And. Then you can see where all the structures or lie bottom or so on. Okay. The edge. On 260.
Incredible. 75. May be part of it. I think that may be part of it. Goes east and west through.
It's about 30 miles off. And all these are different species of fish live on all these
bodies. And so the last time we went up, I've only been one time up there, me and my, my
good guy buddy Mark, which is another good friend of mine, Mark. Went out there and he
didn't know we were having a problem with the boat at the time. So we dive off the boat
and go through these big moon jellies like Frogger going in and out of these booths. And it
was just so, so crystal clear. We could just see this black line as far as you go. Deeper
and deeper down, you get bigger, bigger, bigger, bigger. And I think I had 20. For about 200ft.
And but it was so clear I ended up going shooting. Oh I don't. Used. Okay. That's deep. Well
it is yes. That's past recreational. Just past. Yeah. Yeah. It's kind of
redevelopment. Agency regular meeting February 5th, 2026 9:00 Am. Please turn your cell phone
to vibrate. Silence or the Offsetting 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 a proof of publication? Yes. This meeting was
advertised in the Pensacola News Journal, January 29th, 2026. Thank you. Are any
speakers for public forum? Not to my knowledge. Thanks. Technical, technical and public
service consent agenda. Yes. Recommendation concerning Community Redevelopment Agency
meeting Minutes December 11th, 2025. Chair entertain a motion. Motion second please vote
passage unanimous. Thank you. Budget and finance recommendation concerning the
cancellation of Residential Rehab grant program liens. Recommendation concerning
Residential Rehab grant program funding and lean agreements and recommendation concerning
Residential Roof program funding and lean agreements. Chair entertain a motion if
there's no discussion, all for second motion. Second, please vote that passes unanimous.
Thank you, Mr. Director. So for discussion item, 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 have been revised in the agreement. For the grant, the
terms added, were additional terms, I'm sorry. Additional terms and agreements were.
Property owners must provide the current lease agreements of properties occupied or draft
lease agreement showing current rental rate at the time of application if the property is
occupied. Unoccupied property owners must increase but not increase rent by more than 5%
during the three year lien term, and property owners must submit lease agreements annually to
CRA staff for the duration of the lien. Also, if the property is sold, transferred or
otherwise conveyed during the three year preferred above lien without the express permission
of the CRA, or if the funding agreement executed concurrently with this lien agreement is
terminated prior to the expiration of three year period, the homeowner agrees that their
heirs or assigns shall the total amount of the grant disbursed by the CRA up to and
including the amount recited within the agreement, and also repayment shall not be required
if the property is sold during the three year period to a homeowner whose household
income is at or below the 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. Yes. Correct? Yes. They
said within that that three year lien period. So we're trying to make it. If they do
sell it, sell it to someone that's for, you know, that's affordable. And we it's a 50%
match. Yes. So they'll put 50% in. Yeah. Up to 10,000 okay. Any more questions. Well excuse
me Commissioner, may I know this is something that the Pensacola party supports. I
support wholeheartedly. When you look at the environmental impact of bio, bio and many of
our waterways, this is something that will help with that. So I'm in full support of
this program. And thank you, Commissioner caller. I think that probably in the joint town
hall meeting, probably 70% of the people there were concerned about. Septic to sewer
conversion. So this helps our commercial corridor, which in turn should well, it helps our
residential, but it should be able to look at helping our commercial as well. And with
that question, so is this just residential. What happens to commercial commercial
commercial also with the same. Yeah. The commercial. 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. So what what what
currently exists with commercial for the 25,000 matching or just. Yeah, 25,000
matching. So I will say aqua charge is 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 Hoffberger 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. All right. 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. 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 the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Has this meeting been properly advertised? Madam chair? This
meeting was advertised in the Pensacola News Journal and 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. Public forum
for that board meeting, which is on the on the 19th of February, will begin at 9 a.m.
and the meeting itself will begin at 930. So with that, we will move into presentations.
Okay. Good morning I'm Christy Hankins. I'm with the county attorney's office. Tim Day is
also present. We were asked to look into the present status of customary use. And so we put
together a small presentation just to let the board know where it stands. Since there
was a repeal of an act that had been in place up until 2025. So in the previous statutory
requirements from July 1st, 2018 to June 23rd, 2025. We're on 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. So and you can see up here this is taken from the 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, the public hearing had to be held to adopt the 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 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. And the it was not it
was it was a much more property owner friendly, and it allowed for the property owners to join
as intervenors. But in 2025, that was that was reversed. And we went back to the the
customary use law that existed 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 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 by case basis, but not on a parcel by parcel
basis, which was much more challenging. Walton, County down the street, they went
under the previous 163 035 and have faced some faced significant hurdles. They lost
an easement that they had previously possessed. They lost. 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, that's pending, that's up on appeal on the 11th circuit for Redington Beach.
