AGENDA REGULAR MEETING VENICE CITY ... - City of Venice.

AGENDA 

REGULAR MEETING 

VENICE CITY COUNCIL 

COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 401 West Venice Avenue 

March 22, 2011 – 6:00 P.M. 

This meeting will be broadcast on Comcast Channel 189 on Wednesday, March 23, 2011 and Saturday, March 26, 

2011 at 9:30 a.m. The entire meeting will be broadcast twice in the following week on Access 19 (Comcast Channel 

19) (Verizon Channel 32). Log on to www.scgov.net, click on Access Sarasota Television to see when the meeting is 

scheduled to run. For further information, log on to www.venicegov.com 

CALL TO ORDER 

ROLL CALL 

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 

I. MAYOR’S PILLAR OF THE COMMUNITY AWARD 

Presented to: David Paul Farley 

II. 

CERTIFICATES OF COMPLETION 

Certificates of Completion from the Institute for Elected Municipal Officials to Mayor 

John W. Holic, Councilmembers Bob Daniels and Jeannette Gates 

III. 

PROCLAMATION 

Presented to Len Bramble, Utilities Director: Designating April 2011 as Water 

Conservation Month 

IV. 

BOARD APPOINTMENTS 

Economic Development Task Force 

Steve Harner to Complete the Term of Lee Thacker from March 22, 2011 until 

May 31, 2011 

V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 

Special Meeting – January 18, 2011, January 25, 2011 

Economic Development Summit – January 19, 2011 

Regular Meeting – January 25, 2011 

VI. 

VII. 

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

City Council Agenda – 03/22/2011 – Page 2 of 3 

A. COUNCIL ACTION 

VIII. NEW BUSINESS 

Motion Postponed from the March 8, 2011 Council Meeting: “I move to approve 

the renaming of Myakka River Park to Scenic River Park as recommended by the 

Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.” 

A. PRESENTATIONS 

1. Monty Andrews, Project Coordinator, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: 

Historic Markers for John Nolen Park, Request to Approve Design and Verbiage 

of Signs 

(15 min.) 

2. Jeff Snyder, Finance Director: Monthly Financial Report (10 min.) 

B. ORDINANCE – FIRST READING 

1. Ordinance No. 2011-06, Extending the City’s Consent to the Inclusion of the 

Incorporated Area of the City of Venice in the Sarasota County Emergency 

Medical Services Municipal Service Taxing Unit 

C. RESOLUTIONS 

1. Resolution No. 2011-05, Authorizing a Grant Application for Funds from the 

Florida Recreational Trail Program and Committing the City to Amend the 

Capital Improvement Program to Include Wellfield Park should the City Receive 

Grant Funds 

2. Resolution No. 2011-04, Superseding Resolution No. 2005-14 and Authorizing 

the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to Reduce Fines Imposed by the Code 

Enforcement Board after Receipt of a Written Request and Holding a Public 

Hearing 

D. COUNCIL ACTION 

1. Approval of Parkland Nomination for a Parking Lot for Patriots Park and Legacy 

Trail as Approved by the Planning Commission 

2. Consideration of Recommendations for Board Consolidation 

IX. 

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS

City Council Agenda – 03/22/2011 – Page 3 of 3 

A. City Attorney 

B. Finance Director 

C. City Clerk 

D. City Manager 

Consent Items: ITEM 1. Request for Approval of Change Order No. 1 to the 

Agreement between the City of Venice and Hanson Professional 

Services, Inc., for the Redesign of Hangar Area, Redesign of T- 

Hangar Unit, Bidding-phase Services, Construction-phase 

Services and Project Closeout Services 

X. COUNCIL REPORTS 

ITEM 2. Request for Approval for the Extension of the 

Agent Services Agreement from October 1, 2011 to September 

30, 2012 between the City of Venice and Risk Management 

Associates, Inc., D/B/A Risk Insurance Agency 

1. Councilmember Jeanette Gates: Economic Development Regulatory Studies 

XI. 

XII. 


ADJOURNMENT 

* * * * * * * * 

If you are disabled and need assistance, please contact the City Clerk’s office at least 24 hours 

prior to the meeting. 

NOTE: No stenographic record by a certified court reporter is made of this meeting. Accordingly, 

any person who may seek to appeal any decision involving the matters noticed herein will be 

responsible for making a verbatim record of the testimony and evidence at this meeting upon 

which any appeal is based.

RECOGNITION

Certificate of 

Achievement

Proclamations

Board Appointments

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

These Minutes are not 

Official until approved by 

Venice City Council 

MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING 

CITY COUNCIL, VENICE, FLORIDA 

JANUARY 18, 2011 

A Special Meeting of the City Council to consider Healthcare for City Employees, Retirees, and 

their Dependents and Advisory Board Consolidation was held this date at the Waterford Sports Club, 

1460 Gleneagles Drive, Venice, Florida, 34292. Mayor Holic called the special meeting to order at 

9:00 a.m. 

ELECTED OFFICIALS AND OTHERS PRESENT 

Roll was called with the following elected officials present: Mayor John Holic, Vice Mayor 

Kit McKeon and Council Members Jim Bennett, Emilio Carlesimo, Bob Daniels, and Jeanette Gates. 

John K. Moore was absent. 

Also present City Attorney Bob Anderson, City Clerk Lori Stelzer, City Manager Isaac Turner, 

Recording Secretary Judy Gamel, and for certain items on the agenda: Assistant City Manager 

Nancy Woodley, Finance Director Jeff Snyder, and Administrative Services Director Alan Bullock. 

I. HEALTHCARE FOR CITY EMPLOYEES, RETIREES, AND THEIR DEPENDENTS 

Mayor Holic opened the meeting and explained that council members wanted to bring government to 

Venice citizens by holding special meetings on the first and third Tuesday of each month, with the 

first Tuesday meeting being held at neighborhood locations. Mayor Holic asked for feedback from 

attendees concerning off-site meetings. 

Mr. Bullock presented an overview of healthcare for employees, retirees, and their dependents, along 

with options to increase revenue and cut costs. 

Discussion ensued regarding annual insurance costs per individual, premium costs, and Consolidated 

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) payments. 

Mr. Bullock continued his presentation with an explanation of healthcare costs and explained that 

Jim Davis, Vice President of Employers Mutual, Inc., as the city’s insurance broker, was to secure 

the best cost options for health, dental, life, short term and long term insurance. 

Discussion followed regarding administrative fees, health care revenues, employee premium costs 

compared to city premium costs, defining “ retiree”, regulations that require the city to offer group 

rate health insurance to retirees, health insurance coverage for retirees 65 years old and over, 

Medicare, Florida Retirement System (FRS) benefits, primary coverage, defining “full time” and 

“part time” employees, part time employees not being eligible for insurance, defining primary and 

secondary coverage, and contribution rates for family coverage.

(9:30) Mr. Bullock provided insurance costs from 2007 through 2011. 

City Council – 1/18/11 – Page 2 of 4 

Discussion ensued regarding the drop in the number of employees from 2007 to 2011 and insurance 

cost reductions. 

Mr. Bullock outlined cost cutting efforts which include lower annual fees for healthcare broker 

services, changing dental providers, increased stop loss liability, wellness programs, and a proposal 

to hire non-smokers only. Mr. Bullock handed out and discussed information regarding city 

provisions relating to healthcare benefits, contribution rates, co-pay rates, legal constraints regarding 

health insurance benefits for council members, comparing the city’s health plan with other 

municipalities, and reducing costs and increasing revenues. 

Discussion followed regarding medical claims, employee categories, health insurance plan 

administration, dependent eligibility, benefits coordination, employees with no health coverage, 

retiree health care rates, group health insurance coverage negotiated in collective bargaining 

agreements, and employee contribution rates. 

(10:07) Mr. Turner stated council members would be provided additional information concerning 

employee contribution rates. 

Discussion continued regarding charter officer contribution rates and co-pay amounts. 

(10:30) Mr. Turner stated he would provide council members with additional information 

concerning fully-insured plans versus self-insured plans. 

Council members discussed wellness programs, health fund balances, additional cost cutting options, 

Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) liability, and budgeting insurance costs. 

Recess was taken from 11:00 a.m. until 11:12 a.m. 

II. 

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATON 

Tom Murphy, 1508 Jasper Court, expressed concerns with regard to employee health care costs. 

Henry Curran, 1249 North Bay Indies Circle, commented on group benefit premium costs. 

Carol Patterson, 1551 Waterford Drive, discussed reducing the number of council members from 

seven to five members and reassessing retiree benefits. 

(11:25) Discussion followed regarding implementing measures to reduce health care costs and 

increase revenues, council member health care benefits, fully-insured plans versus self-insured 

plans, and hiring non-smokers. 

There was consensus directing staff to follow up on Items 1 through 6 of Slide 20, Possible Steps to 

Reduce Costs and Increase Revenues, and also draft a non-smoking policy for new hires.


Mr. Turner advised that as staff worked on the budget, Items 1 through 6 would be presented to 

council for consideration. 

Mayor Holic pointed out the need to implement the cost saving measures as quickly as possible. 

Mr. Anderson stated that if a formula was developed to compute contribution rates between 

employer and employee, a similar formula should be developed for retiree contribution rates. 

III. 

ADVISORY BOARD CONSOLIDATION 

Ms. Woodley outlined a proposal to retain, reconfigure, and sunset 15 existing advisory bodies, 

resulting in ten advisory bodies. Ms. Woodley explained that the Citizen Tax Oversight Committee, 

Construction Board of Adjustment and Appeals, Economic Development Task Force, Fire Pension 

Board of Trustees, Municipal Code Enforcement Board, Police Pension Board of Trustees, and the 

Venice Housing Authority would be retained because their function was clearly distinctive and not 

easily merged with other boards, or their function was mandated by public fiscal policies, federally 

established, or enforced city code. Advisory boards to be reconfigured include the Parks and 

Recreation Advisory Board and Environmental Task Force into the Parks, Recreation and 

Environmental Board; the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board into the 

Planning and Architectural Review Commission; and the Historic Preservation Board and the Public 

Art Task Force into the Historic Preservation and Public Art Board. Advisory boards to sunset 

include the Citizen Oversight Committee and Citizens Stormwater Committee. 

Discussion followed regarding cutting expenses, meeting cancellations, Partnering 4 Success, 

streamlining public services, obtaining input from city boards, cost savings, boards remaining 

independent, and board activity. 

IV. 


Dan Boone, Boone Law Firm, urged council to reinstate the Airport Advisory Board. 

Discussion followed regarding stakeholder groups not being governed by Sunshine Laws, obtaining 

public input without spending tax dollars, board costs being financed by the Airport Enterprise Fund, 

and Airport Administrator Chris Rozansky. 

(12:06) John Patten, Venice resident, spoke in support of retaining the Environmental Task Force. 

Don O’Connell, 500 Hauser Lane, supported the proposed advisory board consolidation. 

Discussion followed regarding council members obtaining recommendations from the advisory 

boards and continuing the Environmental Task Force. 

Mr. Anderson advised that a resolution to continue the Environmental Task Force could be placed 

on the February 8, 2011 Regular Council Meeting.


Discussion ensued regarding preparing the necessary paperwork to extend and reconfigure boards, 

whether or not to sunset the Environmental Task Force, and selecting board members for 

reconfigured boards. 

Mr. Carlesimo moved to allow the Environmental Task Force to sunset. Seconded by Mr. Daniels. 

Mr. Carlesimo pointed out that the Environmental Task Force could be re-established, if necessary. 

ROLL CALL: MR. MCKEON, NO; MS. GATES, YES; MR. DANIELS, YES; MR. CARLESIMO, 

YES; MR. BENNETT, NO; MAYOR HOLIC, NO. MOTION FAILED WITH A TIE VOTE. 

Mr. McKeon moved to extend the sunset provision of the Environmental Task Force until May 31, 

2011. Seconded by Mr. Bennett. 

ROLL CALL: MR. BENNETT, YES; MS. GATES, YES; MR, DANIELS, YES; MR. MCKEON, 

YES; MR. CARLESIMO, YES; MAYOR HOLIC, YES. MOTION CARRIED. 

Tom Murphy, Venice resident, discussed council’s approval of the Pineapples Grille signage 

variance request. 

Mr. Carlesimo responded it was his understanding the Planning Commission turned down the 

request because they did not feel it was within their authority to grant the variance and favored 

sending it to council for resolution. 

