[0:12] And. Then you can see where all the structures or lie bottom or so on. Okay. The edge. On 260.

[0:26] Incredible. 75. May be part of it. I think that may be part of it. Goes east and west through.

[0:42] It's about 30 miles off. And all these are different species of fish live on all these

[1:24] bodies. And so the last time we went up, I've only been one time up there, me and my, my

[1:29] good guy buddy Mark, which is another good friend of mine, Mark. Went out there and he

[1:36] didn't know we were having a problem with the boat at the time. So we dive off the boat

[1:41] and go through these big moon jellies like Frogger going in and out of these booths. And it

[1:47] was just so, so crystal clear. We could just see this black line as far as you go. Deeper

[1:56] and deeper down, you get bigger, bigger, bigger, bigger. And I think I had 20. For about 200ft.

[2:08] And but it was so clear I ended up going shooting. Oh I don't. Used. Okay. That's deep. Well

[2:51] it is yes. That's past recreational. Just past. Yeah. Yeah. It's kind of

[2:57] redevelopment. Agency regular meeting February 5th, 2026 9:00 Am. Please turn your cell phone

[3:03] to vibrate. Silence or the Offsetting Board of County Commission allows the person to

[3:07] speak regarding item on the agenda. Speaker is limited to two minutes unless otherwise

[3:11] determined by the chairman. Is there a proof of publication? Yes. This meeting was

[3:16] advertised in the Pensacola News Journal, January 29th, 2026. Thank you. Are any

[3:24] speakers for public forum? Not to my knowledge. Thanks. Technical, technical and public

[3:31] service consent agenda. Yes. Recommendation concerning Community Redevelopment Agency

[3:38] meeting Minutes December 11th, 2025. Chair entertain a motion. Motion second please vote

[3:46] passage unanimous. Thank you. Budget and finance recommendation concerning the

[3:52] cancellation of Residential Rehab grant program liens. Recommendation concerning

[3:57] Residential Rehab grant program funding and lean agreements and recommendation concerning

[4:05] Residential Roof program funding and lean agreements. Chair entertain a motion if

[4:11] there's no discussion, all for second motion. Second, please vote that passes unanimous.

[4:20] Thank you, Mr. Director. So for discussion item, we are asking that the board reinstate the

[4:27] sewer connection part of the Residential Rehab Improvement grant for Non-homestead home

[4:33] owners with stipulations that have been revised in the agreement. For the grant, the

[4:39] terms added, were additional terms, I'm sorry. Additional terms and agreements were.

[4:44] Property owners must provide the current lease agreements of properties occupied or draft

[4:49] lease agreement showing current rental rate at the time of application if the property is

[4:54] occupied. Unoccupied property owners must increase but not increase rent by more than 5%

[5:02] during the three year lien term, and property owners must submit lease agreements annually to

[5:08] CRA staff for the duration of the lien. Also, if the property is sold, transferred or

[5:14] otherwise conveyed during the three year preferred above lien without the express permission

[5:21] of the CRA, or if the funding agreement executed concurrently with this lien agreement is

[5:26] terminated prior to the expiration of three year period, the homeowner agrees that their

[5:32] heirs or assigns shall the total amount of the grant disbursed by the CRA up to and

[5:38] including the amount recited within the agreement, and also repayment shall not be required

[5:45] if the property is sold during the three year period to a homeowner whose household

[5:51] income is at or below the 80% Ami as verified and approved in writing by the CRA. So if they

[5:59] sell it to another developer, they have to pay the amount back. Yes. Correct? Yes. They

[6:03] said within that that three year lien period. So we're trying to make it. If they do

[6:08] sell it, sell it to someone that's for, you know, that's affordable. And we it's a 50%

[6:15] match. Yes. So they'll put 50% in. Yeah. Up to 10,000 okay. Any more questions. Well excuse

[6:29] me Commissioner, may I know this is something that the Pensacola party supports. I

[6:33] support wholeheartedly. When you look at the environmental impact of bio, bio and many of

[6:38] our waterways, this is something that will help with that. So I'm in full support of

[6:42] this program. And thank you, Commissioner caller. I think that probably in the joint town

[6:46] hall meeting, probably 70% of the people there were concerned about. Septic to sewer

[6:54] conversion. So this helps our commercial corridor, which in turn should well, it helps our

[7:01] residential, but it should be able to look at helping our commercial as well. And with

[7:07] that question, so is this just residential. What happens to commercial commercial

[7:11] commercial also with the same. Yeah. The commercial. I think we have to go back and look at

[7:17] that with the commercial grant, probably to add that caveat to it with the because you can get

[7:23] more with the commercial grant than you would with the residential rehab. So we might

[7:26] look at that. So we probably should make that equal in my opinion. So what what what

[7:32] currently exists with commercial for the 25,000 matching or just. Yeah, 25,000

[7:40] matching. So I will say aqua charge is different for commercial properties. And they

[7:44] do charge those commercial properties impact fees. And those can be significant.

[7:48] Absolutely. So we could look into changing that for the commercial. And so so when it

[7:52] does that the 25 it would help not only with the sewer but the would help with the grease

[7:56] traps and all those other things. Yeah. So I agree with Commissioner Hoffberger that,

[8:02] you know, it is a lot more for commercial to convert, so I would support keeping those

[8:06] numbers high. Okay. All right. So I think I think you have support I just bring it back

[8:11] and get it ratified okay. All right. Any questions. Thank you for the discussion. With that

[8:17] we stand adjourned, Madam Chair. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Welcome to the committee

[8:24] meeting of the whole. Please turn your cell phones to silent or the off setting. This

[8:28] meeting is officially called to order. Commissioner May, would you lead us in the Pledge of

[8:32] Allegiance? Please join me in the pledge. I pledge allegiance the United States of America

[8:41] and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[8:48] justice for all. Has this meeting been properly advertised? Madam chair? This

[8:56] meeting was advertised in the Pensacola News Journal and the board's weekly meeting schedule

[9:00] on January 29th, 2026. Wonderful. Thank you. And just to set the stage, this is a

[9:06] meeting where we will hear from staff and we'll be able to discuss among ourselves. This

[9:10] is not for public input or public comment that is reserved for the board meeting on 229,

[9:16] where we will actually be discussing it and deciding how to move forward. Public forum

[9:21] for that board meeting, which is on the on the 19th of February, will begin at 9 a.m.

[9:27] and the meeting itself will begin at 930. So with that, we will move into presentations.

[9:34] Okay. Good morning I'm Christy Hankins. I'm with the county attorney's office. Tim Day is

[9:42] also present. We were asked to look into the present status of customary use. And so we put

[9:49] together a small presentation just to let the board know where it stands. Since there

[9:54] was a repeal of an act that had been in place up until 2025. So in the previous statutory

[10:03] requirements from July 1st, 2018 to June 23rd, 2025. We're on 163 .035. I'm sorry. Let me

[10:12] know if you can't, I apologize. I'm not close enough on the microphone. I'm used to being

[10:16] loud enough. So and you can see up here this is taken from the from the when this particular

[10:24] statute was repealed in 2025. And this is basically the layout of how it, how it worked

[10:30] was that the public, the public hearing had to be held to adopt the to adopt the ordinance, but

[10:36] the notice of intent had to go out to each property owner. It was parcel by parcel, and then

[10:42] it all had then the after all that happened, the hearing was held. Then a it had to be filed

[10:48] in the court and a complaint had to be filed by the county, and then the county had to or

[10:53] the municipality, and then they had to prove all of the elements. And the it was not it

[11:00] was it was a much more property owner friendly, and it allowed for the property owners to join

[11:06] as intervenors. But in 2025, that was that was reversed. And we went back to the the

[11:14] customary use law that existed under common law prior to that. And this is the staff analysis

[11:19] saying what how it would change back. So you can do a customary use by conducting proper

[11:28] hearings before the board and then passing an ordinance, and then the property owners would

[11:33] have to file the lawsuit, and it'd be a case by case basis, but not on a parcel by parcel

[11:39] basis, which was much more challenging. Walton, County down the street, they went

[11:44] under the previous 163 035 and have faced some faced significant hurdles. They lost

[11:51] an easement that they had previously possessed. They lost. There's significant. They would

[11:58] be a cautionary tale on this, but they went under the 163035. Currently there's a case that's

[12:05] pending, that's pending, that's up on appeal on the 11th circuit for Redington Beach.

