If you wish to speak to any item on the agenda or during the public comment portion of the meeting, please fill out a speaker card. Each person addressing the board shall have three minutes to complete his or her comments on each agenda item for which he or she has filled out a card. The chair has the
discretion to determine or alter the time limits on any agenda item. The board of county commissioners requests that speakers appearing under the public comment section of the agenda limit their comments or presentations to matters relating to county business that are within the board's control,
authority, and jurisdiction. Uh please stand for the invocation. Uh today the invitation will be given by Robbie Adel. Is Robbie here? I don't think he's here.
Okay, we'll have a moment of silence. >> Commissioner Delaney, would you lead us in the pledge? I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under
God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, first order of business is uh minutes for approval. November 6th zoning meeting and December 11th zoning
meeting. >> So moved. >> There's a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Motion second. All in favor say I. >> I. Motion carries unanimously. >> Okay. Item uh E1 resolution National Invasive
Species Awareness Week District Three. >> Thank you, Mr. chair. Um, could I have uh anybody who is here from the Palm Bay Sustainability Board, Elizabeth Blackford and Doug Hook, thanks for coming. Whereas invasive species are among Bvard
County's most costly threats to natural ecosystems. And whereas invasive species management is an imperative field of study and education opportunity for Bvard County's recreationists, land managers, and water management. And whereas recreation, farming, fishing,
and natural tourism have been of vital importance to Bard County's history, growth, and financial health. Whereas invasive species species management improves the quality of life for all of Bard County's residents, and its importance should not go unnoticed.
Whereas Bvard County recognizes the need to manage invasive species to protect our ecosystems for future generations. Now therefore, be it resolved that the board of county commissioners of Bvard County, Florida, recognizes February 23rd through the 27th as National Invasive Species Week in Bvard County,
and invites all citizens to learn more about the impacts that invasive species have on our local environment and economy, as well as to learn the steps that can be taken to avoid and manage those impacts. done, ordered, and adopted in regular session this 21st day
of February, 2026. >> Your motion. >> So moved. >> I'll second. >> Motion in a second. Thank you. >> Uh all in favor say I. I. Motion carries unanimously. >> Doug Elizabeth, would you like to say anything?
>> Thank you, commissioners, for allowing us to speak today. Um, evasive invasive species can and do cause irreversible harm to our environment and our economy. Everyone knows the worst offenders. Brazilian peppers, Cuban tree frogs, air
potatoes, and Burmese pythons. But every day, hundreds of invasive species are sold at our big box stores to retail our through retailers to just average citizens who don't know that they're buying something bad. The good news is that the solution can start in our own backyards.
As we work to recover from this frost and the damage that has done to our plants, just be mindful of what you're purchasing and try to do some research and make sure that what you're buying is good for Florida's economy and environment. These plants are sold
legally every day at large retailers. Remember that native plants are actually far more likely to survive harsh conditions such as droughts and freezes because they are acclimated to Florida's environment. These can be purchased at many native plant nurseries that are found locally
here in Bvard County. Members of the Florida Native Plant Society and the Conradina chapter have provided some information that is available on the websites. Um there's also the Florida Invasive Species Council uh where you can find additional
information about invasive species. This will help you identify and avoid any common invasive species. And we hope that you look forward or look for those when you're out purchasing your next plant and ideally pick something native. Thank you, >> Jim. Do we have a picture?
>> Okie dokie. Okay, our next item, E2, resolution recognizing March 26 as Irish American Heritage Month. And I have Jim Garity. Did I pronounce that right, Jim? >> Exactly. Perfect. Thank you.
>> All right. Okay. Whereas in 1776, nearly 300,000 Irish nationals immigrated to the American colonies and played a critical role in America's war for independence, including eight signers of the Declaration of Independence that
were either of Irish descent or Irishborn. And whereas over the years, Irishameans have continually provided leadership and service to this nation's political, business, and religious establishments and shaped our nation's history with
their outstanding achievements. And whereas when the Irish arrived in Spanish Leaf Florida leaf Florida in 15 in the 1500s they worked as missionaries, mercharies, mercenary soldiers,
planners, traders, businessmen, doctors and administrators, but quickly became powerful political leaders with three Irish military officers becoming Spanish governors and Andrew Jackson serving as Florida's military governor following its acquisition by the United States.
And whereas Fort Richard author, an Irishborn priest from Limmerick, who was appointed parish priest for St. Eistine in 1597 and the ecclesiastical judge of La Florida established for the first public
school in America and opened it for both boys and girls of all races. And whereas uh 22 presidents have proudly proclaimed their Irish-American heritage. And whereas with the many valuable contributions of Irishameans to
our nation, it is only fitting that we celebrate their rich cultural heritage. Now therefore, be it resolved that the board of county commissioners of Bvoulevard County, Florida, does hereby recognize March as Irish American Heritage Month done order and adopted in
regular session uh this 24th day of February, 2026. >> I'll make a motion for you, sir. >> It's a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Motion carries unanimously. Jim, >> I'd like to thank you all for
recognizing the Irish and Irishamean people for their contributions to Florida. Thank you for the proclamation declaring March Irish Heritage Month. And don't forget our parade this s coming Saturday, March uh 14th at 10
a.m. in downtown Melbourne. Thank you very much. >> Fantastic. Thank you. We're going to do a quick picture. Stand right over there. >> Can I get you a stamp one, too? >> Okay, sure. >> I'll start with yours.
Thank you very much. Yes, sir. You have a great day. Thank you, Jim. And having Kennedy's and Mcnits in my heritage, I would I guess we all have a little bit of Irish in us, you know, if we live here.
Okay. Our next uh resolution will be resolution recognized March 26 as bleeding disorders awareness month. Samantha Samantha whereas bleeding disorders that include
hemophilia by Willy Brand's disease and rare bleeding disorders are characterized by blood not clotting normally due to the lack of clotting proteins also known as clotting factors and whereas in the United States more than 20,000
individuals live with hemophilia and rare bleeding disorders ers with 6,000 of them living in the state of Florida and one in 2% of the American population have von will disease and while treatment can help the
conditions are yet to be curable and whereas symptoms of bleeding disorders include unexplained and excessive bleeding, large and deep bruising, nose bleeds, and bleeding into joints, muscles, and soft tissues. And if someone has a bleeding disorder, they
may have extended bleeding with incidences such as injury or trauma, ministration, surgery or dental procedures. And whereas the bleeding disorder foundation of Florida, founded in 1996, supports the bleeding disorder community throughout the state. and its
mission is to improve uh the quality of life for people with the condition and their families through education, information, referral services, advocacy, support, and research. Now therefore, it be it resolved that the board of county commissioners of
Bvoulevard County, Florida, does hereby proclaim the month of March 2026 as bleeding disorder awareness month and encourages all citizens to increase their understanding and awareness of these serious bleeding disorders. Done ordered and adopted in regular session
this 24th day of February, 2026. And a motion to be in order. >> I'll make a motion. >> Second. >> Motion and second by Atkinson. All those in favor say I. I motion carries unanimously. >> Thank you, commissioners. Uh my name is
Samantha Nazario and I am a Melbourne resident in Bavar Bavar County voter. I am honored to accept this proclamation for bleeding disorder awareness month on behalf of my family, the bleeding disorder foundation of Florida, the National Bleeding Disorder Foundation and me familia de Sanre all over the
world. I am a mom who's walked this path for 20 years. When my son was diagnosed with Von Willilibbron's disease two decades ago, our family began a journey defined by resilience and the weight of a million silent worries. As our new
reality began, thank God the first thing our hematologist did was connect us with the foundation. The foundation is a huge part of mine and my family's lives. It has been the engine of our growth, educating us on how to advocate at local, federal, and national levels. By
providing us with consistent, cutting edge research, the foundation empowered us to stand up not just for ourselves, but for the 120 other rare bloodborne illnesses that rely on our collective voice. In this community, we found a true
family where color, political party, or background don't matter. provi proving that with the right proactive care and the right voice, we don't just survive, we thrive. But today, the ability to thrive is under threat. The cost of staying alive for
our community is staggering. Routine life-saving medication for one year costs between 300,000 and $500,000 annually. If complications arise, god forbid, such as a car accident or an injury while playing ball with their friends, the cost can instantly
skyrocket and pass over $1 million a year. This is why federal support is non-negotiable. Yet, we are witnessing a systematic dismantling. As of April 20, as of April 1st, 2025, the CDC was effectively gutted. experts
with decades of experience in bloodborne illnesses, the very experts who have protect us from threats like HIV and hepatitis, and many more are placed under administrative leave or fired. Nationwide, the CDC has lost a third of its workplace. Roughly 4,300 employees.
This mass exit leaves fewer experts to monitor the safety of our nation's entire blood supply. I'm going to repeat that again. This move threatens the safety of the entire nation's blood supply. Not just for the chronically ill, but for every citizen who may one
day need a life-saving transfusion. The financial impact on Florida is severe. Projections show that our state stands to lose over $50 million for public health infrastructure. Hemophilia treatment centers in Florida such as UF,
Miami, Arnold Palmer, Neores, St. Joseph's, St. Joseph's Hopkins All Children's are bracing for loss. This virtual surveillance this vital surveillance simultaneously the National Institute of Health grant terminated has
dis disrupted over 380 active clinical trials affecting over 74,000 participants. That's more people than live in Melbourne, including those right here in Florida at FAMU and UCF. The pressure is hitting a breaking point in our own backyard. I've
personally taken calls from families in Bvard and beyond who are terrified as they watch monthly marketplace premiums jump from $30 to $167 and beyond. For a young adult like my son starting their independent life, that $160 is well is a
wall. When you are managing a $300,000 a year condition, losing insurance is a direct threat to your survival. For 20 years, I fought for my son. Today, I'm fighting for the families who are being priced out of care that they need to live. This proclamation brings the
struggles out of the shadows, and I greatly appreciate you all for that. But our work is far from done. This is an ongoing real struggle for survival. Thank you for recognizing our for recognizing our community commissioners. Mr. Altman, thank you for your tireless
years of advocating with us, even on a national level. At the end of the day, we all have one thing in common. We all need our blood products to be safe. We all need affordable access to health care. And we all we need no American left uninsured.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. There's yours. Okay. Thank you so much for being here and bringing awareness to these very important issues. We have uh E4 presentation local option
gas tax authority and that is a district fund u request. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Do we have a a time frame for the presentation? >> Um I don't think so. What how much time do you >> I trimmed it down from the TPO presentation. So I'm hoping for about 10
minutes. >> That's great. If that works for >> Do you want me to just do the clock so you know >> I was going to joke around that I'm on the timer. So Thank you so much for coming today. I figured since we're talking about um you know funding today, this would be a
great opportunity and I really enjoyed your presentation um at the TPO and I was just um grateful that you were willing to share it with us today. Thanks. >> Absolutely. Thank you. Well, good morning commissioners. Um so I'm Travis Hills with KDson and Associates uh on behalf of the Space Coast TPO presenting
uh funding the future. As I mentioned, this presentation is an adaptation of what we presented a few weeks ago to the TACCAC and the board. So, a little bit more streamlined and focused on what you all uh will be uh uh wanting to hear about. So, as a brief introduction uh or a
brief agenda, I'll talk through a quick introduction about what the presentation is going to be covering and then really focusing in on the local revenue sources uh that are currently being used to fund transportation projects and then some additional revenue options that are in play.
So for the introduction, so as we all know, current revenues cannot keep pace with the infrastructure needs that we have. Um the TPO has a large backlog in their LRTP of unfunded and some funded uh roadway widening projects, a lot of intersection projects, a lot of projects
around the county that help mobility and safety for all the residents. So understanding what those existing sources of existing revenue are being levied um is essential for that long-term planning uh that's being done both at the MO level and the county level and the local municipality level.
So there are some opportunities to exi opportunities exist to leverage potential future funding and we'll talk through a few of those in this presentation today. So this is from the board strategic plan. Um so this is uh the number one priority uh for the Space Coast TPO
board uh which you all are a part of and it's expanding and leveraging regional and sustainable funding sources to increase priority project implementation. So making sure that those projects that are at the top of the list for Bvard County residents are getting implemented. They're getting constructed. So the problem, as we all
know, current gas tax revenue is not sustainable, has not been increased in a couple decades, and it's just not keeping up with what we need to to build these future projects. So the performance measure for the governing board uh is really to take an active role in uh exploring what those
different funding sources are to hopefully uh see if we can provide some additional uh money for these projects. So not all doom and gloom. I want to set the stage for kind of what's been done over the last 25 years in the county. Uh a lot of projects both ranging from
roadway widenings, a lot of interstate projects, new interchanges, all the way down to interchange uh intersection improvements and new multimmoal trail facilities. So you see that column on the left, I95 sixlane widening, US1 lane widening, Palm Bay Road, Barnes, and then the upcoming Ellis Road four-lane
widening. And then really what's unprecedented is uh five new interchanges constructed in the county over the last 20 25 years. You don't really see that type of growth, a lot of that investment in one county uh across the state.
And then also projects that have been funded uh with local funds, state funds, TPO funds are those kind of pre-phases that go in before construction. the design, the PD&E, project development environment phases, also some of those bridge projects that have been constructed, and then miscellaneous
projects that are funded, whether it be new alignments, uh the upcoming, uh traffic management center construction for the county or potentially hopefully a future intermoto rail station, uh which is a future project. So, I want to I want y'all to kind of keep this mind as I in mind as I
transition to the next slide that there's been over 1.1 billion probably closer to 1.5 to2 billion dollars invested in the county via all these different funding sources over the last 25 years. So, what does that mean moving forward?
