ANNA MARIA – The first of two lawsuits filed in opposition to the city’s vacation rental ordinance appears to be headed to trial in November.

This decision was reached during a hearing that took place Wednesday, Sept. 9 at the Manatee County Judicial Center, with Judge Gilbert Smith Jr. presiding.

Smith said he could reserve two days on his docket for a non-jury trial between Nov. 9 and Nov. 20 if the City Commission refrained from further amending the vacation rental ordinance. Smith noted that jury trials taking place during that period would take precedence and could push the trial back, but he does not think that will happen. Smith said further amendments to the ordinance would likely push the trial into late January.

During the Thursday, Sept. 10, commission meeting that took place the following evening, City Attorney Becky Vose recommended the commission leave the ordinance as is and allow the trial to take place as soon as possible. The commission supported this suggestion and agreed the ordinance could be further amended after the trial if need be.

During Wednesday’s court hearing, Vose represented the city, the defendant in the suit, with City Clerk Diane Percycoe also in attendance.

Attorneys Kevin Hennessy and Jennifer Cowan represented the lawsuit’s multiple plaintiffs, including Island Real Estate owner Larry Chatt, who watched from the gallery.

The attorneys agreed that if the commission did not further amend the recently amended ordinance, Hennessy would file an amended complaint, Vose would file an amended response, and those two documents, along with the ordinance itself, would serve as the basis for the non-jury trial.

When discussing the potential ramifications of delaying the trial, Vose and Hennessy disagreed on how this would impact the temporary injunction Judge John Lakin granted the plaintiffs in July.

Vose contends the injunction pertains only to preexisting rental contracts entered into before April 9, the date when the original ordinance was adopted.

Hennessy contends the injunction applies to the ordinance in its entirety, and he believes this would prevent the city from enacting the ordinance on Jan. 1 if a final ruling has not been issued.

Smith said he would schedule a separate injunction hearing if the trial is delayed.

When the hearing began, Vose asked for the first two counts of the lawsuit to be dismissed. The counts suggest the city violated state laws pertaining to vacation rental regulation, and Vose believes these concerns were addressed in the amended ordinance adopted Sept. 2.

Hennessy objected to the request for a partial dismissal.

“For my client to get full relief, we need to go to a full and fair trial. The city continues to present a moving target on vacation rentals,” he said.

The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief from the ordinance and requests temporary and permanent injunctions that would prevent its implementation. The complaints listed in the suit challenge more than two dozen stipulations contained in the ordinance. The suit also references the building moratorium the commission adopted one year ago.

If enacted, the ordinance would allow the city to charge a $1,000 annual vacation rental licensing fee, prohibit properties from being used as vacation rentals if more than six violations occur in a 12 month period, prohibit habitual offenders from serving as rental agents or agencies, require the property owner or rental agent to ensure that no adult guests are registered sex offenders and require rental agents, when used, to respond to a complaint within one hour.

The recently amended ordinance now places a five-year limit on the grandfather clause that allows certain properties a higher occupancy rate than the eight-person maximum stated in the ordinance. When adopted earlier this month, the commission suggested this new provision may require further adjustment based on financial projections regarding potential lost rental revenues.

The vacation rental ordinance’s severability clause allows the court to reject specific elements without rejecting the ordinance in its entirety.

HOLMES BEACH – Residents continue to rally against a 25 mph speed limit that the city has imposed between Manatee Beach and the Island Branch Library without public notice or input.

Ellen Stohler said the decision to lower it was “made at a secret meeting by the mayor and police chief” with no public notice and no agenda, and it has had a major impact on the public. She said the city commission also should have been informed.

Commissioner Jean Peelen said the speed limit is one of “two big blunders in the way that we are operating” and were done “without announcement to affected or input from affected.” She said the second blunder is the lack of notification about a drainage project to residents on 85th Street.

“I’m not taking any position on what the speed limit should be,” she stressed. “I’m talking about relationships with our citizens. I would like us to change back the speed limit because there’s no evidence that it was dangerous.

“But more importantly, I would like it changed back so we can have public discussion and not just assume that we did it and it’s over and we won’t do it again.”

Commissioner Pat Morton said the board has discussed it in the past.

Chair Judy Titsworth agreed, but said nothing was ever decided and added, “One time I suggested making Marina and Palm 25 mph and leaving Gulf Drive 35” to encourage people to use Gulf Drive.

“It would have been nice to have discussed it, but it’s done. All the commissioners were told about a week before it happened. It was done by the chief and the mayor, and I support their decision.”

