PBA uses this blog to post individual articles from our monthly newsletters. Members can comment on these articles.
  • 06/02/2019 9:08 PM | Anonymous

    Florida's First District Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court's decision denying the Escambia County School District's standing to intervene in a dispute between Pensacola Beach leaseholders and the county's property appraiser. 

    Thursday's ruling involved a case brought by owners of condominiums in the Santa Rosa Dunes Complex.

    Ed Fleming, an attorney who represented the Santa Rosa Dunes residents and who has represented hundreds of other beach residents in tax cases against the county, said the ruling should put an end to legal questions about whether leased land underneath condominium complexes should be subject to ad valorem taxes.

    "We are obviously pleased with the ruling," he said in a released statement.

    Malcolm Thomas, superintendent for the Escambia County School district, questioned the ruling.

    "It is mysterious to me that they would say we do not have standing because the school district has millions of dollars at stake from all properties in Escambia county, not just the beach," he said.

    Thomas said he did not know what next steps the district might take. Thomas has previously said the district had $6 million in a reserve account created to hold disputed taxes. More than 30 condominium homeowners associations have filed lawsuits questioning the collection of taxes on leased land.

    Pensacola Beach is unique because it was deeded to Escambia County, along with much of the rest of Santa Rosa Island, in 1947. The deed agreement prohibited the county from selling the beach land and stated that the land must be used in a way that benefits the public. 

    The county decided in the 1950s to develop the beach to bring in tourism revenue and set up a system of 99-year leases to encourage commercial and residential development on the island. The county advertised "tax-free" beach land in publications nationwide. 

    After Pensacola Beach was heavily developed in the 1980s, the county turned to the beach as a source of property tax revenue. The move prompted a long series of lawsuits that continue today. 

    Complicating the issue is that language in the leases has changed over the decades. Some leases are open for renegotiation after 99 years and others are perpetually renewable. The courts have ruled that the perpetually renewable leases are tantamount to outright ownership and can be taxed, while the renegotiable leases are not.

  • 05/30/2019 6:56 PM | Anonymous

    The First District Court of Appeal, in an opinion released today, has unanimously AFFIRMED the ruling by Escambia County Circuit Court Judge Scott Duncan ruling that the Escambia County School District lacked standing to challenge the Constitutionality of Fla. Stats. Section 196.199(2)(b) governing taxation of leases on government-owned land.  This ruling lets stand the trial court’s ruling that the land beneath Santa Rosa Dunes at Pensacola Beach belongs to the County, and is thus immune from ad valorem taxation.

    The issue was before the First DCA on an appeal by the Escambia County School District which sought, at the behest of the Escambia County Property Appraiser, to challenge the constitutionality of the controlling tax statute.   All of the judges on the three-judge panel acknowledged that controlling precedent supported the trial judge’s granting of summary judgment against the school district.  In a concurring opinion, Judge Bilbrey wrote that while he disagreed with the broad restrictions placed on standing by public officials, that he agreed the panel was bound to follow such precedent.   He pointed out that the First DCA had previously upheld the constitutionality of the challenged statute, concluding that “even if the District had standing to sue, we would be correct to affirm…”

    “We are obviously pleased with this decision,” said Ed Fleming, who together with Todd Harris, represented Santa Rosa Dunes.  “This puts to bed the last avenue for challenging the earlier wins for Pensacola Beach leaseholders in Island Resorts v. Jones, and Beach Club v. Jones.”

    Harris said that more than half of the pending cases with the Property Appraiser concerning valuing improvements only, recognizing the immunity of publically-owned land, have been resolved; and he and Fleming are optimistic that the remaining cases can be resolved as well.

  • 04/18/2019 4:56 PM | Anonymous

    There are two companion bills that take away ALL LOCAL CONTROL over short term rental properties working their way through the Florida House and Senate as we publish this edition (April 2019) of the Island Times.  We'd like to be able to tell you that all of our representatives do not support this power-grab by the state, but Representative Andrade has indicated that he does support it and has already voted for the house version in his committee.  

    The bills are HB987 and SB824.  

