All right, let's call this meeting to order. >> Um, Skip, would you mind doing a pledge for us? Please turn the flag 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. >> We have invocation by pastor Keith Cape of Club Zion. Let's pray. Father, we thank you. We bless you and we are beyond
uh privilege to be able to come before you and seek your direct direction, your wisdom and your guidance in this meeting. I pray that Lord all things be done decently in order. I pray for our city leaders, Father, you give them wisdom tonight, discernment and insight
in all their decisions, that there be a cal and a peace in this in this meeting tonight. And I pray for all those who are present, Father, that we all be an example to one another of how to conduct conduct business in this city. And I thank you and I ask this in Jesus name. Amen.
>> City Cler, roll call. >> Commissioner Jackson >> here. >> Commissioner Hutcherson >> here. >> Commissioner Tolty >> here. >> Vice Mayor Williams >> here. >> Mayor Kpzy >> here. Want to make a motion for the agenda.
>> Agenda is published. >> Motion a second. All in favor? >> I >> I >> Motion passes 50. Any public comments about items that are not on the agenda? Go ahead, Rick. [snorts and clears throat] >> Hi everybody. Rick Anderson, 1800
Minutemen Causeway and um I'm lucky enough I was just came back from a twoe trip uh over in Europe. Unfortunately, I missed the uh 250 which was not planned. It was I figured that out after we booked the trip. But uh and I was in I
was in Brussels, Belgium the night that Belgium was playing in the World Cup and it was the greatest party I ever crashed. But the point of what I'm about to say is um I spent a lot of time in the Netherlands. And the Netherlands, half of the country lives between 2 and
4 meters below sea level. And they've been living they've been living this way for centuries and the windmills and so forth. And after a breach of the dikes in, I believe 1958, they embarked on a 30-year project to
protect themselves in the event of like a like a 5,000 or 10,000year storm. So, I'm thinking sitting here in Cocoa Beach as we're sitting here debating the issues of the day that we're one wave away from catastrophe. And I really would like to think that
maybe at some point some kind of a conversation can be opened up and, you know, maybe draw on knowledge from from from other places that that that might [clears throat] be able to help us mitigate or or prevent a catastrophe like that. Thanks.
>> Thank you, Rick. Any other public comments or about items that are not on the agenda? >> All right, this closes public comment staff reports. >> Good evening, mayor and commission. Brooks, can you come up, please? I would like to introduce to the community and the commission our new public works
director, Brooks Webb. Mr. Webb brings more than 30 years of progressively responsible experience in public works, infrastructure management, and municipal operations. He served as the public works director for the city of Laramie, Wyoming, where he led a
multiddisciplinary department of 85 employees, responsible for engineering, streets, fleet, storm water, GIS, solid waste, and wastewater utilities. He also oversaw the city's public works capital, excuse me, capital improvement program
and successfully managed major infrastructure projects from planning through construction. >> Brooks Web, everybody. So, >> Brooks, welcome. excited to have you. >> Thank you all. Uh mayor commission, um as as Wes said, I come from the lands of
Wyoming. Um where norm my normal day of work, I would maybe see an elk or a buffalo and not a dolphin or a manatee. So, it's been pretty cool. Anyway, I'm super happy to be here. Um in in the two two and a half weeks I've been here, I've met a couple of you, but uh I've
been watching your meetings for months, so I feel like I've met you all. Um, in that two two and a half weeks that I've been here, um, I've I've had the pleasure of meeting a lot of the the city staff and, um, observing the way
they work and it's amazing the the team that we have here uh, on city staff is is just amazing and they work really hard every day to improve the quality of life for the residents of Cocoa Beach and so I'm I'm happy to be a part of that now. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Welcome, Brooks. I look forward to uh to meeting you um more in depth. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh Chief Cuin, can you come front and center, please? >> So, the Florida Police Chiefs Association recently announced Cocoa
Beach Police Chief Chris Cuan as the recipient of the Guardian and Warrior Executive Director Award at the summer conference of the Florida Police Chiefs Association held in Orlando, Florida. The Guardian and Warrior Executive Director Award was established by the
FPCA to recognize those public servants who have made special contributions and shown a steadfast commitment to protecting law and order and upholding our constitutional liberties or as an emerging leader who has shown dedication to the values the FPCA holds dear.
Values such as commitment to service, professionalism, integrity, and accountability. This year, Chief Cuin was recognized for his enduring commitment to officer safety and employee wellness. We are extremely extremely proud of him for this accomplishment.
[applause] My uh my understanding was that he also received a standing ovation at the at the conference as well. Is that correct? >> Uh yes, sir. Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah. >> [applause] >> Well done. >> Can we hug him?
>> Is that a phone plan? >> Can we hug him? >> I'm sorry if we raise them right. Hey, you know, we've got the best. It's nice when other people recognize it, too. >> Yes, sir. That's right. >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you, Chief Chris. I I I hear nothing but good about you all the time. The the city loves you, so thank you for your hard work, >> city manager, commission.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh lastly, we are excited to announce that in this year's state budget, the city was awarded state appropriations for the following projects. A gravity-fed sewer rehabilitation project, a 50% match to
$500,000 that will be an FY27, and a $4 million grant, no match required, for fire station 50. That's awesome. City staff will work with the state on the grant agreements and will bring to the commission for acceptance once received by the granting agency. We
are extremely grateful to those legislators who were involved in this process and are especially grateful to our lobbyist Jason Steel for his tireless efforts this past session. And that's all I have for tonight. >> Question city manager that 500,000 on the gravity se that's in the budget
correct as we've talked about so far. Cool. >> And that's all for tonight. city manager, just to be clear, those were things that were actually out and due to the efforts of our team. Those were brought back into the budget and successfully landed for the city. >> They were out a couple times. Yes.
>> Yeah. That's that's incredible work from the team and I think Jason Steel was one of the key actors there, right? >> Yes, sir. >> So, well well worth the thanks to him and he's earning his keep. >> Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Um, city attorney,
>> nothing tonight. >> All right. City Commission. >> Nothing. >> Yeah, I've got >> Okay, go ahead. >> Um, back on the uh on the appropriations or the the grants that we got from the state, uh, Tyler Soy was also >> involved in that as well. Great point.
>> And we appreciate um his uh his um actions in making that happen. And Jason is doing an outstanding job for us, Jason Steel. So, >> want to continue with that. Um, and that leads me into the Bsentennial Park, which we just did a ribbon cutting last
week. I know, uh, Commissioner Williams was there, and unfortunately, uh, I know you were out of town. You couldn't be there, Mr. Mayor. Um, but it was a long time coming. Uh, Bsentennial Park, you know, obviously has been around a long time. It was never actually named. We
kind of, it just I don't know where the name came from. It just it just happened um several years back, quite a few years back, I guess. Uh but when I was on the leisure board, um we were approached by
um uh Billy Bosch, who's a kite uh horder out there, and you know, he said, "Hey, this place is flooding all the time." And and you know, you all saw it. Every time it just got it got damp out there, it would flood. >> You couldn't even watch it just
>> It was terrible. Yeah, you couldn't launch anything. It was it was terrible. So, um we created a committee to I think you were you on that committee? >> Uh I was one of the original ones with Orson to bring it up, but Yeah. >> Yeah. So, >> and Greg [clears throat] too.
>> And Greg. Yeah. >> Yep. >> Yeah. And so we we put a committee together and um and that was seven or eight years ago and finally it happened. So we did the ribbon cutting last week. Uh we got grants. It was funded by the
state and fine and um and it's a great great project um and we look forward to uh for other projects working with fine and and the state. So that was um a win-win for everybody I think. So um
I think our next meeting when's our next meeting is it August >> 6th or 7th something like that. Uh school starts soon. Uh, I go back to school on the 3rd. Um, we don't have students until the
10th, but we're doing a we have a muster on the 6th where all the parents come in to register. So, get ready for traffic to start picking up. Fortunately, uh, uh, Roosevelt has um done a remodel of their traffic issue and it's going to
snake through their parking lot. there lot. If you've ever if you've been down Minutemen, you've seen a lot of construction near Roosevelt. That's what's going on. So, uh they'll get all that information out as to the uh traffic pattern for dropping off kids
and picking up kids and so forth at Roosevelt. So, look forward to that. That's all I got. Thanks. >> Okay. Go ahead. Go >> ahead. Skip. >> Yeah. As far as Bsentennial Park, kind of going back to what uh Mr. Anderson
said um one of the goals for that remodel of Bsentennial Park was to raise it up so that I mean basically when we had high water levels and the wind was out of the southwest the waves would come up the ramp and
flood the parking lot even if we didn't have any rain. So, so the whole park has been raised 2 feet and um it has a foot and a half below it of under under the pay under the concrete uh exfiltration
for the water to be able to seep into the ground. It has some retention areas and that plays well with um what we've been working on and and mayor will be aware of this at uh Space Coast um
transportation planning organization for the past 12 years. I've been beating the drum that 520 needs to be raised um because it is very susceptible to flooding during storms and you know we've had to drive across that road you
know um with water over the road at times. It doesn't last that long but it's still going to get worse. So, it's been moving its way progressively up through the U priority system, which is
a big deal. You know, they'll have close to 100 items in the county that people want money for. I think we got it up to about number five now. Uh it's in the five-year plan. It's already in the um
feasibility planning stage. So that uh the next step would be to get the estimate on what it would cost and it's you know FOT property so hopefully the state will fund it and raise that road
and part of the uh issue to raise it up in priority was our hospital is going to move to Merit Island and you know getting an ambulance and or anybody that's just going to the ER across that
road in a time when the water's high. You know, we really need to have that road raised. So, we're glad to have that. And then I just want to give my appreciation to all the city staff and all the residents and everybody that came out for the 250th
celebration we had on July 3rd. Had the a lot of fun things going on. Had a band and had the drone show and the weather cooperated and everything went great. and I just appreciate all the effort [clears throat] behind the scenes to make that happen.
That's all I have. >> Sure. >> Uh let me go ahead Josh. Go ahead. >> Just echoing Commissioner Williams statement. I think Carrie Lombardo was probably a key uh anchor in making sure that our our 250th celebration was
everything it could be. I thought it was absolutely fantastic. Well done across the board. Staff worked tirelessly the entire day. very very warm day but um what a fantastic celebration. Thank you to Carrie just excellent job >> appreciation for Marcus. I appreciate
the report you send consistently every Friday. I've used those several times for residents just directly forwarding that just keeping good tabs on the maintenance. It's the small things that matter and I think residents really appreciate that. So thank you for that diligent. He sends out weekly reports on Friday of what all his teams
accomplished. So thank you for that. Awesome. Okay. uh echo everything that everybody said. Um you know, city staff for for doing that. 250, that was a huge event. I think you said 15,000 people attended >> plus or minus. Yes,
>> somewhere around there. That's that's the biggest we've ever had. Um it's uh Jason Steel, Tyler Soy, absolutely champions for us. So, I want to recognize them as well. Deb,
>> uh Debbie and uh thank you for for all your work at the school, too. I know that's going to be coming up. So, I um also want to recognize uh Don from from Canaveral. Thanks for coming out to one of our meetings. And uh uh this is going to be one of our one of our more heated
meetings probably because it's budget. This is the probably the the most, you know, controversial meeting of the year for us. So, uh you get to see how uh how we we work. Um that's it for me. So, see. All right. Budget.
