Board of County Commissioners - Regular Meeting

And medical providers who support the mission of helping seniors that help us carry the cost of our media efforts. If you'd like to join us either as a business partner or simply donate as an individual, we welcome your call at (321) 473-7770. You're always welcome to visit our website at www.helpingseniorsofbrevard.org. Thanks so much for your help. It does make a difference.

If you wish to speak to any item on the agenda or during the public comment portion of the meeting, please fill out a speaker card. Each person addressing the board shall have three minutes to complete his or her comments on each agenda item for which he or she has filled out a card. The chair has the discretion to determine or alter the time limits on any agenda item. The Board of County Commissioners requests that speakers appearing under the public comments section of the agenda limit their comments or presentations to matters relating to county business that are within the board's control, authority, and jurisdiction.

Please stand for the invitation. Today, the invitation will be given by Robbie Adelgado is Robbie here? I don't think he's here. Okay. We'll have a moment of silence.

Commissioner Delaney, would you lead us in the pledge? I

pledge allegiance to the flag

of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. Thank you. First order of business is minutes for approval November 6 zoning meeting and December 11 zoning meeting.

So moved.

Is there

a motion? Is there a second? Second. Motion and second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries unanimously. Okay. Item e one, resolution, National Invasive Species Awareness Week, District 3.

Thank you, mister chair. Could I have anybody who is here from the Palm Bay Sustainability Board, Elizabeth Blackford and Doug Hook, thanks for coming. Whereas invasive species are among Brevard County's most costly threats to natural ecosystems and whereas invasive species management is an imperative field of study and education opportunity for Brevard County's recreationists, land managers, and water management. And where as recreation, farming, fishing, and natural tourism have been a vital importance to Brevard County's history, growth, and financial health. Whereas invasive species species management improves the quality of life for all of Brevard County's residents and its importance should not go unnoticed.

Whereas Brevard County recognizes the need to manage invasive species to protect our ecosystems for future generations. Now therefore be it resolved that the Board of County commissioners of Brevard County, Florida recognizes February as National Invasive Species Week in Brevard County and invites all citizens to learn more about the impacts that invasive species have on our local environment and economy as well to learn the steps that can be taken to avoid and manage those impacts. Dunn ordered and adopted in regular session this February 2026. So a motion? So moved.

I'll second. And Tom second.

Motion and a second. Thank you.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries unanimously.

Doug, Elizabeth, would you

like to say anything?

Thank you commissioners for allowing us to speak today. A invasive species can and do cause irreversible harm to our environment and our economy. Everyone knows the worst offenders, Brazilian peppers, Cuban tree frogs, air potatoes, and Burmese pythons. But

frost and

the damage damage that that is done to our plants, just be mindful of what you're purchasing and try to do some research and make sure that what you're buying is good for Florida's economy and environment. These plants are sold legally every day at large retailers. Remember that native plants are actually far more likely to survive harsh conditions such as droughts and freezes because they are acclimated to Florida's environment. These can be purchased in many native plant nurseries that are found locally here in Brevard County. Members of the Florida Native Plant Society and the Conradina chapter have provided some information that is available on the websites.

There's also the Florida invasive species council where you can find additional information about invasive species. This will help you identify and avoid any common invasive species and we hope that you look for or look for those when you're out purchasing your next plant and ideally pick something native. Thank you.

Jim, do we have a picture? Okey dokey.

Okay. Our next item, e two, resolution recognizing March 26 as Irish American Heritage Month, and I have Jim Garrity. Did I pronounce that right, Jim?

Exactly. Perfect. Thank you.

Alright. Okay. Whereas in 1776, nearly 300,000 Irish nationals immigrated immigrated to the American colonies and played a critical role in America's War For Independence, including eight signers of the Declaration of Independence that were either of Irish descent or Irish born. And whereas over the years, Irish Americans have continually provided leadership and service to this nation's political business and religious establishments and shaped our nation's history with their outstanding achievements. And whereas when the Irish arrived in Spanish, La Florida, La Florida, in fifth in the fifteen hundreds, they worked as missionaries, mercenaries, mercenary soldiers, plan ners, traders, businessmen, doctors, and administrators, but quickly became powerful political leaders with three Irish military officers becoming Spanish governors, and Andrew Jackson serving as Florida's military governor following this acquisition by The United States.

And whereas, Richard Arthur, an Irish born priest from Limerick, who was appointed parish priest for Saint Augustine in 1597 and the ecclesiastical judge of La Florida established for the first public school in America and opened it for both boys and girls of all races. And whereas 22 presidents have proudly proclaimed their Irish American heritage, and with the many valuable contributions of Irish Americans to our nation, it is only fitting that we celebrate their rich cultural heritage. Now therefore be it resolved that the board of county commissioners of Brevard County, Florida does hereby recognize March as Irish American Heritage Month done ordered and adopted in regular session this February 2026. I'll make a motion for you, sir. It's a motion and a second.

All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries unanimously. Jim?

I'd like to thank you all for recognizing the Irish and Irish American people for their contributions to Florida. Thank you for the proclamation declaring March Irish Heritage Month, and don't forget our parade this coming Saturday, March 14 at 10AM in Downtown Melbourne. Thank you very much.

Fantastic. Thank you. We're gonna do a quick picture.

I'll start with yours.

You have a great day.

Thank you, Jim, and having Kennedy's and McKnight's in my heritage. I would I guess we all have a little bit of Irish in this, you know, if we live here. Okay. Our next resolution will be resolution recognized March 26 as Bleeding Disorders Awareness Month. Samantha?

Samantha?

Whereas, bleeding disorders that include hemophilia, von Willebrand disease, and rare bleeding disorders are characterized by blood not clotting normally due to the lack of clotting proteins, also known as clotting factors. And whereas in The United States, more than twenty thousand individuals live with hemophilia and rare bleeding disorders, with six thousand of them living in the state of Florida. And one in two percent of the American population have Von Willebrand disease. And while treatment can help, the conditions are yet to be curable. And whereas symptoms of bleeding disorders include unexplained and excessive bleeding, large and deep bruising, nosebleeds and bleeding into joints, muscles and soft tissues and if someone has a bleeding disorder they may have extended bleeding with incidents such as injury or trauma, menstruation, surgery, or dental procedures.

And whereas the Bleeding Disorder Foundation of Florida founded in 1996 supports the bleeding disorder community throughout the state, and its mission is to improve the quality of life for people with the condition and their families through education, information, referral services, advocacy, support, and research. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the board of county commissioners of Brevard County, Florida does hereby proclaim the month of March 2026 as bleeding disorder awareness month and encourages all citizens to increase their understanding and awareness of these serious bleeding disorders. Donor ordered and adopted in regular session this February 2026. And the motion would be in order.

I'll make a motion.

So I'll second.

Motion and second by Atkinson. All those in favor, aye. Aye. Motion carries unanimously.

Thank you commissioners. My name is Samantha Nazario and I am a Melbourne resident in Bavari of Bavari County voter. I am honored to accept this proclamation for bleeding disorder awareness month on behalf of my family, the Bleeding Disorder Foundation of Florida, the National Bleeding Disorder Foundation, and all over the world. I am a mom who's walked this path for twenty years. When my son was diagnosed with von Willebrand disease two decades ago, our family began a journey defined by resilience and the weight of a million silent worries.

As our new reality began, thank God, the first thing our hematologist did was connect us with the foundation. The foundation is a huge part of mine and my family's lives. It has been the engine of our growth, educating us on how to advocate at local, federal, and national levels. By providing us with consistent cutting edge research, the foundation empowered us to stand up not just for ourselves but for the 120 other rare blood borne illnesses that rely on our collective voice. In this community, we found a true family where color, political party, or background don't matter.

Provide proving that with the right proactive care and the right voice, we don't just survive, we thrive. But today, the ability to thrive is under threat. The cost of staying alive for our community is staggering. Routine life saving medication for one year cost between 300,000 and $500,000 annually. If complications arise, God forbid, such a car accident or an injury while playing ball with their friends, the cost can instantly skyrocket and pass over 1,000,000 a year.

This is why federal support is non negotiable, yet we are witnessing a systematic dismantling. As of April '20 as of 04/01/2025, the CDC was effectively gutted. Experts with decades of experience in blood borne illnesses, the very experts who have protect us from threats like HIV and hepatitis, and many more are placed under administrative leave or fired. Nationwide, the CDC has lost a third of its workplace, roughly 4,300 employees. This mass exit leaves fewer experts to monitor the safety of our nation's entire blood supply.

I'm gonna repeat that again. This move threatens the safety of the entire nation's blood supply, not just for the chronically ill, but for every citizen who may one day need a life saving transfusion. The financial impact on Florida is severe. Projections show that our state stands to lose over $50,000,000 for public health infrastructure. Hemophilia treatment centers in Florida such as UF, Miami, Arnold Palmer, Nemours, Saint Joseph's, Hopkins All Children's are bracing for loss.

This virtual surveillance, this vital surveillance simultaneously, the National Institute of Health grant terminated has disrupted over 380 active clinical trials affecting over 74,000 participants. That's more people than live in Melbourne. Including those right here in Florida at FAMU and UCF. The pressure is hitting a breaking point in our own backyard. I've personally taken calls from families in Brevard and beyond who are terrified as they watch monthly marketplace premiums jump from $30 to a $167 and beyond.

For a young adult like my son starting their independent life, that $160 is a wall when you are managing a $300,000 a year condition. Losing insurance is a direct threat to your survival. For twenty years, I fought for my son. Today, I'm fighting for the families who are being priced out of care that they need to live. This proclamation brings the struggles out of the shadows, and I greatly appreciate you all for that.

But our work is far from done. This is an ongoing real struggle for survival. Thank you for recognizing our for recognizing our community commissioners. Mister Altman, thank you for your tireless years of advocating with us even on a national level. At the end of the day, we all have one thing in common. We all need our blood products to be safe. We all need affordable access to health care, and we all we need need no American left uninsured.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much for being here, bringing awareness to these very important issues. We have e four presentation, local option gas tax authority, and that is a district fund request.

Thank you. Mister chair, do we have a a

time frame for the presentation?

I don't think so. What how much time do you

I trimmed it down from the TPO presentation, so I'm hoping for about ten minutes. That's great. If that works for

Do you want me to just do the clock so that we know

what No.

I was gonna joke around that I'm on the timer. So Thank

you so much for coming today. I figured since we're talking about, you know, funding today, this would be a great opportunity. And and I really enjoyed your presentation at the TPO and I was just grateful that you were willing to share it with us today. Thanks.

Absolutely. Thank you. Well, good morning, commissioners. So I'm Travis Hills with Kittleson and Associates on behalf of the Space Coast TPO presenting Funding the Future. As I mentioned, this presentation is an adaptation of what we presented a few weeks ago to the TACCAC and the board.

So a little bit more streamlined and focused on what you all will be wanting to hear about. So as a brief introduction or a brief agenda, I'll talk through a quick introduction about what the presentation is gonna be covering and then really focusing in on the local revenue sources that are currently being used to fund transportation projects and then some additional revenue options that are in play. So for the introduction, so as we all know, current revenues cannot keep pace with the infrastructure needs that we have. The TPO has a large backlog in their LRTP of unfunded and some funded roadway widening projects, a lot of intersection projects, a lot of projects around the county that help mobility and safety for all the residents. So understanding what those existing sources of existing revenue are being levied is essential for that long term planning that's being done both the MPO level and the county level and the local municipality level.

So there are some opportunities to exist opportunities exist to leverage potential future funding and we'll talk through a few of those in this presentation today. So this is from the board's strategic plan. So this is the number one priority for the Space Coast TPO board, which you all are a part of, and it's expanding and leveraging regional and sustainable funding sources to increase priority project implementation. So making sure that those projects that are at the top of the list for Brevard County residents are getting implemented. They're getting constructed.

So the problem, as we all know, current gas tax revenue is not sustainable, has not been increased in a couple decades, and it's just not keeping up with what we need to to build these future projects. So performance measure for the governing board is really to take an active role in exploring what those different funding sources are to hopefully see if we can provide some additional money for these projects. So not all doom and gloom. I wanna set the stage for kind of what's been done over the last twenty five years in the county. A lot of projects both ranging from roadway widenings, lot of interstate projects, new interchanges, all the way down to interchange intersection improvements and new multimodal trail facilities.

