Other board members express frustration with resolution of litigation
While Sarasota County Commissioner Mark Smith remained steadfast in his opposition to it, all of his board colleagues agreed on Sept. 22 to support the proposed, amended settlement of a federal lawsuit that Siesta Key businessman and property owner Michael Holderness filed against the county in 2024.
Commissioner Tom Knight did voice agreement with concerns that Smith had expressed — and Knight reiterated his desire to have been better informed by staff before he first voted in favor of settling the litigation. The latter action, as he has noted, came during his first meeting after his election as a commissioner in November 2024.
Ahead of that vote, staff did not provide details to the commissioners about the source of the $1.4 million the county paid in 2017 for the 162 Beach Road parcel, which Holderness will get from the county as part of the settlement.
The funds for that acquisition came out of the county’s Neighborhood Parkland Program, whose revenue derives from a 0.25 mil tax imposed on property owners countywide. (The funds support the purchase of environmentally sensitive lands, as well, to protect them from development. One mil represents $1,000 of the value of a parcel.)
Further, in November 2025, the commissioners voted 4-1 to approve a Coastal Setback Variance that will allow Holderness to construct a two-story-over-parking residence on the 162 Beach Road site.
Commissioner Smith’s primary worry, he stressed to the other board members again this week, is that other owners of lots on Siesta Beach already have been considering pursuing action against the county similar to the path that Holderness took formally through Holderness’ limited liability company Siesta Beach Lots.
Smith pointed out, “We caught a lot of grief “for purchasing The Boatyard property and marina just east of Siesta Key for $18.1 million, “and here we’re looking at basically paying 28 times what our appraisal had around $30,000 [per lot]” for each of three parcels that the county will be accepting from Holderness in exchange for receipt of the 162 Beach Road property.
Smith compared the county’s appraisals of the three Holderness beach parcels to the approximately $18 million total resulting from the private appraisals undertaken on behalf of Holderness.
The latter value, he continued, “is going to set the market. There’s probably about a dozen other lots out there [whose owners will want deals similar to the one with Holderness]. Instead of the county being able to buy [those parcels] for under half-a-million [dollars],” Smith emphasized, “we’re looking at a hit that could be between $30 [million] and $48 million, and we’ll be taken to court …”
“This is bad at so many levels,” Smith stressed.
The appraisals Holderness’ attorney had submitted to county staff, Smith continued, were based on the potential for homes to be constructed on those parcels. Yet, Smith emphasized, “They aren’t buildable [lots].”
Further, the county’s Comprehensive Plan — which guides growth in the community — calls for the preservation of dunes, he pointed out, and the three Holderness parcels have dunes on them.
Moreover, Smith noted, he and his colleagues have worked to keep the county’s budget in check for the 2027 fiscal year, which will begin on Oct. 1, and in future years, with worry that the state’s voters will approve Amendment 3 on the Nov. 3 General Election ballot. (That amendment would raise the homestead tax exemption for non-school taxes to $150,000 in 2027 and to $250,000 in 2028.)
In response to comments from Commissioner Knight, County Attorney Joshua Moye pointed out that the settlement before them that day contained the terms they had discussed during their regular meeting on July 7. It included a $400,000 payment to Holderness, after Commissioner Teresa Mast won Holderness’ agreement to knock off $25,000.
Looking at Smith, Chair Ron Cutsinger said, “We’ve heard you, Commissioner.” Cutsinger added, “I don’t think any of us are particularly really happy about the circumstances, but it’s where we find ourselves.”
Holderness’ federal complaint had alleged a “taking” by the county of his private beach property because staff actions appeared to invite the public to enjoy recreation on those parcels. He also stressed to the board members in July that county staff fined him about $200,000 in for actions he took to try to prevent people from using his beach property.
In this situation, Knight pointed out, “There’s no good outcome.” Referring to research he had undertaken on his own, Knight added, “I think the opportunity for us to prevail in this litigation is very, very minimal.”
‘There are so many problems with this issue’
The only member of the public who had signed up to address the board during the public hearing was Lourdes Ramirez, president of the nonprofit organization Protect Siesta Key. As she has on previous occasions — and in newsletters to members of Protect Siesta Key — Ramirez decried the proposed settlement.
Reprising details about the county’s purchase of the land, she then told the board members that staff reports written prior to the property’s acquisition listed the dune habitat and “rare vegetation” on it. Staff, she noted, had recommended the county buy the land “for conservation and public recreation …”’
And, like Smith, Ramirez characterized the three Holderness parcels in the exchange as “unbuildable, low-value beach lots.”
Once more, as she also has done in the past, she questioned the county’s authority to include in the settlement the transfer of land that the county bought through the Neighborhood Parkland Program (NPP). “The NPP ordinance,” she pointed out, “provides the process for disposing [of] only those portions of land that the county determined did not qualify for the program. But the entire 162 Beach [Road] property was specifically determined to quality when the county purchased it.”
Moreover, Ramirez told the commissioners, the NPP ordinance “requires … any disposal of unqualified land to be sold at full price, with those proceeds going back into the NPP fund, and that is not what’s happening here.”
Sarasota County Property Appraiser Bill Furst and his staff most recently have put the value of the parcel at $2.1 million, she said.
Yet another issue for consideration, Ramirez continued, is the fact that prior discussions about the settlement have included the contention that the three parcels from Holderness will provide more beach access for the public. “But what additional access?” she asked. “There’s already public access to the Gulf at Beach Access 3. Acquiring additional property next to an existing access does not increase public access if [people] have no place to park.”
Further, Ramirez reminded the commissioners that they agreed to place on the Nov. 3 General Election ballot two referenda related to continuation of the county’s Land Acquisition and Management Program, which includes the Neighborhood Parkland Program. “When taxpayers vote to purchase land for protection,” Ramirez emphasized, “they expect that land to be protected, not to be handed over to a developer by future commissioners.”
“There are so many problems with this issue,” she said.
In response to a question from Knight about the legality of the transfer, County Attorney Moye confirmed — as he has in the past — that state law gives the board the right to give up the 162 Beach Road property.
Knight said that he agreed with Ramirez’s points. Nonetheless, he told his colleagues, “It could cost a whole lot more money … if we retract on this and go backwards.”
Knight ended up making the motion to approve the settlement, as amended since July, and Commissioner Mast seconded it.
“I believe in supporting people’s private property rights,” Mast said, “and there were some serious issues here. And, hopefully, the benefit to the community will be greater than what the pain has been to try and get this far.”
Again, Commissioner Smith noted his concerns about future litigation against the county akin to Holderness’ complaint, with the risk of the county’s paying up to $48 million to purchase other beach lots.
Based on the settlement terms that day, he added, the negotiations regarding those other lots will end up with their value being in the range of $2.5 million and $4 million each, “when they’re actually worth maybe $30,000, may $50,000 apiece.”
He added, “This is not the end; this is the beginning.”