>> Okay. This is item one. Staff is requesting that the city commission set a proposed millage rate of 6.1644 for the fiscal period 2027. Staff representative Hannah Juman, finance director, West Mullen, city manager.
Recommendation approved. Move to discuss. >> Second. >> Motion in a second. Um, let's >> presentation. >> Hopefully that's no indication that for how the, you know, budget portion will
go. [laughter] just our luck. [laughter] >> Okay. Good evening, M commissioners. Um staff plan and prepared for fiscal year 27 um budget. There's been many discussions on the current state of our financial health in addition to the potential for revenue loss contingent on
the state amendment and the number. Thank you. Uh the intent of this presentation is to set the maximum millage rate to be used in balancing the fiscal year 27 budget. The presentation is going to include the process involved with setting the
millage rate along with the rate options that are available to us and other various comparisons showing the impact on the taxpayers and how the city compares to other municipalities within the county. A satin millillage. So setting the is a stringent three-step process
set forth by Florida statutes um for all of the taxing authorities within the state. Each year beginning on July 1st there's a process called truth and it's frequently referred to as the trim process. Uh this begins with the property appraiser certifying the
taxable values and then at that point the is required to report the maximum set that's going to be determined within this meeting to the Florida Department of Revenue by August 3rd. Um once the rate set by the commission, it legally cannot be exceeded.
The next steps thereafter are adopt the millage rate um and the budget together. The first meeting that we're going to hear the tenth millillage with the budget is going to be on September 3rd. Um and then the final millillage will get adopted at the second hearing on
September 17th. The hearing dates that are set are required not to conflict with the county and school board dates. [clears throat] Okay. Based on the new taxable value, the roll back rate provided was 5.9988. The roll back rate generates the same
revenue amount as what was received in fiscal year 26 or current year at the rate of 6.00. Um the difference in revenue between the current rate and the roll back rate is the difference of 02% or just under
$4,000. The rate in proposed consideration is 6.1644. This is also the rate that was adopted by the commission. The budgets used for fiscal year 2022 through fiscal year 2025.
Um at this rate, it's 2.76% above the rolled back rate or around a $531,000 increase. The final rate at the bottom shown, the max millage rate, this is a rate allowed
um by the this is the rate provided Florida Department of Revenue that's allowed for a 41 or 2/3 vote. Uh this is anything higher than that amount would be a unanimous vote by the commission. Okay, this slide it shows the taxable
value has increased by 2.41%. 41% from last year. Um that equates to about 79 million in property value for the CRA taxable values. The increment value it's you determine the tiff revenue received. This is shown in
the next few slides. Also I'll show the calculations based off of the three different rates. Okay. The next three slides they show the effect on the homesteaded taxpayer. Um this slide currently it shows the back rate of 5.9988,
the current rate six even and the proposed rate 6.1644. Um those are the next two slides. But since the roll back rate and the current rate have the difference of 02% or 4,000, you'll notice that on this slide and the next slide they look really
similar because of that. um it's broken out by what the monthly impact would be and the annual impact would be at the different taxable value levels. So for example, at a rate of 5.9988 and taxable value of 300,000, the impact
um to the taxpayer would be 150 a month. Out of the 5.9988 millage rate, we would receive approximately 1.3 million towards the CRA for the TIFF funding. The next slide um is at the proposed millillage of six. Um just as I stated
before, this slide is almost identical to to the the previous rolled back amount because the variance is so minuscule, but you'll see the impacts of taxpayer on that slide as well. And then finally for the proposed rate
um of 6.1644 based on the taxable value of 300,000 annual timeout be about $1849. Uh this will break out to monthly amount of around $154. With that the CRA contribution would be
around 1.4 million. Okay. This shows the difference between the proposed rate and the rolled back rate. If the commission chooses to adopt the proposed rate, the impact to the taxpayer would be around $4 a month or $49 per year based on the $300,000
taxable value. If there was a taxable value of a $900,000 home, the annual difference would be around $150 a year with this proposed increase. Okay, this pie chart, this represents the distribution of taxes levied by
property type. Um, as you can see, around 31% of the advalorum revenue received, it's allocated to residential homesteaded properties. Uh, for non non-h homesteaded properties, it's around 55%. For commercial, around 13% and then
vacant lots, 1%. And this is based off of the data received from the property appraisers office millillage comparisons. So this is where we get to compare ourself and where we are compared to our neighboring municipal governments in Bvard County.
For the city shown on this slide, we rank the top we rank it in ascending order. Um and right now we're one of the lowest. were in the top four lower mill rates. Um, meanwhile, I want to correlate it to the tourist volume that
we receive within the city. Um, with more than 2 and a half million tourists each year and a lower population of 11,300ish. [clears throat] Populationwise, we're most alike to Satellite Beach. They're also, of course, a beachside community and they
currently are operating at a 7.9 millillage rate. Most of the comparables that are shown, they're proposing right now to stay at their current rate or dropping slightly, but are remaining well above the rolled back rate. These communities are already
operating at higher millage rates and they're not having to correct for any past financial decisions or situations that they're in when it comes to rebuilding and restoring the reserves. The first line um currently one of the
lowest rates, Cape Canaveral, they're actually proposing to increase their millillage rate to 10 even for their fiscal year 27 budget. for Cape Canaveral. That would mean a 103% increase. I believe it's on their July
21st meeting. But >> I thought that was a typo. >> No, that is on their agenda for their meeting. >> Any insight to like an out I mean clearly that's an outlier. I mean other than >> it would never pass. >> It would have to be unanimous vote for them. >> But any insight to what's driving that?
Is it a reserve recurree or is they've got some massive capital project or we don't know. I'm not sure if this particular >> Okay. >> Focus on ours. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I just um wanted to include it as one of the comparisons, but not sure on specifics.
>> So, with the proposed amendment on the November ballot, municipal governments are left with uncertainty of the impacts and what we'll be faced with ahead. Right now, what we're projecting if the amendment was to pass is an impact to our revenue decreasing on year one by
around 2.3 million. That's after the homestead exemption is increased to 150,000. On year two, when it's increased to 250,000, we're facing a financial impact to the revenue by around 3.1 million. Um,
>> is that additional to the one? >> No, that's collectively >> collect. >> Yes. um as an example for like our current 2026 budget right now we're receiving around 19 million revenue in advorum revenue specifically and of that 15.7
million is allocated towards public safety services. So if we were to take the amount that we're receiving now, the 19, and we were to reduce it by 3.1, we would just barely be granted at all the the cost public safety services, we also would have to bear in mind that in the next two years, the cost of those
services would increase with um any agreements in place because they are associated with union positions and also pension obligations that we would have to um comply with to make sure that those are in healthy balances. As we discussed in the June workshop,
we've also been dipping into the reserves continuously the past few years. And the budget that I hope to present to this commission in the next workshop is one that's balanced and it's a true fiscally responsible budget where it's not based
off of operating at a deficit. I feel that the most responsible way to have a budget and what we would like to present to you guys is a budget where our revenues exceed our expenses and the revenues are true revenues. They're not overstated in any way. Um it's an honest
budget and we want to be able to get the city back to a good financial standing with appropriate reserves there for any emergencies. We saw earlier this year just what a 10-minute micro burst could do and the damage that could cause and um how
detrimental something could be. And we know with FEMA or any federal assistance, funding, if there are hurricanes, whatever it may be, it takes a lot of time for those reimbursements to come in. So, I just want to make sure the city if there was something to happen, we were able to sustain.
Um does the commission have any questions? I do on the last point that that you made about FEMA. >> Sure. >> Um several years ago um got hit by uh Matthew and we didn't get refunded by
FEMA for like five or six years. >> Um so the reserves are it's very important that we have the reserves. Mhm. >> And just want to make that point that FEMA doesn't just come in and say, "Hey, here's oh, you're you're down $5 million and you can't you're you can't operate
your city and you have no revenue, so here's $5 million." They don't do that, >> right? >> They they are like an insurance company, and you've all dealt with insurance companies where they they push you and push you and push you and say, "Oh, we'll give you this." And you have to go
somewhere else and get a private adjuster and come in. We don't do it that way, but um >> it just takes forever. Seems like it seems like it takes forever. So um the reserves are very important and thank you for recognizing that.
>> Absolutely. Through our audits, our audits provide the actual figures to us. And for our general fund that we have the ordinance 1681 in place for um based on fiscal year 2024, the audit provided that we had around 18 million in reserves for the fiscal year 2025 audit.
it was then reduced to about 12.6 million. So that just shows the pattern of what has happened in the past and the action necessary to restore those reserves. >> And I know that the valuations are changing as dynamic, but is there a
ballpark number? So when we pass the ordinance 1681, it adds an extra 1% every year to those reserves. So we are accumulating reserves this year over last year. What is the value of that 1%? 100,000 300,000. Yeah, around a h 100,000. So it's 19 million that's
allocated towards non-committed reserves and it right now in this budget it's 4% allocated to committed reserves and that increases by 1% up until fiscal year 29. >> So every year it's going to be 200ish automatically growing the reserves.
>> It'll continue to increase but the percentage it's based off of the expenses in that budget year. So it's your personnel, your operating, your debt obligation. It does not include capital, but it's that percentage of that total. So, it's kind of a moving target and it fluctuates based upon the
total budget amount >> um that's being requested. >> Okay. And I know you've done a lot of work in working to prepare the budget as well as to fix some of the things that we've
found uh that were before your time >> with and the 6.14. >> I just want to make sure I understand them correctly. Both of them have you presenting a budget or you're looking to present a budget where we are adhering with our rules and goals for the
reserves. Um the 6% should get us there and have us at a in a position where we are the difference there between the six and this.14 6.14
as all the puts and takes continue to evolve and as as commissioner Hutcherson was saying is dynamic. The 6.14 is a confident position that puts us in living within our means and spending less than we're taking in. Mhm. >> Okay.
