Don’t look for any support from your district for Commissioner. He’s on the board of new college.
Public Comment in Support of the Uplands Petitioners
I am writing in strong support of the six Uplands-area residents who have challenged New College of Florida’s 2025 Campus Master Plan before the Division of Administrative Hearings. These neighbors are not trying to stop New College from growing. They are asking a public institution, funded by taxpayers, to follow the same Florida planning laws and Board of Governors regulations that apply to everyone else. That is a reasonable request, and it deserves the community’s backing.
A 10-year master plan is supposed to be built on data, analysis and genuine consultation with the people it affects. The remaining claims in this case show where that did not happen. Manatee County’s own planning staff flagged that the plan for the nine acres north of campus conflicts with the county’s comprehensive plan, and state law requires the two to be consistent. Instead of pausing to resolve that discrepancy, the college moved ahead. That alone is a flaw serious enough to warrant a second look.
The petitioners raise other questions any responsible planner would want answered before adoption. Where is the outdoor air quality analysis for athletic fields placed downwind of the Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport runways, given that student-athletes will be breathing that air for hours at a time? What traffic study, if any, supports opening a southern connection to Uplands Boulevard? These are not obstructionist demands. They are the basic homework a 10-year plan should have already done.
The residents also have lived experience that the plan ignored. Roughly 138 mature trees were removed from the Uplands Preserve, land that for decades served as a protected natural buffer and helped absorb stormwater, to make way for a temporary athletic field. Since then, neighbors report worse flooding and early-morning whistles and coaching instructions carrying into their homes. When the consequences of a decision are already visible on the ground, it is fair to ask whether the plan that codifies those decisions was based on appropriate and relevant data.
It is worth noting what the petitioners are not asking for. Ms. Burns states plainly that she is not seeking wholesale invalidation of the plan, only correction of specific provisions that fall short of state requirements. That measured approach runs through all six petitions. These are residents representing themselves, without lawyers, navigating a complex administrative process because they believe the rules matter. Mr. Miller has said one of their hopes is simply to improve the process so that neighbors of other state universities do not have to go through this. That is a public-spirited goal, and the whole state university system stands to benefit from it.
Ms. Stack put it best: had New College done this right from the beginning and involved the stakeholders, these challenges likely would not exist. Good planning is not slower planning. It is planning that holds up. I urge New College to use the upcoming mediation to engage in good faith, address the identified gaps in data and analysis, bring the plan into consistency with Manatee County’s comprehensive plan, and treat its neighbors as partners rather than adversaries.
I thank the petitioners for their persistence and civic commitment, and I encourage others in our community to voice their support.
For the Record
GADFLY
— Kelly Kirschner shows clearly in this interview that he is the one we should elect to represent us in district 16. Do not let all the dark money being invested in convincing votes for his opponent fool you into electing a puppet who will make sure those corrupt investments are paid back. Found it enlightening to hear that the Gruters are investing heavily in data center related businesses — at 51:30+ in the interview hear about their quarter of a million holdings there already — wonder where else they are investing all that profit her husband is making while he hides all that dark money from the IRS and the public for Trump... we may never know.
Share this interview and do what you can to spread information about Kelly. He has a record of fighting corruption in government and working for the interests of those he represents.
The net ban was to protect the mullet population from being wiped out. The first mullet fishermen need only bang on the sides of their boats to have the mullet leap in! Another example of destroying a resource with no thought for future generations!
"Commandeering oil??" If Nixon is referring to the US taking back Venezuelan oil, she evidently unaware that American oil companies had their plants and oil producing infrastructure STOLEN when it was taken over by the, then, new political regime! Yeah, just what we need... another AOC style candidate talking nonsense in DC! Smh.
The September 23 forum is for the race for the UNITED STATES CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 16 seat, NOT Florida Congressional District. Florida's redistricting changed District 16 from a two county district to one that now includes all or parts of SIX counties. All of Manatee, Hardee and DeSoto. Southern Pinellas and Polk Counties and the eastern part of Sarasota County. THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RACES IN OUR REGION AND IN THE NATION!!!
