WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=t2XcU8rFpu0

NOTE
MEETING SECTIONS:

Part 1 (Video ID: t2XcU8rFpu0):
- 00:00:43: Rules and Regulations for Public Comment Participation
- 00:03:32: Call to Order, Invocation, and Pledge of Allegiance
- 00:05:31: Petitions and Requests: Planning, AI, School Zone Cameras
- 00:08:51: Petitions and Requests: Sewage Spraying and Stormwater Issues
- 00:11:54: Petitions and Requests: Acorn Drive History, Truck Restrictions
- 00:15:17: Petitions and Requests: Royal Oak Golf Course Mediation
- 00:16:57: Discussion: Transparency Concerns and Mediation Details
- 00:24:45: Petitions and Requests: ADA Compliance with Payment System
- 00:28:32: Petitions and Requests: Historic Norwood House Recognition
- 00:31:37: Consent Agenda Introduction and Item Pulling
- 00:32:26: Consent Agenda: Water Allocation and Excess Water Concerns
- 00:35:01: Consent Agenda Discussion: Water Sourcing and Costs
- 00:36:37: Consent Agenda Discussion: Lift Stations and One Bid
- 00:37:24: Consent Agenda Discussion: Cocoa Water Purchasing Agreement
- 00:38:31: Consent Agenda Vote on all items except Item A
- 00:38:47: Discussion and Vote on Axon Fleet 3 Vehicle Camera System
- 00:39:13: Axon Camera Public Comment: Cloud Storage Privacy Concerns
- 00:40:36: TPD Responds: Policy, Data, Live Stream Capabilities
- 00:46:38: Concerns on Data, License Plate Readers and Flock Cameras
- 00:50:15: TPD Responds to More Questions about Ring Cameras
- 00:51:12: Discussion Regarding Flock Cameras and National Security
- 00:54:15: Public Comment Concerns About Five-Year Contract Length
- 00:54:53: Discussion on Ownership and Functionality of Flock Cameras
- 00:55:24: TPD Response to Questions About Flock and Data Controls
- 01:01:16: Successes and Cost Effectiveness of Public Safety Systems
- 01:02:22: TPD Speaks on Safeguards and Rigorous Audit Systems
- 01:05:33: Discussion Regarding Accessing Plate Data and Audit Concerns
- 01:06:37: Motion and Vote on Axon Camera System
- 01:08:19: Discussion Begins on Aerospace Manufacturing Ordinance 11-2026
- 01:08:55: Ordinance 11-2026: Aerospace and Light Manufacturing Details
- 01:10:41: Public Comment Regarding Data Centers and Water Consumption
- 01:13:57: Discussions on Expanded Definition of Light Manufacturing
- 01:16:41: Discussions About Concerns and Potential Outcomes of Expansions
- 01:19:39: Discussing Current Map Boundaries of P Zoning District
- 01:20:28: Discussion on Limiting Specific Uses with the Expansions
- 01:23:11: Discussions Concerning Residential Use and Industrial areas
- 01:24:16: Discussion on Focusing Expansion around Specific Industries
- 01:26:08: Discussing Reverting to Previous Study with Recommendations
- 01:28:22: Discussion Regarding Aerospace Manufacturing Definition and Limitations
- 01:30:13: Council Clarifies Data Center Zoning And Water Usage
- 01:32:27: Resolution to Vacate Public Right of Way Approved
- 01:35:05: Employee Benefits and HR Consulting Services RFP Discussion
- 01:36:32: Employee Benefits Consultant Selection and Rising Healthcare Costs
- 01:46:10: Evaluation Committee Discusses Ranking Process and Decision
- 01:50:47: Accentria Presents to Council; RFP Approved by Vote
- 01:57:29: Discussion on Removing Density Standards from Zoning District
- 01:58:59: Public Comments on Proposed Zoning Density Change
- 02:00:42: Public Comments Regarding Density Protections Removal
- 02:03:30: Additional Public Comment: Zoning Changes and Density Protections
- 02:06:45: Concerns About Cleaning Up Zoning Standards, Tabled
- 02:11:29: Public Comment: Coast to Coast Bikeway Safety Concerns
- 02:14:18: Council Requests Study on Transitioning to Electric Vehicles
- 02:23:16: Council Requests: Banning Marijuana Dispensaries Discussion
- 02:30:34: Mayor Connor's Report: Memorial Day and 4th July
- 02:31:41: Concerns Regarding Summer Meals Program Employee Safety
- 02:37:29: Vague Background Check Discussion For Food Delivery Volunteer
- 02:46:10: Small Area Royal Oak Study, Looking for Council Guidance
- 02:53:53: Discussion About Small Area Study; Public Comments


Part: 1

1
00:00:43.600 --> 00:01:20.320
Hey, hey, hey. The following is the procedure for public comment and participation. Individuals wishing to speak on agenda items must complete a signup card prior to the item being introduced. Those wishing to speak on quasi judicial public hearings must complete a signup

2
00:01:20.320 --> 00:01:37.759
card and sign the oath. Sign up and oath cards are available on the table. Individuals wishing to speak on non-aggenda items may do so under petitions and requests from the public present. This opportunity is offered twice in the meeting and individuals may speak at either the first or second petitions, but not both. No signup card

3
00:01:37.759 --> 00:01:55.040
is required. Citizens shall not comment on any issue more than once during the meeting. All comments except petitions and requests must address the pending issue and citizens will be given three minutes to speak on agenda items. Next, citizens wishing to speak on the consent agenda must submit a signup card

4
00:01:55.040 --> 00:02:11.440
identifying the items of interest. Each speaker shall be limited to three minutes to speak on the entire consent agenda. And finally, all signup cards and exhibits being submitted to city council shall be placed in the box on the table. The purpose of the city council meeting is to discuss city business and proper

5
00:02:11.440 --> 00:02:27.040
decorum must be displayed by all in attendance. Public input and participation is encouraged. However, all persons in attendance shall comply with the rules for meeting procedures and shall refrain from any action that disrupts the orderly proceedings of the council meeting or hinders a council

6
00:02:27.040 --> 00:02:43.040
from performing its duties. No person shall interfere with the rights of others to speak, hear, see, or attend the proceedings, make threats of violence, disrupt the proceedings with shouting, fail to confine remarks to the agenda item under consideration, nor continue to speak after the allotted

7
00:02:43.040 --> 00:02:59.440
speaking time has expired, as these actions shall be considered disruptive and disorderly. The mayor shall caution any person who violates these provisions and disrupts the orderly proceedings of the council meetings, and they shall be directed to comply. Any person who fails to comply as cautioned shall be ruled

8
00:02:59.440 --> 00:03:16.080
out of order shall forfeit the remainder of their speaking time on the agenda item under consideration and will be requested to return to their seat. Persons who fail to comply as directed shall be subject to removal from the council chambers by law enforcement or such other actions as may be reasonably

9
00:03:16.080 --> 00:03:32.959
necessary to enforce these regulations. Notwithstanding, the mayor may order the immediate removal of any person from the chambers who possesses a threat to property or life safety. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or restrict a person's right created by the constitution, law, ordinance, or

10
00:03:32.959 --> 00:03:48.480
regulation. >> Good evening everybody. Welcome to the city of Titusville City Council regular meeting scheduled May 26, 2026 at 7:30 and now 7:14. I'm going to call this meeting to order. Um before we move on,

11
00:03:48.480 --> 00:04:07.519
I'm gonna ask uh Pastor Jody Wells to come up and give an invocation for us. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Council, staff. Thank you all for the opportunity and the privilege to uh join with you in prayer and thank you for your service to the community. Let's pray together.

12
00:04:07.519 --> 00:04:22.639
Father, we enter with thanksgiving and we are thankful for city leaders who value prayer and indeed invoke your presence. We do give thanks for the men and women who have laid down their lives for this nation and military service

13
00:04:22.639 --> 00:04:39.440
following the Memorial Day weekend. We pray your comfort and strength for their families in this sacred season. Your word declares where two or three are gathered in your name, there you are in the midst. So be present Lord. Be active

14
00:04:39.440 --> 00:04:56.320
Lord. May your wisdom, your knowledge, and your truth bless us all. May your love and your power flow through us all. Guide our leaders and be glorified in all that we say and all that we do. We pray these things in the name of Jesus

15
00:04:56.320 --> 00:05:14.560
Christ. Amen. >> Amen. Thank you, pastor. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands one nation

16
00:05:14.560 --> 00:05:31.759
indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you very much. City attorney, do we have a quorum? >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you. I would normally turn this over to the city manager, but we have no minutes. We have no boards and commissions reports. So, first item

17
00:05:31.759 --> 00:05:58.960
on the docket is petitions and requests from the public. Non-aggenda items. >> All right. I have two points. They're actually from earlier, but they aren't part of this agenda. Uh, the first concern I have is with regard to planning. I'm already significantly disappointed

18
00:05:58.960 --> 00:06:13.520
by the failures of our planning department to actually review plans, understand how they are going to be implemented and whether they are actually falling within our comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Uh the use of AI and the

19
00:06:13.520 --> 00:06:31.600
reliance on AI to review applications and particularly to approve applications is terrifying. I don't know if any of you have been using AI yourselves, but AI hallucinates. AI loses the thread. AI can't be relied upon to take a draft and

20
00:06:31.600 --> 00:06:49.280
recreate it without losing points. The idea that we as a city would rely on an AI to review plans and decide that they are appropriate to implement is terrifying. Please reconsider that. Um, with regard to the um, cameras in our

21
00:06:49.280 --> 00:07:05.599
school zones, I noticed as I was listening, sorry, to the officer speaking, um, he'd said, you know, flashing lights aren't necessary. Um, but they are because people are distracted. They're looking to the side. They're looking ahead. They're looking

22
00:07:05.599 --> 00:07:21.599
behind. They aren't always looking at the side of the road where the speed limit is. Um, and the tickets outside of school uh hours, they'd said they're turning off the cameras for the summer, but they're not. They're still using the cameras from what I heard,

23
00:07:21.599 --> 00:07:38.160
just not the school speed zones. So, the limit will still be 11 over the current speed limit. So, they would still be using those over the summer from what I understood. Um, finally, with regard to saving a child, we didn't save a child.

24
00:07:38.160 --> 00:07:55.039
the child was in a parking lot. The school speed limit had nothing to do with that child on the bike. So, we need data. If we're going to say these cameras are serving us and they're saving children, then we need to actually know how many children were injured before, how many accidents

25
00:07:55.039 --> 00:08:12.080
happened in these speed zones before and how many are happening after. Finally, the data they have, they estimated May data out of 60 days, 30 days is useless. We shouldn't be implementing anything, particularly paying for it out of the taxpayers's pocket and then penalizing

26
00:08:12.080 --> 00:08:29.440
the taxpayer with that money that they were collecting without knowing what we're buying. And finally, if we are going to do this, then we should implement crossings just like they have on A1A at the beach so that when children are present, the lights are flashing very clearly, the crosswalk is

27
00:08:29.440 --> 00:08:48.839
highlighted, and the drivers know to stop. that would be far more safe for pedestrian children than having a ticket in the mail 30 days later. Um, thank you for your time. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay.

28
00:08:51.839 --> 00:09:09.920
>> Good evening. I've got an 18 18 by 24. You've seen this before many times. Especially Mrs. Nelson has seen it because she's the one who said that oh she called up FD and and some anonymous person said it's okay to spray sewage onto the public. Wow. It says it ariates

29
00:09:09.920 --> 00:09:27.040
it ariates the pollution. So So in other words, we got at least four people I understand and on the council say it's okay to spray people with sewage. I like the Boy Scouts look at that too. So in other words uh uh this is a problem. Now Mrs. Nelson, I want you to know, Mayor

30
00:09:27.040 --> 00:09:44.560
Connor, she's a problem. She she brings this up repeatedly about about uh that we don't have the power to go in there and and and dig the ditches and so forth like that. Well, we we are we are supposed to go ahead and have it done

31
00:09:44.560 --> 00:10:00.720
even though it's outside the city limits in order for our storm water system to function. So, what right now as I'm saying is I'm tired of you as a professional engineer. What you're doing is illegal. Illegal. Illegal. Illegal. That's why we're having flooding on Mox McCrae.

32
00:10:00.720 --> 00:10:15.600
The water is going back into the city instead of the St. John's River. That's your fault. That's your fault. That has been noted for how many years? Since 1966. It's a problem. And it's and it's gotten

33
00:10:15.600 --> 00:10:32.880
worse because it it it's overgrown. It's overgrown. I mentioned to you all these culberts and so forth. 6x4, 9, 7 by3, and so forth like that. And what do you do? You ignore it. You ignore it. I want these Boy Scouts to listen to this. I've been I was a boy scout and so was my

34
00:10:32.880 --> 00:10:49.680
dad. And we're supposed to be truthful. You guys aren't truthful. You're you have a responsibility and you're not you're not you're not you're not to doing what you're supposed to do. And I'm including you also, Miss Muscoso. There there should be some discussion about this. you your people are being

35
00:10:49.680 --> 00:11:06.079
flooded and it's not their fault. It's your fault. It's your fault. You're not budgeting where storm water and you've been doing it for how many years? Over 50 years. Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you. All of you. You don't do it. It's your responsibility. And what

36
00:11:06.079 --> 00:11:22.959
who does it? Nobody. Your responsibility. And you sherk. You sherk from it. You're supposed to follow the constitution also. So what do you do? What do you do? You build dams. You build dams. They're illegal in the city of Titusville. Illegal. Taking people's

37
00:11:22.959 --> 00:11:38.160
property. That's illegal. And that and what is your oath of office? We're going to follow the Constitution. You're not doing it. You're not doing it. Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you. What did I say? Shame on you. This disgusting what you're doing. This is it. Spraying

38
00:11:38.160 --> 00:11:54.959
people with sewage. That's a big deal. That's a big deal. And you cannot get any PE. We got 40,000 pees in the state of Florida. You can't get one of them up here to disagree with me. That's terrible. You're lying. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

39
00:11:54.959 --> 00:12:28.880
>> You're welcome. >> Additions request after Uh, Molina Villain, historic Indian River City. At the last meeting I attended, I submitted city records showing that Acorn Drive was entirely residential until at least 1977.

40
00:12:28.880 --> 00:12:44.880
At the same meeting, it was said the city believes that that is it has always been commercial. But the city can't say that, not with certainty. Indian River City was originally platted in 1913. It had its own identity for o over a half a century with a city hall, chamber of

41
00:12:44.880 --> 00:13:00.639
commerce, post office, and a railway stop until being incorporated into Titusville in the early 60s. It's hard to find intent from platting maps 100 years ago. Unless your hobby is reading old city newspapers for fun. And so I am entering into the public record. Florida

42
00:13:00.639 --> 00:13:17.120
Star Advocate articles from 1925, the year after Acorn was platted. In 1954, the year after our Hopkins lots were split to Acorn parcels. The 19 uh uh sorry uh the 19 uh

43
00:13:17.120 --> 00:13:32.079
24 uh 25 article describes the business district as having streets 150 ft wide and the residential district having streets 50 ft wide and up. Hopkins was originally platted at 150 ft. Acorn remains a 50-ft ride ofway of which only

44
00:13:32.079 --> 00:13:48.160
22 feet is paved. That distinction mattered 100 years ago. The 1954 article describes IRC as being a booming residential city. It describes the commercial corridor as being on US1 and highway 50 and Hopkins being a residential thoroughare once completed.

45
00:13:48.160 --> 00:14:04.160
It also mentions the three blocks between the railroad tracks and the river as prime residential properties. IRC was not built as a modern subdivision. It grew up as an old Florida town where uses were often closed together because people lived near what they needed. It is the reason

46
00:14:04.160 --> 00:14:20.560
that Pritchard, the Britard House, stands in the middle of downtown. Businesses are not the problem. The problem is the intensity of the uses when it comes to traffic circulation, large trucks delivering on local roads instead of private property, and no true buffer between uses. This city has

47
00:14:20.560 --> 00:14:37.199
repeatedly stated we were likely not qualified for a truck restriction ordinance. I would like a study confirming that position. If the city's position is that the alleyway system and the local residential streets they feed onto function as a part of the commercial corridor, then the residents of ACORN deserve that determination

48
00:14:37.199 --> 00:14:53.839
clearly documented and supported by analysis because the neighborhood plan also protects the core residential zone from commercial intrusion. If you're not following the neighborhood plan, then you're in violation of the comprehensive plan. Following this meeting, I will be sending each of you videos uh showing

49
00:14:53.839 --> 00:15:17.199
large trucks staging the residential area and the city's response stating that that activity is allowed. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, >> Vicki Kan. Good evening. So on April 28th, the city attorney reported the

50
00:15:17.199 --> 00:15:34.320
date, time, and place for the informal mediation. It's regarding the retired Royal Oak Golf Course property owners application for a large-scale amendment to the comprehensive plan that was denied unanimously by you all on February 10th. I would just like clarification tonight if accommodation

51
00:15:34.320 --> 00:15:51.120
has been made for the public to attend since the meeting is in the private office of Miss Kimra Zinca on May 28th from 9 to 12 noon. Since the Florida statute does not deny the public from observing this meeting and the city is committed to transparency, we just

52
00:15:51.120 --> 00:16:07.600
wanted to know what accommodations have been made for the citizens to observe. And I suppose I would ask one of you on councel to ask Miss Treasure since I'm not allowed to do that. so that we could have clarification. >> Is that Are you yielding the rest of your time and then I'll I'll absolutely

53
00:16:07.600 --> 00:16:23.600
ask that question. >> All right. Please have a seat, Miss Conklin. I'll have her answer. >> I'll I'll hear her here. I'll just wait. there uh is no public participation as it's not required by the statute. In addition to the applicant who's

54
00:16:23.600 --> 00:16:38.399
requesting the informal mediation does not want uh the public to be present which is within their right as they're the requesttor and um they're the ones entitled to to the informal mediation and and I will remind you that there is

55
00:16:38.399 --> 00:16:57.440
a pending litigation matter that's accompanying this um case. >> Thank you very much city attorney. Thank you very much for your comment, Miss Conklin. >> Okay, that's an interesting answer. Um because there is nothing, as I understand, Kathleen O by the way, I

56
00:16:57.440 --> 00:17:13.199
think you know who I am, there is nothing that says citizens can't attend. So that's a little bit concerning if you're talking about transparency and allowing citizens and it doesn't really have a good look when the individual who

57
00:17:13.199 --> 00:17:32.240
is the lawyer for the development has this meeting in her private office and then it's set up so citizens cannot even hear it. You don't have any concern about transparency in that? Ma'am,

58
00:17:32.240 --> 00:17:50.240
>> I guess not. >> Member Nelson, >> I don't believe the mediator has an office, which might be why it's in Miss Roseno's office. question though after the mediation I

59
00:17:50.240 --> 00:18:05.600
can understand why um a mediator it it should be is informal and having a load of people in there is going to be somewhat disruptive.

60
00:18:05.600 --> 00:18:22.640
However, after the mediation, can we get an update on what happened? >> Absolutely. And that has been uh the city attorney's position from the uh get-go that we will provide an update as to the informal mediation. Again, understanding that nothing that occurs

61
00:18:22.640 --> 00:18:39.280
in the mediation is binding on the city. Uh and um again, this is a request that is a prerequisite for most for most for all intents and purposes for the litigation that is currently pending which I will not get into the litigation matter as you know. >> Okay.