Mayor Bob Johnson said he “takes full blame for the lack of adequate communication. It will not happen again.”

Police Chief Bill Tokajer said his officers have not issued any speeding tickets in the area in question since the speed limit was changed.

BRADENTON BEACH – The Anna Maria Oyster Bar’s pier lease is a done deal.

On the morning of Wednesday, Sept. 9, Oyster Bar owner John Horne, Mayor Jack Clarke and others met inside the vacant restaurant space where Horne and Clarke put their signatures on the recently negotiated document that gives Horne and his partners the long term rights to three city-owned structures on the Historic Bridge Street Pier.

“I welcome the Anna Maria Oyster Bar’s return to the Island and look forward to a long and mutually beneficial relationship with the city,” Clarke said later that afternoon.

“The recently reconstructed Historic Bridge Street Pier is recognized as a major landmark for our city, the Island, and the county. The reopening of the restaurant is a positive step in the city’s ongoing plans to make Bradenton Beach a showplace in which to live, work, and play,” Clarke added.

Clarke said his discussions with Horne suggest a probable opening date of mid-fall, with a grand opening taking place in advance of the winter tourist season.

In addition to taking over the waterfront restaurant space formerly occupied by Cast-n-Cage, Horne and company will now determine who subleases the much-desired bait shop and harbor master’s office.

Paradise Boat Tours owner Sherman Baldwin is considered a top contender for harbor master’s office and multiple parties have expressed interest in the bait shop.

Although Horne and Baldwin have not reached an agreement on the harbor master’s office, Baldwin is scheduled to present his pier-related water taxi concept at the Wednesday, Sept. 16 Coalition of Barrier Island Elected Officials meeting taking place at Bradenton Beach City Hall at 2 p.m.

“Regardless of what happens with the harbor master’s office, my plan is to work with the three cities to make a water taxi service a reality. I feel we have some great input to provide in regard to servicing the Island, and the mayor invited me to speak at the meeting. We’re moving ahead, and we feel we are the right people to do a pilot program,” Baldwin said.

BRADENTON BEACH – Thursday afternoon’s City Commission could determine whether Bradenton Beach joins Anna Maria and Holmes Beach in enacting building moratoriums on residential structures with four or more bedrooms.

Spurred by recent citizen request first made in late August and further motivated by a citizens advisory committee discussion that took place last week, the agenda packet for the Sept. 17 commission meeting, which begins at noon, includes a proposed ordinance calling for an eight-month building moratorium in residential zone districts.

Applicable to homes with four or more bedrooms or rooms that could be could be used as sleeping areas, the proposed moratorium ordinance language is based closely on a moratorium ordinance recently adopted by the Holmes Beach City Commission.

If supported by at least three commissioners, the moratorium would provide the commission and the Planning and Zoning Board with an eight month window to adopt additional vacation rental regulations, and city staff would be prohibited from accepting or approving building permits for homes with four or more bedrooms or potential sleeping areas until mid-May.

When the commission informally discussed the citizen-requested moratorium at its Sept. 3 meeting, City Attorney Ricinda Perry was asked to conduct a preliminary legal review in order to prevent or minimize potential lawsuits should the commission move forward with a moratorium. Perry is expected to share her findings at Thursday’s meeting.

Earlier this year, Perry assisted the city of Anna Maria in negotiating settlements in Bert Harris Act lawsuits that claimed elements of the city’s building moratorium and living area ratio ordinance diminished the value of their properties.

During the Sept. 3 commission discussion, Vice Mayor Ed Straight and Commissioner Jan Vosburgh expressed support for a moratorium. Commission John Shaughnessy questioned whether a building moratorium would address noise complaints, but said he would support a moratorium as long as it was not in effect too long.

Commissioner Janie Robertson said she needed more specifics before making a decision, and Mayor Jack Clarke said he preferred to take a measured approach to moratorium enactment.

Also on the agenda

In addition to the consent agenda, general public input and commissioners’ reports, the Sept. 17 agenda also includes an expected commission decision on which of three bidders will be awarded the contract to remove the fiberglass insulation from city hall and replace it with spray foam insulation. The three bids received were for $12,800, $12,771 and $10,910.

Placed on the agenda for discussion only, the commission will be introduced to proposed ordinance 15-457, which pertains to the employee handbook and will be presented by City Clerk Terri Sanclemente. The agenda packet included no backup material or proposed ordinance language for this item.

