Skip to main content

Tag: lawsuit

Anna Maria taking vacation rental owners to court

Anna Maria taking vacation rental owners to court

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in Anna Maria, Community News.

ANNA MARIA – The city plans to file a lawsuit against the owners of a vacation rental home cited for five noise ordinance violations within a nine-month period.

Located at 313 Magnolia Ave., the rental is managed by Vacasa and owned by the Orlando-based Mangoes on Magnolia LLC registered to brothers Mukesh and Raju Patel.

During the May 18 code enforcement hearing at city hall, Special Magistrate Jerry Buhr declared the rental to be a public nuisance. Buhr’s declaration will be the basis of the lawsuit that City Attorney Becky Vose will soon file with the 12th Judicial Circuit Court in Manatee County. Vose plans to file the suit after the city receives the court reporter’s verbatim transcript of the special magistrate hearing at which Code Enforcement Manager Sandy Olson presented the city’s case.

“The injunctive relief that I recommend we go after in this particular case is a suspension of the owner’s right to use that property as a vacation rental for one year.” – Anna Maria Mayor Dan Murphy

Olson’s May 18 presentation included testimony from two Manatee County Sheriff’s Office deputies, the deputies’ body camera footage and testimony from two neighboring property owners. According to Olson, noise violation citations carrying $35 fines were issued to five different rental guests between June 5, 2021 and March 16 of this year.

The special magistrate hearing and the pending lawsuit were discussed at the May 26 city commission meeting, with the commission voting 4-0 in favor of filing the lawsuit.

“It was very well-handled by Sandy,” Vose told the commission. “She prosecuted the case and was successful. There were five separate noise violations in a period of nine months, and the noise violations were just horrendous. We had the body camera videos that were shown to the special magistrate and the people who lived on either side of this residence testified as to how it affected their lives. The noise violations were typically at 2 o’clock in the morning and the body camera audio shows how loud it was.

“The special magistrate made a ruling in accordance with our code provision that the property was a public nuisance,” she continued. “Special magistrates in Florida don’t have jurisdiction to do anything but declare them a public nuisance. They don’t have the right to give injunctive relief. Our code does allow us to file suit in circuit court to ask the court to declare the public nuisance and give us injunctive relief to stop it going forward,” Vose said.

Mayor Dan Murphy detailed the injunctive relief sought.

“The injunctive relief that I recommend we go after in this particular case is a suspension of the owner’s right to use that property as a vacation rental for one year. I feel very strongly that a one-year suspension should get the message across that this type of behavior in our city is not allowed. This is a residential community and this man has totally disrupted the lives of the people on either side with complete disregard. He lives out of town. This is simply an investment property. I’m not trying to take away his livelihood, but this can’t go on. I think we need to take a strong stand against this noise complaint and against this property. And if there’s others out there, we need to go after them as well,” Murphy said.

“This is the worst actor in the city. Five complaints in nine months. This is what was going on at three o’clock in the morning at this house,” Murphy said before showing the commission one of the body camera videos shown to the special magistrate.

“I think our sheriff’s deputies did a great job. It’s not a job I would want. I applaud our deputies for how they handled these noise violations,” Murphy said.

Commissioner Robert Kingan asked Vose about the likelihood of the city winning this case in court.

“You can never make a guarantee about litigation. We’re going to give it our best,” Vose replied.

Vose said she was aware of a case in Bradenton in which a nightclub was declared a public nuisance for repeat noise violations, but she’s not aware of any cases similar to Anna Maria’s planned lawsuit seeking injunctive relief from a problematic vacation rental home.

“Hopefully, we’ll be successful and we’ll get some relief for the people in the neighborhood,” Vose said.

“Even if we don’t get exactly what we want, which would be a one-year suspension, we might get less than that, but I think we’d still win and make a point,” Commission Chair Carol Carter said.

“It needs to be shown that the city is serious about this,” Vose added.

“People have to know that we’re prosecuting these guys and that anyone else who does the same will be prosecuted,” Commissioner Jon Crane said.

