BRADENTON — During a land use meeting on Thursday, the Manatee County Commission approved a contract to sell the old Bradenton City Hall property located at 500 15th Street West in downtown Bradenton. According to the meeting agenda, the purchaser proposed the development of luxury market-rate multi-family units.
The approval of the contract was set to go before commissioners as a consent agenda item—meaning, without presentation or discussion—but Commissioner Jason Bearden “pulled” it from consent and requested it be moved to the regular agenda.
The 3.70-acre property is currently vacant (with a paved parking lot) and includes frontage along Ware’s Creek. The county has owned the parcel since 2009 after acquiring it through eminent domain from its previous owner, Old City Hall Associates, L.L.L.P.
The purchaser of the property is Amres Investments, LLC. Local developer Ron Allen—President of NDC Construction—is a partner of the company.
Allen was also a partner of Old City Hall Associates when the county took possession of the property through eminent domain.
The contract approved by commissioners included a sale price of $8 million but a deposit of just $8,000 at the time of signing.
In addition, the sale of the property will not close until 2029, so the county can use it in upcoming years for employee parking while a new parking garage is constructed.
Old City Hall Associates purchased the property from a private seller in 2004 for $2 million.
In 2009, Manatee County paid $4,070,000 to Old City Hall Associates for its taking.
Approximately ten months later, Old City Hall Associates filed a motion in the lawsuit seeking to present evidence in a jury trial that an after-the-fact appraisal it obtained on the property showed a greater market value than the county had determined.
According to Old City Hall Associates' appraisal, the property’s value was more than $9.6 million.
The county argued that the comparables used for the competing appraisal were inaccurate because six of the nine properties used for the assessment were not located within Manatee County.
The litigation ended in a settlement approved by the county commission in August 2010. The county agreed to pay Old City Hall Associates an additional $1,180,000 for the parcel, bringing the total buyout to $5,250,000—roughly $3.2 million more than what Old City Hall Associates purchased the property for approximately six years earlier.
The county needed the property for site operations of the Ware's Creek Storm Water Improvement Project. The parcel was used for the staging of equipment and the dewatering of dredged materials from the creek.
The long-awaited flood mitigation project took several years to complete and cost over $50 million. Funding was a multi-agency effort of the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Manatee County Government, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFMD), the City of Bradenton, and state grants.
Manatee County accepted certain obligations related to the dewatering site as part of its agreements with SFWMD and USACE for their contributions.
Per the terms of its agreement with SFWMD, upon the sale of the property, the county is required to pay the agency 50% of the sale price or $3.5 million—whichever is greater.
Based on the contract approved by commissioners on Thursday, Amres Investments, LLC will pay the county $8 million for the property. This means the county will collect $4 million on the sale after honoring its obligations to SFWMD—$1.7 million less than it paid to Allen’s Old City Hall Associates for the property 14 years ago.
The potential sale of the public land had never been openly discussed during a BOCC meeting before Thursday’s land use meeting, but a commissioner disclosed to select members of the public early last year that certain county officials were making an internal effort to surplus the parcel.
Several months later, the topic of the property’s possible future sale was included on a joint local government meeting agenda for casual discussion.
First Public Mentions
In March 2023, while speaking to members of the Manatee Patriots—a local political group—Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge told attendees of his plans to see the property surplused and eventually sold to a developer.
Van Ostenbridge described how he became determined to have the property released from the agreement when he learned the county owned the property due to the Ware’s Creek project and that the county had “signed its life away” to the USACE as part of a funding support agreement.
The agreement, explained Van Ostenbridge, was for the county to maintain Ware’s Creek into the future and to retain possession of the property in perpetuity as the designated dewatering site for any future dredging projects.
Referring to the property as “prime real estate,” Van Ostenbridge said of the USACE’s requirement, “That’s not an acceptable use.”
He then went on to regale the Manatee Patriot audience with his efforts to get the former county attorney and former county administrator to begin pressuring the USACE to release the county from its obligations.
Van Ostenbridge began the story by describing how a “we” approached staff in the county’s Utilities Department and asked them to “get the ball rolling."
“Have the county attorney email the Corps,” Van Ostenbridge recalled of the directive given to utilities staff.