[12:11] They were also under 16163.035, but they passed theirs before 163035 went to effect. And so

[12:18] they had the affirmative defense of customary use. And currently that is waiting to

[12:25] see that that hearing will be in February, will be February 24th in front of the 11th

[12:31] circuit. And that will probably tell, I would imagine that will give us the best guidance as to

[12:37] where the courts are going with customary use and the requirements, and whether or

[12:41] not it's going to be well accepted. So here are the elements of customary use

[12:46] ancient, reasonable, without interruption and free from dispute. And if you have an

[12:52] owner that has the property, then they would have whatever their use it would be, have to

[12:56] be consistent with the customary use that's currently on. That's been determined. And

[13:01] that is a determination. It comes from the case City of Daytona Beach versus Rama. Tono

[13:06] Rama was not a customary use case. It was a case where a property owner who also owned a

[13:12] pier had decided to put up an observation tower, and a competing company had decided

[13:19] to sue the city of Daytona, as well as as well as the property owner. Because the City of

[13:25] Daytona issued the permit and he decided to sue on the grounds of prescriptive

[13:30] easement, not on the grounds of customary use. The Florida went all the way to the Florida

[13:35] Supreme Court, and the Florida Supreme Court reversed the lower courts, who had found

[13:39] that the tower had to be torn down. They reversed those lower courts for a finding that it

[13:43] did not have to be torn down. That prescriptive easement did not apply, but there was

[13:48] discussion then at this time with within that opinion about customary use, which is what

[13:53] you see before you. And that discussion has become the law of the land ever since. These

[14:00] are the things that it does. These are the restrictions on customary use. It doesn't

[14:04] create interest. It can't be revoked by the landowner. It can be regulated and it should

[14:11] be appropriately regulated, and it can be abandoned by the public. This would be your

[14:19] procedure for it's a standard ordinance procedure. So notice and hearing the evidentiary

[14:25] basis that I've seen in the court cases has been sworn testimony, photographs,

[14:30] historical documentation, expenditures by the county. And you would we would want to have

[14:35] very specific. Well, not specific, but not parcel specific. But we want to limit

[14:40] it to a to a geographical area and any other sources that would provide information. And

[14:47] then you would have to make legislative findings of facts, as you would for any ordinance

[14:52] that you pass. These are some of the definitions. And Tim is going to take over from here.

[14:58] We've heard a lot of definitions of words that have been used. We want to make sure

[15:03] everybody has the same legislative understanding of the law in this area. Thank you.

[15:09] Commissioners. I'm Tim Day, deputy director for natural resources management department.

[15:15] What I anticipate is you get public testimony at the next BCC meeting is there's a series

[15:23] of terms that are likely to be utilized. And I wanted to make sure we were all working off of

[15:28] kind of the same definitions. These are all based on Florida statute. You know, one of the

[15:35] kind of harder ones to deal with is mean high water, which is from a regulatory stance

[15:43] from the sheriff's department where they try to work on trespass issues. It's

[15:48] generically looked at as wet sand. By definition, though, it's actually an elevation

[15:56] around just just under a foot. And. You know, essentially at a summertime high tide, mean high

[16:06] water is underwater during a winter high tide. The actual high tide mark is somewhere up

[16:14] on the dry, sandy beach. Because our tides sometimes are high, sometimes they're low.

[16:22] This is based on a 19 year average of tides to to establish our real point, what

[16:29] we utilize it for. For example, for Horus, a surveyor would do that to do that southern

[16:35] boundary for total acreage, to establish density. If, you know, if, if we tried to use mean

[16:44] high water as an actual location to enforce regulations, you would have to have a

[16:50] surveyor out there each time to establish exactly where it is as our sands, you know, even on

[16:55] a day to day basis, you know, we may get a little erosion one day, you may get a little

[17:00] accretion the next. The next one I'd like to do is just talk a little bit about beach

[17:09] nourishment under Florida statute. It's defined essentially as the process to

[17:17] restore and eroded beach. That is also going to involve placing sands within the

[17:23] submerged lands of the Gulf of Mexico. So it's kind of like what's going on in Pensacola

[17:28] Beach right now as part of that process to do a nourishment project. And we did start this

[17:35] after Hurricane Ivan used erosion control line, which is a mean high water survey on a

[17:42] particular date. And the intent of that is, is to fix the southern boundary so that when

[17:49] you conduct that beach nourishment, you have a very clear delineation of what is

[17:55] being filled on sovereign submerged lands, which would become public beach, and the

[18:00] upland side, which would be remain private property. The coastal construction control

[18:08] line. Basically that exists on all barrier islands within Florida. There are two of them.

[18:17] The first one was established in the 70s. Very generally speaking, we prohibit all

[18:23] development other than dune walkovers. Seaward of that line. There is a newer one

[18:29] established in the 80s, and that's generally closer to. In this case, it's closer to

[18:34] Perdido Key Drive. And it's a regulatory line for DEP that if you propose construction

[18:41] seaward of it, the state has additional regulatory standards for construction that they have

[18:46] to meet. So it triggers the need for a permit. The last is just differentiating between

[18:55] beach nourishment and dune restoration. After Hurricane Ivan, the county embarked FEMA

[19:04] funded dune restoration project, in which we placed almost 1,000,000yd³ of sand up near

[19:12] construction areas along the quay, and the purpose of it was to provide a minimum level of

[19:19] protection for both the upland development and the county's infrastructure, the roads,

[19:24] utilities, etc. since then, we have done two dune enhancements, which is involved additional

[19:34] vegetation, and we actually just closed a solicitation where a little bit later this

[19:39] year, we're going to be doing even further dune plantings on the key. But in in terms of,

[19:49] you know, something for customary use or has dune sorry, has beach nourishment occurred

[19:57] under Florida statute? It is not. Although it's you know, from an intuitive perspective,

[20:01] I can understand where the public could see. We place sand on the beach. Of course, you've

[20:07] restored the beaches, but for purposes of creating public lands, that process has not

[20:15] occurred on the key to date. And so that that concludes definitions. We'd be happy to

[20:23] help facilitate the discussion as the board feels fit. Oh, sorry. It's okay to assist the

[20:32] board. We have two maps of Perdido Key to lay out the portion. The east side and the

[20:38] west side is how we've laid it out. This is the east side. And you see in the middle there is

[20:44] the easement that we already have. That's that 75% 75 foot perpetual easement. And then to

[20:51] the right of that is the 4000ft for which if if there would be a customary use, that would be

[20:58] the area on the east side is that 4000ft out to the park at the Johnson Beach Park, and

[21:06] then the next slide is the west side, and you can see in the dark blue that's not only

[21:14] access, that's that's property that we actually own on Perdido Key, on the, on the, on the

[21:20] sand. So you've got about one mile on one side and about 1.25 miles on the other. So we are

[21:32] open if, if we can help the board. Madam chair. Yes, sir. Christie, can you go back to

[21:40] the other map, the first map. Okay. So yeah. So the second map is only breaking down the

[21:49] western part of this map. Is that how that is that how you're doing that? No, sir. So

[21:54] this is this map is the eastern side of the key. So it's between Johnson Beach and

[21:59] Perdido Key State Park. We have the three little slivers you see are county public accesses.

