To some people, it’s political warfare.
Others say it’s about complying with Florida’s Government-in-the-Sunshine Law.
Four depositions were conducted June 12 and June 13 in a lawsuit filed in August 2017 alleging violations of the Sunshine Law by ex-Mayor Jack Clarke and joined by the city of Bradenton Beach against six former city board members.
Tom Shults, attorney for defendant John Metz, deposed city planner Alan Garrett and city attorney Ricinda Perry June 12 and building official Steve Gilbert and City Commissioner Jake Spooner June 13.
Perry was first deposed March 20, but the defense filed a motion and received three more hours of deposition.
The lawsuit alleges violations of state statutes governing open meetings and public records laws by former planning and zoning board members Metz, Reed Mapes, Patty Shay and Bill Vincent, and former Scenic Waves Partnership Committee members Tjet Martin and Rose Vincent, who all were also members of the now-defunct grass-roots group Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach.
When the lawsuit was initiated, Perry claimed recordings of CNOBB meetings indicated the defendants discussed matters that could come before them as board members, including the prohibition of a parking garage in the city.
Even though the board members resigned after the suit began, Perry said it was a case of “sue or be sued” by outside interests aware of the alleged violations by the board members.
Since then, the lawsuit has cost taxpayers more than $200,000, and the defendants claim their spending is about the same amount.
In his May 30, 2018, deposition, Mapes stated, “At no time was a specific parking garage brought before the P&Z board,” and that he “had no idea if or when it would come before the P&Z board.”
Robert Watrous, attorney for Clarke and the city in the lawsuit, asked Mapes, “As an educated businessman, how do you interpret the term ‘reasonably foreseeable?,’” to which Mapes responded, “I can’t define that.”
At the June 12 and June 13 depositions, Shults investigated the concept of “reasonable foreseeability” in relation to a parking garage in the city while questioning Garrett, Perry, Gilbert and Spooner.
During Garrett’s testimony, Shults established that before amending the land development code and comprehensive plan in 2018, parking garages were permitted in two areas of Bradenton Beach.
Following the 2018 amendment, multilevel parking structures were prohibited.
Shults asked Garrett if anyone had applied for a permit to build a parking garage in the city during his tenure, prior to or after the amendment, to which Garrett replied, “No.”
Exhibits attached to Garrett’s deposition showed that a possible parking facility on Highland Avenue was brought up during a 2017 commission meeting by then-Mayor Bill Shearon.
Additionally, Spooner proposed a parking facility at the location currently occupied by Joe’s Eats and Sweets within the community redevelopment district on Gulf Drive.
No plans were drawn or submitted before the city passed its prohibition of multilevel parking facilities, although both were included in a spreadsheet as possible projects for the CRA or the city.
During Perry’s deposition, Shults asked if inclusion in a spreadsheet of CRA and city projects guaranteed the projects would be prioritized and accomplished.
Perry said projects on the list were “ideas” that would still require the city or the CRA to “pull the trigger.”
When asked by Shults if someone could apply to build a parking garage, Perry said, “The comprehensive plan is a living and breathing document. If an individual came forward with the appropriate amendments to the plan, the P&Z board and land planning agency would have to consider it.”
However, in his June 13 deposition, Gilbert testified that, to his knowledge, no one has ever applied for a permit to build a parking garage in the city.
Shults asked Gilbert if he was aware of any efforts to build a parking garage in the city, to which Gilbert responded, “The CRA board did have discussions in 2016, I think, but it never went anywhere.”
Following Gilbert’s deposition, Shults asked Spooner if he pursued his proposal for a parking facility on Gulf Drive.
Spooner said he was authorized by the CRA to research the project. He owns two businesses and vacant land on Bridge Street near the proposed parking garage, so he checked with the state attorney’s office to ensure he would not be violating statutes by looking into the matter.
According to Spooner’s testimony, he researched the project, but it died due to lack of interest by the CRA board.
Metz, the only defendant still retaining an attorney, said June 11 that the lawsuit is a “sad comment about the management and leadership of the city.”
“Nothing happened that was injurious,” Metz said. “This has been established. The supposed ‘threat’ to the city was unreasonable and this is purely a politically driven suit, meant to take down six retirees who only wanted to support the city.”
A pretrial hearing for the suit is scheduled for June 20.
Discovery will continue through early July, with a trial planned for the week of July 15.