Spokesperson for Siesta Key Beautification Alliance addresses board before March 25 budget workshop
On March 3, Sarasota County Commissioner Mark Smith, a long-time Siesta Key resident, made a motion during the regular board meeting that day to direct County Administrator Jonathan Lewis and other staff to move forward with a master planning process for the barrier island.
The commissioners had discussed such an initiative at the conclusion of a Feb. 11 workshop during which they heard from representatives of a number of organizations on the Key. Helping the island in its recovery from the 2024 storm season is one of the commission’s top priorities for this year.
What prompted Smith’s March 3 motion, The Sarasota News Leader has reported, was a recommendation that Lewis had made to them: Plans for improvements to Siesta Key should be pursued in accord with a model used in the City of Sarasota to create the 53-acre Bay Park on the city’s waterfront.
A Feb. 27 memo to the commissioners, written by Assistant County Administrator Brad Johnson, explained, “[W]hen the planning effort began for The Bay in downtown Sarasota a consultant was hired to facilitate community engagement and stakeholder input sessions, a needs assessment and the identification of viable strategies. These inputs were then compiled into a master plan. This was a highly successful model and resulted in a high level of community input.”
Yet, on March 25, during the Open to the Public comment period before the start of the commission’s budget workshop that day, the spokesperson for the Siesta Key Beautification Alliance addressed the board members in response to the March 3 vote.
Realtor Natalie Gutwein, who is also a director of the Siesta Key Association, told them, “I am here today to respectfully raise a concern regarding the current trajectory of the project. It is our strong belief that the success of this initiative depends not only on the plan itself but on the integrity of the process used to create it.”
Then she pointed out, “There is a perception in the community that elements of the process may be advancing prior to the establishment of a clear, commission-directed governance structure. We respectfully submit that this be a commission-led process. The sequencing here is critical.”
Gutwein continued, “Before consultants are engaged, before scopes are defined, before substantive direction is established, there must be a formally recognized stakeholder oversight entity in place. [That] is essential to ensuring that community input is embedded throughout the process, rather than incorporated after key decisions have already been made.”
She added, “Our intent is not to delay this effort but to strengthen it, ensuring that it proceeds with transparency, accountability and broad public competence. To that end, we respectfully request the following”:
- “First, that the commission establish by formal action, a stakeholder oversight body, whether in the form of a task force, advisory committee or steering council to serve as a collaborative framework for community engagement throughout the master planning process.
- “Second, that members of this body, as well as any independent manager or facilitator, be appointed directly by the Board of County Commissioners. This distinction is important to preserve the independence, avoid potential conflict and reinforce public trust.
- “Third, that the role of any independent facilitator be clearly defined as process-oriented, responsible for guiding timelines, coordinating input and maintaining momentum but not making policy or planning decisions. Those responsibilities should remain with the commission and the stakeholder body.
“Additionally,” Gutwein told the board members, “we respectfully request clarity regarding the process moving forward, including an update on the timeline and selection process for the stakeholder group, commission input on advisory representation — with final appointments made by the board — ongoing communication as key decisions are being considered, and continued inclusion of the Siesta Key Beautification Alliance as an active stakeholder throughout the process.
“Ultimately, this is about establishing a process that the community can trust,” she concluded her remarks.
As the spokesperson for the Alliance, Gutwein appealed to the commissioners several times in 2025, asking them to invest $30 million in initiatives that would enhance Siesta’s appearance and other aspects of life on the island, given all the damage the Key had suffered from Hurricanes Helene and Milton in the fall of 2024.
Island leaders have emphasized that, prior to the 2024 storm season, Siesta for years had generated nearly 30% of the county’s annual “bed tax” revenue, which is used to support a multitude of efforts to keep tourists coming to the county, including beach maintenance.
During the Feb. 11 Siesta Key workshop, the Alliance provided the opening presentation, which included remarks from leaders of a variety of Key organizations. Among the latter were the Siesta Key Chamber of Commerce, the Siesta Key Association (SKA) and the Siesta Key Village Maintenance Corp. The members of that last entity own property in the portion of Siesta Village that the county paid to improve through a project that concluded in early 2009. Those landowners pay an annual assessment that county staff uses for upkeep of the Village.
‘Two separate paths’
On April 3, the News Leader learned, County Administrator Lewis sent an email to the commissioners, explaining that he had received “a question regarding the status of our efforts with the direction given by the board related to [Siesta and the board’s plans for a beautification investment in the island].”
Lewis added, “There are two separate paths being worked.
- “1. Drafting a task force resolution for the board to consider. Commission Services has taken the lead on this effort and it should be in front of the board for consideration and direction in May.” Commission Services is the name of the county office that handles actions related specifically to the commissioners.
- “2. PDS [Planning and Development Services] and [P]rocurement have been working on a competitive selection to solicit firms who specialize in building and gathering community feedback so a short term, mid term, and a long term plan can be developed. All state and county laws must be followed. The Board will have to [approve] the agreement before it can be implemented.”
If any of the commissioners had questions, Lewis continued, they should “please feel free” to call him.
Continuing concerns on the Key
In the aftermath of Gutwein’s March 25 comments on behalf of the Siesta Key Beautification Alliance, the News Leader contacted leaders of the nonprofit organizations Protect Siesta Key, whose president is Lourdes Ramirez; and the Siesta Key Condominium Council, whose vice president, Neal Schleifer, also participated in the Feb. 11 Siesta Key workshop that the commissioners conducted.
The following is the statement the News Leader received from Protect Siesta Key:
“Although we did not attend Sarasota Budget meeting in person, Protect Siesta Key representatives watched the online broadcast, noting that Natalie Gutwein of the Beautification Alliance presented concerns about the Siesta Key Master Plan.
“While we appreciate Natalie Gutwein’s focus on making sure the process is structured and transparent, Protect Siesta Key has some additional concerns about how the Siesta Key Master Plan is starting to take shape.
“We’re not opposed to the County bringing in a consultant but we do want to make sure there’s true independence there, and that whoever is helping develop the Siesta Key Master plan isn’t also in a position to benefit from the projects that come out of it.
“There are also questions about funding. When we hear Sarasota’s ‘The Bay project’ being used as a model, that raises concerns about things like taxing districts. Residents are going to want to understand what that means — whether it could lead to new taxes or how those funds would actually be used on the island.
“Another big issue is who’s at the table. The stakeholder group needs to reflect the full community — especially the residential property owners who make up most of the island — not just commercial interests.
“And of course, people are concerned about where this could lead. We want to be sure this doesn’t become a pathway to changing zoning or increasing density in ways that don’t fit Siesta Key.
“So at this point, we’re cautious. We’ll be watching the process closely and hope to be included in a way that ensures it stays transparent and truly community-driven.
“Bottom Line: We support a transparent process, but residents also want to understand where this plan is heading — especially when it comes to taxes, representation, and protecting the character of Siesta Key.”
The Condominium Council statement follows:
“Regarding the Siesta Key Strategic Plan, we support a transparent, independent and inclusive process. Parts of the Bay Park model may apply, but Siesta Key is different; it’s a popular barrier island and a home to many. It brings in a large share of tourist and real estate taxes — and more of that should be returned for Key infrastructure. A large share comes from condominiums, also a large constituency, so the Siesta Key Condominium Council, which includes100 associations and over 7,000 households, would be a positive representative group.”