City of Pensacola
INDISCRIMINATE REVENUE GENERATION
This report provides an evidence-based examination of the City of Pensacola’s practices concerning property rights, code enforcement, and public records transparency, outlining a series of alleged knowing and willful acts of malfeasance by and through its Parks & Recreation and Public Works & Engineering Departments and specific named officials.
To fully comprehend the matters detailed herein, it is strategically important to first understand the City’s historical approach to tree ordinance enforcement in relation to the City of Pensacola’s Land Development Code (“LDC”) - Chapter 12-6 - Tree / Landscape Regulations.
Darlington Oak (Quercus hemisphaerica)
For many years, the City of Pensacola engaged in a practice of fining residents and businesses for the removal and pruning of trees broadly classified as Live Oaks (Quercus virginiana, and/or Laurel Oaks (Quercus laurifolia). A critical turning point occurred in early 2022, when a Board-Certified Master Arborist hired by the City made a significant discovery.
The arborist identified that the Darlington Oak (Quercus hemisphaerica), one of the most numerous oak species within the City, was not listed as a protected tree under the City’s LDC. The arborist stated that the Darlington Oak “is the most numerous oak species in the city.”
This discovery strongly suggests that prior fines and mitigation fees assessed for the removal of Darlington Oaks had been imposed without explicit authorization in the City’s own LDC.
In response, the City of Pensacola Planning Board, on September 13, 2022, approved a measure to add the Darlington Oak to the LDC’s protected tree list.
The Pensacola City Council subsequently ratified this amendment by unanimous vote on October 13, 2022.
Available records indicate that this legislative action occurred without contemporaneous public discussion regarding prior enforcement actions or previously assessed fines.
Pensacola City Council Meeting October 13, 2022 - Items 7 & 8
This approach foreclosed any formal public process for identifying or reimbursing citizens who may have been subjected to fines imposed without a basis in the City’s own code.
This episode provides critical context for the City’s subsequent litigation involving the Vickery family.
THE VICKERY FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Vickery Family
Larry and Ellen Vickery were a married, retired couple who acquired an unusually small, previously developed residential lot of record located at 605 North Spring Street, Pensacola, Florida 32501, within the North Hill neighborhood, for the purpose of constructing their “final home.”
A “lot of record” is a legally recognized parcel created and recorded prior to the adoption of modern zoning and subdivision standards. Such parcels retain certain development rights even when they do not conform to current dimensional requirements, including reduced setback allowances, most notably at the rear of the property.
The dispute centered on a Heritage Live Oak located at the northwest rear corner of the lot. Accordingly, with the reduced setbacks within the lot of record in relation to the construction of the home, the proximity of the home and tree would be very close.
The Vickerys retained a certified arborist who conducted a risk assessment of the tree. The arborist’s report documented severe structural defects, including included bark, a substantial internal cavity probed to a depth of approximately 24 inches, and visible fungal growth. Based on these findings, the arborist concluded that the tree posed a risk to persons and property and recommended that “the tree be removed prior to any land development activities.”
The Vickerys sought to proceed pursuant to Florida Statute § 163.045 (2019).which expressly permits a residential property owner to remove a tree upon obtaining documentation from a certified arborist stating that the tree presents a danger.
CITY LITIGATION & APPEAL
City of Pensacola v. Vickery
On July 22, 2019, the City of Pensacola initiated litigation against the Vickerys, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent removal of the tree. The City asserted that its local regulatory scheme superseded Florida Statute § 163.045.
Declaratory Judgment Action July 22, 2019
The City prevailed at the trial court level in proceedings presided over by then-Jeffrey L. Burns. Judge Burns unexpectedly resigned from his position in January 2021. No inference is asserted regarding the timing of that resignation
The Vickerys appealed, resulting in the decision Vickery v. City of Pensacola, 342 So.3d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022). The First District Court of Appeal issued a landmark ruling establishing significant precedent for residential property owners in Florida.
The court held that:
- Florida Statute § 163.045 unambiguously authorizes a residential property owner to remove a tree upon receipt of proper documentation from a certified arborist;
- Local governments may not challenge the sufficiency or credibility of that documentation;
- Conflicting local ordinances are preempted by state law; and
- The statute applies to residential property regardless of occupancy status.