So you see that column on the left, I ninety five six lane widening, US one six lane widening, Palm Bay Road, Barnes, and then the upcoming Ellis Road four lane widening. And then really what's unprecedented is five new interchanges constructed in the county over the last twenty, twenty five years. You don't really see that type of growth. A lot of that investment in one county across the state. And then also projects that have been funded with local funds, state funds, TPO funds are those kind of pre phases that go in before construction.

So design, the PD and E, project development environment phases, also some of those bridge projects that have been constructed, and the miscellaneous projects that are funded whether it be new alignments, the upcoming traffic management center construction for the county or potentially hopefully a future intermodal rail station which is a future project. So I wanna I want you all to kinda keep this mind as I in mind as I transition to the next slide that there's been over 1,100,000,000.0, probably closer to 1.5 to $2,000,000,000 invested in the county via all these different funding sources over the last twenty five years. So what does that mean moving forward? So looking at potentially the unfunded needs, so really that column that you see on the right hand side of the chart, we're looking at about $2,650,000,000 worth of roadway projects in the next that are that are currently in the latest LRTP, long range transportation plan for the Space Coast TPO. As you'll see where that red line comes across, we're projecting about 460,000,000 in terms of revenue available to fund these projects, which is about nine or 10% of the total funding needed for these future projects.

So just stark contrast in terms of how much has previously been invested, the 1 to $2,000,000,000 moving forward over these next twenty years, we're only projecting about 460,000,000. So there's a of different ways that we utilize different funding sources for those projects. So the federal funds that you see on the left, those filter down through the Space Coast TPO get applied to the different project types that you see. There's also state funds, so these are administered by FDOT for the roads in the county. And really where we're gonna focus in today's presentation is on those local funds.

So the fuel taxes and road impact fees. So reviewing current local revenue sources. So getting to gas tax, these are the first two slides. There's the constitutional gas tax. So this is a 2¢ tax where 20% comes down to the county.

It's collected statewide and distributed to each county based population. It's about $1,500,000 of revenue generated for the last fiscal year for this upcoming fiscal year projected. And then there's also an 80% portion of that 2% that the county doesn't directly see but it goes toward bond repayments. So that 6.9 isn't necessarily a number that the county sees directly but goes to those previous projects that have been funded through bonds. And then looking more locally at the local option gas tax, so there's two different pieces of this right now currently being levied.

The first is a 6¢. So this is collected within the county, distributed to the county, and the local municipalities based on interlocal agreement. This revenue generates a revenue a little bit over $13,000,000 per year and that's the projection for this upcoming year and then there's also a local option gas tax. This is the ninth cent and I'll I know you all are probably pretty familiar with this but for folks that aren't, I have a table showing how this all lays out here in a few slides but there is an additional 9¢ that's only being levied for diesel fuel in the county. It's actually being levied statewide and that's about $2,200,000 worth of revenue.

And then the last that's being collected in the county is the county motor fuel tax. It's a 1¢ tax on gasoline and diesel and the revenue generated upcoming is about 3,400,000.0. So, just wanted to kind of sit on this slide for for a couple seconds and to show where Brevard County is in terms of statewide gas taxes being levied. So, there's currently 35 counties leveraging the max of 12¢ on the fuel taxes. Brevard County is one of 11 that's only leveraging the minimum of 6¢.

So, you know, there is some money being left on the table in terms of those gas taxes, those fuel taxes with Brevard County being on the lower end of that spectrum when you look across the rest of the state. So moving on from gas taxes in the current local revenue source are transportation impact fees. So these are assessed whenever there's a new development whether it's residential or commercial. By those different land uses. So the different land uses bring a different amount of money in for the county or the local municipalities.

Impact fees are collected for everyone across the county, for all the different municipalities, and they're being distributed distributed based on interlocal agreements. The annual average for the county is a little bit over 10,000,000. The fiscal year twenty four balance was a little bit higher than that at 16,000,000. The one key thing here, the impact fees were last adjusted in 2001. So you look at the last twenty five years of development and potentially how much revenue could have been generated if those impact fees would have been adjusted.

You know, there's a little bit of discussion there and then the cities adjust their own. They can adjust their own yearly depending on what their different ordinances are. Palm Bay spoke up during the TACCAC. It looks like they update theirs annually or or at least look at it annually. So moving from current to additional revenue options.

So the first being discretionary sales surtaxes, and I know you all have had a lot of budget workshops over the last few weeks, so I'll keep this relatively brief. So I know you all talked about this quite a bit, but the the couple different sales surtaxes that we were taking a look at is the charter, county, and regional transportation system sales surtax. This is up to one percent. Simple majority require for referendum to be held at the general election. And going back to the presentation that Mark Bernath gave, this could generate anywhere between 25 and $100,000,000 for the county share and then a little bit higher than that when you factor in the locals as well, local governments.

So in the second sales surtax is the local government infrastructure surtax. So this is either one or half or 1%. So currently, this is where the Save Our Indian River Lagoon program or the lagoon tax currently levies a half percent. It's scheduled to expire later this year. So there was some discussion about whether, you know, that goes back on the ballot, that's part of this equation, and whether or not we would wanna modify this referendum to include another half percent for infrastructure.

And then you see the numbers at the bottom generating 37,000,000 for the county and about 70,000,068 million total. So then local option gas taxes. So looking to explore those. So like I mentioned, the table on the right shows that 1 to 6¢. That's what I talked about before. That's currently being levied for gasoline and diesel. All of the other orange boxes, the seventh, eighth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth are not being levied by the county. Those could be and then the ninth cent is being levied for diesel only. So then you see the red box for not being levied for gasoline. This could generate a little bit over $6,000,000 for the county share annually and that's for the 5¢ and then the ninth cent could be an additional 2,700,000.0 annually as well.

And then two other revenue sources that could be discussed are mobility fees. So kind of a it's an alternative to transportation impact fees, requires a local mobility plan that identifies different multimodal networks and those priority projects. What this does gives a little bit greater flexibility to fund sidewalks, trails, transit, complete streets, a little bit different than just your traditional roadway widening or capacity projects. The one thing to note is that mobility fees would replace transportation impact fees. So you can't have them both be levied for the same jurisdiction.

And then the last is a public services tax and so this is also presented in Mark's presentation but anywhere between a 110% tax levied by the counties or municipalities on public different public services, electricity, natural gas. This could provide another revenue option pretty sustainable. The only issue is that it would go into the general fund. So you would need to actually set aside those funds for transportation projects and then depending on what that tax percentage anywhere from 3 to $33,000,000 annually depending on the rate. So in the last few slides here before I wrap up, so big table with lots of numbers in it.

Really, what I want you to do is focus on the lower right hand corner, the 1.2 to $2,200,000,000. That's projected from the 2045 long range transportation plan. Those that's the potential revenue that could come into the county depending on how many of these different additional funding sources could be levied. Now, this is looking at just the sales surtax and the local option gas tax. This does not include mobility fees, public services tax, and doesn't include the charter county and regional surtax as well.

So this number could be a little bit higher depending on which one of those or combination come in. And then going back to the slide that I had before about the unfunded need, and then looking at that previous table, the 1.3 to $2,300,000,000 shortfall that we have could be closed with that additional funding that that we were projecting from those additional revenue sources. And then my cost of inaction. I won't talk about each one of these in detail, but what we're seeing is these projects, especially the widening projects, becoming fewer and far between. The costs are rising significantly, especially from what we saw over the last five years with inflation and you see every bullet list here or every project that we have line itemed out.

Inflation, inflation, increased construction cost, really that's the theme. That's the narrative. We also have needs. So Hollywood Boulevard, Mico Road, those are two unfunded along with Malabar Road, the widening the construction is not funded in the LRTP. So with that, that's the end of my presentation. Appreciate y'all's time.

Thank you so much. You.

Jay, anything you would like to say? Any any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. It was very interesting. Okay. Next item is item f, the consent agenda. Do we have any items that we have request to remove off the consent? Do we have any cards?

None for me. F six.

We can

I'm sorry?

Can we please pull f six for staff presentation?

F six. Okay. Alright. Any other? Okay. We will pull f six. So a motion to approve the consent agenda would be order with the exception of F6.

I'll make

a motion. Second.

There's a motion and second to approve the consent agenda with the exception of F6. All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries unanimous. Thank you. Now we'll move to F6. Acceptance and approval of the internal audit report, internal audit status for f y twenty twenty six. Do we have any comments? Any questions?

We have Mark Burnath up here, public works director. This audit was an audit of our facilities management department.

Okay.

Routine audit that has some findings and facts. And, you know, Mark can if you want, Mark can explain a little bit more.

Okay. Any other discussions, questions related to f six? Okay. We have none. Motion be in order for approval.

Oh, I'm I think that he's gonna present.

Oh, was he gonna?

If the board would like.

Oh, okay. Alright.

So commissioners, we've had a number of problems with the things that were identified in the facilities audit that we identified a number of years ago. We've just had a challenge of being able to prioritize the available funding. So the audit that took place, you know, reinforced some of the challenges that we were having namely with our software as well as being able to objectively look at our buildings and our components and come up with a repeatable defendable facility condition assessment. And so all of these things started several years ago under my watch where we first did an efficiency review, subsequently we've we've put together a solicitation and now we're under contract where we are working with a consult with a contractor, a vendor to actually implement our CMMS or computerized maintenance management software. So we've identified a number of interim measures as well as final measures, but the final measure really is that we successfully implement our software along with the vendors assistance to establish a facility condition assessment program.

Great.

Chairman? Yes. I just have some questions. So the internal audit notes on page 23 that say that Brevard County's budget book includes limited progress in we're a of

years.

The

the

have there been any thoughts about possible changes for this year's budget book to reflect that?

So at least from the public work standpoint, I would say no. The the budget book is something that's prescribed by our budget office and our county manager and we provide some of the higher level metrics that we use that does not necessarily mean that we're not working on our own internally in fact as we discussed during previous briefing, you know, of the things that we are doing is working with the vendor to come up with best of breed metrics and ensuring that we are operating efficiently with the current software that makes that very challenging with this with the new software we'll be able to better manage things like, you know, response times and close out times and that type of thing those types of things.

Okay. I really appreciate you guys presenting this information because it just continues to tell the story of the the lack of funding that we have and the the vast and diverse need that we have in the county. Basically, this showed that you guys are doing everything you can with what you have, but that limits you all on what you can do because of funding, because of software that's needed and things like that. You guys are basically operating on what thirty, forty year old software?

The software somewhat dated, I don't know the exact age. SAP overall has been updated but we chose not to update the facilities module because we just found that it was not what we needed for in order to move us forward. And so currently our facilities group is largely operating on paper and then imports it into SAP.

Thank you so much.

Interesting. Okay, do we have any other questions? Is there a motion for approval?

Mister chair, I'd like to make a motion to accept and approve the internal audit for 2026.

Second.

Motion and second for f All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Our next item is G, public comments. We have Sandra Sullivan.

Good morning, Sandra Sullivan, South Patrick Shores. So I wanna talk about We the People and listening to We the People. And what I'm hearing here is more tax, tax, more tax, more tax. And I wanna talk about some issues that I brought up numerous times. So number one would be the conversation about transportation, right?

$2,200,000,000 deficit last year which was the size of the anticipated budget at that time. So we've kicked the can down the road for twenty five years on impact fees. We went out grateful to Katie Delaney bringing forward to go out do a feasibility study. It's been nine months and I would hope that that comes before you and it really should be on the agenda now when we're having this conversation about taxing us more because the developers are not paying their share. And to put the county in this kind of a fiscal crisis is deplorable.

I also wanna talk about other tax issues. So right now before legislation, we have Tyler Saroy doing more tax exemptions for space. So space isn't paying their share here and there's some corrections being made. I brought up some issues before. And in addition, they are making space tax exempt on sales tax with a 6,200,000.0 impact, but I don't see you guys talking about that.

So when it comes to we the money, p and interest, you know, we don't talk about fairly taxing them. It's always to look to the people, the we the people to tax us at higher rates. I wanna talk about on FDOT on his presentation. He talked about how, you know, tax options on that, which I do think we need to look at. But what he didn't talk about is FDOT, 64% of their budget goes to multimodal, and a lot of that goes to space.

And I wanna bring up that the federal government needs to pay for its own infrastructure. Okay? So this was a a $10,000,000 AFTAC grant that it says phase two feasibility study for Cape Canaveral Space Force Station military regional wastewater plant for for the military. Why is $1,810,000 of our taxpayers money going to fund their wastewater treatment plant when they don't pay any taxes? Why are our taxes paying for space they need to pay their fair share? We need to look at all revenue sources. Thank you.

