--------- Okay, good evening everyone. Today is August 19th, 2025. It is 5:00 p.m. We are at the Cape Canaveral City Council Workshop meeting located at the City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Pulk Avenue in Cape Canaveral, Florida. I call this meeting
to order. And with that, like to ask our new city manager to please lead us in the pledge. >> My pledge. >> Please join me in saying the pledge. >> I aliance to the flag of the United
States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. City clerk, please call the role. >> Council member Davis
>> here. >> Council member Jackson >> here. >> Mayor Prom Kellum >> here. >> Mayor Morrison >> here. >> And council member Willis >> here. >> All five council members are here. Thank
you. And thank you to the city staff and everyone who's joining us here today. At this time, we have public participation. This is our workshop meeting before our 6 o'clock p.m. regular city council meeting. Tonight's workshop is in regards to the proposed
fisc year 2526 budget and 5-year capital improvement plan. If you do intend to speak, we do ask that you fill out a card, but in workshop fashion, uh if you do want to speak, uh you can come forward. We do try to leave a little bit of time at the end if possible uh to
have any follow-up comments after you hear the council discuss. Um I don't anticipate us taking any uh formal action here in within this meeting. Uh but as we head into the schedule with the budget, we will continue to uh
host the public hearings and follow the process with state law in our city code and charter. So with that um if anyone intends to speak, please come forward. Okay, seeing no public comment, we'll go ahead
and close public participation for now and uh bring it back to the one item discussion uh for the budget. Before doing so, uh, council, I think, uh, it might be helpful that our city manager or, uh, director, if he chooses,
gives us a brief overview, um, of the budget and maybe highlight some of the changes from our last meeting, council, is that's okay, Mr. City Manager. >> Absolutely. Thank you, Mayor. Can you hear me? I don't know about the distance
to the microphone up here. So uh so as you know July 29th special council meeting the council adopted the resolution 25-07 establishing a tenative mill rate of combined mill rate of 3.24 and we also discussed uh reducing the
city's reserve policy from the 20% to the 16.7% and you have the proposed budget in front of you that reflects that conversation. So to get deeper into what we've uh done since then, I'd like to uh have our finance director, John DeLo, uh
go into more detail. John. >> Okay. Hello, council. Um, so basically the memo that uh Joey has handed to y'all is a compilation of what's happened since uh 29 uh July uh
to attain the roll back rate and um the it also it also comprises the uh taking the unobligated reserve from 20% to 16.7. Are these mics on?
>> Could you hear me? >> I I don't hear myself. >> They're not on. >> It doesn't. >> Testing one, two. >> There you go. >> Test testing. >> It's picking up. It seems like >> testing. Okay. It just seems like I'm >> closer. >> Get closer.
>> All right. Um so what this uh memo comprises of it shows you the effect of the change changes on the revenue um the department reductions and as Joey and I were um directed to see what we can additionally cut not only with capital
projects but this also contains a few operating expenditure lines as we go through those and um it'll show you uh just a a complete orderly um uh orderly uh process of what was
added, what was subtracted, and then we even included, not that we needed to, but you know, just just to show council the the wastewater and storm water fund. However, they're not part of the general fund, but we did go ahead and do that for you. And then um we did a a summary
on the last page for roll back then the roll back revenues uh what they turned out to be after all the adjustments and then the budget totals. So um we can go
through uh the line items just to just to refresh your memory. If Joe you could if you want to you could go ahead and just uh kind of read some of the revenue changes. uh the impact of the ad valerum revenue uh from that point the 1.4
million to get to the uh roll back rate and then just continue on down if council has any questions. >> Okay. Um so I will basically just read down the memo. Um let me know if you have any questions. Um so I'll start with the revenue changes. Um by taking
the the millage rate down from the proposed to the roll back >> rate. Um we have uh lost $1,458,000 in ad uh valerum revenue. Um also we've
increased the use of reserves from uh an original $747,000 to 926,000. So we increased the use of reserves by 178,000. Um and by decreasing the ad valerum uh
or the millage rate, we then transfer less money from the general fund to the CRA. So that um the money transferred to the CRA decreased by 359,000. Um, and additionally, a revenue we
changed was we corrected the EV charging revenue down from the original high estimate to a new about $5,000 uh, estimate. Are there any questions on any of those revenue changes? >> Council, any questions for Joey? And I
just want to really don't want to get too far on this meeting. Are we certain this is picking up? I think that I heard some of the council members say they can't hear. Mhm. >> Should we pause and just confirm every >> There testing one, two. >> Yep, there it is. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, council. Any questions for finance department Joey working through the changes? Please proceed.
>> Okay. Um the next uh part of this memo is the uh department reductions. Um the resiliency department, they have taken out $4,000 of um expenses um in GIS licenses. Uh a couple hundred
in their conference expenses. Um the community economic development department has taken a couple hundred out of their conference uh expenses. I am. So now the large uh pieces we've taken out of the budget are uh we've
taken out the city hall air conditioner that was $325,000. Um additionally we've reduced the city hall outside maintenance by $3,000 and buildings and grounds maintenance by another,000.
Uh the PRCA changes. Um we've cut some CIPs or moved them out. Uh, the manatee sanctuary park upgrades for 19,000 has been moved out. The batting cage pitching machine CIP for 10,000 has been
moved out. Uh, the Ridgewood crossover and memorial pavers has been moved out. Um, so I'll go on to the next page now. uh the non-dep departmental we uh fund. We have reduced the renewal and replace
expense by $10,000. We've taken out the Cocoa Beach fireworks expense, which is $5,000. And we've reduced our miscellaneous expenses um by $3,000. Um and then the largest changes were um
the changes in ARPA money transferred from the general fund to the stormwater fund. um which in essence saves the general fund expenses. So by um reducing the Canaveral drainage basin, Thurm
Boulevard improvements and Longpoint Road Retention by each of those 250,000, 300,000 and 150,000, we save that um $700,000
uh of expenses from in the general fund. Um, additionally, there has been changes. Uh, expenses have increased since the last proposed budget. Um, uh, they have increased by 146,000.
Um, it does seem like a lot. Uh, there's a detailed breakdown of what it was. Um, there were a few positions, um, part-time and seasonal that were just not captured originally. And then additionally, um the positions that we
have officially signed, the expenses have been higher with than what they were originally budgeted for. Um as well as updating some workers compensation. Um so some of those uh personnel expenses have increased since the last
time. Um but the net in the general fund is we reduced um in order to get from the original proposed budget to the current um roll back rate, we basically had to find $1.1 million, which we have
done. Um and we could we could stop there because that's the whole effect on the general fund. if council, you know, later on once council makes comments on this, if they want to, they could they
could read the library fund, CRA fund, but those aren't the funds that are in question, and those not the the things you've read are the the things that had to be adjusted to get to the roll back rate. >> Thank you. I just want to clarify under
this section personnel expenses the increase in $146,000 total. >> Yes, I have a breakdown of um each of them. I can go over each uh line to give a better understanding of of what happened.
>> Well, that I think that will be helpful. The first bullet there just as an example, resiliency analyst negative 34,000. Is that stating that? >> Uh, what? No, what that is is um all of those amounts um they're not negative.
Um >> that's a dash. >> Mhm. >> Oh, yes. >> Yeah, that's a dash. >> Yes, >> that makes more sense. >> Yeah, it's so Yeah, it looks a little different because of the but it that's a dash. So, um >> Okay.
>> And and and and the personnel expense in parenthesis, that's a positive. Hence with the >> correct the expense went up >> and so if we add those up will that equal 146,000 is that correct now it
make that's all I had for now thank you council any other >> questions at this point on the general fund explanation council member Jackson >> okay on the and I just want to get clarification so I understand because in
the last budget workshop in the U PRCA We talked about cutting out rover space west, but we're cutting out Manatee Park upgrades and I thought that one was one that was pretty important with what they
needed. So would >> I could explain that if you want. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So the dynamics involved were that based on what had transpired, based on the um personal expense increases and um how
all the numbers came together, it it it left us 20 about 30 and Joey, you could jump in if you $236,000 where we where we had Rover. We were going to do Rover Park, but we had $236.
as we were out of bed. So to get the numbers straight between uh for that we >> Yeah, we 146. Yeah. So we what we had to do is is basically come up with that
additional that additional money. So, we had to take the bigger project, the 325, and we put the we put the Rover back in because if we just took Rover, we'd still be looking for what was it, Joey? Another
If we took Rover out, if we didn't take the uh air conditioner out and we took Rover out, we would have fell short by whatundomek or something or what was it? 40 >> the >> 56k. >> Basically, we in order to balance the
budget, we ended up having to take out the air conditioner, which was a large expense. Otherwise, we wouldn't have been able to piece the C, >> right? What's the what I'm just saying I want council just to know what the difference was is because we took out the air conditioner and we had to put we put Rover back in because then we were
balanced. So >> 146 146 >> 325 whatever that difference is. >> Okay. >> Okay. And in that last meeting we had discussed the longpoint project. Yes. >> And that came back into the budget.
>> No, that's out there. >> U that that meaning we we got that money put back into our available funds because that's correct. >> We can't do that project. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So that is including that in this. That's correct.
>> Is that correct? Okay. >> So, what what my concern is, what were the ma what were the manity park upgrades? Because I'm worried about Manatee Park because I know we have maintenance over there that needs to be done. >> What the original upgrades were.
>> We could look in the workbook for you and tell you. Yeah. Just a second. >> Page 117. >> Thank you. Page 117. Okay. up the budget. >> So, >> yes. So, that was that was picnic tables
and some >> um pavilion >> hardware replacement, rusted electrical conduit and components um you know and increasing the rentability of the facility and that live trail workout equipment.
So to me >> correct that was the C ci that would have been PRCA number three on page 117 and that's correct those those three items that $19,000 >> and see just to make it balance. Um, I
get what y'all are saying because you you had a >> we're just looking for expenses to get to that roll back number and now these are the things you're right. We could discuss to say maybe we don't take that out, John. Maybe we come and take this or something like Well, I'm concerned with building another park when we've
got one that needs this because this is maintenance that needs to happen for our park to be nice. And that's a beautiful park and we're getting a lot of people that are cruisers going over there and spending time, believe it or not, uh in this heat even um in between their
cruises. And so I want it to look nice and I'm worried about adding another one when we've got the maintenance to do for this one. And you're and you're correct and these and these are the tradeoffs because you're right, the Rover was on the list to move out, right? And so if
council said, you know what, let's let's uh let's move Rover out like we expected to, then we would when uh >> then we would go in and we could add back things like those upgrades to Manatee Park and whatever. And it could take we could take nine um whatever the
difference is whether it's 60k or 90k we could then move that around. >> Right. I'm just concerned about Manatee Park because it we want it that's a beautiful park and it's our largest park if I'm not mistaken. Molly, you can is
that our largest one? And so I don't want it I want her I want Molly to have what she needs for that to be maintained in a in a nice manner. And that's do and that's doable because that those are the adjustments that could be made to get to that number. So yeah,
>> and I want to make a a point a clarify a point on the rover space west. It's not $90,000 that's available. It's 60,000 because if you go to the source of funds on the CIP, look at the bottom.
Um, what we were actually doing there is is we had some impact fees. That recreation expansion fund that's sitting in our investment, does everybody see that? That's 30,000. So, that wasn't that wasn't an expense for us. Only the 60K is because we were going to use
investment in our investment account. So, now you got that 60K and then like what you were saying, if you wanted to back in, you take out the 60K but add back in the 19K. Now there's 40 more K adjustment and that's kind of the exercise we go through. But that's
what's good about the >> Yeah. I just want to make sure that you know because uh you look at some of the things um that are on that CIP PC PRCA3. We've got we've got kitchen hardware and
amenities that definitely makes it more rentable. Um it it needs a new water fountain. I've seen the water fountain. Um, and we've got some conduit and electrical work. Um, we've got those picnic tables and I've seen them.
They're some of them are beyond their really very nice life. Let's put it that way. And then I know that live trail equipment is aging. So, that's just that's what I saw from the memo that you
all put out uh just covered, >> Mr. Mayor. >> Yes, Council Member Willis. I think if you remove the 60,000 for the Rover West and put all of these other things back in, it's almost a wash. >> It is. >> It is. Yeah.
>> And I think I think we get, as Council Member Jackson was stated, we get a more bang for our buck. Even if we add in the batting cages, all of that, it ends up being nearly a wash. >> And I think that's correct. I think we
stand to be more beneficial to our residents by doing that versus Rover West. >> Absolutely. And that's council's discretion. If they want to if council directs us to, you know, take the 60k
out for the rover, put back in the PRCA CIP cuts, then yeah. And like you said, that's beneficial for the community. >> I would be all for that. And I want to thank you, Molly, for looking at ways to work with that because I know that that
you have done that. Um, I just I just want Manatee Park to be really nice and I I know everyone enjoys our existing dog park, you know, so we can look at that, push it out a little bit and look at that maybe later. I'm I'm in
agreement with Council Member Willis on that. >> So, let's restate summarize that one more time so we all got it. The change would be >> taking taking out Rover Park. >> Okay. >> Over west the 60,000 you add back in
um PRCA3 >> all of that >> 90 >> which is which is 39,000 >> right? >> Then you add in the batting cages uh PRCA5 which is another 10,000
>> get you to 29. Yeah. So that's 491, right? Yep. >> And Rover was 60. >> 60. Yeah. >> And if you if you want to take the crossover like you said uh and the and do the memorial pavers back in then um
you know that would reduce it say another four. So now you're only 25,000 out of bed in terms of what you may want to add uh back in. And and I still think we should wait on
those memorial papers because we don't we're going to need a survey on that. >> You know what? Let me do >> uh what we own. >> And a correction, a brief correction. You know what? Molly actually did move those out because excuse me, the pathway and the pavers because of what's going
to be done over there. She did move that out in her CIP that's in your new uh your new book. So, um that has been moved out. So that won't be moved out back in. So that would take you back to about about 288.
So there's actually 20 to get the roll back. We could add 28,800 back in to be at roll back. And we we could easily find that based on the cuts that we had. >> Okay, great. Council, uh, any other
questions? We were just I think stopping at the general fund section of the memo. >> John, are you uh do you want to go through the remaining funds? Was that the goal or I >> I don't I don't think that's that's needed. Um >> okay.
>> To go through the uh like enterprise or whatever. No. >> Yes. Mayor Pim Kellum. >> Yes. Question. Um the park at at uh the C5
That's under the CRA 500,000. Is that correct? Because I don't I Yes. Let's go to the go to the CRA summary. Let me look at that. Soon as I get there. >> Okay. Just >> Yeah, that's correct. Yeah. CR1. Um,
Mayor Prom, that's in the uh that would be CRA money, >> right? What I'm wondering is I've looked at that park. Um, I know that the the one big piece of equipment needs to be replaced, but if we if we said we want
to finance out of the CRA 250,000 for that park this year, the remaining of the other 250,000, could we use that somewhere else? Could it go towards the air conditioning on city hall? Can we use CRA money for
that? >> No. Is there somewhere else we could use? >> The CRA is relatively healthy this year. And it it could the CRA could sustain uh the 500,000 if we want to spend it all
in this upcoming year. And we didn't spend a lot of money in the CRA this year. So what's going to happen is there actually will be we have to reobligate money in the CRA that's not spent. you have to do that otherwise you could lose
it. So we will do that and we could have a good number for you probably uh I could tell you right now it's going to be more than $250,000. So, um, in answer to your question, we could still spend the 500k and still have a few hundredk, even more, uh, next year in sitting
there maybe on a PO that where the money could be obligated if we need to. If council wants to go beyond um what we want to spend on a presidential street or on the incentive program or the Nancy Hansen um renovations, then uh we will
have additional additional funds there. >> I just think that um this year our big emphasis and I agree with um Council Member Jackson and and M and Don about maintenance manatee park. Um, I think we
need to um really concentrate on maintenance for these parks. Um, if we could use the money for take it out of the general fund, use the CRA for Nancy Hansen. Um, I'm just throwing things out there. Um, and use 250 for the city park
to get that. I mean, I think painting and some um pressure washing would bring that park up a little bit and maybe go for grants for that park and try to use the the CRA money. >> Okay.
>> For other maintenance, you know, I'm just throwing it out there. >> Molly, would you want to just comment on the extent of the cost for the park and then um what Mayor Prom is alluding to. What's that
>> one turned on? >> There it is. It's I don't know what the delay is. >> Um, so first of all, and John can maybe explain this a little bit better. We are not going to use but a fraction of the
CRA money that's been allocated for the concession stand. That project was budgeted at over 300,000 based on the previous intentions of doing a drop in place building, removing a bunch of trees, having to remove the current structure. So, we're looking at some a
project now that is not 300 some odd thousand. It's more like 20 to 25. So, that money is going to roll over. Now, what you have at Manatee or sorry, at uh Sanp Piper Park is playground equipment that is at the end
of its serviceable lifespan. We're having a very difficult time finding parts. We've had to uh adapt and overcome, if you will, for some of the equipment to even remain in place and be able to be utilized safely due to
vandalism, due to the age. And the city didn't even technically pay for that equipment when they did install it because it was installed with grant funding. I did not want to hang my hat on having that replacement cost be
dependent on Tallahassee for grants. We are at the end of the lifespan there. and the plan that we have with the equipment that we've we've priced out and the surfacing. One of the things that'll be um an absolute amazing addition for that park, not only in
terms of accessibility for our residents, particularly those with mobility challenges, whether it be the kids themselves playing on it or the parents or grandparents that are taking their kids to the park, is pour in place um surfacing for underneath the new
playground equipment. And it's going to be based on all of the quotes that I've been getting over the years because this keep getting pushed out, pushed out, pushed out. We're going to be needing 500,000. So, one of the things that I've discovered, because you don't know what these things cost until you get in this
business, like an example that I've talked with Mayor Morrison about before, I didn't know the commercial Christmas tree could run into the 30 to $50,000 range. Surprise. Um, playground equipment for install is almost double.
So, I could go ahead and get $250,000 worth of equipment, but we wouldn't be able to install it ourselves. We would have to pay for the install. So, between the pore in place, which obviously requires professional installation, and having nice new equipment that will last
for the 30 years that this existing equipment has lasted, um, we're going to need that funding. While you're up there, um, where are we with the splash pad and how is is that progressing? >> We are scheduling the installation of
the new equipment within the next week and a half. >> All right, cool. >> Um, my my only concern is in that and where I'm headed is I watched the meeting that I wasn't here and that was awful. But anyway, um and I agreed with
uh um Don about trying to find the money for the air conditioning because I think that is maintenance big time and I if we wait a year for that, how much more is it going to cost? So, what what I'm trying to get at is how can we move
things around or try to find that money for the air conditioning? Yep. >> Well, we'll have to revisit the capital projects that we have >> being at roll back rate and moving
towards the um you know the reserve level that the council is looking at. Um we can if it does go out we really have nowhere to go but reserves >> and that would put us below the mark that we want to be at for our next audit.
>> So we'll have to have a heartfelt conversation about capital items. Go ahead. >> The uh so based on all that's transpired, you can see um based on the the uh sheet that Joey provided that uh
we landed at 16 9% with the reserves as opposed so so we're 0.2 above. What does that equate to Joey? Just approximately. >> I need to calculate that. >> Yeah. And I didn't mean to surprise you with that one. I thought you that one, but that's it's not much.
Yeah. Yeah. But it's going to be I don't know. It might be 30 40,000. I don't know. Anyway, what what I was going to say though is is we have basically when you look at the
general fund, we have actually pretty much uh taken out everything we possibly could. Now, um when it comes to the air, it's it's not easy to make up, but we
have some things that we possibly could do. We do have $16,000 in uh the resiliency that we could push out uh a year uh in it for a year. That was the um and I'll I'll get what's the name of that, Joey? The the resiliency
thing. What was it? >> It's the lighting unit in its >> lighting unit. >> 15,000. >> So 15,000. So we could push that out. So now I'm just all I'm trying to do here is to some type of path to cut into maybe not pushing out the the air conditioner.
