Sarasota County commissioners met Oct. 7 for a workshop on affordable housing, hearing presentations from county planning staff, finance staff and the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee about local housing shortages, the state
irlorida "Live Local" law and funding tools. Commissioners voted unanimously to ask staff to run revenue and program scenarios for a proposed housing trust fund and to bring those analyses back during the board's December strategic planning session.

The workshop focused on two immediate policy questions: how the Live Local Act (a recent change in Florida law that limits local zoning, density and height controls for qualifying affordable projects) will affect development in unincorporated Sarasota County, and how the county can create a recurring, local source of gap financing to leverage federal and state grants.

The matter matters because county staff and community groups said housing cost burdens are widespread and persistent. "A household is cost-burdened when it spends more than 30% of income on housing," Matt Osterhaus, director of Sarasota County Planning and Development Services, told commissioners. Staff presented data showing the area median income (AMI) used for many programs (100% AMI for the North Port–Sarasota–Bradenton MSA) was $107,600 in the latest HUD numbers used by the county, and that median rents and sale prices have risen sharply in recent years.

Key facts and immediate takeaways

- Commissioners directed staff to model a local funding approach (the advisory committeealled it "12a" in its recommendations) that would dedicate a small share of new tax growth or another formula to a local Affordable Housing Trust Fund; Commissioner Knight moved to include the item in the December strategic planning workshop, Commissioner Smith seconded and the motion passed unanimously. The board did not adopt any ordinance or impose new taxes at the meeting.

- County staff summarized the Live Local Act: qualifying multifamily affordable housing proposals that meet the statuteenchmarks (at least 40% of units affordable for a defined period, with affordability definitions going up to 120% of AMI in some circumstances) are reviewed administratively and are preempted from local rezoning, special exception, comprehensive plan amendment, variance and other discretionary entitlements. The statute also limits how counties may restrict density and height for Live Local projects.

- Funding and gap financing: staff and presenters reviewed recent federal and state awards the county has used to subsidize affordable projects, and called those awards the primary current driver of new units. Examples discussed in the workshop included county allocations from American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dollars and Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) monies designated after Hurricane Ian. Steve Hyatt, division manager for the countyinancial Management Office, summarized recent allocations and pipelines of projects that rely on gap funding from county-administered programs.

What presenters and stakeholders said

- "For the record, I'm Matt Osterhaus, the director of the Sarasota County's planning and development services department," Osterhaus said while leading the presentation of demographic and regulatory material. He reviewed data on housing stock, age cohorts, the rise in rents (Zillow's observed rent index approaching about $2,400 monthly), and the county's recent regulatory changes (accessory dwelling units by right, half-dwelling-unit rules for multifamily under 750 square feet, reduced parking minimums in certain cases, and expedited permitting for developments with affordability commitments).

- Steve Hyatt described how the county has used one-time federal funds to leverage projects: the county allocated ARPA and CDBG-DR dollars to multiple affordable projects (staff cited multi‑million-dollar appropriations and active grant rounds under the countyranded Resilient SRQ program). Hyatt noted these one-time infusions helped underwrite roughly dozens or hundreds of units in recent years but emphasized the county lacks a dedicated, recurring local gap-funding source.

- Drayton Saunders, chair of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC), urged the board to pursue a dedicated, recurring revenue stream to seed a local trust fund so county leaders can choose how to allocate gap financing in future development cycles. "Control is king," Saunders said, arguing local funds give the county discretion to structure long-term affordability terms and leverage other funding.

- Public commenters and non-profit and builder representatives supported a mix of approaches: continued use of federal/state grant dollars, targeted use of county-owned surplus land, density where feasible, and a new local revenue source for gap financing. One public commenter, Chris Wise of Sarasota United for Responsibility and Equity, urged the board to focus funding on units in the 60%–80% AMI range and referenced the group's estimate that the county needs roughly 14,000 affordable homes by 2035.