Anna Maria taking vacation rental owners to court
City Attorney Becky Vose and Code Enforcement Manager Sandy Olson play key roles in the enforcement of the city’s noise ordinance. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Murphy said he has complete confidence that Vose, Olson and the sheriff’s deputies will continue to do a good job in enforcing the city’s noise ordinance.

“You can’t get them all, but we can’t let this turn into Key West,” Murphy said.

Related coverage

 

Noisy vacation rental home declared public nuisance

Baugh reaches settlement in public records lawsuit

Baugh reaches settlement in public records lawsuit

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in Community News, Manatee County.

BRADENTON – County Commission Chair Vanessa Baugh has reached a settlement with paralegal Michael Barfield regarding the Public Records Act lawsuit Barfield filed in December.

On June 19, Baugh signed a settlement agreement that required her to pay Barfield $4,319. When contacted on Thursday, July 1, Barfield said he received a check from Baugh the previous day and the check was drawn on her personal bank account. Barfield said he now considers the lawsuit to be “a done deal.”

According to the executed settlement document, “Without admitting any liability, the parties recognize that it is in the parties’ best interest to settle the action and claims between them. The parties are entering into this agreement for the purpose of avoiding greater future costs.”

Barfield’s civil lawsuit originally named County Commissioner James Satcher as the lone defendant and Baugh and Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge were later named as co-defendants.

In April, Satcher and Van Ostenbridge agreed to similar settlement agreements that called for them to collectively pay Barfield $6,000. In May, the Manatee County Commission voted 7-0 in favor of county taxpayers reimbursing Satcher and Van Ostenbridge approximately $56,000 to cover their attorney fees and settlement costs. When the county commission reconvenes later this month, Baugh will have an opportunity to seek similar county reimbursement for her attorney fees and settlement costs.

Baugh deposition

The Sun obtained a transcript of the deposition Barfield conducted of Baugh under oath on May 14. During the deposition, Baugh admitted she did not write the county resolution pertaining to meeting procedures that she presented for county commission adoption on Nov. 19. She also admitted that she previously claimed to have written the resolution herself.

The resolution Baugh presented on Nov. 19 with no advance notice given to the public or the commission as a whole pertained to meeting protocols and what types of commission actions could be taken during a particular type of meeting. The resolution was adopted that day by a 4-3 vote.

That commission action preceded Van Ostenbridge’s motion, which was not publicly noticed, to put then-County Administrator Cheri Coryea on notice that her termination would be discussed at a future meeting. Several weeks later, the county resolution adopted on Nov. 19 was rescinded by a unanimous commission vote.

Baugh reaches settlement in public records lawsuit
Shown here at a county commission meeting, paralegal Michael Barfield deposed Vanessa Baugh under oath in May. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Tallahassee-based attorney George Levesque represented Baugh at the deposition and throughout the legal proceeding. The deposition transcript provides a verbatim record of the verbal exchanges that occurred regarding the county resolution.

“Let’s talk about the resolution that was introduced by you at the November 19 meeting. Do you recall that?”

“Yes,” Baugh responded.

When was the first time that you saw that resolution?” Barfield asked.

“Middle part of November. I don’t recall the exact date,” Baugh responded.

Did you draft that resolution?” Barfield asked.

“No,” Baugh responded.

“Have you previously made statements that you did?” Barfield asked

“Yes,” Baugh responded.

“And who drafted the resolution?” Barfield asked.

“Object to the form. I’m going to instruct her not to answer,” Levesque responded.

Barfield then paused the deposition and asked that Circuit Court Judge Charles Sniffen be contacted by telephone regarding Baugh’s refusal to answer his question.

When addressing the judge, Levesque said, “I’m not aware of any cases that would extend that type of public records obligation for disclosure where a private citizen hands a paper document to a government official that would then allow someone requesting the record to go back to that private citizen and say you have to give me the native file of the document that you provided in hard copy form to the government official. It would be a different story if it was drafted by Commissioner Baugh herself or one of the county staff created that document and then provided it (to) Commissioner Baugh.”