So, looking at uh potentially the unfunded needs. So really that column that you see on the right hand side of the chart, we're looking at about $2.65 billion worth of roadway projects in the next uh that are that are currently in uh the latest LRTP, long-range
transportation plan for the Space Coast TPO. As you'll see where that red line comes across, we're projecting about 460 million in terms of revenue available to fund these projects, which is about 9 or 10% of the total funding needed for
these future projects. So, just stark contrast in terms of how much has previously been invested, the 1 to2 billion, moving forward over these next 20 years, we're only projecting about 460 million. So there's a lot of different ways uh
that we utilize different funding sources for those projects. Um so the federal funds that you see on the left, those filter down through the Space Coast TPO, get applied to the different project types that you see. There's also state funds. So these are administered by FDOT for the state roads in the county. And really where we're going to
focus in today's presentation is on those local funds. So the fuel taxes and road impact fees. So reviewing current local revenue sources. So getting into gas tax, these are the first two slides. Uh there's the constitutional gas tax. So this is a
2cent tax where 20% uh comes down to the county. It's collected statewide and distributed to each county based on uh population. Um it's about $1.5 million of revenue generated uh for the last uh fiscal year for this upcoming fiscal year projected. And then there's also an
80% portion of that 2% that the county doesn't directly see, but it goes toward bond repayment. So that 6.9 isn't necessarily a number that the county sees directly, but goes to those previous projects that have been funded through bonds. And then looking more locally at the
local option gas tax. So there's two different pieces of this right now currently being levied. The first is a 6 cent. So this is collected within the county, distributed to the county and the local municipalities based on interlocal agreement. This revenue uh generates a revenue a little bit over
$13 million per year. Uh and that's the projection for this upcoming year. And then there's also a local option gas tax. This is the 9th cent. And I'll I know you all are probably pretty familiar with this, but for folks that aren't, I have a table showing how this all lays out here in a few slides. But
there is an additional 9th cent that's only being levied for diesel fuel in the county. that's actually being levied statewide. Um, and that's about $2.2 million worth of revenue. And then the last that's being collected in the county is the county motor fuel tax. It's a 1-cent tax on uh gasoline and
diesel. And the revenue generated upcoming is about 3.4 million. So, just wanted to kind of sit on this slide for for a couple seconds and just show where Bard County is in terms of statewide gas taxes being levied. Uh so
there's currently 35 counties leveraging the max of 12 cents on the fuel taxes. Uh Bvard County is one of 11 that's only leveraging the minimum of 6 cents. So you know there is some uh money being left on the table in terms of those gas
taxes, those fuel taxes uh with BAR County being on the lower end of that spectrum when you look across the rest of the state. So moving on from gas taxes and the last current uh local revenue source are transportation impact fees. Uh so these are assessed uh whenever there's a new
development whether it's residential or commercial. Um by those different land uses. So the different land uses bring a different amount of money in for the county or the local municipalities. Impact fees are collected for everyone across the county for all the different municipalities and they're being distributed distributed based on
interlocal agreements. Uh the annual average for the county is a little bit over 10 million. Uh the fiscal year 24 balance was a little bit higher than that at 16 million. Uh the one key thing here the impact fees were last adjusted in 2001. So you look at the last 25 years of development and potentially how
much revenue uh could have been generated if those uh impact fees would have been adjusted. Um you know there's a little bit of discussion there. And then uh the cities uh adjust their own they can adjust their own yearly depending on what their different ordinances are. Uh Palm Bay spoke up
during the TACCAC. It looks like they update theirs annually or or at least look at it annually. So moving from current to additional revenue options. So the first being uh discretionary sales sir taxes. And I know you all have had a lot of budget workshops over the last few weeks. So
I'll keep this relatively brief. So I know y'all have talked about this quite a bit. Uh the the couple different um sales sir taxes that we were taking a look at is the charter county and regional transportation system sales sir tax uh this is up to 1% uh simple majority uh required for a referendum to
be held at the general election and uh going back to the presentation that Mark Bernath gave uh this could generate uh anywhere between 25 and $100 million uh for the county share and then a little bit higher than that when you factor in uh the locals as well local governments.
So then the second uh sales sir tax is the local government infrastructure sir tax. Uh so this is either one or half or 1%. Uh so currently this is where the save our Indian river lagoon program or the lagoon tax currently levies a half percent. Uh scheduled to expire later
this year. Uh so there was some discussion about whether you know that goes back on the ballot. That's part of this equation and whether or not we would want to modify this referendum um to include another half percent for infrastructure. And then you see the numbers at the bottom generating uh 37
million for the county and about 70 million 68 million total. So then local option gas taxes. So looking to explore those. Um so like I mentioned the table on the right shows that 1 to6 cent. That's what I talked about before that's currently being levied for gasoline and diesel. All of
the other orange boxes the 7th 8th 10th 11th and 12th are not being levied by the county. Those could be. And then the 9th cent is being levied for diesel only. So then you see the red box for uh not being levied for gasoline. Uh this could generate a little bit over $6
million for the county share annually and that's for the 5-cent. And then the 9th cent could be an additional 2.7 million annually as well. And then two other revenue sources that um could be discussed are mobility fees. So uh kind of it's an alternative to
transportation impact fees. requires a local mobility plan that identifies uh different multimodal networks and those priority projects. What this does gives a little bit greater flexibility to fund sidewalks, trails, transit, complete streets, a little bit different than just your traditional roadway widening or capacity projects. Uh the one thing
to note is that mobility fees would replace transportation impact fees. So you can't have them both be levied uh for the same jurisdiction. And then the last is a public ser uh services tax. And so this is also presented uh in Mark's presentation, but uh anywhere between a 1 and 10% tax levied by the
counties or municipalities on uh public uh different public services, electricity, natural gas. Um this could provide another revenue option, pretty sustainable. The only issue is that it would go into the general fund. So you would need to actually set aside those funds for uh transportation projects.
And then depending on what that tax percentage anywhere from three to $33 million annually depending on the rate. So in the last few slides here before I wrap up. So a big table with lots of numbers in it. Really what I want you to do is focus on the lower right hand
corner the 1.2 to$2.2 billion. Uh that's projected from the 2045 long range transportation plan. Th that's the potential revenue uh that could come into the county depending on how many of these different additional funding sources could be levied. Now, this is
looking at just the sales sir tax and the local option gas tax. This does not include uh mobility fees, public services tax um and doesn't include the charter uh county and regional sax as well. So, this number could be a little bit higher depending on which one of
those or combination uh come in. And then going back to the slide that I had before about the unfunded need and then looking at that previous table, the 1.3 to2.3 billion shortfall that we have could be closed with that additional
funding uh that that we were projecting from those additional revenue sources. And then my last slide. So the cost of an action uh I won't talk about each one of these in detail, but what we're seeing is these projects especially the widening projects becoming fewer and far
between. uh the costs are rising significantly especially from what we saw over the last five years with inflation and you see every bullet list here or every uh project that we have line itemed out inflation inflation increased co uh construction cost really
that's the theme that's the narrative uh we also have unfunded needs so Hollywood Boulevard Miko road those are two unfunded uh along with Malibar Road the widening uh the construction is not funded in the LRTP so with that that's the end of my presentation. Appreciate
y'all's time. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Did you have anything you would like to say? Any uh any questions? >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. It was very interesting. >> Okay. Next item is item uh F, the consent agenda. Do we have any items that we have uh request to remove off the consent? Do we have any cards? >> None for me. >> F6. >> If we can Sorry.
>> Can we please pull F6 for staff presentation? >> F6. Okay. All right. Uh any other Okay. U we will pull F6. So, a motion to
approve the consent agenda would be in order with the exception of F6. >> I'll make a motion. >> Second. >> There's a motion and second to approve the consent agenda with the exception of F6. All in favor say I. I. Motion carries unanimous. Thank you. Now we'll move to F6.
Acceptance and approval of the internal audit report internal audit status for FY 2026. Do we have any comments? Um, >> questions. >> We have Mark Bernath up here, public works director. This audit was an audit of our facilities management department. >> Okay.
>> Routine audit that has uh some findings and facts. Um, and you know, Mark can if you want Mark can explain a little bit more. >> Okay. Any other discussions, questions related to F6?
Okay. We have none. Um motion to be in order for approval. >> Oh, I'm I think that he's going to present. >> Oh, what is he going to >> if the board uh would like >> Oh, yes. Okay. All right.
>> So, uh commissioners, um we've had a number of problems uh with uh the things that were identified in the facilities audit uh that we identified a number of years ago. we've uh just had a challenge of being able to prioritize the
available funding. Uh so the um audit that uh took place uh you know reinforced some of the challenges that we were having um namely with our software um as well as uh being able to objectively
uh look at uh our buildings and our components and come up with a repeatable defendable uh facility condition assessment. And so all of these things started several years ago under my uh watch where um we first did an
efficiency review. Subsequently we've um we put together a solicitation and now we're under contract where we are working with a consult or with a contractor um a vendor to actually implement our u CMMS or computerized maintenance management software. So uh
we've identified a number of interimm measures uh as well as final measures but the final measure really is that we successfully implement our software uh along with u the vendor's assistance to um establish a facility condition
assessment program. >> Okay great >> chairman if I just have um some questions. Um so the internal audit notes on page 23 that um Bvard say that
Bvard County's um budget book includes limited metrics with little context for goals and or benchmarks. Um and then it gives some examples of some other counties that are doing it differently that have detailed metrics tied to targets. And I was wondering, have have
there been any um thoughts about possible changes for this year's um budget book to reflect that? >> So, uh at least from the public works standpoint, I would say uh no, the the
uh budget book is something that's prescribed by our budget office and our county manager. um and we provide some of the uh higher uh level uh metrics that we use. That does not necessarily mean that we're not working on our own
internally. In fact, as we uh discussed um during uh previous briefing, you know, one of the things that we are doing is working with the vendor to come up with uh best of breed metrics and ensuring that we are operating efficiently. Uh with the current
software that makes that very challenging. With this with the new software, we'll be able to better uh manage things like um you know, response times and closeout times and that types of thing, those types of things. Okay,
I really appreciate you guys um presenting this information because it just continues to tell the story of the the lack of funding that we have and the the vast and diverse need that we have in the county. Um,
basically this showed that you guys are doing everything you can with what you have, but that limits you all on what you can do because of funding, because of software that's needed and things like that. You guys are basically operating on what 30 40 year old
software. >> The software um somewhat dated. I don't know the exact uh age. Um SAP overall has been updated but we chose not to update the facilities module because we we just found that it was not um what we
needed for uh in order to move us uh forward. And so currently our facilities uh group is largely operating on paper and then uh imports it into SAP. >> Thank you so much. >> Interesting.
Okay. Do we have any other questions? Is there a motion for approval? >> Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to accept and approve the internal audit for 2026. >> Second. >> Motion and a second for F6. Um all those in favor say I. I
>> motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Our next item is G. Public comments. We have Sandra Sullivan. Good morning, Sandra Sullivan. So, Patrick Shores. Um, so I want to talk about we the people and listening to we
the people and um what I'm hearing here is uh more tax, more tax, more tax. And I want to talk about uh some issues that I've brought up uh numerous times. So number one would be
the conversation about uh transportation, right?$2.2 2 billion deficit last year uh which was the size of the anticipated budget at that time. So we've kicked the can down the road
for 25 years on impact fees. You went out um grateful to Katie Delaney bringing forward u to go out and do a feasibility study. Um, it's been nine months and I would hope that that comes
before you and it really should be on the agenda now when we're having this conversation about taxing us more because the developers are not paying their share and to put the county in
this kind of a fiscal crisis is deplorable. I also want to talk about um other tax issues. Uh so right now before legislation we have uh Tyler Soy doing
more tax exemptions for space. So space isn't paying their share here. Um and there's some corrections being made. I brought up some issues before and in addition they are making space tax
exempt on sales tax with a $6.2 million impact. But I don't see you guys talking about that. So when it comes to we the money PE and interests, you know, we don't talk about fairly taxing them. It's always to look to the people, the
we the people to tax us at higher rates. I want to talk about on FDOT on his presentation, he talked about how uh you know tax options on that which I do think we need to look at. But what he
didn't talk about is FDOT 64% of their budget goes to uh multimodal uh and a lot of that goes to space and I want to bring up that the federal government needs to pay for its own
infrastructure. Okay, so this was a a $10 million AFT grant that it says phase 2 feasibility study for Cape Canaveral Space Force Station military regional wastewater
plant for for the military. Why is $1.81 million of our taxpayers money going to fund their wastewater treatment plant when they don't pay any taxes? Why are our taxes paying for space? They need to
pay their fair share. We need to look at all revenue sources. Thank you. I don't think he's here. >> Yes, he is. >> Oh, he's here. Oh, okay. I didn't see him. >> And Sandra and I have not talked in a long time. So, this is a little bit ironic.