He went on to describe conversations he and former county administrator Scott Hopes had with Congressman Vern Buchanan, during which the two requested the congressman's help negotiating with the Army Corps.
According to Van Ostenbridge’s retelling, Buchanan advised against “strong-arming” the USACE and instead advised taking a more gentle approach and anticipating the process taking several years.
“So, we tell the attorney,” Van Ostenbridge continues as a smile comes to his face, “It’s me, Hopes, and the attorney, and we tell the attorney to email them (the USACE) and tell them…”
However, according to Van Ostenbridge, former county attorney William Clague also advised against sending an attorney letter to USACE and instead proposed that Van Ostenbridge and Hopes have a county engineer email one of the USACE’s engineers.
“The following morning, he received an email from one of his peers, and they told him that all he needed to do was fill out a form,” Van Ostenbridge said to laughter from his audience.
In conclusion, said Van Ostenbridge, the USACE released the county from its prior obligations, and within days, the property was cleared to be surplused and sold to a developer.
As for the possible future of the property, Van Ostenbridge told the audience that the county would be “holding off” on putting the property on the market.
“We’re going to wait until the city gets something hard on its city hall building, and then we’re going to surplus it,” he said.
Despite the county-owned property never being discussed prior to Van Ostenbridge’s remarks at the Manatee Patriots meeting, the commissioner felt confident in telling the audience that the property would be purchased by a developer and developed into multi-family housing.
“I’m not going to make any promises that it’s going to become this great walkable retail thing. I don’t see that. I see just condos… If you put a 16-story luxury condominium place there, that’s a lot of money for the county and the city,” Van Ostenbridge said, referring to future tax revenue.
Click here to access the full video of Van Ostenbridge speaking at the March 2023 Manatee Patriots meeting,
"In the Public's Eye"
Though Van Ostenbridge told a group of citizens in March 2023 of an intention to surplus and sell the county-owned property at the corner of Manatee Avenue and 15th Street West for the likely future development of luxury condos, the topic of a potential sale didn’t come up again until several months later.
During a July 2023 joint local government meeting, an item titled “Discussion on County-Owned Old City Hall property” was scheduled for the agenda.
The Manatee County Commission, the Bradenton City Council, and the Manatee County School Board attended the meeting.
Van Ostenbridge opened the discussion by repeating similar remarks as he did back in March at the Manatee Patriots meeting—that the property was “blighted” and that the agreement with USACE requirement for a permanent dewatering site was “not an acceptable use” for the parcel.
Van Ostenbridge shared that the county was successful in its request to be released from its agreement with USACE and that an alternative plan for future dredging and dewatering had been identified—though, he did not share any details of the alternative plan.
“At this point,” Van Ostenbridge told meeting members, “the county is free to basically do whatever we want with the property.”
Van Ostenbridge said the item was added to the meeting’s agenda so the county could hear input from the city and school board as to what “everybody would like to see on the site.”
Taking turns around the meeting table, multiple elected members shared varying ideas about what sort of possible future development might be best suited to the location.
Van Ostenbridge later explained during the discussion that while the property was under the city’s jurisdiction when it came to development approvals and zoning because the property was county-owned, the county could add development requirements to a contract stipulating how the site could or would be developed.
Bradenton Mayor Gene Brown suggested that if the property were to be developed with residential or retail, a public park component along the waterfront portion of the parcel might be worth consideration. Several other meeting members appeared favorable to the Mayor’s suggestion.
Sharing a school transportation perspective, School Board Chair Chad Choate suggested the county might explore whether there was a potential use of the property to improve traffic flow through the busy intersection leading east into downtown—particularly during the busier school season.
Later in the discussion, former school board member Richard Tatem proposed that local officials consider the potential of a small cafe or concession with a park similar to Jigg’s Landing.
“I’m sure you would probably make millions of dollars in property taxes,” Tatem said of residential development. “But if you could make that into a nice park with maybe like an ice cream shop or a restaurant, people could go downtown for lunch and sit by the water… to make it look a little nicer than a big apartment building.”
Commissioner George Kruse reminded his fellow board members that the property in question was planned to be used for parking by county employees for a year or longer while the new county parking garage was being built.
