Commissioner Knight broaches idea during April 7 board meeting
In conjunction with a discussion this week about the state’s Live Local Act provisions, the Sarasota County commissioners voted unanimously to direct staff to schedule informational sessions countywide, to help county residents understand the state’s affordable housing law and how county staff is processing applications. (See the related article in this issue.)
Commissioner Tom Knight brought up the idea during the reports he and his colleagues made to each other as part of their regular meeting on April 7, in Venice.
Knight initially couched his idea as representing another form of Neighborhood Workshop, a meeting that county staff requires of all other land-use applicants, to provide details about proposals to people living in the affected areas.
A Neighborhood Workshop is a preliminary step in the Planning and Development Services Department staff’s processing of such applications.
Knight explained that he envisioned the Live Local Act workshops as a means of allowing Planning and Development staff members to explain to the public how they made a decision on a specific Live Local Act application, as well as “the legislative intent on Live Local.”
However, County Attorney Joshua Moye pointed out that, unlike the standard land-use application process in the county, the Live Local Act projects are approved by staff without any hearings before the county’s appointed Planning Commission or the County Commission. In his view, Moye made clear, the type of workshop Knight initially suggested would be pre-empted by the Live Local Act.
After expressing surprise at Moye’s statement, Knight indicated that he did not believe the state law would prevent county staff from offering such details.
His focus, Knight noted, was transparency about the decision-making process itself. “Having staff explain a decision about Live Local would be important to a community,” Knight added, including the fact that the state law pre-empted any County Commission involvement in approvals or denials.
“We’re not violating any law” with such informational workshops, as he saw the situation, he told Moye. “The first Live Local Act [application] that’s approved [in Sarasota County] is going to [raise] some concerns,” Knight said. “It would be important for staff to explain how that decision was made.”
County Administrator Jonathan Lewis pointed out that staff will have to make decisions on Live Local Act projects on the basis of the language in the state law, which is not open to staff’s interpretation.
Then Commissioner Joe Neunder added, “There is not, in my opinion, transparency and public awareness of these [Live Local Act applications] so far.” Neunder suggested that the board could adopt a policy calling for county staff to present details of each Live Local Act application in the area where the project has been proposed. “Is that a possibility?” he asked Lewis.
“I think you could probably do that,” Lewis replied, as long as the community meetings did not delay staff’s processing of the application within the timeframe set forth in the state law.
Lewis did express concern, though, that if staff were to provide details of a project to the public, the information would be perceived as “staff’s idea.”
Nonetheless, just presenting the facts about why an application was approved or not approved “could be possible,” Lewis said.
Any staff remarks that would appear to be an interpretation of an application would not be advisable, Lewis stressed.
Neunder replied that, since staff is responsible for handling the processing of the applications, “Doesn’t it make a little sense” that if it were the will of the board for staff to host a public meeting on the details of an application, staff “would have the most subject matter expertise to deliver the way that these projects [are handled]?”
“They could present on why it was approved or why it wasn’t approved,” Lewis said. “They can’t really present on the details, because … they’re not reviewing those details, either. Either the site meets the requirement, or the site doesn’t.”
Neunder pointed out that the commissioners just have the staff-provided information about applications, as shown on the county website pages devoted to the Live Local Act.
“There’s lots of things about the [projects] that staff doesn’t see, either,” Lewis stressed.
Then Lewis reiterated his earlier comment that he believed staff could conduct informational meetings during which explanations could be provided about why applications did or did not win approval.
Commissioner Teresa Mast also advocated for the informational sessions. “When I’m out and about and meeting with all my constituents,” she said, “they’re asking lots of questions about the Live Local Act process,” including who makes the decisions on whether a project conforms with the provisions of the state law.
She characterized the informational workshops as critical to transparency about the administrative process that county staff is having to follow. Mast also likened the Live Local Act workshops to those that county Stormwater Department Director Ben Quartermaine and his staff have hosted, to explain what is happening in neighborhoods and why.
In fact, Mast suggested that staff could make video recordings of the Live Local Act sessions and make them available to the public.
Knight ended up making the motion, which called for county staff to host community workshops to provide information about the administrative process that staff has implemented for Live Local Act applications.
Mast seconded the motion.
Chair Ron Cutsinger sought clarification that individual applications would not be discussed, that the sessions would be “just informational about the whole Live Local Act process, correct?”
Knight noted that that was his intent, which was why he did not include any reference to specific applications.
The motion passed 5-0.