They were also under 16163.035, but they passed theirs before 163035 went to effect. And so
they had the affirmative defense of customary use. And currently that is waiting to
see that that hearing will be in February, will be February 24th in front of the 11th
circuit. And that will probably tell, I would imagine that will 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 you have an
owner that has the property, then they would have whatever their use it would be, have to
be consistent with the customary use that's currently on. That's been determined. And
that is a determination. It comes from the case City of Daytona Beach versus Rama. Tono
Rama was not a customary use case. It was a case where a property owner who also owned a
pier had decided to put up an observation tower, and a competing company had decided
to sue the city of Daytona, as well as 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 went all the way to the Florida
Supreme Court, and 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 landowner. 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. And you would we would want to have
very specific. Well, not specific, but not parcel specific. But we want to limit
it to a to a geographical area 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 is going to take over from here.
We've heard a lot of definitions of words that have been used. We want to make sure
everybody has the same legislative understanding of the law in this area. Thank you.
Commissioners. I'm Tim Day, deputy director for natural resources management department.
What I anticipate is you get public testimony at the next BCC meeting is 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. These are all based on Florida statute. You know, one of the
kind of harder ones to deal with is mean high water, which is from a regulatory stance
from the sheriff's department where they try to work on trespass issues. It's
generically looked at as wet sand. By definition, though, it's actually an elevation
around just just under a foot. And. You know, essentially at a summertime high tide, mean high
water is underwater during a winter high tide. The actual high tide mark is somewhere up
on the dry, sandy beach. Because our tides sometimes are high, sometimes they're low.
This is based on a 19 year average of tides to to establish our real point, what
we utilize it for. For example, for Horus, a surveyor would do that to do that southern
boundary for total acreage, to establish density. 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. The next one I'd like to do is just talk a little bit about beach
nourishment under Florida statute. It's defined essentially as the process to
restore and eroded beach. That is also going to involve placing sands within the
submerged lands of the Gulf of Mexico. So it's kind of like what's going on in Pensacola
Beach right now as part of that process to do a nourishment project. And we did start this
after Hurricane Ivan used erosion control line, which is a mean 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
being filled on sovereign submerged lands, which would become public beach, and the
upland side, which would be remain private property. The coastal construction control
line. Basically that exists on all barrier islands within Florida. There are two of them.
The first one was established in the 70s. Very generally speaking, we prohibit all
development other than dune walkovers. Seaward of that line. There is a newer one
established in the 80s, and that's generally closer to. In this case, it's closer to
Perdido Key Drive. And it's a regulatory line for DEP that if you propose construction
seaward of it, the state has additional regulatory standards for construction that they have
to meet. So it triggers the need for a permit. The last is just differentiating between
beach nourishment and dune restoration. After Hurricane Ivan, the county embarked FEMA
funded dune restoration project, in which we placed almost 1,000,000yd³ of sand up near
construction areas along the quay, and the purpose of it was to provide a minimum level of
protection for both the upland development and the county's infrastructure, the roads,
utilities, etc. since then, we have done two dune enhancements, which is involved additional
vegetation, and we actually just closed a solicitation where a little bit later this
year, we're going to be doing even further dune plantings on the key. But in in terms of,
you know, something for customary use or has dune sorry, has beach nourishment occurred
under Florida statute? It is not. Although it's you know, from an intuitive perspective,
I can understand where the public could see. We place sand on the beach. Of course, you've
restored the beaches, but for purposes of creating public lands, that process has not
occurred on the key to date. And so that that concludes definitions. We'd be happy to
help facilitate the discussion as the board feels fit. Oh, sorry. It's okay to assist the
board. We have two maps of Perdido Key to lay out the portion. 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 foot perpetual easement. And then to
the right of that is the 4000ft for which if if there would be a customary use, that would be
the area on the east side is that 4000ft out to the park at the Johnson Beach Park, and
then the next slide is the west side, and you can see in the dark blue that's not only
access, that's that's property that we actually own on Perdido Key, 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, 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. So
this is this map is the eastern side of the key. So it's between Johnson Beach and
Perdido Key State Park. We have the three little slivers you see are county public accesses.