Charles Thayer, Planning Commission member, explained that he voted against the variance because 

it did not meet the standards of hardship or would not benefit Venice residents. 

John Patten, Venice resident, spoke in opposition to the three minute audience participation time 

limit. 

V. ADJOURNMENT 

There being no further business to come before council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:27 p.m. 

ATTEST: 

__________________________ 

Mayor – City of Venice 

__________________________ 

City Clerk







A Special Meeting of the City Council was held this date in Council Chambers at City Hall. Mayor 

Holic called the meeting to order at 10:03 a.m. 



Kit McKeon, and Council Members Jim Bennett, Emilio Carlesimo, Bob Daniels, and Jeanette 

Gates. John K. Moore was absent. 

Also present: City Attorney Bob Anderson, City Clerk Lori Stelzer, and Recording Secretary 

Judy Gamel. 

Mayor Holic announced that a Private Attorney-Client Session would be held pursuant to Florida 

Statute 286.011(8) to discuss City of Venice v. Martha Gwynn (appeal). 

In attendance will be City Attorney Bob Anderson, Mayor John Holic, Vice Mayor Kit McKeon, 

Councilmembers Jeanette Gates, Emilio Carlesimo, Jim Bennett, and Bob Daniels, City Manager 

Isaac Turner, Andrea E. Zelman, Esquire, and Roberts Court Reporting. 

The session will last approximately two hours, after which the special council meeting will 

reconvene in Council Chambers. 

(11 :15) Mayor Holic announced that the Private Attorney-Client Session was over and the special 

meeting was reconvened. 

ADJOURNMENT 


ATTEST: 

______________________________ 


______________________________ 






ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUMMIT 

VENICE CITY COUNCIL 

VENICE, FLORIDA 

January 19, 2011 

A Special Meeting of the Venice City Council, Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners, 

City of Sarasota Commissioners, and City of North Port Commissioners was held this date at the 

Venice Community Center, 326 Nokomis Avenue, Venice, Florida. Sarasota County Commission 

Chair Nora Patterson called the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m. 


The following officials were present: Mayor John Holic, Vice Mayor Kit McKeon, Council 

Members Bob Daniels, Jim Bennett, Emilio Carlesimo, and Jeanette Gates; City Manager 

Isaac Turner; and City Recording Secretary Judy Gamel; Sarasota County Board of County 

Commissioners Chair Nora Patterson, Vice Chair Carolyn J. Mason, Commissioners Joseph A. 

Barbetta, Christine Robinson, and Jon Thaxton, Chief Financial Planning Officer Jeffrey Seward, 

Deputy County Attorney Kathleen Schneider, and Deputy Clerks Spring Dickson and Patti Mazzie; 

City of Sarasota Mayor Kelly Kirschner, Commissioners Suzanne Atwell and Richard Clapp, City 

Manager Robert Bartolotta, Assistant City Attorney Michael Connolly, and Deputy City Auditor and 

Clerk Karen McGowan; City of North Port Chair Jim Blucher, Vice Chair Tom Jones, 

Commissioners David Garofalo, Michael Treubert, and Linda Yates, Interim City Manager 

Terry Lewis, City Attorney Robert Robinson, North Port City Economic Development Manager 

Allan Lane, and City Clerk Helen Raimbeau; and Town of Longboat Key Mayor George Spoll and 

Vice Mayor Jim Brown. 

For certain items on the agenda: Sarasota Convention and Visitors Bureau Board of Directors Chair 

Mark Becker, Sarasota Convention and Visitors Bureau Marketing and Sales Director 

Ann Zavorskas, Economic Development Corporation (EDC) President Kathy Baylis, and Florida 

Senator Nancy Detert. 

I. OVERVIEW OF SUMMIT OBJECTIVES - BOARD OF COUNTY 

COMMISSIONERS CHAIR NORA PATTERSON 

After introductions, Ms. Patterson stated the meeting provided jurisdictions an opportunity to not 

only share economic initiatives, but also to learn what other areas were planning. 

Ms. Detert reported she was recently named Chair of the Commerce and Tourism Committee in 

charge of recruiting new business, supporting existing business, and making up for financial deficits 

such as the Unemployment Compensation Fund which was depleted due to increases in 

unemployment.

City Council Economic Development Summit – 1/19/11 – Page 2 of 3 

II. 

UPDATE ON CURRENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES 

A) SARASOTA COUNTY 

Mr. Seward provided an overview of Sarasota County’s economic development initiatives including 

creating jobs, stimulating demand for local products and services, and attracting, retaining, and 

growing businesses by providing economic stimulation through tax exemptions, incentive programs, 

and tax refunds, in addition to storefront improvement programs, marketing tools, business 

recruitment efforts, and assistance from the EDC and Chamber of Commerce. 

B) SARASOTA COUNTY – DISCUSSION OF COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS ON 

JOB CREATION TAX EXEMPTION REFERENDUM 

Mr. Seward discussed collaborative efforts including over $200 million in stimulus funding for job 

creation such as the Spring Training Facility, Aquatic Nature Center, funding to non-profit 

organizations, Qualified Target Industry tax refunds, investments in local businesses, film 

production incentives, and sports tourism. 

C) CITY OF NORTH PORT 

(9:28) Mr. Blucher noted that North Port was beginning to see signs of economic recovery. 

Mr. Lane, pointing out that North Port was Sarasota County’s largest city, reviewed incentives 

including the Small Business Assistance Program, business recruitment, marketing, ad valorem tax 

exemptions, the local business preference ordinance, economic development grants, impact fee 

mitigation, and expedited plans review and permitting. Mr. Lane advised that future incentives 

include Industrial Development Authority, Foreign Trade Zone, and EB5 Visa Regional Investment, 

a flexible path to obtaining a green card based on a U.S. investment. 

D) CITY OF VENICE 

Mr. Turner provided an overview of economic development including the expansion of Tervis 

Tumbler and PGT Industries, and construction of the Knight’s Trail Business Park. Mr. Turner 

outlined the Partnering 4 Success project which streamlines the city’s permitting process, efforts to 

complete the Airport Layout and Master Plans, special maintenance and infrastructure projects 

which support downtown businesses, and partnerships with the Economic Development Council, the 

Venice Area Chamber of Commerce, Venice MainStreet, the Economic Development Task Force, 

and other local government entities. 

E) CITY OF SARASOTA 

(9:58) Mayor Kirschner commented on Sarasota County’s efforts to attract sports tourism. 

Mr. Bartolotta reviewed objectives emphasizing community partnerships, utilizing city assets and 

becoming more business friendly, and creating jobs and retaining existing businesses. Mr. 

Bartolotta also commented on implementation of Sarasota’s wayfinding program and efforts to 

attract additional tourism dollars, and concluded his presentation with a review of the Newtown 

Store Front Grant Program.

City Council Economic Development Summit – 1/19/11 – Page 3 of 3 

F) TOWN OF LONGBOAT KEY 

Mayor Spoll provided an update on current and planned economic development projects including 

new business development, rehabilitation projects, and beach renourishment. 

G) SARASOTA CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU (SCVB) 

Mr. Becker spoke on the role of the SCVB to make Sarasota County the “must experience” 

destination on the Gulf Coast by creating a positive image promoting tourism. Mr. Becker reviewed 

numbers reflecting a small increase in hotel occupancy which was somewhat affected by the BP oil 

spill and leisure trends, and presented proposed advertising and ecotourism campaigns, along with 

future plans for international air service, enactment of the U.S. Corporation for Travel Promotion, 

and partnerships with the Baltimore Orioles and the new rowing facility. 

Discussion followed regarding alternate tourism opportunities and branding campaigns, luxury 

products, outdoor activities, attracting diverse age groups, ecotourism, and age appropriate 

publications. 

H) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 

Ms. Baylis outlined strategic plan goals to retain and expand businesses, and 2010 accomplishments 

including recruitment campaigns, international business development, economic gardening 

programs, venture capital development, staff enhancements, strategic leadership teams, and 

strengthened partnerships. Ms. Baylis presented a brief overview of the Film and Entertainment 

office, reviewed funding sources, the 2011 business plan, and goals to increase jobs and wages. 

Discussion followed regarding collaborating with neighboring counties, partnering with utility 

companies to provide energy saving incentives, marketing local medical facilities, utilization of 

methane gas, streamlining building permit processes, and change of use permits. 

III. 

ADJOURNMENT 

There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 11:13 a.m. 

ATTEST: 






MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING 



A Regular Meeting of the City Council was held this date in Council Chambers at City Hall. Mayor 

Holic called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 



Kit McKeon and Council Members Jim Bennett, Emilio Carlesimo, Bob Daniels, and Jeanette Gates. 

John K. Moore was absent. 

Also present: City Attorney Bob Anderson, City Clerk Lori Stelzer, City Manager Isaac Turner, 

Recording Secretary Judy Gamel, and for certain items on the agenda: Finance Director Jeff Snyder, 

City Engineer Kathleen Weeden, Planning Administrator Chad Minor, Director of Historical 

Resources James Hagler, and Airport Administrator Chris Rozansky. 

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 

The City Clerk offered the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Holic. 

I. PROCLAMATION 

Mayor Holic presented a proclamation to Emily Christie, President Literacy Council, Venice High 

School, designating February 2011 as Literacy Awareness Month and January 31 to February 4, 

2011 as Venice High School Literacy Week. 

II. 

SERVICE AWARDS 

Mayor Holic presented a 20-year service award to Michael Carello, Solid Waste Equipment 

Operator, Public Works Department. 

III. 

BOARD APPOINTMENTS 

Mr. McKeon moved to approve the Mayor’s recommendation to reappoint Gregory R. Shanika, 

Barry Snyder and Sid Shrauger to the Planning Commission to serve terms from February 1, 2011 

until January 31, 2014. Seconded by Mr. Bennett. MOTION CARRIED ON VOICE VOTE 

UNANIMOUSLY.


IV. 

CITY MANAGER PERFORMANCE REVIEW BY CITY COUNCIL 

Without objection, Mayor Holic reordered the agenda and discussed action taken by a council 

member concerning offering city funds on a quid pro quo basis to the city manager. 

Without objection, Mayor Holic returned to the order of business. 

V. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION 

(1:47) Evelyn Barritt, 416 Park Boulevard North, spoke in support of the city manager. 

Roger Effron, 293 Mestre Place, commented on efficient government processes. 

Al Veltri, 1207 Mango Avenue, expressed satisfaction with solid waste services and dissatisfaction 

with city utility billing. 

VI. 

RICH CARROLL, JIM HANKS AND MARTY BLACK, VENICE CHALLENGER 

BASEBALL, INC.: CHALLENGER BASEBALL COMPLEX - APPROVED 

Mr. Carroll provided background information concerning the request to develop an active 

recreational facility for special needs children and young adults. 

Mr. Black displayed an aerial photograph with an overlay of proposed improvements to Venice 

Wellfield Park and outlined plans to construct a dedicated facility for Challenger Baseball composed 

of new baseball fields and playground, trail, parking, concession, and restroom facilities. 

Mr. Carroll stated that 100 percent of the maintenance costs will be covered. 

Mark Beebe, architect for the project, displayed elevations of concession and restroom facilities. 

Mr. Beebe also displayed drawings of proposed signage. 

Mr. Black requested council support of the program. 

Discussion followed regarding Sarasota County supporting the project and providing park 

maintenance. 

Mr. Carlesimo moved to authorize staff to work with Venice Challenger Baseball as outlined in 

Rich Carroll’s letter dated January 17, 2011. Seconded by Ms. Gates. MOTION CARRIED ON 

VOICE VOTE UNANIMOUSLY. 

VII. 

CITY MANAGER PERFORMANCE REVIEW BY CITY COUNCIL (continued) 

Mr. Daniels moved to terminate City Manager Mr. Turner according to the terms of his employment 

agreement effective today, January 25, 2011. Seconded by Ms. Gates.


Discussion ensued regarding council members having sufficient time to review supporting materials 

handed out by Mr. Daniels, Mr. Turner’s performance reviews, following proper procedures, and 

having all seven council members in attendance during discussion of this issue. 

Mr. Carlesimo moved to postpone the motion for two weeks until the next regularly scheduled 

council meeting on February 8, 2011. Seconded by Mr. McKeon. 

Mr. Carlesimo explained the motion assured that all council members would be present for the 

discussion and provided two weeks for review of backup information. 

Mr. McKeon read a statement supporting Mr. Turner’s performance as city manager. 