Barfield then said, “I think I am entitled to some leeway as to the circumstances of how this record came into existence and whether there are any other records that exist relating to the creation of this resolution. It was a critical document that started this entire case.”

When issuing his decision, Sniffen said, “I don’t believe the public records statute permits a wholesale investigation of the thought processes and motivations of the people who are the subject of the request. I think going into what the origin of documents was, who possessed them, when they were processed, things like that go beyond what is contemplated by the statute.”

When the deposition resumed, Baugh told Barfield she received the resolution in the lobby of the county administration building from an individual whom she did not name. Baugh told Barfield she didn’t have an appointment with that individual and that it was a random encounter.

Baugh told Barfield she then took a photo of the document and sent the photo to then-Chief Assistant County Attorney Bill Clague.

“I wanted to make sure that it was appropriate to bring for our board. I wanted him to look at it and say it was proper,” Baugh told Barfield during the deposition.

Baugh said she does not know what became of the original document and she told Barfield she had no additional contact with the individual who provided her with the resolution.

Judge orders Mapes to pay city $19,760

Judge orders Mapes to pay city $19,760

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in Bradenton Beach, Community News.

BRADENTON BEACH – Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas has ordered Sunshine Law lawsuit defendant Reed Mapes to pay the city of Bradenton Beach $19,760.

According to the written ruling Nicholas issued on Friday, May 14, that amount represents $17,998 in attorney fees and $1,762 in interest fees. These are to be paid to the city as remaining reimbursement for the attorney fees the city incurred in its successful pursuit of a 2019 ruling from Nicholas that Mapes and five other city advisory board members violated the Florida Sunshine Law.

In July 2019, Nicolas ruled that Mapes and fellow planning and zoning board members John Metz, Patty Shay, Bill Vincent, and Scenic WAVES Committee members Tjet Martin and Rose Vincent, violated the Sunshine Law when discussing matters related to their official public business at a series of non-city-affiliated Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach meetings in 2017.

“The Sunshine Law prohibits discussions of public business. Public business was discussed at every CNOBB meeting. Public business was discussed every time CNOBB met. That was largely the point of the organization,” Nicholas said when issuing his 2019 ruling.

“Do these individuals have a right to assemble? Absolutely. Do these individuals have a right to free speech? Absolutely. Do these individuals have a right to be concerned about their beloved city? Of course. But once you choose to become part of the government by becoming a member of a government advisory board you are no longer just a spectator. Rules apply, laws apply. The defendants simply did not follow those rules. The defendants simply did not follow those laws. This is not a close call,” Nicholas said.

Judge orders Mapes to pay city $19,760
In 2019, Judge Edward Nicholas ruled that Reed Mapes was one of six former advisory board members that violated the Sunshine Law. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

In October 2020, Nicholas ordered Mapes, John Metz, and Tjet Martin to collectively pay the city $369,498. Because of an argument set forth by Shay, Nicholas relieved Shay and the Vincents of that shared financial responsibility for the city’s legal fees. Nicholas reached that conclusion when he learned Shay and the Vincents reached settlement agreements with the city before the 2019 trial began. The city commission rejected those three settlement officers because Mapes, Martin and Metz had not also agreed to similar settlement offers that would have alleviated the need for a trial had all six defendants agreed to settle.

Metz and Martin later paid the city $350,000 and agreed to drop their appeals of Nicholas’ 2019 ruling. Shay and the Vincents then paid the city $500 each, and the Vincents agreed to drop their appeals. Shay was the only defendant who did not appeal the 2019 ruling

In his May 14 ruling regarding the remaining attorney fees sought by the city, Nicholas wrote, “Mapes was an especially active participant in the Sunshine Law violations committed by the members of Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach in the summer of 2017, appeared eager throughout the litigation to force the city to prove its claims despite multiple audio recordings which documented the violations, and appeared to be disinclined to settle on the plaintiff’s terms.”

