At the time I was going after live bottom or so the edge 200 [music]
part of to all these groupies of fish. And so we the last time we went I've only been one time out there and my good buddy Mark which is another good friend and he didn't know these big jellies like
it was so crystal We can see, but it was so clear. I ended up Oh, I don't
Yes, that's past recreational. Scammy County Redevelopment Agency regular meeting February 5th, 2026 9:00 a.m. Please turn your cell phone to vibrate silence or the off setting board of county commission allows the person to speak regarding item on the agenda. Speaker is limited to two minutes unless otherwise determined by the chairman. Is there proof of publication? Yes. This meeting was advertised January 29th, 2026. Thank you. Are there any speakers for public forum? Not to my
knowledge. Thanks. Techn technical and public service consent agenda. Um yes. Recommendation concerning community redevelopment agency meeting minutes December 11th, 2025. Chair entertain a motion. We have a motion take please vote. Pass unanimous. Thank you. Budget and finance. Uh recommendation concerning the cancellation of residential rehab grant program leans. Uh recommendation concerning residential rehab grant program funding and lean agreements
and recommendation concerning residential roof program funding and lean agreements. Um chair intend a motion if there's no discussion. A motion second. Please vote. That passes unanimous. Thank you, Mr. Director. Uh so, uh for discussion item, uh we are asking that the board reinstate the sewer connection part of the residential rehab improvement grant for non-homestead home owners with stipulations that
uh have been revised in the agreement for the grant. The terms added were additional terms um I'm sorry the additional terms and agreements were property owners must provide the current lease agreements if property is occupied or a draft lease agreement showing current rental rate at the time of application if the property is occupi unoccupied uh property owners must increase must not increase rent by more than 5% uh during a three-year lean uh term and property owners must submit lease agreements annually to CRA staff for the duration of the lean. Also,
if the property is sold, transferred, or otherwise conveyed during the three-year preferred above uh lean without the express permission of the CRA, or if the funding agreement executed concurrently with this lean agreement is terminated prior to the expiration of three-year period, the homeowner agrees that their heirs are assigned shall reay the total amount of the grant dispersed by the CRA up to and including the amount recited. um within the agreement and also repayment shall
not be required if the property is sold during a three-year period to a homeowner whose household income is at or below the 80 80% AMI as verified and approved in writing by the CRA. So if they sell it to another developer, they have to pay the amount back in full. Correct. Yes. They within that uh that threeyear uh lean period. So, we're trying to make it if they do sell it, sell it to someone that's um for, you know, that's affordable and we it's a 50% match. Yes. So,
they they'll put 50% in there. Yeah. Up to 10,000. Okay. Any more questions? Excuse me, Commissioner May. I know this is something that the Pensacola Predator supports. Um I support wholeheartedly. when you look at the environmental impact of bioche bio and many of our waterways, this is something will help with that. So, I'm in full support of this program. And thank you, Commissioner Coler. I think that probably in the the joint town hall meeting uh probably 70% of the people there were concerned about uh subject to sewer conversion. So,
uh, this helps our commercial corridor, which in turn should, well, it helps our residential, but it should be able to look at helping our our commercial as well. And with that question, so is this just residential? What happens to commercial? We do the commercial with the commercial also with the same Yeah, the commercial. Um, I think we have to go back and look at that with the commercial grant probably to add that caveat to it with the because you can get more with the commercial grant than you would with the residential rehab. So, we might look at that. So, we probably should
make that equal in my opinion. Um, so what what what currently exists with with commercial that's the 25,000 matching or just Yeah. Yeah. 25,000 matching. So I will say ECUA charges different for commercial properties and they do charge those commercial properties impact fees and those can be significant. Absolutely. So we could look into changing that for the commercial and so so when it does that the 25 it would help not only with the sewer but the would help with the grease traps and all those other things. Yeah. So I agree with Commissioner um Hberger that you know
it is a lot more for commercial to convert. So I would support keeping those numbers high. Okay. All right. So I think I think you have support. I just bring it back and get it ratified. Okay. Any questions? Thank you for the discussion. With that, we stand adjourned. Madam Chair, wonderful. Thank you so much. Welcome to the committee meeting of the whole. Um, please turn your cell phones to silent or the off setting. This meeting is officially called to order. Commissioner May, would you lead us in the pledge of allegiance? Please join me in the
pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Has this meeting been properly advertised? Madame Chair, this meeting was advertised in the Pensacola News Journal in the board's weekly meeting schedule on January 29th, 2026. Wonderful. Thank you. And just to set the stage, this is a meeting where we will hear from staff and we'll be able to discuss among
ourselves. This is not for public input or public comment. That is reserved for the board meeting on 229 where we will actually be discussing it and deciding how to move forward. Um public forum for that board meeting which is on the tw or on the 19th of February will begin at 9:00 a.m. and the meeting itself will begin at 9:30. Um so with that we will move into presentations. Okay, good morning. I'm Christy Henkins. I'm with the county attorney's office. Um Tim Day is also
present. Uh we were asked to look into the present status of customary use. Uh and so we put together a small presentation just to let the board know where it stands since there was a repeal of um an act that had been in uh in place up until 2025. So, in um the previous statutory requirements from July 1st, 2018 to June 23rd, 2025, uh were under 163.035. I'm sorry. Let me know if you can't I apologize. I'm not close enough on the microphone. I'm used to being loud enough. Um so,
and you can see up here, this is taken from the um from the when this particular statute was repealed in 2025. And this is basically the layout of how it how it worked was that the public uh the public hearing had to be held to adopt the com to adopt the ordinance. But the notice of intent had to go out to each property owner. It was parcel by parcel and then it all had then the after all that happened the hearing was held. then a a um it had to be filed in the court and a complaint
had to be filed by the county and then the county had to or the municipality and then they had to prove all of the elements. Um and the uh it was not it was it was a much more property owner friendly and it allowed for the property owners to join as interveners. But in 2025 that was re um that was reversed and we went back to the co the customary use law that existed um under common law prior to that. And this is the staff analysis saying what how it would change back.
