Vote on Controversial Lakewood Ranch Roundabout Ends in "Status Quo"

BRADENTON — A Manatee County Commission land use meeting grew tense on Thursday as commissioners debated whether to proceed with the termination of a reimbursement agreement for the construction of an intersection roundabout at University Parkway at Legacy Boulevard and Deer Drive. After a lengthy debate, the item ended in a tie vote, and the controversial project remained unchanged.

Initially conceived by the county as intersection improvements with extended turn lanes and updated signalized lighting, the project’s scope was later revised when transportation staff and engineers concluded that a roundabout would be a safer and more cost-effective solution.

Manatee County Public Works officials made their pitch to Lakewood Ranch Corporate Park, a subsidiary of Schroeder-Manatee Ranch (SMR)—and the entity with which the county has entered into the reimbursement agreement—reportedly swaying SMR CEO Rex Jensen into agreeing that a roundabout was the better option.

However, since the agreement’s approved execution on Nov. 12, 2024, the project has come under fire from area residents who claim that the deal lacked transparency and that the public was excluded from the decision-making process.

Shortly after taking office on Nov. 19, 2024, Commissioner Bob McCann began hearing from numerous constituents who stressed their opposition to the development of a roundabout at the busy intersection, as well as their concerns about the process for approving the project.

McCann took those concerns to the BOCC in May, asking commissioners to support an action to terminate the reimbursement agreement with SMR.  

McCann’s proposal was less than well-received by SMR’s Jensen, who penned an open letter denouncing the move and publicly criticizing the commissioner for suggesting the action and for some of his comments during the meeting.

Jensen wrote in part, “We (SMR) are taking the legal position that we have every right to continue performing, build the improvement, and collect the agreed-upon reimbursement. If you (the county) fail to pay, you will be sued for damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees.”

According to the terms of the public-private partnership agreement, the county has agreed to reimburse SMR a total amount not to exceed $3,219,876. The estimated cost of the project is $4,953,656, with an additional 30% contingency ($1,486,096) added to the county’s agreed-upon 50% reimbursement obligation.

Jensen wrote that he was particularly put off by McCann’s item to terminate the agreement being added to the meeting’s agenda the night before the meeting and without notice to SMR beforehand—a sentiment that some commissioners shared.

For his part, McCann argued that employees of SMR had received similar emails from members of the public about the project, and that his motivation for placing the termination of the contract on the agenda was done in representation of his constituents’ interest, constituents who felt the roundabout was “forced upon them” though a process that lacked transparency.

Unfortunately, those constituents who hoped to see the matter finally settled on Thursday may have walked away feeling both disappointed, if not a bit confused, after watching the vote on the item.

A Commission Divided

During the May meeting, where McCann requested that the board support his motion to direct staff to negotiate a mutual termination of the agreement with SMR, commissioners voted 6-0 in favor—Commissioner Mike Rahn was absent.

A staff update was scheduled for the August 7 land use meeting to inform commissioners of the ongoing negotiations with SMR and to request additional direction on how to proceed further.

Two days before the land use meeting, while commissioners were convened for an Aug. 5 regular meeting, Commissioner Rahn motioned to amend the meeting agenda to add an item that would defer the scheduled roundabout update to a later meeting where it could be heard by a full board.

According to Rahn, both he and Commission Chair George Kruse would be unable to attend the Aug. 7 meeting, and he felt that the full board should “have the benefit and the opportunity to” receive the update and to debate appropriate next steps.

Click here to replay Rahn’s request to amend the Aug. 5 agenda.

Kruse seconded Rahn’s motion, but it ultimately failed because it did not receive a super-majority (five votes), as required to amend an agenda during the meeting.

Commissioners Amanda Ballard and Tal Siddique voted with Rahn and Kruse to allow it; Commissioners Carol Felts, Jason Bearden, and McCann voted against.

The next day, on Aug. 6, commissioners received a letter from SMR’s attorney, Bill Galvano, regarding the roundabout item scheduled for the Aug. 7 land use meeting.

The letter summarized and affirmed SMR CEO Jensen’s position that “there are no terms under which he would consider terminating the agreement.” It further detailed the legal and business considerations of his position and urged the commission to honor the agreement.

When Thursday’s land use meeting convened with the item for the SMR reimbursement agreement still scheduled, Rahn and Kruse attended the meeting by phone.

With Chairman Kruse attending remotely, the meeting was chaired by First Vice Chair McCann.

McCann opened the item’s discussion with a series of questions for staff about the progress of the roundabout, including how far SMR was in design or construction, whether the county had allocated funding for its portion, and whether the CIP had been updated to reflect the change in scope from signalized intersection improvements to a roundabout. 

