City Council - Regular Meeting

The following is the procedure for public comment and participation. Individuals wishing to speak on agenda items must complete a sign-up card prior to the item being introduced. Those wishing to speak on quasi-judicial public hearings must complete a sign-up card and sign the oath. Sign-up and oath cards are available on the table. Individuals wishing to speak on non-agenda items may do so under petitions and requests from the public present. This opportunity is offered twice in the meeting and individuals may speak at either the first or second petitions, but not both. no sign-up card is required citizens shall not comment on any issue more than once during the meeting all comments except petitions and requests must address the pending issue and citizens will be given three minutes to speak on agenda items next citizens wishing to speak on the consent agenda must submit a sign-up card identifying the items of interest each speaker shall be limited to three minutes to speak on the entire consent agenda and finally all sign-up cards and exhibits being submitted to city council shall be placed in the box on the table

The purpose of the city council meeting is to discuss city business and proper decorum must be displayed by all in attendance. Public input and participation is encouraged. However, all persons in attendance shall comply with the rules for meeting procedures and shall refrain from any action that disrupts the orderly proceedings of the council meeting hinders a council from performing its duties no person shall interfere with the rights of others to speak hear see or attend the proceedings make threats of violence disrupt the proceedings with shouting fail to confine remarks to the agenda item under consideration nor continue to speak after the allotted speaking time has expired as these actions shall be considered disruptive and disorderly the mayor shall caution any person who violates these provisions and disrupts the orderly proceedings of the council meetings and they shall be directed to comply. Any person who fails to comply, as cautioned, shall be ruled out of order, shall forfeit the remainder of their speaking time on the agenda item under consideration, and will be requested to return to their seat. Persons who fail to comply as directed shall be subject to removal from the council chambers by law enforcement or such other actions as may be reasonably necessary to enforce these regulations notwithstanding the mayor may order the immediate removal of any person from the chambers who possesses a threat to property or life safety nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or restrict a person's right created by the constitution law ordinance or regulation

Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the city of Titusville City Council. Regular meeting scheduled May 26, 2026 at 730 and now 714. I'm going to call this meeting to order. Before we move on, I'm going to ask Pastor Jody Wells to come up and give an invocation for us.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council, staff. Thank you all for the opportunity and the privilege to join with you in prayer, and thank you for your service to the community. Let's pray together. Father, we enter with thanksgiving, and we are thankful for city leaders who value prayer and indeed invoke your presence. We do give thanks for the men and women who have laid down their lives for this nation in military service following the Memorial Day weekend. We pray your comfort and strength for their families in this sacred season. Your word declares where two or three are gathered in your name, there you are in the midst. So be present, Lord. Be active, Lord. May your wisdom, your knowledge, and your truth bless us all. May your love and your power flow through us all. Guide our leaders and be glorified in all that we say and all that we do. We pray these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen. Thank you, Pastor. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

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.

Thank you very much. City Attorney, do we have a quorum? Yes. All right. Thank you. I would normally turn this over to the city manager, but we have no minutes. We have no boards and commissions reports. So first item on the docket is petitions and requests from the public non-agenda items.