>> Do I I have some handouts? Do I Good morning, commissioners. My name is Chuck Sheridan. I live on Merit Island in District 2. I'm president of Protect, a not for-p profofit marine organization, marine research organization. I'm also a US uh marine
merchant marine coast guard cap uh captain uh and a retired general contractor. I'm here to bring awareness of the starship and super starship that were just approved by the FAA. 44 launches and 88
re-entries my plus the testing. My concerns are valid and if if we can fly a helicopter on Mars, we can certainly satisfy my concerns. Nothing I'm saying is intended to hinder the growth of the Kennedy Space Center. I
I've grew up here. All my friends are rocket scientists. It's vital to our community. I We depend on it. When I first heard President Kennedy's Rice University speech that we choose to go to the moon
in this century and other things, not because it's easy, but because it's hard. I always wondered what the other things were. And 68 years later today, I can tell you what what they are. The other things are
uh are as difficult as going to the moon. They're launching rockets on a basically a daily basis and maintaining an environment in its native natural primitive and pristine condition which is certainly not happening.
Reaching for the stars without without losing the ground we stand on. That is leadership. While while doing research uh for this, I found a quote from Warner von Burn. Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing. Are we
going backwards for convenience? Continuous improvements built this industry. It must guide us now. Uh this morning, I'm speaking specifically about the approval of the Starship and the Starship Heavy. The
suppression system uses approximately 180,000 gallons of water mixed with liquid with liquid nitrogen uh to increase the velocity of the water. And when you do that, when liquid nitrogen interacts with combustion, NO2
or nitric oxides are produced or and nitric acid. Um the modeling in the EIS shows that the local NO2 levels reaching up to 250 times the federal danger
limits. And that's not counting the other launches. That's just the one Starship uh the one launchpad. Communatively, those emissions equal annually roughly 5% of all the NO2
emissions countywide. If you were to take everything that that emitted burnt fuel in the county, they'd be 5% of it would be the uh the nitric acid nitric oxides. Um
let's talk about the trajectory. The sonic boom impact. The first stage returns with a sonic boom six times the magnitude of the Falcon sonic boom, >> but the second stage circles the Earth. >> I I think we've reached your limit. >> Okay, I've only a little bit.
>> How much more time do you need? >> Maybe 40 seconds. >> Okay, go ahead. >> I'll talk real fast. All right. >> The the the second stage circles the Earth and returns the atmosphere, returning Cape Canaveral from the Pacific. The second sonic boom is predicted to last between 15 minutes up
to an hour. This is not a single crack in the sky. It's a prolonged rolling pressure wave like standing in front of a battleship cannon firing a rap repeatedly. You hear the boom. You hear the sound and then you're struck with waves of air pressure a magnitude of 10
louder than the first stage. I've I I've attached a copy of the FAA record of approval. The numbers that are included in there for the air pressure and noise levels are weighted, which means they've uh they're not accurate to what the real
numbers are. They're based on what the sound levels are in the county over a 24-hour period and then what the sound levels would be added by the sonic boom. Uh the sound waves in the launch can be
heard for 380 mile radius of the launch pad. The sonic booms will be as far north as Newfoundland and as far south as Peru. And in the water the propagation extends approximately >> 400 miles up and down the coast and
1,200 miles out the sea. Sound levels significantly are faster in water than they are in air. There's no detailed reef impact studies that show the EIS evaluating repeatedly high energy sonic propagation through the marine systems.
And with each launch, uh we'll have closures of three and a half hours. Uh and they anticipate that there'll be a 15 to 20% loss of productivity countywide. Countywide.
Uh the visitor center, beaches, wildlife sanctuaries are projected to be closed 288 days a year uh with a loss of 280 to $480,000 that affects our tourism, businesses, and taxes. Now, combined with the beach
line expansion, multiple new bridges, new cruise terminal, bright line expansion, >> that was a really long 40 seconds. How much more do we have? all occurring simultaneously. At what point does a communive dis disruption become economically disabling?
>> So what you've done really well here, you've given us a phenomenal report >> at a lot of your own expense. I I will commit to really read through this and if >> if you if you read through the um the EIS uh
there is not one place and Mr. Richardson will get a kick out of this. There's not one state, one place in the 52 pages where it says that they shall do this. Says it may do it. It might cause harm. It might not. It certainly
will impact our uh sound sensitive lands areas, but we don't know how much. So >> this this um report the first three pages are your presentations. >> Yes. And there's some spelling errors because I did that at 5 this morning. >> Okay. Um, so that's helpful. Did you
>> But there's a white paper that I wrote that I've sent out for peer review that's attached to it. >> Okay, good. >> And uh then the the entire uh the >> Okay. >> the study they did before they sent out the one with all the pretty pictures on it.
>> There's the white paper. I see. Um Okay. This has been approved, hasn't it? >> Pardon me. >> This was approved. >> It was approved on the 29th of January. >> Yeah. And then uh the 30th they put out the one with all the blue pictures and
pretty things and took out a a lot of the math. But if you read through it, >> I mean I I was amazed how they semantically made every there there's not one item in there that meets any guidelines. >> Okay. >> So, well, thank you for bringing this to
our attention. Any other questions we have related to this? >> Oh, we have another car. That's another arm. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Okay, I think that concludes that portion of the public uh comments. We
will move on to H1 stuff. Good morning again, commissioners. Uh this is a petition of AK to portion of a public utility easement known as Riviera Isles. Uh this is on Merit Island. The uh petitioner has an existing pool and
screen enclosure and while attempting to permit the new screen enclosure. It was determined by a boundary survey that they are uh encroaching in our easement. Um this would vacate uh 5T of the easement. We've had no uh issues in
reviewing it with Road and Bridge and the utility companies. After assuming this is approved, they still need a variance um to u move forward. >> This um chairman, this is my on my district and I'd like a motion to approve. Second. >> Second.
>> Motion second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Motion carries unanimously. >> Okay. Next item, H2. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, the purpose of this hearing is for the board to consider a settlement agreement to resolve alleged claims under the Bert
Harris Act relating to property on Merit Island. The dispute that is the subject of this agreement involves a roughly 110 acre parcel along the Indian River on North Merit Island owned by Merit Island Development LLC, which was formerly
Watersark Development Enterprises. Back in 2006, Watersmark purchased the 110 acre property for 10 million. At the time Watersmark purchased the property, the future land use map designation was residential 1, one unit per acre. The
zoning designation was EU2 and the property was subject to a 1997 binding development plan that limited total development on the property to no more than 130 units. From 2006 through 2009, Watersmark sought development approvals
from the county and the St. John's River Water Management District for a proposed 84 lot subdivision on the property. As we all know, you know, around 2009, we had the the market crash and uh they stopped for some time uh pursuing those plans. Meanwhile, Bvard County had
undertaken a small area study regarding land uses and densities in North Merit Island. And in 2009, the county adopted ordinance number 0921 amending the comp plan. Among other things, the plan amendments changed the future land use map designation for the Waters Mark
property from residential one to residential one to 2.5. So it went from one unit per acre to one unit to 2 and 12 acres. Um, subsequently in 2012, Watersmark came back and sought to renew their 84
unit subdivision application um and learned from the county at that time that the future land use map had been amended and um were informed that under the current future land use map at the time they would be able to develop a maximum of 38 lots, which was a
reduction of 46 lots over their submitted 84 lot subdivision plans. Um, in September of 2014, Watersmark filed a claim under the Burj J. Harris Private Property Rights Protection Act against the county. In that litigation, Watersmark contends that ordinance 0921
reduced the development potential of the property from the proposed 84 lot subdivision to the 38 lot maximum, again a difference of 46 lots. In an October 23, 2013 pre-suit notice, Watersmark submitted appraisals and alleged a resulting reduction in value of the
property from 4.3 million to 1.7 million. Their lawsuit seeks 2 and a.5 million in compensation together with over a decade of accumulated attorneys fees, expert fees, cost, and prejudgment interest. This case has been heavily litigated. It's already resulted in two appeals decided by the fifth district
court of appeal. Um after the last appeal it was sent back down to the circuit court and in December we had a bench trial in the case on the issue of liability under the Harris act. At the end of the trial the circuit court judge requested that the parties submit written closing arguments. U settlement
discussions followed and the court has granted an extension of time on the closing arguments to allow us to reach this proposed agreement. If we do not settle and if the court were to find liability following any appeals, we would potentially have a another trial, a jury trial on waters mark alleged
damages. That's how u the Harris Act works. It's sort of a bifurcated trial process. Separate and apart from the litigation, the county has long sought to obtain a storm water outfall in the vicinity of the waters property to facilitate an important flood mitigation project in
North Merit Island. The project will benefit generally the area west of North Courtney Parkway from West Chrysafully Road on the north end to just past Portraer Road on the south. The proposed settlement agreement provides for the county to acquire approximately 25 acres
of the waters mark 110 acre property along its southern edge going from uh West Chrysophole and actually east of West Chrysafoi just south of a fine Florida inland navigation district site that's located there out to the river giving us that needed storm water
outfall. It would also allow for storm water treatment ponds to reduce pollution discharge into the Indian River. So, the agreement uh provides for 25 acres there. It also provides for the county to acquire a 60- foot wide easement on the northern portion of the property to construct an additional
underground pipe storm water outfall that will likely be uh likely coincide with the entrance to the neighborhood subdivision. Uh Waters also owns separately a 120 acre parcel generally southeast of the riverfront property. It's on the north side of East Hall
Road, uh, largely wetlands. Under the proposed settlement agreement, Waters Mark will remove all non-native invasive plants and junk and debris from that Hall Road parcel and comply with regulatory mitigation permit requirements. Once that's all accomplished, Waters Mark will then
convey the 120 acre Hall Road parcel to the county. The Hall Road parcel will be stripped of all development potential, never be developed. It'll be maintained by the EEL program for preservation and conservation and continue to provide important storm water storage for the area and mitigate against future flood
risk. That parcel is generally in the area we had a zoning meeting um a few weeks ago where you saw a lot of residents of North Merit Island concerned about flooding and conditions in that area of North Merit Island near that Hall Road parcel. Bvard County will
also acquire a little over two acres located on a small peninsul uh horn on the river alongside the 110 acre property. That horn parcel will be maintained by the eel program for preservation and conservation with possible potential for recreation uses
if access allows. So as part of the agreement, the county uh gets an easement and two storm water outfalls and a total of about 147 acres of property. In consideration of these land conveyances and agreements, Bvard County will pay Waters Mark a total of $3
million with the allocation noted in your fiscal impact statement and the agenda. It's roughly 1.49 million total from Sorrel for storm water treatment. Um 588,000 from an FD grant for that West Chrysafoli road drainage improvement project. Uh there is a
change we had indicated in the agenda report up to 562,828 from the North Merit Island West Chrisy Church Street capital improvement program funds. Um that was an up to amount as we focused and and gotten a
number with the internal allocation. That number is likely to be or will be $442,828. uh number previously provided as a minimum amount from the EEL program for its acquisitions was listed as 360,000 in the agenda report that goes up to
480. The total of 3 million stays the same. Those are the two changes to the allocation among the funds. The settlement agreement obviously also provides for a release of all of Waters Mark's claims against the county. It' be a mutual release. uh their claims, including their alleged uh diminishment
in property value, prejudgment interest, fees, and costs, uh allegedly exceed $4 million. It will result in a resolution of the litigation subject of the circuit court's approval under the Harris Act. under this process we're we're going through. In addition to the parties
agreeing and the board approving the settlement agreement, the circuit court is going to have to hear the settlement agreement and determine that it's in the public interest for the settlement agreement to go forward. In consideration of that release and settlement of the lawsuit, Bvard County will restore the development potential
on the remainder of the Merit Island property, that 110 acre waterfront property, um from the reduced 38 units up to a total of 84 single family units consistent with the subdivision plans originally submitted by Watersmark in the early 2000s. uh that is still less
than the up to 130 units that was um contemplated under the binding development plan from the 90s. Bvard County will also allow Watersmart to develop a residential marina. Uh commercial use is prohibited including refueling. There will be a maximum of 42
slips that's dependent on the amount of uh shoreline. uh there's a formula used for that determination and depending on how waters mark u affects their subdivision that could change they're likely to achieve the 42 units but if they were to configure it differently
you there could be less than potentially that's all subject to all the normal regulatory agency requirements including our manity protection plan uh Florida department of environmental protection and army corps approval um other than marine a waters mark may develop only one community viewing pier
with no moing ings for boats and potentially single docks located with larger lots that are going to be north of the existing channel. So, at the very north end of the property, their subdivision plans initially contemplated two of those lots. That's going to reduce they're going to agree and put a
restriction on the property so they can't have any other individual lots. So, there won't be a proliferation of docks up and down the property. It's just going to be this one focused marina largely. Um settlement agreement further provides for Bvard County's extension of a
sanitary sewer force main terminating at or near the intersection of North Tropical Trail and Porture Road. That's going to have sufficient capacity to serve the up to 84 unit subdivision. The design for that sewer force main extension is underway in the utilities department and it's going to facilitate
planned septic to sewer conversion projects for the area. Um, in midFebru February, uh, natural resources staff and I met with leadership of the North Merit Island Homeowners Association, associate, uh, home homeowners association, I think most of their board
of directors was there. We discussed the settlement proposal. We answered questions at that meeting. The homeowners association board members generally expressed support for the proposal. I see at least Mary Hillberg here tonight um, or today. I'm sorry,
lost track of what meeting we're on. Um, and particularly they were supportive of getting those storm water outfalls for the important local flood mitigation project and the effect of preserving and conserving the 120 acre Hall Road parcel. So, uh, that's the description
of the item. I'm happy to answer any questions. It's a public hearing, so we should take any cards before any board action. >> Okay, we have one card. >> We have two cards. And I should say the attorney, I'm sorry, for Waters, Mark, Jeff Petty, is here as well as the
engineer for the proposed subdivision, um, Jake Wise is here as well, and I'm sure they'd be happy to answer questions the board may have if you have questions for them. >> Any questions of the attorney and the, uh, engineer? If some generate as a result of the card, we can ask them
later, but okay. Mary Uber Good morning everyone. I'm Mary Hillberg. I live in 3780 Sierra Drive in Merit Island. And um we did in fact have that meeting and it was a very productive one. While the North Mer
Allen community um generally prefers that property not be continually developed there because of all the obvious problems. Uh we're aware of the outcome of the efforts of uh regarding this particular area and we
were going to rely on the judgment of our county professionals in the legal and storm water and environmental areas for this effort. Thank you. >> Thank you. We have another card, Sandra Sullivan. So, um that sounds good
about having uh you know addressing some of the storm water issues. So, when life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Um what I want to add is a little context. Um in addition so uh after hurricane
Irma there was huge amount of flooding up there and uh there was a small area study done at that time as well that found that the north island should be changed to from one unit per acre to one unit per two and a half acres.
