BRADENTON — At Thursday’s land use meeting, Manatee County Commissioners voted to continue an item that would have transmitted a revised comprehensive land use plan to the state.
A number of citizens complained that the process had been rushed and had not provided the public enough opportunity to absorb the details and weigh in. Residents in District 1 also complained that they have been without a district commissioner since Carol Felts's passing on Feb. 24.
Commissioners George Kruse and Tal Siddique disagreed that there was not enough time or public outreach and noted that the next board could vote to make changes if it did not agree with the proposed plan. Kruse said he had not received a single allegation that the proposed ordinance was “destructive” and couldn’t see any reason to spend more money on consultants or use more staff time before transmitting it to the state.
Kruse said that the greater incentives for affordable housing at 80% of AMI, rather than the current 120% alone, were enough for him to support the transmittal, which he moved to approve, with Siddique providing a second.
Commissioner Bob McCann was the loudest voice of opposition.
"There's a public trust issue here," said McCann. "If we give them the time to read this, we would be building a good rapport with the public. The other thing is, just like what happened with the wetlands ... we were told it was just a transmittal. Well, it wasn't. It had a very big adverse effect and some of the people on this board ... voted to take those wetlands away."
McCann noted that the board would be inactive during the summer recess and suggested that this provided a good opportunity for the public to read and digest the proposed plan.
Commissioner Amanda Ballard noted the number of citizens who had complained about not having enough time to vet the proposed changes, while pointing out that not a single person offered comment in support of moving forward. Ballard, who along with commissioners Mike Rahn and Jason Bearden had voted to gut the wetland protections in 2023, said she agreed with McCann that it should be brought back after the recess.
Rahn, who like Ballard is up for reelection and facing a primary challenge, indicated that he would be open to continuing the hearing as well. Commissioner Bearden had previously indicated that he did not feel comfortable moving forward.
"It's clear that there's at least enough votes on this board to not transmit today, so this is pointless," said Siddique. "I'll just rescind my second."
McCann moved to have the public hearing continued to the first land use meeting after the recess on August 6. It was seconded by Ballard and passed 5-1 with Siddique dissenting.
4 comments on this item
Only paid subscribers can comment
Please log in to comment by clicking here.
David Daniels
This is even more reason to reject Rahn and Ballard. In 2023, when they were not up for election, a packed chamber and some 500 pages of public comment begged them not to gut the wetland buffers. Ballard, Rahn and Bearden's response was to give the public the middle finger. They did the same for policy 2.1.2.8 which allows developers to leapfrog the rural boundary line. They did the same when Commissioner Kruse was pushing for maximum impact fees. Ballard and Rahn (and Bearden) voted to use an old study to keep impact fees at a minimum. The inescapable lesson here is that, if Rahn and Ballard are re-elected,, they will go back to giving the public the middle finger on developer-related issues. Don't let them hide from their record. Vote out Rahn and Ballard on August 18th.
Thursday, June 4 Report this
GLEN GADFLY GIBELLINA
I am writing to register my strenuous objection to the hearing of Ordinance No. 26-19 / PA-25-03 at this time. This County-initiated Comprehensive Plan text amendment represents a fundamental rewrite of eleven core elements that govern the future of growth, conservation, coastal management, and housing in Manatee County.
Because of a glaring, structural conflict of interest regarding the consultant selected to author this rewrite, this matter is fundamentally compromised and should not be heard at this time.
The Board must defer this hearing based on the following critical issues:
1. Inherent Conflict of Interest
The consultant hired by the County to draft this Comprehensive Plan rewrite is Kimley-Horn & Associates. Concurrently, Kimley-Horn acts as the primary representative, engineer, and land planner for major private developers actively seeking land-use amendments and high-density approvals across Manatee County.
Allowing a private firm to write the very rules, definitions, and policy frameworks that will govern their own private clients' future development applications is an egregious conflict of interest. A Comprehensive Plan must be a shield to protect the public interest, natural resources, and community stability—not a document tailored by a firm answering to private development interests. The public cannot have faith in the objectivity of a plan written under these circumstances.
2. Comprehensive Plan Rewrites Demand Total Independence
The eleven elements slated for alteration—including Future Land Use, Conservation, Coastal Management, and Public Facilities—dictate how our infrastructure, water supply, and shrinking wetlands are managed. To protect the integrity of Manatee County’s future, any comprehensive overhaul must be conducted by an independent, uncompromised body or an insourced staff division completely insulated from the financial interests of local developers.
3. Absolute Lack of Transparency and Public Engagement
A rewrite of this magnitude affects every resident for the next few decades. Rushing a massive, multi-element text amendment forward while using the same firm that represents private building interests erodes public trust. The sheer volume of documentation (including multiple versions of staff reports and sweeping revisions to Exhibits A1-A11) requires extensive, independent public workshops—not a rushed legislative vote.
