Behind Closed Doors: Sarasota County’s contentious negotiations with a developer

Hi Hat Ranch, Sarasota County’s largest development project that will add over 13,000 homes east of I-75, recently moved forward with a controversial plan allowing developers to build a road across 24 acres of county land. Despite a 2021 ordinance requiring the developer to cover the full cost, taxpayers are now responsible for half of the Bee Ridge Road extension to the private development’s entrance.

The Hi Hat deal could become one of Sarasota County’s most contentious land-use decisions because it is also the largest development project in the county’s history.

Adding to the controversy, former County Commissioner Al Maio played a key role in drafting the terms of the land deal on behalf of the developer during a private meeting with county staff in December 2024. Shortly after, staff reversed course, recommending terms that conflicted with the clear direction commissioners had given at a public meeting just six weeks earlier.

Maio, a longtime ally of developers, left the commission in November 2022. Records show he was copied on more than 160 emails about Hi Hat Ranch starting in March 2023 and attended multiple meetings with county staff.

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.

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. Lewis could not recall the exact nature of the numerous calls with Maio but said they most frequently talked about the Peace River board Maio sits on and their families.

Lewis said he redacted only those calls on the phone logs that were with his family members.

Maio refused multiple efforts to answer questions about his work on behalf of Hi Hat Ranch.

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.

Public records obtained by the Florida Trident do not confirm whether Maio directly lobbied Lewis or his direct reports on business related to Hi Hat Ranch. None of the meetings between Maio and county staff reviewed by the Florida Trident included Lewis or anyone who directly reports to him.

Maio’s son, Adam, who is vice chair of the Sarasota County Planning Commission, recently performed significant construction and remodeling at the Lewis residence.

“It’s all public record,” Adam Maio told the Florida Trident, but declined to detail the work done at the Lewis residence, referring further questions to his attorney which were unanswered at press time.

Lewis said the construction was needed after damage from Hurricane Ian. A permit indicates the work included a new roof and interior remodel valued at $100,000, according to public records.

A giveaway to developers?

Extending Bee Ridge Road to the private development is estimated to cost $28 million, with taxpayers covering half—though final costs remain uncertain. Notably, the county did not conduct an appraisal to determine the value of the 24 acres used for the proposed roadway.

Internal county emails reveal staff strongly criticized the developer’s proposal, warning of severe traffic impacts. However, commissioners were never informed that the first phase of the project—spanning between Fruitville Road and Clark Road —would increase traffic on a segment of Bee Ridge Road by up to 140%, pushing it below an acceptable level of service.

A 2023 county traffic analysis shows that the entire length of Bee Ridge Road already operating at Level D under the county’s adopted minimum standards. Under the county’s roadway rating system, Level A represents free-flowing traffic, while Level F indicates gridlock and failure.

Critics call the deal a giveaway to developers at public expense, warning it will worsen congestion on already overburdened roads.

“The only guarantee for taxpayers on this so-called ‘deal’ is that we’ll be paying millions to sit in traffic,” said Myakka resident Randy Boyd.

“Drivers on Fruitville Road are held hostage every day,” Boyd said.

Gridlocked negotiations

Negotiations over the Bee Ridge Road extension for the Hi Hat Ranch project began in June 2023. A series of internal emails revealed county staff had serious concerns about the developer’s request to build a road across 24 acres of county land between Rothenbach Park and the Sheriff’s Animal Services Office.

Tensions escalated in August 2023 after Planning Director Matt Osterhoudt instructed staff to cancel scheduled meetings and route all communication through his office.

By November, Hi Hat’s attorney, Charlie Bailey, requested a meeting with county staff, announcing that Al Maio would join on behalf of the developer.

Public record emails reveal Maio’s continued involvement in Hi Hat Ranch projects. In November 2023, Mike Campbell, an agent for the developer, asked Osterhoudt to call him, saying, “I will patch Al in.” A few weeks later, Campbell suggested Maio could personally deliver a response to the county, writing, “We prefer the personal touch, of course!”

At a mid-November meeting, Osterhoudt rejected several aspects of the developer’s proposal, including a dead-end Bee Ridge extension into the private development, calling it “unacceptable.” He also denied a request to relocate an access road to the Sheriff’s Animal Services facility across a wetland.

Staff pushback and warnings

On November 29, Hi Hat submitted another proposal, which again failed to satisfy county staff. Senior Transportation Manager Don DeBerry was skeptical of the new proposal, telling Public Works Director Spencer Anderson, “I don’t see that much has changed.” DeBerry estimated the developer would profit between $70-$700 million from the first phase alone, adding, “We need to make sure the public’s interests are secured.”

In other internal emails, DeBerry rejected multiple developer demands with responses in red text: “No way!” and “Not good enough!” Staff also opposed the use of county land for the road, citing “operational impacts” on existing facilities.

