[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