In the minutes: Destin Harbor and Waterways Board, surveillance camera (Oct 22)

AGENDA
HARBOR AND WATERWAYS BOARD MEETING
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2026
5:30 PM
DESTIN CITY HALL ANNEX CHAMBERS
1.

CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2.

AGENDA APPROVAL

3.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A)

June 25, 2026 Minutes

B)

July 23, 2026 Minutes

C)

August 27, 2026 Minutes

4.

CURRENT BUSINESS

5.

BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
A)

Jim Green - Oil Disposal

B)

Ryan Holloway - Marine Pick Up/Drop Off

6.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

7.

NEXT MEETING DATE: November 26, 2026

Any person requiring a special accommodation at this hearing because of a disability or physical impairment
should contact the City Clerk at (850) 837-4242 at least 48 hours prior to the hearing. If a person decides to
appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at such meeting, such person will need a record
of the proceeding and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made,
which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. (Sec. 286.0105, Florida
Statutes)

DRAFT

MINUTES OF THE
HARBOR AND WATERWAYS BOARD MEETING
DESTIN CITY HALL ANNEX
JUNE 25, 2026 - 5:30 P.M.
1.

CALL TO ORDER:

Chairman Green called the meeting of the Thursday, June 25, 2026, Destin Harbor and
Waterways Board meeting to at approximately 5:30 p.m., at Destin City Hall Annex, with the
Pledge of Allegiance immediately following.
2.

ROLL CALL:

Members Present:
Capt. Jim Green
Guy Tadlock
Jerrod Hayden
Ryan Holloway
3.

Members Absent:
Bill McKissick
John Stephens

Staff:
Kim Montgomery Deputy City Clerk
Daniel Butler Principle Planner
Sherry Burney Planner
Kimberly Kopp City Attorney

AGENDA APPROVAL:

Chairman Green asked the members if they had any changes or additions to the
agenda, with none he approved the agenda published.
4.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
 April 23, 2026

Motion to approve the minutes of the April 23, 2026 meeting as written was made by
Board member Holloway, with Board member Hayden providing the second. The motion
passed 5-0.
5.

MEMBER COMMENTS:
 Work Plan – John Stephens- Breakwater/Oyster Gardening & Destin Harbor
Mooring Fields
•
•
•
•

Staff advised that Board member Stephens was unable to attend but had submitted
an email regarding work plans.
At his request, staff provided an overview of the purpose and function of the work
plans for the benefit of newer board members.
Unlike the CRA, the Harbor and Waterways Board does not have a dedicated
funding source or a Master Plan that has to be identified for funding projects.
The work plans serve as:
o Internal goals for the Board.
o Formal project concepts.

DRAFT

1

DRAFT
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

A method for individual Board members to champion and advance specific
initiatives.
Board members may work with staff to develop their assigned or proposed work
plans.
When a work plan reaches the point where funding is necessary:
o The Chair or another designated Board representative must present the
request to the City Council.
o City Council approval is required before funding or grant-related action
can proceed.
Staff noted that the fiscal year 2027 budgeting process has already occurred.
Projects requiring new funding would generally need to be considered as part of
the fiscal year 2028 budget.
Board member Osbourn asked whether an approved work plan would satisfy state
planning requirements for grant applications.
Staff responded that an approved work plan would generally provide a sufficient
planning foundation, although requirements may vary by grant.
Staff explained that:
o The work plan begins as an idea developed by the Board.
o Details are refined with staff.
o The proposal is then presented to City Council.
o If approved, City staff may be directed to pursue a grant.
o Funds received through appropriation or grant award could then be used to
implement the project.
Staff stated that a work plan carries greater weight after formal City Council
approval.
The city’s grant coordinator was identified as Jeff Cozadd.
Staff explained that Mr. Cozadd would identify and consolidate any additional
materials required for a specific grant application.

 Existing and Proposed Work Plans
•

•

Vice Chair Stephens requested the following work plans be transferred from the
Harbor CRA to the Harbor and Waterways Board:
o Breakwater/snorkeling location and oyster gardening initiative.
o Destin Harbor mooring field.
Staff read Mr. Stephens’ email, which explained that:
o The Harbor CRA Advisory Committee had recently reviewed work plans
developed through the Harbor CRA planning process.
o Several plans were determined to fall outside the CRA’s purview.
o Significant effort has already been invested in developing those plans.
o Mr. Stephens did not want the projects to become inactive.
o The projects are considered closely aligned with the Harbor and
Waterways Board’s mission.

 Jurisdictional Basis for Transferring the Work Plans

DRAFT

2

DRAFT
•
•
•

•

•

Staff explained that CRA districts are governed by state law and limited to
specifically delineated geographic areas.
CRA funds generally cannot be spent on projects located outside the legally
established CRA boundary.
The proposed breakwater/snorkeling and mooring field projects are largely waterbased and located waterward of the mean high-water line outside of the Harbor
CRA boundary.
Staff stated that these projects are therefore more appropriately handled by the
Harbor and Waterways Board, whose responsibilities include Destin’s waterways
and bayous.
Staff identified the three previously accepted work plans as:
o Million Oyster Project.
o Life Jacket Loaner Program.
o Placement of surplus county buoys in swimming areas near Noriega Point.

 Discussion of Proposed Breakwater and Snorkeling Work Plan
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

Board members initially discussed whether the proposed snorkeling area was near
the existing breakwater at Noriega Point.
A member expressed concern about strong currents in that area, noting current
speeds of approximately 18 to 21 knots at full tidal flow.
The member cautioned against encouraging additional swimmers or snorkelers
near dangerous currents.
Staff clarified that:
o The surplus “no boating” buoys under another work plan were intended
for Norriego Point swimming areas.
o The proposed breakwater/snorkeling project from Mr. Stephens was
intended for Clement Taylor Park.
The members acknowledged that Clement Taylor Park would be a more logical
and safer location.
The site was described as being located near the fire department’s dock on one
side and the public dock on the other.
Members also discussed the possibility that local families could benefit from
additional recreational snorkeling areas outside the heavily visited tourist areas.
The members agreed that Clement Taylor Park and the once reconstructed Mattie
Kelly Park could provide safer and more accessible amenities for residents.

 Discussion of Proposed Destin Harbor Mooring Field
•
•
•

Board members discussed the need to become involved in regulation of the harbor
through a formal mooring field.
Members noted that Destin Harbor currently functions largely as a free anchorage.
Concerns included:
o Derelict vessels.
o Long-term anchoring.
o Unregulated vessel placement.
DRAFT

3

DRAFT

Navigation difficulties caused by vessels remaining in place for extended
periods.
o Illegal discharge
o Emergency and storm-related risks.
One member referenced a vessel that had reportedly remained in the harbor for
approximately three years.
Members stated that a mooring field could:
o Establish order within the harbor.
o Help address derelict vessels.
o Improve spacing between vessels.
o Reduce the risk of one vessel breaking loose and colliding with other
vessels during a storm.
o Potentially support visiting boaters and economic activity.
Members discussed whether fees should be charged.
It was noted that:
o The Board had not yet reached the stage of developing a fee structure.
o Some members did not want local boaters visiting from nearby
communities to be charged simply for short-term visits or events such as
fireworks.
o Transient or long-term users could potentially be treated differently.
Members noted that a formal mooring field would likely require:
o A pump-out facility.
o An upland office.
o Operational rules.
o Emergency evacuation or storm procedures.
Members discussed requiring vessels to leave once specified tropical storm or
hurricane conditions were forecast.
o

•
•

•
•

•

•

 Number and Phasing of Moorings
•
•
•
•

•

Members discussed preliminary estimates of approximately eight to eighteen
mooring balls.
The Board generally agreed that a phased approach would be preferable.
Several members suggested beginning with approximately ten mooring balls.
Reasons included:
o Weekday demand appeared to be approximately seven or eight larger
vessels.
o Weekend use was estimated at approximately ten vessels.
o Installing too many moorings initially could create unnecessary cost.
o Mooring hardware was estimated at approximately $8,000 to $10,000 per
mooring.
o Starting with ten would allow the city to evaluate actual use before
expanding.
Members cautioned that once heavy anchoring systems were installed, removing
or relocating them would be difficult.