All right, I have two points. They're actually from earlier, but they aren't part of this agenda. The first concern I have is with regard to planning. I'm already significantly disappointed by the failures of our planning department to actually review plans, understand how they are going to be implemented, and whether they are actually falling within our comprehensive plan and land development regulations. The use of AI. and the reliance on AI to review applications and particularly to approve applications is terrifying. I don't know if any of you have been using AI yourselves, but AI hallucinates, AI loses the thread. AI can't be relied upon to take a draft and recreate it without losing points. The idea that we as a city would rely on an AI to review plans and decide that they are appropriate to implement is terrifying. Please reconsider that. With regard to the cameras in our school zones, I noticed as I was listening to the officer speaking, he'd said flashing lights aren't necessary. But they are, because people are distracted. They're looking to the side. They're looking ahead. They're looking behind. They aren't always looking at the side of the road where the speed limit is. And the tickets outside of school hours, they'd said they're turning off the cameras for the summer, but they're not. They're still using the cameras from what I heard. just not the school speed zones. So the limit will still be 11 over the current speed limit. So they would still be using those over the summer, from what I understood. Finally, with regard to saving a child, we didn't save a child. The child was in a parking lot. The school speed limit had nothing to do with that child on the bike. So we need data. If we're going to say these cameras are serving us and they're saving children, then we need to actually know how many children were injured before, how many accidents happened in these speed zones before, and how many are happening after. Finally, the data they have, the estimated May data. Out of 60 days, 30 days is useless. We shouldn't be implementing anything, particularly paying for it out of the taxpayer's pocket and then penalizing the taxpayer with that money that they were collecting without knowing what we're buying. And finally, if we are going to do this, then we should implement crossings just like they have on A1A at the beach. so that when children are present, the lights are flashing very clearly, the crosswalk is highlighted, and the drivers know to stop. That would be far more safe for pedestrian children than having a ticket in the mail 30 days later. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Good evening. I've got an 18 by 24. You've seen this before many times, especially Mrs. Nelson has seen it because she's the one who said that she called her FDEP and some anonymous person said it's okay to spray sewage onto the public. Wow, it says it aerates the pollution. So in other words, we've got at least four people, I understand, and then the council will say it's okay to spray people with sewage. I'd like the Boy Scouts to look at that, too. So in other words, this is a problem. Now, Mrs. Nelson, I want you to know, Mayor Connors, she's a problem. She brings this up repeatedly about... about that we don't have the power to go in there and dig the ditches and so forth like that. Well, we are supposed to go ahead and have it done even though it's outside the city limits in order for our stormwater system to function. So what right now is I'm saying is I'm tired of you. As a professional engineer, what you're doing is illegal. Illegal, illegal, illegal. That's why we're having flooding on Knox McRae. The water is going back into the city instead of the St. Johns River. That's your fault. That's your fault. That has been noted for how many years? Since 1966. It's a problem. And it's gotten worse because it's overgrown. It's overgrown. I mentioned to you all these culverts and so forth, six by four, seven by three and so forth like that. And what do you do? You ignore it. You ignore it. I want these Boy Scouts to listen to this. I was a Boy Scout and so was my dad. And we're supposed to be truthful. You guys aren't truthful. You have a responsibility and you're not doing what you're supposed to do. and I'm including you also, Ms. Moscoso, there should be some discussion about this. People are being flooded, and it's not their fault. It's your fault. It's your fault. You're not budgeting stormwater, and you've been doing it for how many years? Over 50 years. Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you. All of you. You don't do it. It's your responsibility. And who does it? Nobody. Your responsibility. And you shirk. You shirk from it. You're supposed to follow the Constitution also. So what do you do? What do you do? You build dams. You build dams. They're illegal in the city of Titusville. Illegal. Taking people's property. That's illegal. And what is your oath of office? We're going to follow the Constitution. You're not doing it. You're not doing it. Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you. What did I say? Shame on you. It's disgusting what you're doing. This is it, spraying people with sewage. That's a big deal. That's a big deal, and you cannot get any P.E. We got 40,000 P.E.s in the state of Florida. You can't get one of them up here to disagree with me. That's terrible. You're lying. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

You're welcome.

Petitions or requests?

After everybody. Okay.

Melinda Villan, Historic Indian River City. At the last meeting I attended, I submitted city records showing that Acorn Drive was entirely residential until at least 1977. At the same meeting, it was said the city believes that it has always been commercial, but the city can't say that. not with certainty. Indian River City was originally platted in 1913. It had its own identity for over a half a century with a city hall, chamber of commerce, post office, and a railway stop until being incorporated into Titusville in the early 60s. It's hard to find intent from platting maps 100 years ago, unless your hobby is reading old city newspapers for fun. And so I am entering into the public record. Florida Star Advocate articles from 1925, the year after acorn was platted, and 1954, the year after our Hopkins lots were split to acorn parcels. The 19... Ooh, sorry. The 19... The 1924-25 article describes the business district as having streets 150 feet wide and the residential district having streets 50 feet wide and up. Hopkins was originally platted at 150 feet. Acorn remains a 50-foot right-of-way of which only 22 feet is paved. That distinction mattered 100 years ago. The 1954 article describes IRC as being a booming residential city. It describes the commercial corridor as being on US 1 and Highway 50. and Hopkins being a residential thoroughfare once completed. It also mentions the three blocks between the railroad tracks and the river as prime residential properties. IRC was not built as a modern subdivision. It grew up as an old Florida town where uses were often close together because people lived near what they needed. It is the reason that the Pritchard House stands in the middle of downtown. Businesses are not the problem. The problem is the intensity of the uses when it comes to traffic circulation, large trucks delivering on local roads instead of private property, and no true buffer between uses. This city has repeatedly stated we were likely not qualified for a truck restriction ordinance. I would like a study confirming that position. If the city's position is that the alleyway system and the local residential streets they feed onto function as a part of the commercial corridor, then the residents of Acorn deserve that determination clearly documented and supported by analysis. Because the neighborhood plan also protects the core residential zone from commercial intrusion. If you're not following the neighborhood plan, then you're in violation of the comprehensive plan. Following this meeting, I will be sending each of you videos showing large trucks staging the residential area and the city's response stating that that activity is allowed. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Vicki Conklin, good evening.