[22:06] Yeah. And then can you go to the next map? I'm sorry. Can we go clear. That's the wrong way.

[22:11] So this is the west side. So it goes from the state park to the Flora-bama. And on the west

[22:17] side of the park, we only have beach access number four, which is the area highlighted in blue.

[22:21] Can you get back to the first map again? Yes, sir. Okay. So. But okay, that 75 foot easement,

[22:31] that was the issue a couple of years ago. Yes. Was it just last year? Okay, okay. And that

[22:41] that's the only portion that that's related to is that stretch that's in darker blue

[22:45] was approximately 1.2 miles in width. And it's it was memorialized on the plat as 75

[22:56] foot. Okay. And then that doesn't extend anywhere west of the state park. That's just

[23:01] this portion on this one map. Correct. Okay. All right. Well, the 4000, this is what you're

[23:09] talking about. No, I'm talking about the darker blue over here. Okay. Yeah. That's the and and

[23:18] that doesn't go any that doesn't go any closer to Johnson Beach, nor does it go

[23:22] west of the state park, which this was part of a plat. Yeah, from the 50s. And so it's only

[23:27] that 1.2 miles. All right. So and another thing Christy mentioned, just making sure I

[23:32] understand that the geography where the customary use if we exerted that it wouldn't would

[23:41] it not pertain to here because of that easement already exists. Is that what you're so what she

[23:46] said two thoughts. One is we are not recommending doing anything that might disrupt

[23:54] this 75 foot easement. So I would avoid overlaying anything on this easement. So we are not

[24:03] recommending messing with the 75 foot easement. And for the for the boards information.

[24:10] It's our interpretation that customary use is not an all or nothing proposition. It can be

[24:16] smaller pieces. It's not all of the beach or none it you may choose to go in that direction,

[24:22] but it's not an all or nothing proposition. It needs to be based on what you believe, the

[24:28] evidence to show you as to where historical, recreational customary use exists. In the

[24:35] most broad interpretation, what you're saying is this this 4000ft, that's east of the 75

[24:41] foot easement west of Johnson's Beach, that Johnson Beach, that's one that would be one

[24:47] portion that we could exert. And then on that other slide, it would be the portion west of

[24:52] the state park that potentially we could exert. That's the I think what they're

[24:57] demonstrating to you is the areas where public memorialized access is lacking, meaning you

[25:05] don't appear to have easements or county owned property. Right? This 1.25 miles, this one mile

[25:11] and the other 4000ft, these are your significant weaknesses as far as memorialized easements

[25:17] or ownership. So with the most the most broad interpretation of customary use would be

[25:22] potentially those. So we're talking about primarily three sections there okay. Correct.

[25:30] Okay. All right. Thank you. I have lots of questions. What is prescriptive easement mean. If

[25:46] you to to establish a prescriptive easement you'd have to establish it's

[25:51] basically like similar to adverse possession. But that's not the whole of it. So you'd

[25:55] have to establish there was continuous notorious uninterrupted use for 20 years

[26:02] is the general specific period of time. There'd have to be actual knowledge of the owner

[26:07] or, and, or it had had to be so open and notorious and visible that it like adverse possession.

[26:15] And then it would have to be for a limited and defined area of land. So it is more parcel

[26:20] by parcel requirements. Okay. And then the picture that we're looking at here, I'm assuming

[26:26] the light gray lines are parcel by parcel. And it looks like some of those go all the way to

[26:31] the water line, but some of them do not. So what what's generally reflected there is

[26:41] just think of it this way. That's really just the map that that's done by the property

[26:46] appraiser. So they have to define a line. And so I believe that southern line may reflect

[26:54] an old erosion control line before it was vacated, but it doesn't reflect where they're

[27:01] deeded access goes because as we kind of talked about earlier, as the, you know, day by day,

[27:07] year by year, that shoreline is adjusting. And so to produce a map, you would have to to have

[27:12] an accurate map, you'd have to produce it very often to make it look the same. Generally

[27:18] speaking, the west side of the island tends to accrete sand, so it's generally a building

[27:24] beach. And it's that's part of why I would suggest that that where it looks like the sands

[27:28] are going beyond the parcel lines. Okay. And then I know on Pensacola Beach it's

[27:33] drastically different, but they're all under different leases. The folks that live out

[27:39] here, that own property on Perdido Key, do some of their deeds, say all the way to the

[27:44] water line and some of them say mean high water line. Do we know what the deeds say? It's

[27:49] so their southern boundary would have been mean high water. So if it's and we can I can

[27:55] provide them before tonight's meeting. Just so you have it in plenty of time. Just examples

[28:00] of we can do a handful of deeds so you can see it. But and they're consistent. But their

[28:05] southern boundaries are tied to the mean high water. Okay. Perfect. And then you mentioned

[28:10] dune enhancements. What funded the dune enhancements were that was that grant funded or did

[28:16] that come from somewhere else. So the initial one was primarily funded by FEMA.

[28:22] During that time, we also received several state grants. And so basically all all the

[28:30] improvements have happened have had almost no county match during the original FEMA

[28:37] construction. There always is a little local match with FEMA project, but the county has not

[28:44] had local funds expended towards dune restoration. Okay, so we haven't taken taxpayer

[28:50] like ad valorem dollars or lost money and put it into dune restoration on Perdido Key.

[28:56] It's I'm going to say that's correct. With the exception of is we did have a little local

[29:00] match in every FEMA project. So it's we can we clarify what the little bit of match was? Yes.

[29:06] That would be great. Yeah. So I'm going to have to so generally on a hurricane when

[29:15] we get match it's usually a 7525 split. The 25 is half state half county. With

[29:23] Hurricane Ivan we received some additional consideration where that went to a 9010 split. And

[29:33] so my best recollection is on those FEMA projects throughout the county is it would have

[29:39] been 90% FEMA, 5% state, 5% county. So it was I mean, none of us, you know, even

[29:46] Commissioner May and I weren't on the board. I mean, this is over 20 years ago. So was that

[29:51] a $10 million project? Was it a $5 million project? It just. And if you don't know, later

[29:57] today is fine. If you don't know all these numbers off the top, yes, I can get the

[30:01] information. It's fairly expensive because ultimately the dune restoration. So if if

[30:05] you remember photos from Ivan, the island was pretty well destroyed. If something was

[30:10] built like in the 80s or before, it was generally destroyed by Ivan. And so we did have

[30:17] working agreements. The contract was mobilized, they went out, they collected debris.

[30:22] They sifted sand to create sand to go back, you know, clean sand to go back onto the

[30:27] beaches. We also took sands that were dredged out of the intercoastal waterway by the

[30:32] Army Corps, restoring commerce, and brought those sands to help do the project. So it I mean,

[30:40] it's if it was a $20 million project, it means it was still $1 million of local money 20

[30:45] years ago. I mean, yes, it's it's I'll double check it. It probably exceeds $10 million

[30:50] pretty easily. Okay. All right. Thank you. And then is there a parking at Beach Access one or

[30:55] is that strictly for pedestrians to access the beach? There currently is parking

[31:00] along the there's a north south right of way leading to access one. I would have to recount

[31:06] the spaces. I think there's approximately 28 spaces there at access number one. Perfect.