    Here's the pertinent language from HB987:

    "Section 1. Paragraph (b) of subsection (7) of section 16 509.032, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 509.032 Duties.— (7) PREEMPTION AUTHORITY.— (b)1. The Legislature finds that:

    a. Property owners who use their residential property as a vacation rental have constitutionally protected property rights and other rights that must be protected, including the right to use their residential property as a vacation rental.

    b. Vacation rentals play a significant, unique, and critical role in the state's tourism industry, and that role, including the factors related to the ownership and operation of such rentals, is different from other types of public lodging establishments.

    c. Vacation rentals are residential in nature, residential in use, and allowed in residential neighborhoods.

    2. Except as provided in this paragraph, the regulation of vacation rentals, including, but not limited to, inspection, licensing, and occupancy limits, is preempted to the state.

    3. A local law, ordinance, or regulation may regulate activities that arise when a residential property is used as a vacation rental, provided that such law, ordinance, or regulation applies uniformly to all residential properties without regard to whether the residential property is used as a vacation rental, as defined in s. 509.242, or a long-term rental subject to chapter 83, or whether a property owner chooses not to use his or her residential property as a vacation rental. However, a local law, ordinance, or regulation may not prohibit vacation rentals, impose occupancy limits, or regulate the duration or frequency of rental of vacation rentals. A local law, ordinance, or regulation may not authorize or require the inspection or licensing of a vacation rental. A court shall determine whether a local law, ordinance, or regulation complies with this paragraph. If an action is brought pursuant to this paragraph, the local government that enacted the local law, ordinance, or regulation shall establish by clear and convincing evidence that such local law, ordinance, or regulation complies with this paragraph."

    Supporters of this legislation claim that they intend to regulate a "new industry," not take power from local government; however, the vacation rental industry is far from new, and registration with the state is ALREADY REQUIRED.  We believe that this action is solely to prevent local governments from enacting ordinances preventing the building of more "HOMETELS" in residential neighborhoods, or prescribing minimal rental periods such as 6 months for residential neighborhoods.  The House bill even goes as far as removing the grandfathering of local laws that were in place prior to 2011.  We encourage everyone who values the quiet enjoyment that we expect in single family residential areas to call or email their state representatives and let them know that you OPPOSE these bills.  Leave neighborhood planning to the LOCAL governments.  

    UPDATE as of June 2019: The bills mentioned above died in committee.

  • 03/12/2019 1:36 PM | Anonymous

    Spring Break has officially commenced on Pensacola Beach.  The hotels and rentals are filling up and the cars are beginning to line the streets.  The Spring Break information campaign is being pushed by the SRIA, VISIT Pensacola, and the Pensacola Beach Chamber of Commerce.  Our neighbors to the east jumped-started their Spring Break by posting photos of shackled underage drinkers on their way to jail.  It remains to be seen how effective our efforts on Pensacola Beach will be, but we hope that everyone can enjoy our beautiful beach in peace and harmony!

    Meanwhile, the Board of County Commissioners intends to consider some sort of ordinance preventing fee simple title on Pensacola Beach.  We were given the opportunity to review a draft, and offered our own draft ordinance, which would ensure public areas remain public and prevent over development.  Now we wait to see when the item makes the agenda.  At their last meeting, the Commission was asked to approve or veto a lease renewal for one of the so-called "perpetual" leases.  Apparently the commission demanded a 30 day period to review any lease renewals passed by the SRIA.  We oppose these actions since the leases are between the leaseholder and the SRIA, not the County commission. We are also concerned that while both the SRIA and the commission have been talking about making lease language more uniform, and streamlining the renewal process, the actual process requires the leaseholder to engage an attorney and draft their own renewal.  Besides the unnecessary cost to the leaseholder, this process guarantees that each renewal will be unique, not uniform.  We don't think that's a good idea.

    The last issue that leaseholders need to consider is the future of the SRIA.  The County Commission is questioning the need for the SRIA at all.  Discussion of abolishing the SRIA came up at the March 7th agenda review meeting.  Do you value having an SRIA board?  We've been advised that since few leaseholders attend meetings, it's assumed that we don't care whether we have a board or not.  If you value the SRIA, make your voices heard.  Call or email your SRIA board and County Commission members and let them know how you feel.

  • 03/06/2019 10:39 AM | Anonymous


    As promised (or threatened), this is to further illustrate why the results of the ill-conceived November “beach referendum” should never be relied upon as the basis for governance regarding fee simple title for Pensacola Beach leaseholders (nor even, really, as the basis for deciding what Escambia County citizens truly want, much less what they actually know, as to fee simple).