62
00:18:39.280 --> 00:18:55.919
And everything has to come before this board, which is obviously very public public hearings. We've done it before. We'll we'll do it again if that's what it comes to, but we'll get an update once it completes and then we'll have that discussion. Me, Miss Conlin, you're out of order.

63
00:18:55.919 --> 00:19:18.840
All right. So, if Royal Oak residents uh are going to be precluded from the mediation, will you perhaps do a video taping of the proceedings?

64
00:19:20.320 --> 00:19:35.120
>> I'm going to answer for Miss Treasure. That would be very unusual. That usually doesn't happen because it's very informal. Is a matter of um the mediator or talking to the

65
00:19:35.120 --> 00:19:53.440
attorneys, talking to the parties. Usually um the attorneys would take the parties up to another office to discuss what their parameters were. they would come back, the mediator would say, "That

66
00:19:53.440 --> 00:20:09.520
might be appropriate, that might not be appropriate." Um, they go back sort of a back and forth. >> Understand? >> Not. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> No, I understand that. Uh but it just seems to me like um if there were uh if

67
00:20:09.520 --> 00:20:25.440
this were videoed um obviously we couldn't we have would have no ability to interject ourselves and it would just be something made public otherwise it looks like a a I mean the optics looks like just private discussions between

68
00:20:25.440 --> 00:20:42.400
developer and city staff uh that that runs counter to what we were expecting to happen here. >> Correct. Uh, I think your expectations were one thing, but legally this is what nor

69
00:20:42.400 --> 00:20:59.120
would normally happen and it would be no different than the attorney and the developer sitting in Miss Treasurer's office and say, "What do you think about this? What do you think about that?" The difference with a mediator is you

70
00:20:59.120 --> 00:21:16.240
have somebody there that knows the law and quot can sort of direct it. So if if there was a meeting between uh Miss Reda, her client

71
00:21:16.240 --> 00:21:33.200
uh Miss Treasure Brad, you wouldn't be included necessarily. >> Understand? But this is actually mediation. It's this is something more than just a normal meeting. >> This is something that's required I believe for lawsuits.

72
00:21:33.200 --> 00:21:49.520
>> If I may proceed, >> as stated before the statute uh 163.3184, I believe PN4 provides for this mechanism for the applicant who has been denied, which is why we're here. Their transmitt was

73
00:21:49.520 --> 00:22:05.280
denied. It provides them specifically this opportunity to request. They're the requesttor. They for all intents and purposes can say whether they're wanting uh anyone outside of the parties who are who are involved here, which is really the city and the applicant to be

74
00:22:05.280 --> 00:22:21.039
involved. They're stating no. There is no provision in this particular statute that requires the public participation which I've stated uh numerous time. There is a other statute in 70.51 which I think the city has gone through twice

75
00:22:21.039 --> 00:22:36.799
before and maybe that is what you're familiar with. This is not the applicable statute that the the applicant is wanting to invoke at this time and yes it is a prerequ prerequisite for the lawsuit which is pending before us. There is generally speaking in mediation the mediation

76
00:22:36.799 --> 00:22:54.000
occurs between the parties not the public and in this particular situation the public is not uh required to be in there and not involved and public participation in mediations like these it's limited to certain specific statute which is not applicable in this case.

77
00:22:54.000 --> 00:23:08.559
>> Yeah. >> Well yes we do. >> Thank you very much sir. >> Yeah. >> I appreciate it. Again, nothing that happens there is binding and nothing will happen until it comes before this board and council has spoken loud and clear. >> Understand? It just seemed to me that

78
00:23:08.559 --> 00:23:24.240
since obviously nothing is binding then this doesn't rise to the level of worrying about privacy um in this case. So I don't it just seems like it's a transparency issue. Seems like it could be easily resolved by just videotaping it. >> Thank you very much.

79
00:23:24.240 --> 00:23:38.640
>> Member Mscoso. >> Thank you. I mean, I think what's happening is uh it's not negotiation. You're going to be in the room and you work at the pleasure of the council and you already know where we stand. We

80
00:23:38.640 --> 00:23:56.320
voted unanimously. And so, um it would be unthinkable that you would go in that room and and have a stance otherwise. And so, I from my understanding that is what's happening. >> That is correct. In addition to the uh opposing council, the applicant's

81
00:23:56.320 --> 00:24:12.799
attorney is fully aware of that. And again, I can't emphasize this enough. This is sort of like a prerequisite for the lawsuit, something that's afforded to them that we can sit down um in an informal setting and have this talk. They are fully aware of the record as to

82
00:24:12.799 --> 00:24:28.720
the vote of council and we can only listen. I will have the city manager and Brad Parish as the city representative outside of legal council present and uh we'll file a report with council as to the um

83
00:24:28.720 --> 00:24:45.440
outcome if any um of of the mediation. >> Thank you very much. City attorney sir. >> Hey my name is John. I'm a new resident. Uh tonight I wanted to bring up Boy Scouts are here. I'm an Eagle Scout and it just happened to be they rolled in for support and they're check they're having a merit badge tonight. So with

84
00:24:45.440 --> 00:25:01.919
that said, I'd like to talk about the ADA compliance with inside the payment system in the water department. So Chris Christine Ley, who's a disabled resident as well, who lives with myself. Uh we had a problem when we first moved in. We were down on our luck. We moved to town. We took everything to get here after my

85
00:25:01.919 --> 00:25:17.679
dad died out of Val Rico. So when we got here, um a check had bounced for the water department, but then they banned us from making debit card payments. I wanted to back her up with the debit card. They said, "No, we have to crawl ourselves down here to pay the bill in person or mail it in," which is very

86
00:25:17.679 --> 00:25:33.840
hard to go out. Like I I'm without a car right now. I lost my car a few weeks ago to a transmission problem. So, I'm working through that. I have a job and I had to take off early today to come pay the bill in a new job. And I'm just asking for some kind of resolution that you can make it so that people can pay like they shouldn't be punished for

87
00:25:33.840 --> 00:25:49.520
being poor. I mean, with everything that's going on in this country at this point, people are a little down on money and that's not a crime. And I'm just asking, is there any way that you guys can find a solution to this? >> So, what was exactly the ADA issue that you're referring to? >> Well, if a disabled person is being

88
00:25:49.520 --> 00:26:04.799
forced to come down, >> okay, >> pay cash rather than be able to pay a debit card, which is in real time. I mean, the next step is paying with XRP. It's worth I mean, it's money, but if if a bounce check came, that doesn't mean you should be able to punish a person that is disabled.

89
00:26:04.799 --> 00:26:21.039
>> I'm not disabled. I can get around, but like I we're having transportation problems and all we asked for them to lift it today and they said there's no possible way for a year you have to crawl yourself down here on your hands and knees and and and say thank you. >> Well, I I don't dis disagree with what what you're saying. I was just trying to make sure I fully understood your

90
00:26:21.039 --> 00:26:37.919
concern. Um so I'm definitely in favor of us relooking at some of these policies when it comes to electronic payment. I've said that for a while now. Um especially if there is an issue with automatic payment, then they kind of kick you off. I think mortgage companies do that as well. They're like, "Okay, now you got to manually make your

91
00:26:37.919 --> 00:26:53.600
payment." >> Look into who actually wrote that because they wouldn't give me the information to say there was a person who signed off on that. And why did they sign off that? Are they being uh vindicious or is this part of a process? But I think that's kind of a cruel process if it is. >> Yeah. I think a lot of our policies and procedures are pretty outdated to be

92
00:26:53.600 --> 00:27:08.960
honest with you and that's something this council has been kind of taken into account as these issues come up. But um yeah, we we'll have the discussion. Thank you very much. appreci. >> Yes, thank you. I would I would agree with you on that. Um I had the same

93
00:27:08.960 --> 00:27:25.600
issue. I was paying um a bill for our church and our card was expired and I didn't realize that and so I also had to come down here with cash as well. I don't think it's a year process, but I I agree with you. It's very inconvenient. So, um thank you for bringing that up.

94
00:27:25.600 --> 00:27:41.120
>> Member Stokl. >> Yep. Um I had a question for staff and I don't know if they do know the answer. I also had this issue with a resident that brought that up to me, but I didn't know if it was from our third party vendor that we use for our payments or not. And maybe if you guys don't have the answer

95
00:27:41.120 --> 00:27:58.080
now, we can look into it because this was something I wanted to bring up anyway because waiting a year um as this gentleman mentioned, I just think is a hardship if especially if it's just something happened. Um I would like to change that if possible.

96
00:27:58.080 --> 00:28:14.320
>> Anybody have an update? Is it a year? Is it not a year? How long is it? >> I'm I'm not familiar with this case, but obviously anytime it's brought to my attention, I look into it and >> try to give the benefit of the doubt or make accommodations as necessary to uh resolve the issue

97
00:28:14.320 --> 00:28:31.799
>> with look into this issue and as well as our policy >> with the consent of council. If everybody's in agreement, I would like to ask city manager put that as an item on our next meeting if that's okay. >> Yes. >> Everybody in favor? All right, >> city manager, you got it. All right. Yes, sir.

98
00:28:32.159 --> 00:28:52.080
>> Additions and requests. >> Just ship the historic Norwood House. I'm also on your um historic preservation board advisory board. And I just wanted to point out once more that coming Thursday is our workshop, our annual

99
00:28:52.080 --> 00:29:07.760
public information workshop. This year um we we've instituted a program recognition without designation which means that we choose four um commercial and residential area um homes fitting a

100
00:29:07.760 --> 00:29:24.640
theme this year is mid-century modern and the space industry come to Titusville and um in Royal Oak on Nelson Drive is one of the recipients of one of the awards this year for recognition without designation. one of our fine

101
00:29:24.640 --> 00:29:40.640
mid-century modern homes. And the owner um told me that he came he worked in Titusville, but he lived elsewhere until he saw this house and he moved here and has refurbished it. And for um the

102
00:29:40.640 --> 00:29:56.960
mayor's um information, I'd like to say that a growing appreciation for older homes will allay the need for everexpanding new housing development, necessitating the loss of natural environment through urban sprawl. An appreciation for a

103
00:29:56.960 --> 00:30:12.720
particular architectural style will increase the value of identified structures as owners actualize the potential of that style through remodeling, renovating, and refurbishing. And mid-century modern homes, as we all know, are at least 50

104
00:30:12.720 --> 00:30:30.480
years old and may be a little showing their age. But with proper refurbishment and proper love, these moon homes can be charming and desirable. And we

105
00:30:30.480 --> 00:30:48.240
have four neighborhoods south of 405 tucked in between Park and Bara, four different communities that were built in the 50s and 60s. And I spoke with a man whose father came and was a constructor and they built a house a week for the

106
00:30:48.240 --> 00:31:04.480
space workers who were coming and they called them moon homes. So I'm really excited about our mid-century modern neighborhoods and communities and hope that some of the enthusiasm that I found will um trans translate to them and

107
00:31:04.480 --> 00:31:21.679
they'll want to renovate and remodel and even do their terazzo floors again. Wow. Mid-century modern in the space industry. Come to Titusville, the workshop Thursday afternoon at the Moore Service Center at 5:30. Oh, this is the

108
00:31:21.679 --> 00:31:37.279
postcard. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Shilla. Anybody else petitions or requests? Non-aggenda items? >> Seeing none, city manager. >> Mr. Moving on to consent agenda. We have seven items on consent. Are there any

109
00:31:37.279 --> 00:31:56.480
items which council wishes to pull for further discussion? >> Member Moscow. >> Uh yes. 8. A. >> Thank you. >> You say A is an apple. >> A. >> Anybody else? All right. Seeing none, >> sir. I'll I'll read uh the other items

110
00:31:56.480 --> 00:32:12.720
for the record. Consent agenda item 8B, purchase of storm water vacuum truck. 8 C, the economic development fund resolution. 8 D, the water allocation permit for the Woodr Hotel. 8 E, the

111
00:32:12.720 --> 00:32:26.960
fire department budget transfer request. 8F, award of bid, lift station, pumps, motors, and impellers. And 8G, purchase of a greatall excavator. >> Thank you very much, city manager. City clerk

112
00:32:26.960 --> 00:33:06.080
>> Elizabeth Parker for 8D. Yes, you have 8D written on your card. >> Elizabeth Parker, Torbino Circle. Again, uh this kind of ties back, of course, to the issue of storm water and making sure that we're recharging our wells. I I

113
00:33:06.080 --> 00:33:22.159
guess I just wanted to bring to the council's attention that we are eagerly developing Titusville and uh this 18,300 gallons per day for this project is only 3.23% two 3% of our excess

114
00:33:22.159 --> 00:33:36.640
meaning we've already built out our capacity to the point where we are running low. Uh this project adds in with other commercial and industrial projects uh the concrete ready mix the

115
00:33:36.640 --> 00:33:54.080
Astra house and now woodspring taking 11% of our excess and then we're building residential units too probably another five six% of our excess. Uh it seems that in 2026 we've allocated

116
00:33:54.080 --> 00:34:11.119
15% of our excess. We're buying our water from Coco and I think other municipalities as well. And we're paving over our lands which recharge our wells. And we're very eager to continue doing that because we want

117
00:34:11.119 --> 00:34:26.399
to grow and we want to have roofs and we want to collect taxes. But who's paying for all this excess water that we're buying? And who's going to pay to replace for the water that we're no longer putting

118
00:34:26.399 --> 00:34:44.079
into our own wells so that we have to buy more water? I guess what I'm asking you is rather than hand overfist continually improve approving developmental projects, who is watching the hen house? If it's the fox, we're in trouble. Thank you.

119
00:34:44.079 --> 00:35:01.079
>> Thank you, city clerk. >> All right, council. Member Stokel. Um, yes. Actually, I did have a question on that. I didn't want to pull it, but do we know how much uh water we are purchasing from Coco approximately?

120
00:35:01.760 --> 00:35:16.800
>> Right now, it's 3 million a month. >> Okay. And I think that was one of my concerns because while I know we have ample supply from Coco, we do have to pay a fee for purchasing from Coco as well. And so once we pay that fee, how does that then

121
00:35:16.800 --> 00:35:31.680
get dispersed to? It's not just the, you know, new person that's developing now. It's going to get dispersed among all citizens, I would imagine. >> Correct. Yeah. I did a I did a quick um evaluation of what it costs to, you know, process our water because we don't

122
00:35:31.680 --> 00:35:48.800
have to process the cocoa water. Um and it's really not that much different. Yeah. We would like to purchase the least you amount we can from Coco, but they're good have as an emergency backup if we need to meet our fire pressures. So, it's good to have. We try we try not to overdo it but um we like to keep it

123
00:35:48.800 --> 00:36:05.200
as emergency but the quick you know kind of evaluation I did there wasn't a huge difference in what it cost us to process it versus that purchase. >> Okay. And that's what I was curious about and I know it was mentioned too when we had our I think it was our last meeting the water presentation with alternate sources. Do you anticipate us

124
00:36:05.200 --> 00:36:21.040
potentially getting away from using cocoa water or potentially using more of cocoa water in the future? >> Um I think that's hard to say right now. I don't think I anticipate anytime soon getting rid of that that emergency backup, but when we have alternative water supplies, I definitely think it's a possibility.

125
00:36:21.040 --> 00:36:37.119
>> Okay. And then um that's just for us as council to keep in mind as we continue to plan and look forward. >> Member MSO, >> thank you. Um I had a question on 8F on the lift stations. Um so only one bid

126
00:36:37.119 --> 00:36:52.640
was received and so how did you determine that that pricing was reasonable? So, in the past, from what I could find, we actually went to a vendor of record. Um, so it was kind of almost a sole source. Um, not a lot of manufacturers make these pumps. We have to have the right pumps to fit. So, when

127
00:36:52.640 --> 00:37:08.960
we went out this year, um, we're like the because of the price, we wanted to go out and see if we could get a better bid competitively. Those the the other vendor didn't um, put in for some reason, but it was similar. So, we just kind of looked at what we've paid in the past, and it was a reasonable price. Um,

128
00:37:08.960 --> 00:37:24.320
we did reach out asking why other vendors didn't bid and most of them said we just don't supply that. >> Member Nelson. >> So, I thought that we had to buy a certain amount of water from Coco. >> Yeah, that's the 3 million. And right

129
00:37:24.320 --> 00:37:40.800
now, even if we don't use 3 million, we buy that amount. So, we try to use as close to it as possible. We are we are going to talk to Koko about whether we can change that and only only pay for what we're using. So, we're we're starting some some talks, but that's what the agreement currently says. >> Okay. Thank you.

130
00:37:40.800 --> 00:37:58.079
>> Thank you, member Nelson. And, you know, I think it's important to keep in mind also the very important reason is for fire suppression purposes on the southern end of town where most of our well fields are not close to there. It's a little bit more challenging to keep things pressurized from a safety standpoint, but as well as we're paying

131
00:37:58.079 --> 00:38:15.359
for it at a fixed price, you know, might as well >> use it, right? All right. Any other discussion? All right. Can I have a motion to approve BCDEFG? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion by member Nelson. Second by Vice Mayor Cole. Any further discussion?

132
00:38:15.359 --> 00:38:31.839
Seeing none, city clerk. >> Member Muscoso. >> Yes. >> Member Nelson. >> Yes. >> Mayor Connor? >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Cole? >> Yes. >> Member Stokel? >> Yes. >> Motion carries. Thank you very much. Um, now we're on to item 8A.

133
00:38:31.839 --> 00:38:47.520
Member Mscoso. Oh, I'm sorry. City manager, don't you have to read it for the record? >> Yes, sir. 8A is the Axon Fleet 3 advanced TPD vehicle camera system, and the requested action is to approve the 5-year agreement and the associated

134
00:38:47.520 --> 00:39:03.720
budget amendment. In addition, authorize the mayor to execute the agreement, and we have members of TPD here to answer any questions council may have. All right. Um, city clerk, is there any cards on this item? >> Yes, sir. Elizabeth Parker.

135
00:39:13.920 --> 00:39:30.880
Elizabeth Parker Tina Circle back again. Uh I just had a quick question with regard to the axon incar and that is with regard to the cloud storage of the data that's being collected the images the audio the video all of it uh it's

136
00:39:30.880 --> 00:39:46.240
being aggregated in a system a cloud system that allows the city to I guess add citizen video bring in CCTV which I assume would be both the publicly funded as well as the private businesses and

137
00:39:46.240 --> 00:40:02.720
homes um and drone video. My concern is this video captures not just the people being pulled over, not just the people who are involved in a traffic stop, not just the people who are speeding, but everybody.

