in beautiful downtown 65th Stone Street, Cocoa, Florida. We would like to have the pledge of allegiance led by yours truly, uh, um, Kokoha graduate, yours truly, uh, Miss Vicki. You're going to lead us in the pledge of allegiance,
your retired military personnel invocation. Um, Deputy Mayor Gins, you want to do invocation or we'll give it to Councilwoman Weekes. Okay. Would everyone please stand? sirs and ma'ams. Ma'ams and sir,
>> Father God, thank you for allowing us to be another day. Thank you for another day of life, health, and strength. Lord, uh bless us as we go through this meeting that we make sound decision for the city of Coco. Bless all the citizens in the city of Coco as well. In Jesus name we pray. Amen. >> Amen. 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. >> As mayor would say, I'll call the hurah.
>> Um, madame clerk, may we do roll call, please? Ma'am. >> Yes, sir. Mayor Blake >> present. Mail. >> Deputy Mayor Goins >> here. >> Council member Hearn >> here. >> Council member CS >> here. Council member Weekes >> here.
>> City attorney Gargani. City manager Whitten >> here. >> Okay. The nature of this meeting for today is the city is having its annual financial analysis which will be done by I think it's Pete if I'm not mistaken
sir. Correct. uh from um Stantech and then we will hear from also our financial director and we will start this meeting off with our city manager to give us the and city attorney to give us the guidelines and what to expect on
the agenda as you can see. Um but also please be mindful that when you want to say something just raise your hand. I'll put us in order just out of respect so that if they're talking then let them finish their conversation and I'll give you the opportunity to expound or
elaborate on that particular item. Are we good ma'ams and sirs? >> Sir. Yes, sir. Ma'am. Yes, ma'am. >> Thank you kindly. >> Ma'am, we're going to approve the agenda. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. >> Yes, ma'am. Okay. Proceeding forward. As you can see that first item, what page
number two I would call it the agenda. What are the wishes of council? >> Move to approve. >> We got a motion on the floor by councilwoman weeks. >> Second. >> Second by councilwoman calls. Chair's going to call the question. All in favor by saying I. >> I.
>> Any nays? I have it unanimously. Okay. Thank you very much, Mrs. Shabbo, for that. >> Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. You're on the money, hun. Okay. Uh, Mr. City Manager, sir. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
>> Yes, sir. >> Um, and as you as you've already noted, this is a special meeting of the city council. It's your annual financial analysis and uh the balanced budget proposal. As you know, the the charter requires the city manager to present the
council with a balanced budget proposal. And so, we'll give you the uh the outlines of that proposal uh today. Um, again, I don't see the agenda in front of everyone. So, so, uh, first off, we'll start off with the Stantex, uh,
presentation of the city of Koko's financial analysis, and then, uh, Mrs. Bowman will take you through, uh, balance budget proposal presentation, uh, council discussion, and then any public input or citizen participation,
um, um, that you, uh, desire. uh and then that'll take us through through the meeting. Um again, this is a balanced budget proposal. We'll talk more about that when we get there. Um as I say every year, one of the good things uh in
coming to the city was um the fact that we do have a second or a third set of eyes on on our analysis and what we present in terms of the balanced budget proposal that's done by each year by Stantech. they actually have uh a
proprietary model that they use to go through and sort of truth uh the numbers that are presented in the budget and and so he'll do that on general funds, storm water, fire assessment, utilities. Did I miss anything, Pete?
>> That's it. >> And so I'm going to kick it over to uh Mr. Pete Napoli who is with uh Stantech. >> Fantastic, sir. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. City Manager. Pete Napoli Sante. Uh good afternoon, mayor, deputy mayor, council members. Uh we have a
presentation for the city today uh that overviews the results of our annual financial analysis. Uh as the city manager was describing, this has been an annual process for a number of years with the city and uh we're honored to continue working with the city on this.
Essentially, we are doing a health check and a financial forecast for the different operating funds within the city's uh municipal budget. So that includes the general fund and the utility funds. The agenda, I'll just talk about the foundations of the analysis, a quick uh
overview and refresher of what we do and why we do it. Uh and then we'll get into the general fund analysis first, the water and sewer rate and revenue sufficiency analysis second, and then finally the storm water forecast, and then we'll summarize our recommendations at the end.
So the foundation of the analysis essentially what we do can be described as a revenue sufficiency analysis. We're looking at the revenue generated from certain rates and fees in each of these funds. In the general fund, it's the property taxes and the charges for
service and other miscellaneous taxes. In the utility, the water and sewer fund, it's your water and sewer rate revenues that customers are paying monthly. And then in the storm water fund, it's your annual storm water assessment that's on the tax bill. Uh we're looking at these revenues and
ensuring that they're projected to provide sufficient funding for operations, capital, debt service, transfers, anything that those funds are obligated to pay in the current year, the upcoming
year, and then future years. our uh financial model goes out 10 years so that the city can make the best uh choices today uh when it comes to the future impacts of financial sustainability. Um some of the source data and key
assumptions just to list it out. This is all based on the city's financial data and we work with your staff to make sure it's all input and processed correctly into the model. So we have your current year 2026 budget which you know we're almost through 2026 your 2027 proposed
budget as presented and worked on by staff and then uh your preliminary CIP. So from years 27 and onwards whatever capital projects have been identified by the different departments within the city and then our forecast assumptions
are all reviewed with the city manager and finance staff to ensure that we're as accurate as possible. So starting with the general fund analysis, the main objective here is again evaluating the sufficiency of the
revenues that the general fund receives. So that includes the property taxes. That's the main one the city has control over and the city council decides on that rate at the end of the year. So we're looking at the property tax revenue projected for the next 10 years.
And uh some pretty important um variables to consider this year are policy changes and proposed policy changes for the future. So we've had a prepared we've prepared a scenario that shows you the uh potential impact from from some of those things since none of
it is uh determined yet. Um also some observations our operating levels are per the proposed budget. Beyond that, what that means is we don't have any additional uh FTEEs or personnel added beyond the 27 budget. So, we've kind of
held the operating levels flat um from the 27 proposed budget. There's no expansion of services. It's just the continuation of the current services as provided by that budget with escalation for things like inflation and cost of
living increases, benefits increases, um fuels and chemicals, etc. We have CIP spending in the general fund. So, it's a lot of vehicles and replacement and renewal equipment. Um there are also some facility projects in there. And
then uh we've also included uh the fire assessment rate increase as part of this. So the fire assessment revenue is housed within the general fund uh financial structure. So that's an additional revenue that comes on the books for the general fund and it goes
towards offsetting the cost of the fire department. So u that's also programmed into the general fund model. And this is the the snapshot, the screenshot of our dashboard or control panel from our general fund model. And
um you may remember this from past years, but I'll still walk you through it because there's a lot going on on the screen and a lot of numbers and charts. Uh so starting from the very top, we put some call outs to kind of help with this. The millage rate is listed uh for
all of the 10-year period. And you'll notice that in each year it's the same. We have an assumption for this 10-year forecast that that millage rate at 6.9532 is held at its current level throughout that 10-year period. The next row is the
taxable value increase. So, we know what the city got in last year in 26. This comes from the property appraiser and it includes any new development throughout the city, but it also includes when uh home prices escalate each year uh from
the property appraiser standpoint. And what one thing I want to point out with this is we have that assumed at a continual 4% increase in our projection years. So that's a big assumption because no one can truly predict what what that's going to how that's going to
occur. if a recession were to occur, it would be lower than that. Um, or if you know extreme growth occurred, it would be higher. So, um, don't believe anyone that tells you they know that what that's going to be in those years, but we do a an assumption based on the trends. >> Yes, ma'am.