Discussion followed regarding alleged Sunshine Law violations, council members discussing this 

matter during a public meeting, limiting discussions to the motion to postpone, discussing the matter 

at a later time during this meeting, audience members signed up to speak, and council members 

having sufficient time to review backup materials handed out during the meeting. 

Mr. Carlesimo moved to call the question. Seconded by Ms. Gates. MOTION TO CALL THE 

QUESTION CARRIED WITH TWO OPPOSED. 

(2:30) MOTION TO POSTPONE CARRIED WITH TWO OPPOSED. 

Tom Hodge, 229 Harbor Drive South, spoke in support of Mr. Turner. 

John Patten, 1258 Barbara Drive, commented on alleged Sunshine Law violations. 

Mr. Daniels clarified that he did not violate Sunshine Laws. 

Marty Dover, Venice resident, urged council members to evaluate Mr. Turner after they had more 

time to work with him. Ms. Dover also pointed out the need to appoint a Venice representative on 

the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization Citizen Advisory Committee. 

Mr. Bennett responded that a representative was being sought. 

Mr. Daniels discussed Mr. Turner’s prior performance reviews. 

Greg Silvia, 220 West Venice Avenue, discussed his concerns regarding Mr. Turner’s performance. 

Gary Budway, 1953 Settlement Drive, discussed questionable decisions made by Mr. Turner. 

Majken Holden, Port Charlotte resident, spoke in support of terminating Mr. Turner. 

Recess was taken from 3:01 p.m. until 3:10 p.m.


Dean Calamaras, 945 Laurel Avenue, provided clarification concerning his meeting with Mr. 

Turner. 

Arthur Osborn, 1969 Settlement Road, raised questions concerning council following correct 

parliamentary procedure. 

Mr. Bennett requested that his evaluation of Mr. Turner’s performance be provided to council 

members. 

Mayor Holic reiterated his opening comments regarding offering city funds as part of a separation 

agreement without council approval. 

VIII. LORD-HIGEL HOUSE USE AGREEMENT - APPROVED 

Without objection, Mayor Holic reordered the agenda to discuss the Lord Higel House use 

agreement. 

Don O’Connell, 500 Hauser Lane, discussed concerns regarding turning over management of the 

Lord-Higel House. 

(3:27) Jack Bauer, 718 Bird Bay Drive West, clarified that Friends of the Lord-Higel House was not 

the same organization that oversaw relocating the Lord-Higel House from its previous location. 

Mr. Hagler discussed meeting benchmarks contained in the agreement, including stabilizing all 

windows and doors, obtaining a hazardous materials inspection and mitigating problem areas, tree 

removal, and installation of a donations tracking sign. Mr. Hagler also discussed historical 

reconstruction guidelines and pointed out that all maintenance, repair, and restoration work would be 

financed with funds and donations secured by the Friends of the Lord-Higel House. 

Mr. Carlesimo moved to approve the agreement between the City of Venice and the Friends of the 

Lord-Higel House, Inc. and to approve the scope of services as listed in the Jack Bauer letter dated 

June 24, 2010. Seconded by Mr. Daniels. MOTION CARRIED ON VOICE VOTE 

UNANIMOUSLY. 

IX. 

TOM SLAUGHTER, GENERAL MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND 

CHAD MINOR, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR: FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION WORK PROGRAM 

Mr. Turner stated that a more detailed presentation would be provided to council at the February 21, 

2011 workshop. 

Mr. Minor explained that the proposed work program, which was designed to reflect concerns with 

economic, efficiency, and effectiveness for new staff initiatives, was comprised of three tracks that 

dealt with the Land Development Code update, Planning Area Master Plans and studies, and


Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Mr. Minor said that discussions at the February 1, 2011 

workshop would include identifying partnering strategies and council priorities, along with 

confirming resources and discussing timelines, benchmarking, and milestones. 

Discussion ensued regarding revising the Comprehensive Plan, identifying associated costs, and 

simplifying Comprehensive Plan language. 

X. JEFF SNYDER, FINANCE DIRECTOR: MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT, 

REVENUE VERSUS PROJECTIONS 

Mr. Snyder discussed fund balance policies including target versus actual fund balances, annual 

budget totals, year-end projections, and cost cutting measures including an innovative approach to 

employee raises, no proposed increases in the current year, travel policy revisions, closing the city 

employee pension plan and joining the Florida Retirement System, reducing health benefits, and 

changing to Blue Cross Blue Shield. Proposed cost cutting measures include revising retiree and 

employee health care benefits, changing health care plans, increasing the use of technology, not 

filling vacant positions, and requesting price reductions from vendors. 

Discussion followed regarding retiree pensions, using reserves to balance the budget, decreased 

revenues, reviewing finances on a monthly basis, not filling existing vacancies, tracking savings, and 

the Utilities Fund having a negative balance. 

(4:10) Mr. Turner informed council members that a budget team consisting of himself, Mr. Snyder, 

Ms. Woodley, and Mr. Bullock were reviewing the budget and looking for ways to cut costs and 

balance the budget. 

Chuck Schmieler, 125 Castile Street, discussed increasing the millage rate. 

Discussion followed regarding selling surplus property owned by the city, income from Florida 

Power and Light easements, reducing maintenance costs, and looking for additional income 

opportunities. 

XI. 

RESOLUTION NO. 2011-01, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT 

SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES BY ADDING A GENERAL RESEARCH 

FEE – APPROVED AND ADOPTED 

Ms. Stelzer read the resolution by title only. 

Mr. McKeon moved that Resolution No. 2011-01 be approved and adopted. Seconded by 

Ms. Gates. 

ROLL CALL: MR. MCKEON, YES; MS. GATES, YES; MR. DANIELS, YES; MR. 

CARLESIMO, YES; MR. BENNETT, YES; MAYOR HOLIC, YES. MOTION CARRIED.


XII. 

RESOLUTION NO. 2011-02, AMENDING THE CITY’S SCHEDULE OF PERMIT 

FEES TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER’S ERROR AND ADD A GENERAL 

RESEARCH SERVICE FEE – APPROVED AND ADOPTED 

Ms. Stelzer read the resolution by title only. 

Ms. Gates moved that Resolution No. 2011-02 be approved and adopted. Seconded by Mr. Daniels. 

ROLL CALL: MR. BENNETT, YES; MS. GATES, YES; MR. DANIELS, YES; MR. MCKEON, 

YES; MR. CARLESIMO, YES; MAYOR HOLIC, YES. MOTION CARRIED. 

XIII. ORDINANCE NO. 2011-02, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, 

CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE IV, FINANCE, DIVISION 2, 

PURCHASES (LOCAL PREFERENCE AND BID PROTEST) – APPROVED ON 

FIRST READING 

Ms. Stelzer read the ordinance by title only. 

Mr. McKeon moved that Ordinance No. 2011-02 be approved and adopted. Seconded by 

Mr. Bennett. 

Responding to Ms. Gates, Mr. Turner advised that Sarasota, Manatee, Charlotte, and DeSoto County 

businesses were included as local businesses. 

Mr. Anderson called attention to Section 2-217, Local Preference, and pointed out that Section 3-10 

of the purchasing manual had not been adopted, and furthermore, Section 3-10 of the purchasing 

manual and Ordinance No. 2011-02 were not the same. 

Mr. Snyder stated that references to Section 3-10 of the purchasing manual would be deleted. 

Mr. Anderson confirmed the ordinance could be approved on first reading and the discrepancy could 

be rectified prior to final reading. 

ROLL CALL: MS. GATES, YES; MR. MCKEON, YES; MR. CARLESIMO, YES; MR. 

DANIELS, YES; MR. BENNETT, YES; MAYOR HOLIC, YES. MOTION CARRIED. 

XIV. CONSIDERATION OF DISCONTINUING VIDEOTAPING OF CITY COUNCIL 

MEETINGS 

Mayor Holic discussed public response to his request for input regarding videotaping of city council 

meetings as a cost cutting measure, noting that e-mails favored continuing videotaping. 

Discussion ensued regarding television being the sole means of viewing council meetings for some 

residents and the number of respondents providing input.


John Patten, Venice resident, spoke in support of videotaping council meetings in order to encourage 

transparency in government. 

Mr. McKeon moved to continue videotaping of city council meetings. Seconded by Mr. Bennett. 

MOTION CARRIED ON VOICE VOTE UNANIMOUSLY. 

Recess was taken from 4:37 p.m. until 4:43 p.m. 

Mayor Holic stated that he and Ms. Stelzer would further explore options concerning videotaping of 

council meetings. 

XV. 

ORDINANCE NO. 2011-01, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, 

CHAPTER 74, UTILITIES, ARTICLE V, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, 

DIVISION 2, CONTROL AND DISPOSAL, SECTION 74-265, PROPERTY 

IMPROVEMENTS; AND DIVISION 3, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY, 

SECTION 74-297, INSPECTION OF PRIVATELY OWNED SYSTEMS, 

JURISDICTION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - APPROVED AND 

ADOPTED 

Ms. Stelzer read the ordinance by title only. 

Mr. Bennett moved that Ordinance No. 2011-01 be placed on final reading. Seconded by 

Mr. Daniels. MOTION CARRIED ON VOICE VOTE UNANIMOUSLY. 

Mayor Holic opened the public hearing and Ms. Stelzer stated that no written communications had 

been received. 

No one in the audience came forward to speak and Mayor Holic closed the public hearing. 

Mr. McKeon moved that Ordinance No. 2011-01 be approved and adopted. Seconded by 

Mr. Bennett. 

ROLL CALL: MR. BENNETT, YES; MR. MCKEON, YES; MR. CARLESIMO, YES; 

MR. DANIELS, YES; MS GATES, YES; MAYOR HOLIC, YES. MOTION CARRIED. 

XVI. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT 

Mr. Anderson reported that council members would be provided with the updated Inventory and 

Status Report tomorrow. 

XVII. CITY CLERK’S REPORT 

Ms. Stelzer had no report.


XVIII. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT 

Consent Items: 

Item 1: 

Item 3: 

Authorization to List two Street Sweepers as Surplus Items for Disposal in 

Accordance with the Fixed Asset Policy 

Consideration of Rate and Service Information Opportunities for Rate 

Reductions and Authorization for Purchase of Two Recycling Trucks from 

the Florida Sheriff’s Association Bid 

Follow-up Items: 

Item 5: 

Item 6: 

Item 7: 

Request for Extension to February 8, 2011 for Update on Potential Permitting 

and Construction of the Dingy Dock 

Request for Extension to February 8, 2011 Consideration of Potential 

Relocation of the South Jetty News Boxes, Pending Additional Legal Review 

Authorize Extension to February 8, 2011 for Consideration of Ordinance No. 

2011-03 Amending Chapter 70 Traffic and Vehicles, Pending further Review 

by the City Attorney 

Mr. McKeon moved to approve Items 1 and 3, and authorize the extension requested in Items 5, 6, 

and 7 of the City Manager’s Report. Seconded by Mr. Bennett. MOTION CARRIED ON VOICE 

VOTE UNANIMOUSLY. 

Item 2: 

Approval to Serve Alcohol in Maxine Barritt Park for a Private Party Event 

Discussion ensued concerning Item 2 relating to whether or not weddings were addressed in the city 

Code of Ordinances, Section 86-474, Consumption or Possession in Public. 

Mike Gelormino, 1934 Maple Street, expressed concerns regarding the city’s liability when alcohol 

is served at public events. 

Council members discussed serving alcohol at public events and city parks. 

Mr. Anderson suggested that a more appropriate provision was Section 46-62, General Rules and 

Regulations for all Parks, Beaches, and Recreational Areas, which required written authorization of 

the city manager. 

After discussion by council, there was consensus to utilize Section 46-62 as a guideline concerning 

serving alcohol in city parks. 

Item 4: 

Approval of the Updated Joint Automated Capital Improvement Program 

(JACIP)


(5:10) Chris Davis, 340 Shore Road, displayed an aerial photograph of the Runway Protection Zone 

and the Airport Layout Plan (ALP), and questioned the approval of JACIP projects and the ALP. 

Discussion followed regarding the JACIP project approval process. 

Mr. Rozansky explained the JACIP was used for planning purposes by the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and did not commit 

funding at this point because potential grant funding would be contained in an approved ALP. 

Mr. Rozansky continued that the ALP would be revised once comments were received back from the 

FAA. 

