now that Jeremy's walking up we can start this meeting um Jamie while you're up let's do the uh pledge of allegiance i aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic
for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all we have invocation by Pastor Keith Gabzy from Club Zion let's pray father we thank you we bless you for the privilege you've given us to come before you seek your wisdom to seek guidance
and direction lord I pray for our city commissioners our mayor city attorney and all those who serve this community father give them wisdom give them the ability to bring to light the knowledge that's needed to make decisions tonight lord we look to you as the pro
providence leader over our community thank you for your grace your mercy and your love we ask this in Jesus name amen amen amen city clerk roll call commissioner Jackson here commissioner Hutcherson here
commissioner here vice Mayor Williams here mayor Kesi here get someone to uh make a motion for the agenda move to approve the agenda as presented second motion in a second all
in favor hi hi all right got a special presentation um regarding the the bike pedestrian symbols for the winners of the um drawings from the what was it the school
board or the uh FOT fot had a a a competition for drawings I believe right yes good evening i'm Stephanie Phillips i'm from the Florida Department of Transportation i'm the bicycle and pedestrian coordinator uh oh okay uh so
thank you for having me tonight to share with you a little bit about my favorite project of the entire year where we have a bike symbol safety contest at local elementary schools you have a winner right here in the city of Cocoa Beach so we wanted to share a little bit about
the project and the program with you we've been doing this about four years so generally we try to pick one school in each of our nine counties every year doesn't always work out that way in fact Bvard County's had two schools every
year ever since we started um we use the program to be a positive way to engage students about bicycle safety and to engage their creativity so you can see on the slide this is our safety administrator Loren Boowbo with one of
the winning students from last year so some of the rules are only elementary schools are participating so each school will get two winners because we divide the grades up K to two and then three to five so every school will
get this bikeman symbol that's the same symbol that you would see in a bike lane right out there on the road and the kids draw it we pick winners and then our contractor computerizes their designs and makes them out of thermoplastic just
like it would be in a bike lane these are some winners from Golf View Elementary this was last year now I know I said we do two at every school but and I for the life of me I can't remember the reason why but Golf View asked for a third winner and so of course they got it um how could I turn
down butterfly bike dragon on a bike or bike lane design so those are on the ground at Golf View and that is actually the second round so they probably have they probably have five on the ground right now these are the students that won at
Golf View with their installed design so we usually come out and we do the install in the evening and then we try to come back to school a day or two later do a big unveiling with the students we have a big big celebration we give them a certificate we do a bike
safety presentation in each of the winning students classrooms so all those students are going to get a set of bike lights lighted armbands some activity books and we spend about 30 minutes with them teaching them some bike safety tips
it's a lot of fun and so let me say this before I say anything more about Roosevelt Elementary we're we're getting ready to install we haven't set the date but if any of you would like to be present at the celebration please just let us know we'll let the city manager
know what the date is you're more than welcome to attend uh over in Ocala the mayor has showed up to give the certificates for the past three years and it's been a lot of fun and the kids families come it's a real It's the most heartwarming thing I get to do all
year so here's your winners at Roosevelt Elementary Pedro and McKenzie i don't know that they know yet so if anyone knows Pedro or McKenzie just try to keep that under your hat for a few more weeks but we've got Rock and
Road and Bike Safety Beach Baby so these are going to go on the ground right uh right down the street i was able to stop by on my way over here tonight and and check out the locations they're going to go on the shared use path and um so I want to thank the city
of Cocoa Beach for their for their coordination karen and Brad helping us you know we we always try to put the designs in a place where the school wants them the program is at no cost to the school the city or county um and we've placed them in all kinds of spots
on school property uh in a bike lane on a sidewalk on a shared use path uh the the thing that's most important to me in this is that it goes where the school wants it and that the community is involved so we'll be scheduling design uh install pretty soon and then we'll
have our celebration and uh that'll be that'll be a lot of fun so does anybody have any questions i think we've been pretty well briefed on it um we're I think we're all pretty excited about it and we're we're proud of the kids for drawing some some nice pictures
um and I would love to be able to to be there to help you know with that as well so as long as I'm I'm in town I would love to be there for you right thank you i will be there okay but I work at the high school so I'll make sure that I uh
get over there when that happens very good it's a lot of fun oh yeah thank you thank you all right any public comment about items that are not on the agenda okay and
also uh so coming up we I think we're also going to have the discussion or the the second reading on on a couple things regarding the Airbnb stuff uh I will require that you have uh comment cards for that again just because that's it's a more of a
uh more of a contested thing i don't want a bunch of people just popping up out of nowhere and making it hard for the city clerk to to get all the information down so if you if you do want to comment on any of those I request that you would get your your cards in uh prior to that thank you um
Ronnie Haddock yes sir hand you something want to pass it down if you would please thank you just a reminder you've got 3 minutes yeah it won't take me long but hey thank you for your time my name is Ronnie
Haddock i live over here on 352 South Orlando Avenue uh what you see in front of you is a proposal to put a 3 m dive platform at the Cocoa Beach Aquatic Center uh the reason we want to do this is for a few things number one is to give the the kids here on the swim and dive team and anyone in Bvard County a
path to uh be able to do the sport in college without the 3meter experience on a dive platform their kind of career ends at high school and we do have some state and nationally ranked certified divers in your uh in our community so it would really help uh retain that talent at Cocoa Beach High School and allow the
to give the kids a path forward also uh you know it will also enhance our community experience by uh any club teams or college teams that want to come down here and train uh so there's a lot of good things we can do with that there the second part of that uh proposal you'll see a picture where you can see
what uh the before and after where we want to put the 3 m right in between the two 1 m dive boards actually the guy doing the work is the same one that did the 1 m platforms um you the next slide will show an itemized cost uh the cost is about $20,000 which I will pay for
myself if it's approved um yeah I kind of want to be able to get back to the kids here so I think it' be a great thing you know when we think about it I was trying to figure out what questions you may have obviously safety is probably the biggest issue and we thought well of that so for this platform you know the things that we can
control number one would be access the ladder and everything would be locked except for when the dive team or the club coach is there um to supervise them and make sure the kids are have the one m meter experience to go up into the 3meter uh they would have to uh sign up
for au which is the uh governing body for um national divers to go to the national team because that also uh a shows their commitment b uh provides them with some insurance if anything happens also the uh they'd have to be registered with the dive team which the
last page is a a liability insurance clause which shows anybody participating out there um would be under the umbrella policy at the Cocoa Beach Aquatic Center with a million dollars guaranteed if they did get an accident from there the other thing too is we would put a safety net under there and also have some extra
guardrails so nothing can fall off or on there without being caught so we try to think of everything we could control on the platform itself um and then also if the unfortunate thing does happen we do have insurance with that so that's pretty much it any
questions for me about it yes sir yeah I was on a swim team in Beer Beach in high school at that time there was a 3 m here at this pool also and at all the other
high schools and My understanding is that we're removed basically for liability issues you know we wouldn't as you pointed out it won't be open to the public on a daily basis
when the pool's open where anybody that wants to climb up there or can physically climb up there can go jump off the end yes sir so um I appreciate you uh presenting this and and be willing being willing to
put all the funding together and uh I'm full support thank you very much yeah no actually you're right that right now any of our kids would have to travel to Orlando or Sebastian or down to Fort Peters to be able to get the experience so I'd love to keep them here yeah I
have a question um it looks like it's a tight fit between the one meter boards okay so good good question thank you i was trying to be com not take up your time but in that proposal you'll see something for concrete work and we actually looked out there to make sure we stay within the depth needed for that
size of diving board so the concrete work would take the two 1 m pads make one pad we'd fill it in the middle and add 27 in move the last board down and put the new one in the middle so the time for this would take about 2 weeks about 3 days for the concrete work uh
four or five days for it to cure and then the setting up of the equipment itself is about a 3 or 4 day process so if it was approved we'd set it up where it went really fast out of the way within 2 weeks that's with the concrete work and again the person coming over uh
from Tampa where we would getting the equipment from um is the same guy that installed your your current equipment yes so so mine where I grew up in in Illinois we had a an Olympic size pool
um where it was like a like a Z-shaped where you had a a a diving area and then you had the shallow end but then it had a 50 m run just like we do here um except the diving well was was off to
the side um and I went off that 3meter i couldn't even tell you how many times i don't remember anybody getting hurt but that was back not even back in the 70s so um yeah I don't remember everybody anybody falling off but now we have risk
management that gets involved and and we've got lawyers no disrespect at all Becky but you know or Kim sorry yes sir that that we've got all these you know these lawyers get involved you know oh that's there's risk here and you need to
have this insurance and that insurance and Oh yeah yes sir i totally and and like Skip said I think we had we did have back and forth i'd love to see it back if we if we can make that work um if you give me the green light I'll make it work i mean we they do it at other
locations so why can't we do it here i completely agree i don't see the additional risk compared with the other sports that kids are playing these days so okay anybody that can anybody get the AA certified and use it as long as your
your special guy is there yes yes it's that's a very easy process i have to actually enroll my son right here um it's $29 uh for the year membership and that allows them to go to any of the dive events that qualify them for the national pathway um so basically you
have your high school season and you also have your your your pathway to college or nationals and you kind of marry those two together so that they can compete at D1 D2 or D3 and how often would somebody that is able to oversee
this um using this would would be there so actually I have the dive coach right here his name is Bill Talbat if you'd like to ask him more but he runs the program there five days a week um and uh also the dive coach at uh Cocoa Beach uh high school would also be able to so it
would be for club and kids within our public school system so if somebody gets certified let's just say anybody in the public they get this AU certified or or sign up can they come and use it while you guys are using or how does that work oh
absolutely i mean yes as long as they are known by the coach uh but yes right now I know there's uh some divers at Satellite High School that are also on the club team here and they would come here during the hours of the club team
after the high school team and they would use it at that time so it would be open to you know any of the kids in our in our system that want to that Let me just add that um when the swim practices are going on
with the clubs uhhuh there's certain provisions in place to give them a certain amount of lanes and priority over certain things including the diving boards correct so I just wouldn't want to advertise that anybody that wants to
pay their $29 and be known by the coach could come out there in the middle of a club practice or a swim practice when other when they're training divers and say "I want to jump off the board." Yeah I I'll let the coach and I I can speak to that
but I'll let the coach kind of say that himself i mean yeah no one would be able to do it the way you're speaking to him but I'll let him May I speak bill Talbot i run the program at Cocoa Beach Junior Senior High and I've been running at the pool for the last five years my team is
called Sunrise Springboard Diving i run the program for kids 10 years old and up through high school you have to be a member of the team of the club in order to go on that diving board uh somebody from the public just cannot go pay $29 and be an AA person to come here that's
why I wanted to be a part of the team we compete throughout the state of Florida we travel to Miami Plantation Orlando Jacksonville we're one of the only counties in Florida that doesn't have a 3 m board i lose divers constantly to go train elsewhere because they want to get
prepared for college so they go to Orlando or they go to Sebastian also you have the opportunity to have college teams come here and use the pool over Christmas break but they won't come at this time because they have to send their divers elsewhere so you will be bringing in a little bit more business
throughout the winter months as well thank you i actually remember that the 3 meter diving board we used to have when I was a kid too i remember it being there um I know that I think the big the big if about this project would be uh
our you know our insurance or you know um how how much extra it would cost us or if they would even allow to add a 3 meter so uh we do our our page shows the the insurance where if they are on the club team they do go
under that policy as being on there so what I was going to get at is um and you guys may have a seat thank you um our human resources uh director uh looks like she wants to come up and say something uh she's choing at the bit over there i I honestly would love to
see this happen but it all obviously depends on on insurance and uh what you know I have no problem with with going through and and I don't think the rest of us would either um seeing what the insurance says but it's obviously I think it depends on
and so let her talk okay so um I too think it's a wonderful idea um there is a lot of risk that does come with that i know that um they could obtain their own insurance but um there's a few things we have insurance and our insurance company