Um there's there's things that we could consider but we may not want to do. For instance, CED number one, the first CIP, $32,000, the economic development action plan that could be pushed that could be
pushed out of here. So, I just came up with uh 32 40 I just came up with $47,000 that could cut into what you're you're saying. And if you were to say, well, how could we keep how could we
fund how could we fund that air conditioner if we take it out and something happened this year? How would we fund it? Do we have the money to fund it? Yes, we do. But it's it's a slippery slope because you have $200,000 in contingency, which part of that is definitely going to be needed during the
year for unexpected. We do have $345,000 in renewal and replace, but that's kind of not real either in the sense that if I if the air conditioner went out and I said, and it's a renew and replace item and I told council, we're taking the money 325K
out of the renew and replace, we could cover it. The only thing is there's other renewal and replace items we'll buy during the year and now I'm down to 45,000 um or or whatever with three four I'm down to 20,000 and now I'm going to have
to manage whatever comes my way to fund an existing general fund uh revenues and if that doesn't cover it then I would have exhausted possibly my contingency and my RNR and
then I'd have to go to an obligated reserve. So, it's not impossible to take the air conditioner out and then if, god forbid, something happens, we could still fund it. But now we're kind of playing with as long as nothing
else happens, which is a very is is unknown. Okay. So >> John, what what if we took out the I mean to me the solar array on top of the precinct is important. Is it more important than the air conditioner for
>> Well, it is in a sense only because we have a grant. It's grant funded and we don't want to lose grants. It's like 75% grant funded. So we don't want to lose grants because if that wasn't grandfunded grant funded, that would be lowhanging fruit. that would be just
>> so >> um >> there is a there is a concern I know there's a concern level over the air conditioner if you want to know since we've been in the building the city's probably spent close to $60,000 for the last 18 to 25 seven years on the air
conditioner because of what's transpired I mean that's air conditioners do have problems but go ahead >> um so I have a question for Molly so please don't leave but while he's talking about AC I'm going to ask one quick question before I could I'm sorry. Um, so Mr. Deileo on the AC, is there
any reason we can't take and fund half of it this year and half of it next year? Take our chance. Of course, we're taking our chance, but that way if something catastrophic did happen to it, we would have half of it funded where it
wouldn't be coming out of the RNR. Well, that would mean that you would the in the intent would be to try to do the AC towards the end of the year and only spend half the amount of funds. Is that what you're alluding to?
>> Well, no. I'm saying that we don't we don't have to do redo the AC until we have some kind of probability of an issue. >> Right. We had discussed in the last budget uh workshop about the fact that
you'd do exactly that if it's still running in December. You know that that's you wouldn't go and replace it necessarily ahead of time. >> No. >> Okay. So if we split the funding out over two years
and then waited till to look at replacing it in December, then that next year we could have it funded fully funded. If it failed during the year, half of it would already be funded. The other half would come out of the RNR,
not leaving you with a $40,000 balance. >> I think you have a question. But next year wouldn't be until September and October. >> Next year would next year. >> The next next year is October 1st, 2020.
>> I was using I was using a calendar example of December. It could be it could be September. I mean, it would be September because that's the end of our fiscal year. But regardless, you could go you could wait until that time frame to start planning it.
>> I I could see what you're saying. So let me let me see if I follow. So what we do is we we make adjustments to the budget to stay at roll back but some way keeping the co potential cost of half the air conditioner in the budget. Then
if god forbid something happens we only have to hit the RNR for half of that instead of the that's what you're alluding to. >> That's exactly what I'm saying. >> It's doable. I mean it's a different approach. >> It's creative accounting and it's what people in the real world do a lot of
times. Right. Yeah. >> When you're funding for your own home and top that huge >> expense coming up, >> it it it it's possible. So, what all all we would do is we would be adding one, you know, whatever half of that in and then we would go back and see where we
would, you know, I don't know if I could come up with uh $175,000. Um, I still to get the roll back, I still have to take the what's equal to the cost of the air conditioner to stay at
roll back. So that'sund sayund uh what 60 $160,000 $160,000 that I need to find. And I don't know if I could find $160,000 more here because
our contingency is already at $200,000. >> Okay. >> And we're really operating really >> Well, that was one of my questions and then the next one's for you going back to >> the um park Canaveral City Park redevelopment. >> Let's look at it.
>> Okay. So on the poor and place surface, you were you were saying with it and the new equipment, we'd be looking at the $500,000. >> I'm making note. >> Can you explain to me what the poor and place surface is that would be under the the equipment?
>> Are you familiar with the accessibility park that was done, I believe, in Palm Bay? I think it might be called Field of Dreams. >> No. >> Okay. Um, imagine
this. This is my dream, by the way. Imagine a world without mulch and having to constantly replace mulch and you still have a surface that a kid can very reasonably, unlike when we were growing up where we could fall on gravel and
concrete and still turn out fine. That's not the standard anymore. There there's there's limits. There's cushion factors. The pour in place would take the place of mulch. So, it would be a completely smooth surface where you could there's no bumps in it. There's no edges.
There's no mulch. There's no constantly needing to replace mulch. It's just a pore inplace rubberized surface that is playground rated for safety, but also has a component where if you are a parent that's wanting to engage with your child on the playground and you
have a mobility device or you're unsteady on your feet or you have a child that has a mobility device that it's a safer playing surface and considered ADA. >> Okay. So, um, and how much of the
$500,000 do you think that service would cost? >> Could be up to maybe 15 to 20%. >> Okay. >> But the savings in that is I don't have to replace thousands of dollars worth of
mulch there every year. >> When I understand that, that makes sense. Um now so 10 to 15% of the of the 500,000. So we're looking at at least 50,000. Um
and on that surface, can it be put into place after the park equipment has been replaced? >> So the new equipment has gone in and we put mulch in initially. Can the pour the pour and replace go in after the
installation of park equipment or do you have to do it before? >> It's ideally done before instead of retrofitting it like that because you would have to clear the land again and clear that all of that old mulch out of the way and prep the surface and then for the product.
>> You would still be doing that anyway if you were doing at any point you did this. You'd have to do that. That's whether you did it before or after. You would have to prep the surface, >> right? >> You'd have to remove the mulch. You'd have to put this prepare the surface for
the install. Um, so >> and the price will go up as time goes on. >> And I understand that. Yeah. Um, so really the bulk of this, so how um, and I'm not I'm not trying to be horsey,
but how accurate is the an estimate of $450,000 for that little parks equipment? >> Accurate. >> Okay. Have you got bids on it? >> We don't do bids, but we do have a quote. >> Okay. And that quote is based on a
contract, a piggyback contract. >> Okay. And is didn't see. Thank you because that's what I need to know. So um is it replacing the same number of things we have in the park or expanding >> adding adding more?
>> Because the equipment that's in there is so old. It's it's a total uplift. So, there's going to be additional pieces of equipment that are not included in the current park layout. >> Okay. Okay. Which is makes sense. Things change and you get updated equipment.
>> A lot of new designs, a lot more safety conscious. >> Mhm. >> So, >> Okay. But I mean, literally the surface could be done later. I'm >> I'm betting >> it could, but at a greater expense.
>> Okay. That was that was what I had. >> Okay, we're at 5:44 p.m. I want to make sure everyone gets a chance to to speak here. Um, >> Mayor Pro Tim Kellum, >> I just have one more question.
>> Okay. Um, I know that we for the Thurm Boulevard we've cut a ar apa funding by 300,000 but on the on page 103 for the IM project um
there's it says uh impact fees of 1,200,000 and then the general fund for 200,000. Is there any way we could move that 200,000 towards which page is that?
>> 103 103 >> I mean could we get started with the >> IM9 >> impact fees? >> Thank you. >> Guess that's a Tim question. >> Tim, you could Tim, come on up. But
>> come on up. But this is this is this is impact money that's going to support a Thurm Boulevard project that's going to probably run over what Tim $3 million in the end. >> 4 million >> 4 million.
>> So those impact fees and that that 200k mayor prom we're going to need every dollar of that. >> I I did we just don't have any. Is there any impact fees in the pipeline that are coming or
>> uh to my knowledge? Not in the upcoming year that could be used. Uh yeah, I don't know. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Council Member Davis. >> Council member Willis. Anything else?
>> Council member Jackson, it's a workshop. We're trying to work through it. The things that jumped out to me and I think the memo was uh explained some of it. But if we go to
uh in the budget book page well do a couple. Let's go to page uh 12 which is uh really breaking down all the
expenditures. The the increases in I'm sorry. Can we Let's go to page Let's go to page Well, I was looking for personnel services. I got notes on six
page 13, the very next page. I I apologize. I might have to come back to 12, but like uh there were line items that decreased and some increase. I think you explained like personnel services,
but I don't understand some of those and I think that's what would be helpful for me. Um, so yeah, personnel expenditures in the original was 6.8 million
that we received uh from the proposed budget, but that has went up. It's the 167,000 for those uh unforeseen calculations based on I think part-time
and and other uh cost related operating expenditures decreased. Capital outlay decreased. Debt service stayed the same.
transfers decreased and then yet contingency a total contingency decreased. But if we go to page six, when I was looking at that breakdown,
it looks like the original for the column personnel services on page six, that first column totaled in the original budget 4,297,000.
And now it's 4,441,000. So that's not doing quick math. Is that the 167,000? >> Yeah, that is the um 146,000 difference that is in the budget memo.
>> Okay, >> that is exactly that difference. So like protective services was it 29,000 but that one actually decreased to 27,000 and I guess that was my confusion. In
the memo provided it shows some of the increases but protective services decreased. Um, off the top of my head, I think that was a uh a new number that um HR gave us.
Their workers compensation went down um just about 2,000, I think. >> Okay, I see. Thank you. and that reflected obviously increases in the in the total um and then the parks
and wreck obviously was at uh 1.1 and it's at the 1.2 now which I think we explained. So total budget on page six we had 24,64741,000. Now we have 23,342,000.
So just under a mill or 1.3 million. >> He's looking at the proposed budget that you >> Yeah, I was going back to the original um >> I was trying to track the changes because I
Some went down, some went up. And >> as I was going through it, that I some of those didn't make sense. Like fire stayed the same. No change all the way through, but where we would cut some some maybe capital
projects like infrastructure maintenance reduced, parks and wreck has reduced, uh non-EP departmental reduced. are the those I'm sorry not n not n not n not n not n not n not n not n not n not n not non departmental um the operating expenditures did
but when I saw the capital and uh projects reduce I saw personnel services go up and so the resiliency analyst Joey I think you had offered to go through some of those changes um if you want to briefly go
through those I think that would be helpful for for me and um Yes. >> Uh we're at 552. >> Yeah. The um the resiliency the part-time resiliency analyst >> um >> was added into the budget or not added
was captured into the budget and that was 34,000. So that difference should be 34,000. And before it was a lower number. Was it zero? >> It was not captured. It's a new position.
>> No, it is not new. There are no >> new positions. >> Okay. >> What happened was there were um some part-time and seasonal. The seasonal were in the parks and wreck. Um there were some part-time and seasonal positions that were not captured in the
budgeting process. >> Tamson, did you have >> Thank you, >> Mayor. I'm sorry. Can we have Tamson come to the mic for a moment? >> Yes, absolutely. Thank you. Hi, Tamson. >> Yeah, thanks for asking. We actually rep repurposed that position from uh a uh a
part-time building inspector. So, I think it was it was captured elsewhere in the budget before and then it was moved to resiliency. >> Okay. >> And then yeah, we had a whole a full-time position that was divided up into two part-time positions. One is a admin that we're adding we're currently
in the process of hiring for and then the other was our uh resiliency analyst. So that's the I I knew that one. >> Total full-time positions from last budget and total part-time. Is that Do
we have that? >> Uh yes. >> I'm looking for the page number. >> I was trying to find it myself. I know. I think it's in the >> general information. It's uh page 77. >> Yes.
Thank you. So yeah, we had 68 well full-time 64 in the budget the the year we're operating out of now. So today do we have 60
those 64 positions? >> So do we currently have 64 >> fulltime And >> yeah, the >> yeah, for this for this fiscal year, we have 64. Um, I think what we want to
look at though is there were a few positions that were were added to make that uh to make that 64. I think the wasn't our records position in the city clerk's office added this year. We
didn't we bring on we brought on Chetty this year. Uh was that actually in the um was that actually in in our original uh budget that were shown from last year? And I believe the answer to that might be no
because this would have showed the numbers from you know when we ended up >> the previous year and during the year we hired um a few positions. One being our records analyst which you know was we told council in a meeting that was in
our meeting uh in our one of our council meetings what have you. And was there any other positions? Was there one other position added this year that was not in in our budget numbers like
I'm trying to recall mayor I'll have to it's not coming to me but I know we added a records management person but I can't remember if we >> engineer >> for next year >> the engineer is going to be next year. >> Okay then. So, um, but I could get that mayor. It's not coming to me, mayor, but
we we hired I don't know if it was maybe a did we hire an additional parks person, Molly, uh, uh, this year. Um, so I I'll have to just look into that. >> And I think I see records technician here. It shows 24251
and then this year one um to on page 76. Actually, it's not >> it's not captured for this year. It looks like it looks like an actual decrease from 13 to 12. >> Mayor, I have your answer. Okay. Thank you. >> The the answer is is that was right. We
let our two part- timerrs go and we brought Shetty on. That's the So, there was a >> So, total for this year is 69.2 total >> for the new year. Yes. >> Full-time employees. Okay. Um the next
steps for the budget goes obviously this is a workshop. I I had some more questions. I was out uh last week away I think few of us were and busy. Um so I think we can circle back and and have an opportunity to work through anything but for the sake of time I want to pause
there council and um look at the the schedule and make sure uh we are on the same page for the next steps we have. I think the trim notices will be going out next by the
>> and then we'll have a special meeting on the >> the first budget meeting on 3 September. Yeah, >> that's the next time we're going to be here. >> Thank you. Okay. And mayor, if I could get a chance for just a recap after you're done, I'd like
to just say something 30 seconds so I could see where we're landing right now. >> Yes. >> Let me know when >> before we go there. Um, if anyone intends to speak, please just raise your hand for now so we can know if you like to speak. Yes, sir. Go ahead, John.
>> Um, the only thing I want to recap is that um, based on this and we'll take a look at that. Um, council members Jackson's suggestion about the 325 and the other things maybe that we would
be able to actually absorb to cut and then part of the air conditioner potentially could still be in the budget. Uh, we will look at that. I think that we can do part of that based on some of the things that Joey and I
have here that could be additionally additionally cut. Um, the only last question I have for council is is so staff will do the work and show up on September 3rd, the first budget hearing, and will
work diligently to land at roll back again based on these things that were brought up to adjust the numbers. Okay. Based on some of the things that council said. So we we walk in here uh
showing you how we arrived at roll back. Is that an accurate I I don't see anything else that uh any anything else we could do be but that. So is that a good recap mayor or is there anything else you would want to
>> I I'm okay with that. I think that's great. Council, anything else? Let's hear the public comment. Come forward, sir. We at our budget workshop. If you'd like to speak, please come forward. We're going to uh adjourn this meeting mo in in just a few minutes. Then we're
going to uh start our regular meeting shortly after. And if that's when you intend to speak, we'll certainly make sure you're heard. Thank you. And with that, we are at uh six o'clock on the dot. Let's go ahead and council.
Okay, we'll adjourn. Let's take 5 Part: 2
Go. Good evening everyone. It is 6:11 p.m. and we are at the Cape Canaveral City Council regular meeting. It's August 19th, 2025 at the City Hall Council Chambers located at 100 Pulk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida. I call this
meeting to order. And with that, Council Member Davis, would you please lead us in the pledge? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. City clerk, please call the role. >> Sorry, it's not We've lost the microphone. >> Here,
>> Council Member Jackson >> here. >> Mayor Prom Kellum >> here. >> Mayor Morrison >> here. >> And Council Member Willis >> here. >> Council, thank you all for being here and city staff and public joining us here today.
We have a uh item number four here in front of us, the approval of agenda as written or with amendments. And I just want to pause here, make sure we all uh some some things changed. Uh everyone has everything. Um
Mayor Pro Tim Kellum, I believe you had mentioned something about amendments. I want to make sure that we're on the same page. There was some emails, I think, that went out. um regarding the minutes, which I think I'm clear on
those. And then there was some other um changes, was there anything that was sent attached that we should have printed to add to the original agenda that went out? Um if so,
we might know. Make sure we're all working with the same version. So like the uh the minutes as an example, I can double check that those are in here.
Yeah, I did I do not have those. I think so. Just as an example, those minutes that were sent out, should we have printed those and added them? That just dawned on me. Um, I have a the digital copy here that I can
>> Yes. If you want, I could >> print them out. >> Just didn't know if the council members had a chance to read them. Council, did y'all have a chance to review those changes that came in?
>> I have them digitally. I was able to read over them, but >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And your second question to the changes item number 8E, the title needed to be corrected.
>> Okay. And now we we did receive the highlighted noting the changes. Very helpful. Okay. >> So, uh item 7A, the minutes, I believe we either have a digital copy or have that.
Uh when we get to that, that's on the consent agenda. And item 7B uh there were were there any changes to that? I see it briefly highlighted >> the spelling of the word billers. That's it. Correct spelling of the word
billers. Villers. B I L L A S I. >> Okay. So, it's unsubstantial, small. And item 8. >> E, right. Um, the agenda title to be corrected. >> Okay. And item
seven >> 8F. Um, >> there was an addendum, a revised agenda summary. That was submitted what? Two days, three days ago. >> That addendum. >> It was attachments.
>> I might think AF mayor. I think AF um I think staff sent out another attachment to that item. That's the denovo hearing regarding the wall sign. Staff submitted a copy of the board of adjustment agenda um from the board of adjustments July meeting. >> Okay. That's confusing.
>> Okay. Was that the confusion? Okay, just reflecting the the decision at that meeting or the re Okay. And uh I think the end of public hearings note is just making it clear. I I I
understand I'm clear on the the memo that was provided. If there's not anything else um from the council, I would like to uh suggest a change in uh item 5C, just the order of those. I'd like to move uh city manager Keith
Touchberry to the to the end during those introductions. Actually, I unless Mr. Tudby, I'm fine with keeping it the same. I I'll change that actually think in through so strike my comments there just remember
that he will be from doing those introductions and we did also receive a couple of uh printed uh public comments from two individuals who could not make the meeting Dr. Shannon Roberts and Mr. Brad Pell. Want to make sure the council
received those. They were printed here for me. Everyone got a copy? And uh item 5A, a proclamation. I requested to to remove this from the meeting and u
we can bring it back at a future meeting, but I've just got some questions and things I need to work through with that. Letting the council know. That's why that one is is highlighted. and uh
item 7B. Um well, we can address that at the consent agenda prior to that. So, I think I am good to go. Council, are there any changes or anything that needs to be amended to the agenda?
>> Think we're on the same page? Okay, looking for a motion. >> Make a motion to approve the uh revised agenda 8/1925 and with the amendments on the deis. >> I'll second. >> Got a motion by council member Willis, a
second by council member Davis. Any further discussion? Seeing none, city clerk. >> Council member Davis, >> four. >> Council member Jackson, >> four. >> Mayor Prom Kellum, >> four. >> Mayor Morrison, >> four. and council member Willis
>> four. >> Alrighty. Now we are uh going to move on to presentation 5B. Uh I'm not sure if we have a representative here to receive that. Hello. But we'll call you up here in just a second. I'm going to uh read the
pro come down read the proclamation and uh have an opportunity if you'd like to take a photograph and then we can uh you can have obvious share a few words as well if you like to Are we on? We are. This is an official
proclamation of the city of Cape Canaveral, Florida. Whereas September is designated as National Suicide Prevention Month as recognized by the National Association of Mental Illness. And whereas suicide is the 11th leading cause of death in the United States,
where in 2023 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data reported that 49,316 Americans died by suicide. And whereas many health officials and community leaders locally, state, and nationally
understand that mental illness is a significant issue of concern, particularly among our youth. And whereas we realize that to address mental health issues requires more open and honest discussions about mental health. And whereas one major hurdle in
removing the stigma attached to mental health treatment and discussion. And whereas individuals, businesses, organizations, public officials, and many others recognize the importance of emotional health. And whereas the city of Cape Canaveral supports efforts on
the space coast to provide education and resources for mental health problems. Now therefore be it resolved that I, West Morrison, mayor of the city of Cape Canaveral, Florida, do hereby proclaim the month of September 2025
as National Suicide Prevention Month. encourage those with mental health issues to seek help of a family member, friend, colleague, and/or licensed mental health professional to assist them in times of need and invite citizens to learn more about available
resources or participate in community events to fight suicide, save lives, and raise awareness. Signed and sealed this 19th day of August, 2025. Thank you. If you'd like to come forward
here, you can take a Um, on behalf of Do It for Hunter, uh, I want to sincerely thank the city for recognizing suicide awareness month. Your your support means more than words can express. Um, it's a powerful step
toward breaking the silence and saving lives. Um sadly like the statistics that you just shared um it's a very it's very urgent that uh we bring light to this. Um according to the CDC like you said in
2023 almost 50,000 were lost to suicide, the highest number ever recorded. Even more alarming suicide rates among youth and young adults have increased by nearly 40% in the past two decades.