Bradenton City Councilman Josh Cramer asked Van Ostenbridge what the county’s intention or vision might be regarding the height of a building there.
“Well, we don’t know,” answered Van Ostenbridge. “We’re just kind of bringing it up…”
Kruse interrupted to add, “This is the first time we’ve ever had this conversation.”
“Well, we can have this conversation now,” Cramer said. “It’s been noticed. It’s been put on this agenda.”
After some words from Van Ostenbridge that did not directly answer Cramer’s question, Mayor Brown spoke up.
“The reason I thought this was important to bring up is because we can’t talk about this outside of this room—the chairman and I can because we are on different boards,” said the mayor.
Mayor Brown was referring to himself and Van Ostenbridge.
“I thought this was important to bring up because we know on our city hall building, what we are doing right now, we are putting some restrictions on what we want to see as a board. When a property is sold to a developer, if they meet what the regulations and codes are, they can build what they want,” Brown added.
Brown then echoed Van Ostenbridge’s earlier point about stipulations being added to a sale contract or development agreement that could require the purchaser to develop the property in a way—or inclusive of—some of what the elected officials might want at the site.
Brown added that discussing the property’s future during the meeting was important because some details “have to be discussed in the public’s eye.”
Wrapping up the discussion, Van Ostenbridge told city council members, “Just ideas for us all to think about. Your council can always send us a letter at a later date if you all want to workshop this and give us more feedback… As Commissioner Kruse said, we need the property for parking for at least two years.”
Click the video below to replay the discussion about the old city hall property during the July 31, 2023, joint government meeting, in its entirety.
Quietly Surplused
Despite the discussion held during the July 2023 joint government meeting, Bradenton City Council never held any workshops to further explore potential requests for the property's future development.
Likewise, the Manatee County Commission never discussed the matter publicly in a meeting, nor did the board seek feedback from members of the public regarding the property’s potential development.
The contract approved by commissioners on Thursday also did not include any stipulations or development requirements, as Van Ostenbridge suggested in July.
But in January 2024, an item seeking board approval to surplus the land and publish an Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) its sale was quietly passed on a consent agenda.
The item was number 34 on the lengthy consent that included 55 items. The meeting’s total agenda was nearly 70 items long and contained publicly contentious items, such as a commissioner’s motion for the public library system to cut ties with the American Library Association.
The consent agenda item included a county administrator memo recommending its designation as surplus and a property appraisal obtained by the county dated Aug. 2022.
According to Manatee County Ordinance 14-26, the process to declare county-owned property as surplus begins with a recommendation from the county administrator. That recommendation must address several qualifying requirements of the subject property, including whether it has public use and any conditions of sale.
In his memo dated Dec. 28, 2023, County Administrator Charlie Bishop answered each qualification requirement.
For the qualifier “Any potential use of the parcel for a county purpose,” Bishop wrote, “At this time, the subject property appears to have no potential use for county purposes.”
However, several lines below, when answering the qualifier of whether there are any conditions on the transfer of title, Bishop wrote, “The county may request extended possession clause or a parking agreement to allow employee parking during the construction of the new parking garage.”
The two responses offered in Bishop’s recommendation memo appeared to contradict one another. According to the county code, a property with a public purpose does not qualify as a surplus property.
The discrepancy in Bishop’s memo recommending surplusing a property that admittedly the county still needed for public use was not the only anomaly that arose as the effort to get the property under contract progressed over the months ahead.
Invitation to Negotiate
The day after commissioners approved the administrator’s recommendation to designate the property as surplus, the associated ITN was published on the county’s website.
The ITN, dated Jan. 10, 2024, included the standard details, guidelines, and requirements of interested respondents.
Three weeks after its publication, the county added an addendum to the ITN, changing the deadline for submitting proposals and removing certain requirements for potential purchasers.
One significant change to the requirements included the complete deletion of the ITN’s Tab 2, Section 3: “Purchase Price and Proof of Funds” requirement.
The section's standard requirement of a respondent is to “Provide proof of available funds to close on the property, proof of the ability to secure adequate financing, or proof of available funds to develop the property and to construct the proposed improvements within the timeframe provided by the proposer. Any resulting contract may include a performance guarantee provision. Credit references should be included, and if the project is being financed, a pre-approval letter from a financial institution is required. Cash bidders shall provide proof of funds in the form of a letter from a reputable financial institution.”