>> Describe some of the options we have. If we get into a pinch and need to rebalance or re amend the budget, we could use unused capital budget. Like say a hurricane hits, if we have not consumed any capital budget, we could
amend the budget and shift that money over and use it for the emergency. Correct. Or is that not a >> It's kind of situational. So, it would be dependent on where those projects are, if they are in process, if they aren't in process. Um, it would just be dependent on what exactly is budgeted,
what that project is, and if they're at a point where they can halt >> that project altogether. Um, I feel like it could be an option, but it's kind of a risky option if it's already something that's been mobilized and in process. It
may end up long-term costing more than >> what you >> if you've already started it. >> Correct. Go ahead. >> It's just there's so many different variables that kind of tie to that. [clears throat] >> So your your question is basically can
we can we dip back into our our funds our capital or money that's um been set aside for capital funds. We already went down that road >> which is exactly what we did with the city hall and we're not going to do that
again as far as I I will never vote for that again. >> Well, we never none of us voted for that. That >> was I I'm talking right now. Sorry, Mr. Mayor, but if you'd like to speak and say >> Well, but but that's exactly what happened. Um approximately $6 million
was taken out of reserves for this building rather than getting a bond. So, um, our responsibility from from my perspective is safety, security of of the residents of Cocoa Beach and also
the infrastructure of Cocoa Beach. We've pushed back, kicked down the road the roads basically. We have done no road repair for I'm not sure how many years. Four, >> four or five years. I think it's about five years.
>> Five years. Um, if we continue down that path, we're going to be back to where we were when this when this city was uh incorporated where we had dirt roads. And we don't want that. I don't want that. I I don't know about the other
commissioners. I don't. Um but if if we do um continue to um you know use our reserves and use up capital expenditures for for for those reserves that's what's going to happen.
I do have one question for you Anna on your on slide proposed millage rate for fiscal year 2027 you have the roll back rate the current or the 6.0 know 6.164 I believe it's slide four. Um under each
of those you have requires a particular vote on this on the roll back you have a requires a majority vote. Is that correct? It only requires 32 vote for a roll back. >> Correct. Yeah. It's a 3-2 vote for the roll back and then 41 for all of the
other rates that are listed underneath. any uh rate implemented beyond 6.5, it's unanimous. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Correct me if I'm wrong. I I think actually Commissioner Hutcherson, you were saying the exact opposite of what Commissioner Tamalty just said. You were
saying that if we needed money and didn't have it in the reserve could deobate from existing projects and potentially resource that as covering a disaster. Not opposite of what Commissioner was referencing of using reserves to cover projects. Correct. I
just want to make sure >> that's that's what I said. >> You referred to us using what was instead of using our having reserves, we spent that on a project. >> Correct. No, I'm saying he said that we have
capital money set aside for for expenditures and we could use that for reserves. That is what he said. >> That's what I asked. He said >> deobligate the capital expenditure. That's what he said to meet in an emergency. Right. And what what we >> instead instead of actually having
reserves >> should have been reserves >> instead having reserves there. >> Those are different. >> I think Josh is talking right now. >> Go ahead, Josh. I was just saying that I think it I think it's pointed that that it's a difference that to plan projects
and execute projects with money that should have been in reserves is different than if we had a disaster and to use money that if our reserves are insufficient to try to recover from this. I just I thought that that was a salient difference. >> Tim, would you like to respond?
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so if we don't have reserves, then we're going to have and we have a disaster, >> then we're going to have to use that money >> for capital expenditure that we had set aside to redo our roads or sewer plant
or or um whatever else capital expenditures we have, whether it's city hall or police station, fire station, which we have had in the past. Um, so basically you're you're setting aside capital
expenditures as a backup for reserves. >> No. No. Well, number one, I didn't vote to fund this with cash. I was the only one that didn't, right? That was approved in 25. Make that clear. I did not vote to burn 6 million in cash. That was one vote.
>> Neither I don't think any of us did. No, that was in the 2025 budget that there was no debt proceeds for city hall and I voted no. So, we've got this shortage of reserves, which you can debate whether it's short, right? We did the right thing. We said, "Hey, let's step these
up 1% a year, which is the diligent thing to do." I asked Hannah the question today is to build reserves. I get it. I'm the most fiscally consent up here. Would we prefer to just have discretionary reserves set aside in this case where we're growing them or do we want to obligate them with a 1% make that a 2%
growth every year? So it's obligated has to be reserved because what happened with city hall we had the reserves but they were accessible to burn as cash and that's exactly what happened. >> They weren't supposed to be >> I didn't approve the 2025 budget. You guys can look at the page. It was burn
as cash. >> Go ahead on the city hall. >> Go ahead skip. Well, that has nothing to do with burning the cash. Go ahead, Skip. >> Hannah, what's our current um credit rating for the city? >> Um, we haven't went out to debt since
the construction of this building, so I would have to get with um our financial advisor seek debt proceeds to get that estimate. >> It was uh A+ or AAA, but >> I would say it's the same currently. >> I would imagine it's the same.
>> Mhm. So instead of going down this road where we have to find capital money that hasn't been far enough along in the project phase to have burnt money that we don't want to stop because now it's going to cost us that upfront money. And
if you already obligated the money to a contractor to do the work, then you're really in trouble if you try to back out of contract. It's going to cost you more than finishing the project. I'm professional project manager. I know how that goes. But an option versus cutting
the C capital projects. Um especially for a disaster where we currently have uh contractors uh well we should after this meeting on board to help with cleanup which includes the
FEMA inspectors [clears throat] that follow along the truck and how much cubic foot stuff they got and that's went to the landfill and all that. Okay. say it takes five years, but you could if you're running short on
reserves, you could go a bond and if you did a long a 10-year bond, then you're only paying part of it in that year coming up, not the whole you don't have to eat the whole thing. You don't have to all your your little projects coming
ahead. you put out the bond and then when you get the money back from FEMA, you pay off the bond. >> Sure. My only concern with that would be under an emergency situation to get the bond agreement executed, it would the lengthier amount of time than what we
would need. Um the other consideration is from what I'm seeing from Florida League of Cities, if the [clears throat] um referendum was to pass in the November ballot, one of the things that we'll see changing in a local government is the uh bonds that are available to us
because the rates are going to increase because of the debtworthiness for local governments. The way that lenders are starting to view local governments is that they have uncertain revenue streams because advalorums support most of the municipal
governments throughout Florida. So they're saying that if it passes there would be different impacts when it comes to um any future debt obligations that we seek. But but it could be an option and it would be banking on FEMA's going
to do what they always did which is eventually reimburse us. So for broad rationale you know that could help smooth take a big hit in the near term and uh I just want to you know show that as an
option >> question. So the 9 million right we have 23% saved in in risen ballpark. How long is that operating? Is that nine months, a year? >> Um, I [clears throat] would say no, I think it's >> three. It depends on what was happening
within that month because some of the considerations if there was like an emergency, we don't know if that's the same time frame of when one or debt service payments are due. Um, so there's a few different parameters in place, but I would say on average about three months. Okay, that's
>> would a bond be a a low a lower rate than an actual loan for a capital project? >> Most of the the loans that we have are for if it's a water related project, they're SRF loans. Otherwise, they're um bonds, municipal bonds. So, the rates are all a little bit different when it
comes to local governments. What I'm seeing right now is around like four and a half% um is the average municipal bond. But speaking of the state revolving U fund, they would be, I would think, immenable to know that we're
going to get our money back from FEMA. They can lend us money a little quicker and then we could, you know, we have to pay them back while we're waiting on FEMA, but it wouldn't be like the big chunk all at one time where we have to cancel all our our unobligated
cap project. those loans for the state revolving fund wouldn't be available to us because they're specific for um water quality and infrastructure projects under those >> if we got limbs down all over the city and we can't afford a contractor that's
going to affect the water quality [clears throat] of the city >> there. So, so anyway, I just and if this referendum does pass, that state revolving fund is going to realize that they, you know, laid the rotten egg and they may have to change
their rules to keep some cities afloat, especially the ones that take big hits from any future disasters. >> Clearly, they don't care about cities. So, that's where we are. >> Okay. >> You ready for public comment? Well, let me see if you go ahead.
>> Sorry, I didn't. >> No, I was going to say if anybody else on the council wants to talk. >> I think Commissioner Williams has an interesting thought. It does it cost us money were we to realize some type of incident and need cash relatively quickly and the costs were acrewing. Does it cost us anything to pursue a
bond >> where we could hold hold our reserves, pursue the bond if we were able to get it in time, not spend reserves, spend the bond, but if it just in terms of a protocol that the city could consider. Does it cost a
thing to pursue the bond other than the time it takes? >> Not that I'm aware of. >> So, not a bad idea to at least try if we find ourselves in that situation. >> That's in the future. Do are cities able to get line of credits basically as as
uh residents are able to get lines of credits based on their assets? >> No. >> Okay. Uh any other comment on commission >> afterwards? Okay. Uh we're going to take public comment now. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Hannah. >> Thanks. >> Any uh public comment about this item?
Anybody? Caroline. >> Oh, okay. Go ahead, Caroline. >> [clears throat] >> I'm Carolyn Willis from Daily on Road. Um I wanted to discuss um how we should strongly consider setting the millage rate to the highest proposed value of 6.1644.
