reviewed for whether “adopted levels-of-service would not be degraded through approval of the request.” Attachment 5 introduction (p. LU-99): facilities must be sufficient “to maintain or exceed the adopted LOS standards.”
10. Transmitted Transportation Chapter: AS 1.1 (p. 111 of 399) and the Table T-1 caption (p. 114) apply the context classifications and targets “for City-owned streets”; the same phrase closes the replacement paragraph at pp. 319 and 324. Support Document, Jurisdictional Responsibilities (pp. 172–173): “Roadway jurisdiction within the City includes: Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) facilities (e.g., U.S. 41, U.S. 301); Sarasota County facilities; City-owned and maintained roadways.”
Question 5.
Transmitted Table T-1 applies “for City-owned streets.” The two intersections staff used to show the transmitted amendment in operation are US 41 at Bee Ridge Road (slide 25) and Bahia Vista Street at S. Tuttle Avenue (slide 26, Question 2). US 41 and Bee Ridge Road are state roads. Illustration T-03 shows Sarasota County as the maintaining agency for Bahia Vista Street and Tuttle Avenue (Notes 1–2).
The only transmitted provision that requires mitigation on a V/C trigger is AS 1.4. Its trigger is a segment “operating above a V/C ratio of 1.00,” and it carries no ownership limit (Note 3).
Which mitigation provision, if any, reaches a road the City does not own?
(a) Does transmitted Table T-1, through AS 1.1 and AS 1.21, apply to a state or county road within the City? (Yes/No)
(b) Does transmitted AS 1.4 apply to a state or county road within the City? (Yes/No)
(c) If neither: what standard governs a development’s impact on US 41 at Bee Ridge Road, or on Bahia Vista Street at Tuttle Avenue, after adoption? (Standard/Provision)
Notes:
11. Slide 25, Staff Presentation, August 3, 2026: “Lanes, Volumes, Timings – 2: US-41 & Bee Ridge Rd,” Southgate Mall Redevelopment Project TIA, 04/12/2024; Maximum v/c Ratio 1.00; Intersection LOS E. Slide 26: Bahia Vista Street at S. Tuttle Avenue; Highest V/C 0.90 (2025 Existing), 0.92 (2028 No-Build), 0.92 (2028 Build).
12. “For City-owned streets”: transmitted AS 1.1 (p. 111 of 399); Table T-1 caption (p. 114); Future Land Use Attachment 5 as amended (p. 319); Capital Improvements AS 1.5 as amended (p. 324). Illustration T-03, Jurisdictional Responsibilities for Thoroughfares & Railroad Lines (p. T-38; p. 141 of 399), legend “Maintaining Agency.”
13. Transmitted AS 1.4, Development Impacts on Over-Capacity Corridors (p. 111 of 399): “When a proposed development is located on or directly impacts a roadway segment that is operating above a V/C ratio of 1.00 under existing conditions, the City shall evaluate the development’s incremental transportation impact. If the proposed development would further degrade operations beyond the established existing condition, the applicant shall implement reasonable and proportionate multimodal, operational, safety, or demand management measures …” Transmitted AS 1.21 (p. 113): “Table T-1 defines context-based performance targets and appropriate solution types for City-owned streets. Transportation mitigation required to address system performance, or development impacts shall be selected from … Table T-2.”
Question 6.
Transmitted Table T-2, Context-Based Transportation Solution Categories (p. 116 of 399), lists sixteen solution categories, each with a planning-level V/C deduction:
Solution Category
V/C Deduction
Strategic Capacity Improvements
−0.10
Operational – Signals
−0.06
Operational – Intersection Geometry (Existing Pavement)
−0.07
Access Management
−0.05
Curbside Management
−0.03
Transit Priority
−0.03
Transit Stop Enhancements
−0.01
Protected Bicycle Facility (Network Gap Closure)
−0.04
Trail Connectivity and Access
−0.03
Sidewalk Connectivity + Safe Crossings
−0.02
Neighborhood Bikeways / Greenways
−0.03
Micromobility Management and Hubs
−0.02
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
−0.02
Parking Management / Pricing
−0.10
Traffic Calming
−0.01
Safety-Only Treatments
−0.00
The note to Table T-2 states:
• The categories “establish the categories of mitigation that may be used to address transportation system performance and development impacts.”
The note to Table T-4, Support Document (transmitted, not for adoption; p. 187 of 399), states:
• “These values are not additive without professional judgment … Table T-4 does not override or modify Table T-1 or Table T-2 in the Transportation Chapter and does not establish enforceable requirements.”
