Bradenton council rejects amendment but agrees conditional impact‑fee deal tied to CRA support for workforce housing

Bradenton’s City Council on June 10 rejected a developer’s proposed amendment to a purchase‑and‑sale agreement that would have changed how the city handled impact‑fee waivers tied to new workforce housing, then moved to a compromise for a separate, nearby project.

The meeting featured a sustained debate over how — and whether — the city should provide impact‑fee relief to make multifamily workforce housing financially feasible. Developer representatives told the council the projects rely on previously discussed waivers to underwrite the buildings; the developer said the units would be offered at reduced rents for qualifying households.

Jeff Burton, director of the city’s Community Redevelopment Agency, told the council the CRA routinely uses incentives to help deliver workforce housing and said the agency could reimburse much of the impact‑fee cost if the board chose to do so. “If the CRA board decided to step in, then it could,” Burton said, laying out a model in which the CRA would cover a portion of fees for units that meet affordability requirements.

Council members and city staff expressed two persistent concerns: fiscal risk to the general fund and public‑policy predictability. City administration and counsel cautioned that the city must protect operating and utility funds if it reduces impact‑fee revenue, while several council members asked for a clear, written policy so future developers know whether fee waivers will be available.

After a motion to reject the developer’s proposed second amendment to the MET 2 purchase agreement carried 5–0, the council took a narrower, targetted step on the shuffleboard‑area proposal (referred to in session as MET 3). Under a motion approved 5–0, the council agreed to wave 30% of specified impact fees for that project on condition that the CRA approve an offsetting 70% contribution; the motion tied the city action to a CRA decision and to contract language to be finalized by staff and counsel.

The council emphasized that the vote is a limited, project‑specific arrangement, not a blanket city policy. Councilman Schustler said the agreements before the council included commitments from developers — including minimum affordable units, 15‑year affordability periods, reporting and clawback provisions — that factored into the council’s approach.

Developer Marshall Gabbouti (name shown in the meeting packet) told council members the projects are capital‑intensive, with per‑unit costs the city should expect to see rise with construction inflation. He said the MET buildings would create workforce housing close to downtown and Village of the Arts amenities.

What’s next: Burton said the CRA could discuss the proposed funding at its next meeting. The city and developer also left contract language to counsel for addition of clear stipulations about where the fee relief comes from and how it will be recaptured if affordability commitments are violated.

Votes and outcome: The council voted 5–0 to reject the developer’s second amendment to MET 2 and later voted 5–0 to approve the conditional 30% city waiver for the shuffleboard area project contingent on CRA coverage of the remaining 70%.

The council asked staff to bring a broader impact‑fee policy to a workshop so future requests can be assessed under a consistent, published standard.