Skip to main content

Tag: Ricinda Perry

Pines residents ask commission to deny zoning change requests

Pines residents ask commission to deny zoning change requests

Written by Leslie Lake on . Posted in Bradenton Beach, Community News.

BRADENTON BEACH – Pines residents asked the city on Feb. 20 to deny any future land use or zoning change requests for the Pines Trailer Park by Pines Park Investors LLC or its manager, Shawn Kaleta.

Mayor John Chappie told The Sun that no such requests had yet been submitted, but City Attorney Ricinda Perry said at a Jan. 16 Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) meet­ing that the property owner had confirmed the planned redevelopment of the parcel.

“I can tell you preliminarily it’s looking like some type of mixed-development that’s going to salvage as much of the character that’s there,” she said, adding that a rezoning would be necessary.

The Pines Trailer Park is currently zoned M-1, and according to the city’s Land Development Code, permitted uses are single-family mobile home units, manufactured homes, park trailers, preservation uses and conser­vation uses.

“Why is the city attorney talking to the CRA and media about redevelop­ment plans for the Pines?” Pines homeowner Elayne Armaniaco asked during public comment. “How is that her role? Why such a personal interest for her? Are you looking into the allegations that the city attorney is seen out socially and driving around with the largest land developer on the Island or the rumors that she lives in one of his properties? Why does it feel like she works for him or at the least they have a strong friendship? The conflict is so blatant.”

Victor Armaniaco asked the commission to deny any zone change requests.

“We elected all of you to protect us from an unfair treatment. You all have the power to maintain the current M-1 zoning and protect the charm and old Florida character of Bradenton Beach as well as our homes and investments,” he said. “What hardships does the LLC have that they should be granted a zone change? Over 96% of the units were allowed to rebuild without elevating and would rebuild if they knew the park would stay for long-term existence with generations to come. The LLC purchased a mobile home park so their desire to build something else on that property is a self-created hardship. Did you get elected in part to protect the character of Bradenton Beach? If you make it easier for a developer to change the zoning in unpopular ways, you are not doing your job.”

“The average home in the Pines Park is worth about $150,000 prior to the hurricane,” Pines homeowner John Shore said. “If I take that average of $150,000 times 86 trailers that’s approximately $13 million in value. They could be worth that amount again if they were allowed to rebuild.”

“There are 21 single women trailer owners, most of whom are on fixed income,” he said. “I have $165,000 in my trailer. As you know Pines Park Investors and Shawn Kaleta evicted us as of July 31. That means collectively the 86 trailer owners have lost $13 million. I’m 83 years old and that $165,000 loss really hurts.”

“In the past commission meetings, you said you wanted to help Pines Trailer Park in any way you could,” he said. “Well, there is a way. I ask that you deny any land use changes or zoning changes requested by Pines Park Investors and Shawn Kaleta and therefore force them to keep the trailer park for 3 1/2 years as a trailer park per Kaleta’s contract with the previous owners. If you approve their land use changes and zoning changes in the future you basically will be taking $13 million from 86 people.”

“I’ve been coming to this Island for 54 years,” Mary Moxx said. “I feel we have been disrespected at Pines. I’m a senior and have limited funds to continue. You want the zoning to change. Why? Ricinda, you remember the old ladies that found you crying on the steps of your gazebo after you told us we were condemned? We consoled you. You have not consoled us.”

“I’m hoping you understand that pain your residents are going through here,” Pines homeowner Sandy Seaver said. “Our eviction notice that we received a few weeks ago started with ‘due to a land use change, you are evicted.’ Was the letter from Mr. Kaleta incorrect? When I saw that my feeling was how can they do that without a public meeting?

“We really just want an honest, caring city govern­ment who puts its residents first, no playing games, no bending to money, transparency,” Seaver said. “We are the throwaways on the Island. We have been through hell. We feel that the fox is in the hen house. We ask that you put yourself in our shoes and allow us to move forward and show us some support. We’re fighting many battles in that park and we shouldn’t have to be fighting with you guys, too.”

Mayor responds

Following the close of public comment, Mayor John Chappie said, “Not a thing has been presented to this commission to change the zoning at the Pines. Nothing, whatsoever.”

“If something is presented to us, it would have to go through the whole process,” Chappie said. “There is not a single person up here that has said we want to get rid of the Pines.”

“I did make the comment to you Elayne (Armaniaco) that it does make a difference between a co-op and privately owned by an LLC,” he said. “It does make a difference when you’re looking at the legalities. I did not in any way, shape or form say I wanted to get rid of the Pines. I said just the opposite.”

He called the Pines Trailer Park a key part of the history of Bradenton Beach.

“We’re not the enemy up here, I swear to you,” Chappie said. “I pray on this every night. We want to keep the community quaint and lovely. It’s our home. It’s our neighbors. Is it going to be the same? No, it’s not because we had these two storms – these two major disasters. It breaks my heart.”

On Sept. 26, Hurricane He­lene swamped mobile homes at the 86-unit waterfront trailer park. Former City Building Official Darin Cushing said in October that FEMA guidelines characterized the water intru­sion as major damage but in December reversed that, following interior inspections, and allowed 83 of the 86 mobile homeowners the ability to repair their mobile homes.

On Jan. 4, mobile homeown­ers received notification from park owners Pines Park Investors LLC that the park was being closed. Homeowners found eviction notices taped to their doors on Jan. 24, notify­ing them of a July 31 deadline to vacate the park. Developer Shawn Kaleta is the manager of the LLC.

In a Jan. 27 letter to the Pines Trailer Park Homeown­ers Association (HOA), Pines Park Investors LLC offered to sell the mobile home park to the residents for $75 million.

Commissioners said they support the continued exis­tence of the Pines, but don’t have the authority to interfere with private ownership of the park.

“My family has been on this Island for 45 years and I thought the Pines Trailer Park was the most adorable little trailer park and had so much character and it does break our heart,” Commission Deborah Scaccianoce said. “If there really was a way to stop an LLC and a private owner, we would.”

“As far as the Pines, I’ve responded to emails to several of the owners stating, I’d love to help you, but I don’t as a member of this commission have a legal right to interfere between an LLC and a property owner,” Commissioner Scott Bear said. “I wish I did. I don’t want to see a zoning change. I don’t want to see anything happen to the Pines. We’ll deal with that if it ever comes to this board. It has never been brought here.”

Former building official alleges pressure to condemn properties, threats

Former building official alleges pressure to condemn properties, threats

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

BRADENTON BEACH – For­mer city Building Official Darin Cushing alleges that he saw the city attorney and a well-known developer drive around the city together looking for hurricane-damaged structures and proper­ties after Hurricanes Helene and Milton struck Anna Maria Island last year and pressured him to condemn them.

He also alleges the city at­torney, mayor and police chief threatened his employment status on several occasions for not complying with permitting and inspection requests made by the developer.

Cushing made his public allegations during a town hall meeting that District 3 County Commissioner Tal Siddique held at the Island Branch Library on Feb. 13. During the meeting, Cushing handed Siddique a four-page letter that expands upon the allegations he made during the town hall meeting.

Siddique provided The Sun a copy of Cushing’s letter on Feb. 15. The next day, Cushing confirmed by email that his town hall comments and his letter pertained to Mayor John Chap­pie, City Attorney Ricinda Perry and Police Chief John Cosby. He did not name the developer.

“Based on this person’s track record of retaliation and lawsuits, I am hesitant to spell out a name. Regardless, no matter who the developer is, I was asked and even threatened with my job, to engage in unethical practice, which I refused to do,” he wrote The Sun in an email on Sunday.

Toward the end of his letter, Cushing wrote, “There is so much more I could tell you about the goings on, where there have been dealings with this developer and the city attorney and the mayor and many people can corroborate them. Including eyewitness accounts of the attorney and the developer driving through town following the storms, picking out houses and the developer asking me to con­demn them; stating that he was told by the attorney that if we hurried up, the city was going to get the houses demolished and hauled away using FEMA dollars. I refused and only con­demned properties that were either completely destroyed or in damage of collapse. Every time I refused to do his bidding, I was questioned by one of the three city staff about it, always with pressure being put upon me to just do it.”

Contrary to his statement about only condemning properties that were either destroyed or in danger of collapse, Cushing did issue a condemnation order to Tennessee resident and “Love Shack” cottage owner Dan Ibach on Oct. 31.

Unlike the neighboring cottage that was completely destroyed by Hurricane He­lene, Ibach’s cottage suffered no structural damage and had already been boarded up and sealed off by the time Cushing issued the condemnation order.

According to Ibach, he then received a call from Perry, who said the city could likely assist with his demolition costs. Ibach told Perry his cottage was not condemnable and would not be demolished. He contacted his attorney and the condemnation order was soon lifted. Ibach’s beachfront property is located next to Shawn Kaleta’s Seabreeze at Anna Maria Inn property.

Gash Caudill also staved off the city’s condemnation of the duplex on Gulf Drive North he shares with his mother.

At the city’s request, Cush­ing was recently suspended, due in part to a hurricane restoration-related permitting dispute between the city and Drift-In bar owner Derek Williams; and due in part to Facebook comments Cushing made in defense of his ad­ministrative decision to issue Williams’ permits without city commission approval. Cush­ing was later terminated by the SAFEbuilt/M.T. Causley development services firm that has provided Bradenton Beach’s contracted building officials for nearly two decades.

Town hall comments

The town hall discussion about Bradenton Beach began with Williams commenting on the delays he’s encountered trying to repair, renovate and reopen the Drift-In.

Former building official alleges pressure to condemn properties, threats
Drift-In owner Derek Williams shared his concerns during the town hall meeting. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

“I have a permit. The building official (Cushing) that worked on my project is sitting in this room. I worked with him, the city planner, the code enforcement folks. I went through every step and all I’ve gotten is government overreach, private property issues. I tried to follow every letter of the law.

“It’s definitely a land grab. Somebody needs to step up and say that’s wrong. All the way along, this is a back-to-back disaster. This is third-world stuff and it needs to be addressed as the highest level. It’s absolutely a tragedy. It is a clown car show but it’s hurting real people,” Williams said.

Speaking next, Cushing said, “I’m the person who issued Derek’s permit. It was done properly. It was done correctly and it was done by the book.”

He then referenced the letter he later handed to Siddique and said he would hit the high points rather than read the entire letter aloud. He noted he’s been a licensed building official for 25 years and a certified floodplain manager for longer than that.

“I’ve been there since Decem­ber of 2023. There has been constant, constant threats to me,” he said. “I know what I’m doing. We were getting things done, we were moving forward, we were doing things the right way. But every time that I didn’t do that for a particular developer – and you all know who I’m talking about – I was threatened. I was threatened by the mayor, the attorney and the police chief: ‘Do we just need to get another building official. Why won’t you do this for him?’ Things that were illegal,” Cushing said.

