Commissioners Neunder and Knight vote ‘No’
Nearly four hours after they began their April 9 workshop on a deal to allow the master developer of Hi Hat Ranch to construct a Bee Ridge Road extension to the first development area, the Sarasota County commissioners voted 3-2 to approve the terms that county staff had proposed to them on Jan. 28.
Commissioner Ron Cutsinger made the motion, and Commissioner Teresa Mast seconded it. Commissioner Mark Smith joined them in the majority, saying that all of his questions about the proposal had been answered that day.
However, Chair Joe Neunder expressed a desire to wait on a vote until after the Office of the County Attorney and other staff members had had sufficient time to determine the validity of a recently discovered 1928 plat that the Hi Hat Ranch owners had presented them, regarding part of the Bee Ridge Road access.
Jim Turner, a member of the family that owns the Hi Hat Ranch property and an attorney with the Williams Parker firm in Sarasota, told the commissioners on April 9 that he believes, based on “more digging” since Jan. 28, that Hi Hat has legal access to the area of the ranch where the first phase of development is planned. That access is through the county’s Rothenbach Park, he said. The park stands at 8650 Bee Ridge Road.
Matt Osterhoudt, director of the county’s Planning and Development Services Department, explained that the county’s real estate services team would use a third party to conduct the necessary title and permitting searches related to that document. The effort likely would take at least 30 to 45 days, he said.
Technically, as Osterhoudt explained again on April 9, the primary question for the commissioners that day was whether they wanted to essentially sell access through county-owned property so the Hi Hat Ranch master developer could construct what has been dubbed the Bee Ridge Road Extension (BREE) from the roundabout at the intersection of Bee Ridge and Lorraine Road to the Hi Hat property.
A number of county facilities will be affected by the construction, he has pointed out, though Hi Hat would have to cover the expense of ensuring that the new road would not affect any of them; relocation of some of the facilities has been indicated on a map that Osterhoudt has shown the commissioners.
Turner rebuffed commissioners’ implication that the Hi Hat ownership group knew of the plat well before the April 9 workshop. “It’s not like we were holding anything in reserve,” he told the board members.
If it had not been for the news about the plat, Chair Neunder said, he would have voted in favor of the road deal.
“I got the information in paper this morning,” Neunder continued, “as it was apparently dropped off in the evening yesterday for staff for a meeting that we’re having today.”
In an April 2 memo to the board members, County Attorney Joshua Moye wrote, “Yesterday a couple of attorneys from the Office of the County Attorney (OCA), including myself, met with two attorneys, including one representing Hi Hat Ranch. They provided a binder full of documents.”
One of those, Moye continued, pertained to “legal access to the Hi Hat Ranch development from Bee Ridge Road east of Lorraine [Road]. I do not believe any County staff, Hi Hat, or any other party that has been involved in the negotiations were aware of these documents,” Moye added.
“We requested copies of the binder for the Commissioners, and this morning we received the additional copies,” he wrote in the memo. “I will hand deliver them to each of you [on April 3].”
Following the April 9 vote, Osterhoudt told the commissioners, the Planning and Development Services staff will work with the Office of the County Attorney and legal representatives of Hi Hat Ranch to draft the formal road agreement. After that has been completed, it will be presented to the commissioners for a final vote.
In response to a question from Neunder, Moye said that he likely would have a report at the same time about staff’s findings regarding the 1928 plat.
Concerns about the county’s share of the expense
Another worry about the proposed road deal, which Commissioner Tom Knight voiced on April 9, regards the county’s ability to pay for its 50% share of the expense of widening Bee Ridge Road from two to four lanes between Bent Tree Boulevard and the Lorraine Road intersection. County staff has estimated the overall county expense at $14 million.
Osterhoudt of Planning and Development Services stressed that the road deal calls for the Hi Hat Ranch ownership group to pay half of the expense of the road, regardless of the final cost.
Nonetheless, Knight said he was concerned that using county funds for that approximately mile-long project would imperil plans for other road projects.
Spencer Anderson, the county engineer and the director of the Public Works Department, had explained that the widening of that section of Bee Ridge Road was not listed in the current county Capital Improvements Program list; thus, no funding has been allocated to the work.
Anderson also noted that Mobility Fees that the county receives from a new development generally end up being used for transportation improvements to serve an earlier development.