So on April 28th, the city attorney reported the date, time, and place for the informal mediation. It's regarding the retired Royal Oak Golf Course property owner's application for a large-scale amendment to the comprehensive plan that was denied unanimously by you all on February 10th. I would just like clarification tonight. If accommodation has been made for the public to attend since the meeting, is in the private office of Ms. Kamrazinka on May 28th from 9 to 12 noon. Since the Florida statute does not deny the public from observing this meeting, and the city is committed to transparency, we just wanted to know what accommodations have been made for the citizens to observe. And I suppose I would ask one of you on council to ask Ms. Treasurer, since I'm not allowed to do that, so that we could have clarification.

Is that, are you yielding the rest of your time? Yes, I am. And then I'll ask that question. Absolutely, thank you. All right, please have a seat, Ms. Conklin. I'll have her answer. I'll hear her here.

I'll just wait.

There is no public participation as it's not required by the statute in addition to the applicant who's requesting the informal mediation does not want the public to be present. which is within their right as the requester, and they're the ones entitled to the informal mediation. And I will remind you that there is a pending litigation matter that's accompanying this case.

Thank you very much, City Attorney. Thank you very much for your comment. Ms. Conklin.

Okay, that's an interesting answer.

Because there is nothing, as I understand, Kathleen O'Rourke, by the way, I think you know who I am, there is nothing that says citizens can't attend. So that's a little bit concerning if you're talking about transparency and allowing citizens. And it doesn't really have a good look when the individual who is the lawyer for the development has this meeting in her private office and then it's set up so citizens cannot even hear it. You don't have any concern about transparency in that? I guess not.

Member Nelson. I don't believe the mediator has an office, which might be why it's in Mr. Zinkel's office. Question, though. After the mediation, I can understand why a mediator is informal. And having a load of people in there is going to be somewhat disruptive. However, after the mediation, can we get an update on what happens?

Absolutely, and that has been the city attorney's position from the get-go that we will provide an update as to the informal mediation. Again, understanding that nothing that occurs in the mediation is binding on the city, and again, this is a request that is a prerequisite for all intents and purposes for the litigation that is currently pending, which I will not get into the litigation matter, as you know.

Okay. And everything has to come before this board. which is obviously very public, public hearings. We've done it before. We'll do it again if that's what it comes to, but we'll get an update once it completes and then we'll have that discussion. Ms. Conklin, you're out of order. All right.

So if Royal Oak residents are going to be precluded from the mediation, Will you perhaps do a videotaping of the proceedings?

I'm going to answer for Ms. Treasure. That would be very unusual. That usually doesn't happen because it's very informal. It's a matter of the mediator talking to the attorneys, talking to the parties, usually The attorneys would take the parties off to another office to discuss what their parameters were. They would come back. The mediator would say, that might be appropriate, that might not be appropriate. They'd go back, sort of back and forth.

Understand yeah, yeah, I understand that but it just seems to me like if there were if this were videoed Obviously we couldn't we have would have no ability to interject ourselves and it would just be something made public otherwise, it looks like a I mean, the optics looks like just private discussions between developer and city staff that runs counter to what we were expecting to happen here.

Correct. I think your expectations were one thing, but legally this is what would normally happen. And it would be no different than the attorney and the developer sitting in Ms. Treasurer's office and say, what do you think about this? What do you think about that? The difference with a mediator is you have somebody there that knows the law and can sort of direct it. So if there was a meeting between Ms. Rosica her client, Ms. Treasurer, Brad, you wouldn't be included necessarily.

I understand, but this is actually mediation. This is something more than just a normal meeting.

This is something that's required, I believe, for lawsuits to proceed.