“I have a code of ethics I have to follow and I don’t want to lose that license. That’s my livelihood. I lost my job now and the company I worked for fired me too because I retali­ated about the things that were being said about me – slander­ous things they said about me and those things are not true. There’s dirty stuff going on in that city and somebody needs to look into it,” Cushing said.

“Our state statute says that I, the building official for that jurisdiction, will perform the duties under my responsibility without interference from any person. Not the mayor, not the city attorney, not anybody,” Cushing said.

Former building official alleges pressure to condemn properties, threats
County Commissioner Tal Siddique received a letter from Darin Cushing. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Siddique said he’s been following The Sun’s reporting on the Drift-In permitting issues and other concerns being reported in Bradenton Beach.

“I have not been able to get in contact with anyone from Bradenton Beach. I have not had one phone call back from Bradenton Beach since No­vember. I left a voicemail this morning. I have no idea what the hell’s going on,” Siddique said.

Cushing said he recently interviewed for a position with Manatee County but he fears the “slanderous things” said about him may impact his ability to get a job.

Cushing’s letter

Regarding the start of his tenure in Bradenton Beach, Cushing wrote, “A certain developer, whom I’d known from my time as building official of Longboat Key, began asking me to issue permits that had been placed on hold for various reasons by the previous building official (Steve Gilbert). I reviewed the permits and told the applicant what needed to be done in order for the permits to be released.

“Several times over the next few months, I would get questioned by the city attorney, the mayor and several times by the police chief about what was holding this developer’s permits up. Each time, I would explain what needed to be done, but at the same time felt pressured to just give him his permits.”

Marina

Cushing’s letter addresses the stop-work order he issued to the owner of the Bradenton Beach Marina, developer Shawn Kaleta, when a new bar opened there.

“It had been built and the opening announced with no permits for construction, nor did they have a liquor license. Within hours, the developer called me and said, ‘I talked to the city attorney and the mayor and they’re all good with it.’ ”

According to his letter, Cushing told the developer this was not the attorney or mayor’s decision to make and he would still need to obtain all the needed permits and inspections before the stop-work order was lifted.

Pines

Regarding the hurricane-damaged Pines Trailer Park (owned by Kaleta and invest­ment partners), Cushing wrote, “Following the hurricanes, I was immediately asked for the damage assessment status of the Pines by the developer. He also asked me if I would go ahead and condemn the whole park. I responded that I could not do that and that a proper damage assessment needed to be done.”

His letter notes it was later determined that only a few mobile homes needed to be condemned and the rest could be rehabilitated.

“I was asked no less than 10 times, by either the developer, the attorney, the mayor or the police chief, if I was going to write to the Pines (mobile home) owners and tell them they were done.”

Regarding the Drift-In permitting issues, Cushing acknowledges he erred in not routing the tiki bar permit to the fire marshal for an initial review of the tiki structure and its roof materials.

Cushing’s letter says the city received approximately 10 change of contractor forms from “said developer” a few days before he was suspended. According to Cushing, he told the developer he would not issue the change of contractor permits until all needed documents were correctly completed.

“Two days later, in a senior staff meeting, I was essentially threatened by all of the senior staff – attorney, mayor and police chief – that I needed to release those permits to him; or again, ‘maybe we need to get a different building official,’ ” Cushing states in his letter.

Former building official alleges pressure to condemn properties, threats
Mayor John Chappie and City Attorney Ricinda Perry are alluded to in Darin Cushing’s four-page letter. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Regarding the city attorney and a developer driving around town looking for properties to condemn, Cushing told The Sun on Sunday, “I personally witnessed them driving around together and other people (residents and city employees) visibly witnessed this hap­pening on multiple occasions following the storms. Several owners told me verbally that this had happened to them.”

No response from city

On Feb. 14, The Sun asked Chappie if he wanted to comment on the town hall allegations Cushing made about being threatened by the mayor, city attorney and police chief. Chappie said he had no comment.

On Feb. 15, The Sun sent Cosby a text message contain­ing a link to the town hall meeting video and seeking his comments on Cushing’s allega­tions. Cosby did not respond.

On Feb. 16, The Sun sent an email to Chappie, Perry and Cosby seeking their comments on these allegations. The email included a link to the archived town hall meeting video and a copy of Cushing’s letter. As of press time, The Sun had not received a response from the city.

The archived video of the town hall meeting can be viewed on YouTube by search­ing for “Tal Siddique Town Hall @ Island Branch Library.” The Bradenton Beach discussion begins at the 22-minute mark and continues to the 40-minute mark. The letter can be viewed in its entirety below.

(Sun reporter Leslie Lake contributed to this story)

Cushing Letter – Page 1
Cushing Letter – Page 2
Cushing Letter – Page 3
Cushing Letter – Page 4

Related coverage:

 

Pines homeowners offered more time in exchange for titles

 

City approves building official, floodplain manager candidates

 

Chiles/Perry/Kaleta not-for-profit dissolved

 

FEMA review may jeopardize flood insurance, buildings

 

City attorney explains Cushing suspension

 

Cushing deserves fair hearing

 

Public speaks out in favor of Drift-In reopening

 

Letter to the Editor: Drift-In owners appeal to governor for help

 

Commissioners discuss restructuring building department

 

Bradenton Beach building official suspended pending hearing

 

Major development hearing required for Drift-In tiki

 

Owners may ask for rezoning of Pines

 

Kaleta solicits post-hurricane development investors

 

‘Love Shack’ cottage owner staves off condemnation

 

Condemnation notice rescinded for Gulf Drive home

Chiles/Perry/Kaleta not-for-profit dissolved

Chiles/Perry/Kaleta not-for-profit dissolved

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

BRADENTON BEACH – Bradenton resident Rhea (Ashley) Chiles has dissolved the short-lived Together as Bradenton Beach Inc. not-for-profit corporation she formed in November with Bradenton Beach City Attorney Ricinda Perry and developer Shawn Kaleta to provide hurricane relief.

Chiles, the daughter of Anna Maria Island businessman Ed Chiles, filed the articles of incorporation with the Florida Division of Corporations on Nov. 22. After having second thoughts about her involvement in the corporation, she filed the articles of dissolution on Feb. 3.

The articles of incorporation list Chiles as the incorporator and registered agent of the 501(c)(3) organization and Perry and Kaleta as officers and/or directors, with a South Carolina address listed for Perry and a Holmes Beach address listed for Kaleta.

Formed after hurricanes Helene and Milton struck Anna Maria Island, the articles of incorporation include this statement: “The specific purpose for which this corporation is organized is to establish a foundation that benefits our local community in times of need, support local businesses and families and encourage community engage­ment and participation.”

When contacted by The Sun on Dec. 4, Chiles said she had decided to dissolve the corporation. When contacted on Jan. 6 regarding the corporation still being listed as active, Chiles said she tried to dissolve it and would follow up on those efforts. On Jan. 25, Chiles said she tried but was unable to speak to someone at the Florida Division of Corporations by phone. On Feb. 3, she successfully filed the articles of dissolution form provided at the SunBiz.org website and Together as Bradenton Beach Inc. is now listed as inactive.

On Feb. 2, the still-active articles of incorporation were displayed in a satirical animated video titled, “Who Wants to Be A Millionaire?” Featuring the likenesses of Perry, Kaleta and Mayor John Chappie, the production is critical of some post-hurricane development and land acquisition activities in Bradenton Beach.

The video was posted on Facebook under the “Kevin-Kyle Kaczyinski Von Oswold” pseudonym and at the TheRealKVO.com website, both of which are referenced in a civil lawsuit filed by former Manatee County Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge and campaign consultant Anthony Pedicini.

The lawsuit alleges the unauthorized publication and commercial use of Van Ostenbridge’s and Pedicini’s names and likenesses and names Hawke Cates, Bradenton Times Publisher Joe McClash and unknown “Doe Defendants” as defendants.

Chiles statement

On Feb. 4, Chiles provided The Sun with a written statement that said, “On Nov. 22, I was invited by a mutual friend to Ricinda’s rental on 11th Street South in Bradenton Beach to discuss the annual Christmas on Bridge Street event. She asked if I would be willing to help co-chair the event as she was so overwhelmed, as were the Bridge Street merchants who were dealing with so much. I know this event to be a favorite of the community and was happy to offer any assistance I could. At some point, the creation of an LLC was discussed. While I am not experienced, I offered to help look into and begin the filing process as I had the spare time. I have never created an LLC. While it was initially filed, it never received financial contributions of any kind. I also realized I was way over my head with the scope of what creating an LLC would take.”

Chiles confirmed in a text message that her Nov. 22 meeting with Perry occurred at 112 11th St. S. According to Bradenton Beach City Treasurer Shayne Thompson, that residential property holds a city-issued transient public lodging establishment (vacation rental) license issued to BB Bayfront LLC and attorney Louis Najmy.

According to the Manatee County Property Appraiser’s Office, that property and structure are owned by BB Bayfront LLC. According to the Florida Division of Corporations, BB Bayfront LLC lists Najmy as the corporation’s registered agent and Kaleta as its manager.

In her statement, Chiles said, “After that evening, I immediately started reaching out to business owners and community members and it became very clear to me that Bradenton Beach was just not ready for an event of this kind. So many people were still displaced; so many businesses were still rebuilding. I did not feel it would bring the community the unity and joy the event was intended to provide, nor would it be very successful. I voiced my concerns to Ricinda. She wanted to proceed and I removed myself from any involvement in the event and did not personally attend. At that point, I began the dissolution process for the LLC. I was told by SunBiz (Florida Division of Corporations) it had been dissolved. It was later brought to my attention it was in fact still active, so I resubmitted everything.”

Perry response

On Dec. 4, The Sun sent an email to Perry regarding the formation and intent of Together as Bradenton Beach Inc. Mayor John Chappie was copied on that email.

Later that day, The Sun received an email from Perry that said, in part, “I don’t believe the charity is moving forward. I was out of town for Thanksgiving and didn’t know the non-profit was named. Ashley then took the steps to secure the name with SunBiz and I gave her my credit card to set up the name.”

Perry stated the corporation could potentially be used to accept donations at the city-sponsored Christmas on Bridge Street event and the funds raised could potentially be distributed to Bradenton Beach residents, community members and organizations in need of post-hurricane assistance.

“The involvement of Shawn (Kaleta) was that he wanted to make a contribution to a charity and had other people interested,” Perry stated.

She noted Kaleta wanted to donate to a charity specifically focused on Bradenton Beach.

Regarding any potential conflicts of interest created by the city at­torney and a prominent Bradenton Beach developer serving as officers/ directors for the same not-for-profit corporation, Perry stated, “I didn’t see a conflict because all I thought I would do was help her (Chiles) get a charity initiated and off the ground and I would donate to it. Just because I was named in a document that someone else created and I never saw, and was dissolved within a week once she realized I had another char­ity (for Christmas on Bridge Street), doesn’t mean I was on a board or participated in any meetings on a non-profit with Ashley or Shawn.”