[31:12] Thank you so much. Another thing to keep in mind, if we do have a public hearing to

[31:23] consider an ordinance, if you remember, a few years ago, the state legislature changed the

[31:29] obligations for an ordinance, and most ordinances now require some sort of business impact

[31:34] study to be done unless it meets an exemption. This doesn't appear to be something

[31:38] that might meet an exemption. So that's another piece of the backup and research that would

[31:43] be needed in order to proceed with an ordinance. What is the process to having that study

[31:49] done? Well, I mean, I think you have some leeway in what that would look like. I do know that

[31:57] in a very formal sense, we have used up Haas Center for some things I have not. I need some

[32:05] board direction as far as whether or not that's something that you would be interested in

[32:10] pursuing. But that's been one of our resources in, in the past. It's just food for

[32:19] thought. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Yes, sir. So none of the discussion related to this has

[32:26] any impact on Pensacola Beach, correct? No. Okay. I mean, literally I mean, not just very

[32:31] little impact. It literally has no impact. Correct. The Pensacola Beach situation is so

[32:36] factually different from this. It is night and day. All of Santa Rosa Island is publicly

[32:40] owned at the very root of it. The lease lines are drawn differently than the deed lines

[32:47] out on Perdido Key. It is night and day. It is apples and oranges. It has nothing to do

[32:52] with this conversation, in my opinion. Okay. All right. I just wanted to make sure when

[32:57] you, Tim, when you pull the dollar amount that we spent with the Dune enhancements, can

[33:03] you also drop those on one of these maps so we know where they are in correspondence to

[33:09] the beach accesses and the easement? Yes I can. It's when I go to I'm sorry. So very

[33:21] generally if we over if I were to overlay the dune restoration area, you know with an aerial

[33:27] you would generally see a line about the same width as a 75 foot easement just south of the

[33:33] line of development. So it's on Pensacola Beach where the dune exists, and you see how the

[33:39] development noses up to it. It would look very similar to that, but it's it's I do have

[33:45] drawings that have the Dune surveyed. Perfect. Thank you so much. Yes, sir. Commissioner

[33:51] Strubegger. So I've been getting surveys sent to me from property owners on Pareto key,

[33:58] and they clearly show that they have the deed. They own the property. Is she still there?

[34:06] Madam attorney, there's no dispute that these are private properties. No. That's why

[34:15] you're having this conversation is because they. I do believe that there is private ownership

[34:23] based on deeds. And then what rights historically has the public gained across them? So

[34:30] I'm not disputing that there is private ownership. Okay. And and so I as you can imagine,

[34:41] I've been getting a lot of information from you, Tim, about this subject. I've been

[34:47] reading a lot about Walton County, and you correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, maybe

[34:54] you just, you know, shake your head or something. I don't know, it's. That was like an $8

[35:00] million lawsuit. So I think there's some misconceptions about this, about what

[35:05] customary use is and what. What the property owner's rights are. I think somebody had said once

[35:14] that, no, it was, you know, when when. Customary use was thrown back to us to decide

[35:22] than it was what customary use would and what the. What that would look like, particularly

[35:30] in Perdido Key that we. That the property owners that there would be no lawsuits, property

[35:39] owners still have their day in court and every one of them can still sue, right? They can,

[35:44] just like they did in Walton County. The the I do think the situation is a little bit

[35:51] different just factually than Walton County, but I do. I've been getting the email traffic

[35:56] similar to to many of you, and I do think that we have been warned that there will be

[36:03] lawsuits. I have been warned also. Yes. So for me, this is this is both an easy and a

[36:12] difficult issue. I think everyone feels the same way. It's easy. It's easy for me

[36:17] because we're the legislative body, right? We're the legislative body for the county.

[36:23] And our job is simple. It's it's to protect life, liberty and property. And I'm very

[36:30] grounded in my beliefs. And I don't believe my principles are better than anyone else's

[36:34] principles. I just believe that I'm very grounded in what I believe, and I believe in

[36:38] property rights, and I also believe in public access. And I don't think they should be in

[36:43] conflict, I don't I also don't believe that the public's perceived right to trample on

[36:50] private property. Trumps property rights. I mean, where where do we draw the line if we

[36:58] don't draw the line right now, how do I know that's not going to happen on my own personal

[37:03] property? I got an interior lot. Why does it stop here? Why does it? Why isn't it on old River?

[37:11] Why is it on that side? Why is it on that side of the water of of that of that island? I just

[37:18] don't know where it ends. And I just can't let you know. Mob rule. I know elections are are

[37:26] what drives decisions. A lot of times this is not an election issue for me, not because I

[37:32] don't have an election, but because this is foundational for me. I believe in property

[37:36] rights. I've traveled around the world, and I, I've been to countries without property

[37:41] rights. We have them here and people own that property. And what you're what you think and

[37:48] I've heard is that we're not we don't want the property. We just want to. We just want to

[37:53] be able to be on the beach there. You won't own it. The property owners will still own

[37:59] it, and they'll still have to clean that beach. Right? They'll own that property and

[38:04] they'll have to. Yes, they will. And that's that's what happens in Walton County. You can shake

[38:08] your head, but you don't know. They have to clean. They still own that property and they have

[38:13] to clean the property. The county does not own it. They've taken no custody of that. And

[38:19] you saw the slide. They've taken no county. They take no ownership of it. So they don't

[38:25] there's no liability for the county, but there will be for the property owners if someone

[38:29] gets hurt on there, just like personal property. You know, where I live and my house, that

[38:35] that's a good question. So in a world, if we did decide to move forward with this life, safety

[38:42] is a huge aspect of that. What would be the county's responsibility of having

[38:47] lifeguards out there, or does that fall on the individual property owners? First of all,

[38:54] you're not ever obligated to provide lifeguards. You're not obligated to do that. There are

[39:02] areas even on Pensacola Beach, which is publicly owned, you're not obligated to have them

[39:07] everywhere where you have a public access or use of the property. So that would still

[39:14] be a question for this board to to deal with. We have been providing, I believe, some

[39:20] lifeguards out on Perdido Key at these access points already, but those are within the

[39:25] easement. Correct. Or these access points is where I thought that we had them

[39:31] stationed. Mr. Commissioner may know better than I, but I think we have, but not on the private

[39:37] property. Right, right, right. So theoretically, if something was to happen at the backyard

[39:42] of one of the condos and someone was to lose their life, could that family sue the condo

[39:47] for not having a lifeguard? I mean, people sue for lots of things. Yeah. I mean, I, you

[39:53] know, usually these there are statutory protections and legal authority that that helps.