During and throughout litigation, Kyle Kopytchak served as a longstanding member of the City of Pensacola’s Environmental Advisory Board. Kopytchak was nominated to the Board by then-Council Members Brian Spencer and Sherri Myers in recognition of efforts to prevent Gulf Power from butchering the 12th Avenue Tree Tunnel during powerline pruning procedures. In that capacity, Kopytchak was a consistent and committed advocate for trees. However, he was vocal in advising the Environmental Advisory Board of strong opposition to the City’s actions, which he viewed as an improper infringement on the civil rights of property owners.
Pensacola considers appealing ruling North Hill heritage live oak case
Despite this definitive ruling, the City continued litigation at taxpayer expense by filing a Motion for Rehearing, Motion for Clarification, Motion for Rehearing En Banc, and Motion for Certification of Questions of Great Public Importance.
On June 22, 2022, the First District Court of Appeal denied all of the city's motions.
The City ultimately reimbursed the Vickerys for all litigation expenses, including attorneys’ fees. The Vickerys later sold the property and chose not to reside in the Pensacola city limits. Mrs. Ellen Vickery has since passed away.
KOPYTCHAK SEARCH & CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATION
Warrantless Inspection of the Kopytchak Property
On September 10, 2025, City Arborist Chase Crawford entered and inspected private property located at 3817 North 12th Avenue without a warrant, without owner consent, and without documented lawful authority. His presence and movements across the property were captured by multiple surveillance cameras.
When contacted by the property owner, Kyle Kopytchak, Mr. Crawford stated that he was acting on a complaint from an individual whose identity he “could not recall.” When asked to identify the legal authority permitting the inspection, Mr. Crawford terminated the call.
Chase Crawford’s actions fail both administrative inspection standards (Camara), and statutory enforcement prerequisites (§162.21).
Florida Statute 162.21(3)(b)expressly prohibits a code enforcement officer from initiating an investigation based upon an anonymous complaint and requires that a complainant provide both name and address prior to enforcement activity.
ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSE & PUBLIC RECORDS OBSTRUCTION
Condoning Unlawful Conduct at the Administrative Level
Rather than initiating and communicating corrective action, City administration defended Mr. Crawford’s conduct.
In a September 19, 2025 email, Interim City Administrator Amy S. Miller stated that the inspection originated from “an anonymous call,” asserting that caller information was not releasable as a public record.
This explanation conflicts with the plain language of Florida Statute § 162.21(3)(b) and does not supply lawful authority for a warrantless inspection.
Prior to the inspection, on January 31, 2025, the Mayor formally designated the City Arborist as a Code Enforcement Officer. The designation memorandum expressly referenced the statutory prohibition on anonymous-complaint-initiated investigations.
Memorandum of Designation of City Arborist as Code Enforcement Officer
City Arborist Inspection Guidance Memo
Code of City of Pensacola Ch. 13-2-2 & 13-3-1
Following the illegal search of his property, Kopytchak filed Public Records Request (PRR-2025-649). The request sought all records identifying the complainant who allegedly prompted City Arborist Chase Crawford's investigation. The City's official response was to complete the request as "non-responsive," implying no such records existed.
This official response stands in stark contradiction to Interim City Administrator Amy Miller's later email, in which she explicitly stated the cause of the investigation was an "anonymous call." This inconsistency is clear evidence of bad-faith engagement with the public records process. If the basis for the investigation was known to be an "anonymous call," the City had a duty to state that in its response. Instead, it provided a "non-responsive" determination, which served to conceal the nature of the investigation's origin. This contradiction constitutes prima facie evidence of bad-faith compliance with Chapter 119.
Further evidence of the City's evasive tactics can be found in its response to subsequent requests. The Public Records office requested that the citizen provide a "Date Range" and "Search Terms" for information—specifically, the identity of the complainant. This is a classic bureaucratic diversion. The City feigned ignorance, demanding the citizen provide information that its own employee, Mr. Crawford, was uniquely positioned to know. This tactic unlawfully shifts the burden of record retrieval from the agency to the citizen, creating a deliberate obstacle to transparency.
On September 12, 2025, Kopytchak contacted Mayor Reeves directly. Kopytchak stated succinctly that his intent was not to seek attention through social media or to inflame the issue, but rather to request an investigation into the alleged illegal search of his property, to understand what corrective measures would be taken, and to ensure appropriate training for Chase Crawford. Mayor Reeves assured Kopytchak that he would address the matter and stated that he would “get back with you.”
In this internal correspondence from Public Records Coordinator Markeitta Graham, dated September 17, 2025, it was admitted to having and withholding the requested records sought.
