Venice advisory board reviews hurricane survey, residents press for Flamingo Ditch fixes and faster sandbagging

The Venice Citizen Advisory Board reviewed results of a citywide hurricane after-action survey at its March 19 meeting and heard residents urge faster sandbag distribution and cleanup of the Flamingo Ditch, one of several drainage locations cited as contributing to local flooding.

Board member Dr. Davis, who presented the survey summary for the board, said the effort drew 880 responses after a three-week period and that “less than 20% of the respondents were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the city's response.” The presentation and public comments highlighted recurring concerns about drainage in Golden Beach and the sandbagging process, and prompted the board to set deadlines for members to summarize assigned open-ended responses ahead of an April 16 meeting.

Why it matters: the survey is the board's primary evidence base for recommendations it will send to Venice City Council. The board plans to compare its community-sourced recommendations with the city’s internal after-action review before finalizing advice for council, a step board members and city staff said will help separate perceptions from issues that require policy or operational changes.

During public comment, resident Israel Salinas urged more proactive inspection and clearing of culverts and neighborhood drainage before hurricane season. Salinas described the sandbag operation as “atrocious at best,” saying lines had backed up for more than a mile and urging consideration of semi-automated bagging machines used in other counties. Resident Brian Piper, who lives in Golden Beach, asked the board to extract survey responses specific to the Golden Beach area and develop a subset of recommendations addressing that neighborhood’s experience. Resident Loretta Elliott said her swale near Flamingo Drive “has never been worse since my work was done,” and asked the city to address the Flamingo Ditch outflow.

Board discussion focused on turning the survey's open-ended responses into clear, actionable recommendations for council. Dr. Davis asked members to finish summaries of their assigned open-ended questions and submit them to staff by the following Wednesday so staff could compile a consolidated summary to support an April meeting discussion of preliminary recommendations. The board agreed to continue the hurricane after-action discussion at its April 16 meeting and also set a May 21 meeting; the May date will allow time to review the city’s internal after-action report and to refine recommendations.

City staff encouraged the board to distinguish between perception and verifiable gaps in service when drafting recommendations. James Clinch, who is leading the city’s internal after-action review, told the board that staff’s report will present factual, operational findings and that some public suggestions may already have been addressed — for example, “we did waive building permit fees and we can get you that information,” he said. Staff also warned that some public requests are outside city authority (for example, the county rather than the city decides locations and operation of official public shelters).

Key issues raised in the meeting and the survey included: drainage maintenance and clearing of Flamingo Ditch and neighborhood swales; long sandbag lines and consideration of automated bagging equipment; unclear evacuation messaging and access to evacuation centers for some residents; coordination and public awareness of volunteer resources during recovery; debris removal and permitting delays in the recovery period.

Votes at a glance: the board approved the minutes from the Feb. 19, 2025 meeting (roll-call: all recorded members voting yes), voted to continue the hurricane after-action discussion with member assignments due the following Wednesday (motion passed by roll-call), and voted to schedule additional meetings on April 16 and May 21 (motion passed by roll-call). The board did not adopt substantive policy changes at the meeting; it set a process and deadlines for developing recommendations.

The board asked staff to (a) redistribute the raw open-ended response files to members who could not find them, (b) compile member summaries into a single document before the April meeting, and (c) coordinate whether and when city staff (including department directors) should attend subsequent meetings to answer specific technical questions (for example, debris collection, drainage, and permitting). The board will compare its preliminary recommendations with the city’s internal report — anticipated to be presented publicly to City Council in early April — before finalizing recommendations for council consideration.

The board hearing closed after setting the next meeting date and scheduling the additional May 21 meeting; no final policy or budget decisions were made at this session.