DRAFT

4

DRAFT
•

Staff emphasized that exact numbers and phasing would be evaluated later
through a feasibility process.

 Relationship with the Existing docks
•
•
•
•

•
•

•
•

A member expressed concern about proceeding with a mooring field while a large
existing docking facility remained unused.
The member suggested that use of the docks should be resolved before
determining the final size of a mooring field.
Discussion followed regarding the City’s level of control over the docks.
Members stated that:
o The city may have land-use authority.
o The city did not yet have full management control.
o Ownership, lease, and operational issues remained unresolved.
o Litigation or other legal proceedings could delay resolution for six months
to two and one-half years or longer.
Members also raised concerns that the docks were built for residential use and not
commercial standards.
A member cautioned that conversion to commercial use could require substantial
upgrades, including:
o Heavier structural components.
o Concrete pilings.
o Pump-out facilities.
o Insurance and liability review.
Members ultimately indicated that the mooring field should proceed
independently rather than wait for resolution of the docks
The possibility remained that future use of the docks could reduce the eventual
number of moorings needed.

On a motion by Board member Osbourne, seconded by with Chairman Green to
add the Breakwater/snorkeling project and the Destin Harbor Mooring Field projects to
the Harbor and Waterways Board work plan list. In discussion, the members spoke of the
following concerns:
o
o
o
o
o
o

Safety concerns
Location of where they feel they should be placed
Project phasing
Cost
Relationship with the unused docks
Potential expansion into Joe’s Bayou

Mr. Butler stated that, if adopted, the next step would be preparation of feasibility reports.
He also noted that Mr. Stephens had already prepared extensive background material, including a
work plan package of approximately 26 pages. With no further discussion, Chairman Green
called for the vote, the motion passed 5-0.

DRAFT

5

DRAFT
•

The breakwater/snorkeling project and Destin Harbor mooring field were added to the
Board’s work plan list, bringing the total to five work plans.

 Update on the Million Oyster Project
•
•

•

Mr. Butler described the Million Oyster Project as an initiative involving vertical
oyster gardens throughout the harbor.
With potential locations to include:
o Private commercial docks.
o Private single-family docks.
o The City’s grant coordinator has filed a preliminary informational grant
request has been submitted.
o The grant is believed to be a Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA)
grant.
o The request was for approximately $400,000.
o The city hopes to receive a response by the end of the year.
Staff explained that the preliminary submission would be reviewed to determine
whether the project aligned with the grant program’s goals and policies.
o If selected, the city would be invited to submit a full application.
o The city also hoped to partner with the Choctawhatchee Basin Alliance.
o The Alliance had previously participated in discussions and presentations with
Mr. Stephens before the City Council.

 Update on Life Jacket Loaner Program
•
•
•
•

Mr. Butler reported that the Life Jacket Loaner Program was accepted as a work plan
in April.
The project was undergoing a staff feasibility review.
Staff explained that the feasibility process includes senior leadership review to
determine whether the proposal is ready to advance to City Council.
Staff anticipated completing feasibility reviews for several of the work plans together.

 Update on Surplus County Buoys
•

•

•
•

Board member Hayden stated that he has not gotten in contact with Mike Norberg
regarding the status of the project but acknowledged that he has seen some buoys at
Leonard Destin Park and appeared to be marked “No Boating.”
Board member Hayden questioned:
o If staff made the decision to move the buoys to Leonard Destin Park.
o Whether placement at that location represented the final decision.
Board member Hayden stated that, if the buoys have been placed, he would be
comfortable closing the work plan.
Staff agreed to:
o Contact relevant City personnel.
o Contact Mike Norberg.
o Report back at the next meeting.
DRAFT

6

DRAFT

 Proposed Used Motor Oil Collection Facility Work Plan
•
•

•
•

•

Chairman Green proposed development of a new work plan for a city-operated or
city-managed used motor oil collection facility.
The proposed facility would serve:
o City residents.
o Local businesses.
o Marine-related operations.
He stated that the project would align with the Board’s responsibility for water
quality.
Concerns included:
o Illegal upland disposal of motor oil.
o Improper discharge into the harbor.
o Lack of reliable public disposal locations.
o Dependence on private businesses to voluntarily accept used oil.
He referenced prior Board discussions about protecting water quality through
measures such as oil-absorbent materials in lift stations and drainage systems near
Highway 98.

 History of Local Used Oil Collection
•
•

•
•

•
•
•
•

•

Historically, there used to be a large used oil collection facility that had previously
operated at the co-op.
That site had allowed public use but experienced problems with:
o Improper dumping.
o Trash being left around the site.
o Lack of responsible oversight.
Members stated that the facility was ultimately removed.
Reasons discussed included:
o Floodplain concerns.
o Approximately $75,000 at the time for cleanup cost.
Members noted that former public disposal locations listed by the State had been private
oil-change businesses.
Other locations mentioned are in Crestview, Fort Walton Beach.
The members stated that most of those businesses were no longer operating.
Current private options mentioned included:
o O’Reilly Auto Parts.
o Tony’s Marine, for customers purchasing oil there.
o Other private businesses with limited collection capacity.
The members agreed that public access should not depend solely on the continued
willingness of private businesses.

 Proposed Facility Size and Operations
•

Board member Osbourne suggested that a facility with approximately 2,500 gallons
of capacity may be appropriate.

DRAFT

7

DRAFT
•
•

•
•

•
•
•

Members discussed the benefit of accumulating enough oil for a full truckload.
A full truckload could:
o Reduce hauling costs.
o Possibly allow the oil to be resold which in turn could potentially offset
operating expenses.
Members emphasized that the site should be controlled and monitored.
Proposed operating conditions included:
o Operation by the Public Works Department.
o Access only during normal business hours.
o Use limited to city residents or businesses holding a city Business Tax Receipt
(BTR).
o Onsite camera surveillance is a must.
o Placement on City property.
o Staff monitoring and maintenance.
These controls are intended to prevent midnight dumping, trash accumulation, and
misuse.
The site was considered potentially appropriate because it is already zoned Industrial.
Anticipated physical improvements included:
o Concrete pad.
o Containment or retaining wall.
o Covered structure or pole barn.
o Storage tank.

 State Grants
•

•
•

•

•
•

Board member Osbourne recalled that the State had previously offered grants of
approximately $25,000 to $35,000 for installation of tanks and related infrastructure
and believes similar grant funds might still be available.
He offered to assist with preparing a grant application and spoke of using existing
programs rather than creating new procedures from scratch.
Possible sources of operating and regulatory models included:
o Airport hazardous material procedures.
o Military base hazardous-material programs.
o Federal environmental regulations.
o Programs used by other local governments.
Mr. Butler advised that:
o They should first draft the work plan.
o Staff would provide the standard work plan template.
o Staff and the members could work together on the draft.
o Once completed, the proposal will be placed on a CRA Board agenda.
o The CRA Board will then vote to determine if they want to accept the work
plan and move forward with the necessary steps.
Staff requested that the draft be submitted approximately one week before the next
meeting.
The next meeting was identified as July 23.