Uh for the following reasons and some some of them you you you already said but um right now at this meeting the commission is just picking a millage value to set the cap. The actual millage rate is not set in stone until September. So, this gives the Cocoa
Beach Financial Department the ability to explore all possible millage rate options fiscal year 27 while developing the budget. Um, second, um, at the end of fiscal year 2025, and you guys already kind of brought this up, there was a negative fund balance of
6.9 million in the 310 fund, the capital improvements project fund, because it was voted not to put out for debt the cost of the new city hall. This caused the closure of the the uh 310 fund which in turn caused a negative 6.9 million balance to be absorbed by the general
fund decreasing the city general fund reserve balance by $6 million in FY25. So because of this staff has already deferred more than $5 million in capital improvement projects from fiscal year 27 to later years. One of these projects is
paving roads. Deferring capital improvement projects could help us out this year, but it's not necessarily a sign of a healthy city financial climate. Staying on top of important capital improvement projects such as paving roads is a sign of a healthy city
financial climate which plans in place to execute them in an efficient manner. Um, another issue, uh, like we were talking about the reserve, the city ordinance 1681 that we put in place when I was in the commission dictates the
reserve requirements for emergency purposes. The city must comply with these requirements every year and they're uh, the reserves to be at 19% of the general fund. Um, setting the cap to the proposed millage rate of 6.1644
would give the city an additional $527,000 to put towards the to the reserves. We're rolling it back to the millage rate of 5.998 or keeping it at 6.0 only provide an additional 4 grand. Keeping the millage rate the same or rolling it
back would be irresponsible budgeting for our city. In our current state, we need to make it a priority to grow our reserves, not only because of ordinance 1681, but also for the unseen emergencies and disasters, which Tim even mentioned um it um when I was on
the commission um we had the hurricanes and it takes FEMA years to reimburse the cities and we're thankful to have the reserves for these emergency situations, hurricanes and floodings and pop-up tornadoes. And another reason to raise the millage rate is due to the state amendment that
will most likely be passed in November that will increase the homestead exemption for residential properties and that would restrict city. We go that would restrict >> city usage of advalorum revenue. The first year that this would be in place is projected to impact the city by
losing $2.3 million in revenue and by year two 3.3 million in revenue. Just got one more. >> Yeah, go ahead. Um the city is currently in a critical position now due to the general fund absorbing $6.9 million balance and as well as a property tax
reform amendment. Uh revenue impacts remain difficult to forecast in especially in these times and we have to allow ourselves the greatest ability to acquire revenue in these uncertain conditions. So please think again and some of you guys already talked about some of these
things. So but thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Any other public comment? Go ahead, Greg. >> Greg Lund, 411 Borilla Lane. I think what burns me the most about this whole situation with the $6 million is the
fact that we we've had to postpone products that could add millions of dollars of revenues to the city because we're paying we have to pay that money back. I mean, I give you an example. The driving range enhancement project had the
potential now for the next three years to bring in probably two or three million dollars in revenue to the city and it's been kicked down the road and it probably isn't going to happen till 2028 29. We have to start looking at other ways to raise revenue in the city instead of finding ways to cut back and
kick projects down the road. And I think, you know, that that's what's got me so upset and wanting to run for a commission seat because I just don't think that we're looking in the right direction. We should be the most profitable city in
Cocoa Beach. We have the resources to do it. We have the infrastructure to do it. We have a port with 20 million passengers going through it. We've got a space center with billions and billions of dollars. and we have to find a way to tap into that revenue source and um it
just it it's just irritating that we we're we're losing revenue instead of making money. >> So, thank you, Greg. >> Let me let me just correct you on a couple of those points right there. >> Uh while I got him in my mind cuz I'll
forget uh that that 6 million was never voted on us. We were that that fund was only to be allowed to be used by the commission under a commission vote. it was it was not used properly. Uh so just want to throw that out there. We did not vote to fund. We voted to only go out to
4 point uh 3.9 million and suppose we had the money for the rest. Um the the golf course uh thing was not proposed until this year. So that wasn't I tried to bring that in uh when I first got on it. Nobody was really interested. So
that we didn't miss revenue on that because it was never proposed until just recently. So I just want to put that out there. You want to say something? >> Yeah, I we have to say something. So okay, so the the issue is did we burn cash in 2025, which again I didn't vote for. The previous speaker did and the
debt payment on that would have been about $400,000 and now we're saying let's spend another $570,000 to recover those reserves. So I did not vote for that to spend cash reserves. I make that crystal clear. So, I don't know what the disconnect was thinking it was going to be debt finance, but I didn't vote for
it. The commission was up here did four to one. And now we're instead of financing the city hall, which would have cost us $400,000 a year at that interest rate, we're now saying, "Hey, let's recover that with a tax hike that's going to cost residents $575,000." So, that's not a good trade.
>> This commission did not vote on [clears throat] that. >> No, 25. >> It was budget 25. It was 24. >> 242. >> All right. 24. I was not on the commission. piece. I didn't vote for it. Let's put it out on either one of those budgets. >> I understand.
>> Okay. >> Cash if I can. >> Let's go ahead. >> So, say that um this money was just there available. You knew where the money come. You knew it was 11 $12 million for this building. Um you got a
a grant for approximately four million and or five million. There's two different grants, I believe. And then there was just oh there was just there's money there available. It was just available and that's what we spent because we didn't want to go into debt because that's what you ran on. We don't
want to go into debt. We don't want to have any more debt. Bottom line, no debt was the bottom line for for a couple of folks campaigns and that is not how municipalities work. They don't work the same. budgets don't
work the same as a personal budget. And if we want to go into that, I'll give a presentation on personal budgets versus municipal budgets. And they are two different animals. Basically, by financing it or by not financing it,
everyone that lives in Cocoa Beach right now paid for city hall. Everybody just paid for city hall. If you finance it, it's pushed out for whatever the term of it is, 20, 30-year term. And so your kids, grandkids will
be paying for this building because they're going to be using it down the road. That's the purpose of financing and getting bonds to pay for capital expenditures. That's why they do it. That's why typically or 90 plus% of municipalities
um get a bond or or loan to pay for large capital expenditures and it is paid for throughout, you know, the the term of that loan. Just like when you buy a house, you can't just afford to buy a house. I mean, if you're financially just got all kinds of money,
you can just go buy a house, I guess, when you're 20 years old. But typically, you work, you get credit, you get good credit, you get a loan, and you pay for it for the next 20 to 30 years. And if you can pay it off quicker, great. But not necessarily. If that
interest rate is low enough that the money you have in reserves is earning more money than the interest rate that you're paying on that particular loan. You have good credit, you have bad credit. Um, so that's all I got to say about that at this point. I know there's going to be more conversation in this
meeting. Um I'm pushing to as as uh former commissioner uh Wallace stated, we need to set the millage rate at 1 point um or 6.1644.
We can adjust it, you know, but if if we set it today at 6.0, there's no adjusting. >> It is what it is. It's a done deal as of today. my experience. >> So, so there you have it and that's and that's all I got to say about it >> at this point. Go ahead.
>> My experience is whatever gets set as the maximum was what gets adopted. We don't cut for the next six weeks. So, I would say what we vote tonight is what's going to be the final >> whatever we it's it's rare that you you would ever accept less than what you're what you're able to take. So, that's
that's I I will agree with you on that. Uh any other public comment? Yeah, go ahead, Caroline. Usually it's one time, but go ahead. >> I just wanted to um address that um what the commission voted for in 24 was to
not put it to not put the debt out for city hall. And I I didn't vote for that that I said no, I want to put it out for dead. And that the fact that it was not put out for debt created this problem. >> Yep.
>> So absolutely that was not what happened. So, I just want to clarify that >> there's there's more moving pieces, but yes. >> Not really. >> All right. Any other public comment? >> All right. We're going to close public comment and then we'll go back to
commission comment. Um I want to say something. Uh the the one point uh 6.1644 um obviously if we accept that then we can pretty much we can guarantee that that entirety of the of the additional income would go towards debt. uh I mean
not towards debt towards um towards reserves. Uh that would make me amicable to to voting for this knowing that the increase that we'd be increasing is 100% going towards uh funding um our reserves. Uh I would like to add on to
that. I would also like to I'm sorry skip but I would like to to to not pursue with the ADA park at this time and put that towards reserves as well. um knowing that uh that park will absolutely never produce revenue for us. Uh it's just not a good time. It's
better to be in reserves or to go towards towards roads or stuff like that. >> You got to close the pool. It doesn't make any money for us. Are you going to close the golf after November? After November, who knows what's going to happen, >> but they but they do it's an amenity that's already existing. >> Okay. As far as the I'll just jump in.
As far as the ADA part goes, we made commitment >> and we're we spent money on the design phase to solidify the uh the federal government to go ahead and deed us that property. I don't want to send a message
to them that we're not going to go forward on that project and lose the property. So, I want to leave I want to leave it in and it's in there and I choose to leave it in there and uh when it comes to the next phase once we have
the property deed to us if we need to stretch it out a little bit then we can stretch it out and plus there's other revenue sources that can make up that you know estimate that the city came up with of what it would cost. There's
grants to be had from ADA. I think um I will take it upon myself be on the commission or not on the commission to work every angle to to bring in money for that. But if we don't keep it going and get the deed then we're never going to have it. It's an amenity.
You know, in my time in this seat in this at this DAS over the years, I've had so many uh people that are disabled that want a place where they can get to the beach and go out and have a place to
go and a overlook to be able to, you know, spend time at the beach. And they'll be able to do that at that park in the current uh way that it's phased. I guess while I'm up here, um I'm a little uh
little of a strategic long-term thinker. You guys know I've been here a long time. Um if you go to the last slide, please Karen. All right. You see the names of all those cities. Those are just the cities
in Bard C County that would be affected by this referendum that's going to be uh put out in November for a 60% vote to to approve to increase uh the property tax exemptions over the next few years until
they eventually eliminate. And I'd like to send a message to all these cities um by going to the roll back rate, which is 4% less than what we're making now,
and show the show our residents that we're willing to be more efficient as a city with the tax dollars we get from Adorum. Um, and then hopefully these other cities
will follow our lead and lower their Advarum taxes and maybe that'll change the sentiment of voters to not uh vote for that 60%. Because sooner or later they're going to figure out that all the services that they're used to having are
no longer going to be available to them. you put in a building permit, it's not going to be three days or a day and a half or two days to get a building permit. It may be two weeks, you know, and time is money, especially for contractors and businesses that are trying to do things that are get
contracts with people and say, "Okay, I'll get the building permit. I'll be starting in like a week. I got to wait for the building permit. By that time, the whole deal could fall apart." So, we send that message, go to the roll back rate, $4,000 reduction from this year,
run a little more efficiently, get the message out that um if this referendum passes that we will not be able to provide the services that currently are enjoyed by our residents and our businesses in the city of Cocoa Beach. And hopefully um that message will
spread beyond these cities in BVAR County and go into the rest of the state. And if everybody else, I know it's a long shot, is shows that they're going to be more frugal with their funding, then there's a chance that that they
won't get that 60% threshold on the votes as long as they know what it's going to cost them and services that they currently enjoy. So, I'd like to move to set the proposed millage rate to the roll back rate of
5.9988%. And I'm looking for a second >> and that's with keeping your your park in there. >> A million dollars a million dollars. >> We're voting on that park, right? We're voting on the roll back rate. >> I didn't get a second.
>> Can I get a second? >> I'll second just to have discussion. There's you're So you want to you want to take away the extra 531,000 and you also want to still spend another million on top of that. You it's either or you I would maybe go with you on a 5
uh 5.898. >> We haven't figured out >> if you weren't spending a million dollars on a park. That's not that's a nicity, not a necessity. We look we don't know what it's going to cost till we finish the design phase and we don't
know what monies are available for us to fund that beyond it coming out of the city cuffers. >> What was in the draft budget? The full million was in the bud budget we had a workshop one right? >> It's one and a half million. >> One the full amount was in there.
>> It's over two years. >> Got it. But we ain't going to we we're not going to be spending that money >> right >> right at the beginning of this year. >> Okay. So, we can leave it in and then the next commission can do what they want, but let's get the property. Let's
have the vision and give me a chance to go out and solicit funding and grants. >> I will vote for that if you pull back the the the park. >> That's the only way that I can justify it. >> Well, >> so roll back park in reserves. I'll go
I'll go roll back if you drop the park because we can't afford to do both. >> We can't do the parking roll back. >> Why don't you trust me to go out and work to get that funding? I know I know a lot of I know a lot of people >> you can still do the park. >> Don't pull the funding from the budget.