These number these are not just numbers. They're our sons, our daughters, our friends and neighbors and people like Hunter, my son. Our nonprofit, Do It for Hunter, was created to honor his life and fight for those
who are struggling. We share mental health resources uh through our organization. And we work with our schools, which is so important, uh, to provide the 988 suicide lifeline stickers that we designed and we print
and we raise money and we provide everything that we do for free. These stickers are placed on every single student laptop in grades 6 through 12 in Bard Public Schools, thanks to uh, Dr. Randelle who agreed to
do this for us or to who allowed us to put the stickers on them. We purchased and placed 10 suicide awareness benches at local schools in Bard Parks and in each September we hold a you matter day uh at Merid Island High School and we
invite the community to come out and enjoy all of the activities that that we provide at this day. Um this year it will be held September 27th Merid Island High School. There'll be resources from great local local organizations that can help people. A lot of people don't know
how to reach out for help, where to find these resources, and we invite them and we bring them right there in one place for people to come and experience it and have a great time that day. We're going to have music and and great things for especially for the youth. Um, it's a day dedicated to connection and hope and
healing and there'll be speakers and music and and lots of stuff going on. and it's all to support others. Uh for for more information, if you're interested, you can visit our website at doitforhunter.org. Our mission is simple,
but it's vital and it's to remind people that they are not alone and that their life matters. Uh with your help, we can continue this conversation and we can make mental health a priority uh not just in the month of September um but
every day. And together we can do this and we can help save lives. Thank you. [Applause] >> Thank you. Thank you, Kelly. And and you are the founder of Do It for Hunter and
the Space Coast Health Foundation is here. We appreciate. Would you like to say anything? If so, please come forward, please. >> Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, councel. I'm Lisa and I'm with the Space Coast Health Foundation here in Rocklage and
we appreciate the many years of support that you've given us and the many proclamations. The only thing that I also would like to add is that um when it comes to suicides, Bvard County unfortunately has the
higher rate than most of the state. So with that, the latest data available, we've seen 148 suicides. That's the rate of 20.7 per 100,000 people. In Florida,
the rate was 14.1 per 100,000 in 2025. So that's 148 suicides too many for our county. So, thank you for um helping us remove that negative stigma.
I think once we remove that stigma, more people will be apt to come and get help. So, and this having you uh allowing us to come is helping to remove that stigma. So, once again, thank you. We appreciate your support. >> Thank you. Thank you.
Would anyone else like to speak on this that's here? Thank you so much for coming and and and representing both of those organizations that are crucial to our community. Um it is an incident that has impacted me directly here in the city of
Cape Canaveral. And so, um, I applaud your efforts and as we head into this next year, we're passing budgets and moving forward. And, a lot of the things that your organizations need is time and support from mo us. And if there's
anything else we can do, please please let us know. So, thank Space Coast Health Foundation and Do It for Hunter for all that you do uh to to help reduce that stigma and and bring about positive change for the community. Thank you.
This time and we have a new city staff introduction and you heard me kind of at the beginning waffle there back and forth. uh but uh that we are on item 5C. Uh first I just want to uh say uh our
new city manager Mr. Keith Touchberry uh is here with us today behind the dis. Obviously the last uh meeting we had to make a decision uh on on the agreement. We are so excited uh for Mr. Touchberry.
Um, it's an important step for our city and for the first time our new city manager joins us here. This is more than just a change in leadership. It's an opportunity to strengthen accountability, improve efficiency, and build trust between citizens and their
government. So, on behalf of the city council and the residents of Cape Canaveral, I want to extend a warm welcome to Mr. Touchberry and we look forward to working with you as we pursue the future here in the city of Cape Canaveral. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, mayor, and thank you,
council. I appreciate that. >> I believe the remaining if you would like to go down the list. >> So, we have I'm not sure who all made it tonight or not, but uh we have a new code enforcement officer, Amy Palm. Amy, are you here? Yep. Amy and I have a great thing in common. We both started
on the same day. So, we have that thing now. So, whenever we see each other, we can we can high-five on that. Uh, we also have a new crossing guard, part-time, Marie Baker. And Marie, are you here? I haven't met Marie yet. Looking forward to it. And deputy building official Tammy Owens, whose
first day was today. Correct. Tammy, are you here? We interrupted a big meeting that community development was having this morning to introduce ourselves. Uh, Joe, John and I did, and we welcomed her with open arms. And we're very proud of our staff. And these are great hires and we're looking forward to what they'll
bring to the table. Thank you, mayor. >> Thank you. Amy, did you are you here? Our new code enforcement officer. Okay. Uh Marie Baker. >> And was Tammy here? >> Yeah.
>> Okay. And if I missed that, I'm sorry. I just wanted to make sure we saw you. So, thank you again. We have public participation next which is uh we've got a note here that we did receive as I said earlier uh some
written comments here. I believe we've confirmed all the council. I received those uh from Miss Dr. Shannon Roberts as well as Mr. Brad Prell. And I do have a card here for Mr. Bob
Lavine. Bob, if you'd like, please come forward. >> And I did see you you checked item number three, uh, which >> three usually means one and two go before, right? That's okay. I'll get it out of the way. >> Yes.
>> U, it is nice to hear that we have new code enforcement. And do me a favor and please don't be a stranger to Lincoln Avenue where I live because there's some areas, some issues there that need to be addressed. Uh, Mayor, you've been by my house. You know, probably some of the things I have come in to talk about.
It's about Airbnbs. I'd like to ask you, the board, if I may, get an honest answer. Any of you up here own an Airbnb? >> I can't. >> Well, that's nice to know. Good. Um, personally, my um, encounter with an
Airbnb, I live in a townhouse on Lincoln Avenue and the owner made the side next to me. Um, an Airbnb and it's been a living hell for my wife and I. I've had the police, the sheriff's been over there recently, three times in the last two weeks, 2:00 in the morning, 3:00 in
the morning. Ladies parties, they have no boundaries, it seems, and they don't watch the clock. My son has moved back home. He's living with us in his room. unfortunately faces the back and at 2:00 in the morning it's it's enough is
enough. I like to know why the city is not notified from the sheriff's department when they respond to a complaint like that because the owner I don't think he ever knows about what's going on since he lives in Canada. He's not a US citizen. I don't know about his
concern. He's into making money. I can understand. But, uh, as I said, living next door, we've been there for 14 years in this townhouse, and this guy's just been here for two, and he has really raised havoc on on my home life with having somebody there. Uh,
curfew for noise is 10 or 11:00 p.m. >> I I believe 11 p.m., but I'm not certain that, you know, they don't go by it too much. We can have people there that I mean we never hear a sound but when we get the loud ones that show up they are
there and uh since we are considered a commercial property where we are uh on our street he is a uh he's considered a hotel his side of the townhouse. So he can have up to 10 guests there and park four six eight cars in the driveway
blocking the sidewalk the apron. Um, I've brought it to the um, boards to the uh, offic's attention and I like just for the code enforcement to come frequent uh, Lincoln Avenue more than you do and and if these things need to be addressed, I really wish they would
be. Um, it it's just real tough with this Airbnb next door. And uh, I fear for other residents in the state of Florida that uh, it it's going to wreck our lives. It is already for a lot of people. And uh but these parties that
people have next door, it's uh you know the owners that he's out to make money and that's that's really all he cares about. So uh I mean that is his reason for being in business, but not at my expense. So the sheriffs have been very responsive. They've been very helpful and they've they're right out there on
Johnson Avenue behind us. There's an apartment complex over there. A lot of those units in there have been converted to Airbnbs. And at 2:30 recently, about a month ago, the sheriffs were responding to hell raisers out there by the pool. It's just u I get tired of
having to to do this this job for just my neighborhood. >> Thank you, Mr. >> All right. Thank you. Thanks for your time. I appreciate it. >> Let's get this problem fixed, please. >> Thank you for your time, everyone. Thank you, Mr. John Benton.
Okay, we know what I'm here for. My code reduction hearing. 11 years ago, June, Kevin man at the Presbyterian Church, a deacon, probably the owner, came in and testified I lived in that warehouse. I owned it. Mini
warehouse. The unit next to me, a cop lived in there or worked on his car as much as I was up there. And he came into that code, not the cop, but Kevin man came in and testified I lived in that warehouse. I could have interrupted the board and said, "Hey, I can call the cop right now
and he can tell you that I do not live in it." I wouldn't say his name though because I wanted everybody at the city council meeting when I was saying I had a cop in my unit. I wouldn't say who he was. I wanted Rocky Randles or the board members calling the city Cocoa Beach saying, "Who's renting a warehouse?"
John Benton, you owe me $300 and you owe me a code reduction hearing. And the way I looked at it, you charged me $75 for every day that I was in violation. The way I look at you, you owe me a code code reduction
hearing and you owe me $75 for every day since that meeting because you're in violation of my fourth amendment to defend myself at that meeting. He said, "I lived in there and you wouldn't let me get up there and call him a liar or whatever, anything. I
couldn't say a word." So that 12 this 11 years calculated up $31,000 you owe me. You give me my code reduction here and you give me $31,000 I'm out of here. You're a bonehead.
Those are the only two cards that I have. If anyone else intends to speak, please raise your hand or come forward. >> I just want to ask you, are you notified of the sheriff's department when they respond? >> Mr. Lavine, we can't do business like
this. I do apologize and we're not I I do think it would be prudent uh that we have an opportunity to meet together and I'd like to to introduce you to our city manager. I know this has been a struggle for you. This certainly not your first time to the meeting. So,
Thank you very much. Seeing no hands from anyone else, we'll go ahead and close public participation. Uh unless council, if there's anything I I should say on Dr. Roberts or Mr.
prevail that uh we'd like to comment into the record. That's important. Obviously, these will be provided uh in general. Mayor, if I may, she mentioned something about our phone system. >> I think it's important to give the
council an update. We've been getting updates all day long and I can get Michael um to come up forward and give you the most current. As a matter of fact, we've been getting updates up until five o'clock today. So, he has some good news for you and we'll be able to address um one of Dr. Robert's
concerns in that email. >> Thank you for that. >> Thank you. >> Come on up, Mike. Yeah, he's coming. As Mike's coming up, Dr. Roberts had talked about some immediate needs as our city manager talked about the phone system and Mayor Pro Tim earlier had
asked about the splash pad. I think we heard an answer on that as well, which I know is a major community concern. Yes, Mike. >> Good evening, mayors, council. Uh give you an update on our phone system. Uh Thursday evening, our city phone
system here at city hall only went down. Uh I'm sorry, City Hall and Cape Center. The rest of our facilities remained up the whole time and are still up. Um AT&T uh sent out dispatched a tech for
onsite. The problem was not on site. The problem was actually two hops down on the network on AT&T's network. So it was nothing internal for the city. And um so we worked with our vendor who were currently in transition to a new system
to expedite that process. and we've been able to have phones rolled over to the new system. So, as of 5:10 p.m. today, we are on the new system. Um, this was not our plan to work this way because we have not fully tested everything, but due to the fact that we had no phones,
we made the decision to do a partial upgrade at this time. So, if you dial into the 8681220 number now, you will get on to our new phone tree, not the old phone tree, and it'll take you to the person or department that you're
looking for. Um, I tested it myself. I verified on several numbers. I have not been able to verify all numbers yet. Tomorrow morning, I will be working extensively with our new phone service provider to flush out the rest of the system. there are still some software
coding issues we'd have to um complete. Um so again, we were not prepared to do this, but due to the fact that we lost the AT&T side, we thought at this point it's better to just move forward with the new system. So that's our status as of right now. So 5:10 p.m. we're on the
new system. >> Great. Thank you. >> And Mr. Mayor, I want to I want to add to what Michael's saying because this was my business for many years. Um, when Michael says two hops down, when you
drive around the city, you see these either ash colored, which are light beige boxes, or the green ones. There's a card that went out that Michael was explaining to me on the old AT&T equipment and they can't even get the
card. So for them to have moved forward to provide us with the service and get our phones working back rather than waiting on AT&T, it's really a big deal. I want to I just want to say that I know that our city manager and Michael both
have been working to recover in that method and I know that we discussed yesterday the auto attendant because it was not set up yet and you know this is not the way you would normally want to cut anything over but it was really
unfortunate because the equipment with AT&T that went down literally two streets over in one of those boxes was so old there are no parts. And I spoke with our city manager and I reached out and called out to a couple
of people uh to see if they had any old AT&T parts and no one has these. So for them to have gotten recovered this quickly without the vendor's assistance on the service that they were on is really a pretty big deal. So I just
wanted to give that feedback. Thank you, Michael, and thank you, Keith. >> Absolutely. You're welcome. >> Thank you. And thank you for that insight. >> I I want to make one clarification there, too. Um, these were two separate events. We were already in work of
migrating to a new phone system. Just by dumb luck timing, the card went out on the AT&T side. So, they these are completely unrelated. So, that's why we chose the option we chose to move over to the new system. when we did >> my uh some public comment and this might
already be the direction and purely administration and my two cents is um I think the the old phone tree used individuals names as opposed to their positions uh perhaps it would be good idea more
timeless approach the building official as opposed to >> that's exactly the way the new system is okay there was a lot of forethought into the new system and testing and challenging and debating on what the right way to lay out that phone tree
was. So, there's no more by name. Um, nobody's got their voicemails set up yet because that's how new the system is. We literally just put the phones on the desks. So, tomorrow morning, everyone's going to have to come in, put their voicemails on, that kind of thing so that we can move forward and they can
store and retrieve their messages. >> Thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> Council, any other comments or >> Mike? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. City Manager, for pointing that out. And yes, the other uh
items on here were really around the budget and the importance and the insight from uh Dr. Roberts very comprehensive um analysis that I think we can carry on uh as we move forward with the budget. Um
and there is uh some other financial related proposals in here as well for Mr. PL. And so I think that uh and some other ideas. Thank you both for doing that. I believe uh we are through the public comment now and we will go ahead
and uh advance on to the consent agenda. Uh we have items 7A 1 and two and 7B on the consent agenda item. Um, well, let me before we get
on 7B, I'm going I'm going to need to to post request that we postpone this as um due to some uh questions that that kind of came in and I want to have the opportunity to talk with our city
manager and city attorney. Um, or if this council feels strongly about moving forward uh with it, I would just ask that I have a chance to uh work through that with the count uh with the city staff directly and uh if any
council actions needing, I would be able to call a meeting quickly to take uh action. And I know that this is an item we've been trying to pursue and in defense of our city attorney um since we last communicated uh I have not been
able to close the loop on some of those questions. Um, >> excuse me, mayor. Not not understanding the nature of of the the concerns you have, but would it be reasonable to have a recess to have the conversation and then move forward with the item if you
you're satisfied with the information, or is it best to just table it? >> I'm happy uh to see if we can overcome them in a re in a recess. Uh perhaps we can we move it to
lowering the agenda. Uh and move >> it would be up to you. The attorney and I don't understand the nature of the the discussion. So if if you think that's viable, then I would recommend doing that. If it's best to postpone to another meeting, it's
>> it would be up to you. I would be I think that would be the best is that we yes we we take at least uh 10 15 minutes but I I would say that we move through the rest of the agenda and at the end
>> or at some point whenever we take our next recess we could address it. So for now, if we move forward with uh consent agenda item 7A and and take no action on B, if that would be
appropriate. >> I mean, if you want to remove the item from the agenda completely, then you can go ahead and remove that item with unanimous con with with consent of the council. If you want to move it to the end of the meeting, then with the council's blessing, you can do that as
well. So, my understanding, mayor, it looks like you just want to vote on the consent items without um without B. >> Correct. >> So, you can either >> and then if we have recess and and am clear, uh we could bring it back at the
end and not postpone it to another meeting. So, why don't why don't you um offer to the council to or ask the council to remove um consent B and move it to um 8
I. >> That sounds good. >> This would be the very last item. >> Okay, that's what I needed some help on. So, council, that's clear. Consent agenda item. I'm requesting to remove item 7B to and move it to 8 I
making that a motion. >> I am not. I'm making the request now if somebody would agrees and like to make a motion. >> Okay. I'll make a motion to move that agenda item to eight. >> I >> I thank you.
I'll second. >> Got a motion by council member Jackson, second by mayor pro Tim Kellum to remove item 7B and move it to 8 I. And did your motion include approving the rest?
>> I did not. >> Okay. Any any further discussion on removing that? None. City clerk. Council member, Council Member Davis, >> four, >> Council Member Jackson, >> four, >> Mayor Prom Kellum,
>> four, >> Mayor Morrison, >> four, >> and Council Member Willis, >> four. >> And I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda with that change. >> Consent agenda A1 and two. >> Yes,
>> I'll second. Got a motion by council member Jackson and a second by mayor per Tim Kellum to approve consent agenda items A1 and two. Any further discussion? Seeing none, city clerk. >> Council member Davis >> four. >> Council member Jackson
>> four. Mayor Prom Kellum >> four. >> Mayor Morrison >> four. >> And council member Willis >> four. All right. Consent agenda item 7 A1 and two passes 50. approved as written. And now we move on to item eight, items for
action. The first one is item 8A, resolution 2025 09, schedule of fees regarding vacation rentals registration and inspection fees. The proposed motion is to uh consider
the adoption of resolution 20250. Mr. your city manager or city attorney. There's anything here? >> So, we have our community development director. Tamson can speak on the item. Mayor, >> thank you. >> Hi, Tamson. >> Hi. How are you? >> Good. Thank you.
>> Um well, this is um a recommendation to bring Cape Canaveral's current registration and inspection fees for vacation rentals uh into the market rate of nearby cities. Uh, for example, City of Cocoa Beach uh operates uh as a as a
charge per guest count. Uh so that has uh registration fees fees exceeding $1,700 per rental in some cases. Um we are proposing a very moderate or very mild increase uh that places the um uh
that's a cost recovery uh not an additional profit. These bees cover real inspection costs so that taxpayers aren't subsidizing people who are making profit off of their rentals. Um and uh we are um yeah still significantly
undermarket. Uh and this will increase our our current fee schedule. We uh based on 268 rental payments uh over the last year uh we brought in about $94,000 and then under this schedule we would get 141500 if we had the same amount. Uh
if we were to align with our neighbors uh then that would be uh an average basing on the assumption of an average count of six guests uh 383 uh over three around $384,000 a year annual. Um, so this demonstrates even with
proposed increases, Cape Canaveral fees remain significantly more affordable and better support the enforcement demands associated with inspections and registration compliance. >> Thank you, council. Any questions
for city staff on the resolution? >> Um, mayor Tim Kellum, >> I have a couple. Um if we went to the per guest fee, how would that be enforced? >> Uh so that would be based on the on the
registrations they have the capacity number of how many people that would be and then that's how however many that they have the potential to rent. We would go and make sure that they weren't trying to say that they only had two and actually have 20.
>> Right. >> Um yeah. And um the cost right now you say the it covers >> uh inspections uh inspections and verifications of registration >> and then also the cost of us identifying
people who have not registered and bringing them into compliance as well. >> Right. And what do you think um do you think if we went with this increase that you're talking about that we would down the road have to increase them again? Would it be
better for us to go to the I mean, I would go to the Cocoa Beach prices because they're all going to come here if we're cheaper and the gentleman earlier was saying how much it's affecting the
residents that live here. Um, do you think that we would have to increase them again down the road? >> We're so significantly undermarket that I think we would have to sign or to increase them again. Um, I was trying to avoid sticker shock for people who have
been uh uh participating in in the rentals. >> Right. >> Uh, that's all I have right now. Mayor, >> thank you, Council Member Jackson. >> Okay. Um, first off, I'm very honest.