Unfortunately there was some um lobbyists involved and that sort of went away. So then there was a half a million dollar hydraology study done by former commissioner Lober and that study showed that uh there's a lot of flooding coming
from space. And so this goes to a a bigger conversation that uh I'm very grateful to uh Commissioner Goodson and bringing up the space impacts to North Merit Island. And so he held a meeting
uh and looked at you know be about $30 million to address that and and I just want to say here that um you know he's expressed frustration at various meetings when Space Florida's come here
that they're unwilling to accept uh uh uh paying for the storm water impacts. I also want to bring to your attention as it relates to this bigger issue of the storm water impact. So at the incorporation study, they said5 to10
million a year for flooding impacts from federal interests as part of that study. So the the documentation is there. So um what I have two questions or two two
concerns. One is why isn't space paying a storm water assessment fee like we are? Number one. And number two, why is the city of Titusville doing the site planning and building permits for unincorporated Bvard in North Merit
Island? You guys have known about this for since 2010 since this started. And I know from where I live where uh it used to be Southbase housing was in unincorporated and Air Force wanted more density and the county said no under
this F this uh FD permit or FD sorry uh uh agreement under Florida Community Trust. We can't do that because we're bound by agreement. So they went to the city of Satai Beach. Will you do it? And even when it wasn't in their jurisdiction, they filed to
increase the density. So the Air Force went and annexed that to the city. So the jurisdiction it's in has the influence to address the site planning and building permits. And I have to think that this is by design that this is being done to hide it from the
public. And there needs to be accountability for space. Space needs to pay for its impacts to the flooding that North Merit Island is experiencing from that from that half a million dollar study that shows that. >> Okay. Okay, that's all the cards. Um,
yes, >> I I'll yield. I'll yield. >> Oh, >> I was um going to ask our our county manager because I I had asked about um the Titusville doing the site planning thing. Um but from what I understand,
that's no longer the case. And right now, from if I'm remembering correctly from our conversation, no one is doing site planning for space. If I remember the conversation, we're not aware of anyone doing the site planning. Yes. >> Which that's equally as um
nerve-wracking and >> but that really has nothing to do with the issue that we're discussing here. >> That has nothing to do with this issue. >> Let's talk about that at a later time. Let's focus on the settlement agreement so we can try to get this. Commissioner Felner,
>> I I just want to uh say uh to Morris, I I think from our executive meeting and what you were able to take forward and um get a get a settlement agreement that's I think good for everybody and bring it back here today. I I think this
is the the best product that um we could hope for. Um and when the board's ready, I'm happy to make a motion um for this. Thank you, >> Commissioner Goodson. Since it's my district and you're making a motion, >> I'll yield to the gentleman.
>> No, we've we've fought for an outfall structure of a flow line. Mars has done a done a great job, I think, or the best job he could do. And I'd like to move that we instruct our legal department to proceed forward and bring back to the board the final decision.
>> Second to second that. >> Okay. Motion, I guess. Second by Ainson. May I just clarify that motion? Will that include I know it's a long requested action, but there are a number of things we have to accomplish, including approval of a settlement agreement subject to final review and approval of county attorney and risk
management. Um, authorizing the acquisition we discussed for the total of $3 million as described in the allocation in the in the fiscal impact statement as I had modified it here. And I should note also very minor but we did move a portionment of a appraisal from
the EEL side of the equation to the stormwater CIP fund. Uh the motion would also include authorization for the chair to execute execute the settlement agreement upon approval. Uh and for the chair to execute an amendment to an FD
grant if necessary so that those funds can be spent solely on land acquisition for the drainage project. Authorize the chair to execute a declaration of restrictive covenants running uh to be recorded and run with the land for the portion of a pro property acquired for the drainage project with FD grant funds
that might be an FD grant condition. Approve a waiver of the EO land acquisition manual to facilitate the acquisition of the 120 acre parcel and 2acre peninsula parcel identified for preservation, conservation, and long-term management. And I should point
out that 120 acre parcel has been on EEL's acquisition list. Uh and then finally, authorize the county manager to execute necessary budget amendments. Um PCRs. >> Sure. Okay. >> Commissioner Goodson. >> I'm all for that. Second it again.
>> All for it. Definitely included in the motion including the second. Any debate? Any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. >> Motion carries unanimously. We're going to take a short break, but before we do that, because we have a lot of cards coming up, since we're talking about
settlement settlement agreements and Morris, you got the floor. Let's move up. J1, partial settlement, national prescription opioid litigation. I don't think that will take very long. >> Yes, sir. Uh, and we have our outside uh class action litigation council here in
our in the national prescription opiate litigation. Mr. Steve Sharpier is in the audience, and I'm sure he'd be happy to answer any questions the board may have. But just very briefly, as you know, Bvard County has long been a plaintiff in the national prescription opiate litigation. That's multi-dist litigation
uh pending in the district court for the northern district of Ohio. We have already resolved large claims against a wide variety of opioid defendants and secured significant settlement funds as a result with most of those funds being spread out over a period of of many years, decades. Um as part of the
ongoing litigation, we now have another defendant that seeks to resolve the county's claims. Back in summer of 2004, the board authorized adding three categories of additional defendants that included some pharmacy benefit managers and some smaller retailies, including
Publix. Um, Publix has proposed a settlement agreement. They have already settled with most of the potential plaintiffs who sought to amend the litigation to include them as defendants. We are one of uh the last few standing who have not resolved this with Publix. Based on the formulas used
to determine liability and the terms of the settlement, I and outside council strongly advise that the board accept the settlement as fair and in resolution of our potential claims against Publix. The settlement amount is a total of 345,000. That's inclusive of attorneys fees of
45,000. Unlike the global settlements that we've already reached in this, it's not spread out over many years. It's a one lump sum and it's not subject to some of the same restrictions that the other settlement funds have been such as use on abatement and cessation programs and things like that. So again, I I
strongly recommend that the board accept this settlement with Publix. >> So moved. >> Okay, there's a motion. Is there any questions? Do we have any comments? Okay, no questions. A motion for approval. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second. Did you have something?
>> I was actually going to make a much longer motion. Oh, well, let's let's withdraw that motion, Lar. I'm sorry. >> That's okay. I wasn't quick enough. I apologize. >> Okay, that's okay. >> Um, I would like to make a motion that we approve the settlement with Publix. um that we authorize the chairman to execute the settlement documents subject
to approval by the county attorney and risk management. But because of the well doumented connection between the opioid abuse and homelessness, I recommend that the settlement proceeds be placed into the affordable housing trust fund established by the Bvard County voters created by charter and amendment and
authorized the county manager to execute any necessary budget changes to implement this action. >> That's my motion. Okay, I'll second that. >> There's a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? >> Wow. Um,
I that's a really interesting idea and I'm not um I'm not thinking I'm opposed to it, but I'm just um that just came out of left field. So,
I'm just I'm I'm just curious about that. So, as the um as our appointee to the affordable housing advisory board, it's that's where my mind goes. um if we wanted to talk about um how this money might be used or leveraged. I mean, we
have the right people to come and and ask questions of, but I think it's pretty safe place to put this money when we talk about how opioid has affected our community and and it's something that, you know, we should really take care of.
>> Can I ask a a question for clarification here? Um, I I think it's uh it's an interesting idea. Um, since that trust fund was created by charter review and the voters subsequently voted for it,
there hasn't been any funding into it. Is that correct? >> Yes. Right. >> Maybe Okay. Can we Is there anybody here from um Housing and Human Services and Can we hear a little bit more about this?
>> Since this was on the agenda for this change, can I put in a card? >> Let's continue what we're doing here now. Think about that. Good morning, commissioners. Um, as Commissioner Atinson has stated, there
is a connection between opioid and um, homelessness. And even with the national, that is one of the sources that we can approve sources that we can spend the funds on. And if you put these funds into the affordable housing um
trust fund, then one good use of it would be that it could be used as a match. The state um at the state level, the Florida Housing Corporation, they regularly put out largecale
um tax credits that developments can apply for. And when they do that, they have to have the support of the county and typically we use our SHIP funds um state housing initiative partnership
funds as the match. So most recently, a year ago, we used 360,000 for the Forest Glenn uh development that came through. And so now those are new units of affordable housing that have to
be kept um at certain AMIs to serve over the next 20 years. So for example, Forest Glenn has five units at 40% AMI, 33 units at 60% AMI, three units at 40%
AMI, and 31 units at 60% AMI. They also will have units set aside to help those with disabilities and special needs. So, this is brand new um affordable housing units that's now available with the match. So with these
dollars, we can put it in the trust fund and the next time a developer wants to apply for one of the large-scale tax credit instead of using our SHIP dollars, we can use these dollars and then use the SHIP dollars to help more homeowners stay in their homes with the
repair, rehab, and replacement program. >> That's good to know we can match. Represent Commissioner Felner wanted Sure. forward >> just one one of the things that housing and human services does I mean obviously trying to keep people in their homes right that's a that's that's an
important part of it so could these funds if we designated that today um and I understand goes in the in the trust fund >> uh but more geared toward keeping people in their homes so that's everything from we can help you with an electric bill
this month we can we can do some of the I know there's a whole host of things that you do over there that your staff does um rather than just >> you know >> affordable housing projects >> toward another a project. So, so you know that's something in the future and
I think that's great but keeping people in their homes today is that is that something that a caveat that we could put with this today. >> Jim sir thanks you thank commissioner um I'm quote I'm glad I brought the charter uh it's a non-lapsing fund to use to
address the needs for affordable housing in Bard County. The trust fund shall be used to create and sustain affordable housing throughout Bvoulevard County for renters and homeowners and to increase workforce housing opportunities. So what you're stating would fall under that as the charter says. >> May. >> Yes. Go ahead.
>> Thank you. Um, one of the struggles that I have with the traditional affordable housing is the time limit and when you reach that 20, 30 year time limit, they get off the hook and all the
residents get a nice little eviction letter and now we have all these homeless people. and I've seen it personally um at least two times in the past uh few years. And so is there any way that we could um prioritize this
these monies aside from the thing that Commissioner Felner was talking about to also um maybe projects that are willing to um have a longer uh affordable housing component or indefinitely would
be ideal. Um because I I just hate the idea of, you know, um a 50-year-old person going into an affordable housing situation and then when they're 80 getting an eviction letter. >> I the board could definitely consider
that as part of written policies and procedures to be established. We have an ordinance uh trying to implement the charter language that was approved, but there has been no funding into that trust fund. So, while we've adopted the ordinance, to my knowledge, I don't believe the board has adopted formal
written policies and procedures as contemplated by the ordinance for the use of those funds. So, that's something that if the fund if the trust fund were funded that we would bring back to the board for consideration of future meeting. >> Okay. And then as far as the opioid money goes as a whole, I haven't really
heard a whole lot um as to where that money is going and what we're doing. And so pulling these dollars out of the opioid um monies into the affordable housing pot, what what does that look
like as far as um the mission there goes? >> Commissioner, if I can answer for Anita because I asked the same exact question. So I'm looking at her email. So then I'm going to kind of paraphrase here for everybody. So there's $900,000 right now has been awarded. Excuse me. Counseling,
psychological treatment, uh Naron distribution, education, circles of care, steps, which is agency stands for specialized treatment, education, preventive services. They have a mobile outreach vehicle we funded for $700,000. There's been 1.8 med uh 1.8 million for
the public notice relations getting the the the uh information out. I forget better way of putting it. um you're going to be seeing in March or the plan is in March will be coming back with uh asking for award of about $600,000 for supporting people in treatment and
recovery. Uh $780,000 uh to serve drug court programs and then um other areas concentration 785,000 for living room program provide immediate access to Bard County residents who are indigent, uninsured and unable to access
behavior support uh behavioral health supports. So I mean so that's a couple million dollars there and there'll be and the money's for the next 17 18 years or something like that. So there's going to be a lot of projects coming through over the next few years. So you can see how that you know that 300,000 would be
just a small portion of that >> is chairman. >> Yes. Go ahead. Um, so the things that I I mentioned about um the time limit, is that something that the board would consider um looking into as we go forward with policy once this fund gets
some dollars in it? >> I'm I'm Mr. Chair. Um I'm interested in in several things too by way of ordinance. So I I guess the item today if funding goes into that then then that creates a situation where we have to do
an ordinance. So, um, it sounds like we'll have an opportunity to do that. So, >> trick is to get the money in there first, >> right? >> Okay. >> Thank you so much. >> Okay. Um, that we do have a request for
a threem minute public comment since it would if it would have been a consent item, you could have commented. So, it's logical. Go ahead. >> Thanks. So I didn't put in occurred because there was a a change Sandra Sullivan there was a a change to put this to uh
to affordable housing and so you know from that appear that accountability and transparency portion that's what should have been stated on the agenda item if that is what the intent here was. I also want to go to like a point of order. Uh
uh Commissioner Delaney seconded and then uh the chairman said undo that and went to uh to Commissioner Atkinson to do her motion when there was one already at play. So I think that needs to be
revisited. The issue I have here, Dannis came here, Governor Dannis came here on opioids made a press release here. This is a an important thing and um in my view these these dollars that you get should go to
services for these people. And um you know I take back at this sort of feels to me like a a bait and switch on what was on the agenda um when the chief of staff for district three is on boards of
affordable housing. So um on on on or on on organizations and so I just think that you get a settlement for something just like the settlement for POS it should going to address that the issue and so just
because there's some connection to homelessness doesn't mean that somebody who has an addiction is homeless. I mean there might be uh some people who are homeless have addictions but they they're separate issues. So, I would like to see this board approve this
money going to services which may be at affordable housing uh uh places that are servicing that because sometimes they have arrangements as part of that affordable housing project to have people come in and provide services. They should go to services. They should
go addressing the problem directly, not an indirect problem. And if it was really you really wanted to put money in that fund, the county was selling property on Barton had a a advertised twice. First time didn't get any biders
and buy that charter. When you sell lands, it should be going into that pot. And at at the time when I was on the affordable housing board, I specifically addressed that twice in two meetings and never got an answer. So, you know, don't
be hypocrites sitting up here. You know, I'll leave it there. >> Okay. Thank you for your input, >> Mr. Chair. I'd just like to point out that in my agenda report, I didn't provide for an allocation for the funds. The funds weren't allocated. So, the requested motion is not inconsistent
with the agenda item. These funds don't have the restrictions that the other settlement proceeds do. So, it's up to the board where to allocate those funds. >> Okay. All right. Um, any other discussion? Any debate? All those in favor signify by
saying I. I. Post. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you. We will take a 10-minute break. We'll get back here just before uh 10. We have a pretty lengthy number of cards coming up.