[40:01] Anytime you're dealing with a drowning case, it's obviously a dangerous thing. Your Mother

[40:06] Nature acts of God, that sort of thing. But, you know, people do come up with unique ideas

[40:12] for lawsuits all the time. Is there anything in the new or the repealing of the

[40:18] legislation that provides protection for the property owners? No, I'm not aware of

[40:24] anything that that was added to help protect with liability. I think existing case law would

[40:30] govern. Okay. Thank you so much. Let's see. Commissioner Koehler. Thank you, Madam Chair, and

[40:39] thank you for this call today. My little over three years on the board, I don't think we've

[40:44] had anything this polarizing as of today. On any given day, we get 20 emails on both sides for

[40:53] and against. And so I reflect on what's the goal. There's 335,000 people in Escambia

[41:01] County. I think we all want more beach access. But I also agree with Commissioner

[41:07] Strasburger and the attorney. I think that we can get more beach access, but there needs

[41:13] to be give and take on both sides, I support that. When you look at the current 75ft, it's

[41:22] on the heading towards Johnson Beach and the other 400 that 4000ft right there. I think you

[41:29] have some opportunity there and over towards the floor. Bama. But I look at this and I'll

[41:36] share it from a different perspective. I lived at 1008 North Roose in North Hill for

[41:44] six years, right across the street's Alabama Square. It was less than 75ft, I can assure

[41:50] you. From my sidewalk to the park. Now, I didn't control when someone left a beer can or

[41:58] cigarette or I'd have to pick it up. I didn't like it and like that at all, but I love

[42:04] living across the park, and occasionally I'd have some homeless person sleeping in the

[42:08] hammock and stuff like that. There is real problems, Steve. There's real problems with this,

[42:12] and we have a responsibility, no matter what we do, to clean up the beach, just like we do

[42:17] at Pensacola Beach. If we do this, the homeowners out there do not deserve to have garbage

[42:22] all over the beach, no matter what we decide. But I don't think my recommendation would

[42:28] be for the folks here today. And Tim, have we had any meetings with the customer use

[42:35] folks and the beach condo people and the town hall with the county to see if there's

[42:41] any common ground? To my knowledge, we haven't had anything specific, but what I

[42:49] was going to say is Commissioner Berger has brought it up as a topic in his recent

[42:53] meeting. Has there been any any sort of give and take, Commissioner Sternberger? No, I

[42:59] think the condo owners and the property owners out there are pretty firm in that they own

[43:07] the property as black or white. Do we own it or not? That's what they've said universally.

[43:11] They've said, do we own the property? Don't we own the property? I had a town hall

[43:19] last week and I had a. I went to a neighborhood watch this week, another neighborhood

[43:26] watch last week, probably attended by between the three, maybe 130 people. It was a full

[43:33] house at the town hall. Between all that, all those discussions, I brought this issue up and two

[43:44] people raised their hands about customary use. The rest of them didn't know anything about it.

[43:48] They didn't know about it. In fact, at the town hall, they wanted to move on. It wasn't a

[43:53] subject they wanted to talk about. They wanted to talk about Beulah. And we did. We

[43:57] talked about Buell. That's what we started out talking about. But I thought it was something

[44:01] that it is something that affects the whole county. The whole county probably needs to

[44:05] know about it and discuss it. And there's little or no interest. And in fact, the when

[44:12] was it? Was it yesterday. I'm getting I think it was, man. I think it was Tuesday night. I

[44:18] was at the Neighborhood Watch and yeah, it was Tuesday night. And those people believe the

[44:26] same way I do. That was an Avondale. They believed like I do, that property rights is

[44:32] pretty foundational, right. And that I should protect that. That's my duty to do that. And

[44:40] they argued even as we we spoke for those property rights, because I think they put

[44:46] themselves in the the property owner's shoes on the beach because they're property owners.

[44:56] Well, I can look out in the audience and see that there's people that care about this. I

[45:02] my suggestion would be is to have staff and potentially look at what what areas that could

[45:12] potentially be customary use if there are any. And I, I think that's we don't have to take

[45:19] action. Is that right? No, no we don't have to take action. If I could finish. Thank you.

[45:24] Thank you. I was talking first. Point of order, Madam Chair. I was asking if we could look and

[45:30] have public hearing. Not not take action today, but at least have a conversation to see

[45:36] where we could get on something. And the other thing I'd like to bring up is on Johnson's Beach.

[45:42] There was some fallacy that we wanted to buy the beach. No one ever wanted to buy the beach. I

[45:47] wanted a daily rate. So $4. Just like the state park people say, well, $25 isn't that much.

[45:53] Well, it is for a lot of people that live in Myrtle Grove. So the people out there used to be

[45:57] open to everyone. When I was in E2, I went out there. I get it, we have to support that. I

[46:03] think the board should write the Department of Interior and ask for a daily rate. You know,

[46:07] I know it's $45 a year, $7 for our $25 for seven days, but there doesn't seem like any

[46:13] reason why we shouldn't ask the Department of Interior for a daily rate. You know, a lot of

[46:18] people don't that aren't on their vacation. Can't spend seven days out of the beach.

[46:23] They can take their kid for their birthday party. So I would love to have the board

[46:27] support something like that for beach access as well. So I don't know where the board is

[46:31] going to land, but I do think we need to have a discussion. I'm not saying Commissioner

[46:35] Strober, we need to take action today. Not asking that. No, we can't take action today or at

[46:40] this meeting especially. But here's what the conversation in just a moment. If you're in the

[46:44] audience and you're flipping the bird, to us, that is also inappropriate, sir, with the

[46:48] glasses. So let's not do that. Thank you. So here are the conversations I've been having,

[46:58] because I don't think the problem is the problem is getting the beach so and

[47:03] getting the beach and be able to use the beach. I in conversations with the

[47:10] gentleman that owns the parcels next to a couple parcels next to beach access number three,

[47:15] and we've sent him the appraisals. We haven't got to come back from him yet. Yeah.

[47:24] So it's we'd engaged quite a bit last year. And the difference between, you know,

[47:31] the appraised value and his asking price is approximately $1 million. We're communicating

[47:38] with him to make sure that he's still firm on that price and, and are intending to bring it

[47:43] for the board's consideration, you know, to see how we might fund the difference. There is a

[47:50] restore pot, one project that will pay the average of two appraisals. And we do have

[47:56] funding in that restore Pot one project as well to do the improvements if it's acquired

[48:02] by the board. That's pretty key. I didn't know that you told me that yesterday that the

[48:06] improvements would be also funded. So we would have we it would eliminate a lot of the

[48:12] issues we have out there at that, at that beach access point number three, where

[48:17] everyone's getting stuck in the sand too. Probably. The other thing is legislative days was

[48:22] in Tallahassee with some other commissioners. And, and I, I talked briefly with Secretary

[48:28] Lambert, the Department of Environmental Protection secretary. She put me in

[48:33] contact with her, her deputy. She said they have these kinds of partnerships. I asked about

[48:39] a partnership with Escambia County and our two state parks out there on Perdido Key Drive

[48:48] that's east and west. The state parks, and we can come up with a way for all Escambia

[48:55] residents. And I just mean Escambia residents. Now, to be able to use those parks, we'll

[49:00] have to agree on how we do that. And and I expect to have a meeting with him personally in

[49:07] the in the next couple of weeks to try to iron out some of those details. So that would

[49:12] provide more beach access for everybody. Problem is, I don't think that's going to be enough.

[49:18] It just won't be enough. Because yeah, that's exactly why. Because compromise is not

[49:26] something we come to easily here. It's always a fight to the death. And and that's where

[49:33] we're going to go. We're going to spend taxpayers money on a lawsuit, a big lawsuit. And

[49:39] what's going to happen is we're going to still not own the property, and the property

[49:44] owners are still going to have the liability and the garbage to pick up when someone's

[49:49] playing beer pong in their backyard, or just trashing the beach in general, or someone

[49:54] steps on some glass on their property. I'm trying to avoid all that. So I'm not. I'm still

[50:02] going to pursue more property, beach access. That's what I want to do, and I think that's

[50:07] the right thing to do. I think this whole subject of customary use is, is trouble. It's it's

[50:18] asking for trouble. And it's not going to be easy to prove, am I right? It's not going to

[50:23] be easy to prove. You can't just say, I went fishing here or I used to go swimming here.

[50:28] That's not enough. That's not enough. It's got to be historical to be uninterrupted.