Live Local: what the law means in Sarasota County

County counsel and planning staff summarized the statute's major effects on local permitting: Live Local requires local governments to allow multifamily affordable housing as an allowable use in zones that permit commercial, industrial or mixed use (and in permitted uses within other zone titles). Projects that meet the statuteonditions may be administratively approved, and the law preempts local requirements for rezoning, comprehensive plan amendments and similar discretionary approvals. Staff noted Sarasota County's numeric ceiling for non-Live Local residential density referenced in the county code (13 units per acre) and explained how Live Local projects are reviewed under multifamily site standards and remain subject to technical requirements such as stormwater, setbacks and parking regulations.

County land, pipeline projects and tools staff already use

Osterhaus and staff outlined county programs that have already been used for affordable housing: an annual surplus property review (pursuant to state statutes that ask counties to identify government-owned property appropriate for housing), land-use restriction agreements attached to sales, and several recent county land deals with long-term affordability covenants. Staff identified three specific county land projects in development or closing stages (a large parcel on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Way with hundreds of units proposed, a North Tamiami Trail site with a land-use restriction for 96 units at 80% AMI, and a North McCall Road property with at least 39 units planned at up to 100% AMI).

What remained unresolved at the workshop

- Funding source design: the AHAC presented recommendation "12a" (use a formula tied to new taxable value from growth to create a recurring trust-fund revenue stream), but the board did not adopt a funding mechanism. Commissioners asked staff to run numeric scenarios showing how different percentages or formulas would have performed over recent years and to return with estimates the board could consider in budget/strategic planning.

- Live Local implementation details: commissioners asked staff to clarify how the statute applies to parcels owned by government (GU parcels), how religious-institution provisions will work in practice and whether certain residential zoning districts that include limited commercial uses are now eligible for Live Local projects. Staff committed to follow up with more detailed legal and implementation guidance.

- Affordability mixes: Commissioners and several presenters debated 120% AMI as allowed by parts of the Live Local statute versus deeper affordability (60%–80% AMI). Stakeholders repeatedly urged the board to prioritize funding to support the lower AMI tiers where the most workforce need exists.

Quotes to illustrate the debate

- "Control is king," Drayton Saunders, chair of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, told the board as he urged a locally controlled, recurring funding source to seed gap financing and set long-term affordability priorities.

- "A household is cost-burdened when it spends more than 30% of income on housing," Matt Osterhaus said while reviewing the county's affordability definitions and data on cost burden.

- Commissioner Mast emphasized density and fees: "Without the density, it becomes very, very challenging to even begin to afford the dirt," he said, and urged the board to examine impact fees and the differences between affordable rental and affordable ownership.

Next steps and meeting-level actions

- The board unanimously approved a motion by Commissioner Knight, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to place the AHAC recommendations and staff scenarios (including an analysis of recommendation 12a) on the December strategic planning agenda so the commission can consider a funding decision during its FY budget discussions. (Motion: "Include the housing trust-fund scenario work and AHAC follow-up in the December strategic planning session," mover: Commissioner Knight; second: Commissioner Smith; outcome: passed unanimously.)

- Staff assignments: Planning and Financial Management staff will supply written materials and scenario runs on the funding options (possible revenue formulas tied to new taxable value, illustrative revenue forecasts, and the likely unit yield when combined with federal/state gap funding). Staff will also provide clarifications on Live Local implementation questions raised during the workshop (church-owned parcels, GU-parcel status, parking reductions tied to transit stops, and how the statute interacts with existing county regulations).

Why this matters locally

County and community leaders described a gap in the supply of workforce housing — particularly for health care aides, retail workers, food-service and construction employees — and said the county's existing one-time federal allocations have produced dozens or hundreds of units but are not a sustainable, ongoing source of gap financing. Commissioners, civic leaders and developers in the room urged a layered approach: preserve and use county-owned land where appropriate, continue to leverage federal and state awards, encourage more multifamily where infrastructure supports it, and create a predictable local trust fund to close capital-stack gaps for projects that serve households at 60%–80% AMI.

Ending note

No regulatory changes or tax measures were adopted at the workshop. Instead, commissioners asked staff for detailed, quantitative scenario work to inform a future budget/strategic decision. The AHAC will finalize its annual recommendations in the coming weeks and staff will return with legal and financial analyses the board requested prior to the December strategic planning session.