Knight had asked for report on initiatives, with potential of halting those just in design phase, to save money for new jail

During his first Sarasota County Commission meeting — conducted on Nov. 19, 2024 — new Commissioner Tom Knight of Venice expressed concern about the potential that the county would need to fund future initiatives in an effort to try to prevent future flooding in neighborhoods as a result of storm events.
He especially referenced the damage that homeowners incurred as a result of Tropical Storm Debby’s inundation of communities in August 2024.
At that point in his remarks, Knight noted that a Jan. 21 stormwater workshop had been planned for the commission, to receive not only the report on staff and a consultant’s findings but also to accept recommendations on measures to prevent catastrophes.
(As The Sarasota News Leader reported in its Jan. 24 issue, the commissioners agreed on a second workshop, no later than approximately the middle of March, to delve further into the information and proposals generated for the Jan. 21 presentation. Knight stressed on Jan. 21 that he and his colleagues “need to have the courage to do what we need to do right now.” )
In the context of concerns about the need for a new jail, Knight raised the issue again during the board’s regular meeting on Jan. 15. (See the related article in this issue.)
Referring to a staff report on all county capital projects — which he requested in November — he pointed out that the 66 already under construction represent total spending of more than $936 million in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget, including the new $100-million County Administration on Fruitville Road.
Moreover, Knight said on Jan. 15, “We’re bonding more than $688 million.”
Yet, he said, a new correctional facility was not even on the list staff provided to the commissioners in December 2024. “The jail is something that’s not sexy,” Knight acknowledged. Yet, he added, “It’s makes me very nervous for the future of our county,” in terms of the money he expects to have to be paid for a new correctional center. “What I do know,” he stressed, “is that we as a board don’t want it to become an emergency …”
Referring again to the county CIP list, Knight said, “I certainly believe that every project … that’s been approved is needed … but I’m concerned about our priorities.”
Therefore, he proposed a board discussion about “the priority ladder,” as he referred to it, of the county’s Capital Improvement Program for the next five years.
He would like to hear from staff with the Office of Financial Management and the Capital Projects Department, Knight added.
A couple of times during that discussion, he talked about county residents struggling financially. He is concerned, he said, about how much of a financial burden county citizens will have to shoulder in the future, especially in regard to debt service for bonds.
Commissioner Teresa Mast, who, like Knight, won election to the board in November 2024, responded that she just wanted to be certain that Knight was not suggesting the delay of anything “already approved or … in the hopper. … But I am extremely supportive,” she continued, of discussing future projects.
Knight replied that he wanted a discussion about projects the county needs that are not underway, along with how much money the county is borrowing for the initiatives, adding that he feels that the county has projects “coming out of the ground when other things should have been coming out of the ground.”

County Administrator Jonathan Lewis noted that the previous set of county commissioners already had launched plans for a referendum during the 2026 General Election to pay for a new correctional facility.
Chair Joe Neunder suggested that Mast and Knight could have more discussions on their own with staff, initially, to learn the background on issues.
Perhaps staff could prepare a cost/benefit analysis of projects for all of the commissioners, as well, Neunder said.
Knight agreed with the idea of talking first with staff and then having another board discussion about scheduling a workshop.
Lewis acknowledged that staff has not discussed with the commissioners the financial impact on residents, over time, of the planned capital projects. He added that he believed staff could put together “meaningful information” for all of the commissioners.
This week, however, following yet another discussion about the projects list that staff completed last year, Knight finally agreed with the majority of the commissioners — including Mast — that the board members could wait until May to delve into the proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the fiscal years from 2026 through 2030. The annual CIP workshop is in May, County Administrator Lewis explained on Jan. 15.
The December 2024 board report
In response to a public records request, The Sarasota News Leader obtained a copy of the board report produced in the latter half of December, in response to Knight’s Nov. 19 request.
The “Background” section at the beginning notes that the report also includes information regarding the potential of the county’s having to pay a penalty for halting any project.
A chart in the document shows that the total project count is 252 in the county’s Fiscal Year 2025-2029 Capital Improvement Program. Although the commissioners each year do approve the priority of proposed projects for the next five fiscal years, staff routinely points out that the initiatives scheduled after the first fiscal year for the updated CIP are subject to changes in subsequent years.
The board report shows that the highest count of projects for any department in the 2025-2029 CIP is for the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Department: 67. Next is Public Utilities, with 60, followed by Public Works with 53 and General Services with 30. The lowest count is accorded to the University of Florida/Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) Extension and Sustainability program in the county: two.