>> Yes, ma'am. >> The the 6.1% we that is >> that occurred real number for this year. >> Yeah. Last year. >> Okay. And we've been seeing that number trend downwards. And I think that's reflected by the housing market kind of
uh stalling right now with sales slowing down and the values of homes kind of slowing down. All that is factored into the property appraisers um formula for assessing value in the city. So we've seen values kind of hold flat whereas during the co years there was some
aggressive growth in home values. So the charts down at the bottom describe council one cost. >> Yeah. >> Um and it also includes like new properties coming online. >> It's all encompassed within percentage. >> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay. >> And those uh so the charts down at the bottom of the page here uh summarize the financial picture for the general fund. On the top left hand chart, end ofear fund balance, that's the savings account for the city's general fund. Um those
blue bars are right now showing a sustainable uh savings account for the 10-year period. The black line is that minimum reserve policy that in any year if we were showing that go below the line, the city would need to make an adjustment to either revenues or
expenses to avoid that. In any year you use fund balance that you'll see that number go down. So towards the last five years of the projection period, you see it kind of tails off because we're projecting the cost to continue to increase the cost of operations and
capital etc. Um on the right hand side you can see the effect of that. So those two lines there are cash in and cash out. Cash out is represented by the orange line. Cash in or revenues is represented by the black line. And in those last five years, there a little
bit of a gap is opening up just because inflation really accumulates over the course of the 10-year period. This next scenario shows the impact from the proposed tax reform bill. uh if it
were to be approved in November by the bo by the voters, there would be an impact to the city's tax role which their tax uh property tax revenues are based on. Uh essentially the the first year is an ex increase in the homestead
exemption from the current uh level of 50,000 to 150,000 and then the second year it's an increase up to 250,000. So from a tax role standpoint standpoint on the right side of the screen, it's
$300 million of of taxable value that currently the city charges property taxes on is removed from the tax role. And then uh in year two it's $350 million. So an additional $50 million impact. That's the taxable value. So not
exa exactly the revenue. You're not losing $300 million of revenue. Um but it's it it does impact your property tax revenues and your property tax revenues go down uh in proportion to that. So >> under this scenario, if we didn't change
anything else, if we kept the millage rate the same, all of the other assumptions from the previous scenario with cost increases, um you're looking at a scenario where you fall below that minimum reserve policy in the projection period. So you'd have to make some some
kind of adjustment either on the expense side or the revenue side to avoid that >> question. >> Yes, sir. >> It's not directed at you, city manager, Mr. City Manager or Mrs. Bowman. June 30th is the time we receive a paycheck
from our um through our taxes, paying our taxes. Do we receive any funding during the month of June the June the 30th rather not the 3rd? Do we get some a check from them in reference of property taxes that we pay when we pay our property taxes back in whatever
November, December, January? >> Most of the abalorum revenue comes in in like December through March because the due date is March 31st. So typically over the summer we get a little bit of money like from tax certificates. Um but the um property appraiser has certified
the tax roles for the next fiscal year on June 30th. >> Okay, that's it. Okay, thank you. Deadline date. Thank you, sir. Ma'am, >> I asked you this um upstairs and I don't know if you can if you show it here. If
in 2027 we went to the roll back rate, not with the uh with that with the Well, we did it both ways. do it both ways. But if we went to the roll back rate in 2027, what does that can you show what that looks like? >> I currently I just I just have the
static screenshots of the model on for the presentation slides. >> Um but essentially what going to the roll back rate does is it >> there's a little piece of that property tax revenue that you won't have for that rest of the projection period. And it is the roll back rate is a small difference
but um when you go to that roll back rate then now that's the new standard for your millage rate for the rest of the projection period. And if you were to need to increase above that level um there's another uh policy change from
the state that came out that increasing the millage rate now is more difficult to do than it was previously. It requires a unanimous vote if it's 110% or greater than your roll back rate. >> Um, so unanimous votes are a difficult
obstacle uh to overcome. And then if it's within 110% of the roll back, it's a a supermajority uh vote. But essentially all that does is a little bit less revenue. So the fund balances would probably just touch
back just a just slightly. But when we looked at it, it wasn't super sensitive to it because the roll back is a small amount, >> right? But it did. Yeah. again. And then even with the three with the if it passes, which is a big if at this point
because of all the factors involved, but if it passes, again, even at this point, if we did the roll back rate for 2027, um it didn't make a huge difference in the long term, but it does give people
who very few of our folks pay property taxes in Coco, but it does give them somewhat of a break. So anyway, thank you. Appreciate that. >> Of course, >> let me make sure that we're all on the same page here. And so Rebecca, the roll
back rate up to the 110 is a is that a super or a simple majority vote? >> That is a simple majority. >> So it's a simple majority roll back up to the 110.
>> And anything over 110% is unanimous. >> Okay. unanimous. >> What's what's that roll back number? >> What page number you on? It's in the bottom left hand corner. >> Oh, we're not on we're not on a particular page. >> So, and then she'll go over those
numbers when she does her presentation. >> What the rate is there? >> Okay. >> That was it. Yeah. I just didn't know if he had it where he could show it like he did upstairs. Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. He needs the laptop to make that. >> Yeah. >> The floor is yours, Pete. Okay.
So, uh, real quick with the fire assessment, um, part of our scope of work for the the city is to update the fire assessment annually, uh, and also recommend a, uh, fire assessment rate. So, the first part of that is updating
the fire assessment role. So, we get the updated property appraiser data from Bvard County that includes all the new houses, any parcels that might have been split, maybe new warehouses, new uh non-residential space. All of those properties once they're new and added to
the city's tax role, they'll pay property taxes to the city, but they also pay a fire assessment that's uh based on the size of their building. Um, and if it's a residential home, it's a flat rate. So, the current rates are in this table here. Uh, FY2026 adopted. Uh,
currently residents pay $257 and that is a onetime annual rate on the that appears on the tax bill at the end of the year. Um, and then the tier one and tier 2 rates are for non-residential properties only. Uh, the proposed
increase for the fire assessment rate is 3%. Uh we've been following that 3% plan for a number of years now. Um it helps the city maintain the cost recovery to fund the fire department. So that
increase results in about a $7.72 increase annual increase uh to residents. So on a monthly basis uh um you less than a dollar a month. And the overall collected revenue from this fire assessment program is
currently about $3.8 million of funding for the city. And with that increase and then also with the new development and anything we captured from the county property data, the it's increasing to about 4,86,000. This is a survey of the residential fire
assessment and shows where Coco is currently at the 257 rate in the blue. And then in the green, the increase of $7 is that 3% increase to the rate. And you essentially maintain the same place in the survey when compared to these
other uh uh districts and cities and counties throughout the state that have fire assessments. One thing that um just a caveat with this is some of those higher rates, they're probably fully funding their fire assessment program. We're currently
um if we go back to this last table, the city's funding about 40% of of the maximum funding for a fire assessment program. So, some of the higher rates are most likely 100% cost recovery uh fire assessment programs.