Otherwise, you're sending a message to the state department of uh parks and recrecks or the federal department of parks and recrecks that we're not serious about making that an ADA park and they could not follow [clears throat] through with the deed which is this close to being done. We
could pull the funding and you could still go after the funding for your ADA stuff and and then you'll get your vote, but I'm not I can't I can't in good conscience when we're when we've got a deficit in our in our uh our um our reserves to to do the park and go to
roll back. Okay, it's either one or the other. >> Okay, here's how it works. And I've been doing this a long time on these budgets. you you the budget Hannah and her staff they don't want to put together we put it at 6.1644
and they have to bring us a budget at that because it could be that then they got to bring us a budget at 6 because it might be that and then they got to bring us a budget at 5.99 because it could be that. So they're working three different budgets. They're working three times or probably twice as
hard because two of them are so close together. But I'd just like to give them something right now that we're going to stick with so build a budget around that. We have time for for we're not we're not voting
on the final budget right now. So between now and when she works on the budget some more after we give her this number if that part comes into the uh being a problematic thing then we'll deal with it then. And all you need is three votes to get rid of me.
>> Okay. >> Okay. >> Let me anybody else go ahead if you want to say something or Josh. >> I don't even know what to say at this point. >> So I'll go ahead. Sorry. >> Yeah. I we we may be thinking some of the same things. Um, I just I'll I'll
lay out my thoughts and open to open to further discussion for sure, but the the 5.9 and 888 a $4,000 difference to the 6% I principally I love roll back, right? It's almost a
token vote. It's kind of >> Well, if you're going to do the send a message, well, >> you send a message that we're willing to be more efficient as >> a message that we don't care about our residents and don't care about the roads and and infrastructure at Cocoa Beach. That's the message you're sending. We're
$5 million behind. We've kicked the can down the road on on taking care of streets uh because of the deficit because of the $6.9 million that we took out of reserves and and now we're we're in a mess and you're con considering sec
first of all bringing up that we're going to do roll back a second for roll back and then a discussion like well if you do this for me we'll do roll back. Okay. So, maybe um I pave my own street. Is that what I need to do? Cuz how's
that going to help a resident? Right, >> Tim? >> No, Skip. I I don't know about your street, but my street is a mess. >> Just tell me when you're finished >> and I'll I'll >> Oh, I'm about to be finished because this is actually ridiculous. I I don't
know if I want to be part of this. I mean, it's ludicrous what you guys are talking about. >> Are you done? >> So, >> I'm done, Skip. >> So, the M the He's talking about problem
next year if we go with the roll back rate. If the referendum passes, the hell that's going to break loose on this city in the in the following two years after that with the reduction in property taxes, the reduction in
services and all that is going to make this cut back a mute point. I want to send the message that we're willing to cut back and be efficient with our monies and hopefully the rest of these cities of lawsuit will get some press
and it'll go across the state and when those people go to vote yes or no on that 60% they'll be informed voters and they'll know what they're going to lose by voting for it and we'll do our part by being more efficient. >> Problem is that we're not not going to send a message because nobody watches
these meetings. [laughter] to roll out. >> How come everybody knows I said to residents and I don't think we mean it that way, >> but I think it's I think it's a token vote and I think we've got to be >> a little bit more serious than that. um
the six Hannah has done has sharpened the pencil and I think that the the six and and to include the $4,000 difference I think is plausible in terms of us being able to meet our obligations right to spend less than we're making.
However, we don't hold the cards and Commissioner Williams is what you're saying. Um, right now, and I think Don, what we heard was it's polling at about 65%. Right. The the change and and that's that's where the high water mark is. And generally speaking, that's not that
doesn't bode well for a resolution of this type. But this isn't a normal resolution. This is offering to every taxpayer money back in their pocket. And I think that plays different. >> Loss of services. That's that I I 100% understand what you're saying, but what
I'm saying is how people vote and what decisions they make. I don't think that that's going to be affected by decisions we make on four grand here. Um I suspect that if the messaging is pay your fair share or get money back in your accounts, get money back in your
accounts appeals to the individual in a strong way. Regardless of whether it's the right idea, it's a good idea, I think it has a decent chance of passing. And I don't think we as a commission have control of that. So that means that's a variable we've got to take seriously in terms of the budget we're
voting on now. Principally, when I when we as a city hold the cards, I am a big fan of of challenges of taking challenges and and having ourselves to be more fiscally conservative and drive ourselves into a position where, you
know, let's take the challenge. Let's see if we can hit the roll back. Let's see if we can hit the That's not the situation we have. We have a situation where we're looking at two and then $3 million worth of cuts. We ha we have a city manager and we have a finance
director who are already working to figure that out. I don't think the city of Cocoa Beach goes into some apocalyp apocalyptic hell. I don't we won't they're going to figure it out. They're excellent at what they do, but I don't think it's an ideal situation. And I think the cuts that they're looking at
are real and they are painful. We will survive as a city. We will thrive as a city. However, the 6.164 and adding that one from an assurance perspective that we are going to spend less than we bring in and two with the
variable of this vote. Principally, I would I would tend toward the six in context of this situation. I tend toward the 6.1644. >> So, let me let me uh chime in on that. Uh Josh, I think you're absolutely
right. Um as much as I like I said, I anticipated to try to go to roll back, I was totally with you, Jeremy, on that. We have a we have a different situation going on than what we would normally have. So, we have a different we have a a different obligation to the residents,
I think, than than what uh what we want to. We have to do what we need to do. We're not going to be able once once this if this passes uh we're not going to be able to lower the military. That's I mean it's going to be stuck. So we we
need to be responsible on this. >> We can go down. We can't go up. >> We just can't go up. >> Well, that's what I mean. We're not sorry I said the opposite. We won't be able to go up. >> We won't we won't be able to recover that. We won't be able to go up if we if we have to. So in that in that context and understanding >> this would be the maximum. >> This would be the max ever. You could
not raise it again >> for this budget >> for this year. >> I have a question for you. If I >> Yeah. Go. >> Well, I don't shouldn't even ask this question. If we did put a roll back and we said, "Oh, we changed our mind."
>> You couldn't. >> Could it would it be a 50 vote or does it have to be a referendum or something like that? >> No, you couldn't at this time um for this meeting. It would have to be the maximum and whatever set tonight, you can't exceed that amount. So, if you were to commit to a lower amount, you
wouldn't be able to later change that number and go to a higher amount. It's uh one of the numbers that we have to file by August 3rd to the Department of Revenue through the trim process. And that's one of their requirements set forth in the trim process that once we set this rate as the commission
>> increase, >> you can't increase beyond that after that time. >> And from what I understand, in the future years, we also will not be able to increase. They put something in place so that we couldn't recoup what what we think we're going to lose. Is that correct? >> If the referendum passes. >> If the referendum passes.
>> Correct. >> At least that's what I that's what I thought that I >> There's a lot of >> that I heard there. >> There are rumors out there that the legislature is going to do something like that. It's that's not set in stone now. >> Set in stone. Okay. >> And it's not going to be, >> you know, who knows what's going to
happen. >> It won't be on the ballot. >> Okay. On the >> There's a couple other items obviously. There's there's certain things and we've talked about it uh city manager that the implementation bill could add additional restrictions to the cities in terms of different assessment studies and things
like that. So, we do need to be smart and if that passes and if they put additional constraints, we need to be prudent and think through any of the stuff we would want to do, we need to do now. Um but then there's also um the coming year is going to be I think it's a 20-year cycle where the Florida
legislature puts together a group and reassesses all of the taxes that the state of Florida has and whether they're working as a system and a strategy. I don't know what they're going to do there. I don't know what they're going to look at there, but that's something we can't play our cards now knowing
that. There's other challenges we may see coming out of that as well. don't know what they are, but that just this one's a variable. That's a variable. We need to at least consider that we don't hold the cards on those. And because of that,
>> consider it's wise to be prudent. >> Considering our our our our political climate, what's, you know, what's possible in the future be voted on, I I can't in good conscience vote for a roll back at this point. So, uh should we you want to did we do public comment on this yet or no?
>> We did. Okay. Uh, so >> so if if he'll withdraw a second, I'll withdraw my motion. >> Vote on it >> and I'll change. Did you withdraw it? >> Yeah, withdraw the second for back. >> And now I'll withdraw my main and I'll change it to the 6.0.
Same as I did last year. 6.0. >> Look for a second. >> I suspect it's going to I'll second to vote it, but >> Well, that'll help. >> I would second it. >> That will help. >> I want to hear. just talked about it. The mayor, >> it's the same thing. >> It's the same. It's $4,000. It's not a
difference. Uh any public comment on this? >> The vote down to We have a balanced budget in six. >> If we want to add reserves up to the 6.1644, we've got commitments that all of that excess will go to reserves. >> Where's that? So, so
>> she just told Yeah. Go ahead. >> Have you actually looked at the numbers we're talking about? So, how much of an increase um in annual taxes would that be for a resident?
>> Roll back a couple charts. But I I don't budget off of what people can afford. I budget off what we need. That metric is almost irrelevant. >> Well, we need we need a lot more than 500,000. >> Agreed. But so we are >> So you agree? All right. So, we're
talking $16 per year for a $100,000 assessed value. That comes out to >> Nobody has $100,000 house. >> $100,000 house, >> right? That's per assessed value. >> Well, you're right. They don't have $100,000. We have We have several of
them. So, so how much is it? >> So, what's the difference? >> 500. So, you're talking about 150 to to $250,000 a year. 100 to 150 $250 a year. I mean per per household probably. No, it's an increase.
You're you're absolutely wrong. >> So the one other that data point I think Josh will get >> that's how much it is a month it's $150 >> a year increase. I got it. I got it. >> I can do for for a $300,000 home
assessed value. It's $50. >> A year for $600,000. It'd be a $100 a year. All right. I'm willing to pay a couple hundred a year to have good roads in Cocoa Beach. >> You don't have to have homestead exemption. You could decline that.
>> I guess I could. I I guess I could spend my um $6,000 annual salary for uh and put that back in the city, which I'm considering doing, >> which you should as a good as a non-conservative maybe should consider doing as well >> because you're the most conservative.
>> Part of part of my concern is we've raised rates consistently every single year since 27 and we didn't have this issue. So why were we raising rates then if we weren't having the discipline to balance the >> well because what we did >> every single year from 2017 to 24 the rate not the housing value but the rate
increased and we're still in this predicament we >> we built a lot of stuff police station fire station uh city hall parking garage like all this stuff needed to be paid for and this is all stuff that's happened within the last what about 10 years that's why our debt has gone up
that's why our mill rates gone up because we have to pay for the all these amenities that we had put. But this last time what we did is we we had a debacle and we need to catch up for it. So we can't we can't go to roll back because
we have to pay off what we've screwed up. >> Let's call the vote. >> So all right. Um all in favor of the >> What is the motion? >> All in favor of the >> a roll call. Sorry. >> Okay. Roll call for the 6.0. >> Commissioner Jackson. >> No.