The ITN’s addendum entirely waived any requirement that an interested buyer prove they had the financial means to complete the purchase and to develop the property as proposed. Such an alteration would seem unusual in any real estate sale agreement, but perhaps more so given the land is being sold by a public agency.
The reduced requirement is also notable given that the purchaser was only required to provide an $8,000 deposit on the negotiated $8 million sale price per the contract terms approved by commissioners on Thursday.
Ron Allen’s NDC Construction currently has multiple multi-family with retail component projects under construction in Bradenton. The company recently was approved to purchase the Bradenton City Hall property for $14 million. That sale is scheduled to close by April 2026.
The Appraisal
When the joint meeting of governments was held on July 31, the background information provided for the agenda item referenced a 2022 appraisal of the subject property.
“...An appraisal was completed by Lee Pallardy, Inc. for the property and the appraised value was $5,800,000.00, with the highest and best use being multifamily residential, perhaps in the form of a senior housing development, a commercial/retail use, or a combination thereof,” the background information detailed.
Despite referencing the appraisal in the cover page details, the appraisal report was not attached to the meeting’s agenda.
During that meeting, Bradenton City Councilwoman Lisa Gonzalez Moore questioned the item details, “Was it the appraisal that said that the best and highest use was multi-residential, or did that come from another source?”
Moore’s questioning was inspired by the inclusion of the “best use” opinion included in the item’s cover page, a detail that was not included on the cover page for the item when it was placed on consent seven months later in January.
Van Ostenbridge responded to Moore’s questioning with confusion, stating that he didn’t believe there had been an appraisal on the property.
Though the appraisal report was attached to the BOCC’s January 2024 meeting agenda, where the board approved the property’s surplus on consent, it was not attached to the joint government meeting agenda in July 2023.
In the appraisal report prepared by Lee Pallardy, INC a "highest and best use" opinion was provided.
The appraiser noted, “There is a demand for affordable and senior housing in Bradenton, and the density bonuses provided by the City of Bradenton’s Comprehensive Plan encourage development of the property type."
The appraisal report continued, “Given the location and physical characteristics of the site, zoning and future land use, it is our opinion that the highest and best use would be multi-family residential, perhaps in the form of a senior housing development, a commercial/retail use, or combination thereof.”
After the July joint government meeting was held and less than two months before the old city hall property was approved as surplus, the Bradenton City Council approved a measure that removed the requirement for 25% of multi-family units to be priced at affordable rates in exchange for increased density.
The change is temporary and applies to projects approved over the next five years.
As the Herald-Tribune reported, the measure approved by the city makes it easier for developers to build taller buildings with more market-rate multi-family units.
When the contract for selling the old city hall property went before commissioners last Thursday, the item’s cover page referenced the appraisal but omitted the "best use" opinion language. The appraisal document was also not included with the agenda item’s attachments for the commissioners' review.
Pulled From Consent
When Commissioner Bearden pulled the contract approval item from the consent agenda during Thursday’s land use meeting, he explained that the reason for pulling the item was rooted in traffic concerns.
Bearden said that while he supported the county-owned property being sold and was favorable to the proposed development of luxury multi-family condos, he was unable to vote in favor of the contract given the likelihood that the project would significantly increase traffic in an already congested area and because he had reservations about whether the county was “getting a good deal.”
Commissioner George Kruse also spoke on the item, but Kruse was less concerned about the proposed type of development or traffic. Kruse was concerned about the contract itself.
“This isn’t a contract for sale,” Kruse said. “This is the world’s worst option to sell. The contract in my mind is terrible and I see lots of real estate contracts.”
Kruse pointed to the contract's 2029 closing date and deposit of only $8,000 due at signing. The contract does require the purchaser to provide an additional $72,000 deposit a year before closing, admitted Kruse, but that was years away and still a minimal amount for the purchase price.
“We are basically giving someone the option, not an obligation, to purchase one of the premier development sites in downtown Bradenton for eight grand—we spent more than eight grand writing this contract,” said Kruse.