So you can do a customary use by uh conducting proper hearings before the board and then passing an ordinance and then the property owners would have to file the lawsuit and it'd be a case-byase basis but not on a parcel by parial basis which was much more challenging. Walton County down the street they went under the previous 16305 and have um faced some faced significant hurdles. They lost an easement that they had previously possessed. They lost um uh there's significant they would be
a cautionary tale on this, but they went under the 163035. Currently, there's a case that's pending um that's pending that's up on appeal in the 11th circuit for Readington Beach. They were also under 163.035, but they passed theirs before 163035 went into effect. And so they had the affirmative defense of customary use and currently that is waiting to see uh that that hearing will be in February 20 will be February 24th in front of the 11th circuit and that will probably tell um
I would imagine that'll give us the best guidance as to where the courts are going with customary use and the requirements and whether or not it's going to be well accepted. So here are the elements of customary use. ancient, reasonable, without interruption and free from dispute. And if if you have owner that has the property, then they would um have whatever their use, it would be have to be consistent with the customary use that's currently on uh that's been determined. And that is a determination. It comes from the case city of Daytona Beach versus Tonorama. Tonorama was not a
customary use case. Um it was a case where um a property owner who also owned a pier had decided to put up an observation tower and a competing uh company had decided to sue the city of Daytona as well as um as well as the property owner because the city of Daytona issued the permit and he decided to sue on the grounds of prescriptive easement not on the grounds of customary use. the Florida, it went all the way to the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court reversed
the lower courts who had found that the tower had to be torn down. They reversed those lower courts for a finding that it did not have to be torn down, that prescriptive easement did not apply. But there was discussion then at this time with within that opinion about customary use, which is what you see before you. And that discussion has become the law of the land ever since. These are the things that it does. These are the restrictions on customary use. It doesn't create interest. It can't be revoked by the land owner. It can be regulated and
it should be appropriately regulated and it can be abandoned by the public. This would be your procedure for it's a standard ordinance procedure. So notice and hearing. The evidentiary basis that I've seen in the court cases has been sworn testimony, photographs, historical documentation, expenditures by the county. Um, and you would we would want to have very spec well not specific but not parcel specific, but we want to limit it to a spe to a
geographical area. Um, and any other sources that would provide information. And then you would have to make legislative findings of facts as you would for any ordinance that you pass. These are some of the definitions and Tim Day is going to take over from here. We've heard a lot of definitions or words that have been used. We want to make sure everybody has the same uh legislative under understanding of the law in this area. Uh thank you commissioners. Uh I'm Tim Day, deputy director for natural resources management department. Uh what what I anticipate is you get
uh public testimony uh at the next BCC meeting is uh there's a series of terms that are likely to be utilized and I wanted to make sure we were all working off of kind of the same definitions. Um these are all based on Florida statute. Uh, you know, one of the kind of harder ones to deal with is Mean High Water, uh, which is from a regulatory stance, uh, from the sheriff's department where they try to work on trespass issues, it's generically, uh, looked at as wet
sand. Um, by definition though, it's actually an elevation around just just under a foot. Um and you know essentially at a summertime high tide mean high water is underwater. Um during a winter high tide uh the actual high tide mark is somewhere uh up on the dry sandy beach. Um because our tides um sometimes they're high, sometimes they're low. Uh
this is based on a 19-year average of tides to to establish. Um our real point what we utilize it for uh for example for Horus a surveyor would do that to do that southern boundary uh for total acreage to establish density. Um if you know if if we tried to use mean high water as an actual location to enforce regulations, you would have to have a surveyor out there each time to establish exactly where it is. As our sands, you know, even on a day-to-day basis, you know,
we may get a little erosion one day, you may get a little accretion the next. Uh the the next one I'd like to do is just talk a little bit about uh beach nourishment. Uh under Florida statute, um it's defined essentially as the process to restore an eroded beach. Um that is also going to involve uh placing sands within uh the submerged lands of the Gulf of Mexico. So it's kind of like what's going on in Pensacola Beach right now. Um as part of
that process to do a nourishment project and and we did start this after hurricane Ivan uh you set an erosion control line uh which is a meanh high water survey on a particular date and the intent of that is is to fix the southern boundary so that when you conduct that beach nourishment you have a very clear delineation of what is uh being filled on sovereign submerged lands which would become public beach and uh the upland side which would remain private property.
Um the coastal construction control line um basically that exists on all barrier islands uh within Florida. Um there are two of them. Uh the first one was established in the 70s. Uh very generally speaking, we prohibit all development other than dune walkovers seawward of that line. There is a newer one uh established in the 80s and that's generally closer to in this case it's closer to PAT key drive and it's a regulatory line for DP that if you propose construction seawward
of it uh the state has additional regulatory standards for uh construction that they have to meet. So it it triggers the need for a permit. Um the last is just uh differentiating between beach nourishment and dune restoration. Um after Hurricane Ivan uh the county embarked uh a FEMA funded uh dune restoration project uh in which we placed uh almost a million cubic yards of sand uh up near construction areas along the key. And the the purpose of it was to provide a minimum level
of protection uh for both the upland development and the county's infrastructure, the roads, utilities, etc. Um since then we have done uh two dune enhancements uh which has involved additional vegetation and we actually just uh closed a solicitation where a little bit later this year we're going to be doing uh even further uh dune plantings on the key. Um but in in terms of
um you know something for customary use or has doomed uh sorry has beach nourishment occurred uh under Florida statute it is not although it's you know from an intuitive perspective I can understand where uh the public could see uh we place sand on the beach of course you've restored the beaches but um for purposes of creating uh public lands uh that process has not occurred on the key to date. And so that that concludes uh definitions. We'd be happy to help
uh facilitate the discussion as the board uh feels fit. Oh, sorry. It's okay. Um to assist the board, these we have two maps of Purto K um to lay out the portion. Uh the east side and the west side is how we've laid it out. This is the east side and you see in the middle there is the easement that we already have. That's that 75% 75 ft per perpetual easement. And then to the right of that is the 4,000 ft um for which um if if there would be a customary use that would be the
area on the east side. It's that 4,000 feet out to the park at the Johnson Beach Park. And then um the next slide is the west side and you can see in the dark blue that's uh not only access that's that's property that we actually own on Purto K on the on the on the sand. So you've got about one mile on one side and about 1.25 miles on the other.