138
00:40:02.720 --> 00:40:20.480
And that's kind of a a violation of our privacy. I I would say a fourth amendment violation. And to have that stored in a cloud up to forever and we don't own the cloud concerns me and I'd like to know how the city's

139
00:40:20.480 --> 00:40:36.240
addressing that. >> Thank you. All right, TPD. >> Good evening again. Uh TJ Wright with the police department, Lieutenant Josh Burn, uh who's our second resident expert that's going to help get us through some of these and answer some

140
00:40:36.240 --> 00:40:51.839
questions. Uh if it's okay, I know member Mscoso emailed some questions today. Okay, I have those answered. If it's all right if I run through them and then turn it over to any questions you may have. So this is concerning little clarification our Axon fleet 3

141
00:40:51.839 --> 00:41:08.480
incar video system not flock complete separate from flock. So again axon fleet 3 incar video system. So the first question was department policies governing use of axon. Oh can you pass those out policies? Yes. >> Oh sorry Lieutenant Burn dropped off

142
00:41:08.480 --> 00:41:23.839
some policies up there. bed. So, department policies governing use of Axon fleet 3 systems. So, we do have a general order 424 mobile recording systems. There's several guidelines listed of when to use your ENCAR video, but it is not all inclusive. We would rather have

143
00:41:23.839 --> 00:41:39.839
something recorded and not needed versus not having it recorded and needed. Policies related to ALPR, otherwise known as automated automatic license plate reader usage. We do have a policy on that. It's general order 416. And there are rules and guidelines for that

144
00:41:39.839 --> 00:41:57.520
use of the ALPR data retention which is a hot topic uh for schedules of video footage al ALPR data live streams and associated metadata. So all LPR data whether it's in the flock system or this fleet 3

145
00:41:57.520 --> 00:42:15.520
incar video system which is in uh equipped with that technology is stored for 30 days. So the data is stored for 30 days and then it's gone. Unless that image is part of a criminal case and then it gets attached to our evidence.com server and then that

146
00:42:15.520 --> 00:42:31.119
follows the retention schedule of whatever it may apply to video footage. So aka evidence video footage from a traffic stop uh crash scene response to a burglary what have you based on the retention schedule within

147
00:42:31.119 --> 00:42:47.359
evidence.com which is regulated by Florida state statutes and the statute of limitations. The minimum for the video footage is 90 days anywhere up to a 100red years and that's capital felony life felonies or you can have your traffic stops which are 90 days and then

148
00:42:47.359 --> 00:43:03.040
after the 90 days or whatever that retention schedule is that video purges out of the system information regarding who has access to the system and any audit or accountability measures in place. So our fleet 3 system works through Axon. It's

149
00:43:03.040 --> 00:43:18.880
all housed in the evidence.com server which is yes cloud-based. Everyone on our side that has the credentials to log in in the training has access to it. There are audit trails to everything. So if something gets access they're not supposed to, we can see that anytime new evidence is entered, we can see who

150
00:43:18.880 --> 00:43:34.800
entered it and what time. And then there's certain categories that does have restricted access. So for example, internal affairs investigations, only our folks in professional standards have access to that video, photographs, whatever the evidence may be, only they have access to it. So nobody can get in there and

151
00:43:34.800 --> 00:43:52.400
look at it. Whether data is shared with outside agencies, databases, or regional federal systems. So again, Axon Fleet 3 incar video is not shared with any other agencies unless they are part of that investigation. Videos that have

152
00:43:52.400 --> 00:44:08.480
evidentary value are sent to the state attorney's office or if it's a federal case, it goes to the US United States attorney's office. Question on clarification regarding real-time location alerts and live stream capabilities referenced in the agreement. So live streaming is not

153
00:44:08.480 --> 00:44:25.440
intended to replace a proper police response. It allows for two-way communication between the member and person that's out in the field and the person that's viewing the live stream on our end. So, law enforcement, our dispatch, our crime analysts, uh any any member has the capability to log in and

154
00:44:25.440 --> 00:44:42.319
watch the live stream of whatever the event may be, whether it's the in-car camera or the body camera. And it only live streaming only works when the device is active and recording. So, if I'm sitting here and it's buffering it, you can't access live stream. So, when would we use a

155
00:44:42.319 --> 00:44:57.599
situation for live stream? Uh, I've used it several times when officers are on a traffic stop and I just heard something was a little weird with their voice. So, I logged in to make sure everything was fine. Officer does a traffic stop and they're not answering the radio. We can immediately log in just to make sure everything's fine and slow our response

156
00:44:57.599 --> 00:45:13.599
down. Or worst case scenario, officer's in distress, our dispatch is going to be logging in to see exactly what's happening and then reallocate our resources as necessary in real time. So, that's the benefit of live stream. Uh, questions regarding alerts. So, we

157
00:45:13.599 --> 00:45:29.040
just are scratching the surface with some of the capabilities that's within this Axon evidence cloud-based stuff. We just discovered speed alerts. So, we can set thresholds. If a car with this technology crosses a a speed threshold,

158
00:45:29.040 --> 00:45:45.920
it'll send us an alert and we can look at what they were doing or where they were going in real time. But, there's other alerts, but we haven't even looked into that area yet. Uh, real-time location. So because this works off of buffering with the incar video system and the body cams through Axon, it's not

159
00:45:45.920 --> 00:46:01.920
100% real time. So every I think five to 10 minutes it re ress where the location is. We have another system called wheel and cloud that is in real time that we also use so we know where our cars are at any given time. And why are we doing all this or trying

160
00:46:01.920 --> 00:46:18.720
to bring all this together? Um we already have eight cars with this technology. We've done our research with other um incar camera systems out there. This is in our opinion the best product that's out there as far as recording capabilities, the 4K capabilities versus

161
00:46:18.720 --> 00:46:37.680
1080p 160° angle versus 108. So we feel like it gives us uh better for what we need and then it also is going to build into our real-time intelligence center of where we're trying to go in the future. I think that was most of the questions through there.

162
00:46:38.400 --> 00:46:54.000
Can you believe I have more? Um, sorry. You said that Axom video it's not shared. Um, but the, um, license plate reader, would that data be shared? >> The LPRs can be seen in our flock

163
00:46:54.000 --> 00:47:10.000
database. Um, but only our Axon integrations are seen on our side. >> Okay. And then you said we already have eight cars. Is it you meaning eight patrol cars with Axom or eight patrol cars with Axom and the license plate readers? >> Eight patrol cars that are in our

164
00:47:10.000 --> 00:47:25.599
current fleet from last year's uh approved budget. >> And what technology did So do they have the license plate readers? >> Yes. >> Okay. So we have eight already that have that. >> Correct. >> Okay. And then um for this is so the license plate reader this is an add-on

165
00:47:25.599 --> 00:47:41.200
feature correct? >> Yes. >> So it's not necessary for these cameras to work? >> No, it's not. And most of these companies, there's Motorola, Panasonic, they're all going to this technology as well. >> Okay. I I do support the cameras and the cars. Um I think that's good for

166
00:47:41.200 --> 00:47:58.880
transparency to protect you guys. I think it's really important. Um but we have How many flock cameras or how many license plate reading cameras do we already have here in town? >> License plate readers. >> Well, okay. Flock cameras. >> Okay. So, there's 82 total devices. 36

167
00:47:58.880 --> 00:48:15.680
are LPRs. >> Mhm. 19 are live videos, three are pan tilt zooms and those are in our parks and then 24 are city-owned current city-owned cameras that are piped into the flock ecosystem. Case in point being city hall. So there's current 24 as well

168
00:48:15.680 --> 00:48:30.160
of those >> and like my understanding from looking at the numbers this is an additional if we add the license plate reader to these cameras it's an extra 34,000 for 5 years. Um, are the cameras that we have like do you have data proving that we

169
00:48:30.160 --> 00:48:46.240
need additional cameras >> for the purpose of incar video >> for like license plate reader? Can you do you have data that we're not that the cameras that we have are not sufficient enough that we need to add additional ones? >> Yes, I could we could show you all the

170
00:48:46.240 --> 00:49:02.559
hits that are cross referencing FCIC and NCIC that the officers are seeing. Uh, the hits could be stolen vehicles, kidnapping suspects. Uh but that information is all there. I don't have all that in front of me. >> Okay. >> Some examples. >> Yeah, Lieutenant Burn does have some

171
00:49:02.559 --> 00:49:20.240
success examples of actual positive hits that >> related to recoveries of uh missing people, endangered people, uh recovery of stolen goods, stolen vehicles, etc. >> Yeah, you guys have a tough job and I appreciate I know that you're looking for additional tools. Um my fear is that

172
00:49:20.240 --> 00:49:37.040
it's just creeping. It's like it starts with a few and then now we're I mean you listed off so many. I know that l that the the school zone cameras are a completely different thing. But as for just a regular resident just seeing all of these cameras popping up. I mean maybe I'm putting a tin foil hat. It's

173
00:49:37.040 --> 00:49:53.440
it's a lot for me. It's concerning. I feel like we're slowly giving away some of our privacy. Um, so I'm very much for the cameras inside the cars, but any additional um, license plate readers for me is um, is concerning because I feel like we have so many already. Um, but I

174
00:49:53.440 --> 00:50:11.480
appreciate you taking the time to answer all of these questions. You guys are always very responsive. So, thank you, >> city clerk. >> We have two more cards. Uh, Kathleen or Actually,

175
00:50:15.280 --> 00:50:32.079
um I'll second what you said. I'm not against this. Um and I had a whole bunch of questions and I want to thank you because for the most part those questions got answered. Can I just ask one other one? Does this system in any way integrate with the Ring cameras that people have in their homes or is this

176
00:50:32.079 --> 00:50:47.920
totally independent from that? >> This does not have anything to do with the Ring cameras. >> Okay. I thought it didn't, but you answered all my other questions, so they're all gone other than that. So, thank you for providing that information. I appreciate it. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you, city clerk.

177
00:50:47.920 --> 00:51:12.079
>> Uh, the last person is Connor and last name starts with B. >> Uh, good evening, city council. This is my first time being here, so please forgive me if I'm my little rough in my speech, but uh I had been prepared to come here today to talk about flot

178
00:51:12.079 --> 00:51:27.920
cameras during the non-aggenda item section, but seeing this on the agenda and hearing specifically how this is going to include an optional uh additional ALPR feature, I wanted to voice some more concerns about similar systems. uh and even if they are not all

179
00:51:27.920 --> 00:51:43.280
immediately transferable to Axon systems, they're very similar to the ones that Flock has. So, first off, I want to stress that this is a very strong uh national security vulnerability as well as just a normal security vulnerability because at least

180
00:51:43.280 --> 00:52:00.000
with Flock, they have shown themselves to be very slow at responding to security vulnerabilities. Uh there is a national vulnerability databased uh kept by the national institute and standards uh something and there has been a large number of critical vulnerabilities reported in the

181
00:52:00.000 --> 00:52:16.000
flock cameras that have still been unresolved. In addition the a lot of these systems are not localized to specifically one police department at least with cameras. A lot of the functionality is interconnected with other police departments with everything within the

182
00:52:16.000 --> 00:52:32.480
company and according to some sources with the national government as well. Uh so it is right for any kind of abuse not just localized to one police department but without the entire country because of the data sharing capabilities of

183
00:52:32.480 --> 00:52:48.559
these systems. I am not saying that we have any reason to not trust our local police department, but these systems require the trust of not only our local police department, but every single partner police department across the United States, as well as the company itself, which has already been shown to

184
00:52:48.559 --> 00:53:07.040
be using rather sens like footage from community centers, from pools, from playgrounds, in marketing materials. Uh we we have to trust that company with our data. And this technology can be accessed by offers by

185
00:53:07.040 --> 00:53:21.680
officers in other police departments claiming to be participating in some sort of investigation but not actually giving any sort of case number and using this technology to stalk previous exes or just people that they found and

186
00:53:21.680 --> 00:53:37.760
wanted to get to know a little more. I'd like to stress you vote no at least to this form of the proposal specifically because of this ALPR capability. And one more thing uh just because it's something that came in the news recently. There is a proposal on the

187
00:53:37.760 --> 00:53:54.480
Senate floor right now uh when it comes to title 23 funds, federal funding for our roadways saying that they were threatening to cut funding for any city that uses automated license plate readers for any purpose other than toll collection. So, you might be taking these down in the future anyway after

188
00:53:54.480 --> 00:54:15.920
you lock yourselves into a 5-year contract. Same with Flock. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> City clerk. >> We have one additional Carl um Earl Johnson. >> Well, the previous speaker uh just addressed one of the issues that I had.

189
00:54:15.920 --> 00:54:31.119
I don't understand how why this actually has to be a five-year contract. Um maybe there's a cost benefit to making it five years as opposed to three. Five years seems like a long time to obligate ourselves for something like this. Um

190
00:54:31.119 --> 00:54:53.119
and it seems to me that this this contract could be a little more incremental than just five years. That's my >> Thank you, sir. >> City clerk. Any other cards? Hey, just listening. My name is John. You met me before. Couple quick

191
00:54:53.119 --> 00:55:08.640
questions. You guys said that you did extensive research into flock. Do you guys know who created flock? And like be being like the gentleman said here, they're in the playgrounds. What stops people from angling in our children and such. We're living in a world right now where I I mean this is maybe a tin foil

192
00:55:08.640 --> 00:55:24.720
hat moment, but I heard that flock is owned by somebody who was mentioned in the files the most times. So, this warrants a little bit of looking into and that's all I ask. >> Thank you, sir. Sorry, sir. Uh, Lieutenant Burn.

193
00:55:24.720 --> 00:55:41.440
Sir, uh, address some of these things. Thank you for bringing those up. Those are very valid questions. Um, questions that we ask ourselves. Um, to answer yours first, sir. Uh, deputy chief and I have actually met the creator of Flock. Uh, he's a very young gentleman, so I don't think he's in any files. He's he's

194
00:55:41.440 --> 00:55:57.680
awkwardly young because he's a CEO of a giant um monopoly taking over the public safety sector. >> Create you both. >> He's both. >> Excuse excuse me, sir. Lieutenant Lieutenant Burn has the floor.

195
00:55:57.680 --> 00:56:13.359
>> Gentlemen, gentlemen, >> gentlemen, Lieutenant Burn has the floor. >> Okay. And um just to put in context, um we went to Flock HQ, the headquarters, and did a full walkth through. Uh we spent our time and invested ourselves to

196
00:56:13.359 --> 00:56:28.400
get to know what we were walking into because we have the same concerns as everybody. Uh we did meet the CEO. He was a very sharp guy, was very impressed. And he brought he was very humble and brought police officers in to ask them even though he was very smart

197
00:56:28.400 --> 00:56:43.760
technologically. He wanted to know what works for public safety. And his entire spiel was about privacy. and you have to balance the concerns of the private citizen with public safety and that's that's flocks model and we support that

198
00:56:43.760 --> 00:57:00.960
as well. Um the other gentleman's question about uh statement about privacy. So there are rigorous standards and flocks use of their um data control is gold standard. It is an AES 256

199
00:57:00.960 --> 00:57:17.200
encryption at transit and rest. What that means essentially is that's militarygrade encryption. It doesn't get much better for I don't know what that means to be honest with you. That's just what they say. That's what it is. And when you ask the professionals who really know this stuff that there doesn't get any better. It passes every

200
00:57:17.200 --> 00:57:33.440
test from military to uh sieges compliant to everything that you need to be fully encrypted and protect the privacy and the data that's there. Um essentially while the data is being transferred it jumbles it up and then once it lands where it's going then it's readable. if that makes sense. Uh so

201
00:57:33.440 --> 00:57:48.880
it's a very high-end encryption. It doesn't really get much better than that. Uh the data is deleted automatically after 30 days and we the city own the data. So people ask can ICE come in and get the data? Not if we don't want them to. What if ICE goes to

202
00:57:48.880 --> 00:58:04.960
Flock themselves and says hey give us the data for Titusville Police Department? Flock doesn't have it. We do. There's no hidden back door anything with the privacy. Um, the cameras are stationary and they take pictures of license plates. They take pictures of

203
00:58:04.960 --> 00:58:20.640
vehicles. That's it. What they don't do is they don't track people. They don't have facial recognition. They just take pictures of cars. And where we have ours are on uh our major intersections, our open roads, similar to Ring. That was a

204
00:58:20.640 --> 00:58:36.720
great comparison. The citizens have access to buy flock as well. Companies have bought flock. Walmart buys flock. Home Depot by his flock and then similar to Ring, people give law enforcement access with that system. So if somebody commits a shooting, a burglary, or

205
00:58:36.720 --> 00:58:53.839
steals something on a porch and we come up and that person has a Ring camera, we get access, they give us the access to that camera that's open to the public. It's the same fashion with some of these flat cameras. And then obviously we have our own that we put strategically throughout the city um entrances and

206
00:58:53.839 --> 00:59:09.839
exits into our city that we feel benefits the citizens. Totally understanding the privacy concerns. We there is an option to go past 30 days. We denied it. We think 30-day door storage that's the minimum. We're good with that. And that's where we kind of

207
00:59:09.839 --> 00:59:24.720
landed just from this past year. I'll give you just a quick brief examples. member Muscosa was asking about, you know, does it work? Do we need them? What what helps with that? Um,

208
00:59:24.720 --> 00:59:40.880
recently, last uh week, actually, a few days ago, a grandmother called and her grandson was suicidal and missing. There was all sorts of bad things going on. The dispatcher had access to Flock, is trained on it, is credentialed, and was able to find that car within minutes and

209
00:59:40.880 --> 00:59:56.559
get that grandchild home to their mom. That just happened a few days ago. There was a fugitive a few weeks ago from Tampa area that came into our town, was wanted for murder, and the Marshall's task force was after him. Flock let us know that he was coming into our city

210
00:59:56.559 --> 01:00:11.280
and the task force moved in and took him into custody. Um, we've had multiple homicides, murders solved from Flock and Flock provided evidence in all those cases. We've had multiple retail theft rings, some statewide, some interstate,

211
01:00:11.280 --> 01:00:26.799
national, so uh multiple states over and spanning into Florida that were involved here in Tatisville. That flock provided evidence and closure to those cases. And what I'm talking about so far is just this year within 12 months. We have had a kidnapping from a domestic

212
01:00:26.799 --> 01:00:45.040
violence situation. We were able to get a female victim home and find her safely. We've had multiple mental health and life safety responses. Um, three, people who were uh mentally ill or Baker Act um suicidal and then you've

213
01:00:45.040 --> 01:01:00.720
got purple alert, silver alerts, those kind of things. Mental mental illness, someone with dementia, your loved ones are missing. It helps us find them immediately, track them better than anything else that we have. Um, so the benefits are there. And then the cost,

214
01:01:00.720 --> 01:01:16.240
you know, we look at the cost and we try to be very transparent with our money. We applied for a grant. I personally applied for a grant with you guys recently for a drone and we got that approved. So, we try to save where we can, but when you're talking about cost, um there's some studies out there that

215
01:01:16.240 --> 01:01:30.799
are national and they you can just look them up online and some some are you get access to being in law enforcement. But um Tottisville is actually rated A on this website for crime grades. So and for the crime rate, we get an A for the

216
01:01:30.799 --> 01:01:47.599
state average. And the cost per resident for crime according to this study is $107 per year per resident. And the average for Florida is $156. So we're below the average. And then national average is $258. Where do those

217
01:01:47.599 --> 01:02:03.280
costs come from? Those costs come from when there's a retail theft, people got to pay for that cost. They got to pay insurance. The product goes missing. Law enforcement gets paid to go and investigate that case. The state prosecutes that case. When there's a homicide, there's all sorts of costs

218
01:02:03.280 --> 01:02:19.200
with any type of crime you can think of. There's costs associated. So, um, estimated cost is $107 per person per year annually. And then it's in the millions when you get in when it really breaks it down. We were looking at it. So flock, some of these technologies,

219
01:02:19.200 --> 01:02:34.400
yes, they cost money, but crime costs money. And this system has proven to reduce crime, to solve crime, to prevent crime, to get our loved ones home when they go missing, um, solve murders. So when we look at what we do is to provide

220
01:02:34.400 --> 01:02:51.280
the city of Titusville the best public safety services that we can while balancing um, privacy and data. And Flock does check all those objectives for us and we just continue to have successes with it. And this is coming

221
01:02:51.280 --> 01:03:06.480
from a fellow skeptic when uh when we started taking this on. I was I had my own concerns. But um you know I've got kids here that are in Titusville and if they get kidnapped or something I do not want it to be in a city that doesn't

222
01:03:06.480 --> 01:03:22.559
have flot cameras. like can you guys uh speak on the safeguards that are put in place you know to the questions of you know can any officer access my data how does that work can BCSO log in and and check out our data you know maybe somebody another

223
01:03:22.559 --> 01:03:39.520
agency can you go into that a little bit please yes sir so uh just like similar to um Axon Flock embedded a rigorous audit system excuse me every single click is logged every search is logged it requires a case a or case number, a

224
01:03:39.520 --> 01:03:55.200
reason for the search, a crime that is associated and then a time frame for the search and all those are logged forever. That data does not go away. So at any time we have acted activated independent audit system that Flock implemented. So any irregularities

225
01:03:55.200 --> 01:04:12.160
for example if an officer were to start searching um the same license plate for an extended period of time like 60 days or something that's just one example. All of administrative would get a notice that there's an irregularity. doesn't necessarily mean that anything is being done wrong, but hey, look into this.