[50:36] It goes in and out so I could. I'm sorry. Can I add a second question to that? Currently,

[50:41] they do have the ability to swim and stay in the wet sand as well. So the customary use

[50:45] is more of the dry sand issue. Yes it is. It's a dry sand issue. The the wet sand or the

[50:53] except for of course, when the when the tide comes in in the summer that's protected. That's

[51:00] protected by state law. It can't be anything below the mean high tide is protected by

[51:06] state law. And so they could certainly use that. They could, you know, fish to their heart's

[51:10] content, put in, you know, lay out there, be there with their chairs anything like that. But

[51:15] as far as the, the dry sand, that's, that would be where the customary use would come in. So

[51:20] let me ask you this. So. The compromise they ended up with after the millions of dollars,

[51:27] and I don't think it's even done yet, is that it was 20ft. That's what they came up with,

[51:32] 20ft. The property owner still owned the property. They have to clean the the beach. That's

[51:39] still their responsibility, not the county's responsibility. And what was my last point?

[51:47] It's not getting any better. I that's why I got to write these things down. It's still there.

[51:54] It's they still have the liability on that beach. And one of the issues that and it's

[51:59] not and I've heard this many, many times is is these. Yeah. These folks you know more

[52:07] likely it's, it's the spring breakers coming in and using the pool, using the bathrooms

[52:15] and all that stuff, because the porta potties are kind of a lousy idea out there. I don't

[52:19] like those. And that's another thing I'm pursuing. I'd like to get something resembling a

[52:24] Portland loo that we can haul in and out of there. That that's a lot nicer and a lot

[52:28] more welcoming for the western gate of the of Florida. Yeah, I think that's all I got. It'll

[52:36] come back, Commissioner Barry. Yeah. Thank you. So, Mike, are you back to what you were

[52:42] saying? Are you asking to see if the board is interested in having the staff, like, look at

[52:48] the different sections and see where see where we can make the best immediate case for

[52:56] customer use because it I would like that. And then I would like to have a public

[53:00] discussion with these folks and the people in the condos to see if we can get to some sort of

[53:06] compromise. I do agree with Commissioner Strassburger on two things. When you look at

[53:10] the definition on customer use, I do think without interruption and free from dispute is a

[53:16] problem. I don't know where it's going to land in court. I don't know that. Right? I don't

[53:21] know, but I'd prefer not to get into a lawsuit. I'd rather try to work to get more customer

[53:26] use with you folks and the condo owners. And to answer your question, in short, yes.

[53:31] Okay. I mean, I think that's a you know, I think that's a good idea. It seems like a good idea

[53:36] to try to see is part of the documentation for Tim. So, as you know, as the county would

[53:43] hypothetically try to exercise or to to document the. To document customary use, I mean,

[53:52] that's the creation of that case or that, that that file is not just the product of

[54:02] information that we possess currently. Right? We would then take like if we were say, we

[54:06] were looking at one section and this seems to be where the most. You know, I don't know that

[54:15] anybody knows more about the goings on out there than you or maybe chips, but you know,

[54:19] where, you know, one of you thinks that that that we have the best case and, you know, we

[54:24] have some documentation, but then would we take information from the public to also to

[54:31] supplant to, to supplement that file that we're building for what our case is, is that how

[54:35] that works? Yes, sir. So I mean, what I would suggest in terms of staff making determinations

[54:42] of kind of the best spots, you know, there's some softball areas out there and it's the

[54:47] easy one is out by Flora-bama. That is an area that or you know, any commercial

[54:52] restaurants. These are areas where for as long as it's been in existence, they've invited

[54:57] people there. You know, there's a benefit to their products. So something like the Flora-bama

[55:02] complex is an easy recommendation that, yes, customary use is there in terms

[55:07] of, you know, if we were to look in other areas of the beach that are residential in

[55:13] nature. You know, it's I've been an employee for 26 years. Most of that has been partially

[55:22] involved with the key or both islands. I certainly have personal observations, but it's

[55:28] if the board decided to move forward. My recommendation is, is that you actually hear from

[55:34] the people that and establish an actual record from people that historically have been

[55:42] utilizing it. Yeah, but what you're saying, the establishing of that record literally is

[55:46] that that's taking documents and taking. I don't, I don't, you know, I don't I don't go

[55:52] out there. I just literally say photographs or, you know, statements or that's where that

[55:59] establishing of a record would be taking documents from the public. Is that what you're

[56:05] saying? Yeah, that certainly would be the recommendation, Mike. Is that kind of what

[56:09] you're saying is, is have staff take a look at where, well, what we think and then have a

[56:14] public discussion where they're allowed to, where the public is allowed to come and, and begin

[56:21] to submit evidence to the county about what they think. I mean, because that's going to

[56:27] it appears that the public part of this is going to be a big part of this discussion. And

[56:32] they have, you know, anecdotal or documentable stories and histories out there for decades,

[56:37] I assume, is a reason that there is this passion about it. So they would have comments and

[56:43] then they could potentially provide us documents of of things that they think are, you

[56:49] know, are why this has been customarily used. Is that kind of what you're saying? Well,

[56:54] yeah, I think that any public opinion on this is good for us to entertain before we go into

[56:58] any kind of ordinance change. But I also think what Tim said am I talk with legal one size

[57:06] doesn't have to fit all. I think we could get to a happy medium here, and it doesn't

[57:12] have to be everything. And I think that's how we start. So and that's, you know, talking

[57:18] with you and legal. That's what I've been told. So all right. So Madam Chair, so we're moving

[57:23] forward with the discussion on this on the 28th. Is that what. I'm sorry the 19th okay. So.

[57:32] Are you looking at you know, I, I don't know, I'm just I'm just kind of saying I mean, if

[57:39] people have things that they think are important, should we go ahead and say, let you know,

[57:44] let them start submitting whatever they think is important to Tim, or that's a

[57:47] question for Tim and Legal. What do you think I or legal, I guess, or whoever my

[57:54] recommendation would be? I'm sorry. Go ahead. Chairman. No, no, no, I would need to begin

[57:58] being the repository for something. I think you need to take public comment first. And

[58:03] you're doing that on the 19th. Okay. Before you guys come up with any sort of direction, I

[58:10] think. Does the public comment include these these things? Are you saying just the comment,

[58:15] just literally the the narrative oral you need to get? I would suggest you get public

[58:20] feedback before you guys direct where we're headed with this. And then you can certainly ask

[58:25] your staff to start, you know, if you want to be amassing a historical record. Some of what

[58:30] I think Commissioner Kohler is referring to is you don't want to end up with a patchwork

[58:35] quilt out there where you've got some areas where there's customary use and some areas

[58:38] where the public's not allowed to be, and some areas where you're allowed to have a towel

[58:43] but not an umbrella, and some areas where you can fish but not lay out. And some of that

[58:47] kind of thing has happened in Walton County. So I think what he's saying is send up a trial

[58:52] balloon and see if there are areas where this is not going to be disputed. And then then

[58:57] that's your, you know, your ground layer. I we'll see. I guess it it seems unlikely

[59:03] outside of maybe what Tim said or, you know, a commercial area, I mean, it seems. But you know,

[59:08] maybe, maybe, maybe that's possible. But the I mean, and I think that it would be good for

[59:15] the discussion on the 19th. I mean, I'm certainly no attorney, but I've been told that the

[59:22] issues are not the same as Walton County. I mean, it's not the same. So, I mean, I don't

[59:27] know that that's I agree, but perfect example of what could happen. I mean, you know, the

[59:32] county can and will be sued. You know, if not this week, next week for something. I mean,

[59:36] I mean, it's, you know, if you if you have a, if you have a pocketbook, you're going to be

[59:42] sued whether you're a business or an entity or, or whatever. I mean, a municipal organization,

[59:46] you're going to be sued for anything for any reason. So, I mean, we can't, you know, we we