I'm I'm in the vacation rental business. And right now, our short-term rentals for the people that are trying to do this legally, they're dying on the vine. Their numbers are so far down, it's unreal. And people, if you watch online on the
social media pages, they're flipping to long-term rentals because they don't have the short-term rentals. With our six night minimum, it makes us completely different from Cocoa Beach. I have units in Cocoa Beach I manage and they're like this
now. Also, I absolutely understand um I believe his name was Mr. Levine that came in earlier um because of the fact that we have a large number of rental units in this city that don't
follow the law. They are not registered with Decard. And you know what? We're not catching them. I see them in out in out two days, three days, one day, whatever. And so for the amount of money we're
paying on software for this system to not catch the ones that are not following the law, I have a problem going up on the people that have registered their units with the city and they're trying to do the right thing.
Um, it's it's a big problem. I have a lot of people talk to me about this that are owners of vacation rental units. Um, the gentleman that was here earlier, I feel bad for him because he's in one of the commercial zones and I remember when I very first got on council, I spoke to
the fact that we've got commercial zones that can rent nightly and then you have one you have vacation rentals in R1, R213, R3 that are supposed to be doing six night, but if you just don't put a
bullseye on your back by doing the right thing and registering and being legal, you get away with it. >> Well, we Oh, sorry. >> No. And and here's the thing. There are multiple ways that that software has to
catch people. Number one, a hotel collective license. All the real estate agents have to get a hotel collective license. It's one license with one address. Then they give the state a list of their units if they want. They don't,
you know, what's going to make them really carry a accurate list. They drive that business to their own websites and every realtor has their own website. So, that's one way they're not caught. And I see this all the time. That realtor
handles this unit in 3 days out and you go and look at their listing on Airbnb, it's got two days. So we have bigger problems with our compliance software than just going up on the people that
are trying to do the right thing to to generate revenue. And until we address all of these big pictures because just like the gentleman, he lives in his home. And when you live in your home, I wish back in the day when Airbnb had
lobbyed the state that they would have had the um fourth site to say not in a resident R1 neighborhood, not in a R2 neighborhood. The zoning was not grandfathered. And when your zoning is
not grandfathered, that makes that hotel and the house next to you, and I'm going to tell you, I live in one of those complexes. It is not fun. you're constantly dealing with that stuff. So, where I understand, you know, you're
wanting to get us to be very close to Cocoa Beach, it's a different scenario down there. They got three-day rentals and they're getting the people that we don't get in our neighborhoods because they are staying up at the hotels. Now, as I say that, let me rephrase that.
They stay in the hotels and they're down in our neighborhoods anyway. So, we got two night people staying at the hotels that are trying to get to the beach and trying to get down there. Now, that keeps them from being in the house next door to you. But, there are multiple
problems with how this is working for us and we're paying a lot of money for that software and for a compliance officer and literally Tamson and I have discussed this. It almost is for them. they have to almost sit there and do
their own they're searching themselves for some of these things. We discussed how to find I gave her information on how to find those um collective licenses so that she could tell if they're listed with Decard and that requires her doing
research with the state that Decard doesn't give us. So going I'm not in favor of going up on the licenses for compliance for people that are trying to do the right thing. I want the ones that are under the radar, not doing the right
thing, not licensed, flipping them in and out like this next door to your house at your in your residential neighborhood. I want those people held accountable because they're not following any rules. and how can you um
how can you deal with the trash parking and all of those things? So, >> yeah, and I empathize with that, especially as a short-term rental owner yourself, and thank you for bringing that perspective to us. Um, one of the uh issues that we've been working on is
when the registration period begins in a uh April, excuse me, October, um our code enforcement officers have been tracking down the contact information of any unre unverified, unregistered rentals. So then this year we can focus on bringing people into compliance, but
that does take staff time to do. And while we're doing that, they uh they identified that close to 90% of the rental owners uh do not reside in the city of Cape Canaveral, which means outside investors uh with that said, outside investors, not local families,
should be bearing this cost, but they aren't. And that's why I'm proposing the fee increase because those who profit should be paying their fair share as opposed to residents who don't profit from the rentals or from property ownership. How many units do we have
that in your estimation right now per decard system? How many units do you do you think we have in the city of Cape Canaveral? Did it was uh it was well about a thousand uh offhand I don't uh have the number
but it was we have about 268 registered and then we have our campaign planned for October with the with the other stack of listings. >> Okay. So we have a full 268 units uh licensed. >> Yeah. Yeah. And then there was some that were registered with ProChamps that
didn't move over. Uh and then some folks that have changed ownership and we've been verifying all of those as well. >> Yeah. And >> if you look on V VBO, you can count. I've literally gone through and counted and counted how many they all sleep. So we can get a sense of >> So how many how many did you did you
count in V uh for on VBO? >> Oh gosh. I Yeah, we had uh and I made set the margins. Uh so it was probably about uh I think like a thousand. It was about around,780 >> something like that. >> So, and when you do a search, it'll
bring up up to 2500 units on Verbbo and Airbnb because other areas are tagging into us as well. >> Um, but that clearly shows we have 268 you said >> that have been registered which is why
when we get everybody else >> and and this is our this is our second second system. We had prochamps and now we have this. And so out of all we've got 10,000 residences in or
>> 5,000 homes probably >> 5,000 homes. Okay. And we've got um 20% of that homesteaded, right? 20 to 25% of that homesteaded. And so that that number should be a lot higher than 268.
So I'm glad you're doing that, Tamson. And I'm not giving you a hard time on your I just want you I want to make sure because I know that's a lot of work. But what I'm looking at is how effective are we with this? If we're only got 268
registered in this city, something's something's really out of whack. And I see it. I see it all the time. And those people, guess what? they're at least making some income because they're doing two days, they're doing three days, they're doing whatever amount of rental
time they ones that are following the rules, their numbers are so down and they're begging for help. Even ones that aren't don't do business with me are saying, "What can I do?" And when we look at all
of those units that were purchased during the pandemic because we were open and this is a happy place, right? It it's going to end up where some of those happy unit owners are going to end up in foreclosure if we make it harder on
them. But we need to get them in compliance. And so I have a problem with penalizing people that are doing the right thing. and 268 of those and I'll tell you mine are in there. Um, going up on them to generate revenue to me is
just not not the way to do it. We've got bigger problems than this. >> Thank you, Council Member Jackson Tamson. >> Yeah, I would say that um it's not additional profit. This is just cost recovery and uh it's not punitive, it's fair. It's people who are making money
off of their units versus the tax burden being shared across every resident here in Cape Canaveral. Um, and it's not to and as again we're mentioning that we've had a whole plan ready to set up and pursue those who are unregistered and
bring them into compliance. And this is just part one of a prong of our our um initiative to bring more folks into compliance. Uh and then um if the if you look at the fee schedule that's proposed in the resolution, you'll see that some
of the fees are focused more on uh homestead properties are stay pretty close to the same, but late fee registrations, people who are not following the rules, they're the ones that are taking more of the financial burden. So that's the market rate that we've been working at. And you know,
again, I'll leave it to council to decide. >> Um >> thank you, Mayor P. Tim Callum. >> Um I just correct me if I'm wrong. Um being on the council for a while, this has been a problem for a while. And
we had through the budget had told code enforcement over time a few times, if you need another person to be on this, we'll hire another person. And I know that there was a person that was
designated to just do that. Yes. >> Is that still happening? >> Uh yes, he is still here and we um we he has all the unidentified properties are so vast that we need a second one of him uh in addition to people going out uh
and uh in the field and being present on Lincoln or being present on the beach. Um so to that we do we could use we could use some more code enforcement officers. So, I'm really happy that council is supportive of that and um and also we need to uh have a fair market
wage for our code enforcement officers uh in order to retain them. >> Mayor, if I could jump in on this issue and I wish the gentleman who spoke earlier during public comment were still here because I wanted everyone to know that this has our undivided attention.
We not only want to bring people into compliance through registration, but we want to make sure that they're in compliance with the number of nights that they can actually offer for rent to, you know, to their um to their guests, but we're also going to be working with the sheriff's office. I've had a meeting with Commander Kek and he
understands our concerns about short-term rentals, the quality of life issues that are occurring as a result of the folks that are coming and going, the noise complaints typically 10 10 p.m. from Monday through Thursday, and then uh it's 11 from Friday through Sunday or
Friday, Saturday uh night if I'm not mistaken, deputy, that should be the ordinance. And and so what we're going to do is get them a list of what what we have. We're going to be asking for additional patrols and to deal with that. We have some other things we're going to work on that we would just rather share with them. But I did want
the council to understand this has our full attention. We want to identify how many we have. Make sure they're in compliance. Make sure they've registered and and get some help from our sheriff's office on helping to gather some data so we can understand the full scope of the problem. Not just from a noise disturbance standpoint, but we have
parking issues. We're also working uh we're going to be dealing with our own code enforcement officers on gathering some data on parking because it's going to tie also into the the project that we have on our horizon with paid parking. And not to get into that, but you know, we we have a full scope of things that
we're working on that we're going to get some good help from our sheriff's office. And I just really wanted the council to understand that this has our undoed attention and we want to do the best we can. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Mayor. One more thing if you don't mind and I will tell you I I believe in
complying. You know, if it's our laws, we need to comply. >> Um, and I knew I've said this before when I'm in my vacation rental unit right now, but um, when I purchased here, I knew it was a minimum six night,
7-day rental. That's why I liked Cape Canaveral. Cocoa Beach turns and burns them. Three dots and that's it. you bring in the next guest. But the problem as a council woman that I have is the software not catching them. We're
sitting here spending $38,000 is I believe what how much it was for Decard and our staff is thank goodness they're looking at this and have a hand they're getting a handle on how many of these we have that are a problem. And meanwhile,
we're going to charge the ones that are doing right more, you know. So, for me, that's it. But I have one of my biggest problems is that software is not doing what we need it to do. if we're having to hire people to manually track this
down. And it's unfortunate they do they haven't put something in the software to work at the state level because a lot of this like Tamson and I have discussed is at the state level with those collective licenses. So, thank you for getting the list
together. And I think that's going to help people that are full-time residents here. And we all don't want craziness when you're living in your home right next door from a hotel type of environment. So anyway, that's it. But
I'm I'm not happy with the software. >> Do we need a new company? Do we need to change from Decker to >> I think we need to at least have a a technical session with them and say, "Come on, we've spent this amount with
you. How many years now in a row have we spent, you know, that software licensing amount and we have and our staff manually has found a,000 units, not >> Oh, that that's also they also pull it from Decker, too. I don't want to say
that it's exclusively that the volume of what they're pulling it and going after is enough for two people. >> Okay. So, how much is Decard finding? How much of that compared to you all doing manual
searches like because you and I talked about the fact you were going to do the hotel collective yourself manually >> with getting getting with the state. >> Oh, yeah. checking and verifying those licenses and making sure that all the registrations that we have and all the
BTRs that we have for short-term rental uh add up to the amount of units that are supposed to be there. >> Right. And then the collective license we had talked about you have to call the DBPR. >> You have to have the realtors in the area. >> Yeah. >> Get their collective license and see how
many units they have under them. >> And those are the ones that are hard to find. >> Yeah. So maybe Decard's better than I'm thinking because I'm going to tell you with only 268 I don't care with only 268 being registered
>> Yeah. >> after we've had it that long to me that's a software failure. >> We're happy to keep the council updated with what we find and what we do. That's not a problem. Perfect. >> We had some reporting when we were we went through the transition. Appreciate that. I think it when you're ready have
in maybe an updated report and the question I would say is how do we know those thousand exist from the decard technology and if you know periodically maybe as anformational item giving an update I think would be helpful cuz yes
the we were excited to see the thousand right off the bat but that in defense uh that entire department went through an immense amount of change and uh short-term rentals was very hot, top of mind, and uh obviously that transition
and getting the new team put in place. I think we've heard loud and clear this and we know this is a big big issue. Council member Willis. >> No, I think uh Mr. Deleo, >> I'd like to make a couple comments. Um you asked a number of questions.
>> You know, is it Decarder? Is there software? Um Decard is much better than ProChamps was. We know that. >> Yeah, >> Decker. Decker does good have a good system, but um and we can gather the
information for you, but no systems foolproof. I will tell you this, if the city ever abandoned Decker and to go after another company, we probably are going to run into the same things. But
what are those same things? I think we really need to get the data and let you know how well Deckard's doing and then um go from there. But I don't think it's fair to just say, you know, and that's your prerogative, Council Member
Jackson, that you think it's the software and it may not be exclusively the software. Uh we did change companies because we wanted better results and I believe we're getting them. Um, I will say also
that when it comes as the city looks for more revenues and we want to try to uh stay low taxes for the people at at uh roll back. This is uh this is just another way to get more revenue. But
I just want I I'll end with this is it is unfortunate that the people that cheat the system and they're all over the place are out there. the people that are responsible and register and are not cheating the system.
We look we're looking at that to say how do the rates that the people that do pay the fees compare to others and are we being shortch changed and um in a sense we are and we do need more fees. We do
need more fees but again I do agree with it's unfortunate because there's always the bad apples but we do need to look at raising these fees. This is a necessity. And as we go forward and a new city manager has said, we are rallying and
circling the wagons on how we could get more revenue for this city because we rather get revenues than of course raise people's taxes. That's >> well and just just a little Oh, I'm sorry. >> Just lost revenue is how I look at it. You know, it's theirs. It's it's belongs
to the city. We want to capture it. Yeah. >> Thank you. And just one little tidbit, ours currently is that 350. I saw it just a minute ago. 300 to register, I think.
>> 268 for for last for J uh July to July. Okay. So 268. And did you know we're higher than the state to get a vacation rental license through the state of Florida? Cape Canaveral's Decard license is higher than the states.
And we h and you have to have both. So literally our rate is higher as a city to register your unit to rent it here than the state of Florida's DBPR short-term rental license. >> So yeah, it's $200 for a rental license and
at the state level. >> Oh, that's 35 here. >> No, I'm talking about with your decker compliance. >> Oh. Um, >> okay. you're talking about a business tax receipt, which is kind of different. >> Um, but for their rental license at the
state level, >> they're right around $200, and we're more than the state is to register it here in this city. >> Yeah. >> You know, so, and they're small business people, too. I don't I wish everyone would go by the rules. But it'll be
it'll be interesting to see because that all I know is that number how long has Deckard been in couple of years, right? At least and to be at 28 people >> registered is pretty low registration.
I'm okay. So I I'll hush. I'm done. >> That's why we're here. Council member Davis. >> Council member Willis. I think you know going this this came about because we had a hard time enforcing the 7-day minimum and then a
whole bunch of regulations that went far than further than I was even comfortable with came out to help. It was controversial and the software was that layer that would help us overcome something that we struggled to
get uh preponderance of evidence to prosecute violators below the this uh the that section of our code. We heard complaints tonight about noise. We already had a code for that. we've heard about, you know,
through the years, many different ones. And so I think everything sort of makes sense. Um, you know, that that these fees are
according to the resolution, um, they can, we talked about it's to raise revenue. I don't think it's to raise revenue. These fees need to stay within the department, right, for >> Yeah, it's recovering the cost of
inspections and verification. So, it's a it's a cost recovery. And to reiterate to Kay's point, we did find that 90% of these folks don't even live in Cape Canaveral, which is why we would rather support the roll back by finding sources of revenue from outside investors as
opposed to uh families that are living and working here. Th >> Thank you. Yeah, I think we will um and the the the numbers the uh the page with the fee schedule is the last page that was provided the projections based on
six guess average. I guess the current prices do we know what the revenue would be based on 268 properties. Uh is that I guess where did the 94,850?
>> So that that's what we've collected from real. Okay. Yeah. And then uh if we to then we just apply the same rate schedule. I mean obviously there would be some variation for late fees. Not everybody has a late fee. Um and then um so that's where we projected the 140.
Um, and then if we followed the uh, Cocoa Beach method of per guest, um, I just went and totaled up the capacity of as many properties as I could find, came up with an average of six and then based that schedule on that. >> Okay. So, if I took the and I know it
doesn't work out, the $94,850 and I divided by $268, it's about $354 because that's not perfect. But to council member Jackson's point, I don't I think we all are saying the same
thing is as it's not about the the revenue as much as it is about having the right tools. Um especially as we're in the budget to
increase that and and get more uh as a percentage registered. That's the challenge. And the last question would be so the the projected revenue for this
is for this upcoming budget. Does it factor this increase? >> Uh it does not. That would just be if we capture the exact same amount, but we do have the plan to increase that further. >> Yeah. We couldn't put it in there, mayor, because it has to be realized
before we could bank on it. So the proposed rate of 1415 is just the increase on the 268 people that are in compliance, >> right? >> So the point yes is that as we increase just from a revenue standpoint within
the department, if it was doubled or just say to 500 at that same rate today, we would have 175,000. We'd essentially theoretically double our money. and we're talking about cutting, you know, little things,
10,000, 15,000. Uh, but I think the the funds need to stay within the department. And so, uh, I don't want to increase it. It's like anything, the 8020, the bad actors, um, Mr. Lavine's neighbor has been problematic. I've had
firsthand experience where I live on Ridge Rididgewood and I see what Coco Beach is doing. I do think they are a different uh opportunity or animal for a lack of better words. Uh but thank you for
comparing that to to show. Um that's all I have for now. I think if it if we adopt it, it's this is a one reading resolution, city attorney. There's no there this is a fee schedule,
>> correct? change that doesn't require ordinance. >> Just one vote. >> Okay. >> Mmber Willis, >> one one of the things that we we've heard is that we need more code enforcement. And if we're looking at how much we're spending on staff, if we
don't create more revenue to hire more code enforcement, we're not going to solve any of these problems. So, I'm all in favor of raising it to the proposed prices. Okay,
>> I would agree. I would be in favor. >> The proposed prices goes from $75 to 100. It's $25 for the safety inspection fee. The reinspection fee is up another $25. The non-h homestead is $150 and the
homestead is a $100 increase. Um, >> and as Tamson said, it's mostly about recovering cost at this point. >> Yeah. Any creative ways that can incentivize I think the late fee, right?
Knowing that if you don't register, being able to to enforce that and and cover those costs um is important. How long would this be? over a period of time or unless it's
>> annual registration. >> It's an annual registration. I believe it starts again in October. October one. >> So they would go into effect. Well, they're sort of >> registering all at different times throughout the year.
>> We send out a we do a mass uh a mass registration uh and then we uh and then it continues. So it's rolling. Okay. Sorry, I had to check with my code enforcement manager. Um, yes. So, it is rolling.
>> I I would say this if if we could incent so I'd be willing to go even higher, especially on the late fee is that if we could incentivize the good actors to say we are going to keep the fees where they
are. However, you have to register by this state and have send that mail out. And then if they do not right I by this date here's the increase fee that we have in front of us not proposing change
that and then in that state and if not by this state right it's it's >> well not a homestead$450 plus 150 if that you add those so it' be $600 >> as to somebody who registers um and
perhaps we could incentivize you they could get a year in advance basically. So incentivize them to pay now and they're good for a year even too and we're going to get 5 to 600 registrations hopefully
and then this goes into effect in a on a prospective date with even more teeth but I'd be fine with keeping it. Um, so, uh, the only thing I think that would change would be the implementation, uh, date on when this goes into effect and council
could consider that. That's all I have. And just overall I I think this department as long as we can see I will that the the cost to Mayor Pro Tim Kellum's point
decard is really just for short-term rentals. So that's easy. Some costs are shared, right? And if we do have a dedicated code enforcement officer, that annual cost and then the revenue side, it was 894,850.
And I'm with council member Jackson to say, could we now get double it? Get it over 600 registrations. Well, just for the existing that's going to put us at 180 $200,000 which quick easy math probably covers
the cost of one code enforcement officer and the decard annual software fee and that's just going to 500. So, and that was the the thought and knowing that they can be registered any time. Um,
depending on what staff has already in mind and capable of doing, when did we was this effective immediately to propose? >> Um, well, this would be my first fee schedule increase, so I'm not sure. I would have to defer to the clerk's office if there's a a time limit on when
something gets codified or anything like that or if it just goes in into effect immediately. >> Um, the way this is currently written, it goes into effect immediately. >> Okay, perfect. Then it goes into effect immediately. >> Unless otherwise unless otherwise, you know, put into the resolution.
