The County's Position
For years, county staff told residents they weren't responsible for maintaining waterways. At public workshops, the message was clear: once water enters the creek, "it's up to nature."
When residents pushed back, staff pointed to the petition program under Article XXX of the county code — a program that requires residents themselves to organize, petition, and fund maintenance of their own waterways through a special taxing district. The message was consistent: you didn't petition, so we can't help.
But there was always another ordinance. One the county didn't mention.
Article IX: The Smoking Gun
Section 110-311 was enacted in 1994 under Ordinance 94-066. It created the Stormwater Environmental Utility (SEU) and defined exactly what the county is responsible for.
The language is unambiguous:
The SEU shall "construct, acquire, treat, and maintain stormwater management improvements" including "conveyance systems"
That word — "shall" — is not optional. In legal language, "shall" means mandatory. The county didn't give itself permission to maintain stormwater infrastructure. It required itself to.
What counts as a "conveyance system"?
The ordinance defines it:
"Stormwater conveyance system means the infrastructure necessary for flood [control]. Infrastructure may include, but is not limited to: canals, ponds, drainage, structures, pumps, and [waterways]."
Waterways. Not just pipes and culverts — waterways.
The Findings of Fact
The ordinance's own findings of fact make it even clearer:
(5) "The County is responsible for the management and maintenance of the County's stormwater management system which has been developed for the purpose of collection, storage, treatment, and conveyance of stormwater."
(7) "The County maintains a system of stormwater management facilities, including but not limited to inlets, conduits, manholes, channels, ditches, retention and detention basins, infiltration facilities, and other components as well as natural or artificial surface waterways."
There it is. Natural or artificial surface waterways. Phillippi Creek is a surface waterway. The county's own ordinance says they're responsible for maintaining it.
Article XXX: The Red Herring
Seven years later, in 2001, the county enacted Ordinance 2001-099 — the Navigable Waterways Maintenance Management Program (Section 54-950 et seq.).
This is the ordinance county staff kept pointing residents to. But read it carefully:
The purpose is to "enhance the availability and use of the navigable waterways... increase boater safety... improve access to the Intra-Coastal Waterway"
Every mention of dredging in Article XXX is qualified as "Maintenance Dredging for boating navigation." This wasn't a stormwater program. It was a boating program — funded by an MSTU (Municipal Service Taxing Unit) paid for by adjacent property owners to keep channels navigable for boats.
The county was pointing residents to a navigational dredging program and telling them to use it for stormwater conveyance. They were pointing to the wrong ordinance.
Read Article XXX on Municode →
The Confirmation
On July 9, 2025, the Board of County Commissioners heard from Susan Schoettle-Gumm, a former assistant county attorney who worked on stormwater issues from 1993 to 2003 and helped draft the 2001 ordinance.
Her testimony was direct:
"I don't recall any thought at the time that [the program] was going to be used for stormwater volume and drainage."
"Most of the [2001] ordinance repeatedly talks about navigation."
Commissioner Mark Smith, who had specifically asked about the ordinance's intent, thanked her for the clarification.
The person who helped write Article XXX confirmed what the text already says: it was never meant for stormwater maintenance. That responsibility belongs to Article IX.
Source: Sarasota News Leader coverage of the July 9, 2025 BCC meeting
What This Means for You
This isn't just about Phillippi Creek.
Section 110-311 applies county-wide. The Stormwater Environmental Utility's mandate to maintain conveyance systems — including natural and artificial waterways — covers every waterway in the stormwater management system across Sarasota County.
Any resident on any waterway can point to this same code and ask the same question:
Why isn't my conveyance system being maintained?
The county collects approximately $27 million per year through stormwater utility fees. The ordinance that created those fees says the money shall be used to maintain the system — including waterways. For decades, it wasn't.
Now you know what the law actually says. The question is: what happens next?
Cite This
Article IX — Stormwater Environmental Utility:
- Sarasota County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 110, Article IX
- Section 110-311 (enacted 1994, Ord. 94-066)
- Establishes SEU mandate to maintain stormwater conveyance systems including waterways
Article XXX — Navigable Waterways Maintenance Management Program:
- Sarasota County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article XXX
- Section 54-950 et seq. (enacted 2001, Ord. 2001-099)
- Navigational dredging program funded by MSTU
- View on Municode
Schoettle-Gumm Testimony:
- July 9, 2025, Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners meeting
- Former assistant county attorney (1993–2003), helped draft Ord. 2001-099
- Confirmed Article XXX was intended for navigation, not stormwater