Anderson, in an email to Osterhoudt, recommended that the developer should bear the “full cost of widening” the segment of Bee Ridge Road. He warned that the development would increase existing traffic volume by 140%, exceeding the roadway’s Level of Service of D. Anderson noted that widening would not be required but for the Hi Hat development. “A split of this required infrastructure improvement is not warranted,” Anderson wrote.

DeBerry was more blunt, warning that the development would push daily traffic “well over the theoretical capacity” of a segment of Bee Ridge Road. He suggested a firm stance against the developer’s proposal in an email to Anderson, stating:

“I feel like our response should just be—sorry, if that’s the best you can do, you can forget Bee Ridge. You need to move forward with a Clark to Fruitville connection. From my perspective, their arrogance is insulting. Walk away.”

Despite these warnings, neither Anderson nor Osterhoudt withdrew from negotiations or disclosed the traffic concerns to commissioners.

At a meeting on October 4, 2023, Jim Turner, the master developer for Hi Hat, attributed statements to Lewis, who was not in attendance. Lewis later took issue with the statement. Following the meeting, Osterhoudt emailed Turner saying “the County has current and planned needs for this County-owned property. Therefore, at this time, the County will not be accepting a rezone petition as proposed.”

Later that evening, Lewis emailed Turner correcting him regarding the statements attributed to him about the Hi Hat project.

In the 24 hours that followed, Maio and others had multiple phone calls with Lewis.

Deal, no deal

In mid-December 2023, it appeared that progress was made after Turner met directly with Lewis. By late January 2024, county staff believed they were close to a deal, with only minor details left to finalize.

In a letter dated January 22, Turner conceded the developer “shall design and construct [the roadway extension] at no expense to the County.” Turner also agreed to construct a 4-lane road, with two lanes completed before the first home receives a certificate of occupancy. Turner also agreed to convey 20+/- acres for the widening of Fruitville Road. The developer agreed to other concessions to minimize traffic impacts.

But at a subsequent meeting days later, Lewis learned there was no deal.

“Mr. Bailey informed us that they weren’t interested in the deal as previously discussed. So, it did seem like they were saying, ‘Just kidding—we don’t agree to that deal,’” Lewis wrote in an email to the Florida Trident.

Multiple efforts were made to seek comment from both Bailey and Turner for more than 10 days before publication without any response.

After months of deadlock, the negotiations stalled.

Commission’s clear directive

County staff sought commission guidance at a late October 2024 public meeting. Osterhoudt told commissioners that the 2021 master development order required Hi Hat to cover all costs for road and intersection improvements tied to the development.

Staff outlined six key conditions for any agreement, including:

• Clear language confirming the developer would fully fund the Bee Ridge Road extension
• A $6 million escrow deposit until project completion
• A December 2027 deadline for the road extension
• An engineer cost estimate
• A cap on mobility fee credits to the developer
• Separating regulatory and land access components of the deal

Commissioners were explicit: the developer had to accept all six conditions, including covering road costs.

“We need to have these six items agreed upon by the master developer or not, and that’s it. If they don’t agree …, that’s it, we’re done.” —Commissioner Mark Smith.

Commissioner Joe Neunder agreed, emphasizing that county land belongs to taxpayers. “Negotiating against ourselves is never a good place to be,” he said.

If the developer refused, they could access the project through existing routes via Fruitville or Clark Road that did not involve county land.

At the end of the meeting, both Osterhoudt and Lewis confirmed they understood the commission’s directive.

“Yes, sir,” both replied.

Public not invited 

Six weeks later, the deal Maio drafted on a whiteboard at a meeting with county staff would look far different than the six items commissioners insisted on.

Little is known about what happened at the December 11th meeting because the public was not invited or even aware of the meeting.

The Florida Trident obtained a picture of the terms of the “land deal” Maio wrote on a whiteboard taken at the meeting.

In January 2025, staff came forward with an agenda item vaguely described as “To provide policy guidance on selling access through County-owned land.”

Staff recommended taxpayers pay for half of the road extension project, with no cap for taxpayers’ portion. Only two of the four planned lanes are to be built initially, with the rest delayed until another traffic study justifies the expansion. The parties agreed to completion dates and that the developer would be responsible for improving the roundabout on Lorraine Road.

At a meeting on January 28, 2025, Osterhoudt praised Maio and Dave Truxton, another member of the developer’s negotiating team. Staff never told the commissioners about the earlier objections, including the traffic impact. None of the emails obtained by the Florida Trident were part of the agenda packet. Nor was any appraisal given to commissioners.

Although Maio’s whiteboard notes indicate the developer would give 24 acres for the county’s 24 acres, the recommendation brought back to the commission only requires the developer to give up 10 acres off of Fruitville Road.