Chuck Sheridan? I don't think he's here.

Is he here?

Oh, he's here. Oh, okay. I didn't see him.

And Sandra and I have not talked to him a long time, so

this is a little bit ironic.

Do I do I have some handouts? Do I? Good morning, commissioners. My name is Chuck Sheridan. I live on Merritt Island District 2.

I'm president of Protect, a not for profit marine organization marine research organization. I'm also a US marine merchant marine coast guard captain and a retired general contractor. I'm here to bring awareness of the Starship and Super Starship that were just approved by the FAA, 44 launches and 88 reentries. My plus the testing. My concerns are valid and if if we can fly a helicopter to Mars, we can certainly satisfy my concerns.

Nothing I'm saying is intended to hinder the growth of the Kennedy Space Center. I I grew up here. All my friends are rocket scientists. It's vital to our community. I we depend on it.

When I first heard president Kennedy's Rice University speech that we choose to go to the moon in a century and other things, not because it's easy, but because it's hard. I always wondered what the other things were. And sixty eight years later today, I can tell you what what they are. Are. The other things are are as difficult as going to

the moon. They're launching

launching rockets rockets and on a basically a daily basis and maintaining an environment in its native natural primitive and pristine condition, which is certainly not happening. Reaching for the stars without without losing the ground we stand on. That is leadership. While while doing research for this, I found a quote from Warner Von Braun, research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing. Are we going backwards for convenience?

Continuous improvements built this industry. It must guide us now. This morning, I'm speaking specifically about the approval of the Starship and the Starship heavy. The suppression system uses approximately a 180,000 gallons of water mixed with liquid with liquid nitrogen to increase the velocity of the water. And when you do that, when liquid nitrogen interacts with combustion, n o two or nitric oxides are produced or n nitric acid.

The modeling in the EIS shows that the local n o two levels reaching up to 250 times the federal danger limits. And that's not counting the other launches. That's just the one starship, the one launch pad. Commutatively, those emissions equal annually roughly 5% of all the n o two emissions countywide. If you were to take everything that that emitted burnt fuel in the county, they'd be 5% of it would be the nitric acid nitric acid.

Now let's talk about the trajectory of the sonic boom impact. The first stage returns with a sonic boom six times the magnitude of the Falcon sonic boom. But the stage circles the Earth.

I've I think we've reached your limit. Okay. I'm going A little bit. How much more time do you need?

Maybe forty seconds? Okay. Go ahead. I'll talk real fast. The the second stage circles the earth and returns to the atmosphere, returning to Cape Canaveral from the Pacific. The second sonic boom is projected to last between fifteen minutes up to an hour. This is not a single crack in the sky. It's a prolonged rolling pressure wave like standing in front of a battleship can and firing them wrapped repeatedly. You hear the boom, you hear the sound, and then you're struck with waves of air pressure, a magnitude of 10 louder than the first stage. I've I've I've attached a copy of the FAA record of approval.

The numbers that are included in there for the air pressure and noise levels are weighted, which means they've they're not accurate to what the real numbers are. They're based on what the sound levels are in the county over a twenty four hour period, and then what the sound levels would be added by the sonic boom. The sound waves in the launch can be heard for 380 mile radius of the launch pad. The sonic boom will be far north as Newfoundland and as far south as Peru. And in the water, the propagation is standing approximately Yeah.

400 miles up and down the coast and 1,200 miles out to sea. Sound levels significantly are faster in water than they are in air. There's no detailed reef impact studies that show the EIS evaluating repeatedly high energy sonic propagation through the marine systems. And with each launch, we'll have closures of three and a half hours and they anticipate that there'll be a 15 to 20% loss of productivity county wide county wide. The visitor center, beaches, wildlife sanctuaries are projected to be closed two hundred and eighty eight days a year with a loss of 280 to $480,000 that affects our tourism, businesses, and taxes.

Now combined with the beach line expansion, multiple new bridges, new cruise terminal, bright line

expansion That was a really long forty seconds. How much more do we have?

All occur on simultaneously. At what point does the community of this disruption become economically disabling?

So what you've done really well here, you've given us a phenomenal report. And a lot of, you know, expense. I I will commit to really read through this, and if

If you if you read through the the EIS, there is not one place, and mister Richardson will get a kick out of this, there's not one state one place in the 52 pages where it says that they shall do this. It says it may do it, it might cause harm, it might not, it certainly will impact our sound sensitive lands areas, but we don't know how much. This this

report the first three pages are your presentation.

Yes. And there's some spelling errors because I did answer five this morning. That's okay. So that's helpful. Did you But there's a white paper that I wrote that I've sent out for peer review that's attached to it.

Okay. Good.

And then the the entire the Okay. The study they did before they sent out the one with all the pretty pictures

on white paper, I see. Okay. Alright. This has been approved, hasn't it? Pardon me? This was approved

It was approved on the January 29. Yeah. And then the thirtieth, they put out the one with all the blue pictures and pretty things and took out a lot a lot of the math. But if you read through it, I mean, I I was amazed to how they semantically made every there there's not one item in there that meets any guidelines.

Okay. So Well, thank you for bringing this to our attention. Any other questions we have related to this? Oh, we have another car that's another arm. Okay. Great. Thank you so much. Okay. I think that concludes that portion of the public comments. We will move on to h one.

Good morning again, commissioners. This is a petition of eight k to portion of a public utility easement known as Riviera Isles. This is on Merritt Island. The petitioner has an existing pool and screening closure, and while attempting to permit the new screening closure, it was determined by a boundary survey that they are encroaching in our easement. This would vacate five feet of the easement. We've had no issues in reviewing it with Road and Bridge and the utility companies after assuming this is approved, they still need a variance to move forward.

Chairman, this is my on my district, I'd like to motion to approve.

I second. Motion and second. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion carries unanimously. Okay. Next item, h two.

Thank you, Mister chair. The purpose of this hearing is for the board to consider a settlement agreement to resolve alleged claims under the bird Harris act relating to property on Merritt Island. The dispute future land use map designation was residential one, one unit per acre. The zoning designation was EU2 and the property was subject to a 1997 binding development plan that limited total development on the property to no more than a 130 units. From 2006 through 2009, Watersmark sought development approvals from the county and the St.

Johns River Water Management District for proposed 84 lot subdivision on the property. As we all know, you know, around 2009 we had the market crash and they stopped for sometimes pursuing those plans. Meanwhile, Brevard County had undertaken a small area study regarding land uses and densities in North Merritt Island. And in 2009, the county adopted ordinance number nine twenty one amending the comp plan. Among other things, the plan amendments change the future land use map designation for the waters mark property from residential one to residential one to 2.5.

So it went from one unit per acre to one unit to two and one half acres. Subsequently in February came back and sought to renew their 84 unit subdivision application and learn from the county at that time that the future land use map had been amended and were informed that under the current future land use map at the time, would be able to develop art and rights protection act against the county in that litigation waters mark contends that ordinance nine twenty one reduce the development potential of the property from the proposed 84 lot subdivision to the 38 lot maximum again a difference of 46 lots. In an October 2333 pre suit notice, Watersmark submitted appraisals and alleged a resulting reduction in value of the property from 4,300,000.0 to 1,700,000.0. Their lawsuit seeks 2,500,000.0 together with over a decade of accumulated attorneys fees, expert fees, cost, and prejudgment interest. This case has been heavily litigated.

It's already resulted in two appeals decided by the fifth District Court of Appeal. After the last appeal, it was sent back down to the circuit court and in December we had a bench trial in the case on the issue of liability under the Harris act. At the end of the trial, the circuit court judge requested that the party submit written closing arguments. Settlement discussions followed in the court has granted an extension of time on the closing arguments to allow us to reach this proposed agreement. If we do not settle and if the court were to find liability following any appeals, we would potentially have a another trial, a jury trial on waters mark alleged damages.

That's how the Harris act works. It's sort of a bifurcated trial process. County has long sought to obtain a storm water outfall in the vicinity of the water's marked property to facilitate an important flood mitigation project in North Merritt Island. The project will benefit generally the area west of North Courtney Parkway from West Chris A fully road on the North end to just past Portra Road on the South. The proposed settlement agreement provides for the county to acquire approximately 25 acres of the waters mark a 110 acre property along its southern edge to of able we're to

And sense

And It would also allow for storm water treatment ponds to reduce pollution discharge into the Indian River. So the agreement provides for 25 acres there. It also provides for the county to acquire a 60 foot wide easement on the northern portion of the property to construct an additional underground pipe storm water outfall that will likely be likely coincide with the entrance to the neighborhood subdivision. Watermark also owns separately a 120 acre parcel generally Southeast of the riverfront property, it's on the North side of East Hall Road, largely wetlands under the proposed settlement agreement, Watersmark will remove all non native invasive plants and junk and debris from that Hall Road parcel and comply with regulatory mitigation permit requirements. Once that's all accomplished, Watersmark will then convey the 120 acre Haul Road parcel to the county.

The Haul Road parcel will be stripped of all development potential never be developed, it will be maintained by the yield program for preservation and conservation and continue to provide important storm water storage for the area and mitigate against future flood risk. That parcel is generally in the area. We had a zoning meeting a few weeks ago where you saw a lot of residents of North Merritt Island concerned about flooding and conditions in that area of North Merritt Island near that Hall Road parcel. Brevard County will also acquire a little over two acres located on a small peninsula shaped horn on the river alongside the 110 acre property. That horn parcel will be maintained by the EEL program for preservation and conservation with possible potential for recreation uses if access allows.

So as part of the agreement, the county gets an easement and two storm water outfalls in a total of about a 147 acres of property. In consideration of these land conveyances and agreements Brevard County will pay water's market total of $3,000,000 with the allocation noted in your fiscal impact statement in the agenda. It's roughly 1,490,000.00 total from SORL for stormwater treatment, 588,000 from an FDEP grant for that West Christofoly Road drainage improvement project. There is a change we had indicated in the agenda report up to 562,828 from the North Merritt Island West Christopher Lee Church Street capital improvement program funds. That was an up to amount as we focused and gotten a number with the internal allocation that number is likely to be or will be $442,828 number previously provided as a minimum amount from the yield program for its acquisitions was listed as 360,000 in the agenda report that goes up to 480.

The total of 3,000,000 stays the same. Those are the two changes to the allocation among the funds. The settlement agreement obviously also provides for release of all of Watersmark's claims against the county, it would be a mutual release. Their alleged diminishment in property value pre judgment interest fees and costs allegedly exceed $4,000,000 and will result in a resolution of the litigation subject to the circuit court's approval under the Harris act and under this process where we're going through in addition to the parties agreeing in the board approving the settlement agreement. The circuit court is going to have to hear the settlement agreement and determine that it's in the public interest for the settlement agreement to go forward.

In consideration of that release and settlement of the lawsuit, Brevard County will restore the development potential on the remainder of the Merritt Island property, that 110 acre waterfront property from the reduced 38 units up to a total of 84 single family units consistent with the subdivision plans originally submitted by Watersmark in the early 2000s. That is still less than the up to 130 units that was contemplated under the binding development plan from the nineties. Brevard County will also allow Watersmark to develop a residential marina, commercial uses prohibited including refueling. There'll be a maximum of 42 slips that's dependent on the amount of shoreline. There's a formula used for that determination and depending on how waters mark affects their subdivision that could change.

They're likely to achieve the 42 units, but if they were to configure it differently, you know, there could be less than potentially. That's all subject to all the normal regulatory agency requirements including our manatee protection plan, Florida department department of environmental thing the lot we're

lot of

that are going to be north of the existing channels. So at the very north end of the property, their subdivision plans initially contemplated two of those lots. That's going to reduce. They're going to agree and put a restriction on the property so they can't have any other individual lots, so there won't be a proliferation of docks up and down the property, it's just going to be this one focus marina largely. Settlement agreement further provides for Brevard County's extension of the sanitary sewer force main terminating at or near the intersection of North Tropical Trail and Portrait Road.

That's going to have sufficient capacity to serve the up to 84 units subdivision. The design for that sewer force main extension is underway in the utilities department and it's going to facilitate planned septic to sewer conversion projects for the area. In mid February, natural resources staff and I met with leadership of the North Merritt Island homeowners association associate homeowners association, I think most of their board of directors was there. We discussed the settlement proposal, we answered questions. At that meeting, the homeowners association board members generally expressed support for the proposal.