Yeah. And then can you go to the next map? I'm sorry. Can we go clear. That's the wrong way.
So this is the west side. So it goes from the state park to the Flora-bama. And on the west
side of the park, we only have beach access number four, which is the area highlighted in blue.
Can you get back to the first map again? Yes, sir. Okay. So. But okay, that 75 foot easement,
that was the issue a couple of years ago. Yes. Was it just last year? Okay, okay. And that
that's the only portion that that's related to is that stretch that's in darker blue
was approximately 1.2 miles 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 4000, this is what you're
talking about. No, I'm talking about the darker blue over here. Okay. Yeah. That's the 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, which this was part of a plat. Yeah, from the 50s. And so it's only
that 1.2 miles. All right. So and another thing Christy mentioned, just making sure I
understand that the geography where the customary use if we exerted that it wouldn't would
it not pertain to here because of that easement already exists. Is that what you're so what she
said two thoughts. One is we are not recommending doing anything that might disrupt
this 75 foot easement. So I would avoid overlaying anything on this easement. So we are not
recommending messing with the 75 foot easement. And for the for the boards 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 exists. In the
most broad interpretation, what you're saying is this this 4000ft, that's east of the 75
foot 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 the I think what they're
demonstrating to you is the areas where public memorialized access is lacking, meaning you
don't appear to have easements or county owned property. Right? This 1.25 miles, this one mile
and the other 4000ft, 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. What is prescriptive easement mean. If
you to 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 uninterrupted use for 20 years
is the general specific period of time. There'd have to be actual knowledge of the owner
or, and, or it had had to be so open and notorious and visible that it like adverse possession.
And then 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 is
just think of it this way. That's really just the map that that's done by the property
appraiser. So they have to define a line. And so I believe that southern line may reflect
an old erosion control line before it was vacated, but it doesn't reflect where they're
deeded access goes because as we kind of talked about earlier, as the, you know, day by day,
year by year, that shoreline is adjusting. And so to produce a map, you would have to to have
an accurate map, you'd have to produce it very often to make it look the same. Generally
speaking, the west side of the island tends to accrete sand, so it's generally a building
beach. And it's that's 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 they're all under different leases. The folks that live out
here, that own property on Perdido 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 southern boundary would have been mean high water. So if it's and we can I can
provide them before tonight's meeting. Just so you have it in plenty of time. Just examples
of 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. And then you mentioned
dune enhancements. What funded the dune enhancements were that was that grant funded or did
that come from somewhere else. So the initial one was primarily funded by FEMA.
During that time, we also received several state grants. And so basically all all the
improvements have happened have had almost no county match during the original FEMA
construction. There always is a little local match with FEMA project, but the county has not
had local funds expended towards dune restoration. Okay, so we haven't taken taxpayer
like ad valorem dollars or lost money and put it into dune restoration on Perdido Key.
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 can we clarify what the little bit of match was? Yes.
That would be great. Yeah. So I'm going to have to 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 we received some additional consideration where that went to a 9010 split. And
so my best recollection is on those FEMA projects throughout the county is it would have
been 90% FEMA, 5% state, 5% county. So it 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? It just. And if you don't know, later
today is fine. If you don't know all these numbers off the top, yes, I can get the
information. It's fairly expensive because ultimately the dune restoration. So if if
you remember photos from Ivan, the island was pretty well destroyed. If something was
built like in the 80s or before, it was generally destroyed by Ivan. And so we did have
working agreements. The contract 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. We also took sands that were dredged out of the intercoastal waterway by the
Army Corps, restoring commerce, and brought those sands to help do the project. So it I mean,
it's if it was a $20 million project, it means it was still $1 million of local money 20
years ago. I mean, yes, it's it's I'll double check it. It probably exceeds $10 million
pretty easily. Okay. All right. Thank you. And then is there a parking at Beach Access one or
is that strictly for pedestrians to access the beach? There currently is parking
along the there's a north south right of way leading to access one. I would have to recount
the spaces. I think there's approximately 28 spaces there at access number one. Perfect.