With no response from the City, as Kopytchak continued to press for answers, the City's administration moved to control the flow of information. An internal email from Amy Miller reveals a clear directive to her staff:
“I do not believe there is any benefit to continue to engage with him on this matter.”
Miller email to Reeves, September 19, 2025, per PRR
Another example is an email Amy Miller sent out on October 3, 2025, with DC Reeves copied, stating "There are not any records subject to release under public records laws that are responsive to his request. Some of the things he's asked for are exempt from release or are not a public record per the definition of public record, and some of the things he's asked for simply don't exist.”
A Systemic Pattern of Public Records Obstruction
Florida's Public Records Act, codified in Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes, is one of the most expansive in the nation. It is a cornerstone of open government, guaranteeing the right of every citizen to inspect and copy public records to ensure transparency and hold public officials accountable. An agency's compliance with this law is not optional. The City of Pensacola's handling of public records requests related to the unlawful search of the Kopytchak property reveals a deliberate strategy to conceal information, mislead citizens, and evade responsibility in direct contravention of its statutory duties.
Ultimately, the City's stonewalling forced Kopytchak to take the significant step of filing a formal "Notice of Intent to File Suit for Refusal to Release Public Records." This is a legal precursor to litigation and a measure that should only be necessary when a government entity willfully and unlawfully refuses to comply with its obligations under the Public Records Act.
On October 3, 2024, Amy Miller directed that all communications with Mr. Kopytchak should be routed exclusively through the City Attorney’s Office.
This maneuver is a common tactic used to shield communications under the veil of attorney-client privilege, effectively transforming a public records process into a pre-litigation defense strategy at the expense of public transparency. The City's process was further plagued by incompetence or deliberate obstruction, as evidenced by the "inadvertent release of the incorrect call log," a fact noted in Mr. Kopytchak's subsequent correspondence with the City Attorney's office.
On October 8, 2025, Assistant City Attorney Grace Parola admitted that the City had "inadvertently released the wrong call log screenshot" and finally produced the correct record, which showed Chase Crawford taking a call while on Kopytchak’s property.
FINANCIAL IMPACT & SALARIED OFFICIALS
Financial Impact on Pensacola Taxpayers
The legal costs, administrative time, and diversion of public resources described herein represent a tangible financial burden borne by the residents and businesses of Pensacola. These costs extend beyond direct litigation expenses to include staff time, administrative overhead, and opportunity costs associated with defending actions later determined to be unlawful or improper.
The following City of Pensacola employees were directly involved in the matters described above. The combined annual salaries of these officials total approximately $1.9 million in publicly funded compensation.
|
Name |
Position |
Salary |
|
Mayor |
$134,014.40 |
|
|
City Attorney |
$259,916.80 |
|
|
City Administrator |
$214,281.60 |
|
|
Interim City Administrator |
$205,337.60 |
|
|
Associate City Administrator for Strategic Initiatives |
$164,819.20 |
|
|
Director, Public Works and Engineering |
$148,657.60 |
|
|
Deputy City Attorney |
$137,904.00 |
|
|
Street and Traffic Operations Division Manager |
$117,624.00 |
|
|
Assistant City Attorney |
$96,844.80 |
|
|
Policy & Legislative Affairs Officer |
$79,310.40 |
|
|
Legal Services Administrator |
$77,396.80 |
|
|
Chase Crawford |
City Arborist |
$68,848.00 |
|
Public Records Coordinator |
$68,827.20 |
|
|
Senior Legal Assistant |
$65,020.80 |
Notwithstanding this assurance, no meaningful follow-up occurred. This failure reflects either a lack of effective leadership on the part of Mayor Reeves or a breakdown in administrative oversight under Amy Miller, who was promoted to Interim City Administrator following her tenure as Director of the Port of Pensacola. In either case, the matter was not managed in a “reasonable way to not get into a pissing match over this,” resulting instead in unnecessary escalation rather than a measured and constructive resolution. The one entity that appears to have benefited, however, is the Port of Pensacola.
PATTERN OF CODE ENFORCEMENT ABUSE
Evidence of a Broader Pattern of Code Enforcement Abuse
Subsequent public records disclosures indicate that Mr. Crawford’s conduct was not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern of conduct raising serious concerns regarding abuse of authority and non-compliance with controlling law.
