Skip to main content

Tag: Shawn Kaleta

Kaleta expected to release statement on Pines

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

BRADENTON BEACH – Since receiving the news from the city building official on Oct. 17 that FEMA guidelines triggered a city ordinance requiring the Pines Trailer Park mobile homeowners to either vacate or elevate their structures, they have been waiting for a statement from the ownership.

Developer Shawn Kaleta, manager of the Pines Park Investors LLC that owns the Pines Trailer Park, said on Oct. 25 that he will issue a statement about the future of the Pines once the city makes all details available to him.

Kaleta was invited by Manatee County officials to speak about the state of the hospitality industry at a press conference at Manatee Beach. He touched briefly on the Pines during his presentation and following that, he spoke to The Sun.

“I have not confirmed anything, there’s not much I can say until I have the details,” Kaleta said. “I’m committed to get something out as soon as possible. We all don’t like a state of uncertainty. Give us the answer, give us the resolution. I want that so I know what step two and three is.”

Kaleta said the plan for the park was, and still is, to have it remain as a mobile home park for the next generation.

“The deal, when I bought it, is public. I have to keep it like that, with no intent to develop; nor do I have that intent,” Kaleta said. “Now I have to figure out what it will be – RVs, mobile homes or something else?”

Kaleta said the property purchase by the LLC took place on Sept. 30, 2023 and since then there has been water in the units three times.

“At the end of the day, it’s Florida and it’s ground level,” he said. “I’ve been an advocate of making sure all the buildings we’ve built meet all the codes. Again the plan for this park is to remain what it was for the next generation. I can’t make determinations or statements until I have all the facts.”

Kaleta said he has yet to get anything in writing from the city of Bradenton Beach.

“I’m in the dark as to what will be done,” he said. “My understanding is once water has reached the floor, that FEMA does not allow those to be on the ground. They need to be elevated to a certain standard with pilings.”

He speculated that given the age of the Pines mobile homes, he didn’t know if it would be structurally feasible to raise them.

“My heart just goes out to everyone that’s affected, whether this is their first, their second or their third home,” Kaleta said. “Obviously we would prefer to have those residents there and be able to have that as the business situation we planned on having for 20-30-40 years down the road. This was not a short-term investment.”

He said his representative Sam Negrin will be releasing a formal statement.

“Sam is the one leading it and I want to make sure he gets the message out,” Kaleta said. “I’ve told him I would like it out today, but we have to have the details and the facts so we know what we’re talking about.”

Related coverage

County starts Cortez damage assessments

Pines, Sandpiper residents in limbo

Sandpiper Resort evaluating FEMA guidelines, damage assessments

Pines, Sandpiper homes deemed uninhabitable

Pines’ residents devastated by damage, ‘uninhabitable’ homes

Pines’ residents devastated by damage, ‘uninhabitable’ homes

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

BRADENTON BEACH – Pines Trailer Park residents Mary Mox and Lesley Mullaney are among those who’ve been told their mobile homes are considered uninhabitable, mostly due to flood damage sustained during Hurricane Helene.

Citing FEMA substantial damage guidelines and the city’s floodplain ordinance during the Oct. 17 city commission meeting, Bradenton Beach Building Official Darin Cushing offered his assessment that the flood-damaged mobile homes in the Pines Trailer Park are uninhabitable; as are the flood-damaged homes in the Sandpiper Resort Co-Op mobile park at the north end of the city.

After Thursday’s meeting, Mox and Mullaney sat on fellow Pines resident Joe Klingler’s swinging chair and lamented what’s transpired since back-to-back hurricanes struck the mobile home park they’ve long called home.

Trying to find a glimmer of joy in a devasting scenario, Mox and Mullaney joked about the amount of time they’ve spent on Klingler’s swing over the years.

“We’re the two old ladies that constantly bothered him, and he loves it,” Mullaney said.

Mox, an Ohio native, lived in the Pines seven months a year. Mullaney, a New York native, lived there full-time and has no other home.

Pines’ residents devastated by damage, ‘uninhabitable’ homes
Many Pines Trailer Park residents attended Thursday’s city commission meeting. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

When asked about the city meeting, Mox said, “I was disappointed. I really was.”

“At one point I felt we were being scolded, and that they felt that it was all about them and how hard they’ve been working,” Mullaney said. “Yes, they’ve been working hard every day and night. I get it, but these are our homes. This is my only home.”

“How long do we have to sort through stuff to try to keep pictures and stuff like that?” Mox said. “We don’t know.”

“We don’t know anything. I feel defeated and sad,” Mullaney said.

“I feel very let down,” Mox said.

Pines’ residents devastated by damage, ‘uninhabitable’ homes
The watermarks on this home in the Pines Trailer Park show how high Hurricane Helene’s floodwaters rose. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Mulaney and Mox hold little hope that park owner Shawn Kaleta and his investment partners will provide any assistance or relief.

“I think we all know that,” Mullaney surmised.

During Thursday’s meeting, a Pines resident noted many in the park had already paid their October lot rent by the time the back-to-back hurricanes struck.

“I was wondering if there was any way to get our money back from the owner,” one resident said. “Our places are unlivable.”

In response, Kaleta representative Sam Negrin said, “It seems there’s a misconception there is just one owner. There are over 10. It’s an investment conglomerate. We cashed the October rent checks because we still have to pay our very high mortgage on the property. This will have to come up for discussion and there will be compassion shown.”

Then, now, next

“My husband’s been coming here for 76 years. We’ve been married for 54 years,” Mox said. “We came every year with our kids and we bought in here 32 years ago. We have supported this Island with our hearts and souls and the gal that spoke up for us at today’s meeting is to be commended. She said everything perfectly. We’ve been working for two solid weeks, pulling stuff out and trying to do things right and no one ever came along and said you might want to hold up. Basically, we’re out here by ourselves with no guidance from anybody.”

“My mom lived in #2 for over 17 years,” Mullaney said. “My husband and I would come down on vacation. We just loved it here. We couldn’t wait until we retired so we could buy a place here, and that’s what we did. I’m glad my husband just passed away because this would have killed him. He loved this place.”