226
01:04:12.160 --> 01:04:27.920
There are plenty of safeguards and our audit system is robust and again it tracks every single use of flock and we're also conducting our own internal audits in addition to this new automated system that sends us these alerts. >> And then the policy we gave you guys

227
01:04:27.920 --> 01:04:45.760
outlines all that. Um, and I just want to throw one other thing out there. I was thinking about when I was getting into flock and everything, the we have a lot of systems that we understand that officers are given some privileges informationwise. Dispatchers do, firefighters do, nurses do, and so we

228
01:04:45.760 --> 01:05:00.720
have access to systems. We can pull someone's social security. Everybody in this room has a camera right now on their phone. And if someone goes missing and they're a threat to themsel or something, we can track that person if we have the legal authority just by pinging their phone. Um,

229
01:05:00.720 --> 01:05:16.799
so technology is here. It is a little scary, but every store you go into has a camera. Every street you go into has a camera. There's Ring cameras. Um, and I just want you guys to know we absolutely look at the privacy and the data collection and everything and take it

230
01:05:16.799 --> 01:05:33.839
very seriously and all the audit functions are activated. Um, and then we do our own like deputy chief said. >> Member MSO. Yeah, I think um part of my concern is at least now if my license plate is being looked up, I can pull my David file and see exactly why it's

231
01:05:33.839 --> 01:05:49.920
being pulled where um with this there I I can't request information of can I I mean can I do a foyer request for any information with flot cameras? >> Yes. Yes, you can. >> Okay. >> As long as you're the owner of the vehicle can show proof that you're who

232
01:05:49.920 --> 01:06:06.799
you are and you own the vehicle and then you make that request. So I could request like how many times Flock has tracked my license plate throughout the city. >> Yes. >> And that's going to be a a normal price for someone to pay to get that information. >> It'll be dependent on who the person is

233
01:06:06.799 --> 01:06:23.119
fulfilling the request. Yes. >> So it's not the same for everyone. >> Not everybody is has expertise in the getting into those files. So you asking that question is buried in there. So myself and Lieutenant Burn are the ones that really know how to get in there. Not everybody knows that side of it.

234
01:06:23.119 --> 01:06:37.440
>> Okay. And then you mentioned we had a grade A. Was that is a good or a bad? >> Oh, a a good A through F. >> I thought so. Okay. Well, congratulations on that. So, just >> good news for us. We're very happy with that. >> Okay. Thank you guys very much.

235
01:06:37.440 --> 01:06:54.640
>> Member Nelson. Um, I will say I'm in favor of this and I remember last year somebody that we all knew and loved was murdered

236
01:06:54.640 --> 01:07:10.880
and I didn't ask about the investigation. I won't ask about the investigation, but my guess is this is how you tracked that car. >> It was and

237
01:07:10.880 --> 01:07:29.119
I really appreciate it and I think that was just a great use of technology. So you I will also say that my neighbor disappeared and you pinged his phone and found him for me. He has de had had he's

238
01:07:29.119 --> 01:07:43.839
died but he had dementia and he just wandered off and jumped in somebody's car and left and you know 15 minutes later you guys had him. So to me

239
01:07:43.839 --> 01:08:01.440
technology is is a tool and we need to use it. So, my motion would be to approve consent agenda item 8. >> Second. >> I have a motion by member Nelson, a second by Vice Mayor Cole. Any further

240
01:08:01.440 --> 01:08:19.080
discussion? Seeing none, city clerk. >> Member Nelson, >> yes. >> Mayor Connors, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Cole, >> yes. >> Member Stokl, >> yes. >> Member Moscoso, >> no. >> Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you guys. City manager.

241
01:08:19.279 --> 01:08:40.640
Moving on to ordinances uh item nine and that is ordinance number 11-2026 the aerospace and aerospace and light manufacturing ordinance and this is to conduct a first reading and the first of two required public hearings for the

242
01:08:40.640 --> 01:08:55.920
ordin for the aerospace and light manufacturing ordinance and Brad Parish our community development director will read the ordinance for the An ordinance of the city of Titus, Florida, amending the code of ordinances relating to uses within the planned industrial development PID zoning

243
01:08:55.920 --> 01:09:10.799
district to allow childcare facilities as a limited use and standalone parking structures as a limited use and to expand the definition of light manufacturing to include aerospace and defense related research and manufacturing by amending sections 28-54

244
01:09:10.799 --> 01:09:27.839
use table, section 28-110 childcare facility, 28-154 parking structures, and 28210 light manufacturing providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinances, incorporation into the code, and an effective date.

245
01:09:27.839 --> 01:09:44.400
This ordinance uh is primarily just expanding the definition of light industrial in the PI and all the other zoning industrial zoning districts. So, it's really clarifying what we would consider to be light industrial. It's also touching on child care facilities

246
01:09:44.400 --> 01:10:01.040
inside uh the PID um zoning district specifically changing it from if it would require a conditional use permit because a childcare facility would be located on a local road that in this case it would be allowed to be a limited use in other words permitted with some

247
01:10:01.040 --> 01:10:17.520
limitations uh without a public hearing and then a standalone parking garage uh would be a limited use also inside the P. Those are the main changes. Again, this is the first of two public hearings. This will go before planning and zoning commission on the June 3rd

248
01:10:17.520 --> 01:10:41.440
and then come back to you again on Tuesday, June 9th for final public hearing and adoption. >> Thank you, Mr. Parish. City clerk, >> we have one card. It's Kathleen Oark. >> Thank you. Um, I want to speak specifically about the proposed

249
01:10:41.440 --> 01:10:58.560
expansion of the definition of light manufacturing to include aerospace and defense related research and manufacturing within the PID zoning district. I support responsible economic development and the aerospace industry, but the concern tonight is that this

250
01:10:58.560 --> 01:11:15.199
ordinance might create, possibly intended, consequences far beyond what the citizens are being told. Modern aerospace and defense operations inre increasingly include AI systems, satellite data processing, cloud

251
01:11:15.199 --> 01:11:31.520
computer and secure data infrastructure in many parts of the country. That's translated into rapid expansion of industrialcale data centers. So citizens are right to ask, could this ordinance eventually be interpreted to allow data

252
01:11:31.520 --> 01:11:47.120
centers in Titusville? And if the answer is no, then I would suggest data centers should be ex explicitly prohibited. If they are intended, then the city citizen city owes the citizens a clear

253
01:11:47.120 --> 01:12:03.199
and transparent explanation before this ordinance is adopted. So the public has meaningful opportunity to understand the impacts and provide informed input. Because once broad zoning language is adopted, future future interpretations

254
01:12:03.199 --> 01:12:20.159
can expand. dramatically and the stakes here are very very high. Data centers consume enormous amounts of water and electricity. Some facilities across the country use millions of gallons of water per day for cooling operations. And at a time when Florida communities are

255
01:12:20.159 --> 01:12:36.320
already facing increased pressure on water supplies, aquifers, infrastructure, and storm water systems, Titusville cannot afford to ignore these realities. Our first obligation must be protecting the long-term needs of the people who already live here. Citizens

256
01:12:36.320 --> 01:12:51.280
should not someday face water restriction restrictions, rising costs, infrastructure strain, or declining environmental quality because the city failed to put reasonable limits on industrial expansion today. And this is

257
01:12:51.280 --> 01:13:08.480
especially important in Titusville where residents are already deeply concerned about flooding, drainage failures, storm water runoff, and overdevelopment. Data centers also bring enormous building footprints and pave services that increase runoff and heat generation

258
01:13:08.480 --> 01:13:25.679
while often creating relatively few permanent jobs. So, um, that's compared to environmental and infrastructure demand. So, I'm asking the council to slow this process down and provide prei precise written definitions and limitations before adopting this

259
01:13:25.679 --> 01:13:42.880
ordinance. A decision which impacts this substantially on water availability, infrastructure, storm water, and the future character of Titusville should not move forward without extensive public engagement and argue important enough to warrant direct voter approval.

260
01:13:42.880 --> 01:13:57.120
Thank you. >> Thank you, city clerk. All right. Thank you very much, city manager or sorry, member MSO. >> Uh, yes, thank you. Um, so I had kind of

261
01:13:57.120 --> 01:14:12.640
an extensive discussion about this with um Brad today and um I do have on the map where our P um is located and it's a lot of it um is kind of around the airport. Um, and so one of the the

262
01:14:12.640 --> 01:14:28.080
suggestions I had um because it is changing the definition of uh light manufacturing to include a lot more um was to make sure that perhaps it would we could somehow incorporate it

263
01:14:28.080 --> 01:14:45.120
to be mainly for this area because if we're changing the definition of light manufacturing that can also change um what will be allowed in other areas. for example, on South Street, if they're allowing light light manufacturing, then in essence, from my understanding, then

264
01:14:45.120 --> 01:15:01.440
that could include missiles, rockets, defense system, all of those things. And so, if we're able to limit it to this location specifically, which is more of an industrial area, I would um feel more comfortable. And so, that was kind of my discussion with um staff and um like

265
01:15:01.440 --> 01:15:16.239
looking into um how we could craft that into this member Nelson sorry had the same thought. Um and basically the area

266
01:15:16.239 --> 01:15:33.920
downtown mixed use around South Street Park um US1 that area is a mix right now of residential and industrial.

267
01:15:33.920 --> 01:15:50.080
And to me that industrial doesn't really belong in there. So my concern is we're adding more light industrial and they're expanding

268
01:15:50.080 --> 01:16:08.640
it or light manufacturing and we should be um foreclosing that and making it more residential. Um, we're turning around and saying we can do a downtown mixed use. Um, there

269
01:16:08.640 --> 01:16:22.719
were a couple other classifications that I just sort of went not sure if that really goes there. So, I would like to have us look at it and maybe

270
01:16:22.719 --> 01:16:41.040
rest restrict it a little bit. >> Thank you, Member Nelson. member Stokl. >> Yes. Um, so I guess along those lines, what Brad, what were your discussions that you have had? Um, and what do you feel like could potentially be possible

271
01:16:41.040 --> 01:16:58.159
after what you all have drafted already? >> We tried to be as incremental as possible about this. We believe that what you see on page 827 of your packet which is the expanded definition of light industrial. Those listed types of activities are we would generally find

272
01:16:58.159 --> 01:17:14.080
them to be consistent with the definition of light industrial. The current definition of light industrial which you see in the black text is really general enough for us to make a call depending on what an applicant's proposing to do as far as their operations and that helps us determine whether they fall into this category,

273
01:17:14.080 --> 01:17:30.480
light industrial, heavy industrial or whatnot. Um, in this case, uh, we're just expanding what we believe it would be considered under the light. I do understand the concerns several of you have already expressed. You'll see on that same page that use table, the

274
01:17:30.480 --> 01:17:46.000
zoning districts and whether it says P or L or C, P meaning permitted. So, in other words, in the light industrial is a permitted use in the P. It's also considered to be a permanent use with limitations in certain subdists of the downtown and in other parts of the

275
01:17:46.000 --> 01:18:03.120
downtown would automatically require a public hearing process to mitigate any potential um issues what they're doing. As you know, as every industrial use, it depends on what they're doing. Um they could uh a a a printing a what do you say a um printing office

276
01:18:03.120 --> 01:18:19.199
you know just creating um certain parts using printing material uh machines could be considered industrial those could be happen in the downtown a pl I'm sorry an applicant that wants to use a large warehouse probably not going to be able to find a space like that in the downtown so they're going to look other

277
01:18:19.199 --> 01:18:35.199
elsewhere where the the zoning districts are appropriate. It really depends on what this what's being asked as far as what to do about your concerns. My only concern is that if we say that for example as member of ScosO mentioned

278
01:18:35.199 --> 01:18:51.520
maybe limiting this to a certain area this expanded definition to a certain area within uh of the city that could be construed by future staff to say well what we currently believe would be considered a lot of dust would now be prohibited in some of these other zoning

279
01:18:51.520 --> 01:19:08.000
districts. So that's could be construed as making this ordinance more restrictive, which means we would have to go back to the drawing board and revertise this. Um, another alternative is to maybe u pull this out and as a secondary

280
01:19:08.000 --> 01:19:24.640
definition um and then identify which zoning districts you would like to call this. But again, I I think we might have that conflict again potentially where we might be saying that now these types of operations are no longer permitted in certain zoning districts. That would be my only concern. But we'll we'll take

281
01:19:24.640 --> 01:19:39.840
any direction from you and come back to you with how we can incorporate it into this ordinance hopefully within the advertised parameters. If not, it will have to be readvertised. Is um there a map in the agenda packet that shows all the areas that currently

282
01:19:39.840 --> 01:19:55.840
have that uh zoning? >> The I did not include a map that shows all the properties with that. Uh there are so many properties uh it would probably be really difficult to really illustrate exactly where everything is. I did provide to Miss Pascoso some maps with the P only. >> Okay.

283
01:19:55.840 --> 01:20:13.199
>> Um and so I believe if you still have your land use map, >> yes, >> you could take a look at that. Wherever you see that dark gray or that light purple, the P and industrial, those are primarily the areas where you'll find industrially zoned properties.

284
01:20:13.199 --> 01:20:28.159
>> Okay. >> And the majority of the P actually bulk of it is around the uh um the airport, the Tao airport in the south part of the city. >> And I think that's kind of where I'm coming from. I c could and I I get what you're saying about you know picking and

285
01:20:28.159 --> 01:20:43.840
choosing but I definitely could see some areas this makes perfect sense for and then other areas depending on what it is there could be some caution. So, I would like to see especially like the aerospace component. I think I mean we are the Space Coast. So, I'd like to us to be a place and we keep talking about,

286
01:20:43.840 --> 01:21:00.159
you know, we want to have jobs here. We want to build uh industry here. And so, if there's things that we can do to make sure that we're getting those space um positions and industry and I didn't I don't know if you guys know this, but the aviation program for the college is moving at the Titusville campus. The

287
01:21:00.159 --> 01:21:16.080
hangers built there now. And so, that's really exciting to have. And so again, I don't want to have another barrier to prevent businesses from coming here. But at the same time, if it's all over the map and now it doesn't make sense to maybe say, "Hey, you know, something

288
01:21:16.080 --> 01:21:32.560
defense related should be right next to a restaurant right here." You those are the kind of things that I want to make sure we're accounting for. >> The more specific you get here, the sometimes that the future staff may make the call that this particular zoning district is no longer viable. And so that's where you get into that issue of

289
01:21:32.560 --> 01:21:49.360
of creating things more burdensome. >> Okay. >> The definition of light industrial right now is pretty broadly written at the moment to allow us some flexibility. What's being suggested here is to really just clarify additional uses in there that again staff believes is already

290
01:21:49.360 --> 01:22:06.159
consistent with light industrial. But we always ask I mean that's always the first question whenever we get an applicant coming in. What is your use and how what is your operation? And that helps us determine where they fall in which particular classification of uses in in any particular zoning district.

291
01:22:06.159 --> 01:22:23.199
And industrial is kind of unique because as you know they're all they're all different. They're all different processes, whole variety of them. So we do offer what's called a zoning verification letter. So they provide to us an application with request and some additional information about their operations that helps us develop an

292
01:22:23.199 --> 01:22:37.040
interpretation for them to say this zoning district is consistent with what you're proposing to do and then they can move forward and have some certainty and move forward with a with a plan of action as far as a site plan or whatever that might be for us.

293
01:22:37.040 --> 01:22:54.719
>> Member Nelson. Um, member Stokel, member Muscoso had this. Would that help? >> Yes. >> Can you pass it down? It's >> just an enhanced map of Tao where all the P is pretty much around Tao. >> And I think

294
01:22:54.719 --> 01:23:11.199
>> No, it's just Tao. Yeah. >> And I think I'd be okay if we got rid of the downtown mixed use because to me and we have a engineering manufacturing there already,

295
01:23:11.199 --> 01:23:28.800
but do we want to add more industrial kind of use in what's basically a residential area? So to me getting rid of it in the downtown mixed use would be appropriate.

296
01:23:28.800 --> 01:23:44.960
>> Okay. But you can't that would be we would have to revertise then. >> Well the the D is C is a conditional. The U is conditional. M is limited. C is limited. So I don't think it's as just LZ fair and they can do whatever

297
01:23:44.960 --> 01:24:02.159
they want. Yeah. The big part of this ordinance is codifying aerospace and defense and the P usage because unfortunately if you're you know refurbishing satellites let's say astrotech like what is that taking

298
01:24:02.159 --> 01:24:16.719
things off they adding things on gluing things on maybe they're welding and welding was not permitted in planned industrial development and I think that's kind of an important part of industrial development is being able to to do these things and because our specific focus in P language when the

299
01:24:16.719 --> 01:24:32.159
ordinance was first written was we want to attract aerospace and defense contractors but we really had no way to do that uh to where they can come in and use this zoning district and to member Msosa's point all the P for the most part is around the airport and if

300
01:24:32.159 --> 01:24:48.000
somebody wanted to take this language and then apply it to the middle of town they'd have to go through a reszone which sounds like you know we probably wouldn't approve you know I mean >> just to clarify the downtown you wouldn't need necessarily need do a reszone. But I do want to point out on that same page and further down you'll

301
01:24:48.000 --> 01:25:02.719
see limitations within the downtown, >> right? >> So it does control there's some performance standards of that zoning district. So the zoning district wouldn't necessarily have to be reszoned with downtown. They could use the existing zoning. They just have to adhere to the conditions that you see

302
01:25:02.719 --> 01:25:18.480
here on page 827 and 828 your packet which can be limiting >> and that was already in the Prior to >> it's already in the downtown code is what I'm saying >> exactly remember. >> Yeah. I think by changing the definition

303
01:25:18.480 --> 01:25:35.360
of um light manufacturing then that has to apply across the board for every um zone zoning that allows that. And so, um, yeah. Are you you're So, you're saying it's not possible to limit it to around the airport. That would not be

304
01:25:35.360 --> 01:25:52.000
something you would recommend doing. >> Not without revertising the ordinance. >> It is possible. We just have to we would have to come back to you with a rescheduled ordinance, new public hearings. >> Okay. Do you think it would be more beneficial, like member Nelson was saying, to look at the areas that allow

305
01:25:52.000 --> 01:26:08.639
um light manufacturing and perhaps go through that and say we we don't want to allow light manufacturing. I mean, that could be just a good practice anyway in our downtown mixeduse area or um what would you recommend? >> That sounds to me like a bigger project

306
01:26:08.639 --> 01:26:23.920
than what's being said here tonight. >> Okay. Okay. So, that might be something we could look into as a separate study for you because it that that could have serious implications of properties that already have zoning and operations going on. >> Yeah. I don't want to create a problem to create a solution. So, >> Okay. Yeah. Because you could you could

307
01:26:23.920 --> 01:26:40.560
end up creating non-conforming uses as a >> Yeah, absolutely. I was just trying to think through um how how we could do this because it it is important to make sure that we can have uh attract these businesses and manufacturing um but also protect our other >> zoning zoning areas. So, thank you.

