Commissioners Cutsinger and Mast had sought changes to ease burden for people who submit unsolicited proposals
Given the expense of construction, along with governmental constraints related to bidding and the awarding of projects, the Sarasota County Commission voted 4-1 this fall to direct staff to draft a revised county ordinance in an effort to streamline the process for persons proposing unsolicited public-private partnerships with the county.
The vote took place following an Oct. 21 discussion. Chair Joe Neunder was in the minority, saying he needed more information before agreeing to the suggested changes.
Neunder expressed his belief that “having more [unsolicited proposals submitted] in uncertain financial times in the future is advantageous to our community and, ultimately, to our taxpayers.” Still, he said, he favored receiving more information “before making any drastic changes, [as well as ensuring ] everything is aboveboard and transparent,” as it should be.
Yet, in approving their Consent Agenda of routine business matters during their regular meeting on Dec. 16, the board members unanimously agreed to conduct a Jan. 13, 2026 hearing on the amended ordinance that staff had provided for their review in the Dec. 16 agenda packet.
Commissioner Ron Cutsinger acknowledged on Oct. 21 that he had requested the presentation made that day by county Procurement Official Jennifer Slusarz. His reason for doing so, he explained, is that he believes — especially in regard to future county financial circumstances — the board members should look at alternative means of accomplishing projects as efficiently as possible.
Commissioners have voiced concerns about the potential loss of millions of dollars of property tax revenue, given efforts underway in the Florida Legislature to approve a variety of referenda for the November 2026 General Election.
On Oct. 21, Cutsinger added that the board members are considering several projects “where a [public-private partnership] might really be appropriate.”
He said he feels “there’s a way to streamline this [process] and make it more … possible” for persons to submit proposals to the commissioners. “It’s very cumbersome,” he noted of the steps a proposer has to take.
Referencing Cutsinger’s comments, Commissioner Mast talked of the fact that people in the private sector do not have “the level of bureaucracy that we have, and so their projects are much more economically feasible. And I think this board is looking for opportunities to get significant projects under our belt, so to speak,” while spending as little money as possible.
Procurement Official Slusarz explained that unsolicited proposals for public-private partnerships are handled via what is called the “P3” process. In October 2024, she noted, the board members adopted an ordinance that amended the county’s Procurement Code to clarify that process for submission of such proposals and to reflect changes that the Legislature had enacted in regard to P3s.
How the process has been working
First during her Oct. 21 remarks, Slusarz told the commissioners that an application for an unsolicited public-private partnership with the county must be submitted online, through the county website. A non-refundable fee of $5,000 has to be paid, as noted in the 2024 ordinance.
The fee was set “to cover the costs of staff time and the costs of any attorneys, engineers, financial advisors and other consultants retained to review and evaluate the proposal, provide recommendations to the County, and/or negotiate a contract,” the ordinance says.
The application must contain a description of the project — including a conceptual design, a schedule for construction, general financing plans and proposed user fees and service payments, Slusarz pointed out.
Fourteen other items are required, she continued; they are specified in the County Code but are not required by the applicable state statute.
After staff receives an application, she continued, “Procurement conducts a high-level sufficiency review.” That involves “determining if all the required information had been submitted, if the proposer is a valid legal entity in the State of Florida, and if the proposer is suspended or debarred [from submitting such plans].”
If the application is deemed sufficient, Slusarz said, “it is forwarded to the county administrator.” However, she added, if it is found to be missing information, the proposer is given 30 days to provide the additional material in a resubmittal.
Then, Slusarz continued, within 10 business days of staff’s determination of an application’s sufficiency for the P3 process, “The county administrator provides written notice [of the application] to the [County Commission].” During the first board meeting after that, she pointed out, any commissioner may request a full commission review of the proposal.
If the majority of the commissioners agree to that, the review is placed on the next agenda, Slusarz added.