Pines’ residents devastated by damage, ‘uninhabitable’ homes
These were among the more colorful mobile homes in the Pines Trailer Park. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Pines’ residents devastated by damage, ‘uninhabitable’ homes
The mobile home on the left bears the moniker “Reel Lucky” and the one on the right says, “One more day.” – Joe Hendricks | Sun

Mox is currently staying at a friend’s vacant mobile home in Palmetto. Mullaney didn’t say where she’s staying.

As for what’s next, Mullaney, said, “I have no idea. This is my only home. Everything’s gone. When the claw came to pick up the stuff that we had emptied from the house, it was just a sickening sound. It went right through your bones. It was awful. I keep thinking I’m going to wake up from this nightmare and it’s not happening. I’m just going to put on by ‘big-girl’ panties and move forward.”

(Sun reporter Leslie Lake contributed to this story. The Oct. 17 city commission meeting video is archived at the Anna Maria Island Sun Facebook page.)

 

Related coverage:

Sandpiper Resort evaluating FEMA guidelines, damage assessments

Pines, Sandpiper homes deemed uninhabitable

 

One parking lot meets city deadline; three closed

One parking lot meets city deadline; three closed

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

BRADENTON BEACH – One of four paid parking lots owned by Shawn Kaleta was brought into compliance by the city’s Sept. 9 deadline for adherence to several requirements.

The applicants opted to close the remaining three lots at 102 Third St. N., 206 Bay Drive N. and 207 Church Ave.

Seven months after the city commission conditionally approved a one-year temporary use permit for paid parking at 101 Bridge St., all requirements there have been met, according to city Building Official Darin Cushing.

City commissioners voted unanimously on Sept. 5 to remove the sidewalk installation stipulation for the temporary use permits at Kaleta’s paid parking lots on Third Street and Bay Drive.

Sam Negrin, manager of Beach to Bay Investments Inc., a Kaleta-owned entity, told commissioners at the Sept. 5 meeting that Kaleta plans to build homes on the lots and said permits will be submitted within a couple of months.

“The permit packages are being worked on at this point,” Negrin said.

“The applicants for the temporary use parking lot permits came to last Thursday’s commission meeting to ask for a modification of their stipulations, essentially to not install sidewalks on the Third Street and Bay Drive lots as was originally stipulated,” Cushing wrote in a Sept. 11 email to The Sun. “The commission agreed, and that stipulation was removed.”

But on Sept. 9, Cushing said the applicants emailed city staff informing them that they now intended to terminate the operation of paid parking lots at those lots as well as the Church Avenue lot.

The parking lot stipulations from the Feb. 15 commission approval of the Bridge Street parking lot include no entrance or exit from Bridge Street, the installation of directional arrows, landscaping less than 3 feet high, a sidewalk north of Third Street South to hook into the corner sidewalk on Gulf Drive, trolley benches and a slab, and black and white signage, in addition to review and approval of the site plan by the building official. The one-year temporary use permit runs through Feb. 15, 2025.

In an Aug. 1 letter to Kaleta, Cushing wrote that he intended to barricade the lots on Aug. 9 with a permanent closure deadline of Sept. 6 if all the stipulations had not been met. The deadline was extended to Sept. 9 to allow for the repair of a leaking artesian well at 101 Bridge St.

The parking lots were barricaded by the city on Aug. 9, but reopened the following day after intervention by Kaleta’s Bradenton attorney, Louis Najmy.

City reduces sidewalk requirement for parking lots

City reduces sidewalk requirement for parking lots

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

BRADENTON BEACH – City commissioners approved a request last week to remove one of the requirements for two paid parking lots owned by developer Shawn Kaleta.

Sam Negrin, manager of Beach to Bay Investments Inc., a Kaleta-owned entity, spoke to commissioners at a Sept. 5 meeting about a sidewalk installation stipulation at the 102 Third St. N. and 206 Bay Drive N. parking lots.

“I’d like to apologize for how this whole situation has gone down from the start,” Negrin said. “We took the lots back over and we’re back on track and I’ve been working daily with Darin (city building official Darin Cushing) to get the parking lots up to the standards that you’re requiring making sure we’re meeting all your regulations.”

He then addressed the sidewalk stipulation that had been put in place in March by the commission.

“Essentially what’s being requested is these two very small patches of sidewalk at the ends of the two properties, abutting up against Third Street North,” Negrin said. “From my talks with Darin and his talks with the police chief, it seems the general consensus is these sidewalks might not be the greatest set of ideas, for a couple of reasons.”

Negrin said that Kaleta plans to build homes on the lots and that permits will be submitted within a couple of months.

“The permit packages are being worked on at this point,” Negrin said. “Within several months they will no longer be operating as parking lots. The point of this is to walk through this with you and see if it’s something you want us to rush into place for our deadline next week. It’s something that we can do. We’re just questioning whether that’s something you’re looking to have done.”

“You’re saying you’re going to build in a couple months? December?,” Commissioner Ralph Cole asked Negrin.

“No it’s a much longer process,” Negrin said. “We’ve had these plans in the works, they’re now out of the design phase. And we’re working on the permit packets to submit to Darin. He should see the permit submissions within the next couple months.”

Once the plans are submitted and approved, the temporary use permits on those lots will end, according to the stipulations that were put in place for approval in March.

“They serve their purpose for just a short couple months,” Negrin said. “We could start laying the sidewalks tomorrow, that’s not really the issue. The issue is does the city really want to have them?”

“My only concern is we’re getting ready to redo our entire stormwater system and I’d hate to see spot sidewalks all over the city that we’re probably going to wind up ripping out because we’re going to put pipe,” Bradenton Beach Police Chief and Interim Public Works Director John Cosby said. “We have lengthy conversations about mid-block swales to divert the stormwater that is coming. So until we know where we’re actually going to put our stormwater system, that may change the thought that the sidewalk needs to be at the pavement or it needs to be put further back in the right of way. I think there needs to be a little more thought on this.”

City commissioners voted unanimously to remove the sidewalk stipulation for temporary use permits for paid parking at lots on 102 Third St. N. and 206 Bay Drive N.