i have sent them the information um I'm not sure if you're aware but our swimming pool is actually shy of an Olympic size swimming pool and given the space and the constraints so first I have to see if our insurance company would even allow that um and then second
of course this is a a public swimming pool not specifically for any one or two people or events um of course we allow different things there so I think we need to start with what FMIT will allow us to do or not to do because their
insurance is okay to cover them for their events and their swim and their meets but it doesn't cover us from liability if we put something in there that we're not really supposed to or allowed to under our policy so I think we could start there and then maybe move to the get maybe a consensus from the
commission that we would allow them to look into the insurance on that yeah I'd like that absolutely okay and if MIMIT would give their recommendation their background and you know why or why not putting something like that there okay all right thank you thank you
uh Kima Rosinka four of you another passenger it's good evening mayor members of city commission my name is Kim Rosena with the law firm of Lacy Lines Rosena here on behalf of Wave Developments LLC with me is Mr gaul um we're here tonight to
request that all work be halted at Dirty Bird's Tiki Bar at 142 Minute Man Causeway due to a lack of approved site plan now if a site plan has been approved we are unaware because we've been told not to communicate directly with staff so we don't know the public records we got yesterday do not indicate
that a site plan has been approved so we do not know but if it was it's invalid um it's invalid because there's not a site plan drawn and sealed to industrial to industrial standards there's no lot area building coverage or impervious lot coverage there's not an up-to-date
boundary survey there's not a storm water plan there's not a landscape plan there's not a parking plan or a waiver there's not a lighting plan and there's no concurrency analysis and binding concurrency evaluation so we would ask that all work be halted if the site plan
has been approved that it um it be uh investigated as to whether it is complete and third to see um that we have a report um as I said we received a large amount of public records it was sent to us yesterday um page two it was
299 files 11 folders 731 megabytes um we spent the last 24 hours going through it and this is what we've pulled so far to date page three those are the documents that were provided for PZ25-2 which is the site plan again we don't know if it's been approved but we
haven't seen a site plan that can be approved um page three uh page four um this is an emails between David Dicki and Daniel Todd we can't tell if the site plan application was complete or was approved turning to
page five all site plans must be submitted for commercial and building improvements you have to have a signed and sealed survey drawn to industry engineer scale must show all of these things that are highlighted and this must be approved before any building
permits can be approved there have been several building permits approved a fence permit that was approved after um the fence was already completed u there's pictures in here that show the ground was completely cleared that also requires a site plan um and a building
plan uh we're still unclear whether they're food trucks mobile food trucks or what they are containers there's a kitchen there that is a container it's an accessory structure shouldn't have been allowed back in 2020 and this is just compounding things that have been going on for years i'm not blaming
anyone i'm sure it's going to be a lovely site it just needs to follow the rules and that's what we're asking for this to be done um also there's a BTR that was issued uh there's all kinds of um things in this packet that show the insufficiency related to the site plan
and the building permits and as I said we're still going through the file so this is just the beginning um I'm happy to answer questions but I just wanted to bring that to your attention thank you thank you
and I've provided Mr granger a copy of this okay um Gil Gil Franco hello i would like to ask the council if I can yield my time to the company attorney you may
[Music] okay thank you uh let's start on page six i said it was a start Mr [Applause] williams page six is an email from Mr dicki to uh Mr todd and it says this was
back in January all the things that the site plan that was submitted initially did not meet and we would state that most of them still aren't met and again we don't know if one's been approved or not but we know that building permits are being issued um page seven is the lot coverage that was submitted this is
not an engineered to any standard this is uh prepared by someone with dirty bird sticky bar and it is not sufficient to show lot coverage impervious building coverage things like that page 8 this is the site plan that's in the packet presented to us for the site plan
PZ25-2 in the upper right you can barely see it it's a date of February 10th of this year it says conceptual site plan there's no professional seal says illustrative site plan for reference only this is not a site plan by any stretch of the imagination page nine was the initial site plan that was submitted
by Mr todd thinking this was a site plan based upon Eric Nielsen's survey from uh 2019 to which I responded Mr dicki this is just a site this is just a survey with a pretty picture on it page 10 this is apparently the parking plan it
doesn't have anything required it doesn't this is not a parking plan this is just blocks doesn't even show how far away they are there may have been a waiver by Mr dicki we don't know it's not in the files that were given to us page 11 um this is the survey that was presented again it's not an up-to-date
survey page 12 concurrency management this explains what concurrency management by your code and on the right page is what was submitted it just says nothing is going to impact by this plan that is not a concurrency plan by your
code page uh 13 and 14 this is an email from Morgan Zuli uh I'm sorry if I messed up her name with a stormwater utility telling um Mr uh Todd that they had to meet with St john's River Water
Management because they needed storm water or they need a waiver this has not been done at all on page 14 Mr todd is asking for a partial site plan approval i don't know what that means it might be a temporary CO which would be totally inappropriate page 15 is what was
submitted for the storm water plan on the left side we were told a storm water plan was not needed for this scope of work however the other side of 15 is an initial application for a uh storm water ERP permit that was submitted by area
142 and never followed up with which was also a condition of their site plan back in 2022 uh page 16 this talks about also what's needed for a landscape plan which has not been provided thank you
[Applause] thank you councel um I too would like to yield my time to my attorney if it's appropriate okay um is there going to be more after you or is this it uh no that's it i don't There's no I'm I'm
going to I'm going to allow it thank you Kimber Zanka again page 17 is the landscape plan that was provided it does not have the quant the quantity and that has does not have the size of plant material proposed doesn't have irrigation plan it doesn't have the tree information the DHB the genius of
species and whether they're containerized or bare root does not have a topography of the landscape plan either landscape plan is insufficient page 18 this is the building the business tax receipt that was um applied for and issued to have
restaurant bar food trucks live music events a full service restaurant and seats of 250 where these people are going to park and where they're going to sit is still unclear because of insufficient information provided page 19 or 20 this was also provided with the business tax receipt and it shows just a
bunch of seats it doesn't really show a sketch which would be on a typical site plan of where these seats would be at least on the exterior 21 this is the kitchen layout again this is um a concern because this kitchen is old it
was never properly approved and u you have new codes regarding grease interceptors this does not meet your code for grease interceptor and that uh it's not doesn't get grandfathered in there's new codes that kitchen or container has been not used for a while
and now they want to use it again and it doesn't meet your code page 22 uh business tax receipt and certificate of youth was issued um again before really anything was known except what's been provided to you in here um for the business tax receipt um we believe that
they have violated your code by getting uh doing work without permits having permits issued before a site plan and that they have violated the city code and a certificate of use could indeed be revoked building permit application again this had not been followed by the
uh the applicant either before any building permits are issued there has to be a site plan approved the plumbing has been issued the fence wall whatever the landscape is has been issued um there's a concrete pad that's been issued without a site
plan those are um also listed here and shown page 26 this was taken on January 16th this is where they cleared the lot and started doing the fence permit and the planters without any permits um there's some indication that there might have been underground retention at one
point well it's gone now they've cleared it and then page 27 that's what was supplied for the fence permit it's not a site plan finally page 28 these are definitions that may be of use in reviewing this information thank you
very much hey uh real quick um what so what what is the purpose what are you trying to accomplish with this we would like all work stopped until an approved site plan is issued and if an approved site plan is issued we'd like an analysis of why these things weren't
met and why it was approved okay thank you thank you should we bring Dave up and see what his opinion is if you want to vote to have a discussion on it is this is this appropriate for public if you don't want to have a discussion then then we're not
talking about it i mean we're in public comment i think this just continuous public comment right we're continuous public comment unless you guys want to just look at Becky when she does this that just don't talk about it it's not the right time yeah I think we're in public comment let's continue all
right uh any other public comment about items that are not on the agenda all right we will go to the next staff reports i have one item uh excuse me
council it's um Thank you i want to finalize um FDOT has actually requested that we finalize the modifications to the uh pedestrian crosswalk project um and some of the requests that we had made to them they
want to go on record at a public meeting so as far as um the negotiations we had which with them which were very fruitful they we are requesting three items so I want verification from everybody on council
the first item is the removal of the speed hump on um Orlando and South First Street the second item is the speed increase back from 30 m an hour to 35 miles an
hour from Minute Man south to the extent of the city and the third thing is the removal of the Ballard signs the breakaway Ballard signs at each in the middle of the road at each crossing so those are the three things that we
negotiated um the mayor and myself uh with with the cooperation of FDOT so um we I just need a verification they watch the meetings they keep the meetings as a as a record uh so they requested that I bring it up at a at a public meeting uh
to get your input on it so So what you're saying is you already negotiated with them and they said that that that's what they're willing to do and you want a consensus from the commission correct agree correct okay bas basically they don't want to do like what happened last time they would
just want to make completely clear that we are all in agreement that we would like those three items done so I would say are we're all in agreement so I have a question on the the southernmost speed home was there any analysis done to say that that is something that's safely
navigable at 30 or 35 miles an hour according to them it is it is yeah we we the problem with that one is that's not within the city limits so we really have no jurisdiction there okay but my opinion if you wanted that one will probably end up coming out too okay
got that i mean if you guys all want to say you like that too on here too i mean they're watching it like you said i mean I think we all agree that we'd rather not have any of them but Yeah now what what this is a case of false advertising
i was switch yeah when I was when this was presented by EPTA at the Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization first of all there were supposed to be 16 of these traffic tables not speed humps
okay and after talking to the commission and getting public feedback we got it reduced to two only one in the city the one at First Street South hey Skip i I don't want to I don't want to cut you off but but we we we've already been over this we just No I I just want to
say it's false advertising because there's supposed to be a traffic table which was a 112 slope up of 20 foot of flat and then a slope back down not a speed bump we understand so
we just want consensus that we're okay with taking the three items that he said and we are actually all okay with taking out the south one too if they want to well I agree with that one that that's probably more hazardous than any of them because you're coming in there you know from Patrick at 45 which that'll
probably go back up to 55 at some point I would assume but um coming coming in there and having a speed bump that's 20 mph in a 30 mph zone is just doesn't make any sense to me and there's already been um some damage done to some
trailers and it's just going to get worse so Josh yes so I agree with you 100% i'm with you 100% yes all right well I I have a disagreement on item number two the speed limit at 30 miles an hour
people still go 3540 if you We had this discussion before i don't want to get into the speed limit back to 35 people are going to be going 40 45 we just we just want we'll have police to regulate it we just want to make sure that we're all on the same
page to bring this back we don't want to delay this we want to get this stuff done so we have consensus with you two 35 except for item two okay consensus so four out of five so we have a super majority here Alice so all
right that's all I have thank you sorry Skip i just We got to move along here uh city attorney nothing tonight thank you okay all
right um the city commission will temporarily temporarily recess and then we'll convene at the Koka Beach downtown CRA for the following items all right and C is now in session uh unit H okay this is um item H1
request to accept the 2024 annual community redevelopment agency CRA report staff representative Hana Juman Finance Director Devin Thally Deputy Finance Director recommendation approved move to approve as read second motion is
second all in favor i all opposed motion passes 50 item two request to accept the community redevelopment agency CRA annual comprehensive financial report ACFR for fiscal year 2024 staff
representative Hana Juman Finance Director devon Tally deputy finance director recommendation approve move to approve as read second motion is second um I forgot to do public comment does anybody have public comment on that first one it's already closed anyways
okay any public comment on this all right all in favor i all opposed motion passes 50 okay item three request to approve commercial visual improvement program grant for Dirty Birds Tiki Bar Grill LLC
located at 142 Minuteman Causeway Cocoa Beach Florida 32931 in the amount of $50,000 this is a budgeted item staff Representative Devin Tally deputy finance director recommendation approved move the table to the next CRA meeting
second okay got a motion a second to table all in favor i I all opposed okay motion passes to table it
um item five approve contract agreement with Schindler Elevator Corp not to exceed the amount of $200,000 for the purpose of replacing the one above it i'm sorry item four request to approve commercial visual improvement program grant for