HOLMES BEACH – Commissioners approved the second reading of the ordinance governing the number of bedrooms in single-family homes and duplexes in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 zoning districts and establishing parking regulations for resort housing.

The ordinance calls for a maximum of four bedrooms in single-family homes and two per side in duplexes.

Chair Judy Titsworth questioned a section of the parking regulations that prohibits occupants of resort housing units from parking in the right of way.

The section states, “This prohibition applies to all resort housing units except to the extent that required parking spaces extending into the public right of way were permitted by the city and in existence prior to September 8, 2015.”

Titsworth said vehicles are not permitted to extend into the right of way, and City Attorney Patricia Petruff said a building official in the past could have allowed it in error when the home was being converted to resort housing.

“I don’t want to get some sort of legal battle about cars sticking out,” Commissioner Jean Peelen said. “We’re saying that things have been in place and approved and we’re not going to change them.

Draw the line

However, Titsworth said they should “draw the line” because “the building official didn’t enforce the rule or interpreted it incorrectly.”

“It’s called a taking,” Peelen countered. “You’re saying if you have an eight bedroom house, you can have one car per bedroom, but now we’re changing the rules.”

“We’re going to grandfather them, and I don’t agree,” Titsworth said. “I’m just trying to get cars out of the right of way.”

Commissioner Carol Soustek said there are laws against blocking sidewalks, and the city was in error when it allowed cars to extend into the right of way.

Police Chief Bill Tokajer said his officers knock on doors and tell people not to block the sidewalks.

Petruff suggested they could take out the language that states, “except to the extent that required parking spaces extending into the public right of way were permitted by the city and in existence prior to September 8, 2015.”

“Then we’ll fairly quickly find out how many we have and whether they are permitted by the city,” Petruff pointed out. “We can amend the ordinance if it becomes a big issue,

“My thought is that it isn’t just a resort housing issue. You have residents doing it too. If you are going to enforce it, you can’t be inconsistent and tell resort housing no and residents yes.

Tokajer said police enforce the laws uniformly.

Commissioners agreed to remove the language suggested by Petruff.

Residents comment

“We’re a tourist island,” Mark Davis said. “You’re thinking of raising our taxes, but you’re devaluing our properties by limiting what we can do on our properties and telling us how to do our business.”

Deb Wing, of the AMI Chamber of Commerce, said she represents businesses on the Island and people are confused by the commission’s actions.

“If you talk about it here and don’t get it out to the public, like the speed limit, it’s confusing,” she said. “It’s your responsibility to communicate to people.”

ANNA MARIA – City officials are involved multiple disputes with developer Shawn Kaleta, and on Friday Mayor Dan Murphy put his foot down.

“With the properties and problems we’ve had – occupying houses without a certificate of occupancy, doing electrical work without any type of permit, doing plumbing work with no permit – I’m unilaterally revoking his building privileges in the city of Anna Maria immediately and any affiliated businesses he’s associated with,” Murphy declared Friday afternoon

Murphy’s edict came at the end of a week that saw the City Commission on Thursday authorize City Attorney Becky Vose to file a lawsuit, if necessary, in order to recover $16,800 from Kaleta’s Beach to Bay Construction firm for damages done and repairs made to a stormwater infiltration system in the city-owned alley behind a row of residential structures on the 200 block of Magnolia Avenue.

Speaking on behalf of Kaleta that night, attorney Aaron Thomas asked the mayor and commission to continue working with his client to resolve this matter.

On Wednesday, Murphy had the electricity and water disconnected at a Kaleta-owned cottage at 9802 Gulf Drive, where a tenant is converting the house into a restaurant.

Code enforcement issued a stop work order on July 31 for indoor and outdoor renovations being done there without a permit. According to Murphy, unpermitted electrical, air conditioning and plumbing work took place and there were also issues with construction trash accumulation and disposal.

Murphy said the stop work order was removed and ignored as the work continued.

“There’s no permit and we have not inspected it. It’s a public safety issue, so we took away the electricity and the water. We intend to enforce our ordinances,” Murphy said Thursday afternoon.

During the previously scheduled special commission meeting that took place later that evening, the commission asked Vose to develop an ordinance that would codify and strengthen the city’s ability to refuse building permits to habitual offenders. The commission also asked for an ordinance that would allow the city to cancel or refuse certificates of occupancy to those who fail to correct damage done to city property.