Homeowners’ property erroneously named in Kaleta lawsuit

Homeowners’ property erroneously named in Kaleta lawsuit

Written by Leslie Lake on . Posted in Business, Real estate | Development.

BRADENTON BEACH – Two city homeowners were surprised to see their property erroneously identified in a July lawsuit filed by Easy Parking Group (EPG) against developer Shawn Kaleta.

“I’ve never had any dealings with Shawn Kaleta or the parking company,” Mark Dexter, owner of 206 Church Ave., told The Sun on Aug. 30.

The Sun published a story on July 29 about the lawsuit complaint, which listed Dexter’s address as the location of a parking lot. The suit was filed in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court on July 18 and claimed fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and breach of agreement by Kaleta and his Beach to Bay Investments Inc.

Easy Parking Group is represented in the lawsuit by Sarasota-based attorney Bailey Lowther.

“This may well be a mistake on my part,” Lowther told The Sun on Aug. 30. “I haven’t amended the complaint to verify the correct addresses.”

The suit followed the termination of Josh LaRose’s EPG parking management contract by Kaleta. LaRose is seeking damages in excess of $50,000.

The lawsuit alleges that Kaleta falsely represented that he, or Beach to Bay, owned or controlled the various properties in which EPG provided parking management and operation services. In that complaint, eight properties are listed, including the Church Avenue property owned by Dexter and Maria Trim.

It’s unclear what property Lowther intended to include in the lawsuit.

“EPG does not know if the actual legal property owners are even aware that their properties were used as private parking lots or if they received any portion of the resulting revenues,” according to the lawsuit.

EPG asked the court to order Kaleta to immediately identify the actual owners of each of the properties where EPG provided or agreed to provide parking management and operation services, identify the revenues, if any, received by each property owner from the operation as parking lots, and indemnify EPG from any actions brought by or damages owed to the actual owners of the subject properties.

Kaleta gets three extra days to fix parking lots

Kaleta gets three extra days to fix parking lots

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

BRADENTON BEACH – City building official Darin Cushing has given an extension of time to developer Shawn Kaleta to complete all city commission-required stipulations for temporary use permits for four paid parking lots.

The city has received and approved the site plans for the temporary use permits and has given Kaleta until Monday, Sept. 9 to complete the rest of the items stipulated by the commission, according to Cushing.

A professionally-designed site plan was a key component for the multiple conditions that had been put in place by the city commission before granting temporary use permits for the paid parking lots; 101 Bridge St. was approved on Feb. 15 and 206 Bay Drive N., 207 Church Ave. and 102 Third St. N. gained approval on March 21.

The extension of the deadline was granted in part due to a leaking artesian well at the Bridge Street site that is in the process of being capped.

“The well capping is still ongoing. I’m not sure how much more they have to do, but I do know the well turned out to be over 300 feet deep, and the entire length has to be filled with concrete, which cannot all be done in one day,” Cushing wrote The Sun. “We are monitoring the progress, as are SWFWMD and Manatee County.”

In an Aug. 1 letter to Kaleta, Cushing had written he intended to barricade the lots on Aug. 9 with a permanent closure deadline of Sept. 6 if all the stipulations had not been met.

“To date, very few, if any of these stipulations have been met, first and foremost, the presentation of professionally designed site plans in order to demonstrate that all of the other stipulations are being adhered to,” he wrote.

The parking lots were barricaded by the city on Aug. 9, but reopened the following day after intervention by Kaleta’s attorney, Louis Najmy.

The parking lot stipulations for commission approval at 101 Bridge St. include no entrance or exit from Bridge Street, installation of directional arrows, installation of landscaping less than 3 feet high, sidewalk installation north of Third Street South to hook into the corner sidewalk on Gulf Drive, installation of trolley benches and slab, installation of black and white signage and review of the site plan by the building official. The one-year temporary use permit runs through Feb. 15, 2025.

Some of the stipulations for 206 Bay Drive N., 102 Third St. N. and 207 Church Ave. included the building owner submitting a building permit application or land development approval request within eight months of the temporary use permit approval and limiting the parking of cars, with the number of parking spaces to be approved by the building official on a site plan.

Parking lot shutdown short lived

Parking lot shutdown short lived

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

BRADENTON BEACH – Less than 24 hours after the Aug. 9 city closure of Shawn Kaleta’s four paid parking lots, the lots were reopened following the intervention of Kaleta’s attorney, Louis Najmy.

The paid parking lots at 101 Bridge St., 206 Bay Drive N., 207 Church Ave. and 102 Third St. N. were granted temporary use permits by the city commission subject to multiple stipulations, including the submission of a professionally drawn site plan to the city building official for approval.

Building Official Darin Cushing said most of those stipulations had not been fulfilled, and on Aug. 1, he sent Kaleta a letter that stated his intent to barricade the parking lots on Aug. 9 with a permanent closure deadline of Sept. 6 and revocation of the temporary use permit, if all the stipulations for city approval had not been satisfied by that time.

On Aug. 9, with police vehicles onsite, barriers were placed at the parking lot entrances, and the payment kiosks and signs were covered, but by Aug. 10 the parking lots were back in business.

Mayor John Chappie told The Sun on Aug. 10 that the barriers were not removed by city staff and that the process is currently in abatement, meaning temporarily suspended.

After a meeting on Monday morning among city officials to discuss how to proceed, Chappie said the issue remains “under review” by the city.

BUILDING OFFICIAL WEIGHS IN

“The applicants sent me some site plans via email earlier this week, but they are not satisfactory to meet the after-the-fact stipulations and requirements that were set forth by the commission,” Cushing wrote in an Aug. 9 email to The Sun. “They started to put in some of the landscaping around the Bridge Street lot, but again, they need to submit a site plan showing the landscaping and other items that were stipulated, get it approved and then do the work, in order to get final approval of the temporary use permits.

“I gave them until today to get that done. Though they keep assuring me that they are scrambling to get this done, it’s too little, too late at this point,” Cushing wrote in the email. “So yes, I will be shutting the lots down by close of business today. In the letter that was sent to the property owner, I also gave them until Friday, Sept. 6 to have everything completed and approved or we will then revoke the temporary use permits, and the signs, parking stops and everything related to the parking lots will have to be removed.”

