UPDATED Monday, May 24, 2021 at 11:40 a.m. – MANATEE COUNTY – County commissioners Kevin Van Ostenbridge and James Satcher will be reimbursed for the attorney fees and legal expenses they incurred as defendants in a Public Records Act lawsuit filed by paralegal Michael Barfield in December.
On May 11, the county commission voted 7-0 in favor of reimbursing Van Ostenbridge and Satcher up to $60,000. The commission approved the reimbursements without being provided with itemized attorney bills that supported the reimbursement requests.
Citing standard operating procedure, Clerk of the Court and Comptroller Angel Colonneso said the commission-approved reimbursements would not be paid until her office received and reviewed itemized invoices from Van Ostenbridge and Satcher’s attorneys.
According to the non-itemized attorney fee summaries County Attorney Bill Clague provided The Sun on May 12, Van Ostenbridge incurred $26,368 in attorney bills and $281 in additional legal costs for legal services provided by attorney Morgan Bentley and his office, for a total of $26,650. According to detailed invoices provided later by the Clerk of the Court’s Office, Van Ostenbridge received 97.2 hours of attorney services from Bentley’s office.
Van Ostenbridge incurred an additional $7,500 in expenses for legal services provided by attorney Sean Flynn and his office. According to the itemized invoice provided by the Clerk of the Circuit Court office, Van Ostenbridge received 22 hours of legal services from the Flynn Law firm. Van Ostenbridge’s attorney fees and legal expenses totaled $34,150.
According to the non-itemized invoice received from Clague, Satcher incurred $15,750 in attorney fees for 70 hours of service at $225 per hour. According to the itemized invoice later provided by the Clerk of the Court’s Office, Satcher’s total bill was $15,785.
Van Ostenbridge and Satcher’s combined attorney fees and legal costs totaled $49,935. The commission-approved reimbursement also included the $6,000 settlement payment Van Ostenbridge and Satcher agreed to pay Barfield to settle the lawsuit without an admission of liability regarding Public Records Act compliance. The settlement agreement with Barfield was executed in late April.
According to the invoices and settlement agreement, the total reimbursement sought is $55,935.
Commission Chair Vanessa Baugh is now the lone remaining defendant named in Barfield’s lawsuit he filed in December. On May 14, Barfield deposed Baugh under oath. An in-person court hearing before Judge Charles Sniffen is pending.
According to Barfield the purpose of the hearing is to seek a ruling from Sniffen as to whether Baugh fully complied with the Public Records Act and provided all the records he requested.
Commission discussion
During the May 11 commission discussion, Clague referenced a legal memorandum he included in the agenda packet.
“Florida law allows the county to pay the legal expenses incurred by commissioners in this case, subject to the board finding that the commissioners were performing their official duties for a public purpose,” the memo stated.
When addressing the commission, Clague said, “The purpose of the law is to prevent what the courts refer to as a ‘chilling effect’ on the performance of official duties by public officials, particularly elected officials. The idea is that if officials are afraid that they will be forced to pay legal expenses, personally, for doing their jobs, they will be afraid to do their jobs. People will not always agree with the decisions elected officials make and the law recognizes that the place to deal with that is the ballot box.”
Commissioner Carol Whitmore asked Clague if Van Ostenbridge and Satcher could recuse themselves from the vote if they wished to not give the appearance of personal gain or loss. Clague said they could, but they’d have to leave the room. Neither commissioner recused themselves, nor were they asked to.
Satcher said he was surprised when the lawsuit was filed and originally named him as the first and only defendant, with Baugh and Van Ostenbridge later named as co-defendants. Satcher said it was never his desire or intent to hold back any records Barfield requested.
Regarding the pending vote on the requested reimbursements, Satcher said, “People shouldn’t be bankrupted for being elected.”
Public input
County residents Matt Bower and Glen Gibellina expressed opposition to the reimbursement requests as presented, in part because the public had not yet been provided with copies of the attorney bills.
“This bill is excessive,” Bower said of the total reimbursements sought.
Bower said he and more than a dozen other county residents he communicated with were unhappy about the taxpayers being asked to pay the commissioners’ legal bills.
Gibellina said, “Any time there’s a settlement, it’s a red flag. We make deals to save time and money, but at the cost of transparency to the citizens.
Gibellina said the reimbursement request should have been delayed until the public was provided with copies of the attorney bills.
“If we’re paying the bill, we deserve to see what the bill is,” he said.
MANATEE COUNTY – County Commissioners James Satcher and Kevin Van Ostenbridge have reached a $6,000 settlement with paralegal Michael Barfield in the lawsuit he filed regarding Public Records Act compliance.
According to the settlement agreement, “Van Ostenbridge and Satcher shall pay Barfield the sum of $6,000 within 30 days of full execution of this agreement. Barfield agreed to file notice of voluntary dismissal.”
County Commission Chair Vanessa Baugh is now the lone remaining defendant in the civil lawsuit Barfield filed and then amended in December alleging the defendants’ failure to fully comply with the public records requests he submitted on Nov. 20.
Barfield sought from Baugh, Satcher, Van Ostenbridge and Commissioner George Kruse all emails, text messages, social media and other digital messages sent or received from Nov. 3 (election night) through Nov. 20. He also requested detailed phone logs of all calls made or received during that period. Because he promptly complied with Barfield’s requests, Kruse was not named in the lawsuit.
Barfield’s records requests were preceded by the Nov. 19 special county commission meeting requested by Van Ostenbridge during which he proposed putting County Administrator Cheri Coryea on notice that her potential termination would be discussed at a future meeting. Van Ostenbridge made that motion with no advance notice given to the public or the commission as a whole.
When opposing the motion, Commissioner Reggie Bellamy said the efforts to oust Coryea appeared to be “premeditated.” Commissioner Carol Whitmore said they appeared to be “orchestrated.”
It was also learned that Van Ostenbridge requested and received a private meeting with Coryea earlier that morning, during which he asked Coryea to resign without first consulting with the commission as a whole. Coryea told Van Ostenbridge she would not resign.
District 3 Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge has agreed to settle the lawsuit and now seeks reimbursement from the county. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
On Feb. 23, Coryea and the county commission mutually agreed to a separation agreement that ended her tenure as county administrator and called for her to receive approximately $204,000 in compensation from the county.
Settlement reached
When contacted May 4, Barfield said, “They are reimbursing not all, but a significant portion of my costs. There were no attorney fees because I didn’t hire an attorney. That probably saved them another $10,000 or $15,000 in legal fees. Vanessa Baugh hasn’t settled yet.”
On Tuesday, May 11, the county commission will discuss Satcher and Van Ostenbridge’s request to collectively be reimbursed $60,000 for the attorney fees and costs they incurred as defendants. Attorney Morgan Bentley represented Van Ostenbridge and attorney Robert Robinson represented Satcher.
As of Sunday, the meeting packet for Tuesday’s meeting did not include any documents that detail how the $60,000 reimbursement figure was determined. The reimbursement request requires the support of at least four commissioners.
The meeting packet includes a memo from County Attorney Bill Clague that states, “Florida law allows the county to pay the legal expenses incurred by commissioners in this case, subject to the board finding that the commissioners were performing their official duties for a public purpose in the matters covered by the litigation.”
On Thursday, May 6, The Sun requested from the Manatee County Records Division, acting County Administrator Scott Hopes and others any documents Satcher and Van Ostenbridge provided in support of their $60,000 request. The only response received was from Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller Angelina Colonneso, who also requested those records.
“We are requesting the itemized receipts which would be needed prior to any reimbursement. The request will be made of the commissioners themselves, not via the county,” Colonneso stated in her response, adding that she will provide copies of those documents when received.
“We had one very brief hearing in this case and one all-day deposition (for Van Ostenbridge). I can’t figure out how they could cumulatively run up legal bills for $54,000. They’re only paying me $6,000,” Barfield said.
“We’re entitled to see the back-up material: the amount of fees, the billing hours incurred and the rates they’re paying their attorneys. It has to be a reasonable number. You can’t determine reasonable costs until you know what the $54,000 is based on. In my view, all of this should come out of their own pockets because they failed to comply with the law, and they didn’t turn over any records until after a judge issued an order for them to do so. They are now asking the county taxpayers to support their violations of the Public Records Act,” he added.
In response to a criminal complaint also filed by Barfield, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) conducted a criminal investigation of Baugh, Kruse, Satcher and Van Ostenbridge.
On March 19, FDLE spokesperson Jeremy Burns provided a case summary that stated, “In December, the state attorney for the 12th Judicial Circuit requested FDLE’s assistance with reviewing a citizen complaint concerning allegations of Sunshine Law violations and possibly other law violations by several Manatee County commissioners. FDLE Agents met with the complainant who alleged that James Satcher, George Kruse, Vanessa Baugh and Kevin Van Ostenbridge conspired to reverse a controversial land purchase (the Lena Road property) and to fire the Manatee County administrator. There was no information obtained to substantiate that a criminal violation occurred.”
By settling the lawsuit, the defendants are neither admitting or denying the allegations made by Barfield in his civil suit, but are, in part, “entering into this agreement for the purpose of avoiding greater future costs.”
Bower memo
In response to the reimbursement request, District 3 resident and former commission candidate Matt Bower submitted to the county a four-page memorandum in opposition to the award of attorney fees.
“At this time, no documentation has been presented to the board or to the public giving rise that these two commissioners actually paid for the legal services they are requesting reimbursement. Considering the asset and income disclosure by each of these two commissioners at the time of their filing for county commissioner, it is difficult to believe either commissioner personally paid for such legal services. To even consider whether such legal fees should be reimbursed, the burden of proof is upon these two commissioners to submit proof – copies of checks, wiring of funds or otherwise – that such fees were paid and incurred,” Bower’s memo states.
According to the disclosure form Satcher filed when seeking office, Satcher Ministries earned $28,932 and Satcher earned $16,714 as a business consultant per his 2019 federal tax returns. According to his disclosure form, Van Ostenbridge earned $20,000 from Boyd Realty and $58,791 as the owner-operator of Be Easy Tours. Manatee County Commissioners currently earn approximately $90,000 per year.
District 1 Commissioner James Satcher seeks county reimbursement after settling a Public Records Act-related lawsuit. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“If an award of attorney’s fees is granted, those fees must be considered reasonable. Thus, without a billing ledger from the commissioners’ attorney, no board member, nor the public, is in a position to grant this request. I find it disingenuous that a billing ledger has not been provided,” Bower’s memo stated.
Baugh deposition and hearing
“I’ve said I wouldn’t end the case until I have comfort that I received all the records I requested. I’m not there yet with Commissioner Baugh,” Barfield said.
Baugh
On May 5, 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Charles Sniffen approved Barfield’s request to depose Baugh under oath on Friday, May 14. A subsequent hearing before Sniffen has been scheduled on Friday, May 26 at 9 a.m.
On April 27, Tallahassee-based attorney George Levesque sent Sniffen a letter on behalf of his client, Baugh.
“In light of the allegations made in Mr. Barfield’s petition, the undisputed sworn evidence and the procedural history in this case, we believe there is just cause for this court to dismiss or deny the petition. Commissioner Baugh would like for this court to conduct a non-evidentiary hearing to afford her the opportunity to advance these arguments,” Levesque’s letter stated.
Barfield said he hopes the May 26 hearing produces a ruling as to whether Baugh has fully complied with the Public Records Act.
MANATEE COUNTY – County commissioners have approved a construction agreement for a deep injection well as part of the efforts to permanently close the Piney Point property.
Located in Palmetto, near Port Manatee, the Piney Point property served as a phosphate processing plant from 1966 to 1999. Current owner HRK Holdings bought the vacated property in 2006.
After a leak was detected in one of the plant’s gyp stack retention ponds last month, 215 million gallons of polluted water were released into Tampa Bay at Port Manatee to prevent an accidental spill of even more wastewater.
