BRADENTON — Manatee County commissioners are expected to consider a proposed wastewater-treatment project Tuesday that would commit the county to millions of dollars in annual payments while allowing a private company to use county-owned property for $1 a year.
The proposal is identified on the regular agenda as Project Wolf – Advanced PFAS Treatment for Landfill Leachate and Biosolids at Lena Road Landfill. The item is listed under the Department of Government Relations through its Division of Economic Development.
The project proposes that Chemical Injection Partners Florida, LLC, which does business as CIP Solutions—the latter currently operates the county treatment facility for Piney Point wastewater—will construct, operate, and maintain a new, separate wastewater treatment facility at the Lena Road Landfill.
According to the proposed resolution, the county would rent the project site at its landfill, along with related access and utility easements, to CIP Solutions for just $1 a year.
Based on a memorandum recommending the county-owned land and future project site as surplus, which was prepared by County Administrator Charlie Bishop, an in-house valuation estimated the site’s annual lease rate at $19,000 per year.
Documents attached to Tuesday’s meeting agenda further spell out that the county, in turn, would enter into a 5-year purchase contract where it would buy treatment services from the company operating its private facility on county-owned land at a rate of 7 cents per gallon for the first 72 million gallons per year, and 6 cents per gallon thereafter.
The proposed contract obligates the county to make at least 60 million gallons available for treatment each year during the initial five-year term, resulting in annual payments to CIP Solutions of approximately $4.2 to $4.5 million. Cumulatively, the contract awards the company at least $21 million over the first five years.
Along with the proposed resolution, the attached documents include a proposed budget amendment that, if approved, would appropriate $4.2 million from existing funds to cover the first year of the project. About $240,000 would come from PFAS settlement money and $3.96 million would come from Solid Waste Fund Reserves. The county’s fiscal year begins on October 1; the amendment approves the transfers just weeks ahead of the fiscal year end on Sept. 30.
Additional information accompanying the item also appeared to contain a significant caveat about the proposal up for approval: the County Attorney's Office (CAO) previously determined that the proposed agreement was not legally sufficient to be brought for board consideration and specifically instructed staff to “intelligently update the agreement” based on attorney recommendations, and to seek another legal review.
According to the agenda cover sheet, staff declined to do so.
The cover sheet includes, “Staff has declined to follow the CAO's request that the documents be resubmitted for additional legal review prior to presenting same to the Board for consideration. The CAO has not opined as to the legal sufficiency of the proposed documents and the county's risk manager has not approved the insurance provisions contained within the proposed agreement.”
A memorandum provided in response to the original Request for Legal Services (RLS), dated July 2026, identified several issues raised by the attorney’s review. For example, CIP Solutions was proposing to construct buildings over existing county pipes, but the CAO wrote that the version of the agreement it reviewed appeared silent regarding the county’s continued access to those pipes for maintenance and repair and that there were no written protections should CIP's construction or operations in any way interfere with, or damage, that infrastructure.
Perhaps more alarming, the CAO’s July RLS memo provided background information that an initial attempt to move the project forward earlier in the year was closed by the attorney's office after it determined the required procurement process had not been followed.
“This matter was originally submitted to the CAO as Project Viking, RLS No. 25/26-0310. During the CAO’s review of RLS No. 25/26-0310, it was discovered that Procurement was never consulted and the proposed transaction had not gone through the required procurement process. The CAO closed RLS No. 25/26-0310 on May 7, 2026. On May 15, 2026, the CAO provided staff with a comprehensive email detailing the steps that needed to be taken before the matter would be appropriate for legal review,” stated the CAO memo. “Despite the fact that action items remained outstanding before the submission of the RLS at hand, the CAO accepted the RLS submission (as Project Wolf) and assigned it RLS No. 25/26-0369.”
The RLS also states that the original unsolicited proposal from CIP Solutions, along with supporting documents requested by the CAO, was not included in the new submission.
The current agenda cover sheet states that “Procurement has completed the requisition process,” but available agenda materials do not appear to explain the full procurement history between the May closure of Project Viking and the currently proposed Project Wolf.
However, an appendix attached to the item titled Commissioner Questions - Project Wolf FAQ details that the county used a “sole source procurement process” and advertised for a required two weeks, but that “no additional outside bids were submitted.”