“Darin (Cushing) is doing a great job and he has my support,” Chappie said.

KALETA’S ATTORNEY RESPONDS

“This was much ado about nothing. It was resolved in less than five hours,” Najmy wrote in an Aug. 10 text to The Sun, blaming the issue on “a miscommunication between departments at the city.”

Najmy said the process of closing the parking lots requires due process through the city’s code enforcement department.

“Actions to block access and possession and business operations require due process,” Najmy wrote. “We all want this. Totalitarian regimes outside of the U.S. don’t require due process but the U.S. and State of Florida do.”

Chappie said the city commission does have the right to revoke the temporary use permits. They were granted on Feb. 15 for 101 Bridge St. and on March 21 for the other three lots.

“Maybe the city had a different property than my client’s properties to close off, but the city certainly had no ability, nor as they told me any desire, to do this and after talking with the city leaders they confirmed the goal to continue working together to get these much-needed improvements and operations in place that Mr. Kaleta is generously investing for the entire city’s benefit,” Najmy wrote. “Although Mr. Kaleta suffered some financial loss from this error yesterday, he is contemplating working it out with the city, once again to the city’s benefit. He appreciated their cooperation so far on this matter.”

Kaleta’s parking lots have been up and running with parking rates of $15 an hour since February, illegally, according to the city.

“The actual permits have never been approved and are currently sitting in an under-review status,” Cushing wrote in the Aug. 1 letter to Kaleta. “Furthermore, the parking lots have all been in operation since February of this year, technically illegally, as they have never been approved by the Planning and Zoning Department.”

Cushing wrote that the applications for the temporary use permits were submitted after the fact, as the paid parking lots were all created and put into operation prior to any application being made to the department.

Najmy wrote that Kaleta plans to satisfy the outstanding stipulations as soon as possible.

“They respect the city’s desire and need for this. It will be done ASAP now that we have control back. It will be done right this time,” he wrote. “These stipulations require the outlay of money and, once again, Shawn is the only one willing to do that for the benefit of the improvement to the city but yet he gets attacked for doing so. It’s the classic case of the negative spirits biting the hand that feeds them.”

Easy Parking Group’s Josh LaRose contracted with Kaleta in January to run the parking enforcement and operations of the lots. On July 12, Kaleta terminated the contract with LaRose and on July 18, LaRose filed a lawsuit against Kaleta and Beach to Bay Investments Inc. claiming fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and breach of agreement.

City imposes deadline to close parking lots

City imposes deadline to close parking lots

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

BRADENTON BEACH – With city-imposed closure deadlines looming, time is running out at Shawn Kaleta’s four paid parking lots.

City commissioners put multiple conditions in place before granting temporary use permits for the paid parking lots; 101 Bridge St. was approved with stipulations on Feb. 15 and 206 Bay Drive N., 207 Church Ave. and 102 Third St. N. gained approval, also with stipulations, on March 21.

Most of the agreed-upon conditions remain unfulfilled, according to City Building Official Darin Cushing. In an Aug. 1 letter to Kaleta, Cushing said he intends to barricade the lots on Aug. 9 with a permanent closure deadline of Sept. 6 if all the stipulations have not been met.

Cushing’s letter reads in part: “To date, very few, if any of these stipulations have been met, first and foremost, the presentation of Professionally Designed Site Plans in order to demonstrate that all of the other stipulations are being adhered to.”

Cushing noted in his letter that the commission approved the applications for temporary use permits contingent on administrative site plan approval by the building official.

“The actual permits have never been approved and are currently sitting in an ‘under review’ status,” he wrote. “Furthermore, the parking lots have all been in operation since February of this year, technically illegally, as they have never been approved by the Planning and Zoning Department.”

Cushing wrote that the applications for these temporary use permits were submitted “after the fact,” as the paid parking lots were all created and put into operation prior to any application being made to the department.

Cushing closed the letter with: “We have no choice but to close the parking lots for use, until such time that we receive the required documentation, and all of the above-mentioned stipulations have been met. We will be barricading the entries and covering the pay kiosks and signs on Friday, Aug. 9, 2024. If by Friday, Sept. 6, 2024, we have not received 100% compliance with the stipulations for approval, we will revoke the applications, and all of the modifications that have been made on these parcels will have to be removed.”

Sam Negrin, manager of Kaleta’s Beach to Bay Investments Inc., responded on Aug. 2 to The Sun’s request for comment by text: “Our new parking management company, Island Parking, has taken over as of July 12th and has been working diligently to get the city’s requests completed. We look forward to meeting all of their requirements to remain operating.”

STIPULATIONS FOR APPROVAL

All the temporary use permits for the four lots were granted for one year. Stipulations included a review of a professionally-prepared site plan by the building official, active insurance to be carried by the property owner and production of a business tax receipt to the city clerk. The plans to be submitted to the building department are required to include requested parking spaces, golf cart parking dimensions, ADA compliance and adequate ingress and egress.

The parking lot stipulations for approval at 101 Bridge St. included no entrance or exit from Bridge Street, directional arrows, landscaping less than 3 feet high, sidewalk installation north of Third Street South to hook into the corner sidewalk on Gulf Drive, trolley benches and slab, black and white signage and review of site plan by building official. The one-year temporary use permit runs through Feb. 15, 2025.

There currently remains a driveway leading onto Bridge Street from the parking lot, the sidewalk and slab have not been installed and there are no directional arrows. A leaking artesian well is in the process of being capped.

Some of the stipulations for 206 Bay Drive N., 102 Third St. N. and 207 Church Ave. include the building owner submitting a building permit application or land development approval request within eight months of the temporary use permit approval, permits that will expire on March 21, 2025, and a limit on the number of parking spaces to be approved by the building official on a site plan.

A sidewalk is to be installed along Church Avenue with details to be approved by the building official for the Church Avenue lot, along with landscape buffering and the installation of a privacy fence along the northern and southern property lines. A sidewalk is to be installed along Third Street North along with landscape buffering for the 102 Third St. N. lot.