308
01:26:40.560 --> 01:26:57.760
Mr. Parish, by us amending the definition of light definition or light manufacturing in the PID ordinance specifically, does that change the definition of light manufacturing throughout the entire city? >> So on that page 827, you'll see all the

309
01:26:57.760 --> 01:27:17.120
zoning districts, uh, M1, M2, M3, any property that has that particular zoning district also qualifies to allow light industrial. So wherever they're located in the city would be able to call use utilize this definition. >> M1 M2 being the higher

310
01:27:17.120 --> 01:27:34.400
>> M2 M2 is a heavy industrial >> uh M1 is more warehouse but they could do some light manufacturing on a limited basis in there. Yes. >> Well that we don't have many light manufacturing throughout the city. Right. It's mostly we have some M1, M2,

311
01:27:34.400 --> 01:27:51.440
some P. >> We have uh many properties with M1 and M2 zoning and a few properties on South Street with M3. Again, the properties zone PA are around the airport and then um the downtown.

312
01:27:51.440 --> 01:28:07.360
>> All righty. Well, obviously we have still more questions and I think it would be good because we still have another public hearing to continue to do research, dive into it, look at the maps and do all those things and we'll we'll have another public hearing in two weeks and then council can decide what it

313
01:28:07.360 --> 01:28:23.360
wants to do. Member Soal, any final thoughts? >> Yeah, that was my question is since we wouldn't potentially be making it more strict than what was advertised, why would we need to readvertise if we did decide to lessen lessen it. I mean, you may

314
01:28:23.360 --> 01:28:39.600
>> find it more to Yes. Only only allow it in part of what was already advertised. Like I could understand readvertising if we were going to broaden it and now all of a sudden we're including, but if we're lessening what was already advertised, why would we need to readvertise? So if you right now light

315
01:28:39.600 --> 01:28:54.080
and duster is allowed in these zoning districts which were mentioned if you as was mentioned earlier maybe restrict this portion of this definition does this that area around the airport. >> Mhm. >> You know certain staff in the future could say well now that particular

316
01:28:54.080 --> 01:29:10.800
expanded use which allowed around the airport is no longer allowed in other properties that are further away that have that particular zoning. In other words, we would not right now we would consider this uh these kind of aerospace types of uses potentially to be allowed

317
01:29:10.800 --> 01:29:25.360
in in light industrial. With your suggestion, that wouldn't be possible anymore on a lot of properties throughout the city. >> Okay. >> Because the definition would be applied in such a way that now light industrial

318
01:29:25.360 --> 01:29:42.000
is specific. So in other words, if it's yeah, it's general to say you can have it in all these different zoning districts, but if you throw in aerospace, you're only limited to this area, whereas right now we can allow in a lot of properties that have M1, M2, and M3

319
01:29:42.000 --> 01:29:57.520
zoning. >> So another alternative that we could look at is maybe strengthening these limitations that are mentioned. >> You could do that >> by to look into that before next reading potentially. >> Okay. Thank you. If that's your direction, we'll we'll definitely explore that.

320
01:29:57.520 --> 01:30:13.520
>> Okay. >> All right. Member Ms. >> Sorry, could you explain the strengthening the limitations a bit? >> Yes. So, on um as Brad was mentioning on page 827 and 828 um regarding the downtown mixed use, there are

321
01:30:13.520 --> 01:30:29.600
limitations right now. So, if they did want to come in, they'd have to meet certain standards. So, if we felt those were not strict enough to prevent things that we don't want to see there, we can look at that. >> Okay. Thank you. And um sorry, I can ask one more question just to I don't want to forget Dr. Aor's question about data

322
01:30:29.600 --> 01:30:46.560
centers. By doing this, we're not um I mean and what what zoning districts can a data center I know there are a lot of other restrictions. They have to be able to get the water and the electricity and things like that. Um but I just don't want to unintentionally open us up for

323
01:30:46.560 --> 01:31:02.880
having a data center administratively approved. So just to confirm, we are not doing that. Correct. U that was not the intent here. I uh have not been approached at all as to whether is a data center permitted inside our

324
01:31:02.880 --> 01:31:18.480
city's code. So I I don't have a good answer for you on that, but I could say I can um imagine that it probably would qualify under the current definition of lead industrial if depending on what they're really doing. If I understand it better what they're trying to do, it's possible that that they could get a

325
01:31:18.480 --> 01:31:34.400
permit under that. Um that is a a a topic of discussion in planning circles right now about what to do. Definitely a topic of discussion around the state. Um so we would if you do want to explore that further uh I would ask for

326
01:31:34.400 --> 01:31:49.120
direction from you to maybe come back to you with some research information on that topic separate from this ordinance. >> Yeah, I I personally would would like more information on that. Um I'm not sure. I mean, it goes to the rest of council as well, but I think it'd be at

327
01:31:49.120 --> 01:32:07.600
least worth a discussion. >> Vice Mayor, >> uh, you know, my understanding is data centers use a lot of water and it's a lot of electricity. And, you know, when we were looking at that plant down uh, close to Port St.

328
01:32:07.600 --> 01:32:22.800
John, we talked about the amounts of water that they would be using, and this is the same thing here. So we would still have the opportunity if they if a data center was to come in and we may not have the water capacity for them. So

329
01:32:22.800 --> 01:32:39.440
that would be a way that we can disapprove it let's say and the amount of electricity that a data center would use would also be a limiting factor I would think. >> I would think so too. Every project has to meet concurrency

330
01:32:39.440 --> 01:32:54.719
level service standards for the city including water. >> All right. Well, let's not complete the two. This has nothing to do with data centers. It's about manufacturing aerospace. Member Moscow. >> Yes. Um so whether you bring information to the council or not, I would love to sit down

331
01:32:54.719 --> 01:33:10.239
with you and and understand uh the zoning and and how that works with data centers, the possibility, but I'm with um um Vice Mayor Cole. I mean, it does have to there have to be other things, concurrency. So, thank you. >> All right. Thank you very much, city

332
01:33:10.239 --> 01:33:27.280
manager. Yes sir. Moving on to 9B. That is a resolution number 12-2026, a right-of-way vacation application number 1-2026, Cali Corte Aanita Rialale. And the

333
01:33:27.280 --> 01:33:42.480
recommended action is to adopt the resolution vacating the public ride ofway as described in application 1-2026. And on May 6th, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of 70.

334
01:33:42.480 --> 01:34:01.280
>> Thank you, city manager, city clerk. >> All right, Mr. Parish. >> Uh, the application is for a paper rideway on sorry Avanita Rial. It is not an approved

335
01:34:01.280 --> 01:34:16.080
right ofway. Uh it did go through the process uh reviewed by all uh relevant agencies and there have been no objections including the city has no objection to vacating this right ofway. If it is approved by you it'll become

336
01:34:16.080 --> 01:34:31.920
immediate and a resolution is necessary to be adopted. With that we will answer any questions. We did find it consistent with the city's code and a comprehensive plan. >> Thank you Mr. Parish. City council member Nelson. I move to adopt

337
01:34:31.920 --> 01:34:48.800
resolution number 12-2026 rightaway vacation for Cali Corto Venita real >> second. >> I have a motion by member Nelson second by Vice Mayor Cole. Any further

338
01:34:48.800 --> 01:35:05.360
discussion? Seeing none to the clerk. >> Mayor Connors. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Cole. >> Yes. >> Member Stokel. >> Yes. >> Member Moscoso. >> Yes. >> Member Nelson. >> Yes. Motion carries. Thank you very much, city manager. >> Yes, sir. Moving on to item number 11

339
01:35:05.360 --> 01:35:27.280
under old business, and that is the employee benefits and HR consulting services RFPCO-26-P00001TB. And the recommended action is to approve the evaluation committee's ranking and recommendation of RF of the RFP for employee benefits and risk

340
01:35:27.280 --> 01:35:43.760
management consulting of the number one ranked firm in the amount to exceed not to exceed $75,000 annual fixed fee per year during a three-year term and renewable for two optional one-year periods and authorized staff to conduct negotiations and

341
01:35:43.760 --> 01:36:00.400
finalize the contract terms with the number one firm. um Centria Public Risk and we have our HR director and our risk management uh coordinator here to answer any questions and present the item. >> Thank you very much, city clerk.

342
01:36:00.400 --> 01:36:14.239
>> All right, Mr. Diro. >> Hi. Good evening, mayor, council members. >> Speak of the microphone, please. >> Can you hear me now? >> No. >> Is it No. >> All right. Can you hear me? >> All right.

343
01:36:14.239 --> 01:36:32.000
Good evening, mayor, council members. Um the uh employee benefits uh solicitation consulting services was a a very competitive uh process. Uh the city received uh seven respondents.

344
01:36:32.000 --> 01:36:48.239
Um the evaluation committee at its first meeting had the purpose of shortlisting um the respondents and chose in lie of shortlisting using the data that was presented to them. inviting all seven of

345
01:36:48.239 --> 01:37:07.600
those respondents to a u a meeting uh subsequent to that short list meeting uh asking the respondents to clarify um their respondent their responses to the RFP and the components inviting them

346
01:37:07.600 --> 01:37:22.719
to uh engage in conversations with the uh evaluation committee. That uh meeting was was held uh a week after that shortlisting meeting and uh resulted in

347
01:37:22.719 --> 01:37:40.800
um an engagement of all those um presentations clarifying components of their responses. Um the evaluation committee was engaged in answering asking questions uh of the um of the respondents

348
01:37:40.800 --> 01:37:58.880
and um at the end of that meeting um Asentria rose to the top of the list based on their articulation of um the components of the RFP and their um uh

349
01:37:58.880 --> 01:38:14.400
their customers in in the in local government government the u uh services that they provide to local government services. Um before I ask Mark to u also uh just give his input as a member of

350
01:38:14.400 --> 01:38:30.400
the evaluation committee, I want to share with you um the state of our of our health uh program uh as it exists today. Over the last two and a half years, our uh per member per employee

351
01:38:30.400 --> 01:38:47.280
costs um have increased uh from a um a a cost change of per member per month uh cost uh uh today about $886

352
01:38:47.280 --> 01:39:02.320
uh per month uh per employee. uh two and a half years ago it was about $777 uh per member per month. So those plan costs have increased over the two and a

353
01:39:02.320 --> 01:39:19.679
half years. Uh we've also been spending more than what our budget um has allowed for. Um so this trend has increased and um you know suffice it to say a need for

354
01:39:19.679 --> 01:39:34.639
our benefits consultant at at this point in time is is certainly important. But let me share with you um what's what's driving some of these particularly these these costs and it's high cost claimments.

355
01:39:34.639 --> 01:39:52.480
Um through through uh April of of this year uh we have 44 uh claimants who have costs over $25,000. Six of those high-cost claimments

356
01:39:52.480 --> 01:40:11.840
represent about 1% of our members. Those members have a cost representing over 30% of our costs uh of our plan costs. So 1%

357
01:40:11.840 --> 01:40:28.800
of those members resulting in representing about 30% of our plan costs. Um so our high high cost claimants uh are driving the expenses and and there's certainly a need to look

358
01:40:28.800 --> 01:40:45.679
at uh those medical issues that our consultant can use in their technology to evaluate what's occurring with those medical conditions. Currently, we're working with our healthc care administrator to determine if those

359
01:40:45.679 --> 01:41:01.679
high-cost claimments illnesses have resolved or whether they're continuing. If they're continuing, um four of those highcost claimments will go into reinsurance, meaning that we will uh receive reimbursements for

360
01:41:01.679 --> 01:41:20.800
those high-cost claimments. We have uh also met uh on with on on two occasions with our uh employee um evaluation committee advisory committee and um

361
01:41:20.800 --> 01:41:38.320
we've done a couple things that in listening to the concerns of our employees particularly those that um uh are healthy if you will and ask the questions about premiums increasing and

362
01:41:38.320 --> 01:41:53.520
why did the premiums increase when um you know I'm um I'm I'm I'm I'm taking care of myself in terms of um uh my wellness and and uh well and life

363
01:41:53.520 --> 01:42:11.440
balance um work. Uh so those changes we've been discussing with our employee committee um in terms of some of the high performance plan components that were um that were

364
01:42:11.440 --> 01:42:29.840
addressed in the RFP. Uh for example, we we're going to continue our conversations with uh parish. They have a closed integrated uh network that's that's here in Bard County. uh that can result in in lower premium

365
01:42:29.840 --> 01:42:45.679
costs to our employees for those healthy employees. And within the broader context of our our health plan, um our employees would also have some options to uh use the network to to their

366
01:42:45.679 --> 01:43:01.040
discretion. Um, we've also talked to our employees about including, as you know, we have a u a partnership with with Parish and our employee health com uh uh clinic and how to incorporate that into

367
01:43:01.040 --> 01:43:20.800
the network to contain clo costs. So, we've we've been discussing these and continue to discuss these with our our employees. Um there's also the the narrow networks that um that uh Asentria

368
01:43:20.800 --> 01:43:35.760
has proposed in in their plan that they're familiar with the tiered provider uh concepts. So um we're looking at all of these uh items as as as we move along. uh benchmarking. We've

369
01:43:35.760 --> 01:43:51.840
been benchmarking with our employees to um talk about where we stand with our plan design and where our competitors are standing with their plan design. So, we've been talking about those and and we look for the guidance from our

370
01:43:51.840 --> 01:44:09.920
consultant um to be able to come back uh to you in in July during budget meetings. Uh right now, as you know, we're we're putting together our budget plan uh as a result of some of the high costs. While we're while we're managing

371
01:44:09.920 --> 01:44:26.639
to a good degree our prescription costs, we still have some some high cost that we're uh that we're addressing and challenging us with our high-cost claimments that we we know our our consultant will help us with. Uh so

372
01:44:26.639 --> 01:44:43.840
our plan is is while we build the budget and we're probably looking at about a 22% increase in the health care costs uh due to those high cost claimments. Um a plan design that uh would help us

373
01:44:43.840 --> 01:45:01.600
contain cost and address the issues that were challenged with. So, um, we're faced with a a very short time frame right now. Um, city manager is proposing to bring back should you approve our recommended agenda item to Asentria to

374
01:45:01.600 --> 01:45:19.119
begin the contract negotiations, bring that back to you at the next meeting, and then begin the discussions of of moving forward with uh containing those costs, briefing you on on our plan design during the uh budget meetings in

375
01:45:19.119 --> 01:45:36.639
July. Um, and also we're looking for as I think we've we've spoken at at at a later meeting um your guidance and and and approval to support us in possibly moves moving from a fiscal year to a

376
01:45:36.639 --> 01:45:53.679
calendar year transition where all of our benefits align with each other in in the calendar year. And it's it it's probably very appropriate because all the accelerators meaning the deductibles occur on on um uh on on those calendar

377
01:45:53.679 --> 01:46:10.719
year bases. Um so um I'm going to stop there and and Mark if you have any uh um additional input about your your experience with the committee and if you could uh share that with the council.

378
01:46:10.719 --> 01:46:27.520
>> Sure. Uh just to let you know, we went through the regular bidding process. We had the seven respondents. All of them were excellent. Uh a lot of reading, so there was a lot of time spent going through all of those documents. The rank order was made by myself, Joe,

379
01:46:27.520 --> 01:46:41.840
representatives from the public works department, our fire department, uh as as well as our assistant city manager sat on that. They ranked order and in the end Asentria was the one who was selected from that group. Uh I think the

380
01:46:41.840 --> 01:46:58.560
the uh uh the the appropriate purchasing took place or purchasing process took place. I thought it was uh keen made equal to everybody that was there and obviously they were the best candidates selected by the parties that represented

381
01:46:58.560 --> 01:47:15.719
the bidding process. I thought it went very well. Um, I've sat through several bids, not just here, but in other locations, but I thought it it was a good good process itself, and I if you approve it, we're looking forward to working with the centrial.

382
01:47:15.920 --> 01:47:32.639
>> Thank you very much, Mr. Mark, Mr. Diero, member Stokel. >> Um, yes, I had a just one question regarding the rankings because it looked like there was four different uh four of the seven had a the score of one as their

383
01:47:32.639 --> 01:47:48.320
top. And so you guys were kind of all over the place with your rankings. Could you just explain how um you guys decided what criteria were you looking at? Um and I've seen this type of ranking before because we've almost ranked like this on council and I'm not the hugest fan of it. I almost would prefer you to

384
01:47:48.320 --> 01:48:04.320
kind of there there was there were several on here that I could say, hey, let's eliminate those and then have a fair shot because there's just strategy that could be involved with ranking. I'll just leave it at that. And so I am curious about how you came about your scores.

385
01:48:04.320 --> 01:48:19.840
>> Yeah, >> I can just speak about how I ranked mine. Uh there were certain things that I was looking for myself. Uh at one time I was I was over a benefit program and there were certain things that I liked compared to others. So that's very

386
01:48:19.840 --> 01:48:35.600
reflective in my scoring. Obviously my number one candidate was not a Centria, but they were number two. uh they were a very they presented very well. I'm I think uh I think they would be do very well here. So I wasn't too surprised

387
01:48:35.600 --> 01:48:52.480
with the outcome. Um we we uh gave everybody a fair process. I'm not sure what more you would like me to say. What I liked about one candidate over another or what are you >> Yeah. kind of what were the what were the factors that made you determine this

388
01:48:52.480 --> 01:49:07.440
was my top choice and this was like my last choice. What were you looking at? And I don't know if everybody was looking at the same thing, the criteria. >> Was it cost? Was it what they were? >> I I will share with you member Stokal. Um

389
01:49:07.440 --> 01:49:21.760
>> in in in my ranking, you can see that on Yeah. Uh I I I think we we can learn in the public sector from from the the private sector in terms of some of the

390
01:49:21.760 --> 01:49:39.440
initiatives that um are are appropriate and and the and the private sector using now uh can be transferred to the public sector. And that's kind of where I was going in listening to the presenter and the respondent that that I ranked mine.