Okay, next we'll go into the water and sewer rate revenue sufficiency analysis. So our objective with with this component of the study is to ensure that the annual rate indexing plan that the city has been following is sufficient to
cover the utilities ongoing operations cost, personnel cost and then capital cost. So capital plays a much bigger factor for the utility fund. The infrastructure costs are much more expensive and um they can be in the millions, tens of millions of dollars
sometimes and there's more of an a mandatory or imperative nature to those capital projects because um you're you know avoiding things like system failures, you're ensuring adequate water quality, etc. So the capital plan is a a
big component for this study. Um we are also including cost inflation for the operating costs and and those capital and then uh really with utilities there is a a balance of af affordability for customers and the infrastructure needs
making sure that you provide the infrastructure needs and everyone has water when they turn on their faucet but also making sure that it's uh affordable at the end of the day for customers. So uh some things to point out the operating reserve for the utility fund
is set at six months of O andM. Uh utilities uh are the recommended levels are a little higher. to um understand that there can be things like system failures, unexpected failures, you know, hurricanes or natural disasters can also
impact the infrastructure and just for liquidity purposes to avoid just any disruptions in service is is the goal at the end of the day. Uh debt service coverage is also a big part of the utility revenue forecast because if there's any outstanding debt issuances
or debt obligations, you have to ensure that your revenue generates a certain amount of money to meet the requirements of that debt obligation. So um those are all built into our model and accounted for. So, uh this is the screen from the
utility financial forecasting model. Um and starting from the top in the orange, uh we're calling out that our recommendation for 2027 is a 0% rate increase for the water and sewer rates. >> Repeat that again, sir. Reiterate that
one more time. That call out shows that there is a 0% rate increase for the water and sewer rates for 2027 and then in 2028 onwards, we have the 4%s programmed in. So, uh it's what the city's accustomed to seeing for these water and sewer rate revenues. You've
been on an annual indexing plan of 4% um for the past number of years. Uh we're recommending that we the city picks that up next year, but of course we'd be we'll be here to update the analysis and evaluate whether or not it's sufficient.
Um the 0% in 27 uh is tied to a number of things. The fund is is healthy. If you look in that fund balance chart on the top left hand side, the fund balances are meeting your minimum target in every year of that
current scenario. And um the CIP execution is something that we looked at. So with capital uh there's a capital plan and there's the money attached with these projects that are identified and then the execution of capital can
sometimes fall a little behind or it can be difficult to keep up with the capital plan when it's in the tens of millions of dollars. However, that money whenever it is uh dedicated to those projects, it's set aside in the in the um fund
balances and and earmarked for that so that it can't be used to fund any different projects in the future. Um what we did was we just added a CIP execution to uh to acknowledge that the from the plan to what actually the city
has time and the resources to execute there's been a bit of a difference. So, there's a little bit of a savings there going forward uh for the CIP plan and it allows the city to uh have the 0% rate increase for next year. >> Can I
>> Yes, ma'am. Council woman calls. >> Um could you help me understand now the debt? It looks like the debt has gone down in 27. Is that are we looking is that purple line all
the anticipated debt? >> So that purple line actually kind of stays the same. Are you looking in that top right hand graph? What goes down drastically from 27 26 to 27 is the light blue which is the capital.
>> So it's really front-loaded and you'll see that in those capital graphs on the bottom left hand side. 26 has a lot of capital in it. And what that is showing is all of the projects that have been committed to and have been kind of rolled over uh you know they've been
budgeted for in the past but um have rolled over to future years because the city hasn't had the chance to execute that capital yet. So that's why you start out with a big capital year in 26 and then it normalizes for the rest of the projection period.
And then another important point to um to speak about is that bottom right hand graph is where we would have projected borrowing for the utility fund. And currently under this uh model and forecast we don't have any future projected borrowing or additional
borrowing for the utility projects. >> Councilwoman Cause >> that's good. Thank you. Let me ask you a question. >> Yes sir. >> Is there a correlation between um roll back and this dip or this change of
debt and CIP? Will it enhance the the the difference you get when am I asking my question correctly to you? >> Yes sir. >> I mean if we did roll back would there be a greater increase? I don't believe so because the utilities
and the general fund are separate accounting entities and they're managed separately and the utility really operates more like a business because it's providing a product or service to customers and their finances really don't intermingle when it comes to the
roll back rate. That would provide pressure on the general fund side but wouldn't provide pressure on the utility side. Gotcha. So, we have some surveys for the water rates. This first survey is just a water only bill. Uh, and it's based on 4,000
gallons of usage. Uh, currently customers are paying about $34. Um, based on 4,000 gallons of usage and with the proposed, you know, rate increase rate uh non rate change of 0%, it stays
at $34. So, we're just showing how you compare to some of the other uh utility providers in the region. >> Many that we sell to. >> Correct. >> I said many that we sell too. >> Right. >> And then the next survey shows it on a
combined basis. So, it includes the wastewater bill portion of the bill. Uh so, that portion of the bill is around $55 and uh still essentially in the same place in that survey. Okay. So, next we have the storm water
utility forecast. So with the storm water fund, it's another separate, you know, entity from the other funds in the city and it's supported, it's self-supported by an assessment rate, uh that appears on property owners tax bills, uh annually.
Um there are, you know, residential rates and non-residential rates, and they're linked to imperous surface. So the more imperous surface they have on their property, meaning the more uh area that doesn't absorb rainwater and creates runoff and adds to the storm
water system or adds pressure to the storm water system by creating runoff, the more they pay in a storm water assessment. Uh so we're as part of this we evaluate the revenue that's generated by that and we look at with staff the operating projection and the capital
needs for the storm water fund. So any storm water capital projects similar to the water and sewer utility the capital is really what drives the need for revenue on storm water. Uh so the any big capital projects that uh are needed
and the staff uh provide us with a plan of capital projects they know about for the next five years and um as they uh identify additional projects we include it into the projection period. Um it's an average annual capital
spending of about $1 million. And again, you know, planning for rehab and replacement of aging infrastructure is a is a significant component in driver. So this is the screenshot of the the panel or dashboard for the storm water
fund. And we had most recently a 0% increase last year for the storm water assessment rate. Uh and currently we're proposing a 2% increase for 2027 followed by uh the consideration of 4%
increases in the future. Um ultimately today you're only deciding on the 2027 rate uh but we include those those you know rate increases for planning purposes in the future. So 2% for 2027 uh that results in an average annual
change of about $2.80 80 cents a year for the average residential home. So, a very small amount. Um, and this will provide for a sustainable financial forecast as shown by those um charts at
the bottom half of the screen. The stormwater fund is got some capital uh that the capital needs and really there's a bigger project in 2029 uh that you could see the fund balance go down in proportion to that in 2029. and then
onwards we just have an average level of capital spending. Uh but it's at a place where it can provide for with this revenue it can provide for operations and then provide for a certain level of capital about a million dollars a year uh afterwards in storm water
improvements around the city. >> Mayor. >> Yes, ma'am. >> So, and are we locked into the tier system? you would have to go through uh there's some administrative action to change it
and there would be a study um to change it from tiers if you didn't like or want the tier system anymore. >> Um a lot of cities have the tier system and a lot don't. It's really uh sometimes >> I understand that most don't though.