Thank you so much. Another thing to keep in mind, 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? Well, I mean, I think you have some leeway in what that would look like. I do know that
in a very formal sense, we have used up Haas Center for some things I have not. I need some
board 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 the past. It's just food for
thought. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Yes, sir. So none of the discussion related to this has
any impact on Pensacola Beach, correct? No. Okay. I mean, literally I mean, not just very
little impact. It literally has no impact. 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 Perdido Key. It is night and day. It is apples and oranges. It has nothing to do
with this conversation, in my opinion. Okay. All right. I just wanted to make sure when
you, 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 and the easement? Yes I can. It's when I go to I'm sorry. So very
generally if we over if I were to overlay the dune restoration area, you know with an aerial
you would generally see a line about the same width as a 75 foot 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 would look very similar to that, but it's it's I do have
drawings that have the Dune surveyed. Perfect. Thank you so much. Yes, sir. Commissioner
Strubegger. So I've been getting surveys sent to me from property owners on Pareto key,
and they 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 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 you correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, maybe
you just, you know, shake your head or something. I don't know, it's. That was like an $8
million lawsuit. So I think there's some misconceptions about this, about what
customary use is and what. What the property owner's rights are. I think somebody had said once
that, no, it was, you know, when when. Customary use was thrown back to us to decide
than it was what customary use would and what the. What that would look like, particularly
in Perdido Key that we. 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 have been warned also. Yes. 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, and 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. Trumps property rights. I mean, where where do we draw the line if we
don't draw 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 does it stop here? Why does it? Why isn't it 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 just
don't know where it ends. And I just can't let you know. Mob rule. 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 county. They take no 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 and 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 access or use of the property. So that would still
be a question for this board to to deal with. We have been providing, I believe, some
lifeguards out on Perdido Key at these access points already, but those are within the
easement. Correct. Or these access points is where I thought that we had them
stationed. Mr. Commissioner may know better than I, but I think we have, 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 dangerous thing. Your Mother
Nature acts of God, that sort of thing. 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? 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. Let's see. Commissioner Koehler. Thank you, Madam Chair, and
thank you for this call today. My little over three years on the board, I don't think we've
had anything this polarizing as of today. 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
Strasburger 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 75ft, it's
on the heading towards Johnson Beach and the other 400 that 4000ft 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 1008 North Roose in North Hill for
six years, right across the street's Alabama Square. It was less than 75ft, 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 and like that at all, but I love
living across the park, and occasionally I'd have some homeless person sleeping in the
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 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 and the town hall with the county to see if there's
any common ground? To my knowledge, we haven't had anything specific, but what I
was going to say is Commissioner Berger has brought it up as a topic in his recent
meeting. Has there been any any sort of give and take, Commissioner Sternberger? No, I
think the condo owners and the property owners out there are pretty firm in that they own
the property as black or white. Do we own it or not? That's what they've said universally.
They've said, do we own the property? Don't we own the property? I had a town hall
last week and I had a. 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. Between all that, all those discussions, I brought this issue up and two
people raised their hands about customary use. The 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. It wasn't a
subject they wanted to talk about. They wanted to talk about Beulah. And we did. We
talked about Buell. 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 it and discuss it. And there's little or no interest. And in fact, 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 yeah, it was Tuesday night. And those people believe the
same way I do. That was an Avondale. They believed like I do, that property rights is
pretty foundational, right. And that I should protect that. That's my duty to do that. And
they argued even as we we spoke for those property rights, because I think they put
themselves in the the property owner's 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. 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 think that's we don't have to take
action. Is that right? No, no we don't have to take action. If I could finish. Thank you.
Thank you. I was talking first. Point of order, Madam 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 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 isn't that much.
Well, it is for a lot of people that live in Myrtle Grove. So the people out there 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 for our $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 of 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 is
going to land, but I do think we need to have a discussion. I'm not saying Commissioner
Strober, we need to take action today. Not asking that. No, we can't take action today or at
this meeting especially. But here's what the conversation in just a moment. 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. Thank you. So here are the conversations I've been having,
because I don't think the problem is the problem is getting the beach so and
getting the beach and be able to use the beach. I in conversations with the
gentleman that owns the parcels next to a couple parcels next to beach access number three,
and we've sent him the appraisals. We haven't got to come back from him yet. Yeah.