Attorney Robert Watrous represented the city in this legal matter, with significant assistance provided by paralegal Michael Barfield. City Attorney Ricinda Perry also assisted with this case.

Satcher and Van Ostenbridge settle public records lawsuit

Satcher, Van Ostenbridge settle public records lawsuit

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in Community News, Manatee County.

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.

Satcher and Van Ostenbridge settle public records lawsuit
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.

Satcher and Van Ostenbridge settle public records lawsuit
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.

Satcher and Van Ostenbridge settle public records lawsuit
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.

Sunshine lawsuit defendants agree to pay city $350,000

Sunshine lawsuit defendants agree to pay city $350,000

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in Bradenton Beach, Community News.

BRADENTON BEACH – Sunshine Law lawsuit defendants John Metz and Tjet Martin have agreed to pay the city of Bradenton Beach $350,000 as partial reimbursement for the attorney’s fees the city has incurred.

According to City Treasurer Shayne Thompson, the city has spent $572,321 to date on the civil lawsuit the city filed against Metz, Martin and four other former city advisory board members in 2017.

The lawsuit sought a judge’s ruling as to whether the six defendants violated the Florida Sunshine Law, which pertains to open government meetings and requires the discussion of official public business to be conducted in properly noticed public meetings.

When the Sunshine Law violations occurred, Reed Mapes, Metz, Patty Shay and Bill Vincent served as Planning and Zoning Board members. Martin and Rose Vincent served as Scenic WAVES Committee members.

In July of 2019, the city prevailed in the four-day trial which resulted in 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas ruling that all six defendants repeatedly violated the Sunshine Law during their non-city-affiliated Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach meetings in 2017.

Metz, Mapes, Martin, Rose Vincent and Bill Vincent then appealed that ruling, with Metz and his attorneys leading that process. As of Monday, those appeals remained pending in the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Lakeland. Shay did not appeal Nicholas’ 2019 ruling.

On Oct. 28, Nicholas issued a written order regarding the amount of attorney’s fees to be recovered by the city and which defendants shared responsibility for that payment.

“It is ordered and adjudged that the plaintiffs (the city) shall have and recover from the remaining defendants John Metz, Reed Mapes and Tjet Martin attorney’s fees in the amount of $369,498,” Nicholas stated in his order.

“It is hereby ordered and adjudged that the attorney’s fee award, as applied to defendants Patricia Shay, William Vincent and Rose Vincent is stricken,” Nicholas stated in his order.

Nicholas struck Shay and the Vincents’ financial liabilities after he learned earlier this year that they signed settlement agreements with the city shortly before the 2019 trial began. The commission then rejected those signed settlement agreements because Mapes, Martin and Metz did not express a similar willingness to settle.

Settlement offer accepted

The settlement agreement proposed by Metz and Martin was presented to the city commission during a shade meeting that took place Thursday evening, Nov. 5, inside the commission chambers.

Sunshine lawsuit defendants agree to pay city $350,000
John and Alice Metz attended the Nov. 5 shade meeting. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Metz and his wife, Alice, attended the public portions of the shade meeting that preceded and followed the private discussion that included only City Attorney Ricinda Perry, the five city commission members and the court reporter/stenographer who will later produce a verbatim transcript of the private discussion that is protected by attorney-client privilege until the case is over. Martin did not attend the shade meeting.

During the public opening of the shade meeting, Perry said, “There has been some development in the case and I would like an opportunity to discuss those developments and seek the advice of the city commission.”

The public and Deputy Clerk Christine Watson were then asked to leave the room. Perry and the commission spent approximately 50 minutes engaged in private discussion before the public was allowed back inside city hall, now joined by lawsuit co-plaintiff Jack Clarke and his wife, Karen.

“I would like a motion to accept the settlement offer from John Metz and Tjet Martin in the amount of $350,000, and to direct the city attorney to prepare the necessary settlement document discussions with the appropriate counsel, and to prepare them for execution by the city,” Perry told the commission.

Commissioner Ralph Cole made the requested motion that passed by a 5-0 vote.