‘Love Shack’ cottage owner staves off condemnation

‘Love Shack’ cottage owner staves off condemnation

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

BRADENTON BEACH – Another Bradenton Beach homeowner has successfully fought the city’s condemna­tion of his hurricane-damaged home.

In November, Bradenton Beach resident Gash Caudill got the condemnation order rescinded for the ground-level duplex he and his 84-year-old mother share.

Knoxville, Tennessee resident and oncologist Dr. Daniel Ibach has now done the same for the small, ground-level, beachfront cottage he and his wife, Courtney, own at 2216 Gulf Drive N. After purchasing the cottage in 2007, the Ibachs renamed it “The Love Shack.” The cottage serves as their vacation home and as a vacation rental managed by Mike Norman Realty. The Ibachs also own five nearby non-beachfront residential structures.

‘Love Shack’ cottage owner staves off condemnation
“The Love Shack” looked like this before Hurricane Helene hit in late September. – Courtney Ibach | Submitted

The Ibachs returned to Bradenton Beach on Oct. 2 to assess the damage Hurricane Helene inflicted and they brought a work crew with them.

“ ‘The Love Shack’ lost its front window and did have some water inside, but structurally it was sound,” Daniel Ibach said. “We got into the house, removed the furniture and started cleaning. We boarded up the damaged window and had the house ready for inspection by the city by the time we left.”

‘Love Shack’ cottage owner staves off condemnation
“The Love Shack” was damaged by Hurricane Helene’s storm surge. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

The Ibachs have flood, wind and homeowners’ insurance on each of their Bradenton Beach properties. As their successful insurance claims moved forward, they awaited a city inspection as part of the repair permitting process.

‘Love Shack’ cottage owner staves off condemnation
Courtney and Dr. Daniel Ibach love spending time at “The Love Shack.” – Joe Hendricks | Sun

On Oct. 31, Building Official Darin Cushing placed a red condemnation notice on the cottage’s front door.

“This structure is hereby condemned and must be demolished and removed,” the notice said.

“Storm damage beyond repair” was listed as the reason.

‘Love Shack’ cottage owner staves off condemnation
Dated Oct. 31 and signed by Building Official Darin Cushing, this condemnation notice was placed on “The Love Shack’s” front door. – Submitted

On Nov. 4, Ibach received a photo of the condemnation notice from his property manager.

“I was in shock,” Ibach said. “I didn’t get a phone call saying we need to investigate this and I knew no one had been in the house because the property manager would have had to let them in.”

‘Love Shack’ cottage owner staves off condemnation
There isn’t any hurricane damage visible from the Gulf Drive side of the cottage. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Ibach called his contractor and the contractor called the building department the following day to schedule an inspection. On Nov. 6, Ibach received a call from City Attorney Ricinda Perry.

“She said the city has access to funds to pay for, or help pay for the demolition and she could expedite that process for me,” Ibach said. “I knew my house was not condemnable. I told her I did not want her help tearing down the building and I would be contacting my lawyer. It’s intimidating for a city attorney to call you and say we can help you tear your house down. I was very concerned at this point.”

Ibach contacted his attorney and his property manager. According to Ibach, Perry met the property manager at the cottage the following day and was allowed inside. Ibach said his attorney and Perry spoke on the phone on Nov. 8 and Perry said the condemnation order was rescinded.

“They knew my lawyer was recording the conversation. We have proof that they said it’s not condemned,” Ibach said.

Ibach’s attorney then sent Perry a letter seeking written acknowledgement that the condemnation was rescinded. As of Dec. 8, that written acknowledgement had not yet been received.

When contacted by The Sun on Dec. 2, Cushing explained the Oct. 31 condemnation.

“This was another case in which I could barely see the building in the first few days after the storms. It was buried in sand and the house just a few feet to the south (Dick Kuhlman’s “3 Pines Cottage”) was totally destroyed,” he said by email.

‘Love Shack’ cottage owner staves off condemnation
This photo was taken inside “The Love Shack” on Oct. 5. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Regarding potentially premature condemnations, Ibach said, “This should be something the city takes very seriously. It would be refresh­ing to have the city come alongside its members and help. But my feeling was they came alongside my house to see if they could get it torn down. That’s not helping me.”

Ibach said he wouldn’t have sold the beachfront property even if the cottage had been condemned and demolished.

“I would immediately start building something else,” he said.

“The city should protect their constituents. If they have to condemn a house, that’s the last step they should take, not the first. I’m blessed that I can say, ‘No, I’m not going to let you do this to me,’ but a lot of people don’t have the wherewithal to fight this and some will think they have no other options. Demand an inspection and get your own inspection to refute the city’s inspection if you don’t think it’s correct.

“I encourage people to stand up for their rights. One of the hallmarks of the United States of America is that we have private ownership and private property and we are allowed to defend our property with our lives,” Ibach said.

Related coverage:
Bradenton Beach condemns 25 properties
Condemnation notice rescinded for Gulf Drive home

Editorial: Signed palm tree agreement better late than never

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

The now-signed maintenance, indemnification and hold harmless agreement for the flawed Bridge Street coconut palm tree planting project lists April 1 as the project commencement date, which fittingly coincides with April Fool’s Day.

But Mayor John Chappie and the city’s witness, City Clerk Terri Sanclemente, didn’t sign and fully execute the agreement until May 28 – nearly two months after the listed commencement date.

On May 15, City Attorney Ricinda Perry told The Sun a “signed agreement” existed but a copy couldn’t be provided until Sanclemente returned from vacation on May 28. Local developer and project partner Shawn Kaleta might have signed the agreement on behalf of his Beach to Bay Construction Limited Liability Corporation in mid-May, as Perry’s emails indicate, but the agreement wasn’t legally enforceable until Chappie and Sanclemente signed it.

We appreciate Sanclemente promptly providing a copy of the fully executed agreement upon her return. We thank her for acknowledging that she and Chappie signed the agreement that day and for providing additional project-related documents and answers to our questions. Sanclemente did her job, while others associated with the project failed miserably.

Of the 70 coconut palms planted on and around Bridge Street, one already fell on a Bridge Street sidewalk and 22 others were removed from Gulf Drive South and replanted elsewhere along Bridge Street because FDOT doesn’t allow coconut palms and their falling coconuts and palm fronds along state-owned roads. Bradenton Beach leaders apparently don’t share similar safety concerns about city-owned Bridge Street.

During the month-long gap between the plantings and the mayor’s signature, would the city have been solely responsible for any palm tree-related deaths, injuries or property damage that occurred before the agreement became legally binding?

The Perry-drafted agreement includes indemnification language designed to protect the city from project-related lawsuits. An indemnification clause doesn’t prevent the city from being named in a lawsuit. It simply means the city can try to recoup its lawsuit-related losses from Kaleta and his roster of attorneys. That’s a risky proposition for a city financially desperate enough to sign over control of city-owned assets in exchange for shared project costs.

Perry and her elected accomplices are taking liberties with taxpayer assets that might get them removed by shareholders if they sat on a private sector board of directors. A misguided tree-planting project isn’t the worst sin a local government can commit, but the city attorney shouldn’t be leading the lackadaisical mayor and commissioners by their noses in her efforts to broker questionable public-private partnerships.

This fiasco prompted some Sun readers to call for Perry’s termination and Chappie’s resignation. Neither of those scenarios are likely, but maybe the light shined on this botched affair will cause all involved to think twice before pursuing another partnership with Team Kaleta.

Editorial: Palm trees and other shady endeavors

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

Someone once posed the question: “If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?”

The Sun poses a similar question: If the city attorney says there’s a signed agreement for the ill-fated Bridge Street palm tree planting project but nobody has seen it, does the agreement really exist?

In early April, the Bradenton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) that includes the mayor and city commissioners approved planting 80 coconut palm trees along Bridge Street. According to City Attorney Ricinda Perry, the CRA was to contribute $40,000 toward the project and developer Shawn Kaleta and/or one of his LLCs would kick in another $10,000.

Perry told the CRA members there would be a signed maintenance, indemnification and hold harmless agreement in place before the trees were planted. The trees were planted in late April with no signed agreement in place.

A couple of weeks ago, one of the new palms toppled onto a Bridge Street sidewalk and had to be replanted.

Last week, FDOT told the city to remove the new palms planted in the Gulf Drive-Bridge Street roundabout.

Gulf Drive is a state road and FDOT doesn’t allow coconut palms to be planted along state-owned roads because they limit visibility and contain large falling objects like coconuts and palm fronds.

You’d think someone with the city or the city’s often-contracted landscaper would have known about this pesky little state rule – or at least checked to see if there was such a pesky little state rule. But that kind of foresight doesn’t mesh with the city’s “You can do it right when you do it over” approach to project management.

So now we know that coconut palms aren’t cool along a state road but they’re still OK standing alongside the highly-traveled, highly-populated city-owned Bridge Street.

To date, Perry and the city have not provided The Sun with a copy of the signed agreement, despite the multiple public records requests made during a two-week period. Perry told us we had to wait until the city clerk returns from her vacation on May 28 before we can see the elusive signed document.

The Florida Public Records Act says the city has to promptly acknowledge public records requests, respond in good faith and make “reasonable efforts” to figure out who has the requested document and where it’s stashed. City officials who break the state law can be fined $500 or removed from office if they try really hard to hide or withhold the requested document.

Perry and Mayor John Chappie were copied on our multiple and still ongoing requests for a signed agreement. Perry gave us an incomplete and unsigned draft version of the agreement that didn’t mention the project partner’s name. She also sent us some emails that showed us how hard she tried to collaborate with Team Kaleta’s lawyers to make this deal happen.

According to the unsigned version of the agreement, Team Kaleta is supposed to maintain the palm trees at their expense for the next 30 years. The unsigned agreement doesn’t specifically mention coconuts or palm fronds and it doesn’t specifically require Team Kaleta to pluck those pesky buggers from the trees before they drop on some unlucky person’s head, child or 1962 Corvette.

The unsigned agreement does however require Team Kaleta to comply with reference Exhibit A – a blank space that calls for a yet-to-be-seen site plan that shows specifically where each new tree was planted – and Exhibit B: “Guidelines for the Management of Coconut Palms.”

The “Guidelines” inform us that coconut palms can grow to be over 100 feet tall, may live 100 years and “regularly shed coconuts and large fronds, which may expose people and property to injury and damage.”

The all-knowing ‘Guidelines” also say, “To minimize this risk, coconuts and fronds must be regularly removed prior to their fall. In certain instances, coconut palms may possess structural defects that increase the risk of failure of a portion or all of the palm.”

Thank you, wise city leaders. What could go wrong?

