On Thursday, the Manatee County Commission wisely voted to continue a public hearing on the transmittal of a rewrite of the county’s comprehensive land use plan until after its July recess. On Tuesday, the county administration tried to push through approval of an amendment to its contract with CIP Solutions, the company that operates the former Piney Point wastewater treatment facility on the county's behalf and now employs a recently departed deputy county administrator. These events occurred just after our state legislature approved a referendum on eliminating property taxes. Allow me to tie the three issues together.
Piney Point
The CIP solutions item was placed on the consent agenda, where items are approved without board discussion or public presentation, unless a commissioner requests that it be pulled. Fortunately, Board Chair Tal Siddique shared some of the same concerns we had regarding the anemic details accompanying the item. He pointed out that it had not gone through legal review. TBT’s Dawn Kitterman noted that the background information consisted of a mere three sentences, while the item’s attachments were also rather thin and failed to include the current contract with CIP Solutions, as well as the existing fee schedule.
Siddique noted that an agreement with the court-appointed receivership of Piney Point was referenced in the agenda documents, but no copy of that agreement was attached. Siddique asked, “Why is John Taxpayer paying for the treatment of the water from the facility that we do not own or have any direct control over?” Staff attempted to explain the arrangement as best as possible, noting that despite our governor’s commitment to provide the required funding to properly close the site after the second major breach of the stacks in the spring of 2021, that money never materialized. Shocking, I know.
Now, this may well be the best and only solution on the table, but given the facts that only one current board member was on the board for the entire legacy of this issue, it is a significant expenditure, and a person who, until a few months ago, was second in command in the county administration is currently that company’s Chief Revenue Officer, charged with “growth strategy, strategic partnerships, and market expansion,” you can understand how slipping it onto the consent agenda with scant details raises the sort of oversized red flag that would warrant a full presentation with all of the aforementioned paperwork attached. The additional fact that the county administrator literally sat silent at the dais during the entire exchange doesn’t lend the matter any credence.
The Comp Plan Rewrite
In Florida, a Comprehensive Land Use Plan is the supreme land-use document and long-range blueprint for communities. Local governments are legally required to adopt and maintain one under the Community Planning Act. This document serves as the policy foundation for all future development, guiding decisions on land use, transportation, housing, conservation, capital improvements, and public facilities. It is not to be taken lightly, especially in a community where overdevelopment and a lack of critical infrastructure are of paramount concern.
I have not discovered or otherwise been made aware of anything nefarious in the proposed rewrite, largely because the process has moved so quickly. As Commissioner Bob McCann noted, "There's a public trust issue here. If we give them the time to read this, we would be building a good rapport with the public.” As for the idea that the board was merely transmitting it to the state for comment, that is exactly what the public has been told all too many times in the past, including when the previous board transmitted the amendments that led to the ivisceration of our wetland policies.
Property Taxes
I have been clear since it was first proposed that I believe the plan to eliminate property taxes, in any form, would be disastrous, leading to a level of state control that would make Tallahassee’s recent run of preemptions look like child’s play. Fortunately, previous, less comprehensive past efforts put to a referendum have failed. But with trust in government having reached an all-time low, I am genuinely fearful that this fall’s referendum could pass. And that is precisely why the Manatee County Administration and its board should be bending over backward to rebuild public trust, or at the very least not destroy any more of what remains.
TBT recently reported that the county used the money it had set aside to repair a crumbling parking garage at the administrative building for the very questionable purchase of a 27-year-old complex in a far-flung corner of the county, which we later learned would require a 20-year backup generator service agreement totaling $12.5 million. County staff claimed this was “anticipated,” making the purchase $23.5 million purchase all the more questionable. And those are only recent missteps. I’d need to write a book to cover all the ways this administration has broken the trust of Manatee County residents in just the past few years.
I sincerely hope this November’s referendum fails. If it does not, I know at least one government that will have no one to blame but itself.
Dennis "Mitch" Maley is an editor and columnist for The Bradenton Times and the host of our weekly podcast. With over two decades of experience as a journalist, he has covered Manatee County government since 2010. He is a graduate of Shippensburg University and later served as a Captain in the U.S. Army. Click here for his bio. Mitch's new novel, Fish Kill, is currently available here, along with his previous books. He can be reached at editor@thebradentontimes.com.
3 comments on this item
Only paid subscribers can comment
Please log in to comment by clicking here.
