Commissioner Knight criticizes county employees for not working with Holderness to resolve issues before complaint was filed
After slightly less than an hour of discussion, the Sarasota County commissioners this week voted 4-1 to settle a federal lawsuit with Siesta Key business and property owner Michael Holderness, the principal of Siesta Beach Lots, which formally had filed the complaint against the county in 2024.
The revised agreement still calls for the county to give Holderness the property standing at 162 Beach Road, which the county purchased for $1.4 million in 2017 with Neighborhood Parkland Acquisition Program (NPP) funds, and Holderness will turn over to the county three nearby parcels that constituted the primary focus of the federal litigation.
The NPP is part of the county’s Land Acquisition and Management Program. A voter-approved tax funds that initiative, which enables the county to purchase environmentally sensitive lands as well as property that would be suitable for neighborhood parks.
At one point during the discussion, Commissioner Joe Neunder asked whether it would be legal for the county to include the 162 Beach Road property in the land swap, given the fact that it was bought with the Neighborhood Parkland Acquisition Program funds.
“Previous boards have disposed of property that was acquired for NPP purposes,” County Attorney Joshua Moye replied. “State law gives this board the right to dispose of property, exchange property as it sees fit.” Therefore, Moye explained, if the board members agreed to the settlement, the Office of the County Attorney would follow the relevant state law in making the property transfer.
In early November 2025, the board members voted 4-1 to award Holderness a Coastal Setback Variance so he could construct a two-story dwelling over a level of parking on the 162 Beach Road site. The public hearing that resulted in that decision was a facet of the original proposed settlement.
Following an April 21 discussion over a problem that had arisen with the deed of one of the four parcels that Holderness had agreed to swap to the county in exchange for receipt of the 162 Beach Road property, the commissioners voted unanimously to direct the Office of the County Attorney to re-engage in negotiations with Holderness and his attorney, Bill Galvano of the Grimes Galvano firm in Bradenton,. That resulted in the revised settlement that they considered this week.
In his federal complaint, Holderness alleged that county representatives had encouraged the public to use his vacant parcels for recreation as part of the public beach. His property is within close proximity of Beach Access 3, seaward of North Beach Road.
As Holderness pointed out to the board during its regular meeting on July 7, county staff also made him take down signs he had erected that warned people not to trespass on the parcels.
Further, in April 2020, the Environmental Permitting Division had cited him for illegally erecting fencing around the property, to keep beachgoers off of it. He ultimately removed the fences, as The Sarasota News Leader reported.
“I never saw any sign that said, ‘No Trespassing,’ ” Commissioner Tom Knight pointed out during the July 7 discussion.
Speaking from a seat in the audience, Holderness told Knight that county staff fined him $200,000 for attempting to erect such signage.
County Attorney Moye explained that, several years ago, the commissioners seated at that time agreed to allow property owners to use A-frame signs that said, “No Trespassing,” as well as flags to mark private parcel boundaries. However, he noted, those signs and flags had to be brought in each night during turtle-nesting season, so the turtles did not get tangled up in them.
Holderness’ attorney, Galvano, told Knight that one facet of Holderness’ lawsuit was “this constant [county] request for some sort of regulation.”
If signs had been allowed to stay on Holderness’ parcels, Commissioner Knight said, Sheriff’s Office deputies “could [have kept] people off the property.” Yet, he acknowledged, “We don’t get involved in those staff decisions.”
[Knight did not join the board until November 2024.)
Later, Knight pointed out, “This was not an elected officials lawsuit.” Referencing his three terms as county sheriff before he was elected to the commission, he added, “In the world that I came out of … people who got us into these type of things typically would lose their jobs or [face] some type of [Human Resources] action … that would prohibit this from happening to us again in the future. … I think that’s a cautionary tale for all the people that work [for the county].”
He further noted, “I, for one, would expect some type of behavior modification for the people who got into this dispute with [Holderness] that caused us to be in this position to be scrutinized by a community. We get stuck with cleaning up the mess.”
