Citizen Portal

Get email alerts on the Environment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resident raises transparency and procurement concerns over $20M PFAS treatment plan ("Project Wolf")

Manatee County Board of County Commissioners · September 3, 2026

Summary

A resident criticized the county for considering a $20 million PFAS treatment contract (referred to as Project Wolf) without full public disclosure and asked why the county would lease landfill property to a private company for $1 per year; she demanded answers about treatment methods, waste disposal, and procurement procedures.

Heidi Menekai, a Manatee County resident and Myakka City activist, used public comment time to press the board on a recently considered $20 million agreement commonly referred to in public testimony as "Project Wolf," raising procurement, transparency and conflict‑of‑interest concerns.

Menekai said she was not present at the Tuesday meeting when the contract was heard and challenged why the county would consider leasing county‑owned surplus landfill property for a nominal $1 per year to a private company (CIP Solutions) for PFAS removal: "Why was the county going to lease it to them for a dollar a year?" she asked. She said the county attorney had not had an opportunity to review the final contract and asked how PFAS would be treated, where removed materials would be disposed, and whether former county staff had moved to the vendor.

Her remarks included allegations of potential campaign contributions and questioned commissioners’ haste in approving the matter. Commissioners responded on the record: Commissioner Ballard said she had voted to send Project Wolf back to the county attorney’s office, and the chair confirmed staff would review the procurement and attorney comments. The item was discussed on the record earlier in the week and staff later indicated the CIP matter would be reviewed by the county attorney and presented back to the board in November or December for further consideration.

Why it matters: Public concern centers on environmental safety, procurement transparency for high‑value contracts, and potential conflicts when staff or elected officials have ties to private vendors. The board did not act on a spending appropriation at this meeting but public scrutiny may trigger additional staff follow‑up and formal review.

AI generated

The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.

AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.

Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.

Source