Commissioner Tom Knight cast the lone dissenting vote, raising concerns about financial risks and traffic impacts.

“I have concerns about the future of our infrastructure that we’re talking about every day. And so, unfortunately, I can’t support this. And this is what hurts about doing these jobs, right? We all sit up here and get scrutinized, but I have been here 51 years, and I see our traffic, and that’s all I’ll say,” said Knight.

When asked by the Florida Trident last Friday what changed in the six weeks following the clear direction given in October on the six items commissioners insisted on, both Osterhoudt and Anderson indicated the deal was the most reasonable to bring back before the board.

“In a perfect world, I’d want them to pay for it all,” said Osterhoudt.

Anderson said commissioners weren’t told about traffic counts because it wasn’t a factor in the deal for access to land to extend the roadway.

Osterhoudt did not address his previous insistence that Hi Hat Ranch comply with the requirement in the master development order approved in a 2021 ordinance to fund all costs related to roadway improvements to the project.

County Attorney Josh Moye told the Florida Trident that county staff acted in good faith with a degree of reasonableness in complying with the requirement to negotiate. But in response to questions from then-County Commissioner Mike Moran, Moye expressly told commissioners at the October 23 meeting that the county was under no legal requirement to agree to anything with the developer.

Commissioner Smith was contacted by the Florida Trident for comment. “I was under the impression that we had gotten what we had discussed in October. I’m disappointed that does not appear to be the case,” Smith said. He indicated he intended to revisit the issue.

Frustrated residents

Opponents warn the deal also poses huge financial risks, potentially costing Sarasota taxpayers millions.

Dan Lobeck, President of Control Growth Now, criticized the proposed deal: “If a road serves only a developer, it should be paid fully by that developer, not 50/50 with public funds or by a reduction of mobility fees which are supposed to be used to reduce congestion caused by the developer.”

“Covert dealmaking to benefit a big developer at the public expense is a betrayal of both the taxpayers and those who drive on roads that will remain inadequate so long as we let our politicians choose their contributors over their constituents,” Lobeck added.

County’s 2050 growth model

Hanging in the balance is Sarasota County’s 2050 Plan for growth framework originally adopted in 2002. Under the Charter, land use decisions east of I-75 must remain fiscally neutral, meaning that any new development is responsible for covering all its associated infrastructure costs. The 2050 model offered landowners increased density and non-residential development options in exchange for meeting higher planning and environmental requirements.

Former county commissioner Joe Barbetta voted against the 2050 model because he did not think the infrastructure east of I-75 was ready for it. “You don’t put a new addition on your house without fixing a leaky roof. Infrastructure east of I-75 is leaking,” Barbetta told the Florida Trident.

Barbetta was also critical of the cost to taxpayers and the traffic impact of the Hi Hat project. “It shouldn’t be on the taxpayer’s back. Looking at the existing traffic conditions and level of service now without a full-blown traffic study would be irresponsible,” he said.

Barbetta also expressed concern about impacts on secondary roadways in that area, saying those roads will also be overburdened.

Others raised concerns about sources used to fund infrastructure to the benefit of developers and at the expense of affordable housing, increased traffic, and higher taxes to existing residents.

An example is the amount of surtax money allocated to new development projects. Almost $100 million of the nearly $1 billion in surtax money will go towards infrastructure for new development and transportation.

Former Sarasota County Commissioner Jon Thaxton characterized the proposal as a lesson learned from the 2050 plan. “A future land use policy that pits the public’s interest against developer profits cannot be trusted to protect the public’s interest.”

What’s Next?

At issue are the growing concerns over Maio’s involvement, traffic congestion, flooding, and the true cost to taxpayers. Commissioners recently learned the flooding from Tropical Storm Debby in August 2024 was caused by a breach in an earthen berm that abuts the property line between county-owned Rothenbach Park and Hi Hat’s property to the east, the area immediately south of the proposed roadway.

A dike separates higher elevation on the eastern side of Cow Pen Slough that abuts Hi Hat Ranch which contains a large natural floodplain. Anderson told commissioners three weeks ago that the breach in the berm caused water to flow north causing historic flooding in the Laurel Meadows neighborhood immediately north of the proposed roadway.

Residents, already frustrated with the congested road system, see this as the breaking point. “Have they not learned any lessons from what happened in Manatee County,” asked Randy Boyd, referring to the sea change when voters rejected developer-backed county commissioners in the 2024 election.

Boyd, a fourth-generation resident, said he was not against growth. “They keep approving everything with no infrastructure,” he said. “We want our elected officials to do the right thing. Do infrastructure first, then build,” Boyd added.

A written agreement will be brought back to the county commission for approval. If approved, Hi Hat Ranch will move forward with rezoning and permitting the project.

Road construction is expected to begin within six months, though full completion remains uncertain.