Cosmic Tiki located at 101 North Atlantic Avenue Cocoa Beach Florida 32931 in the amount of $50,000 this is a budgeted item staff Representative Devin Thally Deputy Finance Director recommendation approved
move to approve as read second got a motion in a second any public comment i Okay commission comment i have some I have a comment um I think they requested 100,000 um is that correct
yes but total and then yeah it's in total their costs are estimated at 100,000 or more and they're requesting 50,000 in total grant funds okay did does anybody remember when we raised it to 50 i thought it was 25 and I don't remember raising it we did it was 25 we
did raise it it was in the bylaws for last year so you guys I was not in the commission but I made a comment about it 50 i don't remember that i don't remember it being formally raised but we have approved higher than the 25 yeah that was for multiple units you can put
in a public record request city clerk has the answer already it's 50 at the June 6 meeting of 24 they change the the fees 25,000 for the So my my only concern is that if we do 50,000 then we're really
only allowing four businesses to to use this grant rather than 10 or you know whatever uh or eight so that's my only concern about that price but the the other thing that is well I had called the applicant and I I love what they're
doing um I also love the the the dirty bird thing but that's a different issue um the thing is uh she requesting funding for stuff that she had already well initially I don't know if this changed since yesterday but
she's she's asking for funding for the stuff that she's already doing which is already underway it's not under it's not retroactive right that's what I'm saying correct yeah it's correct so any receipts that are turned in have to be dated and purchased prior or sorry after
this meeting after your approval so any exterior improvements or additions they want to make after this meeting if you guys were to approve the contract then yes but anything prior dated no would be so what they listed was stipulation with that is you can't have like the people that put the pool in and they're not
quite finished yet and she hasn't paid them yet and then she gets a receipt a week from now so you can't say "Oh I put her in a pool." Right so that that's correct um from what I was understanding it was the finished the pool fencing or fencing or stuff like that over there
some other stuff that that they've already done so um obviously the applicant uh receive a CLA advisory committee approval before beginning work any work started prior to this approval will be
at the applicant's responsibility mhm so what is she asking for the for it for because we have to know what they're what she's asking for um I believe their representative Valerie is here she can speak to that come on up Valerie yes come on up i just want to make sure
we're doing this by the book okay uh my name is Valerie Foresight manager of construction um Noel couldn't be here tonight uh basically um the woman has spent probably about a million and a half dollars on this project if not more not including the purchase of
the building uh we had a lot of issues with FDOT storm water we met all the requirements um she has gotten to the point where uh FDOT has made several changes over the last year um with regards to storm water and a lot of
other issues so um the last part of the project because I do understand that the grant is issued based upon uh getting it for applying for it first before you actually start the work um I don't believe she was aware of it and
we've gone this far with it uh she still has uh two things left uh to finish the site work and also um we just submitted in a separate permit for sculptures that she wanted to put in uh on First Street
two statues so I don't know if that would qualify for it uh but I do know that she has done an awful lot and has spent a ton of money so whatever you all can do to help uh the money that
$740,000 was spent on retaining wall between Triton and her and storm water on uh FOT rightway uh so she went ahead and I guess she agreed to do a lot of this didn't realize the extent of what the cost was at the time and things kept
changing prior you know uh since the site plan was initially approved so and a lot of that is going to help with the storm water drainage and on first street uh and A1A so with that said I don't know what you can do but whatever you
can to give her would probably help enormously so I can sympathize with you know all the you know a business trying to make it happen and working and spending all that money but it it is important that we follow the rules of CRA to give you that grant money um I it sounds like to me you're going
to need to submit um a new request um with the information of your statues or whatever else you're trying because right now what you've already what you're requesting is for stuff that you're already in the process of doing so we can't I don't I mean I can't vote
with conscious to do it even though I I feel bad for you um but I'm we're here and I want to help you with whatever you're moving with in the future so we just got to make sure i think you should resubmit but for if permitting was already submitted in for it but it hasn't been approved yet because we had
to have our engineering done so if if I tell her to go ahead and resubmit just for this segment of it it's as as long as you haven't started work on the on it already then you should be good okay um
are we kind of all in agreement on that well if even if you said that she already had somebody engineer the do some engineering yeah we already submitted the permit and we were just waiting for the engineer i just submitted it the other day okay has the
engineer already done work her engineer yes has engineered the whole the the project okay so the statues so you can't This is for construction she hasn't paid this engineer for work that he's already done she can't come back and charge us for
for because she's not paying him till next week no she's asking about for for the statues all right so So what it comes down to is even if you even if we did agree and I agree with you know moving it forward with the new application for what they're actually
going to want to spend the money on but even if we do agree it's a matching grant so that means she's got to kick out if she wants the whole $50,000 she got to spend a whole $50,000 more right on that project if it comes down to with
the new scope it's only $25,000 but you only get the matching grand 25,000 that's how Yeah so would you like to chime in yeah this is a a facade grant it's not a grant to build a new business or you know to
build a pool or you know start a business in Cocoa Beach we don't hey this is great i want to come to Cocoa Beach and get $50,000 to start my new business this is for front you know like the CRA was um was put in place to
rejuvenate downtown right by by the storefronts and helping store you know old storefronts rejuvenate them old business and whatnot so as I recall back when we started the CRA it was a lot
more elaborate you had to show um have all this planned out in advance pictures of what what you have pictures and or faximiles of or or renderings of what you want to put in place and the cost for those things as on the facade in the
front oh no i get it not you know building a bathroom an extra bathroom somewhere that's not part of it so yeah there's a lot more to it and I know there'll be a lot more expense so hold that back or however you want to well I'm just going to then suggest that she
go ahead and she just asked me to represent her here because she wasn't able to come i didn't you know as far as the details how far things go i can only just tell you what I know as far as um the only thing that's pending I would say are the statues and whatever the
cost will be on that um maybe she can she said about 38,000 for those statues or something she was saying so yeah uh I talked with her you know cuz I wanted to make sure that you know I talked also with with Dirty Birds and I both of them
I talked with I just want to make sure that we're doing everything by the book so sure um we need we need updated information for you to give you money for what you need because like you said it it has to be visible from the front or any of the streets and it um so would statues
qualify yeah I think I think absolutely it's landscaping um any anything visually facade you know so I think you you've got a you've got a good case you just need to you just need to bring that the case for for what's eligible you can work you can work with Main Street on
this as well as well as the city um to figure out what pieces of your project are going to actually apply to this grant and and have those ready to go without starting i'll explain that to her then yeah well I appreciate you
listening okay thanks and so um we we're going to need I guess renderings of the statues and the same everything is still required you know the site plan and and all that just you just we needed to know the before pictures and we're going to need the after pictures everything that's required and I'm sure she knows she's read that and that I'm sure our
staff will help you through that the only question I have is because we've already submitted for permitting to like what do we do i that doesn't matter that's that's because I think actually if you get the permit and you paid for the permit before the next meeting when you get approved from the
grant then you that that's I'll let her know but the permit's not super expensive oh no no I didn't mean the cost of it i meant in timewise no whatever whatever you are working on after you get that grant you'll get paid for right okay cool all right thank you
now we we have a motion in a second on this but if we vote here do we invalidate their ability to come back or clarify do we need to do something we can pull the vote back to if we want to do that i made the motion but I don't know who second i think John
withraw the second i think so i think that's the process if if that's the way we want to go i'll withdraw second and just let it die motion if no second yeah withdraw a motion or a new second okay so then that's that's no then they we won't have the ability for them to come
back comes back yeah they can come on back whenever they're ready okay uh this number five we talked about this a couple item five approve contract agreement with Schindler Elevator Corp not to exceed the amount of $200,000 for
the purpose of replacing the current um Tyson crop components in the parking garage elevator with Schindler components added 32025 this is a budgeted item staff representative Wayne Kerino city manager Devon Tally deputy
finance director Scott Maxim project manager recommendation approved move to discuss second we got a motion to second to discuss to discuss yep yep
so Wayne is that guys crepe out of business [Music] um they're Scott are they out of business i don't know if they're out of business but um their equipment has failed it's
become a chronic issue with that elevator uh so the solution we've come up with is to switch all the components out to Schindler and this has become a public safety issue i mean I I understand the need for it and I
understand how long it's been out and I understand how many comments I've got on it they've had many many opportunities to fix this and we keep throwing good money at bad so um I I think it'd be foolish to even consider going with them
my my cons let me let me hear let me hear from Scott first okay go ahead let's hear what he has to say okay so the elevator since it's been installed has been kind of a lemon way back from when Melissa Byron was still here um the problem is is boards keep going
out there were some new boards that they just replaced and those boards are already bad and the lead times on these boards are months um the last time we had to wait I don't even know how it was it was months it was the better part of a year um those Tyson Crup components no
matter what elevator company you ask it's the same lead times they're just they're hard to get components are always going bad um so Schindler Elevator has given us a proposal to replace all of the components that make the elevator function with Schindler's
technology so Schindler has these components more readily available we wouldn't have the same lead times that it would take for Tyson Crup um they have a contract to maintain all of the rest of the elevators throughout the city all of the other elevators
throughout the city are Schindler Corp elevators we have close to zero problems except for when hurricanes happen with their elevators um this was just kind of a no-brainer solution to repair the elevator and keep it
working yeah well my my concern is anytime you change components from one vendor to another vendor you for lack of better words you have unforeseen sight conditions you know oh this doesn't fit the way that one fit
this one's bigger you know and then are we covered for change orders that they unforeseen things that this Schindler company might come up with that says "Oh this isn't going to work the way we thought we were going to be able to retrofit it by removing their components
putting our components in." Um they've come out and done thorough evalu multiple thorough evaluations on it they don't believe that they will run into any issues um are they liable financially for those issues that they run into we can work that through the
contract i would request that that be part of the contract for if we make a motion to approve go ahead all right we got to uh Tim would like to say something yeah so why are these boards going out is it water intrusion no no we
fixed all the water intrusion issues everything has been done on the last boards they literally went out within like a week of installing now we're having programming issues with things like yeah it's it's a chronic issue with Tyson Crup components i don't know what the issues are but they just keep going
bad so don't buy their stuff but we had we had a company called TMCO come up they water tested the parking the third level above where the elevator equipment room is there's no more water intrusion it's done we even rerouted some of how the electrical conduit's coming in so
there's no condensation issues from it being cold inside that room and warm outside so there's it's okay did I see you wanted to say something i'm just I have the same concern to Skip as we start getting into mismatched suppliers and they're going to start pointing the finger and then
Tyson's not going to recognize Schindler and then we wind up buying a whole new elevator well no so that wouldn't happen there's no recognizing anything everything that makes that elevator function is getting ripped out the only thing that's staying is the cab
it's I mean so there's there's no communication issues that could occur between different components and they but you know just simple things like there's already conduits supplying power and other things up and
down that tower yeah and if they decide they need a bigger conduit I want that to be on them that's That's fair we can work that through the contract i want it to be on them i don't want them tie wrapping wires to another conduit just cuz they don't want to put in a conduit
no that wouldn't happen no okay well I'd just like to I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve as long as the city's not liable for unseen site conditions and any potential mismatches between the
the two companies components and look for a second we already have a motion in place we have a discussion in place we have a motion to discuss and it was seconded okay then uh so we vote on that motion to discuss which we've already discussed
so now I'd like to make another motion we got to vote on it we got to vote on a discussion i thought once we discuss we discuss well that's that's the problem with making a motion to discuss because it's intuitive that if you make a motion that you're going to discuss but once
you make a motion and you have a second sorry about the specifics in Robert's rules but once you have a you can't have two motions at the same time correct yes and you probably just call for the I think since I can surpass Robert's rules
I'm just going to say we discussed it and we can make a new motion i don't think we need to go through the weeds on this okay okay so I stand by my motion did you catch it okay we got a motion look for a second