>> Commissioner Hutcherson. No. >> Commissioner Tolty. >> No. >> Vice Mayor Williams. >> Yay. >> Mayor Capzy. >> No. >> I want to make a proposal that we go to the to the uh proposed miller rate of 6.1644%.
>> I'll second. >> Motion second. Uh any public comment on that? Any >> if you have the opportunity to lower this. Why wouldn't you sit at the highest rate in the first meeting? That just doesn't make sense because at least
you can go back down after further discussion. >> That's what I would do. >> Thanks, Greg. >> That that is the highest rate and that was what was proposed by the [clears throat] finance director. >> That's the highest rate proposed by the finance director. In in Jeremy's defense, uh he is correct. Nobody ever
goes lower than than what they can take. So, I understand your your reasoning behind that. Uh all right. Any other commission comment? All right. >> Oh, go ahead. Orson [clears throat] >> Orson driver 178 Junior Drive. I just want to mention you guys have brought up
the amendment a couple times. Um, it is polling at 65%. There's some additional articles coming out that the resistance is mounting. There's a wellorganized campaign against it now. Uh, combination of city officials, bipartisan in nature. Uh, and there's also, I believe there's
also a lawsuit currently about the amend you probably know about the amendment's validity. So, um, I'm only offering that because I know 65% does sound very favorable, but I think you guys are going to see this change pretty quickly. I mean, there's just so much information
about the impact coming out and articles being written and and it just seems like the headwinds are really building. So, just just saying to consider even in light of the polling being very high, which I'm sure is I mean that's an accurate number, but I I think you're going to see things change pretty quickly. Thanks. >> Thank you, Orson.
Again, I'm I was right there with you, Jeremy. I I hate I hate having to do this, but this is something we have to just put our big boy pants on and do it in my opinion. So, uh all Oh, roll call. >> Commissioner Jackson, >> I. >> Commissioner, >> I.
>> Commissioner Tolty, >> I. >> Vice Mayor Williams, >> support. >> Mayor Cape. >> Yes. All right. Motion passes. 5. >> All right. >> Good discussion. >> Yeah. Thank you guys.
>> It's it is a good discussion and it's it's nice to to know how you guys are all thinking. So I appreciate your your discussion on all that. >> Number two. >> Number two. >> Okay. Item two, confirm times and dates to set the tenative and final millillage and adopt the budget for fiscal year
2027. September 3rd, 2026 6 p.m. first public hearing and vote to approve tenative millillage and budget. September 17, 2026, 6 pm second public hearing and vote to approve final millage and budget. Both meetings will
held at city hall 2 south Orlando Avenue, Cocoa Beach, staff representative Hannah Juman, finance director, West Mullen, city manager. Recommendation approved. >> I move to approve the dates and times for the final mill. >> Second. >> Motion and second. Any uh public
comment? Any commission comment? All in favor? I. Motion passes 5. All right. Next. >> Um, next is a special presentation and proclamation world drowning prevention day July 25, 2026. Representative Connie
Harvey, American Red Cross and Alex Wallace. Pinch a penny pool company. Both members of the Smart Water Task Force Commissioned by Governor uh Dantis added July 14th, 2026. >> All right. Sorry you had to go go
through the whole uh the whole spiel. Um so let me uh I'm going to read this proclamation for you and then you can come up and grab it. So whereas drowning is one of the top 10 leading causes of unintentional injury related death globally claiming an
estimated 236,000 lives each year with children and adolescence disproportionately affected. And whereas in April 2021, the United Nations generally assemble general assembly passed resolution declaring July 25th of
each year as World Drowning Prevention Day to raise awareness and bring to an end to these entirely preventable tragedies. And whereas everyone has a role to play in keeping our communities safe around water through proven lowcost
intervention. And whereas local solutions such as installing barriers to control access to water, providing safe places for children away from water, teaching basic swimming and water safety skills, and training bystanders in safe
rescue and resuscitation can save countless lives. And whereas on this day, we unite to honor the memories of those lost to drowning and encourage all citizens, governments, and organizations to turn awareness into action by practicing active supervision, wearing
life jackets, and learning CPR. Now therefore, I, Keith Capey, mayor of Cocoa Beach, do hereby proclaim July 25th, 2026 as World Drowning Prevention Day in the City of Cocoa Beach and encourage all residents to educate themselves on water safety to prevent
future tragedies. Thank you, sir. >> [applause] >> All right. >> Okay. Next is the consent agenda. Item one, approve the June 16th city commission budget workshop in June 18th commission meeting minutes. Staff
representative, city clerk department. Item two, approve the fourth amendment to the city of Koka Beach's contract with the United States Tennis Association, Florida, USA. This amendment will defer the city of Cocoa Beach's obligation to replace the north side fence until fiscal year 2027
through 2028. Staff representative Andy Sigara, uh, leisure services director. Recommendation approved. Item three, adopt the updated emergency pay policy for city employees during declared states of emergency. This is an existing policy that requires an annual review
and update according to federal, state, and local emergency management guidance. Staff representative Justin Grimes, fire chief. Recommendation adopt. Item four, ratify the following wage reopener for the period of October 1, 2026 to
September 30, 2027 between the city of Koka Beach and the Florida State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police, Inc. FOP. State staff representative Cindy Deina, human resources director. Recommendation approve. Um item five, ratify the following wage reopener for the period
of October 1, 2026 to September 30th, 2027 between the city of Cocoa Beach and Laborers International Union of North America. LiA local 630 staff representative Cindy Cindy Deina, human resources director.
Recommendation approve. Move >> to approve the consent agenda is read. >> Second. >> Motion in a second. All in favor? I >> I >> motion passes 50. >> Unfinished business. >> Okay. This is item one. Adopt ordinance 1716 on second reading. An ordinance of
the city of Cocoa Beach, Florida, amending provision related to the special magistrate, amending section 30-17 to include requirements for the release reduction of leans, providing for conflict severability, providing for inclusion in the code, and providing for an effective date. Staff representative
Brian Palmer, deputy director development services. Recommendation adopt on second reading. >> Approve. K1 is read. >> Second. >> Motion in a second. Any public comment? >> All right. We we already went through uh what this was on the first reading, so
I'm not going to have anybody come up and explain it. Um roll call. >> Commissioner Jackson. >> I. >> Commissioner Hutcherson. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Tamoli. >> Hi. >> Vice Mayor Williams. >> Hi. >> Mayor Capzy. >> Hi. >> Okay. Item two, adopt Ordinance 1722 on
second reading, an ordinance of the city of Cocoa Beach, Florida, amending the city code of ordinances, chapter 9, fire prevention section 9-6 penalties to add a reference to notice of violation NOV as a method of enforcement and to update a code enforcement chapter reference
amending section 9-14 classes of violations and associated civil penalties in accordance with chapter 31 of the city code to correct the chapter reference to chapter 30 and to add a class three violation for failure to comply with written notices, orders, or
directives issued by the fire fire official, including non-payment of lawfully imposed fire inspection fees after notice and opportunity to cure providing for codification, conflict, severability, and for an effective date. Staff representative Justin Grimes, fire chief, recommendation adopt on second
reading. [clears throat] >> Move to approve K2 as read. >> Second motion in a second. Any public comment? All right. Again, this is something that we had already gone over, so I'm not going to have it reexl. Um, roll call. >> Commissioner Jackson,
>> I. >> Commissioner Huterson, >> hi. >> Commissioner Tolte, >> hi. >> Vice Mayor Williams, >> hi. >> Mayor Capzy, >> I. >> Motion passes 50. Uh, new business. >> Okay. Item one, approve the review committee's recommendation and authorize staff to negotiate a contract with waste
management under RFPCB26-008 residential and commercial solid waste services direct staff to proceed with either option one separate residential and fourcost municipal or option two all-inclusive residential and nocost municipal cost structure. Staff
representative Taylor Mata project manager recommendation approve. Move to approve L1 option one as read and option one is segregating city costs to the general fund instead of residential bills.
I'll move to approve option two. I'm looking for a second. >> Do we have two motions? No, the first >> the first one didn't seem to get a second. So, >> they didn't have time. >> Okay. >> I'll be happy to give more detail on option one.
>> We didn't get a second. >> I'll second option one. I'm interested in the discussion. >> Which one? >> Option one. >> Option one. Okay. >> Would like to hear the >> We got a second for option one. Uh move to discuss on the option one. Any public comment on that? Go ahead, Orrison.
Just real quick, I mean, you guys wanted Taylor to talk through like the process and like why we why this came to an option one or two? >> Would you like her to speak before you speak? >> Yeah, I think it's important for you guys to hear because I think I mean aside from Commissioner Hutcherson who served on the committee with me. I'm not sure how much the rest of you guys are
up to speed. So, I'll I'm happy to wait. >> Why don't you have a seat and then we'll we'll hear her and then you come back up. Thank you. >> Good evening. Um, so tonight the staff is requesting approval of the review committee's
recommendation to authorize negotiations with waste management for residential and commercial solid waste services. Um, as well as direction on the preferred pricing structure, option one or option two. The two Cocoa Beach residents on the review committee prefer option one.
The three city staff members on the review committee prefer option two. Representatives from waste management are also here this evening to answer any questions about their operations or their proposals and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have otherwise.
>> So option one and option two you've gone through that as well. What what are your thoughts on that? >> Staff approved option two three votes and then option one got >> two votes from the committee. >> Right. Okay. So all staff was in in
unison that wanted uh the option two. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Could you talk through a little bit about why? >> Absolutely. Um so the services on both options are identical. Um option one single family and multif family
residents use cart using carts save 2244. So $2244 a year and the city will pay approximately $63,000 for their services per year. Option two, single family and multif family residents using cart save $2.28 a
year and the city pays $0 for their normal collection. There is no cost difference between the options for any other type of customer. Multif family residents using mechanical rolloffs will save $7.56 a year and commercial commercial customers have a
slight increase in their um costs. Is there any benefit um as far as budgeting to separating the city's portion compared to all allin-one? >> If we do separate the services, then the
city will lose about $63,000 of revenue each year. >> So, but I what I was asking is you couldn't put it into another fund to pay for it. It it just it all comes out in the wash anyways. But you couldn't get like a grant for let's just say beach beach uh garbage
[clears throat] pickup stuff like that. >> Okay. >> I mean so the logic Orson brought this up and thought it was a great idea. The logic is it's moving a portion of the services onto a greater cost basis. Folks that pay you know folks at Midtown
they spend money user fees. It's not just on the residents. So it's splitting out the city's cost. Yes, we'll pay it through our general fund payments, but non-h homestead exemptions, right? Non- homestead properties pay more per house into that general than residents do. So,
it's taking a burden off the residents and putting it on the general fund. >> It sounds like the kind of >> it's the alternate revenue source we always want to look for. >> Is there a downside? >> Accounting is a little more complicated.
