Commissioners talk of desire not to force residents ‘out east’ to help pay for new roads for planned developments
On Aug. 21, the Sarasota County commissioners voted unanimously to direct the Office of the County Attorney to review the major transportation projects listed on the county’s Surtax 4 program, which is funded by an extra penny of sales tax, to make certain that the county is complying both with policy and land-use regulations in funding roadway improvements.
Commissioner Mark Smith made the motion after the board followed up on a suggestion that Commissioner Tom Knight made in early July: that the board members undertake a thorough review themselves of the Surtax projects to determine whether they should adjust the priorities that were set for the 2022 General Election vote on the Surtax 4 program, in light of changes in circumstances.
The Aug. 21 action came during the board’s final budget workshop focused on the 2027 fiscal year, which will start on Oct. 1. The session was held at the Robert L. Anderson Administration Center in Venice.
“We have a great deal of transportation and infrastructure needs,” Smith pointed out. “I … want to make sure that we’re spending the money [from Surtax 4] legally and that our existing residents aren’t paying the bills for new growth.”
He specifically referenced sections of the county’s 2050 Plan for development east of Interstate 75 that are contained in the county’s Unified Development Code (UDC). That part of the County Code contains all of the land-use and zoning regulations.
Following the board review, Smith pointed out, the commissioners can proceed as they deem appropriate.
Deputy County Administrator and Chief Financial Management Officer Steve Botelho did explain during a presentation that a minimum of 50% of all of the county’s Surtax program revenue is allocated to transportation needs, in accord with longstanding County Commission policy.
Out of the Surtax 3 revenue, Botelho added, 52.3% of the funds have gone to transportation initiatives; that program has not been closed out yet, he noted.
“If there are any leftover dollars from … Surtax 3,” Commissioner Teresa Mast said, “or what we are not using in Surtax 4 … I want 100% to go to transportation.”
Thus far for Surtax 4, Botelho continued, the portion of proceeds allocated to transportation work has been 50.4%.
In seconding Smith’s motion, Commissioner Joe Neunder added, “We’re all very clear” about the county’s transportation needs, “but I think, from our attorneys’ perspective … a little more clarification would certainly help.”
Chief Deputy County Attorney Karl Senkow, who was present for the workshop, said he believed he understood what the board was seeking. “We’ll get you something.”
County Administrator Jonathan Lewis did note that, during their regular meeting on Sept. 8, staff is planning to ask the board to vote on another step in regard to the extension of Lorraine Road to Knights Trail Road in Venice, which they and their predecessors have identified as one of the top county transportation priorities. That project has Surtax 4 revenue included as part of the funding for it, Lewis added.
Then, on Sept. 23, Lewis said, a proposed update to the county’s thoroughfare plan will be on the board’s regular meeting agenda.
In regard to the Lorraine Road item on Sept. 8, Chair Ron Cutsinger pointed out, “I think we need to be careful, because … we’ve approved it. It’s been voted on.”
Cutsinger did ask Senkow about the timeline for the Office of the County Attorney to complete the work identified in Smith’s motion, with Cutsinger indicating his hope that it can be finished before the transportation priority review in September.
Senkow replied, “I think we can reasonably do that,” adding that he would be talking with County Attorney Joshua Moye as soon as the workshop ended that morning.
The fiscal neutrality issue
During the discussion, Smith read Section 114-1(a)(2) of the County Code, which says, “It is the purpose of the Board of County Commissioners in adopting this additional one-cent sales tax to relieve existing deficiencies in infrastructure for the benefit of existing residents and not to require existing residents to pay for new growth,” referring to the Surtax program.
Then he referred to Section 124-271 in the UDC, regarding the development of 2050 projects. Smith pointed to the following language: “It is the intent of the Fiscal Neutrality requirement is to ensure that the costs of additional local government services and infrastructure that are built, expanded, improved or otherwise provided for any [2050] development or as a result of the additional demand on those services and infrastructure resulting from that development shall be funded by the owner of the approved development or owners of properties within the development.”
Further, Smith continued, still reading from the Code, county staff is required to analyze “[b]oth localized and Countywide impacts on County, City, State, and Federal transportation facilities …”
A 2050 Plan policy in the Comprehensive Plan, he added, calls for infrastructure that is built and provided in the Village developments to be “funded by properties within the Villages.”
Then Smith pointed out that the Surtax 4 Transportation list has several projects that appear to him to be the requirements of the 2050 developments. Among them area the Lorraine Road expansion plans, as well as the widening of Fruitville Road and improvements on a section of Bee Ridge Road.
Smith stressed, “We should not be taxing our existing citizens for growth that’s happening out east …”
“It makes a lot of sense,” Commissioner Neunder responded. “We’ve talked about the infrastructure needs in the community. We’ve talked about growth in this community. I, along with you, believe development and growth has to pay its way.”
Neunder added, “We absolutely do not want to burden our citizens out east with further financial obligations for roads that they had zero control over, right?”
Noting that he was not certain how long it would take staff to come up with the information Smith was seeking, Neunder continued that he believes “it’s likely a very good academic exercise” for staff to compare the 2050 project list to the Surtax 4 list.
In response to those remarks, County Administrator Lewis told the board members that he believed any discussion about the 2050 road projects should take place with the county land-use attorney present to ensure that the commissioners are aware of what state law allows.
With certain roads, Lewis continued, the state requires “proportionate share” of the expense. He added, “If roads are already deficient … there’s things that you can do with the developer [and] things you can’t do with the developer, and your legal counsel would really need to give you advice on those things.
At one point, Commissioner Knight suggested that the board members could delve into the Surtax discussion during their strategic planning retreat in December. Perhaps that would be the best time to do it, he added.
Nonetheless, Knight made it clear that he wants county staff to provide the board members details about the county’s responsibility in regard to transportation improvements.
Chair Cutsinger also reminded his colleagues that the Surtax 4 program began in 2025 and runs through 2039. “We’ve already revised the list because things change,” he continued. “So there’s nothing holding us back from revising the list … according to what’s going on in the community and what our needs are.”
However, Cutsinger further reminded his colleagues, “I think you know the elephant in the room is what happens in the November [General] Election, because I think that changes the character of everything we look at.”
He was referring to the referendum on Amendment 3, which the Florida Legislature approved this year, to allow voters the opportunity to reduce their property tax payments to local governments by approving increases in their homestead exemptions. (See the related article in this issue.)
If Amendment 3 passes, Cutsinger stressed, “Everything’s going to be on the table,” including the Surtax projects.