I see at least Mary Hilberg here tonight or today, I'm sorry, lost track of what meeting we're on. And particularly they were supportive of getting the storm water outfalls for the important local flood mitigation project and the effect of preserving and conserving the 120 acre Haul Road parcel. So that's the description of the item. I'm happy to answer any questions. It's a public hearing, so we should take any cards before any board action.

Okay. We have one card. We have two cards.

And I should say the attorney, I'm sorry, for Watersmark Jeff Petty is here as well as the engineer for the proposed subdivision. Jake Wise is here as well and I'm sure they'd be happy to answer questions the board may have if you have questions

for them. Any questions of the attorney and the engineer? If some generators resolve the car, we can ask them later, but okay. Mary

morning, everyone. I'm Mary Hilberry? Hilberry. I live in 3780 Sierra Drive in Merritt Island. And we did, in fact, have that meeting, and it was a very productive one. While the North Merritt Island community generally prefers that property not be continually developed there because of all the obvious problems, we're aware of the outcome of the efforts of regarding this particular area. And we were gonna rely on the judgment of our county professionals and the legal and stormwater and environmental areas for this effort. Thank you.

Thank you. We have another card.

Sandra Sullivan. So that sounds good about having, you know, addressing some of the storm water issues. So when life gives you lemons, make lemonade. What I wanna add is a little context in addition. So after after Hurricane Irma, there was huge amount of flooding up there and there was a small area study done at that time as well that found that the North Merritt Island should be changed to from one unit per acre to one unit per two and a half acres.

Unfortunately, there was some lobbyists involved and that sort of went away. So then there was a half $1,000,000 hydrology study done by former commissioner Lober, and that study showed that there's a lot of flooding coming from space. And so this goes to a bigger conversation that I'm very grateful to commissioner Good son in bringing up the space impacts to North Merritt Island. And so he held a meeting and looked at, you know, it'd be about $30,000,000 to address that. And and I just wanna say here that, you know, he's expressed frustration at various meetings when Space Florida has come here that they're unwilling to accept paying for the storm water impacts.

I also wanna bring to your attention as it relates to this bigger issue of the storm water impacts. So at the incorporation study, they said 5 to $10,000,000 a year for flooding impacts from federal interests as part of that study. So the the documentation is there. So what I have two questions or two two concerns. One is why isn't space paying a storm water assessment fee like we are?

Number one. And number two, why is the city of Titusville doing the site planning and building permits for unincorporated Brevard in North Merritt Island? You guys have known about this for since 2010 since it started. And I know from where I live where it used to be self based housing was in unincorporated, and air force wanted more density. And the county said, no.

Under this f this f FDEP permit or FDEP, sorry, agreement under Florida Community Trust, we can't do that because we're by agreement. So they went to the city of Satellite Beach. Will you do it? And even when it wasn't in their jurisdiction, they filed to increase the density, so the air force went and annexed that to the city. So the jurisdiction it's in has the influence to address the site planning and building permits. And I have to think that this is by design, that this is being done to hide it from the public. And there needs to be accountability for space. Space needs to pay for its impacts to the flooding that North Merritt Island is experiencing from that from that half $1,000,000 study that shows that.

Okay. That's all the cards. Yes.

I'll I'll I'll yield. Oh.

Was Commissioner Nguyen.

Gonna ask our our county manager because I I had asked about the Titusville doing the site planning thing. But from what I understand, that's no longer the case. And right now from if I'm remembering correctly from our conversation, no one is doing site planning for space?

If I remember the conversation and we're not aware of anyone doing the site planning, yes.

Which that's equally as nerve wracking since

But that really has nothing to do with the issue that we're discussing here.

That has nothing to do with this issue.

Let's talk about that at a later time. Let's focus on the settlement agreement so we

can try to get this. Commissioner Feltner. I I just wanna say to Morris, I I think from our executive meeting and what you were able to take forward and get a get a settlement agreement that's I think good for everybody and bring it back here today. I I think this is the the best product that we can hope for. And when the board's ready, I'm happy to make a motion for this. Thank you. Commissioner Goodson.

Since it's my district Yeah. And you're making a motion.

I'll to the gentleman.

No. We've we've fought for an outfall structure of of flow line. Morris has done a done a great job. I think it was the best job he could do. And I'd like to move that we instruct our legal department to proceed forward and bring back to the board the final decision.

So we got

to second that.

Okay. So that motion, I guess, second by Eckerson. And may I

just clarify that motion? Will that include I know it's a long requested action, but there are a number of things we have to accomplish, including approval of the settlement agreement subject to final review and approval of county attorney and risk management, authorizing the acquisition we discussed for the total of $3,000,000 as described in the allocation in the in the fiscal impact statement as I modified it here, and I should note also, very minor, but we did move apportionment of a appraisal from the yield side of the equation to the storm water CIP fund. The motion would also include authorization for the chair to execute the settlement upon approval and for the chair to execute an amendment to an FDEP grant if necessary so that those funds can be spent solely on land acquisition for the drainage project, authorize the chair to execute a declaration of restrictive covenants running to be recorded and run with the land for the portion of the property acquired for the drainage project with FDP grant funds that might be an FDP grant condition, approve a waiver of the EO land acquisition manual to facilitate the acquisition of the 120 acre parcel and two acre peninsular parcel identified for preservation conservation and long term management and I should point out that 120 acre parcel has been on yields acquisition list.

And then finally authorize the county manager to execute necessary budget amendments, PCRs. Sure.

Commissioner Goodson.

I'm all for that.

Seconded again.

All for it. This is definitely included in the motion, included in the second. Any debate? Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries unanimously. We're gonna take a short break, but before we do that, because we have a lot of cards coming up. Since we're talking about settlement agreement and more she got the floor, let's move up j one partial settlement national prescription opioid litigation. I don't think that will take very long.

Yes, sir. And we have our outside class action litigation counsel here in our in the national prescription opiate litigation, mister Steve Sharpen tears in the audience and I'm sure he'd be happy to answer any questions the board may have. But just very briefly, as you know, Brevard County has long been a play if in the national prescription opiate litigation, that's multi district litigation pending in the district court for the Northern District of Ohio. We have already resolved large claims against a wide variety of opioid defendants and secured significant settlement funds as a result with most of those funds being spread out over a period of of many years, decades. As part of the ongoing litigation, we now have another defendant that seeks to resolve the county's claims.

Back in 2004, the board authorized adding three categories of additional defendants that included some pharmacy benefit managers and some smaller retail pharmacies including Publix. Publix has proposed a settlement agreement. They have already settled with most of the potential plaintiffs who sought to amend the litigation to include them as defendants. We are one of the last few standing who have not resolved this with Publix. Based on the formulas used to determine liability and the terms of the settlement, I and outside counsel strongly advise that the board accept the settlement as fair and in resolution of our potential claims against Publix, the settlement amount is a total of 345,000, that's inclusive of attorney's fees of 45,000.

Unlike the global settlements that we've already reached in this, it's not spread out over many years, it's a one lump sum and it's not subject to some of the same restrictions that the other settlement funds have been such as use on abatement cessation programs and things like that. So again I I strongly recommend that the board accept the settlement with publics.

So moved.

Okay, there's a motion, is there any questions? Do we have any comments? Okay, no questions, a motion for approval. Is there a second? Second. Second, did you hear something?

I was actually making much longer motion.

Oh, well, let's let's withdraw that motion, I'm sorry.

That's okay. I wasn't quick enough.

I apologize.

Okay. That's okay.

I would like to make a motion that we approve the settlement with Publix, that we authorize the chairman to execute the settlement documents subject to approval by the county attorney and risk management. But because of the well documented connection between opioid abuse and homelessness, I recommend that the settlement proceeds be placed into the affordable housing trust fund established by the Brevard County voters created by charter and amendment and authorize the county manager to execute any necessary budget changes to implement this action. That's my motion.

Okay. I'll second that.

There's a motion and a second. So any discussion?

Well, I that's a really interesting idea, and I'm not I'm not thinking I'm opposed to it, but I'm just that just came out of left field. So I'm just I'm I'm just curious about that.

So as the as our appointee to the affordable housing advisory board, it's that's where my mind goes. If we wanted to talk about how this money might be used or leveraged, I mean, we have the right people to come and and ask questions of. But I think it's pretty safe place to put this money when we talk about how opioid has affected our community. And and it's something that, you know, we should really take care of.

Can I ask a question for clarification here? I I think it's it's an interesting idea. Since that trust fund was created by charter review and the voters subsequently voted for it, there hasn't been any funding into it. Is that correct?

Yes. Right. Maybe Okay. Can we is there anybody here from Housing and Human Services and can we hear a little bit more about this?

Since this wasn't on the agenda for this change, can I put in a card?

Let's continue what we're doing here now. I'll thinking about that.

Good morning commissioners. As commissioner Atkinson has stated, there is a connection between opioid and homelessness and even with the national that is one of the sources that we can, approved sources that we can spend the funds on. And if you put these funds into the affordable housing trust fund, then one good use of it would be that it could be used as a match. The state at the state level, the Florida Housing Corporation, they regularly put out large scale tax credits that developments can apply for. And when they do that, they have to have the support of the county.

And typically we use our ship funds state housing initiative partnership funds as the match. Most recently, a year ago we used 360,000 for the force Glenn. Development that came through. And so now those are new units. Affordable housing.

They have to be kept. At certain am I to serve over the next twenty years. So for example, for Scalen has five units at 40% AMI, 33 units at 60% AMI, three units at 40% AMI, and 31 units at 60% AMI. They also will have units set aside to help those with disabilities and special needs. So this is brand new Affordable housing units as now available with the match.

So with these dollars we can put in a trust fund and the next time a developer. Once to apply for one in the large scale tax credit instead of using our ship dollars we can use these dollars and then use the ship dollars to help more homeowners stay in their homes with the repair rehab and replacement program.

It's good to know we can match up. Commissioner Feldman wanted to go forward.

A that's that's an important part of it. So could these funds, if we designated that today, and I understand it goes in the in the trust fund, but more geared toward keeping people in their homes. So that's everything from we can help you with an electric bill this month, we can we can do something. I know there's a whole host of things that you do over there that your staff does rather than just, you know

Affordable housing projects.

Toward another a project. So so, you know, that's something in the future and I think that's great. But keeping people in their homes today, is that is that something that the caveat that we could put with this today? Jim? Yes, sir.

I think I think thanks, I'm I'm glad I brought the charter. It's a non lapsing fund to use to address the needs for affordable housing in Brevard County. The trust fund shall be used to create and sustain affordable housing throughout Brevard County for renters and homeowners and to increase workforce housing opportunities. What you're stating would fall under that as the charter says.

May? Yes, go ahead.

Thank you. One of the things that I have with the traditional affordable housing is the time limit. And when you reach that twenty, thirty year time limit, they get off the hook and all the residents get a nice little eviction letter and now we have all these homeless people. And I've seen it personally at least two times in the past few years. And so is there any way that we could prioritize this these monies aside from the thing that commissioner Feltner was talking about to also maybe projects that are willing to have a longer affordable housing component or indefinitely would be ideal because I I just hate the idea of, you know, a 50 year old person going into an affordable housing situation and then when they're 80 getting an eviction letter.

The board can definitely consider that as part of written policies and procedures to be established. We have an ordinance of trying to implement the charter language that was approved, but there has been no funding into that trust funds or why we've adopted the ordinance. To my knowledge, I don't believe the board has adopted formal written policies and procedures as contemplated by the ordinance for the use of those funds. So that's something that if the fund if the trust fund were funded, that we would bring back to the board for consideration of future meeting.

Okay. And then as far as the opioid money goes as a whole, I haven't really heard a whole lot as to where that money is going and what we're doing. And so pulling these dollars out of the opioid monies into the affordable housing pot, what what does that look like as far as the mission there goes?

Commissioner, if I can answer for Anita because I asked the same exact question. So I'm looking at her email. So I'm gonna kind of paraphrase here for everybody. So there's $900,000 right now has been awarded, excuse me, counseling psychological treatment, narcan distribution education circles of care, STEPS which is agency stands for specialized treatment education preventive services. They have a mobile outreach vehicle we funded for $700,000 There's been $1,800,000 for the public notice relations getting the information out and I forget better way of putting it.