County commissioners voted 6-1 on Tuesday, April 20 in support of a construction agreement with Youngquist Brothers Inc. for an injection well to hold the remaining contaminated water at a total cost not to exceed $9.35 million. Commissioner Reggie Bellamy opposed the agreement.
On April 6, the county commission authorized acting County Administrator Scott Hopes to secure the services of the Tampa-based ASRus firm to complete the design, permitting and construction-phase services for an underground deep injection well on county-owned property, and to secure a qualified party to construct the new well.
The construction agreement calls for one, 11.75-inch “nominal diameter Class I injection well” with a total depth of up to 3,500 feet. The well will be completed with a final carbon steel outer casing cemented to land surface, with a fiberglass reinforced plastic inner casing to land surface. Both the inner and outer casings will extend to the same approximate depth of 1,950 feet. The agreement also calls for one, six-inch nominal diameter dual zone monitoring well with an anticipated depth of about 950 feet.
According to a summary document included in the meeting packet, “Youngquist Brothers, as recommended by ASRus, is the appropriately qualified party to construct the well. The construction cost is $8.5 million; however, a 10% contingency is incorporated to account for any unforeseen circumstances and shall be used with the approval of the county. The substantial completion time is 330 calendar days from the issuance of the Notice to Proceed Construction, which allows for the time necessary to obtain the FDEP permit.”
The Piney Point wastewater will be treated before it’s discharged into the earth.
“We manage three deep wells right now. We have three and Tropicana has one. I’ve never gotten a complaint or concern about those three deep wells,” Commissioner Carol Whitmore said.
Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge said the deep well at the county’s 66th Street utilities plant in Bradenton can handle 15 million gallons of wastewater per day.
Drinking water concerns
Skye Gundy provided the commissioners with the perspective of a resident who lives near the Piney Point property.
“I’m here to talk about the ongoing disaster at Piney Point. I am one of the closest residents to the actual breach and leak. I am a lifelong community member of Manatee County, born and raised. After I came home from the University of Florida, I came home to serve the community that raised me. I bought my own slice of heaven. I own three acres of paradise – everything we love about Manatee County right there on three acres. This disaster has broken that tranquility and caused me to be angry and disillusioned at the governing bodies that are supposed to protect me, and quite anxious.”
Resident Skye Grundy asked the county to test the wells of those who live near Piney Point. – Submitted
Grundy also addressed the future safety of those impacted residents and property owners.
“I have three children and no one has tested my well water – or anybody on my street, or anybody in my community. We pay for private well testing and for the tests that we’ll have to do now it will be in the thousands of dollars; and if you’ve got a water treatment system, it will be thousands of dollars. I’m urging you to consider giving us public water or to help pay for our private water testing,” Grundy said.
District 1 Commissioner James Satcher later made a motion for the county to provide emergency well testing for residents living within a certain distance of the Piney Point property.
“We’re not the ones living there drinking that water. If we were, we’d want to get it tested. They didn’t create this issue,” he said.
Hopes said well testing is the responsibility of the Department of Health and he offered to coordinate those efforts with that state agency before spending county resources.
Van Ostenbridge suggested Satcher’s motion be amended as follows: “The board directs the county administrator to expedite the coordination of well testing near Piney Point.”
The amended motion passed by a 7-0 vote.
Satcher also shared his views on the future of phosphate mining in Manatee County.
“I understand the company that put this stack there is out of business, but if any company is doing anything similar to this, we’re going to have to change the rules and put our foot down. I don’t plan on voting for any more permits. I understand people need to eat and farmers need fertilizer, but not at the cost of our citizens; not at the cost of our bays; not at the cost of our beaches. That doesn’t cut it any longer,” he said.
Regarding the Piney Point property, Van Ostenbridge noted: “It was never a mine. It was a phosphorus processing plant that started back in the 60s. The company went bankrupt and here we are. There are no other processing plants in Manatee County.”
County Attorney Bill Clague provided additional clarification and said, “Our local mining ordinance prohibits the construction of any new gyp (phosphogypsum) stacks or phosphorus plants in Manatee County. It has since 2004. Our local regulations do not allow them to ever build one of these again in Manatee County. This is the only one in Manatee County. The other mountains that you see on mines are clay settling areas, they’re not gyp. Are they environmentally great? No, but they’re not the same level of concern as a gyp stack.”
According to the Manatee County website, “There are currently over 17,000 acres of land approved for phosphate mining in Manatee County. Only one company is actively mining phosphate in Manatee County: Mosaic Fertilizer.”
Before the discussion ended, Satcher made another motion proposing access to county water service be extended to those who live near Piney Point who are not currently serviced by county water. This prompted a discussion on the significant costs that the county and the impacted property owners would incur.
As an alternative, Commission Chair Vanessa Baugh suggested the following future action: “We are asking public utilities to give us a report on that particular area by Piney Point – the residences and business there who are on well and what it might take to change that, if possible.”
Satcher accepted Baugh’s suggestion. The commission also extended its local state of emergency declaration regarding Piney Point.
Updated March 22, 2021 at 5:22 p.m. – MANATEE COUNTY – A Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) investigation found no evidence that four Manatee County commissioners committed crimes or violated the Sunshine Law.
“In December, the state attorney for the 12th Judicial Circuit requested FDLE’s assistance with reviewing a citizen complaint concerning allegations of Sunshine Law violations and possibly other law violations by several Manatee County commissioners. FDLE agents met with the complainant who alleged that Manatee County Commissioners James Satcher, George Kruse, Vanessa Baugh and Kevin Van Ostenbridge conspired to reverse a controversial land purchase and to fire the Manatee County administrator,” according to the case summary that FDLE spokesperson Jeremy Burns provided on Friday, March 19.
“FDLE initiated a preliminary inquiry to determine if any criminal violations occurred. After the review of records provided by the complainant and conducting several interviews, there was no information obtained to substantiate that a criminal violation occurred,” according to the FDLE case summary.
According to Burns, FDLE considers the investigation closed.
The investigation was conducted in response to a complaint filed by paralegal Michael Barfield.
“Obviously, I’m disappointed. It seems the standard in this jurisdiction requires a confession before a Sunshine Law violation is charged,” Barfield said when contacted Friday afternoon. “We will look at the preliminary investigation FDLE conducted. I don’t believe they conducted a full investigation. My understanding is they didn’t even interview Mr. Van Ostenbridge.”
Van Ostenbridge, Satcher and Baugh are still named as defendants in a related civil lawsuit that Barfield filed in early December regarding the commissioners’ compliance with the Public Records Act and the public records he requested of them and Kruse in late November.
Barfield said the FDLE findings have no impact on the civil case.
“In a criminal investigation, you have to prove that there was a criminal intent to violate the law and the burden of proof is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Fortunately, a civil process does not require any intent. The standard of proof is much lower, and the judge makes that determination,” Barfield said.
Van Ostenbridge deposed
As part of the ongoing civil proceedings, Barfield deposed Van Ostenbridge under oath on March 12. Barfield said Van Ostenbridge did not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights or refuse to answer the questions posed to him – as was previously suggested in a motion that attorney Morgan Bentley filed on Van Ostenbridge’s behalf.
County Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge has been deposed under oath regarding the still pending civil case. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“We took Commissioner Van Ostenbridge’s deposition, and I am still waiting for additional records to be produced that I’ve been promised. There wasn’t anything terribly new in the deposition in terms of what we didn’t already know, but Mr. Van Ostenbridge did say he made the decision to terminate Cheri Coryea before he was sworn in on Nov. 17. He said he made that decision sometime between the 11th and the 13th of November,” Barfield said.
At the request of Bentley, the media was excluded from attending Van Ostenbridge’s deposition. Barfield said he will order and later place in the court records a copy of the verbatim transcript being prepared by the court reporter tasked with producing the official record of the deposition.
Barfield said he previously obtained email records that show Baugh, on Oct. 28, sent Van Ostenbridge, Kruse and Satcher a copy of then-County Administrator Cheri Coryea’s employment contract. Barfield said the emails containing Coryea’s contract included no additional comments from Baugh. The commissioners were subject to the Government in the Sunshine Law after being elected Nov. 3.
Barfield said he’s also still waiting on additional records to be produced by Baugh and Satcher.
“After I reach the point in time when I feel confident there’s no other records to recover, we’ll have time to review everything,” he said.
Additional investigations
The Manatee County Sheriff’s Office has not yet released any findings in a separate criminal investigation conducted in response to a criminal complaint Barfield filed regarding Baugh’s involvement in the pop-up vaccine distribution site she helped establish in her Lakewood Ranch district in February.
Baugh is also the subject of an unresolved ethics complaint that attorney Jennifer Hamey filed regarding the Lakewood Ranch vaccination site.
MANATEE COUNTY – County Commissioner George Kruse last week called for County Administrator Cheri Coryea’s termination.
During the discussion, Kruse admitted having an extramarital affair, saying that Commissioner Carol Whitmore’s knowledge of the affair factored into his decision to publicly acknowledge it, and he used the word “blackmail” when doing so.
These events transpired during the Tuesday, Jan. 26 Manatee County Commission meeting. In response to Kruse’s public comments, Whitmore retained Sarasota attorney Brett McIntosh.
During Tuesday’s meeting, the commission voted 4-3 in support of Kruse’s motion to put Coryea on notice that her termination would be discussed at a future meeting.
Commissioners Vanessa Baugh, Kevin Van Ostenbridge and James Satcher supported Kruse’s motion. Whitmore and commissioners Reggie Bellamy and Misty Servia opposed it.
Coryea’s termination will be discussed and likely acted upon during a special county commission meeting on Wednesday, Feb. 17. The meeting will take place at the Bradenton Area Convention Center in Palmetto and will start at 1:30 p.m.
County Administrator Cheri Coryea is facing termination once again. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
In November, Kruse, Baugh and Satcher supported Van Ostenbridge’s motion to put Coryea on notice that her termination would be discussed and potentially acted upon in January. In December, the commission unanimously supported Kruse’s motion to reconsider that November decision and they rescinded the termination efforts.
Meeting fallout
Tuesday’s revelations and actions were partially inspired by the public fallout that followed the Friday, Jan. 22 meeting that Whitmore and Kruse had at Whitmore’s request. That meeting took place in a conference room on the fifth floor of the Manatee County administration building in downtown Bradenton. Whitmore requested the one-on-one meeting with Kruse so he could share with her his knowledge about affordable housing and how to fund it.
Coryea, Director of Financial Management Jan Brewer and Vickie Tessmer, from the Clerk of the Court’s office, were asked to attend the 8 a.m. meeting. Tessmer took minutes and recorded the meeting. After learning of the meeting that morning, Van Ostenbridge arrived at 8:18, according to Tessmer.
The meeting was noticed at the county’s online calendar and on the county bulletin board. The meeting agenda was not posted at the county website where agendas are typically posted and Baugh, Bellamy, Satcher, Servia and Van Ostenbridge were not directly notified.
Commission Chair Vanessa Baugh believes county staff will continue to carry out their duties despite the disruption. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
In response to how that meeting was noticed and conducted, Baugh placed a discussion item on the agenda for Tuesday’s meeting. The discussion began with Van Ostenbridge expressing concerns that his appearance may have constituted a Sunshine Law violation because his name was not included in the notices. Satcher also voiced displeasure about not being notified.
Regarding compliance with the Florida Government in the Sunshine Law, County Attorney Bill Clague said, “I am comfortable that all of the participants have complied with the Sunshine Law with respect to this meeting. The fact that a meeting satisfies a Sunshine Law doesn’t necessarily mean it follows all of our practices for transparency or public participation. These kinds of meetings are very rare in the county. I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve dealt with this in 24 years of practice.”
Clague said he was consulted in advance regarding the meeting format but was surprised he and his office were not notified of the exact time and date.
Regarding future meetings of this nature, Clague said, “There is no protocol in place right now for how they should be handled. If the board wants to direct the county attorney’s office to put one together, we are certainly prepared to do that.”