It is nice to see these comments from Commissioner Kruse - especially challenging the RPOF. But where was Kruse before August 18th? When his comments might have made a difference against RPOF and developer-supported candidates Bill Conerly and J Varnadore? I get not wanting to upset the people who decide state funding - but that kind of thinking needs to end. Every year, our County Commissioners come hat in hand to our state delegation, praising them and pretending there is this great county-state relationship. Then, the state delegation goes to Tallahassee and screws over Manatee county residents with preemption, anti-home rule laws like SB 180. It is long past time that Kruse, Siddique and other leaders grow a spine when it comes to these state races. Coming out 2 weeks after the election is not exactly a profile in courage.
at least this poor guy is TRYING TO TELL YOU WHAT HE SEES in the cesspool that KRUSE and company perpetuate . BEING SLAVES TO THE DEVELOPERS AND TRYING TO HIDE IT. these commissioners except for Bob Mccann and the new lady that took Carolanns place are FILTHY LYING CHEATING BRIBE TAKING PIGS. kruse ,bow tie, that angela crook, mike rahn. ALL CROOKS. PAID OFF STOOGES. BY THE DEVELOPERS. RUINING WHATS LEFT OF OUR COUNTY. He's right whether you hate Chrisitans or not (I am one) - Gods judgement is coming. for the clintons, the obamas the bidens and FOR ALL THESE DEVELOPERS AND CROOKS who have wrecked Manatee County. Think about it all of you. Eternity is a long time!
I hope every voter takes the time to listen. That was a great and surprising conversation. We appreciate the history and background. Based on this conversation he will probably win over a lot of republican voters.
The prospect of Pittsburg's Point Park University having a campus in Downtown Bradenton is very exciting. Founded in 1933, this school has evolved into vibrant, career focused university. The transfer from Manatee County of a 1915 built downtown Bradenton building will be a terrific focal point for the Bradenton Campus. This should be beneficial to local businesses, downtown activities and positive energy. I look forward to seeing how this will benefit Bradenton and the County at large. Ruth Lawler
A zinger every line. This is right up there with Pittman's best. Funny that he mock's politicians. Not so funny that he's also (rightfully) mocking half of Florida's population.
Re: Opposition to Approval of Project Wolf—Advanced PFAS Treatment for Landfill Leachate and Biosolids at Lena Road Landfill; Budget Amendment Resolution B-26-109; and Resolution R-26-122
Dear Chair and Commissioners:
I respectfully urge the Board to vote NO on Project Wolf as presented, including the proposed lease of County-owned property to Chemical Injection Partners Florida, LLC, doing business as CIP Solutions; Budget Amendment Resolution B-26-109; and Resolution R-26-122.
Manatee County should pursue responsible landfill-leachate management, PFAS preparedness, and reliable water infrastructure. However, the need for treatment does not justify approving a poorly vetted private arrangement that places public land, public funds, and long-term public utility obligations at risk. This proposed lease and service arrangement has not been shown to provide a clear, measurable, and enforceable benefit to Manatee County taxpayers.
The proposal would place a privately financed, privately built, privately operated treatment facility at the Lena Road Landfill. CIP Solutions would finance, construct, operate, and maintain the facility, while the County would lease public property and purchase treatment services or treated water. This is not a limited administrative action. It is a long-term policy choice that can bind taxpayers to a particular vendor, technology, operational model, payment structure, and environmental-risk allocation for years to come.
The public has not been provided sufficient evidence that this structure is the best value for taxpayers. Before approving a lease or committing County resources, the Board should know the County’s complete financial exposure over the full life of the agreement—not merely the stated project cost. The public deserves clear disclosure of all service payments, price escalators, minimum-volume or minimum-payment obligations, availability payments, renewal provisions, termination costs, contingencies, and potential taxpayer liabilities.
The Board should also consider whether the County is receiving fair value for the use of its land. Public land at a critical utility asset should not be made available to a private operator without a clear legal basis, a documented public purpose, appropriate compensation or value, enforceable County protections, and a transparent explanation of why the public-private structure is superior to County ownership, competitive alternatives, or another procurement approach.
