Attorney for Protect Siesta Key cites defects in county’s required, legal notice for discussion item on Aug. 25 agenda
A letter from an attorney representing a nonprofit organization that advocates for Siesta Key residents apparently prompted the removal of an Aug. 25 Sarasota County Commission agenda item related to the formal transfer of the 162 Beach Road parcel to Siesta Beach Lots, whose principal is Siesta businessman and property owner Michael Holderness.
Early during the Aug. 25 meeting, which was held in the new County Administration Center standing at 1 Apex Road in Sarasota, Chair Ron Cutsinger announced that Item No. 49 had been rescheduled for the board’s regular meeting on Sept. 22.
As The Sarasota News Leader has reported, following further negotiations between the attorney for Siesta Beach Lots, Bill Galvano of the Grimes Galvano firm in Bradenton, and the Office of the County Attorney, the commissioners voted 4-1 on July 7 to approve an amended settlement of a federal lawsuit that Siesta Beach Lots had filed against the county in 2024.
Commissioner Mark Smith, a long-time Siesta Key resident, cast the “No” vote.
The County Commission’s decision to turn over its 162 Beach Road parcel to Holderness has been controversial among residents on Siesta Key, because the county purchased that property for $1.4 million in 2017 with Neighborhood Parkland Acquisition Program (NPP) funds.
The NPP is part of the county’s Land Acquisition and Management Program. A voter-approved tax funds the initiative, which enables the county to purchase environmentally sensitive lands as well as property that would be suitable for neighborhood parks.
Lourdes Ramirez, president of the nonprofit Protect Siesta Key, has contended that because NPP money was used to buy the property, it would be illegal for the county to convey the parcel to Holderness.
However, during the board’s July 7 discussion of the proposed, amended settlement, County Attorney Joshua Moye pointed out, “Previous boards have disposed of property that was acquired for NPP purposes.” He added, “State law gives this board the right to dispose of property, exchange property as it sees fit.” Therefore, Moye explained, if the board members agreed to the settlement, the Office of the County Attorney would abide by the specifications of the relevant state law in making the property transfer.
The following state law is cited in a “Whereas” clause in the formal resolution regarding the property transfer, which was included in the backup materials for the item on the Aug. 25 agenda:
Siesta residents — including Ramirez — also have contended that the three parcels seaward of North Beach Road on the Key that Holderness would give to the county in the exchange are worth far less than the property standing at 162 Beach Road. Holderness has disputed that. (A fourth parcel was eliminated from the exchange because of issues related to Siesta Beach Lots’ deed for it.)
When the News Leader inquired about the reason for the rescheduling of the Aug. 25 agenda item, Public Information Officer Emily Blaine provided the publication a copy of an email that Shawn Yeager, director of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Department (PRNR), sent County Administrator Jonathan Lewis late in the morning of Aug. 24. Yeager wrote, with emphasis, “In an abundance of caution related to required advertising for Item 49, we will be moving this item to a future Board meeting agenda. “
Lewis forwarded the email to the commissioners just before 9:30 a.m. on Aug. 25. (The meeting was not set to begin until 9:30, instead of the usual start of 9 a.m., because of the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the new Administration Center.) Lewis apologized to the board members, writing that he thought he had sent Yeager’s note to them the previous day.
‘A defective notice’
On Aug. 20, the News Leader learned from Ramirez of Protect Siesta Key (PSK), Pompano Beach attorney Robert Hartsell, of the Hartsell Ozery firm — counsel for Protect Siesta Key — sent the commissioners a letter about the Aug. 25 agenda item regarding Siesta Beach Lots.
Hartsell pointed out that “the statutory notice for this hearing is defective, [as] the statutory findings Section 125.37 [of the Florida Statutes] requires cannot honestly be made …”
He added that the above section of state law “conditions any exchange of county property on the prior publication of ‘a notice, setting forth the terms and conditions of any such exchange,’ published ‘once a week for at least 2 weeks’ before the Board adopts the authorizing resolution.”
Hartsell added, “That condition has not been met, for two independent reasons.
“First,” he continued, the notice that county staff published on Aug. 11 “misdirected the public to the wrong administrative building,” specifying the Robert L. Anderson Administration Center in Venice instead of the new facility located on Apex Road.
Moreover, Hartsell wrote, the notice specified the time of the meeting start as 9 a.m., instead of 9:30 a.m.
He explained, “A published notice exists to enable the public to appear and be heard; one that sends the public to the wrong building in the wrong city defeats that purpose entirely. Statutory notice provisions demand strict compliance, and a defective notice is not excused as harmless even where objectors learn of the meeting and appear.”
He cited several judicial precedents for that assertion.
“Second,” Hartsell wrote, “the published notice omitted a material term of the exchange. The proposed resolution waives the county’s statutory reservation, under [Florida Statute 270.11(1)], of an undivided three-fourths interest in all phosphate, minerals, and metals and an undivided one-half interest in all petroleum in the County Parcel, an additional County property interest conveyed to [Siesta Beach Lots], which the resolution candidly explains is being waived because the reservation would restrict the ability of any buyer to develop the County Property.’ Section 125.37 [of the Florida Statutes] requires the published notice to set forth ‘the terms and conditions’ of the exchange. Neither the August 11 notice nor the corrected notice published on August 14 and 18, 2026 discloses this term.”
Third, Hartsell pointed out, although county staff “has conceded the error in print” in regard to the location of the commission meeting on Aug. 25 — as the Aug. 14 and Aug. 18 publications of the notice bear “the legend ‘CORRECTION: This advertisement corrects the meeting location published in the advertisement dated August 11, 2026’ ” — Hartsell added, “[E]ven the correction … misstates the convening time,” specifying 9 a.m. instead of 9:30 a.m.
Thus, Hartsell wrote, the county staff was unable to “cure” the defects in its notice in time to meet the state requirement for informing the public of the County Commission discussion of the exchange.
Moreover, in regard to the agenda item, Hartsell noted that it was advertised as “Not a public hearing.” Yet, he pointed out, Section 286.0114 of the Florida Statutes “entitles the public to a reasonable opportunity to be heard on this proposition before the Board takes official action.”