You're going to be seen in March or the plan is in March we'll be coming back with asking for award of about $600,000 for supporting people in treatment and recovery, dollars 7 and 80,000 to serve drug court programs and then other areas concentration $785,000 for living room program, provide immediate access to Broward County residents who are indigent, uninsured and unable to access behavior support or behavioral health supports. So I mean so that's a couple million dollars there and there'll be and the money is for the next seventeen, eighteen years or something like that. So there's going to be a lot of projects coming through over the next few years.

You can

see how that 300,000 would be just a small portion of that.

Chairman Mayor?

Yes, go ahead.

So the things that I mentioned about the time limit, is that something that the board would consider looking into as we go forward with policy once this fund gets some dollars in it?

Mister chair. I'm interested in several things too by way of ordinance. So I I guess the item today, if funding goes into that then that creates a situation where we have to do an ordinance. It sounds like we'll have an opportunity to do that.

So. Is the money in there first. Right.

Okay. Thank you so much.

Okay. That we do have a request for a three minute public comment since it were if it would have been a consent item, you could have commented, it's logical. But go ahead. Thanks.

So I didn't put in a card because there was a a change this is Sandra Sullivan. There was a a change to put this to to affordable housing. And so, you know, from that a pair that accountability and transparency portion, that's what should have been stated on the agenda item if that is what the intent here was. I also wanna go to, a point of order. Commissioner Delaney seconded, and then the chairman said, undo that and went to to commissioner Atkinson to do her motion when there was one already at play.

So I think that needs to be revisit revisited. The issue I have here, DeSantis came here governor DeSantis came here on opioids, made a press release here. This is an important thing. And in my view, these these dollars that you get should go to services for these people. And, you know, I take back at this sort of feels to me like a a bait and switch on what was on the agenda when the chief staff for District 3 is on boards of affordable housing.

So on on on on organizations. And so I just think that you get a settlement for something just like the settlement for PFAS. It should going to address that the issue. And so just because there's some connection to homelessness, it doesn't mean that somebody who has an addiction is homeless. I mean, there might be some people who are homeless, have addictions, but they they're separate issues.

So I would like to see this board approve this money going to services which may be at affordable housing places that are servicing that because sometimes they have arrangements as part of that affordable housing project to have people come in and provide services. They should go to services. They should go addressing the problem directly, not an indirect problem. And if it was really you really wanted to put money in that fund, the counties was selling property on Barton, had advertised twice, first time didn't get any bidders, and by that charter, when you sell lands, it should be going into that pot. And at the time when I was on the affordable housing board, I specifically addressed that twice in two meetings and never got any answer.

You know, don't be hypocrites sitting up here, you know. I'll just leave it there.

Okay. Thank you for your input. Mister chair, I just to point

out that in my agenda report, I didn't provide for an allocation for the funds, the funds weren't allocated, so the requested motions not inconsistent with the agenda item. These funds don't have the restrictions of the other settlement proceeds do, so it's up to the board where to allocate those funds.

Okay. Alright. Any other discussion? Any debate? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Post motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you. We will take a Okay. Now, thank you for next item. We have well, help me. What item are we?

I won. I I won.

I I just I got lost here. Okay. We have quite a few cards. I'll do this.

We'll have have staff introduce it and

then Yeah. I got it. This okay. Let's have staff give a quick briefing on I one. There's been requests that we get a little bit of a report prior to the going to the public hearing. Okay.

Alright. Thank you mister chair. On February 10, the board directed staff to bring back funding options with the infrastructure tax. That that was on February 10. We had seven different departments. We spoke to all five commissioners to get put this together for you in a week. Before we get started, just want to thank the staff, all the commissioners for all the help in responding to our questions, all the work everyone put into it. On the agenda, there's the following options are laid out for the board considerations. There's Option 1A and 1B. Option 1A is preserve the existing solar renewal process that was approved by the board in November.

Option 1b is preserve the existing solar renewal, but direct staff to increase emphasis on what I call hard projects like wastewater, storm water, septic systems within the existing plan structure. Option two is the modify and expand the infrastructure surtax, which SOARO is part of up to 1%. You would expand infrastructure projects beyond the SOARO scope. So that would be transportation related and the like. If you did that, you would have to work on an OPGA review, I that's a state function.

I apologize, I meant to bring what OPGA stands for, but it's basically an auditing part of the state legislature. And then we'd also have to work with the cities to rework the interlocal agreement that we have currently for the solar program. Option three is the Charter County Regional Transportation surtax that's used for the development, construction, operation, maintenance of road and bridge, operation of bus systems and other transportation services that requires an OPGA review that can and cannot be shared with the cities and that they all follow their own timelines and then there's other options by the board. You have in your package there's a memo from the County Attorney's Office that talks about what triggers an opaga it's a memo that includes in there what triggers the opaga study and with the dates. District one gave us a helpful chart that shows if you did something that requires the OPGA review on the dates, we have to put everything together.

And I love Morris, it's OPGA for everybody in the audience stands for the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability. Now you know why we call them OPGA. And so we're we're ready for any questions that the commissioners may have.

Okay. And I'm handing out handing out a document that commissioner Delaney have produced. K. Did you wanna say anything before we go up

I just wanted to mention this is in the agenda packet. So the public has you can just find that online. It's just a timeline for the opaga audit. Thank you. Okay.

Let's any other comments?

I just wanna make a a comment really quickly. I wanna make it clear to everybody up here and out there that I support option one a. We've heard the public speak here in the commission chambers and out at workshops where we've been. And I don't I don't quite understand why the five of us would put in jeopardy something that the public so clearly wants.

Mister chair?

Yes.

I would we'll not be supporting a change to the infrastructure tax. I firmly believe we should be looking at the legislators, see what they are really gonna do with property taxes. I don't think it's the best time to try and change a tax. Again, I agree that we need our infrastructure. However, I think that we might wind up with less than we intended. We must do not know. We just do not know what ultimately we the change will be good or bad. That will not be sporting it.

Okay.

I have

a question. Yes.

Commissioner Goodson, do you mean you won't be supporting the half cent sales tax going on the ballot as of now or you're not supporting a change?

The I am not supporting a change to the ballot tax. Right now, the only tax that's going on there that I agree with is the sorrel tax.

Thank you.

Okay. Okay. Alright. That's good to know. Any other comments before we go to cards?

I have a point of order question. Will we have after the public comment, I have some discussion that I'd like to have or I could have it now, whatever you'd rather for the for how we proceed.

Well, let's go ahead and have the discussion now since some of the members of the public have request that we maybe clarify where we are. That might help guide what comments are said in the public. It might save some time.

Thank you. At our last meeting, the board asked staff to bring back options. I know there's support in this room for simply moving forward with the point with the half cent renewal as currently structured and that is certainly the most straightforward path. But before we close off board discussion and due to the current timeline that requires ordinance changes, I do think it's worth having a conversation about whether we want to consider modifying the surtax even if it means triggering the OPEGA performance audit. I want to be clear this isn't about undermining the SORL program.

It's about asking whether independent validation and a broader infrastructure discussion might actually strengthen the public trust and position us for better long term. I'd like staff to walk us through those steps so that we can clearly state what option two actually means procedurally and practically. And after that, I'd like us to discuss whether we are comfortable renewing simply as is or if we think that it's worth exploring an expansion even if that requires additional review. Virginia oh, you're already there. Virginia, would you mind going through option two?

So.

Up to 1%. At that point, it would go through a PAGA review and it could the uses of the funds could be anything consistent with the statute limitations on infrastructure sales tax uses. So there's also requested action. You need to direct staff to work municipalities to amend the existing sales tax use and distribution in our local agreements to address increasing the surtax from half a percent to 1% and expand those eligible infrastructure uses subject to voter approval of sales tax. You would need to direct staff to identify infrastructure project types not currently in the swirl project plan, such as public facilities, transportation, drainage, and we would need to conduct a public hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance no later than April 21 to meet the OPGA review deadlines.

And so what types of infrastructure projects that are currently outside of the scope of SORL are we missing out on that we can't use these SORL dollars on, like things that that we know are necessary that, you know, we're we're not able to use these funds on.

The simplest answer is what's right there in the agenda, public facilities, transportation, and drainage. Right? The the existing tax is based on protections for the lagoon, water quality projects for the lagoon, but the sales tax statute allows other sorts of infrastructure including public facilities, transportation, and drainage.

And I was also wondering, how do we is there a way to get beyond water quality of only nitrogen and phosphorus? We spoke a little bit about it in my briefing, but the the storm water getting into the lagoon is also a problem. And so and that's not really measurable by necessarily by nitrogen and fast phosphorus.

I I would need to work with the county attorney's office. We would to to stick with options one a or one b. We would need to be can well, one a is to be consistent consistent with with the the current current language. Language. The the ballot language said, improve water quality, fish, wildlife, and marine habitat, remove muck, and reduce pollution.

So the projects would need to be consistent with that short description per the the statutory requirements. So the question is, you know, to what degree can we document that fresh water regardless of the pollutant level in it is also harmful to the lagoon, and and does that fit within that ballot language and and ordinance language.

Awesome. And thank you so much. And, Logan, if you wouldn't mind putting up my first slide, I did some pretty extensive reach outs to my constituents. And this is just one very small sampling of some of the negative comments that I've gotten. I frankly, outside of the workshops, I have not gotten one positive people saying, keep the tax the same.

We wanna support it. And so that's why I'm trying to open up this conversation a little bit more because what I'm hearing is people saying either absolutely not, and part of that is because of the the fact that, you know, the the space industry is dumping, you know, treated and untreated wastewater. So people feel like they should be the ones cleaning it up. And then aside from that, they're saying we have all of these needs and, you know, infrastructure that people want all of the infrastructure fixed, not just the not just the lagoon. And slide if you could go to the next slide, Logan.

So name what does it allow us? It allows us to like we like we saw earlier with the with the charts from the presentation from the TPO, it it fills this gap that we have. And the the ideal thing about a sales tax versus, you know, raising property taxes is that this is not simply on our residents. It's on, you know, anyone who comes into Brevard, they pay into this fund. And so the APEGA process, it's really a great thing because it does two things for us.

It gets a third party to come in and look at the SORL funds and give a sense of, you know, how did it go, what were some good things, what were some bad things, where some ways that we can pull money from elsewhere or it'll show us there is no money to pull from elsewhere. So I think that just on its own merit,

this

OPEGA audit would be a positive thing regardless if we make changes or not. And it's something that the state pays for, so it wouldn't come out of our budget. And, you know, it might turn some of those negatives into positives if if they could have a third party verification that the sorrel dollars did get allocated in the right place that it, you know, that it is doing well. If we could go to slide number four, please. So I reached out to Brevard Public Schools because they just went through this this process with their half cent.

And basically, they said that it's a collaborative process. It's not overly burdensome. And it's more about documenting system performance practices. And so in my mind, I'm thinking why wouldn't we want that moving forward? And so that's that's kinda what is in the front of my mind right now with with all of this.

And I don't know if I'd be able to support no changes at all because my constituents have come out so loudly to say that they're not happy with what's going on right now. Thank you.

Okay. Alright then. We have a sense. I think we need to go to the cards. First is Terry Casto.

Read off better.

Hi.

Thank you. My name is Terry Casto. I'm an Indian Atlantic resident, and I have lived in Melbourne for over fifty years. I've been volunteering with the Marine Resources Council since 2013 and on their board since 2016. I served eight years on the citizens oversight committee from 2016 until 2024, so I have some experience in dealing with restoring and preserving the lagoon.

And by the way, I'm here speaking on my own behalf. I don't represent the COC or MRC or any other organization. So I applaud the the commission for getting out in front of the issues, confronting the lagoon, and dealing with our aging septic sewer infrastructure. The problems are connected and both impact our ability to have sustainable, manageable growth, but the plan to command combine the two programs or two initiatives under the same referendum is ill advised. Let me give you my reasons.

The first is that combining the two issues, and I'm focusing primarily on the on the septic sewer issue because I think when you when you get complaints from your your your constituents, that's one of the main things they focus on. So so combining these two issues has a negative downside. Why is that? With a single issue, there's a there's one of two outcomes. It either passes or it doesn't.

You have a fifty fifty shot. When you combine the two together, there are four possible outcomes, only one of which results in the two issues being combined. So combining the two actually reduces our chances of getting either one of those things supported. The second is the question of who should bear the cost. Healthy lagoon benefits all Brevard residents whether they make their living on the water or simply enjoy the natural beauty.