If I may, as stated before, the statute 163.3184, I believe, parenter 4, provides for this mechanism for the applicant who has been denied, which is why we're here. Their transmittal was denied. It provides them specifically this opportunity to request. They're the requester. They, for all intents and purposes, can say whether they're wanting anyone outside of the parties who are involved here, which is really the city and the applicant to be involved. They're stating no. There is no provision in this particular statute that requires the public participation, which I've stated numerous times. There is a other statute in 70.51, which I think the city has gone through twice before and maybe that is what you're familiar with. This is not the applicable statute that the applicant is wanting to invoke at this time. And yes, it is a prerequisite for the lawsuit which is pending before us. There is, generally speaking, in mediation, the mediation occurs between the parties, not the public. And in this particular situation, the public is not required to be there and not involved. And public participation in mediations like these is limited to certain specific statute, which is not applicable in this case.

Well, yes, we do.

Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate it. But again, nothing that happens there is binding, and nothing will happen until it comes before this board. And counsel has spoken loud and clear.

I understand. It just seemed to me that since obviously nothing is binding, then this doesn't rise to the level of worried about privacy in this case. So it just seems like it's a transparency issue. It seems like it would be easily resolved by just videotaping it.

Thank you very much. Member Moscoso.

Thank you. I mean, I think what's happening is it's not negotiation. You're going to be in the room and you work at the pleasure of the council and you already know where we stand. We voted unanimously. And so it would be unthinkable that you would go in that room and and have a stand to otherwise. And so I from my understanding, that is what's happening.

That is correct. In addition to the opposing counsel, the applicant's attorney is fully aware of that. And again, I can't emphasize this enough. This is sort of like a prerequisite for the lawsuit, something that's afforded to them that we can sit down in an informal setting and have this talk. They are fully aware of the record as to the vote of counsel, and we can only listen. I will have the city manager and Brad Parrish as the city representative outside of legal counsel present, and we'll file a report with counsel as to the outcome, if any, of the mediation.

Thank you very much, city attorney. Sir?

Hey, my name is John. I'm a new resident tonight. I wanted to bring up boy scouts are here. I'm an Eagle scout and it just happened to be that they rolled in for support and they're checked. They're having a merit badge tonight. So with that said, I'd like to talk about the ADA compliance with inside the payment system in the water. Department. So Christine Leahy, who's a disabled resident as well, who lives with myself, we had a problem when we first moved in. We were down on our luck. We moved to town. We took everything to get here after my dad died out of Valrico. So when we got here, a check had bounced for the Water Department, but then they banned us from making debit card payments. I wanted to back her up with a debit card. They said, no, we have to crawl ourselves down here to pay the bill in person or mail it in, which is very hard to go out. I'm without a car right now. I lost my car a few weeks ago to a transmission problem. So I'm working through that. I have a job and I had to take off early today to come pay the bill in a new job. And I'm just asking for some kind of resolution that you can make it so that people can pay like they shouldn't be punished for being poor. I mean, with everything that's going on in this country at this point, people are a little down on money and that's not a crime. And I'm just asking, is there any way that you guys can find a solution to this?

So what was exactly the ADA issue that you're referring to?

Well, if a disabled person is being forced to come down and pay cash rather than be able to pay a debit card, which is in real time, I mean, the next step is paying with XRP. I mean, it's money, but if a balance check came, that doesn't mean you should be able to punish a person that is disabled.

I'm not disabled.

I can get around, but we're having transportation problems, and all we asked for them to lift it today, and they said there's no possible way for a year you have to crawl yourself down here on your hands and knees and say thank you.

Well, I don't disagree with what you're saying. I was just trying to make sure I fully understood your concern. So I'm definitely in favor of us relooking at some of these policies when it comes to electronic payment. I've said that for a while now, especially if there is an issue with automatic payment, then they kind of kick you off. I think mortgage companies do that as well. They're like, okay, now you've got to manually make your payment.

But can we look into who actually wrote that? Because they wouldn't give me the information today. It was a person who signed off on that. And why did they sign off on that?

Vindicious or is this part of a process, but I think that's kind of a cruel process Yeah, I think a lot of our policies and procedures are pretty outdated to be honest with you and that's something this council's been kind of taken into account as these issues come up, but Yeah, we'll have the discussion. Thank you very much Every must go sir

Yes, thank you. I would agree with you on that. I had the same issue. I was paying a bill for our church, and our card was expired, and I didn't realize that. And so I also had to come down here with cash as well. I don't think it's a year process, but I agree with you. It's very inconvenient. So thank you for bringing that up.