The “Guidelines” say any coconut palms that show serious defects, conditions or weather damage must be removed (by Team Kaleta) within 14 days of being told to do so. Given that one tree already toppled onto a Bridge Street sidewalk on a sunny day, what’s the over/under on how many palms are going down during our upcoming “more active than usual” hurricane season?

In the absence of the signed agreement, it appears the first tree likely fell before the agreement was signed and dated by Chappie and Team Kaleta. If that first falling tree injured a person, place or thing with no signed agreement yet in place, who would have been liable – the city, Kaleta or both?

The unsigned agreement is also supposed to indemnify (lawyer-speak for “protect”) the city and the CRA against any future liabilities and lawsuits associated with the troublesome palm trees. If someone or something gets clocked by a falling tree, frond or coconut, that unfortunate soul gets to do battle with Team Kaleta’s army of lawyers, while the city sits on the sideline screaming, “Leave us alone, we’re indemnified!”

Mayor Chappie frequently laments the negative impacts that super-sized short-term vacation rental homes, aka “party houses,” have on Bradenton Beach’s residential neighborhoods, but he’s OK taking project money from the Island’s biggest developer of “party houses.”

Instead of sharpening their pencils and wisely managing CRA and city funds for future projects, the mayor and city commissioners are taking the lazy and easy way out by enabling Perry to pursue funding partnerships with Team Kaleta.

In the past year or so, Perry proposed the CRA or city partner with Team Kaleta to improve the city-owned parking lot near the Team Kaleta-owned marina. She also suggested the city partner with Team Kaleta for a Team Kaleta-controlled mooring field near the pier.

In early April – the same day she proposed the ill-advised, poorly-executed palm tree project – Perry proposed the CRA partner with Team Kaleta to install a waterfront pedestrian path that runs from Team Kaleta’s marina, past Team Kaleta’s mobile home park and ends at the city-owned pier.

Who is Perry working for? The city or Team Kaleta? When proposing these public-private partnerships, she sings the praises of a developer good-hearted enough to help fund CRA and city projects, but what she, the mayor and the city commission are really doing is selling the city down the Intracoastal Waterway.

Somehow, the sister cities of Anna Maria and Holmes Beach manage to fund their capital projects without financial aid from Team Kaleta. And in both those cities, the city attorneys focus on the basics – providing legal advice and legal services to their respective city leaders and city staff.

In most cities, a city attorney’s sole job is to dispense legal knowledge. City attorneys don’t usually serve as de facto city managers, project managers and project initiators. But in Perry’s defense, she’s just filling the leadership void created by Bradenton Beach’s weak mayor form of city government, and the weak mayor and weak commission gladly let her do it.

With the threat of state-imposed consolidation looming over the three AMI cities, there’s chatter in local political circles that Chappie wants to serve as the Island-wide mayor if that happens. That leadership scenario might scare some folks, but Island Mayor Chappie and Island Attorney Perry could then partner with Team Kaleta to plant coconut palms and other seeds of dissent throughout the rest of the consolidation fiefdom.

No signed agreement released on palm trees

No signed agreement released on palm trees

Written by Leslie Lake on . Posted in Bradenton Beach, Community News, Featured.

BRADENTON BEACH – After multiple requests by The Sun to the city for the release of a signed agreement in a city partnership with developer Shawn Kaleta for the installation and maintenance of coconut palm trees on Bridge Street, the nearly three-week-long waiting game for the document has thus far come up empty.

The installation of 80 coconut palm trees on and around Bridge Street was approved at an April 3 Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) meeting following assurances by City Attorney Ricinda Perry that a maintenance, hold harmless and indemnification agreement signed by Kaleta would be in place prior to planting in which Kaleta would assume responsibility for maintenance and liability for any damage caused by the palm trees.

The trees were planted the week of April 24.

The first request from The Sun for the signed agreement was made by email on May 6 and received no response. Subsequent email and in-person requests by The Sun were made on May 7, May 15, May 17 and May 23.

The May 15 email request to the agreement received an “out of office” reply. The same day, The Sun emailed Perry requesting a copy of the signed and fully executed agreement.

City Clerk Terry Sanclemente, Mayor John Chappie and Police Chief/Interim Public Works Director John Cosby were among those copied on The Sun’s email request.

In her response, Perry wrote, “I’ll see if the deputy clerks can access the signed agreement. If not, we’ll have to wait until Terri gets back.”

Sanclemente is expected to be back in the office on May 28, after press time for The Sun. She was, however, in the office the week of May 6.

Perry provided a copy of an unsigned, blank draft version of the agreement which did not identify the other party involved with the project and did not include any details regarding the cost of the project or the manner in which the material, installation and maintenance costs would be shared. The agreement is for 30 years.

When asked by The Sun that day for a signed and fully executed copy of the agreement, Perry wrote, “There is a signed agreement. The clerk is out of the office and can provide further documents upon her return.”

The agreement and any other project-associated documents are subject to the Florida Public Records Act and Florida’s Government-in-the-Sunshine Law.

The lingering question remains as to who would be liable for any damage or injuries caused by the trees.

Since the planting of the trees during the week of April 24, things haven’t gone smoothly with the palms.

On May 15, a post on Facebook showed that one of the newly-planted palms apparently had fallen over on Bridge Street. It was replanted on May 17 and secured with a string tied to a metal stake.

On May 24, all the palms that had been planted on Gulf Drive South (State Road 789) were removed due to the trees not being allowed by Florida Department of Transporta­tion (FDOT) regulations. FDOT spokesperson Darryl Richard said coconut palms are not allowed on state roads due to safety concerns about visibility and falling coconuts and limbs.

Chappie was on-site during the tree removal and The Sun asked him about the whereabouts of the palm tree agreement. He responded by deferring questions about the agree­ment to Perry.

OTHER RECENT PARTNERSHIPS PROPOSED

Other public/private partnerships with Kaleta have been proposed this year.

At a Feb. 1 City Commission meeting, Perry presented an offer from the Kaleta-owned Bradenton Beach Marina to act as the city’s harbormaster for a proposed city-owned mooring field near the Bradenton Beach Pier.

“So today the marina said, ‘Would you be interested in us helping you with the mooring balls? And what we can do is basically act as your harbormaster, provide the pump-out service and deal with the people that are paying and something else to think about is the amount you charge people, which they would enforce for us.’ Which would make it so a particular clientele would be able to afford that mooring ball,” Perry said at the meeting.

She described the offer as a potential public/private partnership to protect the city’s dinghy docks and to control derelict vessels.

“I was approached today by the marina, who said, ‘Why don’t you throw mooring balls out there?’ ” Perry said at the Feb. 1 meeting.

Metropolitan Property Ventures LLC purchased the Bradenton Beach Marina from the Bazzy family in 2023. The warranty deed associated with that sale lists Kaleta as the mortgagor and as the president of the Bazzy Marine Corporation. In city meetings, Kaleta is referred to as the marina owner.

Perry said the city doesn’t have the resources or staff to monitor the mooring field. If the marina would be willing to work with the city, the mooring field would be a revenue source for the city, as well as for the marina and would potentially clean up the area.

Derelict vessel removal has been a priority for the Bradenton Beach Police Department and over the years, they have removed dozens of them.

In March, the city commission considered a bid from Kaleta-owned Bridge to Bay Investments for a partnership in a city-wide paid parking contract. Bridge to Bay was one of two bidders with SP Municipal Services as the second bidder.

Under the bid, the proposed paid parking would have included all of Bridge Street, an after-hours parking lot to the east and west side of the police department, the city hall parking lot, the area around the pickleball court on Highland Avenue (with free passes to pickleball players), the shared parking lot with Angela Rodocker at First Street North, Gulf-side parking spaces near the Moose Lodge and future options at the Tingley Library if the building is raised to create additional parking.

At a subsequent meeting, when a decision between the two bids was expected to be made, the city did not accept either bid but instead announced it would consider having city-managed paid parking.

In April, Perry proposed that the CRA partner with Kaleta in the installation of a waterfront pedestrian path running from his marina to Bridge Street on the Pines Trailer Park property he recently purchased. The marina has a new bar the city permitted after it was built and in operation.

The next CRA meeting is scheduled on Wednesday, June 5 at 9:30 a.m. The next city commission meeting is scheduled on Thursday, June 6 at 6 p.m.

Meetings are open to the public and will be held at the Katie Pierola Commission Chambers, 107 Gulf Drive N.

Related coverage: 

Editorial: Palm trees and other shady endeavors

FDOT: Wrong trees, wrong place

Expert outlines optimum coconut palm maintenance

Signed palm tree agreement remains elusive

 

FDOT: Wrong trees, wrong place

FDOT: Wrong trees, wrong place

Written by Leslie Lake on . Posted in Bradenton Beach, Community News, Featured.

BRADENTON BEACH – In what Mayor John Chappie characterized as a “mistake,” the city learned the hard way that coconut palm trees are not allowed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) on Gulf Drive South (State Road 789).

The coconut palm trees that were planted the week of April 24 along the Gulf Drive roundabout and traffic islands at the end of Bridge Street were removed on May 24 after it was determined by FDOT that planting the species was not in compliance with state regulations.

“There’s a right tree in the right place, but this is the wrong tree in the wrong place,” FDOT District One Scenic Highway Coordinator Darryl Richard said on May 24.

That section of Gulf Drive falls under the jurisdiction of FDOT.

“The city didn’t apply for a permit, but even if they had, coconut palms are a species that are not allowed there based on FDOT standards and public safety,” Richard said.

Richard said coconut palms violate sight line and vertical clear zone regulations, making them a safety issue for motorists. Another safety concern with the tree is falling coconuts, he said.

“Palm fronds that would fall into the roadway as well as vertical clearance are safety issues,” Richard said. “Coconuts are also one of the safety factors that could present problems.”

Richard said all his correspondence with the city has been verbal and he met with the mayor earlier in the week.

“He (Mayor Chappie) realized the mistake and decided to remove the palms,” Richard said.

FDOT: Wrong trees, wrong place
Mayor John Chappie, left, is on Bridge Street as the coconut palm trees are removed on Gulf Drive South. – Leslie Lake | Sun

Chappie was on-site during tree removal and spoke to The Sun.

“I won’t make that mistake again,” Chappie said. “FDOT has been really great about explaining and working with us to take care of this.”

The trees were moved by a loader and placed in piles at the paid parking lot owned by Shawn Kaleta at the corner of Bridge Street and Gulf Drive.

FDOT: Wrong trees, wrong place
The removed trees were transported to a temporary resting place. – Leslie Lake | Sun

Chappie didn’t know the exact number of trees being relocated but, according to a site plan prepared by City Attorney Ricinda Perry, there were more than 15 trees.

“We have to be careful of the location because FDOT rules and regulations are pretty strict about sight vision. And that’s what we’re doing,” Chappie said.

Chappie said the trees that were removed will be replanted on Bridge Street.