Anderson did stress that a county policy requires that 50% of the revenue the county receives from the penny sales tax — or Surtax — is allocated to transportation initiatives. He called the Surtax revenue “a significant, important piece of funding for county roadway infrastructure.”
Additionally, Anderson said, gas tax revenue and grant funds are used for transportation projects.
“If we had money for every road that we’re behind on,” Knight said at one point, “we wouldn’t be sitting here talking about this.”
Osterhoudt noted that finding the money for the widening of Bee Ridge to Lorraine Road was a policy decision for the board. Any time the commission directs staff to pursue a road project, he added, staff works to find the necessary money.
Commissioner Mast stressed that the widening of Bee Ridge Road to Lorraine Road is “vital, and I do mean vital, to my district.”
She pointed out that she frequently drives Bee Ridge Road, along with her fellow residents in District 1.
“To have the opportunity to play catch-up in an area that has been extremely patient for a very long time is so vital,” she continued. “This [project] can’t happen fast enough. … I’ve heard from hundreds of my constituents and neighbors who would beg you, ‘Please hurry; please hurry.’ ”
Moreover, Commissioner Cutsinger pointed out that, because of the Master Development Order that the County Commission seated in June 2021 approved, Hi Hat Ranch is entitled “to 13,000-plus units … Are we going to dump that traffic on Fruitville Road?” with state law making it impossible for the county to require the master developer to pay for the necessary improvements on Fruitville, Cutsinger continued. “No way!” The commissioners also do not want to see the Hi Hat traffic adding to congestion on Clark Road, he emphasized.
Moreover, Custinger pointed out, this is an opportunity “to see an exemplary development come in.”
All of the commissioners expressed their belief that the residential communities that will be created on the former ranch will be beautiful.
Cutsinger also emphasized that all of the neighborhoods and other facilities that are part of the master plan are not anticipated to be completed for 30 years, around 2056.
Turner told the board members, “We contend this [road construction proposal] is a fantastic deal for the taxpayers of Sarasota County [and] for the affected neighbors.”
Nonetheless, referencing Cutsinger’s remarks, Turner predicted, “If you turn this deal down … your ability to pay for these other road improvements gets worse, not better.”
Another facet of the deal will facilitate the county’s widening of Fruitville Road.
The reason for the workshop
As The Sarasota News Leader has reported, the commissioners voted 4-1 on Jan. 28 — with Commissioner Knight in the minority — to approve the terms of the roadway deal with Hi Hat Ranch. However, an article written by Michael Barfield, director of public access and an investigative reporter with the Florida Center for Government Accountability, raised ethical concerns about the negotiations with Hi Hat Ranch. Barfield pointed out that former county Commissioner Alan Maio of Nokomis represented Hi Hat Ranch in the discussions. Maio has returned to a principal position with the Kimley-Horn consulting firm in Sarasota since he stepped down from the board in November 2022.
On April 9, attorney Turner of the Hi Hat Ranch family referenced the “information that was published in the press, [which] created somewhat of an uproar on social media. We took the opportunity to correct that misinformation,” he added.
During the board’s regular meeting on Feb. 11, Chair Neunder called for staff to halt its work on preparing the formal agreement with Hi Hat that was approved on Jan. 28. He wanted nothing done, he said, until after he and his colleagues could have a more thorough discussion of the plans for the new developments and the road access. The vote that day was unanimous.
The Jan. 28 proposal called for the master developer of Hi Hat Ranch — formally Hit Hat Ranch LLP, whose principals are members of the Turner family of Sarasota — to pay half of an estimated $28-million expense of the design and construction of two extra lanes on Bee Ridge Road from Bent Tree Boulevard to Lorraine Road. That work must begin within six months after the County Commission formally approves the final agreement; Hi Hat would have two years to complete the project.
Osterhoudt of Planning and Development did note that the county would reimburse Hi Hat Ranch for the county’s 50% share of the expense, so no money would have to be provided upfront.
During the April 9 discussion, Commissioner Mast stressed, “I want to make this so clear that it cannot be missed here. … There’s not one dime that comes out of our coffers upfront.”
Hi Hat also would pay to add two more lanes to the roundabout at the Bee Ridge Road and Lorraine Road intersection. That expense has been estimated at $1 million, Turner said.
Osterhoudt had indicated that that roundabout has a site relationship to the future Hi Hat Ranch neighborhoods, Turner added. However, he emphasized, “That roundabout is not solidly related to our development.” Therefore, Turner maintained, based on state law, Hi Hat was not obligated to pay for the widening of the roundabout.