Mr. McKeon moved to approve Item 4 of the City Manager’s Report. Seconded by Mr. Carlesimo. 


Mr. Turner reported that county staff changed their position with regard to park maintenance 

provisions contained in the parks interlocal agreement and requested that the Sarasota County Board 

of County Commissioners terminate the interlocal parks agreement effective October 31, 2011. 

Mr. Turner indicated that city staff was negotiating with county staff and attempting to have terms in 

place in time to solve budget implications. 

Council members discussed economic shortfalls affecting the county. 

Mr. Anderson clarified that the current interlocal agreement regarding city park maintenance was a 

result of the dual taxation litigation judgment that obligated Sarasota County to pay the City of 

Venice a sum of money which could not be provided by the county at that time. Negotiations 

obligated the county to provide in kind service of maintaining city parks for a specific period of time 

in lieu of the judgment, and was addressed in the interlocal agreement which expires this year or 

very shortly thereafter. 

XIX. REPORT BY MR. DANIELS 

(5:26) Mr. Daniels read a statement concerning issues with the city manager. 

Mayor Holic reiterated that Mr. Daniels’ motion was postponed until the February 8, 2011 council 

meeting. 

Responding to Mr. Carlesimo, Mr. Daniels clarified that his conversations took place with an 

Ormond Beach fire fighter union official. 

Ed Martin, 409 Everglades Drive, clarified Mr. Daniels’ comments concerning Sunshine Law 

violations. 

John Patten, Venice resident, responded to comments made by Mr. Calamaras concerning meeting 

with Mr. Turner.


XX. 

REPORT BY MS. GATES 

Ms. Gates provided comments concerning Mr. Daniels’ meeting with Mr. Turner, and requested 

copies of paperwork with regard to proposed hotel projects on airport property. 

Ms. Gates stated she would contact Jeanne Corcoran, Director, Sarasota County Film and 

Entertainment Office, concerning providing a presentation at a future council meeting. 

Ms. Gates requested a listing of city employees and their job descriptions, and also requested that 

city employees be provided a copy of their job description for review. 

XXI. REPORT BY MR. CARLESIMO 

Responding to Mr. Carlesimo, Mr. Turner discussed the expense voucher approval process. 

Mr. Carlesimo discussed health and pension benefits for sitting and future city council members. 

There was consensus that Councilmember Carlesimo work with Mr. Anderson and staff to develop 

language to terminate health and pension benefits for sitting and future city council members. 

Discussion followed regarding scheduling a referendum to establish a Charter Review Board to 

evaluate salary and health care benefits for council members. 

Mr. Carlesimo discussed the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee request that council 

consider an ordinance regulating the location of newspaper distribution boxes throughout the city. 

Mr. Anderson responded that he was reviewing the legal aspects of limiting placement of newspaper 

distribution boxes. 

XXII. REPORT BY MR. MCKEON 

Mr. McKeon discussed the effects of proposed modifications to the Department of Community 

Affairs on the city’s Comprehensive Plan. 

Mr. McKeon commented on promoting Venice sites for filming locations to the Sarasota County 

Film and Entertainment Office. 

XXIII. REPORT BY MR. BENNETT 

Mr. Bennett reported he was named chairman of the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning 

Organization Public Transportation Task Force, and requested that Anthony Beckford, Chief 

Executive Officer of Sarasota County Area Transit, speak to council concerning Sarasota County’s 

efforts with regard to public transportation. 

Mr. Bennett reported on his attendance at a Community Alliance Committee meeting.


XXIV. REPORT BY MAYOR HOLIC 

Mayor Holic discussed scheduling times for evening council meetings, and confirmed that evening 

council meetings would be scheduled on Tuesday evenings from 6:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. 

XXV. ADJOURNMENT 


ATTEST: 

______________________________ 


______________________________ 



(Excluding Public Hearings) 

(5 Minutes Each Speaker)

UNFINISHED 

BUSINESS

COUNCIL ACTION

EXCERPT FROM THE 

PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD 

FEBRUARY 14, 2011 

VII. 

WORKSHOP 

1. Renaming of Myakka River Park 

Ms. Silk announced the park is now named Myakka River Park that coincides with the Myakka 

River State Park and encouraged audience members to come forward. 

(4:33) Don Hay, 106 Woodingham Drive, stated he does not have a recommendation for a new 

name for the park, suggested the park be named to represent the community, and that Tramonto 

Vista Park should have been named Finn Caspersen. 

(4:34) Ms. Cook explained she was late in commenting on the John Nolen Park because she was 

out of the country, and stated she would like to visit the Myakka River Park but it is currently 

closed due to improvements. 

Discussion ensued on the amenities at the Myakka River Park, submitted names including 

Stephens Family, Henry Ranch Park, Venice Scenic River Park, Venice River Trail Park, 

Riverside Park, Venice Park and Riverview Park, naming the park so people will have an idea 

where it is, whether north should be included in the name, complications in naming parks after 

people, staying with a generic name, the park being listed in Venice, and shortening the name to 

Scenic River Park. 

(4:42) Mr. Byington moved the board recommend to City Council the renaming of Myakka 

River Park to Scenic River Park. Seconded by Mr. Alfano. MOTION CARRIED ON VOICE 

VOTE UNANIMOUSLY.

EXCERPT FROM THE NOVEMBER 15, 2010 REGULAR PARKS AND RECREATION 

ADVISORY BOARD MEETING 

IV. 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS 

1. Renaming Myakka River Park – Steve Byington 

Ms. Silk queried the board and staff regarding this issue. 

Mr. Carlesimo stated he addressed this issue with council and council will be looking for a 

recommendation on the name, and reported on the council decision to ban smoking at the Jetties, 

Humphris Park and the Venice Fishing Pier. He summarized his updates to council on the 

distance markings at Maxine Barritt Park, Tree City USA, the pedestrian overpass sign, and the 

newspaper box problem. He noted council felt the Economic Development Task Force should be 

consulted regarding the pedestrian overpass sign and council directed the city attorney to draft 

ordinance language concerning the control of newspaper and advertising boxes in the city. 

Mr. Carlesimo informed the board he asked to be reassigned as ex-officio to this board, updated 

the board on the bus shelter proposal from the county, and answered questions concerning the 

renaming of Myakka River Park. 

Discussion ensued on the renaming request coming from the state, board naming suggestions 

such as Scenic River Park, Riverside Park, North Venice Park, and Akkaym Park (Myakka 

spelled backward), asking for public suggestions, including these suggestions in the public input 

phase, and researching the process to rename a park.

New 

Business

PRESENTATIONS

PALMETTO CT 

AVENUE DES PARQUES S 

!G 

MENENDEZ ST 

LISBON ST 

NOTE: THE PROPOSED WALKING PATH IS 5' WIDE AND 

±1057' IN LENGTH FOR A TOTAL SURFACE AREA OF ±5,285 S.F. 

THE MATERIAL PROPOSED TO BE USED IS ASPHALT. 

50 0 50 

Feet 

J:\ArcView_Files\Misc Projects\Monty Andrews\John Nolen Park Aerial Rev 8-5-10.mxd MCG 3/2/2010 Rev. 3/16/20115 

City of Venice 

Proposed Improvements to 

John Nolen Park 

! ! 

Walking Path 

I- Informational Sign 

nm Trees 

!G Bike Rack 

Disc Golf 

Catch Basket 

▋ Existing Picnic Table 

Concrete Pad 

ADA Ramp Cut 

Barbeque Grill 

Horseshoe Pit

TO: 

FROM: 

Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and 

Nancy Woodley, PE, Interim City Manager 

Jeff Snyder, CPA, Finance Director 

DATE: March 16, 2011 

SUBJECT: Financial Management Report 

The Finance Department is supplying the February budget to actual financial management 

report. This report does not take into account the cyclical nature of many of our revenues and 

expenditures/expenses; property taxes and capital projects are prime examples. The vast 

majority of property taxes are collected during the first quarter of the year with the remaining 

balance collected during the last half. Additionally, many of our expenditures/expenses are not 

spent evenly throughout the year for instance most capital projects and the City’s annual 

financial audit will be paid as work is completed. We have also included an annual projection 

for each fund based upon the first five months trends. 

This management report is more like a cash flow analysis than a report like our Comprehensive 

Annual Financial Report (CAFR) which is prepared using generally accepted accounting 

principals. There are no accruals for expenditures/expenses committed but not paid or for 

revenue earned but not paid. It also does not include contractually agreed upon payments which 

the City will be required to make. These reports are for management only and should not be 

taken out of context; however I believe they will provide a useful snap shot picture of the cost 

containment/reduction efforts taken by City Senior Management. 

The General Fund revenues are projected to be approximately $230,000 less than budgeted 

which is mostly related to a drop in the franchise fees. This is happening all around the state and 

is related to changes in fuel prices. The good news is the expenditures are projected to be more 

than $670,000 less than budgeted. Because of the prudent spending practices of the past the City 

continues to be in a good position to weather the extended economic recession. 

Both the Utility Fund and the Building Fund appear to have turned the corner and are moving in 

the proper direction. The rate increase for utilities will allow much needed maintenance and 

repairs to occur. Management continues to monitor the Building Fund which is projected to 

break even this fiscal year. The economic down turn continues to negatively impact this fund 

however it appears that we may have turned the corner on our way to fiscal sustainability. 

This report is a work in progress which can and will change as we determine what types of 

information are useful for City Council’s review. Please do not hesitate to contact me with 

questions, concerns and/or recommendations.

City of Venice, Florida 

Budget Comparison Management Report 

General Fund 

For the Period Ended February 28, 2011 

Annual Budget 

Actual Amount 

Year End 

Projection 

REVENUES 

Taxes $ 7,590,758 $ 6,573,165 $ 7,621,377 

Sales taxes 1,164,986 212,560 1,210,144 

Other taxes 1,796,498 488,669 1,802,806 

Franchise fees 1,908,315 709,303 1,812,327 

Fees and fines 51,732 12,343 29,623 

Licenses and permits 231,013 64,509 224,822 

Intergovernmental 2,254,128 335,976 2,206,342 

Charges for services 80,788 23,045 55,308 

Interest 247,984 16,327 139,185 

Miscellaneous 344,419 156,957 376,697 

Total revenues 15,670,621 8,592,854 15,478,631 

EXPENDITURES 

Current: 

Mayor and council 253,501 110,935 253,244 

City manager 594,570 373,821 594,570 

Historical resources 149,902 67,775 149,860 

City clerk 544,161 221,381 531,314 

Finance 1,193,329 474,471 1,188,730 

City attorney 473,008 120,373 288,895895 

Public works administration 319,782 93,050 223,320 

City hall maintenance 273,300 87,431 209,834 

General maintenance 1,171,707 467,393 1,121,743 

Parks maintenance 995,613 395,000 948,000 

Engineering 784,664 373,359 784,062 

Police 7,620,760 3,404,378 7,870,507 

Fire 5,548,871 2,784,386 5,682,526 

Planning and zoning 476,314 183,277 439,865 

Information services 886,338 483,979 881,550 

Administrative services 514,610 243,583 514,599 

Non-departmental 626,661 - 75,000 

Total expenditures 22,427,091 9,884,592 21,757,619 

Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures (6,756,470) (1,291,738) (6,278,988) 

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) 

Transfers in 4,035,363 1,342,410 4,035,363 

Transfers out (458,645) - (278,645) 

Net other financing sources (uses) 3,576,718 1,342,410 3,756,718 

Net change in fund balances (3,179,752) 50,672 (2,522,270) 

Fund balances (deficits) at beginning of year 9,773,921 9,773,921 9,773,921 

Fund balances (deficits) at end of year $ 6,594,169 $ 9,824,593 $ 7,251,651



Building Permit Fees Fund 

For the Period Ended February 28, 2011 

Annual Budget 

Actual Amount 

Year End 

Projection 

REVENUES 

Licenses and permits 1,007,219 408,846 981,230 

Interest - 520 1,248 

Miscellaneous 1,376 35 84 

Total revenues 1,008,595 409,401 982,562 

EXPENDITURES 

Current: 

General government 647,105 235,690 565,656 

Debt Service: 

Principal 451 217 234 

Interest and fiscal charges 36 26 10 

Capital outlay 750 - 750 

Total expenditures 648,342 235,933 566,650 

Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures 360,253 173,468 415,912 

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) 

Transfers in 63,645 - 63,645 

Transfers out (432,232) (216,114) (432,232) 

Net other financing sources (uses) (368,587) (216,114) (368,587) 