Then, if the majority of the commissioners favors a full staff review of the proposal, staff may proceed with that evaluation, at County Administrator Jonathan Lewis’ direction, Slusarz said.
Conversely, she noted, the board members can tell staff to reject the proposal.
If staff proceeds with what is called a “Stage 1 review,” Slusarz added, “the Procurement Official determines if the proposal meets all statutory requirements. This includes confirming that the project meets the definition of a quality project,” she emphasized, along with determining whether the project is consistent with legislative findings and intent, ensuring that all statutory approval requirements are met, and identifying proposed financing mechanisms.”
A written report about that review goes to the county administrator, she noted.
A “Stage 2” review begins only upon the direction of County Administrator Lewis, Slusarz pointed out. That process entails the proposer’s paying a $25,000 fee, she said. “Any unused portion of that fee is returned to the proposer.”
The submission of additional information, she continued, “is critical to this stage,” as that is when staff evaluates whether a public need exists for the project, along with “the reasonableness of estimated project costs, and whether the proposal would expedite project delivery.”
The resulting written report is provided to the county administrator, she continued. Then, if the determination is that the project is a quality initiative, and it is in the best interest of the county to pursue it, Slusarz said, the County Commission can direct staff to proceed with the procurement phase.
Previously, Slusarz explained, if staff received such direction, “We had to issue a competitive solicitation.” An amendment to state law in 2024 allows for either advertisement of a competitive bid or an alternate process, she added. However, she noted, if the latter is the choice, a public meeting must be advertised via “the publication of a report in the Florida Administrative Register.”
If the County Commission ultimately elects not to proceed with the solicitation, Slusarz said, no further action is necessary. If the board does choose to proceed, she continued, staff begins the negotiation of a contract or contracts with the proposer, and any resulting draft agreement comes to the commission for final approval.
Easing burdens for staff and proposers
Following Slusarz’s presentation, Commissioner Cutsinger told his colleagues that It would be helpful for proposers not to have to submit the 14 additional items until Phase 2 of the process. That would benefit staff, as well, he said.
He is interested in what the process should entail, Cutsinger added, so the necessary staff review of unsolicited proposals takes place and the commissioners get all of the information that they need to determine whether they want to pursue a proposal; “but, at the same time, not require so much information that makes it heavy on the staff and makes it real difficult for the proposer.”
Cutsinger asked Slusarz whether she would feel comfortable if the call for the 14 required pieces of information was moved to Stage 2 “and maybe allow some more P3 partnerships to be proposed?”
If that is the will of the commission, she replied, that would be fine. “We don’t really review that information till we get past the sufficiency review and get to the Stage 2 review,” she pointed out.
Slusarz then suggested that staff could draft amended language for the County Code and provide that to the commissioners for their consideration and direction on whether staff should schedule a public hearing on the modifications.
“I’d like to see us do that,” Cutsinger said.
After telling Cutsinger, “I’m totally in agreement with you,” though she wanted “to go a little bit farther,” Commissioner Teresa Mast addressed Slusarz: “I think that in some cases, perhaps all 14 requirements are not applicable to each project.”
Moreover, Mast said, she believes that the potential should exist for a proposer to get an extra 30 days if the initial 30-day period is not sufficient for the individual or firm to provide everything that county staff needs. “I’m not sure that’s fair and equitable,” Mast noted of the provision for just 30 days.
The proposed amended ordinance for consideration on Jan. 13 would allow the Procurement Official, “[u]pon written request [to] grant an additional 30-day extension. Any further extensions are subject to [commission] approval.”
If the application still proved to be insufficient following “any approved extensions,” the draft said, the application “shall be considered rejected by the County.”
Cutsinger made a motion that day calling for staff to draft a revised ordinance, including moving the requirement for the 14 additional items to Stage 2 and allowing for an extra 30-day period for a proposer to provide the extra details required for county staff review.
After Mast seconded the motion, it passed 4-1.