Can a developer combine transmitted Table T-2 solution categories to satisfy a mitigation requirement, and is there a limit?
(a) May categories be combined in one mitigation determination? (Yes/No)
(b) Which provision proposed for adoption governs that answer? (Provision)
(c) If so, how is the combined V/C deduction computed? (Additive/Other)
(d) Who sets the combined value? (City/Applicant)
(e) Does any cap apply to the combined deduction? (Yes/No)
(i) Which provision proposed for adoption imposes it? (Provision)
(f) Does the Table T-4 note govern a Table T-2 determination, given that Table T-4 is not proposed for adoption? (Yes/No)
Question 7.
Transmitted Table T-2 lists Strategic Capacity Improvements at −0.10 and Operational – Intersection Geometry (Existing Pavement) at −0.07. Table T-4, in the Support Document (transmitted, not for adoption), gives example treatments for every Table T-2 category except Strategic Capacity Improvements, which has no row; its example for Intersection Geometry is “Re-striping, turn-lane optimization” (Notes 1–2).
When an applicant proposes a turn lane as mitigation, under which transmitted Table T-2 category is it credited – Strategic Capacity Improvements at −0.10 or Operational – Intersection Geometry at −0.07 – and who makes that determination?
(a) Which category, and which deduction? (Category/Deduction)
(b) Where in the text proposed for adoption does an applicant read that determination? (Provision)
(c) What supplies the content of Strategic Capacity Improvements, given that Table T-4 carries no row for it? (Source)
Notes:
14. Transmitted Table T-2, Context-Based Transportation Solution Categories (p. 116 of 399): Strategic Capacity Improvements, −0.10, “Increases corridor and intersection capacity”; Operational – Intersection Geometry (Existing Pavement), −0.07, “Reduces delay at critical movements.”
15. Table T-4, Support Document (transmitted, not for adoption; p. 186 of 399), titled “Supports Table T – 1 and Table T – 2”: first row is Operational – Signals; no Strategic Capacity Improvements row. Operational – Intersection Geometry (Existing Pavement), example treatments “Re-striping, turn-lane optimization,” −0.07.
16. Planning Board Supplemental Document table (Table T-34, p. 331 of 396; carried into the transmitted package as Appendix 6, p. 290 of 399): Strategic Capacity Improvements, example treatments “Turn lanes, targeted roadway widening, lane reconfiguration,” −0.10.
17. Transmitted AS 1.21, Transportation Mitigation Categories (p. 113 of 399): mitigation “shall be selected from one or more of the adopted transportation solution categories identified in Table T-2. Specific improvements within each solution category are provided as examples in the Supporting Document, Table T-4 or other comparable improvements determined by the City to achieve the intended transportation performance outcome.”
Question 8.
The Context Classification Map lives in the EDCM (Appendix D). It is not among the maps proposed for adoption (Illustrations T-01a through T-18). Transmitted Action Strategy 9.11, if adopted, would direct staff to update it in the EDCM “simultaneously with site approval,” and adds: “If updates result in a major modification, the Comprehensive Plan shall also be amended” (Note 1).
The administrative update to the EDCM map is clear.
The second sentence is not. It does not say what a major modification is and does not say which part of the Comprehensive Plan, as amended, must be updated.
What is a “major modification,” and what happens to the EDCM map if the plan amendment it triggers is not approved?
(a) What is a “major modification”? (Definition/Provision)
(b) Which part of the Comprehensive Plan, as amended, would such an amendment touch, given that the map is not in it? (Chapter/Provision)
(c) Under transmitted AS 9.11, if adopted: when an update is a major modification, is the EDCM map still changed at site approval, before the Commission acts on the plan amendment? (Yes/No)
(d) If yes, and the Commission declines the amendment, which governs the street’s transmitted Table T-1 target – the EDCM map or the Comprehensive Plan? (EDCM/Plan)
Notes:
18. Transmitted AS 9.11, Context Classification Update (p. 127 of 399; identical in the voted package): “The City shall regularly review and update the Context Classifications within the Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM) to reflect changes in existing and future land use. As new development is approved in areas with unimproved right-of-way, the Context Classification Map shall be updated simultaneously with site approval. If updates result in a major modification, the Comprehensive Plan shall also be amended to ensure consistency across planning documents.” EDCM 2024 § 3.2: the map of context classifications “is located in Appendix D.”