On Friday morning, an electrical contractor was discovered working at the Gulf Drive cottage and ordered to cease and desist. Murphy then issued his order that Kaleta had lost his ability to obtain city permits.

Efforts to reach Thomas Friday afternoon regarding this decision were unsuccessful.

Magnolia mess

On March 3, Kaleta sent a letter to Building Official Bob Welch and Public Works Director George McKay regarding concerns pertaining to 209, 211, 213 and 215 Magnolia Avenue.

“I agree to paying for the restoration of the rear alley from 209 to 217 and tying into the drainage ditch along North Shore. I only ask that this cost be usual, reasonable and customary with invoicing charged in the past by Woodruff for similar work,” the letter said.

When Beach to Bay failed to reimburse the city, certificates of occupancy for 209 and 211 Magnolia Ave. were withheld and stop work orders were issued.

Registered to Jose Cortes in Ocala, DSB RE Holding LLC is listed as the owner of the 209 Magnolia Ave property purchased from Kaleta’s Anna Maria Village LLC in 2013.

Registered to Thomas Rushmore in Reddick, Starfish 66 LLC is listed as the owner of the 211 Magnolia Ave. property also purchased from Anna Maria Village LLC in 2013.

Representing Starfish 66, DSB and Beach to Bay, attorney Louis Najmy sent a letter to Building Official Jimmy Strickland on Aug. 17 regarding the withheld certificates of occupancy.

“Any legal action that might exist against Beach to Bay Construction regarding the restoration of the rear alley drainage ditch involves a separate and distinct legal matter, having no effect on Starfish 66 and DSB RE Holding’s ability to obtain CO’s for their properties,” Najmy wrote, suggesting that legal action was forthcoming if the certificates were not issued.

When contacted, Najmy questioned whether the city exceeded the necessary scope of work when repairing the alley.

The certificates of occupancy were later issued, hence the commission’s decision to pursue potential legal action against Beach to Bay instead.

HOLMES BEACH – Residents came to air a litany of complaints about the budget and millage rate at the first public hearing last week.

The $11.39 million budget was based on the new millage rate of 2.25, up from 1.75 in previous years. Treasurer Lori Hill said the millage is 39.25 percent over the rollback rate. The rollback rate is the millage rate that would have to be levied to generate the same amount of revenue as last year.

In July, Mayor Bob Johnson recommended a higher millage rate after he and Hill found a $650,000 deficit in the city’s budget, which if allowed to continue would have bankrupted the city.

Hill reviewed some of the changes in the budget including

• Separating the building department from the public works department;
• Listing projects to use the 5-cent gas tax;
• Increasing fees in the building department;
• Decreasing the reserve by $20,000;
• Increasing the police department budget by $400,000 for leasing vehicles, 911 upgrades, IT services, records management, and county-mandated radio changeover.
• Adding two part time employees to the code enforcement department;
• Adding $100,000 to the Grassy Point budget to match TDC funding and meet state requirements.

Residents speak

George Gaelant said his taxes are up 44 percent, and it’s not the residents’ fault that the city did not charge enough over the years.

James Kihm said if the county continues to promote tourism and “this is the cash cow, we need some help from them. We’re being treated unfair.”

Kihm said the city should establish a committee to look for other sources of revenue, and asked why the reserves are so large.

“If you look at the amounts (in reserves) that we continue rolling over year after year, why aren’t we coming up with more programs to spend down the reserves and create a better quality of life for the citizens of Holmes Beach rather than letting that money sit there?” he asked.

Henry Poaget said his taxes increased from $6,000 to $10,000 and stressed, “It’s incredible; it’s not acceptable.”

Susan Otto asked why the city does not use the BP settlement funds to lower the budget.

David Zaccagnino said he’s paying 35 percent more in taxes, and commissioners “are making it tough on trying to keep families here.”

Chard Winheim agreed and said his taxes are increasing 40 percent and “it won’t keep families here. We need to cut spending.”

Dialogue continues

Johnson said there is a “definite need for other revenue streams,” and the committee suggested by Kihm is a good idea. He said some reserves are restricted for specific purposes, and the emergency reserve is higher than recommended, but it is there in case of emergency.

He said he doesn’t understand why Poaget’s tax increased from $6,000 $10,000 and pointed out, “We looked at what the new assessment meant to various priced properties. We have a level of service that is pretty basic, and we have a financial hole to be taken care of.”

Hill explained that the city has not yet received the BP money, and Commissioner Carol Soustek said the city doesn’t even know when it will receive the money.