Member Stoeckle?

Yep, I had a question for staff, and I don't know if they do know the answer. I also had this issue with a resident that brought that up to me, but I didn't know if it was from our third-party vendor that we use for our payments or not. And maybe if you guys don't have the answer now, we can look into it because this was something I wanted to bring up anyway because waiting a year, as this gentleman mentioned, I just think is a hardship, especially if just something happened. I would like to change that if possible.

Anybody have an update? Is it a year? Is it not a year? How long is it?

I'm not familiar with this case, but obviously anytime it supports my attention, I look into it and try to give the benefit of the doubt or make accommodations as necessary to resolve the issue. And we'll look into this issue as well as our policy.

With the consent of council, if everybody's in agreement, I would like to ask city manager to put that as an item on our next meeting, if that's okay. Yes. Everybody in favor? Yes. All right. City manager, you got it? Yes, sir. Additions and requests?

Shiffalo, the Historic Norwood House. I'm also on your Historic Preservation Board, Advisory Board, and I just wanted to point out once more that coming Thursday is our workshop, our annual public information workshop this year. We've instituted a program, Recognition Without Designation, which means that we choose four commercial and residential area homes fitting a theme. This year is mid-century modern and the space industry come to Titusville. And in Royal Oak on Nelson Drive is one of the recipients of one of the awards this year for recognition without designation, one of our fine mid-century modern homes. And the owner Told me that he came, he worked in Titusville, but he lived elsewhere until he saw this house and he moved here and has refurbished it and for the mayor's I'd like to say that a growing appreciation for older homes will allay the need for ever-expanding new housing development, necessitating the loss of natural environment through urban sprawl. An appreciation for a particular architectural style will increase the value of identified structures as owners actualize the potential of that style through remodeling, renovating, and refurbishing. And mid-century modern homes, as we all know, are at least 50 years old and maybe a little showing their age. But with proper refurbishment and proper love, these moon homes can be charming and desirable. And we have four neighborhoods south of 405 tucked in between Park and Barna, four different communities that were built in the 50s and 60s, and I spoke with a man whose father came and was a constructor, and they built a house a week for the space workers who were coming, and they called them moon homes. So I'm really excited about our mid-century modern neighborhoods and communities and hope that some of the enthusiasm that I found will translate to them, and they'll want to renovate and remodel and even do the terrazzo floors again. Wow. Mid-century modern in the space industry. Come to Titusville, the workshop, Thursday afternoon at the Moore Service Center at 530. Oh, this is the postcard. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Schiffala. Anybody else for petitions or requests, non-agenda items?

Seeing none, city manager? Yes, sir, moving on to consent agenda. We have seven items on consent. Are there any items which council wishes to pull for further discussion?

Member Moscoso? Yes, 8A. Thank you. Did you say A as in apple?

A.

Anybody else?

All right, seeing none. Sir, I'll read the other items for the record. Consent agenda item 8B, purchase of stormwater vacuum truck. 8C, the economic development fund resolution. 8D, the water allocation permit for the Wood Spring Hotel. 8E, the fire department budget transfer request. 8F, award of bid, lift station pumps, motors, and impellers. And 8G, purchase of a grade all excavator.

Thank you very much, city manager, city clerk.

Elizabeth Parker. For 8D? Yes, you have 8D written on your card.

Elizabeth Parker, Tribuno Circle. Again, this kind of ties back, of course, to the issue of stormwater and making sure that we're recharging our wells. I guess I just wanted to bring to the council's attention that we are eagerly developing Titusville and this 18,300 gallons per day for this project is only 3.23% of our excess. meaning we've already built out our capacity to the point where we are running low. This project adds in with other commercial and industrial projects, the concrete ready mix, the Astra House, and now WoodSpring, taking 11% of our excess. And then we're building residential units too, probably another 5, 6% of our excess. It seems that in 2026 we've allocated 15% of our excess. We're buying our water from Cocoa and I think other municipalities as well. And we're paving over our lands which recharge our wells. And we're very eager to continue doing that because we want to grow and we want to have roofs and we want to collect taxes. But who's paying for all this excess water that we're buying? And who's going to pay to replace for the water that we're no longer putting into our own wells so that we have to buy more water. I guess what I'm asking you is rather than hand over fist, continually improve approving developmental projects, who is watching the hen house? If it's the Fox, we're in trouble. Thank you.