19. The context assigned to a street on the EDCM map selects the transmitted Table T-1 row, and so the planning target and maximum allowable V/C, that apply to it (pp. 114–115 of 399).
Question 9.
Action Strategy 1.18, Balanced Multimodal Investment, in the voted package “ensure[d] Multi Modal Transportation Impact Fee (MMTIF) revenues are invested in a balanced manner across the City, with priority given to areas that demonstrate transportation accessibility needs, redevelopment potential, or affordability objectives.”
Transmitted AS 1.18 removed the priority clause. It is not the only text that changed between the voted package and the transmitted amendment (Note 3).
On what basis was the investment-priority language deleted after the vote, what else changed after the vote, and what now directs where MMTIF revenues are invested?
(a) What was the basis for the deletion? (Basis)
(b) Where in the transmitted package is the change disclosed? (Page)
(c) Provide a complete list of every difference between the package voted on August 3 (396 pp.) and the package transmitted (399 pp.), with the basis for each. (List)
(d) Which of those changes, if any, will be reversed before adoption? (List)
Notes:
20. AS 1.18 as voted on August 3, 2026 (Exhibit A to Resolution No. 26R-3403, p. 96 of 396): “The City shall ensure that Multi Modal Transportation Impact Fee (MMTIF) revenues are invested in a balanced manner across the City, with priority given to areas that demonstrate transportation accessibility needs, redevelopment potential, or affordability objectives.”
21. AS 1.18 as transmitted (p. 113 of 399): “The City shall ensure that Multi Modal Transportation Impact Fee (MMTIF) revenues are invested across the City.” The Evaluation Matrix in the same package retains “in a balanced manner” (Proposed Revision column, p. 24 of 399) and the full priority clause (summary table, p. 83 of 399).
22. Support Document (transmitted, not for adoption), Section 9, Transportation and Land Use Coordination. As voted (p. 170 of 396), the section opened with five implementation principles, including “Safety for vulnerable roadway users is prioritized over vehicular throughput” and “V/C ratios are interpreted relative to context rather than as uniform systemwide limits.” As transmitted (p. 189 of 399), the principles are gone and the section opens with a paragraph identical to the opening of Section 10 (p. 194 of 399), whose cross-references “(Section 2)” through “(Section 5)” name subjects located at Sections 5, 6, 7, and 9.
Question 10.
SB 180 bars the City, through October 1, 2027, from proposing or adopting a comprehensive plan amendment “more restrictive or burdensome” than the plan in effect on August 1, 2024.
The adopted plan measures road performance by LOS D outside the TCEA and LOS E inside it, with V/C applied only where those are exceeded (Note 1). The transmitted amendment measures it by V/C directly: Table T-1 maxima of 0.85 to 1.00 by context for City-owned streets, and a 1.00 trigger in AS 1.4 for any segment (Note 2). Whether the change is more restrictive depends on where LOS D and LOS E fall on the V/C scale.
Under the transmitted thresholds, will a developer owe more mitigation than today, less, or the same?
(a) Under the City’s methodology, what V/C corresponds to the adopted LOS D standard? To LOS E? (Values)
(b) Is any transmitted Table T-1 maximum allowable V/C lower than the value for the adopted standard that applies to that context? (Yes/No; Contexts)
(c) If yes: is a segment that meets the adopted standard but exceeds its Table T-1 maximum subject to mitigation under the transmitted amendment that it is not subject to today? (Yes/No)
(d) Is any transmitted threshold higher than the adopted one – a segment that fails adopted LOS D or E but meets its Table T-1 maximum or sits below AS 1.4’s 1.00? (Yes/No; Contexts)
(e) Was the Legal review the Matrix recommends for AS 1.4 completed before transmittal, and did it make this comparison? (Yes/No; Document)
Notes:
23. Adopted Future Land Use Chapter (publication 03/09/2026), Attachment 5, pp. LU-100–101: LOS D on roadways outside the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area; LOS E within it; where a roadway exceeds those standards, “the Level of Service standard for those roadways shall be the volume to capacity ratio of the roadway” (Alternative LOS). Same text in adopted AS 1.1, 2017 Transportation Chapter, pp. T-5–T-6.
24. Transmitted Table T-1 (pp. 114–115 of 399), Maximum Allowable V/C: Suburban Residential (C3R) 0.85; Suburban Commercial & Industrial (C3C) 0.85; Urban General Residential (C4) 0.90; Urban General Commercial/Mixed Use (C4) 0.90; Urban Village (C5) 0.95; Downtown Core (C5) 1.00. Transmitted AS 1.4 (p. 111): mitigation duty triggered on a segment “operating above a V/C ratio of 1.00 under existing conditions.”
