By GARETT VALCOURT
The long-running legal battle over the Lake Cassidy Boat Ramp took another turn as the Holmes County Board of County Commissioners (HCBOCC) moved forward with a $300,000 land purchase, despite concerns over budget overruns and lingering uncertainties about the land’s exact boundaries. The Board voted 3-2 with Commissioners Newsom and Erickson opposing the deal. The decision, coming after more than a decade of legal wrangling, has been met with both scrutiny and frustration, particularly regarding the county’s financial constraints and the lack of clarity surrounding the surveyed property lines.
The discussion was spearheaded by Kayla Platt, the attorney representing Holmes County in the Lake Cassidy acquisition case. Platt explained that her firm was brought in by the county’s insurance provider in 2018 due to a lawsuit stemming from what she described as a “very poorly drafted lease.”
According to Platt, she presented a recommendation to the County Commission in the summer of 2024, following a mediated settlement agreement that had been approved by the board. This agreement allowed the county to purchase approximately 0.515 acres of land, including three boat landings and a swimming area that had been utilized by the public for decades for jet skiing, fishing, swimming, and other recreational activities.
During the legal battle, the county successfully secured ownership of the road leading to the property, officially designated as Lake Cassidy Lane, which extends from Line Road to the property’s boundary. Platt noted that this road was a crucial component in ensuring public access to the lake.
However, she emphasized that the county had agreed to the purchase of this half-acre of land to finally settle the matter once and for all. “The county agreed to this purchase to ‘put this to bed,’” she stated, reinforcing that this was a necessary step to comply with the mediated settlement agreement.
Platt urged the commission to immediately adopt the purchase and sale agreement, stating that the court had already expressed its displeasure over the prolonged delay.
“The court also allegedly indicated that at the next conference on February 13, if we do not get this resolved and the parties cannot come to an agreement, he wants the county representative present and may enter sanctions,” Platt warned. “Whether that’s a fine against the county itself or the court determining what land we are entitled to—potentially less than what we have today.”
However, the discussion quickly shifted to concerns over the property survey and the use of taxpayer funds.Commissioner Brandon Newsom was the first to voice his concerns, directing his questions to Chairman Earl Stafford.
“Where are the survey lines? Have you seen them?” Newsom asked.
Stafford responded candidly: “No, I didn’t see them after they resurveyed them.” He explained that while he had been present when the original survey was being conducted, he had not reviewed the final adjustments.
“Now, we walked the lines when the surveyor was out there shooting the lines—about six feet or so off the wall,”Stafford added. He acknowledged that there had been concerns about whether the road was wide enough for boats and trailers to safely enter and exit the area. However, he reassured the board that the Smith family, the property owners, had agreed to extend the area slightly to accommodate the swimming area.
Newsom, however, remained skeptical. “I went out there today, and I could not distinguish the marks that we are talking about,” he stated. “That’s my only question. If we are going to spend all this money, I want us all to be on the same page regarding exactly what we are purchasing.”
He further emphasized the significance of the deal, noting that “this is essentially the largest purchase Holmes County has ever made for a half-acre of land, and we are using taxpayer dollars to do it.” He clarified that while the county had not initiated the situation, it was now responsible for resolving it.
Platt responded to concerns over cost, stating that the county could face far greater expenses if it pursued eminent domain.
“At minimum, the eminent domain value is half a million dollars, plus attorney fees and the appraisal,” Platt explained. “So even if we waive this purchase, we are still looking at a million dollars.”
Commissioner Clint Erickson raised additional concerns about the property’s usability and liability.
“Let me ask this: I see some pines and trees along the road. We cannot make any improvements unless we purchase additional land, correct?” Erickson inquired.
He further questioned the county’s responsibility in maintaining the area, particularly regarding potential hazards. “There are already trees along that embankment that are ready to fall over. If they do, are we liable for that, even though we cannot legally maintain that area?”
Public Works Director David Corbin responded, acknowledging the legal ambiguity. “I do believe that’s a legal question,” Corbin said. “But I do believe we are liable for what happens along that road up to the property.”
As discussions continued, Newsom reiterated his frustrations, pointing out that the terms of the agreement had recently changed, yet the board had not voted on these revisions.
“This can still be changed, and we don’t have clearly defined terms because, apparently, we are still in negotiations,” Newsom stated. “These changes were just put in the other day, and we haven’t even voted on them yet.”
Staff Report 