City Council - Regular Meeting

All right. Let's go ahead and start with a roll call, Madam Clerk.

Mr. Engelke? Here. Mrs. Frank? Here. Mr. Howard.

Here.

Mister Smith.

Here.

Mister Weed.

Here.

Vice mayor Bolt.

Here.

Mayor Pachota.

Here. Alright. We will stand for the invocation. I'll lead today's pledge.

Our father, we pray for this session of the Venice City Council. Bless the men and women as they lead our city into a bright tomorrow. Bless those who are meeting here today with wisdom to guide their discussions and decisions for the common good of our residents, friends, and neighbors. In your name we pray. Amen.

Amen. Okay. Let's start with the fun stuff. So I'm gonna have the vice mayor join me down in front, and he's going to read today's proclamation. If I could get everybody from the Venice Nokomis Women's Club to come up front, and then spread out right here in the front. We're gonna we're gonna fill this spot and we're gonna give the proclamation.

Good morning, Bob. Morning.

Doug, my Lloyd voice. Lloyd voice.

Good morning.

Good morning, everybody. Thank you for being here. All I can say is I think that while the mayor might have got tipped off about the pink, I did not. So it's just luck ladies, it's just luck, that's all. So, I'll give that one to you.

Thank you. Whereas the Venice Nokomis Women's Club was founded in 1926 by a group of civic minded women dedicated to improving the quality of life in the Venice and Nokomis communities through volunteer service, education, and philanthropy. And whereas for one hundred years, the Venice Nokomis Women's Club has provided invaluable service and leadership, supporting countless civic, cultural, educational and charitable initiatives that have strengthened the fabric of our community. And whereas the club's historic 1927 clubhouse listed on the National Register of Historic Places stands as a beloved local landmark and a lasting symbol of the club's dedication to community heritage and preservation. And whereas through the decades, the Venice Nacoma women's club has championed literacy, education, environmental stewardship, and humanitarian causes, fostering civic engagement and inspiring generations of women to serve.

And whereas 03/20/2026 marks the club's centennial jubilee, celebrating a century of service, sisterhood, and community spirit as members and friends gather to honor this proud legacy. And whereas the city of Venice recognizes the Venice Nacoma women's club as a pillar of civic pride and volunteerism, whose century of service reflects the very best of our city's values and traditions. Now, I, Jim Bolt, vice mayor of the city Of Venice, on behalf of the mayor and the city council, do hereby proclaim 03/20/2026 as the one hundred year anniversary of Venice Tacoma's Women's Club in the city of Venice and urge all citizens to join in recognizing and celebrating the Venice Nacomas Women's Club for its enduring contributions to our community.

As as president of the Venice Tacoma's Women's Club, on behalf of our members, a portion are here and also all the women who were here before us. We thank you for this honor. We thank the council for this honor. So appreciative.

Thank you ladies. Congratulations.

Okay. And with that, we'll take a break until twenty after 09:20, return back. Okay. We are back. And Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to speak? No. None. Okay. Then we will move on to the consent section. All matters listed under the consent section are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion unless an item is removed by a council member. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired by a council member, the item or items will be considered and voted upon at the end of the consent section. Does anybody want to pull anything from consent? I wouldn't imagine so. So with that, I will entertain a motion.

Mr. Mayor. Mr. Vice Mayor.

I move to approve items on the consent section.

Second. Second by Mr. Smith. All in favor say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Passes unanimously. All right. We are on to public hearings twenty six-five thirty two. Public hearing is now open. And Madam Attorney, if you would like to introduce the topic.

Certainly. Good morning everyone. So today we are discussing a revised proposed settlement agreement related to the GCCF Planned Unit Development, FLUDRA, Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act proceeding. The Pflugger proceeding was initiated by the applicants, Border Road Investments and Vestera Associates when their petition for a PUD amendment to increase the allowable density in the GCCF PUD by three seventeen units was denied by counsel on a four to three vote. The basis of that denial was lack of compatibility and lack of demonstration of unified control.

That latter item has subsequently been mooted by the city's adoption of revised criteria for PUD amendments which this petition would have met if it was in place at that time. So by statute when an applicant elects to utilize the FLUDRA process the parties must select a neutral special magistrate to handle the proceedings. Attorney Mark Bentley was selected and he is here today and will be giving you a refresher on the Fludger process. So I don't want to duplicate his comments so I'll skip to the point of today's discussion. Last August an initial settlement proposal was brought before council that was rejected on a four to three vote.

Based on the comments made by council during that the consideration of that settlement agreement and what we took to be a seeming desire by the majority to continue to try and find a resolution. We as staff felt it was worthwhile to reengage in informal settlement discussions. Ultimately the terms of the revised settlement agreement before you today were reached and our city manager as the representative of the city in consultation with myself and Roger Clark thought it would it could resolve a majority of council's concerns and was therefore worthy of your consideration. Planning staff today will go over the terms of the proposed revised settlement agreement in comparison to the last settlement. Turning to our procedures today, this is not a quasi judicial proceeding.

Your sole determination today is whether to approve or reject the revised settlement agreement. Again I believe our special magistrate Mr. Bentley will be going over with you what may happen if the settlement is rejected so I will not comment on that now. Our order of procedures will be to hear from him first, then staff, then the applicant, then we'll take public comment and then each party, the city and the applicant will have five minutes to do any closing comments. So unless there's any questions I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Bentley. Mr. Mayor.

Mr. Bentley if you want to come up.

He's in the back.

Thank you. Good morning Mr. Mayor and Council Members. My name is Mark Bentley. I'm an attorney based in Tampa.

And I was selected to serve as what they call a special magistrate in connection with this dispute resolution matter. And that's by statute, but essentially I was a mediator in the event a compromise isn't reached, I would kind of switch hats and become a hearing officer, and then make it, we'd have a hearing on the merits of the case. I've been practicing about forty years. I am certified by the Florida Borrowers, an expert in city, county and local government law and also certified as a planner by the American Planning Association, AICP, since 1989. And I'm also an adjunct professor at University of South Florida in the grad program for planning where I teach land use law.

I hate to sound like self serving, you know, but you know I think it's important to let you know I do have some experience in dealing with these matters. First of all, I'd like to compliment Kelly and her team and also Jeff and his team for their professionalism and the way they approach this matter and was not antagonistic, very cooperative, and it's unfortunate that this is still lingering about two years after I think the original denial was in April 2024. So I was just gonna kinda go over the law and some of the options to be presented to you and maybe some of the implications of the option that or options you ultimately select. The law we're dealing with is, it's Florida statute, it's not in your code, it's called the Florida Land Use Environmental Dispute Resolution Act. It was enacted in 1995 by the Florida legislature, the same time as the Bert Harris Act.

And it's not a companion to that, but it's found in the same statutory section. In any event, the intent of the act is to eliminate or reduce the time risk and uncertainty associated with litigation of these land use disputes. And for the statute, and I quote it says, the process is intended to facilitate a resolution of the conflict between the owner and governmental entities by negotiating an adjustment of the development to create a mutually acceptable solution. It's my understanding that the resolution passed by council, its development order and denying the original zoning petition, there were three issues that were identified. I think I heard Kelly say one's been mooted, the unified control issue is no longer on the table.

And the other two, one was compatibility in your code with respect to your code and the other one was compatibility, but that was more like an administrative issue that you had to provide a compatibility analysis in connection with your PUD application, which it's my understanding the applicant did. So it really is kind of narrowed down to compatibility. So over the last two years, both parties have been working on this issue, compatibility, as they sought as they believe council sought in April 2024. So this process continues until the owner decides to stop it or the counsel rejects my recommendation after conducting a de novo hearing on the merits of the petitioner's request. That is if the petitioner wants to have a hearing if the settlement is rejected today.

If there is a hearing, the burden would be on the petitioner to demonstrate by substantial competent evidence to me that the decision by City Council in April 2024 was unreasonable and or imposed an unfair burden on the use of their property. So I would conduct a hearing, hear testimony, then again render a recommendation back to city council and city council could then either reject it, accept it, or subject to the petitioner's approval, modify it. So those would be the options. And then if you went through that scenario and it was rejected, then what happens under this Dispute Resolution Act is once you file the initial, what they call request for relief like a pleading, that tolls the time for that would usually be applicable to filing litigation for like the typical zoning litigations by petition for rigissertiore, and you have thirty days to file. But once you file to go through this process, that tolls the time.

So in this case, the petitioner has reserved all of its rights to file administrative or or legal seeking legal remedies against the city. So through this process, actually it doesn't even necessarily have to be a denial. You know, when I got selected to serve, recall that about fifteen years ago, my memory is not that great, I served as special magistrate in Venice. And the developer had actually gotten his PUD approved, but he didn't like one of the zoning conditions that was imposed by the city council. I think it was some kind of traffic mitigation requirement.

And they filed under the act just because they contested that condition. So it's kind of interesting. It's But in in the event there isn't a settlement today, which I'll talk about and go through some of the details, is obviously, and there might even be some attorneys sitting on counsel, I don't know. But if there is litigation, that's kind of an all or nothing proposition and neither side really wins. It's kind of winner take all.

So my perspective is that over the last two years since the denial, there have been some substantial good faith efforts made by both parties to avoid getting into litigation. And hopefully that's the outcome with this proposal today. So to just talk about the procedures under the act and then what your options are, it's the petitioner has to file, as I mentioned, within thirty days of receipt of a development order, and they have to assert that the in this case, the denial by City Council in 2024 of its rezoning petition was unreasonable and imposed an unfair burden on the use of their property. And as I mentioned, once the request is filed, the time for filing suit is told. I'd like to mention that although mediation was noticed by the city and potential participants received notice in an offer to participate.

No citizen of the city exercised that opportunity during this entire proceeding, And we sent direct notice, our office did, to contiguous property owners as required by the statute. And so that's my understanding that the way it works, the statute, there's two parties that is obviously the city and the petitioner, but if someone was interested in participating, like, they would have the opportunity to comment on a proposed compromise. I'm just the point is that never happened. No one showed up, during the entire proceeding. So the options available to counsel today are to accept the recommended compromise, reject the recommended compromise, or modify the recommended compromise, which could only be allowed if the petitioner agrees.

If there is either a rejection or the petitioner does not agree to any modifications that may be proposed by counsel, then the petitioner is entitled to a hearing on the merits, as I mentioned earlier, to demonstrate that counsel's action was unreasonable and or imposed an unfair burden on the use of their property. If there is a hearing and I conclude that the petitioner has not met its burden, then the process under the statute is concluded and the petitioner may pursue any legal remedies that it had when it invoked the act. However, if the petitioner has met its burden, and I find that the counsel's decision was unreasonable or imposed an unfair burden on the use of their property, then subject to the owner's consent, I would provide a recommendation to which counsel may adopt, reject or modify subject to the owner's consent. In the event counsel should reject my recommendation, the petitioner has the right to pursue all legal remedies that are preserved when invoking the act as I mentioned. Just to kind of go back in time a little bit, as you may recall, your professional planning staff supported or did not object to the proposed rezoning.

I guess in City Of Venice what happens when the staff reviews the rezoning petition, they don't issue a positive recommendation and I think they issue a finding of consistency with the comprehensive plan. And your professional planning staff found that the original petition, not with the adjustments that have been made over time in terms of reduction in density and reduction in height, they felt that it was consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed settlement is endorsed obviously by your professional staff, city attorney and city manager. The project was unanimously endorsed by your planning commission in its original form. I think the vote was seven to zero.

And also the petitioner's modifications were the result of a compromise and reflect a good faith effort to address concerns raised by this council at the public hearing and the first settlement hearing which occurred last August. So when you kind of boil it down, the sole issue to be addressed in this matter is the consistency issue. There were three issues identified in the original resolution in 2024, and it's kind of narrowed down to consistency. And from my perspective, the petitioner has made some adjustments to the project to address what I perceive to be based on my review of the record of the City Council public hearing on this matter, which address or attempt to address Council's concerns. So in conclusion, I would encourage city council to adopt the proposed settlement which provides a reasonable compromise and balances the petitioner's development expectations with the city's goal of protecting the public health, safety and welfare the citizens of the City Of Venice.

If you have any questions, certainly try and answer them. Thank you.

Any questions from council? Okay. Then we will move to the staff presentation.

Good morning. For the record, Nicole Tremblay, Senior Planner for the City Of Venice. You may remember seeing this presentation from me before a few months ago, so what I've done is just kind of a strike through to show where the changes occurred between the first settlement and the second. So first we'll just start with an aerial so you remember, you know, the location of Vestera between Laurel Road and Border Road against I-seventy 5. So this is the entire GCCF PUD and we'll narrow it down a little bit in just a moment.

So here's a brief timeline. The original GCCF PUD was approved in February 2020. They filed for an amendment through the Planning Department to have sixteen seventeen units, up from their original 1,300. That was denied in April 2024, as you heard, and then the first settlement came before you in August 2025. So that was denied as well and we're here today in March '26 for the second settlement hearing.

So here's where you can see kind of the differences. They're proposing to increase the maximum density from 4.3 units per acre to 4.97, going from 1,300 to sixteen oh seven units. They'd be limiting 60 rather than three seventy of those units to the 17.46 acre parcel that is designated for medical office, multifamily, house of worship, and assisted living. You can see that parcel right here outlined in purple. That's actually so north is to your right, but there would be three sixty units rather than three seventy limited to that area.

This part did not change between the first settlement and this proposal. There is an optional interconnection with the property to the east and this would help keep some of the trips off of Laurel Road. So for the land uses section, permitted uses in the binding master plan, this also did not change from the first settlement to the second. This was not an issue that Council had. The request is to add assisted living, independent living, and memory care as permitted and delete them as special exception uses.

Height is something that has changed from the last settlement proposal. So, what they're proposing now is that the maximum height for assisted living, independent living, and memory care uses would be 55, including parking, by right. And then, multifamily uses could be 55 with a height exception approval otherwise 35 by right. Lot detail standards, these did not change from the first proposal. These would be necessary in order to develop the independent living and memory care uses.