DRAFT

8

DRAFT
•

The members and staff agreed to work on the proposal shortly after the July 4
holiday.

 Board Review of Dock Applications
•
•
•

•

The members discussed the Board’s current role in reviewing dock applications.
Mr. Butler explained that, following the land development code rewrite, the Board no
longer reviews residential docks.
The Board now generally reviews:
o Commercial docks.
o Multifamily docks.
o Condominium docks.
o Single-family docks requesting a variance.
Members noted that reduced dock-review responsibilities may allow more meeting
time to be devoted to work plans.

 Discussion of NPEB Fees and Dock-Related Charges
•
•

•

•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•

•

Members asked about a previously proposed fee or taxation structure for boat slips.
Staff explained that:
o The City Council approved Article 7 of the code rewrite substantially as
drafted.
o The existing NPEB provision was left unchanged.
o The existing charge remained at 25% of construction cost within the harbor.
o A proposed per-slip fee was not adopted.
Members discussed concerns about different types of slips:
o Slips extending into submerged lands or leases.
o Slips excavated into privately owned upland property.
A member contended that charging an additional fee on a slip located entirely within
privately owned property constituted double taxation because the property was
already assessed for property tax purposes.
Staff noted that homestead exemption was discussed and was to be included for all
Destin residents in relation to the proposal.
Members asked whether the 25% NPEB fee applies to repairs of existing docks.
Staff stated that, under the current ordinance, the fee applies even to repairs.
Members expressed concern about applying the charge after storm damage.
The members compared dock repair to replacement of a damaged roof and argued
that an owner should not be charged again for restoring a structure already built and
previously paid for.
Members also discussed whether board-for-board replacement should be exempt.
Staff stated that:
o The ordinance had been in place since approximately 1986 or 1989.
o Staff had considered repair-related concerns in its recommendation.
o City Council retained the existing ordinance language.
A distinction was discussed between:

DRAFT

9

DRAFT

•

Structures on privately deeded land.
Structures built over state-owned submerged lands.
Members generally accepted that new construction may reasonably be subject to a
known fee but remained concerned about applying the same charge to repairs.
o
o

 Sunshine Law and Workshops
•
•
•
•
•

•

•
•

Board member Hayden asked for clarification regarding Florida’s Sunshine Law.
He asked whether Board members could work together outside a public meeting to
develop or refine a work plan.
The City Attorney advised that members may not privately discuss matters they know
will come before the Board for action.
Board members may work together only in a properly noticed public meeting.
Staff explained that:
o The Board may schedule a workshop.
o The workshop must be publicly noticed.
o Minutes must be taken.
o A clerk must be present.
Workshops may be used for:
o Existing work plans.
o New project ideas.
o More detailed discussion that cannot be completed during regular meetings.
Staff noted that workshops would preferably not be scheduled during the May
through October period.
It was noted that regular meetings may now provide sufficient time for work-plan
discussions since residential dock reviews have been reduced.

Chairman Green opened the floor for public comment, with no one from the public
being present to speak, he closed the public and turned the discussion over to the Board
members for discussions.
 Board Member Comments and Additional Discussion
 Navigation Lights at the Jetties
•

•

A question was posed about the current update on two navigational lights that had
reportedly been promised for repair and whether the city could perform a temporary
repair if the responsible federal agencies continued to delay.
Mr. Butler explained that:
o The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be involved in permitting.
o The U.S. Coast Guard would also be involved.
o The project has been moved higher on the priority list after outside assistance.
o However, the lights were still behind higher-priority navigation projects.
o It was suggested to request City Council approval to purchase two solar lights
cost approximately $500 each.
o Seeking permission for a temporary safety installation.

DRAFT

10

DRAFT
•
•

The member emphasized that charter boats and other vessels return after dark and the
lack of lights creates a safety concern.
Staff stated that the last update had been received around March.

 Artificial Reef Program
•
•

A member asked whether the city supports an artificial reef program.
Staff stated that the City of Destin does not operate its own artificial reef program.

 Channel Shifts and Hydrodynamic Changes Near the Pass
•
•

•

•
•
•

Members discussed changes in the navigational channel following recent dredging.
Observations included:
o The channel had shifted closer to the finger jetty.
o A hole approximately 45 feet deep has formed.
o The channel appeared to have moved farther east than had previously
observed.
Members attributed some changes to:
o Armoring of Noriega Point.
o Installation of T-groins.
o Altered sand movement.
o Increased water velocity through the pass.
Chairman Green stated that the southeast corner of the ebb shoal appeared to be
approximately one and one-half feet deeper than before the point was armored.
Members discussed a “nozzling” effect in which water is concentrated and
accelerated through the pass.
Concerns included:
o Strong suction near the back side of the finger jetty.
o Potential swimmer danger.
o Changing shoal conditions.
o Impacts near the bridge and Crab Island.

 Navigation Charts and Buoy Placement
•
•

•

Members stated that older NOAA raster charts and historical buoy placement had not
always reflected the deepest part of the channel.
Members noted that:
o NOAA was transitioning away from raster charts.
o Navigation data was becoming increasingly digital.
o Navionics was perceived by some members as more accurate.
o Coast Guard buoys had recently been moved closer to the actual deeper
portion of the channel.
Members discussed vessel draft and the risks of leaving the marked channel.

DRAFT

11

DRAFT

 Sand Trap Concept
•
•

•

Members referenced county discussions concerning construction of sand traps near
the west jetty.
The concept would involve:
o Dredging depressions outside the main channel.
o Encouraging migrating sand to settle in designated areas.
o Reducing shoaling in the navigation channel.
o Making future maintenance dredging easier.
Members referenced similar approaches used in other coastal locations.

 Swimmer Safety at Norriego Point
•
•
•
•

Members expressed concern about the increasing number of swimmers outside the
protected areas at Norriego Point.
Members observed that people were swimming beyond the groins or enclaves and
approaching areas of strong current.
One member stated that swimmers moving another 20 feet could potentially be
unable to return safely.
The discussion reinforced earlier concerns about:
o Current speed.
o Altered hydrodynamics.
o Need for better safety controls and buoy placement.

 Harbor Flushing Pump
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•

A member requested an update on the harbor flushing pump.
The pump had reportedly gone down several months earlier but had since been
restarted.
Residents of Harbor Landing believed the pump might not be operating as strongly as
before.
Questions included:
o Whether the pump was running at full capacity.
o Whether it had been intentionally slowed.
o Whether a mechanical problem remained.
Staff stated that the pump was operating but could not confirm whether it was at full
capacity.
A member recalled that the pump had previously operated at approximately 75% or
80%.
Members also recalled an earlier request for quarterly updates covering:
o Pump run times.
o Maintenance issues.
o Operational status.
A member described the previous failure as involving a separate water supply used to
cool or lubricate bearings.
Failure of that cooling supply reportedly damaged the bearing or shaft-related system.

DRAFT

12

DRAFT
•
•
•

Members questioned why the design relied on a separate cooling pump rather than
recirculating water from the primary system.
Staff agreed to contact Michael Burgess and provide an update at the next meeting.
The clerk also reached out during the meeting and agreed to forward any response to
staff.

 July 4 Fireworks and Drone Show
•
•
•

•
•
•

The City Attorney provided an update on the July 4 celebration.
The event was described as primarily a fireworks show with drones incorporated into
the presentation.
Planned sequence:
o Initial fireworks burst.
o Approximately 12 minutes of drones.
o Approximately 22 minutes of fireworks.
The city is working with a local radio station, identified as 96.5, to coordinate music
for the presentation.
Harbor-area businesses were being encouraged to play the music loudly enough for
viewers to hear.
The event was scheduled for 9:00 p.m. on July 4.