Net change in fund balances (8,334) (42,646) 47,325 

Fund balances (deficits) at beginning of year (360,212) (360,212) (360,212) 

Fund balances (deficits) at end of year $ (368,546) $ (402,858) $ (312,887)



Airport Fund 

For Period Ended February 28, 2011 

OPERATING REVENUES 

Annual Budget 

Actual Amount 

Year End 

Projection 

Rentals $ 1,855,716 $ 945,838 $ 1,920,011 


Total operating revenues 1,887,401 969,507 1,976,817 

OPERATING EXPENSES 

Personal services 584,309 185,146 444,350 

Insurance 89,252 44,622 89,093 

Professional services 248,877 106,123 248,695 

Maintenance 79,793 15,138 36,331 

Utilities 115,610 44,715 107,316 

Other services and charges 124,386 57,486 124,366 

Total operating expenses 1,242,227 453,230 1,050,151 

Operating income (loss) 645,174 516,277 926,666 

NON OPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES) 

Interest earnings 52,000 6,287 24,089 

Federal and state grants 5,954,800 23,507 56,417 

Capital Outlay (6,270,096) (246,896) (592,550) 

Net non-operating revenues (expenses) (263,296) (217,102) (512,044) 

Income (loss) before contributions and transfers 381,878 299,175 414,622 

Transfers out (180,645) (90,318) (180,645) 

Change in net assets 201,233 208,857 233,977 

Total net assets - beginning 3,162,026 3,162,026 3,162,026 

Total net assets - ending $ 3,363,259 $ 3,370,883 $ 3,396,003



Water and Sewer Fund 



Annual Budget 

Actual Amount 

Year End 

Projection 

Charges for services $ 16,826,383 $ 8,636,500 $ 17,827,600 


Total operating revenues 17,118,860 8,769,969 18,147,926 


Personal services 4,972,273 1,608,340 4,710,016 

Insurance 391,839 195,906 391,839 


Maintenance 755,834 307,015 736,836 

Utilities 1,293,064 324,482 1,278,757 

Other services and charges 1,073,224 565,564 1,072,354 

Total operating expenses 9,337,520 3,603,337 9,039,674 

Operating income (loss) 7,781,340 5,166,632 9,108,252 



Disposition of assets - 7,448 7,448 

Interest expense (1,207,371) (321,270) (1,207,371) 

Principal payments (2,123,270) (1,410,000) (2,123,270) 

Capital Outlay (6,727,306) (1,689,058) (6,468,662) 

Net non-operating revenues (expenses) (10,056,947) (3,372,771) (9,695,593) 

Income (loss) before contributions and transfers (2,275,607) 1,793,861 (587,341) 

Transfers out (1,150,288) (575,142) (1,150,288) 

Change in net assets (3,425,895) 1,218,719 (1,737,629) 

Total net assets - beginning 195,550 195,550 195,550 

Total net assets - ending $ (3,230,345) $ 1,414,269 $ (1,542,079)



Solid Waste Fund 

For Period Year Ended February 28, 2011 

Annual Budget 

Actual Amount 

Year End 

Projections 


Charges for services $ 4,734,556 $ 2,219,197 $ 4,826,073 


Total operating revenues 4,854,856 2,285,236 4,984,567 


Personal services 1,882,048 617,448 1,781,875 

Insurance 230,835 115,410 230,835 

Supplies and materials 1,489,884 1,078,591 1,488,618 


Maintenance 491,358 116,838 480,411 

Utilities 16,623 2,711 6,506 


Total operating expenses 2,294,791 1,320,852 2,223,895 

Operating income (loss) 2,560,065 964,384 2,760,672 



Capital outlay (530,000) (605,376) (605,376) 

Net non-operating revenues (expenses) (495,000) (601,431) (592,908) 

Income (loss) before contributions and transfers 2,065,065 362,953 2,167,764 

Transfers out (750,858) (375,420) (750,858) 

Change in net assets 1,314,207 (12,467) 1,416,906 


Total net assets - ending $ 3,774,632 $ 2,447,958 $ 3,877,331



Storm Water Drainage Fund 



Annual Budget 

Actual Amount 

Year End 

Projection 

Charges for services $ 1,316,475 $ 639,987 $ 1,385,969 

Miscellaneous - 1,602 3,845 

Total operating revenues 1,316,475 641,589 1,389,814 


Personal services 237,114 69,515 206,836 

Insurance 11,851 5,922 11,851 


Maintenance 105,702 19,780 47,472 

Utilities 2,513 30 72 


Total operating expenses 721,455 491,584 571,440 

Operating income (loss) 595,020 150,005 818,374 


Interest earnings 14,336 575 1,380 

Federal and state grants 60,000 690,120 690,120 

Interest expense (66,990) (32,995) (66,990) 

Principal payments (185,000) - (185,000) 

Capital outlay (2,609,852) (613,599) (1,472,638) 

Net non-operating revenues (expenses) (2,787,506) 44,101 (1,033,128) 

Income (loss) before contributions and transfers (2,192,486) 194,106 (214,754) 

Transfers out (164,587) (82,290) (164,587) 

Change in net assets (2,357,073) 111,816 (379,341) 


Total net assets - ending $ 103,352 $ 2,572,241 $ 2,081,084

Ordinances 

First Reading

MEMORANDUM 

March 15, 2011 

TO: 

Mayor and City Council 

THROUGH: Nancy Woodley, Interim City Manager 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

John Reed, Fire Chief 

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING 

UNIT (MSTU) 

The following presentation is provided to update City Council on the Emergency Medical 

Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU). The MSTU is a funding mechanism in the 

form of an ad valorem tax which is collected by Sarasota County for the delivery of emergency 

medical services. The MSTU ordinance is presented annually and has been in place since 2002. 

The millage rate of .66 mills will remain the same for Fiscal Year 2011/2012.

MSTU 

Presentation to 


March 22, 2011

MSTU Presentation 

• Definition 

• History 

• City of Venice consent 

• Questions

Municipal Services Taxing Unit - 

MSTU 

•A Municipal Service Taxing Unit 

(MSTU) is a funding mechanism 

adopted by ordinance in the form 

of an Ad Valorem tax for 

municipal services.

Sarasota County Emergency Medical 

Services District 

• Created in 2002 

• Replaces the “Ambulance District” 

• Includes municipal boundaries of the City 

of Venice pursuant to consent by 

ordinance

Why the MSTU? 

• 2002 Florida Supreme Court case - City of North 

Lauderdale vs. SMM Properties 

• Emergency Medical Services (EMS) are a benefit 

to people and do not provide a specific benefit to 

property 

• Since emergency medical service is a benefit to 

people it must be funded through ad-valorem taxes

City of Venice Consent 

• EMS millage rate – (.66 mills) 

• Millage rate counts against the City’s millage cap 

• Participation requires adoption of City Ordinance 

annually extending consent for inclusion within 

the EMS MSTU 

• City has approved inclusion since inception of the 

MSTU beginning with the 2003 tax year

Sample 2010 Tax Bill with an Assessed Value $396,900 

Ad Valorem Taxes 

Taxing Authority Rate Assessed Value Exemption Amount Taxable Value Taxes Levied 

Sarasota Co. General Revenue 3.0837 396,900 50,000 $346,900 $1,069.74 

Bonds-Debt Service 0.227 396,900 50,000 $346,900 $78.75 

Mosquito Control 0.0277 396,900 50,000 $346,900 $9.61 

Sarasota Memorial Hospital 1.0863 396,900 50,000 $346,900 $376.84 

SW FL Water Management Dist. 0.377 396,900 50,000 $346,900 $130.78 

Manasota Basin 0.1484 396,900 50,000 $346,900 $51.48 

West Coast Inland Navigation 0.0394 396,900 50,000 $346,900 $13.67 

Sarasota School Board 

School District Fund 6.401 396,900 25,000 $371,900 $2,380.53 

School Capital Impr 1.5 396,900 25,000 $371,900 $557.85 

City of Venice 2.779 396,900 50,000 $346,900 $964.04 

City of Venice Debt Service 0.225 396,900 50,000 $346,900 $78.05 

Emergency Medical Services 0.66 396,900 50,000 $346,900 $228.95 

Total Millage 16.5545 Total Taxes $5,940.29 

Non-Ad Valorem Assessments 

Code Levying Authority Amount 

I101 Venetian CDD $1,228.74 

Total Assessments $1,228.74 

Total Taxes and Assessments $7,169.03

City of Venice Consent 

• Inclusion of all the incorporated area of 

the City of Venice within the 

boundaries of the Emergency Medical 

Services Municipal Services Taxing 

Unit is in the best interest of the 

citizens of Venice and will ensure the 

provision of emergency medical 

services, a municipal service.

Questions?

Prepared by: City Clerk 

ORDINANCE NO. 2011-06 

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF VENICE, FLORIDA EXTENDING THE CITY’S 

CONSENT TO THE INCLUSION OF THE INCORPORATED AREA OF THE CITY OF 

VENICE IN THE SARASOTA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES 

MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 

WHEREAS, on April 27, 2010 the City Council of the City of Venice, Florida adopted 

Ordinance No. 2010-04 consenting to the inclusion of all of the incorporated area of the City of 

Venice within the Sarasota County Emergency Medical Services Taxing Unit established pursuant to 

Sarasota County Ordinance No. 2002-091; and 

WHEREAS, the consent granted by Ordinance No. 2010-04 shall expire on April 30, 2011 

unless extended by the adoption of a subsequent ordinance; and 

WHEREAS, the City of Venice wishes to extend the inclusion of all of the incorporated area 

of the City of Venice within the Sarasota County Emergency Medical Services Taxing Unit 

established pursuant to Sarasota County Ordinance No. 2002-091. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 

OF VENICE, FLORIDA as follows: 

SECTION 1. Findings. It is ascertained, determined and declared that: 

A. The Board of County Commissioners of Sarasota County, Florida has established by 

ordinance, the Sarasota County Emergency Medical Services Municipal Service 

Taxing Unit for the purpose of funding emergency medical services provided within 

the Taxing Unit. 

B. Pursuant to Section 125.01(1)(q), Florida Statutes, in order for the boundaries of a 

municipal service taxing unit to include all or part of the boundaries of a 

municipality, the governing body of the municipality must consent by ordinance to 

the municipality’s inclusion within the boundaries of the taxing unit. 

C. The City of Venice hereby determines that the inclusion of all of the incorporated 

area of the City of Venice within the boundaries of the Emergency Medical Services 

Municipal Service Taxing Unit is in the best interests of the citizens of the City of 

Venice and will ensure the provision of emergency medical services, a municipal 

service. 

SECTION 2. Consent. The City Council of the City of Venice hereby consents to the inclusion of 

all of the incorporated area of the City of Venice within the Sarasota County 

Page 1 of 2, Ord. No. 2011-06

Emergency Medical Services Taxing Unit established pursuant to Sarasota County 

Ordinance No. 2002-091. Such consent shall become effective immediately upon 

adoption of this Ordinance and shall remain in effect until April 30, 2012. 

SECTION 3. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are severable; and if any section, 

subsection, sentence, clause or provision is held invalid by any court of competent 

jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall not be affected thereby. 

SECTION 4. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 

PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VENICE, FLORIDA THIS 

12TH DAY OF APRIL 2011. 

First Reading: March 22, 2011 

Final Reading: April 12, 2011 

Adoption: April 12, 2011 

ATTEST: 

______________________________ 

John W. Holic, Mayor 

City Clerk 

I, LORI STELZER, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Venice, Florida, a municipal 

corporation in Sarasota County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full and complete, 

true and correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Venice City Council, at a meeting thereof 

duly convened and held on the 12th day of April 2011, a quorum being present. 

WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this 13th day of April 2011. 

Approved as to form: 

______________________________ 

Lori Stelzer, MMC, City Clerk 

___________________________ 

City Attorney 

Page 2 of 2, Ord. No. 2011-06

RESOLUTIONS

Prepared by: Clerk’s Office 

RESOLUTION NO. 2011-05 

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF VENICE, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING A GRANT 

APPLICATION FOR FUNDS FROM THE FLORIDA RECREATIONAL TRAIL PROGRAM 

AND COMMITTING THE CITY TO AMEND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO 

INCLUDE WELLFIELD PARK SHOULD THE CITY RECEIVE GRANT FUNDS; AND 

PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 

WHEREAS, the Venice City Council at a regular meeting held January 25, 2011 authorized city 

staff to work with the Venice Challenger Baseball group to develop an active recreational facility for 

special children and young adults; and 

WHEREAS, staff, with assistance from the Venice Challenger Baseball group, wishes to apply for 

Recreational Trail Program funds in an amount up to $200,000; and 

WHEREAS, capital improvements to Wellfield Park will include baseball fields, stormwater 

improvements, multi-use trails and support facilities; and 

WHEREAS, the Florida Office of Greenways and Trails has requested that the City of Venice, 

Florida, execute and deliver to the Department of Environmental Protection as part of the grant 

application a resolution indicating commitment within the Capital Improvement Program for the 

development of the park if funding is received. 