Perry then sought a second motion directing her to prepare a settlement offer to present to Mapes and to finalize settlement offers with Shay and the Vincents.

Perry did not disclose any additional details on the settlement offer made by Metz and Martin or the settlement offers pertaining to Mapes, Shay and the Vincents.

During public comment, Perry was asked what impact the settlement agreements would have on the appeals.

“It will have an impact on an appeal, but I cannot disclose what the impact will be,” Perry said.

As he left the commission chambers, Metz declined comment on the settlement offer.

When contacted Sunday, Perry said she was still unable to disclose any additional information regarding the settlement offers and the appeals process.

Related coverage

 

Judge orders three Sunshine Law defendants to reimburse city

Commission considers and rejects three Sunshine settlements

Commission considers, rejects three Sunshine lawsuit settlements

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in Bradenton Beach, Community News.

BRADENTON BEACH – Bradenton Beach commissioners have rejected three proposed Sunshine Law lawsuit settlement offers.

Earlier that day, Friday, June 28, lawsuit defendants Bill Vincent, Rose Vincent and Patty Shay agreed to the proposed settlement terms brokered on the city’s behalf by attorney Robert Watrous and paralegal Michael Barfield.

Shay and Bill Vincent served as Planning and Zoning Board members when the alleged Sunshine Law violations occurred in 2017. Rose Vincent served on the city’s Scenic WAVES Committee.

Commission considers and rejects three Sunshine settlements
Lawsuit defendants Bill and Rose Vincent (second and third from left) proposed settlements city commissioners later rejected. Also shown at this recent court hearing are ex-mayor Bill Shearon and co-defendants Tjet Martin and Reed Mapes. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Mayor John Chappie and Commissioners Ralph Cole, Marilyn Maro and Jake Spooner discussed and unanimously rejected all three proposed settlements during a shade meeting that occurred late Friday afternoon. Commissioner Randy White did not attend the shade meeting.

The attorney-client shade meeting allowed the commission to privately discuss the proposed settlements and the city’s legal strategies with Watrous and City Attorney Ricinda Perry.

The shade meeting took place in the downstairs conference room at the Bradenton Beach police station. The meeting opened in a public manner before the media and Barfield were asked to leave. After approximately 90 minutes of private discussion, the meeting was reconvened in public and the commission’s decisionmaking occurred.

Spooner made a motion to deny all three settlement offers. The motion passed by a 4-0 vote with no additional discussion.

Spooner and Chappie then crafted a second motion directing Watrous to draft a cover letter to send to the defendants. The letter will state the denials of the settlement offers and that the commission will not entertain any settlement offers that do not include all six defendants acknowledging they violated the Sunshine Law.

The letter will also state that the commission and the city’s taxpayers want reasonable and significant payment from the defendants for the attorney fees the city has incurred.

“I would like that cover letter to reiterate our strengths in the case,” Chappie added.

The commission unanimously adopted the second motion and adjourned the meeting.

On June 20, 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas ruled in favor of the city’s preliminary argument that it was reasonably foreseeable that a parking garage is an issue that would come before the Planning and Zoning Board if proposed.

“I can say with 100 percent certainty – not reasonably foreseeability, but absolute certainty – that this is a very issue that should and would come before a planning and zoning board,” Nicholas said that day.

The bench trial is scheduled to begin on Monday, July 15 and is expected to take at least five days to complete.

Proposed settlements

The Vincents expressed interest in their proposed settlement agreements on Friday morning after Rose Vincent’s scheduled deposition was canceled. Bradenton Beach Marina president Mike Bazzy’s deposition was also canceled, but he will testify at the trial regarding his conversations with city officials about a parking facility.

Commission considers and rejects three Sunshine settlements
Former Planning and Zoning Board member Bill Vincent was willing to admit that errors were made regarding Sunshine Law compliance. – Media Pool | Submitted

The deposition cancellations occurred after the parties had already arrived at the court reporters’ office in Bradenton. Shay’s proposed settlement terms were finalized later that day after being discussed with her earlier in the week.