    Those of you active on local social media may already be familiar with this example; I’m an inveterate social media holdout but was recently informed about it by a friend, and I find it very telling:

    Seems one of the more virulent anti-fee-simple members of a local Facebook group, in an effort to prove that certain county officials favoring fee simple would themselves benefit from it financially – thereby boldly implying corruption – zeroed in on County Attorney Alison Rogers who, as you know, lives on Pensacola Beach.   This man recently asserted that Rogers only paid $1 for her lease.  (!!)  When asked for evidence, he posted a document showing a transaction in “...the sum of $1.00 (One Dollar) and other good and valuable considerations...,” obviously believing that the SRIA’s required ASSIGNMENT OF LEASEHOLD INTEREST document constituted the entire leasehold purchase transaction.  

    Do these people ever read the real estate listings, or peruse Chris Jones’ online assessment pages?? One has to wonder.  

    Look, this would be laughable if it weren’t so utterly pitiful and dangerous.   And personally, based on other conversations with mainlanders over the years, I doubt it’s anywhere near an isolated example of the prevailing rather cavernous ignorance about how the leasing system works here.  (Again, per my prior email, I’m NOT calling this stupidity, just an understandable lack of accurate public knowledge on a complex and unusual issue, made far, far worse by the yellow shirts, the Pensacola News Journal, and others). 

    I’ll share with you that, way back when Dianne Krumel began her personal crusade to prevent us leaseholders from ever holding title to our already private land (and buildings, though I doubt she knew that), and having noted that some of her and/or her cohorts’ web page info indicated that Pensacola Beach leaseholders were “only renters,” and/or that under fee simple we’d be getting our leasehold property “for free,” I decided to ask Dianne for a meet-up.  I emailed her, expressed my uncertainty as to just how much she understood about island real estate, and also as to why the leasing system was not the factor protecting against over-development.  I courteously asked if we could get together by phone, email, or in person, to talk things over.  

    Believe it or not, this was her exact emailed reply, in its entirety:

    “ You are simply a pawn in a greater scheme”  quoted and sent to you on behalf of Bob Kerrigan, Attorney

    To repeat a phrase from my prior email:  pure paranoid poppycock.

    Has anyone, just for instance, ever asked any of these people to name ONE developer they can prove to be part of this “greater scheme” to steal our beaches and turn us into a condo canyon???

    And has anyone ever asked them just how idiotic they think us leaseholders must be to want something that will ruin the very island we cherish and wall off our own beach access??

    So I ask once more:  Please don’t allow a referendum vote – no matter how large! -  to control the Escambia BOCC’s decision-making process going forward, when that vote resulted not only from very possible misunderstanding of the referendum’s two-part wording, but almost certainly -- at least in substantial part – from unfounded fear and misinformation promulgated through a long and relentless campaign by the yellow shirts, the PNJ, and others.   Don’t let it happen!

    We count on you to make wise and far-thinking decisions, even when (especially when) they seem politically difficult.   For the sake of the county’s future fiscal health and unity, please do the right thing and scrap plans for any ordinance that would seek to block fee simple title for Pensacola Beach leaseholders.  We are not the enemy here!  We’re simply Escambia County taxpayers who want the same legitimacy of fee simple title enjoyed by our fellow taxpaying property owners on the mainland.  Period.

    Commissioners, there is, in reality and truth,  no valid reason we shouldn’t all be on equal footing in this county as property-owning taxpayers.   This is not 1947; it’s 2019.    Please act accordingly. 

    - Linda Leithner

  • 03/05/2019 11:35 AM | Anonymous


    I’m no big fan of Matt Gaetz, nor especially of certain things he’s said and done lately.   But I’m even less of a fan of the Pensacola News Journal’s editorial board member, cartoonist and opinion writer, Andy Marlette.   Why am I telling the commissioners this?  Because Marlette’s latest diatribe against Gaetz, “Gaetz Gaffes Part II”,  further demonstrates what I’ve previously tried to say:  Escambia County citizens’ minds have been needlessly and wrongly poisoned against fee simple title for Pensacola Beach leaseholders, and not only by the “yellow shirts,” but also by our own community newspaper.  