 Reason for Incorporating Drones
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

The City Attorney clerk explained that the initial interest in drones was related to
shorebird protection.
After a parcel near Norriego Point was fenced, shorebirds began nesting there in
greater numbers.
The city considered reducing fireworks in order to protect the birds.
Public response favored retaining fireworks.
The city developed a combined drone and fireworks presentation.
The drone portion would also recognize the nation’s 250th anniversary, covering the
period from 1776 through 2026.
A question was asked who had promoted the drone concept.
The City Attorney stated that the mayor had supported the concept but clarified that:
o The mayor did not have a financial interest in the drone-show company.
o The mayor reportedly owned only a single drone used for imagery of real
estate.
o A large, coordinated drone show requires many drones and is a fundamentally
different operation.
The clarification was made in response to rumors circulating on social media.

Incidental Take Permit
•

The City Attorney explained that staff discovered a requirement for an incidental take
permit related to potential harm to protected shorebirds.

DRAFT

13

DRAFT
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

The permit fee was stated to be approximately $10,000 per show.
A question was asked whether all fireworks providers in Destin had been paying that
fee.
The City Attorney stated that the City was researching the issue.
The city had contacted a major fireworks provider at Legendary.
That provider’s attorneys had not yet supplied a definitive answer.
Members questioned:
o Who enforces the permit requirement.
o Whether the permit applies only when an established bird colony is present.
o Whether fireworks launched from different locations are treated differently.
The City Attorney indicated that applicability may depend on location and the
presence of a nesting colony.

 City, County, and State Discussions Concerning Park Property
•
•

•

•

•
•
•

Members asked whether the City had met with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection regarding the disputed park or waterfront property.
The City Attorney confirmed that:
o She and the City manager met with FDEP.
o FDEP’s attorney and a deputy secretary participated.
FDEP reportedly preferred that the City and County resolve the matter without
litigation.
She stated that FDEP appeared to understand the City’s position and the potential
paths are:
o Reach an agreement with the County.
o Seek placement on the State Board of Trustees agenda.
o Await a County request for City land-use permitting.
To obtain State management rights without County support, the city might need to
seek action by the Board of Trustees.
Placement on that agenda would generally require action by the Governor.
Members discussed uncertainty regarding how long that process could take.

 County Request for Free Parking
•
•

•

•

Members discussed a county proposal related to free parking.
The City Attorney stated that Commissioner Palmer had asked the city to provide free
parking to county residents wherever the city charges for parking. In exchange,
Commissioner Palmer reportedly indicated he would approach the State regarding the
property issue.
The City Attorney stated that, in her view:
o The State was not directing the county’s actions.
o The county itself was seeking a specific concession.
o Members discussed whether the county legally committed to managing the
property and contributing approximately $5 million.
Concerns included:

DRAFT

14

DRAFT

The issue was allegedly raised at the end of an August 19, 2025 meeting.
It was not clearly listed on the agenda.
Public comment had already concluded.
No formal recorded vote appeared to have occurred.
Commissioners were not given an opportunity to disclose or abstain because
of potential conflicts.
The clerk described two possible interpretations:
o The county committed to the project without proper notice, public
participation, or vote.
o The county did not formally commit to but later sent the State a letter claiming
it had committed funding and management responsibilities.
Members stated that both possibilities raised legal concerns.
Discussion also referenced comments by a commissioner who reportedly stated that
she did not know what she was voting on or that no formal vote had occurred.
o
o
o
o
o

•

•
•

 Public Records and Permitting
•
•

•

Members discussed difficulties obtaining county public records.
The City Attorney stated that she had recently received records after multiple requests
and had made them available through a public link and the records showed:
o A county request that the State circumvent city permitting.
o A response from the State, approximately six hours later, declined the request.
Members questioned why the county continued to proceed after receiving the State’s
response.

 Upcoming Meetings
•
•
•
•

The City Attorney encouraged members to attend a City Council informational
briefing on July 6.
The County’s July 7 south-end meeting was described as a budget workshop rather
than a regular meeting.
The next regular County meeting was identified as July 14 in Crestview.
Members speculated that the scheduling could delay public discussion until after a
political primary.

 Next meeting: July 23, 2026
6.

ADJOURNMENT:
With there being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
Adopted and approved this ______ day of ___________________ 2026.

____________________________
Capt. Jim Green, Chairman

_________________________________
Kim Montgomery, Deputy City Clerk

DRAFT

15

DRAFT

MINUTES OF THE
HARBOR AND WATERWAYS BOARD MEETING
DESTIN CITY HALL ANNEX
JULY 23, 2026 - 5:30 P.M.
1.

CALL TO ORDER:

Chairman Green called the meeting of the Thursday, July 23, 2026, Destin Harbor and
Waterways Board meeting to at approximately 5:32 p.m., at Destin City Hall Annex, with the
Pledge of Allegiance immediately following.
2.

ROLL CALL:

Members Present:
Capt. Jim Green
Guy Tadlock
Jerrod Hayden
Ryan Holloway
Bill McKissick
3.

Members Absent:

Staff:
Kim Montgomery Deputy City Clerk
Jesse Hernandez Senior Planner
Sherry Burney Planner
Kimberly Kopp City Attorney

AGENDA APPROVAL:

Motion by Board member Tadlock to amend the agenda to add the election of a Vice
Chair was seconded by Board member Holloway, the motion passed 5-0.
4. VICE CHAIR NOMINATION:
Board member Holloway volunteered for the Vice Chairman, with no opposition or other
nominations, Chairman Green made the motion to nominate Board member Holloway as
Vice Chairman of the Harbor & Waterways Board. The motion passed 5-0.
5.

NEW BUSINESS:
 Current Business – Joe’s Bayou Recreational Area Improvements, 800 Beach Drive

Senior Planner Mr. Jesse Hernandez introduced the proposed Joe’s Bayou Recreational
Area Improvements and Redevelopment Project, located at 800 Beach Drive and introduced Mr.
Duncan Greer of Taylor Engineering on behalf of the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) and the City of Destin will provide information on the project in its totality.
Mr. Hernandez further explained that the Harbor & Waterways Board is being asked to
review and make a recommendation regarding the marine construction portions of the project
located seaward of the mean high-water line per Land Development Code Section 11.05.01 General regulations; prohibitions and Section 11.05.02 – Permitting procedures. The findings with
respect to Section 11.05.01 and Section 11.05.02; items not applicable to this project are marked
“Not Applicable.

DRAFT

1

DRAFT
•

•

•
•

•

Proposed marine improvements discussed included:
o Extension and reconfiguration of the existing timber fishing pier.
o Fixed mooring pier.
o ADA paddle craft/kayak launch.
o Fixed access piers.
o Floating ADA access pier.
o Expansion and reconstruction of the boat ramp area.
o Breakwaters.
o Revetments.
o Sheet pile/seawall improvements.
o Reef habitat areas.
The overall redevelopment project also includes landward improvements such as:
o Parking improvements.
o Public restrooms.
o Stormwater management improvements.
o Stormwater conveyance infrastructure.
o Pedestrian pathways and circulation improvements.
The Board's review is specifically focused on marine construction rather than the
landward improvements.
Mr. Hernandez advised that the project has been reviewed for compliance with
applicable provisions of the City's Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan
and stated that the project complies with the City's marina siting and coastal
management requirements.
The project has received the required FDEP permitting, while the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers permitting process remained underway.