“At the end of the day,” Knight continued, “I’m certain nobody got disciplined, suspended or lost their job for the personal argument that will rose out of this … process. And I won’t accept that again in the future from the staff,” Knight emphasized. “Shame on staff.”
At one point, Commissioner Teresa Mast said it is her understanding that — contrary to the expectation when the county purchased the 162 Beach Road property — it is “not being used for beach access,” because of its location. If the board members agreed to the swap with Holderness, she added, the parcels the county would be getting would provide more public beach access.
County Attorney Moye concurred: “We have a property that we own that has not been used for beach access.”
Mast added, “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.”
Along with the land swap, the county will pay Holderness $400,000. Originally, the proposed settlement called for a $500,000 county payment, but that included the transfer of the four parcels to the county.
Mast asked attorney Galvano whether Holderness would be willing to accept a smaller sum as part of the revised settlement, “for us to try and ease some of the impact that we’re having as a board on the angst?”
Although Holderness responded that he originally sought $1 million in damages, the negotiations with the county ended up at the lower figure. “These are real costs,” he stressed. Still, he finally agreed to the $400,000.
Knight ended up making the July 7 motion to accept the proposed, revised settlement, and Commissioner Mast seconded it.
The portent of more litigation
As a result of their July 7 vote, the commissioners likely will face more litigation.
Lourdes Ramirez, president of a nonprofit organization called Protect Siesta Key, told them during their Open to the Public comment period that morning that even though she and a second Siesta Key homeowner, plus Protect Siesta Key, had lost a lawsuit over the board’s initial approval of the transfer of the 162 Beach Road property to Holderness, she planned to file another complaint in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court if they agreed to the revised settlement.
Moreover, Commissioner Smith told his colleagues, “Siesta Beach Lots isn’t the only property owner that has sandy lots. … I know [owners of other such parcels are] waiting in the wings, waiting to see [the resolution of the Siesta Beach Lots litigation], so they can step forward and negotiate with the county. So what is starting out as an $18-million-dollar deal could end up in hundreds of millions of dollars in threatened lawsuits if we acquiesce at this particular point. … This is the starting line.”
The $18-million figure he cited was the value of the three Siesta Beach Lots included in the land transfer, as noted in an appraisal that Holderness had provided county staff.
Smith estimated that another 10 or 12 parcels could be the focus of future lawsuits against the county.
Commissioner Knight concurred with Smith on the potential of other lawsuits. “There’s a lot of exposure out there [on Siesta Key].”
“We can’t really prohibit people that own other properties [from filing complaints, as well, against the county],” County Attorney Moye noted. “We did ask if we can do a ‘global settlement’ with all the properties that Siesta Beach Lots owns on the shoreline, he added, but Holderness declined that option.
“I was unaware of that information,” Commissioner Neunder said. Based on that news, he asked whether he was correct in understanding that “setting a price point,” such as $18 million for the three Holderness parcels, “would somehow down the road allow others that have lots … in the same area … to ask [for a similar price]?”
“I think that’s true,” Moye replied.
When Neunder asked why Holderness would not agree to the “global settlement,” Moye noted that Holderness was in the audience, so the board members could ask him.
After he came to the podium in the Commission Chambers in the Robert L. Anderson Administration Center in Venice, Holderness told the commissioners, “I have demonstrated the most kindness to this county for taking my property by invasion.”
“What we’re doing here,” he continued, “is 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. I don’t know how we let this narrative get so off-track. This is something that should be celebrated.”
Then Holderness stressed that he had placed the parcel that was part of the original settlement — Lot 16 — under a conservation easement “to protect the dunes. So I’m giving up more than I’m getting.”
He added, “Do you know how many thousands of people were on [his beach parcels] this weekend?” (He was referring to the July Fourth holiday period.) Do you know who paid to clean it up on Monday? I did. I filled the holes. I cleaned out the trash. There’s 500,000 people using this land every year,” he stressed.
Holderness further emphasized, “I’m tired of being abused, and I’m tired of being beat up! Let’s get this done … The community deserves this.”
Only 10% of the Siesta Key “white sandy beach” is in public ownership, he also noted. “That’s not my problem. I’m trying to help acquire as much as we can.”