So we are open if there if we can help the board. Madam Chair. Yes, sir. Christie, can you go back to the other map? The first map? Okay. So, yeah. So, the second map is only breaking down the western part of this map. Is that how that is that how you're doing that? No, sir. Um, so this is uh this map is the eastern side of the key. So, it's between Johnson Beach and Purita Key State Park. Uh we have the the three little slivers
you see are county public accesses. Yeah. And then can you go to the next map? I'm sorry. When we go that's wrong way. So this is the west side. So it goes from the state park to the floorama. And on the west side of the park we only have beach access number four which is the area highlighted in blue. All right. Can you go back to the first map again? Yes sir. Okay. So by Okay, that 75 foot easement that was the issue a couple years ago. Yes. Was
it just last year? Okay. Okay. Um and that that's the only portion that that's related to is that stretch that's in darker blue. It was approximately 1.2 miles, okay, in width. And it's it was memorialized on the plat as 75 foot. Okay. And then that doesn't extend anywhere west of the state park. That's just this portion on this one map. Correct. Okay. All right. Well,
the 4,000. This is what you're talking about. 400. No, I'm talking about the darker blue over here. Okay. Yeah. That's the [clears throat] and and that doesn't go any that doesn't go any closer to Johnson Beach, nor does it go west of the state park. This was part of a plat from the 50s and so it's only that 1.2 miles. All right. So, and another thing Christie mentioned, just making sure I understand the the geography where the customary use if we exerted that it
wouldn't would it not pertain to here because that easement already exists. Is that what you're So, is that what she said? Two thoughts. One is we are not recommending doing anything that might disrupt this 75 ft easement. So, I would avoid overlaying anything on this easement. So, we are not recommending messing with the 75- ft easement. And for the for the board's information, it's our interpretation that customary use is not an all or nothing proposition. It can
be smaller pieces. It's not all of the beach or none. It you may choose to go in that direction, but it's not an all or nothing proposition. It needs to be based on what you believe the evidence to show you as to where historical, recreational, customary use, okay, exists. In the most broad interpretation, what you're saying is this this 4,000 ft that's east of the 75t easement west of Johnson's Beach that Johnson Beach, that's one that would be one
portion that we could exert. And then on that other slide, it would be the portion west of the state park that potentially we could exert. That's there. I think what they're demonstrating to you is the areas where public memorialized access is lacking. Um meaning you don't appear to have easements or county-owned property. Right. This 1.25 miles, this one mile, and the other 4,000 ft, these are your significant weaknesses as far as memorialized easements or ownership. So
with the most the most broad interpretation of customary use would be potentially those. So we're talking about primarily three sections there. Okay. Correct. Okay. All right. Thank you. I have lots of questions. Um what does prescriptive easement mean? If you to um to establish a prescriptive easement, you'd have to establish it's basically like
similar to adverse possession, but that's not the whole of it. So, you'd have to establish there was continuous notorious un uninterrupted use for 20 years. Um is the general specific period of time. Um there'd have to be actual knowledge of the owner or and or it had had to be so open and notorious and visible um that it like adverse possession. And then um it would have to be for a limited and defined area of land. So it is more parcel by parcel requirements. Okay. And then the
picture that we're looking at here, I'm assuming the light gray lines are parcel by parcel. And it looks like some of those go all the way to the water line, but some of them do not. So what what's generally reflected there um is just think of it this way. That's really just the map that uh that's done by the property appraiser. So, they have to define a line. Uh and so I I believe that southern line may reflect an old erosion control line before it was vacated. Uh but it doesn't
reflect um where their deed access goes because as as we kind of talked about earlier as as the you know day by day, year by year that shoreline is adjusting. And so to produce a map, you would have to prod you to have an accurate map, you would have to produce it very often to make it look the same. Um, generally speaking, the west side of the island tends to accrete sand. So it's generally a building uh beach and it's that's, you know, part of why I would suggest that that where it looks like the sands are going beyond the parcel lines. Okay. And then I know on Pensacola Beach
it's drastically different, but um they're all under different leases. The folks that live out here that own property on Purido Key, do some of their deeds say all the way to the water line and some of them say mean high water line. Do we know what the deeds say? It's so their their southern boundary would have been meanh high water. So if you it's and we can um I can provide them before tonight's meeting just so you have it plenty of time. Um just examples of uh we we can do a handful of deeds so you can see it but and they're consistent but their southern boundaries are tied
to the mean high water. Okay, perfect. Um and then you mentioned dune enhance enhancements. Um what funded the dune enhancements? Were that was that grant funded or did that come from somewhere else? So the initial one uh was primarily funded by FEMA. Um during that time we also received several state grants um and so Basically all all the improvements have happened um have had almost no uh county match during the original FEMA construction. Um there there always is a
little local match with a FEMA project. Uh but the county has not had um local funds expended towards doing restoration. Okay. So we haven't taken taxpayer like advalorum dollars or lost money and put into dune restoration on Purto K. It's I'm going to say that's correct with the exception of is we did have a little local match in every FEMA project. So it's we Madam Chair, can we clarify what the little bit of match was? Yes, that would be great. Yeah. So um I'm going to have to
um so generally on a hurricane when we get match it's usually a 7525 split. The 25 is half state half county. with Hurricane Ivan, uh we received um some additional consideration where that went to a 9010 split. And so my best recollection is uh on those FEMA projects throughout the county is it would have been 90% FEMA, 5% state, 5% county. So was I mean none of us, you know, even Commissioner
May and I weren't on the board. I mean this is over 20 years ago. So was that a $10 million project? Was it a $5 million project? I just And I don't if if you don't know just later today is fine. If you don't know all these numbers off the top of your Yes, I can get the information. It's fairly expensive because um ultimately the dune restoration. So if if you remember photos from Ivan, the island was pretty well destroyed. If something was built uh like in the 80s or before, it was generally destroyed by Ivan. And so uh we did have working agreements. Uh the contractor was
mobilized. They went out, they collected debris, they sifted sand to create sand to go back, you know, clean sand to go back onto the beaches. Um we also took sands that were dredged out of the inter coastal waterway by the Army Corps restoring uh commerce and brought those sands to help uh do the project. So it I mean it's I mean if it was a $20 million project, I mean this means it was still a million dollars of local money 20 years ago. Yes, it's it's I'll double check it. It probably exceeds $10 million pretty easily. Okay. And then is there parking at beach access one or
is that strictly for pedestrians to access the beach? There there currently is parking uh along the there's a a north south rideway leading to access one. I would have to recount the spaces. It's I think there's approximately 28 spaces there at access number one. Perfect. Thank you so much. Another thing to keep in mind there if we do have a public hearing to consider an ordinance. If you remember a few years ago the state legislature changed the obligations for an ordinance and most