 Fishing Pier and Marine Facilities
•
•
•
•

Mr. Hernandez reviewed the proposed configuration of the fishing pier and other
waterfront structures.
The new fishing pier would have a different footprint from the existing pier and would
extend out 200-feet and farther west per the allowable dimensional requirements.
Solar navigation lighting was proposed for the pier.
The proposed kayak launch, sheet pile wall, revetment, breakwaters, and reef habitat
areas were also reviewed.

 Reef Habitat Areas
•
•

Chairman Green requested additional information regarding the proposed reef habitat
areas.
Mr. Greer explained that:
o The project has been under development since approximately 2021.
o Certain project elements were influenced by Deepwater Horizon/Natural
Resource Damage Assessment funding requirements.
o Two deeper areas exist offshore at the site.

DRAFT

2

DRAFT

The project proposes low-relief submerged reef habitat within those deeper
areas.
o Reef construction would generally consist of a foundational gravel layer or
marine mattress material with stone placed above it.
o The intent is to create submerged rock habitat while maintaining required
navigational clearance.
The fishing pier was designed to provide recreational fishing access near the habitat
areas while maintaining sufficient separation to avoid creating an entanglement
hazards.
Board members expressed support for the location of the reef habitat in relation to the
fishing pier and noted that the design provides fishing opportunities while avoiding
impacts to existing seagrass.
o

•

•

 Fishing Pier Alignment / Seagrass Protection
•
•

•

Mr. Greer explained that the fishing pier alignment was developed as part of a holistic
review of the site.
Considerations included:
o Safe pedestrian circulation from the parking areas.
o Connection to the existing stormwater pond.
o Avoidance of seagrass impacts.
o Providing access to deeper water.
o Expanding recreational fishing opportunities.
Board members expressed support for extending the pier into deeper water while
avoiding seagrass habitat.

 Existing Stormwater Pond
•
•

•

•

The Board discussed the existing pond on the property.
Mr. Greer explained that the pond is believed to have originally been excavated
during construction of Beach Drive and subsequently functioned as a stormwater
pond.
The project would:
o Expand/enhance the pond to accommodate stormwater from the redeveloped
facility.
o Improve the existing outfall.
o Removal of invasive vegetation, including giant reeds.
o Improve visibility and the overall function of the pond.
The pond was described as a freshwater stormwater system that has experienced
overtopping/breaching during storm events.

 Boat Ramp Improvements
•

The proposed boat ramp configuration was discussed in detail.
o The existing facility consists of five ramp lanes and four access piers.

DRAFT

3

DRAFT

The proposed facility would consolidate the ramps into two double-lane
ramps, providing four functional launching lanes.
Mr. Greer explained that the ramps are being designed to accommodate a range of
vessels, including larger boats commonly used in the area.
o The proposed lanes would be wider and more consistently functional than the
existing ramps.
o It was noted that some existing ramp lanes are currently too shallow or
otherwise difficult to use for larger vessels.
o The design seeks to improve vessel-launching efficiency despite reducing the
nominal number of ramp lanes from five to four.
The Board discussed the significant increase in the size of boats, trucks, and trailers
using the facility over recent decades.
Mr. Greer stated that the redesigned ramps and wider lanes are intended to shorten
launch/retrieval cycles and reduce queues.
o

•

•
•

 Fixed Mooring Pier
•
•
•
•
•

The proposed fixed mooring pier was discussed as an important operational feature.
The pier would allow vessels arriving from the water to temporarily dock without
occupying the boat-launch access piers.
Users could temporarily dock, access restrooms or other park amenities, and return to
their vessels.
The design is intended to reduce congestion around the launch ramps and improve
overall facility efficiency.
Board members expressed support for the mooring pier.

 Living Shoreline / Seagrass Protection
•

•

•
•

•

Mr. Greer explained that living shoreline improvements were among the project
requirements.
o Offshore breakwaters are necessary to create protected embayments that can
function as living shoreline areas.
o The project also proposes a no-anchoring buoy system around portions of the
facility.
The intent of the no-anchoring area is to:
o Protect seagrass.
o Reduce impacts associated with anchoring.
o Discourage derelict vessels.
Mr. Greer emphasized that the intent is not to exclude fishing or general recreational
activity.
The plans also identify:
o Seagrass preservation areas to the west.
o Seagrass recruitment areas east of the breakwaters.
These improvements are intended to provide additional environmental benefits.

DRAFT

4

DRAFT

 Parking and Green Space
•
•

•
•
•
•

•

The Board discussed parking capacity and whether additional parking could be
provided by reducing green space or relocating pavilion facilities.
Mr. Greer explained that the proposed balance between parking and green space
resulted from:
o Public surveys.
o Two public workshops.
o Multiple phases of review with the city.
o Community feedback.
Nearby residents were particularly supportive of preserving waterfront green space.
The project attempts to maximize parking east of Beach Drive without eliminating the
remaining waterfront green space.
Additional overflow trailer parking is proposed west of Beach Drive.
Mr. Greer acknowledged that the formalized parking layout may result in fewer
vehicles being accommodated than under the current informal parking arrangement;
however, the proposed parking would be structured, safer, and more functional.
Historical boat ramp usage information was reviewed during project development to
help balance peak holiday demand with typical year-round community use.

 Paddle craft / Passenger Vehicle Parking
•
•

•
•

The parking areas were designed to separate passenger vehicles and paddle craft users
from boat/trailer circulation.
The passenger vehicle parking area would provide access for:
o Paddle craft users.
o ADA users.
o Fishing pier users.
o General park users.
The paddle craft beach/launching area would also be expanded.
The separation was intended to improve safety and reduce conflicts between
passenger vehicles and boat trailers.

 Traffic Circulation and Boat Ramp Queue
•
•
•

•

The Board members held an extensive discussion regarding ingress, egress, queuing,
and circulation through the boat ramp facility.
Mr. Greer explained that the City Engineer had recently reviewed the proposed
circulation plan.
Design principles included:
o Minimizing complicated traffic rules.
o Providing two-way aisles where practical.
o Allowing both pull-through and back-in trailer parking.
o Providing flexibility for users to access available parking spaces.
Board members questioned how four active launch lanes would be supplied without
creating conflicts or bottlenecks.

DRAFT

5

DRAFT
•
•

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•

The possibility of an attendant directing users to available ramps was discussed.
Mr. Greer noted that because all four proposed lanes would be functional and similar
in configuration, there would be less need for an attendant to direct certain vessel
sizes to specific ramps.
Concern was expressed about opposing traffic and potential bottlenecks near the
entrance/exit.
Mr. Greer clarified that:
o Vehicles with trailers would enter and turn left.
o The circulation system would direct them around the perimeter of the facility.
o A significant portion of the route would operate as a queue.
o Once vehicles reach the designated queue portion, circulation would become
one-way.
The long queue was intentionally designed to keep vehicles waiting off Beach Drive.
The design would allow a larger number of truck/trailer combinations to stack within
the property during peak morning launching periods.
Board members indicated that the circulation pattern made more sense after the queue
arrangement was explained.
The Board discussed a potential conflict between exiting vehicles and incoming
traffic.
Mr. Greer acknowledged the potential conflict but stated that:
o Stop controls would be provided.
o Incoming traffic tends to arrive in concentrated waves.
o Departing traffic generally occurs more gradually.
o Maximizing the length of the internal queue was therefore prioritized.
Prominent signage and pavement markings was suggested to reinforce required turns,
stopping points, and the need to keep circulation lanes clear.
Mr. Greer advised that detailed striping and marking plans exist but were not included
in the Board's presentation materials.

