Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Access Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press county on Ibis Road access; commissioners say they will honor prior agreements
Summary
At the May 19 Santa Rosa County commission committee meeting residents asked the board to explain multiple public agreements that restricted access to Ibis Road. Commissioners—after public comment—said the county intends to honor previously stated commitments while questions about which agreements control remain unresolved.
Trinity Coburn, a Milton resident, urged the Santa Rosa County commissioners on May 19 to answer public-record questions about legal access to Ibis Road and to confirm which past agreements remain in force.
"Three documented agreements were made in public meetings between the developer, the county, and the citizens to specific terms of no access to Ibis Road," Coburn said during the public forum and asked on the record: "When and where was this portion of the agreement created?" She also asked, "Will the county adequately defend its latest position to prohibit access, or will it allow access?" and said she would submit public-record requests.
Why it matters: Residents say multiple public meeting agreements limited access to Ibis Road, and they want the county to confirm whether later actions or attorney advice changed that position. The dispute touches property access, developer actions and the county's handling of previously public commitments.
Coburn named parties she said were present in earlier meetings, including Heaton Brothers and several officials, and said an email from the county attorney was cited in recent legal arguments by the developer's counsel. She asked whether agreements described from 2021 and 2022 carry the same legal weight. "This is America. We are innocent until proven guilty," she said, arguing that public claims of impropriety should be proven in court.
In response, Commissioner Bobby Burkett addressed Coburn directly. "You won't know if we're gonna honor it. I think if you'll get to know me, I'd what I say, I'm going to do. So I'm gonna honor it," he said, indicating the board intends to respect prior commitments as the matter is reviewed.
Chairman Smith also told Coburn the board would honor its prior statements. "We're going to honor our our our word on this," he said during the responses portion of the meeting.
Discussion versus decision: No formal motion, vote or legal determination was made at the meeting. Commissioners' comments constitute a public pledge to pursue or respect earlier agreements, not a judicial or final administrative ruling.
For residents: Coburn said she will file public-record requests and asked the county to include all documented agreements in its defense if litigation occurs. Commissioners acknowledged the questions and said they will follow up; specific next steps, legal analysis or a timeline were not provided at the meeting.
The county did not at the committee meeting provide a detailed legal chronology or a staff report resolving which prior board actions or agreements control access to Ibis Road. Coburn and other residents asked that the county place documentary evidence on the record so the public can verify the county's position going forward.
Moving forward: Coburn said she will submit records requests; commissioners said they will honor public commitments but did not set a formal new schedule or hearing to resolve the legal questions raised.