ordinances now require some sort of business impact study to be done unless it meets an exemption. This doesn't appear to be something that might meet an exemption. So that's another piece of the backup and research that would be needed in order to proceed with an ordinance. What is the process to having that study done? Um well I mean I think you have some leeway in what that would look like. I do know that um in a very formal sense we have used UWF host center for some
things. I have not I need some more direction as far as whether or not that's something that you would be interested in pursuing, but that's been one of our resources in in in the past. Um it's just food for thought. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Yes, sir. Um so, none of the discussion related to this has any impact on Pensacola Beach, correct? Okay. I mean, lit literally. I mean, not just very little impact. It literally has no impact. Correct. Correct. The Pensacola Beach
situation is so factually different from this. It is night and day. All of Santa Rosa Island is publicly owned at the very root of it. The lease lines are drawn differently than the deed lines out on Purto. It is night and day. It is apples and oranges. It has nothing to do with this conversation in my opinion. Okay. All right. All right. I just wanted to make sure when you um Tim, when you pull the dollar amount that we spent with the dune enhancements, can you also drop those on one of these maps so we know where they are in correspondence to the beach accesses in the
easement? Um yes, I can. It's when I go to Sorry. So very generally if we over if I were to overlay at the dune restoration area you know with an aerial um you would generally see a line about the same width as a 75 ft easement just south of the line of development. So it's on Pensacola Beach where the dune exists and you see how the development noses up to it. It it would look very
similar to that but it's it's I I do have drawings that have the dune surveyed. Perfect. Thank you so much. Yes, sir. Commissioner Stroberger. So, I've been getting surveys sent to me from property owners on Burrito Key, and they clear clearly show that they have the deed. They own the property. Is she still there? Madam Attorney, there's no dispute that these are private properties.
No, that's why you're having this conversation is because they I do believe that there is private ownership based on deeds and then what rights historically has the public gained across them. So I'm not disputing that there is private ownership. Okay. and and um so I, as you can imagine, I've been getting a lot of information from you, Tim, about this subject. I've been reading a lot
about Walton County and um you correct me if I'm wrong. If if I'm wrong, maybe just, you know, shake your head or something. I don't know. It's that was like an $8 billion lawsuit. I think there's some misconceptions about this about what customary use is and what um what the property owner's rights are. I think somebody had said once that no it was you know when when uh customary use was thrown back to us to decide then it was uh what customary use
wouldn't what what the uh um what that would look like particularly in Purto K that we um that the property owners that there would be no lawsuits. property owners still have their day in court and every one of them can still sue, right? They can just like they did in Walton County. The the I do think the situation is a little bit different just factually than Walton County, but I do I've been getting the email traffic similar to to many of you and I do think that we have been
warned that there will be lawsuits. I I I have been warned also. Yes. Um too. So, for me, this is this is both an easy and a difficult issue. I think everyone feels the same way. It's easy. It's easy for me because we're the legislative body, right? We're the legislative body for the county. And our job is simple. It's it's to protect life, liberty, and property. And I'm very grounded in my beliefs. And I don't believe my principles are better than anyone else's principles. I
just believe that I'm very grounded in what I believe. And I believe in property rights. I also believe in public access. And I don't think they should be in conflict. I don't I also don't believe that the public's perceived right to trample on private property uh trumps property rights. I I mean that where where do we draw the line if we don't draw it the line right now? How do I know that's not going to happen on my own personal property? I got an interior lot.
Why? Why does it stop here? Why does it Why isn't it on on Old River? Why is it on that side? Why is it on that side of the water of of that of that island? I I just don't know where and it it ends. And and I just can't let you know, Mom rule. I I know elections are are what drives decisions a lot of times. This is not an election issue for me. Not because I don't have an election, but because this is foundational for me. I believe in property rights. I've traveled around the world and I I've
been to countries without property rights. We have them here and people own that property. And what you're what you think and I've heard is that we're not we don't want the property. We just want to we just want to be able to be on the beach there. You won't own it. the property owners will still own it and they'll still have to clean that beach, right? They'll own that property and they'll have to Yes, they will. And that's that's what happens in Walton County. You can shake your head, but you don't know. They have to clean. They still own that property and they have to clean
the property. The county does not own it. They've taken no custody of that. And you saw the slide. They've taken no count. They take no uh ownership of it. So, they don't there's no liability for the county. But there will be for the property owners if someone gets hurt on there just like personal property you know where I live at my house. That that's a good question. So in a world if we did decide to move forward with this life safety is a huge aspect of that. What would be the county's
responsibility of having lifeguards out there or does that fall on the individual property owners? First of all, you're not ever obligated to provide lifeguards. You're not obligated to do that. There are areas, even on Pensacola Beach, which is publicly owned, you're not obligated to have them everywhere where you have a public um access or use of the property. So, that would still be a question for this board uh to to deal with. We have been providing, I believe, some lifeguards
out on Purto K at these access points already, [clears throat] but those are within the easement, correct? Um, yeah. Or these access points is where I thought that we had them stationed. Um, M. Commissioner Stroberger may know better than I, but I think we had but not on the private property. Right. Right. Right. So theoretically, if something was to happen at the backyard of one of the condos and someone was to lose their life, could that family sue the condo for not having a lifeguard? I mean, people sue for lots of things. Yeah. I mean, I you know, usually these there are
statutory protections and legal authority that that helps anytime you're dealing with a drowning case. It's obviously a a dangerous thing. your mother nature, acts of God, that sort of thing. Um, but you know, people do come up with unique ideas for lawsuits all the time. Is there anything in the new or the repealing of the legislation that provides protection for the property owners? Um, no. I'm not aware of anything that that was added to help protect with liability. I think
existing case law would govern. Okay. Thank you so much. Um, let's see. Uh, Commissioners caller. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for this call today. My a little over three years on the board, I don't think we've had anything this polarizing as of today. Um, on any given day, we get 20 emails on both sides, for and against. And so I reflect on what's the goal. There's 335,000 people in Escambia County. I think we all want more beach access. But I also agree
with Commissioner Stroberger and the attorney. I think that we can get more beach access, but there needs to be give and take on both sides. I support that. When you look at the current 75 ft that's on the heading towards Johnson Beach and the other 400 that 4,000 ft right there. I think you have some opportunity there and over towards the floor Bama. But I look at this and I'll share it from a
different perspective. I lived at 108 North Roose in North Hill for six years right across the streets Alabama Square. It was less than 75 ft. I can assure you from my sidewalk to the park. Now, I didn't control when someone left a beer can or cigarette or I'd have to pick it up. I didn't like it. I didn't like that at all. But I love living across the park and occasionally I'd have some homeless person sleep in a c hammock and stuff like that. There is real problems, Steve.
