Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Interlocal Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Belleair Beach reviews draft interlocal deal with Bel Air Shore that shifts maintenance and parking duties
Summary
Council members and residents debated a proposed interlocal agreement that would recast long‑standing maintenance, parking and towing responsibilities for three beach access lots; the draft also would change indemnification language to a shared litigation‑cost approach. The council asked staff to revise and re‑post documents; no vote was taken.
Mayor opened discussion of a proposed interlocal agreement between Belleair Beach and neighboring Bel Air Shore, saying the city had long experienced disputes over three access lots and that the council had previously directed an attorney to draft a fair agreement.
Tom (addressed by the mayor), who reviewed the draft for the council, read recitals from several historic deeds and said the deeds repeatedly describe the use of the three lots (lots 21, 43 and 66) as "a license" for "beach and bathing purposes," not an absolute deeded right. He read the deeds' language from the 1940s and traced ownership changes described in the record.
Tom then walked the council through the specific edits proposed by Bel Air Shore. Key changes the town requested, as summarized in the meeting, include: Bel Air Shore paying for a boundary survey; replacing the phrase "deeded right" with "nonexclusive license" (which Tom said aligns with the deeds' language); explicitly preserving free pedestrian access for residents of both municipalities; Bel Air Shore assuming daily maintenance tasks such as beach raking, trash pickup, irrigation and vegetation maintenance; Bel Air Shore assuming towing costs and taking responsibility for seawall inspection and repairs; and changing indemnification language so litigation costs would be shared equally if either party is sued over neglect or enforcement actions.
Council members raised enforcement and control concerns. Several said they were reluctant to surrender maintenance or litigation exposure without clearer protections or explicit enforcement language, and some advocated a 50/50 cost‑sharing approach for specific items rather than blanket transfers of responsibility. One council member asked whether the city could force compliance if Bel Air Shore failed to perform; Tom said the city has limited leverage beyond termination (60 days' notice) and that precise enforcement language could be attempted but might not be accepted by the town.
Residents in the audience addressed the council during public comment, objecting to perceived one‑sided language and asking why Bel Air Shore contractors would use the lots. One resident urged the city not to give up access and cited (as stated on the record) state-level erosion control line (ECL) rules and a petition effort to remove the ECL; that commenter asserted removal would replace ECL boundaries with a mean high water line and change public access. Another speaker alleged (without documentary evidence presented at the meeting) that Bel Air Shore's negotiator faced criminal allegations; council members said such claims should be pursued outside the meeting and asked for constructive input.
Council direction and next steps: the mayor asked council members to provide suggested edits to Tom, who said he would compile them and circulate a revised draft. A council member asked that the original 2003 interlocal agreement and the new draft be posted on the city website so residents could compare them. The council did not take a formal vote on the agreement at the work session.
Next steps: staff will compile council edits, post both the original and proposed drafts for public review, and return a revised draft to the council before any formal adoption vote.
