Public hearing speakers extol value of Land Acquisition and Management Program
On a unanimous vote during their regular meeting on April 7, the Sarasota County commissioners formally adopted an ordinance that sets forth the details of a referendum on the Nov. 6 General Election ballot that will ask voters to approve a 20-year extension of the county’s Land Acquisition and Management Program.
If the referendum passes, the program will run through 2049, staff has pointed out. Otherwise, it will expire at the end of 2029.
The ordinance, which was included in the April 7 agenda packet, notes the “resounding success” of the program.
In approving their March 24 Consent Agenda of routine business matters, the commissioners had agreed to the April 7 scheduling of the necessary public hearing on the referendum ordinance.
The ballot measure also will ask citizens to approve the county’s issuance of up to $250 million in bonds, if the 0.25-mill tax wins a 20-year extension. A positive response to that question, as well, would allow the county to purchase lands more quickly, with the bonds to be paid back by the program’s annual revenue.
One mill represents $1,000 of the value of a parcel.
County staff has been working on plans for the referendum since March 2023, as The Sarasota News Leader has reported.
The ballot measure addresses both the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Protection Program (ESLPP), which began after a voter referendum in 1999, and the Neighborhood Parkland Acquisition Program (NPP), which was launched after voters in 2005 approved the extension of the ESLPP through 2029.
Kim Heuberger, senior manager of the county’s Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Department — who made the staff presentation on April 7 — pointed out that the key reason for creating the NPP initiative was “to allow the acquisition of parklands that provide water access, trails and kind of more urban green space that didn’t meet the criteria of the ESLPP program.”
Commissioner Teresa Mast asked to make the motion on the referendum, which Chair Ron Cutsinger called on her to do after he closed the April 7 public hearing.
Commissioner Mark Smith seconded the motion.
“What a premier public/private partnership this has been and, I believe, will continue to be,” Mast pointed out. “I remember when this was first put in place,” she continued. “I know there were some skeptics, and I think we’ve proven them all wrong.”
Then Mast asked whether Heuberger could tell the board members how close staff is to having protected 40% of the land countywide. “I really want to see us get there,” Mast said with a big smile.
(She also noted that she was aware of ESLPP items having been scheduled for the April 21 commission meeting agenda.)
Heuberger responded, “We’re currently at just over 34%, and we would probably need another 20,000 acres to get to 40%.” She added that lands protected by the state and other entities would contribute to the county goal, along with new county acquisitions.
Commissioner Smith pointed out, “As I’ve stated before, we’re on the clock.” For those residents “who believe [the county is] overdeveloped,” he continued, “one way to curb that is to make sure that we protect the land. So everybody out there listening, please vote for these measures.”
Commissioner Joe Neunder added, “This is a big step for our kids and our grandkids and the fun that we have here.”
Commissioner Tom Knight noted “what the County Commission did well before the five of us got here,” to make the program possible. Continuing the initiative, he said, would contribute to keeping the county “as special as it is.”
Chair Cutsinger added, “I just love this program. What a great success. Thrilled to be able to support it.”
Cutsinger said he especially is grateful to be able to work with a variety of partners on the initiative.
Other commissioners acknowledged the representatives of those nonprofit partners, who were seated in the Commission Chambers of the Robert L. Anderson Administration Center in Venice that day.
As Heuberger had pointed out, leaders of the Gulf Coast Community Foundation, Big Waters Land Trust and the Trust for Public Land were present for the hearing.
“Thank you for the work you do,” Cutsinger told them.
Plaudits for the value of the programs
Christine P. Johnson, president of Big Waters Land Trust, who was the first member of the partner groups to speak during the hearing, noted that the commissioners themselves had underscored the importance of the land preservation program to the community.
She also talked of “how extremely popular [the programs] are with Sarasota County citizens.”
In 2005, Johnson continued, the referendum to continue the program through 2029 won approval of the 80% of the voters who participated in it.
The Legacy Trail referendum, on the November 2018 General Election ballot passed by over 71%, Johnson added, noting that Big Waters Land Trust — in its former capacity as the Conservation Foundation of the Gulf Coast — was an advocate for both of those initiatives.
Big Waters, Johnson said, has partnered with county leaders to preserve more than 9,000 acres in Sarasota County. Altogether, Johnson added, Big Waters has protected more than 20,000 acres in Southwest Florida.
Moreover, she told the board members, Big Waters has created a political action committee (PAC), which will aid her organization, as well as the Gulf Coast Community Foundation and the Trust for Public Land, in educating voters about the Land Acquisition and Management Program and advocating for passage of the referendum.
“It is said that society is defined not only by what it creates but by what it refuses to destroy,” Johnson continued. “Sarasota County is defined in great part by the 34% of its properties” that have been preserved.”
Next at the podium, Pegeen Hanrahan, associate director of conservation finance with the Trust for Public Land, thanked the commissioners for “the leadership [they] continue to show in protecting natural Florida and, especially, this beautiful God-given place of Sarasota County.”