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 

VENICE, FLORIDA, as follows: 

SECTION 1. The city will amend the capital improvement program to include Wellfield Park if 

sufficient grant funding is received to construct the proposed Venice Challenger Baseball facility. 

SECTION 2. The project manager is hereby authorized to apply for, accept and administer the 

grant on behalf of the applicant and to initiate any related actions to enable the submittal of said 

application. 

SECTION 3. Upon approval and adoption, the city clerk is hereby directed to provide an original 

of this resolution to accompany the grant application. 

SECTION 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its approval and adoption as 

required by law. 

APPROVED AND ADOPTED AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE VENICE CITY 

COUNCIL HELD ON THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2011. 

_______________________________ 

John Holic, Mayor 

Page 1 of 2, Res. No. 2011-05

ATTEST 

_______________________________ 


I, Lori Stelzer, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Venice, Florida, a municipal corporation in 

Sarasota County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full and complete, true and correct 

copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Venice City Council at a meeting thereof duly convened 

and held on the 22nd day of March 2011, a quorum being present. 

WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the said city this 23rd day of March 2011. 

____________________________ 


(SEAL) 


EXCERPT FROM THE MARCH 3, 2011 MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD 


4. Resolution Reducing Fines 

Mr. Hall noted the city clerk made minor changes to the resolution including changing the appeal 

fee to $50 to keep fees consistent with other boards and because the appellant is required to 

generate the record, and adding a provision on the second page stating this resolution shall 

supersede the previous resolution. 

Discussion followed on the appeal process for planning commission, the $50 fee being adequate, 

and the minor changes to the resolution at the February meeting. 

(11:07) Mr. Preiksat moved the Municipal Code Enforcement board approve Resolution 2011- 

04. Seconded by Ms. Boruff. 

ROLL CALL: Mr. Preiksat, YES; Ms. Mier, YES; Ms. Boruff, YES; Ms. Keeler, YES; 

Mr. Young, YES. MOTION CARRIED.

EXCERPT FROM THE JANUARY 6, 2011 REGULAR 

MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING 

III. 

BOARD ACTION 

1. Vellucci/Bluedog Investments, LLC, for Mitigation of Code Enforcement 

fines: $46,369.50 

Chair Young stated this is a quasi-judicial hearing and indicated no ex parte communications 

were received. 

Mr. Hall gave a brief history of the cases against the property, noted the board has draft fine 

reduction guidelines to informally work with today, and answered questions regarding the 

guidelines, approval of the guidelines, and the standing of Bluedog Investments. 

Richard Tasca, Bluedog Investments co-owner, being duly sworn, stated they are a finance 

company based in Rhode Island, explained Bluedog made a second mortgage loan to G1A2Land 

Company owned by Michael and Tammy Vellucci, Bluedog was served notice of foreclosure in 

December 2010, and acquired the property. 

He reviewed improvements made to the property in order to lease it, stated all violations are now 

in compliance, they are willing to make whatever improvements are still needed, and requested 

some kind of relief from the fines. In response to questions, Mr. Tasca stated Bluedog received a 

discounted payoff from the primary lender, Bluedog should receive a discount from the city 

because substantial improvements are necessary for the property, they do not want the property 

to go back into foreclosure, and the violations caused no harm to the city. 

Discussion followed regarding length of time the liens have been on the property, Bluedog 

acquiring other properties from the Velluccis, and there being no criteria such as economic 

hardship, new evidence, or error to warrant a reduction. 

Mr. Patek, being duly sworn, stated he and Ms. Stuehler have been involved with the cases 

against the property for years, noted when properties are transferred liens are usually satisfied, 

reviewed staff and city attorney time spent on these cases, threat to public health and safety, 

repercussions to the building official, and recommended the fines remain. 

In response to questions regarding the property appraisal, Mr. Hall disclosed the 2010 appraisal 

amount noting the appraisal is for the entire property not individual buildings, the city’s opinion 

was there was substantially more debt on the property than value, reviewed the consequences to 

the city if the property had gone to foreclosure, and stated the fine is against property owned by 

Venice Trust. 

(9:23) Chair Young closed the public hearing. 

Page 1 of 2

Mr. Hall stated the appeal cost to the city, the cases started in March 2008, a pattern emerged of 

doing work without a permit, reviewed the cases, city proposed resolution and Mr. Vellucci’s 

resistance to comply, and suggested the board give the request serious consideration. 

Discussion followed regarding police involvement in these cases, the timeliness of the appeal, 

why the liens were not satisfied when Bluedog purchased the property, Bluedog contact with Mr. 

Hall prior to purchasing the property, Bluedog being willing to pay half of the fines, when the 

second mortgage was secured, Bluedog not being notified of the violations until September 

2010, the second mortgage on the property, possible credits to Bluedog for work being done, the 

process to foreclose the lien, Bluedog’s request for relief, and any agreement being done in 

writing through the city attorney. 

(9:56) Ms. Keeler moved to deny the request for mitigation of fines in the amount of $46,369.50 

assessed against Venice Trust, c/o Tammy Vellucci, Trustee for Code violations at 127 E. Tampa 

Avenue. Seconded by Mr. Preiksat. 

Discussion ensued on whether the motion should be changed to reflect the new owners and 

possibly negotiating a payment plan. 

ROLL CALL: Mr. Young, YES; Ms. Boruff, NO; Ms. Keeler, YES; Ms. Mier, YES; 

Mr. Preiksat, YES. MOTION CARRIED. 

Page 2 of 2

Prepared by: City Attorney, City Clerk 

RESOLUTION NO. 2011-04 

A RESOLUTION OF THE VENICE CITY COUNCIL SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 

2005-14, AND AUTHORIZING THE MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD TO 

REDUCE FINES IMPOSED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AFTER RECEIPT 

OF A WRITTEN REQUEST AND HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING. 

WHEREAS, the Venice City Council created a Municipal Code Enforcement Board (Board) 

pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes; and 

WHEREAS, the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has the power to hold hearings and 

enter orders imposing fines which become liens on the real and personal property of the violators; 

and 

WHEREAS, Florida Statute 162.09(2)c and City Code Section 2-329(d) give the Board the 

authority to reduce fines; and 

WHEREAS, the Florida Attorney General has opined that after an order imposing a fine has 

been recorded, then only city council has the authority to reduce a fine; and 

WHEREAS, the Venice City Council desires to delegate to the Municipal Code 

Enforcement Board the authority to reduce fines; and 

WHEREAS, the Board and city council wish to provide specific procedures to follow when 

the Board is considering fine reductions. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 

OF VENICE, FLORIDA as follows: 

SECTION 1. Upon adoption, this resolution shall supersede Resolution No. 2005-14. 

SECTION 2. The Venice Municipal Code Enforcement Board is hereby authorized to reduce a fine 

previously imposed by order of the Board and recorded as a lien on the following conditions: 

1. No fine reduction shall be considered where the property owner appealed an order 

imposing fine to the court and the city prevailed. 

2. A written application shall be filed with the city clerk within one year of the date of the 

order imposing fine together with a filing fee of $50.00. 

3. The written application shall state the grounds and factual basis for the fine reduction. 

4. The clerk of the Board shall prepare a record of the hearing at which the fine was 

imposed including minutes of the proceedings and a copy of all documents that were part 


of the proceedings. A copy of the record shall be provided to the applicant and to the 

Board. 

5. The applicant is responsible for making a verbatim record of the testimony and evidence 

of the meeting upon which any appeal is based. 

6. The Board shall hold a public hearing. 

7. In reviewing the amount of a fine, the Board shall consider the gravity of the violation, 

the actions taken by the violator to correct the violation and any previous or current 

violations committed by the violator. 

8. The grounds for reducing a fine shall be limited to errors in the record, newly discovered 

evidence, misconduct, mistake, surprise, excusable neglect or substantial financial 

hardship. 

9. The burden shall be on the applicant to prove the grounds for a fine reduction. 

10. The Board shall make a decision after the hearing and enter a written order. 

11. The decision of the Board to reduce or not to reduce a fine shall be final. 

SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. 

APPROVED AND ADOPTED AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE VENICE CITY 

COUNCIL HELD ON THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2011. 

ATTEST: 

_______________________________ 

John W. Holic, Mayor 

________________________________ 


I, LORI STELZER, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Venice, Florida, a municipal corporation in 

Sarasota County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full and complete, true and correct 

copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the City Council of said City at a meeting thereof duly 

convened and held on the 22nd day of March 2011, a quorum being present. 

WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this 23rd day of March 2011. 

(SEAL) 

_______________________________ 



COUNCIL ACTION

City Review Process of 

Potential Sites for Sarasota 

County Parkland 

Acquisition 

1

Parkland Nominations 

• Any citizen or implementing board may 

nominate a site to obtain City Council 

support. 

• Willing seller program. 

• Application submitted to Sarasota County 

Parks Department then forwarded to the 

city’s Planning and Zoning Department. 

• Review by the staff Technical Review 

Committee is initiated for code 

compliance determination and to ensure 

that the site meets the nomination criteria. 

2

Nomination Criteria 

• Environmentally Sensitive Lands 

– Rarity 

– Connectedness 

– Quality 

– Water Resources 

– Manageability 

3

Nomination Criteria 

• Neighborhood Parkland 

– Broad Community Access 

– Proximity and Connectedness 

– Natural Features 

– Cultural Features 

– Compatible Community Needs 

– Water Access 

– Location 

4

Site Review Process 

• Sites will be reviewed by either the 

Parks and Recreation Advisory 

Board or the Environmental Task 

Force for recommendation to 

Planning Commission. 

• Planning Commission will review 

recommended sites for consideration 

and recommendation to City Council. 

5

Sites Not Recommended 

• Any nominated site that is not 

supported by staff or the respective 

board will be returned to the nominee 

with advisement of their right to 

proceed directly to the appropriate 

county program for consideration. 

6

City Council Review 

• Upon consideration and review of the 

nominated site and Planning 

Commission’s recommendation, City 

Council, upon consensus or majority 

vote, may direct the City Manager to 

prepare a letter in support of the 

nomination to Sarasota County. 

7

Sarasota County Review 

• Sites are reviewed by the appropriate 

county board with ultimate 

acquisition determination by the 

Board of County Commissioners. 

8

PARKLAND NOMINEE 

361 Venetia Bay Blvd. 

Submitted by: 

City of Venice Parks & Recreation Advisory 

Board 

 

We serve with PRIDE



Aerial

Site Photos 


361 Venetia Bay Blvd.

Land Use Map 

Northern Gateway 

Corridor 



Zoning 

Map 




Staff Analysis: 


• Staff confirms compliance with the city’s Land 

Development Regulations and consistency with 

the guiding policies of the City’s Comprehensive 

Plan. 

• The site meets the criteria for nomination as 

Neighborhood Parkland. 

• There are no outstanding technical issues that 

would prevent the City Council from taking action 

on the nomination.



Based on review and application of the 

criteria found in Section 86-23(i)(1) of the 

code included in the staff report, staff 

analysis, and Planning Commission’s 

recommendation of approval of the 

nominated property, City Council, upon 

consensus or majority vote, may direct the 

City Manager to prepare a letter in support 

of the nomination to Sarasota County.

EXCERPT FROM THE FEBRUARY 23, 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL TASK FORCE 


1. Parkland Nomination – 361 Venetia Bay Boulevard 

Mr. Minor presented the parkland nomination from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for 

361 Venetia Bay Blvd. property, displayed aerial and site photos of the property, explained the 

nomination process, summarized the nomination, reviewed the surrounding buildings, stated the 

owner is a limited liability corporation, and this being a willing seller program. 