After further discussion, the commission unanimously supported the following motion recommended by Clague: “I move to direct the county attorney’s office to draft a resolution establishing protocols for meetings between commissioners to discuss business of the county outside of meetings of the full board or other established boards on which they serve, to include a requirement for other commissioners to be invited to attend, and for attendance by an attorney from the county attorney’s office.”
Kruse speaks
Kruse then spoke at length and began by saying, “First and foremost, I do want to sincerely apologize to the people of Manatee County and my fellow commissioners for the nature of how the meeting on Friday went down. I was told by the county administrator that everything was going to be properly noticed and handled appropriately. While I do believe it was legally and statutorily compliant, I realized the optics were terrible and that was certainly not the intent.
County Commissioner George Kruse discussed his own affair when seeking the termination of the county administrator. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“I realized this was incredibly poorly handled. My first thought was honestly one of surprise that a 30-year public sector employee and a four-term commissioner could so carelessly structure this meeting to result in now rightfully deserved backlash. I chalked it up as carelessness until I was passed troubling information this weekend which leads me to believe there may be more to it than sheer ignorance,” he said.
After pausing for a deep breath, Kruse said, “I would never bring my family situation up on this dais, but in this case I will for the good of Manatee County. Late last year, I did the absolute worst thing a person can do to someone they love – and she’s in the audience right here. I had a short but nonetheless real affair. I’m not going to make excuses for it, nor am I going to ask any of you for forgiveness. Fortunately, because my wife has patience and the heart of a saint, we’re doing fine and we’re working through this together.”
“Why do I come up here and tell you this private and seemingly unrelated information? Well, because while it was going on, one commissioner, Carol Whitmore, knew about it. Rather than ignore something that didn’t pertain to her, I’ve learned that she actively acquired pictures from while we were out in public. I’ve now learned from people I trust that she’s actively spreading this information, even though she knows it’s over. I believe her intention for obtaining the pictures was to use them to manipulate votes on this board.
“As my wife knows about it, and it is in fact over, the only blackmail she hoped to achieve would be a public embarrassment that would inevitably trickle down to my 11-year-old daughter and my 14-year-old son. What I did to my family is inexcusable, but it doesn’t affect the county or you the citizens. I felt it necessary to get this out there now ahead of time, before there’s even a shadow of a doubt regarding my stance on anything,” he said.
Kruse, who took office on Nov. 17, said, “These past two months have shown me exactly how this county has run in the past – and unfortunately, in the present. It’s run by people wanting for absolute power at any cost.”
He then referenced the previously rescinded efforts to terminate Coryea and her two-year tenure as county administrator.
“Seven weeks ago, I gave this administration the benefit of the doubt to achieve the agenda the majority of Manatee County wants and deserves. I still think we would get a good portion of that work accomplished. What I do not think will change, however, is the toxic culture that doesn’t put the people first. It has now been two years with this administration, so at this point what we see is what we’ll get.”
After noting that his request for the audio recording of the Jan. 22 meeting be posted in the county’s online archives had not yet been fulfilled, Kruse proposed Coryea be put on termination notice for a second time.
“This needs to change now, even if it leads to short-term disruptions I was previously hoping to avoid. I no longer believe that meeting quantitative benchmarks can ever give me assurance or comfort in the continuation of a fundamentally flawed system. I am, therefore, once again bringing up the motion to notice the termination of the county administrator pursuant to the contract and I will leave it up to the will of this board to determine whether recent actions deem this with or without cause,” Kruse said.
Commission Chair Vanessa Baugh then called for a five-minute recess, which then turned into the commission’s lunch break.
During the break, Whitmore was asked about Kruse’s allegations. She said the picture was sent to her unsolicited and that she deleted it and did not pass it around. Whitmore would not divulge the name of the woman in the photograph.
Whitmore responds
When the meeting resumed, Whitmore spoke first.
County Commissioner Carol Whitmore disputes the allegations made by George Kruse. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“First of all I want to be very clear, Carol doesn’t break laws and I’m ethical,” she said. “I was sent a picture maybe two or three months ago. Mr. Kruse was somewhere with another party. It was really very benign, but everybody’s making a big deal out of it. To me it was nothing. It was just two people sitting there talking.
“When he came by my office one day, I said I want you to know that there’s some people in town that are sending pictures around about you. I said I could care less what you do with your personal life. I said you do have the most powerful job in Manatee County and you’ve got a family.
“So, time passed. I saw the picture and I never did anything with it. So then, I get somehow involved with the other party and I hear it’s all over. Then I see him again and I said I heard everything’s all over and that’s good. He said yep, he’s going to work it out. I said that’s good and that was more or less it,” Whitmore said.
“Mr. Kruse mentioned that I was passing it around the community. Those pictures have gotten around the community. I have had close friends that I said something to and I said it’s over,” Whitmore said.
Regarding Kruse’s use of the word blackmail, Whitmore said, “What you said is a terrible accusation and it’s not true.”
Regarding Coryea’s proposed termination, “To pull Cheri into this? First of all, it’s not related. I asked her, as one of her seven bosses, to pull a meeting together. She passed it on to our clerk and our agenda coordinator. I asked for her and Jan to be at the meeting and that was it,” Whitmore said.
When contacted Wednesday regarding Kruse’s public statements, McIntosh said, “Carol Whitmore would never engage in blackmail. The allegation is false and, frankly, is slanderous. One hopes that Commissioner Kruse’s comments were an emotionally-charged mistake and it’s too early in the process to make any further determination on whether any next steps will be needed.”
Termination discussion
Commissioner Reggie Bellamy said the commission’s focus should be on providing COVID-19 vaccinations to county residents, including those in his district.
Commissioner Reggie Bellamy wants the county and the county commission to stay focused on COVID-19 vaccinations. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“Whatever direction we go, with or without the county administrator, what are we going to do about getting these people vaccinated?” he said.
“If we move forward with this, this will be a disruption of business at the highest level,” Servia said. “I’m not just talking about Cheri. We’re talking about the whole structure underneath Cheri. I do understand everybody having an opinion about county leadership, I just ask you to think about the timing of this.”
Sharing a differing opinion, Baugh said, “I don’t believe this affects COVID. I don’t believe this county will not continue to move forward. If that’s the case, we have a bigger problem than we thought. Your county does not run just because of your county administrator. It runs because of all the people, including this board.”
Van Ostenbridge then said, “This board, under this administration, I think is hopelessly divided. I don’t see another path forward other than to part ways with the administrator. When I met with her before (in November), I asked for her resignation and said I would make a motion to honor her severance package if she would resign. I’m still good for my word. If you will offer your resignation, I will immediately make a motion to honor your 20-week severance package in your contract. You’ve been a longtime employee in this county, 30 years, and I think you’re entitled to that.”
Post-meeting comments
After the meeting, Kruse was asked why he acknowledged his affair when addressing his concerns about Coryea and the Jan. 22 meeting.
“There’s two reasons. One, I was looking for a real example of how toxic this culture is. And somebody who literally is sitting on pictures of a sitting commissioner and making veiled threats with these pictures is a toxic culture. The second thing is, she (Whitmore) was starting to spread it around.
“I couldn’t wait three months or six months or a year and be voting on things like Animal Services and vote the same way as Carol. Or I vote something down and so does Carol. I’d never live down that sneaking thought in the back of peoples’ heads that those votes were because of something that was hanging over my head. It’s something I needed to get out anyway. She had information and I don’t know what she was going to do with it.”
Kruse said his female companion and Whitmore communicated during the holidays: “I had the other party to this situation sending me text messages worried that we were being blackmailed or were going to be. That was based on conversations she had with Carol.”
Kruse said Whitmore never showed him the photograph and he had not yet seen it.
“Today was the first time I found out it was in a bar. She had it and never sent me the picture and never told me what it was. In my mind, that’s something she was holding for herself at some point in time.
The Sun later spoke with several people who’ve seen the photograph of Kruse and his companion. Some said they were shown the photograph and others said they received it and deleted it. One person familiar with the photograph said it was taken in late November at Peggy’s Corral, a bar in Palmetto. Another person said additional photos of the couple were taken that day. To date, The Sun has not seen or obtained any of those photos.
MANATEE COUNTY – County Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge has provided paralegal Michael Barfield with a call log that details calls made and received on his personal phone.
As the District 3 county commissioner, Van Ostenbridge represents Anna Maria Island, Cortez, the Manatee County portion of Longboat Key and west Bradenton.
Van Ostenbridge provided Barfield his phone records last week in response to the public records request Barfield made on Nov. 20.
As of Monday afternoon, Barfield said he had identified most of the calls listed in Van Ostenbridge’s call log, but he was still reviewing those records.
Van Ostenbridge’s phone log reveals who he talked to, when he talked to them and for how long, but it does not provide any details on the content of those phone conversations.
The Florida Sunshine Law prohibits members of the same county or city commission from discussing official or foreseeably official county business in any setting other than a properly noticed public meeting. The Sunshine Law does not prohibit members of the same elected body from discussing matters unrelated to their official government business.
Van Ostenbridge and Baugh calls
Van Ostenbridge was elected on Nov 3.
According to the call log he provided to Barfield, Van Ostenbridge and Baugh communicated by phone 15 times between Nov. 4 and Dec. 1. Their calls totaled 129 minutes and ranged in length from one minute to 23 minutes.
Van Ostenbridge and Baugh spoke for 17 minutes on Nov. 5, 23 minutes on Nov. 12, 14 minutes on Nov. 13, 10 minutes on Nov. 16 and for six minutes and 11 minutes on Nov. 18.
One day later, during the special county commission meeting Van Ostenbridge requested, Van Ostenbridge made a motion to put County Administrator Cheri Coryea on notice that her termination would be discussed on Jan. 6.
Baugh, Satcher and Commissioner George Kruse supported the motion made by Van Ostenbridge with no advance notice given to the public. But on Dec. 10, Kruse withdrew his support for further discussion on Coryea’s termination and those efforts have now ceased.
During the Nov. 19 meeting, Baugh also introduced a county resolution pertaining to commission meeting procedures, which was adopted by the same 4-3 vote with no advance notice given to the public.
When contacted Monday, Van Ostenbridge provided the following response via text message: “Vanessa Baugh is a very good friend and we speak regularly. I turned over all my calls with the other commissioners in the spirit of transparency. I did not discuss county business on any of those calls.”
County Commissioner Vanessa Baugh has provided paralegal Michael Barfield with a copy of her personal call log. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
When contacted Monday, Baugh provided a similar response: “Just personal conversations between two people who became friends on the campaign trail. We campaigned very closely together and forged a friendship.”
Calls with other commissioners
According to Van Ostenbridge’s call log, he engaged in five phone conversations with Satcher between Nov. 7 and Nov. Nov. 24. Those calls totaled 39 minutes and included a 21-minute call on Nov. 7 and a 13-minute call on Nov. 24.
According to his call log, Van Ostenbridge initiated two phone conversations with Commissioner Misty Servia: a nine-minute call on Nov. 8 and a 13-minute call on Nov. 17 – the same day Van Ostenbridge, Satcher and Kruse were sworn in as commissioners.
Regarding her phone conversations with Van Ostenbridge, Servia said, “I endorsed Kevin and we had a friendly relationship, with messages of ‘Congratulations on being sworn in,’ and, ‘Are you getting settled into your new office?’ I wanted to see him grow and succeed. It goes without saying that I was extremely disappointed when he suggested firing our county administrator, and I had no idea that he planned to do that just hours after being sworn in.”
According to his call log, Van Ostenbridge engaged in three phone conversations with Kruse between Nov. 4 and Dec. 1, for a total of 15 minutes.
According to his call log, Van Ostenbridge initiated a one-minute call to Commissioner Carol Whitmore on Nov. 16 and Whitmore initiated consecutive one-minute and five-minute calls to Van Ostenbridge on Nov. 18.