25. Evaluation Matrix, p. 21 of 399, transmitted AS 1.4, Comment column: “Legal review is recommended to confirm consistency with Florida Statute §163.3180 and Senate Bill 180 requirements.”
Question 11.
The Staff Report says that because a 2023 statute requires two planning periods, “the existing chapter does not meet the new state requirement and must be updated.” The next Evaluation and Appraisal is due in December 2029 (Note 1).
The statute’s mechanism for meeting new state requirements is the Evaluation and Appraisal: every seven years the City determines whether amendments are needed and, if so, transmits them within one year (Note 2).
What provision of the Florida Statutes requires the adopted Transportation Chapter to be updated before the December 2029 evaluation?
(a) Does any statute require the update before December 2029? (Yes/No; Provision)
(b) If no, what is the basis for “must be updated” in the Staff Report? (Basis)
Notes:
26. Staff Report, p. 365 of 399: “The Florida Statutes was revised in 2023 to require that comprehensive plans are now required to have at least two planning periods … The existing Transportation Chapter was last updated in May 2017 and includes a planning horizon for the year 2030. Therefore, the existing chapter does not meet the new state requirement and must be updated.” The report gives the next Evaluation and Appraisal as “due in December 2029.”
27. § 163.3177(5)(a), Fla. Stat., as amended by SB 1604 (2023), effective July 1, 2023: each plan “must include at least two planning periods, one covering at least the first 10-year period occurring after the plan’s adoption and one covering at least a 20-year period.” § 163.3191(1): “At least once every 7 years, each local government shall evaluate its comprehensive plan to determine if plan amendments are necessary to reflect a minimum planning period of at least 10 years as provided in s. 163.3177(5) or to reflect changes in state requirements.” (2): if necessary, “the local government shall prepare and transmit within 1 year such plan amendment or amendments.”
Question 12.
The Staff Report says each amendment updating the comprehensive plan “will be submitted … in accordance with the State Expedited Review Process,” and that “the goal is to complete updates to the entire comprehensive plan prior to the next Evaluation and Appraisal which is due in December 2029” (Note 1).
The statute reserves state coordinated review for amendments that “update a comprehensive plan based on an evaluation and appraisal” (Question 11); every other amendment goes through expedited review (Note 2). Staff confirmed the distinction on August 3: coordinated review “is limited for us to the evaluation and appraisal” (Note 3).
Under the stated schedule, which amendment, if any, will be reviewed under the state coordinated process?
(a) Which amendment? (Name/None)
(b) If none: is the chapter-by-chapter schedule ahead of the evaluation, all under expedited review, elected by the City or compelled by statute? (Elected/Compelled)
(c) If the answer is “whatever the 2029 evaluation identifies”: which chapters, if any, will not have been updated under expedited review before then? (Chapters/None)
Notes:
28. Staff Report, p. 365 of 399 (identical at p. 362 of 396): “The City Commission authorized staff to process amendments in order to update the comprehensive [plan] on January 20, 2026. Each amendment will be submitted to the Florida Department of Commerce and review agencies in accordance with the State Expedited Review Process.” And: “Following the Transportation Chapter, amendments to the Historic Preservation, Governmental Coordination, and Recreation and Open Space Chapters will be processed later this year. The goal is to complete updates to the entire comprehensive plan prior to the next Evaluation and Appraisal which is due in December 2029.”
29. § 163.3184(2)(c), Fla. Stat.: plan amendments that “update a comprehensive plan based on an evaluation and appraisal pursuant to s. 163.3191 … must follow the state coordinated review process in subsection (4).” § 163.3184(3)(a): the expedited process “shall apply to all amendments except as provided in paragraphs (2)(b) and (c).”
30. David Smith, Manager of Long-Range Planning, August 3, 2026, captions 2:11:42–2:11:54 PM: “State expedited review is what local government can do, however many times they wish to do it. Do it year to year or state coordinated review, it’s limited for us to the evaluation and appraisal.”
Jen Ahearn-Koch
City Commissioner
City of Sarasota
Grant Application: The Magic 8-Ball Says ‘Wait Until November 3rd’
To: Arthur Lindemanis
Please let me start with thanking you for your work supporting the City of Sarasota’s open spaces and educational efforts. I know that our staff has communicated with you about the restraints that we are facing with Amendment Three on the November 3rd ballot. As shared with you back in July, we cannot commit to any in-kind services or city resources until after we know the outcome of vote. I am happy to write a letter of support for your program, but I cannot agree to continuation of use of City resources, direct or indirect, until after November 3rd. I trust that you can understand the City’s situation at this time.