Discussion ensued on the owner, who nominated the property, owner of the southern property, 

cost of the property, whether the seller is willing to sell, the property being in a flood zone, 

whether there is parking on Colonia Lane for Legacy Park, this parcel being a good spot for 

parking, whether the owner is aware of the nomination, nothing environmental about the site 

according to the criteria for environmentally sensitive land, parking for the trail and other 

activities, the nomination being for parkland, the county having two processes for parkland and 

environmentally sensitive land, purchase to be made by the county, and whether the lot will be 

paved.

EXCERPT FROM THE MARCH 1, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR 

MEETING 

2. Neighborhood Parkland Nomination - 361 Venetia Bay Boulevard - Staff: Roger 

Clark, Planner 

Mr. Clark reviewed the parkland acquisition program and process stating this is a willing seller 

program, identified the commission’s role in the process, and stressed this is a Sarasota County 

program. He stated there are two types of nominations, parkland and environmentally sensitive 

land, reviewed the criteria for the environmentally sensitive land and neighborhood parkland 

nominations, reported sites that do not meet the review criteria from the city will not proceed 

through the process, but the applicant can still go forward with the nomination to the county. He 

went on to say the nomination is forwarded to City Council after commission review, upon 

approval the city manager will issue a letter of no objection to the county, and noted he spoke 

with Sarasota County Director of Parks and Recreation John McCarthy who stated there are far 

more nominations than funding. 

Staff Presentation 

Mr. Clark stated the nomination came from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (P&R), the 

property is approximately one quarter acre, is nominated to be used as overflow parking for 

Legacy Trail and events held in Patriots Park, the acquisition could enhance the use of these 

parks, the county has reviewed the nomination and requested determination from the city, staff is 

requesting commission review and recommendation, the nomination underwent technical review, 

meets criteria for nomination, and was reviewed by the Environmental Task Force (ETF), which 

recommended pervious material be used for the parking area. He displayed aerial and site photos 

of the property, reviewed zoning of the area, stated the area is in flood hazard area, staff analysis 

found no outstanding technical issues, and reviewed criteria for approval or denial. 

Mr. Clark answered questions on city expense associated with the acquisition, and stated there 

could possibly be negotiations or an interlocal between the county and city. Discussion took 

place on maintenance of the property, parking surface, use of the parking area, unintended costs, 

the county owning the property, other properties being nominated, prioritizing sites, nature of 

events that occur at Patriots Park, current parking areas for Legacy Trail, why this parcel was 

chosen, contact with surrounding businesses, possible improvements on the site, and Legacy 

Trail parking at Laurel Park. 

(2:39) Mr. Happer moved based on the staff report and the presentation, the Planning 

Commission, sitting as the local planning agency, finds the parkland nomination to be consistent 

with the City’s policy and recommends to City Council approval of parkland nomination for the 

property located at 361 Venetia Bay Boulevard. Seconded by Mr. Shanika.

Discussion ensued on including comments and concerns expressed today being forwarded to 

City Council, and hearing from Monty Andrews, Vice Chair of Parks and Recreation Advisory 

Board. 

Mr. Andrews answered questions regarding the property stating it would be left in a natural state, 

noted development of the parcel would impede the ability to hold events on the southern part of 

the site, the property could serve as a sub trail head, touched on the picnic tables and amenities at 

Patriots Park, and stated developers are less likely to use the smaller northern parcel of land. 

Discussion followed concerning the number of additional parking places on the site and 

forwarding comments on budget concerns to council. 

ROLL CALL: Mr. Thayer, YES; Mr. Leis, YES; Mr. Happer, YES; Mr. Snyder, NO; 

Mr. Shrauger, NO; Mr. Shanika, YES; Ms. Desmond, YES. MOTION CARRIED.

EXCERPT FROM PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD 

REGULAR MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 15, 2010 

3. Miscellaneous 

Mr. Andrews reported the Sarasota County Parks Advisory Board reviewed the Venetia Bay 

Boulevard land acquisition nomination from the board stating the county board had mixed 

reviews, and noted city representation was not present at the meeting to defend the nomination. 

He stated someone should be present at the county parks meetings; he composed a letter to send 

to the county parks board requesting another review of the parkland nomination, and noted the 

county board also asked for a re-prioritization of the parkland nominations. 

Discussion ensued on the Venetia Bay property no longer being on the market, and the county 

submitting a work plan on the Blue Haven property. Mr. Colligan noted he would obtain answers 

on any other properties and report back at the next meeting. 

Discussion continued on having the back one third of the Blue Haven property being used as a 

community garden and a possible motion on the letter. 

(4:30) Ms. Kenfield moved the board support the letter drafted by Mr. Andrews to be sent to the 

Sarasota County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Seconded by Mr. Hicks. MOTION 

CARRIED BY VOICE VOTE UNANIMOUSLY.

EXCERPT FROM JUNE 21, 2010 REGULAR 

PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING 

2. Patriots Park – Land Acquisition 

Mr. Andrews left the dais at 2:59 p.m. to make the presentation. 

Mr. Andrews displayed an aerial photo of Patriots Park, pointed to the northeast portion of a 

surrounding property on Venetia Bay Boulevard, suggested the city submit an application for the 

county to purchase the property under the land acquisition program, and stated the land would be 

used for parking and connection to the Legacy Trail. 

Discussion followed regarding dividing the parcels, ownership of the property, parking being a 

grass surface, bicyclists concerns with exiting onto U.S. 41 from the proposed pedestrian bridge, 

the width of the pedestrian bridge, possibly obtaining the northern and southern parcels, whether 

there is a willing seller, and filing the parkland nomination form. 

(3:07) Ms. Stoddart moved the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board move forward with the 

parkland acquisition for the two northern most properties on Venetia Bay Boulevard. Seconded 

by Mr. Byington. 

Discussion ensued regarding the location and size of the parcels, requesting one parcel for 

acquisition, maintenance of the parcel, additional work to develop access to Legacy Trail, and 

providing parking for Patriots Park. 

MOTION FAILED BY A SHOW OF HANDS WITH THREE IN FAVOR AND FOUR 

OPPOSED. 

(3:13) Mr. Andrews moved the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board approve the nomination of 

the northern most parcel at 361 Venetian Bay Boulevard to the county for parkland acquisition. 

Seconded by Ms. Stoddart. MOTION CARRIED ON VOICE VOTE UNANIMOUSLY.

EXCERPT FROM FEBRUARY 11, 2008 REGULAR 

PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING 

6. Sarasota County Parks and Recreation Update 

Ms. Stoddart distributed the Sarasota County parkland acquisition program spreadsheet and gave 

a brief description of the process to purchase parklands, she asked the board to comment on 

which property is important to the city for acquisition, and reviewed the five city properties on 

the list that have submitted applications to be purchased by the county. The properties are: the 

Waterford Intracoastal, 901 Venetia Bay Boulevard, the west side of the Intracoastal Waterway 

along the airport, 1755 East Venice Avenue, and the Lake Venice Golf Course. 

Mr. Colligan answered questions concerning the proposed purchases, stating he has no 

knowledge of the purchase of a golf course in Venice. 

Discussion followed regarding potential purchases, the board needing more information before a 

decision is made, funding for the properties, and which two properties the board agrees to move 

forward on. The board agreed on the Waterford Intracoastal, 901 Venetia Bay Boulevard and 

1755 East Venice Avenue. Ms. Stoddart stated she would report this back to the county board.

Public Art Task Force – January 12, 2011 

Advisory Board Discussion on Possible Consolidation – Page 1 of 9 

Ms. Trammell gave a brief review of the consolidation and queried the mayor on specifics. 

Mayor Holic stated staff is researching the concept to ascertain which advisory boards were 

being fully utilized and if underutilized boards could be merged, commented on the release of the 

draft memorandum by the media before council had the opportunity to discuss the matter in a 

public forum, and that no preliminary action has been taken. 

Discussion ensued on the task force’s work on creating the public art guidelines, all the advisory 

boards being important, the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board (ARB) not 

holding 60% of their regular meetings in 2010, staff time involved whether or not there is a 

meeting, city staff levels being down, council trying to ensure staff time is being utilized most 

effectively, whether this task force can operate effectively when combined with another board 

and meeting once per month, and no council action being taken without board member input. 

Mayor Holic expounded on a meeting with the building community stating contractors 

complained about the cost and time delays in submitting the proper documentation to be heard 

by ARB and Planning Commission, reiterated council has not discussed this item, and board 

member input will be invaluable. 

Discussion ensued on this item being on the agenda for the next meeting to begin gathering input 

from the board, the idea being in the exploratory stages, trying to streamline staff time and 

functions, variety of projects the Historic Preservation Board and Public Art Task Force work on, 

possible number of members on a consolidated board, and the first council review being January 

18 at 9 a.m. at the Waterford Sports Club. 

Mayor Holic briefly reviewed the upcoming council schedule to accommodate special and 

regular meetings, and council’s idea to hold special meetings in the community where people 

live. 

Public Art Task Force – February 9, 2011 

Mayor Holic addressed the board on the possible consolidation, related a conversation he had 

with the Chairman of the Architectural Review Board, stated council discussion will take place 

on March 15 at Bay Indies, council needs board feedback, and explained the reasoning for 

consolidating boards. 

Discussion took place on which boards will be combined and members going to vacant positions 

on other boards.


Mr. Hagler answered questions on the compatibility of the Public Art Task Force and the 

Historic Preservation Board (HPB), composition of the combined board, and whether all 

members vote on all items brought before the board. 

Discussion continued regarding the status of other boards, merging making better sense than 

disbanding, task force members reading the HPB ordinance the difference between the PATF 

and HPB concerns over the historic statue presented today, for example the text on the statue 

plaque, members learning from each other, whether a consolidation would save staff time, and a 

possible task force consensus. 

(4:29) There was a consensus of the task force to accept the board consolidation of the HPB and 

PATF. 

Economic Development Task Force – January 19, 2011 

Discussion took place concerning board consolidation and the number of boards to be 

consolidated. Ms. Johnson stated the three task forces formed in 2008 are subject to sunset in 

2011, and council will determine which task forces will continue as a single entity and which 

will be combined. 

Mr. Young commented the Economic Development Task Force met all six criteria listed, the task 

force will continue, and thanked council for their support. 

Historic Preservation Board – January 21, 2011 

Ms. Woodley addressed the board on the possible board consolidation, noted the press publicized 

the concept before the boards were notified and discussed the possibility, encouraged board 

discussion, and stated of the 15 advisory boards, seven boards have distinct operations and will 

not be changed. She noted the experience and length of service the Historic, Planning and Park & 

Recreation boards have with the city, explained such experience could accommodate expansion 

to absorb another board’s responsibilities, the possibility of combining the Public Art Task Force 

(PATF) with Historic Preservation Board (HPB), and requested the board discuss this concept. 

Ms. Woodley went on to review the PATF composition and schedule, and noted much of public 

art deals with history, which led to the suggestion to merge the two boards. 

Ms. Trammell stated the PATF has been functioning for over a year, were told if the task force 

was useful, it would be extended, noted the amount of times the PATF spent on setting up public 

art guidelines and policies, the economic state which may hinder public art donations, and 

touched on projects such as beauty and the bench.


Mr. Hagler concurred the PATF has made progress with the policies and procedures, have 

catalogued all the public artwork at city hall and most of the artwork throughout the city, and 

stated additional art projects will be forthcoming in the future. 

In response to questions about board consolidation, Ms. Woodley stated the mayor and council 

has not discussed the composition of the merged boards, if nothing is done the task force sunsets 

in May, and mentioned the Environmental Task Force was given special exception and was 

extended until the end of May 2011. 

Discussion ensued regarding a linkage between PATF and HPB, art becoming historic, public 

displays of art, city hall artwork not being rotated, the section of pipe at city hall, projects that 

would come before PATF, such as the section hands cart at the Train Depot being displayed at 

city hall, being more customer friendly, public art processes being haphazard in the past, 

historical society grappling with the train oriented artifacts, where extra artifacts can be placed, 

whether an historic display would be an art display, the atriums being redone by the Venice Area 

Garden Club because the trees were tearing up the building foundation, Venice Community 

Center having wall space, PATF having five members, the beginning work done and general 

purpose and composition of PATF, there being a need for PATF, not wanting to see PATF 

disbanded and not merged with another board, quality control being important, how public art 

was approved in the past, current process of public art approval, having to retire the HPB and 

creating a new ordinance for the new combined board, composition of the new board, possible 

time frame to establish the new board, having to rewrite the guidelines, there being merit in the 

consolidation, there being a learning curve for PATF members to learn historic preservation and 

HPB learning public art, not wanting to see a weakening of HPB because of the merger, many 

upcoming projects, ensuring the balance for both board functions going forward, requesting the 

mayor extend the sunset date of PATF, having PATF read HBP ordinance and guidelines and the 

HPB receive the resolution and guidelines for PATF for discussion. 