>> And where is that in the resolution? >> Section six. >> Thank you. Okay. section the very effective date. Yes. Um council, what do we think? Uh what if if even if we kept the fees that would give
what I'm saying is instead of tomorrow, so somebody registers today, that's it's the current rate, but after this goes into if they register tomorrow, it would go up. What do what do we think about delaying that and
making this a prospective date so that they can mail everyone and notify them that the rates are going to increase register within 90 days because on whatever date uh they're going to this and I think
just an idea >> and see I still would like to see instead of increasing on these 268 people that have been doing it right for two years I still would rather see income increase from hitting the ones that are non-compliant.
If you have a thousand units and 268 are the ones registered, you if you get 500 more like you're talking about, you're really increasing the whole thing where you're covering it all. I'm just And I I can tell I'm probably going to be the one that that'll vote against it. Um but
I'm I don't feel good going up on people that are following the rules. they're following the laws. Um, and I don't feel good that we have a thousand out there. That's a huge number of non-compliant units. And that's what causes our
problems in our city because we don't even know who's here. We don't know if they're doing any vetting of their guests. Their guests are in and out. Uh, but I mean, we've got problems other than this because people are dropping their rates for a two-bedroom oceanfront
penthouse to $115 a night. That normally goes 250 to 300 a night. So, that tells you that we've got some issues with their ability to rent right now. And so, the more
you know, I just can't see going up on the ones that are doing the right thing. I'd rather get the ones that are non blind in there so that they're increasing the amount that we're receiving. >> Would it suit the council if we change the resolution to say effective October
1st then we can increase the late fee registration to $500 not $500 but you know an approp market >> at least give some time. Yeah, >> I think time would better in the creative just thinking on the cuff here
would be that if there's a way to uh those folks that did register and they're merely renewing. >> Uh is there any language or anything we could do to say, hey, you played by the rules um on renewals? Uh
but still for them at some point it's all got to >> level up. But on on that opening renewal, I guess to reward them. But >> well, you also have to consider the new applicant that just bought a place that they're turning into a short-term
rental. Are you going to charge them the higher rate even though they have no history of not doing the right thing >> or no history of not doing the wrong thing? Yeah. >> Right. Right. No. And I thought about that. So maybe a first time renewal uh
>> or first time application. But >> we'll have to I I can't confirm. I don't know Decard software well enough to know if I can what the options are in the in the fee schedule or in the software to charge a uh a um
>> so in that sorry >> well well so so I'm clear. Are you are you proposing that the registration fee is consistent for someone that has a history of doing the
right thing? And if they are historically done the right thing, we're not charging them the proposed increase. I think doing the right thing is if they've registered in the past and
they're going to renew. I'm just taking council member Jackson's concern for those that went ahead and registered and did it. >> Yes, for that renewal fee. Is there a way to overcome that concern? What I said was an idea, but I also share that,
hey, it's your first time. You weren't breaking the rules in the past. You just you're doing the right thing. Um, >> well, I think I think it's more bene Well, not necessarily beneficial, but I would like to see the the people that we know are doing the wrong thing
be penalized a little heavily >> over the others, but how do you how do you get to that point >> and be equitable? And still I think we do need to increase the fees at any
point because of the rising cost of everything. The cost of enforcement, the cost of staff, all of this is not going it's not getting cheaper for us to to do this to monitor this. >> Well, and that's why I was saying that
about the system because that's a a lot of money when staff is doing a good job of doing it ma finding things manually. Um, now one thing I just wanted to to ask you, uh, Tamson, is if you could
investigate for us, um, whether the system has the ability to verify the date that it was purchased, >> the date the software itself was purchased. >> No, that the the property was purchased. >> It does. It does. >> Okay. Because if we had the date it was
purchased and they had and you found that they had a listing, right, and they have no license, there should be some way that we can use the system to verify, hey, you've been renting this with no license because that's what it's
do. It's supposed to do. And then those people when we get them in compliance could pay more versus, you know, Jane Doe that just bought the property brand new and is trying to do the right thing and just get registered.
>> Well, we um we can certainly play around with rates, but we um but I eventually we have to start somewhere and the cost is the cost of enforcement. And so again, I don't feel that these are punitive measures. These are cost
recovery. We're not profiting. It's it's recovering the revenue of what we're spending. It's uh and we're not penalizing anybody. We will be bringing people into compliance. And we'll uh be tracking those. Uh there's different reasons that somebody might have had a
listing but not be registered as a short-term rental. maybe they didn't had maybe their kids moved out and so even though they've had the house for 5 years now they started using it as a rental now that they have the extra spaces. So, we'd have to uh >> Well, and that's why I asked and I
didn't get an answer, but that's why I asked if we have a listing and we see the listing and we know they've owned it for a while and they're not registered, can the system verify that? Because that would clearly be a clear indication that
they're renting the property without it being licensed through the city through Decard and in that case, that person's license should be higher. >> Okay. got confirmation from our code enforcement manager. It does do that. >> Okay. Okay. That's what I want to know. So, there is a way to tell with the
system whether the person was renting or not, has a license, and whether they are have an active listing. >> Correct. >> Okay. That's what I thought. So, in other words, we could charge them separate rate, the ones that have not been in compliance.
Yeah, I think those are all good ideas. Yes, Mayor Per Kellum. >> I just think that, you know, like Tamson said earlier, I've been having my hand up. >> I didn't see you. I'm sorry. >> Well, I've had before, Miss K. So, >> yeah. And I actually want to just Now's
a great time. I would like to request if it's got to go in the budget a better method. So, >> Oh, go ahead. >> that we can see. Maybe there's the little lights that pop up here. We have a better method. Council member Davis. >> No, I was just going to say it's very
unprofessional if we do different prices. Everybody has to pay the same price and we have beans that we're going to the ones that aren't going to be doing all this stuff. Everybody has to pay the price and that's all I'm going to say.
>> Thank you. Mayor Pro Tim Kellum. I just think if this is basically cost recovery right now for these fees increase that we need to do that and then there's other things that we've talked about tonight with bad actors, good actors,
all of that. research that and as you said earlier, we're going to have to probably increase again, but maybe just do this increase for the cost recovery at this time and then down the road figure out different ways to take care
of the people that are complying and and all that. Um, but I mean at this time this is cost recovery for the for the code enforcement for the inspection. I mean we're not making a profit on it. We're just recovering what it's costing
us to to do this. So that would be my opinion. >> Yes. I think I I have no issue with the proposal. Um, if we could delay the
effective date, section 6, as you said, October 1, that would at least give us some time to do some of that research. And if something comes up between now and then, we can raise it at one of our council meetings. And, uh, I think as
Mayor Pro Tim said, well, is come up with other ideas. I think you got to hear some of the pains uh, today. Um, but when we say this is covering the cost when ready, I guess in a perfect world,
knowing what is the status of the the short-term rental registrations, what are the unknown, we were getting reports and due to the issues that were happening, those stop, but those were helpful and a big part of the conversation.
Um, and then knowing what this program, this cost is because I think that that makes this move a lot quicker, too. So, hey, short-term rentals, here's the cost of the to to administer that specific
item. And then when we see the revenues, um, I think that'll really help and and >> all all trying to work together. Yes, Mayor Bertim, >> is there some is there a reason why this has to be done right now? I mean, is
could we table this and get more information and then bring it back like next council meeting to be effective October 1st? >> We based the rates that we proposed off of um we looked at uh what Titusville,
Indian Harbor, I think we were the lowest in the county um just to put it into perspective. And so, yeah, we're um amunable to delaying the start, but we just wanted to support the the the residents and, you know, recoup the cost
from people who are profiting off of property and as opposed to all residents taking the burden of this. >> Well, I would support um the increase to be effective October 1st. I would support that,
>> Mr. Mayor. Council member Willis, >> make a motion to adopt resolution number 202509 with the effective date being October 1st. >> I'll second. >> Okay, got a motion by Council Member Willis and a second by Council Member
Davis to approve the resolution as written with the amendments as stated for section 6, effective date October 1st, 2025. Any further discussion on the motion?
>> And would would the all these people get the uh notice that rates are going to increase? >> Yeah. And I'm not going to be in for that with I'm not going to be in favor of that with 750 some odd units that are not in
compliance and 268 units that are because it until we get those in compliance that rate increase falls squarely on the 268. But so so just so you know I'm not >> a question about that that then when we had prochamps
how many people did we identify through prochamps and now we have Decker did it go down >> yes >> how long is it going to take to rec to get those other people in compliance and in the meantime we're bearing the cost
of this um without any you money coming in to cover the cost. And I understand where you're coming from. I I agree. I It's not fair to >> Well, and and everyone, >> but how do we find a
>> a happy medium? Yeah. Well, and that's why, you know, I'm like increasing it on these ones. It I don't see that. We've got close to 750 people if you found a thousand
that are not in compliance. >> Right. >> And we're going to go up and and we have no guarantee that they're going to comply at this point. Right. >> Exactly. >> So our our increase is squarely on these people. So but I'm I mean I'll let the vote go. I'm not going to I don't want
to fill a buster. Um, I'm just not in favor of it because until you get me a thousand people on here, then I'll look at going up. But to me, that's not right. 750 of these people aren't complying. >> We We also have to remember that we've
had nearly 100% turnover in that department. So, you have to you have to equate some of this lack of being able to enforce all of this because we've had totally new people retraining, learning new
systems, learning what's going on in the city. So, you know, >> you got to you got to consider that. >> Yeah. And to second to add to that, yes. And uh our our person who is who our dedicated professional is
has more volume from what the system is bringing in as unidentified as our goal to bring them into compliance in October and getting all their confirmation. He could again we have enough justification for another person. >> Do we have fines when they're caught not
being in compliance? >> Yeah. And that's proposed in the resolution to increase um from 75 or sorry from 50 to 150. >> Now the fines are separate. I mean if some if if a if a person is found in violation of the code there's a graduated fine $100 for the first
violation I think 200 for the second 500 for the third. There's also a late fee. >> Okay. >> Okay. Which is different than a fine. And then just I need to just raise one little issue point of clarification regarding the motion. The motion is to
make the resolution effective October 1. Just to remind the city council that the vacation rental registration is based on city fiscal year commencing October 1. So is it the intent to make the resolution effective October 1 or the um
new rate for the next fiscal year starting October 1 to be the higher rate? I think that matters um in terms of um >> it does because people re the ones that are renewing renew early. >> You know, they get they get in and renew
early September or midepptember to make sure they're in compliance. So the date of the effective date, it does make a difference because it it literally goes out on this end of September. >> Right. So if the the intent is to change it starting the next city fiscal year,
the new rate will start October 1. Anybody that early renews will have to pay the new rate for the next for the new fiscal year. Um, if that's your intent, then it's not just it's there'll be a little bit more word smithing. It's not just having the resolution effect of
October one because you won't capture early renewals. >> What was the intent of the motion? >> Well, I would prefer that these rates don't go into effect until October 1. So
if they are early uh registrants >> then they're not paying a new rate until the next fiscal year. Is that what you're >> whatever the council wants to do? I mean >> well that was my intent of the motion.
>> Yeah. So if that's your intent then this new rate would not go into effect until October 1. So any applications for renewal prior to that date would still pay the current rate, >> right?
>> So any applications received um October 1st and thereafter the new rate would apply, >> right? That that was why I said the effective date. >> Yeah. resolution. >> The way I understood the motion, section
six, effective date would read, "This resolution shall become effective October 1st, 2025." >> Yep. And I'm just ra raising a point of clarification because I just wanted to remind the council that the the rate is based on a fiscal year, right?
>> So, but I think you've clarified you want the rates effective October 1. So someone early renews uh prior to October one, they would pay the current rate. >> Yes. >> Okay. Anything else? City attorney.
>> Yes, sir. >> We are uh discussing some of the concerns here. The motion is on the the floor in regards to the small number. We've talked about uh the staff running at full capacity. I think registrations
are going to increase. If this is an October one, you know, that's why I was thinking earlier, if you have enough time, you could incentivize everyone to lock in their rate for next year. Uh that was my hope. Um so my thought was
hey why don't we pass it for October one and between now and then at any point we'll have one meeting probably have two or three but that would give us enough time to I think get our arms around maybe some more ideas and think on it
and then we can we can resend it. we can amend it. Um, whatever this council wants to do or give some more data and get a better arms around it and say this is what we can do. Council member
Davis, >> I just think that um you know getting people I I absolutely understand where Councilman Jackson's coming from that these people should not be penalized for the pe the bad people out there. But like Don was saying, you
know, we've had a complete turnover of people in that department. How long will it take for them to bring these other people into compliance? And in the meantime, we're bearing the cost of this. So, how do we I mean, if we
change it to October 1st, that will give them that our support that we are on the same page as you guys. We get it. Um and for you guys to come back with more ideas. Um, do we just delay the thing
alto together or pass it with the October date or just wait and see what else they can come up with? >> If we want to >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Go ahead. You >> if we want to postpone for a meeting, I'm I will always postpone when we're
more comfortable. Um, I don't have an issue with the rate increase, but I do share that the the issue with, hey, the expenses are higher than the revenues, and so this is what we got based on these 268 people. We're going to have to
increase revenue. That's not what I think we want to do, and I don't think that's necessarily what's being proposed, respecting that that we've got we'll get inertia and things moving here. Um, I do foresee this number going up, which means the the revenue would
would as long as we get an understanding of covering, that's going to be really important. >> Yeah. >> Council member Willis, >> I just need to say we need to call the question. >> If I may interject, mayor, we we almost see this as two separate issues. We
understand that the, you know, the fees as part of this industry fees are going up and we're less than other communities. So, we we see that as a necessary step if we're going to manage this industry in our community, but we look at capturing the the loss revenue, if you will, to cover our costs and
expenses as a separate issue. Those people need to be captured, and we're working on that. We just see the fee increase as just part of managing, you know, locally an industry that's booming within this area. Uh people will come here because it's cheaper, as you said,
but we're trying to regulate that as in the best interest of our community. So, I just wanted to clarify, we we kind of look at those two things as separate. We don't feel like the people who are going to bear the cost of the increase are taking it on the shoulders of those who are not in compliance. We we staff
doesn't see it that way. We see it as we're going to get those, but in the meantime, we're following industry standards to do what's in the best interest of our community, especially those residents whose quality of life is being adversely impacted by, you know, the situations that we have there. fees
and and late fees and so forth can serve as a deterrent and increase voluntary compliance with an important ordinance. So that's just our view and I thought I would offer that before you call the question >> and um mayor >> the question I think we're going to have to move forward.
>> Okay, go ahead. I'm sorry. All right, >> city clerk, please call the role. >> Council member Davis >> for. >> Council member Jackson >> against. Mayor Prom Canam >> four, >> Mayor Morrison >> four,
>> and council member Willis >> four. >> All right. Uh, resolution passes 4 to 1. Thank you. Uh, Tamson, city staff, why don't we, uh, it's take a quick, uh,
break here at 7:50. Uh, according to my my clock here, we are on item Yeah. 8A. We've still got uh a few more to work through. I think those will move a little quicker. And uh yeah, let's take
a recess. Try to get back maybe in 10 10 minutes or so. 10:15. Whenever we're all back, we'll begin. So, we'll recess. Thank you. We've got military time up there. I'm trying to see. >> Yeah, it's off.
>> Okay. I swear. Okay, we're all getting settled back in here. We'll get started in about a minute once everyone's ready to go. Thank you for your patience. I think that beeping will stop with the
>> Okay, thank you. >> All right. It is 8:22 p.m. We are calling the meeting back to order here. We just wrapped up item 8. It's an item for action. Item 8A, the resolution. I did
see one public comment card on that resolution. I'd like to, if council's okay, let them uh speak on that matter. And uh then we can move on to 8B. Uh, Andrea Sha King, I see that you noted
>> the item. Please come forward. >> Thank you. >> Start the clock. Okay. I I'm I have some questions and and I was just chopping at the bit to say something, but I'm not on counsel and so I have to wait for public com
comment. We're paying Deckard 38 $38,000 and the result is only 38%. If they've only given us 268 names and we know that there are at least another 700 people out there who aren't complying, they're not doing their job
and we're paying them a lot of money to not do their job. The second point I want to make is we have Tamson and her uh in her department who have already come up with that they already know that there are 700 plus out there who aren't
complying. Well, I think that we ought to get these people to comply and hand pay their fee. And not only that, but threaten to find them if they don't because those are the rules. People don't pay, you get a fine. you get fined
for every day you you aren't in compliance. That would bring in a lot of money and it would bring it in fast, I think. All right. So, um and eventually if you wanted to hire more code enforcement, that would cover the cost of it because those monies would go into
the department and that would underwrite the the employment or the hiring of at least one more code enforcement person, maybe two, who knows? All right. And I heard a rumor, I won't say who, that our
our new city manager has said that we are looking to do more with less that we are wanting to be more efficient and I think that this is a way to do it. Now I heard you folks talking
and you know debating on this topic but the elephant in the room is the 700 plus people who aren't in compliance we that we can tap into for the money that they owe and not have to put the burden on the existing complying people and then
when we get all that sorted out then if you want to raise the rates raise them but I think you're putting the cart before the horse and to use another analogy I think you are you you're putting a stick in a hornets's nest because the people who are complying
when they find this out and they will they're going to be furious. You mean there are 700 people out there who aren't paying and they're not being fined and they're not being found and we're paying a company what $38,000 to
do that. That is not efficient and that is not doing more with less. So I guess I I I said what I wanted to say. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So purpose of record.
>> Yes, I have her card. >> What information do you need? >> Just to announce her name for those who do not know. >> Andrea Sha King. >> Yes. Thank you. All right. >> Thank you. with that resolution passed for that prospective October one date.
Um during reports I will circle back around and and have one more comment on that. Okay. So we are now moving on to uh 8B which is the intermediate pump station pump quote. Zyllem Water Solutions USA
and the motion is to consider the approval of a quote from Zyllem Water Solutions USA flag products in the amount of $26,911.65 for the intermediate pump station pump and authorize the city manager to execute the same. Mr. City Manager, any
comments on this? >> Uh yes, mayor. Actually, the next three items have already been approved in the uh pre this budget, this existing budget and we're just making council aware that we're going to execute these projects and uh we have June here to speak on them if you want to ask any questions, but we just need your approval.
>> That's great. Thank you, council. Any questions? I'll make a motion we approve the quote for $26,91165. I'll second the motion. >> Got a motion by Mayor Pro Tim Kellum and a second by Council Member Jackson. Any
further discussion? Seeing none, city clerk, >> council member Davis, >> four. >> Council member Jackson, >> four. Mayor Prom Kellum, >> four. Mayor Morrison >> four and >> Councilman Morris >> four.
>> Motion passes 50. Moving on to the next item 8 C which is lift station number two pump replacement quote from Zyllem Water Solutions Inc. and a motion to consider the approval of a quote from Zylm Water Solutions USA Flight Products in the amount of $28,833.30
for lift station number two pump replacement and authorizes city manager execute the same. City manager. Same as last time. >> Yes, sir. >> Council, any questions on this one? >> None. >> Make a motion to approve the purchase.
>> I'll second. >> Got a motion by Council Member Willis, second by Mayor Pro Tim Callum. Any further discussion? >> Seeing none, city clerk, >> council member Davis, >> four. Council member Jackson
>> four. >> Mayor Prom Callum >> four. Mayor Morrison >> four. >> And council member Willis >> four. >> Motion passes 5. Item number D
8D sewer lateral lining for Filillmore Avenue and Lincoln Avenue pipeliner Pros. A motion to consider authorizing city staff to proceed with sewer lateral lining of five identified sewer laterals on Filillmore Avenue and Lincoln Avenue
in the amount of $29,37.50 with the work being provided by pipeliner pros. Mr. City Manager, >> same as the previous two, mayor. >> Thank you council. Any questions for city staff? >> I did have one question. I'll make a
motion we approve the quote for 29,3750. >> I'll second. >> Got a motion by mayor part Tim Kellum. Second by council member Davis. >> Council. Any discussion? Council member Jackson, I think you might have had a question. You said, >> "Yeah, I just had a quick question for
June." June. Oh, there she is. >> Public works director June Clark. Thank >> um June on the Fillmore part of this job. I know we're going to be doing Filmore. I know that Lincoln
had some failures, right? >> Oh, yeah. >> Okay. Did Filillmore have the failures as well or >> the one that they're doing? Yes. >> Okay. That's what I wanted to know. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Any other discussion or questions, council? Seeing none,
>> city clerk. Council member Davis, >> four. >> Council member Jackson, >> four. >> Mayor Pllum, >> four. >> Mayor Morrison, >> four. >> And Council Member Willis, >> four.