 Boat Ramp Slopes and Reconstruction
•
•
•
•
•

•

Board members discussed the poor functionality of some existing ramps.
Mr. Greer confirmed that all four proposed launch lanes would be newly constructed
and fully functional.
The ramps would be designed with an appropriate slope consistent with boat ramp
design guidance.
The proposed slope was described as falling approximately in the middle of the
typical 12%–15% range.
The design seeks to balance:
o Ease of launching.
o Trailer backing distance.
o Accessibility for less experienced users.
Existing irregularities in ramp grades would be eliminated as part of the
reconstruction.

DRAFT

6

DRAFT

 Sheet Pile Wall / Structural Design
•
•
•

•

A question was asked about the sheet pile and tie-back system shown in the plans.
Mr. Greer explained that some elements may be adjusted through final value
engineering.
The system is designed to be robust because:
o The property previously served as a concrete/gravel unloading area.
o Subsurface borings encountered significant gravel and rock.
o The groin protecting the boat ramp would be extended to reduce
sedimentation.
o The structure is exposed and therefore requires substantial reinforcement.
The structural system is being designed for a long service life, generally 50 years or
more.

 Cameras / Enforcement
•

•
•
•

The Board members discussed the potential for the mooring and access piers to be
improperly used for commercial passenger pickup/drop-off or other unauthorized
activity.
Previous use of cameras at other City waterfront facilities was discussed as an
effective enforcement deterrent.
Board members suggested considering surveillance cameras at Joe’s Bayou once the
project reaches the appropriate implementation phase.
The purpose would be to protect the public investment and discourage unauthorized
use.

 Fishing Pier Lighting
•
•
•

•
•
•

•

The Board asked whether pedestrian lighting would be installed on the fishing pier.
Mr. Greer stated that extensive pedestrian lighting is currently not included.
Reasons discussed included:
o FDEP's night-sky initiative.
o The park's intended dawn-to-dusk operation.
o Neighborhood lighting concerns.
o Project budget constraints.
Lighting under the current project is generally limited to required solar/navigation
lighting.
Mr. Greer stated that the design would not prevent the city from installing additional
lighting in the future.
Board members expressed concern about:
o Safety for people using the pier after dark.
o Law enforcement's ability to see activity on the pier from the roadway.
o Local residents and youth who may use the fishing pier during early morning
or evening hours.
Members expressed interest in the city considering additional safety lighting in the
future.

DRAFT

7

DRAFT

 Oyster Habitat / Shoreline Improvements
•
•
•
•

The Board asked whether oyster habitat would be incorporated.
Mr. Greer explained that the rock reef and shoreline structures are expected to
provide substrate for oyster recruitment.
Existing irregular concrete riprap along the shoreline would be removed and
reconstructed.
The shoreline improvements are intended to:
o Improve safety.
o Create more organized and stable shoreline protection.
o Support habitat development.
o Preserve areas where people can safely access the natural shoreline and water.

 Improvements West/South of Beach Drive
•
•

•
•

Mr. Greer clarified that the larger project includes improvements outside the marine
construction area being reviewed by the Board.
These include:
o Reconstruction of the Mattie Kelly boardwalk.
o Architectural shade structures.
o Educational signage.
o New pavilions.
o Parking improvements.
o Overflow trailer parking west of Beach Drive.
o Repaving/restructuring of the southern parking area.
Approximately 12 additional trailer parking spaces were anticipated west of Beach
Drive.
The northwest parking lot was expected to remain largely unchanged because it is
currently functional.

 Previous Public Workshops / Permitting
•
•
•
•

Board member Tadlock asked whether an additional workshop would be required.
Mr. Greer stated that public workshops has already been conducted earlier in the
project development process.
The project has been in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permitting process for
more than two years.
Mr. Greer stated that the project was approaching the final stages of federal
consultation/permitting, with approximately six months remaining projected at the
time of the meeting.

 Potential Mooring Balls
•

The Board discussed its separate interest in exploring mooring balls within the harbor
and other appropriate areas.

DRAFT

8

DRAFT
•
•

•

A question was asked whether the breakwater configuration could support a protected
mooring area.
Mr. Greer stated that permanent mooring balls near the project would be difficult
because:
o The area contains substantial seagrass habitat.
o Much of the area is shallow.
o Permitting would require adequate clearance between the vessel draft and
bottom.
o Permanent moorings over seagrass habitat would be difficult to permit.
He noted that other, deeper areas of Joe's Bayou with fewer submerged resources
might be more appropriate for future mooring facilities.

Motion by Board member Hayden to recommend that the City Council approve the
proposed nonresidential marine redevelopment project located at 800 Beach Drive, Joe’s
Bayou Recreational Area, substantially as presented in the Waterfront Structures Overview
Plan on sheet one exhibit A with the following identified elements to include:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Timber fishing pier.
Fixed mooring pier.
ADA paddle craft launch kayak.
Boat launch.
Access piers.
ADA floating access pier.
Upgraded boat ramp.
Revetments.
Sheet pile walls.
Breakwaters.
Two separate reef habitat areas.

With the following conditions:
1. All applicable federal and state approvals shall be submitted with the Marine
Construction Permit application.
2. All applicable regulations of the City's marina siting provisions in LDC
Section 11-05.00 shall be followed at all times. Board member Holloway
provide the second, the motion passed 5-0.
 Project Cost
•
•

•

Following the motion, the Board asked about the overall project budget.
Mr. Greer explained that FDEP was the project sponsor and noted limitations
regarding his ability to discuss current budget matters without the FDEP project
manager present.
He stated that the original overall project budget, inclusive of construction and related
project/administrative costs, was approximately $12.5 million.

DRAFT

9

DRAFT

 Breakwater Markers / Navigational Safety
•
•
•

•
•
•

The Board raised concerns about nighttime boaters potentially striking the proposed
breakwaters/reef structures.
Members asked whether illuminated buoys or other markers would identify the
structures.
Mr. Greer explained that:
o Buoy and lighting approvals would be addressed before construction.
o FWC Waterways would be involved in buoy permitting.
o The U.S. Coast Guard may be involved in lighting/navigation requirements.
o The breakwaters are located in an already shallow area, but navigational risk
is being considered.
o The fishing pier would include navigation lighting.
Following construction, as-built information for the reefs and breakwaters would be
submitted to NOAA as required by the federal permit.
Nautical charts would subsequently be updated to identify the new structures.
Mr. Greer emphasized that navigational marking was not being treated as an
afterthought.

 Construction Schedule
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

The Board asked whether a project start date had been established.
Mr. Greer stated that the project must first obtain the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
permit and complete the required federal consultations.
Once the permit is obtained, the project is expected to proceed to bidding as quickly
as possible.
At the time of the meeting, the project team hoped to have bidding underway and
construction moving forward shortly after the beginning of the new year, although the
schedule remained dependent on federal permit issuance.
The anticipated overall construction duration is approximately 18 months.
The project team intends to phase construction to minimize disruption to the existing
recreational facility and keep the boat ramp closed for the shortest practical period.
Timing of boat ramp work would, to the extent possible, be coordinated to avoid
major fishing seasons, holidays, and significant local events.
The Destin Fishing Rodeo in October was specifically mentioned as a scheduling
consideration.

 Construction Materials / Environmental Considerations
•
•

The Board asked about environmental considerations in the selection of construction
materials.
Mr. Greer stated that:
o Timber piles would be wrapped to improve longevity and reduce
environmental impacts associated with leaching.
o High-density polyethylene (HDPE) decking is proposed.
o HDPE was selected for durability and long service life.

DRAFT

10

DRAFT

•

5.

