Will former Manatee official pay $250K fee after wetland buffer challenge? Board decides

Newly elected Manatee County commissioners have voted to dismiss a legal claim for nearly $250,000 against a former official who challenged the board’s controversial rollback of local wetland protections.

After several heated hearings, the Manatee County Commission voted to remove local rules designed to protect wetlands from development in October 2023. The rule change was backed by a regional developer interest group and opposed by environmental groups and a large crowd of residents.

Joe McClash, a former Manatee County commissioner of over 20 years, filed a petition in Florida’s administrative court to challenge the board’s decision.

But as the case progressed, it became apparent that a newly passed Florida law could saddle McClash with all of the county’s legal fees — even if his case resulted in the county restoring the wetland protections.

In hopes of avoiding the fees, McClash voluntarily dismissed the case before hearings began. But county attorneys argued that McClash’s dismissal of the case made the county the prevailing party. They proceeded to seek over $247,000 in legal fees against McClash.

Commissioners Jason Bearden and George Kruse moved to drop the county’s claims against McClash in September, but their motion failed 4-2.

The county’s case against McClash remained open until last week, and a judge may have ultimately ruled that McClash had to pay the county’s legal bill in full or in part.

But after the recent election brought several new board members with different philosophies onto the Manatee County Commission, officials stepped in before that could happen.

Residents urge commission to drop legal case

The question of whether to continue pursuing legal fees against McClash was the first one put to newly elected commissioners during a Land Use Meeting on Thursday.

New Commissioners Carol Felts, Robert McCann, Tal Siddique and returning Commissioner Kruse were sworn in before the meeting began, joining previously elected Commissioners Bearden, Mike Rahn and Amanda Ballard on the dais.

During public comment, McClash asked the new board to drop the nearly quarter-of-a-million dollar claim against him.

“I think the challenge was more than warranted, especially in light of the action that you’re taking to restore what my challenge was about,” McClash said.

He was referring to the board’s decision in September to begin the process of restoring the local wetland protections. That move came after two commissioners who pushed to remove the protections were voted out in the August primary.

Four other public commenters spoke in support of dropping the legal claims against McClash, including Suncoast Waterkeeper Executive Director Abbey Tyrna.

“Pursuing attorney’s fees from Mr. McClash, particularly when he voluntarily dismissed this case ... seems contrary to the spirit of fairness and open dialogue that we hope to maintain in Manatee County,” Tyrna said. “As Commissioner Kruse rightly noted, just because the state gives you the authority to seek fees does not mean that you’re obligated to do so.”

“If that isn’t the epitome of bullying and trying to silence the citizens of this county by breaking them legally and financially, I don’t know what is,” said Manatee County resident Glen Gibellina. “This should have been dismissed a long time ago. He was just trying to do what was right for the citizens of our county that was your job originally to do.”

McClash requested that the board consider one of two options: waiving all of the attorney’s fees or accepting a “reduced settlement” of $1,960.

Manatee officials debate dropping legal claim in wetlands case

Commissioner Bearden opened debate on the issue, once again arguing for the case to be dropped.

But Commissioner Rahn argued that the board had a responsibility to the public and the attorney’s office to see the case through.

“I just don’t see a public purpose in waving attorney’s fees,” Rahn said. “Our County Attorney’s Office goes out there and does a lot of hard work. I think we let the judge do their work and at that point, if there wants to be negotiation between Mr. McClash and the County Attorney’s Office for what those fees are, I think they can have that opportunity.”

“But I think we do have a fiduciary responsibility that if we’re sued and we prevail that we have the opportunity to collect our fees,” Rahn added.

“I think looking out for the best interest of the public and fiduciary responsibility should have been discussed at the time of the wetland decision, not at the time of going after a citizen,” Kruse replied. “I don’t agree with just going after citizens. I think they should have a right to come after their government if they feel their government is overstepping. And this is a case where it is.”

Kruse also expressed concern that continuing the case would waste more time and money. Asked for input on the case, Deputy County Attorney Christopher DeCarlo said the dispute could extend into 2025.

Commissioner Ballard argued that the new commissioners should have more time to be briefed on the case before making a decision.

Commissioner Siddique agreed and said he would prefer the board to address the underlying policy on wetland buffers before making a decision on legal matters.

“I don’t feel comfortable necessarily settling until we’ve actually made a policy decision,” Sidique said.

But other new commissioners said they were ready to act. Felts and McCann said they felt confident in dismissing the case.

Bearden made a motion to dismiss all legal claims against McClash with prejudice. It was seconded by Kruse and passed 6-1, with Commissioner Rahn dissenting.

The case was officially closed on Nov. 22, according to court records.

Critics say new Florida law is threat to fair government

While McClash was ultimately freed from the responsibility of the attorney’s fees thanks to the leniency of the board, the case could have easily gone the other way.

Open government advocates fear that the new Florida law used against McClash will stifle other citizens and groups who want to challenge actions taken by local government.

Passed in 2023, the legislation was nicknamed “the sprawl bill” by critics because it makes it harder for citizens to challenge developer-friendly initiatives. It allows local governments and developers to recoup attorney fees from citizens who challenge Comprehensive Plan amendments.

“It’s long been in the First Amendment that citizens have the right to question what their government is doing,” Michael Barfield, public access director for the Florida Center for Government Accountability, previously told the Herald. “This law takes away that ability. It is weaponizing the law to prevent citizens from challenging government rolling over for developers.”

In the Manatee County case, the rollback of local wetland protections was proposed by the Manatee-Sarasota Building Industry Association, a developer interest group, in a behind-the-scenes meeting with county officials, the Herald previously reported. The group has since changed its name to the Suncoast Builders Association.

Public opinion voiced during hearings was almost unanimous against making the changes, but the board passed them 6-1.

McClash’s legal challenge argued that commissioners had violated the county’s rules by failing to prove that the changes were in the public interest.

But the potential financial fallout from continuing the case forced him to withdraw, McClash previously told the Herald.

“It’s an absolute elimination of any citizen challenges,” McClash previously told the Herald. “Draconian would be one word for it.”

“It’s designed to stifle free speech,” Manatee County resident Charlene Kow said about the law during public comment. “It’s a dressed-up way to basically crush the opposition using wealthy and powerful entities such as the government versus a private individual or a group of individuals who just don’t have the money to face people down in court. Citizens should always have the right to redress their government without going bankrupt for it.”