Item AD passes 5. Moving on to item 8, which shows a slight change to the the title there. code enforcement lean reduction request which is consider recommendation from the special magistrate for 403 Harbor Drive case
number EN20-70 the Rita M Goldberg Life estate this is a motion to consider the special magistrate's recommendation for the council to render a final decision on the application to request a code enforcement lean reduction and staff's recommendation of denial at 403 Harbor
Drive Cape Canaveral Florida. >> Mr. City Manager, >> we have staff on hand to answer any questions and present the issue. Tamson. >> Okay, Tamson. >> All right. Well, going back to compliance, uh the council, the
recommendation from uh the magistrate uh was about accountability and reducing the lean puts the burden of neglect on compliant neighbors and erodess public trust. So they um so their recommendation was denial and staff supports the magistrate's recommendation
and then that now comes to council for final vote. Um, this was the the I'm just delivering the registrates. Um, this was a this was lengthy non-compliance uh violation for over 5 years despite uh repeated outreach
maintenance for lowc cost, low barrier um fence repair and lawn care. Health and safety hazards included an unsecured pool and a broken fence which continu which was an created an imminent continuing threat to public health health and safety for children. Uh and
so on and so on and so on. And then um the public burden is just forgiving the fines which is unfairly placed that burden on complying residents. And uh there's also a loss of property value for the neighbors. This is a a lovely beachfront area. So,
>> any questions for our city? >> Any questions for our city staff? I uh I have one the in the magistrates report and recommendation of lean reduction. Um, I'm trying to get to the number. The
current amount >> uh is $83,000. >> 18. Mhm. Yes. Thank you. Okay. The accured amount of the code enforcement final lean as compared to the current market value of the property. The accured amount of code
enforcement lean as of May 9th, 2025 was 83,600. Um, thank you. That was my question. the statement on reducing on I page 13 of 21 based on the alleged compliance
date of 30 December 31st 2020 they requested to to reduce it by 90%. And after the magistrate had a chance to hear and weigh in his report did obviously not. Okay. Thank you. Mr. city
attorney procedurally. Is there anything uh that we need to follow in this or we've we've I think got an overview from staff. I don't believe there's any questions at this time. We haven't had a motion yet, but >> so so procedurally the council hears from staff, considers the special
magistrate um recommendation and then also hear from the applicant. >> Yes. >> Who's requesting the lean reduction. >> Thank you. If the applicant is here, please come forward. We're requesting that this be moved to
your next council meeting. Um, the magistrate did not think we showed evidence of proof, which that's what we're working on now. We retained a attorney and he's working on that and would like to, you know, come forth and
show what our proof is that we did meet your requirements. So, if you can move this to your next council meeting or the next one after that to give us time to get this all together. And >> if you don't mind, for the record, would
you state your name? And >> Barbara Stoell. I'm living in the property right now. I'm Rita Goldberg's daughter. >> Thank you, Miss Stoell. Are there any other comments that you
have at this time? >> No. >> Other than the request to >> to move this to your next council meeting or the next one after that if you don't have time. >> Okay. Thank you. We'll discuss with the council. Appreciate your time. There any other public comments on this matter or
from the parties? I believe that's it. City attorney, >> I just have a question for the applicant. >> Oh, I am so sorry, Miss Stoell. >> If you don't mind, come forward. Our city attorney has a question. Apologize. >> Good evening. Um, just uh so we have the
information uh what's the name of the attorney that you hired? McGregor Love attorney in Orlando. >> Okay. >> They emailed you, but he's been calling, but your phones don't work.
>> City Hall. >> He's been He said the city's phones don't work. It just goes beep beep beep. >> Okay. Okay. So, McGregor Love out of um he's with um Lounge Drastic.
>> Excuse me. What what law firm is he with? >> It's McGregor Law attorney. >> Oh, McGregor McGregor Love is the name of the lawyer, right? Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions for city attorney? Thank you,
>> Mr. City attorney. Any other procedural >> steps we need to take? >> I mean, >> no. I mean, the applicant the applicant is requesting a basically a continuence until the next meeting. I mean >> I mean it's the council's pleasure whether you want to grant that
continuence. Uh she's claiming that uh she might be able to assemble information that uh was not presented to the special magistrate. So it's the council's what what council wants to do. Um, we haven't I mean the lawyer may have tried to call city hall
or but s I didn't I didn't get any um emails from from Mr. Mr. Love. So, >> okay. Thank you. City manager. >> I just I believe Tamson has uh response. >> And I just wanted to um the applicant uh
applied for the magistrate hearing so they had over a month to get the necessary proof. So, I'd um defer to council and I think the application is included as well. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. City attorney, are these funds acrewing as we speak? Are they >> No, sir. >> Okay. And if there was an extension, would they acrew anymore? >> No. Um in order to um make an application for lean reduction, uh the property has to be brought into
compliance. So, the lean principal amount of the lean has been set. It's that 83,000 number that's in your agenda package. Thank you, council. We've heard from
our city staff and Miss Stoell who is the the resident currently lives and at the Goldberg property.
The request was a month or two extension. >> Yes. When did you get the lawyer? >> So for the record heard the question was council member Davis when did you get the lawyer and I believe I heard about
two weeks ago. Thank you. >> Council member Davis. Any other >> interesting >> welcome. When was uh the magistrate hearing was this month? This past June 202.
>> Thank you. >> And at that time for that was was there every any evidence of her being in compliance or what she's bringing with the lawyer now? Was there anything brought to the
magistrate? >> Uh, no. Which is why the magistrate uh recommended denial of the lean reduction >> and I know um that this has been a longgoing problem with that property and
it has affected the neighbors value market value of their places. Um it's been neglected for a while. Um I live in Harbor Heights as well. Um and it has impacted um the values of the other
neighbors. Um and I think there there was plenty of time given at the magistrate and before that to bring evidence of what they're saying to code enforcement and the magistrate.
So, I don't think we should delay it anymore. It's been a long time that property's been out of compliance. And that's my opinion. >> I think today it is in compliance
though, but to I I hear what you're saying. It's I mean going back many years to get to that point and it the date it was brought into compliance >> May uh May 25th of 2025. Oh, sorry, May 9th, 2025.
>> Okay. So May 9th, 2025, it was in compliance. Two months or almost two months later on July 22nd, the magistrate >> correct >> hearing occurred. >> Yeah. >> And then here we are in August on it. Um,
I I've had a chance to watch our our magistrate and you know that was a new process and I really appreciate all the information that's been provided to understand how um we we got here. Um, and I certainly
uh appreciate the the property coming into compliance. Um, however, it 60 days probably not a good idea, but if it if it's 30 days, I would be okay with approving this based on some
condition after 30 days unless um or or maybe at the next council meeting they have an opportunity. But before even going down that consideration procedurally if we delayed what would the process be if we I I
don't know if the if the attorney presented something uh would would we >> send it back to the magistrate? >> No no not no not necessarily. I mean the um the lean isn't going away. The lean is recorded against the property. Mhm.
>> So, it's a it's a it's an incumbrance on the property. So, the amounts that the lean's not going to change. So, if the council were to grant a continuence until the next meeting, you know, you're still going to be dealing with the same lean, the same lean amount.
um you know, she um apparently is requesting some additional time to um try to gather some uh information to address the special magistrates's comment in the in the recommendation. You know, she said that, you know, she
hired a lawyer two weeks ago. I I know Mr. Love and dealt with him on numerous issues before, but I've never been contacted by him. So, um, you know, I don't know if she's retained them or not.
>> Thank you. I, uh, you know, these issues would come up in the past with our code enforcement aboard and they would do what we're doing, what I'm now, keep extending, keep extending, and and resolution wouldn't happen. So, I'm extremely
sensitive to that. Um, I don't I do not ha well I guess I'm not clear if if we that the magistrate we could make a decision based on the new evidence but in fairness had the magistrate seen that maybe he would have made a different recommendation. I guess
I feel is there a process that the magistrate would reconsider the new evidence? it the mag I mean you can right now it's in the hands of the council so if there's new if there's new information it doesn't need to go back to the evidence but if the council wanted it to
go back to the evidence to see if the recommendation would change I mean the council can certainly do that um you know the new evidence as I understand it is you know whether or not there's any evidence that they brought the property into compliance prior to 2025
um because the leans the leans acred from 20 roughly 2020 through 2025 and you know I understand there's some you know there were some significant circumstances with the family around that time but there was some discussion
that they may have come in compliance but could not produce any documentation whatsoever to the magistrate the magistrate's opinion was while he would have been inclined to consider a reduction had that information been presented that information was not presented
um when requested by the magistrate. So, you know, here we are several weeks later and she's here before the city council who makes the final decision and that still she still does not have that evidence. Whether council wants to grant her additional time um so she can work
with supposedly her lawyer, Mr. Love, to see if they can present that evidence. Um I mean that's council's prerogative. the lean's not going away and I'm not aware of any um you know immediate circumstances like a sale of the
property um that that might be worth considering too. Miss Stole, would you mind coming back up one more time? Hopefully one more time. I have a question. Thank you, Tamson. Um as you're walking up, I'll try to
efficient the the evidence. Can you tell us a little bit more uh about what kind of evidence we're talking about? >> I have receipts that we bought fence and fixed the fence. We have medical records
that during that time what was going on. We I was really did not know what to expect with the magistrate. I was advised just go and tell what happened. Well, I should have went there with all this receipts and
how much I spent on pool chemicals and fixing the pool and I should have had all that there and I didn't. And that's my fault. But we're working on getting that all together for you to see the timeline of what we fix. The property
was not, you know, the pool has not been green for 5 years. The grass has not been 6 in tall for 5 years. And that's what they were complaining about. We fixed what they said was the fence by
that the end of that December. And that's why we came up with the $8,200. And we have proof that I purchased the fence. I have a receipt from the man that fixed it for me. And then they actually came out in I believe it was
April. And he complained about not not having numbers on the house. They were on the post of the mailbox, but the flowers covered them up. We didn't realize that, but I put numbers up. He complained the car in the garage in the driveway needed to cover. I covered it.
He complained another section of fence was needed to be fixed. I fixed it. So, we have been complying what you guys are complaining about. Well, what >> we That's the proof I'm trying to get to show you the what with the date the fence was fixed.
>> Mhm. >> The pools, you know, if you have a pool, you get a lot of rain, it turns green. But I've spent like $6,000 in the last 5 years on pool chemicals. So, obviously, my pool has not been green for 5 years.
I'm the one that takes care of it. My husband used to, but he's in kidney failure and dementia. So, I'm the one doing it now. So, I want to prove that to you guys. The timeline when he was in the hospital, my son was in the hospital, why things didn't get done,
you know, in that 6 month period. That's what I'm trying to prove to you guys. And the the house has not been not in compliance that long. >> Thank you for explaining that, city attorney. Yeah. I mean, according to the
magistrate's order, right, you you made a claim that the the property was brought into compliance December 31, 2020, >> 2020. >> And there and and there was more than just a fence issue and and other debris on the property. The most probably the
egregious violation was the pool and it it was it was deemed um um a code violation and a serious code violation. So, you claimed compliance and and the magistrate said that, you know, they he
sought documentation and he and he referenced some examples, a cancelled check, pool cleaning report, receipt, credit card invoices or other other proof of other proof of payment to a professional pool cleaning company cleaning company. Um, credit card
receipts, invoices would have been helpful for his review. So, if if you were in the process of getting that, why why haven't you brought any of those to the council tonight? >> Well, I'm I'm working with a lawyer now, so he's going to handle all that.
>> Well, it would be your receipts, not the lawyers. But >> yeah, >> that's what we're work. So, that's what you're working on. >> The shans to get the records from my son being in hospital there. >> Mhm. So this is all stuff I got, you
know, Jess Parish, OMC, Cape Canaveral Hospital. So I have to get the rest of these records for you. >> Okay. >> And and another thing you guys are saying back in 2020, every time I fix
something, I should have came up in front of the council. Now in 25 when he said, "Put the numbers up." I put the numbers up. He came out and said, "Okay, that's done. Can you fix this fence?" I fixed the fence. He came out and said, "Fine." Why did I not have to come up in
front of you guys then? But you're saying back in 2020, I should have came up in front of you every time I fixed something. >> It's a compliant. >> Another thing is we never knew we were being fined. There's a paper on your website that's had all the complaints.
It said complied zero do. I actually have it with me. So, we never knew we were being fined. Last September, a neighbor said, "You know, you're being fined." And I was like, "No." And I called. They said, "No, there was no
fines." And that's when we found this paper. It said everything was complied, zero do. We never even knew we were being fined. >> Did you explain this to the magistrate? >> Yes. But see, I should have brought all the the proof of everything and I didn't
realize he needed to do that. >> Okay, I'm going to let our city attorney comment if he wants to. City attorney, >> do you want me to show you the paper? the the ma the m the purpose of this is not to reargue the code case but you know the
magistrate did mention in in his recommendation that when he conducted a massie hearing and imposed a fine it was explicitly stated that uh in the in the order that the property owner is
required to notify the city when the violations are corrected. So for the very fact for the very reason so the fines stop acrewing and and the city can make a compliance determination.
So you know that was in the order and those were the instructions but there but the property didn't come into compliance for 5 years right. So you can't it's it's not an issue for the city. You just didn't follow the instructions that were in the in the
Massie order. Um you know so the issue is just whether the council wants to afford this lady under the circumstances um some additional time to see if they can she can produce some documentation and receipts uh regarding expenditures that were made to bring the property
into compliance somewhere in the in in the time period of 2020 to 2025. So I mean that that's what she's requesting. That's the issue before the city council right now. Thank you. >> And I think maybe Tamson, did you want
to say anything further or you good? >> Thank you, Miss Stole. >> Hello, Mr. Mayor. Um, what I have here is just a simple property data search and it shows that property from 2020 all the way to 2025.
And one of the violations was the vehicle has flat tires and expired tags and it was suggested just put a cover over it. Well, that didn't get done till 2025. And the pool I couldn't see the fence on
property dust. So, that's the only proof I've got with the car is not covered till 2025. That's one of the violations. The pool is still green. It's a it
hovers insects, bugs, mosquitoes, everything else. It's still green. That was one of the violations and the fence. I couldn't see the fence. Uh not in the property data. So from 2020, that case was started before my
time in 2025 when it finally got in compliance. And that's the the documentation I have. I don't know what Miss Stole has, but u and one of the um orders from the
council from the magistrate, excuse me, >> she signed for so she should know that the lean was put on the property. So that's all I have, Mr. Mayor. >> And when was that, Mr. Coats? Roughly when she signed >> that would have been the I guess the
Massie hearing is September 22nd, 2020. I'm just okay have that in front of me. >> I see. No, that's helpful. I appreciate that information, >> but go ahead. >> It didn't get complied till May 9th,
2025. >> Okay. >> And at that time, the lean stopped occurring. >> Thank you. Uh it I I think it it's it's going to be
complicated. I I keep thinking about okay so evidence comes into who you know to our city attorney to the the magistrate to the city staff. I mean at this stage going to the magistrate that
evidence should have been provided at that time and it it was not. Um I would like if if there's a way that we could approve it uh unless something
occurs. Do we have a magistrate hearing scheduled in the future that we know about anything on the >> October? But correct me if I'm I'm wrong, Mr. Anthony um magistrate hearings don't been heard >> right >> you've got 30 days to appeal it
>> so I don't know how it would go back >> right >> because he's made his decision >> and we're past the it's a recommendation >> to the city council on the lean reduction normally his decisions are final but the in in this capacity on
lean reductions it's an advisory recommendation that he's making to the council Okay. >> The council makes the final decision on the lean reduction. >> Mr. Mayor.
>> Yes. Council member Jackson. >> Um I did some research on the property as this was all occurring um to find out and take a look at you know what I could find in BSNA. Mhm.
>> And the first report that I found of the inoperable vehicle was actually in April of 2017 where it was requested that a car cover be put on it and said inoperable car on site. Um there were
and then of course the 2020 it started with you know the missing slats and the fence and that kind of thing. Um they did let us know that they were having problems with some of the health issues that they have. But the thing that that
I found that really kind of worried me, I know uh with the health issues, I mean, I lost my mother and father a month apart from my mother and stepfather and that's really hard to deal with. But on 512 of 2020,
there was a ruptured artisan well and they were notified on that one on the 12th of May. And it was report uh repaired in September 4th with the water just
running out over that culde-sac and those kinds of things like that along with the fence. The fence is a public safety hazard if a child got in and drowned, heaven forbid, but the other can also cause a sinkhole. So,
there's some things that have happened and I know that with health issues, it's really difficult, but 5 years is a long time to get some of these things resolved and things weren't she wasn't able to get some of them immediately
addressed obviously. >> Mhm. Yes, I think that what I'm weighing is that it has been five years to come to this point. Patience has been shown given mercy and the council really had it it's rose to to us due to the lean
reduction uh request and recommendation of our magistrate to not reduce. Um, in the event that uh that the council approved this tonight as written, what process uh does the homeowner have uh
city attorney? Um, if could the is there an appeal process? Is it good as circuit court? >> Right. I mean, I you there could be you that's the the you can appeal to a court compet jurisdiction. the the the the consequence is if the council denies the
application then um during a one-year period the lean may only be satisfied by paying the principal amount of the lean. So that's the so once the council makes a decision um the applicant has 30 days in which to pay that amount. Um you know
if they don't then um for a whole year they can't come back and ask for a lean reduction. they would have to pay the full balance of the lean. >> Is there any way to work with them where they can make payments on that balance?
>> That would require um that would require an agreement, a written agreement. >> Council member Davis, Council Member Willis, any comments? Okay. I I'm I'm very sensitive to to dealing with
loss and the pain. I know we we've all been through different circumstances and I know how that um can can freeze you up and and the things that you're trying to take care of are just difficult. Uh, and
in this case, um, h has Miss Stoville been the owner of the property? Well, it's in a trust name, but has she been the occupant throughout this whole process that the city has been working with?