There's real problems with this. And we have a responsibility no matter what we do to clean up the beach just like we do at Pensacola Beach if we do this. The homeowners out there do not deserve to have garbage all over the beach no matter what we decide. But I don't think and my recommendation would be for the folks here today and Tim have we had any meetings with the customer use folks and the beach condo people in a town hall with the county to see if there's any common ground.
To my knowledge we haven't had anything specific but but what I was going to say is Commissioner Stroberger has brought it up as [clears throat and snorts] a topic in his recent meeting. Has there been any any sort of give and take, Commissioner Stoberger? No. I I think the condo owners and the property owners out there are pretty um firm in that they own the property. It's black or white. Do we own it or not? That's what they've said. Universally, they've said, "Do we own the property or don't we own the property?" Um, I had a town hall last week and I had a uh I went to a neighborhood watch this week,
another neighborhood watch last week, probably attended by between the three maybe 130 people. It was a full house at the town hall. uh between all of that all those discussions I brought this issue up and two people raised their hands about customary use rest of them didn't know anything about it they didn't know about it in fact at the town hall they wanted to move on wasn't a subject they wanted to talk about they wanted to talk about Bula and we did we talked about BU that's
what we started out talking about but I thought it was something that it is something that affects the whole county the whole county probably needs to know about about it and discuss it and there's little or no interest. And in fact, the the when was it? Was it yesterday? I'm getting I think it was man I think it was Tuesday night. I was at the neighborhood watch and uh yeah, it was Tuesday night and those people believe the same way I do. That was an Aendale. They believe like I do that
property rights is pretty foundational right and that I should protect that. That's my duty to do that. Um and and they argued even as we we spoke for those property rights because I think they put themselves in the the property owners shoes on the beach because they're property owners. Well, I can look out in the audience and see that there's people that care about this. Um,
I my suggestion would be is to have staff and potentially look at what what areas that could potentially be customary use if there are any. And I I I think that's reason we don't have to take action. Is that right attorney? We don't have to take action. If I could finish Thank you. I was talking first point of word man chair I was asking if we could look and have public hearing not not take action today but at least have a conversation to see where we could get on
something and the other thing I'd like to bring up is on Johnson's beach there was some fallacy that I we wanted to buy the beach no one ever wanted to buy the beach I wanted a daily rate so $4 just like the state park people say well $25 ain't that much well it is for a lot of people that live in Myrtle Grove. So, the people out there, it used to be open to everyone. When I was in E2, I went out there. I get it. We have to support that. I think the board should write the Department of Interior and ask for a daily rate. You know, I know it's $45 a year, $7 um for uh or $25 for seven days, but there doesn't seem like any reason why we shouldn't
ask the Department of Interior for a daily rate. You know, a lot of people don't that aren't on their vacation can't spend seven days out at the beach. they can take their kid for their birthday party. So, I would love to have the board support something like that for beach access as well. So, I don't know where the board's going to land, but I do think we need to have a discussion. I'm not saying Commissioner Strawberry, we need to take action today. Not asking that. No, we we can't take action today or at this meeting especially. But here's what the conversation just a moment. Um, if you're in the audience and you're flipping the bird to us, that is also inappropriate, sir,
with the glasses. So, let's not do that. who did that. Thank you. [laughter] So, here are the conversations I've been having because it I don't think the problem is the problem is getting to the beach. So, and getting the beach and be able to use the beach. Um I uh I'm in conversations with the gentleman that owns the parcels next to a couple of parcels next to beach access number three. And we've sent him the appraisals. We haven't got a comeback from him yet.
Yeah, it's so it's we had engaged quite a bit uh last year and u the the difference between you know the appraise value and uh his asking price is approximately a million dollars. Um we're communicating with him to make sure that he's still firm on that price uh and and are intending to bring it for the board's consideration uh you know to see how we might fund the difference. Uh the there is a restore pot one project uh that will pay the average of two appraisals
uh and we do have funding in that uh restore pot one project as well to do uh the improvements if it's acquired by the board. That's pretty key. I didn't know that. You told me that yesterday that the improvements would be also funded. So we would have we we it would eliminate a lot of the issues we have out there at that uh um at that beach access point number three where everyone's getting stuck in the sand too probably. Um the other thing is uh at legislative days it was in Tallahassee with some other commissioners and and I um I talked briefly with Secretary Lambert the
department of uh environmental protection secretary. She put me in contact with her uh her deputy. She said they have these kinds of partnerships. I asked about a partnership with uh Escambia County and our two state parks out there on uh Purdue Key Drive. Um that's east and west the state parks. Um and we can come up with a way for all the Scambia residents and I just mean the Scambia residents now to be able to use those parks. We'll have to agree on how we do that.