Hey. Hey. Hey. Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey, hey, hey.
Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey everybody. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Hey, Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. Okay. Now, thank you for Next item. Um, we have um
Well, help me. What item are we? >> I won. >> I won. >> I won. >> I won. Okay. I just I got lost here. Okay, we have quite a few cards on the this have have uh staff introduce it. Yeah, I
got I missed. Okay, >> let's have staff give a quick briefing on I1. It's been request that we get a little bit of a report prior to the going to the public hearing. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On February 10th, the board directed staff to bring back uh funding options um with
the infrastructure tax. um that that was on February 10th. We had seven different departments. We spoke to all five commissioners to get put this together for you in a week. So before we get started, I just want to thank the staff and all the commissioners for all the help and responding to our questions uh all the work everyone put into it. On
the agenda, uh there's uh the following options are laid out for the board considerations. Opt there's option 1 A and 1B. Option 1 A is to preserve the existing solar renewal process that was approved by the board in November. Option 1B is preserve the existing soil
renewal but direct staff to increase emphasis on what I call hard projects like wastewater, storm water, septic systems um within the existing plan uh structure. Option two is the modify and expand the infrastructure sir tax which soro is part of up to 1%. You would
expand infrastructure projects beyond the sorro scope. Um so that would be you know transportation related and the like. If you did that, you would have to work on an OPAGA review. Um, which I that's a state function. I apologize. I meant to bring what OPAGA stands for. Um, but it's basically an auditing part
of the state legislature. Um, and then we'd also have to work with the cities to rework the interlocal agreement that we have currently for the solar program. Option three is the charter county regional transportation certax that's used for the development construction operation maintenance of road and bridge
operation of bus systems and other transportation services that requires an opa review that can and cannot be shared with the cities um and that you know they all follow their own uh timelines and then there's other options by the board. Um you have in your package there's a memo um from the county
attorney's office that talks about what triggers an opa it's a it's a memo includes in there what triggers the apaga study and with the dates um district one it gave us a helpful chart that shows if you did something that requires the opaga review on the dates we have to put everything together and I
love Morris it's OPA for everybody in the audience stands for the office of program policy analysis and government accountability now you know why we call him OPA um and so We're uh we're ready for any questions that the uh commissioners may have.
>> Okay. And I'm handing out handing out a document that uh Commissioner Delaney have produced. Okay. Did you want to say anything before we go if I >> I just wanted to mention this is in the agenda packet. So the public has um you
can just find that online. It's um just the timeline for the uh OPEGA um audit. Thank you. >> Okay, let's Any other comments? >> I just want to make a comment really quickly. Um I want to make it clear to
everybody up here and out there that I support um option 1A. We've heard the public speak here in the commission chambers and out at workshops where we've been. And I don't I don't quite understand why the five of us would put in jeopardy something that the public so
clearly wants >> chair. >> Yes. >> I would um will not be supporting a change to the infrastructure tax. I firmly believe we should be looking at the legislator. See what they are ultimately going to do with property taxes. I don't think it's the best time
to try and change a tax. Again, I agree that we need our infrastructure. However, I think that we might wind up with less than we intended. We must do not know. We just do not know what ultimately we the change will be good or
bad. I will not be supporting it. >> Okay. >> I have a question. >> Yes. >> Uh, Commissioner Goodson, do you mean you won't be supporting the halfsent sales tax going on the ballot as of now or you're not supporting a change? the I
am not supporting a change to the ballot tax right now. The only tax that's going on there that I agree with is the soral tax. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. All right. That's good to know. Any
other comments before we go to cards? >> Um I have a point of order question. Will we have after the public comment? I have um some discussion that I'd like to have. Um or I could have it now,
whatever um you'd rather for the for how we proceed. >> Well, let's go ahead and have the discussion now since some of the members of the public have requested that we maybe clarify where we are. That might help guide what comments are said in the public. It might save some time.
>> Thank you. Um, at our last meeting, the board asked staff to bring back options. I know there's support in this room for simply moving forward with the point um with the halfsent uh renewal as currently structured and that is certainly the most
straightforward path. Um but before we close off board discussion and due the to the current timeline um that requires ordinance changes uh I do think it's worth having a conversation about whether we want to
consider modifying the sert tax even if it means triggering the the OPGA performance audit. I want to be clear this isn't about um undermining the sorrel program. It's about asking whether independent validation and a
broader infrastructure discussion might actually strengthen the public trust and position us for better long term. I'd like um staff to walk us through those steps so that we can clearly state what option two actually means pro
procedurally and practically. And after that, I'd like us to discuss um whether we are comfortable renewing simply as is or if we think that it's worth um exploring um an expansion
even if that requires additional review. Um Virginia Oh, you're already there. Virginia, would you mind um going through option two? So um excuse >> question
>> option two is modifying and expanding the infrastructure sir tax up to 1% at that point uh it would go through a paga review and it could uh the uses of the funds could be anything consistent with
the statute um limitations on infrastructure sales tax uses. So, um there's also requested action. Um you need to direct staff to work with municipalities to amend the existing
sales tax use and distribution interlocal agreements to address increasing the sir tax from half a percent to 1% and expand those eligible infrastructure uses um subject to voter approval of sales tax. You would need to
direct staff to identify infrastructure project types not currently in the swirl project plan uh such as public facilities, transportation, drainage, and we would need to conduct a public hearing to consider adoption of an
ordinance um no later than April 21st to meet the OPAGA review deadlines. And um so what types of infrastructure projects that are currently outside of the scope of sorrel um
are we missing out on that we can't use these sorrel dollars on like things that that we know are necessary that um you know we're we're not able to use these funds on. >> Um the simplest answer is what's right there in the agenda. Public facilities,
transportation and drainage, right? the the existing tax is based on protections for the lagoon, water quality projects uh for the lagoon, but the sales tax statute allows other sorts of
infrastructure including public facilities, transportation and drainage. >> And I was also wondering how do we is there a way to get beyond water quality um of only nitrogen and phosphorus? We spoke a little bit about it in my briefing, but um the the storm water
getting into the lagoon is also a problem. And so and that's not really measurable by um necessarily by um nitrogen and phosphorus. Uh I I would need to work with the
county attorney's office. We would to um to stick with options 1 A or 1B. Uh we would need to be con well 1 a is to be consistent with the current language. Um
the the ballot language said improve water quality, fish, wildlife and marine habitat, remove muck and reduce pollution. So the projects would need to be consistent with that short description um per the the statutory requirements.
So the question is, you know, to what degree c can we um document that fresh water, regardless of the pollutant level in it, is also harmful to the lagoon. Um and and does that fit within that ballot
language and and ordinance language? >> Awesome. And um thank you so much. And Logan, if you wouldn't mind putting up my first slide. Um I did uh some pretty extensive um
reachouts to my constituents and um this is just one very small sampling of um some of the negative comments that I've gotten. Um I frankly outside of the workshops I have not gotten one um
positive uh people saying keep the tax the same, we want to support it. And so that's why I'm um trying to open up this conversation a little bit more because what I'm hearing is people saying um
either absolutely not and part of that's because of the um the fact that you know the the space industry is dumping you know um treated and untreated waste water. So people feel like they should be the ones
cleaning it up. Um and then aside from that, they're saying we have all of these needs and um you know, infrastructure that people want all of the infrastructure fixed, not just the
um not just the lagoon. And um slide um if you could go to the next slide, Logan. Um so broadening, what does it allow us? It allows us to like we like we saw earlier with the
with the charts um from the presentation from the TPO. It fills this gap that we have. Um and the the ideal thing about a sales tax versus, you know, raising property taxes is that this is not simply on our
residents. It's on, you know, anyone who comes into Bard. They pay into this fund. Um and so the OPEGA um process, it's really a great thing because it does two things for us. It gets a third
party um to come in and look at the sorrel funds and um give a sense of uh you know how did it go? What were some good things? What were some bad things? where some ways that we can um
pull money from elsewhere or it'll show us there is no money to pull from elsewhere. Um so I think that just on its own merit this OPEGA um audit would be a positive thing regardless if we make changes or
not. Um, and it's something that the state pays for, so it wouldn't come out of our budget. And, um, you know, it might turn some of those negatives into positives if, if they could have a third party verification that the Sorrel
dollars did get allocated in the right place, that it, you know, that it is doing well. Um, if we could go to slide number four, please. Um, so I reached out to Bvard public schools
because they just went through um this this process with their halfsent and basically they said that it's a collaborative process. It's not overly burdensome and um it's more about documenting system performance and
identifying best practices. And so in my mind I'm thinking why wouldn't we want that moving forward? Um, and so that's that's kind of what is in the front of my mind right now with with
all of this. and um I don't know if I'd be able to support um no changes at all because my constituents have come out so loudly um to say that they're not happy with
what's going on right now. Thank you. >> Okay. All right, then we have a sense. I think we need to go to the cards first. This Terry Cesto better.
>> Hi, thank you. My name is Terry Castow. I'm an Indie Atlantic resident and I have lived in Melbourne uh for over 50 years. I have been volunteering with the Marine Resources Council since 2013 and on
their board since 2016. I served eight years on the Citizens Oversight Committee from 2016 until 2024. So I have some experience in dealing with restoring and preserving the lagoon. And by the way, I'm here speaking on my own behalf. I don't
represent the COC or MRC or any other organization. So, I applaud the the commission for getting out in front of the issues confronting the lagoon and dealing with our aging septic sewer infrastructure. Uh the problems are connected and both impact our ability to
have sustainable manageable growth. But the plan to command com combine the two programs or two initiatives uh under the same referendum is ill advised. Let me give you my reasons. The first is the combining the two issues. And I'm
focusing primarily on the on the septic sewer issue because I think when you when you get complaints from your your uh um your constituents, that's one of the main things they focus on. So, so combining these two issues uh has a
negative downside. And why is that? With a single issue, there's a there's one of two outcomes. It either passes or it doesn't. You have a 50/50 shot. When you combine the two together, there are four possible outcomes, only one of which results in the two com issues being
combined. So, combining the two actually reduces our chances of getting either one of those things uh supported. The second is the question of who should bear the cost. A healthy lagoon benefits all Bvard residents, whether they make their living on the water or simply
enjoy the natural beauty. So, the sales tax that is paid by everyone is fair. Our visitors enjoy the same benefits. So it's fair that they contribute and they do to the tune of about 20% of the total revenue. The cost of improvements to
infrastructure such as septic sewer primarily benefit the property owners in my opinion both existing residential and commercial and especially new developments. So in my opinion it's more appropriate that those costs are paid for through real estate taxes and
through impact fees. Thirdly, gaining voters approval for the billions of dollars or so needed and it's a big number to to really deal with our infrastructure problems that for now in the future will be a heavy lift. uh you
you've already talked about the issues of of getting um the referendum language and the audits and so on, but there's also the problem of educating the voters uh so they know what uh uh the intent is and how it's going to be accomplished.
