BRADENTON BEACH – City commissioners voted unanimously on July 18 to terminate parking lot management agreement discussions with Beach to Bay Investments Inc. for a paid parking lot between Church and Highland Avenues.
Beach to Bay, with Shawn Kaleta as president, was the sole bidder in the city’s Request for Proposal 2024-03 to improve the city parking lot and begin charging for parking. The lot is located directly across from the city’s Public Works department.
At the beginning of the July 18 city commission meeting, Mayor John Chappie showed a PowerPoint presentation with pictures he had taken of the 101 Bridge St. lot showing flooding caused by a leaking artesian well.
The Bridge Street parking lot is owned by Kaleta and was approved for temporary use by the city in February, subject to stipulations that have not been met, Chappie said.
“I would like to start out with some things. In my reviewing of the information and from past meetings and documentation and materials that have been provided, I continue to have concerns with the proposed agreement,” Chappie said.
Chappie read from the proposed parking lot management agreement.
“In starting with the parking lot management agreement itself in particular it states, ‘whereas the parties hereto being of like mind and intent believe that the provision of quality, attractive, landscaped and paid parking facilities will advance their common goal,’ ” he read. “I don’t believe we are of like mind or intent and I say that after going through and looking at the four previously approved temporary use parking that have been made by the city of Bradenton Beach.”
Chappie was referring to parking lots at 102 Third St., 206 Bay Drive, 207 Church St., and 101 Bridge St.
“All four of these temporary use permits that have been previously approved are operating right now but none of the properties have followed through with or completed the required stipulations,” Chappie said.
He concluded his presentation with pictures of the flooding at the Bridge Street parking lot caused by a leaking artesian well.
“Again, the pictures clearly show they haven’t followed through at any of the places with the stipulations and guidelines we put forward in making that approval,” Chappie said. “All these properties are owned by the same corporation or individual. I’m not satisfied at all with the management of the properties. On this basis, I’ve come to the conclusion I don’t see how we can possibly go through with this agreement with someone who I don’t consider to be qualified from past experiences.”
Chappie also noted a discussion from a previous meeting about a cap on parking rates at the public works lot.
“I listened to the tape again and Sam (Sam Negrin of Beach to Bay) did make a statement which I took to offer up about the cost that would be charged per hour,” Chappie said. “I think Jan (Commissioner Jan Vosburgh) mentioned it and Ralph (Commissioner Ralph Cole) mentioned it as well that Sam stated that the $5-$10 range that Beach House is charging, somewhere in that range would be fair.”
NO SITE PLAN, NO DEAL
Chappie said that Building Official Darin Cushing had not received a requested site plan for the parking lot.
“The normal everyday operations of public works and the police department are a top priority. With the drawing we did have I know it would negatively impact the operations of public works and PD to some degree as well,” he said. “These are the reasons I don’t feel comfortable with the management choice, I was okay with it at first, but looking back at the examples of their operations in the city, I don’t think we should enter into an agreement for the cell lot.”
Commissioner Ralph Cole, who moved to terminate discussions with Beach to Bay, agreed with Chappie.
“I have to agree with you about the other parking lots and the fact that the same company hasn’t done what they said they were going to do,” Cole said. “What’s to prevent them from putting food trucks in other parking lots?“
A food truck has been parked at the Bridge Street lot for about the past week.
“We still don’t have a site plan, so we really don’t know what we’re looking at in a permanent way and I’m really not comfortable with the pricing,” Commissioner Deborah Scaccianoce said.
Vosburgh said she’s always felt uncomfortable about approving the agreement.
During public comment, Ingrid McClellan, vice chair of the Scenic WAVES committee, spoke.
“I had a concern with the parking lot on Gulf Drive. That’s on the Bradenton Beach Scenic Highway and that does not look scenic at all,” she said.
In response to a question from Scaccianoce as to whether the commission could terminate the discussion, City Attorney Ricinda Perry advised the commissioners.
“Under the RFP process, it puts the city in a position of we have to negotiate in good faith, so then the question becomes has the city negotiated in good faith up to this point? Part of negotiations is the city doing its homework and making sure whatever it is purchasing and contracting for, it meets your expectations,” she said.
Perry commented on the photo of the flooded lot on Bridge Street.
“I would note that the image before you that is not after a rain, that is an existing concern that the city has put in writing and asked to have that remediated a number of times,” she said. “The artesian well has not been fixed and water continues to go down the public streets. Also, you can see the overgrowth, the haphazard poles, the lack of appropriate ground cover and there were other stipulations that have not been met.”
She said she and the mayor have had discussions about other uses that are coming onto the site.
“When you see that your expectations are not being met, on not one thing, not two, not three, but more than four, it does raise the question can they meet your expectations? One of the CRA goals is to beautify the district and, as Ingrid said, this certainly is not scenic. This is not beautification that meets the expectations of this board.”
“With (the city’s) appropriate due diligence and that there has not been appropriate follow through with site plans, and with the existing parking lots, I believe that we have negotiated in good faith,” she said. “I believe that you’re in a position now where you could essentially terminate negotiations that have failed and you could articulate what those reasons are.”
She said the three reasons are that expectations have not been met, the requirements of a site plan and the requirements established and articulated by the building official have not been met, and commissioners do not feel that they could come to terms with the amount charged.
“I feel very comfortable that the city is in a good position to terminate the negotiations based off the discussion today,” Perry said.
Kaleta and Negrin were not at the meeting and did not respond to requests for comment by The Sun.