391
01:49:39.440 --> 01:49:57.440
Um however you know Asentria when I go back and think you know in my ranking um they have a number of local government um u services that they provide to communities and their customers. but

392
01:49:57.440 --> 01:50:15.520
they also use the same plan designs, the same enhancements, the same uh performance plans that are are are brought about in the in the private sector. So that's kind of my thought process. While yes, I had an

393
01:50:15.520 --> 01:50:31.760
interest in transferring some of those. Maybe that group didn't have the experience that the Centria had in local government, but certainly um they could provide those same components of a of a high performance plan that the private

394
01:50:31.760 --> 01:50:47.119
sector respondent could. That's kind of my thought process. >> Mayor, I'm deferring to you on some of this because this is your area of expertise. >> Anybody else read all the packets? No, just me. I I get it. It it was very

395
01:50:47.119 --> 01:51:02.800
tough, you know, and I even had to make notes of what I liked about one versus another. And uh, you know, it's very challenging to go through. And I think it just brings up bigger questions about, you know, the RFP process for a consultant in general because, you know, out of the five people looking at this,

396
01:51:02.800 --> 01:51:18.639
you know, love our fire chief, but is not his background. And same with, you know, Miss Sandy and and Mr. Kevin. I mean, you guys kind of live in this world. So, I mean, I get it. Um, Mark, I did have one question for you. Who is our property and casualty broker for the

397
01:51:18.639 --> 01:51:34.400
city? >> Eentra. >> Okay. >> Actually, >> and and so that's who you work with on a day-to-day basis, right? I do. >> And and I think it's just interesting because remember Stokal brought it up is just the numbers are everywhere. And so if you throw out, you know, three out or, you know, three out of the five scores and it's like there's three

398
01:51:34.400 --> 01:51:50.639
companies that are pretty much right there, right? And so how do you pick one over the other? And what I was looking for uh when we brought this whole RFP process up to begin with was a proven track record of saving the plan money so that it's whole, it's solvent. Um I

399
01:51:50.639 --> 01:52:06.960
think Joe hit the the nail on the head with who he ranked number one in that regards. I think the other thing I was looking for was aligning the incentives. So just us paying a broker or consultant you know 90,000 15 whatever the number

400
01:52:06.960 --> 01:52:22.800
is because they all quote a different numbers uh just to get that and just kind of be status quo we want them to be motivated to drive the same results that we want and that was when we talked about you know the the price is you know

401
01:52:22.800 --> 01:52:39.360
I would definitely prefer a cost model regarding to percentage of savings so decreasing that that flat fee year-over-year and incentive incentivizing them to delivering results because any consultant can say oh I'm delivering results but you know are they right and so really tying their bottom

402
01:52:39.360 --> 01:52:55.840
line to our bottom line I think makes a lot of sense so in that regards I mean I I agree with how Joe ranked them I think it it is difficult to you know pick and choose there are some things I I liked about Eccentria I I think

403
01:52:55.840 --> 01:53:11.679
the most unfortunate one was the one question I really wanted to know is give me all your public sector uh companies that you work with in a 50 mile radius and give us the per member per month cost over the last 5 years. Most of those people declined to answer that

404
01:53:11.679 --> 01:53:26.800
number and probably because costs keep going up, you know. So again, you got to look at who can drive a, you know, drive savings for for the plan because ultimately that's going to help the employees. Uh so more is not coming out

405
01:53:26.800 --> 01:53:43.679
of their paycheck every two weeks because at the rates that Mr. Diero just said of a 20% increase, what is that to our family of four? That that's that's a big number, right? And uh you know, the city can't just keep eating those costs

406
01:53:43.679 --> 01:53:59.199
year-over-year. So really trying to drive home the the savings stuff so that it can translate into you know lower out-of- pocket cost to our employees. So, with that being said, that's kind of how I um I saw it as I looked through

407
01:53:59.199 --> 01:54:16.320
all the proposals and uh you know, at the end of the day, it's council's decision what you guys want to do. >> Member Mscoso, >> do we have any of the um the um the companies that put in a proposal here tonight?

408
01:54:16.320 --> 01:54:40.960
>> I believe Accentria is here. >> Okay. Not sure if you you guys want to come up and speak at all, but you don't have to. I was just curious if if who came >> evening. Uh my name is Corey McMing. I am the uh Southeast employee benefits

409
01:54:40.960 --> 01:54:56.080
practice leader at First Centria. Uh happy to answer any questions. I think um the process was obviously very thorough. Um it's unusual that you listen to seven companies present in the situation. So um you would you did have

410
01:54:56.080 --> 01:55:12.800
a lot of competitiveness uh in the process. Uh a lot of good companies responded you know um companies are actually much larger than us. I think uh from our standpoint uh we did not finish outside the top three on anyone's scoring list. So I think we're in the

411
01:55:12.800 --> 01:55:28.239
top three in all three categories. uh looking through your January notes um there was a mention of uh doing a comparison to the state's plan designs. Uh we are actually the consultant for

412
01:55:28.239 --> 01:55:43.679
the state of Florida right now. Um so one of the uh items that we brought to the table was the fact that the work that we're doing for the state of Florida we can bring down market to the city of Titusville. So I think when you're talking about different point

413
01:55:43.679 --> 01:55:59.520
solutions to address the high cost claimments uh when you're looking at pharmacy solutions that we're bringing to the table without sourcing um and and sourcing medications from different areas um you know we talked about h uh

414
01:55:59.520 --> 01:56:19.119
different um direct contract negotiations with different providers. Um, so I think there's a lot that we can bring to the table and uh and I just want to commend these guys on a a great process honestly. So >> she's like I'm out of here. Thank you.

415
01:56:19.119 --> 01:56:34.560
member Nelson. >> I think my thought is there were three companies that were really close together and we could split hairs and say, "Oh, let's substitute our judgment

416
01:56:34.560 --> 01:56:51.679
for the committees." And I I will say I looked at the way you guys scored them a little more than the way the others scored him. Um, that being said, I would suggest that we accept the rankings that you had, the

417
01:56:51.679 --> 01:57:09.040
committee had, and go from there. >> If that's a motion, I'll second. >> So, >> that could be a motion. >> Is it a motion? Please clarify. >> Yes. >> Okay. Motion by member Nelson, second by member Mscoso. Uh, any further discussion from this board?

418
01:57:09.040 --> 01:57:29.679
>> Seeing none, city clerk. Vice Mayor Cole, >> yes. >> Member Stokel, >> yes. >> Member Muscoso, >> yes. >> Member Nelson, >> yes. >> Mayor Connor, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Thank you very much. Appreciate your hard work, >> city manager.

419
01:57:29.679 --> 01:57:47.199
>> Yes, sir. Moving on to uh item 12, new business. And 12A is the zoning district density standards. And the recommended action is to approve planning and zoning commission's recommendation to remove the maximum dex density standards from

420
01:57:47.199 --> 01:58:04.159
the zoning districts and allow the comprehensive plan to regulate safety. And Brad Parish is here to answer your questions. >> The staff is supportive of the PNZ's recommendation. Uh the maximum or the maximum density residential density per

421
01:58:04.159 --> 01:58:20.239
acre is prescribed in the land use categories of the comprehensive plan. there may be some exceptions. Um, and they're also prescribed separately in each zoning district where residential is allowed. So, typically the zoning districts regulate the size of lots,

422
01:58:20.239 --> 01:58:36.800
which is in itself a density calculation. So, it just seems applicative for us to have both a density regulation and a lot size regulation inside the residential zoning districts when density is already prescribed in the comp plan. We will come, if you agree to this, we'll come

423
01:58:36.800 --> 01:58:59.280
back to you with our findings and suggestions. Um, unless you would like us to go ahead and draft an ordinance, we can do that. >> City clerk, >> Earl Johnson. >> Yes, Earl Johnson here. Um, this was a

424
01:58:59.280 --> 01:59:16.719
little bit puzzling uh to me. Um, I'm wondering uh how this even came to be. Uh, who who would have requested this? And we've been operating this way for how many years and why is this a problem now? It's kind of a puzzle to

425
01:59:16.719 --> 01:59:33.119
me. So, I'm wondering um why is this a good idea? I I think I heard a couple of reasons why uh from Brad just now mentioned u just one, but uh I'm wondering what real problem does this actually address? Um

426
01:59:33.119 --> 01:59:48.560
uh I'm thinking that I mean I don't I'm not really sure because I didn't really have enough time to look into this thoroughly, but there could be some unforeseen consequences here. I mean I just did a quick look at the comp plan. There are um

427
01:59:48.560 --> 02:00:05.440
154 references to density in the comp plan. And if all of a sudden we decide that none of the zoning categories are going to carry any any weight connected with density, then it seems to me that I don't know that could it seems like

428
02:00:05.440 --> 02:00:20.320
there's some questions there that that aren't answered. U I mean it may be perfectly fine. I it just seems a little odd. Um, and that's that's basically what when I when I discovered that there were so many references to density in the comp

429
02:00:20.320 --> 02:00:36.840
plan, I did I did not wasn't aware that there were that many. So, I just found myself thinking there could be some unintended consequences here. I don't know. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Kathleen O'R.

430
02:00:42.080 --> 02:00:58.159
Okay. Yeah. I'd like to express some serious concern regarding the proposal to remove maximum density standards from the zoning districts and rely solely on the comprehensive plan to regulate density. It just sounds like a technical change, but density is actually one of

431
02:00:58.159 --> 02:01:14.320
the most important factors shaping the future of a city. Density affects traffic, flooding, storm water runoff, infrastructure demands, neighborhood character, and long-term pressure on water resources. Right now, the citizens have two layers of protection, the

432
02:01:14.320 --> 02:01:30.560
zoning code and the comprehensive plan. This proposal removes one of those protections, and that matters. Many citizens are concerned because we've already seen situations where the comprehensive plan was not meaningfully enforced. In the example of the Apollo

433
02:01:30.560 --> 02:01:47.599
Gardens development, citizens raised concerns that public that the project violated the comprehensive plans access requirements. residents repeatedly asked for a fair hearing, but the port of board of adjustments and appeals referred to hear the issue and the council declined to rule on the concern

434
02:01:47.599 --> 02:02:04.560
by the citizens. That development was ultimately allowed to proceed even though the comprehensive plan required access from a collector road rather than a local road. We're now paying the price for that decision. By the way, nearby property values have dropped and the surrounding neighborhood is experienced

435
02:02:04.560 --> 02:02:20.400
some seriencing flooding issues. So now the city's proposing to remove density protections from the zoning code and telling the citizens that the comprehensive plan will be our only protection. That's really concerning. Many residents no longer have confidence

436
02:02:20.400 --> 02:02:36.159
that the comprehensive plan will be consistently enforced when major development pressure exists. If density standards are removed from zoning classification, future increases in development intensity may become easier over time and less transparent to the

437
02:02:36.159 --> 02:02:52.400
public. I think the citizens deserve clear answers. Why are the current density standards considered a problem? What public benefit is gained by removing them? Will this make future increase in density easier? And how will the city protect roads, drainage

438
02:02:52.400 --> 02:03:07.280
systems, infrastructure, and water availability if density controls become more flexible? If the intent is not to allow greater development intensity, then why remove existing protections? This isn't a minor technical amendment.

439
02:03:07.280 --> 02:03:30.000
It's a significant poly decision that deserves broad public discussion because it will shape the future of Titusville. Thank you. >> Thank you, city clerk. >> The last card is Elizabeth Parker. Back again, Elizabeth Parker, Trevorino

440
02:03:30.000 --> 02:03:47.040
Circle. Uh, the comprehensive plan uh, future land use map sets the maximum allowable land dens density and intensity. While the land, excuse me, the LDR zoning districts implement these policies parcel by parcel. And across the city, we actually have particular

441
02:03:47.040 --> 02:04:02.960
zoning districts with with zoning that's unique to each district specifically developed to enhance or maintain that area's uh character. Zoning must be cons consistent with the comprehensive plan and generally doesn't exceed the flume

442
02:04:02.960 --> 02:04:18.080
density without a change to the comprehensive plan through amendment. The districts are found in the LDR's land development regulations, specifically within the zoning code and zoning map. The LDRs established permitted uses, setbacks, height limits,

443
02:04:18.080 --> 02:04:33.920
lot requirements, and implementation densities. As the city was saying, uh, flume categories are sound found in the comprehensive plan and only address future land use elements and future land use. Eliminating residential zoning

444
02:04:33.920 --> 02:04:49.520
districts and relying primarily on the flume significantly reduces protections for existing homeowners. Um, it also requires fewer public hearings. Reszoning currently requires public notice hearings and city council approval. If projects are approved

445
02:04:49.520 --> 02:05:04.960
administratively under Flim standards, homeowners lose the opportunity to participate or negotiate conditions. Eliminating current zoning limits increases maximum densities allowed by the comp plan, effectively bringing more traffic, parking shortages, storm water runoff, noise, taller buildings, and

446
02:05:04.960 --> 02:05:21.840
reduced privacy. Deleting zoning districts causes loss of predictability. Our districts provide clear expectations for use setbacks, lot sizes, heights, and seek to preserve neighborhood character. Flumebased standards are far more broad, leaving homeowners uncertain about what will be next built next door.

447
02:05:21.840 --> 02:05:39.360
More administrative discretion is not a good thing for citizens, but will provide a boon for developers. Replacing objective zoning rules with flexible approvals, design review, or negotiated development agreements increases the risk of inconsistent decisions, reduced transparency, and political favoritism.

448
02:05:39.360 --> 02:05:56.080
Current zoning creates transitions between lowdensity neighborhoods, multi in multifamily areas, and commercial uses. Eliminating zoning districts weakens these buffers and places apartments or mixeduse projects close to single family homes. Where have we heard that before? Uh it rel it relates to

449
02:05:56.080 --> 02:06:11.840
property value instability as well. Apollo gardens um non-conforming property risks as well. Once you change the eliminate the zoning then existing properties are at risk when they need to be modified. Uh there's infrastructure

450
02:06:11.840 --> 02:06:28.239
drain risk as well with higher density without matching infrastructure upgrades which could increase congestion, flooding, sewer demand, school crowding and put pressure on parks and emergency services. There would be commercial encroachment and there's legal transition uncertainty leaving the city

451
02:06:28.239 --> 02:06:45.679
uh ripe for lawsuit. Thank you. Thank you. City clerk, >> city council, member scosu, >> thank you. Um, yeah, I had some of the same concerns. So, Brad has u printed out a lot of documents that I need to go

452
02:06:45.679 --> 02:07:04.000
go through because I was concerned um with that as well. I I will tell you um I went back and watched the PNZ meeting because I was curious of how this came about. um and it was a member on PNZ and I think the idea behind it was to make sure that our um the zoning the zoning

453
02:07:04.000 --> 02:07:20.719
matched our comprehensive plan. So for example um our zoning says that for R1B which is single family it says density maximum 5.8 and our comprehensive plan says five. And so the idea I believe was

454
02:07:20.719 --> 02:07:37.679
to clean it up. Now I'm not um I'm not sold on it. Um, I'm not sold on it. So, I I'm in the process of looking through and just making sure, but I I just want to say that's where it came up because I was very curious. It came out of nowhere. I went back and watched the meeting and I would encourage you um go

455
02:07:37.679 --> 02:07:54.800
back and watch that PNZ meeting if you get a chance. Um, and you'll understand the why behind it. Um, but I also would like more time to because I I just got all of this today and and I appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me. Um but kind of to go through it and and just to um feel a little bit more

456
02:07:54.800 --> 02:08:10.000
comfortable before I personally move forward. >> Member Stokel. >> Yes. Um I'm kind of in agreement. I'm all for cleaning up especially if they are at odds. My concern is um as was mentioned is what happens.

457
02:08:10.000 --> 02:08:24.800
I I like us having it in two spots essentially. That way if a developer comes in there's no like ambiguity with it. It's you know it's there. My concern would be, oh, but I knew I'm going by this in our zoning and then the comp

458
02:08:24.800 --> 02:08:41.920
plan's at odds again and then we or staff is confused as to what to do. And we've seen that happen. So, I would rather clean it up and have it in both spots and they align would be my uh recommendation just because again I the more we can communicate as we just got

459
02:08:41.920 --> 02:08:58.400
the presentation of maybe we need to be a little bit more clear with sidewalks, maybe we need to be more clear. I think that developers would appreciate clarity and then they can make an informed decision rather than us maybe being unintentionally vague with them. Um that would be my recommendation.

460
02:08:58.400 --> 02:09:14.560
>> Member Nelson, >> I agree with member Stokel. I don't have a problem with it being in both places. Um, this is probably a good time for us to look at it and change whatever is conflicting

461
02:09:14.560 --> 02:09:33.199
um to ju just make sure we're all clear about what happened. So, I think I appreciate them bringing it up, but that would be my request. >> All right. So, is that the direction

462
02:09:33.199 --> 02:09:48.000
that you guys would like to make staff or would you guys like to table this item for another time of just, you know, hey, we're okay with making sure it matches in both places instead of just completely removing it from uh the the code of ordinances. Where do you guys want to go with this? member Nelson,

463
02:09:48.000 --> 02:10:05.760
>> I wouldn't mind uh tableabling it till the NE first meeting in June, but if we do that, I would love to have the information, Brad, that you gave Megan >> and maybe have a little bit um >> a one-on-one time to go through it.

464
02:10:05.760 --> 02:10:22.560
>> So maybe give all of us the information and then sit down, schedule a time to talk to each of us. Well, it sounds like it probably won't come back in June. Uh because that's in two weeks. So maybe we can down the road

465
02:10:22.560 --> 02:10:39.280
a little bit and u >> maybe Jul first being in July. >> I think that would give us ample time to come back with those uh recommendations. >> Mosto. >> Yeah, I I mean for me this was one page. There was not any information provided and so I will when I request information

466
02:10:39.280 --> 02:10:53.840
um I'll try to make sure that it gets sent to you guys as well. It's not not trying to gatekeep it. I literally got it today. So, >> Vice Mayor, >> yeah, I think that we need to have some congruency between the two and I agree

467
02:10:53.840 --> 02:11:12.320
with tableabling it and I will make a motion to table it >> to our first meeting in July. >> Second. >> All right. There's a motion by Vice Mayor Cole to put this on the agenda for the first meeting in July. Correct?

468
02:11:12.320 --> 02:11:29.119
>> Second still stands. Member Nelson? >> Yes. >> All right. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. All right. I believe we're on petitions and requests from the public. Non-aggenda items. Anybody who did not speak the

469
02:11:29.119 --> 02:11:54.239
first time, this your opportunity now. But I believe you spoke. >> Yeah, you spoke on item. I I did also want to speak on an item a bit a bit bit more levity. Uh though I did just want to give a brief update that I did have a nice conversation with

470
02:11:54.239 --> 02:12:09.840
the uh police chief about my concerns and probably be a routine member here. But uh I just wanted to ask about having some consideration for installing ballards when it comes to the coast to coast uh bikeway that starts here in

471
02:12:09.840 --> 02:12:27.760
Titusville. uh just because of the nature where it is, there's always going to be some people who bring things like ebikes or um golf carts on there. And with the pace that they go, I don't see that as much of an issue. But I've seen, as much as I ride it, a lot of people bring rather large uh all-terrain

472
02:12:27.760 --> 02:12:43.840
vehicles or dirt bikes or uh even a few actual cars taken onto these uh bike paths because of the lack of ballards off of the intersections. Uh, one of which is going over multiple bridges that are clearly not designed for cars.