She added, “I have worked with about 50 local governments across the Southeast, and if they were a graduating class, I think I’m going to call Sarasota County one of the valedictorians.”
Hanrahan continued, “Everyone should see themselves in this picture. Whether they’re rural residents, suburban residents or urban residents, there’s something here for them.” She also offered plaudits for “the tight fiscal controls and citizen oversight,” which, she told the board members, “are really to your credit.”
“We will be with you here through Election Night,” Hanrahan said.
Even though the state has implemented strict measures in regard to county staff’s taking any steps to promote a referendum, she added, the commissioners can exercise their First Amendment rights “to speak out in favor of [extending the program], and we know you will.”
Jon Thaxton, director of policy and advocacy for the Gulf Coast Community Foundation, which is based in Venice, told the commissioners that the board of directors of that nonprofit “has dedicated money to funding outreach, education and advocacy to support passage of the referendum.”
County citizens have been so supportive of the program, he continued, “because they [understand] that conserved open space not only protects habitat for … threatened and endangered species and recreation for humans, it also provides for the purification of air and runoff” before the latter flows into Sarasota Bay. Such land also stores stormwater, he noted, which protects homes from flooding.
Moreover, Thaxton pointed out, “Sarasota County’s Environmentally Sensitive Lands Protection Program is one of the most successful in the state.”
More support, albeit with a warning
During her remarks, on behalf of the nonprofit Protect Siesta Key, Siesta Key resident Lourdes Ramirez told the commissioners, “I want to begin by asserting something fundamental. … Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, I have the right to petition my government for redress of grievances and to speak openly on matters that affect my community. [That right does not disappear] because there’s a settlement agreement. … And it certainly does not disappear when public funds and public lands are involved.”
She explained that she was referring to “the potential exchange of a $1.4-million publicly owned land … purchased with taxpayer dollars for lots that, according to [data on the Sarasota County] Property Appraiser’s website … were valued at about $84,000 and are widely understood to be unbuildable. This information is easily verifiable on the county website, and speaking about it is not only appropriate as we discuss the ballot referendum, it is necessary.”
On Nov. 5, 2025, on a 4-1 vote, the commissioners approved an application for a Coastal Setback Variance (CSV) for construction seaward of the county’s Gulf Beach Setback Line (GBSL) so Siesta Key businessman and property owner Michael Holderness could construct a two-story-over-parking, single-family home with 4,190 square feet of living area on the property located at 162 Beach Road on Siesta Key.
The GBSL is the figurative “line in the sand” implemented by county leaders in 1979 to protect dunes and other coastal habitat, which, in turn, protect landward structures from storm surge and other flooding events.
With only Commissioner Smith voting “No,” the action appeared to conclude a settlement with Holderness’ limited liability company, Siesta Beach Lots, in a federal case Holderness had filed in which he alleged that the county had been encouraging the public to gather on private parcels he owns. Those lots are close to Beach Access 3 on Siesta.
The county actions essentially resulted in an illegal “taking” of his property, the federal complaint asserted.
In November 2024, the commissioners had voted unanimously to approve the terms of the settlement, though staff made clear that the Coastal Setback Variance hearing would have to be conducted at a later date.
In exchange for the parcel located at 162 Beach Road, Holderness was to transfer to the county four Siesta beach lots he owns. However, Bradenton attorney and former Florida Senate President Bill Galvano noted, Holderness’ representative during the November 2025 hearing, explained that a conservation easement would be placed on the lot Holderness owns next to the 162 Beach Road site, as the square footage of that parcel was necessary for Holderness to comply with construction standards for the house he plans to build.
During that 2025 hearing and during the April 7 hearing on the referendum ordinance, Ramirez stressed that the property located at 162 Beach Road was purchased through the Neighborhood Parkland Acquisition Program. She further pointed out that the program was created “to preserve and protect the lands that matter to the community.” (See the related articles in this issue.)
Ramirez and two co-plaintiffs lost a 12th Judicial Circuit Court complaint against the county over the November 2025 vote, with Circuit Judge Hunter Carroll ruling that he could not find that they qualified for standing to pursue the litigation.
“Standing” is a legal term referring to a party’s right to seek redress because the party will be harmed more by the planned action than members of the general public.
Ramirez added on April 7, “This [Land Acquisition and Management] Program has done a great deal of good …” Yet, she asked, “How can we trust that these lands will be protected if they’re traded away like that?”
“If land purchased for conservation is traded for less, or if we overpay for land,” she continued, “then it raises serious questions about whether the intent of this program is actually being upheld by our county …”
Ramirez asked the board members “to protect the integrity of the Neighborhood Parkland Program,” and ensure that any land bought in the future reflects “fair value,” remains protected, “and provides a clear public benefit, because once public trust is lost, it’s not easily regained.”
“While we support this ballot referendum,” she said of the leaders of Protect Siesta Key, “we just want to make sure you do things right.”