    And since you, esteemed commissioners, are the ones who - at least currently - have the future of fee simple in your hands, it’s crucially important  that you, of all people, understand just how wrong it would be to institute a county ordinance blocking title for leaseholders based on the results of last November’s confusing two-part referendum, since those results were, in some unknown proportion, an outgrowth of ongoing misinformation and/or lies dished up over and over to an issue-ignorant public (NOT stupid people; just crucially lacking in knowledge of the issue’s complexities), thanks in no small part to the PNJ.

    First of all, if you read (please do!) Marlette’s diatribe linked above, specifically where it addresses Gaetz’s fee simple legislation and the PNJ’s coverage of same, you’ll note that Marlette asserts that “...numerous stories by [reporter] Melissa Nelson Gabriel...covered all sides of the issue extensively, fairly and honestly.”   This statement is beyond ludicrous, since, specifically on this matter, Nelson Gabriel is one of the most biased reporters this area has likely ever seen, eschewing meaningful interviews with knowledgeable pro-title individuals,  but instead continually pounding into her readers’ heads not only the wording of the 1947 federal deed restrictions, but also blasting the headlines at every conceivable opportunity with scare tactic stories about conflicts between beachgoers and beachfront property owners at other Florida locations having nothing whatsoever to do with the facts of the situation here. Nothing! 

    In the same piece, Marlette says Gaetz called the PNJ’s reporting “lies,” until, Marlette asserts, “When challenged [by journalists], Gaetz conceded that the reporting was accurate and that he knew it was not lies, despite the fact he had told citizens otherwise....   At last, a moment of truth and revelation. The mighty congressman — a young man willing to lie to the people he serves.” 

    (Really?  Don’t know about you, but I’d sure like to hear Gaetz’s side of that particular story.)

    Marlette also castigates Gaetz for his “pushing” the “ ‘fee simple’ bill that would have led to the end of Escambia County citizens’ ownership of many area beaches on Santa Rosa Island.” 

    That statement, highlighted by me, is the very essence of the spurious untruth (some would say blatant lie, but the effect’s the same) that’s been foisted time and again upon the minds of our citizens.   As you should quite well know, under fee simple, ownership of the beaches themselves would not change, and the changed ownership of the adjacent properties would be entirely transparent to the beachgoer, exactly the same as with any other private property adjoining any other public park.   (You may be sick of hearing this – heck, I’m sick of writing about it -- but it’s the absolute crux of the matter.)

    But no, both the PNJ and the yellow shirts stubbornly continue to say “the beaches” would be stolen, walled off, whatever, and thus need to be “saved.”   That’s just pure paranoid poppycock.

    So, based on the untruths/lies/whatever one wishes to term them that Marlette and the PNJ continue to spout, I heartily agree with fellow leaseholder Tom Jardine’s comment on the subject Marlette article: 

    “I can hardly believe that Marlette has the temerity to accuse Matt Gaetz of lying about fee simple,” adding that the one who’s lying about the end of public ownership of Pensacola Beach is Andy Marlette.

    Please also look for another email to follow soon, further illustrating with a particularly glaring example just why the well-meaning but woefully misinformed citizens’ November referendum vote should never be the basis for an ordinance blocking the fee simple title option for Pensacola Beach leaseholders.

    Thank you for reading,

    Linda Leithner

  • 02/19/2019 3:48 PM | Anonymous

    Famed for its soft white sand, emerald-hued waters, and a carefree, easy-going atmosphere, Pensacola Beach has long been a favorite, family-friendly beach destination that locals cherish and newcomers embrace. The Santa Rosa Island Authority (SRIA) is striving to keep it that way this Spring Break.

    “Every year Pensacola Beach becomes more popular as a Spring Break destination, and we welcome all visitors to our island,” said Paolo Ghio, Executive Director of the SRIA. “However, to ensure that everyone coming to Pensacola Beach for their vacation is able to enjoy the hospitality our community has to offer, please adhere to the following regulations.”


    Adult beverages are allowed on the beach. Glass containers, underage drinking and public drunkenness are not. Illegal drugs and driving under the influence will not be tolerated. Laws and ordinances will be strictly enforced, for everyone’s safety.

    Wherever you’re staying, please be respectful of your neighbors and keep your noise level in check.

    In addition, motorized vehicles, generators, grills, fires and any open flames are prohibited on the beach.


    Rule of thumb: If you brought it to the beach, carry it back with you. Tents, umbrellas, chairs and beach gear are not allowed to be left overnight on the beach. Trash cans are provided near all beach entrances, and you are asked to fill in any holes you may dig in the sand.