Mr. Hagler answered questions on the projected amount of savings by consolidating advisory 

boards. 

Historic Preservation Board – February 18, 2011 

In response to questions, Mr. Hagler stated council will have further discussion on the board 

consolidation on March 15, 2011 at 9 a.m. at Bay Indies. Ms. Trammell asked that board 

members be reminded of the meeting so they may attend. 

Environmental Task Force – January 26, 2011 

Mr. Jones noted he attended the special city council meeting concerning board consolidation, 

reported ETF will be extended until May 31, 2011 and council discussion proposed combining


ETF with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (P&R). He queried board members on their 

willingness to continue serving on a combined board. 

Mr. Steen stated he would be resigning as of March 1, 2011. 

Discussion ensued on the function of the P&R, the improvements to John Nolen Park, park 

reviews done by the board, P&R being a very positive board, composition of the board, and the 

ETF extension through the end of May. 

Mr. Magee stated he would be resigning from the board due to medical reasons, and this would 

be his last meeting, Mr. Compton stated the time of day is important and would like to serve in 

the afternoon. Mr. Jones stated he is undecided at the moment, citing other community 

involvement. 

Discussion continued on P&R focus being public open space and ETF focus being much broader 

than that, environmental issues being heard by council, the task force possibly operating as a 

stakeholder group, the primary focus of the merged boards being environmental, disbanding the 

task force being a mistake, environmental issues that need to be addressed, what ETF has 

accomplished, fear of losing the environmental aspect, council listening to the public, city 

creating an ad hoc committee for environmental issues if needed, having an official 

environmental voice by way of a city board, and the city being a pioneer in having the first city 

ETF. 

John Myers, 520 W. Venice Avenue #8, queried the task force on the cost of the monthly 

meetings. 

Mr. Zavodnyik advocated having a separate ETF, he envisioned the task force becoming a 

permanent board, stated the city needs a political mechanism to address environmental issues, 

talked about weather anomalies currently occurring and convincing council to keep the ETF. 

Discussion ensued on ETF meeting quarterly instead of monthly, the benefits of the ETF 

achievements, looking at the long term environmental issues, people living here because of the 

climate, and the environment being the city’s most precious resource. 

Mr. Steen expressed his support to continue the task force, but has a conflict of interest and has 

to resign. Mr. Jones suggested he would write a letter to council explaining the task force’s 

position on this issue. Ms. Gates stated she would report on this issue at the next council 

meeting. 

Discussion took place regarding the content of the letter including the following: ETF taking 

ownership from the first meeting; the environment being the most precious resource; reducing


the number of times ETF meets; no interest in a stakeholder group; wanting recommendations to 

council from an advisory group; the task force not being able to complete goals set for 2011; and 

listing the goals. 

Ms. King joined the meeting at 3:24 p.m. 

In response to Mr. Jones, Ms. King stated she would like to continue on the task force. 

(3:25) Mr. Compton moved that Mr. Jones write a letter to City Council expressing the ETF 

views to remain a separate board for the reasons discussed. Seconded by Mr. Jones. MOTION 

CARRIED ON VOICE VOTE UNANIMOUSLY. 

Discussion ensued regarding the task force meeting on a quarterly basis, necessity to have city 

staff attend the meetings, and the ability to hold public workshops. 

Environmental Task Force – February 23, 2011 

Mr. Jones reviewed his meeting with Mayor Holic regarding the discussion on consolidation 

from the last meeting, stating he is hopeful the task force will continue as an independent board, 

ETF would meet four or five times per year, and downsize to five members instead of seven. He 

noted there were eight or nine meetings held in 2010, and queried members on their input. 

Mr. Metzgar stated he would not be renewing his appointment at the end of his three year term. 

Ms. Gates answered questions on the extension of the task force until May 31 and council 

direction on the consolidation. 

Discussion followed regarding reducing the number of members to five, the possibility of having 

more than five meetings per year if necessary, maintaining the task force’s independence, Mr. 

Metzgar finishing his term until the end of May, and two other board members who have 

resigned. 

Ms. King noted she was thinking of resigning because of her service on the Parks and Recreation 

Advisory Board (P&R), but will stay on if there is not a quorum. 

Discussion continued regarding whether or not applications have been received for ETF, meeting 

no more than six times per year instead of quarterly, the inability to contact each other in 

between quarterly meetings, and if board vacancies are advertised. 

Mr. Jones encouraged audience members to apply for the task force if they are interested, and 

noted Ms. Morris would not be interested if the boards were consolidated.


Ms. King stated she will resign at the end of her term in May. 

Architectural Review Board January 27, 2011 

Mr. Bennett reported he recommended to council the board should be independent and act alone 

in its jurisdiction, commented this meeting is an excellent example of how the board works to 

maintain the city’s character, and noted the board is important and not an intolerable burden. He 

talked about how the Planning Commission (PC) deals with the different overlay districts in the 

city and perhaps having the ARB review all overlay districts. 

Discussion followed concerning the ARB reviewing all the overlay districts, the gateway 

districts that lead to the Historic and Venetian Theme districts being under the jurisdiction of the 

ARB, the PC architectural rules being more relaxed, having to meet more frequently if the 

boards are combined, fear of not having a majority voice on architectural concerns, PC members 

not knowing the ARB guidelines and history, the board closing the gap of the 50% rule with the 

ordinance changes, PC aggressive agenda to complete the land development regulations, the city 

plan being on the national register, historic district maps needing to be redrawn, submitting the 

revised guidelines for approval by PC and council, and the board’s work on the guidelines to 

date. 

Mr. Hall commented on the amount of work the PC has, PC having to take on the detail of 

architectural design, and the difficulty in changing focus to architectural details as required. 

Discussion continued regarding ARB members having a commitment to the community, 

difficulty in attending more meetings per month because everyone on the board works, length of 

meetings, and completing the guideline revision. 

Architectural Review Board February 10, 2011 

Mr. Sherman reviewed his conversation with the mayor regarding the consolidation of boards. 

Mayor Holic explained the economic state of the country and how more responsibility is being 

put on the municipalities, questioned the board on how they would streamline staff time and 

functions, and their vision for their board. He explained the current applicant process of going 

before ARB and Planning Commission (PC), presented the idea of having five person boards 

working together, and alternating meetings and chair persons twice per month. 

Discussion followed concerning the majority of cases heard by ARB not going before PC, not 

requiring two weeks lead time before they meet, the positive outcome of today’s meeting, the 

goal to keep things moving, current state of construction, having a rolling schedule, ARB


members only being present if there are ARB cases, cutting staff down by 50%, the board with 

the least to be presented goes first, what would constitute a quorum, the experience of the 

attorney to each board, ARB members not wanting to attend a PC meeting, how many times the 

ARB hear cases that go to PC, meeting the same day but having different meetings back to back, 

giving ARB advisory input to a site and development plan, the detail of conceptual drawings 

presented to PC, previous review by the technical review committee on PC applications, 

streamlining the process similar to a round table, number of board members needed, the rationale 

behind combining the boards, diversity on the board, ARB seldom having a split decision, if an 

application requires both boards have them together, otherwise let boards remain as they are, an 

homogenized board being a disaster, the reason for 15 copies being submitted to ARB, 

architectural details being lost during a rezoning, and number of applicants that go before ARB 

and PC. 

Based on the discussion, Mayor Holic summarized a possible solution of a five person board, 

ARB meeting at 9 a.m., PC meeting at 10 a.m. on the same day, and scheduling an overlap of 

meetings and having ARB members in the audience if their input is needed for PC. 

Discussion followed on staff time preparing for the two meetings, possible meeting time, and 

cutting down the number of packets and the lead time on when the packets go out. 

Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (P&R) February 14, 2011 

Mr. Carlesimo stated the Environmental Task Force (ETF) presented a letter to council 

suggesting P&R be assimilated into the ETF, listed task force achievements and long term goals, 

suggested P&R generate a list of accomplishments and goals, and give a presentation to city 

council. 

Mr. Andrews noted the accomplishments are turned in annually to the mayor at the end of the 

year. 

Ms. King commented on the ETF discussion, the focus of the ETF being different than P&R, the 

proposal to consolidate ETF and P&R, the pristine city environment that attracts tourists and 

homeowners, and suggested P&R promote the continuation of ETF and maintain both boards as 

is currently. 

Discussion took place on how the boards would be merged, P&R continuing in an advisory 

capacity, achievements of the task force, the purpose to combine boards in order to reduce costs, 

the consolidated board becoming a new board and the members will be reappointed, ETF 

accomplishments, giving a presentation to council, having a list of goals, the benefits and 

disadvantages to merging the boards, cost savings with the consolidation, the spectrum being too 

broad for both boards merging into one, meeting with the ETF chair and vice chair, P&R being


an ongoing board and council being aware of their function, three task forces being subject to 

sunsetting, and council extending ETF until the end of May 2011. 

(3:35) Ms. King moved that ETF Chairman Tom Jones be invited to attend the next board 

meeting to discuss mutual roles and how they might be coordinated. Seconded by Mr. Byington. 


Discussion continued regarding why people serve on boards and expertise they lend to the 

process. 

Planning Commission February 15, 2011 

Mr. Slaughter explained council’s directive to investigate the effectiveness and efficiency of all 

the advisory boards and the cost of staff time involved in supporting them. He referenced the 

Board of Zoning Appeals that was absorbed by the Planning Commission (PC) and stated 

council requested board input on the consolidation before moving forward. 

Mr. Snyder commented on his professional history and expertise in evaluating efficiencies, 

pointed out the possible cost effectiveness, whether there are redundant functions, staff and 

applicant time, questioned whether the effectiveness will be lost if the boards are consolidated, 

and if there are instances when the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviews the same 

applications as PC. 

Discussion took place regarding Mr. Happer’s email to council, the slowdown in the economy, 

the moratorium on annexations, having to rewrite the zoning laws, minimal amount of staff time 

to cancel a meeting, streamlining the petition process for ARB and PC review, ARB being 

experts in architectural and construction along with guarding the city’s character, the city’s need 

for environmental expertise, ETF accomplishments, whether the commission is capable of 

handling all ARB and ETF issues, needing more architectural expertise on PC, the proposal 

being a good compromise, actual cost savings in consolidating boards, the option of combining 

ARB and PC and combining ETF with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, the added 

workshops required for the Land Development Regulations (LDR), the work program for the 

LDR revisions, involvement of ARB and ETF in the LDR revisions, making a more predictable 

land development process, the difficulty with some of the other boards in maintaining a quorum, 

ETF policies being removed from the comprehensive plan and deferred to state agencies, 12 

planning areas that have architectural overlays, whether board efforts are duplicated, looking at 

economics and efficiencies, the learning curve in assuming ARB review, and instances where 

users of the system have to go to more than one committee to meet their objectives. 

Mr. Minor referred to the Partnering 4 Success feedback relevant to this discussion such as 

streamlining the application process.


Mr. Anderson clarified the only petition that would need ARB and PC review would be a 

petition in the Venetian Theme or Historic Districts that requires a Certificate of Architectural 

Compliance from the ARB and a development order from PC. 

Discussion continued on staff preparation and presentation for PC meetings, amount of time to 

prepare for ARB and ETF meetings, number of cancellations that PC has had compared to ARB 

and ETF, other municipalities that have done this sort of consolidation, considering the end 

result, duplication of review by the three boards, possible composition of the consolidated board, 

qualifications of the people appointed to the new board, the possibility of stacking meetings 

between boards, change in process being another possibility, training of board members should 

boards be consolidated, knowing what the savings is, and having representation from the 

Economic Development Task force on the commission. 

In response to questions, Mr. McKeon commented on his role in this discussion.

Administrative 

Reports 

City Attorney 

Finance Director 


City Manager

COUNCIL REPORTS 

John Moore 

Jeanette Gates 

Jim Bennett 

Emilio Carlesimo 

Kit McKeon 

Bob Daniels 

Mayor Holic


(Excluding Public Hearings) 

(5 Minutes Each Speaker)

ADJOURNMENT

AGENDA REGULAR MEETING VENICE CITY ... - City of Venice.

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?