473
02:12:43.840 --> 02:12:58.480
Uh, I just feel like this installing some ballards to help dissuade some of the people breaking the no motorized vehicles rule would at least make it more clear what they're doing is not meant to be happening and could hopefully prevent somebody from being

474
02:12:58.480 --> 02:13:15.360
hit or breaking a bridge. Thank you. >> Uh, question for you. >> Where exactly on the bike trail are you talking about over the bridge on Garden Street? Well, the bridges that I I've seen, I think those are more up towards Mims, uh, where I've seen like fishermen

475
02:13:15.360 --> 02:13:31.520
take their trucks out onto the bike path and go over these bridges. Um, but the like real wide uh all-terrain vehicles, like they are nearly the entire size of the road. I've uh encountered a few while I've been biking. So, I'm just

476
02:13:31.520 --> 02:13:46.800
nervous, especially at the speed that they go, that they might end up hitting a cyclist without seeing them or a pedestrian. Well, thank you for bringing that to our attention. Like I said, you know, if you tell me exactly where you think they should go so that I we can work on it and if it's outside the city's purview, we can work on it with

477
02:13:46.800 --> 02:14:04.239
the county who may maintain that portion of the trail. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Anybody else for petitions and request? Mr. Johnson, did you already speak at the first petitions and request? >> Yes, I did. >> All right. I'm sorry.

478
02:14:04.239 --> 02:14:18.960
>> Sorry. Anybody else? Seeing none. All right, moving on to council reports. Member Mscoso. >> Member Nelson, >> I have a request for everybody.

479
02:14:18.960 --> 02:14:35.599
I was out in Seattle. Gas is $5.50 at Costco. >> We're getting there. And as I was sitting there filling up, I filled up my daughter's car

480
02:14:35.599 --> 02:14:52.320
and it was pricey and I was thinking, we're spending a lot of money in the city on gas. So my question to our city manager, I

481
02:14:52.320 --> 02:15:08.719
warned him was I did warn him was, "Okay guys, at what point is it cheaper to drive an electric car, especially for our staff vehicles?

482
02:15:08.719 --> 02:15:25.840
Um, some of the cars that aren't getting used all the time. Um, I talked to Major a little, uh, and he told me how much it cost to fill up his truck. I spent $10

483
02:15:25.840 --> 02:15:42.800
filling up my car, charging it. So my question is at what point do we need to seriously look at electric vehicles at least for the staff cars where we're

484
02:15:42.800 --> 02:15:59.599
just driving around town. Um those kind of things. Maybe we need to like uh look at our take-home policy for some of the city cars. So

485
02:15:59.599 --> 02:16:16.320
that's what I'm hoping that we can do. What question one at what point is it economically economic for us to change to electric? Obviously we can't do all

486
02:16:16.320 --> 02:16:34.040
the vehicles at one time. But as we start buying new cars, uh, replacing cars, at what point is it is it cheaper to buy the electric?

487
02:16:34.160 --> 02:16:50.639
So, I know Satellite Beach actually looked at it with their police cars, so I want to know. >> Well, Mr. Mr. City Manager, I think that's up to you to answer, but Sally

488
02:16:50.639 --> 02:17:07.760
Beach is like two square miles. >> That was my first reaction. >> Well, actually, um, the easy answer to your question regarding take-home vehicles and car allowances, that is the number one priority that I've given to our internal auditor after she finishes

489
02:17:07.760 --> 02:17:23.760
some follow-up work on an existing audit. Clearly, there is room for tightening our belt and take-home cars and allowances, especially with the price of gas. >> Yeah. >> You know, approaching the $5 mark. Uh the second question, there's no

490
02:17:23.760 --> 02:17:39.920
definitive answer at what point. I can tell you that we're not there yet. But, um if prices keep going up, I think um that's a question that needs to be answered. And my personal opinion is that uh and I know you probably don't agree. I think there'll be a a

491
02:17:39.920 --> 02:17:54.719
transitional incremental um transition to electric vehicles over a number of years. I think the first step because it doesn't require charging stations and and and the high capital cost hybrids

492
02:17:54.719 --> 02:18:11.679
um are I I know people who have two people who have >> this is one of the arguments we had cuz I was like >> but they are basically the same cost as a ICE vehicle but um >> long term definitely admin vehicles will

493
02:18:11.679 --> 02:18:28.080
be electrified >> um at what point probably sooner rather than later, but but I can't give you a definitive date. The high capital and also the availability and the limited selection of of EVs preclude that from happening

494
02:18:28.080 --> 02:18:45.359
right now. And before I uh get any further into this, I would ask >> Kevin still here? >> Kevin >> Kevin bail me out here and give some more information on this. Well, before Kevin responds, I remember this coming up before and Miss Sandy

495
02:18:45.359 --> 02:19:02.479
responding with the state statute that, you know, basically ties our hands in a lot of ways. We can't just go to EV just because we want to go to EV. I think there is a big cost component to it, but I'm interested to see what that calculation is as well. That was my curiosity because I was

496
02:19:02.479 --> 02:19:20.960
like, I'm seeing like Hyundai has got a really cute EV and it's like 32,000. Um, and I'm like, okay. And like Tom said, I guess it's Ford's making a truck, which is 32,000.

497
02:19:20.960 --> 02:19:36.800
Um, and I know Florida Power and Light was offering to put in charging stations. So you know yeah at one >> I don't I don't know the answer and that's why I'm asking >> it's issue that we'll have to grapple

498
02:19:36.800 --> 02:19:52.479
with in the in the coming years and I think we would first prefer to stay with American manufacturers um vice going to >> foreign Ford but yeah I get that I get that but I don't

499
02:19:52.479 --> 02:20:09.600
know if it's economically feasible at $450 a gallon or does it become economically feasible at 550 $6 a gallon? So, does Kevin have an answer?

500
02:20:09.600 --> 02:20:25.200
>> So, as the mayor mentioned, there was a house bill passed the governor signed that does restrict the procurement of local government restricting the type of vehicle purchases. So, you can't make a electric only bid. You would have to bid it versus the gas version and the hybrid

501
02:20:25.200 --> 02:20:40.800
version. And essentially the low bid wins. So in that case, electrics may not win. Uh we've shifted roughly 30 of our F-150 fleets to hybrids. Uh the advantage is they still run a gas engine. So we respond to hurricanes. We're not trying to find generators to

502
02:20:40.800 --> 02:20:56.000
charge our vehicles. Those vehicles operate, you know, much higher gas mileage in general. All the employees like them. They're the full-size F-150, not the Lightning versions. So they are crew cabs. The other tough thing with

503
02:20:56.000 --> 02:21:12.880
the pure electrics are they really don't make reliable pure electric large trucks. They're not in existence. So we looked at solid waste vehicles. That uptake is about 700 grand versus our entire vehicle purchase is 400 right now >> to go pure electric. >> So there are communities going that way.

504
02:21:12.880 --> 02:21:28.080
They're mainland California. They're doing it for emission standard purposes out there. That's exactly what the law says we can't do here. The new that the governor signed. So I think we will continue to evaluate but as Tom also mentioned we historically the the Tyson

505
02:21:28.080 --> 02:21:45.359
fleet has not had any foreign vehicles in it. We bought we don't have any we haven't bought Nissan's Toyotas we've only purchased from the US manufacturers historically. >> So it does limit the pool that we use for our items. >> Okay. Um, but we certainly can continue

506
02:21:45.359 --> 02:21:59.439
to evaluate as time changes, as technology catches up and they get a little more readily available on the commercial side >> or as gas continues to climb. I mean, I think we're all crossing our

507
02:21:59.439 --> 02:22:19.520
fingers saying may it come down, but I don't know if that's really realistic. Thank you, Kevin. I I'll bring it back up next year. >> Does that conclude your report?

508
02:22:19.520 --> 02:22:35.520
>> No. I had a question for Jolan. How come you said no hybrids? >> What's What's the >> hybrids actually have a higher incidence of catching on fire? >> Okay. >> Uh than gas. Believe it or not, EVs are

509
02:22:35.520 --> 02:22:52.319
the safest. On the other hand, if they catch on fire, that's it. I mean, they're gone, but hybrids catch on fire quickly. >> Okay. I thought we did have hybrids. And so, yeah, when Kevin mentioned that,

510
02:22:52.319 --> 02:23:08.800
>> and hybrids actually and gas, you're talking about changing oil, you're talking about changing um brake fluid, blah blah blah. Um, >> and I think our police our police said that they didn't want them for certain

511
02:23:08.800 --> 02:23:25.920
vehicles, too. when it got brought up before. >> Yeah. >> Do you remember that? And so maybe partial. Okay. >> Well, part of the reason is where are you going to put the prisoners? Cuz it's there's not really built right now for transporting prisoners.

512
02:23:25.920 --> 02:23:41.920
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And they I don't know, >> shall I say, I was in the back of a police car. >> My gosh. Okay, we'll revisit. >> They thought that was funny. Did that conclude your report? >> Yes. All right. Vice Mayor Cole, I'm

513
02:23:41.920 --> 02:23:57.359
good. >> Member Stokel, >> uh, I have a request, too. Um, wanted to see if you guys would be interested in doing an advisability on uh, banning marijuana dispensaries uh, in Titusville. If you saw, Palm Bay just recently did it. Melbourne, I think, has

514
02:23:57.359 --> 02:24:14.560
already done it. As you know, there's not many things that we can ban when people complain about tire stores or Dollar Generals or whatever else is popping up, but this is something we're allowed to per state statute. Um, and then the ones that we do have would just become a non-conforming and still be

515
02:24:14.560 --> 02:24:30.080
allowed. So, I'm definitely interested in it and wanted to see if you all were interested in it as well. >> Thank you for bringing this up, Member Stokl. I think it's definitely worthy of the conversation. Uh, member Mscoso. >> Yeah, I mean, I've thought about it. I've talked to um Sue and the CRA and

516
02:24:30.080 --> 02:24:47.040
you it has to be a city-wide band, but I kind of would like to see how it plays out in um Palm Bay in Melbourne and kind of u watch if you you start looking at some of the comments. Some people are very for it and then some people think, well, if you're restricting this, what else could you restrict? So, I don't

517
02:24:47.040 --> 02:25:03.680
know. I I definitely think it's a great conversation and we might want to give it like a a a few months just to see how it goes there. I don't know if there could be any lawsuits involved. I don't think so, but a lot of times watching what they do helps us make better decisions up here. >> No. And I would agree um with that

518
02:25:03.680 --> 02:25:18.800
except for I do feel like people are already interested in it um and especially in our downtown area and this is something that we are allowed to do per state statute. So, um I would rather do it sooner than later. personally

519
02:25:18.800 --> 02:25:35.680
>> because I mean in the city of Titusville we ban fun >> what what >> land development regulation 28-175 amusement >> okay you know which still needs to come back before us by the way Brad >> so would you guys be in favor of an advisability and then we can decide

520
02:25:35.680 --> 02:25:54.560
>> member Nelson >> how many do we have in Titusville >> four >> four currently >> four and one under review one additional one under >> so you know I and I get it but on the other hand I also look at the number of people

521
02:25:54.560 --> 02:26:12.319
who have medical issues that are using it and so I don't want to see them restricted from that from the use of marijuana. I mean, for some of these people is

522
02:26:12.319 --> 02:26:28.960
>> we could always if we do ban it, we could always lift it and we already have four with one under review, so they'd still have access. Again, it's I think I'm just thinking as we are developing our city, what what do we want our city to look like? And I'm sure you all see comments of lots of things that are

523
02:26:28.960 --> 02:26:43.920
being built within our city that we don't have control over. Yeah. And so, um, I just that's kind of how I feel that the direction I think that people would want us to go in. Um, I feel like if they do start popping up everywhere,

524
02:26:43.920 --> 02:26:59.840
people are going to say, "Why is this happening?" Again, this is why can't we get something else? Um, and again, there's very little that we can have control over. So, >> this is one area. >> I think I agree with Megan. I'd like to find out what the other cities are doing

525
02:26:59.840 --> 02:27:16.319
and how how it's going for them and then >> can that that can be part of the advisability because some have already done it. They've already banned it and they've banned it a while ago. >> City attorney, >> I just want would want clarification as

526
02:27:16.319 --> 02:27:32.560
to using my favorite word advisability. What would it be? What would you want us to do? Because it's either you'd want an ordinance banning it or we'd leave it as is. There's nothing further to research. I'm I'm not >> It sounds like there might be >> interest in seeing what other cities

527
02:27:32.560 --> 02:27:49.680
communities have done um around the state under the statute. >> Okay. >> Well, the statute permits us the plain reading of the statute permits us to either ban it citywide or not. So, I just want some clarification as to

528
02:27:49.680 --> 02:28:05.359
>> I'm okay with banning it. I I feel like I'm hearing that others want some more information regarding how it what that looks like. I guess >> I think it would be more information from the development department and what um other cities are doing, not necessarily the city attorney. >> So what other cities are doing are

529
02:28:05.359 --> 02:28:20.640
either allowing them because the state statute says that they're allowed they have to be treated no different than a pharmacy otherwise they're banning them. There's no in between. >> I mean my thing is not really Yeah, we know that. So, it's just kind of seeing how it's playing out in these cities or giving us

530
02:28:20.640 --> 02:28:36.000
>> Can I give you examples or give you a list of pro cities that are allowing them or banning them? >> No, I think we know that it's just two. There's more throughout the state. Those are just two in our county. So, there's are more throughout the state that have banned it already. I think Melbourne

531
02:28:36.000 --> 02:28:51.359
banned it a while ago and Palm Bay just recently did it. So, >> member Nelson, >> I think the more I think about it, more I'd rather leave it the way it is right now. >> Okay, that's one. What else?

532
02:28:51.359 --> 02:29:08.000
What What do others feel? >> U and and just a point of clarification, we're just talking about the actual dispensary, not the doctor's office. Correct. >> Correct. >> Well, they're they're they're very different. uh city attorney >> uh just to be advised that if you are

533
02:29:08.000 --> 02:29:24.640
going to make a a decision on banning or not banning this was a notice. Um >> this was this is for advisability to come back potentially. So it would not be deciding tonight. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Be a whole new ordinance. >> Yeah. Well, like anything, you know, you

534
02:29:24.640 --> 02:29:40.960
either need to make a motion and get a second or not get a second and the motion dies and, you know, we take it. >> I will make a motion that we uh have advisability for staff to bring back a an ordinance looking at banning medical marijuana dispensaries in the city of

535
02:29:40.960 --> 02:29:57.600
Titusville. >> There's a motion. >> I will I will give you a second. >> There's a second by member Mscoso. Any discussion? City clerk. >> Member Stokel. >> Yes.

536
02:29:57.600 --> 02:30:18.640
>> Member Moscoso. >> Yes. >> Member Nelson. >> No. >> F or Mayor Connors? >> No. >> And Vice Mayor Cole? >> No. >> Motion fails. >> We've all been there. >> Is that Does that conclude your report?

537
02:30:18.640 --> 02:30:34.000
>> Nothing else on my report. >> All right. Uh, I just, you know, day after Memorial Day, I just want to highlight the approximate 1.3 million servicemen and women who have given their lives for our country. Um, yesterday, the city of Titusville uh

538
02:30:34.000 --> 02:30:51.439
featured six different Memorial Day events throughout our community, all done by amazing organizations who uh love, honor, and respect our veterans and and those who also gave the ultimate sacrifice. Uh like I told everybody yesterday, we don't have 250 years of

539
02:30:51.439 --> 02:31:06.640
our country this year on July 4th without Memorial Day. It does not happen. So, you know, again, um thank you, grateful to those that have given their lives and of course their families who are deeply impacted afterwards. And then speaking of July 4th, we're doing

540
02:31:06.640 --> 02:31:25.200
our Fourth of July parade. If you'd like to get involved, participate, um, you know, that information is online, titis.comamea250. Uh, but it should be a great event as we celebrate 250 years of the USA. All right, that concludes my report.

541
02:31:25.200 --> 02:31:41.520
Member Nelson, >> can I add one other thing? Um, I understand that Hope of North Boulevard is doing summer meals for the kids and I think some of you know my feelings

542
02:31:41.520 --> 02:31:59.200
about Hope of North Boulevard. And so my concern is that they would have one employee uh delivering meals to the kids. So I think part of our job is to protect

543
02:31:59.200 --> 02:32:16.640
our community and that includes our kids. And so if this employee is delivering meals to our kids, then I would ask that the city manager

544
02:32:16.640 --> 02:32:34.240
stop it immediately. Um, we've had problems with his person before. Uh, we've had problems with, uh, the director for Hope North Bard. Uh, he was aware of what was happening

545
02:32:34.240 --> 02:32:51.680
at the Gibson Center. He never stopped it. And even after he was told to stop it and keep this person away from kids, he did not do it. So I understand that that um the

546
02:32:51.680 --> 02:33:07.840
concerned citizens have partnered with him and it's really their Bailey Wick but on the other hand I I I don't feel comfortable saying that I feel like

547
02:33:07.840 --> 02:33:23.840
we're almost sanctioning it. So, if this person is involved, then I would ask that we stop it before it goes further. Member Nelson, uh, appreciate you bringing this up and, you know,

548
02:33:23.840 --> 02:33:40.319
obviously if somebody's using, you know, public resources such as a building to to do anything, whether it's a nonprofit to stage something or, you know, to get meals out or have a chess club, doesn't really matter what it is, but um, at the Tourism Development Council, anybody

549
02:33:40.319 --> 02:33:56.080
that applies through grants or gets any county funds to to do anything, um, every person that works for that organization or subcontractor has to have a background check. >> And I think that's kind of important when we're talking about the health, safety, and welfare of the general

550
02:33:56.080 --> 02:34:12.560
public. So, if that is a direction this council wants to go, that would be, I think, the policy that we could set as council that, you know, if we're allowing somebody to use our facilities, that anybody that's operating it, whether it be this nonprofit or that nonprofit, they have a background check

551
02:34:12.560 --> 02:34:29.920
on file for every contractor, board member, whoever it may be that's that's working for them. So, just as you were talking about, I was thinking about how we could legislate it and uh that would be maybe my recommendation. >> I will I will say the county originally

552
02:34:29.920 --> 02:34:45.040
uh the people who were using parks and wreck and the Gibson Center, nobody got a background check. And in 2016, uh, they changed that policy and anybody

553
02:34:45.040 --> 02:35:02.640
who is using the Gibson Center or any park has to get a background check. And anybody, and I think, well, I know I know the attorney who wrote it. And what it says is if you have a felony

554
02:35:02.640 --> 02:35:20.479
conviction or a sexually motivated conviction, you are precluded from being around the children. >> And to your point, Member Nelson, I know this was a hot topic, uh, as I served on

555
02:35:20.479 --> 02:35:36.080
the Commission on Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for many years. uh the parks and wreck partners would, you know, that run like the soccer club and the baseball fields, they would have to come in and get re asserted with the the parks and wreck to use their facilities.

556
02:35:36.080 --> 02:35:53.600
And that was a big change about four years ago where they wouldn't even just accept >> um like a regular background check. um like the Title Sock Club used the Florida um you sports soccer, you know, bulk buying um background check. It was

557
02:35:53.600 --> 02:36:09.200
actually an FDLE certain level background check with real-time reporting. So even if they passed a background check, if anything flagged in the future, the the club, the county, everybody got notified of that. So again, that that's another area of possibility. Member Stokl.

558
02:36:09.200 --> 02:36:25.359
>> Yes. Um, so just to clarify, so Hope for North Bard is the one giving out the summer meals. Where where does the city come into play with this? If >> we're allowing them to use the social service >> center, >> the more Okay.

