Details about funding sources for initiatives to be included
This week, during his first meeting as a member of the board, Sarasota County Commissioner Tom Knight won his colleagues’ unanimous support for county administrative staff to provide detailed reports to the board members that could guide them in regard to decisions on new initiatives designed to prevent the type of storm-related flooding that destroyed homes in the Laurel Meadows community in early August.
Commissioners did express concerns about taking any steps to halt projects that would result in financial penalties for the county, as provided for in contracts that have been executed.
During the commission’s regular meeting on Nov. 19, in Venice, Knight pointed out, “There’s so many different things that have happened over the last three, four months that have maybe changed the dynamics of what the five of us are going to look for in the future.”
He made it clear that he was referencing the documented flooding of neighborhoods, especially the situations that Tropical Storm Debby’s rainfall produced in early August.
Then he noted that, in January, the board members will receive the report of a consultant regarding the flooding. (Genevieve Judge, the county’s public information and community outreach manager, told The Sarasota News Leadervia email on Nov. 19, “From our understanding, [Public Works] Director Spencer Anderson will have a presentation to the [commission in January regarding Laurel Meadows/Hurricane Debby.”)
Yet, Knight pointed out, the board members will have their annual retreat on Dec. 13. That event typically is when the commissioners undertake their strategic planning for the next year.
“It concerned me a little bit,” he continued, referencing public concerns he had heard about county infrastructure and stormwater canals, for examples. “We don’t want to box ourselves or our staff in if we make some decisions financially [in December] that we need to pivot on in January or February …”
He also characterized it as odd that the board members would not learn of the consultant’s findings until after they made decisions in December.
“I just believe that we don’t want to strap ourselves financially,” he stressed, especially if the consultant’s report indicates action that the commission should take to prevent future neighborhood flooding.
Therefore, Knight said, he was interested in his colleagues’ thoughts on potentially pausing some of the county’s capital projects. He did acknowledge that the new County Administration Center on Fruitville Road and the new Mosquito Control facility are well underway. Many other initiatives likely are underway, he said, though, as a new board member, he is unaware of them.
If the consultant’s report makes it clear that no major expenses would be necessary as a response to the hurricanes, Knight continued, then staff could move forward with the other capital projects that have won approval.
Further, Knight said, “I’m certain that staff is tired. … And they’re coming into the holidays, trying to keep the government moving.”
A pause on some projects, he added, “gives our staff time to just take a break, but we can also keep moving with what’s already going on …”
Interim board Chair Joe Neunder initially suggested that Knight “just clean that up,” referring to the multiple facets of Knight’s remarks. “There’s a lot there,” Neunder added.
Knight acknowledged that.
“It would be a directive to the county administrator to pull any capital programs that [have not reached the stage at which their construction could begin],” Knight responded, suggesting a “pause for three months till we get an opportunity to know where we’re at in January … And then we can restart those programs,” unless the consultant’s findings indicate otherwise.
Knight added that County Administrator Jonathan Lewis could provide the commissioners a list of projects that could be paused.
Neunder summed up those comments as “looking at pulling or taking a closer look at” capital projects that are no farther along than 30% of the design phase. “Nothing shovel-ready or already going up,” Neunder added, telling Lewis, “I certainly rely on [your] expertise here.”
“I think an easy way to accomplish this,” Lewis replied, would be through multiple steps.
He and his staff could prepare a report for the board regarding projects that are not already “legally encumbered,” Lewis said, meaning those with “contracts in place [for], let’s say, vertical construction.”
Further, Lewis noted, funding for some construction is allocated from sources that cannot be used for any other types of projects. For example, he pointed out, water and sewer utility funds “couldn’t be used for other projects outside water and sewer.”
Thus, Lewis continued, he and his staff could identify the projects that could be paused and also provide details about the funding for construction that the board members already have approved. “I don’t think it would take long for Kim Radtke [director of the Office of Financial Management] and [Carolyn] Eastwood [director of the Capital Projects Department] to [complete that assignment].”