Most importantly, the agenda material raises serious unresolved governance concerns. It states that, on July 23, 2026, the County Attorney’s Office advised that the agreement submitted for review was not legally sufficient; recommended that staff address the legal comments and redlined edits; and requested that the documents be revised and resubmitted for legal review. The same material states that the documents were not resubmitted before Board consideration, that the County Attorney’s Office has not opined that the proposed documents are legally sufficient, and that the County Risk Manager has not approved the proposed insurance provisions.
The Board should not approve this transaction while these safeguards remain unresolved. Legal sufficiency and risk-management approval are not optional formalities. They are basic protections for taxpayers and for the County itself—especially where the proposal involves PFAS, landfill leachate, biosolids, private treatment infrastructure on public land, insurance and indemnity terms, and potentially significant long-term financial commitments.
Approval at this stage would be premature because the Board and public still need clear answers to fundamental questions:
• What is the maximum total financial obligation of Manatee County over the agreement term?
• Will the County be required to make minimum payments, take-or-pay payments, availability payments, escalation payments, or termination payments?
• What is the lease value, and how was it determined to be fair and in the public interest?
• Who owns the facility, equipment, improvements, permits, and treated-water rights during and after the agreement?
• What happens if CIP Solutions fails to perform, loses required insurance, becomes insolvent, cannot meet treatment standards, or has an operational failure?
• Who pays for and remains liable for PFAS concentrate, spent filtration media, sludge, brine, or other treatment residuals?
• What independent standards, monitoring, public reporting, remedies, and penalties will ensure performance?
• Does the County have meaningful audit rights, termination rights, emergency step-in rights, and the ability to protect public health and utility operations if the vendor defaults?
• Was the vendor and deal structure selected through a process that provides the County with genuine competition, best value, and transparency?
• Why is the Board being asked to approve a lease and budget action before the County Attorney and County Risk Manager have completed and approved their respective reviews?
Taxpayers should not be asked to assume unknown financial, environmental, and legal risks so that a private company can obtain the benefit of County land and a potentially long-term County revenue stream. The County should not substitute an incomplete agreement for completed due diligence. Nor should it use a budget amendment or lease authorization to move ahead before the governing documents are legally sufficient and the risk protections are approved.
Accordingly, I request that the Board reject the proposed approval at the September 1, 2026 meeting. At a minimum, the Board should defer any binding action until staff returns with all of the following:
• A revised agreement determined legally sufficient by the County Attorney’s Office.
• Written approval of insurance, indemnification, pollution and environmental liability coverage, and related risk provisions by the County Risk Manager.
• A complete public lifecycle-cost analysis comparing the proposed arrangement with County-owned and competitively available alternatives.
• A public term sheet stating the full payment structure, escalations, duration, renewals, termination rights, default remedies, performance guarantees, and maximum taxpayer exposure.
• Independent engineering review of treatment capacity, PFAS performance, reclaimed-water quality, residuals management, disposal obligations, and operational risks.
• A documented finding that the land lease, procurement route, and transaction structure comply with applicable Florida law and County requirements.
• A clear public-interest finding establishing that the lease and overall arrangement deliver demonstrable value to Manatee County taxpayers.
A vote against this proposal as presently structured is not a vote against PFAS treatment, landfill improvements, or environmental responsibility. It is a vote for due diligence, legal compliance, fiscal accountability, fair value for public assets, and protection of the taxpayers who will bear the consequences if this arrangement fails.
Please do not approve Project Wolf, Resolution B-26-109, or Resolution R-26-122 until the County has established, with complete public documentation, that the proposal is lawful, financially prudent, technically sound, and demonstrably beneficial to Manatee County taxpayers.
Respectfully submitted,
Glen GADFLY Gibellina
"Why Should the Taxpayer Get Screwed on This Deal?"
Sept 1 BOCC meeting. This was paid for by TAXPAYERS MONEY!!!
Commissioners vote NO on Resolution R-26-97 at the September 1, 2026 meeting.
According to the agenda item, County Administration's stated rationale is that transferring the GTE building to the City of Bradenton "will preserve a historic downtown building, promote economic development, expand educational opportunities, and serve the public interest and welfare," aligning with the Downtown district Community Redevelopment Plan . The deed's reverter clause is the only mechanism meant to lock the City into that public-purpose use — but as noted, it expires automatically five years after recording, after which the City could repurpose or even sell the property with no further obligation to the County .