Additional calls
Private citizens who do not hold public office or work for a local governmental agency are not subject to the Sunshine Law, but Van Ostenbridge’s call log provides additional insight into those he’s in frequent contact with.
According to his call log, Van Ostenbridge and developer Carlos Beruff had nine phone communications for a total of 67 minutes between Nov. 11 and Nov. 21.
The pair spoke for 15 minutes on Nov. 11, for 17 minutes at 7:25 p.m. on Nov. 17, for seven minutes at 1:24 p.m. on Nov. 19 and for a total of 14 minutes on Nov. 20 during three consecutive calls that occurred between 6:39 a.m. and 7:17 a.m.
According to Van Ostenbridge’s call log, he spoke to developer Michael Neal six times for a total of 91 minutes between Nov. 12 and Nov. 20; and to developer Pat Neal three times for a total of 21 minutes.
According to his call log, Van Ostenbridge and Bradenton Mayor Gene Brown engaged in 10 phone conversations for a total of 80 minutes between Nov. 16 and Nov. 20.
According to his call log, Van Ostenbridge and campaign supporter Bob Spencer, from West Coast Tomato, spoke nine times for a total of 55 minutes.
Barfield comments
When contacted Monday, Barfield commented on the calls made between commissioners.
“They would have you believe that all these calls were completely about friendship, but it appears they were taking steps behind the scenes to terminate Cheri Coryea, and to bring forth Commissioner Baugh’s resolution,” Barfield said.
“There’s still pieces of the jigsaw puzzle that are missing. Unfortunately, the picture coming into focus raises very troubling concerns about commissioners routinely chatting with each other on key dates surrounding the efforts to terminate the county administrator,” Barfield said.
Paralegal and Sunshine Law expert Michael Barfield continues to investigate the private communications of four Manatee County commissioners. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Barfield also commented on some of the other phone calls that took place.
“When you start piecing everything together, it tells me there are some key people acting as conduits between the commission, as well as the commissioners talking among themselves,” Barfield said.
Barfield said he was still reviewing the call log he received from Baugh on Christmas Eve. His partial review of Baugh’s calls between Nov. 3 and Nov. 11 indicate Baugh engaged in four calls with Van Ostenbridge and 12 calls with Kruse during that period.
According to Barfield, attorney George Levesque, from the GrayRobinson law firm in Tallahassee, is representing Baugh, and attorney Morgan Bentley is representing Van Ostenbridge.
MANATEE COUNTY – Private meeting notes and text messages disclosed in a public records request reveal more about County Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge’s failed efforts to terminate County Administrator Cheri Coryea.
As the newly-elected District 3 commissioner, Van Ostenbridge represents Anna Maria Island, Cortez, west Bradenton and Longboat Key.
During the Manatee County Commission’s Tuesday, Nov. 17 work session, Van Ostenbridge requested a special commission meeting on Thursday, Nov. 19. He said the purpose of that meeting was to discuss the county’s response to a potential COVID-related federal shutdown. When requesting the special meeting, Van Ostenbridge gave no indication that he also intended to propose Coryea’s termination.
With no advance notice given to the public, Van Ostenbridge then made a motion during the Nov. 19 meeting to put Coryea on notice that her termination would be discussed and voted upon on Jan. 6. Commissioners Vanessa Baugh, George Kruse and James Satcher supported the motion.
Text message records obtained as part of a public records request made by paralegal Michael Barfield reveal that Van Ostenbridge discussed the Coryea termination efforts with developer Carlos Beruff and others in advance of the special meeting at which he intended to call for Coryea’s termination.
Van Ostenbridge’s efforts to terminate Coryea came to an unexpected end on Thursday, Dec. 10, when Kruse made a motion to reconsider the Nov. 19 motion and end the Coryea termination efforts. The commission supported Kruse’s motion with a 7-0 vote.
Private meeting notes
Before the Nov. 19 special meeting took place, Van Ostenbridge requested and received a private meeting with Coryea at 7:30 a.m. that morning in Coryea’s office.
Coryea’s notes include a transcript of a voicemail message Van Ostenbridge left her and a printout of the text message exchange they had regarding the requested private meeting.
“I just wanna talk about how things are going so far and a little bit about the (special) meeting before we get there,” Van Ostenbridge said when requesting the private meeting.
According to Coryea’s handwritten notes, Van Ostenbridge began their meeting by saying, “I liked you before, when I met with you during the campaign, but when you closed on that property (Lena Road) I changed my mind. You should have waited for this new board because I had already spoke out against it and you should have stopped it.”
On Oct. 13, the previous county commission approved the $32.5 million purchase of a 161-acre property in east Manatee County at S.R. 64 and Lena Road. The closing for that sale took place on Friday, Nov. 13, four days before Van Ostenbridge, Kruse and Satcher took office.
The Lena Road property was purchased with the intent of creating a Central County Complex that provides a district office for the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office and additional facilities for the county’s Public Works Department and Utilities Department.
According to her notes, Coryea responded to Van Ostenbridge’s comment by saying, “The board (of county commissioners) took two votes on this property, both passing. I’m responsible for carrying out the directives of the board.”
Van Ostenbridge then asked about the closing date.
“Based on the decision of the board, the closing was to occur anytime between 10/4/20 and 12/16/20 – when the due diligence had been successfully completed. It was completed around Nov. 2 or 3. Property Management Department proceeded with scheduling closing,” Coryea said, according to her notes.
Van Ostenbridge asked who approved the Nov. 13 closing date.
“I did. The previous board approved this action two times and the closing occurred during their terms,” Coryea said, according to her notes.
According to Coryea’s notes, Van Ostenbridge then said, “I am here to ask you for your resignation.”
County Administrator Cheri Coryea took this note during her private meeting with Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge. – Manatee County | Submitted
In response, Coryea said, “You will be disappointed to hear I will not be submitting my resignation. I won’t be resigning.”
According to Coryea’s notes, Van Ostenbridge then shared his intentions for the Lena Road property.
“I intend to parcel out the property into small parcels and will sell them off at a loss and that will embarrass the previous board and you. I might keep a sliver for something. I have the votes,” he said, according to Coryea’s notes.
County Administrator Cheri Coryea took this note during her Nov. 19 meeting with Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge. – Manatee County | Submitted
The Florida Sunshine Law prevents city and county commissioners from privately discussing any matter that could foreseeably come before them for official action or vote.
At that time of his meeting with Coryea, Van Ostenbridge, a Realtor with Boyd Realty, had been in office for less than 48 hours and had participated in one county meeting.
According to her notes, Coryea responded to Van Ostenbridge’s Lena Road comments by saying, “I had offered to provide a full briefing to the new commission on this project and many others that the board wanted. We were instructed in Jan. 2018 by the previous board to begin looking for a large parcel to co-locate needed services closer to population growth. We briefed each board member five times since then.”
In June, the commission received a third-party appraisal that valued the Lena Road property at $18.4 million.
“The board was aware of the appraisal price that was a market appraisal targeted at housing, not public use, ” Coryea wrote in her notes.
After further discussion about the Lena Road purchase, Van Ostenbridge said, “I intend to make a motion at the meeting today to ask for you to be terminated,” according to Coryea’s notes.
County Administrator Cheri Coryea rejected Kevin Van Ostenbridge’s request for her resignation. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
According to her notes, Coryea then questioned the true intent of the private meeting.
“When you asked me for this meeting this morning you said it was about the special meeting agenda item (a federal shutdown). I prepared a motion for it. Did you need it?” Coryea said, according to her notes.
“No, I don’t believe I need anything,” Van Ostenbridge said, according to Coryea’s notes.
“So, this meeting this morning was not to talk about that?” Coryea said, according to her notes.
“I’m all set for the meeting,” Van Ostenbridge said, according to Coryea’s notes, which indicate the meeting ended at 7:48 a.m.
Van Ostenbridge responds
When contacted Friday afternoon, Van Ostenbridge was asked about his meeting with Coryea.
Regarding Coryea’s notes that state he asked her to resign, Van Ostenbridge said, “That captures the spirit of what I was saying. I told her that she knew the incoming board was adamantly against the purchase. We felt that it was a drastic waste of taxpayer money and each of us made that clear during the campaign, including in public comments during meetings.
“I told her I had lost trust and confidence in her and I asked her for her resignation. I then said I scheduled the meeting with her as a courtesy, to alert her of my intention to make the motion to terminate. I was attempting to give her an opportunity to resign and spare her and the county the indignity of the debate which was sure to follow my motion,” Van Ostenbridge said.
Van Ostenbridge was asked if he felt a new commissioner, who had been in office less than 48 hours, had the authority to ask the county administrator to resign without first discussing it with the commission as a whole during a public meeting.
“When I put my hand on the Bible, I became a full commissioner. There’s no orientation period. I was doing it as a courtesy because I had made up my mind I was going to make the motion to terminate. I officially made up my mind on Friday (Nov. 13), when the deal was closed. I had sought the counsel of many business leaders in town, as well as friends of mine, even my parents, leading up to that time. When she closed the deal on Friday, I started letting some people know that I had made up my mind,” Van Ostenbridge said.
Van Ostenbridge was asked if any of those he sought counsel from were sitting county commissioners or future county commissioners who had not yet been sworn in.
“Absolutely not. I have not committed a Sunshine violation,” he said.
When asked about his alleged intentions to sell the Lena Road property at a loss, Van Ostenbridge said, “I said that I felt there was value in the property that abutted the landfill. I told her that was the most valuable to the county and the least valuable to the open market. I wanted to keep that, but I wanted to sell off the rest because I didn’t want to be saddled with the unnecessary improvements that would be needed on the rest of the property. The county overpaid for the property, so obviously when I go to sell it I’m not going to get market value. I told her that if we sold that off it would be at a loss, and the responsibility of that loss would fall on the previous board,” Van Ostenbridge said.
Van Ostenbridge denied telling Coryea he had the votes to sell the Lena Road property, which Coryea wrote in her notes.
“I never said that. At the end of the conversation, I said maybe you have the votes, maybe I have the votes and we’ll see in a couple hours,” Van Ostenbridge said, referring to his intent to pursue Coryea’s termination.
Van Ostenbridge’s statement contrasts with Coryea’s notes, in which the alleged comment about having the votes appears in conjunction with the discussion about selling the Lena Road property.
Van Ostenbridge confirmed that he told Coryea he would seek her termination.
“I said I’d be giving her notice of a hearing for termination at the special meeting,” he said.
Van Ostenbridge texts
Late Friday afternoon, in response to his public records request, Barfield received copies of Van Ostenbridge’s text message exchanges from Nov. 3 to Nov. 20.
Barfield confirmed that developer Carlos Beruff is the “Carlos” and “CB” that appears in some of the text message exchanges Van Ostenbridge produced.
Paralegal Michael Barfield, who serves as the president of the Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, is independently investigating the actions of county commissioners Kevin Van Ostenbridge, Vanessa Baugh, George Kruse and James Satcher. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
According to those records, Beruff sent Van Ostenbridge a text message at 6:51 a.m., less than an hour before his Nov. 19 private meeting with Coryea.
“Good morning you all set,” Beruff wrote.
“All set. Meeting with Cheri at 7:30,” Van Ostenbridge replied.
This is one of several text message exchanges Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge had with developer Carlos Beruff. – Michael Barfield | Submitted
On Sunday, Nov. 15, Beruff sent Van Ostenbridge a link to a Bradenton Times story that included the headline: “Are special interests gunning for County Administrator?”
That story notes Beruff and other members of the development community pushed for Lakewood Ranch Business Alliance President Dom Dimaio to succeed retiring County Administrator Ed Hunzeker in 2019, rather than Coryea.
“We have a leaker,” Van Ostenbridge wrote in response to Beruff’s text about that story.
On Tuesday, Nov. 17, as part of the same text message exchange with Beruff, Van Ostenbridge wrote, “We have a special meeting on Thursday, after the port meeting. Carol took the bait.”