Lewis expressed confidence that the materials could be ready for the commissioners within the standard 30-day timeline for what they and Lewis call “board reports.”
When Neunder asked whether Lewis needed a commission motion to undertake that assignment, Lewis replied, “We would definitely need a motion.” In fact, he proposed two motions: one involving the information that he had discussed, with the second directing staff to pause plans to bring any new projects to the board for consideration in the immediate future.
Concerns about disruptions to construction
New Commissioner Teresa Mast said she always wants to be “very sensitive to our budgetary impact. However,” she added, “this is entirely too ambiguous for me to even try and have this conversation in the scope of having a motion.”
“I’m always extremely apprehensive,” she continued, about impeding any infrastructure project, as it takes “so long” for such initiatives to be completed. “I do not want to put them on a pause; I do not want to have any obstruction in any way [that would] keep them from being very successful. As we all know,” she said, “government does not move at the speed of light.”
Nonetheless, Mast added, “I appreciate Commissioner Knight’s concern, and I think we will have hiccups along the way, but I know the county has done a very good job [of] being very fiscally responsible” by maintaining abundant reserve funds.
She also told her colleagues, “I do not want to see a pause put on projects I know have taken a significant amount of time to already be put in place.”
Mast further noted her respect for previous commissioners who approved those initiatives, but she added that she was sure Knight was aware of the efforts that led to those prior decisions.
Commissioner Ron Cutsinger agreed with Mast. “I think it would be verydisruptive,” he said, to halt projects that take so much time to reach fruition. Nonetheless, he added, he would support the proposal for the board reports that Lewis had suggested, so the commissioners would have the information to review.
Agreeing that “government crawls along,” Commissioner Knight said he wanted to know whether “any crisis would harm or injure our community” if the board members waited three months to make any new decisions on “spending taxpayer money.”
“I hear you, Commissioner Mast and Commissioner Cutsinger,” Commissioner Mark Smith said. Yet, he suggested, perhaps Lewis could have the report on the status of projects ready for the board members prior to their December retreat, so they could refer to it before discussing any future capital initiatives.
Lewis told Smith that he felt it would be better to present the information at one of their regular meetings the week following the retreat. Nonetheless, Lewis said, “I think I can get [a] memo to you all before [the retreat], so that can inform [board priorities for 2025].”
Lewis reiterated his belief that “it would be better for public discussion [of the information in the reports] at a regular meeting.”
Commissioner Neunder told his colleagues, “I think everybody’s points are very valid,” likening the discussion to an “academic exercise.” He, too, he said, was concerned about obligating the county to spending money on new projects without information about potential financial commitments for the board, to prevent future harm to communities from major storms.
However, noting that that was the first meeting for Commissioners Mast and Knight, he said he also understood that they did not have the knowledge about past capital project decisions that he, Cutsinger and Smith had from their earlier service on the board. (Cutsinger just won his second term on Nov. 5. Smith and Neunder were elected in November 2022.)
Then Neunder said that the details Lewis had proposed for inclusion in the reports would be helpful to all of the board members, especially in regard to “maybe some financial struggles” in the future. Still, he expressed worry about disrupting any project that was, as Lewis had put it, “legally encumbered.”
Lewis explained that some contracts have clauses that would require the county to pay financial penalties if those projects did not continue as planned.
Lewis added that he felt the board assignment would be warranted, with staff providing information on projects already approved, including those that were not “legally encumbered,” along with any capital initiatives scheduled to be brought to the commission for its approval “in the near future.”
He also indicated that he felt the information about the funding sources for the projects would be important to the board members, including details about money available for any upcoming expenses not related to specific ventures, such as water and sewer projects.
Knight ended up making the motion for staff to complete such an assignment, and Commissioner Smith seconded it. The motion passed unanimously.