The report does explain, “All CIP projects (through the planning phase and beyond), if paused would bear the sunk costs for various activities related to project delivery. This includes staff time to plan and solicit the projects plus preliminary design reports, due diligence, and permitting/plan reviews. It is important to note that any financial impact attributable to a decision to pause a project would fluctuate based on the length of the pause.”
Moreover, the report points out, “Any active solicitation would require a cancellation notice to all bidders if the bid is active or working through the solicitation award process. Private design firms and contractors spend a large amount of time and effort to respond to county solicitations.”
Additionally, the report explains, “If a project design is paused, it may cause issues with facets of design including permitting, real property acquisitions/easements, utility coordination, and outside agency agreements,” such as those with developers or entities providing grant funds to the county. “The project design may need to be restarted later with a new design professional,” it adds, if the current firm handling the design disagrees with the proposal for halting the work.
However, the report does point out, “Construction contract general conditions and provisions do allow the County to terminate [a] contract for convenience without cause. They also allow the County to extend contract schedules, essentially pausing [a] project.” Nonetheless, if the latter were to occur, the report says, “the contractor has a right to submit a claim requesting additional payment. These claims would need to be reviewed by the Capital Projects [staff] and the Office of the County Attorney, individually.”
That section further notes that bid prices would expire, “allowing for higher materials pricing. Depending on the project location,” that section also says, “pausing a project may expose the County to increased risk such as vandalism or theft. Project sites would need to be secured at an additional cost to the County.”
If grant funds were being used for a specific initiative, the report continues, the terms and conditions associated with the grant would have to be reviewed, as “[a]ll grants have [a] specific period of performance tied to the award. Extensions are not always available.” Moreover, the report points out, “If grant funds are not spent in a timely manner, the County may lose the grant and additional granting opportunities from the awarding agency [in the future].”
Funding details

The report also explains that the Capital Improvement Program has more than 25 funding sources, including borrows with county pledges for repayment, while other county accounts have use restrictions specified by state law.
For an example of the latter, the report notes that the 5 Cents Local Option Fuel tax (ELMS) revenue may be used only for transportation projects such as roadway and right of way maintenance; roadway and right of way drainage; street lighting installation, operation and maintenance; installation of traffic signs, traffic signals and pavement markings; and debt service for transportation capital projects.
The report further notes that impact fees and mobility fees “are limited to utilization” on CIP projects that will expand the capacity of existing county infrastructure, such as roads, or building new infrastructure within the specific areas of the county where the fees are collected. The county has more than 45 projects making use of those funding sources, the report adds.
The county’s voter-approved penny sales tax — or Surtax — program provides revenue for projects, as well, the report continues. Before the 2022 General Election, when the current Surtax program won approval, the County Commission approved a list of projects for which the funds would be designated. “Surtax re-allocation and reprioritization requires a [County Commission] resolution and may also require a budget amendment if there is a change after the adoption of the CIP,” the report points out.
The current Surtax program is in effect from this year through 2039.

Further, the report explains that in some cases, “projects in the design phase may not have funding budgeted until the construction phase starts.” Among those shown in a box in the report are the planned additions and expansion of the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office headquarters located on Cattleridge Boulevard in Sarasota. The construction estimate, that box shows, is $78,930,264.
A sampling of projects
The chart included in the report that shows the active CIP projects puts their budget total at $2,355,215,624 for a wide variety of undertakings. As of Oct. 31, 2024, $745,420,744 was noted as the available balance for all of them.
A separate chart lists just the 11 projects for which the county’s General Fund revenue is cited as the source, though those also are on the active CIP chart, as well. The budget available for those General Fund projects is $200,410,613, with another $28,053,195 as the available balance total as of Oct. 31, 2025, the chart says.
The most expensive item on the General Fund list is the construction of the new Sarasota County Administration Center on Fruitville Road. The budget, that chart notes, is $100,155,997; $9,575,692 remained available as of Oct. 31, 2024.
The following is a snapshot of the 252 projects on the primary list in the report:
- The remodeling that is underway of the R.L. Anderson Administration Center in Venice, where a new South County Courts facility was completed nearly three years ago — $42,868,852. The available balance for that project as of Oct. 31, 2024 was $807,775, the report said.
- Design of the Legacy Trail Extension Pedestrian Overpass at Tuttle Avenue — $2,232,188, with another $2,188,885 as the available balance as of Oct. 31, 2025. A note with that line item points out, “Awaiting Executed Grant Agreement from [the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development].”
- Siesta Key [potable] Water System Improvements — $3,250,000 budgeted with a balance of $3,249,597 available as of Oct. 31, 2024. A note with that project says it has not begun. Revenue derived from utility user fees has been dedicated to that undertaking, the chart says.
- The county’s Water Meter Replacement Program, for which utility user fees will cover the expense — $35,110,000 budgeted, with $7,273,322 available as of Oct. 31, 2024.

A county news release issued earlier this month about that initiative explains that staff “is continuing upgrading water meters throughout unincorporated Sarasota County to enhance the utilities system and improve response times during weather events and year-round. This project started in 2023 on Siesta Key”; it is expected to take five years to complete the remaining replacements.
The county’s Public Utilities Department has contracted with Vanguard Utility Services to handle the remaining replacements, the release notes.
“The updated meters feature advanced satellite-based technology, enabling water usage data to be collected remotely. This eliminates the need for staff to drive by meters for readings,” the release adds. “The new technology allows the County’s Public Utilities Department to identify and address issues within the system, such as leaks or breaks, more quickly, especially after weather events or other service interruptions and allows staff to restore service faster.”
- Construction of an additional pool at the Selby Aquatic Center at Potter Park in Sarasota — $2.4 million. A note with that item says, “Funding agreement executive with Sarasota Sharks … with anticipated project completion mid 2025.” Surtax revenue will be used for that initiative, the chart shows.
- Old Miakka Preserve Improvements — $1,918,807 is in the budget, with $1,901,788 available as of Oct. 31, 2024. A note with that project says that the county issued the formal Notice to Proceed in mid-November 2024.