That message appears to refer to acting Commission Chair Carol Whitmore supporting Van Ostenbridge’s request for a special meeting discussion about a potential federal shutdown.
On Saturday, Nov. 14, Beruff initiated a text message exchange with Van Ostenbridge that began with a link to an East County Observer story about the county’s plans to build a solid waste transfer station on the Lena Road property.
“You may have missed this last week, but it basically says that they bought something they don’t need for 17-20 years,” Beruff wrote.
“They did all they could to saddle us with this (expletive) we don’t want. At least they’re done. Nothing left for them to do,” Van Ostenbridge replied.
On Thursday, Nov. 5, Beruff sent Van Ostenbridge a text message that said, “Good morning, take a look at this and see what you think. Call me when you get a chance.”
Attached to Beruff’s message was a Microsoft Word document titled “ManCo BOCC (Board of County Commissioners).docx.” The contents of that document are not known and Barfield said he has not received it.
“That looks good. I only want to drop the mention of masks. That is too much of a 50/50 issue. Call you in a few,” Van Ostenbridge wrote in his response to Beruff.
Van Ostenbridge’s text records also include an exchange he had with someone named Bob, whose initials are BS.
“We have a special meeting on Thursday after the port meeting. Carol took the bait,” Van Ostenbridge wrote.
“I watched you. Smooth baby,” Bob replied.
“Acted like I was stumbling through it, ha-ha,” Van Ostenbridge wrote.
Barfield said he did not yet know Bob’s identity.
On the evening of Nov. 19, Van Ostenbridge received a group text message from Chad Choate, a financial advisor at the Edward Jones office in Bradenton. Choate is Facebook friends with Van Ostenbridge and has posted county commission-related comments at Van Ostenbridge’s Facebook page.
“How long has she been county admin,” Choate wrote in his text message to Van Ostenbridge.
“2 years. She’s been a county employee for over 30 years. A 30-year bureaucrat. It’s time to put a private sector person in charge,” Van Ostenbridge replied.
“Yeah, who replaces her,” Choate wrote.
“Put your name in when the spot opens up,” Van Ostenbridge replied.
MANATEE COUNTY – County Commissioner George Kruse’s personal call log indicates he has had numerous private phone conversations with commissioners Vanessa Baugh, James Satcher and Kevin Van Ostenbridge since being elected.
It is not illegal for members of the same elected body to communicate by phone, text message or email, but it is a violation of Florida Sunshine Law if they discuss anything that has, will or could foreseeably come before them as official county business.
On Tuesday, Dec. 8, Kruse provided paralegal Michael Barfield with a call log and a copy of a text message exchange he had with Satcher. Kruse produced those records in response to the public records request he received from Barfield on Friday, Nov. 20.
Baugh, Satcher, Van Ostenbridge and former commissioner Steve Jonsson received similar records requests and were originally given until Friday, Dec. 4 to respond. Barfield made his records request according to Florida’s Public Records Act.
According to Kruse’s call log, he had, or attempted to have, 16 telephone communications with Baugh during the Nov. 3 to Nov. 20 timeframe specified in Barfield’s records request.
Kruse had three phone communications with Satcher and two with Van Ostenbridge during that same period. He also made one call and received one call from developer Carlos Beruff, and on Nov. 20, Kruse called 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas.
Nicholas swore Kruse in as a county commissioner on Tuesday, Nov. 17. Satcher and Van Ostenbridge were also sworn in that day as new commissioners, joined by Baugh, an incumbent who was elected to another term.
Later that day, the newly-reconfigured commission participated in a commission work meeting. Kruse left Satcher a voice mail at 6:39 p.m. and called him again at 10:18 p.m., according to his call log. At 10:22 p.m., Kruse called Baugh, and then called her again at 9 a.m. the following morning.
At 6:45 a.m. on Thursday, Nov. 19, Kruse sent Satcher a text message that said, “Ignore our call the other night. Stick to original.”
George Kruse provided Michael Barfield a copy of this text message exchange he had with Commissioner James Satcher. – Submitted | Michael Barfield
During the work meeting that took place later that morning, the commission adopted by 4-3 vote a county resolution presented by Baugh with no public notice. The adopted resolution now allows the commission to change its meeting procedures while a meeting is in progress, with no advance notice to the public.
“Any of the foregoing rules may be waived at any board meeting then in session by a majority vote of the board, unless such waiver is in conflict with state or local law,” according to Resolution 20-191.
Van Ostenbridge then initiated a discussion, with no advance public notice, that resulted in a 4-3 vote to put County Administrator Cheri Coryea on notice that her potential termination would be discussed and determined on Wednesday, Jan. 6.
Commissioners Reggie Bellamy, Misty Servia and Carol Whitmore opposed the Nov. 19 actions initiated by Baugh and Van Ostenbridge.
Bellamy said the efforts to terminate Coryea seemed “premeditated” and Whitmore said they seemed “orchestrated.”
Barfield began submitting his records requests the following day.
Barfield’s reaction
“It’s a bombshell,” Barfield said Wednesday afternoon when discussing these initial discoveries.
According to Barfield, the three new commissioners became subject to the Public Records Act and the Florida Sunshine Law once the election results were known on Nov. 3. As an incumbent, Baugh has long been required to comply with the Public Records Act and the Sunshine Law.
“There’s 16 calls between Vanessa Baugh and George Kruse at various times,” Barfield said.
Commissioner Vanessa Baugh had 16 phone communications with Commissioner George Kruse. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“That message about ‘ignore the other night’ is so telling, coming hours before the Nov. 19 meeting began,” Barfield said about the Kruse-Satcher text message exchange.
“It seems to me this is strong evidence of coordination in advance of a meeting,” Barfield said regarding the various communications between commissioners.
Barfield said Baugh had not provided him with an original draft copy of the resolution she presented with no public notice.
He said Baugh’s official county emails indicate she had a conversation with the county attorney’s office on Nov. 18 about her requested resolution, but did not provide the county attorney’s office with a digital copy of the document.
“To date, she has not produced that record. Vanessa did provide a photograph of the draft language of the resolution,” Barfield said.
Barfield questions whether Baugh or someone else wrote the original draft of that resolution.
Still awaiting records
Barfield said he received some preliminary records from Van Ostenbridge Wednesday afternoon and was told he’d receive copies of Van Ostenbridge’s text messages and personal call log on Thursday.
Regarding Baugh, he said, “I received a couple emails from her official county account and a phone log from her official county phone that has virtually nothing on it. I’ve received nothing from her private email accounts or her private cell phone, including her text messages and call log.”
Barfield said Satcher produced some records Tuesday night that he was still reviewing.
When asked where all of this might be headed, Barfield said, “I’m still collecting evidence.”
Commissioner James Satcher received a summons when he arrived for Thursday morning’s work meeting. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Just before the start of Thursday morning’s county commission work meeting at the Bradenton Area Convention Center in Palmetto, Satcher was served with a summons from the Manatee County Clerk of Court.
According to Barfield, the summons formally started the five-day window for Satcher to show cause to the court as to why the records request should not be granted.
As he walked into the meeting area, Satcher said, “I just got served. I love this job.”
Paralegal Michael Barfield attended the county commission work meeting Thursday morning. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
MANATEE COUNTY – County Commissioner James Satcher is named as the sole defendant in a public records complaint filed today by paralegal Michael Barfield.
Barfield, a Sunshine Law expert, filed the complaint and an accompanying amended emergency motion this morning in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court in Bradenton seeking “judicial relief to protect the public’s right to transparency and enforcement of Florida’s vaunted Public Records Act.”
The filings pertain to a public records request Barfield submitted to Satcher on Friday, Nov. 20. That day, Barfield also submitted similar records requests to county commissioners Vanessa Baugh, George Kruse and Kevin Van Ostenbridge. He later submitted a similar records request to former County Commissioner Steve Jonsson.
Barfield submitted his initial records requests one day after a Thursday, Nov. 19 county commission discussion that occurred with no advance public notice regarding the potential termination of County Administrator Cheri Coryea.
According to the complaint, “Plaintiff (Barfield) contends the defendant (Satcher) has public records in his individual possession but has failed to perform his statutory duty to make public records in his possession available for inspection and copying upon request. Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus and an accelerated hearing for ongoing violations of the Act relating to the production of public records.”
Today, Barfield emailed a complaint-related letter to Circuit Court Judge Charles Sniffen.
“Earlier today, a complaint seeking emergency relief under the Public Records Act was filed with the clerk along with an amended emergency motion for issuance of a show cause order and for an immediate hearing as required by Florida Statute. This action was filed by me pro se,” the letter says.
“As set forth in the motion, I have had communications with attorney Peter Lombardo regarding this matter. Last Thursday, attorney Lombardo indicated that he has not been retained on this matter, but he was acting as a conduit for the defendant, Mr. Satcher. Accordingly, I have copied Mr. Lombardo here and have provided him with courtesy copies of the complaint and amended emergency motion,” Barfield’s letter said.
Monday afternoon, Judge Sniffen responded with an “order directing defendant to show cause why plaintiff’s complaint for writ of mandamus should not be granted.”
Sniffen’s order gives Satcher five days to respond.
“Defendant shall comply with Florida Statutes and preserve all records in his possession, custody and control and shall not dispose of any records maintained on any electronic devices or accounts until further order of the court,” Sniffen’s order states.
“The important thing in the judge’s order is that records have been ordered to be preserved on all electronic devices and accounts,” Barfield said when contacted late Monday afternoon.
Termination efforts
During the Nov. 19 discussion, county commissioners Reggie Bellamy, Misty Servia and Carol Whitmore described the unadvertised termination efforts initiated by Van Ostenbridge as “premeditated,” “orchestrated,” “reckless” and “dangerous.”
During that meeting, the commission voted 4-3 to put Coryea on notice that her potential termination would be discussed at a public meeting on Wednesday, Jan. 6. Bellamy, Servia and Whitmore opposed that action.
During that same meeting, the commission majority of Baugh, Kruse, Satcher and Van Ostenbridge adopted a county resolution presented by Baugh with no advance notice to the commission or the public. The adopted resolution now allows the commission to change its meeting procedures and discussion topics at any time during a public county meeting.
Records requests
Barfield’s records requests seek the public records in the individual possession of Baugh, Jonsson, Kruse, Satcher and Van Ostenbridge from the period of Tuesday, Nov. 3 – which was election night – through Friday, Nov. 20.
Paralegal Michael Barfield helped the city of Bradenton Beach prevail in a recent Sunshine Law lawsuit. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
As newly-elected commissioners, Kruse, Satcher and Van Ostenbridge became subject to the Florida Sunshine Law and the Public Records Act after the election results were known on Nov. 3.
The three new commissioners, and re-elected Commissioner Baugh, were sworn into office on Tuesday, Nov. 17. Jonsson did not seek re-election. His last day in office was Tuesday, Nov. 17.
Barfield’s records requests seek:
All emails sent or received between the period Nov. 3 and Nov. 20, 2020,
All text messages sent or received between those dates,
All messages sent or received via any digital app or social media platform between those dates, and
A detailed phone log of all calls made or received between those dates.
The recipients of Barfield’s records requests were given until 5 p.m. on Friday, Dec. 4 to produce the requested records.
When contacted this afternoon, Barfield said he had not yet received the requested records from any of the five individuals. He said he anticipated filing similar court complaints and motions against Baugh, Jonsson, Kruse and Van Ostenbridge early this week if those records are not produced.
As a non-attorney paralegal, Barfield is a member of the legal team that prevailed in a Sunshine Law lawsuit filed by the city of Bradenton Beach in 2017. That lawsuit, and 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas’ 2019 ruling that six former city advisory board members violated the Florida Sunshine Law, recently resulted in five of the defendants paying the city $351,500 as partial reimbursement for the attorney fees and paralegal fees incurred by the city.
