Office of County Attorney to review language in Florida Senate Bill 180 to determine whether increase would be allowed
In conjunction with their 4-1 vote in early June to once again require in-person Neighborhood Workshops on proposed land-use changes, the Sarasota County commissioners asked county staff to research the actual expense of county work related to those events.
As Matt Osterhoudt, director of the county’s Planning and Development Services Department, pointed out during the June 2 discussion, one or more Planning Division staff members attends those sessions.
Commissioner Joe Neunder made the motion that called for the staff to “do a quick study on the fee schedule and bring it back as quickly as possible” for potential board action.
On Sept. 8 — when the commissioners were conducting just their third regular meeting since they took their five-week summer break — Osterhoudt appeared before them commissioners again, as they met in Venice. He explained the results of staff’s research and provided the board members exactly what they had sought. The total, Osterhoudt said, is $650.
Commissioner Mark Smith, who led the effort to return to the pre-COVID era practice of in-person workshops, made a motion after the discussion last week that directed staff to prepare a revised resolution including that higher fee.
However, the Office of the County Attorney first will undertake an analysis of the proposal to ensure it does not conflict with a state law designed to foster redevelopment in the wake of the 2024 hurricane season. That measure is referred to as Senate Bill 180, which won approval during the 2025 session of the Florida Legislature.
During his Sept. 8 presentation, Osterhoudt explained, with emphasis, that while the property owner and the applicant are the ones charged with putting on a Neighborhood Workshop, “Staff’s responsibility … is to attend the workshop and answer potential questions relating to the land-use petition process — not the petition itself, but the process.”
He reminded the board members that the workshops are scheduled before a formal application has been submitted to county staff. Therefore, he pointed out, “Staff is really unfamiliar with the project details.”
The workshops entail plans for projects that need County Commission approval of rezonings and Special Exceptions, for examples, to proceed, Osterhoudt noted. They also are required for any proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, which guides growth in the community.
“Staff are there just to make sure that we are documenting the process” and providing answers to “any questions about that,” he added.
Noting that she was a member of county staff when the workshops began, Commissioner Teresa Mast told her colleagues that the events became a requirement “as a courtesy to the community,” so affected residents and property owners would have an opportunity to hear about a proposal.
“I think it’s so important that the public have [that] opportunity,” she continued, “but I also think it’s very important for the public to know that an applicant is being very transparent in bringing [the information] forward.”
Further, Mast said, “Staff is not there to give what I call regulatory [analyses; for example]: ‘This can, can’t, should, couldn’t wouldn’t.’ ”
Multiple staff responsibilities
In providing details about staff action related to the workshops, along with attending them, Osterhoudt said that staff creates the mailing labels for notices of the sessions; reviews a county buffering requirement to make certain that the appropriate people will receive those notices, in accord with criteria in the county’s Unified Development Code (UDC), which contains all of the zoning and land-use regulations; and reviews the language of each notice to ensure that it is accurate.
Further, Osterhoudt pointed out, staff uses county vehicles to get to and from the workshops, and staff members’ attendance at the sessions generally comes after regular working hours, when most of the workshops are conducted.
He also talked about the fact that county regulations require the applicant to secure the in-person venue for a workshop and to pay for the postage to mail out the notices.
Then Osterhoudt turned to a breakdown of actual county costs, noting that the current fee for an applicant is $215. A staff memo included in the Sept. 8 agenda packet for the meeting pointed out that that fee “dates to at least the 2009 Neighborhood Workshop requirements …”
The cost of preparations that staff handles for each workshop is $453.41, as shown in a slide that he presented to the board members. The attendance expense — based on a typical session length of two hours, as noted in another document in the agenda packet, is $195.96, plus use of a county vehicle or reimbursement of mileage for an employee who drives his or her own vehicle to a workshop.
Potential ramifications of Senate Bill 180
During his remarks Osterhoudt also pointed out, “There may be some Senate Bill 180 considerations,” as Sarasota is among the affected counties.
The Lowndes law firm in Orlando explains on its website that Senate Bill 180 forbids the following:
- “[A]ny moratorium on construction, reconstruction, or redevelopment of any property damaged by [the 2024] hurricanes;
- “[M]ore restrictive or burdensome amendments to [a local government’s] comprehensive plan or land development regulations; or
- “[M]ore restrictive or burdensome procedures concerning review, approval, or issuance of a site plan, development permit, or development order.”
The law is in effect through Oct. 1, 2027, the firm further points out.
Osterhoudt added that Assistant County Attorney Steve Shaw was present, if the commissioners had any questions for him about SB 180.
“I think it would be good to hear from Steve on that,” Chair Ron Cutsinger said.
When Cutsinger asked whether Shaw believes that raising the Neighborhood Workshop fee would be allowed by SB 180, Shaw replied that the Office of the County Attorney (OCA) “has not made a determination yet …” However, Shaw added, if the board wanted to move forward with implementation of the higher expense, the OCA staff would undertake the necessary analysis into whether the law “constitutes a more burdensome or restrictive land development regulation.”
He added, “I think that’s a stretch.” Nonetheless, he acknowledged, “Baked into Senate Bill 180” is the stipulation that “more burdensome or restrictive procedures affecting land development orders and permits” are not allowed.
After the analysis, Shaw said, a proposed Neighborhood Workshop resolution would be brought back to the commission for final consideration.
When the board members were considering just requiring the workshops to be held in-person, County Attorney Joshua Moye clarified, “Nothing jumped out at that time,” indicating that the provisions of SB 180 would not apply. However, with the commission that day talking about increasing the total fee for the applicants, Moye continued, more analysis is needed.
“I quite frankly don’t believe that the extra $400 — whatever it is — is going to stop these folks from developing,” Commissioner Smith responded. “So my opinion is that whatever it takes for us to recover our costs, we need to do it,” he added, and perhaps the fee schedule should be reviewed on an annual basis.
Smith also pointed out, “I want to … keep everybody in mind that the workshops were in-person before [the COVID-19 pandemic began], and we’re just going back to [that requirement], because we’re not in COVID anymore.”
He added, “So I’m in favor, obviously, of this moving forward.”
Commissioner Tom Knight told his colleagues, “I’m not an attorney, but doing what we did before … I don’t think creates an extra burden, but, of course, the attorneys will sort that out.” He concurred with Smith about moving forward with the changes.
Smith ended up making the motion that called for staff to bring back the revised resolution, with the fee rising to $650, if the Office of the County Attorney analysis indicates that that would be compliant with SB 180. Knight seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
Chair Cutsinger had opposed the in-person workshop requirement during previous discussions this year, given the widespread use of technology for meetings of all sorts. However, he did not raise that issue on Sept. 8. He joined the other board members in approving the motion.
Commissioner Joe Neunder was absent from the meeting, so the resulting vote was 4-0.
Osterhoudt of Planning and Development told the commissioners that staff would plan on putting the revised resolution on a future Consent Agenda of routine business matters. The board members typically vote on that agenda without comments on the items, but board policy allows any of them to pull an item from that agenda to ask questions of staff or offer remarks.