When Chair Ron Cutsinger asked him specifically about the fact that he was not willing to entertain a “global settlement,” Holderness replied, “I never wanted this lawsuit. I begged the county for several years to … resolve this. Before the lawsuit started, I asked the county for a lifeguard, and they said, ‘We don’t fund private property with public funds.’ ”
Then, Holderness added, “I have no intention of bringing another lawsuit against this county. My intention is to work with [the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Department]. Shawn Yeager is a great man,” he said, referring to the new director of that department.
Further, Holderness said he believes that he can talk with other owners of beach parcels, especially in the area of Beach Access 10, to work with county representatives in negotiating a deal.
“I want to solve this problem,” he further stressed. “I’m not here to create problems. I’m here to solve a problem that’s been kicked down the road [by] commission board after commission board.”
“This is a bitter pill to swallow,” Cutsinger said of the revised settlement and the potential that other Siesta property owners might sue the county.
Nonetheless, Cutsinger continued, “For my community, having three beachfront lots far exceeds the value of that single [162 Beach Road] lot. … We’re exchanging a piece of property [that] doesn’t fit the mold as a park.”
“I think … I can get behind this federal deal,” Commissioner Neunder said. “We need to protect Siesta Key. We need to protect the crown jewel of Sarasota County. … We need more of [the beach on the island to be available to the public].”
Debate over the value of the property slated for the exchange
Commissioner Smith, a long-time Siesta Key resident, was the first board member to respond after County Attorney Moye noted the three primary options for the board members, which were included in a memo that was part of the July 7 agenda packet: accepting the revised settlement; rejecting it, with the county moving forward in defending the lawsuit; or providing a counter-proposal to the revised agreement.
“I guess I’m leaning more towards ‘Let’s see what the judge has to say,’ ” Smith told his colleagues.
Moreover, he pointed out, “I’ve been consistent on this … I don’t believe that Lot 12 [the 162 Beach Road parcel] should be part of the negotiation [with Siesta Beach Lots].”
He told his colleagues, “I don’t think, if we’re asking folks to vote on extending [the county’s Land Acquisition and Management Program], there should be any doubt that we’re going to keep it.”
(A county referendum on the continuation of the voter-approved tax that pays for that program will be on the Nov. 3 General Election ballot. That would extend the program through 2049; otherwise, the program will expire at the end of 2029.)
Smith did add, “I firmly believe the county should buy all of the land along the beach and make it public land,” but not at the approximately $18-million price Holderness maintains his three beach parcels are worth.
In 2022, Smith noted, appraisals of those lots by a company working on behalf of the county found them to be worth $30,000 apiece. Those appraisals, he added, recognized that nothing could be built on the sites.
Yet, he continued, a company that Siesta Beach Lots had hired to appraise the land had discussed what that company referenced as an “extraordinary assumption”: Under the existing zoning and private ownership, that the lands could be home to multi-family housing units. “To me,” Smith said, “ ‘Extraordinary’ is an understatement. It’s almost supernatural.”
Given his decades of experience as an architect working on Siesta Key, along with his past service as a leader of the Siesta Key Chamber of Commerce, Smith questioned whether the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) would even grant permits for construction on those parcels designated for county ownership.
He alluded to the difficulty that the Siesta Chamber leaders experienced in getting the necessary state permit to hold the annual Crystal Classic festival on the barrier island, which — he explained — entails building nothing more than construction of sand sculptures on the shoreline.
“In order for any property to be deemed buildable [on a Florida beach],” Smith continued, the owner “has to get a permit.”
His suggestion, Smith said, is for Holderness to get a “consultation file” from FDEP saying that the agency would allow “a multi-family structure to be built right there at the water’s edge,” which would make it clear that the value of the lots was higher because they could serve as sites for dwellings.
While Holderness was at the podium, Smith asked Holderness whether he had approached FDEP staff members to begin a “consultation file” on whether that department would be willing to issue permits for construction on the parcels that Siesta Beach Lots owns.
Holderness replied, “I don’t want to build on the beach, Mark! I’m not a developer. I’ve never developed anything in my life.”