They need lot standards to develop those. Those are in there. And the same with signage standards. This would not be a change from the first proposal that you all saw. This was not one of the points that was considered contentious in the first proposal. So signage standards would be permitted for assisted living or added for assisted living. So those are really the only changes they're proposing. Height is different than the last time you saw it and the total number of units are different than the last time you saw it. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Any questions for staff? Mr. Smith?

Thank you. I'm concerned that we might processes with this agreement. Would normally would change a height exception be something that would go before the Planning Commission before it came to the City Council?

A height exception petition? Yes, it would.

Okay. And in this case, that hasn't happened, is that right?

They did file a height exception petition with the first settlement but since that was denied that has since been put on hold. So I'm not sure if they'll continue with that or not. This 55 feet by right for the assisted living uses would be a change to the binding master plan rather than a height exception. So there's two different processes available there.

And would that change in uses normally be something that would have to go before the Planning Commission before it came here?

That's another binding master plan change. So if they had filed it as a zoning map amendment petition, it would go Planning Commission and then to you all. But as part of this settlement, it doesn't have to go to Planning Commission first in this case.

Okay. If I understand correctly, part of this proposed agreement would allow some of the already approved units to be built on this 25 parcel, but also all of the newly requested units on that same parcel together with some of the existing units. Is that right?

Basically, yes. So they're limiting three sixty units, but they're only adding three zero seven. So some of the remaining ones would have to come from the existing approval.

Okay. And if those units, what's the new number?

Sixteen oh seven for the total?

No, but three zero seven plus how many were envisioned coming forward?

So three sixty are limited to that, they're adding three zero seven, so 53 would be limited would be coming over from

the Okay, existing and so we take that fifty three and three zero seven, so we're up to three sixty units?

Right.

Now if those units are used for an assisted living facility, is there some formula that allows that number to grow further?

No, we don't have like a multiplier for assisted Simply

that three sixty or for a memory care facility, same thing?

Right. The only thing we have a bonus for would be affordable housing and we haven't heard any proposals for that.

Okay. And one of the features that I think people liked and that the council liked about the, Mysteria development, tell me if I'm correct, was there was a requirement that lower heights be used closer to Laurel Road and sort of the greater heights be further back, is that correct?

I believe you're correct. I know when they were doing the height exceptions for the multifamily that's there now, they did kind of stagger them in that way. Some of the buildings towards the outside are lower and some towards the inside are taller. I believe Is that's

a planning term for that? We stagger the heights and set back the bigger heights?

I can't think of like a vocabulary word for it, no, I'm sorry.

Yeah, it's just sort

of a stepping process. We do that on a lot of projects, don't we?

Yeah. It's a practice that people use, yeah, to kind of bring the height towards the center rather than the street.

And why do we do that?

To lower the perception of the height from the road I suppose.

Okay, to make the project more appealing from the road?

I suppose so, yeah.

And more appealing to people across the street or neighboring? Is that basically the idea?

Yeah.

Okay. And if we propose if we make this agreement, won't we be basically waiving that because all of this would be built at greater height in the parcels that are the closest to Laurel Road, isn't that right?

Right. I don't know that we're waiving any requirement, but it is different than what you're describing which is putting the lowest height at the front. It would be an opportunity to put a higher height at a front parcel, that's correct.

Thank you. Let me pause you guys real quick. If we're having side conversations in council chambers, can we take that outside please? Gentlemen? We need to take our side conversation outside. It's distracting to the councils who are trying to hear testimony. I'm sorry, please continue.

No, that's fine. Thank you, Mayor. That's all I had for Mr.

Clark, did you have something?

Yeah, just want to indicate for the record, Roger Clark, Planning and Zoning Director that there was I don't believe there was any requirement in the PUD as far as the zoning is concerned to have the lower buildings toward the street. That was something that was proposed by the applicant when they proposed the site and development plan for the apartment complex that's on the northeastern portion of the property. So that was something the applicant proposed.

I need you to clarify that one more time. So you're saying that in the current development, no, but in a different development, yes, or in this development, yes?

No. In this development, was not a zoning requirement to have lower buildings towards the street that was proposed through the site development plan for that, the multifamily portion of this PUD.

Okay, thank you. Was that it Mr. Smith? Yes. Okay, Vice Mayor Bolt?

Thank you. My memory is not as good as it used to be, so I'm going to press you a little bit. I think it seems to me that part of the discussion on this was compatibility and there was a chart at one time on one of these discussions that gave us what the densities were in the surrounding area.

So I do

If you could flip that, it's it's sideways right now. There you go.

Okay. So

you can

see across the street is Mirasol. They are entitled to 13 units per acre. They've got 12.1 right now. There's RMF three right next to this property. Laurel at Venice, they've got a maximum of 13 units per acre approved for 12.4.

Laurel East is not approved for any residential right now but in general they could go up to 13 units per acre. Willow Chase has a maximum of 5.5 but are built at 2.3. Then Vestera itself is entitled to 4.3, would be going to 4.97, and Milano is entitled to 2.7 but built currently is 1.7 units per acre. So, on the parcel that we're talking about, the 17 acres, three sixty units would be about 20 units per acre and the Vestera apartments that are already in this neighborhood are about 24 units per acre right now as approved.

Thank you very much. That's what I was looking for. Mr. Mr.

Mayor, I don't know if this might be a good time. Do you have a similar thing for the Heights surrounding nearby Heights? The

only ones that exceed 35 feet would be the style no, I'm sorry, not the styles, multifamily. The Vistara itself. The apartments within Vistara are approved for, I think it was 53 feet.

Yeah, there was a back when height was approved through a conditional use, there was a conditional use granted for additional height up to 54 feet seven inches for the apartment complex that's within Vistara currently. And when they were constructed, there's two buildings that are four stories at the 54 feet seven inch height and there are four buildings that are four stories that are at 53 feet. So very similar to what the applicant is proposing.

So five inches less ultimately? Yes. Okay. Mr. Engelke?

Seems like the attorney asked my question. I was concerned about the surrounding on that side of the street, the heights of the existing and or approved buildings. So sounds like we're at that level or a little bit less.

Most of the buildings as Nicole indicated are within the height ranges that are permitted. Some of them have some extra that we allow above them that might go a bit above that, but most of them are falling within the range of what we allow.

Marisol allows up to 45 I believe and there's a couple of buildings in there over 35 but still didn't need a height exception, they're within their range.

Mr. Howard? Thanks, Mayor. How many acres are in Vistara as it sits today, not the partial, the 17 acres we're talking about now, the 1,300 across how many acres?

It's about 300.

It's close to 300, not exactly sure what the total is. Okay.

And we're talking about three fifty and seventeen acres.

360, yes. Yeah. One seventeen and a half.

So another height question and I may have this wrong, that's why I'm asking you the question. If the if the building, I'm going back to the uses as it is today, so it's a 35 foot height with multifamily house of worship independent and memory care. If it was memory care, anything medical, what's the height? Is that still restricted to thirty five or if it's designated as memory care, do they have the right to go higher than 35?

You're talking about in the proposal or you're talking about as the PUD exists? In the proposal. In the proposal, they're asking for a by right height of the memory care, the assisted living, independent living up to fifty five feet. The multi family mentioned that would still require a height exception for anything above thirty five, but they would still be limited to fifty five as a maximum height.

Thank you.

So before I go to Ms. Frank, I just want to say what I'm reading in the proposal is that the acreage is 323.56. Does that sound correct? Yes. Okay. Ms. Frank, go ahead.

Thank you. I just wanted to clarify on the height because that was one of the major concerns for me last time we saw this before us. So, it was initially requested to have up to 65 feet and now what's before us today is 55 feet. Is that correct?

For the assisted living, memory care, and independent living, yes.

Wonderful. And if I heard you correctly, there is existing, you know, because we're making a decision oftentimes about compatibility and what's existing in that area. So there's properties that are built up to fifty fifty four, almost 55 feet currently?

Right directly across the property that is between where the 17.4 acre property is and the apartment complex currently in Vistara right there directly across except for the property, the styles property that's in between. But yes, this property over here has what I had indicated the two buildings at 54 feet seven inches and four buildings at 53 feet.

Great. So this decrease in this revised settlement that's before us brings it in line to current existing properties in the area. Thank you.

Correct. Anyone else? Okay. Thank you both and we will move on to the applicant's presentation.

Good morning, Mr. Mayor, members of the council for the record, Jeffrey Boone of the Boone Law Firm here in Venice representing Border Road Investments LLC and Vistira Associates LLC. Those are the two corporate entities that own the property. I'm just going to refer to them as the Neal entities or just Neal, as we go forward today. With us here today is both Pat Neal and John Neal. I know you know both of them. Also from my office, Annie Boone, who is an attorney in our firm as well as Jim Collins, who is a planner in our firm. And also Mr. Bill Moore, who is sitting here in the front row, one of Pat Neal's other lawyers. And he has been involved, as you all know, a couple of times at least in the past with issues with the City Of Venice for Mr.

Neal. So with that much said, I'm going to turn this over to Pat and John.

Can I sit there? Mr. Mayor, did you observe that I kicked my lawyer out so I could sit there with my son? Didn't Mr. Think that prevail on that Mayor, members of council, I'm Pat Neal.

I hope it does not surprise you for me to say that we enjoy building in the city of Venice. We've built about 20 we have about 2,300 homes completed or underway in Venice and we're trying to complete this without any additional conflict. John and I, and our other son, Michael Neal, have built about 27,000 homes in Bradenton, Manatee County. And I have to report to you kind of a new thing in our region and state which is that people now resist everything we do. You might note that I'm attempting to build a road to Minnesota Beach that has been on the county comprehensive plan for seven years.

Our bid is $7,000,000 lower than the county budget. It's fully approved. The right of way is owned and the swift mud permit will be issued shortly. But still no, we'll have litigation on that as we now do on most of the projects that we do. We have been successful at that not only in this city but also in Manatee County and Lea County.

Now here's the big idea. My hope and wish and prayer is that we could finish our work in the city of Venice without further conflict. And I think we can do so if all of us pay attention to the testimony today and the recommendation of the magistrate. I will say that Mark Bentley is kind of a famous Floridian. He is very well respected in real estate circles.

He has done every kind of real estate found in our state, and of course, the other lawyers present, Jeff Boone and Bill Moore are, I might say, the prominent lawyers in their fields in this part of the state. We would like to build an ALF because that's what the market is in the city of Venice, you might have noticed. But nowadays, because of the brand new hospital being remodeled, there is a market for apartments too. It is better for us, it is more profitable, and it's probably less controversial that we go ahead with ALF. I did not intend to go through the parameters of the ALF, but we're happy to do so if you desire.

My closing statement is, it's like phosphate in Manatee County. The people didn't want the phosphate, and the county commission voted no every time. But the courts and the judges found that the phosphate miners had met the standards of law every time. I might say, I think that's the case here. I hope you listened to us carefully, but that you'll make the courageous but necessary action to ratify the FluDRA recommendation.

There's been some controversy the last week about disclosures Because of our experience at Cielo, we have, disclosed the Dickens. I was gonna use another word, John. We have disclosed and disclosed and disclosed and disclosed and disclosed. John will explain some of the disclosures.

Hello council members and mister mayor. My name is John Neal. My company Neal Landon Neighborhoods is the developer and managing partner along with Pat and the Casada family of the Vistara community. A community which was always designated even before we owned this land, if you remember more, the more intensely zoned bridges or Villa Paradiso projects to have a variety of land and residential uses including the ones before you today. My presentation will be fast and in which I would like to cover four things, complexity of zoning disclosures, the ratio of one to five and working with your staff on a successful mediation of mostly give on our part.

I just want to say to everyone here about the complexities of zoning that comp planning and zoning are concepts which are not always easy to understand. The codes are confusing and spending time to understand them is not the best use of most people's time. But we know them and your staff knows them and we always follow all the rules and we always follow the letter of the law. But as I said, it's confusing. So it's not surprising that we can sometimes get some notes and comments about our projects, as Pat was mentioning.

Mostly people, I think, just distill the problem down to issues, which they perceive as somehow wrong or improper, but what I think that they're really objecting to is change. And it's hard to face up to that, but it's human nature to resist change. And over time, we all know that things change, the needs of the PUD, the needs of the community. In fact, all along we knew that this PUD was gonna change because we hadn't applied density to it, and so we did our best to disclose that we knew it was gonna change. The first rule of real estate, they say, if anybody's taking notes, is location.

But the next three rules, least for the Neals, are disclose, disclose, disclose. What is before you today and what is on the Elmo, I don't know if you can hand those out or I can pass these on. I'm gonna put these on the screen. I never do that. I never I get that. There's a lot

of them.

Do you wanna

You're upside down.

Upside down.

Nearly perfect but upside down. Yes.

Jeez Louise. One One more turn. There

you go.

You you do it. That's what we brought you for. Thanks,

to have our lawyer after all, mister Mayor.

No. That's right.

Otherwise otherwise

See, look, it's not easy. There you go.

So you guys can flip it somehow.

These are the copy of the disclosures, there's many of them, that require every builder in our community to make. Not just in the contract, but in the pamphlets, the handouts. If you buy a house from m and I MI Homes or David Weekley, you get a disclosure, sometimes more than one and you even have to sign it. You have to sign it because agreeing to our ability to change the p u d is a condition of buying a lot or a home from me because we're the experts. But even if you didn't see it black and white and even if you didn't read your sales contract, we disclosed it in virtually all Vestera handouts including the Vestera Zoom app which Pat showed earlier in two different places and on the Vestera website.

On top of that we have had, I don't know, since the beginning Jeff, if we had 12 public hearings, maybe more. Maybe at least 20 newspaper articles highlighting changes. We've sent emails, we've had newsletters. The point is if you wanted to know, you could find out. The ratio of one to five.

In most of America, one to five homes are either group homes or multi family homes but not in this area of Sarasota County, that's because we have mostly served older and more mature buyers. But even mature buyers in beautiful single family homes or in golf course communities need services and that's the reason that a PUD exists in your code. We want to provide lots of types of housing and it seems counterintuitive to most, but if we don't apply the different types of housing where people need services or medical services to the area where people work and live, then they have to drive longer and it creates more traffic. That's the counterintuitive part. And so finally, and that's a bugaboo for me.

