Vote comes after investigative reporter reveals details about involvement of former Commissioner Maio in crafting the deal
On Feb. 11, exactly two weeks after they authorized staff to proceed with an agreement involving transportation access to the first planned phase of the Hi Hat Ranch development in the eastern part of the county, the Sarasota County commissioners unanimously approved a motion, made by Chair Joe Neunder, to stop staff from proceeding with that agreement “at this time.”
Neunder cited “information that has been brought to my attention,” adding that he felt sure his colleagues also had seen it. That was a reference to an article by Michael Barfield, an investigative reporter for the Florida Trident and director of public access at the Florida Center for Government Accountability.
Using information gleaned from county emails and phone records that he had received through a public records request, Barfield reported at length on the behind-the-scenes efforts of county staff members to reach the agreement with representatives of Hi Hat Ranch on issues related to the Bee Ridge Road access to the ranch. Barfield also focused on the involvement of former county Commissioner Al Maio in the discussions, on behalf of Hi Hat Ranch.
Barfield wrote, “Phone records obtained by the Florida Trident also show Maio exchanged dozens of calls with County Administrator Jonathan Lewis over 10 months totaling more than 5 hours.”
However, Barfield added, “Though Lewis provided phone records in response to a public records request about official business, he could not recall any effort by Maio to lobby him on county business.”
Nonetheless, Barfield pointed out, “Florida law bars former commissioners from lobbying county commissioners, the county administrator, and his or her direct reports for compensation for two years after leaving office to prevent conflicts of interest and protect public trust.”
Documents that county staff provided to the commissioners in advance of the Jan. 28 discussion about the Bee Ridge Road issues indicated that Maio was facilitating negotiations between the “master developer” of Hi Hat Ranch, which technically is a Florida corporation called Hi Hat Ranch LLLP. The registered agent is Richard E. Turner Jr. of 11708 Fruitville Road in Sarasota. That is the address of Hi Hat Ranch operations.
Another family member who has represented the ranch in public hearings before the County Commission is Jim Turner, an attorney with the Williams Parker firm in Sarasota.
On Jan. 28, Matt Osterhoudt, director of the county’s Planning and Development Services Department, publicly extended his appreciation to Maio and another representative of Hi Hat Ranch as Osterhoudt made his presentation to the commissioners about the proposed transportation agreement involving the widening of a 1-mile segment of Bee Ridge Road plus the construction of what county staff calls the Bee Ridge Road Extension East, which has been planned to run from Lorraine Road to the first phase of development on Hi Hat Ranch. (See the related article in this issue.)
On Sept. 8, 2021, the County Commission seated at that time — including Maio — unanimously approved a county Comprehensive Plan amendment to modify the future land designation of the Hi Hat Ranch property from Hamlet to Village, with the development to proceed under the guidelines of the county’s 2050 Plan for new communities east of Interstate 75. In June of that year, the board members approved the Master Development Order for the ranch property.
Commissioner Ron Cutsinger is the only member of the current County Commission who was part of the board that took those votes.
‘As large as the city of Venice’
Immediately after the invocation and the Pledge to Allegiance, as they began their regular meeting on Feb. 11 at the R.L. Anderson Administration Center in Venice, Chair Neunder referenced the Jan. 28 vote that the board members took on the Hi Hat Ranch agreement.
After passing the gavel to Vice Chair Cutsinger to make his motion to stop the action approved late last month, Neunder said of the Hi Hat Ranch development, “I think this is a very large project. It’s 13,000 acres in a geographical area that’s as large as the city of Venice. There are some things that I think really need to be looked at closer.”
He added, “I’d like to really take time to dive deeper into the subject.”
In seconding the motion, Commissioner Mark Smith expressed agreement with Neunder. “I think we should look at it a little closer,” Smith said, noting that he would like to have the opportunity to talk with county staff members about the information he had received before giving Hi Hat Ranch the go-ahead to start the rezoning process for the first phase of development.
“Thank you both,” Commissioner Tom Knight responded. Referring to the development of the ranch, he pointed out, “This is a big project that involves millions and millions of citizens’ dollars …”
Knight proposed an “open dialogue [so] the citizens can see us work [through the issues related to the agreement].”
Knight later pointed to the Feb. 5 workshop that the board members conducted on a controversial proposal to allow voluntary demolition and reconstruction of decades-old condominium complexes on Siesta Key, which the public was welcome to attend, as the model for the type of board discussion he envisioned on Hi Hat Ranch.
Further, Knight suggested that the commissioners let staff know their questions ahead of the workshop, so staff would be prepared to provide the answers “without being put on the spot, so to speak.”
Commissioner Teresa Mast then told her colleagues, “I think that it’s always good to have a thorough review of something.” However, she continued, “I think that there have been some things that have been put out into media [and stated] that have been false, and I think that is very unfortunate.”
She provided no details in regard to what she was alluding to on the latter point.
“And I think it’s always important for us to do everything we can to be as transparent as possible,” Mast said. “I think that when there are decisions that affect the community as a whole,” she continued, “it’s very important to hear all different opinions and voices, but I also think it’s very important to be ethical in how those things are done.”
Cutsinger then asked Neunder for clarification about the motion. Did Neunder mean that the item should be scheduled on a future agenda for further review?
County Attorney Joshua Moye suggested that plans for the proposed discussion, or workshop, be incorporated into the motion.