David Daniels
Add these issues to the long list of documented examples of a complete lack of integrity shown by Charlie Bishop. Yet this and previous boards seem afraid to fulfill their oversight responsibilities. Not only has Mr Bishop not been held accountable - commissioners haven’t even asked questions. They know he violated public records law - they put a clause in his new contract requiring him to comply. They know he is responsible for falsely claiming that removing wetland buffers was “county initiated.” And that he used taxpayer money to hire Beruff’s consultant to pitch the lie. We are still paying for that fraud in legal fees and the loss of wetlands. A new board should demand an investigation into how that went down. Into how our own staff was ordered silent. Another recent example is the disastrous decision to purchase cheaply made kennel trailers for our shelter. Then Mr Bishop vindictively pursued volunteers for exposing their unsuitability. Vindictiveness is Mr Bishop’s management style. We have not had a county leader with integrity since Beruff and Pedicini, through their puppet commissioners, pushed out Cheri Coryea. First we got Hopes, then KVO slipped in Charlie Bishop in the same meeting in which he (KVO) rejected the national search candidates - after we paid to fly them in. An organization is a reflection of its leader. It is long past time Manatee had an administrator who leads by example.
Saturday, June 6 Report this
Dianna
Absolutely correct, we have a total lack of confidence and citizen's needs are not being met. We need new commissioners and a new county administrator.
Saturday, June 6 Report this
GLEN GADFLY GIBELLINA
Sending the transmittal letter to the state now, before these accountability metrics are explicitly written into the text, gives away the County's leverage. The Board should defer transmittal until the Planning and Development Services department incorporates binding infrastructure triggers and permanent land-trust requirements into the text of the amendment.
Analyzing the Sarasota County 2050 Plan report alongside Manatee County’s upcoming Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment (the 2026 Rewrite) exposes exactly why transmitting a letter to the state right now is a major risk.
The report demonstrates what happens when a county passes high-density development incentives without airtight, binding protections for infrastructure and taxpayers. Sarasota's plan approved over 31,000 units in North County alone, but the actual execution devolved into urban sprawl and a lack of the "stepped-down" transition zones (like Hamlets) that were originally promised.
To block this transmittal letter until proper safeguards are included, you can tie the lessons from Sarasota 2050 directly to specific amendments in the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan.
3 Critical Safeguards to Demand Before Transmittal
To prevent the text amendment from becoming an open checkbook for high-density developers, three core principles from the Sarasota data must be codified into Manatee's plan.
1. Enforceable "Fiscal Neutrality" and Infrastructure Readiness
The Sarasota 2050 Plan explicitly aimed at "ensuring that cost allocations result in fiscally neutral development that does not financially burden the existing residents." In practice, however, infrastructure rarely keeps pace with rapid developer entitlements.
The Manatee Incorporation: Demand a binding text amendment in Element 5 (Transportation) and Element 2 (Future Land Use) establishing an absolute Infrastructure Capital Trigger.
The Rule: No transmittal or final approval of high-density text changes can occur unless the concurrent roadway capacity, water supply, and sewage infrastructure are already funded and scheduled in the current 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Existing taxpayers must not subsidize the infrastructure gap.
2. Mandatory Community Land Trusts (CLTs) for High-Density Bonuses
Sarasota’s plan allowed massive density increases (like Hi Hat Ranch jumping to 13,081 units), but it relied on standard market forces, failing to secure long-term, genuinely attainable housing.
The Manatee Incorporation: Tie all developer density bonuses directly to Element 6 (Housing).
The Rule: If a developer wants to exceed standard future land use densities, a mandatory percentage of those units must be dedicated to a Community Land Trust (CLT) with a 99-year ground lease. This guarantees that the "multiple types of residents and incomes" promised in the plan actually translates to permanent, attainable housing for local workers and Veterans, rather than expiring 15-year affordable housing covenants.
3. Strict, Non-Waivable "Step-Down" Transition Zones
The Sarasota report notes that "Hamlets" (lower-density clusters with 60% open space) were meant to serve as a transition zone to protect rural heritage, but developers simply bypassed them in favor of high-density "Villages" because Hamlets were "least desirable for the development community."
The Manatee Incorporation: Codify strict, non-waivable geographic buffers into the Future Land Use Element.
The Rule: Protect the rural character of East Manatee by mandating physical step-down transition zones. High-density mixed-use developments must not directly abut agricultural or rural heritage lands. If the development community finds transition zones "undesirable," the baseline, lower-density rural zoning must remain locked in place.
Strategic Framework for the Public Record
When addressing the Board of County Commissioners to oppose the transmittal letter, you can present this structural comparison to show exactly how Sarasota's reality should shape Manatee's policy:
WHATS THE RUSH WHATS THE RUSH WHATS THE RUSH WHATS THE RUSH WHATS THE RUSH
Monday, June 8 Report this