And finally, the mediation. Even though we don't grind through all the details in a timed hearing such as this, you and the citizens of the room must know that we spend hours and hours. Your timeline actually said years, I wrote months here, but it seems like a long time talking with your staff and talking about the things that we've touched on here and talking and working through a lot of other things also. Your staff did an excellent job bringing forward your concerns and your constituents' concerns. It was give and take on both sides as mediation often is, but what is before you today is the best that I think that we both can do. I ask you please to support the work of your staff and our compromise and the findings of your mediator on this so that we can all move forward.

I'd like to clarify the roles of John Neal in his company and Pat Neal in his company. Keep in mind that John Neal is the land developer. Everyone of I'm gonna hold this up and then give it to your clerk. Everything every person who bought, of course, would have the detail about the land development from Neil Land and Neighborhoods. And it clearly says future medical office and multifamily ALF right here from the land developer.

Excuse me, Pat. You're not getting picked up on the microphone because you're too far away.

Too far away for you to hear me.

I'm gonna say it again.

This is the disclosure from the land developer and it has the proper words of the current zoning and application from the land developer. Separately, each person who buys from Neal Communities, a home builder or MI Homes, a home builder from Columbus, Ohio or from David Weekly Builders, a builder from Houston, Texas, they sign a separate series of disclosures in their contract as required in the covenants. Our websites clearly show it. You can go to the Neal website right now and see the disclosed future medical office and multi family. We were surprised by all the letters that we got on Friday from your staff and in truth we tried to discern where they came from.

They were about evenly divided about from Neil, MI and weekly customers, quote, we know that we disclosed the existence of this zoning application to all of those people. To be clear, we've been at this for twenty three months and the sales at Vestera have occurred, might say, in a shorter time period than that. So you will hear some testimony, I believe, from opponents about lack of disclosure. We feel that there is none. That the advertising materials, the verbal representations, the digital representations, the contracts and the brochures all have a disclosure of this pending application.

Thank you, Pat. Could we stop the clock to fix this technical issue with it's going to be really difficult to for whatever reason when something gets placed on here it's upside down. So if you're trying to refer to something, at least me, I'm not good reading stuff upside down.

I thought that was you, Jeff.

No. Maybe says Sorry. Go ahead. Jim. Oh, Jim.

I'm sure the button got hit or something.

Yeah. Someone

just hit

something. Yeah.

Is that good? Looks good

to me. Well,

we have to hit the thing to share. If you look right here, that's what it'll Yep.

Is. That works, we're good.

Uh-oh. Hang on.

Okay.

Mr. Mayor and Counsel, I'm going to ask Mr. Jim Collins, who as you know is a planner with our firm, who has also been recognized in state courts of Florida as an expert in planning to provide a little bit more information here about our proposed settlement agreement. Jim?

Yes. Good morning. So as Mr. Bentley said, the issue today really here is compatibility. It's been reduced to compatibility.

And so I thought it would be useful just to remind everybody that the city's comp plan defines compatibility and it states that elements affecting compatibility include the following: height, scale, mass and bulk of structures pedestrian or vehicular traffic circulation access and parking impacts landscaping lighting noise odor and architecture and compatibility does not mean the same as. And so with respect to all of those issues, with the exception of transportation, which I'll get to, the proposed rezoning did not change any of them. The access and circulation remained the same, the land uses remained the same, the height and scale and the massive structures, setbacks, buffers, lot sizes, lot coverage, open space, everything remained the same. The only change was the density, which of course results in additional trips. During the application process, we provided a transportation analysis.

It was reviewed and approved by the city's transportation consultant, confirmed that there were no additional impacts as a result of the additional trips. And in fact, that was not a point of discussion during the hearing in which the rezoning was denied. So as far as compatibility and the surrounding land uses, we could see the overhead. And Nicole presented you a similar map. This is the map that we've prepared.

And so I don't need to go into a great bit of detail, but where there are lower density developments to the east and to the south, there's a 185 foot buffer between the two developments. To the south, there's a 100 foot right of way between the developments. So there's substantial separation to provide additional compatibility if it were to be needed. Then as you look along the western boundary of the property, the first thing you see is that it's immediately adjacent to I-seventy 5 and certainly higher densities would be compatible with a interstate highway. You go further up along the western boundary and you have the city Of Venice's wastewater treatment plant.

Again, no compatibility issues for the wastewater treatment plant, I don't believe. And then finally, you get up to the area along Laurel Road to the west, where properties are either future land use designated for 13 units per acre and one point zero FARs, which means hundreds of thousands of square feet of commercial use and 13 dwelling units per acre. And then as you go across to the north side of Laurel Road, of course, you have the MiraSol development, which is very intense mixed use development, six fifty residential units there and hundreds of thousands of square feet of residential. So the proposal to up zone to the sixteen seventeen units was certainly compatible by every measure.

Thank you, Mr. Collins. That then leads into Mr. Bentley has provided you the unbiased, neutral opinion that the issue here is compatibility. I want to read from the order of denial what it actually says about compatibility.

The petition is not in compliance with the section of the Land Development Code as it is not compatible with the existing development pattern and the zoning, existing development pattern and zoning of nearby properties. So I don't know I think Nicole's presentation and Jim's has made it clear that for nearby properties, this is very compatible and in fact, it is less dense and less intense than many of the nearby properties. And that's a fact, it's been shown to you. And again, that is the issue that we're here on the settlement. In the interest of time, I did want to emphasize what happens if we don't have a settlement, but I'm going to skip that for now and just make sure everyone is aware that the current settlement agreement from the last time we were here, Neil has changed positions.

The city hasn't. We've negotiated with city manager, city staff and city attorney. They've held fast. We have compromised. We are now requesting fewer dwelling units.

We are now we have dropped all requests as part of this for additional height for multifamily and in fact, basically where we are is exactly what the land development regulations say for multifamily development, period. So we're not asking for anything different than what's in the code, when it comes to the height for multifamily. We have lowered the height request for the ALF, ILF and memory care to 55 feet. I want to point out to you that extra height is the standard for development in most modern assisted living facilities, independent living facilities and memory care. There are efficiencies and scale of having rooms stacked on top of each other instead of spread out all over everywhere, especially for the assisted living component.

And the height exception that we presently have on file, if this settlement agreement is approved, we will withdraw it by the end of this week. And for all of those who don't believe anything we say, not any of you all of course, but for those in the public that don't believe anything we say, if that height exception came back in front of you after we just said we're going to withdraw it, we already know what the vote's going to be, so we're withdrawing it by the end of the week if the settlement is approved. Remain willing to say that the additional units would be located along the Laurel Road frontage of the property, so none of them will end up in the neighborhoods of the people who presently live in Vistara. We're still consistent with that and then the other things that we've asked for. I've only got twenty seconds left.

I'll just say that, if we can't settle this, then, well let me say it this way, settling this today would save the city and the city taxpayers much, much a great deal of time, effort and expense, same to Neal Communities, we request your approval of the settlement. If you have any questions, we'd be happy to answer them.

Any questions from counsel? Mr. Smith?

I wanted to thank the Neals for being here and I had a question if I could ask it of Pat Neal. Mr. Neal, you mentioned lots of letters that you'd received and the counsel received 80 letters contesting this settlement and I was profoundly affected by many of them asking us to stand strong. And so I like to read you just some excerpts from one letter and ask you to respond to that letter writer if you would, okay. This letter writer says, when we purchased our home in Bisteria, we did so based on the approved development plan including the originally proposed phase two layout.

Like many residents, we made a significant financial and personal investment in the community with the understanding that the neighborhood would develop according to that approved plan. Allowing a height and density increase would fundamentally change the character of the community, significantly impact the residents who chose to live here based on the existing development agreement. Many of us purchased homes here because of the thoughtful design and scale. Changing the development parameters after residents have already invested their lives and resource here would be deeply disappointing and detrimental to the character of the neighborhood. I note that we showed earlier, the original approval was four years before the request for this increased density which now has led to two years of discussion.

Mr. Neal, would you respond to that letter right specifically?

First of all, I'm glad you asked that question. What I earlier testified, Mr. Smith, was that we had disclosed the future medical office multifamily ALF, is the topic of our discussion today. They were disclosed. But when reference is made to phase two, John and I think that the writers have erroneously read the earthmoving which is now occurring on the property on phase two to be our development proposal for this ALF.

We have not received 81 letters but I've reviewed every letter that we got from the city and I think John has also done so. And we think based on the context of the letters that the writers who may have been informed by others who didn't know the facts, believe that we're attempting to put an ALF on the south part of the property, phase two where the construction is underway.

Did you follow-up? Can I just say that in just a slightly different way? We are commencing, we have not changed phase two at all, at all. But as I stated in my own comments, zoning is complex. It's sometimes hard to figure out, you know, what we're talking about. We are only talking about geez, Jeff.

Can you

slide it?

We're only talking about this parcel right here. But this, the white area is the same as it has always been and it will be the same.

Phase two.

Phase two.

Let me just let me also add to that because I think the Neals are making really good points here. The original application that was denied, by the way we talked about this last time and I'm not sure that it really got grounded. And I wanna would hope this time around because this now, the spotlight's being shown very brightly on this. The original development proposal did not restrict the additional units to any particular part of the development. So in fact, the residents are actually significantly better protected by this settlement agreement because if we go to court, if we don't settle this and we go to court and the court finds that the original application should have been approved, that would then allow for the Neals to come back in here, make smaller lots, build smaller houses, and add more houses to the existing residential development.

So if the concern is, which is understandable, that the density in here would increase as part of the settlement agreement, Neil has given up on adding any units down here. In fact, at the time you know, last time we talked about this, the court is gonna look and if you don't believe me, you can ask mister Bentley or ask Kelly or ask missus Fernandez. The court is gonna look at what the situation was at the time the application was denied, and that was back before a lot of these these units were even platted. And what I mean by that is, you know, if if if you're in a car, so I'm I'm I'm gonna pick on somebody, I'll pick on I'll I'll pick on mister Engelke. Mister Engelke, if you're in a car and somebody runs through the stop sign, strunk, t bones you, and your hits your wife's side, and your wife has to spend a year in the hospital, but by the time you end up in court over that, she's fine or doing much better.

The court doesn't look at, oh, well, your your wife's fine now. You're not entitled to any any relief. It's not. Lawsuits always look at what happened at the time of what the lawsuit was about. So what the Neals gave up, and this could go to damages, what the Neals gave up was the right to add the additional density in in in a larger area over here.

But that's we're we're past that point now. That would simply be a damages thing. But if the court ordered the original proposal to be approved, the density could have been placed, could still be placed in the future phase. Secondly, and I want to emphasize this because this I think got mixed up, which I'm not finding fault with anybody, it's just so many issues came up the last time we were in front of you. The current proposal before you now, different from the last time we were here, different from the last time we were here, this is a concession that the Neals have made that are bringing to you today is that they're not asking anything different about multifamily development in this PUD than was approved initially, what is in the current zoning regulations, and for what it's worth, for those of you all that remember the bridges, which was the original approved development here back in the 2000s that I worked on, that had multifamily five and six storey buildings approved here.

So this is nothing different than what the history of this property has been. Now we were proposing something different than just straight multifamily how the zoning code treats multifamily. The Neals have given that up now. We are just saying when it comes to multifamily, it's going to be exactly how the land development regulations are and it is exactly what's been on all of the plans because multifamily is not an added use here. It has always been part of this PUD.

All right, Ms. Frank.

Thank you. Just for the benefit of the public and a similar vein to my colleague Mr. Smith's response to a lot of the resident concerns who've reached out to us and in an effort of trust but verify, I went on vasteraventes.com's website to see what the surrounding area as presented by the developer looks like, what the map looks like and you know previously in another hearing I was really disappointed that I felt like disclosure wasn't there from a marketing perspective so that the homeowners and CLO were unaware or caught by surprise. However you know from my understanding and what's in front of us today the disclosure has been there, it has been explicit in my opinion and I'm glad to see on the website it says future medical office multifamily ALF. It's there, it's written and it's in bigger text than even the name of the road.

So, I was happy to see that and just again to speak to some of the resident concerns. It's a lot of the research that we may do behind the scenes. It's not as public in a hearing but I just wanted to make that note.

Any other questions? Mr. Smith?

Mr. Boone, when you mentioned earlier decades ago proposals for that property, am I correct that those were proposals made and approved that called for the use of the property for affordable housing and lower cost housing?

So that proposal was for a mixed use development that actually had some proposed residential units. It was probably more of an urban type setting than what's there now. But some of them were very, very high end, probably at the time, if you excluded Waterfront property this was twenty five years ago, twenty years ago if you excluded waterfront property from the mix, probably some of the most expensive housing, not just in the City Of Venice, but in this whole area, was proposed for there. There were some taller Mr. Collins, do you remember the height, the maximum height that was in the bridges?

Was in the 60 feet range. There were some buildings that were in the 60 feet range that were going to be smaller units and more affordable. And I think the density was 13 units, Nick?

The

bridges, so there were two developments here, one was the bridges and the one immediately to the half of it was the bridges or two thirds of it, the other part was the Villa Paradiso. I think Villa Paradiso was just a straight multifamily type development. But there were some you are correct, Mr. Smith, there were some parts of the bridges development that were aimed at higher density than this, were aimed at more affordable units. I don't think they were ever going to be the percentage of AMI type affordable units.

But it's really although the Neals have made it very clear that what they want to build here is ALF, ILF and memory care, if that doesn't work and it would be apartments, then that is, in my view, having worked on both, be very similar, very similar, not identical, but very similar to what the Bridges had proposed.

Thank you.

Any other questions? So my only question for you is, is there any chance that we can talk about removing the multifamily from the proposal?