Um and uh and I expect to have a meeting with him personally in the in the next couple weeks to try to iron out some of those details. So that would provide more beach access um for everybody. Problem is I don't think that's going to be enough. It just won't be enough because Yeah, that's exactly why because compromise is not something we come to easily here. It's always a fight to the death. And and that's where we're going to go. We're going to spend taxpayers money
on a lawsuit, a big lawsuit. And what's going to happen is we're going to still not own the property. And the property owners are still going to have the liability and the garbage to pick up when someone's playing beer pong in their backyard or just trashing the beach in general or someone steps on some glass on their property. I'm trying to avoid all that. So, I I'm not I'm still going to pursue more property uh beach access. That's what I want to do and I I
think that's the right thing to do. Um I I think this whole subject of uh customary uh use is is trouble. It's it's asking for trouble. And it's not going to be easy to prove. Am I right? It's not going to be easy to prove. You can't just say I went fishing here or I used to go swimming here. That's not enough. That's not enough. It's got to be historical. It's got to be uninterrupted. It goes on and so I could Oh, I'm sorry. I can I add a second question to that? Currently,
they do have the ability to swim and stay in the wet sand as well. So, the customary use is more of the dry sand issue. Yes, it is. It's a dry sand issue. Um the the wet sand or the except for of course when the hot when the tide comes in in the summer. um that's protected that's protected by state law. It can't be uh anything below the mean high tide is protected by state law. And so they could certainly use that. They could, you know, fish to their hearts content, put in, you know,
lay out there, be there with their chairs, anything like that. But as far as the the dry sand, that's that would be where the customary use would come in. So let me ask you this. So, um, the compromise they ended up with after the millions of dollars, and I don't think it's even done yet, is that it was 20 ft. That's what they came up with, 20 ft. The property owners still own the property. They have to clean the pro the the beach. That's still their responsibility, not the county's responsibility. And um, what was my last point? It's not getting any better.
I that's why I got to write these things down. Um it's still there. It's they still have the liability on that beach. And one of the issues that and it's not the and I've heard this many many times is is these these folks, you know, uh more likely it's um it's the spring breakers coming in and using the pool, using the bathrooms and all that stuff because the portaotties are kind of a lousy idea out there. I don't like those and that's another thing I'm pursuing. I'd like to
get something resembling a Portland loo that we can haul in and out of there. that that's a lot nicer, a lot more welcoming for the western gate of the of Florida. Um, yeah, I think that's all I got. They'll come back. Commissioner Barry. Yeah, thank you. So, Mike, are you [clears throat] back to what you were saying? Are you asking to see if the board is interested in having the staff like look at the different sections and see where see where we can make the best immediate case for
customary use because it it I would like that and then I would like to have a public discussion with these folks and the people in the condos to see if we can get to some sort of compromise. I do agree with Commissioner Stroberger on two things. When you look at the definition on customer use, I do think without interruption and free from dispute is a problem. I don't know where it's going to land in court. I don't know that, right? I don't know. [clears throat] But I'd prefer not to get into a lawsuit. I'd rather try to work to get more customer use with you folks and the condo
owners. And to answer your question, in short, yes. Okay. I mean, I think that's a, you know, I think that's a good seems like a good idea to try to see is part of the documentation for Tim. So, as you know, as the county would hypothetically try to exercise or to to document the um to document customary use. I mean, that's the creation of that case or that that that
file is not just the product of information that we possess currently, right? We would then take like if we were say we were looking at at one section and this seems to be where the most uh you know I don't know that anybody knows more about the goings on out there than you or maybe chips but you know where you know one of you thinks that that that we have the best case and you know we have some documentation but then would would we take information from the public to also
to supplant to to supplement that file that we're building for what our case is. Is that how that works, Lee? U yes, sir. So, I mean, what I would suggest in terms of staff making determinations of kind of the best spots, you know, there there's some softball areas out there and it's the easy one is out by Florida. Um, that is an area that or you know any commercial restaurants. These are areas where for as long as it's been in existence, they've invited people there. You know, there's a benefit to their products. something like the floorama complex is an easy recommendation that
yes customary use is there in terms of you know if we were to look in other areas of the beach that are residential in nature uh you know it's I've been a employee for 26 years most of that has been partially involved with the key or both islands um I certainly have personal observations but it's if the board decided ed to move forward. Uh my recommendation is is that you actually hear
from the people that and and and establish an actual record um from people that historically have been utilizing it. Yeah. But what you're saying the establishing of that record literally is that that's taking documents and taking I don't I don't you know I I don't go out there literally. we photographs or or you know statements or um that's where that establishing a a record would be taking documents from the public. Is that what you're saying? Yeah, that that certainly would be
the recommendation. Mike, is that kind of what you're saying is is have staff take a look at where you know what we think and then have a public discussion where they're allowed to where the public is allowed to come and and begin to submit evidence to the county about what they think. I mean, because that's going to it appears that the public part of this is going to be a big part of this discussion and they have, you know, anecdotal or documentable stories and histories out there for decades. I assume is a reason that there is this passion about it. So they would have
comments and then they could potentially provide us documents of of things that they think are, you know, or why this has been customarily used. Is that kind of what you're saying? Well, yeah, I think that any public opinion on this is good for us to entertain before we go into any kind of ordinance change. But um I also think what Tim said in my talk with legal, one size doesn't have to fit all. I think we could get to a happy medium here and it doesn't have to be everything and um I think that's how we start. So and that's you know talking with you
and legal that's what I've been told. So all right so madam chair so we're moving forward with the discussion on this on the 28th. Is that what I'm sorry the 19th. Okay. So, um, are you looking at, you know, I I don't know. I'm just I'm just kind of saying, I mean, if people have things that they think are important, should we go ahead and say let, you know, let them start submitting whatever they think is important to Tim or to That's a question for Tim and legal.