Thank you. City clerk. All right. Council member Stoke.

Yes, actually, I did have a question on that. I didn't want to pull it, but do we know how much water we are purchasing from COCO approximately?

Right now, it's $3 million a month.

Okay, and I think that was one of my concerns because while I know we have ample supply from COCO, we do have to pay a fee for purchasing from COCO as well. And so once we pay that fee, how does that then get dispersed to COCO? It's not just the new person that's developing now. It's going to get dispersed among all citizens, I would imagine.

Correct. Yeah, I did a quick evaluation of what it costs to process a water, because we don't have to process the cocoa water. And it's really not that much different. Yeah, we would like to purchase the least amount we can from cocoa, but they're good to have as an emergency backup if we need to meet our fire pressures. It's good to have. We try not to overdo it, but we like to keep it as an emergency. But the quick kind of evaluation I did, there wasn't a huge difference in what it cost us to process it versus that purchase.

Okay, and that's what I was curious about. And I know it was mentioned, too, when we had our last meeting, the water presentation with alternate sources. Do you anticipate us potentially getting away from using cocoa water or potentially using more of cocoa water in the future? No.

I think that's hard to say right now. I don't think I anticipate anytime soon getting rid of that emergency backup, but when we have alternative water supplies, I definitely think it's a possibility. Okay.

And then that's just for us as council to keep in mind as we continue to plan and look forward.

Member Moscoso?

Thank you. I had a question on 8F on the lift stations. So only one bid was received. And so how did you determine that that pricing was reasonable?

So in the past, from what I could find, we actually went to a vendor of record. So it was kind of almost a sole source. Not a lot of manufacturers make these pumps. We have to have the right pumps to fit. So when we went out this year, because of the price, we wanted to go out and see if we could get a better bid competitively. The other vendor didn't put in for some reason, but it was similar. So we just kind of looked at what we've paid in the past, and it was a reasonable price. We did reach out asking why other vendors didn't bid, and most of them said, we just don't supply that.

Member Nelson.

So I thought that we had to buy a certain amount of water from Coco.

Yeah, that's the $3 million. Right now, even if we don't use $3 million, we buy that amount. So we try to use as close to it as possible. We are going to talk to Coco about whether we can change that and only pay for what we're using. So we're starting some talks, but that's what the agreement currently says.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Member Nelson. And I think it's important to keep in mind also the very important reason is for fire suppression purposes on the southern end of town where most of our well fields are not close to there. It's a little bit more challenging to keep things pressurized from a safety standpoint. But as well as we're paying for it at a fixed price, might as well use it. Any other discussion? I have a motion to approve B, C, D, E, F, G. So moved. Second. Motion by Member Nelson. Second by Vice Mayor Cole. Any further discussion? Seeing none, City Clerk?

Member Moscoso? Yes. Member Nelson? Yes. Mayor Connors? Yes. Vice Mayor Cole? Yes. Member Stoeckel?

Yes. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Now we're on to Item 8A. Member Moscoso? Oh, sorry. City Manager, don't you have to read it for the record?

Yes, sir. 8A is the Axon Fleet 3 advanced TPD vehicle camera system, and the requested action is to approve the five-year agreement and the associated budget amendment. In addition, authorize the mayor to execute the agreement, and we have members of TPD here to answer any questions council may have.

City Clerk, is there any cards on this item?

Yes, sir. Elizabeth Parker.

Elizabeth Parker, Trevina Circle, back again. I just had a quick question with regard to the axon in CAR, and that is with regard to the cloud storage of the data that's being collected, the images, the audio, the video, all of it. It's being aggregated in a system, a cloud system that allows the city to, I guess, add citizen video, bring in CCTV, which I assume would be both the publicly funded as well as the private businesses and homes and drone video. My concern is. This video captures not just the people being pulled over, not just the people who are involved in a traffic stop, not just the people who are speeding, but everybody. And that's kind of a violation of our privacy. I would say a Fourth Amendment violation. And to have that stored in a cloud up to forever, and we don't own the cloud, concerns me, and I'd like to know how the city's addressing that.

Thank you. All right, TPD.