So the $63,000 >> comes out of the budget, >> right? >> Rather than a dollar per resident a month, right? >> Right. >> Okay. And obviously it's a is it is it a
much bigger headache to to separate all that stuff as far as for for um accounting purposes? >> I would have to defer to finance for that. >> Not to my knowledge. >> Okay. >> Would be the $63,000 revenue loss that
would be adjusted on the revenue side of budget. >> Okay. >> But Hannah, that is in the budget from workshop one, correct? >> No. not the revenue um decreased. No. Um what's there right now? Is um the option
based off of option two. So then also if uh this tax thing comes into play in November, then we take that into account that that's just one more thing that we have to pay for with the loss of revenue rather than a userbased
fee. So in in light of that uh I think I'm going to go with um the user based fee compared to push on to the general fund. It's just because we of the uncertainty. Not to say that I wouldn't be amicable to it in the future years.
Uh but this year with the uncertainty I I think it makes more sense to keep it user base. >> I have a question. Jeremy, you were you were at this meeting. So you said that you want to put the onus on the non-residents
to pay this. How would you do that? >> The the fund what's paid that portion is paid out of the general fund which they >> which is which is which is funded by who? >> Residents and non-residents, right? So user fees, non-h homestead exemptions.
>> So we would we would have to raise some sort of revenue to generate that $63,000 to cover it though somehow we'd have to do so >> right you would be paying instead of in your water bill again it's it's a it's an option to alternative revenue sources
>> if we if we want >> I'm asking I'm asking you say you you came up this Houston Orson came up with this Orson came up the idea to to split it out but the $63,000 is comes out of the general fund >> right >> that has a large tax base
>> which right I like the idea in theory It just >> but but it's not accounted for anywhere. >> That was my misunderstanding. I thought we had a provision in there from the first budget workshop. So, >> okay.
>> That was not my understanding. >> All right. I think that's all for for you. Thank you. Uh Orson, would you like to come up and talk? Good evening. Horson driver 178 June Drive. So I participated in this uh committee. So uh thank you Wes. Uh and I
sure someone else pointed me on to this, but thank you for having me on there. First off, you know, Taylor and Brad did an amazing job, uh and Wes supporting them. This is a big this is a big deal. Like you know, having these two options. We historically the residents have always carried the burden of the city
costs in the fees of on their on their water bill essentially. So I think what's important to know is the option one for cost municipal are all these items on here. These are all stub end streets uh you know various things from
pool um recreational water department you know all the city all the city trash services but I think the vast majority if you look are a lot of them are the stubben streets uh and other things related to I think what's fair to say is a lot of visitors come to Cocoa Beach I
understand the city's argument with two if we were a town with very little tourism makes sense you know residents are using the city services at Stubben Streets, for example. Yeah, it kind of makes sense. Put it on the residents, but I think it's important to understand that, you know, we're a tourism town.
Um, we had, let's see, overnight visitors, uh, I did a little research, 2.4 to 2.5 million uh, overnight visitors. Number of day trippers, uh, is unknown. I wasn't able to figure that out. So, when we look, you look at the parking revenue alone, uh, there the CRA
had 648,000 in 2024. The total for the parking meter fund in 2024 was $3.3 something million dollars. So we have a lot of revenue coming in from not only parking revenue, but we also have recreational fees. We have sewer and storm water fees, pool, tennis, golf
fees. These trash cans you see in trash services map almost perfectly to these additional revenue sources we have from the fees that people pay on the seven streets. And we all pay and our parking stickers. residents pay for their parking stickers. That is money going
into the parking fees. It's not just people feeding me meters. [clears throat and cough] So, you know, you you can look at it as now you kind of look at as full-time residents. You know, we have about 11,300. Now, I know Tim will point out not all of them are residential trash users, but you know, I can't really break that out. But, I think it's
important to think that we have out of the out of the residents, we have about three 3,700 that would be classified as full-time retirees in Cocoa Beach. I think it's something to consider is that our retirees have shouldered an amazing financial burden with inflation, fixed
incomes, uh just it's tough. So when you look at the difference between option one and option two, it's about [snorts] $168 a month. Yearly $206. So I agree probably you guys me 20 bucks that's probably what it costs for me to
take my boat to Mayor Capy's house. No big deal. [laughter] But, you know, if you're a retire my Can I get bonus time? >> But if you're a retiree, I mean, 20 bucks, you know, I just did using Google, that's potentially two to three refills on their copay, 11 loaves of
bread, nine dozen eggs, 4.8 gallons of milk, chicken, 4.8 pounds, three three pounds of ground beef, regular gas, about five gallons. So, 20 bucks can cover any of those fees. And finally, you know, if you go to Jonathan's on happy hour, it's about five beers.
>> Again, I understand we're not talking about >> tip. Well, you're right. Tip. So, four beers the tip. So, I mean, I know I'm being a little bit funny here, and I know that $20 to us is not a big deal, >> but I think any of you all could feel a little would be have some pride and be
happy to look any retiree in their in their eyes and just say, "Hey, by breaking out the services using fees from all the sources that we have coming from all these other things that tourists and also residents enjoy, hey, I mean, 20 bucks in their pocket could mean something to some of these folks
who are financially constrained struggling. >> This is really helpful. Let me make sure I'm understanding what you're showing us. >> So, and I think I was misunderstanding earlier. So, when we were talking about the shift in funding, I thought basically what we were saying is, "Hey, let's get let's get the tourists to pay
for my home's rolloff bin." And I'm like, "Oh, that's kind of cool, but I don't I'm not sure that's the right move this year." Especially what you're telling me, if I'm understanding this correctly, is that our residents are paying for the solid waste removal of
our tourists. >> Today's wrong way historically been done, and I don't know the history behind this. Historically, our residential fees that you pay on your wall today cover all these stubbin streets. >> These are not residential costs. >> No, not at all.
>> This should not be covered by our residents. That shouldn't be paid. That shouldn't come out of my rolloff bend. >> It comes out of the city's cut for the same state. It's not. It's what Commissioner Hutcherson was saying. >> I'll just close off real quick. So, I
really would appreciate if you guys voted for option one, having the separate residential city services. And again, I think >> let me just say I have a mother who's on a fixed income, not in the city of Cocoa Beach. But look, I'm I'm serious, guys. Like, you know, 20 bucks means something to people, you know, and I think you
have an opportunity to do the right thing. And I can imagine if any of you guys run into a retiree in Publix or something, hey, maybe someone be like, "Hey, man. Thanks. I actually watched that sitting meeting. I know one really does, but what the heck?" So, anyways, I hope you guys will vote for it. If not, uh, but thank you for having me on the
committee. Thank you, Taylor's here. Uh, and also management folks who do the good job on the potato waste pro as well. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much. >> Go ahead. You can finish here. >> Thank you. Um, this is exactly the kind of stuff we've been talking about and I think every time we have the opportunity as a
commission to stop from having to pay for the tourist, we have an obligation to do that. This from what I'm hearing from from finance and and from the team is that this won't drive cost
into the city from a the switch the change, right? But this allows by switching to this option one allows us to allow to have tourist and the tourist base driving the cost of at least part of the cost of what they're causing in
terms of city service. That is a that is 100% the right direction. >> How does those tourists and all them actually put money into the city budget? They don't. >> They do. >> Oh my gosh, they do. If you move this $63,000
>> into the general fund. Yeah. Yeah. >> They pay in significantly to the general fund. I've done the math. Hannah can talk to you about it. They pay in a a significant portion of that general fund. >> Here's the here's the thing in this real quick in in this in this political
climate. I just think it's not it's not the time to to do this. Although I agree with you. I would do this in the future, but I just don't feel like at this point putting more money into what we have to pay for the city budget is is helpful at
this point. I I think if we want if we get caught up and where we need to be, then let's vote on this next year. >> That's why I voted for this 6.1499 is because it adds the it it puts us into a solvent position. Now, I know that's that's the limit. I know that's not what
we voted on. That's not what we're putting in place. But principally speaking, discipline speaking, municipality speaking, residents should not be paying for the tourists to be here. >> No, I agree. I agree with you on that.
Like in theory, I agree. I just I just don't think this is the time to do it. >> I agree 100%. That the tourist should pay for um all the expenditures that that we have
to pay now for them. Um, we have a police department for the size of a city that has 50,000 people. >> A fire department similar um yet we're not getting compensated for
that. >> Wastewater, storm water, roadways. >> Well, we get comp that's a that's its own enterprise fund and that gets taken care of. It's totally it's demand but it gets taken care of. that that has nothing to do with really our budget. Right. >> Right.
>> So, and I I've said this for 15 20 years that we need to have some sort of way to get compensated for these tourists. Well, adding it to the general fund isn't doing it. That's [clears throat] just a
shell of money. Although now it's coming out of our budget with no additional revenue. So if we were getting say a million, we'll just I'll just throw a simple number, $1 million a year from from tourists. Well, now we need $1,ion63,000
because we just added $63,000 to that budget. >> And we're not we're not getting that extra $63,000 from anywhere. >> We are we're we're not increasing anything. We >> how what increase from parking revenue
this year? >> The increase it is what it is and and that goes >> are not increasing. What was the increase from parking revenue this year? >> The 63 is we are increasing. We're pursuing that and we can pursue increases in revenue and we can pursue
ensuring that the revenue is coming from the right places. I think both are important and I don't disagree with you. Everything you've said is great. I I I agree with I'm saying that we need to adjust those revenue source um increments. >> Yeah.
>> Well, okay. Go ahead, Skip. >> So, so from now on any residents, you know, cuz now that if we pass option one that the the tourists will, you know, paying for the all the trash cans at the end of the st end streets and not
>> all these different places that you visit. So from now on, make sure when you go to the beach, bring a trash bag, pack it into the beach, you know, with all your stuff, fill it up with trash, bring it home and put it in your waste management container. Don't put it in
the one at the stub end street. That's for the tourists. Okay? Otherwise, we're charging them for your trash. And I'm sure nobody goes to the beach and leaves trash in the trash cans or the dumpsters that are at the beach that live in the
city of Cocoa Beach. >> You make a good point too, Skip. >> Okay. Um, so any more commission comment on this? So this is this is the vote for the uh to separate option one. >> Um, all in favor? >> I. >> All opposed? Nay.
>> Motion does not pass. Option two, motion. I just make >> motion second. >> Motion in a second. Uh any public comment on this? >> We we already voted on the on the one that you wanted though. >> One thing. >> We're not going back to option one.