“We’re just filling everything in,” Chappie said. “If we want to plant some trees, we have to fill out a plan submittal for anything over 24 inches.”

Pictures of the trees being removed and the circumstances surrounding their removal were posted on May 24 on the Anna Maria Island Sun Facebook page, and the coconut telegraph was busy.

“People are already trying to dodge palm fronds to be able to walk down Bridge Street. Should be interesting to see when the coconuts start falling,” Gay Rosnett wrote.

Jeremy Williams wrote, “This whole thing is an embarrassment. The mayor should resign. Lotta funny business mixed up in here.”

FDOT: Wrong trees, wrong place
The removed coconut palms were initially placed in a nearby paid parking lot. – Leslie Lake

The trees that were removed were among the 80 coconut palm trees that were planted in the Bridge Street area in April.

The installation of the trees and a private/public partnership with developer Shawn Kaleta were approved at an April 3 Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) meeting following assurances by Perry that a maintenance, hold harmless and indemnification agreement signed by Kaleta would be in place prior to planting in which Kaleta would assume responsibility for maintenance and liability for any damage caused by the palm trees.

As of May 26, after multiple Sunshine Law public records requests by The Sun for a copy of the agreement beginning on May 6, the city has not provided the document.

The question remains as to who would be liable for any damage or injuries caused by the trees.

On May 24, while at the site of the tree removal, Chappie was asked again about the whereabouts of the signed agreement. He deferred questions to Perry.

Related coverage: 

Editorial: Palm trees and other shady endeavors

No signed agreement released on palm trees

Expert outlines optimum coconut palm maintenance

Signed palm tree agreement remains elusive

Signed palm tree agreement remains elusive

Signed palm tree agreement remains elusive

Written by Leslie Lake on . Posted in Bradenton Beach, Community News, Featured.

BRADENTON BEACH – A newly-planted coconut palm tree that fell over on Bridge Street last week has raised questions about whether the city obtained a signed indemnification agreement prior to planting it and 79 other trees.

At the April 3 Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) meeting, members unanimously approved the installation of 80 coconut palm trees along Bridge Street in a city partnership with developer Shawn Kaleta.

The approval was based on assurances by City Attorney Ricinda Perry that a maintenance, indemnification and hold harmless agreement with Kaleta would be in place prior to planting the trees, with Kaleta taking re­sponsibility for tree maintenance and indemnifying the city against liability for any damage caused by the trees.

The palm trees were planted the week of April 24. On May 15, a Facebook post showed that one tree had fallen over from unknown reasons, causing no known dam­age. Bridge Street workers have reported seeing people picking coconuts from the newly-planted trees.

As of May 19, after multiple Sunshine Law requests to the city from The Sun, no signed and fully executed agreement had been produced by the city. That docu­ment is a public record and subject to the Florida Sunshine Law.

In the absence of a signed con­tract between the city and Kaleta, liability for damage that could be caused by the trees is in question.

Signed palm tree agreement remains elusive
A newly-planted coconut palm tree on Bridge Street that fell on May 15 and was subsequently replanted is being supported by string tied to a piece of metal. – Leslie Lake | Sun

A May 15 Facebook post shows one of the new palms near 120 Bridge St. laying on the ground, apparently having been uprooted. By May 17, the fallen tree had been replanted and was being supported by a string tied to a metal stake.

AGREEMENT ELUSIVE

On April 25, One of Kaleta’s attorneys, Sean Kelly, sent Perry and Kaleta an email that said, “Shawn asked me to finalize this agreement for the coconut palms on Bridge Street. Will you please send me the Exhibit A site plan and the dollar amount for the CRA’s contribution? Then I can update the document and have Shawn sign.”

This email exchange occurred the same week the trees were being planted.

On May 6, The Sun emailed the city clerk asking for a copy of the agreement between the city and Shawn Kaleta (or his business entity) showing the maintenance and indemnification agreement for the newly-planted palms on Bridge Street. The email was sent to city clerk Terri Sanclemente, Perry and Mayor John Chappie. No response was received.

On May 7, a Sun reporter went to city hall to obtain a copy of the contract and was told by the city clerk that it was not there and she had been told it was still being worked on. Another email was sent to Perry that day requesting a copy of the agreement and no response was received.

On May 9, Perry sent an email to Kaleta and attorney Sean Kelly that said, “It took me a bit to find a way to document in a ‘site plan’ the palms and to make sure we knew exactly where Miguel was planting everything.” Kelly responded that day to Perry in an email that said, “Do you have the dollar amounts to insert for contributions from the city and from Shawn?”

Perry wrote that the CRA was contributing $40,000 toward the tree planting project and Kaleta was to contribute $10,000.

On May 14, another Kaleta attorney, Rainier Altiere sent Perry an email that said, “Here is the completed maintenance agreement. The only thing missing is the start date. Please provide me with that and let me know if this is OK for us to have Shawn sign.”

On May 15, Perry sent Kaleta, Kelly and Altiere an email in which she wrote, “This corp (corpora­tion) named in the document was set up at the end of last month. Is it just a ‘shell company’ with no assets or insurance to cover the harm/damage caused by a falling coconut? At a minimum, the company will need an insur­ance policy naming the city that actually covers damage caused by the coconuts. I can’t just have a piece of open (missing word) with no actual protection for the public. Ideas?”

A May 15 email request to the city clerk for a copy of the signed agreement received an “out of of­fice” reply. The same day, The Sun emailed Perry requesting a copy of the signed and fully executed agreement.

Sanclemente, Chappie and Police Chief/Interim Public Works Direc­tor John Cosby were among those copied on The Sun’s email request.

In her response, Perry wrote, “I’ll see if the deputy clerks can access the signed agreement. If not, we’ll have to wait until Terri gets back.”

Perry did, however, provide a copy of a blank draft version of the agreement, which did not identify the other party involved with the project and did not include any details regarding the cost of the project or the manner in which the material, installation and mainte­nance costs would be shared. The agreement is for 30 years. She also provided copies of some of the emails referenced in this story.

When asked by The Sun that day for a signed and fully executed copy of the agreement, Perry wrote, “There is a signed agree­ment. The clerk is out of the office and can provide further docu­ments upon her return.”

On May 17, a Sun reporter attempt­ed to obtain the document in person from the city clerk’s office and was told the contract was not there. That day, The Sun emailed Perry, Kaleta and Kelly asking Kaleta or Kelly to provide The Sun and/or Perry a copy of the signed agreement. As of May 20, The Sun had not received a response to that request.

The email exchanges indicate there was no signed agreement in place when the trees were planted in late April. As of May 20, the city and Perry had not provided any documents that confirmed that a signed and fully executed agree­ment existed that day.

In order for the agreement to be fully executed it must be signed and dated by Chappie, who was out of town for the Governor’s Hurricane Conference taking place in Palm Beach County May 12-17, according to the clerk’s office.

(Sun reporter Joe Hendricks contributed to this story)

Related coverage:

Irrigation system to be installed on Bridge Street

Eighty new coconut palms line Bridge Street

 

Island cities decline to join financial disclosure lawsuit

Island cities decline to join financial disclosure lawsuit

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

ANNA MARIA ISLAND – A Florida law firm plans to file a lawsuit challenging the recently expanded Form 6 financial disclo­sure requirements that now also apply to elected city officials.

Anna Maria, Bradenton Beach and Holmes Beach city commissioners recently discussed the pending lawsuit, but none of the Island cities are so far joining the lawsuit as plaintiffs.

On Jan. 9, city attorneys through­out Florida received a group email from attorney Jamie Cole, a longtime attorney with the Weiss Serota Helfam Cole and Bierman law firm’s Fort Lauderdale office. According to the firm’s website, Cole “represents local officials and governments in matters that help to improve their communities and preserve home rule power.”

In his email to city attorneys, Cole stated, “As I know you are all aware, the Florida Legislature last year passed a law that requires all municipal elected officials to com­plete a Form 6 rather than a Form 1 financial disclosure form as of Jan. 1, 2024. Over a hundred municipal elected officials have resigned rather than fill out the new form, which requires them to disclose their exact net worth, income and asset values.”

Former Bradenton Beach Commis­sioner Jake Spooner and Longboat Key Town Council Member Debbie Murphy were among the city officials statewide who resigned rather than be subjected to the same annual financial disclosure require­ments that have long applied to elected state and county officials.

The expanded financial disclosure requirements also resulted in candidates John Kolojeski, Pat Olesen and Susan Stephen withdrawing their applications for potential appointment to the Anna Maria City Commission.

In his email, Cole stated, “Numerous city officials have contacted us regarding the filing of a lawsuit for declara­tory and injunctive relief. Our firm has decided to file such a lawsuit if at least 10 munici­palities sign on as plaintiffs. Attached is a form resolution that can be used by cities and their elected officials to join the lawsuit. Our legal theories are set forth in the resolution and are based upon the right to privacy and free speech.”

The resolution notes each city joining the lawsuit will be charged a $10,000 flat fee that covers the litigation of an initial court trial, but not a subsequent appeals process.

As of Jan. 18, the 11 cities joining the lawsuit were Golden Beach, Indian Creek, Miami Springs, Lighthouse Point, the Town of Palm Beach, North Bay Village, Bal Harbor, Weston, Delray Beach, Cooper City and Safety Harbor, according to Cole. He expects to file the lawsuit in February, after allowing more time for additional cities to potentially join in the suit.

The resolution claims the Form 6 disclosure require­ments are unconstitutional and are not the least restric­tive means to carry out the state Legislature’s desired financial disclosure require­ments. It also says requiring unpaid or low-paid elected city officials to disclose their net worth, income and assets does not serve any compelling public interest and may potentially make them targets of burglary, identity theft and extortion while deterring other qualified citizens from seeking elected city office.

“Even the President of the United States and members of the U.S. Congress are not required to make such extensive disclosures,” the resolution states.

Elected city officials were previously required to file the significantly less intrusive Form 1 which doesn’t require the disclosure of net worth, income earned or tangible assets.

Elected city officials in office as of Jan. 1 must now file a Form 6 disclosure form by July 1, and future mayoral and city commission candidates must file a Form 6 when qualifying to run for office. Form 6 requires elected officials to report their net worth, income sources, income earned from each source, real estate holdings, bank accounts and account balances, stock holdings, tangible assets valued at more than $1,000 and debts owed.

Once filed, Form 6 becomes a public record that can easily be viewed and downloaded at the Florida Commission on Ethics website.

LOCAL DISCUSSION

Holmes Beach commission­ers discussed the proposed lawsuit on Jan. 11 when Commissioner Terry Schaefer provided a recap of the Form 6 discussion that occurred earlier that day at the Mana­Sota League of Cities meeting. Schaefer said Florida League of Cities President and Cooper City Mayor Greg Ross is not in favor of the proposed lawsuit.