LaRose sues Kaleta over parking contract termination

LaRose sues Kaleta over parking contract termination

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

BRADENTON BEACH – Following Shawn Kaleta’s termination of Easy Parking Group’s (EPG) contract to manage a Bridge Street parking lot, EPG owner Josh LaRose has filed a lawsuit against Kaleta and Beach to Bay Investments Inc. seeking damages in excess of $50,000.

The lawsuit, filed in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court on July 18, claims fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and breach of agreement. The summons was served on the registered agent for Beach to Bay Investments, attorney Louis Najmy, on July 25. He has 20 days from then to respond on behalf of Kaleta, the president of Beach to Bay Investments. Kaleta is the only principal listed for the LLC on the Florida Division of Corporations website.

LaRose entered into the agreement on Jan. 12 with Beach to Bay Investments to provide management and operation services in exchange for a percentage of the net revenues generated by Kaleta’s parking lots, after agreed improvements and startup costs were repaid by Kaleta and basic operating expenses deducted from the gross revenues.

The initial term of the agreement was one year, with termination permitted without cause after the first six months with 30 days written notice.

On June 11, LaRose received a letter from Beach to Bay Investments Manager Sam Negrin terminating the agreement effective July 12, six months from the contract’s inception.

Negrin wrote The Sun in a text message on July 28 that EPG owes money to Beach to Bay.

“We are surprised they sued in response to our letter seeking payment,” he wrote. “We look forward to resolving the issues and recovering the funds owed to us.”

BREACH OF AGREEMENT CLAIM

The letter to LaRose states in part, “All meter equipment, signage, parking equipment and other equipment installed on the parking lots must be removed by July 26, 2024 or they will become the property of Beach to Bay Investments Inc.”

The suit claims that immediately after sending the notice of termination, and prior to July 12, Beach to Bay and/or Kaleta entered the parking lots and removed EPG’s parking app signs, installing new signs with instructions for making payment using a payment app, QR code or Text to Pay system with payments sent directly to Kaleta or his affiliate. Replacement parking meters also were installed and tape was placed over EPG parking meters, according to the complaint.

“The agreement prohibits Beach to Bay from terminating the services prior to July 12, 2024 and also prohibits the removal of parking meters and payment signage installed by EPG,” according to the complaint.

FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION CLAIM

The lawsuit alleges that Kaleta falsely represented that he, or Beach to Bay, owned or controlled all the properties on which EPG provided parking management and operation services.

“Shortly after entering into the agreement, Kaleta, the president of Beach to Bay, tore down various structures on three additional properties immediately adjacent to 219 Gulf Drive S. (the property identified in the agreement), namely 101 Bridge St., 105 Bridge St. and 106 Third St. S., and asked EPG to expand its parking management and operation services onto the newly empty land. Kaleta did not tell EPG that the adjacent properties were legally separate and distinct from 219 Gulf Drive S., with different municipal addresses and owners, but rather represented that they were part and parcel of 219 Gulf Drive,” the complaint states.

“EPG does not know if the actual legal property owners are even aware that their properties were used as private parking lots or if they received any portion of the resulting revenues,” according to the complaint.

EPG asked the court to order Kaleta to immediately identify the owners of each of the properties where EPG provided or agreed to provide parking management and operation services, identify the revenues, if any, received by each property owner from the operation as parking lots and indemnify EPG from any actions brought by the owners of the properties.

EPG also provided parking management and operation services for Bradenton Beach properties at 206 Church Ave., 207 Church Ave., 102 Third St. N. and 202 First St. N.

The Manatee County Property Appraiser’s office website lists the owner of 206 Church Ave. as D&C Properties of Tampa LLC, with Maria Trim and Mark Dexter of Tampa as principals.

“While all of the properties but one (219 Gulf Drive S.) are owned by LLCs that are effectively owned, at least in part, and/or managed by Mr. Kaleta, Easy Parking Group provided its services under the impression that all of the properties were owned exclusively by Mr. Kaleta and/or Beach to Bay Investments Inc.,” LaRose’s Sarasota-based attorney, Bailey Lowther, wrote in a July 27 email to The Sun. “Accordingly, all of the parking revenues from the various lots paid by EPG were deposited into the same bank account, presumably belonging to Beach to Bay. If Beach to Bay failed to distribute those revenues properly, i.e. to the LLCs that owned the parking lot properties, EPG potentially faces claims from those LLCs.”

If one or more of those LLCs has members other than Kaleta, Lowther said it raises potential questions that include whether or not all the members of the LLC knew and consented to the property being used as a parking lot, and whether the LLC members received their fair share of the revenues.

“Depending on the ownership and operating agreement of each particular LLC, if the answer to any one of the questions is ‘no,’ my client could very well be sued by one or more of the LLC property owners,” she wrote.

Beach to Bay’s Negrin disputes the claim that Kaleta was using properties he wasn’t entitled to use.

“He is either the owner or agent of all of the properties,” Negrin told The Sun on July 27.

“With respect to 219 Gulf Drive S., which is owned by AMI Plaza LLC, Mr. Kaleta told my client, and the agreement specifically states, that property was owned by Beach to Bay Investments Inc.,” Lowther wrote. “Also, all of the questions above, and my concerns about the potential liability of my client, are applicable to the owner/landlord of 219 Gulf Drive S.”

According to the Florida Division of Corporations website, the owner of AMI Plaza LLC is Firkins Nissan. Registered agent William Saba confirmed in a July 27 telephone interview with The Sun that Kaleta leases the property from him.

“We have a written lease agreement,” Saba said. “Shawn is entitled to use the property.”

UNJUST ENRICHMENT CLAIM

“EPG, in providing its parking management and operation services, including but not limited to undertaking and incurring inception and start-up activities and costs, to Beach to Bay and Kaleta, conferred benefits on Beach to Bay and Kaleta,” according to the lawsuit complaint. “The reception and retention of the benefits conferred by EPG by Beach to Bay and Kaleta is inequitable unless Beach to Bay and Kaleta are required to pay EPG for the value of the benefits.”