So it's we'd engaged quite a bit last year. And the difference between, you know,
the appraised value and his asking price is approximately $1 million. We're communicating
with him to make sure that he's still firm on that price and, and are intending to bring it
for the board's consideration, you know, to see how we might fund the difference. There is a
restore pot, one project that will pay the average of two appraisals. And we do have
funding in that restore Pot one project as well to do 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 it would eliminate a lot of the
issues we have out there at that, at that beach access point number three, where
everyone's getting stuck in the sand too. Probably. The other thing is legislative days was
in Tallahassee with some other commissioners. And, and I, I talked briefly with Secretary
Lambert, the Department of Environmental Protection secretary. She put me in
contact with her, her deputy. She said they have these kinds of partnerships. I asked about
a partnership with Escambia County and our two state parks out there on Perdido Key Drive
that's east and west. The state parks, and we can come up with a way for all Escambia
residents. And I just mean Escambia residents. Now, to be able to use those parks, we'll
have to agree on how we do that. And and I expect to have a meeting with him personally in
the in the next couple of weeks to try to iron out some of those details. So that would
provide more beach access 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'm not. I'm still
going to pursue more property, beach access. That's what I want to do, and I think that's
the right thing to do. I think this whole subject of customary 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 to be uninterrupted.
It goes in and out so I could. I'm sorry. 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. The the wet sand or the
except for of course, when the when the tide comes in in the summer that's protected. That's
protected by state law. It can't be 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 heart's
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. 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 20ft. That's what they came up with,
20ft. The property owner still owned the property. They have to clean the the beach. That's
still their responsibility, not the county's responsibility. And what was my last point?
It's not getting any better. I that's why I got to write these things down. It's still there.
It's they still have the liability on that beach. And one of the issues that and it's
not and I've heard this many, many times is is these. Yeah. These folks you know more
likely it's, it's the spring breakers coming in and using the pool, using the bathrooms
and all that stuff, because the porta potties 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 and a lot
more welcoming for the western gate of the of Florida. Yeah, I think that's all I got. It'll
come back, Commissioner Barry. Yeah. Thank you. So, Mike, are you 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
customer use because 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 Strassburger 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, 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 idea. It 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. 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 one section and this seems to be where the most. 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 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? Yes, sir. So I mean, what I would suggest in terms of staff making determinations
of kind of the best spots, you know, there's some softball areas out there and it's the
easy one is out by Flora-bama. 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. So something like the Flora-bama
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. You know, it's I've been an employee for 26 years. Most of that has been partially
involved with the key or both islands. I certainly have personal observations, but it's
if the board decided to move forward. My recommendation is, is that you actually hear from
the people that and establish an actual record 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 don't I don't go
out there. I just literally say photographs or, you know, statements or that's where that
establishing of a record would be taking documents from the public. Is that what you're
saying? Yeah, that certainly would be the recommendation, Mike. Is that kind of what
you're saying is, is have staff take a look at where, well, 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, are 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 I also think what Tim said am I 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 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.
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 that's a
question for Tim and Legal. What do you think I or legal, I guess, or whoever my
recommendation would be? I'm sorry. Go ahead. Chairman. No, no, no, I would 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. Okay. Before you guys come up with any sort of direction, I
think. Does the public comment include these these things? Are 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 layer. I 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, maybe, maybe that's possible. But the I mean, and 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 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, but 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'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 an entity or, or whatever. I mean, a municipal organization,
you're going to be sued for anything for any reason. 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 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 and Commissioner, 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, I'll yield to you, because I've
yielded to Jean Valentino, I've yielded to Doug Underhill because they should know the
district. I would say to give this. It's right. I mean, to have it on the agenda with
something else. It's it's going to be tough for it to get the attention that it needs. So if
you want to do it on 19th with other things on the agenda or if you support it, 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. You know, there are a couple of things that God gives us. He gives us the land
to see the fish, the water. And unfortunately, many people are limited access because of
affordability of what they can afford. 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 that we may be in
lawsuits if I ever fail in my vote for anything, I'm going to fail on the side of supporting
public access. Whether it's any beach, there's it. Absolutely. It's not like Walton County
Commissioner Biery we're not unique. 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. When
you live downtown, such as I do, I the people walk on the sidewalks. We maintain those
sidewalks. The county may put those sidewalks in, but we have to keep them old. We have to
keep them cut. We have to keep them clean. That's if you want to say personal responsibility.