Further, the master developer will swap approximately 10 acres it owns along Fruitville Road for about 24 acres of county land off Bee Ridge Road that would be necessary for the construction of the Bee Ridge Road Extension East, or BREE.
The value of the Hi Hat property on Fruitville Road is estimated at about $3.6 million, Turner said. The Hi Hat team believes that, altogether, the swap will entail 18 acres, he added, 7 of which will be for the necessary stormwater ponds. Hi Hat had obtained an appraisal of the value, Turner noted.
The estimate, he said, is about $200,000 an acre. “We’re willing to donate that,” Turner pointed out.
During the April 9 workshop, Turner put the value of the completed BREE at approximately $40 million to $50 million, reiterating the fact that Hi Hat will be responsible for the full expense, even though the county will become the formal owner of the road.
As part of the deal, Hi Hat has agreed to construct just two lanes of the BREE at the outset, with work on the other two lanes to start when traffic volume indicates that that is necessary.
In addressing the commissioners on April 9, Turner explained that it would be essential to have the BREE as a third access to the Hi Hat Ranch neighborhoods, with Fruitville Road and Clark Road serving as the other means of reaching the developments.
He reiterated a point that he had made in an April 7 letter to the commissioners: “Imagine trying to gain ingress and egress off the island of Venice from only U.S. 41 Business North and U.S. 41 Business South, without a central east-west road across the [Intracoastal] Waterway at Venice Avenue — it would be a nightmare.”
If the BREE is not constructed soon, Turner said on April 9, “it will never be. Look at what we’ve gone through to try to facilitate it happening now!” he stressed. “We’ve been talking about this for a year-and-a-half. [County] department heads have lost sight of the future expectation that this would be that third critical link [to the Hi Hat developments].”
Altogether, during his April 9 remarks, Turner put the Hi Hat Ranch expense for the road deal at nearly $18.6 million. That does not include the estimated $14 million in Impact Fees that Hi Hat expects to pay the county for the first phase of development, one of Turner’s slides showed.
‘We are going to keep our word’
Referring to the 1928 plat during his presentation, Turner told the commissioners, “Even though we feel our position is even stronger, that the contributions we’ve agreed to make are not legally required, we are going to keep our word. We are not going to renegotiate.”
Further, Turner said he was not going to engage in a “tit for tat” exercise in response to the staff report that Osterhoudt of Planning and Development had provided the commissioners at the outset of the workshop. However, Turner did say that the family believes “there are some misleading and inaccurate information in the staff report.”
Turner also noted that, in regard to the negotiations, “The county was in a difficult situation with regard to trying to ask for things from us” without violating state law that governs what developers can be required to do in regard to road networks.
Osterhoudt had cited the 2011 state law that prevents local governments from making developers pay to improve roads that will serve their communities if the use of those roads by the new residents will reduce the level of service on those routes.
If county staff had asked for what it wanted Hi Hat Ranch to do, Turner said, “That would be precarious,” from a legal standpoint.
Turner also provided details about the Master Development Order that the County Commission seated in June 2021 approved for the new neighborhoods that will be constructed on Hi Hat Ranch. The density, Turner said, will be 1.3 dwelling units per acre.
Further, “We are going to buffer the roads and rural neighborhoods. … Other developers have asked for exceptions to that,” he pointed out, referring to facets of the county’s 2050 Plan for development east of Interstate 75, which dates to July 2002.
“We’re really trying to adhere to the principles of 2050 here,” Turner stressed. “We’ve been committed to ’em all along.”
Additionally, he noted, 55% of the master development will be open space, though the 2050 Plan calls for just 50%. Turner said he was not counting “pockets of open space in the development area” that will add to that percentage.
Hi Hat Ranch also is committed to making 15% of the dwelling units affordable, he added.
Moreover, Turner pointed out, the estimate for the county Impact Fees and Mobility Fees that will be generated by Hi Hat Ranch at full buildout is about $136 million, while the property taxes paid per year at full buildout are expected to total $229,100,634.
Dave Truxton, another member of the Hi Hat team, told the commissioners that the first Village on the property has been planned with 3,000 homes; that is anticipated to be completed within 10 to 13 years. He noted, “We’re still a way aways from this even coming to fruition.”
As Osterhoudt of Planning and Development had pointed out earlier that day, the first rezoning application for Hi Hat Ranch is not ready yet for the public hearing process.