BRADENTON — At Tuesday's Manatee County Commission meeting, board members were given a presentation they had requested from staff for possible alternative structures on which to operate Annie's Bait & Tackle in Cortez.
After agreeing with owner Bruce Shear that the options as presented were unviable for both parties, the board voted to move forward with plans to demolish the iconic structure and consider ways a similar concept could be developed within the site plan for the upcoming boat ramp/marina. The county had become the de facto landlord after purchasing the Seafood Shack and its associated properties to develop a new public boat ramp.
Commissioners were shown a concept by Fawley Bryant that would have included a temporary dock that would essentially include a food truck, a portable bathroom station, and some covered picnic tables at a cost of $145-253,000. Staff explained that even that concept would be challenged in that temporary structures are only supposed to be leased for up to 180 days while finalizing a permanent option, and that impacts to the site during the construction of the boat ramp and marina could present further challenges.
Commissioner Jason Bearden, who has been the most enthusiastic supporter of saving the beloved institution, pled with fellow board members to come together and find a way to make it happen.
"Let's quit bouncing around on this ... let's figure out a way how to do it and how it can work for everybody," said Bearden.
Commissioner Tal Siddique, whose district the business had operated in, said he was sympathetic to Shear's plight but could not rationalize the cost.
"The reality is that this is just not something I feel I can support because we're publicly subsidizing, we're bailing out a private business, which just runs counter to my principals of how I believe government and private partnerships should operate," said Siddique.
Shear thanked the board and staff for their efforts but acknowledged, "It's not a viable business."
"The numbers aren't there, no way, shape, or form—not in that proposal the way you have it," Shear told the board.
Shear explained that it took fuel sales, dockage, his bar and grill, bait, and retail to make the margins work, and he would essentially have a small food and drink concession that wouldn't support the rent. He said that he prided himself on providing 40-hour work weeks to his staff but that without indoor seating, the bar and grill would shut down anytime there was inclement weather.
"What's being proposed isn't Annie's," agreed Commission Chair George Kruse. "It's a food trailer with some picnic tables and a fancy port-a-potty on the outside. That's what this effectively is because that's what can be provided on this space at this current time. We don't have dock space and things currently to pull up for bait. We don't have it for gas. We're creating an unviable business, as Bruce himself said, and then asking somebody to pay rent they can't afford on property that won't cover the rent because of the business plan being compressed, and we're being asked to do this with tax dollars."
Kruse pointed out that the only reason a discussion was being had was because the county had become the property owner. He noted that businesses such as Drift-In, Two Scoops, and Slicker's all had to face the same challenges without assistance from the county.
Bearden asked if it would be possible to sell just the far south parcel on which Annie's sits and allow Shear to bring it up to code, a suggestion Kruse found interesting. Siddique, however, had it confirmed by staff that it would have to go through a competitive business process, meaning there would be no guarantee Shear would end up with the property and noting that the board would then lose control over its vision for the total project if a new developer came in.
Shear made a final plea to be allowed to repair the business to its previous standards at his cost and continue to rent it from the county until construction on the marina began. This concept proved unviable because the FEMA assessment of the building was "substantially damaged," requiring it to be rebuilt to current zoning standards.
The board voted 6-1 to move forward with the demolition of the property, with Commissioner Bearden dissenting.
3 comments on this item
Only paid subscribers can comment
Please log in to comment by clicking here.
WTF
A piece of history gone....
Tuesday, March 4 Report this
David Daniels
Supporting Annie's is one thing, but wasting everyone's time going nowhere, which is what Bearden did (again) is getting old, and tiresome. Inevitable, he will raise his voice and make personal attacks. During the Annie's discussion, he said that other commissioner's votes were motivated by only two reasons: campaign donations or to win their next job. Ironically, that explanation perfectly fits Bearden's actions as a commissioner. In his first two years, because of campaign donations from developers, he voted for overdevelopment without ever mentioning traffic or infrastructure stress. He voted to eliminate wetland buffers, he voted against raising impact fees, and he voted to allow development byond the rural boundary. But in the last 6 months, without any acknowledgement or explanation, he has done a complete 180, obviously looking for his next job to remain on the public payroll. I'll take the votes against development, but I don't care for the lack of civility, and wasting of everyone's time by dragging out a discussion with campaign grandstanding.
Wednesday, March 5 Report this
Cat L
That's very sad. We have lost so much of our history already....
Wednesday, March 5 Report this