Neunder reiterated that his motion was for staff to halt work on the Hi Hat Ranch agreement that the board approved on Jan. 28. However, he added, “Clearly, we need to have — in my opinion — some more conversation and dialogue … a little more open transparency. The public is very interested in this particular item.”
Even though he represents District 4, which includes most of the city of Venice, Neunder indicated that his constituents, too, “are very interested in, you know, a lot of the data that all of us are privy to and how that affects their daily lives with their families, with their businesses. Again, this is a 13,000 dwelling unit, master-planned community, that really needs to be vetted,” he stressed, referring to Hi Hat Ranch. “This is not a [300-] to 400-unit development. It’s 13,000.” It will have parks, schools, fire stations and law enforcement operations, Neunder added, “that really need to be very well thought-out …”
“A project of that scope in our community,” he said, “deserves more time” for public attention.
He would leave it to his colleagues, Neunder continued, to decide how they want to address all of the issues. He added that he believes the staff “has the data, has the intellect and certainly the experience” to educate the commissioners and the general public, whom the commissioners serve.
County Attorney Moye proposed that the board members approve Neunder’s initial motion and consider a second regarding a workshop or a future discussion item.
Then Mast said she wanted to ask whether Neunder would amend his motion. While she was agreeable to “not moving forward” on the Jan. 28 agreement, she continued, she would like for the board members to decide how soon they wanted to have the discussion on Hi Hat Ranch. “There are those uncertainties that I think people become very anxious about,” Mast added.
“I agree with that completely,” Neunder replied, referring to the timeline. ‘I do think six months is adequate,” he said. Again, he emphasized the size of the Hi Hat Ranch overall development, noting that, to his knowledge, it will be the largest master-planned community in Sarasota County. “We want to get it right, for our citizens, for our future, for our kids.”
Therefore, he added, he would amend his motion to direct staff to schedule another board discussion within six months.
County Attorney Moye suggested that Neunder make certain that Commissioner Smith, as the person who seconded the original motion, was agreeable to the amendment.
Smith responded that he would like for the timeline to be no longer than six months. “I was going to say 30 days to two months. … It’s not going to take me [six months] to talk to staff,” Smith added, “to get additional information.” As long as the timeline did not exceed six months, he said, that would be all right.
“If things come in faster,” Neunder told Smith, “beautiful.”
“No later than six months,” Neunder said after Moye sought assurance that County Administrator Lewis was clear about the timeline.
“I think that’s awesome,” Commissioner Knight said, adding that he agreed with Commissioner Mast’s statement about ethics.
Knight did add that he did not want staff to have to undergo public scrutiny during the future discussion. “We need staff to have comfort [with] us.”
Knight also said he was open to having the public discussion with the master developer present, as staff stood by for assistance. He did acknowledge that, as a new commissioner, “Maybe I’m out of line with that [suggestion].” Nonetheless, Knight said, “For the citizens to see us work in their best interest is important to me in my ethics.”
Mast told her colleagues, “I have the utmost of confidence in our staff,” as well as in county administration and the Office of the County Attorney.
“This is a very unusual situation,” Neunder pointed out. In his prior service on the Venice City Council and in his time on the County Commission, he added, “I’ve never come across something like this — the magnitude, the scope, the scale and the circumstances.”
“Each of us need to be able to work with staff and ask the questions,” Neunder continued. “And the general public has questions, too. A forum that would be more open and transparent is what I would be looking for.”
The board members unanimously approved the amended motion that directed staff to halt work on the agreement with Hi Hat Ranch that they approved on Jan. 28, with staff also directed to plan another discussion with the commission on the issues within six months.
‘The second part of the equation’
Following the vote, Neunder noted that “the second part of the equation here” is how to proceed with the public discussion.
When he asked for suggestions, Knight responded, “I think this community needs to have trust in their county commissioners and that they need to see us work transparently.”
Knight also pointed out that it would be difficult for staff to try to renegotiate the Jan. 28 Hi Hat agreement without knowing the commissioners’ thinking on the issues at this point. “Ultimately,” he added, “we have to answer to the public …” The commissioners should be open to scrutiny, he said. Agreeing with Neunder’s earlier remarks, Knight added, “I believe transparency at its highest level right now is the most important [concern] for this community.”
Commissioner Smith noted that “one of the awkward things” of the state’s open government laws is that the commissioners legally can talk with each other only during a public meeting.
County Administrator Lewis asked whether it would be agreeable for the commissioners to provide their questions in writing, ahead of the workshop. Nonetheless, Lewis pointed out, that would not preclude their meeting individually with staff members to pose their questions. He said he just wanted to make certain that all of the questions would be answered during the public workshop.
“That’d be fine,” Smith told Lewis, as that would help staff prepare for the workshop.
Neunder agreed that that process should be helpful to the staff.
After checking with Commissioners Mast and Cutsinger about the workshop proposal, and finding their agreement on that point, Neunder asked whether Lewis needed a motion. Lewis requested one, so Smith made it, calling for the workshop, and Knight seconded it.
That motion also passed 5-0.
The discussion and the votes took about 20 minutes.
Perhaps the Board should consider an inquiry instead of an open workshop – or have Jonathan Lewis explain certain strange facets of the changes between the original agreement that Matt Osterhoudt and Spencer Anderson formulated, and the final agreement after Al Maio got involved. This whole matter – including apparently the fact that the current Board was unaware of the changes when approving the road plan, which it then appealed – needs clear, meticulous clarification prior to a discussion of what to do with Hi Hat now.