So, in closing, I strongly endorse approval of 1A or 1B. In my mind, there's really not uh much difference. uh half a paragraph. Um the history of Sorro is one of modifying
emphasis consistent with the language of the approved plan in response to the commission's direction. For example, muck removal budgets were reduced in the past. Interstitual water treatment was added and smoke testing were added. So the we have the the the
plan has already shown its ability to adapt to u to new changes, new requirements. It took Tampa Bay 40 years and Chesapeake Bay over 50 to recover. So, we've made great strides with our program in the last 10 years. Um, but we
still have a ways to go. So, let's stay the course. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next up is Mr. Craig Wallace. >> Good morning, Commissioners. It's Craig Wallace for our Indian Riverview Coalition. um try to keep this as simple
as I can. I mean, obviously my concern is mainly with the lagoon. Uh and I understand there's bigger budget issues that need to be dealt with here. But as Terry just said, trying to combine too many things in any tax initiative is going to doom it to failure. And that's
my biggest concern. I know you all want to continue on with cleaning up the lagoon. I don't think any of you are against that. Totally for that. um and you know where we get the money from to do roads and other infrastructure issues. This is a big issue and I'll you
know I'll I'll be here to support you in whatever direction you think is best for that but combining the two just doesn't make sense. Um so we have a fantastically uh productive program that has proven itself
in nine years we've ended up clearing up the waters. We've ended up reducing the al the annual algo blooms down to the point where we don't have any of these major algolooms anymore. That's a phenomenal success from where we were 9 years ago. So this program has proven
itself to be effective. What I'm concerned about is that we're setting up questions about should we possibly continue it on? Should we continue it on as it is? We can always add more to it. It's ev it's every year
it can be adapted and it has been. So, let's continue on that path. We've got a great program. Let's not mess with with success. And, you know, people said, you know, majority of people voted for it in in 16 and we've been educating people as
to what the success of this program is for the past nine years. I think successfully. I think people understand that. Now, there's always going to be naysayers and people that have issues with with any program. So, we're going to hear from those and I understand that. Uh but the majority of the people
out there support this program and I hope this uh commission continues to do that. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Our next speaker is Matthew Nylon. Good morning. That's Nylin with an E. >> Nin. >> Thank you. My name is Matt Nyl. I'm a Bvard County resident.
>> Oh. >> Um I'm also the president of the Bvard chapter of the Democratic Environmental Caucus of Florida. Uh and I've been working with my caucus um to build support for the continuation of the Lagoon uh sorrel program. Um, and I've
been trying to keep my caucus aligned and and working with my team to get my constituents to vote uh be prepared to vote in favor of this program. But, um, I get challenges from them when they claim that there's some, um, risk that
money that should be going to clean up the lagoon could get diverted to other sources or other problems. They want to vote for a pure amendment that just supports cleaning up the lagoon and they don't want it to be um there be any questions about money being moved from
the sorrel program to do things that are not Indian River Lagoon related. So I get a lot of push back from my caucus on those issues. So I want to keep them aligned that we are focused on fixing the lagoon um and that the other issues will be paid for uh by the appropriate
sources in other places. The other thing I get push back on from my caucus uh is relates to affordability. Um right now uh almost half the people in Bvard County are either living in pro poverty or or going living from paycheck to
paycheck. So um keeping them to vote positively on a on taxes sales taxes like this will be a challenge in the affordability environment that we're in today. I think increasing it from a half cent to a full cent will really smack
people in the face in terms of affordability. I think keeping the number the same at the half cent and keeping it focused on the Indian River Lagoon is a way that we can get this passed. I think if it's increased to a full cent, particularly when it's going to be competing with other sales tax
ballot initiatives on the ballot coming up in November, uh people are going to have to make hard choices about whether they can afford another $500 million coming out of their pockets over the next 10 years. Um so I'm very much in
favor of of 1A. Um, and I believe that the SORL program has demonstrated that they can adapt to changes through time and make sure that the money keeps focused on the on the appropriate items as we move forward and learn more. Um, and I'm very much in favor of of
continuing it in that way. And if we do, I'm confident that I can line up my caucus to vote uh in support of that uh of that initiative. So, thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. Our next card is Sandra Sullivan.
Sandra Sullivan. So, I'll start by saying right now legislatively we have a uh bill out there that's going to have space not pay sales tax. So, they won't be contributing even though they are impacting the lagoon. Just disgusting. I also wanted to say
what we were promised when this lagoon tax uh was pres initially presented uh was that this would match state and federal funding. So here's an example. South Beaches is $50 million to upgrade
to AWT which is the high and nutrient loading for reclaimed water. Big issue and also we're required to to do that. We're under consent orders currently for discharging at not AWT. So what did the
lagoon tax contribute? They m they only matched 2 less than $2.5 million from sorrel. There was another project uh to put uh an area of South Beaches on um on
South Beach's sewage plant and the state had provided uh two and a half sorry 1.2 two, no, two, $2.4 million and Sorrel refused to match it and it ended up that that money uh instead went to Fort
Pierce. Um so what what Bvard has right now is a critical need to address infrastructure. So if you got a house and your roof is falling down, you're talking about planting pretty flowers. That's not sensible, is it? You need to
take care of your critical need. Your roof is falling down. Your infrastructure is a problem. Even back in Irma when we were dumping sewage, Tampa, the people that cleaned up Tampa came over here and said, "The issue is your infrastructure, your pipes and your
plants. You need to address the dumping of sewage." So, we didn't know this. I found it under consent orders and under documentation on D. We dumped 21 million gallons of sewage in 2022 and 2023 and
quiet because the county was not reporting its pollution discharges and in fact was just recently only just a month ago put them in. So Sorrel what it was promised to do to clean up the lagoon is not doing it. The
critical need of infrastructure of our sewage plants are not being addressed. Sykes Creek is one of the highest plants of dumping and yet right now we're looking at connecting space to it. This is a recent bloom that just occurred.
Okay, where's the where's the bloom happening? Right where we are discharging Sykes Creek. I'll just say on this tax and please give me a minute longer. We got mocked. And I say that because there's scientific evidence that the that the
salinity, this is prior to this tax being adopted, salinity causes the POS to bind to the muck. And so when you look at the lagoon plan, $2 billion in there is for the removal of muck. 400
400 million just for the NASA Banana River project, up from 250 million last year. And I'll just wrap up with one more. $160 million of the lagoon tax is going to storm water basin projects on
the Cape. This is a military tax. The military federal government should be cleaning up its PAOS and it should not be put on the taxpayers of Bvard. >> Our next speaker is Vince Lamb. >> Good morning. So, I'm Vince Lamb of South Merit
Island. Uh, I moved to Bvard County in January 1970. I was fortunate enough to purchase a property on Dragon Point in 73 and built the house that I still live in today. I've lived a good portion of Bvard history. I think lots of change in
human population and in the and in the lagoon life. Arguably the most important local government accomplishment over my lifetime was the in fact the 2016 passage of the soral project plan.
After years of decline, seaggrass uh seaggrass uh had expanded in the lagoon after some fixes in the 1990s, but then it all collapsed in 2010 when the brown algae appeared uh with unusual mortality
events for wildlife. The Indian River Lagoon was featured nationally and internationally in the news and not good news. Then came the massive fish kill in the spring of 2016. Our county government leaped into action. Natural resources drafted the original soil
project plan. The halfsent sales tax referendum was placed on the ballot uh on the ballot in November of 2016. 62% of the voters approved it. The first contracts to restore and protect the lagoon were issued the following year.
More than nine years later, positive results are evident. Seagrass is again expanding in in Bvard County waters for the past three years. Algae blooms have become less severe and less frequent over the past five years. Fishing guides
are reporting better catches. Dr. Dr. Dwayne DeFreeze of the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program has observed that across the 28 estuaries that comprise the NEP that Bvard County stands out as the most impressive county
in these watersheds. his organization uh recently commissioned an economic analysis by the Balmoral Group that that determined that the uh uh that the lagoon had shows an
28 billion economic impact over the 5count region. Last September, you started the soil renewal process by authorizing natural resources to begin planning for the next 10 years. Two public workshops in
January showed very strong support from residents. Work is underway to put soil renewal on the November ballot. The Bvard Indian Lagoon Coalition and our partners are already working to prepare the voters to approve it.
Apparently, uh there's some questioning going on as we're seeing now. Uh I re certainly recognize the severity of the infrastructure needs. If the uh if the county commission pursues pursues these
in infrastructure needs in 2028, I would certainly offer my support. I would like to conclude by do you remember the county commissioners who who have ser who have served uh this county like uh Joe Wickham, Nancy Hegs and Val Steel
all who have parks and facilities named for them. Do you want to be remembered as the ones who killed the Indian River Lagoon or do you want to be remembered more favorably? >> Thank you, Vince. Our next
our next speaker is Carl Weinberger. Good morning. I'm Carl Weinberger. I'm live in Palm Bay. Uh the Indian River Loon needs to continue to continue the funding of the half cent swirl tax.
We're seeing progress as Vince had noted earlier with lowering waste water and storm water enter the lagoon along with the septic upgrades. Slowly the seaggrass is returning to areas in the Indian River Lagoon. Any significant
changes to the soil halfcent tax referendum will require restarting a lengthy process of local and state regulatory agencies reviews potentially causing us to miss the August deadline for filing the
ballot initiative. I ask you keep the sorl tax as is and vote on option 1b. The benefits of these projects will help make the lagoon a place where residents and visitors will want to enjoy and
visit. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Laura Thompson. Lori Thompson. I I live in Mims. Um, and I have worked on and recreated on the lagoon for my entire life. So, I saw it
back in the 1950s when it was really, really beautiful and healthy. And I saw the worst of it in in 2010. And you know what happened in 2016 with the fish kills? It was horrible. Bad for tourism, bad for our reputation. We had
international bad publicity. And now, you know, the the the lagoon tax is working. I mean, yeah, I've seen major improvements in the water quality, the clarity, the seaggrass coming back, the so so everything is working. We have an
incredible staff. Why would we want to jeopardize what has been working and and add other stuff to it? I agree that we need to in help our infrastructure commissioner. I really do. But I'm afraid that trying to combine
infrastructure with saving the lagoon is going to make it really, really complicated to try to explain that to people. And I would be very supportive of coming back in 2028 when you've had time to really iron out a good plan for
what infrastructure changes you want to make. what we'd be supportive of that, but I I do not want to see what's been successful changed in any way. I would support option 1B so that we can add some more things to um the sorrel tax,
but that's it. I don't I don't want to see us going for a full penny or adding infrastructure at this time. Um it's working. It's the envy of every county in the in the state. Why would we want to change it? Thank you,
>> Claire Wiggins. Good morning. How are you doing this morning? I'm Captain Blair Wiggins. I founded the Indian River Clam Restoration Project back in 2019 and really don't want to see any changes to go on to the Sor program right now. I keep the sales tax the way it is. If you
start adding any more taxes in, it's been proven that people aren't going to go for more taxes, so they're not going to vote for it. We just received our first uh funding from Sorl last year, which put us over about the 70 million mark of clams released back into the Indian River Lagoon. And with our help this year, we should be able to reach
over 100 million clams that we put back into the Indian River Lagoon. Now, the clams are there for to improve water clarity to help all the other projects that are going on out there, whether it be seaggrass, uh any of the uh restocking programs that CCA does. But,
uh any any changes, uh I'm afraid is going to basically do away with the funding of sorrel completely because if you start adding in more taxes, it's uh it's it's not going to be good for the voters. It's, as everybody said here, it's going to be hard to explain and try
to get a another half cent sales tax out of people. And uh just want to say with uh with Sorrel's help, we've released 3 million clams back in the estuary now. And uh like I said, we hope to be up over 100 million clams by the end of the uh end of the year this year. So that's all I need to say.
>> Okay. Thank you. Okay, that's all the cards that we have. We'll bring it back to the board for discussion. >> I >> Yes. >> May I Thank you. Um I just wanted to add that um I I looked up some of the other
areas that have done um their sales tax um this uh sorry last year and out of eight different counties um seven of them passed only one rejected going to a full scent. So, um, just wanted to put
that piece of data out there. And, um, I guess my question is if, if we don't decide to go forward with expanding the tax, um, I feel like I could support
1B, um, just to make it really clear about, um, the wastewater, storm water, septic up upgrades and emphasizing those things. Um, but I guess my question is for the board. I'm wondering what are
some of your your ideas about how we're going to tackle the overall infrastructure needs that we have in the community? Because if we if if we go forward with this and it passes, that holds up this tax for the next 10 years.
And so this won't be an option for us. This funding mechanism won't be an option for us. So, I'm wondering what are some other ideas that you guys feel like will fill the hole that we have. >> Mr. Chair, if I may. >> Yes. Go ahead, >> Commissioner. This this item is about
sorrel and I think sidetracking us from that at this opportunity is is not the right thing to do. >> I I would have to disagree that this is about sorrel. This is the infrastructure sales tax. We have marketed it as sorrel as a community, but this is about
infrastructure needs. When I brought this forward, this was about fixing our infrastructure needs and filling that hole. So, I'm just wondering is are there any ideas? I haven't heard any yet. And so, I'm I'm cautious moving forward by tying
up this tax when we don't know what's going to happen with our property taxes. And so if if the state comes back and they say, you know, property taxes are done and then this is held up, how are we going to fund our infra our our
government? >> I I'll just say quickly uh a couple of things. That's an unfortunate thing that we don't know what the state's going to do at this point. I'm not sure that they'll get something done this legislative session. They may even have a special session afterward. I've I've
heard rumors of that. Um I don't think they can leave us without the ability to fund core functions of government. I don't I don't think any legislation that's been out there so far um allows for that. When you talk about infrastructure, it's pretty big. We're
we're we're talking about a lot. It's it's not just sewer. It's not just roads. um you know water supplies, water treatments um all of all these things and they have different funding mechanisms.