MANATEE COUNTY – Efforts to fire County Administrator Cheri Coryea have prompted objections and procedural concerns should the commission decide to terminate her from the position.
Newly-elected commissioners Kevin Van Ostenbridge, George Kruse and James Satcher, along with Commissioner Vanessa Baugh, voted unexpectedly on Nov. 19 to begin termination procedures against Coryea, who has worked for the county for more than 30 years.
Reactions include County Commissioner Misty Servia’s Nov. 23 email regarding Coryea’s possible termination, sent to several upper-level county staff members.
“I would like to add an item to the Dec. 15 agenda. In order to prepare for the possible firing of our county administrator on Jan. 6, I would like to understand the succession plan so that county business continues with limited interruptions. Below are the items I would like for our board to discuss to prepare for the possible termination of Administrator Coryea:
Do we have a succession plan that is a part of the ordinance that establishes the county administrator position?
Who will be appointed in the interim until a permanent county administrator is hired?
If one of the deputy county administrators is appointed as interim county administrator, will we need to appoint an interim deputy county administrator? If so who will that be?
Are there any other potential gaps in the organization that need to be considered to ensure seamless government operations?
What process is envisioned for hiring the next county administrator? Will the public be involved?
Are there any changes planned to the county administrator job description?”
On Nov. 19, County Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge proposed terminating the county administrator. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
County resident Shane Wedel emailed County Commissioner Carol Whitmore regarding Coryea’s potential severance pay.
“I have been looking at Ms. Coryea’s publicly available contract. I noticed that Section II, 1, b, (2) indicates that Ms. Coryea would be due a severance payment for being let go without cause to be paid within 10 business days after the effective termination date. Her contract stipulates that this would be 20 weeks of her pay plus accumulated leave payouts, which for such a long-standing employee is likely to be substantial,” Wedel wrote.
“This information would certainly be important for the public and for the rest of the board of county commissioners to be aware of. Hopefully, the newer members are aware of this stipulation in her contract. I believe the public deserves to be aware of this ‘responsible’ use of limited resources if it (Coryea’s termination) becomes reality,” Wedel wrote.
Whitmore referred Wedel’s comments to Human Resources Director Kim Stroud.
County Attorney Mickey Palmer distributed an email on Nov. 25 to county commissioners and others regarding the potential termination process.
“This is information that I will be prepared to share with the BCC at the Board’s December 15 meeting. But there is no time like the present, I suppose. By copy of this reply to personnel in both Human Resources and Payroll (a division of the Clerk’s Office), I am asking them to run the calculations with a projected termination date of Jan. 6. My preference would be that the folks in Payroll and HR be of one mind on the calculations, and that the calculations be forwarded to me as promptly as they are completed.”
Also on that date, Manatee County Government Agenda Coordinator Diane Vollmer distributed an email to county commissioners, Coryea and several other staff members regarding the Jan. 6 discussion.
“Inasmuch as there is a legislative delegation meeting scheduled in the Longboat Key Room at the Convention Center from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Wednesday, Jan. 6, the special meeting to vote to terminate the county administrator’s contract has been scheduled for that afternoon from 1:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. In the event the meeting is not concluded at that time, it will be continued to 5 p.m. on Jan. 7, following the land use meeting,” Vollmer wrote.
League of Women Voters supports Coryea
League of Women Voters of Manatee County President Alice Newlon sent Whitmore an email on Nov. 27 stating the League’s position on the proposed termination.
“The League of Women Voters has actively worked supporting good governance for the last 100 years. We oppose the actions taken by the four county commissioners (Vanessa Baugh, George Kruse, James Satcher and Kevin Van Ostenbridge) at the Nov. 19 meeting where they: 1) improperly brought up and voted on, with no public notice or notice to their fellow commissioners, significant changes to county operations; 2) came with and passed a resolution allowing the commission, by majority vote, to ignore procedures designed to allow public notice and input and 3) voted to initiate the termination of Cheri Coryea, without notice, without cause and without any forethought of the community repercussions,” Newlon wrote.
“We hear that those who voted to terminate the administrator want to run our county like a business and take the county in a new direction. However, county government has a different structure and purpose than that of a business. As a business, making a profit is the primary goal.
“In contrast, a county government operates any services, not for profit, but for the well-being of its citizens. The similarity? Both businesses and government retain high-performance employees. What they normally do not do is fire without prior warning, using a weak excuse.
“A recent decision to remove our county administrator during an already precarious time in the life of our community – the disruption of COVID-19 – is destabilizing and serves to create increased uncertainty.
“The loss of Manatee County Administrator Cheri Coryea would be a great loss to our county, considering her excellent work and high ratings by her supervisors and praise from those who worked with her.
“As an employee for over 30 years, she served in a number of positions, doing well for the county, its communities and its citizens, always improving what she found. She has been called the best county manager in the state.
“We urge you to return to the procedures that have created a government allowing for proper research, planning and notice.
“We also urge you to reverse the rash decision to terminate Cheri Coryea and instead take the time to reassess, in collaboration with the many entities of this community, and develop a long term strategy that will help all of Manatee County and its residents continue to thrive, ” Newlon’s letter said in conclusion.
Updated Nov. 23, 2020 – BRADENTON – Thursday’s Manatee County Commission discussion about potentially terminating County Administrator Cheri Coryea has triggered a public records request from Florida Sunshine Law expert Michael Barfield.
On Friday afternoon, Barfield, a paralegal, submitted individual written public records requests to county commissioners Vanessa Baugh, George Kruse, James Satcher and Kevin Van Ostenbridge. County Attorney Mickey Palmer was copied on each of the requests Barfield submitted on behalf of Sarasota-based Denovo Law Services.
The records requests seek the public records in the individual possession of Baugh, Kruse, Satcher and Van Ostenbridge. A subsequent request seeks records from former Commissioner Steve Jonsson.
On Nov. 3, Baugh was re-elected as the county’s District 5 commissioner. Kruse was elected as the at-large District 7 commissioner. Satcher was elected as the District 1 commissioner. Van Ostenbridge was elected as the District 3 commissioner, a district that encompasses Anna Maria Island, Cortez and west Bradenton.
County Commissioner Vanessa Baugh is the subject of the public records request. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
The four commissioners were sworn into office on Tuesday, Nov. 17. Two days later, Van Ostenbridge initiated, with no advance public notice, a preliminary discussion seeking the termination of Coryea without cause.
At the conclusion of Thursday’s discussion, the newly-reconfigured county commission voted 4-3 in favor of putting Coryea on notice that her potential termination would be discussed at a special county commission meeting on Wednesday, Jan. 6. Baugh, Kruse, Satcher and Van Ostenbridge supported that action. Commissioners Reggie Bellamy, Misty Servia and Carol Whitmore opposed that action.
Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge initiated Thursday’s termination discussion with no advance public notice. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
During Thursday’s discussion, Bellamy said the efforts to oust Coryea appeared to be “premeditated.” Whitmore said the efforts appeared to be “orchestrated.” Servia called the Van Ostenbridge-led efforts “reckless” and “dangerous.”
Records requests
According to the public records requests: “This is a request for records pursuant to Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, otherwise known as the Public Records Act of the Florida Constitution. We understand that a citizen is not required to make a written request to obtain public records under the act, but we want to be clear what we are seeking from you.”
The records requests pertain to the following records made, sent or received in connection with the transaction of official business, or the rendition of services on behalf of each of the four request recipients:
All emails sent or received from Nov. 3, 2020 to Nov. 20, 2020.
All text messages sent or received from November 3 to November 20.
All messages sent or received via any digital app or social media platform from Nov. 3 to Nov. 20.
A detailed phone log of all calls made or received between the period Nov. 3 and Nov. 20.
Commissioner James Satcher is the recipient of a public records request. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
According to the records requests, the term “record” or “public records” also includes responsive records in both digital and hard copy formats, including email, text, SMS, MMS, .doc and voicemail.
According to the requests, “This request for records further includes any responsive records sent or received by any individual or entity via any private, nongovernmental account, as well as those records maintained, stored or archived in the cloud, on a shared drive, on the Internet, via social media accounts or any other electronic device such as a cell phone, tablet, flash drive, that is capable of sending, receiving or storing digital information.”
The records requests are also directed to any individual or entity – including any other public or private agency, person, partnership, corporation or business entity – acting on their behalf of any of the records request recipients.
“If you contend that any record, or portion thereof, is exempt from inspection, please state in writing the basis for the exemption and include the applicable statutory exemption,” the records requests note.
The records requests state the requested records shall not be disposed of for a period of 30 days after the written records requests were submitted on Friday.
Commissioner George Kruse has received a public records request. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Citing Florida Statutes, the records requests state: “If a civil action is instituted within the 30-day period to enforce the provisions of this section with respect to the requested record, the custodian of public records may not dispose of the record except by order of a court of competent jurisdiction after notice to all affected parties.
“The absence of a civil action instituted does not relieve the custodian of public records of the duty to maintain the record as a public record if the record is in fact a public record subject to public inspection and copying and does not otherwise excuse or exonerate the custodian of public records from any unauthorized or unlawful disposition of such record.
“We are requesting that you notify each and every individual and entity in possession of records responsive to this request, and that all such records be preserved on an immediate basis.
“Please produce all records responsive to this request as provided by 119.12(1)(b), Fla. Statute,” the public records requests say in conclusion.
According to Barfield, the three new commissioners – Kruse, Satcher and Van Ostenbridge – became subject to the Public Records Act and the Florida Sunshine Law at the conclusion of the Nov. 3 elections.
According to Barfield, the four commissioners have until early December to fulfill the public records requests.
Recent Sunshine case
While assisting the attorneys representing the city of Bradenton Beach, Barfield recently played a significant role in the city prevailing in a Sunshine Law lawsuit that resulted in two of the six defendants paying the city $350,000 on Friday.
The $350,00 payment was partial reimbursement for the attorney fees the city incurred as a result of a civil lawsuit the city filed against six former city advisory board members in 2017.
An extensive number of emails and other records and documents Barfield obtained from the defendants and others in that case factored into the judge’s 2019 ruling that Sunshine Law violations occurred.
PALMETTO – During his first day as a Manatee County commissioner, Kevin Van Ostenbridge warned that the city of Holmes Beach risks losing beach renourishment funding if they don’t restore recently-reduced public beach parking.
Tuesday morning, Van Ostenbridge, James Satcher and George Kruse were sworn in to four-year terms as the newest county commissioners. Returning Commissioner Vanessa Baugh was also sworn in. Joined by commissioners Reggie Bellamy, Misty Servia and Carol Whitmore, the reconfigured commission then engaged in a work session at the Bradenton Area Convention Center in Palmetto.
The afternoon session included discussion about beach parking on Anna Maria Island and the importance of maintaining an adequate number of beach access parking spaces to remain eligible for state and federal funding for future beach renourishment projects.
Earlier this year, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Holmes Beach Commission eliminated parking spaces to reduce crowding in the city and on the beaches.
Van Ostenbridge, who represents Anna Maria Island and much of west Bradenton as the District 3 commissioner, said, “Mayor Titsworth and the Holmes Beach City Commission have jeopardized future beach renourishment projects in their city. I will not support county participation in beach renourishment projects in Holmes Beach until on-street parking levels are returned to pre-COVID-19 levels. I am drawing a line in the sand.”
Baugh, Satcher and Whitmore later expressed support for Van Ostenbridge’s position.
Tuesday’s discussion included a presentation by Deputy County Administrator John Osborne, with additional insight provided by Manatee County Parks and Natural Resources Director Charlie Hunsicker and county consultant Erica Carr-Betts.
A PowerPoint slide contained in Osborne’s presentation stated on-street neighborhood parking in Holmes Beach has been reduced by 45%.
Whitmore, a Holmes Beach resident and the city’s former mayor, said, “The city of Holmes Beach had 2,500 parking spaces before COVID. Today, they have maybe 500. They eliminated 2,000.”