second we got a motion in a second uh I just want to say I agree with you um coming from a world of you know fixing and engineering on the mechanical side um there's a lot of times when you leave the mechanics you leave the mechanics of
it and you change the brains of it and it all works and and it something like this we've tried and tried and tried it's time to fix it the the residents need it the the people with wheelchair
you know needs needs it um and and honestly we can't afford to to wait we might even lose the CRA funding so we need to get on board with this so I think we would all be wise to to make this go forward so all in favor oh
actually sorry public comment okay all in favor oh there's there's comment Janet okay all opposed motion passes 5 all right
um we we are going to to finalize the CRA meeting and we're going to start re reconvene our commission meeting consent agenda okay this is the consent agenda approve scheduling a budget
workshop workshop session for June 17 2025 at 6 p.m and August 19 2025 at 6 p.m staff Representative Hannah Jun Juman finance director Devon Tally deputy finance director recommendation approved
move to approve the consent agenda as read second all in favor i all opposed motion passes 50 next okay this um next is unfinished business item one adopt resolution
2025-03 a resolution of the city commission of the city of Cocoa Beach Florida providing legislative findings amending resolution number 2025-01 that set vacation rental fees and fines and false advertising fines by
providing a 30-day reduced fee time period for the payment of vacation registration fees and late fees providing that all provisions of resolution number 2025-01 shall remain effective except as temporarily revised by this resolution
and providing for severability and an effective date and ending date staff representative city commission recommendation approved move to approve K1 is read second got a motion and a
second uh just a clarification um this is just for the for the reduced fees for the 30-day period are we also going to discuss um potentially changing the actual fees or lowering them or this
is just for that the motion's as read so it's just the grace period no yeah the resolution is just for the grace period but that can be brought up at the end of the meeting okay i can be brought up whenever you want you're the chair
okay all right any any public comment on this we've got uh like I said get a public uh comment card in just a quick question before I start katie was was this in reference to this or was this in reference to the next one uh next one
okay jim vad do I have to say who I am jim Vadic 110 Melbourne Avenue Indy Landic Florida 32903 um the the thing that you guys are talking about that
is I I missed the last meeting that was you guys are adjusting the timeline for a late like if you this is we're going to give you 30 days to to to get in line before the fees jump up before the fees jump up so we want to give you a reduced
fee of $500 to to register compared to the new registered it's not If you don't have to register it doesn't yeah so nothing to do with the renewal fees the what fees the renewal fee the yearly No uh I don't think the renewal fees had
anything to do with it it was just for It's just for getting to make sure that people are getting into compliance and not so get in before the $2,500 um can I say something a little off uh you got three minutes okay um is it now that you guys are going you're going to go for
registration for everybody in town that's well that wants to try to be legal um instead of going that we like the 2500 and the 1500 for the people that are legit that's like three and 400% higher than the rest of the state or the highest in the state is it possible now
that you're going to be gathering the money from the 1500 plus people that you could maybe consider that renewal fee not $1,500 and more in line with the rest of the state it's it's not a back and forth discussion that's not on that's not what this is about well that's what I was
asking for that's what I was asking about before so I I will probably bring that up later okay okay just as a a matter of fact a resolution can be changed at the next
meeting and I've said this before and we have to account for the cost to the city to enforce short-term rental program and if our costs come in less than the
money that's coming in from the renewal fees and registration fees and our recourse would be to pass the resolution to lower the fees yeah you did say that when you guys the meeting for the raising but you als Yeah
you said you could do it that quickly um but do you feel that you're compared to the rest of the state you're fair to the businesses running here i don't want to get in a back and forth right now but I I do appreciate it and I'll address the stuff later thank you you're welcome all
right um thank you Jim uh Lyn McDonald lyn McDonald um hello mayor and city leaders i'm Lee McDonald from 304 Dorset Drive up in the Venetian Way neighborhood and um somewhat related uh in addition to the code changes related to the
increased fees and to regulation be beyond the RS1 um uh code that is being addressed tonight i'm here to urge the city council to implement a cap on short-term rentals uh Airbnbs in Cocoa Beach to protect our residents our
community character our safety and our overall livability um may I proceed with that you may talk you have three minutes okay all right and the problem that I see is unregulated growth of short-term rentals uh short-term rentals are quickly growing in residential
neighborhoods just as a quick example at the end of our street on on Dorset Drive up in Venetian Way out of eight houses that are consecutively next to each other four of those are short-term rentals that's 50% of our you know the end of our street that are short-term
rentals um just in the few years that we have lived in Cocoa Beach and we plan on being here for the rest of our days uh that it we've seen it change quickly um these are owned by out of town investors out of state and for the one next door
to us out of country he's in Spain um we're seeing that the short-term rentals are affecting housing costs and hurting long-term residents they're being bought up by investors as business and that affects our our community and it affects our sense of neighborhood uh the short-term rentals also increase noise
traffic and public disturbances uh they also place a financial burden on residents short-term rentals increase calls to law enforcement to code enforcement to public services these are paid by taxpayer dollars uh since Cocoa Beach
receives um you know little in return from what I understand from the bed tax the financial burden falls on the residents since the bed tax does not all come back to Cocoa Beach and it's spread across the the county i believe this cap is necessary to protect the residential areas and strike a balance between
tourism and preserving a livable community um I also believe that this cap is necessary to decrease the strain on city infrastructure um as you know the town is already the city is already struggling as I see to um maintain under you know the heavy
cruise tourism just this week I've hardly left the house because of issues on A1A couple near misses um but decided to travel for here tonight um so my proposed solution to this I'm proposing the city implement a cap uh in residential neighborhoods and that we
would initiate this by conducting research initially to understand what the appropriate limits are and then quickly implement and a cap um I'm urging the city council on this with new leaders like Brian Palmer in place who is bringing his knowledge from Cape Canaveral to first understand the
short-term rental situation uh and then seek you know greater enforcement i think this is the right time to address a cap um I'm willing to collaborate and support in any way to the city and I thank you for your time thank you um just for the future when we take
public or comment on the items we'll try to keep it directed towards what we've are actually discussing at that time thank you okay you may sit down okay thanks um and I just want to just reiterate uh with our our city attorney
um we're not able to to impose a cap or or anything like that i wish we could it's it's not permitted under Florida law okay so the legislature needs to be asked about as much as we would love to do that uh legally we're not allowed to but I appreciate your
comment all right uh where were we okay um so that concludes public comment any any um commission comment yeah so are we going to set a date is that Are we setting a date for this it's
in there um it has a an effective date would be it would have to it would start today if we pass if we pass if we pass it and it would be 30 days going forward wait mhm
but if K2 does not pass this grace period would still apply to RS1 so it's valid today if it passes no K2 includes the residential areas if K2 fails K1 still applies to RS1 is what I'm saying
so it's the exemption wouldn't wouldn't go because the resolution says upon adoption of second reading of the ordinance is when it goes into effect can you can you
uh agree with that Becky or Okay hold on sorry [Music] it was only two weeks ago that I read it okay 20251 okay it goes into effect upon the final
adoption of 1695 which is the next one on the agenda so it would start tomorrow um assuming that 1695 passes okay now are we able to add an amendment
that it also applies to the RS1 if if we could put um we could change the effective date this is a resolution so you can change it on the fly is that something that you guys want to do what do you want what's the purpose basically
just make it fair for everybody to to be able to get in on this before we raised the rates everything since we we we took back one or two 30 day we agreed to or got voted on last meeting for a 30-day grace
period so the 30-day grace period for the entire city would start tomorrow if if the ordinance passes on second reading i I think what's being requested is if you don't pass Yes the next thing on the agenda
which is the ordinance then it go into effect at all you It wouldn't go into effect but if if you wanted it to go into effect just in the RS1 we can change it on the fly i got something to say first before we go on at our last
meeting I recall we rescended the new fees do you recall no they were already approved not they were approved and we rescended them and gave and we gave we did because there were two people that paid $2,500 and we gave we're we were
you asked the city to give them their money back back to the $500 so basically $2,000 so why would how could that happen if we didn't rescend those fees or start that grace period two weeks ago now we the and I I still remember this
right is that when I asked that question and Mr dicki came up and said there were two people that had paid okay cuz I was worried about there being a whole bunch of them that paid the $2,500 and now we're going to get into a mess of having to pay them back because
the grace period doesn't start till tomorrow should this go through as written tonight so the resolution was always supposed to start the grace period tomorrow we just hadn't passed the
resolution and we were talking about the repercussions of that resolution on people that had already paid their $2,500 okay so I understand that this resolution is for anyone whether they're RS1
or anything going forward tomorrow so it should have nothing to do with this other it's ordinance the way but the way the resolution's written it says it does then we we we need to amend it then my
opinion well I don't see you can't rely on another you know the next vote to go a particular way then it messes everything up well it doesn't it's not going to apply at all if the second reading in this one but just as mayor if you look
line item uh or item M three i don't I don't have it in front of me yet it says we're going to get to that and it says discuss potential changes to
vacation rental ordinances to provide more penalties and consequences for bad actor vacation rentals if we go ahead and pass the the ordinance on the second reading then we still have this item to
discuss any potential changes but the second reading of this one uh puts it into effect for the entire city and passes the resolution on the fees and that goes into law and the grace period starts tomorrow okay okay yep and that's
that's the way I see the next couple of votes going down and then we can make a we can talk about it again when we get to M3 okay so let's get these people a little grace period here all in favor i
I All opposed motion passes 50 um Becky like you said I don't know about bringing forward i would like to discuss our rates before going forward with the next we just passed the rates no period the grace period the grace period the
resolution included the rate that's what I just asked no okay well then I would like to Well you can do that under M3 i want to uh M3act that's dash one this was Dash three
this this will potentially uh decide how I vote for the next the next one um I feel like the the fees are I the the rates the registration I feel like is is too high when we go through what
are we discussing right now i think it'll be fine i want to discuss the fees i want to discuss the fees before we It's not on the agenda let's follow the agenda mayor well Becky said I could bring it up any time so I'm not sure how how to do this this is new is
new territory to me he is he is chair if he thinks it's related to something here and apparently it is he's saying that it's would make a difference in how he would vote on the next item why wouldn't we introduce the next item see if it gets how if we introduce let's introduce
the next under his discussion discuss his his comments all right let's that's I think that's the we can talk about the more proper way of doing figure out how to do it you guys help me okay figure it out all right so um unfinished business item two adopt ordinance number 1695 on
second reading public hearing and adoption an ordinance of the city of Koka Beach Florida amending chapter 26.5 vacation rentals of the code of ordinances of the city of Koka Beach providing that the regulation of vacation rentals shall be citywide
rather than just in the RS1 zoning district making related changes in the code and providing for conflicts codification severability in an effective state staff Representative Wayne Kerino city manager recommendation adopt move to approve as read second got
a motion in a second we've got some public comment on this um Zack Hayden baden hayden dur derek durk
uh good evening uh my name is Eric Haden uh 106 La Rivier i was actually born and raised in Cocoa Beach my parents both met while my grandparents were snowbirds and renters over at Harbor Isles my dad worked at United Space Alliance and my mom worked at Premier Cruise Lines the
old big red boat i grew up on I grew up right down the street for Mayor Cape and Pastor Keith i attended our Saviors and I still volunteer at the fall festival i'm a proud Cocoa Beach Minuteman graduate my first job was at the Wakula Suites and I still work in hospitality
i'm an advocate for responsible regulation for short-term rentals i bought my first house in 2024 because of my career in vacation rentals the short-term rental industry allows me to work live and build roots in this community overzealous regulation would
impact my ability to do this let's not punish the operators for doing the right thing and focus on the bad actors the magnitude of the proposed fees is significant reactionary and will be difficult to enforce this hike would disproportionately burden responsible homeowners who are trying to comply with
the law and committed to working with the city in good faith cocoa Beach is a tourist destination visitors staying in these rentals spend considerable money in the community they shop locally they go to Friday Fest they eat out they book kayak tours they rent beach equipment
they provide a critical boost to our neighborhood businesses beyond that short-term rentals create and sustain jobs like myself local cleaners handymen landscapers contractors and professional companies like Cocoa Beach Plumbing
Bvard Pool Care Deadbug Dave Cabbron AC they're all called upon to maintain these condos and houses these are real people and real businesses whose livelihoods are strengthened by short-term rentals finally the taxes generated by short-term rental activity benefit our