>> Okay. there. I'm seeing more cities go to tiers now because they're trying to acknowledge the fact that there's a difference between small homes and big homes and their impact on the system. Uh but traditionally uh there can be a flat rate per eru or per home. Um similar to
the res uh the fire assessment where that's just a flat rate per residence. Uh so yeah, there would just have to be a study that supports it and and shows the calculations and arrives at that fee and and then the council could consider
it for uh approval and adoption and you'd adjust your ordinance appropriately. Yeah. >> And would you do that? You would consider that at the point I don't know where we are in every so many years. I know that we have to have the properties
reassessed. Yeah. So, yes, ma'am. So, it's important every several years um to kind of do a a compre more more comprehensive update of the storm water assessment program because over time, you know, there may be properties around the city that have
added patios or, you know, extended they may have mother-in-law suites that they added on or whatever could happen uh over the course of time and they that impervious service may not have been picked up initially. So that adds to their to their footprint and to their
impact. Um, typically you do that sort of thing in the spring time frame before budget season. So it gives you a chance to to look at everything with staff and city management and then we propose a rate structure changes at that time as
well. Yeah. >> So where are we? Did we just do one or >> we just did a a revenue sufficiency analysis? So we purely just looked at the finances of the storm water fund and and and created a recommendation based on the revenue that it generates. But a
more we haven't done a more comprehensive review of the rate structure and the impervious surface. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> So we have a storm water survey and this is for one eru which is the tier 2 in
the city's rate. um structure currently and that's between 2400 to 4,400 square feet of imperous surface. Uh so that would include things like your driveway if you have a patio and then the uh roof
area of your house. Uh so that customer would pay 139 currently and the 2% increase brings you to 142. uh you're about in the middle of this survey um with the other cities and and entities
that charge uh storm water assessments. So in summary, the general fund we're uh not recommending any change to the millage rate and uh we've shown the potential impact from tax reform. Uh at this point um no one knows if that's
going to uh be a reality or not. Uh for the fire assessment, we're recommending a 3% increase to keep up with the uh costs of the fire uh operations and service. On the water and sewer utility fund, uh no proposed rate increase for
2027, followed by a 4% annual rate indexing. And then on the storm water utility fund, a 2% rate increase for 2027, also followed by 4% annual rate indexing. And that's the conclusion of the
presentation. >> Thank you very much, Paul. I appreciate it very much, Pete. Excuse me. I apolog Yeah. That's BM, baby. Black magic. >> Thank you for your your detailedness of and how descriptive you are, sir. >> Yes, sir.
>> Thank you. because knowledge is power >> and the power is in this room right here and in the audience. Um, do we have any additional questions before we turn the floor over to the city manager and uh, financial director, Mrs. Bowman? >> A thousand thank yous, young man.
>> Thank you. >> Speed home. Job well done. >> Appreciate it. >> So, yes, sir, >> Mr. City, sir. >> Thank you, Mr. mayor. And so, uh, we'll get into the balance budget proposal.
Mrs. Bowman is going to lead us through that. It is a, um, what I'll call, um, current level of service, uh, budget proposal. Um, the only new positions. Um, when I say current level of services, there are
no new services added. And so the services that you're providing this year are the same services at the same level that you're providing next year. Um the the additional positions are public safety positions and I think we have one
utility position. Um again still looking at uh it but but again so so we focus on the the core services in terms of new positions. So remember last year we talked about adding uh public safety
positions each year in a sort of staggered approach uh for to meet the uh the growth in the the demand for the level of services. So we've done that on the police and fire side of the house there. We actually uh added positions
two years ago that were frozen i.e. unfunded and so we're unfreezing those so that they can uh recruit. I think um both departments, police and fire, uh don't have very many vacancies. Corrected on that, but but uh they're
doing really well there. We're doing so well uh with the um with the uh fire department and the and the uh Coco High recruits that we're actually having to again add positions just to meet that
need there. I think we have three in the academy. We have four in the academy right now. And so, you know, that that uh that program has gone gang busters. We didn't get any credit for that in the in the uh in the news article write up
about the the dollars that they got from the academy, but we feel really and you guys should also feel really proud of that because that that uh is uh is lifech changing for you know 17 18 year olds
uh and their families you know so so again proud of that. But again, current level of service budget. Um um we'll take you through the millage rate. It is, as Pete said, a current mill rate proposal. There are a lot of things that are changing up in Tallahassee. Uh Mrs.
Bowman will talk about that. Uh and so I will turn the floor over to Mrs. Bowman. Can can I ask a question before? >> Yes, sir. They just recently did that Boulevard County acquired some funding from the
state their their fire um their fire um schooling there that emulates our current department in reference of that. Is that correct, Mrs. >> Yeah, the the school board. >> Yes, sir. So, so the school board got I
forget what the number was for uh Coco High to actually do physical infrastructure improvements for a public safety academy. Is it fire or public safety? >> Fire. >> Fire. >> So, it's just fire. So, so they'll
actually build stuff to actually uh house the academy. And I think it probably is some software and equipment and things like that. I'm not sure that they're going to build a building, but so they'll actually have a fire academy
with software and and uh and equipment, maybe simulators. >> It won't have simulators. It'll basically be a fire one program >> that takes them through the basic training of loading hose, terminology, things of that nature. Won't be
aggressive as far as them going in to fight fires or anything. So, no burn buildings or anything like that. And remember that that through our initiative, >> right, >> there was already curriculum created. >> That's correct. >> So So there was curriculum created when
we started our program over at Coco High. So this sort of supplements that um but but again good funding. We we had a successful year at the state level and uh and so do they. >> Will that just be for u the high schoolers there at Coco High? How many
will be able to be in that program? I >> I think they think that they're going to recruit from um outside of of the school district there. Has I read the article? >> Yeah. So, they run something similar over in Palm Bay area.