Good evening again. T. J. Right with the police department. Lieutenant Josh Byrne, who's our second resident expert that's going to help get us through some of these and answer some questions. If it's okay. I know member Moscoso emailed some questions today. I have those answered if it's all right if I run through them and then turn it over to any questions you may have. So this is concerning, a little clarification, our Axon Fleet 3 in-car video system, not Flock. Complete separate from Flock. So again, Axon Fleet 3 in-car video system. So the first question was department policies governing use of Axon. Oh, can you pass those out? Or did you have policies? Yes, there you go. Oh, sorry. Lieutenant Byrne dropped off some policies up there, my bad. So department policies governing use of Axon Fleet 3 systems. So we do have a general order, 424 mobile recording systems. There's several guidelines listed of when to use your in-car video, but it is not all inclusive. We would rather have something recorded and not needed versus not having it recorded and needed. Policies related to ALPR, otherwise known as automatic license plate reader usage, we do have a policy on that. It's General Order 416, and there are rules and guidelines for that use of the ALPR. Data retention, which is a hot topic for schedules of video footage, ALPR data, live streams and associated metadata. So all LPR data, whether it's in the flock system or this fleet three and car video system, which is equipped with that technology, is stored for 30 days. So the data is stored for 30 days and then it's gone. unless that image is part of a criminal case, and then it gets attached to our evidence.com server, and then that follows the retention schedule of whatever it may apply to. Video footage, so AKA evidence, video footage from a traffic stop, crash scene, response to a burglary, what have you, based on the retention schedule within evidence.com, which is regulated by Florida State statutes and the statute of limitations, the minimum for the video footage is 90 days, anywhere up to 100 years. And that's capital felony, life felonies, or you can have your traffic stops, which are 90 days. And then after the 90 days, or whatever that retention schedule is, that video purges out of the system. Information regarding who has access to the system and any audit or accountability measures in place. So our Fleet 3 system works through Axon. It's all housed in the evidence.com server, which is, yes, cloud-based. Everyone on our side that has the credentials to log in and the training has access to it. There are audit trails to everything. So if something gets access they're not supposed to, we can see that. Anytime new evidence is entered, we can see who entered it and what time. And then there's certain categories that does have restricted access. So for example, internal affairs investigations, only our folks in professional standards have access to that video, photographs, whatever the evidence may be, only they have access to it so nobody can get in there and look at it. Whether data is shared with outside agencies, databases, or regional federal systems. So, again, acts on fleet three in car video is not shared with any other agencies unless they are part of that investigation. Videos that have evidentiary value are sent to the state attorney's office, or if it's a federal case, it goes to the US United States attorney's office. Question on clarification regarding real time location alerts and live stream capabilities referenced in the agreement. So live streaming has not intended to replace a proper police response. It allows for two way communication between the member and person that's out in the field and the person that's viewing the live stream on our end. So law enforcement, our dispatch, our crime analysts, any any member has the capability to log in and watch the live stream of whatever the event may be, whether it's the in car camera or the body camera. And live streaming only works when the device is active and recording. So if I'm sitting here and it's buffering, you can't access live stream. So when would we use a situation for live stream? I've used it several times when officers are on a traffic stop and I just heard something was a little weird with their voice, so I logged in to make sure everything was fine. Officer does a traffic stop and they're not answering the radio, we can immediately log in just to make sure everything's fine and slow our response down. Or worst case scenario, officer's in distress, our dispatch is gonna be logging in to see exactly what's happening and then reallocate our resources as necessary in real time. So that's the benefit of live stream. Questions regarding alerts. So we just are scratching the surface with some of the capabilities that's within this axon evidence cloud based stuff. We just discovered speed alerts so we can set thresholds. If a car with this technology crosses a speed threshold, it'll send us an alert and we can look at what they were doing or where they were going in real time. But there's other alerts, but we haven't even looked into that area yet. Real-time location. So because this works off of buffering with the in-car video system and the body cams through Axon, it's not 100% real-time. So every, I think, five to ten minutes, it re-autos where the location is. We have another system called Wheel and Cloud that is in real-time that we also use so we know where our cars are at any given time. And why are we doing all this or trying to bring all this together? We already have eight cars with this technology. We've done our research with other in-car camera systems out there. This is, in our opinion, the best product that's out there as far as recording capabilities, the 4K capabilities versus 1080p, 160 degree angle versus 108, so we feel like it gives us better for what we need. And then it also is gonna build into our real-time intelligence center of where we're trying to go in the future. I think that was most of the questions through there.