Public Comment
•
•
•
•

•

6.

The proposed decking is not a conventional recycled composite product.
Mr. Greer compared the general material approach to improvements previously
constructed at Norriego Point.
o

Mr. Kendall Small, a nearby resident, addressed the Board and expressed support for
improvements to Joe’s Bayou area.
He stated that he was particularly interested in living shoreline and oyster habitat
components.
He asked whether the existing deteriorated riprap would be replaced with vegetation
such as cordgrass or with new riprap.
Mr. Greer responded that:
o Existing concrete riprap would be removed.
o It would be replaced with quarried stone.
o The new shoreline would have a more defined and uniform structural slope.
o The stone would provide suitable substrate for recruitment by oysters and
other benthic organisms.
Mr. Small expressed appreciation for the oyster habitat and shoreline improvements.

Board Comments / County Negotiations and Norriego Point
•
•
•
•
•

•

Board member Tadlock requested an update regarding negotiations with Okaloosa
County.
The City Attorney reported that the city has initiated Chapter 164 dispute resolution
process with the County.
The city had formally transmitted the applicable resolution and notices.
The State was identified as an optional participant, while the County is the necessary
party.
She explained that the Chapter 164 process is non-adversarial and is intended to
provide a structured process for the city and county to:
o Recognize the dispute.
o Meet under the statutory process.
o Attempt to resolve outstanding issues.
o Develop the best plan for the public property.
Additionally, the process has recently begun and remains ongoing.
The County had previously received a proposed lease from the State.
The lease had not moved forward to completion.
Staff understood that one disputed issue involved whether the City's land-use
regulations would apply.
o The State's position was that City Land-Use regulations would apply.
She expressly noted that any explanation for why the County had not proceeded was
speculation/opinion and that staff could not speak on behalf of the County.
The City Council has adopted a resolution expressing the City's desire to lease and
manage the property.
o
o
o

•
•

DRAFT

11

DRAFT
•
•

6.

The city was continuing to work through the matter with the County.
And staff anticipated additional information within approximately the next 30–50
days.

MEMBER COMMENTS:
 Next meeting: August 27, 2026

7.

ADJOURNMENT:
With there being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Adopted and approved this ______ day of ___________________ 2026.

____________________________
Capt. Jim Green, Chairman

_________________________________
Kim Montgomery, Deputy City Clerk

DRAFT

12

DRAFT

MINUTES OF THE
HARBOR AND WATERWAYS BOARD WORKSHOP
DESTIN CITY HALL ANNEX
AUGUST 27, 2026 - 5:30 P.M.
1.

CALL TO ORDER:

Vice Chairman Holloway called the meeting of the Thursday, August 27, 2026, Destin
Harbor and Waterways Board to order in a workshop setting with there not being a quorum, at
approximately 5:30 p.m., at Destin City Hall Annex, with the Pledge of Allegiance immediately
following.
2.

ROLL CALL:

Members Present:
Ryan Holloway
Guy Tadlock
Alan Osborne
3.

Members Absent:
Capt. Jim Green
Jerrod Hayden
Bill McKissick

Staff:
Kim Montgomery Deputy City Clerk
Jesse Hernandez Senior Planner
Sherry Burney Planner
Kimberly Kopp City Attorney

MINUTES:

With there not being a quorum, minutes will be approved at the next meeting held with a
quorum.
4.

NEW BUSINESS:
 Improvements to Navigational Aids
•
•

•
•

•

Staff referenced correspondence included in the agenda packet regarding proposed
navigational-aid improvements and prior communications with federal officials.
The proposed/current improvements included:
o Repairing and upgrading East Pass markers beginning with the Choctawhatchee
Bay Entrance Light 3.
o Installing new daytime markers at the end of the west jetty.
o Adding lights to existing nun and can buoys.
o Retaining the newly repositioned Buoys 1 and 2 and adding illumination to
those buoys.
Board members discussed the length of time required to restore navigational lighting
in East Pass, noting that the issue had been under discussion for more than a year.
Concern was expressed that East Pass, being a major and heavily traveled waterway,
and that the absence of adequate navigational lighting, creates significant boatingsafety hazards.
Their discussion included:
o Concern regarding the Coast Guard's ability to provide temporary or emergency
navigational lighting while permanent repairs are pending.
o A suggestion that temporary solar-powered lights could potentially be used to
mitigate the hazard.

DRAFT

1

DRAFT

Recognition that the Coast Guard may prioritize major commercial shipping
ports ahead of smaller waterways such as Destin’s.
o Concern that Destin has experienced a significant number of serious boating
accidents, particularly around Crab Island and East Pass.
o Even the most experienced boaters and captains, navigating the East Pass at
night without proper lighting can be dangerous, particularly if a vessel's radar
heading alignment is inaccurate.
The Board members further discussed the potential consequences of a vessel striking
the Destin Bridge because of navigational confusion.
o Such an accident could significantly disrupt transportation throughout
Northwest Florida if the bridge had to be closed for repairs.
o It was suggested that emphasizing the potential threat to this major
transportation corridor might help federal officials recognize the urgency of
restoring the navigational aids.
The Board members agreed that the matter has taken too long to resolve and presents
an ongoing public safety concern.
o

•

•

 Water Quality Standards / Choctawhatchee Bay Alan Osborne Presentation
•
•

•

•

•

Board member Osborne presented information regarding water-quality concerns
associated with stormwater runoff from the Sandestin development.
He stated that he had previously presented the information to the City Council and was
bringing it before the Harbor & Waterways Board because the responsible state
agencies had not taken sufficient action.
He spoke of how the issue had existed for approximately 10 years and how the
waterways of Destin are downstream and receives the runoff entering Choctawhatchee
Bay from the Sandestin area.
He referenced reviews and findings involving state agencies, the Florida Board of
Professional Engineers, and a study performed by Dr. Harvey Harper, whom he
described as a recognized stormwater expert and asserted that the existing runoff
system does not comply with the standards applicable to the Sandestin development
order. He stated that:
o Stormwater was being directly discharged into Choctawhatchee Bay through
large pipes.
o Some pipes were reportedly as large as 48 inches.
o The development was originally designed to route stormwater through lakes
and other systems on the golf course that would provide filtration before
discharge.
o Changes in ownership of Sandestin over the years reportedly resulted in
portions of the runoff being routed directly to the Bay.
o Previous correspondence and studies had identified compliance concerns, but
corrective action has not occurred.
Board member Osborne stated that his desired action was for the city to request for the
appropriate state agency, including DEP, to issue a Notice of Violation rather than
requiring the city to undertake litigation using city funds.

DRAFT

2

DRAFT
•

He emphasized that issuing a Notice of Violation would place responsibility for
enforcement with the State Agency possessing regulatory authority.

 Observed Changes in Water Quality
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Board member Osborne presented aerial/Google Earth imagery depicting conditions
upstream and downstream of the Sandestin area.
He stated that areas upstream showed comparatively clean shallow water and seagrass,
while areas downstream showed dark growth that he characterized as black algae.
He stated that the growth had not been present approximately 10 years earlier and had
subsequently spread westward.
The affected areas have experienced significant loss of seagrass.
He expressed concern that the condition could continue spreading toward Destin
because of prevailing currents and Destin's downstream location.
He discussed nutrient loading, particularly nitrogen, and its potential to worsen
naturally occurring red-tide events.
He emphasized that his principal request was for the City Council to contact the
appropriate state authorities and request enforcement of the applicable developmentorder requirements.