Karie Friling
City Manager
City of Sarasota
Grant Application: The Great Butterfly Garden Standoff
To: Sarasota City Manager Karie Friling
MHI “Nurture Through Nature” Grant Application to Gulf Coast Community Foundation
Multicultural Health Institute (MHI) plans to resubmit our $20,000 “Nurture Through Nature” grant application to Gulf Coast Community Grant (GCCF) by the end of September. To do so, I need a letter from the City of Sarasota granting us permission to access Pioneer Park to continue maintaining and expanding the butterfly garden that we planted in 2019-2020.
The total value to the community exceeds $50.000, including donations and volunteer labor. This includes extensive summer outdoor activities for Sarasota kids (see below).
No funds or resources are being requested from the City.
I am bringing this to your attention because earlier this year we were denied the GCCF grant because City staff refused to even consider reviewing my “Nurture Through Nature” project for approval until after the dust settles from the Nov. 4 vote on the local real estate tax referendum:
“Any future project request involving City property, Parks and Recreation assets, or potential ongoing City obligations would need to be reviewed after the November election and evaluated through the City’s normal approval, budget, and legal review processes.” Nikesh Patel, Director of Public Works, City of Sarasota, email 6/24/2026.
This “formal” rejection ignores the fact that this project is simply continuing my ongoing Hog Creek watershed restoration activities in Pioneer Park. Since 2019, we’ve conducted these activities in collaboration with the Parks and Recreation Department (City property ownership) and Sarasota County Stormwater Management (interlocal stormwater agreement).
This included the recent January 31, 2026, landscaping cleanup of the 2,500 sq. ft. butterfly garden that was created by Bay Haven Elementary School students in 2019-2020 (see dedication plaque below). With help from Parks & Recreation staff, 30+ volunteers removed 3.5 trailers of landscaping debris.
Our MHI “Nurture Through Nature” project proposes a local grassroots environmental campaign that will engage young students and their families to investigate local watershed issues through a series of field trips and workshops leading to them actually design and install watershed improvements. City staff previously received the May 2026 version of our grant application. The September 2026 version will be similar provided we receive permission to access Pioneer Park.
Please reconsider and provide us with a letter from the City granting us permission to access Pioneer Park to continue improving the Hog Creek watershed habitat. All Park activities would be subject to prior approval by Parks and Recreation.
As soon as I receive the letter, I can confirm continued support from our team members. This includes Dr. Sandra Gilchrist, Professor of Biology and Marine Science, Division Chair, New College of Florida, Dr. Abbey Tyrna, Executive Director, Suncoast Waterkeeper, and Rob Wright, Retired NEST Coordinator for Sarasota County, Sarasota Bay Estuary Program Citizens Advisory Committee and Conservation Chair for Sarasota Audubon.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Arthur Lindemanis
Project Director, Multicultural Health Institute
City Representative, Sarasota County Stormwater Environmental Utilities Advisory Committee
Thank you Annarita! When we all work together, we can accomplish much. Thanks to the wonderful team who did the repair work!
Jen Ahearn-Koch
City Commissioner
City of Sarasota
Pavement Fixed, Faith in Government Restored
To: Sarasota City Manager Karie Friling, Sarasota City Commissioner Jen Ahearn-Koch
You are an absolute treasure to our Sarasota community! Thank you so much for listening and following through. You have been so responsive. The issue with missing paving along my block of Palm Avenue was repaired this morning. I’m attaching a photo of the men who did the work. They were wonderful too.
Please be sure to let me know how I can be of service to you! In the meantime, I will let my friends and neighbors know what an asset you are to our City.
Annarita Scott
Sarasota
Tag, Public Works is It!
To: Sarasota City Commissioner Jen Ahearn-Koch
I have shared your information with our Public Works Department and they will be addressing your concerns. Thank you for reaching out to the City.
Karie Friling
City Manager
City of Sarasota
The Phantom ‘Click-It-To-Fix-It’ Ticket
To: Sarasota City Commissioner Jen Ahearn-Koch
I am attaching a couple of photos of the paving problem area on S Palm Avenue. I checked my files and can not find my original Click It To Fix It from a year or two ago, so I can not provide the old report number or correspondence. I tried opening the website earlier today thinking it might have a record, but to no avail. As a result, I’ve lodged a new complaint.