Shay and Bill Vincent served as Planning and Zoning Board members when the alleged Sunshine Law violations occurred in 2017. Their proposed settlement agreements acknowledged errors were made regarding Sunshine Law compliance. Those errors occurred during Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meeting discussions and/or email exchanges in 2017.

Shay and Bill Vincent’s proposed settlement terms were essentially the same terms the city proposed and all six defendants rejected in March.

Commission considers and rejects three Sunshine settlements
Former Planning and Zoning Board member Patty Shay was willing to acknowledge that errors occurred regarding Sunshine Law compliance. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

“All defendants shall acknowledge they had concerns about the application of the Sunshine Law as it relates to the meetings at issue in this case and further acknowledge that errors were made as it relates to the Sunshine Law,” the March settlement offer said.

Friday marked the first time any of the defendants agreed to settlement terms that included an admission of Sunshine Law violations. It was also the first time the commission considered settlement offers that did not pertain to all six defendants.

Rose Vincent’s proposed settlement differed slightly and acknowledged only that Sunshine Law errors may have occurred. This resembled a settlement counteroffer the defendants made in March, which the commission rejected.

Shay and the Vincents also offered to pay the city $500 each.

Co-defendants and former planning and zoning board members Reed Mapes and John Metz did not propose new settlement offers, nor did co-defendant and former Scenic WAVES Committee member Tjet Martin.

All six defendants served on city advisory boards when the alleged Sunshine violations occurred in May, June and July of 2017. The lawsuit alleges the advisory board members violated the Sunshine Law by discussing parking garage prohibitions and Community Redevelopment Agency projects that had and could again come before them in their official capacities as city board members.

At CNOBB’s July 25, 2017, steering committee meeting, Mapes twice initiated a discussion about CNOBB potentially pursuing a citizen-initiated charter amendment that would have prohibited parking garages citywide. Metz and Bill Vincent then expressed their opposition to parking garages and Shay and Martin provided additional comments. That meeting was recorded and posted at the CNOBB website.

Related coverage

City prevails in preliminary Sunshine case hearing

Sunshine defendants make offers to compromise

City prevails in preliminary Sunshine hearing

Fire Stone lawsuit

Street ownership dispute prompts lawsuit

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in Community News, Cortez.

BRADENTON – Street ownership and property rights are the subjects of a lawsuit the owners of Fire & Stone Brick Oven Pizzeria have filed against Manatee County.

In May, attorney John Colton filed the lawsuit on behalf of business owners and property owners Radka and Peter Ross. The lawsuit pertains to their commercial property at the corner of Cortez Road West and 106th Street West.

The lawsuit alleges the county improperly paved the intersection in a manner that impedes on the Ross property and deprives them of the use of a portion of the property – some of which includes the still-in-progress outdoor dining area and the parking spaces along the west side of the building.

According to the lawsuit complaint, the land now known as the Ross property was platted in 1957 and joined the following year by several other properties platted as part of the Battersby subdivision. That platting did not include the county accepting ownership of the street.

The complaint states the county did not build Laurabet Drive, which is now known as 106th Street West.

In 1976, the county arranged for the property owners to pay for road improvements as part of a county participation project that included assessments levied on them to cover their street maintenance costs.

Before the lawsuit was filed, Peter Ross said the anticipated lawsuit was partially inspired by concerns that the county plans to claim ownership of 106th Street West after maintaining it for seven years.

While touring the Fire & Stone property, Ross pointed out the angled intersection where Cortez Road and 106th Street West converge. He said that end of the street should have been located several feet to the west, which would have avoided the Fire & Stone property but impinge on the property across the street.

The complaint says the county paved portions of the street in November 2011, which means the seven-year maintenance threshold and ownership transfer could occur this November.

The complaint alleges the county was aware that the existing roadway veered to the east and impinged approximately seven feet onto the Fire & Stone property along 106th Street West. The complaint also alleges the county knowingly paved areas it had no right to pave.