So if the if the bigger challenge is um is is roads keeping up with capacity some of those other things I think I think that's I think that's just one category in the whole infrastructure. So when when it's all lumped together, I
mean, I I think we're we're we're doing the the wastewater treatment upgrades that are going to be necessary. That's part of utilities. They're they're working toward that. Um as as far as uh road funding and and these other things,
there's partnerships, FOT, um you know, we work with cities on on some things. So there's just >> We already know that there's no money there, though. I think I think >> I mean we had a whole presentation about it. >> Well, before we um
>> I think you asked if other board members had a ideas, >> right? I'm not asking to be gaslit though. That's the thing. And I'm I'm frustrated because >> they're giving their ideas and now it's becoming a point counterpoint debate and
I just was respect their their view. Um we'll have opportunity for debate when we have a motion here. Um >> yes, >> for me this is about um supporting the health of the lagoon. I don't like the
idea of tacking things onto it. I want it to be simple and straightforward so the people know what they're voting for. Um so with that, I'm going to make a motion to approve 1A. >> Second. >> Okay, there's a motion and a second to approve one 1 A. Is there discussion or debate?
Um, I would like to make a friendly emot friendly amendment to see if we could um emphasize wastewater, storm water, and septic like in in 1B. Um, I think that from what I hear from the people that
have come up, they they seem to say feel that that's an okay thing. Um and um yeah, would there be any support for that? >> Okay. Is there there's a motion? Is
there a second a motion? >> Friendly amendment. I think she said >> is it a what was that? >> I was I was asking for a friendly amendment to go with 1B to emphasize on wastewater storm water and septic
upgrades in the annual uh project plan. Okay. Is that would that be >> So for me, I'm not going to accept that friendly amendment because I think that I want this to be as simple as straightforward as possible. So I would keep my same motion. >> I'm sorry. This is before the board.
>> Okay. >> I'm sorry. just maybe we could get some clarity from staff because I I think what what be suggests in there can be done annually with the lagoon plan when it comes before the board each year each
each year. So may maybe just quickly we could have staff >> let's have staff >> just answer >> and that might >> Yes. >> Can you elaborate further on that? >> Okay. Yes. Um I mean every year we bring
the plan update to the county commission for consideration and so you know each year is an opportunity to shift that emphasis to to wastewater, storm water, septic what whatever is you know the
critical need of the of the day and and that's what you have seen in the prior nine years. my concern with that follow up. Can I just while she's on this real quick and just just also too as a I think
>> as more dollars become available by way of match from the legislature. So that changes annually too. Each session stands on its own. There's there's more dollars from that were appropriated before, but each year we're going to address that as new opportunities
um are presented for us to to go seek matching dollars for septic to sewer. I think the state is absolutely committed to septic to sewer conversion, right? So, so I mean each year you're going to bring that that to us as well.
>> Is that fair, >> Mr. De? Um, how many septic tanks would you say are in the Indian River Lagoon Basin? >> Over 63,000. >> And how many have we um switched onto se
uh septic or I'm sorry onto sewer. >> Um I believe we've converted between 7 and 800 so far. So, I mean it it's we can say all these nice things about how whoever supports this, but the truth is
is that if that was the priority, why hasn't, and this isn't to staff, this is more so to the comment that was made about the state supporting septic to sewer. Um, where have those dollars been? Why
haven't more been done? It's been 10 years. And um I understand you know permitting and we didn't have all this money to begin with in the in the beginning years but um it just seems
the priorities have been elsewhere and when I have you know there was a kid in my community who got paralyzed in our river you know the the city of Titusville had to settle with the family. Um there's some real things
that are going on and the North End holds a lot of I mean we see Mosquito Lagoon all the time but it's not within our area. Um I mean it it
I'm not seeing the priorities changing and how many times has the Lagoon plan come back to the board and not just this board but the board previous and there have been many changes. I can only think of one that had any kind of significant change and that was when a state
legislature uh state legislator came down here and you know was not very happy. Um, so I um I see a lot of issues
and I'm not seeing where the vast majority of people the people who are the people who are in the nitty-gritty every single day working within the lagoon, you know, I I appreciate their their um
their their opinions on this, but what about everybody else who is not in this day-to-day and they just know that, you know, hey, you shouldn't go in the river when it smells like that or you shouldn't go in the river when it looks like that. And you know, when we have so
many issues and we talk about transportation and how that has nothing to do with the lagoon, well, if if we could redo our roads and our drainage systems so that all of the storm water and whatnot was not going directly into the lagoon, that would definitely help.
You know, um I'm not saying it would fix it. I'm just saying that we could still um steer these projects that they have to make sense in regards to um fixing the lagoon, you know, fixing the lagoon and keeping the pollutants out of the
water. If we do not stop the sources of pollution from going into the lagoon, we are mopping with dirty water. And until we get serious about septic to sewer fixing our our storm our our um sewage plants and the pipes, the infrastructure
pipes that are collapsing all over the place. And until we can stop the storm water from getting into the lagoon, it's never going to be fixed. I got a text message from somebody this weekend, uh,
this past week of their canal. Um, and they literally said to me, "Is this safe?" You know, and I'm like, "I I don't know, but it doesn't look right." Um, and this person, you know, they live on a
canal on Marin Island, and so it's I'm just frustrated. we continue to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different outcome. And I I just I'm I'm nervous about locking down this tax without making any changes
and then it being inaccessible for us especially with what the state has going on. >> Okay. Any other discussion? >> I just want to make one last comment sir. Um, and and I I understand your sense of frustration when you when you
see that things don't happen quickly. I Well, it's >> I let me I'll just say this is a long-term commitment. There's there's there's no doubt. Hold on. And, you know, it's a it's it's much quicker when you're talking about dredging, just so
gen so we all understand, because they can set up quickly and start and start dredging. When you're talking about digging up roads, running sewer lines, removing septic tanks, and hooking up, it's it it took years to put that stuff in. It it you know, septic tanks didn't
appear in BVAR County overnight. It it happened over many generations. It's going to take a generation to replace that stuff. But we have to do it. I mean, we we have to do it. There there are mandates in the state. And I I would just say when when you're talking about
that, it takes a long time versus the other things. A lot of the other projects to your point that people spoke about today are things that can be done today. And so that's why those things uh happen quicker. But if the if the
priority and if if the scientists all say that the issue is the septic tanks, the the sewage plants and the storm water. I'm just not understanding why those things are not the priority.
>> So, I think um I think um I'll just say a few things. Obviously, uh we have significant infrastructure challenges in our county and we're going to have to address them and I don't I and I'm I'm
encouraged to hear that the board seems to be willing to do that. That in of itself is a significant um significant step forward that we're willing to consider these these they're entities that want don't want to even talk about solving problems.
nevertheless vote for them. And so I think your input is very helpful and I think it shows a commitment to fixing and challenging these addressing these infrastructure challenges there. I've heard the board members voice concern about what's
happening in Tallahassee. There's a great deal of unknown uh up there that we have no idea what's going to come out of Tallahassee. And uh what we do have with the soil is we have a given remarkable community support. Voters
have supported in this in the past. I think the general consensus of this board is to move forward with Sorro as it is. See what comes out of Tallahassee. Probably would be um could be a result of a special session. I don't think it's going to come out this session. So and
we have a very very strict timeline restrictive timeline to deal with. So I'm going to call a question if it's okay. I think the support's there. But I think that it's been gives us an indication of where we can this will not be done. Even if Sorl
passes and hope it does, we'll have a lot of work ahead of us. >> Yes. Um, so I'm I'm going to be voting in support of this for today and not in support of the program, but in support of the people's right to choose whether
this is what they want. So, I just wanted to make that really clear. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries unanimous. Thank
you for those who have come and spoke. Okay. Item I2, legislative intent, permission to advertise increase to the storm utility assessment. >> Y'all welcome to stay and spoke speak in favor of that too if you like. >> Jim, go ahead. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair.
Uh this is kind of the second item from the February 10th board meeting where he directed staff to bring back um uh this uh items. So this bring back legislative intent and permission to advertise increase to storm water utility assessment rates. Um we highlighted the storm water projects and the effects at
the budget workshop. We spent an hour or so describing it to the board. Uh same thing thanking the departments, same seven departments. We spoke to all the commissioners. So in the agenda for everybody in the audience, there's some options for the board to consider. Number one is to direct the revenue to
be evenly split between water quality and flood mitigation. Right now it's 70 approximately 7030 for water quality, 30% for flood mitigation. Option two is eliminate the design credit by providing maintenance credits that could generate up to about a million dollars across the
county. uh number of people and I'll use myself as example. My subdivision has storm water design so I don't pay the four the full $64. I pay 47 or something. This would raise me up to $64. Option three is raise the assessment. We
have a suggestion of 85.80 that accounts for the CPI since the 2016 implement imple implementation. Um that would increase revenue by about $2.4 million across the districts. That's the chart you see in your agenda. if the board desires. Option four, you
could add a CPI uh CPIU to it for the rates. Option five is a small one uh raise the collection a minimum collection of $51. That would raise about $12,000. Um I had a good conversation with the tax collector Lisa yesterday explaining how uh with the $5.
Um so that would allow us to you know make sure we collect what we can. Number six is combining all the actions together and of course number seven is other actions uh desired by the board. If you do any of the options of two through five or even all two through six, that's going to require assessment
letters to be sent before final board approval. The best analogy I could use with that is what we went through last year with the fire assessment. It would be the same similar process. >> Very good. Thank you for that synopsis. Any other staff input?
Okay. The what is the will of the board? >> Do we have cards? >> We have one. Sorry, Senator Sullivan. I was sitting here holding it. >> Yeah, you didn't get off that too easy.
Okay, so um we just had a conversation about, you know, the lagoon tax and putting that, you know, to referendum and one of the things that is funded in the lagoon tax is storm water. I mean, as Katie said,
you know, the why is the the focus of it on the sewage, the septic, and the storm water, right? So, we just had that conversation and and as was stated here a few meetings ago, when you're talking
about flooding and storm water, we're gonna we're gonna look to tax the people more. So, I mean, this goes to the bigger conversation. By not addressing the critical need of Bvard County, which is infrastructure, you're going to find
ways to tax the people more. Bottom line. So, here we are with a conversation about taxing the people more for storm water. Well, isn't this double taxation that we have the lagoon tax that addresses storm water and
salinity going into the lagoon, etc., etc., and we're paying for storm water projects. But oh wait, you start looking into a lot of those projects. Oh, there's storm water for so that we can build storm water basin areas for new
development like up there um chain of lakes. You know, there's a big development 38 acres, you know, putting in destroying estroine wetlands under sorrel to build a storm water basin. So, you can do a major development for a
developer. You know, it's all about we the money over we the people. Let's talk about, you know, again, got $160 million of storm water projects in the lagoon tax for Patrick Space force base and the
Cape. So, but when it comes to the people and the people's needs, okay, and the storm water for the people, let's increase our taxes. Let's let's increase our taxes in addition to the lagoon tax.
Let's increase our storm water assessment fees. Now, bigger picture here that we're not even should start the conversation is what is happening up in Tallahassee with the property tax because if the property tax goes away for homestead, we're looking at between
a six and 12% sales tax and then you start adding all these other taxes, what's the fiscal impact? How about we start with looking at what is happening up in Tallahassee before we make these big decisions and figure out a long-term
strategy rather than a reactive strategy because that's the way government should happen. Proactive management, but that's not what we're seeing. It's always reactive management. more taxes, more taxes, increase taxes, put it on the people and not address the
root issue which is coming even on storm water. Space is not paying a storm water assessment and they are not exempted by state statute. >> Okay, that was our one and only card. Um
any um any comment from the board? >> Yes, please. >> Yes. So obviously storm water issue doesn't affect every district the same. We have a couple of districts who are much more affected than others. Um for me it would be really hard to support an
increase because D3 doesn't have the same issues that for instance D1 and D2 have. So I have a couple of questions for staff if I may. Um first of all could we all have a different split if we wanted to? And my second question is
specifically, let's look at D1 because we've been talking about their heartbreaking issues recently. If if they just switched from 7030 to have 70 more for flood mitigation, what would their numbers look like up in D1
specifically? >> So, Commissioner, the answer to both of your questions is is yes. So, the each district could have a different rate. when the storm water utility was established in 1990 and 91. Um, districts three and five were established in 90 and the rest were
established in 91. So, the rate could could be different. Um, and the split for water quality and flood mitigation could also differ based on board direction. That would not require an assessment letter um to go out. The differing rates per district would
require that we notice the public and and that would probably be a longer process. You know, when we started talking about this, we talked about a six to 12 month process. So, kind of changing those rates per district would probably be a 12-month project and a next fiscal year type of project.
>> Followup. So, if we were to take for instance D1's split right now of 7030, can you tell me what the number is, how much how many dollars they have going to storm water right now, and if they change that to 70%, what that number would look like? >> Right. So, right now,
>> sorry to put you on the spot. >> Right. So, >> and I've got um my my math major over here crunch crunching the numbers, but right now they're collecting 2.1 recurring revenue. Um% >> so 70% is 1.5 million. So, you know,
half of two it's would be 1,500 or 1 million essentially a little over one million. >> A significant difference. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. So they'd collect another half a million for flood control. >> Could Mr. Chair, a question.