[59:52] can't set policy and legislative actions out of, you know, avoid either do things or

[59:57] not do things out of fear. No, I agree that's that's not a good reason. But take the

[1:00:02] public comment on the 19th. And at that time, if members of the public want to contribute items

[1:00:07] or bring even items that they think help establish a historical record, I think we

[1:00:14] should absolutely be open to that. But I do think you need to open it to public comment

[1:00:18] before you guys provide direction. I think that is Florida's, you know,

[1:00:22] Participation Act requires that. I agree, and I think at a board meeting is better because then

[1:00:27] it's public record versus at a town hall. Commissioner May. Thank you, Madam Chair and

[1:00:32] commissioner and Commissioner, I think I do agree that, you know, we should have a public

[1:00:38] comment on the 19th, madam Chair, is that a meeting just solely for customary use, or is

[1:00:44] that going to be. No, sir. It's a regular board meeting. At our last board meeting, we decided

[1:00:48] that we would hear from the staff at this meeting. We would digest that information. The

[1:00:53] public would be able to digest that information, and then we would come back for a meeting

[1:00:57] with it being a discussion item on the 19th. And, Commissioner, I'll yield to you, because I've

[1:01:02] yielded to Jean Valentino, I've yielded to Doug Underhill because they should know the

[1:01:08] district. I would say to give this. It's right. I mean, to have it on the agenda with

[1:01:16] something else. It's it's going to be tough for it to get the attention that it needs. So if

[1:01:21] you want to do it on 19th with other things on the agenda or if you support it, calling a

[1:01:25] special board meeting where it would be on the record, I would support that. I've been pretty

[1:01:30] consistent in public access for me or where I am. I don't have to say a lot. I'm not going to

[1:01:35] say a lot. You know, there are a couple of things that God gives us. He gives us the land

[1:01:40] to see the fish, the water. And unfortunately, many people are limited access because of

[1:01:48] affordability of what they can afford. So I have a fresh memory of my parents being able

[1:01:54] to go to Johnson Beach for free and walk around in the old sands and maybe look up at

[1:01:59] condos that they could never afford or their children couldn't afford. So maybe the

[1:02:02] closest that they got to that water was that beach access. I recognize that we may be in

[1:02:08] lawsuits if I ever fail in my vote for anything, I'm going to fail on the side of supporting

[1:02:16] public access. Whether it's any beach, there's it. Absolutely. It's not like Walton County

[1:02:23] Commissioner Biery we're not unique. You visit California and you go out there and you

[1:02:28] walk along the beach and you see the celebrities because they live in their condos. When

[1:02:32] you live downtown, such as I do, I the people walk on the sidewalks. We maintain those

[1:02:37] sidewalks. The county may put those sidewalks in, but we have to keep them old. We have to

[1:02:41] keep them cut. We have to keep them clean. That's if you want to say personal responsibility.

[1:02:46] There's there's some personal responsibility. If we talk about liability, as you said,

[1:02:49] Commissioner, we're going to get sued. I mean, 99% of the time when you pull a body out

[1:02:55] of the water that's drowned or injured or a shark bite, it's not the point of entry. It's

[1:02:59] the point of exit. So who's going to be liable where the where the point of entry or the

[1:03:04] point of exit when someone gets hurt? I mean, so it's not black and white, as you said,

[1:03:09] Commissioner Sternberg, it may be, you know, simple and hard, but whenever you have emotions

[1:03:13] and people involved in it, it's going to be hard because we have to make a legislative

[1:03:18] decision. We have to make a emotional decision, and we have to recognize and listen to all

[1:03:24] citizens. And so a couple questions for me, Tim, and then I'll be done. Because, you know,

[1:03:30] this is certainly probably something that my colleagues up here all have more expertise

[1:03:35] than I do the original plat. Has anything changed? Who drew the from the treaty on who drew

[1:03:41] the original plat for these properties? Where, I mean, how far does it go back? The

[1:03:45] historical data of how the original plat was drawn. So I don't think I can answer that

[1:03:54] at the moment. I'm aware I believe there's some of them that was done in the 20s, the

[1:04:02] one where the easement is was US government lands. It was so when the treaty was signed and

[1:04:08] they dedicated the land, have we changed the plats from that? I mean, have have they been

[1:04:13] altered in any ways in the past of all the plats the same as they originally were back then?

[1:04:20] So it's my my presumption is there's been some additional subdivision that's occurred.

[1:04:25] You know, you had larger parcels that have become smaller parcels over time, but

[1:04:30] it's just I would feel more comfortable to go ahead and do a little more robust review of

[1:04:35] it. I believe Steve West, under a previous review, did a pretty deep dive. I just don't have it

[1:04:41] at my fingertips and that's fair enough. Thanks, Tim. I appreciate it. And I think, you

[1:04:45] know, Commissioner Kolody, I, I would agree with you if this was real easy and it could have

[1:04:50] been solved. It would have gotten solved probably. Many years ago. I mean, and so it

[1:04:57] has to be a conversation. I mean, it's a little convoluted. So I think that, you know, I

[1:05:01] appreciate Commissioner Barry saying, let's finally get this, you know, on, you know, the

[1:05:05] front of the agenda and get it solved. You represent that District commissioner. Haste

[1:05:10] makes waste. You know, I think we have to take our time and try and get it right and listen

[1:05:16] to all of the constituents and then listen to the strongest legal position we have, because

[1:05:22] a lawsuit is inevitable, but we should be yielding to our legal to say what puts us in the

[1:05:28] strongest position to preserve the people's money, particularly if we're going to

[1:05:31] be sued and utilize the people's money to fight this issue, which you'll be using

[1:05:36] all of the citizens money, not just certain citizens of the money. And so with that, I'll

[1:05:42] yield, because, I mean, we got to have public input. We got to have more debate. I hope that

[1:05:47] there's a compromise. I hope that there's a way in which, I mean, I know you can't vote in

[1:05:51] a public forum in a town hall meeting, but for me, it's always important for me to go

[1:05:56] listen to my constituents that I represent in those settings, to be able to come back and to

[1:06:02] advocate for them in the best way that I can. Knowing that negotiation and policy is about

[1:06:10] compromise, and that in some way we're going to have to find the compromise that best

[1:06:14] benefits all the citizens. Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner and then

[1:06:18] Commissioner Kohler. So I think we need to keep in mind that these are well defined private

[1:06:24] properties. The other thing is, you know, I say this all the time in my town halls. I said,

[1:06:29] I don't count hands. I don't count hands because it's not my control group. You know, the

[1:06:34] shirts don't make me change my mind. And we have been having communications. You've all been

[1:06:42] getting the emails that I've been getting. We've all been getting. So we've been we've

[1:06:45] been getting public input. This is the input I got just this morning. Connor printed it for

[1:06:51] me just this morning. You ran out of time and you ran out of paper. This is just. And this

[1:06:58] and all these are against customary use. All of them. Every single one of them. So I,

[1:07:09] I know that we're going to have more conversations and we're going to increase public access.