Thank you for any assistance you can provide in having the paving corrected. If more photos are needed, or if you have a contact name I should follow up with, please don’t hesitate to contact me. I realize you all have many important issues to deal with, and I very much appreciate you taking time with this.
Annarita Scott
Sarasota
The Bureaucratic Mystery of the “Facilities Problem”
To: Annarita Scott
Thank you Annarita for your kind words and for reaching out about this pothole needing attention.
I have copied the City Manager on this email so she can direct this to the correct department to follow up on what “a facilities problem” means and why this can’t be addressed, seems strange to me too. I am sure she will be able to get us a response. I thank you for your patience but also for your persistence in bringing this forward again.
If you can find the original Click-2-Fix work order that might be helpful too. If not, I can start a new one. Just let me know!
Jen Ahearn-Koch
City Commissioner
City of Sarasota
Trench Warfare on Palm Avenue
To: Sarasota City Commissioner Jen Ahearn-Koch
First, I am very much in support of you, and since I don’t know anyone who isn’t, I’m confident that you will prevail in November! Thank you for all you do and for always being kind, knowledgeable, diligent, and “the voice of reason.”
A quick question about a problem I would like to know how to resolve:
I live at Palm Avenue. The paving along the east edge of the street is badly in need of repair. Specifically, there is a long trench several inches deep where the asphalt paving is missing from beside the curb. The situation exists in the single block between Oak Street and Selby Lane. This depth makes it tricky to park, tricky to get into and out of parked cars, water pools up in the trench, and even when dry the depth of the trench a tripping hazard. Over a year ago I contacted “Click it to Fix it.” A work order was opened. But eventually I was told that this is “a facilities problem”, and that “Click it to Fix it”, couldn’t do anything. Would you be able to just advise me, (email or text), whom in the city I should contact, call or visit to try to have the situation resolved?
Annarita Scott
Sarasota
10th St. Boat Ramp Fees: No Bad Ideas (Except Maybe the Current Ones)
To: Mark Germond
Thank you for the email per parking and for your suggestion of a resident parking pass I don’t think any suggestions are off the table at this point and we figure out our next steps, so thanks for suggestion. I’ve copied the City Manager and Deputy City Manager on this email so they can note your suggestion as well.
Jen Ahearn-Koch
City Commissioner
City of Sarasota
10th St. Boat Ramp Fees: It Shouldn’t Cost a Grand to Catch a Fish
To: Sarasota City Commission
I have been a resident of Sarasota since 1984. I worked and raised my family here looking forward to retirement in our lovely town. Being an avid saltwater fisherman, I looked forward to spending many days of my retirement, fishing the bay with my wife.
This all changed however, when the City started charging for parking at the 10th Street boat ramp in the summer of 2024. We used to go out fishing at least 2 or 3 times a week, but no more! We cannot afford over $1,000 per year to launch our boat!
All of the SW Florida counties from Collier to Pasco, except Sarasota, have a daily parking fee, and also offer an annual boat ramp parking pass for residents.
The prices for the annual pass vary from the most expensive at $100 in Collier and Hillsbourgh, to free in Manatee.
I understand that the city wants to collect fees to help offset facility costs, but please consider the impact of these fees on the full time resident that just wants to fish a few times a week. I feel that an annual pass in the $50 to $100 range could satisfy both the City, and full time residents.
And please don’t respond that I could use the Ken Thompson ramps, or go up to Manatee County, as we all know that is not the point of this correspondence. I will eagerly awaiting your reply. Thank you for you time.
Mark S Germond
Sarasota
Amendment 3: The 7.5-Week Countdown to Electoral Freedom
To: Sarasota City Manager Karie Friling
Karie, please relay my personal thanks to everyone who attended our “dry run” of the Amendment 3 Presentation on Friday.
I appreciated the thoughtful feedback which Jennifer and I are currently incorporating. The Dry Run definitely served its purpose as both a “dress rehearsal” of this critical presentation, and also to receive suggestions for improvement.
I was impressed that everyone played two roles. First as a member of the public gathering information prior to voting on Amendment 3. But also as a member of our City Team working together to serve our community the best we can.
Personally, I have started counting down the weeks (7 and a half). I will miss the City Team. I’m grateful I had a chance to work with everyone. This is not a goodbye. I’ve got a lot to do over the next 7 and a half weeks.
Debbie Trice
Mayor
City of Sarasota