Commission terminates parking talks with Kaleta

Commission terminates parking talks with Kaleta

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

BRADENTON BEACH – City commissioners voted unanimously on July 18 to terminate parking lot management agreement discussions with Beach to Bay Investments Inc. for a paid parking lot between Church and Highland Avenues.

Beach to Bay, with Shawn Kaleta as president, was the sole bidder in the city’s Request for Proposal 2024-03 to improve the city parking lot and begin charging for parking. The lot is located directly across from the city’s Public Works department.

At the beginning of the July 18 city commission meeting, Mayor John Chappie showed a PowerPoint presentation with pictures he had taken of the 101 Bridge St. lot showing flooding caused by a leaking artesian well.

The Bridge Street parking lot is owned by Kaleta and was approved for temporary use by the city in February, subject to stipulations that have not been met, Chappie said.

“I would like to start out with some things. In my reviewing of the information and from past meetings and documentation and materials that have been provided, I continue to have concerns with the proposed agreement,” Chappie said.

Chappie read from the proposed parking lot management agreement.

“In starting with the parking lot management agreement itself in particular it states, ‘whereas the parties hereto being of like mind and intent believe that the provision of quality, attractive, landscaped and paid parking facilities will advance their common goal,’ ” he read. “I don’t believe we are of like mind or intent and I say that after going through and looking at the four previously approved temporary use parking that have been made by the city of Bradenton Beach.”

Chappie was referring to parking lots at 102 Third St., 206 Bay Drive, 207 Church St., and 101 Bridge St.

“All four of these temporary use permits that have been previously approved are operating right now but none of the properties have followed through with or completed the required stipulations,” Chappie said.

He concluded his presentation with pictures of the flooding at the Bridge Street parking lot caused by a leaking artesian well.

“Again, the pictures clearly show they haven’t followed through at any of the places with the stipulations and guidelines we put forward in making that approval,” Chappie said. “All these properties are owned by the same corporation or individual. I’m not satisfied at all with the management of the properties. On this basis, I’ve come to the conclusion I don’t see how we can possibly go through with this agreement with someone who I don’t consider to be qualified from past experiences.”

Chappie also noted a discussion from a previous meeting about a cap on parking rates at the public works lot.

“I listened to the tape again and Sam (Sam Negrin of Beach to Bay) did make a statement which I took to offer up about the cost that would be charged per hour,” Chappie said. “I think Jan (Commissioner Jan Vosburgh) mentioned it and Ralph (Commissioner Ralph Cole) mentioned it as well that Sam stated that the $5-$10 range that Beach House is charging, somewhere in that range would be fair.”

NO SITE PLAN, NO DEAL

Chappie said that Building Official Darin Cushing had not received a requested site plan for the parking lot.

“The normal everyday operations of public works and the police department are a top priority. With the drawing we did have I know it would negatively impact the operations of public works and PD to some degree as well,” he said. “These are the reasons I don’t feel comfortable with the management choice, I was okay with it at first, but looking back at the examples of their operations in the city, I don’t think we should enter into an agreement for the cell lot.”

Commissioner Ralph Cole, who moved to terminate discussions with Beach to Bay, agreed with Chappie.

“I have to agree with you about the other parking lots and the fact that the same company hasn’t done what they said they were going to do,” Cole said. “What’s to prevent them from putting food trucks in other parking lots?“

A food truck has been parked at the Bridge Street lot for about the past week.

“We still don’t have a site plan, so we really don’t know what we’re looking at in a permanent way and I’m really not comfortable with the pricing,” Commissioner Deborah Scaccianoce said.

Vosburgh said she’s always felt uncomfortable about approving the agreement.

During public comment, Ingrid McClellan, vice chair of the Scenic WAVES committee, spoke.

“I had a concern with the parking lot on Gulf Drive. That’s on the Bradenton Beach Scenic Highway and that does not look scenic at all,” she said.

In response to a question from Scaccianoce as to whether the commission could terminate the discussion, City Attorney Ricinda Perry advised the commissioners.

“Under the RFP process, it puts the city in a position of we have to negotiate in good faith, so then the question becomes has the city negotiated in good faith up to this point? Part of negotiations is the city doing its homework and making sure whatever it is purchasing and contracting for, it meets your expectations,” she said.

Perry commented on the photo of the flooded lot on Bridge Street.

“I would note that the image before you that is not after a rain, that is an existing concern that the city has put in writing and asked to have that remediated a number of times,” she said. “The artesian well has not been fixed and water continues to go down the public streets. Also, you can see the overgrowth, the haphazard poles, the lack of appropriate ground cover and there were other stipulations that have not been met.”

She said she and the mayor have had discussions about other uses that are coming onto the site.

“When you see that your expectations are not being met, on not one thing, not two, not three, but more than four, it does raise the question can they meet your expectations? One of the CRA goals is to beautify the district and, as Ingrid said, this certainly is not scenic. This is not beautification that meets the expectations of this board.”

“With (the city’s) appropriate due diligence and that there has not been appropriate follow through with site plans, and with the existing parking lots, I believe that we have negotiated in good faith,” she said. “I believe that you’re in a position now where you could essentially terminate negotiations that have failed and you could articulate what those reasons are.”

She said the three reasons are that expectations have not been met, the requirements of a site plan and the requirements established and articulated by the building official have not been met, and commissioners do not feel that they could come to terms with the amount charged.

“I feel very comfortable that the city is in a good position to terminate the negotiations based off the discussion today,” Perry said.

Kaleta and Negrin were not at the meeting and did not respond to requests for comment by The Sun.

City threatens shutdown of Bridge Street parking lot

City threatens shutdown of Bridge Street parking lot

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

BRADENTON BEACH – A city-threatened shutdown of the paid parking lot at 101 Bridge St. prompted its management to begin to fix one long-standing issue, but due to non-compliance with other city requirements, a temporary closure of the lot may still be imminent, according to the city’s building official.

The property, owned by developer Shawn Kaleta, has been operational since earning commission approval in February for temporary use as a paid parking lot. That approval by the commission was conditional on stipulations, including the submission of a site plan, that have not been fulfilled, according to city officials.