Available documentation indicates that Mr. Crawford:
- Provided inaccurate or misleading information to City staff and legal counsel;
- Conducted warrantless inspections of multiple private properties;
- Misapplied mitigation fee calculations;
- Increased penalty amounts without documented justification;
- Issued notices of violation as a pretext to obtain information;
- Targeted specific properties and businesses; and
- Challenged the sufficiency of certified arborist reports in contravention of Vickery v. City of Pensacola.
This pattern is documented across multiple properties, as Chase Crawford sent out over $80,000 in fines for violations, including but not limited to the following:
7021 Tippin Ave – NOTICE OF CITY CODE VIOLATION = $14,425.00
Altering the Notice of Violation; Intentionally mis-dating the violation; Providing false information to the homeowner and the City Attorney; Misapplying mitigation fees; Challenging the sufficiency of an arborist report in defiance of the Vickery precedent.
Email from Crawford to attorney Goldsmith advising her that the arborist report provided the homeowner “backdated” the report as it’s “not uncommon for them.”
Email from Crawford to homeowner challenging the sufficiency of the arborist report.
6311 Heart Pine Dr. - NOTICE OF CITY CODE VIOLATION = $4,325.00
Illegal search of property; Warrantless Notice; Misapplying mitigation fees; Violations of Public Records Laws.
225 W. Gonzales St. - NOTICE OF CITY CODE VIOLATION = $6,325.00
Illegal search of property; Warrantless Notice; Misapplying mitigation fees.
721 W Zarragossa St. - NOTICE OF CITY CODE VIOLATION = $7,925.00
Altering penalty fees; Misapplying mitigation fees; Challenging the sufficiency of an arborist report.
The actions of this employee do not exist in a vacuum; they reflect a failure of oversight and a culture of non-compliance that extends to the highest levels of city administration.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK & AUTHORITIES
Applicable Legal Framework (First and Foremost – CONSULT AN ATTORNEY)
The actions described herein implicate multiple statutory and constitutional protections designed to safeguard property rights, due process, and governmental transparency.
Key Authorities
- Florida Statute § 163.045 — Prohibits local governments from requiring permits, fees, or approvals for tree removal on residential property when supported by documentation from a certified arborist and does not authorize local governments to challenge the sufficiency of such documentation.
- Florida Statute § 162.21(3)(b) — Prohibits code enforcement investigations initiated by anonymous complaints.
- Florida Statutes, Chapter 119 — Florida Public Records Act; mandates prompt and good-faith disclosure of public records.
- Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 12, Florida Constitution — Protect against unreasonable searches and seizures.
- Florida Statute § 933.20 — Governs inspection warrants.
- Vickery v. City of Pensacola, 342 So. 3d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022).
- Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967)
- City of Jacksonville v. Horn, 496 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
- State v. Morsman, 394 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1981).
Related or Unrelated?
Notably, the “Boots for Matt Berry” Park Rental Agreement—submitted by an anonymous individual and notarized by Bradley Davis, Parks & Recreation City Events Coordinator—identified the organization as a 501(c)(3) on its permit paperwork. However, the application did not include an IRS determination letter or an EIN. The identity of the individual applicant was redacted pursuant to an exemption under Florida Public Records statutes.
Questions:
· Is Boots for Matt Berry an actual 501(c)(3)?
· Is the applicant tied to the claim of the 501(c)(3) real?
· Is the applicant a victim of F.S. 741.4651 Stalking for a legal exemption?
· Has the Attorney General review that Mayor Reeves stated they were waiting on been provided?
· Or is this continued manipulation involving Parks and Recreation and the City’s Public Records process?
CITIZEN GUIDANCE & CONCLUSION
Citizen Guidance: Protecting Property and Constitutional Rights
- Document All Interactions
Insist upon written communications. Preserve emails, notices, photographs, and video recordings. Surveillance footage can provide objective evidence of governmental action. - Know and Assert Your Rights
Absent consent or a warrant, citizens are not required to permit entry onto private property. Politely but firmly deny unlawful access. - Use the Public Records Act Promptly
Immediately submit written public records requests for all complaints, communications, photographs, and internal notes related to enforcement actions. - Escalate When Necessary
Florida law authorizes civil enforcement when agencies unlawfully withhold records. Formal notices of intent to sue can prompt corrective action and compliance.
The detailed record demonstrates repeated departures from statutory mandates, constitutional safeguards, and binding appellate precedent. Transparency, accountability, and adherence to the rule of law are not optional functions of municipal government. Informed citizens who understand their rights and insist upon lawful conduct remain the most effective safeguard against governmental overreach.