Sarasota County commissioners voted 4-1 on July 7 to approve a revised settlement with Beach Lots LLC, reducing the county’s payment to Beach Lots agent Michael Holderness from $500,000 to $400,000 while allowing a proposed Siesta Key land swap to move forward.

The agreement stems from a federal lawsuit Beach Lots filed against the county over public use of private beachfront near Beach Access 3 on Siesta Key. A previous settlement called for the county to transfer its property at 162 Beach Road to Holderness, along with a $500,000 cash payment and approval of a coastal setback variance. In exchange, Beach Lots would convey several Siesta Key parcels to the county.

Commissioners sent the proposal back for additional negotiations April 21 after questions arose about the title to one parcel and whether the county should exchange 162 Beach Road, which was purchased with Neighborhood Parkland Acquisition Program funds.

Under the revised agreement approved July 7, the parcel with the title issue, known as Lot 26, was removed from the exchange.

County Attorney Josh Moye presented commissioners with several options: reject the amended settlement and continue federal litigation, submit a counterproposal to Beach Lots or approve the revised agreement and proceed with the property exchange.

Commissioner Mark Smith, whose district includes northern Siesta Key, said the county-owned parcel at 162 Beach Road should not be included in the swap because it was purchased with Neighborhood Parkland Acquisition Program funds.

“I don’t think, in good faith, if we’re asking folks to vote on extending that program, there should be any doubt that we’re going to keep it,” Smith said, referring to the land acquisition program voters are expected to consider in November.

Smith also questioned how the properties should be valued, noting uncertainty about whether the beachfront lots could ultimately be developed.

Commissioner Joe Neunder said the county faced legal risks regardless of its decision because another entity had threatened litigation over the proposed use of Neighborhood Parkland Acquisition Program funds.

“No matter where this goes, there’s gonna be a lawsuit,” Neunder said. “If we approve this, there’s gonna be a lawsuit, and if we deny it, there’s gonna be a lawsuit here as well, period. End of story.”

He said commissioners needed to consider which option best protected taxpayers while preserving public beach access and asked Moye for his recommendation.

Moye said Beach Lots’ federal lawsuit remains active but is on hold during mediation. If the county loses, it could be responsible for the property’s value and attorney fees. Approving the settlement would end the federal litigation, he said, while any lawsuit challenging the exchange of publicly purchased property would be defensible because state law gives counties broad authority to exchange or dispose of property.

Commissioner Teresa Mast said her research indicated the proposed exchange would expand public beach access and asked Moye to confirm that assessment.

Moye said the Beach Lots parcels currently provide public access to the beach, while the county-owned parcel proposed for transfer does not.

“I think it’s very important that our public understands that we’re trying very hard to provide as much public beach access as we possibly can, and we have to do that in a legal fashion,” Mast said.

Smith reiterated that he supports acquiring the Beach Lots parcels but not through a property swap.

“I think we are all probably on the same page,” Smith said. “I’m all in favor of the county purchasing those lots. I am not in favor of swapping them.”

He also questioned the wide disparity in property valuations.

The values assigned to the proposed exchange vary significantly. Smith cited Sarasota County Property Appraiser records valuing the county-owned parcel at approximately $2.75 million, while the four Beach Lots parcels initially proposed for transfer carry a combined assessed value of about $85,800.

Smith said county appraisals valued the Beach Lots parcels at roughly $30,000 each. Moye argued they could be worth closer to $3 million apiece if deemed buildable homesites. Beach Lots, through attorney Bill Galvano, cited private appraisals valuing the properties at approximately $20 million using county measurements and nearly $34 million based on survey data.

The differing estimates reflect the central dispute over whether the beachfront parcels should be valued as low-assessed coastal property or as potentially developable homesites.

Smith also noted that Beach Lots and other nearby owners possess additional “sandy lots” and may pursue similar claims depending on the outcome of the case.

“So, this is not a one-and-done deal,” he said.

Neunder asked whether approving the settlement could establish a value for future claims. Moye responded that while each property is unique, the agreement could create a baseline for future negotiations.

Commission Chair Ron Cutsinger then invited Holderness, who was seated in the audience, to address the board.

“The county is trading a 50-foot-wide property that does not provide beach access for a permanent beach access and acres of white, sandy beach,” Holderness said.

Holderness also said he had offered to place Lot 16, one of the parcels Smith referenced, under a conservation restriction to protect the dunes.

“I have no intention of bringing another lawsuit against this county,” Holderness said.

Galvano, an attorney with Grimes Galvano PL, urged commissioners to approve the settlement, saying concerns about including the parkland-funded parcel had already been addressed by the court.

“So, I would say, choose the option that allows you to walk out of here having no further federal lawsuit,” Galvano said.

Holderness called the proposed exchange a positive outcome.

“I don’t know how we let this narrative get so off-track,” he said. “This is something that should be celebrated.”

Smith maintained that the true value of the Beach Lots parcels cannot be determined until the Florida Department of Environmental Protection decides whether they are buildable.

“If we want to get an appraisal for unbuildable sand lots, I’m all for buying them and we’ll settle this right now,” he said.

Neunder said preserving public beach access remained a priority and said he could support the settlement if Holderness’ commitment not to pursue additional lawsuits became part of the public record.

“I can get behind this federal deal with the understanding that we have public testimony on record that there’s no more lawsuits on anything like this,” Neunder said. “We need to protect Siesta Key. We need to protect the crown jewel of Sarasota County.”

Mast acknowledged the difficult position facing commissioners before asking Holderness whether he would reduce the county’s payment from $425,000.

Holderness said he had incurred substantial legal expenses and code enforcement fines during four years of dealing with trespassing and vandalism on the property but agreed to reduce the payment to $400,000.

Commissioner Tom Knight said it was unfortunate the current board had inherited a dispute created by previous elected officials.

“So, we’re going to receive the scrutiny for actions that elected officials did not start,” Knight said. “And I think that’s a cautionary tale for the people that all work here.”

Commissioners then voted 4-1 to approve the revised settlement, including the $400,000 payment to Holderness. Smith cast the lone dissenting vote.