Well, that would be up to the Neals, but I would say to you that, Mr. Pachetta, Mr. Mayor, that that's been part of this development from the very beginning. And anybody who, and because the bridges was approved, Mr. Clark might not remember the actual date, but it was I'm going to say it was sometime between 2005 and 2010, so it's been roughly twenty years ago.

There was multifamily approved there twenty years ago. So if there's anything about this that shouldn't be a surprise to anybody other than people actually want to develop near the sewer plant, if there's anything about this that shouldn't be a surprise to anybody, it's the fact that there's going to be multifamily here. And frankly, I don't think multifamily is the issue. I think the issue is apartments, which then runs contrary to Mr. Smith's point about more affordable housing. You get into one of these things. Plus, don't forget, the multifamily right now, unless counsel would agree otherwise, is limited to thirty five feet in height.

So in what you just said to Mr. Smith and just now, are you implying that if multifamily is developed that we will see affordable housing there or no?

Well, say it's more affordable housing and if they are apartments, would don't want to guarantee anything, but in my experience, I think everybody's experience, apartments are more affordable than condominiums.

Any other questions? All right. Next we have public comment. We're going to take a break and we'll come back at 10:40.

And works well, and more importantly, removes the risk that the taxpayers would have to end up footing the bill for continuing to fight over this. A couple of points, just several points real quickly from what you've heard most recently. Roger confirmed what I was going to say, that the 50% open space, which is half of the PUD, half of the land will never be developed. Half of the land will never be developed. That remains the same.

If anyone is concerned about more land being developed, then this should be favored. And in fact, more density should be approved here because this land is already being developed, the infrastructure is there, all of the costs and expenses of having land set up for development is already here now. Frankly, if that's your concern about going out further and developing more land, then this is infill and should be encouraged, in fact even at a greater density, which we're not asking for. All the notice requirements that's part of this process have been complied with. Certainly you can check with Mrs.

Fernandez or Mr. Bentley if you have any questions on that. Not sure, there might have been some confusion. Where we find ourselves now, there are no exceptions to the land development regulations here. PUD's are allowed in the land development regulations to have a maximum density of five dwelling units an acre.

We're actually under that, not by much, but we're actually under that. The multifamily development is now squarely in compliance with the LDRs, as is the ALFILF memory queer. We're not asking for you to approve any additional height that is not allowed for in the LDRs. So for anyone to say that somehow approval of this would be an exception or outside the LDRs or the comp plan for that matter is not correct. There are no structures being proposed taller than single family homes along Border Road, not sure where that came from.

There has been a traffic study submitted, approved, reviewed by the city's outside transportation consultant, as well as consistent with what our transportation engineers came up, so the traffic has already been accounted for in the city's transportation system. And just, I know you all know this, but I feel compelled to say this, this is not the same settlement proposal that came before you the last time. No one here has ever voted on this settlement proposal before. I would just finish by reminding you of something that you already know. The City Council is certainly responsible to the neighbors who live in this area.

You've heard from nobody from Vesterra, but you've heard from people that live around it and even on the island. But the city council is also responsible to all the city residents. And if the settlement fails and we end up in court, all of the city residents will will have be to share the burden of whatever costs might come the city residents' way. The last time, well I won't go there what happened last time. So this is an issue that actually people who are out on the tennis courts right now, the people who are out on the golf courses right now, the people who are out in their boats are going to have to you for your

comments, Mr. Bill. Before I close the public hearing, I just need clarity from the attorney. I feel like some of the information we were shown today as it relates to the surrounding compatibility is a little different than what I heard in the first hearing and I want to clarify what exactly we're taking into account today as it relates to the law.

When you're referring to the first hearing, you mean when it was originally denied? Yes. Okay, great question. So the yes, what this process, this FLUDRIP process enables you to do is to hear additional testimony to find out some additional information that maybe you weren't privy to when you had your initial hearing. So from a if this matter was to ever end up in a court proceeding, likely that would be a petition for writ of cert, then the judge is limited to the record that was created at that hearing, the original denial hearing, nothing else.

So some of the information you've seen today and previously with densities and surrounding densities, I don't think that was provided, asked for, etc. At that initial hearing. So you have received additional information that you did not necessarily see at that first hearing where it was denied. And that's okay, that's permissible in this FLUDRA process.

And then with that you were saying earlier that unified control is off the table so now we're just looking at the compatibility piece based on what we filed?

Correct, based on what your reasons, counsel's reasons for denial.

Okay, thank you. All right, with that I will go ahead and close the public hearing.

Thank you.

And I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Vice Mayor.

I move to approve the revised mediation mediated settlement agreement.

And I will second.

Seconded by Mr. Ingleke and council discussion. Mr. Vice Mayor?

Just a couple of comments for public record more than anything else. I think as was just brought out, we have been given additional information that was not available to us, which to my way of thinking pretty much settles the situation into a place where it fits in the box. And when it fits in the box, we have a very difficult time denying something. As Mr. Clark said, it meets the regulations that are in place.

We're not asking for much in the way of exceptions. So I think it is important for people to note that some of the information that has come out been incorrect. We didn't know it and neither did you. So with all due respect to everybody, as new information comes out, we have to change our direction if necessary. Thank you.

Mr. Engelke, you're next.

Okay, thank you. I'm looking at this and I obviously heard it the last time and I did vote in favor of this last time. I'm continuing to favor the positive vote. I'm looking at this thing, there's really no change of uses with our LDRs or comprehensive plan. I was a little concerned about the disclosures, but I was convinced now that the disclosures have been adequate and complete.

I have a list here just to let you guys know. While the ALFILF could be 55 feet, the multifamily is still 35 feet. So if we go away from the ALFILF solely 35 feet which is already permitted. And also I looked at the surrounding buildings. I think there's six buildings nearby either right next door or one spot away either constructed or will be constructed that are similar height.

So this is not a new height proposal here. Introducing now at 65 feet, I have my concerns at 55 feet, it seems to be within inches of the other buildings nearby. So we have the similar height. We talked about the open space in the cluster. Personally, kind of like the cluster side of it because it keeps the open space and the feel of the neighborhood outside of this relatively 15 acres or whatever it is, that's concentrated, it's very similar to what's next door type of thing.

In terms of the traffic, we did talk about this last time. Yes, there are traffic studies but if we have an ALF or ILF, this is not a fact, is just my own thought that the traffic will be a lot less than if we have multi family with maybe 1.5 to two car per unit and going from there. And I am looking at what the magistrate has recommended. So looking at all that and then looking at the fact that we're concerned about the neighborhood, it is very near to the wastewater treatment plant which is not a desirable neighbor but it's there, it's been there for a while. So now just stepping back after looking at all the facts and my interpretation of facts and saying common sense.

Are we breaking the mold here? No. If we're breaking the mold, you know, then we're gonna have a little bit more difficult time with this thing. Putting all the facts aside and just stepping back and looking at it from 10,000 feet, common sense says, this is pretty similar to what is there. So thank you.

Mr. Smith, you're next.

Thank you, mayor. You know, some people believe that this is a pro developer council. And each member has to answer for their own votes through their time on the board. I want to say this though, I'm proud of three votes that the majority of this council has made in the two years that I've been on on the council. Those were three votes that limited overdevelopment and brought about true compromise and lower density.

The first of those, the council wrestled with objections to density and proposed development. It's now Casada Oaks. That's something that started almost eight years ago before even the most senior member of this council was serving. But it came to a culmination in the last two years. Originally hundreds of homes were proposed for that 40 acres.

In the time that I've been on the council, a proposal existed for 99 homes on that property, later for 85 homes on that property. But the council was reluctant. The Sawgrass community was opposed. Foxlea Farms was very concerned about its continued existence with those higher levels of development next door. What resulted is that last year, because we stood strong, the developer came back and proposed 60 units on 40 acres, 1.5 units per acre and that's what we approved.

And that's what was brought to us because we were strong against overdevelopment that was not compatible with the community. The second vote that I was very proud of involved a nearby property, again to the south of this property, property on Border Road at Auburn Road. I think it was first called Fox Cove and it was 10 acres. And they first proposed 70 units and the council was concerned and the neighbors were concerned and we held strong and said no, we're not going to put seven units per acre on that property. And so they came back and they said, alright, we want to build 52 units on this property.

And the council again listened to the neighbors. It's not compatible with our neighborhood. And we said no. We didn't actually vote. There was a sentiment expressed and the developer withdrew and came back and I believe what we eventually proved was 24 units on that 10 acres, 2.4 units per acre.

So I was proud of council again, score another one for the council, score another one for the community. The third development issue where I have been proud of this council is this matter where we were asked to add three seventeen more units, and we said no. And the compromise that came back was for three seventeen units. That's not a compromise. And we said no.

Now we have a compromise proposed for us of three zero seven units. That's not a compromise in the context of the things that I'm proud of, where we brought that down dramatically, cut the density in half or greater. So we owe it to the people in these neighborhoods to stand strong once again. We need to hear a reasonable compromise, not an incremental one. They wanted three seventeen units.

Now they have asked for three zero seven, but this is twice, twice the density that we had in Fox Cove, twice the density that we had in Casado Oaks, twice the density that's today in Toscana Isles, more than twice the density that's today in Milano, more than twice the density that's in Willow Chase. We just showed the chart there, Tuscan Isles 2.3, Milano 1.7, Willow Chase 2.3, those are the immediate neighbors. Not to mention the ones that we have stood up for in Casada Oaks and in the Fox Cove area, now called Zoldnik I think. So there are five other examples nearby where the density is half of what's being asked here or less than half, where we're asking here for 4.97 units per acre. This proposal offends me in multiple ways.

It betrays the buyers in the development that we heard from in our letters to the editor and that I read one of those letters earlier. Two, the developer hasn't moved far from his original proposal despite their celebrating these small changes. Three, the proposal is now not only incompatible with the neighbors across the street to the South and to the East, and everyone admits that this is more density than what's across the street to the East or to the South. Now it comes with multiple additional proposed concessions by the city bypassing the normal advertising, the normal public hearings, the normal advice to us from the planning commission. And if the developer went to court to try to win these extra units, they would these extra concessions, they'd be denied automatically because it's not appealable.

They have only an appeal density, of the number of units. And if they went to court, I happen to believe that they would lose because this is incompatible with the surrounding properties, if not surrounding then at least to the east and the south. But even if they won, all they would win is the density, not the new use, not the new height, not. Not any of the other concessions that they are asking. So certainly the height restriction is not appealable.

Certainly the use restriction, not appealable. We would not have those items approved by any court. Now, it's been said repeatedly by the developer, oh, you might face costs in court. And at least one member of this council has expressed a fear of being in court and that it could become extensive and costly. But our city attorney has told me and I'm sure she would tell all of you, this is a very simple matter.

There's really only one question, compatible and a judge could handle that and rule on that without extensive lengthy costly litigation. So that's not a reason to cave and give in and betray this neighborhood. I asked and I believe this also undoes one of the better features of Mysteria which was the staggering of the heights so that it was back from there so that the attempt was that it wouldn't be as unattractive as it is by having two storey buildings at the front, four storey buildings further back. And that's something that we frequently buy when developers propose what they are going to do with their land. And this changes all that.

This says no, now we are going to load everything up right up there on Laurel Road. I had people in Willow Chase tell me that four members of that community have moved because they used to look at trees and now they look across at the four storey buildings and it's ruined their entire day on a patio outside their home. Now they were able to resell their homes in this market, but they shouldn't have to lose their suburban feel and all of a sudden be in a more urban setting when this is not what was planned six years ago. This is not what we have approved in the past. This changes the residential character by moving the densest development right up there on the Laurel Road.

We're being asked to abandon that concept. And our strong stand on preserving the original development plan is something we can be proud of just as I am proud of Kasada Oaks and Fox Cove, please continue to stand strong. This is something that we voted on only by four-three margin each time. So I'm hoping that nobody who has been strong enough to stand up this overdevelopment is now going to say, alright, we'll do it. I'm gonna vote to deny this.

I'm not afraid of it going to court. We will win in court. But even if we didn't, all that the developer will win is the additional 317 units and none of the rest of it. And I ask you to vote again to deny this agreement. Thank you.

Mr. Howard?

Thanks, Mayor. My colleague commented about the time that this development has been out there and none of us were even on this board at that time. So John Neil commented on zoning and how complicated it can be and I've been at this for three years and I still struggle with understanding some of the zoning. But there is something I do understand and it is density. And I had You have to believe me when I say I was hoping for an amicable settlement here and if I could wish upon a star, it would it would definitely be medical.

We I think contrary to some statements that were made, we don't have enough medical. I'm always pro medical. Anything goes on at our campus, I want us to be the center of excellence. You've heard me harp on that more times than I can count. We are an aged population, myself excluded. This must be funny. And we need healthcare. I don't want anybody to wait till August at a gastro appointment. And it's tough. It is tough.

So my wishes would be that it would be medical assisted living memory care. That would be awesome. But I'm struggling as well and the density, it seems intense to me, very intense. It's in an Comparatively speaking, it's a very small parcel of land when you spread 1,300 units over 300 acres and then you put 360 units over 17 acres. And while it's not single family, there's gonna be a head and a bed in every one of those 360 units and that's that's intense.

The disclosures we talked about, they are important and I really appreciate the Niels pointing that out because you need to know what you're getting into and some of us just get so excited about things we buy it and then remorse after the fact when it's too late. So the more information we have is is better. But then there's also now proposed changes to those disclosures. So you really maybe this is not a great analogy, but you thought you bought a white car and the salesman delivers you a green one. Well, it's not really what you were sold.

So while I do applaud the disclosures and hope that continues, there's changes to what was disclosed being proposed today for the third time. I'm not gonna go into all detail that my colleague did, but I too am proud that we've been able to control density. It's it we have very few levers. I mean, people think we have a whole lot of control in what we do up here and we really don't. I tell people we're basically a board of services.

Services. Our responsibility is to make sure you have fire, police, EMS, good drinking water and a sewage and a toilet that flushes, right? I mean, that's really what what what our primary role should be. But that changes with one set of years you may be dealing with business issues like building a fire station or renovating Venice Avenue and the next subsequent years you're dealing with land development, land development, land development. That's you know, fortunately or unfortunately, what most of this board has been dealing with since you've on we've been on council is is land use.