Concerning the CIP, Public Works Director Chad Butzow said the specific details would need to be confirmed with the county’s CFO, but speculated that a budget amendment would have also been adopted at the time of the agreement’s approval and, if so, the budget amendment would have adjusted the CIP.

The timing of the agreement’s approval within the fiscal year may have delayed the change from being reflected in the CIP, suggested Butzow. 

However, records show that an update to the Nov. 12 meeting agenda struck the budget resolution that was originally scheduled to be approved in tandem with the roundabout reimbursement agreement. That resolution would have amended the FY25-29 CIP, as Butzow had speculated, had it been put forward for adoption by the board.

Commissioner Bearden, who appeared openly frustrated, focused his comments and questions on the placement of the agreement on the meeting’s consent agenda and whether the county completed all necessary steps to adequately inform the public of its intention to approve the construction of a roundabout at the intersection.

Butzow stated that when placing the Deer Drive and Legacy Boulevard roundabout reimbursement agreement under consent, staff made an assumption based on their prior engagement with other CDDs in Lakewood Ranch, who had expressed interest in a roundabout at a different intersection (Players Drive and Lorraine Road), that this roundabout would likely not raise any significant concerns.

Bearden pushed back on that explanation, saying he recollected the Players and Lorraine roundabout causing debate among residents, with many opposing the project. That roundabout project was ultimately canceled by commissioners, and the project reverted to a signalized intersection. 

Later in the discussion, Butzow conceded that, in hindsight, the lack of communication and engagement with the public about the roundabout was an "error in judgment," but also stressed that the placement of the item on consent was not outside standard practice for reimbursement agreements or roundabout projects.

With nearly every commissioner adding to the conversation, it became clear long before the vote that opinions were divided into two camps.

On one side, Bearden, Felts, and McCann expressed frustration over how the roundabout agreement was approved and the lack of transparency. They cited their desire to represent the public’s interest and voice, and to continue negotiations with SMR in the hope that Jensen might come around to the idea of changing the project's scope from a roundabout back to upgrading the existing signalized intersection.

Commissioners Kruse, Siddique, Ballard, and Rahn noted that the agreement is a legally binding contract without a termination clause. Given Jensen’s firm resistance to either terminating or amending it, the four commissioners agreed that the only reasonable course was to honor the agreement.

Kruse also cautioned the board against attempting to terminate the agreement against Jensen’s desires, not only because of the potential legal consequences, but also because of the reputational harm to the county.

“People sign contracts with our government because they trust that our government is not going to default on our contracts,” said Kruse. “If we show everybody that our contracts are not worth the paper they’re written on… It’s going to cause us irreparable harm in the future.” 

He added that the county attorney's professional opinion was that the contract with SMR did not include a provision for without-cause termination. 

Attorney Galvano also addressed commissioners during the discussion, stating in part, “It is our position right now that we have taken steps, we have incurred expense, we’ve restructured plans to comply with an agreement that this board entered into—based on recommendations from county staff—with SMR and Lakewood Ranch Corporate Park.”

At one point, McCann read sections from an article published in the Florida Trident, which he said illustrated a pattern of behavior by Jensen of bullying local officials and staff through threats of legal action.

“It Remains Status Quo”

As the length of the discussion grew, so did the tension on the dais.

Exchanges between commissioners were marked by accusations, defensiveness, and even raised voices. 

Though some commissioners’ frustrations stemmed from the circumstances of the reimbursement agreement and its process, other commissioners’ frustrations came from how the meeting was being conducted.

More than an hour into the board's discussion of the item, and after each commissioner who wished to speak had done so at least once, Commissioner Siddique made a motion to direct staff to close negotiations with SMR and to proceed with the agreement as executed.

“We’re not accepting motions,” said McCann before moving on to recognizing another commissioner. 

After approximately 10 minutes had passed since Siddique had attempted to make the motion,  Kruse put himself back on the board to ask McCann to clarify under what procedure he declined to accept Siddique’s motion.

Kruse cited Robert’s Rules of Order and board rules as requiring that a motion germane to the topic be heard.

“We weren’t entertaining motions at the time,” answered McCann.

“That’s not an option,” Kruse responded sharply.

Siddique called for a point of order and read directly from the board rules. McCann acquiesced, accepting Siddique’s motion, which Rahn then seconded.

With the motion and a second on the table, McCann placed himself back on the board and began questioning Rahn, who was serving as chairman in 2024 when the reimbursement agreement was approved.