559
02:36:25.359 --> 02:36:40.399
>> The Moore Center. >> Okay. So, if they were using the Gibson Center to do it, they would all have to have a background check. But because they're using the Moore Center, >> correct? >> They're Okay. So, maybe that's what we could look into. Just making sure if they're using any public buildings be

560
02:36:40.399 --> 02:36:56.000
consistent across the board that especially I guess regarding children. It sounds like >> correct. >> Sounds like we don't have a policy in place. >> Well, it sounds like we do. Somebody has a policy for the Gibson Center who >> the county has a policy. So maybe we'd

561
02:36:56.000 --> 02:37:12.800
mimic the county's policy. >> Um and is it just is it in general is it mostly for kids? >> It is for kids. and you were around kids. >> Okay. >> Then you have pass. >> Okay.

562
02:37:12.800 --> 02:37:29.439
>> Okay. Um, no, I would be in favor of that if we were trying to mimic what's already there with our with >> other government buildings to make sure that we're keeping everyone safe. >> Member Moscow. >> Um, sorry, it all feels a little vague to be

563
02:37:29.439 --> 02:37:48.240
honest. Um, so I know that there are um kids are not going to the um service center. I think it's just that the food is being made there and then delivered. And so then my question would be um cuz they're planning on 250 kids a week. Um

564
02:37:48.240 --> 02:38:05.200
would everyone who's volunteering, for example, I'm volunteering to just pick up the meals and then I'm delivering them to the apartment complex. Um, but I'm not doing anything in the social services. I mean, I'm literally just picking up the food. Would that mean I need a background check as well? Um, and

565
02:38:05.200 --> 02:38:21.280
if this if who whoever were discussing if they're not with kids, they're just making food. Is that I I'm it's just all very vague to be honest. Um, so because I know that we've got probably 50 people volunteering. Um, lots of moms with

566
02:38:21.280 --> 02:38:37.520
their kids are going to help pick up the food. it's more of a delivery thing um to these areas and so if it if it is something where I mean we're requiring everyone to have a background check um it's a big deal and we'll have to figure I mean it will definitely uh delay this

567
02:38:37.520 --> 02:38:53.040
process and so I I don't know it just it's all very vague right now so if anyone has any clarity of this I appreciate >> thank you member Mscoso and I I believe that even aging matters for their meals on wheels folks require background checks for anybody that's volunteering

568
02:38:53.040 --> 02:39:10.560
for them um as they deliver meals. Vice Mayor Cole, >> well, the background checks, you know, YMCA, we have our golf tournament and we have a lot of various things, but everybody that does anything with the YMCA has to have a background check. Period. No ifs,

569
02:39:10.560 --> 02:39:27.920
and buts about it. >> Member MSOS. So, uh, I mean, where it comes into play with the city requiring it is that we're we're using the facility to cook the food. If the city is not being used to the the facility isn't being used to cook the food, then

570
02:39:27.920 --> 02:39:43.600
it's up to the organization to have the requirement. So, you guys are saying not to unless we're unless we're doing background checks on every individual um then we can't allow uh this Hope for North Boulevard to use our facility.

571
02:39:43.600 --> 02:40:01.200
Is that >> member Nelson? >> Now I totally forgot my my thought. Um I think I understand what you're saying, but I think it's very important that we

572
02:40:01.200 --> 02:40:22.000
protect kids. Um, and I think, yeah, I think we need to protect the kids and the kids come first. >> City attorney. >> Yes. I would just need some clarity. My

573
02:40:22.000 --> 02:40:38.399
understanding is, are we asking for background checks for anyone that uses our city facility? Because in this particular situation that we're perhaps trying to protect, there are no children that will be at the facility. I think u member Muscoso

574
02:40:38.399 --> 02:40:53.600
who's a volunteer explained the situation correctly. There is no contact of any children being on city facilities. So I'm trying to figure out what would be the policy that we're trying to mandate as it pertains to using facil city facil city owned

575
02:40:53.600 --> 02:41:09.920
facilities. >> Yeah. Because what I'm hearing too is it sounds like if whoever's there preparing meals, I guess they would all require a background check. But if like Megan's not there preparing meals, but she's going to volunteer and deliver them, she wouldn't need a background check because

576
02:41:09.920 --> 02:41:27.520
she's not at the facility. She's maybe in the parking lot and then is going to deliver. And if she does require one, how do we mandate that since they're not now on our public facility? >> That's a little confusing to me. I think you mandated for the people who are

577
02:41:27.520 --> 02:41:43.840
>> at the Okay, >> if there are kids sick. >> Okay. And I think that was the other thing. So it sounds like there won't be kids there. It that the kids are not coming there to pick up the meal. >> That's my understanding as well. >> Okay. So then if there's no kids there then I don't know if it's

578
02:41:43.840 --> 02:41:59.359
>> and what I'm saying >> but if there are kids there require it. What I'm saying is if this person starts um coming and getting the the meals and taking them to kids

579
02:41:59.359 --> 02:42:16.240
that we put a stop to it, >> but you cannot specifically go towards a specific individual. We have to have a policy that's general and applicable across the board. >> How do we do that? I mean, I guess black photo background checks.

580
02:42:16.240 --> 02:42:32.399
>> I guess whoever's using the facility, whoever that organization is, whoever will be there, those people will need to have a background check. That's what it sounds like. >> Okay. >> That whoever using the space, like similar to the county when they're using the Gibson Center, those people that work there and so if somebody's going to

581
02:42:32.399 --> 02:42:49.040
be there, whoever's working there will have a background check. I guess >> I think it's interesting just the way the county writes their agreements that anybody that's a subcontractor, volunteer, doesn't matter what, even if you know everybody in their organization basically has to have have a background

582
02:42:49.040 --> 02:43:06.880
check. So I just find it kind of interesting that you know we haven't maybe caught up with that. But you know that was the only thing that I was thinking from a policy standpoint that that we can do. Uh but member Nelson, do you have something to >> I I agree. I agree.

583
02:43:06.880 --> 02:43:22.640
member Muscoso. >> Yes. So then it would apply obviously not just for the summer feeding program, but you're talking about across board. So let's say an organization asks to use the the Harry Teour Center um then everybody in that organization who will

584
02:43:22.640 --> 02:43:39.040
be on the premises representing that organization like say somebody who's coming and to teach a class on parenting then they will need I mean in essence it's one person's cooking and one person's teaching a class on parenting so every single person that comes in that building is that what we're saying

585
02:43:39.040 --> 02:43:53.840
I I have >> I do believe it's children I I like the I'm okay with the children I don't know if I'm okay with like in general, but if there's children, it sounds like the Gibson Center and Parks kids. I want to protect kids, but I do feel like this is getting a little

586
02:43:53.840 --> 02:44:10.399
hard to figure out like how do we protect kids, but also not to that point. Like if somebody's just volunteering and it's parents there, I don't know if they need a background check for that. >> Member Nelson. So the county did it where is if you were going to volunteer

587
02:44:10.399 --> 02:44:28.640
with kids that that's when you needed a background check, >> right? >> You were on the board. >> I was on I was on the I was on the TDC >> supposed to start in like three days. >> Yeah.

588
02:44:28.640 --> 02:44:44.880
>> So as a public member who's been promoting this, don't you think it's a little complicated to There are hundreds of opportunities to volunteer on a signup genius that Hope of Bard has been putting out and I have been promoting it

589
02:44:44.880 --> 02:45:01.840
through my mom group. And it seems incredibly unreasonable to have hundreds of people in the next three days go through background checks to pick up meals and deliver them to children. >> All right. Thank you very much. I

590
02:45:01.840 --> 02:45:16.880
appreciate your comments. you're out I don't I get that but ma'am you're out of order. Let us finish our conversation. Uh to member Nelson uh to that point you know I think the ship has kind of sailed on this item. Uh you know I don't think we'll be able to take any action about

591
02:45:16.880 --> 02:45:33.359
this um at this point but I do think it is important to look at a policy regarding you know background checks and people volunteering and and city owned property whether it's at our parks or wherever it may be. So, I think it is worthwhile having that exploration, but

592
02:45:33.359 --> 02:45:50.080
you know, I I think it's it's too late at this point, unfortunately. >> Yeah, it probably is. >> All right. Manager, we can take a look at the county's policy and adapt that to our future, especially since we're getting ready to reestablish PAL.

593
02:45:50.080 --> 02:46:06.319
There'll be opportunities for volunteerism there with kids. But I agree at this point we're at, you know, the meals on wheels for the summer meals is about ready to start and we have a tremendous outpouring of kids with food insecurities.

594
02:46:06.319 --> 02:46:21.279
>> Yeah. >> All right. City manager, your report. >> Yes, sir. I have one item um for action actually looking for council guidance and that's on the Royal Oak small area

595
02:46:21.279 --> 02:46:37.279
study. As you recall, um, on the 28th of April, uh, we presented a a RFP and bid proposal to have ACOM, uh, facilitate the small area study with some public

596
02:46:37.279 --> 02:46:53.200
participation. Um council after discussion uh denied that and we were trying to formulate a backup plan that uh took into account some stakeholder input including

597
02:46:53.200 --> 02:47:08.240
um having additional opportunities for public input. also having a competitive RFP process and some other um uh items regarding the the uh vendor to be

598
02:47:08.240 --> 02:47:24.399
selected and to facilitate that process. So, we're looking for council direction on if we want to proceed with that, keeping in mind that uh $90,000 was allocated. However, should we add additional opportunities for public input, including perhaps a public

599
02:47:24.399 --> 02:47:39.520
workshop at the beginning of the process with several opportunities for public input later on. And if any other types of uh elements such as storm water are to be incorporated, that will significantly increase the cost to the

600
02:47:39.520 --> 02:47:58.200
city. So, that having been said, we're looking for some guidance on how to proceed. >> Thank you, city manager, city clerk. All right, council member Nelson. >> I like the idea of having a couple scenarios. I don't necessarily

601
02:47:58.319 --> 02:48:13.680
need an engineering study, but I would like them to be able to give us some ideas about the storm water and how it's going to react. Um

602
02:48:13.680 --> 02:48:30.000
just general, you know, this is this is it. This is what we think it will do in terms of how it will protect the residents. Um to me

603
02:48:30.000 --> 02:48:45.680
that would be appropriate. >> Member Stokel. >> Yes. Um, I discussed this in my briefing and I know ideally, um, we would wait for this the storm water master plan, but because we made this a part of the

604
02:48:45.680 --> 02:49:00.399
motion, now we do need to take action on it. Um, had we just denied it, I think we would be in a different situation right now. But because we tied this to the motion, um, we cannot just keep delaying and delaying. So, I think we do need to make some type of decision on

605
02:49:00.399 --> 02:49:18.000
it. Um, to member Nelson's point, just like looking at the map, that's kind of what I was thinking. Just address the wetlands in the area, address where water flows. What does that look like? Don't need the full engineering because I don't want to spend more money on the study than we already allocated. Um, and

606
02:49:18.000 --> 02:49:33.760
then having those scenarios that we can look at and see, and then from that, we could decide if we, you know, what we think at that point. Um, and I also like the idea of having the citizen engagement piece at the beginning. That way, if anybody that shows up to that

607
02:49:33.760 --> 02:49:54.319
has an idea for what this space could look like that we haven't thought of or that the per the um company that we hire hasn't thought of, we can maybe incorporate that. That would be um what I would like. >> All right. Anybody make a motion?

608
02:49:54.319 --> 02:50:14.800
Member Nelson. Oh, wait a minute. I would move that we approve uh the scope of work from ACOM in the amount of $77,510 to complete planning and

609
02:50:14.800 --> 02:50:32.000
oh wait a minute scope work to include um land use scenarios, two meetings with public input and some ideas of how the water is going to flow. know what the storm water is going to look like.

610
02:50:32.000 --> 02:50:49.960
>> Second. >> Does that make sense? >> Um, >> oh, hold on. >> So, I did call cards and there was an action item in the support, but I will give you an opportunity once the motion and it was

611
02:50:51.279 --> 02:51:07.439
>> and it says request council to provide guidance on. So, there was going to be a motion made, but please, please, I will give you an opportunity to speak. >> City manager, >> I just wanted to clarify the motion. Do we want to utilize a competitive bid process to

612
02:51:07.439 --> 02:51:24.080
um solicit the small area study facilitation or do we want to just award it to >> ACOM? I would keep it with the ACOM and >> order. That would be my suggestion is we

613
02:51:24.080 --> 02:51:40.720
keep it with ACOM and that um that obviously they be able to discuss in a limited fashion storm water water flow and present different scenarios.

614
02:51:40.720 --> 02:51:58.560
Does that make sense? >> Is that to include a workshop at the beginning? >> Yes. I think that it actually says two workshops. two public meetings is what it says.

615
02:51:58.560 --> 02:52:13.760
>> All right. So, there's there's a motion. Was there a second? >> There was a second. Member Moscoso. >> Yes. I I agree. I just personally like to I talked to the city manager and um discussed putting it out to bid just for the sake of transparency and it might

616
02:52:13.760 --> 02:52:29.120
come back to ACOM. Um, but I think for the residents that that would be uh good and I don't think it's gonna delay it too much. Um, but that's just my preference. >> Just clarify. I believe there's probably

617
02:52:29.120 --> 02:52:46.240
only two vendors that actually would bid on it and we know both of them are uh subject to some discussion and we could have it back if approved um with the um budget approved at 90,000

618
02:52:46.240 --> 02:53:03.040
we could probably have it back to you for award at the first meeting in July at the latest would take us some time to and because you know you don't have a second meeting in June city attorney. I see your head moving while you're

619
02:53:03.040 --> 02:53:18.800
trying to tell him something. So, is there something we should know? >> Okay. >> All right. So, just to make sure I heard you correctly, city manager, we could potentially do a competitive bid and you could have that back before us for the first meeting in July. Is that correct? >> That's correct.

620
02:53:18.800 --> 02:53:38.080
>> Okay. Based on the feedback I had, >> anybody want to amend their motion? I I remember there are two engineering firms and between the two firms I like AON better.

621
02:53:38.080 --> 02:53:53.040
>> All right, so the motion still stands. Uh any further discussion? City clerk, call the role. Oh, sorry. I apologize. >> I think it's gonna get denied anyway. That's why I was trying to move forward, but yes, you come up. I apologize. Just

622
02:53:53.040 --> 02:54:09.840
come up. I apologize. >> I'm just trying to get through the logisticals of of making sure that we have the correct motion. >> Okay. Yeah. The the problem with this motion and the problem with your direction is you don't need an engineering firm as much as you at this

623
02:54:09.840 --> 02:54:26.240
point need people who are able to work with and get community input. And that was not ACOM. Acom's whole plan was just to tell us exactly what they were going to do, give some kind of token thing. And we had suggested somebody who had

624
02:54:26.240 --> 02:54:41.200
come in before and had done that. What's the workshop? >> Natural. >> The natural resources workshop. It was a really welldone design. If you could have something like that and you can open this to universities as opposed to

625
02:54:41.200 --> 02:54:57.840
just your identified vendors because the problem is your identified vendors don't really have expertise in this type of thing where you're trying to get input and know what the citizens want. And if you don't do that, the citizens are going to feel very much like their

626
02:54:57.840 --> 02:55:13.840
voices haven't been heard and it's a real problem. So we had suggested that we have been willing also to help and work with this because this is something I know. I'm in public health. I'm an epidemiologist. I know all of this type of stuff. I had a lot of years of

627
02:55:13.840 --> 02:55:29.600
training. I did a lot of work in this area. And and what we were looking at from Acon was just a done deal. We might as well not even bother come in and talk to them. Honestly, it was so disappointing. So please don't do that and don't just use another engineering

628
02:55:29.600 --> 02:55:44.560
firm because it's not just the engineering. It's looking at what is it the citizens really want and somebody who can get that and that workshop that you all did before did such a wonderful job with that and if we started with

629
02:55:44.560 --> 02:56:11.200
something like that that would be a big step in the right direction. Anything else? Elizabeth Parker, Tribino Circle. Uh, I disagree that we don't need engineering. We need specific engineering. We need

630
02:56:11.200 --> 02:56:28.880
engineering that understands high recharge sands. We need engineering that understands hydraologic and hydrogeeologic modeling. vertical recharge analysis has mod flow software that understands

631
02:56:28.880 --> 02:56:45.680
basin interconnectivity and topography and the dam effect that understands the impact of an AE flood zone being built upon or basins wetlands being moved from that that understands the environmental

632
02:56:45.680 --> 02:57:04.960
and wetland assessments of the wetlands that can perform a UAM analysis that can perform fiscal impact and utility modeling that can understand stress testing infrastructure for um the watered areas

633
02:57:04.960 --> 02:57:21.120
that understands the nexus between planning and the legal fiscal analysis some kind of an AICP certified planner that understands compatibility and view said for the existing homes

634
02:57:22.000 --> 02:57:38.319
the cost to the community of just recycling what the developer wrote in a crappy plan that was not even appropriate. Nor was the data even correct is

635
02:57:38.319 --> 02:57:55.279
unreasonable and unacceptable to this community. And going to AECOM, that's exactly what their proposal is. We're going to take your 2016 ordinance that was rejected and we're going to combine that with what the developer said and we're going to tell you how

636
02:57:55.279 --> 02:58:11.600
we're going to use those things. That's not a study. It's certainly not a smallcale study of a piece of property that is existing wetlands prior to it was ever being a golf course. It certainly doesn't address any of the

637
02:58:11.600 --> 02:58:27.359
community's concerns. This should be put out under RFP and we should be looking for organizations who can bring in the proper professionals to do the proper analysis to understand what this property is and what it could be developed into reasonably, rationally

638
02:58:27.359 --> 02:58:43.040
and in fairness to the existing community, understanding the existing zoning and flume. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. All right, city clerk. >> Okay. I call on city clerk.

639
02:58:43.040 --> 02:58:59.279
>> Can I amend my motion? >> No, you're going to amend. It was going to fail because I was say I heard Sarah said she wasn't in favor of it and I was a no. So, and Megan wasn't for of it. So, I was just like, hey, >> put it out for RFP. That's why I'm changing. >> All right. So, member Nelson amended her

640
02:58:59.279 --> 02:59:16.240
motion to put this out for RFP, assuming we can get this brought back the first meeting of July. City manager. >> Yes. Uh, we will make every effort possible. >> I appreciate that. >> Pull out every stop. >> All right. Is there a second?

641
02:59:16.240 --> 02:59:33.960
>> I second and I second before stand. >> All right. So, I have a motion by member Nelson, second by Vice Mayor Cole. >> Anybody want to say anything? >> I do. I'm not part of your council but this is

642
02:59:35.040 --> 02:59:51.680
a response from any number of people that take >> we we said hopefully we're giving them a goal to work with. >> It probably will not make be July but >> yeah again we're >> we're making progress >> trying to move it along because that's

643
02:59:51.680 --> 03:00:05.359
what the residents wanted. >> We can we don't have to do a full 30-day RFP solicitation. We can put it out there for two weeks. We have a um you know, >> Sir, you're or ma'am, you're you're out of order. Please.

644
03:00:05.359 --> 03:00:24.880
>> You're out of order, please. >> Dr. Oor, please. >> All right. Do an RFP. Do it well. We all agree that we want this done right. We've been listening to the citizens this entire time. City clerk, call the role.

645
03:00:24.880 --> 03:00:40.319
Member Muscoso, >> yes. >> Member Nelson, >> yes. >> Mayor Connors, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Cole, >> yes. >> Member Stoke, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Thank you very much. Any other items on your report? >> No, sir. >> All right. City attorney.

646
03:00:40.319 --> 03:00:46.279
>> All right. Can I have a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Or adjourned.