“I gave them until last Friday, July 12 to get things tightened up, or we would barricade off the lot and not allow it to be used for parking until there was progress being made to rectify these issues,” Bradenton Beach Building Official Darin Cushing wrote in a July 15 email to The Sun. “The representative immediately responded and began working toward resolution and has been in daily contact with myself and the code enforcement officer, therefore we did not shut them down.”

On July 8, Cushing sent Kaleta’s representative, Sam Negrin, the following email:

“The Temporary Use Parking Lot is getting out of hand, yet again. If several issues are not addressed ASAP, we will be forced to barricade and close off the parking lot until they are addressed.

“First and foremost, the artesian well onsite is once again leaking and spreading water all over the lot, and down the street toward the Bay. It needs to be PERMANENTLY capped off immediately, not just temporarily.

“Electronic pay station kiosks have recently been added without any permitting. We were supposed to have been provided with a final site plan for the entire lot months ago as a condition of the temporary use that was approved in February.

“Again, we need a true site plan, prepared by a civil engineer, showing all of the dimensions, number and location of parking spaces, location of the added slabs, location of the pay kiosks and other signage, ingress and egress (traffic circulation), the post and rope that was installed, and anything else that has been added or modified since the lot(s) were vacant. A hand or computer-generated ‘sketch’ won’t cut it, we need a site plan.

“This parking lot has been in operation for five months now, during which time we have had to continually address the well issue. We’ve also asked multiple times for a site plan to be prepared and turned in for the temporary use permit file.

“Please make these things happen. If they have not, by close of business on Friday (7/12/24) of this week, the lot will be shut down, and the area barricaded permanently, and the temporary use permit revoked. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.”

“After I sent them the email, they did contract with someone to cap the artesian well. It’s been leaking for a long time,” Cushing said on July 16. “I still don’t have a site plan and there are other issues that haven’t been taken care of. I still may be shutting it down temporarily in the next few days until these things are done.”

Cushing said the artesian well is next to Florida Power and Light equipment and the repairs to the well need to be coordinated with the power company.

“That well needs to be dug deep,” he said.

UNMET STIPULATIONS

On Feb. 15, the city commission voted unanimously to approve the one-year temporary use permit for paid parking at the lot which encompasses 101 Bridge St., 105 Bridge St., 219 Gulf Drive S., and 106 Third St. S. with the following conditions:

• No ingress or egress from Bridge Street;

• Parking layout in accordance with the city’s land development code for parking drive aisle, parking bumpers and directional arrows;

• Turtle-friendly lighting at the lot management’s discretion;

• Landscaping buffering around the perimeter;

• Installation of a sidewalk on the north side of Third Street to Gulf Drive and Bridge Street at the corner of Gulf Drive to the boundaries of the Daiquiri Deck property;

• Installation of a concrete slab for trolley benches;

• CRA black and white signage; and

• ADA requirements by state and federal law for any parking spaces with a detailed site plan to the satisfaction of the building official.

In addition to the site plan not having been produced to the city, there currently exists ingress and egress from the lot to and from Bridge Street, landscape buffering has not been installed, no directional arrows are in place and the required sidewalks and concrete slab have not been installed.

Despite a statement made by Negrin at the February meeting that there would be no overnight parking at the lot, a food truck has been parked there for at least the past week.

Neither Negrin nor Kaleta responded to The Sun’s request for comment.

CHANGE IN MANAGEMENT

The parking lot was, up until the past week, managed by Easy Parking Group of Sarasota before the contract was terminated by Kaleta and new kiosks were put in place.

The new kiosks, which now say “Island Parking” show a parking rate of $15 per hour.

Josh LaRose, owner of Easy Parking Group, declined to comment on details of the termination.

“We did not do anything to default the contract with Shawn,” LaRose wrote in a July 16 email to The Sun.

LaRose wrote he was not responsible for the maintenance of the parking lot.

“My contract states that I’m only responsible for parking management, collecting payment and enforcement, which is what my company does,” he wrote.

During the February commission meeting, Negrin had stated that LaRose would hold the insurance on the property. With LaRose no longer affiliated with the management of the parking lot, it’s unclear who, if anyone, is carrying insurance.

CANCELED TAX SALE

A tax deed sale for past due property taxes on 101 Bridge St. was scheduled for Sept. 19 and according to the www.manatee.realforeclose.com website, the sale was canceled and the property was redeemed.

The assessed value of the property was listed at $1,086,406 and the opening bid for the tax sale was listed as $67,512.85 with 205 Sycamore LLC as the listed property owner. The manager of that LLC is Shawn Kaleta and the registered agent is Najmy Thompson, a Bradenton-based law firm.

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.

City releases signed coconut palms agreement

City releases signed coconut palms agreement

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

BRADENTON BEACH – The fully signed agreement between the city and developer Shawn Kaleta for the maintenance of the coconut palm trees on and around Bridge Street was signed by Mayor John Chappie on May 28 and placed into the public record that day.

That comes more than a month after the trees were planted the week of April 24 in a public-private partnership between the city and Kaleta.

On May 29, City Clerk Terri Sanclemente provided The Sun with a copy of the agreement signed by Chappie, Kaleta – as Beach to Bay Construction LLC manager – and Sanclemente as witness. The Sun made multiple requests for the document beginning on May 6.

The maintenance, indemnification and hold harmless agreement in a public-private partnership between the City of Bradenton Beach and Kaleta, through his LLC, designates responsibility for the tree maintenance to Kaleta and indemnifies the city in the event of injury or damage from the trees.

Public-private partnerships between cities and developers are unique to Bradenton Beach among the three Anna Maria Island cities.

Both Mayor Dan Murphy of Anna Maria and Mayor Judy Titsworth of Holmes Beach responded to The Sun’s email asking if either city had partnered with a private entity for city projects.

“If you define a public-private partnership as a “capital improvement project with the city getting dollar funding from a developer” the answer is no, we have had none that I can recall during my tenure of 10 years as mayor. I don’t think we’ve ever had a developer give us any money for a project,” Murphy wrote.

Titsworth wrote, “We have not, to my recollection.”

The partnership with Kaleta for the palm trees’ maintenance and indemnification was approved unanimously on April 3 by the Bradenton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA).