I think it was mister Boone that used the term infilling. I call it backfilling. Infilling, it's the same thing. This isn't new to us. We we have seen numerous infilling, backfilling and mister Smith isolated some of those but you you get kind of done and you end up with a little plot or parcel and you know, it's the last hurrah as you ride out of town and let's do something with that and it's not just minister Neil, it's it's all the developers are doing that and this isn't the first rodeo for us dealing with infilling or backfilling, so it's pretty common.

Traffic, you know, we're not large board so we represent the entire sea. If something's going on in Golden Beach or something's going on in Milano or Pine Brook or Edgewood or or where wherever it may be going on, we're all responsible for that. But I also, you know, when you live in the neighborhood and the and some of these projects are in your neighborhood, then they're not more important anywhere else but I don't think you're human if it doesn't make you focus a little more intensely on what's happening. It's just, I think, just human nature. Somebody's done their homework as well and we've seen enough traffic studies to gag a mule or however they say it.

And I think it's fair to say that one to two trips per per day is pretty reasonable and whether it's 300 or or 600, would be whether it's one or two cars or one or two trips per day. But as I said earlier, there's gonna be a head and a bed, 360 of them with two cars per at 600. So if they only leave the house once a day, it's 600 and plus additional cars out there. So I I'm I'm I'm struggling. I I think that Newell Communities has built some really wonderful neighborhoods in our city.

I do believe that. I believe that they've been sensitive to as as much as you can when you're covering, you know, 3,500 square feet of earth with concrete with making sure that they protect our wetlands and are not just doing the old grid system. For anybody who's ever been to Miami, everything's north, south, east, west. So I'm struggling with this one. I really am. And I think I'm struggling with it for all the right reasons. Thank you, mayor.

Mr. Weed?

Thank you Mr. Mayor. I would like to start off by just applauding the efforts, the time that has been put into this by both the applicant and by the city staff and attorney. This has been a long road in contrast to a lot of what's been presented by the public and presenters and by my colleagues up here. I think there has been substantial consideration given by both parties.

I will admit when started off that I was as an island dweller, had not spent enough time in the area and since then I have committed to making numerous trips and spending time out in that area to really try to get a good feel for the area, for the development, for the concerns of the residents and the developers alike in the areas that are taking place. As you said, we represent the entire city, not just a portion or a part and I've made a concerted effort to educate myself both to the facts and to the feel of the neighborhood. But I do believe that the process has been very profitable, I do believe that meaningful concessions have been made on both sides and I just applaud the efforts that have taken place on this and the time that has been spent and I appreciate the public input that has been given to us so we are well informed. So thank you all for that. Ms.

Frank.

Thank you. I had the privilege of growing up off of Laurel Road in a subdivision in an HOA up there and when I was attending Laurel Nokomis back in the day, Laurel Road looked very different than it does today and so I am actually glad that this parcel wasn't developed back when I was attending Laurel Nokomis because it would have been developed at a much higher density than what's before us today and what the applicant has come to us seeking approval for. And so growing up in this community, having grandparents who had to seek assisted living facilities to tour all the options in the area, would love to see more people in that space to provide that critical need that we have for our demographics in the area. It makes a lot of sense to me to have an assisted living facility there and so I'm pleased that that's what's before us today. I've previously mentioned in my comments that the height reduction was very important to me when this came back to us so that it was compatible with the heights in the area and that's what I see before us today and at the end of the day for me it all boils down to that an independent land use expert, someone who's been practicing in this space for forty years who wants the best interest of the city, the best interest of the applicant, they have encouraged us to adopt what is in their words a reasonable compromise.

So I will be voting in favor today. Thank you.

Alright and if nobody else I'll go ahead next. Initially I wasn't in favor of this and while it's not necessarily the compromise that I wanted to see, I'm still not very happy with the density but at the same time we're within five inches of the surrounding height and, the use of ALF, ILF and memory care, is very important to me. So today I will be voting in favor and, that's where I stand on it. With that, Madam Clerk, let's go ahead and do an electronic vote. Council members, when your lights are flashing, you can indicate your vote.

And Madam Clerk, you can tally and display the vote. It passes five to two. With that, we will come back at 01:00 after lunch. Okay. We are back, and we are on to 26Dash0533.

This is impasse hearing between the city of Venice and AFSME regarding shift schedule changes. Public hearing is now open. Madam attorney, if you'd like to provide a brief introduction to explain the reason for the hearing and procedures that we'll be following.

Thank you mayor. So in my nearly thirteen years at the city this is the first impasse hearing I'm aware of so I'm going to do a brief introduction to get us all started and headed in the right direction. This is an impact bargaining impasse hearing governed by section four four seven point four zero three of the Florida statutes. What that means is the city management and the union have attempted to negotiate a resolution to dispute involving the impact of a work schedule change and they've been unsuccessful. When an impasse has been declared, in this case by the union, the statute enables the parties to utilize a special magistrate to make a recommendation to resolve the impasse or go directly to holding a public hearing before the legislative body.

The parties chose to forego a special magistrate and proceed directly to the legislative body, so here we are. By statute, your role is to, I'm gonna quote, take such action as it deems to be in the public interest including the interest of the public employees involved to resolve all disputed impasse issues. Today there's only one issue before you, management's decision to go from a four day ten hour work week to a five day eight hour work week for a subset of employees. City management is represented today by labor employment law attorney Mark Levitt. I am here to advise city council.

I established procedures which were provided to the parties in advance. The union as the party to declare the impasse was instructed to provide the materials they wish to provide, to you fourteen days in advance of this hearing, and the city was instructed to provide their materials seven days in advance of this hearing. The materials received by both parties are in the agenda. This is a legislative proceeding. For today's hearing we will be taking public comment first in order to have a single uninterrupted blocks of time for the City Administration and Union present to you and the time allotted to each is ten minutes. That concludes my comments unless you have any questions.

Any questions from counsel? Then I will move on to Madam Clerk, do you have anybody signed up to speak?

Just the agents that are representing, they signed in. I don't have any like public comment.

Okay. So no public comment. All right. So then we'll move to the presentation by Ask Me for their ten minutes. And actually, we're going to just take a quick pause. I'm having trouble seeing my screen on the iPad.

We'll need a technical break because

it's Alright. So we're going to take, two minutes and we're going work out some technology while you Okay. Now we can start with the presentation by Ask Me and you'll have ten minutes.

Thank you.

Okay.

So our employees for the city of Venice have been working the ten hour days for over thirty five, forty some years. This did impact our employees and put a hardship on them. We have multiple studies. I've provided to I do have more and I did make up books in case you get time and you want to read them. Due to the studies that's gone through the National Institute Justice Research, they've done the research for eight, ten, and twelve hours.

The state and local government review which is the rise of the four hour or four days work week. They're mentioned in volume one fifty five volume 55 number one two thousand twenty three and they are a have done multiple multiple studies clear back and statistics on some of those studies that I have presented and they are in this book that shows that 30 80% of those survey participants would have preferred the four ten schedule. 63% businesses made found an easier time attracting and retaining employees. They also seen an increase in revenue and production for 8% for the first six months and then 37% total for the previous year for some of those. And then 80% of all employees were happy.

Now due to that the outcomes of some of those studies on the individual basis, employees had that full day off. So for they had a total of full full days three full days every weekend. So they had time for their appointments. They had time to take their parents. I have one employee that takes care of his elderly parents and he would take them to appointments and not on Fridays or whatever day he had off.

I have some that have to have issues with the childcare and have had to do that. With those ten hours you had less absenteeism, you had a higher morale and better mental health and employees that were on ten hours they usually get about an addition they get about seven point three six hours more than an eight hour employee or a twelve. The ten hour shift was the best. And then the employers seen longer focused work periods so it improved the task completions. Complete competitive hiring because as job seekers, they prefer the four four tens, the compressed work week.

You had higher retention, lower cost for recruitment and training because you were still keeping those employees that were here and have all your experience with the city. You had long term cost savings. I'm gonna let you do that one. And then overlapping of your schedule because when we made our proposal, when we did a proposal it had an overlapping schedule and it checked most everything off your boxes And as we had proposed a solution that would fulfill, I'm going to let Dan go ahead and go into detail for that because it would save your city a lot of money.

Yeah. I'm trying to get the schedule. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm new at this. Sorry. On the original four tens, we had guys that worked Monday through Thursday and Tuesday through Friday. With the revised schedule, you would have coverage on both of those days. You saw Monday through Thursday, Tuesday through Friday, but the crews would be split up a little differently. My roadside maintenance crew, Monday through Thursday, we do concrete and such.

We could also assist stormwater in a special project on a Monday if possible because we are all cross trained on what we do. And with the ten hour days, like parks department, when they trim the right of way on the Majoule Palms, it's a half hour to set up, a half hour breakdown. That's one hour. If you count the two fifteen minute breaks and a half hour lunch, that's two hours. So in an eight hour day, you're getting six hours of labor. On a ten hour day, you're getting eight hours of labor. If I pour concrete and have to make a trip to Lowe's or back to the shop, there's about forty five minutes to an hour depending on traffic. This time of year, it's about an hour. Go out to the East Side to get rid of stuff we ripped out of the ground, I cross it. That's definitely an hour round trip.

So in an eight hour day, that's seven, not to mention the in betweens of loading the trucks up in the mornings, unloading in the evenings. So you're actually getting about six hour a day out of an eight hour a day compared to eight hours out of ten. I've had employees who, including yours truly, had side jobs for over thirty years. I got one guy that's lost $12,000 a year on this. If you cut grass like some of us do, you can't go to gated communities.

They don't like it seeing lawn mowers on a Saturday or Sunday. You have to be out by 05:00. I've dealt with that with the Oaks for years. So the financial impact and the burden that's been put on employees is hard and cost savings that the city says they're saving, I don't see how when you have vehicles running all the time. Plus the time it takes to go get the stuff to do the jobs you need. You're losing time and money if you go by the T and M.

The other way you're also losing money is according to this, I'm gonna say like group a, I have Monday and and group b, I'm gonna say works on Friday. So you have your coverage on all your days. It's divided up. But mine is when your vehicles break down, let's say they do, you have everybody here. Mine is with the split schedule and somebody being off on Monday or Friday.

If those vehicles would break down, technically they're not wasting time waiting for it to get fixed or anything else like that. They could go get whoever's vehicles may be off. There would be one readily available right there so it actually would save you some time because the employee would go get the vehicle, go back to work, proceed on. And then also with one being off it actually helps save on some fuel that day too but you still we are still making sure that we are taking care of and representing all the citizens, everything to make sure that they are taken care of and they get what they need too.

A lot of your departments, parks, and maintenance run-in in crews. I got a four man crew. Stormwood has four man crew. Park has crews two for mowing Route one and two. The way that schedule is set up, mowing Route 1 would be like one day through Thursday and two would be Tuesday through Friday. If there's an issue, they could cover each other. Cleaning crew works five days a week now where they used to work the weekends. They've got a contractor doing the bathrooms on the weekends. So those guys could be brought up, broken up, two on Monday, two on Tuesday, and you got coverage the whole rest of the week. Most of us are cross trained on the jobs.

We've been there long enough doing it, so we know what everybody's position is in their department. It's not that hard. If you're as business minded, time is money. So do you wanna get more out of your employees time wise with a ten hour day and you have your coverage on the weekend or do you wanna go with five eights and get less? Like I said, there's two hours lost a day no matter if you do it tens or eights, but if you do it with eights, they're only working six hours. If they're working ten hour days, they're working eight hours. And that's basically the bare bones of the cost effectiveness. If the business owners, and I know some of you are, do the math. It's not that hard in my opinion.

During bargaining, we were never actually provided with documents to show that things were improving the difference between the ten hours and the eight hours because I know there was one job you guys had to redo due to when you ten hours you could allow the concrete to dry on the sidewalk, but that had to be redone. But according to the list that we were provided, we pretty much have covered everything that I can see and know on this list dealing with the ten hour split schedule that Dana has provided. And again, it's a win win situation. The employees are happy. They go back to the ten hours if that is what you decide.

But mainly, again, it's city it's the benefits for the city, your higher retention, your reduced operational costs, improved efficiency from the employees and again then I do have employees that do have to take care of their utterly parents or their children and those are little that was the hardest impact because I had one man, actually two, they did not have their child into that child daycare and now it's cost them that to do that and put them in for all those hours. So

When we came here, it was understanding the four tens. We provided our lives around the four tens. Looks like I got one gentleman I work work with at public works. He's 65. I think his wife is 75 or thereabouts. Ten, fifteen year difference. Doctors appointments constantly. Stuff was getting done on a Friday, majority of it. You can't always get a doctor's appointment on that Friday that you want, but you do what you can. Same thing with another gentleman, his wife. Fridays, they've done everything they could. Thank

you guys for your presentation. Are there any counsel questions for the AFSME? Mr. Smith? Excuse

me. Was the union consulted before the change was made?

I was given a thirty day, roughly a thirty day notice. I got called in the office, got the schedule. Wasn't happy, I was kind of polite. I walked out and showed all the employees what was coming. And then, they weren't happy and they got kicked out of the director's office and then the director pulled everybody in in small groups and explained that what's going on. And my group was told that they had documentation that five eights was better than 4 tens and we never got it. I was told to impact bargain it, I did and I got operational needs.

Okay. We were just shown a compromise schedule that attempted to cover all five days of the work week. Was that presented before that thirty days was up?

No. Well, we're also doing regular contract negotiations, but this was provided down the road because I got with some of the other employees. We sat down and came up with a schedule that would be conducive to have all the coverage.

So should we be considering that as your proposed compromise on Yes. This Okay. Are there any other aspects to that compromise? None

that I could think of. I didn't know there, okay. None that I could actually think of. It's pretty straightforward on the coverage, roadside maintenance Monday through Thursday as an example, and stormwater Tuesday through Friday. Stormwater could do what I do, I could do somewhat what they do. I might have to show the TV truck. But when it comes to with what my crew does, those trip houses are marked with orange paint and then call and locate, it takes two business days to get done. So and on Fridays, if the sweep our operator is not there, you still got three guys on the four guys on the stormwater crew that could operate the sweeper or two of them. We got two heavies over there.