city directly property management companies abiding by the rules they diligently submit the appropriate tax revenues by making short-term rentals increasingly expensive to register we risk driving compliance underground this is exactly what the city is trying to
avoid we lose both the oversight and the tax benefits that come from transparent law-abiding operators the proposed fees are as from Airbnb and VBO reports we have estimated the number of rentals in Cocoa Beach at
around 2,000 the new fees at left at $2,500 would be $5 million annually for the city i know this is to staff up and increase enforcement but 5 million a year seems unfair to the homeowners that are in our town instead I urge you to
consider a more measured approach thank you thank you sir [Music] jim Vadus okay thank
you kat Katie Costa hi um my name's Katia Costa um thank you for the opportunity to speak again today at the last commission meeting I raised concerns about the short-term rental registration process and suggested that all property owners listed on the deed
provide signatures and valid IDs before moving forward i understand at the time you needed a little bit more time to look into what I was talking about and I was hoping maybe that there would be an update today what I brought up last time from anybody i think it was I think yeah
public comment okay well then I'll continue if there are no updates um if there are no updates or plans to amend the process but instead intention is to work with the current registration system I'd like to offer some suggestions to strengthen it and address some of the invulnerabilities I've identified to highlight my concern my
husband purchased our home 24 years ago long before we met fresh out of college so I'm not listed on the deed i have no legal authority or ownership over the property despite this I was able to go through the entire short-term rental registration process without any obstacles i was never asked to provide proof of ownership nor was I required to
obtain consent from the legal owner of the property i was able to get all the information I needed to register from the city of Cocoa Beach website directly after reviewing the registration process I've identified two specific areas where I believe it is necessary to protect the integrity of the registration process
those are in step two and step five step two of the process believe it should be updated to require all legal property owners listed on the deed not just one to be included additionally applicants should be required to upload photo IDs and provide electronic signatures for all listed owners strengthening the
verification and protecting against unauthorized registrations and step five again the step requests owner information but only provides space for a single owner consistency is key and this section should be updated to accommodate multiple owners these updates would not be unfamiliar um
for a practice for city of Cocoa Beach the agent authorization form already provides space for multiple property owners to sign and requires not notoriization applying a similar approach to short-term rental registrations by allowing and encouraging all owners listed on the deed to be included would promote
consistency and strengthen the integrity of the registration process um these actions um provide safe critical critical safeguards that protect property owners strengthen city oversight and reduce the risk of costly disputes for the city i was unable to
find what happens after the registration is submitted would anyone be able to share the next steps after registration do they require identifying all liable parties and the deed there was no there's no followup i I will jump in here this has been addressed
okay would you mind you wrote that down would you mind giving that to Karen for color who's Karen cuz I I can remember a lot of stuff yeah I gave the last one can't remember all that and where can I find
that it was addressed or you go thank you you I think it would be good you guys can deal with her or what's that i think it would be good to have him come up and Yeah Dave come on up come on up Dave thank you Mr mayor uh good evening
members of the commission and the public hello um yes great ideas great concepts we're going to hook up with her ASAP uh we want to sit down with her and talk about exactly what her experience has been so if needed we can incorporate
some of that into our process i will say that we have recently required owner affidavit notorized owner affidavit to be submitted as part of the rental uh the vacation rental process so that loophole if you want to refer to it as a loophole has been fixed um and I'd love
to sit down with the lady I'm sorry Katie katie and um we'll uh we'll we'll get that addressed so thank you thank you yeah all right that concludes public comment uh yeah go ahead
Janice sorry it's all right um good evening Janice Scott Coco Beach one of the things that has not been mentioned in this and I noticed in other areas that there is a difference in the fees
charged to businesses versus individuals the size of the business and so forth i don't know uh the legislature when they mandated that you have vacation rentals and single family if they had prohibitions that maybe the
attorney knows about that would preclude charging corporate ownership of vacation rentals a different fee from individuals they usually cost more to manage because it's difficult to get in touch with
whoever is managing whereas if they're individual or local they're probably a little more responsive and I didn't know if that had to do with J1 since you wanted to know the result of J2 before you voted here thank you thank you appreciate that
uh do you know any the state law is silent on that it does not address um so we could it wouldn't prohibit it and it wouldn't you know it doesn't specifically allow it i think we could do it either way okay you know
corporation what justifies corporation you you get a BTR you can put a fictitious name in does that make you a corporation yeah corporation can use not really if you have it in a family trust and the trustee lives in Illinois are
they it is it is rare that somebody has a vacation rental and they own it personally for liability purposes that's e even if it's the only thing they own they typically put it in an LLC because for liability purposes otherwise they
could lose everything they own gotcha and the other thing is almost made it sound like the way the process was working before if I signed a two-year lease on a home I could go into the city of Koko
Beach a week later and apply to be a vacation rental and rent it out as a vacation rental and I don't even own it i just have a lease for two years and it would depend upon your lease to know whether you'd be allowed to do that probably you wouldn't be allowed to do
that but the it it's my understanding I did talk with them after the last meeting and it's I told them that they needed to have an owner's affidavit and have all the um actually record owners of the property sign that affidavit so
that you know nothing can slip through the cracks there okay so how do another issue um because it brought to my attention um something else that another resident told me a couple days ago um about these rentals
and the registration uh and annual fees costing significantly more than a business or restaurant you know is that you know is that right that they're paying $1,000 for for or for or for or $1,500 for vacation rental and
then a restaurant's paying you know a third or a quarter of that they are right so I just want to bring that up bring that up into discussion so that we can um justify those numbers you've got a mom and pop forplex on on
uh on uh Cottage Row right next door you got a you got a bar that that has 100 times the the traffic that that the Airbnb has that that bar pays $200 for their you know registration fee
whatever and the Airbnb pays 10,000 for a year i I just to the right pay more taxes too and pin i think that's why we get to Yeah i think you guys are hitting the nail on the head on a on and I don't think there's any disagreement on the
need for fairness right and fairness is is rarely achieved by a one-sizefits-all approach right we we're talking about expanding from RS1 that generally has about the same size uniform across the city and we're going to propose applying
the same rental fees to a one-bedroom to uh as you mentioned small cottages and things like that in that are in multiuse or in business area the approach of applying the same fees I think gets us in into potentially
trouble in two areas one you're talking about application and costs and effort that are just disproportionate for significantly smaller location single bedroom that kind of thing if we expand this to citywide the other concern I have is if we are applying and and Commissioner
Williams mentioned this Commissioner Huterson uh I think at the last meeting if we apply this in locations that have HOAs that already are self-regulating that have significantly lower burden to the city in terms of application of the
oversight of these these businesses we get ourselves into where we're applying the fees that we still don't totally understand and that we're basing on estimates as we're trying to enforce in the RS1 we potentially are applying them in the total city area in
a way that is going to bite us right because we have to apply only what we're spending i don't think we can fairly or carefully apply this to total city and I would urge us to not pass this beyond RS1 until we know a lot more about it so
just real quick too uh on Skip's point last time uh I confirmed with the city that this will not uh affect the transit rental or the transient buildings um that are that are condos we do have transit condos that are basically
personal owned hotels um so this will not affect those people that and I don't know the or I would list out all the different condo associations that do that but this does not affect that which I think is fair considering they were grandfathered in commissioner Jackson
I'd urge you to support this to voting in favor of the second reading of this ordinance and then when we get to M3 we can discuss uh potential future changes that may address some of the
issues you brought up but if we if we make a substantial change to this now we're just lack of a better term kicking the can down the road and not giving anybody any protection and I I think we absolutely should kick the can down the road on making this a citywide
application i I feel like if you're if you're running an Airbnb you're running an Airbnb and it's it's only fair that we apply everything equally to the residents but our city burden and the work we've got to do has got to be
proportionate let him talk you can vote against it we'll discuss it under M3 you You have anything else you want no i appreciate it sorry about that and we're all I concur with this i mean I've talked with the city and the city um can handle um from from their perspective um
I asked that question and they can handle a full white city um ordinance on uh short-term rentals oh it um sorry my my concern is not that the city can't perform it's that the city will not need
to perform at the same level of what they what it's required to do in an RS1 than an HOA covered single-bedroom condo and that to uniformly apply these fees to a five-bedroom house and a one-bedroom
condo that that's disproportionate and unfair and if we're pursuing fair application to all of the businesses in the city then uniformly applying this and extending it out to all of the city we're doing it in an unfair manner so I don't think we need to expend it extend
it out to the city until we have a better practice and to your point that's why I wanted to discuss rates before we discussed voting on this because I don't think it's fair for a singlebedroom condo to pay the same as a five- bedroomedroom house which is why I don't
think we can apply it if the rates are going to be 2500 again we go to M3 to but it's kind of like you're going to vote on right you're going to apply it to the whole city and then you don't have a way to guarantee that you're not I don't think it could be adjusted in M3
okay there's a way to do it I don't think this makes sense I'm going to go along with this because I'm going to try to adjust it on M3 uh all in favor I all opposed nay No be a roll call no
commissioner Jackson nay commissioner Evson nay commissioner Tumulti yes vice Mayor Williams yes mayor yes next [Applause]
she never got this can we have five we'll do a bathroom break uh let's take a fiveminute recess let's call this meeting back to order all right we've got uh some a general public comment um
that's shouldn't be on there by there yeah I like the German weird [Music] all right never mind we'll do that at the end it was in out of out of order here
um M1 M1 okay this is uh new business item one request to accept the annual audit and annual comprehensive financial report for fiscal year 2024 staff Representative Hannah Juman um finance
director Devon Tally Deputy Finance Director recommendation approved move to accept second got a motion in a second any public uh Can they make a little presentation yes yes and any uh public
comment before you do the presentation okay good go ahead you're good chris um I'm elated to share tonight that we have concluded our annual um audit for fiscal year 2024 we have concluded our audit with no findings and um it was brought
to my attention earlier today that this is the first time in the last 5 years where it's been brought to the commission in March by the deadline um today I have with us Garrett he's from our auditing firm Malden Jenkins he has put together a brief
presentation given an overview of the audit that was um completed and I just wanted to drink that's a great accomplishment and no findings and this early because there's always been here i have a print out of the slides too
that I gave earlier that Garrett's going to be presenting good evening members of the commission i'm trying to be as brief as possible um so just to begin I'm Garrett Marlo i'm a senior manager with Molden and Jenkins and uh just to kind of do a brief overview this is going to kind of be a summary of our required
communications governance which is the auditor's discussion analysis which Hannah has in both paper and digital if you would like to read at your own leisure and so just to kind of start we'll begin with going through kind of who who your new auditors are since this was a first year audit um MJ was founded in
1918 and we're a large regional audit organization primarily throughout the southeast our main office is in Bradenon but I kind of consider myself a quasi local in Cocoa Beach i'm from Merit Island um we provide professional services to over 725 governments in the southeast including 175 like the city
that will receive the GFOA certificate of achievement for excellence in financial reporting which since we beat the 331 deadline the city will be applying for again next year as well and we're also considered to be one of the top 20 firms in terms of auditing single audits which is your grant revenue expenditures and the city did have two
single audits both one federal and one state in FY24 and then we do offer free quarterly CPE so if any members of the finance team or the commission would like we can definitely reach out and we'll get you guys registered for the CP we have quarterly and then here's just kind of a brief summary just kind of a little
visual about M&J um just kind of showing the amount of hours and the single odds that we do put in as a firm to kind of show that you we we are experienced in what we do and continue to break down the main parts of the ACTER
um it's our responsibility under the auditing standards generally accepted in the US we consider the internal control structure for the purpose of expressing our opinion you've contracted with our firm to appine on the financial statements and our audit was performed in accordance with GAS which is
government auditing standards and our objective is to provide reasonable not absolute assurance that the basic financial statements are free of material misstatement and um these basic financial statements are at the end of the day the responsibility of city's management and then our report on these