On Jan. 9, the Cooper City Commission voted 3-1 to join the proposed lawsuit and the three supporting commission­ers will be named individually as plaintiffs acting on behalf of the city. Ross, an attorney, voted against Cooper City joining the lawsuit.

Holmes Beach City Attorney Erica Augello said she and her fellow attorneys at the Trask Daigneault law firm are not advising any of their municipal clients to join the lawsuit.

“Whatever decisions are made are going to impact you one way or another, so save your money,” she said. “It’s going to be an uphill battle.”

Island cities decline to join financial disclosure lawsuit
Holmes Beach City Attorney Erica Augello doesn’t recommend joining the lawsuit. Sun File Photo | Joe Hendricks

Commissioner Dan Diggins said, “I would really like us to stop talking about Form 6. It’s law. Let’s live with it. Let’s move on.”

Schaefer noted that anyone still in office as of Jan. 1 had the opportunity to resign before the expanded disclo­sure requirements took effect.

Anna Maria City Attorney Becky Vose told The Sun she received Cole’s email, how­ever, she did not mention the email or the lawsuit during the Anna Maria Commission’s Jan. 11 meeting.

During that meeting, Com­missioner Jon Crane provided some general comments on the Form 6 requirements and said, “I think it’s more home rule terrorism, stomping a foot on the neck of little cities. I’ve been talking to the mayor about having our lobbyist talk to the legislators about an exception for smaller cities, or something else that would take that pressure off of us. I also understand there might be a lawsuit being filed.”

Island cities decline to join financial disclosure lawsuit
Anna Maria Commissioner Jon Crane equates the expanded financial disclosure requirements
to “home rule terrorism.” – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Commission Chair Mark Short noted Form 6 was discussed at the ManaSota League of Cities meeting, but the Florida League of Cities is not taking any action in opposition to the expanded disclosure requirements.

On Jan. 18, Bradenton Beach City Attorney Ricinda Perry initiated a commission discussion on the proposed lawsuit. She said she agrees with the legal argument that the expanded disclosure requirements are a violation of the right to privacy.

Island cities decline to join financial disclosure lawsuit
Bradenton Beach City Attorney Ricinda Perry agrees with the Weiss Serota law firm’s legal analysis. – Sun File Photo | Joe Hendricks

Perry said it’s unfair to subject elected city officials to financial disclosure require­ments that were not in effect when they took office, some of whom own businesses and would have to disclose information that could be used by their competitors.

“I tend to agree with the attorneys who are putting this lawsuit together. There are other means of getting to where the legislators wanted to be,” Perry said.

Mayor John Chappie said, “As a county commissioner for eight years, I filled out the Form 6. Do I like doing it? No, not at all, but it is what it is. I’m not in favor of being part of the lawsuit.”

Commissioner Ralph Cole said he understands the Form 6 disclosure requirement being applied to higher-paid state and county elected of­ficials, but not to a Bradenton Beach commissioner who earns $4,800 per year for serving.

Cole noted the disclosure requirements were expanded without grandfathering in city officials elected before the expanded disclosure requirements took effect. He said determining one’s net worth and the value of tangible assets could be challenging. Chappie agreed that determining the value of some assets, including works of art, can be difficult.

None of the Island city com­missions took formal votes on joining the lawsuit.

ATTORNEY INSIGHTS

The Sun spoke with Cole by phone on Jan. 10 and Jan. 18.

“In the long run, if we win the case and get a declaration that the law’s invalid, I think it will benefit everyone,” he said. “But that’s not going to be for a while, so we’re going to try to get a temporary injunction that would only run in favor of the plaintiffs – the individuals who are actually named in the lawsuit. Just because a city joins that’s not going to be enough. The individuals who are named plaintiffs are the ones who would benefit from the temporary injunction and the cities would be paying for their fees.”

Cole thinks the expanded disclosure requirements are going to have a bigger impact in Florida’s smaller cities.

“Big and small cities are both concerned, but to some extent, it could be a bigger problem in smaller cities where everyone knows each other, and some people feel it’s a bigger invasion of their privacy. Some small cities are going to have problems filling their commissions,” Cole said.

Cole said the Florida Legislature can revisit the 2023 legislation and enact less invasive disclosure requirements for elected city officials, or all elected officials in Florida.

“They certainly could fix this and it doesn’t have to  be all or nothing. It doesn’t have to be Form 1 or Form 6. It could be something in between. They could also change the rules for themselves because it’s not really clear why the net worth of county commissioners or state legislators needs to be disclosed,” Cole said.

He said the Florida Leg­islature could also research how other states handle their financial disclosure require­ments.

“If you were to do that, you will find that none of them require their officials to disclose their net worth, their income and every single asset they own,” Cole said, noting there are some states that require disclosure reporting in dollar ranges rather than specific dollar amounts.

Cole said the Form 6 disclosure requirements provide teenage and adult children the means to look up their parents’ net worth and earnings. He said some city officials resigned because their employers don’t allow them to disclose their salaries and others may be involved in legal disputes or family issues in which disclosing financial assets could be detrimental.

“There’s so many different scenarios that people can’t or don’t want to disclose their financial information. It’s a huge intrusion into their privacy and it forces them to speak in a way that don’t want to speak – and that clearly violates fundamental consti­tutional rights,” Cole said.

He noted paying an ac­countant to assist with a Form 6 filing can cost $2,000 or more.

City prevails in Sunshine lawsuit appeal

City prevails in Sunshine lawsuit appeal

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

BRADENTON BEACH – The city has prevailed in the appeal of a 2019 court ruling that six former city advisory board members violated Florida’s Government in the Sunshine Law.

On Oct. 14, a three-judge panel in the District Court of Appeal of Florida’s Second District (Second DCA) in Lakeland issued a written opinion that provided no details but affirmed 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas’ 2019 ruling that the six defendants violated the Sunshine Law that requires elected and appointed city officials to conduct their official business in a public setting.

Paralegal Michael Barfield and Bradenton Beach City Attorney Ricinda Perry assisted attorney Robert Watrous with the legal work associated with the civil lawsuit that resulted in Nicholas’ 2019 ruling, and the subsequent ruling Nicholas issued later that year regarding the city’s recovery of attorney fees.

Barfield and Perry remained involved in the now-completed appellate process that did not require an additional in-person hearing or the re-arguing of the facts presented during the July 2019 trial.

When contacted by The Sun, Barfield and Perry both confirmed that the per curiam opinion issued by the Second DCA means the city prevailed in the appeal.

“I am pleased that the Second DCA upheld Judge Nicholas’ thoughtful and well-reasoned legal opinion,” Perry said. “I’m glad this part of the case is behind us and that Judge Nicholas’ ruling was vindicated,” Barfield said.

Case history

At the conclusion of the multi-day trial in July 2019 at the Manatee County Judicial Center in downtown Bradenton, Nicholas ruled that Reed Mapes, Tjet Martin, John Metz, Patty Shay, Bill Vincent and Rose Vincent violated the Sunshine Law in 2017 when discussing city business that could have foreseeably come before them in their official capacities as Planning and Zoning Board members or Scenic WAVES Committee members.

The Sunshine Law violations occurred during the non-city-affiliated Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meetings that were recorded by CNOBB members. Those recordings were shared at the CNOBB website and later presented as evidence during the trial.

In August 2019, Mapes, Martin, Metz and the Vincents filed an appeal of Nicholas’ July ruling. Shay did not join the appeal filed with the Second DCA.

In October 2019, Nicholas ordered Mapes, Martin and Metz to pay the city $369,498 as reimbursement for a significant portion of the attorney fees the city incurred during the multi-year legal battle that remained ongoing at the time.

In that written order, Nicholas absolved Shay and the Vincents of any attorney fee-related financial liabilities because they had agreed in principle to settle with the city before the 2019 trial began. The city commission rejected those pre-trial settlement offers because similar agreements could not be reached with Mapes, Martin and Metz.

In November 2020, as the appeal process dragged on, Martin and Metz reached a settlement agreement with the city in which they agreed to collectively pay the city $350,000 and drop their appeals. Shay and the Vincents then reached settlement agreements in which they agreed to each pay the city $500, with Bill and Rose Vincent also dropping their appeals. The settlement agreements left Mapes as the only remaining appellant.

In May 2021, a final judgment was issued against Mapes in the amount of $19,760, to be paid to the city of Bradenton Beach.

City prevails in Sunshine lawsuit appeal
At the time of his death earlier this year, Reed Mapes was the only remaining appellant in the city’s Sunshine Law case. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Mapes passed away on April 13 of this year. On April 28, Watrous sent a letter to Mapes’ attorney and designated trustee, Robert Hendrickson, noting the amount due at that time, including accrued interest, was $20,563.

To date, the judgment against Mapes remains unpaid, but the city still hopes to recover the money owed.

“The city and its taxpayers have been entitled to recover the costs caused by Mr. Mapes and payment is long overdue,” Perry said when contacted regarding the Second DCA opinion.

Proposed charter amendments won’t eliminate supra-majority votes

Proposed charter amendments won’t eliminate supra-majority votes

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

BRADENTON BEACH – Registered voters will see five charter amendment questions on their city ballots this fall.

Two proposed charter amendments pertain to filling vacant commission seats and one pertains to eliminating term limits for elected officials.

Similar to a state or federal constitution, the city charter sets forth how the city is governed and structured. The Bradenton Beach charter also includes language that restricts building heights and requires voter approval to vacate city rights of ways. The city charter can only be amended with the majority support of the city’s registered voters.

On June 2, the city commission adopted on first reading a city ordinance containing five of the six charter amendment ballot questions previously recommended by the commission-appointed charter review committee and drafted by City Attorney Ricinda Perry.

The commission rejected Perry’s final effort to include a sixth ballot question that could have potentially weakened the existing four-fifths supra-majority vote required for certain city commission actions.

The five commission-supported charter amendment ballot questions are slated for final adoption on Thursday, June 16. The adopted ballot questions will then be submitted to the Manatee County Supervisor of Elections for inclusion on the fall ballot.

Vacancies and term limits

Working somewhat in unison, proposed charter amendments 2 and 3 address filling vacant city commission seats, while proposed charter amendment 4 addresses term limits.

If approved by city voters, proposed charter amendment 2 would allow the commission to appoint someone from outside of a specific commission ward to serve on the commission if no resident of that ward is willing to run or be appointed to that seat.

Proposed charter amendment 3 would allow the commission to appoint someone to fill a commission vacancy of more than six months created by a sitting commission member’s mid-term resignation. The charter currently requires a special election to fill such a vacancy of more than six months.

In 2021, city voters narrowly voted in favor of retaining the existing term-limits set forth in the charter. Proposed charter amendment 4 seeks to eliminate the term limits that result in an elected official term-limiting out of office after serving three consecutive two-year terms.

During Thursday’s meeting, Perry explained how voter approval of proposed charter amendment 4 would allow incumbent commissioner Marilyn Maro to serve another term even though her term expires in November.