There's there's some personal responsibility. If we talk about liability, as you said,
Commissioner, we're going to get sued. I mean, 99% of the time 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. It's
the point of exit. So who's going to be liable where the where the point of entry or the
point of exit when someone gets hurt? I mean, so it's not black and white, as you said,
Commissioner Sternberg, it may be, you know, simple and hard, 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 decision, and we have to recognize and listen to all
citizens. And so a couple questions for me, Tim, and then 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. Has anything changed? Who drew the from the treaty on who drew
the original plat for these properties? Where, I mean, how far does it go back? The
historical data of how the original plat was drawn. So I don't think I can answer that
at the moment. I'm aware I believe there's some of them that was done in the 20s, the
one where the easement is was US government lands. It was so when the treaty was signed and
they dedicated the land, have we changed the plats from that? I mean, have have they been
altered in any ways in the past of all the plats the same as they originally were back then?
So it's my my presumption is there's been some additional subdivision that's occurred.
You know, you had larger parcels that have become smaller parcels over time, but
it's just I would feel more comfortable to go ahead and do a little more robust review of
it. I believe Steve West, 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 think, you
know, Commissioner Kolody, I, I would agree with you if this was real easy and it could have
been solved. It would have gotten solved probably. 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, on, you know, the
front of the agenda and get it solved. You represent that District commissioner. Haste
makes waste. You know, I think we have to take our time and try and get it right and listen
to all of the constituents and then listen to the strongest legal position we have, because
a lawsuit is inevitable, but we should be yielding to our legal to say what puts us in the
strongest position to preserve the people's money, particularly if we're going to
be sued and utilize the people's money to fight this issue, which you'll be using
all of the citizens money, not just certain citizens of the money. And so with that, I'll
yield, because, I mean, we got to have public input. We got to have more debate. 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 in a town hall meeting, but for me, it's always important for me to go
listen to my constituents that I represent in those settings, to be able to come back and to
advocate for them in the best way that I can. Knowing that negotiation and policy is about
compromise, and that in some way we're going to have to find the compromise that best
benefits all the citizens. Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner 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'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 it 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. Every single one of them. So I,
I know that we're going to have more conversations and we're going to increase public access.
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, I
want to ask Christy a question because and I want to avoid lawsuits at all costs. I get it
that sometimes they happen. But you cited that in Redington Beach on the 24th, the 11th
circuit is going to have a decision potentially. How close is that related to what we're
dealing with here? You didn't I just don't know. I mean, can you talk much about I know that
hasn't been decided, but can you share a little bit more about that. Right. So currently
the what's going up before on Redington Beach before the 11th circuit is Redington Beach has
a customary use law. 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. And they had witnesses that came forward
that said, we used this beach up until somebody kicked us off. And so the court so it looks
like that's going to so whenever that decision comes down, I don't have their
arguments, the two arguments that are on each side. But that decision when it comes down
will lend a lot of explanation. I'm hoping will lend some more explanation to these elements
that I had up on the board for you. What does that how is that defined when you have a
situation? And I have read many of the emails that that we've that a lot of the emails that
come to you also come to me, they either get forwarded to me or I get copied or Alison will
get copied. And so I see what the argument is on both sides. And 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. 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
decided not to 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. 19 years going
to be a discussion item that you want. To discuss it further meeting. So so we're able to
speak as educated 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 26th, we have a morning meeting. We could have a special meeting
the evening of March 26th. I'm I'm with waiting for that to 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. 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. But we have legal right now
telling us that they're not completely prepared to give us the information. I understand,
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 for, 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 know, thank you. And I agree, when I
say I want to avoid lawsuits, if it's something that I can say, take a step back and say,
oh, I see 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 okay. I'm okay with the timeline everybody else wants. I'm I'm
ready to talk about it. I don't know if any minds. Can you turn your mic on, please? Talk about
this like your your mic. I don't know, I don't know if any minds will be changed between
now and then. 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 flora-bama. And 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. 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. You know, my wife gave me a book a 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 read have read it. It's it's written by attorney. It's about verbal
discipline and maybe also some physical discipline. And and to 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 those, 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 to. All right. Thanks, Madam Chair, I just I know we
can't make this decision tonight, but this is just as 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. 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 rate. I
really would like to have that added at some point just to even start the momentum. 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. 1 in 5 in our community has served in our
military. So if you have that, you're eligible to enter 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 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. We might need. This is just a a small percentage of the people
that are going to show up. I mean, people 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. So we
everyone deserves a chance 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. It would be just like. Okay, so we'll we'll
proceed as scheduled. Okay. Just so it's on everyone else's radar and related 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, madam. Madam chair, I do have an item that's going to be added to the
agenda tonight. It's only 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 fo