The future of the former Gulf Gate golf course may ultimately come down to what lies beneath it — and what could flow from it.

Sarasota County commissioners on Sept. 8 continued weighing a possible county purchase of the former golf course, focusing heavily on arsenic contamination, groundwater, stormwater treatment and the long-term implications of either county ownership or residential development.

Staff presented preliminary estimates showing environmental remediation for a county stormwater project could cost about $8.1 million, in addition to the price of acquiring the approximately 49-acre property and millions more to construct stormwater improvements.

Matt Osterhoudt, director of Sarasota County Planning and Development Services, said an analysis by Phillips Environmental estimated remediation capital costs at approximately $4.9 million to $7.3 million, along with about $801,000 for remediation-related operations, maintenance and monitoring. Separate capital improvements were estimated at approximately $6.9 million to $10.5 million, with about $50,000 annually in ongoing operational or management costs. Those figures would come on top of the purchase price.

Osterhoudt also told commissioners Gulf Gate Holdings has requested a brownfield designation in support of site rehabilitation. Under Florida’s Brownfields Redevelopment Act, local governments may designate areas where actual or perceived environmental contamination complicates redevelopment, creating a framework and potential incentives for voluntary cleanup and reuse. The designation itself does not constitute a finding that a property is contaminated.

Arsenic has been found in both the soil and water at the former golf course, Sarasota County Stormwater Director Ben Quartermaine told commissioners. The Phillips analysis addressed remediation of both soil and groundwater, although staff emphasized it was based on the county potentially using the property as a stormwater facility. A remediation plan for residential development could differ depending on the intended use.

That distinction prompted questions from Commissioner Mark Smith, who focused on how contamination would be managed if the already-approved residential development proceeds instead.

The property has existing land-use entitlements and, according to Osterhoudt, is approved for 108 lots. It also has proceeded through the site development permit phase and received some demolition permits in preparation for development. Chair Ron Cutsinger emphasized commissioners were not deciding Sept. 8 whether homes could be built because those development rights already had been granted.

Development remains an active possibility. At a May 20 community meeting at Gulf Gate Library, an attorney working with the developer said plans called for potentially breaking ground in the fourth quarter of this year, possibly beginning in October, as the county continued considering acquisition of the property.

Smith questioned discussion of placing approximately 2 feet of clean soil over existing contaminated material as a remediation method, asking what happens when home construction, landscaping, swimming pools and other future work disturb the ground.

Osterhoudt said capping, soil mixing and removal are among possible methods, but the Florida Department of Environmental Protection would determine what is appropriate. Quartermaine said capping can be acceptable when accompanied by required monitoring and maintenance.

Smith said his concern was what happens after a residential project is completed and responsibility eventually moves from the developer to a homeowners association. Unlike a government-managed site, where a public agency remains responsible for monitoring, he questioned whether an HOA would provide the same assurance over the long term.

“I see this can be a scary thing going forward,” Smith said.

Commissioner Tom Knight raised a related concern about future homeowners, asking whether county government has a responsibility to ensure buyers understand what may remain beneath the property. County Attorney Josh Moye said state and federal environmental permitting remains under the jurisdiction of those agencies and that the county does not have an additional legal disclosure responsibility.

While contamination dominated part of the discussion, Quartermaine also outlined why the county continues to view the site as a significant stormwater opportunity.

He said the drainage basins serving the Gulf Gate area were largely developed before current regulations required the type of stormwater ponds, swales, treatment and attenuation common in newer communities. Seven roads within the Gulf Gate neighborhood still experience stormwater level-of-service deficiencies, he said.

A county project could address those flooding problems while also producing a significant reduction in nitrogen discharged to Metheny Creek. Quartermaine characterized the proposal as a potential “legacy stormwater project” in an already built-out basin.

The environmental argument has been central to years of community advocacy for a county purchase. In February, commissioners unanimously authorized staff to hire a third-party engineering firm to analyze remediation costs and continue negotiations with the owner. Residents have pushed the county for more than a decade to preserve the former course, advocating for stormwater retention, improved water quality and green space.

Public interest remained intense as the issue returned to the commission. Over the course of the Aug. 26 and Sept. 8 meetings, dozens of speakers addressed commissioners about the former golf course and its future.

Among them was Jeanette Robinson, a Gulf Gate homeowner, microbiologist and former Sarasota County high school science teacher, who spoke Aug. 26 in favor of acquiring the property for stormwater retention and management.

Robinson, who said she taught marine science, environmental science and biology for nearly a decade, framed the issue as one involving the future health of Sarasota’s waterways.

“The commission has the opportunity to create a space to ensure the future health of Sarasota Bay and the Gulf at large,” she said, adding that while growth is inevitable, “inevitable doesn’t mean destructive.”

Whether that environmental opportunity is financially feasible remains unresolved.

The county has three appraisals of the property ranging from $5.3 million to $9.5 million, while the owner submitted an appraisal of approximately $14.6 million. Osterhoudt also told commissioners a 2025 value adjustment proceeding included an owner-submitted market value of $4.6 million and a requested value of $2.3 million. The property was purchased in November 2022 for $3 million.

Cutsinger said the gap between the county’s valuations and the owner’s position must be narrowed.

“What they’re asking for — that just, it’s not within the realm of reality, as far as I’m concerned,” he said.

Quartermaine said one potential funding approach could involve a capital stormwater assessment. Using a preliminary model that included an $8 million acquisition price, cleanup and associated maintenance, and about $12 million in stormwater improvements, he estimated a 20-year assessment could range from roughly $340 to $500 annually per billing unit without grant funding.

Commissioner Teresa Mast said residents should be given clear information about the potential financial impact before being asked whether they support such a plan.

County Administrator Jonathan Lewis said Sarasota County typically surveys affected residents before establishing this type of assessment district. He asked that staff evaluate both a municipal services benefit unit and a municipal services taxing unit. Cutsinger said the county needs to determine whether residents who support acquisition also support helping pay for it.

Commissioners unanimously directed staff to survey the community, continue negotiations with the property owner and examine the different funding mechanisms before returning to the board. Mast said the survey should be specific about what could potentially occur on the site, projected outcomes and expected costs.

Environmental concerns resurfaced almost immediately after the meeting.

In a Sept. 10 update, the Gulf Gate Community Association said residents had reported demolition activity on the golf course and that the association contacted county departments and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection over concerns about whether contamination protocols were being followed.

The association reported that a county Environmental Protection Office employee had visited the property and that the county was assessing the demolition activity against applicable contamination protocols.

For now, residential development already has been entitled, and the developer has indicated an intention to move ahead as early as this year. The question is whether the county can reach an acceptable purchase price and whether the environmental and stormwater benefits justify the combined costs of acquiring, remediating and transforming the property.

With arsenic in both soil and groundwater, deficiencies in the surrounding stormwater system and nitrogen flowing toward Metheny Creek, the debate has become about more than preserving an old golf course.

It is also about whether a contaminated property can be turned into infrastructure designed to improve the environmental health of an already developed community.