What What do you think? I or legal, I guess, or whoever. I My recommendation would I'm sorry. Go ahead, chairman. No, no, no. Go ahead. We need to begin being the repository for something. I think you need to take public comment first and you're doing that on the 19th before you guys come up with any sort of direction. Um, I think does the public comment include these these things or you saying just the comment just literally the the narrative oral you need to get I would suggest you
get public feedback before you guys direct where we're headed with this and then you can certainly ask your staff to start you know if you want to be amassing a historical record. Some of what I think Commissioner Kohler is referring to is you don't want to end up with a patchwork quilt out there where you've got some areas where there's customary use and some areas where the public's not allowed to be and some areas where you're allowed to have a towel but not an umbrella and some areas where you can fish but not lay out and some of that kind of thing has happened in Walton County. So I think what he's saying is send up a trial balloon and see if there are areas where
this is not going to be disputed and then then that's your you know your ground. That's where you We'll see. I guess it it seems unlikely outside of maybe what Tim said or you know a commercial area. I mean it seems but you know maybe May maybe that's possible. Um but the I mean and I I think that it would be good for the discussion on the 19th. I mean I'm certainly no attorney but I've been told that it's the issues are not the same as Walton County. I mean it's not the same. So,
I mean, I don't know that that's I agree a perfect example of what could happen. I mean, you know, the county can and will be sued, you know, if not this week, next week for something. I mean, I mean, it it's, you know, if you if you have a if you have a pocketbook, you're going to be sued, whether you're a business or or an entity or or whatever. I mean, a municipal organization, you're going to be sued for anything for any reason. Um, so I mean we can't, you know, we we can't set policy and legislative actions out of, you know, avoid either do things or not
do things out of fear. No, I agree. That's that's not a good reason. But take the public comment on the 19th and at that time if members of the public want to contribute items or bring even items um that they think help establish a historical record, I think we should absolutely be open to that. But I do think you need to open it to public comment before you guys provide direction. I think that is Florida's, you know, participation act requires that. I agree and I think at a board meeting is better because then it's public record versus at a town hall. Commissioner
May. Thank you, Madam Chair and Commissioner Coler and Commission. Barry, I I think I do agree that you know we should have a public comment on the 19th. Madam Chair, is that a meeting just solely for customary use or is that going to be No, sir. It's a regular board meeting. At our last board meeting, we decided that we would hear from the staff at this meeting. We would digest that information. The public would be able to digest that information and then we would come back for a meeting with it being a discussion item on the 19th. And Commissioner Strobert, I'll yield to you
because I've I've yielded to Jean Valentino. I've yielded to Doug on the hill. Uh because they should know their district. I would say to give this um it's right. I mean to have it on the agenda with something else, it's it's gonna be tough for it to get the attention that it needs. Uh so if you want to do it on 19th with other things on the agenda or if you supported calling a special board meeting where it would be on the record, I would support that. I've been pretty consistent in public access for me or where I am. I don't have to say a lot. I'm not going to say a
lot. Uh you know, there are a couple things that God gives us. Uh he gives us the land, the sea, the fish, the water. Uh and unfortunately many people are limited access uh because of affordability of what they can't afford. Uh so I have a fresh memory of my parents being able to go to Johnson Beach for free and walk around in the old sands and maybe look up at condos that they could never afford or their children couldn't afford. So maybe the closest that they got to that water was that beach access. I recognize uh that we may be in lawsuits. uh if I ever fail
uh in my vote for anything, I'm gonna fail on the side of uh supporting public access whether it's any beach. Uh there's it absolutely it's not like Walton County Commissioner Barry, we're not unique. Uh you visit California and you go out there and you walk along the beach and you see the celebrities because they live in their condos. [snorts] Uh when you live downtown such as I do, I people walk on the sidewalks. We maintain those sidewalks. the county may put those sidewalks in. But we have to keep them mold. We have to keep them cut. We have to keep them clean. Uh that's
if you want to say personal responsibility, there there's some personal responsibility. If we talk about liability, as you said, Commissioner Be, we're going to get sued. I mean, 99% of the time, uh when you pull a body out of the water that's drowned or injured or a shark bite, it's not the point of entry. Uh it's the point of exit. So, who's going to be liable? Where they where the point of entry or the point of exit when someone gets hurt? I mean, so it's not black and white. Um, as you said, Commissioner Schroberger, it may be, you know, simple and hard. Uh, but whenever you have emotions and people involved in it, it's going to be hard because
we have to make a legislative decision. We have to make a emotional [snorts] decision. Uh, and we have to recognize and listen to all citizens. And so, uh, a couple questions for me, Tim, and then I'll I'll be done because, you know, this is certainly probably something that my colleagues up here all have more expertise than I do. The original plat, uh, has anything changed? Who drew the from the treaty on who drew the original plat for these properties? Where did I mean, how far does it go back to historical data of how the original plat was drawn?
So, I don't think I can answer that at the moment. I I I'm aware I believe uh there was some of them that was done in the 20s. Um the one where the easement is was uh US government lands that was uh so when the treaty was signed and they they dedicated the land, have have we changed the plats from that? I mean, have have they been altered in any ways in the past? Are all the plats the same as they originally were back been. So, it's my my presumption is there's been some additional subdivision that's occurred. Um,
you know, you had larger parcels that have become smaller parcels over time. U, but it's just I would feel more comfortable to go ahead and do a little more robust uh review of it. I believe Steve West uh under a previous review did a pretty deep dive. I just don't have it at my fingertips. And that's fair enough. Thanks, Tim. I appreciate it. And I I think you know, Commissioner Collard, and I would agree with you, if this was real easy and it could have been solved, it would have got solved probably uh many years ago. I mean, and so it has to be a conversation. I mean,
it's a little convoluted. So, I think that, you know, I appreciate Commissioner Barry saying, "Let's finally get this, you know, [snorts] on, you know, the front of the agenda and get it saw." You represent that district, Commissioner Shber Haste makes ways. uh you know, I think we have to take our time and try to get it right and listen to all of the constituency and then um listen to the strongest legal position we have because um a lawsuit is inevitable, but uh we should be yielding to our legal to say what puts us in the strongest position to preserve the
people's money. [snorts] Uh particularly if we're going to be sued and utilize the people's money uh to fight this issue, which you'll be using all of the citizens money, not just certain citizens of the money. And so, um, with that, uh, Stroberg, I'll yield because I mean, we got to have public input. We got to have more debate. Uh, I hope that there's a compromise. I hope that there's a way in which I mean I know you can't vote in a public forum uh in a a town hall meeting but for me it's always important for me to go listen to my constituents that I represent uh in those settings to be able to come back and to uh advocate for them in in the best way that I can knowing uh
that um negotiation and policy is about compromise and [snorts] that in some way we're going to have to find the compromise that best benefits all the citizens. Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Sturburgger and then Commissioner Kohler. So I think we need to keep in mind that these are well-defined private properties. The other thing is, you know, I say this all the time in my town halls. I said, I don't count hands. I don't count hands because it's not my control group. You know, the shirts don't make me change my mind. And we have been having communications. You you've all