“Prior to Nov. 30, 2011, the county did not maintain 106th Street. All maintenance prior to that date was done by and/or paid for by the residents of 106th Street and not by the county. County has not maintained 106th Street West for more than seven years. Even if it had maintained 106 Street West for more than seven years, the county is estopped from asserting ownership by its prior representation disavowing acceptance of 106th Street West for maintenance purposes,” the complaint says regarding the previous platting.

“Plaintiff respectfully requests this court issue a decree ordering county to cease and desist maintenance or occupation of 106th Street West and to further decree county has obtained no interest in the said property,” the complaint says.

The plaintiffs are asking the 12th Judicial Circuit Court to render a declaratory judgment that determines the ownership of the property and the location of any existing property easements. They are requesting a determination that their title to the property is superior to the county’s and seeking a judgment awarding them exclusive possession of the property in question.

The complaint alleges the county’s actions constitute a taking of a portion of private property that is subjecting them to the material and substantial deprivation of the beneficial use of their property.

County response

When asked about the potential lawsuit in April, County Attorney Mickey Palmer said, “This matter has been dealt with in great detail, and my office has no present reason to believe that staff’s approach is flawed in any way.”

After the lawsuit was filed, Palmer said, “We are disappointed that the property owners have chosen to file a lawsuit.  Nevertheless, on behalf of the citizens of Manatee County, the Office of the County Attorney will aggressively defend the lawsuit.”

Additional concerns

When discussing these issues before the lawsuit was filed, Ross mentioned additional concerns he and some of his neighbors have. Ross and others do not feel their private street should be used as a primary access road for residents of the adjacent Paradise Bay Estates mobile home community.

Fire Stone lawsuit
Signs like this have appeared alongside 106th Street West. The intersection of Cortez Road and 106th Street West is now the subject of a lawsuit. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

A recent trip down the street revealed several handwritten signs that said, “Private drive for 106th residents.”

Resident Gina Rau said some members of the Paradise Bay Estates board of directors have tried to prevent her and others from using the Paradise Bay Estates boat ramp that provides them access to Sarasota Bay. Rau believes this is a violation of their riparian rights. Efforts to contact Paradise Bay Estates board members about these concerns proved unsuccessful.

Follow the charter

Written by Sun staff on . Posted in Editorial, Opinion.

Knowing they were potentially subjecting the city to another lawsuit, four of Bradenton Beach’s five city commission members displayed political courage last week when they stood up to Keep Our Residential Neighborhoods’ (KORN) political action committee members Reed Mapes and John Metz.

Based on legal grounds, the commission rejected four KORN-initiated charter amendments that the city clerk, city attorney, and city engineer deemed legally and/or administratively insufficient, according to the city charter and state law.

Mayor John Chappie and commissioners Ralph Cole, Marilyn Maro and Jake Spooner agreed that the city charter must be followed when attempting to amend it by voter referendum.

Commissioner Randy White felt differently and sided with Mapes and Metz, both of whom are longtime adversaries of the current and recent commission majorities.

Mapes, Metz and their allies hope to impose four new city charter amendments on the city and the commission – including one that would require hiring a full-time city manager who would be given complete control over city staff. This would also require the city’s weak mayor form of government to be completely restructured.

Mapes and Metz view the city charter as a binding document when it supports their political and personal views, yet they refuse to follow the charter when it comes to amending it.

Critics of the commission’s decision will claim the voice of the voters has been silenced, but that’s simply not true. The charter provides easy-to-follow, easy-to-accomplish methods to place citizen-initiated referendums on city ballots. Cole and Spooner made it clear last week that their intent is not to deny city voters the right to make important decisions, but to ensure that charter amendments are made in accordance with the charter.

Sometimes the right thing to do is the hardest thing to do, and last week four elected officials did just that. Knowing they would face severe scrutiny from KORN and its supporters, they did what they believed was best for the city and its citizens.