And and all your all all the employees are only getting forty hours a week, but you still are getting fifty hours because I have guys here all week long, but again they're only working forty hours.

Okay. You shared some information about employee satisfaction. Can you tell me more about those studies, how they were done? Are those things that are well documented complete? Have they been shared with the human relations department?

Okay. Let me get that one. Some of the employees emailed city council letters not too long after change came and for the life of me I can't find them on my file. But all the council members were emailed letters. I think there might have been five or six I was done with emailed city council and I think

And then we did a poll. We have this.

HR got it too.

Putting

the what's costing and paying in the pocket and taking care of other family members. A lot of employees expressed their dissatisfaction to me. They really don't I don't know how else to put it, but there's no trust in the supervisors on it. They know they hear what's going on. There might be a couple, I mean, only a couple that like what's going on, but the majority of them do not.

I think the two guys that I actually went talking to him, Lad's one of them, that it works out for him. He runs a business outside of work. So he gets done at five at 03:30, he goes, does what he has to do, has daylight. A majority of them out of 25, let's say, 20 of them were not happy. And that's what they were verbally telling me. They don't want give nothing in writing for, fear of retaliation or something being held against them. And I know one employee did mention that to me, but I won't put his name out on the record. I need this service and I gave my word.

And in the beginning, had more employees that affected, but you have lost some employees since then too.

Dwayne Evans went to solid waste for four ten hour days for his family. Kendrick Brouzon, great worker, funny. He ended up leaving over another situation which was handled wrong, but, ten hour days he would cut grass on Fridays. So he had to reschedule his whole thing to where it messed up until his weekends. Now he's working for Sarasota County again.

Have you provided the studies that you cited, on efficiency and savings to Yes, the

have. Management got a copy of along with, city council. One study came out beginning of last year that was done by the federal government, which is the first one I, no, second one I gave. The other one was another study by a college and I was told that AI got dismissed, but it's kind of hard to dismiss the other one that came up from the federal government as bogus.

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Weed?

Thank you. Could you throw that

chart back up on there that you had before please? The hours chart?

I'm sorry? Okay.

Forgive me, I'm kind of computer stupid.

You're doing fine. A question, I see on our maintenance crew, Kevin under carpentry, I don't see his name in place. Am I missing that in the chart or was that just disregarded on

the chart?

This chart was actually done before some of the

Yeah. This chart was actually done before some of the positions were filled and that's an oversight on my part. I take responsibility for that.

I'm sorry.

There's been some changes since things have happened. Now, like, Parks Crow, they rotate downtown, my understanding. The carpenter was originally four, ten hour day. I'm talking to Kevin about it. They said he went back, and this was after having a meeting with Ricky. I found out after he got hired that they changed to five eights. I I understand what Ricky said when the position was vacant. It's alright. Nobody's affected but everybody's affected now.

I also noticed the airport crew was listed on the top of that but I don't see any does this affect the airport crew in any fashion or form?

Yes. Does. They're on five eights also. Jeff Steele and I don't think Keith is there no more. Another guy and that lady, Kathy Mixon's still there. She likes the five eights, but you could break up Jeff and the new hire Monday to Thursday and Tuesday through Friday. You still have your coverage.

And you still have two people there.

And from my understanding that usually when those guys leave, which I found out just recently that you have people that come in dealing with hangers and stuff and usually all the staffers have to take care of the issue of no employees there. But if they work ten hour days, have an employee that can actually take care of that and leave the staffer in the office.

Guess to clarify my question, is the airport crew, were they also on four-10s and now going to five-8s? Yes. And they are also protesting a change? Yes. Thank you.

All right. So I have a few questions. Well, Mr. Smith, I'm going come back to you. Let me go first and then we'll come back to you. How many employees total are impacted by the change?

As of right now, for Mark's number, was 21, but I know originally we had 30. It said 30, but I think there was one or two more than that.

It's

about 25 to 30. There's still vacancies

that But haven't been filled right now, it's twenty one?

Twenty five.

25, okay.

I believe it is.

I think so.

Okay. And then my other question is I heard you give some numbers and one that stood out to me is you had said 40% would rather and I think it was the 5.8%, but I'm not 100 sure.

Yes. Or no, it was the percentage for the was for the four tenths. For the statistics I was reading?

Yes.

Yeah, it was for the benefit of the four tenths because again, there was 80% survey participants and in this study which I do believe you have that study was exhibit study 80% were surveyed. 80% survey participants supported the four tens. 32 of them would have stayed for four tens had they not left their job before. 63% businesses were easier had an easier time attracting new employees because again and retaining employees because new job seekers you know would like some versatility and flexible on their schedules. And then we had 38% increase in revenue over a six month period of those businesses that were surveyed and then some of them, that was just a six month but some of the other ones was 37 increase from the previous year.

And this was a survey conducted of the people that were affected? No. This is not this is not here at the city. Is this the federal one that you're talking about?

The state and local government one. Yes.

Okay.

Okay. So this is a state and local government survey in relation to the topic that we're discussing, but it doesn't necessarily reflect the employees of the City of Venice.

Correct. Okay. Talking to the employees, majority of them, 90%, 80% want the four we like to have the four tens back. That's how they hired in and life was a little bit simpler for them to do scheduling and and the jobs, second jobs. The city doesn't pay enough to just keep the city salary and provide a roof and food for your family.

Okay. So my last question is before I give it back over to Mr. Smith is he had asked the question about the schedule being a compromised schedule. Is that what the schedule was or is that a proposed new schedule?

This is a proposed new schedule. Okay. I sat down with some of the employees and had a meeting and they worked out, each department worked out, schedule that's conducive then. The crew leaders and and such know their people like I know mine, so they worked out schedule, we had a meeting and this is what we came up with, it was a group effort.

And if that was not agreeable with staff, meaning management, what other proposed solution do you have other than that schedule? Is there anything that's a solution?

Yeah, well, I really haven't thought about it. Know there was discussion about it, but at negotiations we agreed to keep these two separate and it got brought in at the end and it was very insulting.

Okay.

I don't know how we would legally be out to discuss with her on the consequences of what I'm thinking. Okay. So. Alright. Mr. Smith?

Just

one minor point. If you put back up that schedule, something that caught my eye I wanted to ask about. But I think it was Ms. Mixon, Kathy Mixon. And I'm looking down there, this schedule shows her all five days. Yes. So is that somebody who would not go to the

She hired in on five eights, she likes the five eights.

So that's an employee who's happy with it. Yes. Told you that so she wouldn't change everybody else does.

She was talking to the store out there, I asked him to find out and the response was yes. I have faith in my representatives to tell me the truth just like you have faith in your staff to tell you the truth.

Okay. And then there's two other employees and they spread and one's off on Monday, one's off on Friday. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.

And if you would like any of those, like I said, any of those things we were discussing today, did make you each a binder and one for the city clerk and Mark.

Any other questions from counsel? Mr. Engelke?

Yes, thank you. Looking at that chart, it looks like it's Monday and Fridays that are the floater days. Yes. No one ponied up for Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday?

Yes. Let me see here.

I don't see any blank lines on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday.

I think the green lines was where is it at?

But anyway, it looks like it's concentrating on Monday and Fridays. Well, that's

You would

have to be off

like the street sweeper would be Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday off on Friday. Right away crew would be four days a week. The storm water crew would be Tuesday through Friday. Somewhere else.

So CSB.

Yes, full orders right there, Tuesday

through Based around weekends, okay, thank you.

Mr. Vice Mayor?

Thank you. The more I think about this, the more it concerns me. There's nobody here on a weekend. We have a lot of events. That means that Friday is a prep day and Monday is a cleanup day But after an yet on your schedule, we have light crews. So that I just want to make that point that worries me a little bit. Thank you.

Any other council members with questions? Okay. We will move on to the presentation by city administration. And then you gentlemen will have ten minutes as well.

Good afternoon. I think you all know me. My name is Mark Levitt. I've served as Labor and Employment Council and I've been involved in this from the beginning. There's a lot to address. I want to refocus or focus this counsel on the issue before you. As we've made clear and we've submitted an extensive physician statement that I know everybody has in your packet. So I hope I'm sure you've read it and we're not going be able to touch on every point in the ten minutes that we have. So I am going to try to highlight some things. But it's very important to recognize that the scheduling of employees and the signing of schedules and shifts is a management right under the collective bargain agreement.

This is an agreement that was agreed to with the unions, been in place for years, that management has that right. And why does management have the right to make that decision? You pay and you hire and pay a city manager, a department director, supervisors, those are your managers. You pay them to make a decision as to the best way to operate the department. It is not within the job description of an employee who works in those positions to make those management decisions.

So you've entrusted these decisions to them. But we're going to have in a moment the Director explain some of those reasons to you. But it's important that it is a management right. And while they have a right to request impact bargaining as we have explained, impact bargaining has not changed the decision. That's the decision.

The decision is up to management. Impact bargaining is typically pay me a little more money or can you do certain things. And we bargained and went through this and we did compromise. We saw That chart you have is the way it was before. Maybe not by name, but that four tens is the way it was before.

That's not some new compromise. It's some people are off Monday and work Tuesday and Thursday, others are off Friday and work Monday to Thursday and others work Tuesday to Friday. So that's not a compromise schedule. We did offer compromises. We asked if they would take some extra pay, you know, we were in the middle of bargaining at the same time, and we talked about giving them extra percentage pay to help, you know, those who are affected, and up to the point that we had about $140,000 on the table of extra pay that would go to everybody, not just the affected people, and the union did not want to entertain that.

Their only focus was change the decision back to four tens. And as I said, the department director is going to explain sorry, made myself a timer that I don't need. So we did look at compromises, we looked at additional pay for employees. So the focus is not to change the decision, that really is the management right. I'm not saying you can't do that, as your county city attorney said, you can do whatever you want today.

You could say, let's turn the sky blue and stamp it and that's the decision. But that's not what the law is about, I'm not trying to be legalistic, but it's just not to change the decision, there's a difference between impact bargaining and bargaining. So, we did entertain compromise. That's the first thing. We don't believe you should even entertain changing it.

Question is, is there something else that could be done? Is there pay or something like that? So, that's one thing. The other thing is, and I'll try to address some of those things, respectfully, the studies you were given, those are not city studies, those are not Florida studies. Any one of us could go on the Internet and Google four day work weeks and they could come up probably with 20 more articles that talk about the pros and cons.

We could come up with 20 articles that talk about the pros and cons of a five eighth. So the fact that they've handed you two articles from Google does not show that they're justified, that they're verified, the basis of them, these were not done by the union. The other thing is the people affected. Today it affects 21 people. There's about a 175 in the bargaining unit.

So there's a 150 other people. So this is really a small percentage of it. And the problem with going to this is that we understand change is difficult. It's difficult for everybody. We understand that these employees may have had to adjust doctor appointments.

Maybe they're used to going off Friday, but now they're off at 03:30, they can take somebody to the doctor at four or at 04:30, where before they couldn't. So there's adjustments and anecdotally, this isn't evidence, but anecdotally what we've heard is many people have adjusted. Many people have adjusted. And if they have second businesses, the your own rules say that employment with the city is the primary purpose. Their primary purpose is employment with the city.

Any secondary work is secondary to that. And so, the studies, they say what they say, but like I say, we didn't give them to you, but there's hundreds of studies that talk about four tens. Also, this city is too small to work with four tens because if you're a big organization with a 100 street workers or sewer workers, you could have 51 day and 50 another day. But when you have just a few and you have one on Monday and one on Friday, we're not large enough to support splitting up our workforce in half. So that's that's one of the problems why it doesn't work.

The information I've read is that only 4% of the country of the country is on four tens. That means over 85, 95% of the business world, including government, still work the five eights. So it's a very small It's not the norm to have it. Also, mentioned it in in my letter that

Excuse me.

And don't lose sight of this, the city has done this before. In 2019, the city in utilities moved 19 people from five eights to four tens. They tried it for a year, it didn't They didn't like the way it was working, and a year later, they moved people back to five eights. 19 people, almost the same number of people in 2019. And the union didn't object to it then.

So, there's really no difference. We've done it before, which just shows it's something we have done in the police department, they have done it with some groups. So, you know, again we recognize this could be a hardship at first, people had to adjust, but as the department director can confirm, they considered that. This was not, you know, let's hurt the employees, let's do something they're not going to like. Your first service is to your taxpayers and providing the service.

And as the Vice Mayor mentioned, there's work to be done on Monday, there's holes in the street on Friday, and you've got to service your people. A lot of weekend activities, that's absolutely true. So we believe that we considered everything and your management team decided this way and I'm going to turn it over to Ricky Simpson to explain a little bit, he's not going to have too much time because I talk too long, but to explain quickly some of the reasons we did it and think it's working.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council for the record. Ricky Simpson, Director of Public Works. Real quick, we started preparing for the interlocal parks transition in October 2024. We went through a lot of thought processes and looking exactly what we had. After careful review in March 2025, we began implementing this adjustment and moving field staff from a rotating four ten hour day to a Monday through Friday more traditional schedule of seven a.

M. To 03:30 p. M. With this realignment, it provided full staffing availability five days a week and it strengthened our capacity to deliver reliable services across the entire city. Some of those things that I can confirm now after one year is improved service to our residents and visitors, a more effective and timely response to city operational needs, full staff and availability for special projects, special events and time sensitive requests, enhanced support for our volunteer groups, FABI, KVB, Make A Difference Day, and we also found a reduction in overtime cost.

In closing, I can't say enough about our public work staff and how much we appreciate them, but we also have an obligation to serve the public in the most effective and efficient manner possible, and I request the continued authority to make those adjustments as needed. Thank you.

Good timing. Thank you. A little faster than you normally talk. Anybody from council have any questions? Alright, we'll start with Mr. Smith.