After several questions, Siddique called for another point of order, believing the discussion was closed and public comment should be held. 

Siddique’s point of order led to another debate, with Bearden stating that the chair had not closed deliberations and Ballard stating that he had.

McCann requested a motion to hold a vote on whether the board majority would allow him to continue his inquiry of Rahn.

When Bearden attempted to make that motion, Ballard called for another point of order.

The item was moved to public comment 90 minutes after it was opened.  Five citizens provided public comment, each speaking in opposition to the motion.

At the close of public comment, Siddique’s motion to continue with the existing contract was moved to a vote, but a technical issue complicated things.

“Just a quick point of information,” said Ballard just before the vote. “Commissioner Rahn has said he was dropped off the call but is trying to get back on.”

McCann, noting the meeting still had a quorum, moved forward with the vote.

Kruse interrupted to state he could see Rahn was back on the call, but needed to be unmuted so he could be heard for the vote.

Ignoring Kruse's interruption, McCann called for a verbal vote, which resulted in a tie, 3 to 3, with Rahn muted.

“Okay, it’s three to three,” announced McCann.

“It is not three to three,” shouted Kruse. “Like I said, Commissioner Rahn needs to be unmuted to allow him to vote.”

McCann scolded Kruse for attempting to speak on behalf of another commissioner.

McCann reaffirmed the vote as a tie, 3-3. When a vote results in a tie, it is recorded as a failed motion.

Less than a minute after the vote was held, and before the board had moved to the next item, Rahn was unmuted.

“I’m here now.” Rahn could be heard saying. “I don’t know what happened to my system, but I vote in favor of Siddique’s motion.”

“The vote was taken. The vote was three to three,” answered McCann.

After a brief silence, Kruse began to speak, explaining that the failed motion only means that the “status quo” remains and the agreement with SMR is still in place.

McCann agreed, reaffirming that the result of the vote “maintains the status quo.”

Public Opposition

As TBT reported in June, a review of public records revealed that it was not only residents of nearby Lakewood Ranch communities who were concerned about the proposed construction of a roundabout at the intersection, but board members of the Lakewood Ranch Inter-District Authority (IDA) and the Lakewood Ranch Community Development Districts (CDDs) were also raising questions and seeking information throughout the months before the agreement was signed.

Further complicating the matter was the fact that the newly elected District 5 Commissioner McCann—representing constituents in the region of the county where the roundabout would be built—was sworn into office just one week after the reimbursement agreement was approved.

In addition, records showed that the LWR Townhall Executive Director, Steve Zielinski, shared in an update to IDA and CCD board members on Nov. 12 that he was told by the county’s director of Public Works in October that the proposed roundabout would be heard before the BOCC in a December meeting and residents and CDD board members would have an opportunity to weigh in then.

However, unbeknownst to Zielinski, the very day he was sharing that information with the CDDs was the same day the item for the reimbursement agreement to construct the roundabout was being approved on a consent agenda by the commissioners.

McCann questioned Butzow about the timeline during Thursday’s meeting, but Butzow said he was unable to answer with specificity.

Carol Cooper was one of the residents who addressed commissioners under public comment on the item.

Cooper told the board that she attended a meeting held by Jensen more than a month after McCann made his initial motion to direct staff to negotiate the termination of the agreement. The meeting, said Cooper, was noticed as a meeting with Lakewood Ranch CDDs and Jensen.

“The meeting was held, but it was not for a discussion. It was Mr. Jensen stating that he is going forward with the roundabout,” Cooper explained. “It was a dog and pony show.”

The East County Observer covered the meeting and reported that roughly 100 residents attended, many opposed to the roundabout. According to the Observer, some residents were seen leaving before the meeting concluded, mumbling that the meeting was “a waste of time.”

The tie vote by the commission on Thursday means that Cooper and the other residents opposed to the roundabout are unlikely to see a resolution in their favor any time soon.

McCann said that staying with the “status quo” means nothing has changed. The last directive approved by the board was for staff to negotiate a mutual termination of the agreement; that directive remains in effect. 

Commissioner Kruse agreed with McCann's assessment, but elaborated that “status quo” also means the terms of the reimbursement agreement remain in effect. With Jensen stating his unwillingness to negotiate its termination, staff are left with little to work with in terms of furthering the board's last directive.

“SMR could begin construction on the roundabout tomorrow and send the county an invoice," he explained. "The county remains legally obligated to fulfill the terms of the agreement as written and executed."

Click the video below to replay the Legacy Boulevard at Deer Drive and University Parkway roundabout agreement item as heard before the BOCC during the Aug. 7, 2025, land use meeting.