    Dogs are welcome on the beach at two designated dog parks only. Rules of usage are posted on line and at the parks. As always, please be courteous and remove pet waste.

    “Remember the motto, ‘Leave Only Your Footprints Behind,’” said Ghio. “If you follow that advice, it will help to preserve the natural beauty of our beaches and help ensure all visitors have an enjoyable experience.”

    To ensure everyone enjoys the beach and stays safe, Escambia County Public Safety Chief Dave Greenwood would like to remind all beachgoers to follow these tips:


    Know how to swim if you are going into the Gulf, and always swim near a lifeguard. Lifeguards will be stationed on Pensacola Beach daily starting March 1 at Casino Beach, with patrols driving the island, as necessary. Lifeguard stations at Park East, Park West and Quietwater Beach will be manned depending on staffing availabilities. 

    Colored flags fly at all lifeguard stations and other beach entrances. This warning system is designed to alert the public about surf conditions. Here is what the colors mean:

    • Green flag – Low hazard. Conditions are calm. Swim with usual caution.
    • Yellow flag – Medium hazard. Moderate surf and currents. Swim with extra caution.
    • Red flag – High hazard. High surf and dangerous currents. No swimming or wading is allowed in the Gulf of Mexico.
    • Double red flag – WATER IS CLOSED. This is used during hurricanes or natural disasters. No swimming, wading or surfing is allowed in the Gulf of Mexico.
    • Purple flag – Dangerous marine life is present. Exercise caution when in the water or on the shoreline.

    Current flag colors and surf conditions are also accessible online at  In case of emergency, notify a lifeguard or call 911.

  • 02/14/2019 7:22 AM | Anonymous

    Letter to the Commissioners:

    This is to urge you not to make a bad situation worse by approving an ordinance precluding fee simple title for Pensacola Beach leaseholders.

    As you’re all well aware, the group known variously as Save Our Beaches, Save Pensacola Beach, or just the “yellow shirts,” initially impelled by one very politically connected and strident organizer -- motivated in her “crusade” (her own word) by an admitted long-standing personal grudge against developers -- has managed to seriously mislead the citizens of Escambia County regarding the fee simple option.

    First we had the group’s unrelenting campaign of misinformation, based on entirely groundless fears that a simple change in the form of ownership of the already private leaseholds abutting the public beaches would lead to rampant over-development and loss of public access.    Over time, and with moneyed assistance, they managed to convince many thousands to sign a petition to “save our beaches,” as if our public beachfront lands were ever in any danger whatsoever, which in fact they never were.  But all those signatures presented at his office served to convince Senator Bill Nelson, facing an imminent re-election campaign, to withdraw his co-sponsorship of the federal legislation needed to allow conveyance of title to Pensacola Beach taxpayers.

    The group then lobbied former commissioner Grover Robinson, clearly under considerable political pressure of his own as he approached his mayoral run, to include a referendum on last November’s ballot that managed to continue the deeply misleading culture of the crusade, first by trumpeting at some length the preservation of non-leased lands – a measure the BOCC had already resolved in favor of, and which virtually everyone in the county would heartily approve  – but then tacking onto the end (after many voters may well have stopped reading) the group’s very short statement retaining the restrictions of the 1947 federal deed.  (As you’ll recall, Grover intended that second part to say instead - truthfully - that the BOCC had no position on fee simple, but the yellow shirts simply wouldn’t have it.)

    I doubt there’s anyone within range of your own voices who doesn’t know someone – maybe several someones - who didn’t fully grasp the ramifications of that ballot referendum, not only because it was rather stealthily designed to lure “yes” votes on its opening surface, but because, as stated above, the citizens who listened to the anti-title crusaders in the first place were terribly misled.   And then there were those who, like Andrew McKay of WNRP radio, were well-informed but understandably misconstrued the intent of the 1947 deed’s mention, thinking it was to apply going forward to the preserved, non-leased lands only.  Doubtless there were yet other misinterpretations.  In sum, this was a poorly designed, double-issue referendum, and its overwhelmingly positive but suspect results should most certainly not  be considered the valid basis for an actual county ordinance forbidding fee simple title for leaseholders.