[1:07:16] Even in California. We live in the free state of Florida. Everywhere there's private

[1:07:21] property. And and I think that we need to guard that. Thanks, Commissioner Kohler. Yeah, I, I

[1:07:29] want to ask Christy a question because and I want to avoid lawsuits at all costs. I get it

[1:07:34] that sometimes they happen. But you cited that in Redington Beach on the 24th, the 11th

[1:07:40] circuit is going to have a decision potentially. How close is that related to what we're

[1:07:45] dealing with here? You didn't I just don't know. I mean, can you talk much about I know that

[1:07:50] hasn't been decided, but can you share a little bit more about that. Right. So currently

[1:07:54] the what's going up before on Redington Beach before the 11th circuit is Redington Beach has

[1:08:00] a customary use law. They did the they passed their ordinance prior. They passed their

[1:08:06] ordinance in the window of that 2018 statute that allowed them to use customary use as a

[1:08:15] affirmative defense, should they be sued. And they had witnesses that came forward

[1:08:20] that said, we used this beach up until somebody kicked us off. And so the court so it looks

[1:08:27] like that's going to so whenever that decision comes down, I don't have their

[1:08:32] arguments, the two arguments that are on each side. But that decision when it comes down

[1:08:37] will lend a lot of explanation. I'm hoping will lend some more explanation to these elements

[1:08:42] that I had up on the board for you. What does that how is that defined when you have a

[1:08:47] situation? And I have read many of the emails that that we've that a lot of the emails that

[1:08:53] come to you also come to me, they either get forwarded to me or I get copied or Alison will

[1:08:58] get copied. And so I see what the argument is on both sides. And I think maybe this will

[1:09:05] clarify some boundaries and some of the definitions, because I think since the court

[1:09:09] wasn't dealing with directly in the Supreme Court case, they didn't define what these things

[1:09:13] mean. And we've had to look at customary use as it goes back to the common law of England to

[1:09:18] understand it. And there really just wasn't that time this morning to go into that deep of

[1:09:23] an explanation. So I think that's going to answer some questions for us. I just don't

[1:09:28] until we have those answers. I would just be guessing. Well, that's good to know because

[1:09:32] that would consider precedent potentially in the state right, of what how we should deal with

[1:09:37] these issues. Right. And the state hasn't the state in some of the research I did, they

[1:09:43] decided not to not to set the customary use because they felt that that should be done per

[1:09:48] jurisdiction. It is a they they relied back on home rule and said each jurisdiction should

[1:09:52] make that decision. Okay. Well I'm very interested in that case. Thank you. 19 years going

[1:10:00] to be a discussion item that you want. To discuss it further meeting. So so we're able to

[1:10:09] speak as educated as possible with as much case law as possible. I'm just throwing

[1:10:14] this out there. Do we want to wait until after that comes down. So we have more

[1:10:19] information on on March 26th, we have a morning meeting. We could have a special meeting

[1:10:24] the evening of March 26th. I'm I'm with waiting for that to if there's a case like that

[1:10:32] because we want to do what's right. But at the same time we want to avoid lawsuits or get

[1:10:38] ahead of things we don't. I would say yes, sir. We don't know. We're going to still take

[1:10:47] public input on the 19th, whether we have it on the agenda or not. So there won't

[1:10:51] be any avoidance of a lawsuit. I mean, if we do this, we won't be avoiding it. We're on ahead.

[1:10:57] We're on a head on collision with it. We're not avoiding. But we have legal right now

[1:11:01] telling us that they're not completely prepared to give us the information. I understand,

[1:11:05] so you're saying, I mean, so we are going to get a lawsuit. I mean, I'm surely if we don't

[1:11:10] prevail, I'm going to get a lawsuit based on advice for, you know, because you know,

[1:11:14] who's going to point the fingers when it's all said and done? I mean, ultimately we get

[1:11:18] responsible for lawsuits, whether you serve on this board or not. I mean, we're going to

[1:11:22] get blamed for any lawsuit that happens. And so, you know, thank you. And I agree, when I

[1:11:26] say I want to avoid lawsuits, if it's something that I can say, take a step back and say,

[1:11:31] oh, I see the county over that. I would prefer not to move forward. And I think that's

[1:11:36] probably the lens that most of us look through this through. This is your district, and I

[1:11:40] want to make sure that we're respectful of that. What would be your preferred timeline on

[1:11:44] how we discuss this? I'm okay. I'm okay with the timeline everybody else wants. I'm I'm

[1:11:48] ready to talk about it. I don't know if any minds. Can you turn your mic on, please? Talk about

[1:11:53] this like your your mic. I don't know, I don't know if any minds will be changed between

[1:11:59] now and then. I have been trying to come up with some compromise with this. I've

[1:12:04] talked to. There's no compromise with the group in front of us. They they want

[1:12:09] customer use instituted. I've seen one interview from one end to the other end from one one

[1:12:15] from the park to the to the to the flora-bama. And it just I, I think that's an overreach. I

[1:12:22] think that's an overreach. We'll have that talk. We'll figure it out. But in the end,

[1:12:28] I just I think everyone's got to be a lot more respectful. No more damn fingers and all that

[1:12:36] stuff. I that really ticks me off. You know, my wife gave me a book a few months ago. This

[1:12:43] is the book. I brought it with me. It's called The Next Conversation. I don't know if

[1:12:47] any of the attorneys have read have read it. It's it's written by attorney. It's about verbal

[1:12:53] discipline and maybe also some physical discipline. And and to to to not get to the point

[1:13:02] where you can't have the next conversation. That's what we're going to next, the next

[1:13:07] conversation. So the outrage and the nonsense that goes on in the, you know, with the

[1:13:14] microphone mafia and those, those folks that doesn't get us to the next conversation. If

[1:13:20] you want to help and you want to come to a compromise and you need to find out what what a

[1:13:25] compromise is going to be for you to. All right. Thanks, Madam Chair, I just I know we

[1:13:32] can't make this decision tonight, but this is just as important to me. If we could

[1:13:36] add it on later tonight or next meeting, it doesn't matter. I would like the board to to put

[1:13:42] on the agenda to. If the board supports it. I don't know how the vote will happen, but we

[1:13:49] write the Department of Interior to change Johnson's Beach for a daily rate. I

[1:13:53] really would like to have that added at some point just to even start the momentum. I

[1:13:58] would agree. And then just to make it known, part of the big beautiful Bill does allow for

[1:14:02] free entry for military and veterans. 1 in 5 in our community has served in our

[1:14:07] military. So if you have that, you're eligible to enter those state parks for free. You just

[1:14:11] have to go to the website and download that and upload your ID to get that access. So my

[1:14:17] question is, and I do agree, we all have very passionate opinions about this. I like

[1:14:22] opinions that are backed by fact and case law. So I think that it would behoove us to

[1:14:26] wait until that case law comes down on the 24th. Do you want to have a special meeting just

[1:14:31] for. This is my question. We might need. This is just a a small percentage of the people

[1:14:40] that are going to show up. I mean, people people can't even speak today and they're here.

[1:14:44] So obviously they're concerned. I mean, that's going to be a pretty long meeting. So we

[1:14:48] everyone deserves a chance on the 26th. Do you want to have a special evening meeting on the

[1:14:53] 26th of March? If I can just I just want to make it clear that just because the oral arguments

[1:14:58] are on the 24th does not mean we're going to get a written opinion on the 24th. So we

[1:15:03] can't control when that would happen. You've seen how courts are. They could sit on it for a

[1:15:08] week or a year. So I don't want to assume that we're going to be we may or may not know. Most

[1:15:14] likely we will not know on the 24th how they rule. It would be just like. Okay, so we'll we'll

[1:15:23] proceed as scheduled. Okay. Just so it's on everyone else's radar and related to this, but

[1:15:28] we do need to have a joint meeting with the city. So Jose will be reaching out for dates

[1:15:33] on that. All right, madam. Madam chair, I do have an item that's going to be added to the

[1:15:37] agenda tonight. It's only it's an appointment to a board, so just FYI. Yes, sir. Thank you.

[1:15:43] Is there any other discussion on customary use or any questions fo

Community Redevelopment Agency

Agenda

Transcript