 Water Quality Presentation – Doug Lyles
•
•

•

•
•

•

Mr. Doug Lyles introduced himself as a concerned citizen and clarified that he was not
speaking in his official capacity as a district/mosquito control commissioner.
Mr. Lyles stated that:
o He has professional training as a microbiologist.
o He has extensive experience with water quality and bacteria.
o He volunteered as a water tester for the Choctawhatchee Basin Alliance for
more than 10 years and participated in more than 100 sampling events.
o His interest in water quality contributed to his decision to become involved with
mosquito control because mosquito-control ditches also function as stormwater
conveyance systems.
Mr. Lyles discussed concerns regarding bacterial contamination and referenced
personal acquaintances who suffered serious Vibrio infections after being exposed in
Choctawhatchee Bay.
He emphasized the importance of monitoring stormwater outfalls because untreated or
unmonitored runoff may discharge directly into sensitive estuarial waters.
Mr. Lyles recommended:
o Identifying and prioritizing stormwater outfalls entering Choctawhatchee Bay.
o Obtaining funding for routine water-quality testing.
o Testing the outfalls themselves rather than relying solely on general Bay
sampling.
o Making test results available to the public.
o Establishing sufficient baseline data to determine the extent and source of
water-quality problems before implementing corrective measures.
PFAS Testing

DRAFT

3

DRAFT

Mr. Lyles discussed preliminary testing he commissioned for PFAS/"forever
chemicals" in fish from Choctawhatchee Bay.
o He stated that the preliminary sample consisted of 13 catfish and that the results
raised significant concerns.
o He emphasized that additional independent testing would be necessary before
drawing definitive conclusions.
o He expressed concern that local governments promote the area as a desirable
tourism destination while insufficient water-quality testing is being performed.
Stormwater Regulation / MS4 Concerns
o Mr. Lyles discussed what he described as deficiencies in the area's stormwater
regulatory framework.
o He stated that the area receives substantial tourism, traffic, development, and
stormwater impacts while certain regulatory classifications do not require the
level of testing, which he believes is warranted.
o He discussed concerns regarding development plans and the ability of technical
reviewers to identify deficiencies while lacking authority to prevent approval.
o He stated that mosquito-control representatives participate in technical review
but do not have voting authority and can be overruled.
o He further stated that mosquito-control ditches constitute significant
stormwater drainage infrastructure but were not included in the County's MS4
permit.
Mr. Lyles emphasized the importance of governance and regulatory systems that make
it difficult to circumvent water-quality and stormwater requirements.
He expressed concern that continued development pressure could exacerbate
stormwater, water-quality, and flooding problems.
He referenced online resources he had developed containing information concerning
water-quality issues and PFAS testing.
o

•

•
•
•

 Choctawhatchee Basin Alliance / Monitoring Discussion
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

The Board discussed the possible role and enforcement authority of the
Choctawhatchee Basin Alliance.
Mr. Lyles stated that the Alliance consists of individuals attempting to improve water
quality, but they do not possess regulatory enforcement authority.
He also raised concerns regarding equipment calibration and volunteer training
associated with some historic sampling efforts.
Board member Osborne discussed previous sampling near his property on Sandestin
and stated that testing approximately eight years earlier had shown
elevated/intermediate nitrogen contamination.
He stated that when concerns were raised with the Choctawhatchee Basin Alliance, he
was advised that the organization lacked authority to take enforcement action.
He emphasized the distinction between monitoring water quality and having the legal
authority to compel corrective action.
Mr. Osborne reiterated that the appropriate state agency should be asked to issue a
Notice of Violation based on the information already developed over approximately a
decade.

DRAFT

4

DRAFT
•

He emphasized the economic importance of maintaining clean water to Destin's fishing,
tourism, recreation, and overall economy.

 PFAS Sources / Golf Course Discussion
•
•

•

•
•

•

Vice Chairman Holloway asked whether chemicals used on golf courses could be
contributing to the PFAS or other contamination identified in the Bay.
Mr. Lyles stated that nitrogen and phosphorus associated with landscaping and golfcourse maintenance could contribute to nutrient runoff but indicated that he did not
believe golf courses were necessarily the principal source of PFAS.
He stated that preliminary analysis suggested firefighting foam as a potentially
significant PFAS source and discussed wastewater/solid-waste treatment processes as
another possible contributor.
Mr. Lyles again emphasized that additional scientific studies would be necessary to
determine the sources and extent of contamination conclusively.
Mr. Osborne clarified that his presentation was not intended to condemn Sandestin's
golf courses.
o He stated that the golf course lakes were originally intended to serve a beneficial
stormwater-filtration function.
o His concern was that runoff was allegedly being routed around those filtration
systems and discharged directly into the Bay.
o He stated that there were multiple large pipes, including approximately nine 36inch pipes, carrying runoff directly into the Bay.
o He further noted that runoff from approximately 1,800 residential properties also
contributes to the overall system.
Mr. Osborne reiterated that he was not seeking removal of homes or golf courses but
rather compliance with the development order and redesign or correction of the
stormwater system as deemed necessary.

 Development Order / Runoff Standard Discussion
•

•
•
•

The Board members asked additional questions regarding the historic development
requirements for Sandestin and whether the outfalls were intended only to operate after
stormwater-retention capacity was exceeded.
Mr. Osborne discussed the regulatory history of the Sandestin development dating to
the 1970s.
He explained that the development requirements were intended to prevent postdevelopment runoff from exceeding pre-development runoff.
According to Mr. Osborne:
o The original standard contemplated discharge only following an extremely
significant rainfall event.
o The applicable threshold was approximately 6.75 inches of rainfall within 24
hours.
o Current engineering practices had instead allegedly applied a substantially
lower/basic state retention standard.

DRAFT

5

DRAFT

Consequently, the outfall pipes could be observed flowing following much
smaller rainfall events.
Mr. Osborne stated that he had personally shown the discharge conditions to
Commissioner Curry.
Discussion referenced Dr. Harvey Harper's review and the Florida Board of
Professional Engineers.
Mr. Osborne stated that the State had already documented the compliance issue and
that the remaining problem was obtaining formal enforcement.
The members discussed the significance of approximately 2,000 acres of runoff
associated with Sandestin and its potential contribution to Choctawhatchee Bay.
Mr. Lyles suggested that a practical first step would be systematic testing of identified
stormwater outfalls over time.
o He stated that modern sensors had become less expensive and that establishing
a monitoring system would be technically achievable.
Mr. Osborne reiterated that, in his view, sufficient evidence already existed for the State
to issue a violation and require corrective action.
o

•
•
•
•
•

•

 Board Consensus / Follow-Up
•
•

•
•

•
•
•

5.

Because the meeting was conducted as a workshop without a quorum, the Board could
not make a formal recommendation or take a vote.
Board member Tadlock expressed concern about water quality and stated for the record
that, based upon the information presented, he would support having the matter
followed through and addressed.
The City Attorney advised that the Board's discussion and comments would be included
in a staff report when the matter was presented to the City Council.
She indicated that the water-quality issue was anticipated to be presented to the City
Council at an upcoming September meeting, with possible dates identified as
September 8 or September 21, 2026.
Mr. Osborne indicated that he was coordinating with Commissioner Curry, who had
expressed interest in addressing the Council.
Mr. Lyles was also invited to participate in the Council presentation.
Board members were encouraged to attend the Council meeting when the matter is
considered.

MEMBER COMMENTS:
 Next meeting: September 24, 2026

6.

ADJOURNMENT:
With there being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
Adopted and approved this ______ day of ___________________ 2026.

____________________________
Ryan Holloway, Vice Chairman

_________________________________
Kim Montgomery, Deputy City Clerk

DRAFT

6