Commissioner Marvin Grossman said most of the property taxes go to the county and School Board, and the city receives only a small portion.

Options

Grossman asked if they could split the increase and asked, “Do we have to catch up all in one year?”

Johnson responded, “If you look at the operation, there’s not a lot there that you could make a significant move with regard to that gap of $650,000.

“One option could be pulling money out of the emergency reserve and reducing the increase in the ad valorem rate and then lowering it again next year.”

Commissioner Jean Peelen said when they agreed on the increase in the millage rate and looked at how it would affect residents, “we didn’t have the county increase in the value of the houses.

“Hearing that, I’m looking for us to really trim this budget or take the option the mayor said. We are all blown away by the combination of the increase in property values and its affect on people.”

However, Soustek said, “it’s a hard bullet to bite,” but they went for six years with out an increase in ad valorem and “we’re paying for it now.”

Peelen added, “People say we’ve done nothing to cut taxes. We’ve been working with the same millage rate for years. The cost of everything went through the roof, and we had the same amount of money. To say we’ve done nothing is unfair.”

Commissioners said they want see figures on how much residents could save if the ad valorum rate is reduced. The final budget hearing is set for Thursday, Sept 24, at 6 p.m.

BRADENTON BEACH – In the November election, city voters will determine the fate of eight proposed amendments to the city charter.

Ballot question one refers to the appointment of Charter Review Committee (CRC) members.

“The current city charter is silent on the appointment of a five member CRC. Should the city amend its charter providing for the mayor to nominate and the city commission to approve on an individual basis a five-member CRC with additional two alternatives?”

Approval would clarify the selection process and provide for alternatives in the event that a member steps down.

Question two says, “The current city charter confers appointed official status on department heads, the city attorney, city planner, city clerk/treasurer, chief of police, committees, boards and panels and excludes the building official. Should the city amend its charter to limit appointed official status to only the city clerk, city treasurer, chief of police, public works director, city attorney, city planner and building official?”

Approval would add the public works director and the building official to the list of city officials appointed by the city commission.

Question three says, “Should the city amend its charter to provide that the mayor may appoint department heads, clarify that the mayor shall prepare or cause to be prepared an annual operating budget and capital spending plan, and provide a state of the city report at a time established by resolution of the city commission?”

Approval would clarify the mayor’s duties and powers.

Question four is a bit confusing, but proposes stronger limitations on the City commission when selling or vacating city property by requiring this be done by ordinance.

“Article IV, Section 1(C) of the city charter provides that disposing of city property must be approved in an ordinance with a 4/5 vote of the city commission and 50 percent plus one votes cast in a referendum. Should the city amend its charter to reference Article IV, Section 1(C) of the city charter under the powers of the commission to dispose of city property?”

Approval would make it more difficult for the commission to sell, lease or vacate city land.

Question five says, “Currently the city charter does not provide a specific process to commence forfeiture of office proceedings (FOP) against an elected official. Should the city revise its charter to provide a process wherein the city commission initiates a FOP by establishing a prima facie evidentiary basis of a specific violation at a public meeting, and then it refers the FOP to arbitration by 4/5 vote of the city commission with costs to be borne by the city?”

Approval would place a greater burden of proof on the accuser and require a four-fifths commission vote to forward the process to three independent arbitrators who would provide a final ruling. This would prevent commissioners from removing another commissioner themselves.

Question six says, “The city charter provides that candidates for elective office shall be electors registered and residing in the city of Bradenton Beach for nine months immediately prior to the date of qualifying. Should the city revise its charter to increase the residency timeframe to 24 months?”

Approval would require someone to live in the city for two years before running for a commission seat.

Question seven is similar to question four in that it raises standards for selling, leasing or giving away city land.

“Should the city amend its charter to add concessionaire agreements or conveyances of any leasehold interest in city property to the list, and provide that disposition, vacations or changes to the principal use of all city parks, preserves, recreational areas, city rights of way, all direct and indirect beach or bay access must be approved by a 4/5 vote of the city commission and 50 percent plus one percent of the votes cast at the next general election, and require said action to occur at market rates in a competitive bidding environment?”

Ballot question eight says, “The current city charter provides that an affirmative supra-majority vote of the city commission shall be required to approve a comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, special exception, variance or vacation of any city right of way. Should the city amend its charter to expressly provide that this decision making authority may not be delegated to any other individual or entity such as a special master?”

Variance requests are currently approved or denied by a special master. Approval would give that authority back to the commission.