So the sales tax that is paid by everyone is fair. Our visitors enjoy the same benefits, it's fair that they contribute and they do to the tune of about 20% of the total revenue. The cost of improvements to infrastructure such as septic sewer primarily benefit the property owners in my opinion, both existing residential and commercial and especially new developments. So in my opinion, it's more appropriate that those costs are paid for through real estate taxes and through impact fees. Thirdly, gaining voters approval for the billions of dollars or so needed, and it's a big number to to really deal with our infrastructure problems, and that for now and the future will be a heavy lift.

You you've already talked about the issues of of getting the referendum language and the audits and so on, but there's also the problem of educating the voters so they know what the intent is and how it's gonna be accomplished. So in closing, I strongly endorse approval of one a or one b. In my mind, there's really not much difference.

Half paragraph.

The history of the SORO is one of modifying emphasis consistent with the language of the approved plan in response to the commission's direction. For example, muck removal budgets were reduced in the past, interstitial water treatment was added and smoke testing were added. So there we have the plan has already shown its ability to adapt to new changes, new requirements. It took Tampa Bay forty years and Chesapeake Bay over fifty to recover. So we've made great strides with our program in the last ten years, but we still have a ways to go. So let's stay the course.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is mister Craig Wallace.

Good

morning, commissioners. Craig Wallace, Broufardini and Irving Berlin coalition. Try to keep this as simple as I can. I mean, obviously, my concern is mainly with the lagoon, and I understand there's bigger budget issues that need to be dealt with here. But as Terry just said, trying to combine too many things in any tax initiative is gonna do with the failure, and that's my biggest concern. I know you all want to continue on with cleaning up the lagoon. I don't think any of you are against that, totally for that. And you know where we get the money from to do roads and other infrastructure issues. This is a big issue and I'll, you know, I'll probably here to support you in whatever direction you think is best for that. But combining the two just doesn't make sense.

So we have a fantastically productive program that has proven itself. In nine years, we've ended up clear clearing up the waters, we've ended up reducing the algal the annual algal blooms down to the point where we don't have any of these major algal blooms anymore. That's a phenomenal success from where we were nine years ago. So this program has proven itself to be effective. What I'm concerned about is that we're setting up questions about should we possibly can continue it on, should we continue it on as it is.

We can always add more to it. It's every it's every year it it can be adapted and it has been. So let's continue on that path. We've got a great program. Let's not mess with with success. And, you know, people said, you know, majority of people voted for it in in '16, and we've been educating people as to what the success of this program is for the past nine years. I think successfully, think people understand that. Now there's always gonna be naysayers and people that have issues with with any program. So we're gonna hear from those and I understand that. But the majority of people out there support this program and I hope this commission continues to do that. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Matthew Nylon.

Good morning. That's Nylon with an e. Nylon. Thank you. My name is Matt Nylan. I'm a Brevard County resident. Oh. I'm also the president of the Brevard chapter of the Democratic Environmental Caucus of Florida. And I've been working with my caucus to build support for the continuation of the lagoon sorrel program. And I've been trying to keep my caucus aligned and and working with my team to get my constituents to vote be prepared to vote in favor of this program.

But I get challenges from them when they claim that there's some risk that money that should be going to clean up the lagoon could get diverted to other sources or other problems. They want to vote for a pure amendment that just supports cleaning up the lagoon, and they don't want it to be there be any questions about money being moved from the sorrel program to do things that are not Indian River Lagoon related. So I get a lot of pushback from my caucus on those issues. So I wanna keep them aligned that we are focused on fixing the lagoon and that the other issues will be paid for by the appropriate sources in other places. The other thing I get pushed back on from my caucus is relates to affordability.

Right now, almost half the people in Brevard County are either living in poverty or or going living from paycheck to paycheck. So keeping them to vote positively on a on taxes, sales taxes like this will be a challenge in the affordability environment that we're in today. I think increasing it from a half cent to a full cent will really smack people in the face in terms of affordability. I think keeping the number the same at the half cent and keeping it focused on the Union River Lagoon is a way that we can get this passed. I think if it's increased to full cent, particularly when it's gonna be competing with other sales tax ballot initiatives on the ballot coming up in November, people are gonna have to make hard choices about whether they can afford another $500,000,000 coming out of their pockets over the next ten years.

So I'm very much in favor of of one a, and I believe that SORL program has demonstrated that they can adapt to changes through time and make sure that the money keeps focused on the on the appropriate items as we move forward and learn more. And I'm very much in favor of continuing it in that way. And if we do, I'm confident that I can line up my caucus to vote in support of initiative. So thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Our next card is Sandra Sullivan.

Sandra Sullivan, so I'll start by saying right now legislatively we have a bill out there that's going to have space not pay sales tax, so they won't be contributing even though they are impacting the lagoon. Just disgusting. I also wanted to say what we were promised when this lagoon tax was initially presented was that this would match state and federal funding. So here's an example. South Beach is $50,000,000 to upgrade to AWT, which is the high in nutrient loading for reclaimed water.

Big issue. And also, we're required to to do that. We're under consent orders currently for discharging at not AWT. So what did the lagoon tax contribute? They met they only matched two point less than $2,500,000 from sorrel.

There was another project to put an area of South Beaches on on South Beaches Sewage Plant, and the state had provided 2 and a half sorry, 1.2 no, $22,400,000.0, and Sorrow refused to match it, and it ended up that that money instead went to Fort Pierce. So what what Brevard has right now is a critical need to address infrastructure. Infrastructure. If you've got a house and your roof has fallen down, you're talking about planting pretty flowers, that's not sensible, is it? You need to take care of your critical need.

Your roof is falling down. Your infrastructure is a problem. Even back in Irma when we were dumping sewage. Tampa, the people that cleaned up Tampa came over here and said the issue is your infrastructure, your pipes, and your plants, you need to address the dumping of sewage. So we didn't know this.

I found under consent orders and under documentation on DEP, we dumped 21,000,000 gallons of sewage in 2022 and 2023, and quiet because the county was not reporting its pollution discharges, and in fact, was just recently only, like, just a month ago, put them in. So sorrel, what it was promised to do to clean up the lagoon is not doing it. The critical need of infrastructure of our sewage plants are not being addressed. Sykes Creek is one of the highest plants of dumping, and yet right now we're looking at connecting space to it. This is a recent bloom that just occurred.

Okay? Where's the where's the bloom happening? Right where we are discharging Sykes Creek. I'll just say on this and please give me a minute longer, we got mocked, and I say that because there's scientific evidence that the that the salinity, this is prior to this tax being adopted, salinity causes the PFAS to bind to the muck. And so when you look at the lagoon plan, $2,000,000,000 in there is for the removal of muck.

$404,100,000,000 just for the NASA Banana River project, up from 250,000,000 last year. Thank you. I'll just wrap up with one last one. A $160,000,000 of the lagoon tax is going to storm water basin projects on The Cape. This is a military tax. The military federal government should be cleaning up its PFAS and it should not be put on Sandra. The taxpayers of Brevard.

Our next speaker is Vince Lam.

Good morning. So I'm Vince Lamb of South Merritt Island. I I moved to Brevard County in January 1970. I was fortunate enough to purchase property on Dragon Point in '73 and built a house that I still live in today. I've lived a good portion of Brevard history, I think.

Lots of change in human population and in the and in the lagoon life. Arguably, the most important local government accomplishment over my lifetime was the, in fact, the 2016 passage of the solar project plan. After years of decline, seagrass seagrass had expanded in the lagoon after some fixes in the nineteen nineties, but then it all collapsed in 2010 when the brown algae appeared with unusual mortality events for wildlife. The Indian River Lagoon was featured nationally and internationally in the news and not good news. Then came the massive fish kill in the 2016.

Our county government leaped into action. Natural Resources drafted the original soil project plan. The half cent sales tax referendum was placed on the ballot on on the ballot in November 2016. 62% of the voters approved it. The first contracts to restore and protect the lagoon were issued the following nine years later, positive results are evident.

Seagrass is again expanding in in Brevard County waters for the past three years. Algae blooms have become less severe and less frequent over the past five years. Fishing guides are reporting better catches. Doctor Duane de Fries of the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program has observed that across the 28 estuaries that comprise the NEP, that Brevard County stands out as the most impressive county in these watersheds. His organization recently commissioned an economic analysis by the Balmoral Group that that determined that the the lagoon shows a $28,000,000,000 economic impact over the five county region.

Last September, you started the soil renewal process by authorizing natural resources to begin planning for the next ten years. Two public workshops in January showed very strong support from residents. Work is underway to put soil renewal on the November ballot. The Brevard Inner Lagoon Coalition and our partners are already working to prepare the voters to approve it. Apparently, I've I've there's some questioning going on as we're seeing now.

I certainly recognize the severity of the infrastructure needs. If the if the county commission pursues pursues his infrastructure needs in 2028, I would certainly offer my support. I would like to conclude by do you remember the county commissioners who who who served this county like Joe Wickham, Nancy Haggs, and Val Steele, all who have have parts and facilities named for them? Do you wanna be remembered as the ones who killed the Indian River Lagoon, or do you wanna be remembered more favorably?

Thank you, Vince. Yeah. Our next our next speaker is Carl Weinberger.

Good

morning. I'm Carl Weinberger and live in Palm Bay. The Indian River Moon needs to continue to continue the funding of the half cent soil tax. We're seeing progress, as Vince had noted earlier, with lowering waste water and storm water entering the lagoon along with the septic upgrades. Slowly, the seagrass is returning to areas in the Indian River Lagoon.

Any significant changes to the several half cent tax referendum will require restarting a lengthy process of local and state regulatory agencies reviews, potentially causing us to miss the August deadline for following the ballot initiative. I ask that you keep the sorrel tax as is and vote on option one b. The benefits of these projects will help make the Laguna place for residents and visitors will want to enjoy and visit. Thank you.

Thank you.

You. Lorle Thompson.

Lorie Thompson. I I live in Mims, and I have worked on and recreated on the lagoon for my entire life. So I saw it back in the nineteen fifties when it was really really beautiful and healthy, and I saw the worst of it in in 2010, and, you know, what happened in 2016 with the fish kills, it was horrible, bad for tourism, bad for our reputation. We had international bad publicity, and now, you know, the the lagoon tax is working. I mean, yeah, I've seen major improvements in the water quality, the clarity, the seagrass coming back, the so so everything is working.

We have an incredible staff. Why would we wanna jeopardize what has been working and and add other stuff to it? I agree that we need to in help our infrastructure, commissioner, I really do, but I'm afraid that trying to combine infrastructure with saving the lagoon is gonna make it really, really complicated to try to explain that to people. And I would be very supportive of coming back in 2028 when you've had time to really iron out a good plan for what infrastructure changes you wanna make. What we'd be very supportive of that, but I I do not wanna see what's been successful changed in any way.

I would support option one b so that we could add some more things to the soil tax, but that's it. I don't I don't wanna see us going for a full penny or adding infrastructure at this time. It's working. It's the envy of every county in the in the state. Why would we want to change it? Thank you.

Blair Wiggins.

Good morning. How are you doing this morning? I'm Captain Blair Wiggins. I founded the Indian River Clam Restoration Project back in 2019 and really don't want to see any changes to go on to the SOAR program right now. Keep the sales tax the way it is.

If you start adding any more taxes and it's been proven that people aren't going to go for more taxes so they're not going to vote for it. We just received our first funding from SORL last year which put us over about the 70,000,000 mark of clams released back into the Indian River Lagoon and with our help this year we should be able to reach over a 100,000,000 clams that we put back into the Indian River Lagoon. Now the clams are there for to improve water clarity to help all the other projects that are going on out there whether it be seagrass, any of the restocking programs CCA does, But any any changes, I'm afraid is gonna basically do away with the funding of soil completely because if you start adding in more taxes, it's it's it's not gonna be good for the voters. It's as everybody said here, it's gonna be hard to explain and try to get another half sales tax out of people. And just want to say with soil's help, we've released 3,000,000 clams back in the estuary now.

And like I said, we hope to be up over a 100,000,000 clams by the end of the year this year. So that's all I need to say.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. That's all the cards that we have. We'll bring it back to the board for discussion.

Hi. Yes. May I thank you. I just wanted to add that I've I looked up some of the other areas that have done their sales tax this sorry, last year and out of eight different counties, seven of them passed. Only one rejected going to a full cent.