Our attorney said that that was not a compromise presented by, the union and I'm concerned about that. I had an understanding that every everyone used to Monday to Thursday. And nobody on Friday? Is that schedule exactly what we used to have or has there some accommodation been made in there?

There there are some changes. What I The changes that I can see is Monday through Friday, we had storm water and the maintenance crew according to this new schedule. It showed storm water working Tuesday through Friday. That I kind of saw that change. But we also have the carpenter that worked Monday through Friday, irrigation tech that worked Monday through Friday, sign technician worked Monday through Friday. Reason being is we need people here Monday through Friday. Have issues. We also have issues on the weekends. So having full staff availability five days a week has proven to be very successful.

So those groups were not changed. The carpenters were five eights before the change and just stayed five eights. Like I said, there's about 175 bargaining unit members and asked me, this only affected at the time 30 and now down 21. So we had that. And but we always worked, if I understood you, so there's no confusion.

Some people worked Monday to Tuesday and others worked Tuesday to Friday. So there was five day coverage, but not the full team and some pieces were missing like the streets or some of those things you notice that were missing on one day because So we didn't have those services which could either require calling someone in on overtime and costing us overtime. And when somebody took a day off on a four day work week, they're only working three days a week. Now, if they need a day off for five days and they're working five days a week, at least we're getting four days out of them. Plus, as our letter pointed out, people do get vacation and sick leave time.

That's what it's there for. You provide a great benefit, and when they need to go to a doctor, take a child to a doctor, or they're sick themselves, you don't just get sick on a Monday or a Friday, you might get sick on a Tuesday. So, they have the benefits. We encourage people to take time off and meet their family needs and this doesn't change that.

Okay. Thank you. I was fascinated by you saying there's one hundred and fifty people but only twenty five were affected and you said that a raise was offered. Was it offered to all 150 people or only to the people who were making this change in their schedule?

No. We we offered additional percentage increase for everyone, not just those people. Way we thought it was the fairest way to spread it and we were negotiating that and discussing it, but they were not interested in like paying more money, they just wanted the time change back.

Okay. So in order to have this grievance or disagreement heard by the city council, a 150 people have been denied a raise that we've offered, is that right?

I think that's a fair way to state it.

Okay. And if we end this, we could obviously extend that raise if we wanted to. Removing the cost of asking the city council for help.

Legally, have the right to do what you deem as appropriate, I guess is the

Do right we have any surveys of our own on employee satisfaction before or after or with this change?

Not in our public works department. I know that our human resources department puts out an employee satisfaction survey yearly. So that would be with Mr. Bullock.

I'm going to pause you real quick. Mr. City Manager, you have your button pushed.

Thank you, Mayor. Just wanted to clarify a little bit. During collective bargaining, the decision to forego the raise was not made by the administration. I just want to make sure that's very clear. I also want to make clear that we were actively open in bargaining in the contract at that time. Today, we are not. We are talking about a potential impact. And since that time, we've spent quite a bit of money and time and resources to get to this point. So I just I think it's important to note that we are not actively bargaining the entire contract at this point in time. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Smith? One last question if I can. Mr. Simpson, can we promise the employees that there was a discussion of how we made one change like this for 19 employees previously and then we flipped and went back. Could we promise these employees that after one year we'll review this process and we will accept their input and your own input and determine whether it's something we should continue with?

At this point we are at that year mark and I have seen great success and I have no intentions of going back.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Weed? Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I'm wrong, correct me, but anecdotally, I believe the majority of paid holidays, paid time off for holidays are on Mondays. How would you equity, get equality in the paid time off for holidays if you have the split session where you have people, you know, if someone doesn't normally work a Monday, they still get that Monday holiday pay which would enrich them more than their coworkers that are working Tuesday through Friday. How does

that work? Or Monday through Friday, Monday through Thursday?

How do you equate that?

The collective bargaining agreement provides that if a holiday falls on a scheduled day, you get X and if it falls on an off day, you get Y. So it is covered in the agreement. I'm not recalling right now exactly what it is, but no one is being deprived of a holiday or holiday pay. Whether it falls on a Monday and you're on, then maybe you get it off with pay. If you're off, you get the extra day of pay. So no one is being deprived of holiday pay with this schedule.

You.

Ms. Frank?

Thank you. I see here in the city memo and city recommendation projected that you have been able to reduce overtime cost by $74,000 in the last year and that is no small number and so as someone who's elected here that's accountable to the taxpayers, I'm sincerely grateful for making tough decisions and realizing that savings that can be redeployed for the best interest of the city. So thank you.

Vice Mayor Malt.

Thank you. I know that change is difficult, it really is, we all respect that. But I also know that in situations like this, our city manager and we here on council put a lot of pressure on our directors to make good decisions for the city. We're here on behalf of the citizens of Venice and we have to do what's right. And based on what I'm hearing and based on what I'm seeing, I think you're making the right decision.

I think you made the right decision. The coverage that we need, especially when we talk about the new parks agreement and the fact that we're going to take over even more, just shows me that we need to have full coverage five days a week. And so I commend you for making that tough decision. Sorry to the guys that were affected. I truly do understand the problem.

But again, we're up here representing the citizens and we have to do what we think is right based on what we've heard. So we've seen it, we see the city is clean, the parks are taken care of, so I just commend you for what you've done.

Council Member Ingokey.

Thank you. I have to concur. Our number one job is to look out for the overall well-being of the city and if through our management efforts we've been able to save over $70,000 that's tremendous particularly in a budget year where budget will be impacted. But more importantly, we have a contract and the contract clearly says that management has the prerogative to adjust work schedules in accordance to the need of the city. And so I have to really kind of fall behind that.

I understand there's hardships, but there's hardships in almost everything. Choices have to be made. And, in terms of secondary employment, I think that's also in the contract. So that the city's primary, the employee's primary employer is this city, not another, entity. So, that's part of the contract. I feel very very strongly that management needs to retain the ability to manage the workforce to the best interest of the city. Thank you.

My question for staff is, I've heard some numbers thrown around 21, 25, I think up in the 30s, total of 175. So my question is, now that you've been doing this for a year, it sounds like there might be some vacancies and is that a result of the schedule that you're seeing vacancies that you can't fill or what would you say has this had any impact on filling those spots?

I don't believe so. I think that public works, it's a great place to work, but it also can be a stepping stone into bigger and better things. You know, we lost one gentleman that thirty plus years, he was just up here the other day, that was promoted into the engineering department. You know, we do have staff, I had an administrative assistant that moved on to something new. It was a huge increase and it was going to actually challenge him and I support that. But as far as filling positions, we've done a really good job of filling positions and people seem excited to come want to come work here. The benefit package, the time off, you have to sell it. Know, there's more to it than just pay sometimes.

And then my other question is, you know, I appreciate what Mr. Tucci put up with the one worker who appreciates the five eight hour days. That's very transparent to me and I appreciate that. So my question is, I see one out of many, what has staff heard on the other side of this as far as employee not necessarily morale but happiness with the new schedule, discontent with the schedule? Where are you at with staff on the new schedule?

I'm actually hearing the exact opposite of what the union president's hearing. People are coming to me kind of praising it saying they have more time in the evenings, it's easier on their body, they're not as tired and they they seem to enjoy it. I mean, that that's what I'm hearing and that's what my staff is hearing and that's what they're bringing back to me.

So I'm I'm seeing and this is more for mister attorney, I'm seeing you know we're we're gonna have to make a decision today And based on what I'm seeing, it's either kind of a yes or a no, but you're saying it's managers' right to make the changes and we've always been pretty good about policymakers versus operations managers. So I don't necessarily want to step on their toes, but it sounds like there may be some lingering discussion that could happen related to what the impact is. You know, I hear what they're saying. I haven't heard a solution to the problem here other than changing the schedule. So are you under the impression that we can direct you to continue that negotiation and have that discussion?

Or are we at a point now where this is I mean, I know we're not doing the two items together, but I mean, is this something we can still discuss with them in here if they have any other solutions?

Well, the I mean, this is the conclusion of the impact bargaining. They asked for impact bargaining, we met with them, and they declared the impasse. We did not declare the impasse, so we were willing to meet again, come back, keep talking, whatever. They said, because they just wanted to reverse it and we weren't willing to reverse it. They were not making proposals for more money or flexibility or give me more sick time so I can take granny to the doctor.

So, it was they presented it, in our view, as change it back or nothing. So, they declared the impasse. So, and at some point, the bargain has to come to an end or obviously it could go odd infinitum. So, this is the statutory process to end that bargain. There is a reopener coming up every year, so the city can always look at that.

They have other opportunities this year, next year, when there's a full book they can bring it up and then there's more you can talk about, there's more articles on the table to trade off on. So there are other opportunities to continue this if it continues to be a problem. And I'm sure the department, you know, is is willing to hear specific concerns, make accommodations if someone needs it. Like I say, they get sick leave, they get, you know, no one's complaining I can't get to the doctor or anything like that. And as the department head, mister Simpson said, you know, anecdotally, we're hearing people are adjusting.

Upfront, there was a handful of people, not everybody, not all the 30, but probably 10 people with other businesses who wanted Friday to run their other business. So they had to adjust those. So now if you mow a lawn on Friday, maybe they had to adjust it to a 04:00 on Tuesday. They got off earlier than they did, so they had flexibility there. Flexibility for doctor's appointments during the week, and then there's always vacation, and like I said, in sick leave.

So it's it can always be the discussion every year because bargaining does reoccur, but to end this bargaining at this point, this is the end of this process. And what we've said like in here is we're asking you to approve a motion that says let the management let the department continue with the four day work schedule and no further action has to be taken at this time. But that does not mean it won't be reexamined and if they find out it's not working and things like that, like I said, you all have a lot of new things coming, new parks, things like that. Those things I'm sure are always looked at for efficiencies and cost savings. Just because you say we don't have to change now doesn't mean we go and say, I'm never going to talk to you again.

So the short answer is whatever we decide today is the decision and right now what's in front of us is let management make their decision or go back to what they want, which is to go back to the four ten. Those are pretty much the two options we're looking at.

I believe that's the case. Like I said, that second one shouldn't be the option, but again you can do what you deem appropriate.

Mr. City Manager?

Thank you. Mark pretty much covered everything. I just wanted to kind of further reinforce that this decision is something that's constantly being reevaluated. There might be a situation where we grow to significant size in the future where we could justify going to four tens. So we might decide as management that we're switching back in the future if that makes the most efficient and economical sense for operations.

But as Mark said, the decision in front of us today in front of you today is this specific issue at this point in time. I'll also add, this department has a whole lot of change coming. And I've heard several of you recognize the fact that change is very difficult, both on our employees and on our supervisors. This change is not something that came from management at Public Works. This has changed from the outside.

It's changed due to growth and it's changed due to a new interlocal that is shifting responsibilities onto local government. So while we didn't create this change, we have to deal with this change. So the clarity provided today will help to provide some consistency as we move towards that October 1 deadline for the Park Center local. So appreciate that in your consideration.

All right, any other questions from council? All right, and with that we will close the public hearing and I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Vice Mayor.

I move to accept the city administration's decision to change the work schedules of certain employees to the five eight schedule and that no further action be taken to address the impact of the city's exercise of its management right.

I have a second.

Seconded by Mr. Ankelke. And now we'll go to council discussion. All right, Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith.

Thank you, Mayor. First let me say I respect Mr. Simpson and our entire management team. I appreciate your work. I also appreciate our employees and I have to recognize those that have stayed with us for many, many years and have lived with what we can pay them and even had to work additional jobs to maintain a standard of living in this city.

So it's difficult for me. But as a former mediator and a former magistrate, I I'm of the belief that an impasse is a failure by all parties. That there has to be compromise and there has to be work, heavy work to find it. I'm disappointed that this is before the city council, that it's not before a mediator and I know that could have been before a mediator and I would have welcomed that person trying to find an accommodation that made everybody happy but we haven't done that. And I wanna just push back a little bit, forgive me, on this idea that the city has the right.

It does have the right, it has the power, it has the authority to do this without the consent of the employees. No doubt about it. We've been advised by our attorney of that and I accept that. But is it right, meaning just? And that's the real question, for me.

Is it just to do this without To do it unilaterally, to do it without the consent of the, you know, the governed or the employees. So I wish it had gone to mediation but it didn't. Okay. Let's remember that we've hailed this crew, your crew, as first responders, clearing the roads so that the fire and the police can get out there and they are as esteemed to me as police and fire employees are. Let's value them for their service to the city.

Let's recognize that we have succeeded with the ten hour days for forty years. So it can't be impossible that we have that system or that we go back to the table and find a compromise that maybe the most senior employees can stay with there for day work week while others transition into it, all new hires transition into it. These employees, you've told us, had to forego a raise in order to be heard by the City Council and I think that's wrong. I don't think they should have to make that financial sacrifice to have their grievance heard and if this is voted against the union and for the management and we recognize that for them to accept the eight hour days, if we can't find a transition, if we can't find an accommodation, if we can't go to a mediator, which I would prefer to do, then I think we owe it to all of them to raise the pay in a way that we were willing to do if they would have foregone this impasse. And we were just told that that was $140,000 cost.

We told 150 employees that are affected. So it's less than $1,000 an employee. But I think that would be our way to show respect to the employees if we want to support the management and that was already contemplated that we could afford and provide that raise. And so I would hope that someone on this council would join me and ask that we do that at a minimum. So thank you.

Mr. Engelke.

I think our employees do a great job dedicated to the city. Many of our employees have been here for many, many years, many more years than I've been around, as an adult. So I commend every one of our employees and the management of, the employees. I think the city is pretty well managed. I want to clarify or make a statement this foregoing a raise.

I was part of the same discussions and we never offered and nor were we requested specifically to throw in some extra money for this. I think at this point, good fiscal management of the city, including a time of unknown tax, revenues, says we don't. We just went through a contract, which everybody agreed to, and this whole impasse was separated from the, negotiations. So I think introducing a raise at this point is absolutely foolish and against the best interest of the city. I I know that our management has struggled with this.