    It’s clear there’s been a rolling snowball effect of the above unfortunate circumstances, all growing out of one person’s supposed bad experience with a Perdido Key developer (Perdido Key being, as we know, an entirely different animal), so it’s now up to you five -- with your leadership and statesmanship and individual strengths -- to stop any further bending to the will of a very loud but utterly misguided group of individuals who’ve skewed this issue all to heck, stubbornly refusing all efforts to provide them the facts, instead taking their frenzied fear-mongering tactics to the citizenry of our county and seriously misinforming them in the process.  

    It’s utterly appalling, and we pro-fee-simple folks don’t know where to turn, except to you.   As some of you may recall, I used to write about all this in occasional Pensacola News Journal viewpoint pieces, but the PNJ’s highly  biased-against-title executive editor has since effectively silenced my voice, refusing to publish another of my (hopefully) informative opinions, saying I’d already “written extensively on the subject,” even though almost a year had passed while the PNJ continued to further mislead the public.   Seems to me that should make each of you as angry as it does me.

    Because I’ve often been accused (including by myself) of being incurably verbose, I’ll stop here, but will send a supplemental email for those who have the patience to read more, providing additional evidence of just how rampantly pervasive the misinformation and just plain lack of fact remains on the fee simple issue in this county.

    Meanwhile, both my husband and I – who, by the way, would in fact pay substantially more ad valorem taxes under fee simple than we do now – urge that you stand firm and refuse to further tie your own and future commissioners’ hands (even if only politically) on fee simple, which we fervently hope may someday be seen in its true light --  as the very best and most logical solution to the awful mess that now exists as to Pensacola Beach leases – a mess which may well prove an even bigger snafu as the years wear on, and which serves to feed continuing tension between island and mainland citizens.  It’s just wrong for the county on so many levels!

    History will be your judge, so please take the long view.   Do the right thing now and refuse to institute an anti-title ordinance.

    - Linda & Arnold Leithner

  • 02/05/2019 3:23 PM | Anonymous

    The Pensacola Beach Advocates have been attempting to ensure that the SRIA Board and the Board of County Commissioners have a complete understanding of the nearly $9,000,000 net benefit that the taxpaying leaseholders on Pensacola Beach provide to Escambia County annually.  

    However, we are stunned by the actions of the County Commission, with the apparent endorsement and assistance of our new District 4 commissioner.  Some County Commissioners continue to insist that Pensacola Beach leaseholders are not paying enough in lease fees, and they intend to pressure the SRIA to impose a moratorium on lease renewals.

    What does this mean for those of us who have leases?  Future real estate transactions could be impacted if the buyer is unsure as to whether reasonably priced financing can be obtained.  At least one lending institution requires the full 99 years remaining on a leasehold to provide loans. Others have more than thirty year requirements. A moratorium will very likely stall all real estate transactions.  We oppose this effort to squeeze more money out of the beach by holding our leases hostage.  

    Fee Simple
    The final blow to our efforts came from Save Pensacola Beach.  As we've stated many times before, this group is not really focused on preventing development or loss of public access.  It appears that their only goal is to ensure that there is no possibility of leaseholders gaining title to the properties for which they pay taxes. 

    They insist that the County Commission enact an ordinance based on the non-binding referendum. They provided a draft ordinance attempting to bind current and future County Commission boards from  ever allowing title.  Commissioner Bender is working with them to draft an ordinance that will prevent the Commission from endorsing fee simple ownership.  This comes as a surprise since Commissioner Bender stated that he supported fee simple for those who wanted it during his campaign.  

    Pensacola Beach Advocates will not support this ordinance. Anyone who wants to have the opportunity to own their homes should show up at the SRIA and County Commission meetings and be heard!

    The real solution to preventing development and loss of public access is to lock the building cap at current levels. We had hoped to be working with our new commissioner to draft such a resolution. This cap would truly save our beach, but apparently preventing title is more important right now. 

  • 12/06/2018 8:40 PM | Anonymous
    Tonight's Spring Break Meeting brought together the SRIA, Sheriff's Office, DMO, Beach Chamber of Commerce, residents and rental management companies.  After discussing what everyone would like to see happen, all agreed that the first, and possibly most important, step is put together a clear welcome message for potential visitors discussing our expectations of them during their stay.  A committee was formed to develop this message and they will be meeting soon to ensure we get in front of Spring Breakers ASAP. Here's a copy of the presentation from the meeting.

    Spring Break 2019.pdf

© 2024 Pensacola Beach Advocates

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software