financials um we did issue an unmodified which is a clean opinion and this is the highest opinion that we can render in regards to financial statements and they are presented fairly in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the US and our responsibility does not extend beyond the financials contained in the
report and then moving on to the compliance reports and the financial report does contain a report on our tests of the city's internal controls and compliance with laws regulations and the report is not um intended to provide an opinion on the internal controls um this report and the procedures performed
are required by government auditing standards And as Hannah mentioned there were no findings in the current year and then for the single audit the financial reporting package does contain a report on our tests of the city's internal controls and compliance with uniform guidance and rules of the auditor
general in relation to the single audit testing we performed this year and the report is not intended to provide an opinion on the internal controls related to the single audits and this report in the procedures performed for the single audit testing is required by government auditing standards and the uniform
guidance and there were also no findings related to the single audit grant testing in FY24 as well to elaborate on some of our required communications management's responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies and the significant accounting policies are
described in note one of the financial statements and then u the current year there were no new standards implemented that would have changed the face or um any of the notes throughout the financial statements and we have issued in the ADNA there are a few that will uh
impact the city in coming years but for kind of F23 F24 it should look similar and then accounting estimates are an integral part of the aer and they are prepared by management and um there were no issues with management throughout the estimate process we
tested that everything was good and then we have received full cooperation from the city's management and staff Hannah Dev and the finance team were fantastic um getting us uh everything we needed to perform our audit and complete these financial statements on time and there were no disagreements with management on accounting issues or other financial
reporting matters and then we did request request and receive written representations from management and then to the best of our knowledge management has not consulted with or obtained from other independent counts this year nor we face any issues um requiring outside consultation and
there were no significant issues um discussed with management all audit adjustments have been posted and then the footnote disclosures the financial statements are also an integral part of the acter and used by management to include information in the statements and then the overall neutrality
consistency and clarity of disclosures were considered throughout our audit process our responsibility for the other information in the documents included in the city's ACTER and our report thereon don't extend beyond what's been identified in the report and if you
intend to publish or otherwise reproduce the acter or make reference um just let us know and then we'll provide a copy of the final acter as well and then in accordance with the ASPA professional standards Waldo Jenkins is an independent of the city of Cocoa Beach and then finally just kind of
brief discussions what we mentioned earlier everything for the other information is also included in the DNA which you would like to read at your leisure and then anybody has any questions thank you appreciate it i also thank you i also just wanted to
express gratitude towards my finance team um none of this could be possible without them with Devon with Ander who's joining us tonight and with the others in my team um I'm so proud to lead such a competent team of people and um excited to be a part of the finance department here with the city thank you
[Applause] awesome all right all in favor i I All opposed motion passes 50 number two
okay um new business item two request to approve ordinance number 1696 on first reading an ordinance of the city of Koka Beach Florida amending section 2-62 self storage facility of article 7 conditional uses and standards for
operations in all zoning districts of chapter 2 zoning districts of the land development code of the city of Koka Beach providing additional criteria for the approval of a special exception for a self storage facility and providing ing for conflicts codification
severability and an effective date staff representative Corey Hall planner 2 recommendation approved move to approve as read second motion in a second any public comment any commission comment i'll just say that uh I think
that this guy he had been trying to rent this facility under what he could it it is just outside of the of it being an area that he could use it for other things i think this is a great opportunity for him to try to recoup uh
some of his money so I'm in favor of it all in favor all opposed motion passes 5 uh number three okay item three discuss potential changes to the vacation rental ordinance to provide more penalties and
consequences for bad actor vacation rentals this was added March 19th 2025 okay [Applause] and this this was something that that I
prepared and y'all can do with it as you like um but I heard so much from just the public and I get copied on emails that come to the the city commission with a lot of people wanting there are a
lot of real really bad actors from what I understand in the vacation rental business um that make neighborhoods very unlivable and so I I really looked around the um the state of
Florida to see how other cities are handling these sorts of things and I analyzed our ordinance and I came up with things which would not at all hurt or hinder any vacation rental that's
doing things right but would make um life very very difficult for the bad actor vacation rentals so I I put it down in an ordinance and you can do with it as you please
okay um I'm fully in support of finding the bad actors to the fullest extent um I'm I'm in favor of revoking you know permission if if if applicable if allowed
um now I'd like to talk about the fees as far as the registration um you were saying before that uh in Anamarie they have different tiers of registration fees um this is something I just kind of want to propose um to try to make it
fair for all um considering a condo um with one one bedroom is obviously not going to create the same revenue as a house on the river with five bedrooms um I'm going to I'm going to say I
understand so we're basically we're raising our rates 500% um from the registration and and the renewal um I I would like to propose Okay go with your 500%
um uh you know raise but maybe do a tiered a tiered um rate as in leave leave the one bedrooms the same as it is currently um two bedrooms would be uh
another 100% on top of that three bedrooms would be another 100% on top of that or up all the way up to five 100% or 100 well whatever comes up to so they're the 2500 and the 1500 is a 500%
increase of of our our 400 400 400% so I'm saying make it a tiered we'll keep the the people just coming on with one bedrooms the same as what it was initially and then incrementally go up up to five bedrooms or more uh each each
bedroom adds an additional $500 whatever the whatever it comes out to I think they're shooting from the hip like this is dangerous there's Yeah yes the um so I I I'm hesitant to tie it to
bedrooms um right now the rule is you can only have a maximum of eight uh tenants occupants okay well you could have a onebedroom and still advertise for eight
people no not legally yeah you can no not legally it's two per room it's It's the code allows two people two people per bedroom plus two people the way it's written so for on a onebedroom
you could have four people on a twobedroom you can have six people on a threebedroom for you're saying if somebody had a a twobedroom and they had uh double stack bunk beds
two of them in each bedroom which would be four people and four people in the other bedroom and that would be illegal that'd be illegal we already have that that's that's So you can have a bunk bed in your kids' room at your house right now god sure you can have as many beds
as you want but you're not allowed to put more than what you're allowed to under it It sounds really difficult to enforce you just when you registered you got your bedroom it goes under this category this category or that category and and
it and it it is possible to enforce this because of the third party um people the companies that scrape the records and they can say they're advertising for 10 people well 10 people
are not allowed in anything here or they know that it for this address they're advertising for eight they're only licensed for six so they can catch it and it is possible it's done other places then I guess what I would like to say
is if you're one bedroom and you're advertising for four legal because it's two people per bedroom and you could have double couch double couch an efficiency okay would
only be allowed to have two people okay and so I would think we would if we were going to make any changes to the to the rates that it should be based on the occupant number and not the number of bedrooms i'm okay with that i'm okay
with that potential occupancy so they when they register if I'm not mistaken they register as a um as a onebedroom a two-bedroom or threeb or an efficiency or an efficiency right so so we we would have a fee structure of just four levels
no it could be efficiency one bedroom could only be two 2 4 6 and 8 2 468 so why do we assume that the occupancy rate is the thing that's driving the city's costs on what basis did you guys read this this is uh this
is for $2.3 million to to run this program we're we're going to be buying three vehicles we're going to be employing two more additional
officers two additional parking enforcement another additional uh code enforcement uh we're including beach rangers on here fire i I feel like I'm afraid I I I really don't want to over
over bring in the income and and get ourselves into a thing where we're going to be obligated to to add fire what we're exposing ourselves to by making up how we're going to charge for this instead of doing an analysis on it and basically see why we voted no i agree with short-term law enforcement we're
just totally making up numbers so we're going to do analysis by paralysis that's what's going to happen and we're never going to get anything done we're going to kick keep kicking the can down the road this is a very good idea what what you brought up was it's not um uh equitable or equal for a one-bedroom to
be charged the same as a three-bedroom which this would cover if we had three or excuse me four different uh registration rates based on how the occupancy potential occupancy of a um a short-term rental i disagree with
staying at 2500 i think we can go to 1,500 initial registration um and $1,000 for for the annual i want to bring something else up that that wasn't um addressed and that are the uh the the safety the fire inspection and
the building department fees those are separate fees from registration at this point right i suggest that they get wrapped in to the registration fee both initial registration and annual registration fee that that those don't
those would only exist if um on a separate individual basis they had to come out not for not for registration um so we keep it at that um I'm going to s say that um
the registration fee go from a a single unit twoerson occupancy $1,000 initial registration 1,200 for four,400 for six
and 1,600 for eight so it's a $200 increment for each one for the initial registration and the annual registration stay the same at $1,000 going forward thousand across the board annually annual registration yes for anybody
after that's annual registration after the first year the initial registration needs to be a little higher because you got Yeah things going on okay and then once they're set in place um we drop it um but roll in the fire you're saying the fire and building department fees
should be wrapped into the registration fee both initial and annual for the thousand yes okay I can go additionally there's something else I want to want to throw in here as well um while we're putting all these numbers together and
stay with me here um we have a responsible party um fee that we're charging $250 to transfer the um uh the person who or the site manager whoever is responsible for that property i don't know if Mr dicki
could come up um and and answer this for me but if can I talk to Mr dick um right now do we only have one person Like for an a short-term rental do we
have one person that is the call like the responsible party yeah like a point of contact a dedicated staff person yeah uh no no one one person from that establish from that um short-term rental like the owner of the property we don't
have a we don't have a single staff person to Okay i'm I'm sorry um he's talking about the I'm talking about I'm talking about an owner of a property and you we've got to go there we've got an issue with them we've got to call them do we have a list do we have a just one
person or do we have multiple people on that list it depends on the ownership okay um gener our our ordinance does require that if a uh uh if it's operated by a property management company that a representative of that property management company is listed in the
registration so we have a local point of contact it really just depends on the ownership and how that particular owner would like to would like to have it set up that's all so if a particular so if an owner my my point is this if an you know typically it's going to be the owner of the property in a lot of cases
or or in some cases here's my here's my hypothetical is that it's this owner and they go they traveling and they can't be contacted initially can they set it up to where they have three different people to call
or can call you say call the city say hey we're to this person without paying a $250 transfer fee to put a different you know change it over i don't know if that's something that they could do initially just throwing it out there
yeah i mean I suppose we could add that in case in case you can't get a hold of me here's a a person in mystead generally those folks who do a lot of traveling have property management companies or out of town owners which is roughly twothirds of the of the units are owned by out of out of city out of
state folks and they're most of them are are operated by property management companies a lot property management company yes they should be that that's fine yes okay so just I want to just clarify too what you guys voted no on was got a
comment i mean I I just want to collect actuals you guys are speaking hypothetical numbers which I agree with i think there could be some smarts to the structure but that's part of why I wanted to collect the actuals of what are the enforcement calls me not going to because I I'm with Richardson i don't to do it i got that but we've raised the
fees on RS1's so I think we need to get data to analyze before we scale this up we're just shooting from the hips because now these fee structures you're just throwing out how does that affect the cost side of it can they not staff to
enforce it the city said they need to hire that staff to enforce it you guys both voted to raise it to 2500 for RS1 commission based on the analysis done by the city because RS1 I think did you did you study this analysis absolutely and you think you think it's
No I don't I don't think it's reasonable but it's what the city put together i'm not going off this cuz I don't think it's reasonable that's that's what I'm saying i'd like to correct what I was cited as saying i did not say that it would be unfair to apply it to an RS1 or a onebedroom versus the threebedroom i
said that the burden to the city has got to be different it just doesn't make sense from a oneb to threeb so I was not advocating that fairness is based on occupancy so just to clarify that but my point is exactly what Commissioner Hutcherson is saying that if we're advocating for doing this and doing this
quickly and we do it poorly then this is going to get taken down right so we're not helping the city by moving quickly and shooting from the hip it's just not you guys if we if we leave this and we I mean you guys realize that now that all