>> So, basically what can happen is they can get a waiver. A student can get a waiver because they are looking to enter into that field and then they will go over to that academy just for that class. but then return to their home
school. So basically, Coco would be doing the same thing, hoping to recruit from Vieira, any of those areas where there's students that are interested in being firefighters come over to Coco High, do the curriculum there. >> Yeah. And how great is that? I mean,
Coco has >> That's awesome. >> I mean, we have great football and and and sometimes kids come in for football and now they'll be coming in if they want to be firefighters. Mhm. >> Yeah, >> that's awesome. >> Yeah, I believe. >> Good job. Thank you, staff, city manager,
>> and staff. It's your city attorney. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you, Mr. City Manager. So, now council, I will take you >> Oh, you got something? >> Yep. While we're on the fire topic, um, have we had any conversations with the school board to try to see if our firefighters can get opportunities to be
instructors? I don't know if that's been a conversation yet, but >> you got to put it in the budget, sir. >> I'll p the fifth on that. >> You got to put it in the budget. >> Well, they we didn't we didn't know they were getting the funding, so I don't know. Um
>> yeah, the curriculum right now, I mean, those they just have it as a classroom, too, right? >> Who teaches those? >> They haven't decided that yet. But the what they did for the Palm Bay side is they actually have a position for that
that's hired through the school board to oversee that cuz there's a lot more that goes into that besides just stepping in and instructing the class. You still have to meet the school uh requirements for the state of Florida, all that. And then on top of that, you have to meet
the state of Florida requirements to even instruct that curriculum. So they actually have someone who oversees that particular part of the program. So um there's a lot more work that would have to go into that besides just stepping in
our people to be instructors. >> Gotcha. No more interruptions, man. Pardon? Michael, I'm at fault. Forgive me. >> Is that it, sir? >> So yes, sir. >> My apologies. >> So I'm gonna uh take you through the presentation. um give you the highlights
of the balanced budget that city manager has prepared and then at the end um we'll ask for public input and then council discussion and then uh request a recommendation from council. So um in preparing the budget um as you
noted in going through the um discussion with uh Peter with Stantech um we did keep the millage rate the same. So that's providing a $699,000 increase in Avalorum taxes for the year. Um there were slight increases in
property taxes and franchise fees. We built in the increase for the fire assessment. Uh charges for services goes up as well. Um and then also the utility service taxes. We um had a healthy increase this year in the return on
investment from the utility fund based on uh new assets that were added to the system last year. That's not something that's necessarily sustainable that you're going to see increases like that every year. Um there were some large projects like there was a large project
at Sellers that got completed and Panita Causeway that got capitalized last year. Um and then the pile actually goes down. That's a 6% calculation. And then uh what we call cost of services, which is an overhead transfer,
actually went up about $528,000. So new revenue that we have built into the budget is about $3.4 million, which sounds good until you start looking at how much things cost. >> Can you go back and explain for maybe not for the council, but for the
audience what pyles? >> That's the payment in lie of franchise fees. So if it was a outside company like for example the solid waste companies they pay us a franchise fee but because we're uh we own the utility they provide us a payment in lie of
franchise fees that's uh calculated 6% on their revenue and >> yes ma'am >> the uh adorum is that the final number is that the right number the 699 >> that's the number that we have from the
property appraiser as of today. Okay. >> Yes, ma'am. Sorry. >> Okay. So, then when we take a look at um significant spending, uh we are budgeting about $2 million to uh purchase capital needs using recurring
revenue. If you'll recall, the city manager has been uh working very hard at not going to fund balance and using uh recurring revenue to be able to fund your capital as a long-term sustainability
um tactic. Um as council approved uh dispatch going over to the county, there was cost savings in the budget uh because now we will no longer have those costs. That's about $1.3 million. Uh building and salary increases, which
includes personal services. Um everything but the insurance. That's going to cost general fund about a million dollar. And then other increases in operating expenses are $2.1 million. Health insurance actually costed us 9.5%
more this year. Staff work very hard to negotiate with the insurance company to reduce that increase as much as possible. Uh however, that is costing about $421,000 more in fiscal year 27.
And then as you all know, um with the Avalorum revenue of the $699,000, we have to transfer 101,000 an additional 101,000 of that to the CRAAS. So um we wind up with
actually significant increases in expenditures of about $4.6 $6 million. Um, looking at major capital requests, um, the there are several on here. Uh, what's been built into the budget is the
increased spending of $500,000 for street paving. Uh, dump truck that needs to be purchased. There's some damage to the exterior wall at the Harry T. Moore Center. Um, we built in safe routes to school signage. That was something that
council wanted. Police department is getting six vehicles and then uh the phone system here uh citywide is reaching end of life and so that is needed to be purchased for about $105,000. Uh looking at the total budget, it's
increasing from 195 billion to $28 million, a $12 million increase. A lot of that is being driven by the increase in the water and sewer fund in addition to when you increase a transfer out, you're increasing a transfer in. So the
budget actually kind of doubles up. Um and so you can see in the water and sewer fund that um excuse me, the uh renewal and replacement fund increased about $3.6 6 million due to the capital needs of the
utility fund which you just saw in the presentation uh earlier uh with increased spending in fiscal year 24. Um general fund again we did have an increase in expenditures of about $3.6 million which I just demonstrated a
million dollars of that is increase in personal services and the other costs I showed you on the prior slide. uh the water and sewer restricted assets to your question earlier about debt uh councilwoman costs that reduction is due to scheduled payments. Um so there is
some cost savings there that um we have some balloon payments later on but where we're at right now there's cost savings about $1.5 million. And then in storm water that fund had a slight increase of $424,000. So as we develop the budget, we have a
lot of challenges, a lot of unknowns. Um, as you all know, we had a technical incident earlier in this calendar year. Uh, staff is going through and working with a consultant trying to figure out what kind of infrastructure needs we
have. Uh, we do have one proposal for $1.2 million right now that we're trying to figure out. Um, should we do that? Is it necessary to do that? We're working with the consultant to figure out a plan of action. And that's just one component of what the
company is looking at as far as improving our uh technical infrastructure. So, we built into the budget and in future years, we built in $500,000 right now into the budget for those that unknown cost because we don't know exactly what that will be.
Hopefully, it will be a onetime cost. we can go to fund balance and use some fund balance for um funding that uh because infrastructure is very expensive. Uh we continue to have issues with rec recruiting and retaining personnel whether it's public safety personnel or
general employees getting people who have the appropriate education and experience to be able to fill the positions. Um, as was discussed earlier, we don't know what's going to happen with the referendum uh for Avalorum taxes. So that could we could the
estimates from the property appraiser uh could lose up to $2.5 million over the first two years. And then um as uh Stantech showed you, you could see the the decline where you're using fund balance in future years because you
wouldn't have the revenue. Uh bill that got passed this year deals with um reporting uh we charge customers outside of our uh city a higher rate, not a higher rate, but uh kind of like a sir
charge for being outside the city. And we're going to have to do new reporting on that. that winds up being a challenge because our plant is not inside the city uh limits. It's outside the city limits. So, we have some legal discussions that
uh need to be had with the city attorney on how to implement that. There's also reporting that we need to do on uh how much revenue we collect from inside people versus outside people. As you know, we're a large regional utility, so
there's going to be a lot more revenue collected outside the city instead of inside the city. So, that's going to be interesting. Uh new another new bill uh was certain types of projects that are validated under $7,500.
Uh we cannot charge a fee any longer for those permits. Um it's certain certain stipulations that Mrs. Neutron can speak more to you about, but um it's certain types of um permits. Um again, funding the capital with um recurring revenue,
keeping up with growth, which is why this city manager is budgeting additional public safety positions because we know at some point in time we're going to need an additional station and additional uh police staff.