Proposed charter amendments won’t eliminate supra-majority votes
Commissioner Marilyn Maro’s term is scheduled to expire in November. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Perry said Maro can run for the Ward 2 seat, and if she wins that race, and city voters eliminate term limits, she can then serve another term. If Maro runs and wins but voters retain term limits, that seat would be filled by person receiving the second highest number of votes.

If no other candidate runs against Maro, the two-year vacancy would be filled by commission appointment. If city voters adopt charter amendment 2, the commission could appoint someone from outside of Ward 2 to serve that full two-year term if no one from that ward applies to fill the vacancy.

After Thursday’s meeting, Maro said she had not yet decided if she’s running again. Mayor John Chappie and Commissioner Jake Spooner’s terms expire in November 2023.

Supra-majority retained

The commission directed Perry to draft an ordinance containing five of the six charter amendment questions recommended by the charter review committee on May 19, rejecting a sixth proposed ballot question pertaining to supra-majority votes.

The charter currently says an affirmative supra-majority vote of at least four of the five commission members shall be required to approve any comprehensive plan amendment (including map or text amendments), rezoning, special exception, variance or the vacation of any city right of way.

During Thursday’s meeting, Perry proposed new charter language that said, “The commission shall clarify and define supra-majority in the city of Bradenton Beach Land Development Code, as well as establish the number of elected officials required for a supra-majority vote.”

Perry said she included the supra-majority question in the first reading of the ordinance because it could be removed during first reading but could not be added to the ordinance if not publicly noticed as such.

Perry suggested retaining the fourth-fifths supra-majority commission vote – and subsequent city voter approval – to vacate any city-owned right of ways, while allowing the commission to decide if a supra-majority or simple majority vote is required for other actions that currently require the supra-majority support of the commission.

Perry questioned what would happen if one commission member had to recuse themselves from such a vote. The commission agreed that the applicant would then need the approval of all four remaining commission members.

Commissioner Ralph Cole said amending the charter as the charter review committee and Perry proposed could result in three or fewer votes being needed to approve a comprehensive plan amendment that would allow a stand-alone parking garage.

Chappie said he likes the higher four-fifths standard for certain commission actions, even though it makes the approval process tougher for developers.

During public input, city resident and Planning and Zoning Board member John Burns asked why the supra-majority question was included in the ordinance after the commission rejected it on May 19. Burns said he likes the higher threshold for certain commission actions and he wants it to be harder, not easier, for the commission to govern when addressing issues of this nature.

Proposed charter amendments

The charter amendment questions will appear on the bal­lot seeking from the city’s registered voters a “yes” vote for approval or a “no” vote for rejection.

The ballot questions are:

  1. FORFEITURE OF OFFICE

Currently the city charter vests au­thority in three arbitrators to hold for­feiture of office proceedings against an elected official with costs to be borne by the city. Should the city revise its charter to eliminate the three arbitra­tor-panel procedure and replace it with the former forfeiture provision utiliz­ing the city commission to conduct the proceedings?

  1. TEMPORARY AT-LARGE FILLING OF VACANCIES

The current city charter requires a ward commissioner to reside in the ward they represent. Should the city amend its char­ter to establish a procedure to temporarily fill the ward seat for one term with an at-large commissioner if no ward resident is available or willing to run for office?

  1. FILLING OF VACANCIES BY APPOINTMENT

The current city charter requires the city to provide a special election to fill a vacancy that results in more than six months from a resignation required by Section 99.012, Florida Statues. Should the charter be amended to allow for all vacancies to be appointed by the city commission?

  1. QUALIFICATIONS AND TERMS OF OFFICE

Should the city amend its charter to remove term limits and maintain two-year terms for all elected positions with an effec­tive date of June 16, 2022, in order to allow currently seated elected officials the ability to run for office, if otherwise termed out?

  1. ACTIONS REQUIRING AN ORDINANCE

Currently the city charter sets forth actions requiring an ordinance. Should the city amend the charter to remove employee personnel benefits and pro­cedures from this section and require actions of the city regarding employee personnel benefits and procedures to be adopted in a public meeting through a resolution of the commission?

Undergrounding project facing unexpected cost increase

Undergrounding project facing unexpected cost increase

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

BRADENTON BEACH – The city’s Gulf Drive utilities undergrounding project is facing an unanticipated potential funding shortfall of about $365,000.

On Thursday, June 3, City Attorney Ricinda Perry discussed the matter with city commission members, some of whom were already aware of the potential financial crisis.

As she did on the previous Bridge Street undergrounding project, Perry is serving as the city liaison for the current Gulf Drive undergrounding project that extends from the south end of the city, near Longboat Pass, to Sixth Street South. The project also includes the utility lines being undergrounded along those connecting side streets. As he did on the Bridge Street project, Mark Porter is again providing consulting services for the Gulf Drive project.

The city’s undergrounding project is being funded by a $2 million state appropriation and the state-imposed deadline to complete the project is June 30.

During the preliminary stages of the Gulf Drive project, the city requested a non-binding cost estimate from Florida Power & Light (FPL) for that company’s portion of the project costs, which include removing the existing power lines and power poles.

According to Perry, FPL’s non-binding cost estimates came in between $360,000 and $390,000, but on May 17 she received a binding cost estimate from FPL for $1,187,029.

“There is no way we have funds to pay that price,” Perry said.

Perry said FPL attributed the higher price to the fact that FPL replaced the old wooden power poles with concrete power poles when hardening those lines approximately six years ago. Perry said FPL did not account for the concrete poles when making its binding cost estimate. She said FPL representatives admitted the mistake but said little could be done to lower the costs established by tariffs implemented by the Florida Public Service Commission. According to FPL representative Ray Dowling, the tariffs establish the fixed rates FPL charges for specific tasks such as removing power lines and power poles.

Perry said the Verizon lines are expected to come down in two weeks, the Comcast lines are expected to come down in four to five weeks and FPL will not remove its power lines and poles until the city pays the amount cited in the binding estimate.

Perry told the commission she requested assistance from State Rep. Will Robinson Jr. and lobbyist Dave Ramba. Perry said Robinson told her there’s no money in the state budget to further assist the city. Perry said Dowling told her there was nothing more FPL could do and the city or the state would simply have to find the additional funds.

Possible solutions

On May 20, Perry received an adjusted estimate from FPL for $907,038 which included a rebate on materials and an additional discount for doing a total of at least three miles of undergrounding now or in the future. As of May 25, Perry was able to reduce the FPL costs to $856,036.

Undergrounding project facing unexpected cost increase
The Bradenton Beach Commission and City Attorney Ricinda Perry are trying to navigate a significant funding shortfall. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

“This is just for their engineering, materials and wrecking lines,” Perry said. “I must complete that $2 million appropriation. If I don’t, the risk is we have to pay it back to the state. That will bankrupt my city.”

Perry said Wilco Electrical is being paid $827,000 for its portion of the project, Spectrum is being paid $100,000, Verizon is being paid $110,000, the underground boring costs are $131,000 and there are additional costs and consulting fees. She said she anticipates receiving additional discounts from the other contractors and companies involved with the project.

Perry said the project calls for the removal of 89 power poles and FPL has given the city the option of not removing 60 of those poles.

“If we cut those out of the project, I will come within the cost estimate they have given to me. The problem I have with that is I’ve used state funds to build those lines. How could I ever pass a budget audit with the state saying I put your money in the ground but I’m not actually going to take out the lines? That’s not a solution. I need to complete the project,” Perry said.

Perry said she’s looking at other options, including the elimination of other projects that were to be funded with excess beach concession funds previously approved by the Manatee County Commission. Perry said the city previously planned to use approximately $294,000 in excess beach concession funds granted by the county to help fund a bike trial, install signage and lighted crosswalks and/or make improvements to the Old Town Tram program.

“If we are allowed to use that funding and cannibalize those projects, I can probably make the shortfall that exists from FPL’s malfeasance. I know we don’t have money in the general reserve and we cannot afford to not complete the project. I need the commission to authorize me to use the concessionaire funds that appear to be available for this type of use,” Perry said, noting that county approval also would be needed.

Perry said City Clerk Terri Sanclemente and City Treasurer Shayne Thompson recently told her there are no additional unallocated funds available in the current fiscal year budget.

Commissioner Jake Spooner asked if the city could take out a bond or arrange a 10-year payment plan with FPL if all else fails.

The commission agreed to let Perry pursue the available options and Chappie said he would schedule an emergency meeting if needed.

AMI Privateers invade city hall

AMI Privateers invade City Hall

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

BRADENTON BEACH – The Anna Maria Island Privateers staged a friendly fundraising invasion of Bradenton Beach City Hall Friday evening.

The invading Privateers captured City Commissioner Jake Spooner inside city hall and shackled him to the mast of the Skullywag – the Privateer’s 65-foot pirate ship-themed vehicle that dropped anchor in the City Hall parking lot.

AMI Privateers invade City Hall
Privateer John “Lil’ John” Rutherford tracked down Commissioner Jake Spooner inside City Hall. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

For good measure, the ransom-seeking Privateers also snatched City Attorney Ricinda Perry and Commissioner Jan Vosburgh.

AMI Privateers invade city hall
Commissioner Jan Vosburgh proclaimed Friday to be Privateers’ Day in Bradenton Beach. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

In her quest for freedom, Vosburgh was forced to turn over a ceremonial key to the city and proclaim Friday, Jan. 8 as Privateers’ Day in Bradenton Beach.

Mayor John Chappie and the city commissioners were given advance notice of the pending invasion during Thursday night’s commission meeting. Armed with a plastic sword, Chappie put up a valiant but short-lived fight to prevent the Privateers from storming city hall Friday evening in search of Spooner.

AMI Privateers invade City Hall
Mayor John Chappie tried in vain to defend City Hall from the friendly invaders. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

In response to the ransom demands that Privateer Liaison Officer Tim “Hammer” Thompson announced from the foredeck of the Skullywag, Spooner, Perry, Chappie and the assembled citizens ponied up $650 in donations to free the captured city officials. The money raised during the ceremonial invasion will assist the Privateers’ ongoing efforts to provide scholarship assistance to local college students.

Standing aboard the Skullywag, and joined by additional chamber representatives for a ribbon-cutting ceremony, Anna Maria Island Chamber of Commerce President Terri Kinder presented the Privateers with a proclamation that provides the Island-based non-profit organization with the authority to pillage and plunder their way about the Island during their year-long 50th anniversary celebrations.

AMI Privateers invade city hall
Members of the Anna Maria Island Chamber of Commerce joined the Privateers aboard the Skullywag for a ribbon-cutting ceremony. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Friday’s festivities concluded with the Privateers inviting those present to join them in the celebratory sharing of snacks, grog and champagne. The Privateers then boarded the Skullywag and sailed over to the Drift In to continue their marauding ways.