the people that we voted for the condos are now going to be paying this new rate which is exactly why I said a bad approach if we bring it down and we have to adjust it next year and bring it up or down we can but it's a little bit more realistic this way than it is just
charging everybody 25 bucks my another comment I have is and there's probably people here or people listening that live in condominiums right and uh so I owned a condominium and uh it
was a large one-bedroom condominium and there was in the same complex there was two bedroomedroom and threebedroom condominiums and we all paid the same condo fee you know I know they say "Well we're
just taking care of the outside and the structure and all that," but that that seemed inequitable to me but you know I wasn't going to fight the condo association to come up some kind of tiered approach but I I agree with the tiered approach we would have to be tied
to advertised occupancy and then if we're going to do that we have to have some way to enforce it cuz somebody might have a twobedroom wants to advertise for four mhm and maybe they only do have four but what
about the time when those four bring two more people with them and they got the key code and they just go in and now there's six or eight if I'm pushing back on the city and I'm listening to this discussion this is so easy to shoot down is we're we're not using the information
and the basis that the city used to estimate the rates in the first place i would advocate at very least if we're going to do tiered leave the non RS1 at the original rates if you're going to apply the original rates collect the data right and then move them up into
some type of structure that that Dave and the city manager recommend to us instead of overshooting we just it if this is what we believe the city's best guess is for RS1 and we know that the burden has logically got to be lighter
then let's not let's not shoot from the hip let's leave it at the original structure put RS1 at the new structure that we have data on and that we did calculations on and then come back and revisit the rate structure to apply it as they go through and collect data that would be my advocation at least
so I won't have money to hire people i I will not have mine i understand so we have experienced staff right now that have already done this in Cape Canaveral cape Canaveral is up to close
to 85 to 90% um registered Airbnbs they went citywide they didn't just do RS1 so we know I've talked to them and they can do it and they're they're ready to go they have the data on the nonRS1
they do do you know how many there are absolutely they do yeah can I before I answer that question I'd like to make a point very clear it's important point is that registration is one thing we can we can get 80 90%
registration there's a lot of other code requirements that have to be enforced other than registration and so yes I could probably have one staff person handle the registration side of it there's a whole other a number of other
ordinance requirements that have to be inputed and it take or enforce excuse me and that takes a lot of staff to do that so so two two different two different things okay so just and and I'm totally open to being wrong right but um what
commissioner is advocating is that you understand the difference in the cost of implementation for the city from the estimates we did for RS1 versus condos and multi-use versus the other various types that are now being incorporated
into our fee structure and you feel that uh you have a good understanding of what the cost to the city will be based on nonRS1 implementation yeah and I'm going to go back to the spreadsheet is what is what we're talking about here essentially what's the what's the
veracity of the spreadsheet and the process that was used was to reach out to the various department heads that would be touching this issue primarily fire police code enforcement um and it does touch all the departments to to varying degrees um and you can see
that's where that number came from is an estimate from those various department heads on what it's going to cost their respective department to enforce these codes citywide um and so I'm I'm personally concerned as we start talking about
ratcheting back these these fees um that um and if we do go citywide there there may be a pinch point um I'm not saying there's going to be but I'm saying there may be and uh um you know I don't want to well just issues to consider
question just to confirm that 2.3 is citywide enforcement not RS1 enforcement correct so that's that's the problem with changing the fee structure that is the knowledge that they think it requires to run it citywide if you start ratcheting with those fees what is the
impact of being able to enforce it and when you calculated these costs that was based on 300 300 that 2.3 is the number that we use citywide and we're it's roughly 8 to 900 units citywide right
but the the the fee that you're charging the 2500 and the and the 1500 was based off of two 300 uh people complying that was based on the citywide number of 8 to
9 oh I thought 16 based on the 900 we don't have the real number yeah it's it's it fluctuates daily honestly but it's for implementation across all the different types of properties that
we would be evaluating and and adjust for variation in the nature of burden to the city for an HOA condo versus a a single family resident yeah that that's that's staff's I don't want to say best guess that's our estimate on what it's going
to cost to address the 9 8 to 900 units citywide irregardless of one two three bedrooms whether they're in a condo association or and as as commissioner as commissioner Williams has said I mean this is uh this
is a dynamic process it's fluid and if if we find that we've under underestimated it or overestimated it we can certainly come back to the commission and um address And my concern is I'd rather underestimate it than overestimate it so that we don't get ourselves in trouble legally well we're
going to get ourselves in trouble because all the rest if we underestimate it then all the rest of the taxpayers that aren't Airbnbs are subsidizing the people that are doing business as as short-term rentals in the city of Chicago Beach so we this current rate
structure is underestimated if it's only 900 units that's 1.6 million in revenue and 2.3 million in cost it's already subsidized that's if you think that this is an inflated fund i mean but I I was I thought we'd heard
the number 1,600 units that's what I heard that's 900 units i thought I thought we said 168 just I'm not doing public math the 1500 recurring every year plus the two 175 inspection fees so every if everybody's 100% compliant it'll take in $1,800 per unit per year
if we multiply that by 900 units that's 1.6 million so that's $700,000 subsidized by the general fund if you hire two more police officers and you hire another you get three more vehicles and you include that the fire fees that
they're already paying for separate fire fees uh you don't don't forget they're paying their fire inspection fees okay and it's not just two police it's that plus 10% of the budget yeah so another six out of that that's if you
include all that which I thought we were at first I thought we're going to just start with a code enforcement officer an extra code enforcement officer that's exactly what the logic I use to vote for it is let's see what the real data is and build a a a tight basis of estimate
you want to go to public comment yeah let's go to public comment thank you Dave um we got um Ashley Thank you for the opportunity to speak so um my comments would have been more
appropriate under the uh K2 section so uh take that with it with what it you know I apologize thank you appreciate that thank you um so mayor and commission city staff thank you for the opportunity to speak uh my name is uh
Katherine Thunderberg Swingle i am a vacation owner vacation property owner i have two duplexes my husband and I on A1A in downtown Cocoa Beach um the basis of the ordinance um was to protect residential neighborhoods and address
the costs of regulating business in zones not originally designed for business i ask that you do not apply the vacation rental ordinance in predominantly business zones including town center Oceanside and Gateway where vacation rental/transient lodging use is fully
compatible with existing businesses vacation rentals are lower density and intensity than many other uses in these zones and city services are already in place to support business operations vacation rentals are not unique compared to other businesses in these zones and
should not be treated differently yet our four two-bedroom 650 ft units would pay a fee equivalent to 28 bars seating over 100 people each or over 1,800 hotel
rooms if you are adopting a policy that reflects cost of service please review these costs for all businesses if you apply this ordinance inside of business zones so if we're applying inside the business zones everybody in the business zone should should absorb that cost it
shouldn't be disproportionate to one business $6,000 for a year for four small rental units is not reasonable when a 100 seat bar can register for $200 again on the inspection fees the
rental units $175 for each inspection and building yet a business pays $4,500 or $45 for 5,000 square ft inspection second please revisit the costs and ensure that the fees are truly
cost recovery for only those incremental costs associated with implementing this program right now the city's estimate assumes an allocation of seven and a half full-time people or equivalent people plus 10% of the entire cost of the fire department police department HR
and city manager's office and city attorney also ensure that the costs and fees are adjusted based upon the number of properties subject to the ordinance please take the time to do a more formal cost of service study
use a single common registration i think that's been talked about by uh Commissioner Tumulty thank you so that we can roll these costs into one registration please impi apply these as a single fee per property rather than per unit can I
ask for a few extained and reflects multiple units when you have multiple units operating on a single property um there's a property next to us that has four units on one property the fire inspector has to show up once do all four units it takes 30 minutes he doesn't have to go
to four properties ensure that we are able to list multiple owners and agents on our registration such that if I go out of town and travel which I am an owner operator and I do travel frequently I do not have to pay
$250 per unit in order to temporarily transfer that responsibility to somebody else while I'm out of town that is not reasonable that would cost me an extra thousand every time I travel um sorry I lost my place uh again it's not reasonable to assume
that one person could be available 24/7 uh to do this thank you for the opportunity to comment we're not only business owners but residents who want to who do want to balance our tourism based economy with preserving Cocoa Beach as the great place that we chose to live and raise our family thank you
appreciate it okay so what what uh Commissioner Tamulti did propose was is substantially higher than what we were previously getting by the way and we're adding a lot more people
to the roster or we are because we already voted on that that's all I'm saying i'd love to take a a more of a stepped approach than a than a just a you know throw the whole bucket on a fire approach so that's all I'm saying i don't know how to move forward with this
unless I guess Tamulti does a a motion or a amendment well this would be a new ordinance to over that would revise the previous one i I think if we want to do a tiered approach we've got to go back to Dave it
sounds like he's done the analysis across the whole city and you'd ask him to sharpen the pencil and say make this make more sense and and start to break out in some something that was driven by the analysis break it out to a more
tiered approach but I think us defining what that is without knowing the the data behind this I I would I would strongly or just hesitate in the meantime just remember that because of the 30-day grace period
that's put in place as of tomorrow those people that per the new fee structure would have had to pay the $2,500 they got 30 days to spend to spend the the old money did we say 500
or we 500 500 which is $25 cheaper than most people already paid so just to get them to come forward and save our staff some time they can save themselves $2,000 per unit so that's a pretty good
incentive and I' I'd like to leave it in place and see how many people come in and and voluntarily register and save themselves a lot of money and in the meantime I agree let's let's look at that and and see if you know tune it up
a little and make sure we got all the right numbers in there and then try to come up with a a potential change in fee structure if the if the costs come in uh less than what we're going to anticipate bringing in but I would yeah I think getting that
from our our staff in the city rather than us and I I do agree that you should have a primary POC for for each uh vacation rental unit and then an
alternate or maybe a alternate and a second alternate so that in which case there should be some kind of penalty because if we call the primary no answer we call alternative number one no answer we call alter number two no answer then
there's a that's a violation right and that maybe that but they should allow a couple right right and maybe that that is part of what is captured in the the language Becky's put forward so let me let me leave you too with just one more
comment so I think that's good do you think that Cocoa Beach takes more than double the requirements to enforce Airbnbs than any other city or county in the in the state of Florida so one of the things I think
came up in discussion is that we found at least based on our staff's estimates that there's probably a lot of places in Florida that haven't taken a look at a hard look at what their city is actually paying and they may well have residents who are actually subsidizing this form
of business that is not necessarily something that's traditional and understood a lot of city other cities aren't raising their rates so it's not something that I would support the staff until we can find otherwise okay um you're saying go with the 25 and
15 i would ask 30 days right now right 30 days i think we asked him to sharpen the pencil and come back to us with So why don't we put all this on our court city attorney and have her
un you know kind of digest what she served tonight and bring back a a potential ordinance at the next meeting and please feel free as you're allowed to to talk to each commissioner individually about what you're proposing
not oh well Commissioner Tumulti told me to put this in sure and we know you know better than to say things like that but you could say this is what I currently have drafted do you have any comments on it or any additions i mean if we can try to
get closer to what Tamulti proposed and and and bad actor we're talking two different things right right but what what I'd like to ask is you know Wayne and I know you've been into this and your staff's been into this but maybe we like like Skip said is we can sharpen a
pencil a little bit and maybe maybe we just won't have quite as much obviously the fire would be I'd like to have it rolled in like you said so it's it's less complicated with as many fees it would be more of the registration fee would include the fire inspections and the other stuff mr mayor I think you're
talking about the the rates right and Commissioner Williams you were talking about the bad actor legislation right that that fines yeah the fines that we were discussing yeah okay with the fines okay yeah i I think just wanted to make sure we weren't crossing Yeah yeah from
my from what I've seen no one's really discussed the fines the fines that we have here everybody is seems to be pretty good with I think we're all okay with that right so the the only issue is is the registration the initial registration the annual registration and whether we we um load