Uh another bill that got passed is uh pretty con comprehensive bill that we have to do for uh regarding the budget. So next year's budget workshops and budget adoption is going to look very different for you. um starting with
having to publish in January what our calendar is for all of our workshops and all of our meetings that we're going to have. And as part of the budget adoption exercise next year, at the time that we have the tenative hearing, you will be
presented with a 10% reduction of the city budget, not just general fund or utility fund, but the city budget. And you will have the option of adopting that reduced budget. Um, we've asked staff, um, and I don't have the full
numbers compiled yet, to go through their budgets and provide suggestions where they would cut 10%. I went through the budget myself and cut a lot of things. Um, some things that you probably won't want to have to give up, but things that you're going to need to
consider like museums, like cutting the paving back, uh, things like that. And then additionally, um, we continue to have an issue with the fire department overtime, which has been discussed with council previously. Uh, the overtime in the fire department is just not
sustainable. And so we have a lot of unknowns as you can see with the budget. And so the city manager has maintained a budget that's balanced, maintains current level of services without adding new things other than the um staffing that he spoke of. And at the same time,
we have a lot of unknowns and adjustments that we need to make with our budgeting. >> Rebecca, before you leave this page, and and so on the on the 10% reduction exercise, and recall that you said on the total city budget, um and I'll
remind you that the biggest part of the city's budget is Mr. Walsh's budget over in utilities. And so, and so the exercise of 10% is uh not proportional. I I'll say it, you know, um because again our general
fund budget is a little over 50 60 million >> somewhere around there. Yes. >> Yeah. Some somewhere in that neighborhood. And so when you look at the biggest part of the of the city's budget, it is uh an enterprise uh agency
providing uh water and and wastewater services, you know. So, so that that exercise becomes very very uh challenging for for a city of our size in a city that uh has the the I'll say the funding makeup or the
services makeup that we do because obviously you can't you know 10% uh from water wastewater is is a significant undertaking and so you'd have to get um a whole lot of your 10% from other other
smaller agencies there. The permitting fee um no longer required for certain projects under uh 7500 and I'll just say let's just say >> fence >> a fence >> um which seems like a great idea but you
still have it's it's an administrative nightmare and Charlene explain uh that circumstance. Um, so typically most of the the projects valued under $7,500 are going to be fences and accessory structures like sheds. And all of those
require a zoning verification to ensure that it's met the setbacks or um any of the requirements that our zoning um requires for those types of um things. So, it we're the building
department is not going to allow a permit under that for a fence, but planning and zoning will have to have some type of application process that will require them to evaluate the setbacks for fences and accessory
structures and others like that. Um, permits under $7,500 that are mechanical, electrical, plumbing are still going to have to be applied for and so those are not exempt from the permit. >> But even the even the fence and so you
still have the work that you have to do on the planning and zoning side, >> right? >> And so and so how do I know that it's that the permit is has a value under 7500? Sort of explain that. So they have to they have to apply for an exemption
and when they apply for that exemption they have to show the the quote in essence that says what the the cost of the service or the cost of the work is. Um we obviously are having to take that word for what they say. If they say the
quote says 4,000, it's 4,000 even though they're going to build a brand new >> PBC fence >> $50,000 fence >> right >> around their 2acre property. So >> um that's where PL that's where code enforcement will come in because if we
observe that there's construction that has they have not followed the exemption and they they actually uh falsified the documents. We can actually go and code enforcement and do some investigations on that end. >> Yeah. And and that's even that's a
slippery slope as well. It is very much. So again, when you when you talk about streamlining things for the customer, uh I mean, it's yeah, they they won't have that cost, but they'll have to come in and and and prove that the value of
the uh project is under the 7500. I can guarantee you that not a whole lot of people want to come in and show you their quotes for the for the projects there. So So that'll be challenging for for staff. So, you got that phone call as well from
um I'm not going to call her name, but I Okay. >> Yeah. >> The Okay. >> I I just had one thing. That's it. >> Go ahead. >> And then you Yeah. Okay. >> The So that means that no inspections as well on those items that's under 7500. >> The only inspection would be for like a
fence and a shed would be planning and zoning would verify that the location >> that put at the right location based on the survey. >> Not the application. No. >> Wow. >> So, you still have to work by planning and zoning staff. You don't have
>> the revenue associated with that. >> Wow. >> Right. >> Partially. >> Okay. >> On the budget reduction exercise. So, you said we could adopt the 10% but we don't have to adopt 10%. Is that what I'm getting from that?
>> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. That's Thank you. And with that budget reduction exercise, um the fiscal year 27 budget is about 59 million for uh general fund. And keep in
mind roughly about 25 million of that is the transfers from the utility fund. >> So you need to look for those reductions in a lot smaller pot. >> Yeah. >> Uh to to say it one way to um come up with those
reductions. Also, there's other funds that you can't touch like the CRAAS. You need to spend that money you're collecting in the CRAAS, CDBG, ship and home. You need to spend that money that you're collecting in those funds. So, that makes even more strain on general
fund. >> And then, as as the city manager noted um in the utility fund, that would mean essentially pretty much deferring large capital projects, >> right? M >> and so your capital needs would wind up being deferred. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. So go ahead. >> I'm good. >> She's on this slide, right? >> 10 points. >> So um as I stated uh there is a new um statute change to the statutes on the voting for the millage rates. Um,
now they're doing 110% increase above roll back requires a twothirds vote. And then if you wanted to go anything more than 100 110% it would require a unanimous v vote. Um, as we talked about earlier, the roll
back rate is 6.8268 mills. Um, because there wasn't a whole lot of growth in taxable value. The majority of it was due to new construction this year. the gap between the roll back rate and the current
millage rate became smaller. Normally it it has an inverse um relationship. So um we had prepared the budget with the millage rate of 6.9532 mills um which is above the roll back.
Um however the statute reads that if you do 110% above roll back it requires a 2/3 vote which would be uh 750948 mills. >> So Mr. City Attorney um are you like
with the voting if they went and stayed with the 6.9532 >> which is below 110%. The way that I'm reading it is they would just need a simple majority. >> I'd have to look at that, Rebecca. Okay.
>> With the new changes, >> okay, >> statute. >> And so, um, right now we're requesting a proposed millage rate, which means that we're developing the budget with that. We'll come back to you in September with the tenative millage rate and then the
adopted millage rate, and that's where we'll be able to discuss the voting further. Okay. >> So, at this point in time, um, open it for council discussion and then we'll, uh, let the public have their input.
>> So, let me go back go back before we >> and so you said it, but I just want to make sure it's clear. So, so the 6.9532 uh, is less than 110% above the roll back. >> That's correct. which is again our interpretation is a simple majority
>> correct >> vote >> that's my interpretation >> okay >> interpretation rock >> okay >> okay do we have any questions for staff council
>> I've already I let me say it this way I know some want to do roll back rate I get what you want projects too. Um I know we're facing some challenging times, but I think the overall evaluation of the
community as a whole based on the assessment and listen to people of all different sectors from all four districts. Um I would say over half uh way over half are pleased with the
performance of where we are now. Now, yes, I'm retired and I know people live on a structured income and I get that. But I I know for a fact we see all the positive improvement um that's taking place in our community,
in our city, and within our boundaries. So, I I strongly feel that the momentum is moving in a positive direction and I will continue to ride that wave. And I'm going just tell you up front, I'm in favor of the 6.9532
But I will hear from others also. So if you want to chime in, the floor is yours. We can go one through four or four through one and then turn it over to the public. But we do not have to make a decision tonight in reference of
the first form of the um advantage rate. Let me say it that way. Of the >> we just need agreement from council to prepare the budget using the 6.9532 mills and the uh rate changes for the storm water fire assessment and
utilities. >> Correct. >> So we can finish preparing the budget. >> All right. Any council members? How chime in? what you had said go and I I was waiting to hear what order we were going in. So >> we are all mature consenting adults. I
will let you make your own decision. If you want to go out of term, feel free. >> Well, I I have gone back and forth on the roll back rate because of not knowing what would happen in November because obviously that affects a lot of things. Um and I hear people want some
relief. I mean, inflation has been terrible and even though it's not a huge amount, it is some relief for our property tax owners, which are only a third of the city, but uh that are that are paying all the taxes,
and I feel like they deserve a little bit of a break. And when I met with them and he ran it uh with with nothing changing in November, there was um we were still good budget-wise. Um there
was not a huge change. Uh but to me, to the public, it gives uh just gives them a little bit of a rate. I mean, every time the water bill goes up and all that, people are screaming um every time stuff goes up. and um and
their budgets, everybody's budgets are very very tight cuz let's face it, gas, everything in their life, food has all gone up. So, a little bit of a break in that regard. Uh to me, makes sense. Now,
when you look at November, I mean, I'm sure you all heard the governor's already backpedalled on he's not even supporting his own thing anymore. >> Yeah. Multiple times. So um so um and I have been in in meetings on all
of this for on various fronts that I'm involved in. But anyway, I and with the lawsuits against it and they seem to have very good case. There's no guarantee that it will be on the ballot at this point. So we have to go with
what we know here and now. And I would like to see us give I I feel we should give the people a little bit of a break and do a roll back rate. We talked about it last year and um I just think it would uh help our
folks a little bit. So that's all I have to say on that. So meaning that you have to go back to cuts, sorry. >> Do I have a question? Do we have the I guess I have it from last year, but
but where all the other cities from >> um and their rates? I guess we have it. I'll go back and look at last year's unless somebody knows. I think we're basically in the middle. She's talking about municipalities here in Bvoulevard
County. >> No, we were second to the highest. >> But I'm saying you're saying, are we talking millage rate? >> Yes. >> Okay. Yeah. I mean I mean Yeah. We we >> your multiplier is is probably second to the high, but you're >> what you're what you're multiplying
against >> the valuation is is probably not >> That's right. >> Uh >> in the top tier. It's probably not even It's probably the bottom third. >> It was like the bottom two or three out of the county for revenue collection.