>> If uh if a district were to stay the same, but other districts were to change. Okay. The district it say stays the same. Do you need to send letters out to them? >> Most likely. I'm 95% sure, but I I will
verify that. But any change to aortionment methodology or rate generally it's then treated as a new assessment and it requires the mailer to go out to everyone who's in the assessment >> and and would it say just so you know your your rate is unchanged?
>> It could certainly have language to that effect. >> Yeah. Thank you. Um, since we're talking about D1, um, and and not Am I hearing that the board is not interested in in looking at the whole county, but we're talking about D1? Is that kind of the
gist? >> May I No, I'm just I'm because you guys have a really huge problem with flooding. I just wanted to know what the numbers were if we were to to shift it and also even if we could all be different, right? >> So, that was my only thought. Um, if if
we are only talking D1, I personally would be more in favor of doing the 7030 swap rather than an increase. Um, but if I'm happy to have a broader conversation as well if other districts are looking
into this as an option. >> I'm not looking at this as an option. Um if if today as part of a motion is simply to change your allocation for district 1, that that's fine. Um but I'm
I'm not I'm not looking to to raise storm water. >> May I? >> So I've been thinking a lot about this. Um would I have to tell you today what I wanted my split to be or could that be
something I I tell you later? uh the board could give that direction at any time and then we would analyze the projects in Q for your particular district and let you know what those impacts would be. >> So if I may just throw my thoughts out about the other things. Um I think
raising the minimum fee to $5 is is for me sensible and easy. um a design credit. I I think we should eliminate it because if what we have are a bunch of systems that aren't actually exceeding the
standards, then it's doing a disservice to everybody else. So, I would support eliminating the design credit. I'm not going to support a storm water assessment and I'm I'm I'm not comfortable supporting attaching it to CPI so that we have
automatic um increases. So for me, I would say let each district split the revenue um as they see fit for their district. Design credit, eliminate it, and the minimum fee up to five. That's what I feel comfortable with.
>> May I have a question? >> And um so does that mean that we would have to come before the board or each commissioner could work directly with staff in regards to their split? Um, >> um, Commissioner Atinson, I'm sorry,
that's I that was a question for you. So, >> I don't know. I don't know what the how I would do it is I would go to staff. I would look at the programs that we have or the projects that we have in line and try to figure I personally I would work with staff, okay, to figure out what the right split would be for my district
because you guys have more experience and you know what's in line and who it affects. >> Um, I'm I'm looking at Morris. There is language about needing to document need for any sort of assessment. So we would need to go through the process of
identifying you know what your needs are district by district and I believe maybe aortion the fees according to those needs. Is that >> as far as the split? There's a lot of discretion because that wasn't part of
the ordinance adoption. It's not really part of the methodology but at the same time it's not entirely arbitrary either. um it's not a lever that you can move um just at whim because some consideration does have to be given to our requirements to comply with BMAP and
things like that on the water treatment side. So I'm just cautious to say you know I don't know that it would always be possible to completely lever down water quality and and up flood control for example. Um but yes, if we start changing any of the numbers or the
methodology or aortionment or the way we get there, uh that all requires study, it has to support um whatever is adopted. There has to be a benefit to real property in order to have a valid assessment. And then all of that would require new notice except for the 728
kind of split with the caveat that there are some limits on how much you can move that. Okay. Um, if if it's all right, I I feel like um I'm comfortable with making a motion. And if there's any other board um input
into this, please um feel free to add a add an amendment. Um I would like to make a motion to allow each of the commissioners to work directly with staff um to decide on the split. Um, and
then I would like to also eliminate the design credit and um raise the minimum fee collected by the tax collector to 5.01. >> I'll second that because that's exactly what I wrote. >> Any discussion?
>> Any discussion? Uh, seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I oppose. U 41 with Commissioner Felner voting against. Okay.
All right. Do >> we have any cards? I lose J2. >> Sandra Sullivan. J2, >> do we want staff to >> Let's have staff to introduce the >> Thank you.
Um, thank you so much. I decided to bring this back up um for conversation because I believe it was tabled um when I brought it up the first time and just because I I figured we were having this broad conversation of storm water, infrastructure, all of that. So, I just
wanted to kind of bring it up um since we were having this discussion. >> Okay, >> for our first >> Yes. Sandra Sullivan. >> Sandra Sullivan. So, just a a couple notes on this. Having attended a lot of
TPO meetings. Um so they've they've seen this coming that um the the gas tax and you have to put in what the other considerations are. The gas tax because of the number of EVs, electric vehicles who don't purchase as much gas. It has
historically met you know the needs for for roads um and unfortunately because of the number of EVs. So just you know to I mean Bvard is is at the lower it lowest end of the tax uh as as you saw
in the presentation 6%. U compared to you know the 11 counties at 6%. Um, so I appreciate the the fiscal conservative part there, but so if you in increase it, it's not fixing the root underlying
issue, which is the EVs. And then you're putting more tax burden on the people who choose to drive gas uh while not addressing the root issue. Now you have a lobbyist and th this is
an issue that has been known for years. Um it was predicted uh back in 2011 and 2022 that in 2025 we're going to be at a point where it's not bringing in enough money for paving roads and such. And so
I would just say again a lack of proactive action to addressing the issue legislatively. You have a lobbyist. There needs to be a a solution to where the people with the EV vehicles are
paying their share towards the wear and tear on the roads because it's heavier vehicles typically you know they they are having an impact just as gas vehicles are. So it shouldn't the burden shouldn't be on gas vehicles alone to
fund that mechanism for paving roads. And so if you if you have this conversation, I think at the same time it's important to come up with a solution for what the underlying root issue is and how you address that as well. Thank you very much.
>> Okay, that's our only card. Uh back for a card. >> Sure. This will be few seconds. >> In that study I gave you, it also states that the sound sensitive ground, which
is basically the barrier islands, that asphalt will last less than two years on the on the roads. So, we're going to be looking at a big increase in in our road resurfacing. >> Okay. Um,
so let's have staff if we can to go over what our options are specifically here today to highlight that again. >> Um, Mr. Chair, it's the staff didn't put this agenda item together. You have a couple gas tax available there. You have
the one through 5 cent that hasn't been implemented and then you have what's called is the nth cent. It was implemented on the diesel side and not on the gasoline side. Um you could uh by supermajority vote you can implement the gas both of those gas taxes. So if four
of you vote it today um if you do it deadline I think it's October 1st and the tax will be collected January 1st I believe. I'm not certain on that one or you could vote by just a simple majority to put it on the ballot for the November general election
either this year or 2028. Those basically what's in our agenda packet, the four items. Take no action. So y >> provide further directions or next steps to staff. That one's less clear. Adopt five and or
night cent option gas tax with a supermajority vote. Um and approve placement of one or more items on the ballot. I have a question on the adopt the 5- cent and or ninth and the ninth cent. How much revenue
would that generate a year? >> If Travis can yell it out, it was in the slides. I mean there somebody >> I think it's 9.1 million. >> Um I hang on one second folks. I actually have
>> 6.4 and then 2.7 annually for the >> There you go. He's got it >> gas. >> Yep. >> All right. Little over. >> There it is. It took me a minute to find the chart. We agree with trans. >> Now, the question I have on that, and I think I know the Is that bondable? Are you able to bond that? >> Yes. >> Mhm.
>> So, if we enacted it, would we need to would we need to dis delineate how many years or is the statutory formula limit the number of years? >> I am not sure of the answer to that. I I don't think you delineate the number of
years in the gas tax, but I will verify. >> And the qu the question I have, if we decided we wanted to enact it, um would we have to write an ordinance and advertise that? >> Yes.
>> We couldn't enact it today. We would just give direction to staff to to prep for what the and that could probably answer. >> It would be legislative intent to prepare ordinance and bring it back. >> Okay. I'm going to pass the gavl and I'm going to make a motion that we do the
adopt the 5-cent and 9th centurion gas tax by supermajority vote. I'll make that a motion. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. All those opposed? >> Nay.
>> Motion fails. >> Okay. >> All right. With that, um I if if we wanted to bring this back at another time, would it be best to table this item, Morris, or is it okay to let it die and can it be
brought back again with um with Robert's rules? I mean, that's the that's the board's pleasure, but an action motion was made and and failed. So, that that could just naturally end the item. There's nothing really to prevent a commissioner from
bringing it up at some point in the future should they desire. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I think the only other action we would have here would be to uh vote to place the local option gas tax measure on the ballot, which um I I would
normally support. Although that said, given the discussion we had earlier today about sorrel, that could jeopardize sorrel. So, this may not be be the best time to do that. We probably wouldn't have the votes to do that anyway. So, >> can I make a quick comment, too? >> Yes.
>> Also, we've got budget workshops we still need to get through and that might be sensible to talk about this again after we have those budget workshops. We might learn something. >> Yes. I I think um I was here when we
implement the local opt 6 cents local option gas tax and um the economic growth as well as the quality of life growth was tremendous. I I use Melbourne airport as an example
that I I just go through some of the projects and and we are facing we're facing severe congestion problems in in the county. Um, but in that project, uh, State Road 3 was two-lane. Can you imagine if we still had a two-lane State
Road 3? You wouldn't be able to get to the Cape. All the roads, uh, NASA, Malibar or NASA, Babcock, Derry, Evans, Wickham, Apollo were all two-lane roads. You
wouldn't be able to get to them from the airport. So, we were able to actually show how we could save the consumer money in terms of drive time, wear and tear in your vehicle, gas consumption by doing those road improvements. Um, the other thing
is we noticed most of that gas tax is paid for by tourists. So, we're infusing a lot of money from the from the outside uh to come into our community. And then thirdly, we we lowered some of our MSTU
property taxes. So I I make that motion want to get a sense, but I hope we do at some point in the future consider uh that as a potential revenue source that will have pay great dividends for Bvardians.
That said, okay, we'll move on. I think that ends our agenda. We got a report. >> We have no public comment cards. >> All right. We'll have uh county manager.
>> No report, Mr. Chair. >> County attorney. >> I have no report, Mr. Chair. >> District one. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Yes. I um just wanted to give a a short update um on some of the boards that um
that I participate in. And um so we had our CFX meeting uh this past month and um one of the big things that came out from that was uh one of the main roads heading towards the Sanford airport is getting expanded. So that's going to be
really great um for for Central Florida. And um we also had our TPO meeting which a huge piece of the conversation at that meeting was um funding for roads and for transportation and um
which today you know they they gave a portion of that um uh presentation and um I guess the last thing I was uh wanting to see if there's any board support for is
possibly a um a workshop um in regards to infrastructure and a and possible pathways forward um on how we can fill some of these gaps because I mean
I've I've gotten loads of information not only from our many many budget reports but from conversations and the TPO and all all these different things that we're um a part of And so, uh,
you know, I I feel like we kind of know what our options are. And, you know, from how many of us campaigned, I I believe all of us campaigned. One of the things was the major things was infrastructure. And so
I'm I'm hoping that we can maybe do a workshop, a real um collaboration to to try to see how we can plan for the future and what that looks like. And I I I'd be happy to bring that forward as a um agenda item
if I need to, but I'm just kind of throwing it out there to see if there's any support for that. >> Can I ask a quick question? is Mark's um presentation is coming up soon in in is it in March?
>> We're going to focus on the facility side. You know, that's infrastructure. We brought you the storm water and the drainage and we've highlighted the roads and bridge, you know, last year, too. >> Um if you you want to add more, we'll add more. >> Well, I was going to say we could
possibly ex expand. I mean I I know is he out there? Yeah. >> I know he I can know he can talk for quite a long time on on the needs. Uh so I'm I'm okay if we we expand his time uh
during one of the workshops. I think I think that probably get you there. I'm I'm more so looking at board discussion because I feel like we do a lot of listening and um which the which the presentations are great and I feel like that's how I've gotten you know as
educated as I I have. >> Let me clarify. I don't mind having a discussion during that portion of the workshop. I I think that's easy because we'll be on that subject but that's that's fine with me. >> Thank you. District two, >> no report.
>> District three, >> no report, sir. >> District four, >> no. >> I have a few items. Um, one is I'd like to ask the board to approve the chief of staffs of each district as alternates to the canvasing board if the commissioners
are. >> We did that before, sir. Um, the prior board, but I happy to make that motion for you if that's what you're looking for. >> Yes. Second. >> Motion second. All in favor? saying goodbye saying I I >> and and just for the record they've all received training
>> um for that. So they're they're right. Is that my recollection? So they're all ready to go. >> Good. >> Yeah. >> Good. All right. Well, great. Um I was asked to do this, so I assumed we need to do it again. Um, also I've been asked to uh attend a meeting in um
in Washington with Bright Line in reference to the new station here in Bvard County along with the city of Coco. U would like to ask for approval to to make that trip uh as the chairman of the commission. >> Second or motion.
>> It's a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> How much can I ask her? How how much do you anticipate that cost because that has been an issue for a prior board. Uh, unfortunately, >> well, whatever the normal whatever the
normal >> up to $2,000 something, >> I'll pay for it myself. That's not >> No, I will go myself. I've already I will do it myself. >> Uh, I have no other items. I Okay. >> Okay, that's the uh end of the meeting.
Thank you. The opinions expressed by any member of the public during any period of public comment do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the board of county commissioners of Bvard County, Florida, Space Coast Government Television, or the program sponsor and are solely those of the presenter. The board of county
commissioners of Bvard County, Florida, Space Coast Government Television, and the program sponsor hereby expressly disclaim any and all responsibility or liability for any defamatory or slanderous statements expressed by any member of the public during any such period.
Heat. Heat.