>> Um, since I've been on board, she Yeah. And um but you know to the point I mean we had a whole discussion earlier about compliance and uh um you know basic property maintenance is is a minimal reasonable expectation and and a mutual agreement
upon residents here because we all have the vision of a beautiful and safe Cape Canaveral. And so uh just as we talked about with with our rental adjustment you know it's not fair that the the burden of staff time managing it etc.
falls on all of the residents, not to mention the property value loss of the neighbors. Um, so, you know, I'm just just playing devil's advocate. Compassion for one property owner uh shouldn't be at the expense of all the neighbors who've had to deal with the burden. We've had mosquito outbreaks, all kinds of things going on in the past
couple of years. So, um, we've we've worked with them. They applied for their magistrate hearing. They had time to prepare. We've shephered them through the process and we have the hearing and we've been working with them to bring it
to these next steps as well. So, um the just echoing what the magistrate >> I appreciate it. Thank you. Council, what do we want to do? >> Tabson, >> mayor Tim Kellum, >> from when they requested the magistrate
hearing to when the magistrate hearing happened, how much time? Um so I think we had started talking uh the the official application because we were helping them get the um application form and things like that but um early in June their application was submitted to
us June 26 and then July 22nd uh was the magistrate hearing. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Mhm. >> If any evidence came over I think it would be appropriate to be sent directly to our city attorney and city manager
and appropriate staff. I would say that uh you know in the event that happens our city attorney could would review and uh if there's any merit to it if appropriate. I'm just talking openly
here. Uh the council could I think consider it like we were talking about. Could we approve this with a prospective date that would allow enough time, but if nothing comes in that our city attorney sees as substantial in fairness
to the property owner, u it would proceed as we as we decide tonight >> or another method to to sort it. >> Yeah. My my recommendation would if you want to afford her more time then you just take the matter up at the next
council meeting because ultimately it's the city council's judgment um as to whether or not you know the information that's being presented justifies a reduction. So that would be my recommendation that you just, you know, consider it at the next meeting and and
give additional time to produce documents um that the magistrate referenced or alternatively just make a final decision based on everything that's been presented. >> I've got a uh one point the next regular
meeting is scheduled. Does anyone know? uh September >> 16th >> 16th so a week prior is the agenda is posted and typically the Wednesday before that is sort our deadline to have
things submitted what I don't want to do is even consider extending anything that we're all learning about it that night for the first time the new evidence so um if if talking openly with the council if this information could be over in the
next before I think the submission date and then we could uh see it and consider uh whether or not we
want to or then we would have it and we could make a decision at that meeting. Um going on 5 years, 30 more days to consider. I've seen things happen where it changes based on new information, but I think here um I'd be I'd be open to
that. Um and but I don't want to slow down. I think what's been a longstanding issue and I know how hard our city staff has worked to get it to this point. So, >> um the one thing and I don't mean to interrupt you, mayor. >> I'm finished. Okay. The one thing that
I'm concerned about with uh waiting for the additional documentation is that I read in the information that um that was given to us by Miss Stole that
some of the work was done by them. So we would be I'm I'm thinking the re the documentation that we would be receiving is showing illness in their family possibly where they bought materials to
do the work. But how will we know when the work was done unless it was done by a certified contractor, you know, licensed person? And that's part of what I found in here that I'm like,
>> you know, are are we going to wait only to find that the information that we've gotten and I don't mind waiting a month if that's what we need to do. But, you know, making sure that we have the proof because just because I bought materials
doesn't mean I got it done. >> Yeah. Or bought pool chemicals. >> Right. I think we would not know until we see what is provided, but I was thinking about the same things myself. Um, and what I guess what I'm saying is it's
it's not 30 days. Uh, Miss Stoval, would you be able to get something in the next few weeks before the Tuesday before our regular council meeting at least so that it could be included in the packet? We would see it at that point. I think
you prior to the meeting and that would give as fair beyond fair. I think >> mayor if I may could we get that date for the record when the deadline is for her to have that in in respect for staff's time and effort to make this happen. We would like to see her get it
to the council by a a date certain so that the council can make a decision and we'll certainly prepare the or provide the council with the corresponding documentation of our actions taken in relation to what evidence is provided to you know the efforts that they made to clean up and deal with the issues but a
date certain would be very appreciated. I would say uh this would be merely adding on to an agenda item. It's this agenda item. So, no extra work I think from staff and I can't speak for staff.
If y'all help me with a date, I think the the meeting's on the the 23rd, I'm sorry, the the 16th. So, uh it it needs to be posted on the 9th. I think the 8th would be the absolute latest. Um, we have to have ours in by
the 3rd >> typically, but I I think that's only I would say by September 8th, end of business. >> Uh, that would allow our city clerk's office and to to attach.
Um, and then that gives us a week to review it prior to the meeting. Just an idea if there's And that is one, two, 20 days. >> So, if we could clarify for the
applicant mayor, that material, that evidence that she has um needs to go to the city clerk for presentation to council. I'm proposing by uh yes Monday September 8th submitted to the city clerks and the departments of and so
that >> yes se Monday September 8th would be the date certain it unless council has an issue. No, I have no issue with that. But one thing that does concern me is the number of different people.
We have we have a number of different names in this paper trail. I would like more clarity on who all of these people are. So, I know we have the Rita Goldberg Life estate, but we also have a uh
Lisa her name Lisa Taylor who who is >> I think Lisa Taylor was an example of a similar case that you all had put in in the documentation. Is that correct? [Applause]
Okay. So, a mistake, a mistake, typo. >> It's not pertinent to the case. >> Correct. >> Okay. All right. Never mind. >> Yeah. This is basically just a, you know, a request of uh, you know, disregard for community standards. just
creates a a message that code enforce codes are just something to be gambled with. So, and that's what we're trying to address here. 20 20 days is, you know,
>> Yeah. And I think it, you know, it's really happening now. And I I think for 30 more days to to give u them a well really I'm saying 20 days from from today but more importantly September 8th
by uh I'd say by 5:00 p.m. uh city clerk's office receives all of the evidence and uh that's what we could consider. City manager, was that what you were
looking for? >> Yes, it was, mayor. Thank you. >> Thank you, council. Any other discussion? No motion's been made. We're just talking about uh the consideration of the applicant uh for a little bit more time and I think we uh are in a
position to not be in the meeting seeing it for the first time and and trying to process after the magistrate and has has went through in depth with this. Uh >> I I have a question. Yes, mayor.
>> So, Anthony, the amount of the lean is 83,000. So, this if we give her more time and she brings evidence, the lean is the lean. It's just a matter if we decide to reduce the lean. >> Yeah, the lean is the lean. You have the
the principal amount, the 83,000 number. um if the council is inclined to give her more time to produce evidence, so to speak, then the council will consider it. And at the end of the day, the council may not reduce it 1 cent. I mean, if if she, you know, if that
evidence gets presented, I'm assuming it's going to be, you know, presented and it's relevant um to this matter and they represent to to the city what that what that evidence is and then the council will consider and weigh it. I mean again council may not even grant a
reduction but you you're affording her more time to produce what you know she said to the magistrate what the magistrate said that um was not produced to him. I just think that um you know
we we hired the magistrate to do these things to make it easier for the council to make these decisions. I think that there's been plenty of time to bring this evidence to the magistrate.
Um, and you know, in here it shows us the notice of hearings that she's had and and chances to bring in evidence of this. Um, I just I mean 30 more days is doesn't
really make a difference at this point, but I I just think we should go by what the magistrate said and in addition to what Mayor Prom Kellum is saying, >> I want to hand
>> I just looked up and saw you. So, >> thank you. I think we should have you know everything was she could have gone with the batt so I would deny the arrest tonight so I would say don't deny it I mean do deny it >> as staff recommends okay yes understood
thank that's okay council member Davis for the re okay >> for tonight >> thank you council member Jackson >> yes our city code and on page three of 21 of the package. In the agenda
package, city code 2260 G2. This page three >> of 21. The city council shall consider and give considerable weight as to the written recommendation of the special
magistrate and shall render a final decision on the application. The key point of that is shall consider and give considerable weight. So that's literally the wording of our city code on this.
>> Right. >> That's page three of 21. Yes. I think as our city attorney said, I we have not discussed any reduction today. It hasn't even been I think a
consideration >> based on what our magistrate gave us in the weight and everything we know and hear. we uh I'd rather
delay 20 days and and know that we gave every chance beyond what has already been given. Um, and so but what I don't want to do is be divided on this because I know if this
council feels strongly and I'm the the only one, uh, I I will go with the council on on this. Um, and respect that. So I felt that if anything
existed, it should have been provided, but in life, second, third chances. Um, this is really our first time. And so, uh, I I I don't want to set a precedent that we're reducing the lean. Uh, and I don't want
to set a precedent that you can show up with evidence late either. And I know that that that's what we're we're talking about. However, uh under this circumstance and and what I've heard and and due to the nature of uh what what
um the owners were were going through and issues with uh getting in touch with the city, uh I I will give the benefit of the of the doubt uh on those issues. Um, and I think we can we'll learn a lot
through this process and uh if nothing comes in, I think this agenda item will move quickly. Uh but council I think council member Davis has stated that she uh support staff uh the recommendation
to uh and the magistrate's recommendation uh >> to yes to deny and if we're if everyone feels that way. Uh let's go forward. Um I'd be okay with with waiting 20 days as
I've said. Uh really we're waiting 30 days, but we'll know in hopefully 20 days. Um and I don't think it being that the property is in compliance today. You know, there's Well, is the I know we've said that a couple times, but I
heard earlier that the pool is still green today. >> Uh >> wait, that's in comp. It is in Yeah. >> But as of May 9th >> Yeah. >> And then the fines were stopped. >> The fines were stopped. There's no And it's a homestead property. It can't be
foreclosed on. >> Mhm. >> So, you know, there's not there's no further, but yeah. So, >> okay. >> Um, Mr. Mayor. >> Yes. me for Tim Kell. >> You know, we've had this discussion
before with other reduction cases we've heard and and it's always been that, you know, we we make these codes for code enforcement to enforce these, but then we take away the teeth that they have to enforce the the codes. So, it's I think
it's up to us to support the special magistrate, give him the weight that we hired him to do this, and also to back the staff who has done a lot of work on this and deny the
code or the fine reduction. I'm sorry. >> I agree. I'll make a motion that we deny the code uh reduction fee. I'll second. >> Got a motion by Mayor Perm Kellum and a
second by council member Davis to deny the lean reduction as recommended by the magistrate. Any further discussion? City clerk. >> Thank you.
>> Council member Davis >> four. >> Council member Jackson >> four. >> Mayor Prom Kellum >> four. >> Mayor Morrison >> four. >> And council member Willis >> four. Motion passes 50. Thank you.
Okay, that completes item number 8E. We are now on to public hearings. We are on 8F. The first one is a denovo hearing board of adjustments variance approval oversized wall sign for the Hilton Garden in Bvard County tax parcel
2437150084. Applicant MHG Cape Canaveral GILP appellant is the city Mr. Mr. Mayor, this is um an appeal of a board of adjustment decision uh
regarding this matter. Um the board of adjustment uh voted 2 to1 uh to grant a wall sign variance to um permit um a wall sign 250.5 square ft and um that was approximately
56% greater than the maximum wall sign permitted under the city code. Um the city um is the appellant. So procedurally, the way it would work this evening is that the city staff will present uh the the reason why they're appealing this decision to the city
council. Then the applicant would have an opportunity to come and present their application. And then um you could open it up to public input on the matter and then give uh after that the city staff would have a few minutes to make some
closing comments and then the applicant would then be afforded a few minutes to present closing comments and then the council can make a decision. >> Thank you very much. So questions at this time appropriate. Any technical questions for city staff before going to
>> I mean >> comment or are you recommending uh the applicant? >> I mean if you have some like >> anything for clarity before hearing the applicant >> on on the um agenda item itself but you know I would afford the city to present make that whole presentation before you
ask you know questions. >> You got it. I had it in my head the other way around. >> Tamson. >> Um yes. So we uh we felt that the um board of adjustment was uh undermining the legislative intent of the council.
Um what are codes if somebody can go and apply for a variance and this one is twice the size of our maximum. Uh so uh I felt that the so I uh we appealed or I appealed um because I felt the variance failed to meet the mandatory findings
under the city code. Um there's no compelling evidence that a s that a smaller code compliance sign would ren render the property unusable or ineffective. Um again more than 50% of all of the other size signs and all of the other hotels in this area are in
compliant. So this would be granting a favor to just one hotel and I feel like that could put us in a little bit of trouble with the the general public. um uh violation of section 132 um we didn't see any evidence of an undue hardship to
authorize this variance. Uh and then section uh 1033 uh again conferring special privileges not available to other properties in the same zoning district. And this precedent would weaken the uniform enforcement code and approval of this sign not only
provides benefit that conflicts with sign standards u but fosters a perception of favoritism. Um, and then the appeal came as community development. I see myself as a steward of this city and what people want to see here. And I think that we wanted to make sure council had the
decision in the end. So, here we are. >> Thank you. At this time, I thank the applicant for the opportunity to speak. Is the applicant here? Sir, please come forward. Yeah, my name is Brian Morgan uh with
McKen Hospitality. Um we're the developer, owner, operator of the Hilton Garden in um and as was just uh mentioned, you know, we went through, you know, the variance
process. Uh we got approval um and then uh you know, we got an appeal. Um so I don't know if y'all actually reviewed the variance package or not. Have y'all reviewed that?
>> It's in our packet. >> Okay. >> Package is in. >> So what was just handed out I guess is some new information that wasn't in the you know variance application um the original variance application. But just
to kind of briefly summarize the our our uh variance application is, you know, we designed the sign uh based on brand standards, Hilton brand standards. Um we felt like the sign is proportionate to
the size of our hotel. Um, and just because we are exceeding the maximum square footage of 160 ft, we do actually meet the other two um, codes for signage. Um, we're under the 15% um,
maximum allowed per elevation. We're actually about 5% um, for our elevation. Um, and then we also meet the length of our building. You can't uh, you know, it's 250 ft. Our building length is 254 feet. So we actually meet two of the
three codes. Um and we're actually in line with percentage- wise elevation versus sign size. We're comparable to the other hotels. Um the Hampton in suites, the Homewood Suites, and the
Home Two all are around 5% of the elevation. Um so and then the I guess the first uh rendering um is would be our sign. Um you kind of see I
mean to me it's proportional to the building. Um and the next uh the next photo is another Hilton Garden that McKibben owns uh in Orlando. And actually the size of that sign is
exactly the same size as as this one. Um the next the next uh is another Hilton garden that we own in Tampa and it also it's 230 ft. Um so
but we were trying to go by the rules and you know uh when we were submitting our permits for the sign um we didn't have approval yet but I spoke to Craig Green. the the the next document there
is a text message um basically with Craig Green, the current building official at the time because we were getting ready to wire up the sign. I didn't have full permits. Um so I was communicating with him and um basically he says there in the text message that
well he told me verbally that he would approve it and then this text message basically says that he was going to approve it. Um, I didn't find out until after the sign was wired and we had installed all the masonry on the building um that it was not that the
permit was never approved. Um, so that's his text message basically saying um yes, he got all the permits and that you know asked him if he was going to approve it today. He said maybe today if not Monday. Um,
the next document, uh, is basically the estimate, the cost of what it would cost to, uh, basically tear the stone off the building, um, rewire it, rewaterproof it, uh, reinstall the stone, and then
have another sign refabricated, um, and installed. So, it's cost about $92,000 $192,000. That is basically because of uh the stone the stone that's on there. They're basically saying there's there's no way
you're going to get a perfect match of the color of the stone. So, we would basically have to do that entire elevation um to make sure the stone matched. The last document is just the cost of the the sign itself. Um,
and the reason, so we didn't fabricate the sign until after the variance. Um, when I was speaking with Connor uh Ford about this, he basically said the night of the variance uh meeting that we would know for sure whether it was approved or not. Um, and we could release the sign
for fabrication. So that's what we did and the sign is now fabricated. Thank you. Is Mr. Morgan correct? >> Yes. >> Is there anything else you'd like to bring to our attention? I think we were all following along with the the variance packet
that you or the attachment you provided plus what we have here. I have a clarifying question on what you stated. this uh city of Cape Canaveral various application packet that was just passed out to us is different than
>> the so the first two pages are the actual variance document that was submitted the rest of the documents are new documents >> supporting docs to show okay >> so I don't have the full original variance bracket just the first two pages of it and then the rest of these documents are all documents that haven't
been seen I guess >> okay thank Thank you. Is there anything else you would like to bring to the council's attention? >> Um, that's pretty much it. >> Okay. I'm sure if we have questions, probably stay close and we'll ask you
council while he's up or city attorney at this time. I think we've heard from the city and the and the applicant. Come back here to the council. Questions with the applicant questions. >> Okay. This is a public hearing item. Let's do
that if you don't mind. We're going to see if anyone from the public would like to speak and take a seat. Please come forward. Public hearing item, item 8F. >> I got you. Thank you. First of all, I'd like to thank staff
for bringing this to council's attention. As you probably know from a number of us residents, we've been very alarmed by the number of hotels that have proliferated in our community in the first place and certainly exceptions with height restrictions and and
certainly other uh aspects of the hotel proliferation that are very concerning to us. And I really want to thank the staff for noticing the um variation that is so significant in this one. Our community, as we know, is residentially
charactered and unique in this regard in the state of Florida. Is it already time? >> I don't think so. I think that might have been a malfunction. Please personally, thank you. But um we you know that we pride ourselves in being a residential community and um the proliferation of hotels has in and of
itself been extremely concerning to a number of the residents in our community. So in this case with a signage request to be at this magnitude of variation is hugely concerning. I'm sure the residents did not know about this. And if one thinks about the
signage of this magnitude in our community would be so noticeable um and it's such an anomaly that I would hope and I'm so grateful that staff raised this that the council would say no. I'm surprised the board of adjustment approved this to be honest.
You know, given the vision of the city and the concern by the residents, it it's been expressed, you know, for 20 plus years to not have the hotels, you know, of that significance and magnitude in our entrance ways in Long A1A. It's
just it's very disturbing that this was even thought about to be honest. And out of respect for you as a hotel representative, you know, I would hope that the hotels would have a sense of obligation and responsibility to the community in this regard and not put a sign up like that that's going to be
that large. So, >> I just want to show you that's that's what it would look like. It's still I guess the >> well I mean you can imagine and from the community's perspective we're already alarmed that there's a hotel of this
nature that has been approved by the council and the city to be built here. So, anything that continues to emphasize, you know, the hotel presence in the city is a concern to those of us in the resident in the community. And I just
would ask for the resident, I mean the hotels to consider the fact that you have been enabled to be in the city of Cape Canaveral and signage that is an exception to what our standards are is very alarming to us because we're already concerned about the hotels being
in the city the way it is appealing to the port needs as opposed to the community's residential needs. So anyway, that's my personal opinion and I'm very concerned that this was even supported by the board of adjustment. I support the the staff for bringing this
to our attention. >> Thank you, Dr. Roberts. And I have your comment card here. That was Shannon Roberts for the record after any other public comments that like to come forward. If you didn't fill out a card, it's public hearing
item, you can fill it out at the end or amend. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close uh public hearing. We've heard from city staff, we've heard from the applicant, we've heard from the public. City attorney, I'm going to keep coming back to you.
Are we now? >> Thank you. >> This is a rare circumstance. Yes, let's let's do that. So, uh closing comments from Tamson City. >> Yeah, the um the appeal is about consistency and controlled growth and um
you know, just we wanted to recommend uh that they they have been shephered through the appropriate process. the staff recommended a rejection of their variance application at the board of adjustment uh meeting. And so when it was approved, we our next step was to um
follow the same process of of getting it approved, which would have been to elevate it, take it to council. So appeal and take it to council while being thoughtful to what we hear from our residents and support our and our council as well.
>> Thank you. I guess in closing, I would just like to say I feel like we did for >> go by the rules. We did try to follow the steps, you know, and we were misled basically by city members. Um, you know, again, Craig Green gave gave us
approval. We wired the sign. Again, we didn't have, you know, the permit in hand, but I was told that we were going to get it. Um, and then uh and then like I said with Connor Ford, he told us the day we got the variance we could release the sign, we released
the sign. So, we've spent a lot of money and it would cost us an exorbitant amount of money as you see there um to basically fix this at this point and go back to the other sign. I don't feel like the sign is out of place at all. Um, I mean, it looks very proportionate to the size of our building. I don't
think anybody would ever know, um, honestly. um is not meeting um the sign. So anyway, and again we meet two of the three codes for signage.
>> Thank you, Mr. Morgan. City attorney, I think you had a question for our city staff. >> I I had a question for staff. I also had a question for the for the applicant. >> Yeah, >> actually >> for your convenience, it might be good to stay close or at least stay seated. But which one first? The applicant. Mr.
Morgan. >> Yeah. I mean, he was up. So, um, so under the under the the variance application, uh, criteria that the council applies. Um, how does this deprive how how does not
granting this variance deprive the hotel of the reasonable use of its land? I mean, does the sign deprive the owner of reasonable use of the land? >> Okay. Um, that that was that I had that question for you and then Tamson, I had
one question for you cuz >> Thank you, Mr. Morgan. >> Just wanted to ferret it something out. Um you know under the city code the criteria about unnecessary and undue hardship um it talks about
um that the variance is you know will not be contrary to the public interest but it owing to conditions peculiar to the property and I've read the staff reports. I mean, is there anything peculiar to the
property that would warrant granting um a a larger sign than the maximum allowed in the code? >> Uh, no, sir. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, council. Any questions for either the applicant or city staff at this time?
Council member Jackson. >> Okay. on the package that you had brought us, Mr. Morgan, you gave us this text strand and I see it's December 20th. I don't know who it is. It says Craig. Um,
>> if we're if we're going to speak, please come up to the record. >> Craig Green. Uh, he was the building official at the time. Okay. And um you you're showing us this. What is what is your purpose of this
text that you're showing? >> I was just showing that, you know, I had had conversations with Craig. He told me he was going to approve it, and that was a text message that we had exchanged as well. Um, and next thing I knew or after we already had it w w w w w w w w w w w
w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w wired and you know stone installed I found out that it was not approved or we never got the permit. >> Okay, because >> I don't handle the permit directly. It's uh through the signed company. >> Right. Understood. Okay. I was just
curious because it says maybe if not Monday. So really I don't see that as >> I said today and he said maybe if not Monday. I was asking if he could do it, >> right? And and to me that's not an approval. Did you go by this when you
ordered your sign to be done? >> But when I wired it when I >> Oh, when you w when you wired the building for the sign. >> For the sign. Yeah. >> So, you use this >> that and verbal? Yeah. Verbal communication and that. Yes. That's what I went off of
>> instead of waiting to get the written approval for it. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Council Member Davis is Council Member Willis at this time. Any questions? >> Is Is Craig still an employee?