Whitmore also mentioned a vacant bank property near Manatee Beach in Holmes Beach as the possible parking garage location.
At-large Commissioner Carol Whitmore expressed appreciation for Van Ostenbridge’s comments. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Thatcher, the new District 1 commissioner, later repeated the parking figures cited by Whitmore.
While Tuesday’s work session was in progress, Holmes Beach Police Chief Bill Tokajer provided The Sun with parking figures that differed from those being stated by county officials. Tokajer reconfirmed those figures by phone this morning.
With Tokajer’s support, the Holmes Beach commission permanently eliminated 497 on-street parking spaces, he said. As a result, there are currently 1,261 on-street parking spaces available in Holmes Beach that do not require a city-issued parking permit and 642 permit-only parking spaces that become available to the public after 5 p.m., seven days a week, according to Tokajer.
Regarding claims that 2,500 parking spaces were reduced to 500, Tokajer said, “That’s false. We started with 2,400 spots. The 500 number, which has been explained, is merely the number of spaces designated for beach renourishment. We have a lot more spots than that available. The numbers I provided are accurate as of today. Those are the same numbers we provided to Charlie Hunsicker, Cheri Coryea (county administrator) and Erica Betts.”
Renourishment funding
During the work session, Hunsicker said state and federal grants that help fund beach renourishment projects are based on the number of parking spaces located within a quarter-mile of the beach access points that extend the length of the Island.
“Everything happening between the water and that quarter-mile, that’s where we focus on maintaining a minimum number of parking spaces for each access point out to that beach. Beyond the quarter-mile, it doesn’t count, no matter how many spaces we have,” Hunsicker said.
“As cities change their allowances, if it’s happening outside of a quarter-mile it doesn’t affect our federal grant availability or our state grant availability. If we mess up inside that quarter-mile zone, it means millions of dollars of local cost. It doesn’t prevent you from having a beach renourishment program. It just increases your local share proportionate to the loss of public parking spaces,” Hunsicker explained.
Hunsicker said the per-quarter mile parking requirements are not offset by the large parking lots at Coquina Beach, Manatee Beach and elsewhere on the Island.
“The state and the federal governments believe access within a reasonable walking distance is important. So, it’s not maintaining the maximum total spaces along your length of shoreline, but a minimum of 50 spaces within a quarter-mile of each access point. If you have 40 spaces within a quarter-mile, you’re not going to meet the public access requirements to maintain full grant funding,” Hunsicker said.
Parks and Natural Resources Director Charlie Hunsicker explained in detail the beach renourishment parking requirements. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Kruse, the new District 7 at-large commissioner, asked how many designated parking spaces for beach renourishment currently exist in Holmes Beach. Carr-Betts estimated that number to be approximately 460.
“We worked with the chief of police in Holmes Beach and we were right on the cusp of not having full eligibility. He worked with me and we were able to get full eligibility for that portion of the shoreline. With spaces being taken away, we have to be very careful at this point to make sure the spaces are adequately distributed along the shoreline,” Carr-Betts said.
“Literally, on a street-by-street basis. That’s why I’m very concerned,” Hunsicker added.
Hunsicker said there were instances when Tokajer was told a street with five proposed public parking spaces needed six.
“We used to have hundreds of spaces of leeway before the COVID actions happened, but now we’re tight, so we have to pay much more attention to it,” Hunsicker said.
Tuesday evening, Hunsicker provided The Sun with some additional information pertaining to beach renourishment parking requirements.
“In Holmes Beach, 479 is the bare minimum number of public parking spaces and equivalent public spaces provided by public trolley stops and bicycle racks, as provided by state statute to maintain 100% grant eligibility for state and federal renourishment,” Hunsicker said.
“Due to the opportunities for a small number of eligible spaces to change frequently, we ask each Island city to also provide a buffer of 10-20% of additional spaces within a quarter-mile of each public access point if at all possible. In our discussion with the Holmes Beach mayor and police chief, 500 spaces were offered, translating to 21 additional spaces. While this was short of the buffer desired, we accepted this offer as a good faith effort to provide buffer where needed,” Hunsicker said.
“The cities of Bradenton Beach and Anna Maria each have their own different and unique equivalent minimum parking space requirements covering their respective shoreline lengths of renourished beachfront as well,” he noted.
During the work session, Chief Assistant County Attorney Bill Clague also commented on the parking requirements.
“This is driven by the public purpose requirements of state and federal law. We’re supposed to use public dollars for public purposes. The tourist development tax statute we use for beach renourishment says it’s for beaches that have public access and public use. The reason it’s such a big issue for the county is that we take responsibility for the entire shoreline of Anna Maria Island. There’s a lot of private properties along that Island. It’s great that they have beaches, but it’s questionable whether we can use public dollars to renourish beaches in front of private homes. There has to be a public use there as well,” Clague said.
Van Ostenbridge opines
“I’ve spoken to many residents of Holmes Beach. A lot of them are embarrassed by the actions of their city. It’s extremely unwelcoming. It’s very disappointing,” Van Ostenbridge told the commission, noting his family’s roots on the Island date back to the 1930s.
Van Ostenbridge said many District 3 residents don’t live in Holmes Beach but work or own businesses there.
“I ran on a pro-business platform. I support those workers and those businesses, and I know this hurts them,” he said.
“The beach belongs to everyone. It’s the gem of the entire county. It belongs to every county taxpayer. If you want us to participate in renourishing that beach and caring for it and maintaining it, you have to provide them access to it,” Van Ostenbridge said.
“The state has minimum required levels of parking for the state and the feds to participate in beach renourishment funding. I would like this county to set much higher standards. I would like us to set pre-COVID levels of parking. If you’re looking for a number, 2,500 parking spaces is the minimum in Holmes Beach if they want us to participate in beach renourishment funding. I’m going to take a very aggressive approach with this,” Van Ostenbridge said.
“The vast majority of residents and business owners in Holmes Beach, they’re kind, welcoming people. They know they live in a destination city and they want people to come to their city. And those who are staunchly against this, you knew you moved to a destination city when you moved there. It is not a private Island. It is open to the public. It’s open to everyone in this community regardless of whether they live in Samoset or Palmetto or west Bradenton. The beach belongs to everyone,” Van Ostenbridge said.
He also alluded to the 5% tourist development tax collected on hotel, motel and vacation rental stays in Manatee County, most of which occurs on Anna Maria Island.
All three Island cities have utilized county commission-approved tourist development tax funds in recent years to help fund city projects, including the construction of the new Anna Maria City Pier.
Van Ostenbridge suggested the future use of tourist tax funds – spent on the advice of the Tourist Development Council (TDC) and the approval of the county commission – could be jeopardized by parking reductions.
“There are many other areas in this county that would love TDC funding – millions and millions of dollars,” he said.
Van Ostenbridge said he’d like to see Coryea enter into negotiations with some of the Island churches regarding the possible weekend and holiday use of their parking lots. He suggested reimbursing participating churches with tourist tax funds or some other funding source. He also asked Coryea to reach out to the school district regarding the possible weekend and holiday use of the parking spaces at Anna Maria Elementary School in Holmes Beach.
Additional commission comments
Whitmore, an at-large commissioner who lives in District 3, thanked Van Ostenbridge for his comments about the Holmes Beach parking reductions.
“I am so happy that you’ve done what you’re doing. I don’t have it in me to be as direct as you, but you’re my commissioner and I’m happy that somebody in the leadership of Manatee County that represents that district has actually said it publicly,” Whitmore said.
She suggested Van Ostenbridge meet with Tokajer and Holmes Beach Mayor Judy Titsworth.
“I know Judy. She’s a very good person,” Van Ostenbridge said. “We disagree politically on this issue.”
District 1 Commissioner James Satcherr expressed support for pursuing the construction of a parking garage on Anna Maria Island. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“I don’t feel like we picked a fight,” Satcher said. “I feel this issue should not be put upon us, but it has, so I’m looking at other options to solve the problem. The one that I can see is to build a parking deck within that quarter-mile if we can get it.”
That prompted Van Ostenbridge to say, “Mr. Satcher, I would just caution you on moving too quickly on a parking garage. That would be detrimental to the character of the Island.”
Regarding the Holmes Beach parking reductions, Baugh said, “I totally agree with Commissioner Van Ostenbridge. I feel like it’s gotten out of hand in Holmes Beach. I think they have forgotten that we all work together as a team.”
Baugh said she, too, would like to see more communication between the county and the Holmes Beach mayor and police chief.
“We need to get back to the way things were. If not, they’re going to look real funny if their beaches don’t continue to be renourished. I don’t know if they realize that or not, but they certainly can’t afford to pay for the dredging. Hopefully, they’ll remember that and try to meet us halfway,” Baugh said.
Commissioner Vanessa Baugh also opposes Holmes Beach’s parking reductions. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
No formal votes were taken during the work session, but Van Ostenbridge offered his assessment of the commission majority’s position on potentially withholding future funds.
“I know we’re not counting heads here, but I think it’s pretty obvious that multiple commissioners are entertaining the idea. You might want to relay that message,” he said.
Holmes Beach responds
During the county work session, Holmes Beach Mayor Judy Titsworth texted Whitmore. She later shared that text with The Sun.
In part, Titsworth’s text said, “Why are you allowing your commissioners to state untruths? You also should have invited me to attend. I was not aware of this work session.”
Speaking by phone after the work session ended, Titsworth said when she learned about the discussion taking place, she tuned in in time to hear Van Ostenbridge threatening to withhold future beach renourishment funds.
“No one called me to make sure they had the latest numbers. They didn’t make sure they had the correct information to give their commissioners. We offer more parking places than what’s required for beach renourishment. It’s surprising to me how they can speak about an issue and give strong opinions about an issue without trying to get educated on an issue,” Titsworth said.
“We had a meeting with Charlie. He was comfortable with the 500 spaces. We have it in our interlocal agreement. We adhere to the requirement for beach renourishment and will not jeopardize that,” Titsworth said.
“If he (Van Ostenbridge) wants to withhold funding, he should base it on us not upholding agreements that we have, and not just some fictional number,” she added.
Titsworth disputed the PowerPoint slide that said, “All on-street right of way and beach access parking in residential areas will close.”
“That’s not true. It looks like they were given bad information,” she said.
“Commissioner Van Ostenbridge has never reached out to me except for the one time he asked me if I’d support him if he ran for office. He has not called me since. If he has any concerns about anything, I have an open-door policy and he can see me any time.”
Tokajer also disputed the claim that 45% of Holmes Beach’s public parking spaces were eliminated.
“That is false, it has not been reduced by 45%. The parking numbers you have are the true and accurate numbers of today – which are the same numbers that were provided to Charlie Hunsicker in the meeting we had with Cheri Coryea and Erica Betts. It was not an adversarial meeting and every parking space they requested was given. The numbers given to them for beach renourishment were approved by them, as well as the state. We in no way would jeopardize the parking required for beach renourishment. It would have been nice for the commissioner, who is new, to have reached out to get the facts,” Tokajer said.
He also mentioned the figures cited by Whitmore and Satcher.
“We started with 2,400 spots, not 2,500. With the regular parking, the open parking and the permit parking, we have at least 1,903 spots. That shows a reduction of just under 500 spots total,” Tokajer said.
According to Tokajer’s statement, the city eliminated 21% of its pre-COVID parking spaces.
“That does not mean that in that quarter-mile area that we only have 500 spots. We have 1,261 spaces within that quarter-mile area. If the state and the feds were to come back and say for beach renourishment we need 600 spots designated, we already have them. They’re just not designated,” Tokajer said.
“We are not picking a fight. We are trying to weigh the needs of our residents and bring things back to some semblance of normalcy for them. The beach is for everyone, we’re in total agreement with that. But Holmes Beach’s residential areas should not be made into the county parking lot as if it was the UTC mall just because they want people to come to the beach. The county needs to come up with some other scenario where there is available parking without ruining the character and the residential areas of Holmes Beach,” Tokajer said.