So just wanted to put that piece of data out there. And I guess my question is, if if we don't decide to go forward with expanding the tax, I feel like I could support one b just to make it really clear about the wastewater storm water septic up upgrades and emphasizing those things. But I guess my question is for the board, I'm wondering what are some of your your ideas about how we're gonna tackle the overall infrastructure needs that we have in the community because if we if if we go forward with this and it passes, that holds up this tax for the next ten years and so this won't be an option for us, this funding mechanism won't be an option for us. So I'm wondering what are some other ideas that you guys feel like will fill the hole that we have.

Mister chair, if

I may. Yes. Go ahead.

Commissioner, this this item is about SORL and I think sidetracking us from that at this opportunity is is not the right thing to do.

I I would have to disagree that this is about Sorrel. This is the infrastructure sales tax. We have marketed it as sorrel as a community, but this is about infrastructure needs. When I brought this forward, fixing our infrastructure needs and filling that hole. So I'm just wondering, are there any ideas? I haven't heard any yet and so I'm cautious moving forward by tying up this tax when we don't know what's going to happen with our property taxes. And so if if the state comes back and they say, know, property taxes are done and then this is held up, how are we going to fund our our government?

I'll just say quickly a couple of things. That's an unfortunate thing that we don't know what the state's going to do at this point. I'm not sure that they'll get something done this legislative session. They may even have a special session afterward. I've I've heard rumors of that. I don't think they can leave us without the ability to fund core functions of government. I don't I don't think any legislation that's been out there so far allows for that. When you talk about infrastructure, it's pretty big. We're we're we're talking about a lot. It's it's not just sewer, it's not just roads, you know, water supplies, water treatments, all of all these things and they have different funding mechanisms.

So if the if the bigger challenge is roads keeping up with capacity some of those other things, think that's just one category in the whole infrastructure. So when it's all lumped together, I mean think we're doing the wastewater treatment upgrades that are going to be necessary, that's part of utilities, they're working toward that. As far as road funding and these other things, there is partnerships, FDOT,

you know

we work with cities on some things so there's just

We already know that there's no money there though. Think we have presentation about it.

Well, before we I think you asked if other board members had ideas.

Right. I'm not asking to be gas lit though. That's the thing. And I'm I'm frustrated because I feel

like and there's I'll just become an appoint counterpoint debate, and I just respect their their view. We'll have opportunity for debate when we have a motion here. Yes.

For me, this is about supporting the health of the lagoon. I don't like the idea of tacking things onto it. I want it to be simple and straightforward so that people know what they're voting for. So with that, I'm gonna make a motion to approve one a.

Second. K. There's a motion and a second to approve one one a. Is there discussion or debate?

I would like to make a friendly friendly amendment to

see if

we could emphasize wastewater, storm water, and septic like in in one b. I think that from what I hear from the people that have come up, they they seem to say feel that that's an okay thing.

And

yeah. Would there be any support for that?

Okay. Is there there's a motion. Is there a second? A motion She's

from the amendment, I think she said.

Is it a what was the

I was I was asking for a friendly amendment to go with one b to emphasize on wastewater storm water and septic upgrades in the annual project plan.

Okay. Is that would that

be different? So for me, I'm not gonna accept that friendly amendment because I think that I want this to be as simple as straightforward as possible. So I would keep my same motion.

I'm sorry. This is before the board. Okay. I'm sorry. Just maybe we could

get some clarity from staff because I I think what what be suggesting there can be done annually with the lagoon plan when it comes before the board each year. Each each year. So maybe maybe just quickly we could have staff Let's

have staff. Just answer it. And that might Can you elaborate further

on that? Okay. Yes. I mean, every year we bring the plan update to the county commission for consideration and so, you know, each year is an opportunity to shift that emphasis to to wastewater, storm water, septic, what whatever is, you know, the critical need of the of the day, and that's what you have seen in the prior nine years.

My concern with that

follow-up, can I just Yeah? While she's on this real quick, and just just also to as a I think as more dollars become available by way of match from the legislature, so that changes annually to each session stands on its own. There's there's more dollars from that were appropriate before, but each year we're going to address that as new opportunities are presented for us to to go seek matching dollars for septic to sewer. I think the state is absolutely committed to septic to sewer conversion. Right? So so, I mean, each year you're going to bring that that to us as well.

Fair? What should I think? How

many septic tanks would you say are in the Indian River Lagoon Basin?

Over 63,000.

And how many have we switched on to septic or I'm sorry, on to sewer?

I believe we've converted between seven and eight hundred so far.

So, I mean, it's we can say all these nice things about how whoever supports this, but the truth is is that if that was the priority, why hasn't and this isn't a staff. This is more so to the comment that was made about the state supporting septic to sewer. Where have those dollars been? Why haven't more more been done? It's been ten years.

And I understand, you know, permitting and we didn't have all this money to begin with in the in the beginning years, but it just seems the priorities have elsewhere. And when I have, you know there was a kid in my community who got paralyzed in our river. You know, the the city of Titusville had to settle with the family. There's some real things that are going on, and the North End holds a lot of I mean, we see mosquito lagoon all the time, but it's not within our area. I mean, it it I'm not seeing the priorities changing.

And how many times has the lagoon plan come back to the board, and not just this board, but the board previous, and there have been many changes. I can only think of one that had any kind of significant change, and that was when a state legislature state legislature came down here and, you know, was not very happy. So I I see a lot of issues, and I'm not seeing where the vast majority of people the people who are the people who are in the nitty gritty every single day working within the lagoon, you know, I I appreciate their their their their opinions on this. But what what about everybody else who is not in this day to day and they just know that, you know, hey, you shouldn't go in the river when it smells like that or you shouldn't go in the river when it looks like that. And, you know, when we have so many issues and we talk about transportation and how that has nothing to do with the lagoon.

Well, if if we could redo our roads and our drainage systems so that all of the storm water and whatnot was not going directly into the lagoon, that would definitely help. You know, I'm not saying it would fix it. I'm just saying that we could still steer these projects that they have to make sense in regards to fixing the lagoon, you know, fixing the lagoon and keeping the pollutants out of the water. If we do not stop the sources of pollution from going into the lagoon, we are mopping with dirty water. And until we get serious about septic to sewer, fixing our our storm our our sewage plants and the pipes, the infrastructure pipes that are collapsing all over the place, and until we can stop the storm water from getting into the lagoon, it's never gonna be fixed.

I got a text message from somebody this weekend this past week of their canal, and they literally said to me, is this safe? You know, and I'm like, I I don't know, but it doesn't look right. And this person, you know, they live on a canal in Merritt Island. And so it's I'm just frustrated. We continue to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different outcome.

And I I just I'm I'm nervous about locking down this tax without making any changes and then it being inaccessible for us, especially with what the state has going on.

Okay. Any other discussion?

I just wanna make one last comment, sir. And and I under I understand your sense of frustration when you when you see that things don't happen quickly. I I don't well, it's years. That's I let let me I'll just say, this is a long term commitment. There's there's there's no doubt. Hold on. And, you know, it's a it's it's much quicker when you're talking about dredging just so so we all understand because they can set up quickly and start and start dredging. When you're talking about digging up roads, running sewer lines, removing septic tanks, and hooking up, it's it it took years to put that stuff in. It it you know, septic tanks didn't appear in Brevard County overnight. It it happened over many generations.

It's going to take a generation to replace that stuff, but we have to do it. I mean, we we have to do it. There are there are mandates in the state. And I I would just say, when when you're talking about that, it takes a long time versus versus the other things. A lot of the other projects, to your point, that people spoke about today are things that can be done today, and so that's why those things happen quicker.

But if the if the priority and if if the scientists all say that the issue is the septic tanks, the the sewage plants, and the storm water, I'm just not understanding why those things are not the priority. Yes.

So I think I think I'll just say a few things. Obviously, we have significant infrastructure challenges in our county, and we're gonna have to address them. And I don't I and I'm I'm encouraged to hear that the board seems to be willing to do that. That in of itself is a significant significant step forward that we're willing to consider these these there are entities that want don't wanna even talk about solving problems, nevertheless, both for them. And so I think your input is very helpful, and I think it shows a commitment to fixing and challenging these addressing these infrastructure challenges.

There I've heard the board members voice concern about what's happening in Tallahassee. There's a great deal of we're world. Support, proud And voters have supported this in the past. Of I think the general consensus of this board is to move forward with Sorro as it is, see what comes out of Tallahassee, probably would be could be a result of a special session. I don't think it's gonna come out this session.

So and we have a very, very strict timeline restrictive timeline to deal with. So I'm going to call it question if it's okay. I think the support's there, but I think that it's been healthy discussion that we've had and gives us an indication of where we can this will not be done even if SORL passes, and hope it does. We'll have a a lot of work ahead of us.

Can I

please say

something? Yes. So

I'm I'm gonna be voting in support of this for today and not in support of the program, but in support of the people's right to choose whether this is what they want. So I just wanted to make that really clear. Thank you.

Okay. Alright. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries unanimous. Thank you for those who have come and spoke. K. Item I two, legislative intent, permission to advertise increase to the Stromwell utility assessment. Y'all welcome to stay in spoke speak in favor of that too if you like.

Jim, go ahead.

Thank you, mister chair. This is kind of the second item from the February 10 board meeting where he directed staff to bring back these items. So let's bring back legislative intent and permission to advertise increase to storm water utility assessment rates. We highlighted the storm water projects and the effects at the budget workshop. We spent an hour or so describing it to the Board. Same thing, thank you to the department's game, same seven departments. We spoke to all the commissioners. So and the agenda for everybody in the audience, there's options for the Board to consider. Number one is to direct the revenue to be evenly split between water quality and flood mitigation. Right now it's seven approximately seventy-thirty for water quality, 30% for flood mitigation.

Option two is eliminate the design credit by providing maintenance credits that could generate up to about $1,000,000 across the county. Number of people and I'll use myself as example, my subdivision has storm water design, so I don't pay the full $64 I pay $47 or something. This would raise me up to $64 Option three is raise the assessment. We have a suggestion of $85.8 that accounts for the CPI since the 2016 implementation. That would increase revenue by about $2,400,000 across the districts.

That's the chart you see in your agenda. If the board desires option four, you could add a CPI, CPI U to it for the rates. Option five is a small one raised with the collection, a minimum collection of 5.01 that will raise about $12,000 We had a good conversation with the tax collector Lisa yesterday explaining how with the $5 so that would allow us to make sure we collect what we can. Number six is combining all the actions together and of course number seven is other actions desired by the board. If you do any of the options of two through five or even all two through six that's going to require assessment letters to be sent before final board approval. The best analogy I could use with that is what we went through last year with the fire assessment. Would be the same similar process.

Very good. Thank you for that synopsis. Any other staff input? Okay. The what is the will of the board?

Do we have cards?

We have one. Sorry. Sandra Sullivan. I was sitting here hoping it's

Yeah, you didn't get off that too easy. Okay. So we just had a conversation about, you know, the lagoon tax and putting that, you know, the referendum, and one of the things that is funded the lagoon tax is storm water. I mean, as Katie said, you know, the why is the the focus of it on the sewage, the septic, and the storm water. Right?

So we just had that conversation, and and as was stated here a few meetings ago, when you're talking about flooding and storm water, we're gonna we're gonna look to tax the people more. So, I mean, this goes to the bigger conversation by not addressing the critical need of Brevard County which is infrastructure, you're gonna find ways to tax the people more bottom line. So here we are with a conversation about taxing the people more for storm water. Well, isn't this double taxation that we have, the lagoon tax that addresses storm water and salinity going into the lagoon etcetera etcetera, and we're paying for storm water projects, but oh, wait. You start looking into a lot of those projects, oh, there's storm water for so that we can build storm water basin areas for new development.

Like up there, 38 acres, you know, putting in destroying, destroying wetlands under sorrel to build a storm water basin so you can do a major development for a developer. You know, it's all about we the money over we the people. Let's talk about, you know, again, you got a $160,000,000 of storm water projects in the lagoon tax for Patrick's Space Force Base and The Cape. So but when it comes to the people and the people's needs, okay, and the storm water for the people, let's increase our taxes. Let's let's increase our taxes in addition to the lagoon tax.

Let's increase our storm water assessment fees. Now, bigger picture here that we're not even should start the conversation is what is happening up in Tallahassee with the property tax? Because if the property tax goes away for homestead, we're looking at between a 612% sales tax. And then you start adding all these other taxes, what's the fiscal impact? How about we start with looking at what is happening up in Tallahassee before we make these big decisions and figure out a long term strategy rather than a reactive strategy because that's the way government should happen.