I know that our management really wants to have happy employees. I know our management and the council here want very very satisfied productive employees. But sometimes we just have to make a tough decision to you know, do the right thing. So again, there was the foregoing of a raise, I don't recall it that way. If someone wants to advise me differently, I'm okay with that. But thank you.

Anyone else on council? All right, I'll wrap up with some very brief comments and just say, very willing to work with the team here but there's nothing in front of us today that I can make a decision on. So with that, I agree with Mr. Engelke, we did bargain. I think we've always been willing to try to make staff as happy as we can.

But at the same time, I'm not seeing an opportunity other than to go down a path that management has decided not to go and I'm not going be in the habit of second guessing management because we've always acknowledged the fact that council doesn't manage the city, we develop policy and the managers manage the city. So that's where I'm at today. Madam Clerk, if you're ready, it's one electronic vote. Council members, when your lights are flashing, you can indicate your vote. Mr.

Smith, okay, we're in. And now Madam Clerk, you'll tally on display. Pass is six to one. We'll take a ten minute break and come back at 02:15. Okay. We are back, and we are on to ordinances first reading, ordinance number two zero two six dash zero six. The public hearing is now open. Madam clerk, when you're ready, if you read the ordinance by title only, please.

An ordinance of the city of NS Florida amending the city comprehensive plan and associated pages pursuant petition number 25Dash73C p specifically to update data for each mixed land use designation within each neighborhood area of the city as a result of the new development through 11/01/2025 providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict here with providing for severability and providing an effective date.

Do you

have any written communication, Madam Clerk? Nope. Presentation by staff.

Good afternoon. Amy Nelson, Planning Manager for the City of Venice and I've signed the speakers card. Every year we come to you to give you an update on the mixed use areas in the city and that's what we're here for today. I'll give you a quick overview, this is the opening map that shows the whole city and the colored areas are the areas where there are mixed use and they're just different types of mixed use. Some neighborhoods have only one type, others have multiple.

So here is a table that shows those differences and you can see the different types that are in each neighborhood. This is required by our comprehensive plan to take a look at this every year and we bring it to you to let you know where we stand. So here is the first neighborhood, it's the island neighborhood and I'm just gonna use this as an example just to go through it with you. We basically zoom in on that larger map and look at that individual neighborhood through this process and you can see the different types of mixed use that are available in the island neighborhood. And then we come down and we have a table where it gets into more detail with the numbers and percentages.

We look at residential use as well as commercial use. And you can see how this is laid out. And then we look at any really substantial changes that took place in that within that neighborhood over the year. And the year is like from November 1 through October 31. So that's the cutoff date.

And this is just a few of the changes that took place, it's not all of them but just the the more attention grabbing or larger or more substantial changes that took place. For instance, here we have Venice Isle, Ringling Park and some development out at the airport. Now unless anybody wants me to go through each individual neighborhood, I'm gonna jump down to the last one. Okay. Almost there.

Okay. Now we're going to the Knights Trail neighborhood. We had one change that's different from what the planning commission saw and that is up here where we had a development and I've got it in the table below, I thought I had it in the table below. We had a development that was approved for some multi family and they were gonna have commercial as well and that plan has since changed and they re zoned and they're just going to do single family, I believe. So there's not gonna be any commercial so we took the commercial out so that is now zero and we just wanted to point that out to you.

It's this right here, the MUC, right here. So we will go down here to the summary tables. The percentages that are highlighted here for 2025 show what remains. But, if you look at the one beside that for the percent maximum, there's some that are in pink and those are getting to a higher percent where you can if you wish look at making changes to the allowances in those neighborhoods or we can just let it go, that's what we've been doing, just letting it go and then developers bring a petition to you to request a change. Everybody always asks every year.

East Venice Avenue is really high in the overage but it has always been that way. It was just that way from the very beginning. It's got a little more density. There's nothing we can do about that. But again, this doesn't limit development. A developer could come to you and ask for a change.

I can address that one little area there where and as Amy indicated, that area on East Venice Avenue has been over 100% since we started this process and that's because Aston Gardens which is a planned unit development was developed at a higher density than was typically permitted in a PUD. As you know, basically a lot of discussion today about it, a PUD allows up to five units per acre and I believe that Aston Gardens was nearly nine units an acre. But it was also an assisted living facility, memory care, so it was allowed to go higher because it was favored for that type of development. So that's it's always been that way. We made a couple of trade offs in land uses in that neighborhood too which even I think made it a little worse but we already knew that it was over the 100% limit.

Do we have any questions?

Any questions from counsel? Mr. Smith?

I remember our discussion last year about those pink numbers, the 152% and all of that and I appreciate that. But as I look there back one page, some numbers were at 98%, 85%. Would we expect that those would stay within the 100%? Are there circumstances out there like you just mentioned for East Venice Avenue that will put us above our maximum allowed

units? Well, this is the residential portion, the summary table for residential and there's not I don't think that the East Venice Avenue area is gonna get any worse because it's their PODs, okay? So they're mainly built out. The other thing is that the mixed use residential category of land use which is implemented through the PUD zoning district is something that we could probably take it out of this table completely because of the fact that a a PUD allows for 95% residential and 5% non residential and that's said in the code and always has been. So that's a little different than typical zoning districts don't have that type of percentage or limitations, those kind of things.

We put it on the mixed use areas here. So the mixed use residential, to be honest with you, and I think Mr. Snyder at one point said, we ought to just take that out of there. We actually could take the mixed use residential. As far as the other ones, we are required by the comp plan to come to you when it exceeds 75% of what is available.

That's why those numbers are highlighted in pink. Whether those are going to change at all or exceed, we would hope that they would not exceed. But that's going to be up to the individual developer or the person speculating on piece of property whether they want to come to you and say, we're wanting to do this but your comprehensive plan is not allowing it and they would have to provide justification for that as well. And you've done that two or three times where applicants have come to you to change the percentages and they supported their argument and you've agreed with that.

Okay. So, to go over the

100% in any other area would require the council's approval? To change the percentages, yes, would require council's approval through a comp plan amendment and I am going to foreshadow a bit because you're probably going to see that. We have been working with these percentages for a while now. I think that our comp plan is I love our comp plan. Our comp plan is great.

It provided for mixed use areas which if you've been to any of my presentations, I'm always preaching mixed use because that's how you save the environment and that's how you reduce traffic. So I applaud our comp plan for when we adopted in 2017 for bringing these mixed use areas in. The percentages on the other hand were never based on any type of formula or any type of science. Actually, they were best guesstimates. And I know that in the past, I've come before you and I've kind of hinted that these percentages, we may be coming to you to deal with those at some point and I think that's gonna occur at some time whether it's staff coming to you to talk about them or whether it's an applicant coming to which you have had in the past because we are in some cases we're struggling a little bit with the percentages.

That could be something that we might be coming for in the future.

Everything that seems to be coming to us lately seems to be up in that Knights Trail area. I see you there with those highest percentages. Do you really anticipate that we're going to be presented with a request for us to increase that number in Knights Trail area?

I think you're going to be, yeah, I believe that that is an area that and that was such a unique area and so far removed from the center of town that and I think even when we talked about it at Planning Commission back when there was the first request to modify the numbers up there that we really weren't sure in that area especially because there was no development up there. So it was kind of the best guess. But I do think that you are probably going to see some requests in that area. The market is establishing the development and that's kind of what I brought to you before when we talked about these percentages is that the market really establishes what development occurs when or where and what type of development. You know, and then there's other things that throw monkey wrenches into the system too.

We just said a meeting with our seaboard consultant. He said, we're kind of in a retail apocalypse right now. Retail is changing. Amazon has changed retail the way it used to be. Office is not being built anymore because so much remote working capabilities and those kind of things. COVID changed a lot of things. We didn't know COVID was coming. It came, changed a lot of things. So that's why I've said in the past that the market really needs to drive some of these things. And I think you're seeing that. There's been changes to the Laurel Road property from residential to commercial. There's been changes to the Knights Trail from commercial to residential. So it's the market that's driving these changes.

So I certainly do anticipate some folks coming to you to make changes. Thank you. One last question, Mayor. You did mention Seaboard. Where does that fit in here? Does it?

Seaboard is a mixed use area. It is a Seaboard Improvement District. SBI is the zoning there and mixed use Seaboard is the land use there. And you'd have to it's yeah, it's right there in the Gateway neighborhood. Right now existing units zero. We do allow maximum of four twenty two units in there. And right now we've got mostly was the

number we just read about as this first phase?

Yeah. I think that in the newspaper it was two thirty six units but that's based on what they've studied in this first phase area and kind of worked out as their best guesstimate of what we could be able to do and what should be feasible in that area based on our code and based on kind of a layout that they provided looking at the mix between residential and non residential. Right now they're thinking maybe it's a little heavy on the non residential side and maybe Seaboard is going to end up being more residential, but we're in such early stages here right now that we're just we keep digging further deep into the details. So it'll be exciting to see how

that area all works out. All right, great. Thank you.

Any other questions? All right. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to

speak? No.

Okay. Then with that, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Mayor.

Mr. Vice Mayor.

I move that Ordinance No. Twenty twenty six be approved on first reading and sent to the Florida State Department of Commerce for review.

Second. Second by Mr. Howard. Any council discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, if you can ready us for an electronic vote. Council members, when your lights are flashing, you can indicate your vote. Madam Clerk, can tally and display the vote. Passes unanimously. All right. We are on to ordinances final reading. Ordinance number twenty twenty six-eleven. Public hearing is now open. Madam clerk, can you read the ordinance by title only when you are ready, please.

An ordinance amending City of Venice ordinance number twenty twenty five dash 32 as previously amended, which adopted the official budget of the city of Venice, Florida for the fiscal year beginning 10/01/2025 and ending 09/30/2026 by increasing the total revenue by 265,015 and total expenditure by 67,500 and providing an effective date.

And Madam Clerk do you have any written communication since last hearing? No. Okay is there any update from staff since last hearing? All right anybody signed up to speak? Nope. Public hearing is now closed. I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Engelke.

I move that ordinance number twenty twenty six-eleven be approved and adopted.

Second by Mr. Howard. Any council discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk if you're ready, yes for an electronic vote. Council members, when your lights are flashing, you can indicate your vote. Madam Clerk, you can tally and display the vote. Passes unanimously. All right. We are on to Presentations twenty six-five thirty four. And this is Finance Director, Linda Seni and Jeff Wolf Shareholder MSL PA Presentation of the twenty twenty five Annual Comprehensive Financial Report and External Audit. If you guys want to come up and present.

Good afternoon. For the record, Linda Setti, Finance Director. And with me is Jeff Wolf, who is a partner with Forbes Mazars. And as you're aware that we have to have an outside audit done every single year by an external CPA firm and that is Jeff Wolf's firm and so he'll be presenting CAFR results to you.

Thank you. Good afternoon counsel. As I always start again, I just want to thank you for allowing us to serve you as your external auditors. We work for you and we really do appreciate that opportunity. So with that, I'll get right into it. As Linda mentioned, this is We're now Forbes Mezars. This was the first full audit under Forbes Mezars, which is the top 10 national firm. So although you've had us for auditors for several, obviously several years now, you really did get a fresh look. We did a whole different audit methodology. So I just say that the reports that you're about to hear, I think carry a little extra weight just because of the the the extra scrutiny that that was received and a kind of a fresh look of of the way the city does things.

So unfortunately these reports will be very boring but as it relates to audits, no news is good news. So I will apologize for that upfront. So the first report is our independent auditors report. That is a report on whether your financial statements are materially correct. Once again you had an unmodified opinion. That is a clean opinion. That's the highest level of assurance you can receive that your financial statements are materially correct. Our next report is our report on internal control over financial reporting and compliance. Now government audit standards require us to gain understanding of internal controls. So we do that through testing, inquiry, walk throughs, but we don't render an opinion on those controls.

But if we did see anything significant, any material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in control, we would mention that in this report. But once again, this is a clean report. No findings, no issues noted. Again this year the city met both the state and federal single audit thresholds, meaning the federal threshold went up to a million dollars this year, the state remained at 750,000. So one federal program was tested, two state programs were tested both for compliance internal controls.

Again, you had unmodified opinions on compliance as it relates to those federal and state programs. And no issues noted internal control. Our next report is our independent accountants report. This is just an examination on whether your investment policy is in accordance with Florida statutes and then that you followed your investment policy. So again, no findings, no issues noted with our report.

Lastly is our Arter general required management letter. This management letter covers various things such as if you were in any kind of financial condition, emergency, any negative financial trends, we would be required to communicate those issues or anything other, anything else significant we thought we we we would need communicate to governance, we would include in this report. But again, a clean report, no issues noted. So going on to some just real real high level financial highlights. So your city wide analysis, So this Think of this as of everything like the city was a business, meaning long term capital assets, long term debt broken up between your governmental activities and your business activities.

You know, your business activities being your water, sewer, solid waste airport, and your governmental activities being mainly your general fund and your special revenue funds. The numbers I wanna point to again is your your current ratio in the government activities, your ability to meet your current ask, pay your current liabilities using current assets. In your government activities, it's 10.3 compared to 10.9 last year. So very consistent. And this is very strong numbers.

You see unrestricted net position is 21.9 and that you know in some entities that is negative. But that's not the case here just because of your, part of it being your strong funding, extra work you put in with your pension plans. Your police pension plan is actually fully funded, a debt pension asset. And your fire pension plan is now up to 82% funded. So very very strong numbers and if you went back six, seven years ago, a very different picture.

Know, so you've seen that the credit of making those extra payments. And again, your business type activities again is a is a 4.8, still a strong current ratio. So now on to the general fund, which probably a little bit you're more used to seeing. This is your your operating fund for the city. Pretty comparable this year, the last year.

I'll I'll just drop down to the assigned, unassigned fund balance as a as a percentage of total expenditures. This is your your available funds to meet your ongoing expenditures and really consistent you know from a 64.4 last year to 63.4. So this is your ability to meet you know those unexpected emergencies that occur. So again, know very consistent numbers and strong fund balance. Looking at the general fund budget, you'll see that revenues came in 4.2 higher than budget.