AMI Privateers invade city hall
The Privateers arrived at Bradenton Beach City Hall aboard their flagship, Skullywag. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Conducted entirely in the spirit of fun, fundraising and celebration, the theatrical invasion of City Hall was planned well in advance of the real-life events that unfolded at the U.S. Capitol building in Washington D.C. earlier in the week. Similar fundraising invasions are being planned on the government fortresses in Anna Maria and Holmes Beach.

Thieves Market returns

Taking place in a new location this year, the Privateers’ seasonal Thieves Market will kick off at the G.T. Bray Recreational Center, 5502 33rd Ave. Drive W. in Bradenton, on Saturday, Jan. 16 from 8 a.m. until 3 p.m.

AMI Privateers invade city hall
The Privateers’ Thieves Market returns on Saturday, Jan. 16. – AMI Privateers | Submitted

The Thieves Market’s traditional Coquina Beach location is not available this season due to drainage, stormwater and landscaping improvements taking place there.

Thieves Market offerings will include pre-owned treasures, handmade jewelry, apparel, sporting goods, antiques, food trucks, baked goods, fresh vegetables, a kids’ zone, live music and much more.

The monthly pirate-style flea markets will continue on Saturday, Feb. 20, Saturday, March 20 and Saturday, April 17. Market admission is free for shoppers. Market vendors pay $50 per market date to secure a 12×25-foot vending space. Larger spaces also are available.

If you’d like to hawk your wares at the Thieves Market, please contact Kim “Syren” Boyd at 931-639-0986 or reserve your space online at the Privateer’s website, www.amiprivateers.org.

The proceeds raised at the Thieves Markets will assist the Privateers’ ongoing mission of “Pirates for kids and community.”

Scholarship fundraising party

Replacing the Privateers’ Christmas party that was postponed in December, the Privateers will host a scholarship fundraising party at the Drift In in Bradenton Beach at 5 p.m. on Saturday, Jan. 30. The fundraising efforts will include the infamous ‘Lotto Board’ raffle that earns the winner a $100 bill and $300 worth of scratch-off lottery tickets that could be worth a pirate’s fortune.

Judge orders three Sunshine Law defendants to reimburse city

Judge orders three Sunshine Law defendants to reimburse city

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

BRADENTON BEACH – Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas has issued an order calling for Sunshine Law lawsuit defendants Reed Mapes, Tjet Martin and John Metz to potentially pay the city of Bradenton Beach at least $369,498 for attorney’s fees.

In the eight-page written order on the amount of fees and costs that Nicholas issued Wednesday morning, the judge relieved co-defendants Patty Shay, Bill Vincent and his wife, Rose Vincent, of any financial responsibilities regarding the city’s efforts to recover attorney fees and additional legal costs for the civil lawsuit the city filed in August 2017.

The lawsuit sought a judge’s ruling as to whether six former city advisory board members violated the Florida Sunshine Law, which pertains to open meetings and public records.

On July 19, 2019, Nicholas ruled that Mapes, Martin, Metz, Shay, Bill Vincent and Rose Vincent each violated the Florida Sunshine Law in the spring and early summer of 2017 when discussing public business at their non-city-affiliated Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meetings. At the time the violations occurred, Mapes, Metz, Shay and Bill Vincent served as Planning and Zoning Board members. Martin and Rose Vincent served as Scenic WAVES Committee members.

“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 most recent order.

Nicholas relieved Shay and the Vincents of their financial liabilities after learning earlier this year that they signed settlement agreements with the city shortly before the July 2019 trial began. The commission then rejected the settlement agreements initiated on the city’s behalf because Mapes, Martin and Metz had not expressed interest in entering into similar pre-trial settlement agreements.

Judge orders three Sunshine Law defendants to reimburse city for attorney's fees
From left, Reed Mapes, Patty Shay and Tjet Martin were among the six defendants in the 2017 lawsuit that resulted in Mapes and Martin and John Metz (not shown) being ordered to reimburse the city for attorney’s fees. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

“It is further ordered and adjudged that the plaintiffs (the city of Bradenton Beach) 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.

The order also addresses approximately $31,000 in additional non-attorney-related legal costs that include court reporter fees and filing fees also sought by the city.

“The court also reserves jurisdiction to resolve the issue regarding the city’s costs to determine if they too should be imposed upon defendants Metz, Mapes and Martin,” the order says.

“The court anticipates that one additional hearing will be necessary to resolve the outstanding issues of apportionment, joint and several liability and to again determine the amount of the costs and whether they should be awarded in addition to the attorney’s fees awarded herein,” the order says.

Nicholas’ ruling was the result of hearings that took place via Zoom video conferencing on June 10 and Aug. 13.

Pre-trial settlement offers

The fee recovery proceedings took an unanticipated turn during the June 10 hearing when Shay, representing herself as a pro se defendant, presented the argument that she should not be ordered to pay more than the $500 she agreed to pay in the settlement offer that Watrous and Barfield presented to her before the trial began.

Nicholas said he was not aware that Shay had agreed to settle with the city.

“Why should Ms. Shay bear the cost of a trial that she did not want to have?” Nicholas said on more than one occasion that day.

The Vincents then presented similar arguments regarding their rejected settlement agreements. Nicholas said he was not aware of the Vincents’ settlement offers either.

He learned that on June 28, 2019, the city commission rejected the three settlement agreements that acknowledged Sunshine Law compliance failures. He also learned that each of the three defendants provided the city with $500 settlement checks that were returned uncashed.

Representing the city, attorney Robert Watrous told Nicholas the city commission rejected those three settlement agreements because Mapes, Martin and Metz had not agreed to similar settlement agreements. Watrous said anything less than six settlement agreements would have still subjected the city and its taxpayers to the costs of a trial.

During the August hearing, Mapes, Martin and Metz’s attorney, Thomas Shults, claimed they never received the same pre-trial settlement offers presented to Shay and the Vincents.

Reactions to order

When contacted Wednesday morning, Shay commented on Nicholas’ order.

“I am grateful and so relieved. I’m just happy that it’s over. It’s been three tough years. As I stated in court, I was willing to settle this from the very beginning and on numerous occasions, when offers were made, I was willing to accept them. But as I said in the hearing on June 10th, I didn’t have the power or ability to convince the other pro se defendants to do that,” Shay said.

When contacted via email Wednesday afternoon and asked if he wished to comment on the ruling, Mapes said, “No.”

As of Wednesday evening, Martin, Metz, Shults and the Vincents had not responded to The Sun’s email requests for comment.

When contacted Wednesday afternoon, City Attorney Ricinda Perry said, “I am pleased with the detailed order from Judge Nicholas that serves to make the taxpayers whole and we look forward to obtaining a judgment to award the costs as well. The order clearly stands behind the transparency required of government so as to prevent the erosion of trust and integrity by those who serve the public. Government is called to serve the people; not the people who form the government.”

What next?

Sarasota-based paralegal and Sunshine Law expert Michael Barfield has been assisting the city with this case since its inception in 2017.

“It’s not over yet, but I think this is a significant victory that will go a long way towards making the city whole and healing its treasury,” Barfield said Wednesday afternoon in response to Nicholas’ order.

Barfield is now assisting attorney Mark Caramanica and Perry in the city’s defense of the appeals filed by five of the six defendants regarding Nicholas’ 2019 ruling that they violated the Sunshine Law – an appeal process Shay is not participating in.

Judge orders three Sunshine Law defendants to reimburse city for attorney's fees
From left, City Attorney Ricinda Perry, attorney Robert Watrous and paralegal Michael Barfield served as the city’s legal team during the 2019 trial and the attorney’s fees hearings that followed. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

According to Barfield, “The payment of $369,498 in attorney fees, and any additional legal costs ordered by Nicholas must be paid by the three defendants in full or by posting a bond. Only if the defendants prevail in the appeals process that is currently proceeding through the Second District Court of Appeal in Lakeland would the monies be returned.”

Regarding Nicholas’ latest order, Barfield said, “The order is not final yet in terms of it being subject to appeal. And there’s still some steps that need to be taken on the costs, as well as apportionment among the three defendants that Judge Nicholas saddled with the fees. When that happens, the city will then take the position that they (Mapes, Martin and Metz) need to obtain a supersedeas bond. If they lose the appeal, then there’s no further fighting. The city gets its money. That’s the position we’ll take and the city will insist that they post a supersedeas bond,” Barfield said.

According to the Colonial Bonds & Insurance website, “A supersedeas bond, also known as a defendant’s appeal bond, is a type of surety bond that a court requires from an appellant who wants to delay payment of a judgment until an appeal is over.”

Previous settlement offers

On Sept. 5, 2017 – less than one month after the city filed the civil lawsuit – attorney Jim Dye submitted to Watrous a settlement offer proposed on behalf of the five defendants he represented at the time: Mapes, Martin, Shay and the Vincents.

Dye’s letter noted the five defendants he represented had all resigned from their city board positions and were each willing to pay the city $100 toward the city and co-plaintiff Jack Clarke’s legal fees. That offer stated there would be no admission or denial of liability or fault regarding the alleged Sunshine Law violations. The city commission rejected that offer because it contained no acknowledgment of violating the Sunshine Law.

In March 2019, the defendants collectively rejected a settlement offer proposed by the city that requested each defendant pay the city $500 each, or $3,000 collectively, and the defendants collectively acknowledge errors were made regarding Sunshine Law compliance. The city’s settlement offer was contingent on all six defendants’ acceptance.

The defendants collectively rejected that offer and responded with a counteroffer that proposed they make a $10,000 donation to the Annie Silver Community Center and contained alternative language that said “errors may have occurred” rather than “errors did occur” regarding Sunshine Law compliance.

In April 2019, the city commission offered to accept a settlement offer that stated “errors may have occurred” if the defendants agreed to pay the city’s attorney’s fees and legal costs to date, which at that time totaled approximately $203,000.The defendants rejected that offer.

In late May of 2019, the defendants presented the city with individual settlement counteroffers that collectively sought a total of $60,902 in attorney fee reimbursements from the city and an additional $24,444 from Clarke.

Judge orders three Sunshine Law defendants to reimburse city for attorney's fees
John Metz is one of three defendants facing a possible shared financial obligation to the city of Bradenton Beach of more than $369,000. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

“It appears to be lost on the city commission and Mr. Clarke that they are exposed to substantial monetary liability in this case. This liability consists of not just the attorney’s fees and cost the city will expend for the trial and the appeals thereafter, but also the attorney’s fees and costs incurred by all defendants,” said the offer Shults prepared on Metz’s behalf.

“The open meetings law permits the award of attorney’s fees and costs against the city and Clarke if the court finds this suit was filed in bad faith or was frivolous. The city and Clarke can rest assured that Mr. Metz will pursue his right to such award if this matter is not resolved,” Metz’s offer said.

The city commission rejected all of those counteroffers and instructed the city’s legal team to continue preparing for the trial.