Formal Demand for Action:
Interest
The consultant hired by the County to draft this Comprehensive Plan rewrite is Kimley-Horn & Associates. Concurrently, Kimley-Horn acts as the primary representative, engineer, and land planner for major private developers actively seeking land-use amendments and high-density approvals across Manatee County.
Allowing a private firm to write the very rules, definitions, and policy frameworks that will govern their own private clients' future development applications is an egregious conflict of interest. A Comprehensive Plan must be a shield to protect the public interest, natural resources, and community stability—not a document tailored by a firm answering to private development interests. The public cannot have faith in the objectivity of a plan written under these circumstances.
2. Comprehensive Plan Rewrites Demand Total Independence
The eleven elements slated for alteration—including Future Land Use, Conservation, Coastal Management, and Public Facilities—dictate how our infrastructure, water supply, and shrinking wetlands are managed. To protect the integrity of Manatee County’s future, any comprehensive overhaul must be conducted by an independent, uncompromised body or an insourced staff division completely insulated from the financial interests of local developers.
3. Absolute Lack of Transparency and Public Engagement
A rewrite of this magnitude affects every resident for the next few decades. Rushing a massive, multi-element text amendment forward while using the same firm that represents private building interests erodes public trust. The sheer volume of documentation (including multiple versions of staff reports and sweeping revisions to Exhibits A1-A11) requires extensive, independent public workshops—not a rushed legislative vote.
Formal Demand for Action:
Because the integrity of the process has been compromised by this dual-representation conflict, I formally request that the Board of County Commissioners take the following actions
Pull Ordinance No. 26-19 / PA-25-03 from the agenda immediately and refuse to hear it at this time.
Order a full independent review of the text amendments drafted by Kimley-Horn to verify that no policies were altered to give preferential advantages to private development client types.
Postpone any Comprehensive Plan rewrite hearings until an independent, conflict-free consulting entity can review the data, or until county staff can spearhead the project cleanly.
The blueprint of our county should be written for the people who live here, not the entities looking to build over it. I urge you to do the right thing, acknowledge this conflict, and stop this proceeding today.
Respectfully submitted,
Glen Gibellina
https://electglengibellina.com/
Friday, June 5 Report this
Kelly
It is unfortunate that the BoCC approved the transmittal of the Future Roadway Maps (June 4, Meeting Agenda Item #4). These maps do not accurately reflect prior BoCC development discussions and intentions, nor do they reflect the will of the negatively affected people in Myakka City (defined as zip code 34251).
The revised future roadway maps show the intent to further develop east of the FDAB.
Wake-up Myakka, this Manatee County administration and BoCC is planning to pave you over, and make you into another overdeveloped area just like Parrish. The maps show East River Ranch Blvd over land not owned by the County or developers- at least not yet.
Rangeland Pkwy. and 44th Street East extend to Verna Bethany Road, 44th Street East extends well east of Verna Bethany Road. They are back to paving a 4-lane road next to the Myakka Elephant Ranch (animal sanctuary). We thought this plan was abandoned by the BoCC in 2023.
More development here should be prohibited because the area drains into our reservoir Lake Manatee. The Lake cannot handle more pollution and silt without reducing its capacity and quality.
Friday, June 5 Report this
Kelly
The Comp Plan rewrite changes the potable water level of service (LOS) to an unacceptable level. A majority of our Commissioners dismissed this change as being a minor issue. The Kimley Horn summary said the change was done to correct a “typo.” This is far from the truth in my opinion.
We have identified a plan revision (Policy 9.5.1.1.) that reduces the amount of potable water each person is estimated to need.
POLICY 9.5.1.1 POTABLE WATER LOS CHANGE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND RISKS BEING IRREVERSIBLE.
The Revision to Policy 9.5.1.1 ARTIFICIALLY reduces the level of service for potable water from 110 gallons per person per day (gpcpd) to 106 gallons.
This change is contrary to the County's water engineering consultant report (Carollo, Dec. 2025) and is a way to artificially squeeze more people into the county.
The December 2025 engineering report from Carollo uses 110 gpcpd for their public sourced potable water facility demands- both present and future.
THIS COMP PLAN CHANGE ARTIFICIALLY REDUCES THE LEVEL OF SERVICE BY APPROX. 2 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY FOR OUR PRESENT POPULATION.
SO, FOR A FINITE POTABLE WATER SOURCE, YOU ADD MORE USERS BY RESTRICTING CONSUMPTION AND IGNORING THE ENGINEERING REPORTS. THIS ALSO IS CONTRARY TO THE SWFWMD 2022 WATER USAGE REPORT AND THE FDEP 2023 WATER SUPPLY REPORT.
Southwest Florida Water Management District’s 2022 report (Table A-1) indicates that Florida’s gross usage of potable water ranges from 115 to 125 gpcpd. The Florida DEP 2023 Water Supply Planning Report states that the Florida average potable water use is approximately 123 gpcpd.
It has also been determined empirically that as rural areas transition to suburban and urban, it results in an increased use of potable water per capita. So, this policy should not be revised as such. If anything, the usage should be increased.
Saturday, June 6 Report this