If Mapes and Metz do file a lawsuit, which they both suggested was possible, there’s always the chance the city could lose. That’s a risk the four commission members are willing to take in defense of the charter that serves as the city’s constitution.

And they do so as we approach the July 4 holiday that celebrates America’s independence and the constitutional structure this country is built on.

Sunshine Depositions

Sunshine lawsuit depositions continue

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in First Place, Special Sections.

BRADENTON BEACH – Former Planning and Zoning Board member Patty Shay is now the third Sunshine lawsuit defendant deposed by attorney Robert Watrous.

Shay was deposed Tuesday, June 5, at a court reporting office in Bradenton.

First Place
First Amendment Defense
Jon A. Roosenraad Award
2019
Shay Deposition
Lawsuit defendant Patty Shay was deposed by attorney Robert Watrous on June 5. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Assisted by paralegal Michael Barfield, Watrous represents the city of Bradenton Beach and resident Jack Clarke as co-plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed last August. The lawsuit alleges four planning board members and two Scenic WAVES Committee members violated the Florida Sunshine Law by discussing past and potential board and committee business at Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meetings and in private emails.

Watrous referenced the Sunshine Law training required of all Bradenton Beach commission, committee and board members. He asked Shay if she referred to that training regarding CNOBB discussion topics. She said she did not.

Watrous reviewed in detail the April 12 and April 19 Planning and Zoning Board meetings that included the board’s review of an updated Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) plan that referenced the possibility of a CRA-funded parking garage.

Watrous used meeting transcripts, agendas and other documents to establish that Shay participated in discussions about a parking garage in her official capacity as a board member.

“If a parking garage was to be built, the proposal would have to come before the P&Z, correct?” Watrous said.

“That is correct, but remember we were an advisory board. We did not make decisions,” Shay said of her planning board duties.

As part of the Sunshine Law, Florida Statute 286.011 says, “Any public officer who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a noncriminal infraction.”

The definition of a public officer in Florida Statute 112.313 includes “any person serving on an advisory body.”

“I don’t need people seeking to coach the witness.”
Robert Watrous, Attorney

At one point, Watrous said it was brought to his attention that some in the room, including at least one co-defendant, were nodding their heads yes or no in response to his questions. Watrous and Barfield said they heard some in the room saying yes or no in response to Watrous’ questions. Watrous said he would bring these concerns to the judge if the behavior continued.

“I don’t need people seeking to coach the witness,” he said.

“I am under oath and no one has done anything to suggest that I answer in a certain way,” Shay said.

Vincent email

Watrous produced a copy of a June 14 email co-defendant Bill Vincent sent Shay, Reed Mapes and John Metz when they were all planning board members. The email pertained to CNOBB’s upcoming inaugural meeting. It was obtained from Shay in response to a records request Barfield made.

Watrous noted Vincent, Metz and Mapes did not include that email in their records request responses.

“I would not know why they would not have done that,” Shay said.

Vincent’s email said, “There is no intent whatsoever to violate Sunshine Laws. In my opening comments it will be made clear that no discussion or conversation on the comp plan, LDC (land development code) or charter or pending issues will be permitted.”

During a July 25 CNOBB meeting that was recorded and posted at the group’s website, then-planning board member Mapes proposed a citywide prohibition on parking garages. The recording is referenced in the lawsuit complaint that seeks a judge’s ruling on whether Sunshine violations occurred.

“When issues discussed in the April 12 and April 19 P&Z meetings did start being discussed at a CNOBB meeting, didn’t that alert you to the fact that you should say something or do something because this was a Sunshine Law violation?” he said.

“I did not consider it a violation of Sunshine Law,” Shay said.

“No budget, no date and the fact that it was not in agreement with the comprehensive plan. I didn’t see it as something that would be in the foreseeable future,” Shay said regarding the potential construction of a parking garage.

Shay’s statement about parking garages not being in agreement with the comp plan is contrasted by current comp plan language that allows parking garages in some land use categories.

Last month, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed two City Commission-requested ordinances that would amend the comp plan and the LDC and prohibit parking garages citywide.