Proactive management, but that's not what we're seeing. It's always reactive management. More taxes. More taxes, increase taxes, put it on the people and not do that. That. That.

And That was our one and only card. Any any comment from the board?

Yes, please. Yes. So obviously, storm water issue doesn't affect every district the same. We have a couple of districts who are much more affected than others. For me, it would be really hard to support an increase because D 3 doesn't have the same issues that, for instance D 1 and D 2 have.

So I have a couple of questions for staff if I may. First of all, could we all have a different split if we wanted to? And my second question is specifically let's look at d one because we've been talking about their heartbreaking issues recently. If if they just switched from seventy thirty to have 70 more for flood mitigation, what would their numbers look like up in d one specifically?

So commissioner, the answer to both of your questions is yes. So each district could have a different rate. When the storm water utility was established in 1990 and '91, Districts 3 And 5 were in '90 and the rest were established in '91. So the rate could be different and the split for water quality and flood mitigation could also differ based on board direction that would not require an assessment letter to go out. The differing rates per district would require that we notice the public and that would probably be a longer process.

Know when we started talking about this, we talked about a six to twelve month process. So it's kind of changing those rates per district would probably be a twelve month project and then next fiscal year type of project.

So if we were to take for instance D1's split right now of 7030, can you tell me what the number is? How much how many dollars they have going to storm water right now? And if they change that to 70%, what that number would look like? Right. So right now Sorry to put you on the spot. And

I've got my math major over here crunching the numbers but right now they're collecting 2.1 recurring revenue. So 70% is $1,500,000 so you know half of two of it would be $1,000,500 or $1,000,000 essentially a little over 1,000,000

That's a difference. Thank you. Yes.

So they'd collect another $05,000,000 for flood control.

Mr. Chair, a question. If

a district were to stay the same but other districts were to change, okay, The district is say it stays the same. Do you need some letters out to them?

Most likely I'm 95% sure, but I will verify that, but any change methodology or rate generally it's been treated as a new assessment or requires the mailer to go out to everyone who's in the assessment.

And would it say just so that you know your rate is unchanged?

It could certainly have language that effect.

Thank you. Since we're talking about D1 and not am I hearing that the board is not interested in looking at the whole County but we're talking about D1? Is that kind of the gist?

No. I'm just I'm because you guys have a really huge problem with flooding. I just wanted to know what the numbers were if we were to to shift it. Right. And also even if we could all be different.

Right.

So that was my only thought. If

if we are only talking d one, I personally would be more in favor of doing the seventy thirty swap rather than an increase. But if I'm happy to have a broader conversation as well if other districts are looking into this as an option.

I'm not looking at this as an option. If if today as part of a motion is simply to change your allocation for District 1, that that's fine. But I'm I'm not I'm not looking to to raise stormwater.

May I? So I've been thinking a lot about this. Would I have to tell you today what I wanted my split to be or could that be something I I tell you later?

The board could give that direction at any time and then we would analyze the projects in queue for your particular district and let you know what those impacts would be.

So if I may just throw my thoughts out about the other things. I think raising the minimum fee to $5 is is for me sensible and easy. A design credit, I think I think we should eliminate it because if what we have are a bunch of systems that aren't actually exceeding the standards, then it's doing a disservice to everybody else. So I would support eliminating the design credit. I'm not gonna support a stormwater assessment and I'm and I'm I'm not comfortable supporting attaching it to CPI so that we have automatic increases.

So for me, I would say let each district split the revenue as they see fit for their district, design credit, eliminate it, and the minimum fee up to five. That's what I feel comfortable with.

Question? And so does that mean that we would have to come before the board for each commissioner to work directly with staff in regards to their split? Commissioner Commissioner Atkinson, I'm sorry. That's I would that was a question for you.

I don't know. I don't know what the how I would do it is I would go to staff. I would look at the programs that we have or the projects that we have in line and try to I personally, I would work with staff Okay. To figure out what the right split would be for my district because you guys have more experience and you know what's in line and who it affects.

I'm looking at Morris. There is language about needing to document need for any sort of assessment. We would need to go through the process of identifying, you know, what your needs are district by district and I believe maybe apportion the fees according to those needs that.

As far as the split, there's a lot of discretion because that wasn't part of the ordinance adoption, it's not really part of the methodology, but at the same time it's not entirely arbitrary either. 's not a lever that you can move just when because some consideration does have to be given to our requirements to comply with the map and things like that on the water treatment side. So I'm just cautious to say, you know, I don't know that it would always be possible to completely lever down water quality and up flood control for example. But yes, if we start changing any of the numbers or the methodology or apportionment or the way we get there, that all requires study, it has to support whatever is adopted, there has to be a benefit to real property in order to have a valid assessment and then all of that would require new notice except for the $72.28 kind of split with the caveat that there are some limits on how much you can move that.

Okay. If. If it's alright I I feel like I'm comfortable with making a motion and if there's any other board input into this, please feel free to add a add an amendment. I would like to make a motion to allow each of the commissioners to work directly with staff to decide on the split. And then I would like to also eliminate the design credit and raise the minimum fee collected by the tax collector to $5.01.

I'll second that because that's exactly what I wrote.

Any discussion? Any discussion? Seeing none. All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed? Four one with commissioner Feltner voting against. Okay. Alright. We have any cards. I lose j two.

Lose j

two. Sandra Sullivan. J two.

Staff to introduce

the Thank

you. Thank you so much. I decided to bring this back up for conversation because I believe it was tabled when I brought it up the first time. And just because I I figured we were having this broad conversation of storm water infrastructure, infrastructure, all of that. So I just wanted to kind of bring it up since we're having this discussion.

Okay.

For our first time.

Yes. Sandra Sullivan.

Sandra Sullivan. So just a couple notes on this, haven't attended a lot of TPO meetings. So they they've seen this coming that the the gas tax and you have to put in what the other considerations are. The gas tax because of the number of EVs, electric vehicles who don't purchase as much gas, it has historically met, you know, the needs for for roads and unfortunately because of the number of EVs. So just, you know, to I mean, preferred is is at the lower lowest end of the tax as you saw in the presentation, 6% compared to, you know, the 11 counties at 6%.

So I appreciate the the fiscal conservative part there. But so if you in increase it, it's not fixing the root underlying issue, which is the EVs. And then you're putting more tax burden on the people who choose to drive gas while not addressing the root issue. Now you have a lobbyist and this is an issue that has been known for years. It was predicted back in '21 and 2022 that in 2025, we're gonna be at a point where it's not bringing enough money for paving roads and such.

And so I would just say again, a lack of proactive action to addressing the issue legislatively, you have a lobbyist. There needs to be a a solution to where the people with the EV vehicles are paying their share towards the wear and tear on the roads because those heavier vehicles typically, you know, they they they are having an impact just as gas vehicles are. So it shouldn't the burden should be on gas vehicles alone to fund that mechanism for paving roads. And so if you if you have this conversation, I think at the same time, it's important to come up with a solution for what the underlying root issue is and how you address that as well. Thank you very much.

Okay.

That's our only card. Smith, but for give me a card. Sure.

In that study I gave you. It also states that the. Sound sensitive ground. Which is basically the barrier islands. That asphalt will last. Less than two years on the on the roads. So we're gonna be looking at a big increase in in our road resurfacing.

Okay.

So let's have staff if we can to go over what options are specifically here today to highlight that again.

Mister chair, it's the staff didn't put this agenda item together. You have a couple gas tax available there. You have the 1 through 5¢ that hasn't been implemented, And then you have what's called as the ninth cent. It was implemented on the diesel side and not on the gasoline side. You could by super majority vote, you can implement the gas both those gas taxes. So four of you voted today. If you do a deadline, think it's October 1 and the tax will be collected January 1, I believe I'm not certain on that one or you could vote by just a simple majority to put it on the ballot for the November general election either this year or 2028.

Those are basically what's in our agenda packet, the four items. Take no action. Provide further directions for next steps to staff. That was less clear. Adopt 5 and or 9¢ local option, gas tax with super majority vote, and approved placement of warm items on the ballot. I have a question on the adopt to 5¢ and or ninth and the ninth cent. How much revenue would that generate a year?

If Travis can yell it out, it was in the slides. I mean Yeah. I think it was there. Somebody

I think it's 9,100,000.0.

Hang on one second folks. Actually have the 9. I like So point four.

Yeah. For the 5¢ and then 2.7 annually for the

There you go. He's

got gas. Yep. Alright.

Well, there it is. Took me minutes to find the chart.

We agree with Question I have on that. And I think I know the answer. Is that bondable? Are you able to bond that? Yes. Mhmm. So if we enacted it, would we need to Would we need to just delineate how many years? Or is this Troy formula limit the number of years?

I'm not sure of the answer to that, I I don't think you delineate the number of years in the gas tax but I will verify.

And the the question I have is if we decided we wanted to enact it, would we have to write an ordinance and advertise that? Yes. We couldn't enact it today, we would just give direction to staff to to prep for what the and that can probably answer.

There would be legislative intent to bring it back.

Okay. I'm gonna pass the gavel, and I'm gonna make a motion that we do the adopt the 5¢ and 9¢ local option gas tax by super majority vote, and I'll make that a motion.

Do I have a second? Second. Those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed. Nay. Aye. Motion fails.

Okay. Mhmm.

With that, I if if we wanted to bring this back at another time, would it be best to table this item, Morris? Or is it okay to let it die and can it be brought back again with Robert's rules.

And that's the that's the board's pleasure, but an action motion was made and failed so that that could just naturally end the item. There's nothing really to prevent a commissioner from bringing it up some point in the future should they desire.

Thank you.

Yeah. I think the only other action we would have here would be to vote to place the local option gas tax measure on the ballot, which I I would normally support. Although that said, given the discussion we had earlier today about Sorrel, that could jeopardize Sorrel. So this may not be be the best time to do that. We probably wouldn't have the votes to do that anyway.

Can make a quick comment too?

Yes.

It also, we've got budget workshops we still need to get through. Right. And that might be sensible to talk about this again after we have those budget workshops. We might learn something.

Yes. I I think I was here when we implement the local ops 6¢ local option gas tax, and the economic growth as well as the quality of life growth was tremendous. I I used Melbourne Airport as an example that I I just go through some of the projects and and we are facing we're facing severe congestion problems in in the county. But in that project, State Road 3 was two lane. Can you imagine if we still had a two lane State Road 3?

You wouldn't be able to get to The Cape. All the roads, NASA, Malabar, or NASA, Babcock, Derry, Evans, Wickham, Apollo were all two lane roads. You wouldn't be able to get to and from the airport. So we were able to actually show how we could save the consumer money in terms of drive time, wear and tear in your vehicle, gas consumption by doing those road improvements. The other thing is we noticed most of that gas tax is paid for by tourists, so we're infusing a lot of money from the from the outside to come into our community.

And then thirdly, we we lowered some of our MST property taxes. So I I make that motion. I wanna get a sense, but I hope we do at some point in the future consider that as a potential revenue source that will have paid great dividends for Provodians. That said, okay, we'll move on. I think that ends our agenda. We got Board reports or no? We have no public comment cards. Yeah. Alright. We'll have county manager.

No report, mister chair.

County attorney?

I have no report, chair.

District one.

Yes. Thank you. Yes. I just wanted to give a short update on some of the boards that that I participate in. And so we had our CFX meeting this past month and one of the big things that came out from that was one of the main roads heading towards the Sanford Airport is getting expanded.

So that's going to be really great for for Central Florida. And we also had our TPO meeting which a huge piece of the conversation at that meeting was funding for roads and for transportation and which today, you know, they they gave a portion of that presentation. And I guess the last thing I was wanting to see if there's any board support for is possibly a a workshop in regards to infrastructure and and possible pathways forward on how we can fill some of these gaps because I mean I've I've gotten loads of information not only from our many many budget reports but from conversations and the TPO and all these different things that we're a part of. And so you know, I I feel like we kind of know what our options are and, you know, from how many of us campaigned, I I believe all of us campaigned. One of the things was the major things was infrastructure.

And so I'm I'm hoping that we can maybe do a workshop, a real collaboration to to try to see how we can plan for the future and what that looks like. And I I'm I'd be happy to bring that forward as an agenda item if I need to, but I'm just kind of throwing it out there to see if there's any support for that.