>> So, do we have that that breakdown on the >> Not not right now. >> We're working every everyone's meeting right now >> to discuss their military. >> Yeah, we can show you where you are. But but again, the the >> you got to take them both together. you
know what your what your multiplier is against the base. You know, our base is not as uh as uh robust as other cities. >> Is that it, Councilwoman Cosby? >> Yeah, that was >> okay. You said you had two, so I was waiting on number two.
>> Oh, sorry. Sorry. >> Okay, Councilman Hearn. >> Okay. What we need? Okay. We going to need we getting ready. Okay. All right. No comments. >> So, but but it's not a motion. It's just just consensus. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yeah. I mean, I think I think with the
0% increase with water and sewer, I think to me that may balance out. Um, it was already said multiple times about that only a small percentage of property owners pay property tax in the city of Koko as well. So, uh, to to city
manager's point, I think revenue is does play a point. That's why we're so high because we don't have the revenue as other cities. So, I think if we stay where we are, I think we'll be fine. The 0% increase to me could could balance out. But I do understand what
Councilwoman Weekes was saying about relief because I'm one of the ones I need relief too, right? I think we all pay um our fair share of dollars. You know, when I go to grocery store and $300 used to be 20 minutes of putting up groceries. Now $300 is five minutes of
putting up groceries. And so so I think we all on the same page on on on that on that point. But I think cutting back $200, $300,000 on our budget could hurt some of our projects that we have moving forward. It could hurt some paving
projects for sure. Um, that's what I'm that's why I'm torn on on that. So, I think we should stay where we are in my opinion. Okay. >> Maybe I missed something, but what is the difference the dollar difference in the roll back? the the dollar difference
is uh $266,000 and so we'll take it take you take them back to that uh capital major capital >> that's one road park >> it needs >> yes it
>> police department needs more than six vehicles each year we have to limit what we can on >> the crime has gone down. I mean, everyone is pitching in. All departments are scrutinizing their budget. I mean,
we're operating on a minimal as it is now, but doing a phenomenal job. We're doing more with less. And my thing is, why change the momentum? and and I think we're looking at it futuristically seeing that potentially the growth is going to take place in the
north by northwest corridor of our city and great things are happening that development out there on James and Cox Road those 400 plus homes on which will supersede over 500 homes on both side the north and south side Cocoa Winward
and on the north side of 528 um we can clearly see the rate of crime rate has been reduced. People are moving here. People are making Coco their home. We are on the cutting edge. Do not
modify or alter the impact when we're doing great things in our city. And it's clearly demonstrated. We can talk about that even on a state level and also on a federal level. the the the the funding that and grants
we have ascertained from my federal government and our state government. And my thing is you all look at the videos. I'm just saying it the change is taking place and it's been in a positive way in
a growthful productive area. >> I have question when you're done, sir. >> No, I'm done. I'm just >> I just have a question. Um, obviously there's a lot of new growth and it's mainly in my district. How much bigger
percentage now of the city population will be paying property taxes with all the growth that we have added over what we currently have. >> Particularly apartments too. >> Yeah, I know. And the apartments are paying too. I mean, paying their property taxes commercial. But I'm
curious to know because right now the percentage is only 30 something% pay, but that has to have increased with all the growth out there. So I'm curious. >> Yeah. And and none of us would know. I mean, I I can tell you that that you know, if you look at the property tax proposal,
uh, new growth is good. New growth residential is not as good as commercial new growth, you know, apartments and office buildings and things like that, you know. So, so but we we couldn't tell you because we don't know when it's going to
come on the tax roll. We don't know where the property appraiser is going to going to assess it at. But, you know, certainly the extent to which you you get more um nonresidential certainly that's going to help. Um the
station will help you know um so so big commercial big uh projects like that would help. But but again, it's none of us could actually say what the percentage would grow by because we don't know. >> I didn't know if we got with with the
what we got from the uh appraisers's office on you know, obviously we've got all the figures if they came up with what percentage of the city now pays taxes versus >> Yeah. I mean eventually we can tell you there but but again this was not >> this was not our best year because again
it it is >> if you're not if you don't have a certificate of occupancy by the first of the year you're not going on the tax road. So so remember we still have the two big subdivisions under development uh but probably most of the the
apartment complexes the two new ones >> aren't on this year's tax roll and so and so again but it will certainly help you. I I was just curious if we had that figure. So, thank you. >> Yeah. And and let me let me just And so, tonight uh by consensus, however you
want to get there, you just simply saying proceed on. Obviously, your votes on military rates and things like that come uh at the appropriate time. But but again, unless I hear uh three council
members say no stop, you know, then then I' I'd have to go back and rebalance the budget by by cutting general fund. Obviously, we need your input on again the fire assessment is at a 3% increase.
The um the water sewer is at a 0% increase. And then the storm water is at a 2%. Remember this year that was a 0% increase there. And so so we think we've been very mindful of um the current
economic uh situation. And that's why Stantech doesn't propose the increases. We we give them the direction as we're building the budget to look at the increases. And so Jack in looking at his capital projects and whether he could
sustain uh a 0% increase felt comfortable that he could do it this fiscal year. So so we think that we've given um the citizens the customers a break on the water side and uh you know maintain the current mill rate. Again,
you know, if you spread a reduction of of the 266 across the entire tax base, it's not significant or as significant as the um as the reduction to one of those >> or the elimination of one of those
capital requests. Go back to that one uh for me. And so if you said, "Hey, we're going to roll back, you know, I'm going to eliminate something or reduce something there." And Chief Car probably
I told you it was only six vehicles, right? It's not a new surprise. That's not a surprise. So he he asked for more than that and he believes he needs more than that, you know. So did he ask for 13? Mhm. >> And so and so and so again, we're only funding less than half of what he's
requested uh in terms of new vehicles. Uh and you know, there are a lot lot of other unmet um capital needs that uh departments have there. Um and and I and you guys
are aware that I mean we have to do something on the IT side. It doesn't show up as capital because most of it is probably operating. >> Yes. >> Yeah. So, so and she gave the number of 1.2 million that we're looking at trying to figure out, okay, what's needed,
what's absolutely needed uh right now, what's needed later, and then what is nice to have but not necessary. And so, and so we may get closer to 100% of the 1.2 two is absolutely needed as opposed to a desire there. But we're trying to
figure that out as a result of what happened back in in February. And so, you know, the real world um consequence of going to roll back will be some reduction in those things up there. And as you can see there, I mean, everything
up there is uh is uh needed in core sort of services, if you will. Will we hear from the public before we >> Yeah. I just want to exhaust that between you and to the public. >> Councilman Har. >> Yes. Thank you. Um, as we talk about
taxpayer relief, um, and we saw the current projections uh, for the city as far as our budgets, um, for those who may be listening in tonight, can you give any insight on what we are doing to uh, as far as future endeavors
to um, not having to go to an increase uh, as far as with or bringing in commercial uh, businesses? Um, >> yeah. And I'm glad you asked that because I was asked that at the town hall and and and probably didn't do a good job and so and so, well, actually
they wanted me to promise >> stuff before people died, you know, that was that was but you know, to the extent that that that uh, you know, the residential taxpayer to the extent that your your your new growth is nonresidential,
they're paying the the burden or the expenses going forward. for, you know, and so and so it's always good to see uh new commercial uh non-residential items going forward. Remember, so we so
so let's just think where we are, you know, we're waiting and got our fingers crossed and toes and praying that any day now we'll get the news that we have the station. Um remember we just annexed 40some acres that will be the
distribution uh the logistics center. Um we have another project that we're working on out Gryom way. Um that's no longer confidential, right? Yeah. So so
so we so we do have um a lot of nonresidential new construction that's that's uh that's going to come on board. I would say in the next three years it's going to actually um mitigate
uh the residential taxpayers bill. >> And lastly, uh we we've made a lot of headway on the station obviously. Um have you guys looked into I've been doing some research on the uh transit oriented districts. Uh I know uh with
those districts you can uh bring in higher revenue as far as from taxes. I think West Palm and some of those some of those other cities down south have done that with the Bright Line train stations. I guess that provides for higher density uh commercial buildings.