Kruse explained that when the 2029 closing date arrives, if the property’s market value has increased significantly, the county would still only receive $8 million. If the property value were to decline, said Kruse, the purchaser could simply walk away from the deal for $8,000.
“They are getting a 4-5 year forward option—a call option on this property—for eight grand,” Kruse stressed to the board.
Kruse also raised concerns with the contract’s condition regarding the county's use of the property for parking between the time of signing and closing, pointing out that if the parking garage build should take more than four years to build, it could put the county in a tight position.
Summarizing his thoughts, Kruse added, “This is a good project, this is a good developer, this is a terrible contract.”
Ron Allen was in board chambers to address some of the commissioners' concerns.
Speaking on the deposit amount, Allen explained that in a contract with a stretched closing, it would be impractical for a purchaser to invest a large sum of money in a property it cannot develop for five years.
Neither Allen nor anyone else disclosed publicly during the meeting that Allen was a prior part owner of the property when the county did the "taking" before eventually settling a lawsuit in the eminent domain case.
During his comments, Allen did include, “I will tell you, you are getting more for the land than you paid for it with this sale.”
While his statement is accurate in that the county paid a total of $5,250,000 to Old City Hall Associates in 2010 for the parcel, with the county’s obligation to pay half of the proceeds from the $8 million sale to SFWMD, the county will walk away with $4 million after closing.
The item’s cover page during the July joint meeting disclosed the county’s total purchase price of the property back in 2010. Still, that information was not included for commissioners’ reference on Thursday’s agenda item background.
Throughout Thursday's contract discussion, it was never made clear why a contract for sale needed to be executed now for a sale that would not close until 2029—and when the county still has a public use for the property for a yet unknown length of time.
Following the item’s deliberation, Van Ostenbridge motioned for the board to approve the contract as written, and Commissioner Ray Turner seconded his motion.
Put to a vote, the item passed 4-2, with Commissioners Amanda Ballard and Mike Rahn voting with Van Ostenbridge and Turner to approve and Bearden and Kruse voting in opposition.
Click the video below to replay the item’s presentation and deliberation during the Nov. 7, 2024, land use meeting.
5 comments on this item
Only paid subscribers can comment
Please log in to comment by clicking here.
andreart
This property took over 25 years get approved. BOCC had to find a place to place dredge materials for Wares creek drain which goes from Manatee Ave. to south of Desoto Mall. This project was spearheaded by former BOCC’s and the late Commissioner, Pat Glass.
To read the back door deals with no worksessions with the BOCC or City Councils is expected of KVO. The project may be good or bad but done with KVO thinking he is in charge of policy changes with no open dialogue in public.
Very distressed to read this as I was chair of the BOCC and cut the ribbon to.start this major drainage project with BOCC and Congressman Buchanan….
Saturday, November 9 Report this
misty
The future of Manatee County looks much brighter for 2025.
Sunday, November 10 Report this
ruthlawler
OMG....once again back room shenanigans with PUBLIC lands and resources. Why did the citizens and the public NOT get fully informed and were not provided an opportunity to give recommendations? What Bradenton Mayor Gene Brown says is true...that because he and KVO are on different public Boards, they are not required to comply by Sunshine laws and can freely speak to each other privately. This is a HUGE flaw in our legal system, expecially since Bradenton Mayor Gene Brown is best friends with KVO, who is a Manatee County Commissioner (for just a bit longer). This is a PRIME site that should benefit the public and citizens, and not just in increased tax revenue. Should there be a component for a park area along the creek? Should there be a component of a percentage of the residential being affordable and/or senior housing? DeSoto Towers on the south side of this site, on Wares Creek, is a very successful affordable senior housing apartment facility that has a wait list for occupancy. I'm very sad that our public is again bamboozeled by the back room deals. Ruth Lawler
Sunday, November 10 Report this
Dianna
Will this property be considered as being on the urban corridor since one side of the property is located along Manatee Ave? I don't think that anyone in this community realizes that if a property is along the urban corridor every project is approved internally and will not come before the board or public for review.
Tuesday, November 12 Report this
Dianna
This is item 75 on Dec 10, Regular meeting- if citizens want to comment on this item, use the public comment link on the county’s website.
Tuesday, December 3 Report this