>> I don't think so. >> No. >> Okay. >> He is not. >> Mr. Morgan, if you don't mind. I think Mr. Ford's gonna come forward. >> Thank you guys. Connor Ford, senior planner. So, Craig Green was the deputy
building official that was employed until I want to say late January uh or early February of 2025. Once he was let go, I took over sign duties in February. And so, that
explains the transition. I cannot speak to a you know verbal exchange that they've had but that text conversation was the main piece of evidence and just for the record there was no instance in which I told them that they were all good once the board of adjustment
approved. There are multiple instances in which the appeal process is outlined including the public notices and at the bottom of the agenda cover where it talks about you know in the instance that this is appealed and that agenda cover was both made public before the
meeting and of course at the top of the agenda during the board of adjustment hearing. So Craig Green was with the city until about January or February and then I took over signed duties. There was never a permit that was issued. >> Thank you, Connor.
Mayor Perim Kellum, do you have anything this questions? >> I had the same question as is K. So, I got I got my answer. >> Yeah, my my um I might have a question. I just want to state. Thank you. I had a chance to hear from all this. This
council appoints the board of adjustment and uh I was I was a bit surprised to see uh the two to three vote uh and uh con concerned about it because we we appoint them and we just did a point of
adjustment appointment. Um but in the case where we're you don't we have the appeal process where we can back up or or consider and this is where we are today. Uh I think I I listened in
that meeting. I well I' I've seen the the evidence here today and I heard the questions that our our city attorney uh had had asked about uh reasonable use of land and undue hardship. Um, but
you the examples that were provided, we're not Orlando and we're certainly not Tampa. Um, the council passed that code and development's hard. I know there's a lot of boxes to check and as far as, you know, doing business on on
text, that's a controversial topic in our city. Uh, I understand the efficiency of it. We all use it. Uh but when I read it, I share the same reading. I understand what the applicant
is saying in regards to maybe based on his question, will you be able to approve them today? But um these are big projects and we know permits, we know procedures, and from what I've observed from Tamson, our
building officials, uh uh Connor, senior planner for they've always handled everything uh with by by trying to adhere to the code. And so that's why that recommendation to the board of adjustment was to not approve. And uh it
just when I think of variances, it's not for these issues, right? It's for real hardships that that do deprive uh residents from their land. And we've we've had some some tough variances uh where properties have been built on
other people's property and setback variances. Those are very different. Um and I heard loud and clear uh Dr. Roberts, which I think uh represents a large portion of the community about uh
hotels uh how fast uh they have continued to develop. We're in excuse me double digits now. And so I think that the the permitting process
is really important. Um, this is a sophisticated development and I do not think the evidence today is is going to change my my opinion uh from what our
city staff is recommending. Um and the the the last is if it deprivives anything and I'm not here and I think you by what I've said it's saying anything for the other hotels but
if I was the other hotel well they're being deprived of their ability to have a bigger sign right and and then you get in the tit fortat game. And so I think that uh just we set that uh
standard. I I do think the board of adjustment uh missed uh that and uh I have concerns about that decision, but we are um
I don't think it's fair to to the the controversial hotels that have have been developed. Um they've had to work within certain rules and regulations. Um, we've heard that this
property is not being deprived of any reasonable use of land or undue hardship. Um, in defense of Mr. Green, who's no longer with us, uh, I I don't think I think he's smart enough to know this isn't how we approve signs. You're
just asking a question. There's a permitting process. And so, I think he was providing good service. And so to use that correspondence as as evidence, I understand why it was provided, but it's not, I
think, justified. And so with that, um I do not have any questions other uh for for the applicant or our city staff, but uh I I I do not think
this variance. I I would take staff's recommendation on this if Oh, Mr. Morgan, let me just make sure that the city council has a chance to to finish and then if if they're okay, we'll Is are there any other comments?
>> I have none. >> Okay. The applicant, I think, would like to to say something. I'd say >> I was going to say I would I would say >> I think we're all on the same page council from it as of right now. If the
uh applicant would like to have a final comment now that he's had a chance to hear us and then city staff final. We're at 950. Uh so maybe a minute. >> I was going to say the undemark shift is us having to redo this whole elevation.
I understand. I we don't want to be faced with a wave of of of requests for variances from every other business or hotel, I think, is my concern. Yes, Tamson. >> Yeah. Um we we cannot be responsible for
when somebody manufactures something without a permit. So, um, I I'm just I appreciate the support from council. >> Council looking for a motion. >> I'll make a motion that we um
deny the uh or reverse the decision of the board of adjustment. >> I'll second. >> He can give it this time. >> Got a motion by Mayor Perim Kellum and a second by council member Willis. and deny the variance.
>> and deny the variance. Yes. >> The motion you heard, city attorney, if you don't mind, would you restate it? >> The motion is to reverse the board of adjustment and deny the variance application. >> Reverse the board of adjustment and deny the variance application. Council, is
that or council member Willis? That represent your second. Okay. Any further discussion? City clerk, >> council member Davis, >> four. >> Council member Jackson, >> four. >> Mayor Prom Kellum,
>> four. >> Mayor Morrison, >> four. >> And council member Willis, >> four. >> Okay, motion passes. 50 for the first public hearing, item 8F. We have one more public hearing or I'm sorry, two
more items. We're at 9:52 p.m. Uh, council, I think it'd be prudent if we try to if we if we choose to extend, we try to move through these as quickly as possible. Um, council, I recommend making an extension to time.
>> I'll make a motion to extend the meeting to 10:15. >> Second. Got a motion by Mayor per Tim Kellum and a second by council member Willis to extend the meeting time to 10:15 p.m. Any further discussion? City
clerk. >> Council member Davis >> four. >> Council member Jackson >> four. >> Mayor PM Kellum >> four. >> Mayor Morrison >> four. >> And council member Willis >> four. S is 50 to extend to 10:15 item 8G
first reading and public hearing ordinance 04 2025 fund balance retained earnings reserve policy. Mr. City attorney. >> Yes. First reading of ordinance 04-2025, an ordinance of the city council of the city of Cape Canaveral, Florida, amending section 2-208 of the city code
to modify the city's general fund reserve balance policy providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions incorporation into the code severability and an effective date. Again, this is first reading and a public hearing item. This item came up at one of your budget workshops. Um so
staff is uh presenting an amendment to the general fund reserve policy again to reduce um the fund balance requirement of 20% to 16.7% of the current fiscal year budget for the fund.
>> Thank you council. If we have any technical question for city staff before hearing from the public. This is a public hearing item. If anyone would choose to speak to the item, you can come forward now. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close
public participation. Bring it back to the council. Council, >> I'll make a motion that we approve ordinance number 042025 on the first reading. >> Second. >> Got a motion by Mayor B Tim Kellum and a second by council member Willis to
approve ordinance 042025. Any further discussion? Seeing none, city clerk. >> Council member Davis >> against. >> Council member Jackson >> four.
>> Council member, sorry, Mayor Prom Callum, >> four, >> Mayor Morrison, >> four, >> and council member Willis, >> four. Ordinance passes 4 to one
on first reading. 042025. Next item 8H, first reading and public hearing ordinance 052025 of the state revolving fund program. City attorney. >> Yep. Let's first reading ordinance 05-2025 an ordinance of the city council
of the city of Cape Canaveral Florida relating to the state revolving fund program pursuant to section 2.12 sub paragraph 5 of the city charter amending ordinance number 06-209 to increase the maximum total loan amount not to exceed $7 million for
purposes of funding certain wastewater and storm water improvement projects in one or more loan applications to be filed with the state of Florida Department of Environmental Protection ction, authorizing the loan agreements, establishing pledged revenues, designating authorized representatives,
providing for asurances, providing for repeal of prior and consistent ordinances and resolutions, severability, and an effective date. Um, first reading of this ordinance back in 2019, the city council, pursuant to city charter authorized borrowing through the
SRS state revolving loan fund program to the amount total amount of 6.5 million. Since then, uh Tim and and staff have been working on various projects that have been funded by SRF. There is one outstanding project that has not been
closed out yet. Um so additional um SRF funds will be needed to um close that project out. So staff is recommending increasing the debt limit to 7 million. I don't believe you're going to need 7 million. I think
Tim from what you told me earlier this evening but be on the safe side it'll be a maximum debt limit of 7 million. All other provisions of the 2019 ordinance will remain the same. Mayor, >> thank you city attorney. Any questions
for city staff before hearing from the public? See >> none. This is a public hearing item. If anyone would like to speak on the first reading for ordinance 052025 regarding the state revolving fund program,
please come forward if you choose to speak. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close public hearing, bring it back to this council. Any questions or motion? I'll make a motion we approve ordinance number 052025
on the first reading. >> I'll second. >> Got a motion by Mayor Pro Tim Kellum and a second by council member Willis. Any further discussion? City clerk. >> Council member Davis. >> Four.
>> It was four. >> Yes. Sorry. Thank you. Council member Jackson >> four. >> Mayor Prom Callum >> four. >> Mayor Morrison >> four. >> And council member Willis >> four. Ordinance number 052025 item 8H
passes 50 on first reading which now brings us to the amended agenda item 8 I which was formally as item >> 7B
we moved to 8 I have no uh further comments other than uh an update is that that uh once this is approved that um the team will get together. There's going to
be a lot of next steps that the property owners have an opportunity upfront when our city staff is ready prior to any construction activities to do a site walk through and understand everything that this council approved. And hopefully that's a way that will allow
uh the the city staff to stay focused on working with the uh the contractors or any other parties who who are involved in this. And uh thank you for your patience to to clarify a few questions that I think that will will help over
overcome. And uh if there's not anything from our city attorney or city manager on this item, it wasn't the consent agenda. I'm happy to to move forward. >> I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda item 7B as 8 I.
>> I'll second. >> Whatever. Got a motion by council member Willis and a second by council member Jackson to approve uh the former consent agenda item 7B which is now 8 I. Any further
discussion? Seeing none, city clerk, >> council member Davis >> four. >> Council member Jackson >> four. >> Mayor prom >> four. >> Mayor Morrison >> four. >> And council member Willis >> four.
All right. Passes 50, which now brings us to uh items for discussion. We do not have any tonight. Uh and we
are now at 10:00 on the dot and reports. We can go down the line. We can start. Council member Davis. >> I'm fine. Thank you. >> Council member Willis. >> Uh yes. Uh several of us attended the Florida League of Cities this past week
and I thought it was very informative, very helpful in things that we're facing in the future and I was able to attend several committee meetings that I'm on. uh one being the legislative, the other being the advocacy committee and um
third being um the I can't remember the name of it properly but it was a technology um mobility committee. So uh I thought it was very helpful and I appreciate the city uh
allowing us to attend this. So thank you. >> Thank you council member Jackson. I also was one of the Florida League of Cities annual conference attendees. I found it to be a great experience. I got to meet a lot of people from other
cities and learn how they did things. Um, but I did want to report that I coordinated with the Space Coast Association of Condominiums. Um, and they had a hurricane party and
uh, Tamson and Keith and Zach, I'm not sure if Tamson went, but they all worked together and they went and met at Sunrise Bank and got to interact with a lot of the condominium association board
of directors, which I find is a great thing because any way that we can partner within that community, that's a large number of people within our city, our residents that they can reach out to. So, I'm I want to thank you, city
manager and Tamson who's already gone and Zach for doing that for me and working with them to reach out to our community in that way. >> Absolutely. Welcome. And uh Amy, one of our part-time resiliency division folks
was there as well. So, >> Okay, perfect. Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. Thank you, >> Mayor Perim Kellum. >> Um I don't have any reports. I just I think um for down the road um maybe a discussion that we need to have is I'm
all about boards and advisory boards, but I'm concerned about the board of adjustment having the power to do what they do. Maybe we need to um think about having them advise the council, but for the council to make the
major decisions. a couple the meeting I watched they made some decisions on um portions of lands being used, setbacks being changed, which is kind of against what we're heading towards in our city
as far as smaller footprints, less paving, um you know, lid construction and um different things that we've talked about as a council. So, I'm thinking that major decisions should be brought back
to the council. Something we need to maybe bring up in a discussion down the road, but I was really surprised with the decisions they made at that meeting and and how it's really not our vision, the things that we talk about in our
comprehensive plan and everything, how different it was than where we're heading. So, that's all I have. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um I uh echo that. I guess since that's top of mind, my reports are
yes, I am concerned about not only the decisions of the board of adjustment, but the uh the representation when I read the code, city attorney, I think is that a five or a seven person board? I think it
>> it's supposed to be seven. >> So if it's seven and I think we have two alternates, right? And the way I read our code is that in a per well in a real we this council pretty much we've come to 90% of the
meetings and and we've all had hardships and challenges and I've missed one or two special a special meeting workshop but that's beside the point. these boards they miss like anyone would but I think you know you'd have seven show up and you got two in
the audience alternates who are there literally appointed by the council that if two don't show up those two alternates can step in and we've got seven residents or wherever they are making decisions the fact that three
is a quorum and then a majority is two on a major major decision is an issue and so how do we get those boards healthy? If it means they have recommending power and sight plan, I would love to bring the board of
adjustment uh maybe conversation just boards in general back and see what we can do to support our city staff and and also maybe we can work on getting the boards uh healthy and and and
representation. But the the PNZ is the same way and I I have similar concerns there too. Uh one of the things that was brought and I think we might have all heard is that site plans are approved by the city council. Uh we've had some really big developments and some
developments seem to be hitting the newspapers and I'm learning about things from the newspapers that I didn't even know was was happening. um and very optimistic in some of the conclusions that things are moving forward and I I don't fully understand how that's
possible. Well, the last decision they got was a site plan approval by a board that we appointed. Same problem. PNZ board of three can approve a massive hotel project or a project that's going to have an impact.
So, I want to make sure that we're reading our code right, that we got five minimum, I think, uh, and maybe we have to change the code. The way I read it is we should really be operating with no
vacancies and only really dealing with the alternates. As long as we we got full boards, the alternates move in, but we really don't have those meetings. And I went back in historical board of adjustment meetings and it was rare to see five people or certainly or seven
people actually attending at the meetings. And uh so so I'm uh just stating maybe as a report from what we just saw uh in the future I would like to um have an agenda item on regarding
the board of adjustment and P&Z board. Uh and I think we just start with the code and the charter. That's where we can I think work with our city manager and city attorney to understand it and uh have a discussion and see see where
we go from there. Um but the the problem is major decisions are being made and uh ultimately this council's responsible for those decisions because we appoint them. So we're saying uh as an ideas take them
>> is for mayor. >> Yes. with us being, you know, 90% built out, I think that major decisions like this, no matter which board they come through, needs to come to council for approval. And I'm I question the value of the
adjustment board at this point just simply because we are built out, you know, we have a minimal amount of space left. >> Thank you. that September meeting. City manager, if we could start working on an agenda
item, that would be appropriate. I think >> absolutely >> the whole council uh can I think contribute and and help shape that the way we want. Um the Florida League of Cities convention was
awesome. That was over in Orlando. Had a great uh experience there and learned a lot. uh got to to uh see different perspectives, hear about uh some of the issues across the state and from other communities.
Brought back uh some materials and things I'm going to offload with the city manager and uh take it from there. But uh uh more to come I think on that side. Uh, one other issue that I think
needs clarity is Mayor Pro Tim Kellum thankfully was able to be a part of that last meeting, but I don't think it was easy on on anyone. Um it was I think brought to my attention that the reason go to meeting has not uh been pursued
despite I think I can speak for myself wanting it uh was that the council back in June of 2021 I believe or two voted to discontinue it. I went back and listened to that as certain that meeting after reading the
minutes. Um and it was my intent you can hear in the meeting and I think is yes we discontinued but it was really to to replace it with something we never wanted to get away
>> go do away with two-way participation. So, um, the council did not vote to ever approve goto meeting, I think, but then the council was in a position, this was years back, to discontinue something we
never really approved. But if for clarity in our new city manager, uh, on the next meeting, I would like to discuss bringing uh, some solution back to the city council. I think that would that's one of the things that really makes us unique and gives people
especially those with disabilities a chance to participate. Um but most importantly when we have a council member who can't be here um that that that they have an opportunity to dial I've done council member Willis in another country on my speaker phone that
wasn't fun either and uh I think we can I think we can do this and so uh we can discuss that further but two-way participation uh through some means and Uh,
one question on the 2014 decision on millage rates con going from a combined we had separated millage rates. We had a beautifification 1985 I believe. We had the library
uh at 0.05. So it was like a half a mill. The voters by referendum voted to basically put a cap on the council. council was approving millage rates and beautifification was something they needed. So they put it out to vote. Got a half mill. Library board went on
shortly after at 005. Uh fire came on. Uh police came on and I think if my I I want to get clarity on what those vote those referendum caps were. We since 2012 have seen property values increase.
So, we've been fortunate where we haven't had to test the caps, but if if we are going to see uh property values decrease, that every year was voted on and stated in the recital uh during the
public hearing and trim notices, but it wasn't until 2014 it was just consolidated and from my understanding based on a report or from the Bvard County Property Appraisers approval. And so my issue was if the voters approved a
cap, we need to respect that and the voters would need to do away with it. So we're at 3.2 today. I think the cap's like at four or five, but it gets really tricky when you start going, what portion of that's fire? What portion of that? You can back into the numbers. I
wanted to raise that question to make sure think we're okay and we've been okay for 10 years that moving forward do what do we need to do with those caps? Should that be a part of um in front of us so we know while we may not be close
today in the future it might come back around. City attorney >> mayor if if you would permit the council would permit me permit me let me report back to you about that issue because the the case law does not support local governments adopting millage rate caps
by referendum in their charter. So I' I'd like to report back so you know you you have it nice and fresh so you can you know read what the what the law is regarding that >> whenever you're ready. That's great. That that's not urgent. I just that came
across and um I believe that oh uh just want to confirm with the new hiring of the building official are we going to uh need the services of
the port through the inter local agreement uh planning, site review, building inspections. Um, it was my understanding that I think Tamson left. We were using that and it
is my hope that we do this council would bring that interlocal agreement back before exercising that. I have um I think we're fully staffed now, right? We just we had our introduction tonight.
Uh but I'm very concerned and I and I want to talk openly here that uh if the who are the ports building officials and in that department I've I think I've met one that are performing
services on behalf of the city. We had a major issue in um the city of Cape Canaveral that we tonight I think made a major step to to put behind us. But
I did not realize the level that we were using those services and I am not aware of the credentials or anything uh regarding their personnel. I did have a chance to
see the interlocal agreement and I would ask that this council uh hear it and our city manager please just know that that's a concern if it's still needed today. Obviously, I think you have the
full authority to do what's needed, but I'm raising a concern on that and I wanted to bring it to the council's attention so that you have um at least the opportunity to talk. And with that, I'm finished.
If we Is there anything I know that was a lot, but those are some big ones. Um, city manager, any reports that you'd like to bring? >> I would say not at this time other than
it's been a pleasure so far. I'm in my third week and I think I've told all of you individually that I am just just thoroughly impressed with the quality and the caliber of the people who work here for the city of Cape Canaveral. They're truly passionate about serving this community. They're truly
professional and they are striving every day to do the best job not just for this community but for this council and I think you're going to see a lot of great work out of them moving forward. We we have a lot of great challenges ahead of us but we have also a lot of tremendous opportunities and we have great people to tackle both. So thank you for your
confidence in me and thank you for your confidence in them and let's just do this thing. And I would ask if we're leaving, Mayor Pro Tim Kellum couldn't be here last time as I know it's late. Could council, if you wouldn't mind, could we take a photo together now that we're all here
after we adjourn out front if somebody could help us with that with our the new city manager and um >> any other uh reports? City attorney? >> No report. >> City clerk's office. Think >> with that council will