Why a land trust structure would be stronger
Placing the property into a land trust — rather than deeding it away — would let the County retain underlying ownership while leasing usage rights to the City (or a nonprofit/educational operator) for the same educational, workforce-development, or redevelopment purposes. This approach would:
• Preserve the County's $483,000 investment and the $1,215,000 appraised asset value on its books, rather than writing it off to zero .
• Allow the County to collect lease revenue (even nominal or below-market rent) instead of receiving nothing.
• Give the County permanent leverage to enforce the public-purpose use for as long as the lease runs, rather than losing that leverage after five years once the reverter expires.
• Let the County reclaim the property or renegotiate terms if the City's use changes, fails, or the building is neglected — something an outright deed transfer forecloses.
• Still let the City sublease, program, or manage the building for education/workforce training as intended, satisfying the stated public-interest goal without the County giving up ownership.
This is essentially how many municipalities structure historic-building or community-asset arrangements — the public entity retains title via a land trust or long-term ground lease, while the operating partner gets full use of the building. It accomplishes the same stated goals (preserving the historic building, expanding education/workforce programs) without the taxpayer footing a permanent, uncompensated loss.
• Direct financial loss: The County spent $483,000 to reacquire the property in 2023–2024, and giving it away for $0 means taxpayers absorb that entire loss — made worse by the fact that the County's own appraiser values the property at $1,215,000, meaning over a million dollars in value is being surrendered with zero compensation.
• Repeated reversals: The property has changed hands three times in four years (sold to FCG in 2022, repurchased in 2024 for a parking garage project that was later scrapped, now proposed for a no-cost giveaway), each cycle carrying real transaction costs paid by taxpayers.
• Weak safeguard: The deed's reverter clause — the only protection ensuring the property is actually used for its stated public purpose — automatically expires after just five years, after which the City has no binding obligation to honor that purpose.
• Concrete alternatives: The letter proposes the Board require fair market value or reimbursement of the County's purchase cost, use a long-term lease instead of a deed transfer, extend or make permanent the reverter period, and commission a formal cost-benefit analysis before voting.
https://agendaonline.mymanatee.org/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=788&doctype=1
Recent Comments
GLEN GADFLY GIBELLINA writes:
New College neighbors head to mediation over disputed campus master plan
kmskepton@yahoo.com writes:
USPS Whistleblower says Trump's new Rules on Mail Ballots Could Lead to "Grave, Catastrophic Failure"
Charles writes:
Episode 254: Kelly Kirschner, D16 Congressional candidate
fredfromaugusta writes:
Manatee voters to decide on another environmental lands tax this November
serenowens@aol.com writes:
Help Wanted: Florida Jobs that Vanished Over the Years
graumli22 writes:
Special Episode: U.S. Senate Candidate Angie Nixon
ml.chickp@verizon.net writes:
League of Women Voters Meet the Candidates Forums
David Daniels writes:
Labels are Lazy
THarte writes:
How Sarasota youth helped flip a conservative school board
Manatee Watch writes:
Jason Bearden GOES OFF on Manatee County Special Interests following assistant's dismissal
san.gander@gmail.com writes:
Public Wins Access to Ziegler Investigation Records as Appeals Court Reverses Secrecy Order
Dianna writes:
Episode 252: Charles Smith
ruthlawler@att.net writes:
BOCC unanimously approves transfer of former GTE Building to City to support downtown redevelopment plan
lib224@gmail.com writes:
Garrison and Campos win confirmation votes in contentious BOCC meeting
ml.chickp@verizon.net writes:
Manatee County School Board Notes: 8/25/26
GoldenGopher writes:
Lights may dim on casinos in Manatee after county finalizes ordinance
David Daniels writes:
Florida pushes publishers to play down climate change in textbooks
writerlynn9717@gmail.com writes:
Manatee County officials have good reasons not to want to hear what you think
GLEN GADFLY GIBELLINA writes:
BOCC to consider $21M CIP Solutions deal for private facility on county land
GLEN GADFLY GIBELLINA writes:
Commissioners to vote on $0 transfer of county GTE building as part of city and Point Park campus plan