been getting the emails that I've been getting. We've all been getting. So, we've been we've been getting public input. This is the input I got just this morning. Connor printed for me. Just this morning. You ran out of time and you ran out of paper. This is just And this and all these are against customary use. All of them. Where's the stack? Every single one of them. So, I I know that we're going to have more conversations and [clears throat] we're going to increase public access. Um,
even in California, we live in the free state of Florida. Everywhere there's private property and and I think that we need to guard that. Thanks, Commissioner Kohler. Yeah. I um I want to ask Chrissy a question because and I I want to avoid lawsuits at all costs. I get it that sometimes happen, but you cited that Readington Beach on the 24th 11th circuit is going to have a decision potentially. How close is that related to what we're dealing with here? You didn't really I
just don't know. I mean, can you talk much about I know that it hasn't been decided, but can you share a little bit more about that? Right. So, currently the the situ what's going up before um on Readington Beach before the 11th Circuit is Readington Beach has a customary use law. Um, they did the they passed their ordinance prior they passed their ordinance in the window of that 2018 statute that allowed them to use customary use as a affirmative defense should they be sued. Um, and
they had witnesses that came forward that said we used this beach up until somebody kicked us off. And um so the the court so it looks like that's going to so whenever that decision comes down I don't have their arguments uh the two arguments that are on each side but that decision when it comes down will lend a lot of explan I'm hoping will lend some more explanation to these elements that I had up on the board for you what is that um how is that defined when you have a situation and I and I have read many of the emails that that we've re that I a lot of the emails that come to
you also come to me um they either get forwarded to me or I get copied or Allison will get copied. And so um I I see what the argument is on both sides. And I I think maybe this will clarify some boundaries and some of the definitions because I think since the court wasn't dealing with directly in the Supreme Court case, they didn't define what these things mean and we've had to look at customary use as it goes back to the common law of England to understand it. Um and and there really just wasn't that time this morning to go into that deep of an explanation. So I think that's going to
answer some questions for us. I just don't until we have those answers. I would just be guessing. Well, that's good to know because that would consider precedent potentially in the state, right, of what how we should deal with these issues, right? And the state hasn't the state in some of the research I did, they they decided not to go not to set the customary use because they felt that that should be done per jurisdiction. It is a they they relied back on home rule and said each jurisdiction should make that decision. Okay. Well, I'm very interested in that case. Thank you.
able to speak as educatedly as possible with as much case law as possible. I'm just throwing this out there. Do we want to wait until after that comes down? So, we have more information on on March 26. We have a morning meeting. We could have a special meeting the evening of March 26. I'm I'm with waiting for that, too. if there's a case like that because we want to do what's right but at the same time we want to avoid lawsuits or get ahead of things. We don't I would say yes sir.
We don't know. I mean we're going to still take public input on the 19th whether we have it on the agenda or not. So there won't be any avoidance of a lawsuit. I mean if we do this we won't be avoiding it. We're on ahead we're on a head-on collision with it. We're not avoiding it, but we have legal right now telling us that they're not completely prepared to give us the information. I understand. I mean, so you're saying I mean, so we are going to get a lawsuit. I mean, I'm surely if we don't prevail, I'm going to get a lawsuit based on advice from our legal department, you know, because you know, who's going to point the fingers when it's all said and done? I mean,
ultimately, we get responsible for lawsuits whether you serve on this board or not. I mean, we're going to get blamed for any lawsuit that happens. And so, you Thank you. And I agree when when I say I want to avoid lawsuits, if it's something that I can say take a step back and say, "Oh, I'd sue the county over that." I would prefer not to move forward. And I think that's probably the lens that most of us look through this through. This is your district and I want to make sure that we're respectful of that. What would be your preferred timeline on how we discuss this?
I'm ready to talk about it. I don't know if any minds you turn your mic on your your mic. I don't know if I don't know if any minds will be changed between now and then. I I have been trying to come up with some compromise with this. I've talked to there's no compromise with the group in front of us. They they want customer use instituted. I've seen one interview from one end to the other end from one one from the park to the to the to the floorama and uh it just I I think that's
an overreach. I think that's an overreach. We'll have that talk. We'll figure it out. Um but in the end I just I think everyone's got to be a lot more respectful. No more damn fingers and all that stuff. I that really ticks me off. my you know my wife gave me a book uh few months ago this is the book I brought it with me it's called the next conversation I don't know if any of the attorneys have wr have read it it's it's written by attorney it's about verbal
discipline and maybe also some physical discipline and and to uh to to not get to the point where you can't have the next conversation that's what we're going to next the next conversation So the outrage and the nonsense that goes on in the, you know, with the microphone mafia and and th those folks, that doesn't get us to the next conversation. If you want to help and you want to come to a compromise and you need to find out what what a compromise is going to be for you,
too. All right. Thanks, Madam Chair. I just uh I know we can't make this decision tonight, but this just is important to me. if we could add it on later tonight or next meeting. It doesn't matter. I would like the board to to put on the agenda to um if the board supports it. I don't know how the vote will happen, but we write the Department of Interior to change Johnson's Beach for a daily raid. I I really would like to have that added at some point just to even start the momentum. I
I would agree. And then just to make it known, part of the big beautiful bill does allow for free entry for military and veterans. one in five in our community has served in our military. So, if you have that, you're eligible to enter um those state parks for free. You just have to go to the website and download that and upload your ID to get that access. So, my question is, and I I do agree, we all have very passionate opinions about this. I like opinions that are backed by fact and case law. So, I think that it would behoove us to wait until that case law comes down on the 24th. Do you want to have a special meeting just for this is my question.
This is just a small percentage of the people that are going to show up. I people they people can't even speak today and they're here. So obviously they're concerned. I mean that's going to be a pretty long meeting because everyone deserves a chance meeting on the 26th. Do you want to have a special evening meeting on the 26th of March? If I can just I just want to make it clear that just because the oral arguments are on the 24th does not mean we're going to get a written opinion on the 24th. So, we can't control when that would happen. You've seen how courts are. They could sit on it for a week or a year. So, I don't want to assume that we're
going to be we may or may not know, most likely we will not know on the 24th how they rule. Okay. So, we'll we'll proceed as scheduled. Okay. Um just so it's on everyone else's radar unrelated to this, but we do need to have a joint meeting with the city. So, Jose will be reaching out for dates on that. All right. And madam council or madam chair, I do have an item that's going to be added to the agenda tonight. It's only uh it's an appointment to a board. So, just FYI. Yes, sir. Thank you. Is there any other discussion on customary use or any questions for
staff? Commissioner Sherberger, anything else? Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you. We are journed. I can hardly wait. Our children