The FAQ sheet also includes information concerning the proposed project’s cost to taxpayers and residents. It lays out the annual $4.2 to $4.5 million cost for services as outlined in the agreement could potentially be paid for with a combination of settlement funds, revenues from the county’s renewable gas project, grant funding, potential future revenues from treating waste streams from other communities or organizations, or, “if needed, a proposed solid-waste charge” which is estimated at $2.75 per month for Manatee County Ultilities costumers.
This proposal before the commissioners on Tuesday is not the only recent agenda item or contract matter to come before the board in connection with CIP Solutions.
In June—during a similar time period as the CAO noted in the Project Wolf RLS that its earlier iteration, Project Viking, was first submitted to the County Attorney’s Office for review—TBT reported on a separate CIP Solutions contract matter involving an amendment to the existing agreement with the county for operations at the Piney Point wastewater pretreatment facility operated by the company.
That item came forward on the consent agenda and was presented with limited supporting information, including without county attorney review. After the item was pulled from consent, Commissioner Tal Siddique questioned the lack of documentation and described the absence of legal review as a “red flag.”
Largely at issue were questions surrounding the request to extend the existing contract with CIP Solutions with revised rates, and the county's financial obligations for the Piney Point operation, including concerns that the cost of treatment exceeded the money being provided through the receivership and that the county’s general fund could ultimately be responsible for continuing costs.
Commissioners initially deferred the matter and directed staff to return with additional information. Weeks later, when the item returned to the board for a vote, commissioners ultimately approved a one-year extension to the existing contract with CIP Solutions.
Earlier in April, another item related to CIP Solutions was also pulled from a consent agenda. That item sought approval to add a long-term care plan to the agreement between CIP Solutions and the county, authorizing an additional $1.3 million to cover repairs and system improvements at the Piney Point wastewater treatment facility.
According to the agenda attachments and cover sheet provided with the April 7 CIP Solutions-related item, that proposal was also brought before commissioners without attorney review.
During the item discussion, staff told commissioners that while the county would fund the initial cost through its general fund, the receivership would reimburse the county. The item was approved unanimously after a brief discussion.
As TBT reported earlier, because both CIP Solutions items were pulled from consent agendas in April and June and questioned by commissioners, a former high-ranking county official had also resigned her position and accepted a job with CIP Solutions during the same timeframe.
Former Manatee County Deputy Administrator Courtney De Pol left County government on April 3 and joined CIP Solutions as its Chief Revenue Officer immediately thereafter.
According to the company’s website, De Pol's role includes responsibility for the company's growth strategy, strategic partnerships, and market expansion involving advanced water-treatment and environmental technologies, including work with utilities, industrial clients, and governments.
The attachments provided on the Sept. 1 meeting agenda for item No. 34 characterize Project Wolf as an effort to improve PFAS readiness and long-term infrastructure resilience. But the documents also show that the County would be committing to a multi-year financial obligation, leasing public property for $1 a year, and moving forward with an agreement that the County Attorney's Office previously found legally insufficient for Board consideration. Staff did not provide the CAO the additional opportunity to review the updated agreement that its July memorandum recommended.
On Tuesday, commissioners will be asked to consider what would be the third contractual matter involving CIP Solutions to come before the board this year, following the company's April and June agreements related to its operation of the Piney Point wastewater treatment facility.
Click here to access the September 1, 2026, Manatee County Board of County Commissioners meeting agenda.
Dawn Kitterman is a staff reporter and investigative journalist for The Bradenton Times, covering local government news. She can be reached at dawn.kitterman@thebradentontimes.com.
4 comments on this item
Only paid subscribers can comment
Please log in to comment by clicking here.
GLEN GADFLY GIBELLINA
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
Saturday, August 29 Report this
David Daniels
Only commissioners with their heads purposely stuck in the sand would trust this administration to act with integrity and transparency. The public most certainly does not. Refer this to the IG so we can plainly see the procurement process violations. Unbelievable that the administrator just ignores the county attorney’s directives. And never any accountability. A complete dereliction of duty by the BoCC.
Sunday, August 30 Report this
Debann
GET RID OF CHARLIE BISHOP
Sunday, August 30 Report this
teamj1009
Well how does one jump on the scam train. Where or what could I do on County land pay $1 per year and then have the County pay me millions. WOW now that is the American dream.
Any ideas? I will be transparent as getting the scam out there as there appears to be zero consequences.
Plus they run scared about Article 3 because the gravy train will run out. If you feel they need all the funds that they waste and abuse vote it down. If you feel it's time to shut the open checkbook vote yes.......
Sunday, August 30 Report this