>> Yeah. Yeah. We we I don't say we argue about this every every week in staff, but but we I mean let's just talk Samantha about what we're trying to do out in the in the uh multimodal district. I'll call it >> co
don't use that term. Yeah. Yeah. >> Um yeah, we actually are working right now um doing a preliminary design for not only the station but the entire district. Um so part of that scope will include um the zoning and what that
district could look like um and will include things like that. So so we're in that preliminary stage right now. We're in the planning process for a transportationoriented development um that will bring mixed use um you know
hotels uh any all those types of things that will be in this transportation district. So it would be a subset its own special district >> and the the you know and and again most people say the the Bright Line station. No, it's it's the it's the
Cocoa multimodal station, you know, and so and so Bright Line is obviously the service provider, but but again, as she said, it's it's a it's a it's a district or an overlay, whatever it's going to be that's that's that's uh transit oriented. So, um, and remember that
would that would literally stretch from, um, post office all the way around to Michigan. >> Thank you, Councilwoman Cos. >> Yeah, I was going to say >> and then we'll turn it to the public. >> Uh, I was going to say I don't know that
the neighborhood that is a multimotal district would like that title. Um, >> do we plan to bring in any citizens when as we get into this planning process? >> Which title wouldn't they like?
>> Well, just to call we're in the I mean, basically my neighborhood is a multimodal district. >> Well, well, >> I think that there is some concern about the density that will be there and so, you know, some sensitivity to and as we
reinvision this thing is going to be important. >> Yeah. and and we're we're we're we're in the preliminary stages of the station design and then going to the district design, which I'm sure will have public input. You know, it's it's in it's in
when you're going after those grants, they like the the term multimodal. Um >> Oh, everybody that term isn't the problem, but labeling it just multimodal. >> Well, it's it's okay. Well, the station
is a multimodal station. So, so but again to your point um station design and then overlay special district whatever it's going to be called uh we're we're we're getting into that
right after we do our concurrent with the station design planning. That's I think that's what Myra is doing. >> Yes. And then will the neighborhood or citizens be brought in any public participation the overlay process?
>> Yeah, because it's it's a I mean it you you you got to create probably uh different future land use designations. You got to create future uh different zoning designations. And so that's that's a very public process as
you know. And so I was going to say one of the things I think as I talk to people, they see a lot of our development and I mean as we've heard not just at the district 4
uh town halls, but you know this feeling that oh you're bringing in all this density, the roads are becoming more crowded um and the negatives. And my response is always, well, this is going to decrease your taxes as we have
more revenues to develop the city. >> But that's why the roll back is attractive to me. It's also I think it's am I right? Is it 2%? A roll back would only be 2%.
Did I get that math right? >> Okay. you you need it. >> It's more of a public perception thing than it is much of anything else because really in the scheme of things and a budget this size 266,000
is is not a lot. >> But it's not it's not against the the entire budget. It's against the general fund bo portion of the budget. And so so general fund portion of the budget is
what the 59 million Rebecca you said it earlier. >> So it's 59 million and you get I always point to Jack but anyway you get you get 23 26 million of that from Jack you know and so and so really it's not even 59
million that that you know that that 266 is is uh being taken off of. is 36 million. Yeah. So, I just wanted to offer that perspective. I mean, that's why it's attractive to me to do a roll back. It's
because we get a lot of feedback that, oh, you're doing all this development of my, you know, that it's changing and this isn't what I bought into and but there are going to be all these plus sides. Um
and and that's why I particularly look at how it lines up with other cities, other municipalities even in Bvard that they, you know, other people that people can move to
in terms of what level of taxation they're getting. So, is it 2% difference? >> 1.85%. >> 1.85. Okay. >> Equates to about $12 a year for a household on or based on population.
It's $11 person per year. >> Per person. >> Yeah. Not everyone. >> And depends on which tax tier you're into. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. If you would like to expound on this particular um subject for
discussion, please u come to the podium. But you need to submit a card. Going once, going twice. is closed the portion of the public and return it to council.
Um so what we need now is direction on which um if we're going to proceed forward with the current conditions um in lie of the roll back condition. Is that my correct interpretation? Yeah, I
mean it's just I'm going to I'm going to bring you a budget uh predicated on a current military scenario and those changes that uh Pete went over in terms of the uh the rates there. If if I if
you if you don't if I hear silence then that's you know you know it's like at home it's yes you know. So, and so, you know, if again three of you are going to say, well, no, go back and sharpen your pencil, then I'm going to go back and do
that. >> And so, it would be it would be to maintain the current millage rate. >> Uh, and then it would be um the water sewer rate would be a 0 percentage increase. Storm water would
be 2% increase, right? And then fire >> 3% >> 3% >> and maintain the military. >> Yeah. >> So I say sharpen your pencil. >> We we going to put a vote on it. >> Okay. I thought he said what? Okay.
>> You say sharpen your pencil. I >> I'll put a vote on it. >> Okay, that's fine. >> I would want to sharpen the pencils. >> Keep it current. >> Keep it the same. >> Keep it current.
So you have direction. >> So keep it current and go with the rating. >> Yes. The rate at the miller rate of 6.9532 3% increase fire assessment zero increase in our water sewer
utilities 2% increase in our storm utility rate. >> Thank you Mr. Mayor. >> Yes ma'am. Thank you councel. Thank you staff. Um Mr. City Manager and staff. Thank you for your due diligence. City attorney, thank you sir as well.
Citizens of Coco, we thank you for your participation, your civic duty and council. I thank you. Do we need to elaborate on anything else? We entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Move to adjourn. >> Got a motion on the floor by councilwoman Weeks.
>> Second. >> Okay, she got it. Second by councilwoman cause chair's going to call the question. All in favor by saying I. I. >> Thank you councel. Appreciate it.