the inspections into those and make those adjustments so as it is right now uh it's going to be $500 for registration for the next 30 days and if we do nothing we don't change anything it'll be $2,500 30 days from now correct okay and
if we come to some other rationale in the next 30 days we have two more meetings to come up we can make those changes my concern um is that we want to create this policy and
give our code enforcement team direction to go and you know go after them and and that's what needs to happen and and right and if they have enough information we have enough and they can
we can release them to they're ready to go then then I'd love to hear that whether you're ready or not okay it's It's possible let's look at the possible it's possible that like I said Becky can digest what we talked about tonight make
any changes she thinks she needs to make talk to us in the next two weeks and city staff can spend the you know next week 10 days you know uh analyzing their numbers
based on being you know make sure everybody really feels like they got that right and based on the estimates of how much money we think we're going to bring in and bring that to us at our next meeting which would be April 3rd okay
should that pass on first ordinance okay not we're not really talking about fee structure at that meeting okay that's by resolution should that pass at the second reading we would of the
ordinance revision you would have the resolution come along with it that matches up any adjustments in the fees based on the analysis that the city did on the numbers it cost to enforce it so it would all take place within a 30-day
period so that we wouldn't have to worry about that 30-day window expiring and now people paying $2,500 and then two months from now we change it back and then we got to pay people back no we don't pay them back that it's once we set a fee the fee should be whatever it
is right so and going forward if we do change the fees down the road it would be by resolution yes and so it would be one vote to change the fees correct okay all right after this ordinance right so I say this ordinance could go once in April April 3rd maybe if they everything
goes together and we make ourselves available to go over it with Becky and then the second at the second reading we could follow it with the resolution with any adjustments based on the research that the city did which and that meeting is I believe on the 15th so that'd be 5
days later when this other resolution the 17th later 18th 17 days later right I I was thinking it was the first but it's not um so today's the 20th tomorrow is the first of the 30 days for the
grace period so we'll have two I'm just saying so the so after that second reading in April the the fees will change potentially will change two days later right now they are going to change they are going to change two days later and
we may change them okay right are we done okay um I think we did all public comment commission comment did I have another one yes I forgot to Oh okay let me hear from Dave and then
I'll let you come and Janice as well yeah thank you thank you Mayor i just quick quick point of clarification the 175 inspection fee that is part of the BTR process that is not part of the registration process
but it's built into the revenue model I'm assuming btr I'm sorry a BTR business tax receipt thanks well the building department inspection fee let's go mayor I'll say this i recommend we have fee structure
that 100% supports the cost so there's no cost to general fund that's my goal i agree yep yeah i don't want to add I don't want to add more people until we got the money for it honestly right now it's subsidized $700,000 by general fund
uh all right um yeah go ahead come on up yes jim Vadic 110 Melbourne Avenue in the Atlantic Florida thank you um I heard many times at a couple different meetings that the subsidiary
the the neighborhood that people are the residents are paying you know subsidizing the short-term rentals i'm assuming that our taxes that we pay for the fire the police and all that is what pays how is the residents versus the business short-term
rentals subsidizing the police when we're all paying taxes and if we're running legit are we're not homesteaded and we're paying more taxes i'm wondering where that subsidy is coming from yeah okay thank you that's a good
point um yeah Janice and then we'll close public comment after that janice Scott Koko Beach um just trying to remember when this discussion started this was to make sure that these
expenses did not fall on the residents number one number two the mention of the $45 inspection fee you know it's unbelievable to pay $45 it cost you more to pick up a truck
to go from city hall anywhere park it go somewhere you can't do that for less than an hour whether it's to go to the hotel or to go to a one-bedroom condo and I just feel
that it is it is fair whether it's a condo or a house for everybody to pay the same inspection fee i I think it's also incumbent on the city that when people go to uh a vacation rental they
assume the same as you do when you go to a hotel that somebody else has taken care of all the safety and so on and so forth there's no carbon monoxide there's no gas leaks etc etc i mean I I do it foolishly and I was just telling uh
Commissioner Jackson's wife that after being on a trip I went to Walmart and bought a carbon monoxide smoke detector and put it in my suitcase so when I go you know you just assume it but you hear a lot of the stories on the national news um I just hope that when you do
this trying to be fair to everybody please be fair to the residents we're taking on a lot of expenses for all these businesses and I always believe to the extent the city is not keeping you from being in business is there is our responsibility but taking care of your
business is not my responsibility thank you thank you Janice all right i close with public comment i have one more thing yeah go ahead so um I I don't know if any of you on the commission own any
properties or um other than where you live if you rent long-term or short-term but it would certainly be um unethical not to announce that um if you do have Airbnbs or for
short-term rental i I believe I will be fully transparent i was um and if we don't um I would suggest that we um basically state that hey we're not
going to have an Airbnb for a couple years or or put those into Airbnb for a couple years just to stay um you know ethical with this situation i I'm again I don't I full transparency
I I do own 10 rental units they're all long-term uh I have no intention of doing Airbnbs at this at this time that's all that matters are they in Cocoa Beach they're and uh seven of the units are in Cape Canaveral and and the two the three that
are in Cocoa Beach are are commercial storefronts just need to be transparent that's I don't own any uh rental properties i wish I own rental properties i have none i don't own rental properties in Cocoa Beach i don't know i don't have any
rental properties in anywhere okay so full transparency there is no conflict of interest for us voting on on any of this stuff no that's okay um all in favor no no it was discussed we were just discuss Okay wait I got we got we got
one general comment here um this is this is because we didn't have the the general comment about stuff that wasn't addressed uh uh Mark Granger all right we'll almost get out of here uh I'm Mark Granger i reside 141 St croy
Avenue uh I'm also a partner in the Dirty Birds Tiki Bar and Grill um I got to say I'm very disheartened that you tabled our CRA application um there's no risk it's on the agenda item and approval of that is just allows it to
proceed forward and let us do the work it doesn't cut us a check for the money the the grant itself has strict requirements and one of them is well many of them are you have to abide by you have to be legal you have to be permitted you have to have all the proper uh taxes licenses and everything
paid so uh I know a business competitor appeared here early there this evening with an attorney and I feel like they kind of threatened and maybe tried to uh wow you into thinking that your staff had done something incorrectly or we had um I have full faith in your staff i
have several businesses in this city i've dealt with the staff for years i find them to be honest uh have integrity they're ethical they don't look the other way they don't cut corners they've held me to account on many many times my car wash was delayed months trying to
get stuff done because they do it right and I feel like maybe you guys got a little intimidated by the by Miss Rosena and I think it's sad um it's it's not giving us a check it's simply just allowing that grant process to proceed it's on us it's our risk if
we uh finish and pay for everything but we haven't completed uh all the requirements then we don't get the money anyway so it's not on you and it's not a risk that you would have been taking that corner has been such a blight and ugly thing and I think all the residents
agree for years and we're just trying to make it beautiful as quickly as we can yes there's a profit to the quickness you know time is money but I can tell you I honestly feel like a business competitor a private businessman came here and swayed you guys to affect a
competing business and cause us to delay and push us back and it's it yes it cost us money but it also cost the residents that much longer that we get now we have to wait another month to get approval before we can make these beautifification things that we want to
do we really want to make it prettier i think people have seen already what we're doing and I think you guys got to see the plans that what we're doing it's gorgeous we were really hoping to be able to move forward and this just puts a real dagger in that that plan um the
the one thing I might ask and I don't know Betsy if it's legal but kind of like like what we found Noel had the issue with that the terms of the grant are you can't begin the work uh before the grant um I think the verbiage is I checked with Devon that you can't it's
not the application but it's the the the um approval of it before you can do the if you start the work before that then you can't get compensated for that is it possible to ask you to maybe uh direct staff and ask Wayne to give
consideration to let us to let us begin the work at our own risk now that the application's in and we've done the you know provided the the plans and the site plan and at least cons give that consideration that hey they didn't start the work before they applied and they
brought you all the paperwork and the estimates and and let us get credit for that i don't know if it's if it's allowed but if it is that'd be that's what I'd like to ask we we can have a CRA meeting at at the next meeting the next committee i would like to request that we have another CRA meeting at the
next meeting um I assume the reason why we we tabled it is because we just want to make sure that the staff has all the answers to some of those questions that that way we not being blindsided by it we can we can provide proof that we're all on the up and up and and so are you
and and I know I love your project i think it's absolutely amazing it's beautiful but I think we all just want to make sure that we're we're doing everything properly and I just say one more thing i've been through this a few times sometimes with the same attorney and
uh you were talking about delays if if we wouldn't have tabled that and if staff wasn't going to go you know make sure we get answers to some of those questions then she could subpoena you she could subpoena the city and drag
this out and nobody get nothing done for quite a while so so I would I would be happy that we paused it and it's only going to be paused until April 3rd because we have the CRA at the beginning of any commission meeting and we'll
we'll see how it goes and see if any subpoenas start flying between now and then i honestly don't think it was because any of us didn't like your project or didn't want to approve it i think we Well that's a fair enough explanation and but I just and I do want to say last thing Wayne and his staff Dave and his staff you guys have a
remarkable staff they're professional they're they're they're sharp they know what they're doing and I'm happy when every chance we get to work with them so thank you so just a question to Mark's question are they because they have the application in and based on the language of they can do that offline we don't
need to advertise we just want to make sure everything's on the up and up and if we can have our staff prove it and if you could consider offline I don't know how many for the board let's let's definitely make it happen
then we'll do this next meeting that's okay okay we'll do that one item on the agenda and wait Rick Rick Anderson's got something he wants to say as well and then we can get out of here guys sorry guys sorry David what Rick Anderson 1800 men at Ben
Causeway just want to point out um time really flies it just seems like um re very recently that we were getting through last year's messy messy budget process which was a total disaster in my opinion and already we're talking about
a budget workshop in June and we're into next year's process and I I've watched this process for many years through 80% % turnover in the commission and three different city managers and it's been broken every year and it gets worse every year i remember a few months back
commissioner Hutcherson made a proposal to change structurally the way that we approach the budget and it just kind of blew my mind it didn't even get a second so it it never even got discussed so I can I guess I can infer from that that everybody else thinks that the budget
process is just fine the way it is it's not it's not we have a structural deficit we we set a millage rate that that just seems arbitrary it's because it's not based on projected expenses so I hope that the budget workshop includes
a discussion of the process itself to try to make it work better thank you Rick and I I just want to say that um our city manager Wayne has definitely um been addressing it if if we would have gotten like Hannah had said if we would
have been getting our reports on time instead of the night of the meeting we we wouldn't have even had this discussion to try to change it to different dates in the first place so I have full faith in Hannah she's been amazing uh Wayne has been amazing in trying to make sure that his staff is is
held accountable and uh I think if done properly there there was no reason to have that that changed and that's why I think none of us voted on that janice I'm sorry you got one more too everybody else I have to wait on Janice now oh well I left g I gave you my papers so um
Janice got Cocoa Beach first of all I want to say farewell to um Lar Mlan 33 years of service with the city of Cocoa Beach i know that uh he took on a big job taking on leisure
services when that all started but I'm going to talk about back in the day when kids turned 16 their first job was at the rec center with Lar he his affable personality really helped them get adjusted to showing up on time and and
working so he got the nickname of godfather not for being a mafia but being overseeing all those kids and you know if you've ever been to the rec center when there are 50 kids there screaming and yelling you know it's not an easy job so good luck Lar hope you're
going home to Trinidad a lot um my next thing is I wanted to uh mention that the uh people who were affected by the Social Security Fairness Act that was finally signed into law in November
affected former civil service employees teachers firefighters everybody who worked for civil service retired then worked for social security they had their social security reduced by 2/3 for 40 years that went on and one of my
passions has always been to fight for the underdog and I'll tell you the last six months of 2024 um Representative Span uh Grace from Louisiana Republican Senator a Congresswoman uh
Spanberger Democrat from Maryland had a bipartisan bill go forward let me tell you it was the last time ever in in my lifetime that they would have passed the Social Security Fairness Act people that didn't even know they were entitled to
it are receiving their back pay from how they got cheated out of their Social Security money and I'm mentioning this in particular because many of the pensioners have passed away and their survivors are going to get the check
thank you Roger