MANATEE COUNTY – Manatee County commissioners are expected to vote on whether to mandate face coverings countywide on Monday, July 27.
Monday’s meeting will take place at the Bradenton Area Convention Center in Palmetto at 1:30 p.m. The meeting will be streamed live and broadcast on Spectrum channel 644.
On Wednesday, July 22, county commissioners voted 4-3 to direct the county attorney’s office to draft, schedule and advertise the necessary resolutions and ordinances to put in place a mask mandate as soon as possible.
That motion was made by Commissioner Misty Servia and supported by commissioners Reggie Bellamy, Betsy Benac and Carol Whitmore. Commissioners Vanessa Baugh, Steve Jonsson and Priscilla Trace opposed Servia’s motion.
A small group of protestors greeted county commissioners Wednesday morning. – Submitted
County face-covering resolution
On Friday, the proposed face-covering resolution, R-20-116, was posted on the county website.
If adopted by the commission majority on Monday, the face-covering resolution would serve as a short-term measure while the more formal and time-consuming ordinance adoption process is completed.
Legal notice of a prospective mask ordinance was scheduled to appear in a local daily newspaper on Sunday. As of Saturday, a public hearing for the adoption of a face-covering ordinance had not yet been scheduled.
Resolution R-20-116 notes, “It is in the best interest of the county, and furthers the public health, safety and welfare of the county, to require the wearing of face coverings and the displaying of signs in business establishments to reduce the spread of COVID-19.”
According to Section 3 of the proposed resolution, “An individual in a business establishment must wear a face covering while in that business establishment. The requirement in this section does not apply to:
“Situations in which individuals maintain 6 feet or more of distance between persons. This exception does not apply to employees who are present in the kitchen or other food and beverage preparation area of a business establishment. Nor does it apply to employees serving food or beverages.
A child under the age of 6.
Persons who have trouble breathing due to a chronic pre-existing condition or individuals with a documented or demonstrable medical problem. It is the intent of this exception that those individuals who cannot tolerate a facial covering for a medical, sensory or any other condition which makes it difficult for them to utilize a face covering and function in public are not required to wear one.
“Public safety, fire, and other life safety and health care personnel, as their personal protective equipment requirements will be governed by their respective agencies.
“Restaurant and bar patrons while eating or drinking. It is the intent of this exception that a face covering will be worn while traversing a business establishment for ingress and egress, to use the facilities, and while otherwise standing when persons are unable to maintain at least 6 feet of distancing.
“An individual in a lodging establishment who is inside of the lodging unit, including, but not limited to, a hotel room, motel room, vacation rental unit, timeshare unit, or similar unit.”
The resolution notes, “Every business establishment shall display conspicuous signage notifying all persons of the requirement to wear a face covering.”
Definitions
The resolution defines face coverings as “A material that covers the nose and mouth and that fits snugly against the sides of the face so there are no gaps. It can be made of a variety of materials, such as cotton, silk or linen. Coverings with materials made of multiple layers are highly encouraged. A cloth face covering may be factory-made or sewn by hand or the cloth face covering can be improvised from household items.”
The resolution states the term “business establishment” includes transportation companies such as Uber and Lyft and it also applies to mass transit, taxis, limousines, rental cars and other passenger vehicles for hire.
“The term ‘business establishment’ includes locations where non-profit, governmental and quasi-governmental entities facilitate public interactions and conduct business. The term ‘business establishment’ also includes places of worship,” the resolution says.
Enforcement and applicability
Section 4 of the county resolution says a violation of the emergency resolution is a noncriminal infraction and does not authorize the search or arrest of an individual. Prior to the issuance of a citation, the individual will be asked to comply with the emergency resolution or explain how an exception applies to them. The fine is $50 for a first offense, $125 for a second offense and $250 for every subsequent offense.
The ordinance would apply in cities within the county that do not have a mask ordinance, such as Bradenton Beach: “This emergency resolution shall apply countywide within both unincorporated and incorporated areas, provided that any municipal resolution or ordinance addressing the issue of face coverings – either more restrictively or less restrictively – shall supersede this emergency resolution within the applicable incorporated area,” the resolution states.
On Anna Maria Island, the cities of Anna Maria and Holmes Beach already have emergency mask ordinances in place. The city of Bradenton Beach recommends masks but does not have a formal mask/face covering resolution, order or ordinance in place.
“This emergency resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. This emergency resolution shall remain in full force and effect for so long as the local state of emergency for the COVID-19 pandemic remains in effect,” the resolution states.
Commission discussion
The county commission’s 4-3 request for a mask resolution and ordinance occurred during the discussion of ongoing issues relative to the COVID-19 emergency as the final agenda item for the commission’s Wednesday, July 22 land use meeting.
Chief Assistant County Attorney Bill Clague told commissioners if they wished to pursue a countywide mask mandate, he recommended it be based on the Leon County emergency mask ordinance that recently withstood a court challenge.
Leon County includes Tallahassee, where the state capital is located.
“From a legal standpoint, the best way to do this is by ordinance. The Leon example was an ordinance. Ordinances have the force of law in a way that resolutions and orders often do not. It carries with it greater weight with the courts as a legal requirement that everyone has to follow. If you decide to do this, the best model to use is the Leon model,” Clague said.
Before making her motion for a mask mandate, Commissioner Servia referenced the COVID-19 update Manatee County Public Safety Director Jake Sauer had provided a few minutes earlier.
“We heard from Jake that deaths are up 15% in the last 30 days. We heard that hospitalizations are up 159 in the last 30 days. The daily positive rate is over 10%. Hospitals are at near capacity, or at capacity, and the outlook for those hospitals doesn’t look to be improving,” Servia said.
“Today, as we sit here and talk, my stepdad is at Manatee Memorial Hospital dying in the COVID unit,” Servia said.
“We on the board all have a friend who is on a ventilator and in critical condition because of COVID,” she added.
“I don’t like to wear a mask, but I do it to keep people safe, and I do it to try and keep our businesses open. I really worry about our businesses,” Servia said, expressing similar concerns about restaurants.
In response to a question and suggestion from Commissioner Bellamy, Clague said the commission could first adopt a mask resolution and later adopt a mask ordinance.
Commissioner Whitmore mentioned a letter the commissioners received from the Manatee County Medical Society which was signed by more than 100 local physicians seeking a countywide mask mandate.
In reference to an ordinance requiring 10 days’ notice, Whitmore said she just received a text from one doctor that said, “10 days is more deaths.”
Commissioner Trace suggested Sheriff Rick Wells attend Monday’s meeting and provide his input. When a mask mandate was previously discussed in late June, it was noted Wells opposed a mask mandate and did not think it was enforceable.
“We need to recognize it’s up to law enforcement how aggressively they want to enforce something like this. Typically they build in some time for people to come into compliance,” Clague noted.
Commissioner Steve Jonsson was the only commissioner who participated in Wednesday’s meeting remotely rather than in person.
Chief Assistant County Attorney Bill Clague provided his legal insight on the commission’s pursuit of a mask mandate. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“The businesses have to help us, and I think it’s their responsibility as private entrepreneurs. I don’t think it’s the government’s responsibility to dictate what we should be doing to prevent people from doing stupid things. I don’t personally believe that a face mask is 100% protective. You’ve got to do a lot more than just a face mask,” Jonsson said.
In response, Commissioner Benac said, “Steve, everything you’re saying about personal decisions makes so much sense, but we have to deal in reality. I think we have to take leadership. Why? Because I’ve heard from my constituency. The vast majority of people want us to do something. I don’t think anything the government is going to do is going to propel people who think it’s their right to not wear a mask to wear a mask. But I think the government is supposed to provide leadership. That is our job.”
During Wednesday’s meeting, several people spoke in favor of and in opposition to a countywide mask mandate.
Public support
David Klement, a 45-year county resident, spoke first.
“To Commissioner Jonsson, who said it’s not our role to prevent people from doing stupid things, I would say it is exactly your role. Preventing stupid people from doing stupid things saves my life. Why do you have a speed ordinance in a school zone? Why do we have a seat belt law? People of my generation are 80% more likely to have complications and die from one exposure. That is why we need an ordinance,” he said.
Bradenton resident and retired nurse Linda Crepeau said she was recently afraid to enter a local UPS store to return a package because there were six people, including the clerk, inside that limited space who were not wearing masks.
“I could not go safely into the store. There was no way for me to socially distance. I’m depending upon our government to stand up and require mandatory masks for all businesses in Manatee County,” Crepeau said.
Recently retired school nurse Mary Ann Jensen said, “On Saturday and Sunday when we’re all at home, your health care professionals will be in the hospitals watching people die, many of them alone. And all they’re asking for is your support. Please give us an ordinance because it does help.”
Impact on elections
Manatee County Supervisor of Elections Mike Bennett pleaded with the commission to enact a mask mandate before the county election in August – to be followed by the general election in November.
Manatee County Supervisor of Elections Mike Bennett said he needs a countywide mask mandate before the August elections. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“I cannot stop somebody from coming into my office and saying, ‘No, I’m coming in without a mask.’ What am I going to do? Am I going to suppress the vote? I’m not. I’m going to say the Manatee County commissioners decided they were going to suppress the vote because they weren’t going to pass an ordinance that would allow me to keep my people safe,” Bennett said.
Bennett said he’s already reduced the number of voting precincts for the August elections from 70 to 60 and he’s prepared to go to 55 if needed.
“We’re having such a hard time getting clerks and poll workers for the elections. Yesterday, I closed the precinct at Freedom Village – all senior citizens, the smallest one we’ve got – because I don’t have a clerk. I need your help. I need that ordinance,” Bennett said.
He cautioned that the absence of a mask mandate could lead to the lowest voter turnout Manatee County has ever experienced.
“I have lost close to 50% of the clerks for the elections in Manatee County who are refusing to come because Manatee County doesn’t have an ordinance to make it safe for them. If you want a good election, let’s not suppress the vote. Give me all the help I need,” Bennett said.
Public opposition
When expressing her opposition to a mask mandate, Bradenton resident Andra Griffin questioned why all 403,553 residents of Manatee County – according to the 2019 census – would be forced to adhere to mask guidelines when less than 2% percent of the county’s population has tested positive for COVID-19.
Bradenton resident Andra Griffin opposes a countywide mask mandate. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Griffin also referenced a warning label that appears on a box of disposable face masks and said, “It clearly states these masks do not prevent COVID-19.”
Mixon Fruit Farms owner Janet Mixon said she and her staff use UV wands to sanitize the fruit farm’s indoor public spaces, but masks are not required.
“We don’t make it mandatory. Some of our people wear masks. Some of the people coming in wear masks. At some point, we all have to make our own decision. We have to decide what keeps us safe,” Mixon said, noting that wearing a mask for a long time gives her a headache.
“Let us make our own decisions. If you start doing stuff like this, we just don’t know when it’s going to end,” she added.
County Commission candidate James Satcher said, “This is a solution looking for a problem. The free market and businesses are already making their rules. I may not like their rule, but I don’t argue that they have the right and the ability to do that. I can take my business elsewhere. Government’s different. We have a responsibility to uphold personal freedoms and the Constitution and that’s why we should not pass this ordinance.”
Additional commission comments
After public comment, Servia said, “Masks are not the silver bullet. Please don’t think that I think that those masks are going to make this virus go away. It’s not. We need to socially distance, we need to hand wash, we need to avoid large crowds. It is another tool, a simple thing that’s going to help keep this community safe.”
Commissioner Vanessa Baugh recommends mask wearing but does not feel the county commission should make it mandatory. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Commissioner Baugh said, “I don’t think that’s what we need to be doing as a government entity. America is a free country. We have the right to make our own decisions and to stand by them. We have personal responsibility that does comes into play. I wear a mask. My husband wears a mask. I recommend it highly – and I think the key word is ‘recommend.’ ”