At that meeting, City Attorney Ricinda Perry assured CRA members that the agreement would be signed by Kaleta prior to the trees being planted.

CRA member Jan Vosburgh expressed concern about the trees’ safety and maintenance.

“I believe everything the city does should be as maintenance-free as possible,” Vosburgh said. “It sounds to me like we’re making a nightmare for the city and the businesses.”

Ultimately, following assurances by Perry that a signed agreement would be in place, Vosburgh voted to approve the agreement, making it a unanimous vote.

In addition to Chappie and Vosburgh, Deborah Scaccianoce, Marilyn Maro, Ed Chiles and Chair Ralph Cole make up the CRA.

OUT OF ORDER

It is unclear when Kaleta signed the agreement.

The city clerk provided The Sun a copy of the receipt for the April 10 $10,000 payment from Kaleta, but based on correspondence between City Attorney Ricinda Perry and Kaleta’s attorneys, it does not appear that he signed the agreement prior to the planting of the palm trees the week of April 24.

On April 25, Kaleta attorney Sean Kelly sent an email to Perry 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. Thanks!”

On May 9, Perry sent an email to Kelly copied to Kaleta that said, “Good morning. 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. I ended up flying my drone and then inserting stars where palms are located with a description for areas that have multiple palms at or near an address.” “Miguel” refers to Miguel Mancera, the owner of M&F Lawn Care, Inc., the company that planted the palm trees, who has not yet been paid for his work (see story, page 9).

On May 14, 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 that referenced an unnamed limited liability corporation (LLC) Kaleta intended to use as the CRA’s project partner and the party responsible for maintaining the coconut palms for the next 30 years.

“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?” Perry wrote.

On May 15, The Sun emailed Perry requesting a copy of the fully signed and fully executed agreement. In her May 15 response, Perry wrote, “There is a signed agreement. The clerk is out of the office and can provide further documents upon her return.”

On May 29, Perry sent an email to Sanclemente and Chappie that addressed the date Sanclemente and Chappie signed the agreement.

“Contracts have counterpart signatures that most always have differing dates – hence the reason contracts ALWAYS state an effective date. The effective date controls contracts. In this instance, I always stated that the effective date would be when the date trees were being delivered. The city did not pick nor write the date but found the effective date to be acceptable and within the approval of the CRA. Standard contract law. Feel free to forward to anyone needing legal contract law information,” Perry wrote.

The effective date of the agreement is April 1, which is two days before its approval by the CRA at its April 3 meeting. The city did not respond to The Sun’s request for an explanation of the earlier effective date.

“The city of Bradenton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) has approved a CRA beautification project on Bridge Street to be installed at a cost not to exceed forty thousand and no/dollars ($40,000) to be paid for by the CRA and ten thousand and no/dollars ($10,000) to be paid for by the Sponsor (Kaleta). All trees installed in this beautification project shall be maintained at the sole cost of Sponsor,” the agreement states.

The agreement will be in place for 30 years with options to renew every 10 years.

According to the signed agreement, “Sponsor shall at its sole cost and expense maintain the permitted installation in good condition. The city makes no warranties or representation of any kind regarding the suitability of this public property/right-of-way location for the proposed installation.”

The signed agreement includes indemnification language that states, “As consideration for use of the city’s public property to install coconut palm trees, the Sponsor (Kaleta) shall at all times, at its expense, hold harmless and indemnify the city, its officers, employees, agents, elected and appointed officials, and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, liens, liabilities, penalties, fines, fees, judgments, losses and damages whether or not a lawsuit is filed, including, but not limited to claims for damage to property or bodily or personal injuries, including death.”

The indemnification language also states that Kaleta is responsible for any costs, expenses and attorney fees associated with a claim or lawsuit associated with the coconut palm trees.

According to the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, “To indemnify, also known as indemnity or indemnification, means compensating a person for damages or losses they have incurred or will incur related to a specified accident, incident or event. Typically, parties make a written agreement in which one party promises to indemnify the other party for future specified losses.”

On May 31, The Sun received a copy of Kaleta’s proof of insurance with $1 million in liability per occurrence for personal injury, $5,000 for medical expenses per person, $100,000 damage to rented premises and $2 million general aggregate coverage. The policy expires on Sept. 9.

The insured is listed as Beach to Bay Investments, 102 48th St., Holmes Beach and the producer of the policy is Gulf Insurance, LLC, 301 Manatee Ave. in Holmes Beach.

The Sun has requested an updated site plan since the location of some of the trees has changed due to their FDOT-mandated May 24 removal from Gulf Drive South, a state road.

As of May 31, that site plan has not been received.

According to the maintenance, indemnification and hold harmless agreement Exhibit B, Kaleta’s company is responsible for: “Removing fronds, fruit, seedpods and fruit stalks carefully without damaging the trunk or fronds that are to be retained. All coconut fruit must be removed once it produces on the tree.”

The guidelines continue, “Pruning will be required a minimum of two times a year on municipal property and rights-of-way to manage the hazards of falling coconuts and fronds and to minimize the risk to persons and property within the fall zone.”

People on the Anna Maria Island Sun Facebook page had plenty of comments about the palm trees and the agreement.

Wendy Holcomb wrote, “Not a good idea EVER to put coconut trees where pedestrians walk and vehicles drive.”

Richard Becker wrote, “All this over a palm tree. It’s not about the palm tree, it’s about the politics.”

“Indemnify means to ‘make right again’ not ‘protect,’ so if the city lost a case, Team K would have to pay them back, the settlement ck (check) has to come from the defendant,” Susan Paxton wrote.

According to recent city Scenic WAVES committee meeting agendas, the CRA board did not request a preliminary project review from the city commission-appointed committee

The Scenic WAVES committee acts as the commission’s advisory board on proposed landscaping and beautification projects.

Related coverage:

Editorial: Signed palm tree agreement better late than never

Palm tree landscaper awaiting payment from city

Editorial: Palm trees and other shady endeavors

FDOT: Wrong trees, wrong place

Expert outlines optimum coconut palm maintenance

Signed palm tree agreement remains elusive

 

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.

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