>> We might. >> It's fine. Just let you guys know. So FY2024 recurring revenue was 79,697,000 958 63,000. Basically what you guys said is like that 63,000 is 0.079% of the budget. Just so you guys know, I
mean 20 bucks is not a lot of money. 63,000. I know there's no going back now, >> but >> I'd be open to I can assure you that >> folks in the grocery store will will remember if they find out about this that you know couldn't cut them some just a little bit of slack.
>> As long as they pack their trash. >> All right. Thank you, Orson. Uh we had someone else that wanted to get up and talk. Is was that you? >> Yeah, we had two gentlemen >> or Yeah, whoever wants to speak there. Just state your name, address. >> Thank you.
>> Uh excuse me. Good evening. I'm Dean Yolich. I'm uh the division manager for Waste Pro here in Bvard. Can a Cocoa Beach resident. [clears throat] Uh so uh first off, I want to thank uh everybody for the opportunity to uh let us give our proposal. Um we're disappointed we
were not selected. We did not uh receive the highest score. Um uh however uh I just a couple things I do want to point out. Uh we did receive a slightly higher score on the technical approach which is how we propose to uh service the city
and all the residents and businesses. So uh the committee did give us a slightly higher score on that. Um also after u uh after all the scores were tabulated and uh our counterparts were uh selected uh by the committee uh that's when uh the
detailed price sheets were distributed. Um and so we have gone through and analyzed that and even though we were not scored higher on the rate score, we believe that our rates were in indeed lower um than what was um uh and and
therefore we feel we should have received a higher score on that. Um, I know it was brought up that um, uh, I thought I heard that uh, uh, Waste Management's proposal would be $30 under, this is under option two, uh, $30.51 per home and ours is coming in at
$29.65 per home. And so in addition to that, we feel that the overall cost of the city because there are some items where we're lower, there are some items where uh, we're not lower. We recognize that. But um uh when you factor in everything uh
of all the price sheets that were put together and we believe that under either proposal, option one or option two um that our rates, our overall rates uh to the city are lower. And so I just encourage you to um I guess before you
make a vote, maybe have a discussion on that or possibly even table it and uh and have uh additional details, additional discussions uh that way. So uh that was my uh encouragement to you and uh last thing I just want to welcome the opportunity if you want to discuss
this in further detail be glad to and thank you again and thank you for the opportunity for us to uh give our proposal. >> Thank you comment. >> All right uh any other public comment? >> Go ahead. Good evening, Plat Loft just wish
Florida as well. Thank you for uh for these few moments here to speak before you. I'd like to kind of throw another idea or concept at you if I may. Um one of the things our our main goal was to provide a rate that is lower than your
current residential rate, which we finally did. When we ran our perform, we were like, we don't know if we can do this or not, but our residential rate was lower. And also, we wanted to supply or or propose a different service option. Your current service option in
your proposed service option with our competitor is um ASL, which is a um automated sidearm loader um method, and it's also in conjunction with rear loaders. What we did is we proposed uh completely different option which is a
very high level of service which is a a total complete rear load residential option. And what that means is two men two men on a truck will be collecting your solid waste your your residential solid waste recycling and yard waste
with each pass. Um with an ASL that doesn't happen. That truck can only collect what's in that can. With the rear loader, you can collect what's in the cart or can as well as what's on the side. And also that man or woman on the back of a truck with the rear loader can
collect additional uh yard waste material. That's one thing that we've noticed here in in Cocoa Beach throughout the years. And no knock on the city or staff, but we have seen an accumulation or an abundance of bulk items and yard waste. And we feel like this option would be the best option to
collect this material. um weekly. Also, we propose running a claw truck once a week, every week throughout the city versus having it on call or having it service the the city every other week, which is also a better level of service.
So, at any rate, that was kind of our goal was to produce or propose rather a lower residential rate and a higher level of service. And on that note, that's what we've done in in your sister cities here in Bvoulevard County. There are six other cities and towns here that
um that decided to go with us with WaistPro and we have provided this rear load service much to their their happiness. They they feel that this level of service is much more um affordable and and adequate for their residents. So that's really all I have
to say. It's kind of a third way. It's a different way. I haven't heard much discussion about it. I believe the uh evaluation committee did consider it. But at at any rate, we just kind of like to highlight our uh rear load proposal. That's all I have. >> Thank you, Platt. >> Thank you. >> Um wasn't quite on topic, but I
appreciate your your input and uh insight. >> Go ahead, Skip. >> Yeah, I just say that, you know, um we didn't advertise that we were going to receive sales pitches from Waste Pro and give uh Waste Management the same
opportunity to repitch to us at this point. So the the realization and the reason you have an RFP is for you all to put all these thoughts that you just came up here and spoke on paper for the review committee to look at and to
interview you guys which they did I understand and they did with your competitor. That was the time for these kind of comments, not to come up here in front of the public and tell us that you're better than than waste management after the fact. And I think it should
feel a little embarrassing to you. Are you done? >> Yep. I don't I honestly I don't mind your your comments. I thought they were informative, but they were in the wrong section. They should have been under public comment uh items that are not on the agenda. But again, thank you. Uh any other uh public comment? Okay. Uh
commission comment. Um so we're we're >> on option two. >> Option two. >> So we're on option two now. >> We're on option two. I I would encourage a mayor to reconsider and not allocate costs onto residents that should not be paid by residents. >> I I would reconsider next year.
>> They're still paying it. >> They're paying a portion of it. This reduces the portion. >> Okay. All All in favor >> of option two >> of option two. I >> I >> All opposed? >> Nay.
>> Motion passes 3 to two. >> All right. Um >> Okay. Um, item two, approve the review committee committee's recommendation to negotiate contracts with six out of the 10 companies who submitted
qualifications for CB26-001 to provide sanitary sewer, manhole, mainline, and lateral rehabilitation services as part of the city's inflow and infiltration abatement program SRF loan WW050640.
The aforementioned six companies include in incidu form technologies LLC, GF Coast Underground LLC, Inlininer Solutions LLC, Sack Construction LLC, BL Services
LLC, Enroll DE LLC. Costs will only be incurred for services rendered. Staff Representative Brazo, water reclamation director. Recommendation approved. Move to approve as read. >> Second. >> Motion and second. Any public comment?
Any commission comment? All in favor? >> I. >> Uh. Motion passes. 50. >> Okay. Item three, adopt resolution 2026-12, a resolution of the city commission of the city of Cocoa Beach, Florida, relating to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, DP, Clean Water State Revolving Fund, CWSRF, adoption of the City of Cocoa Beach Water Reclamation Facility Plan Update, effective this 16th day of July, 2026. These projects are a fiscal year 2027
budget request. Staff Representative Brad Kelza, water reclamation director. Recommendation adopt. Move >> to adopt resolution 2026-12. >> Second. >> Motion and second. Any public comment. >> Would you like to speak, Brad?
>> Yes. Good evening, mayor, commissioners. Um, one of the recommendations or requirements for through the state revolving fund program is that we do have to present some of the highlights of the facility plan uh and the projects. So this facility plan was
presented to you guys I want to say back late last calendar year but we only talked about the INI abatement program project portion of that facility plan. So now we just want to address some of the projects that we want to get additional funding for and we've been working with meet and hunt our
consultants and Mr. Brad Blaze is here to highlight some of those projects that we're going to go after for funding. >> Thank you Brad. Um, as he stated, this facility plan was presented and it was adopted. Um, this is an update to that plan. And the INI portions are the
portions that you just approved the selection of contractors for, which is the safy supplemental appropriation portion, which was a uh loan that will be entirely principal forgiven on the entire amount of the
loan. That was a previous item that you had. This basically in the record we have to read in the other parts of the facility plan that can be funded by the low interest loan through the state. So the additional projects that are described in the plan and that are
intended to be funded at some point depending on the request for inclusion that is applied for on that particular time is WRF upgrades, clarifier rehabilitation, grit removal system evaluation and replacement, generator replacements, uh injection well
inspection replacement, reuse ground storage, reuse transfer pumps, drum screen replacements, WR valve replacements, disc filter replacements, the other items, the inflow was already addressed previously in the record. The additional collection system improvements that can be funded by the
SRF loan lift station upgrades uh A1A sewer crossover Port Canaveral sewage force main Patrick Air Force Base uh sewage force main reclaim transmission automated manual valve replacements reclaim water distribution system evaluation.
The total of the projects that are included at this time that will be considered in this next hearing date are the clarify rehabilitation list stations number 81 14 and 16 rehabilitation port canal force main air release valve replacements and storm water uh
pipelining. The total of those projects is $14.975 million which would be pursued for the state revolving fund loan which would be subject to repayment at about a 1% interest rate. So that is for the record. Any questions?
>> Very good. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. All in favor? >> I. >> Motion passes 50. >> Okay. Item four. approved the review committee's recommendation and authorized staff to negotiate a contract with Tetrate Tech who will be primary
and debris who will be a contracted backup under RFP CB26-010 disaster debris monitoring services costs will only be incurred for services rendered staff representative Taylor Matlo project manager recommendation approved
>> move to approve as read motion and second any public comment um can we just can we get somebody to explain a little bit of this to >> explain it. >> Sure, you can. >> Can we get somebody else to explain [laughter] it?
>> Thank you. >> I talked about it earlier. >> I know. I I just I just want it more >> from staff. >> So, it is standard practice for municipalities to have both a monitoring and a recovery and removal um contractor
for FEMA reimbursement purposes. So, the monitor will, like Skip said earlier, follow the recovery around and ensure that they are in compliance with FEMA reimbursement requirements. Um, they submit all the paperwork and
ensure that there's no conflict of interest. [clears throat] >> Okay. Thank you. That's just wanted it for the for the public to hear. Uh, all in favor? >> I >> I >> Motion passes 50. >> Okay. Item five, approve the review committee's recommendation and authorize
staff to negotiate a contract with five of the 10 proposers under RFPCB26-011 disaster debris removal and recovery DRC SDR TRF Crowder Gulf and Garner costs will only be incurred for services
rendered. Staff representative Taylor Matlo project manager recommendation approved. Move >> to approve and read second. motion in a second. Any public comment? >> Let me explain this one. >> Yes, just I think they pretty much just did a reading. Um, all in favor?
>> I I >> Motion passes 50. >> Okay. Okay. Item six, authorize staff to negotiate and award a contract with Textron Easygo LLC for golf cart replacement CB26-014 and execute a 4-year lease agreement
with PNC Equipment Finance for an amount not to exceed $62,64 including a tradein value of the existing fleet. Staff representative Andy Sigara, leisure services director. Recommendation approved. I move to authorize to negotiate this award
contract. >> Second. >> Motion in a second. Any public comment? All right. All in favor? I I motion passes. 50. All right. We are adjourned.