Can you believe I have more? Sorry, you said that Axon video, it's not shared, but the license plate reader, would that data be shared?

The LPRs can be seen in our flock database, but only our Axon integrations are seen on our side.

Okay. And then you said we already have eight cars. Is it meaning eight patrol cars with Axum or eight patrol cars with Axum and the license plate readers?

Eight patrol cars that are in our current fleet from last year's approved budget.

And what technology? So do they have the license plate readers?

Yes.

Okay. So we have eight already that have that?

Correct.

Okay. And then for this, so the license plate reader, this is an add-on feature, correct?

Yes.

So it's not necessary for these cameras to work?

No, it's not in most of these companies. There's Motorola, Panasonic, they're all going to this technology as well.

Okay. I do support the cameras and the cars. I think that's good for transparency to protect you guys. I think it's really important. But we have, how many flock cameras or how many license plate reading cameras do we already have here in town?

License plate readers?

Well, okay, flock cameras.

Okay. So there's 82 total devices, 36 are LPRs, 19 are live videos, three are pan tilt zooms, and those are in our parks, and then 24 are current city-owned cameras that are piped into the flock ecosystem, case in point being City Hall. So there's current 24 as well of those.

My understanding from looking at the numbers, this is an additional, if we add the license plate reader to these cameras, it's an extra $34,000 for five years. Are the cameras that we have, do you have data proving that we need additional cameras?

For the purpose of in-car video?

For license plate reader, do you have data that the cameras that we have are not sufficient enough that we need to add additional ones?

Yes, we can show you all the hits that are cross-referencing FCIC, NCIC that the officers are seeing. The hits could be stolen vehicles, kidnapping suspects, but that information is all there. I don't have all that in front of me.

Okay.

Yeah, Lieutenant Byrne does have some success examples of actual positive hits that related to recoveries of missing people, endangered people, recovery of stolen goods, stolen vehicles, et cetera.

You guys have a tough job, and I appreciate it. I know that you're looking for additional tools. My fear is that it's just creeping. It's like it starts with a few, and then now we're... I mean, you listed off so many. I know that the... School zone cameras are a completely different thing. But as for just a regular resident, just seeing all of these cameras popping up, I mean, maybe I'm putting a tinfoil hat. It's a lot. For me, it's concerning. I feel like we're slowly giving away some of our privacy. So I'm very much for the cameras inside the cars. But any additional license plate readers for me is concerning because I feel like we have so many already. But I appreciate you taking the time to answer all of these questions. You guys are always very responsive. So thank you.

City Clerk.

We have two more cards. Kathleen O'Rourke.

Actually, I'll second what you said. I'm not against this. And I had a whole bunch of questions, and I want to thank you because, for the most part, those questions got answered. Can I just ask one other one? Does this system in any way integrate with the ring cameras that people have in their homes, or is this totally independent from that?

this does not have anything to do with the ring cameras.

I thought it didn't, but you answered all my other questions. So they're all gone other than that. So thank you for providing that information. I appreciate it.

Absolutely. Thank you. City clerk.

Uh, the last person is Connor and last name starts with B.

Good evening, City Council. This is my first time being here, so please forgive me if I'm a little rough in my speech. But I had been prepared to come here today to talk about flock cameras during the non-agenda item section, but seeing this on the agenda and hearing specifically how this is going to include an optional additional ALPR feature, I wanted to voice some more concerns about similar systems. And even if they are not all immediately transferable to Axon systems, they're very similar to the ones that Flock has. So first off, I want to stress that this is a very strong national security vulnerability, as well as just a normal security vulnerability, because at least with FLOC, they have shown themselves to be very slow responding to security vulnerabilities. There is a national vulnerability database kept by the National Institute of Standards something, and there has been a large number of critical vulnerabilities reported in the FLOC cameras that have still been unresolved. In addition, a lot of these systems are not localized to specifically one police department. At least with cameras, a lot of the functionality is interconnected with other police departments, with everything within the company, and according to some sources, with the national government as well. So it is right for any kind of abuse, not just localized to one police department, but without the entire country. Because of the data sharing capabilities of these systems, I am not saying that we have any reason to not trust our local police department, but these systems require the trust of not only our local police department, but every single partner police department across the United States, as well as the company itself, which has already been shown to be using rather sense like footage from community centers, from pools, from playgrounds and marketing materials. We have to trust that company with our data and this technology can be accessed by officers in other police departments claiming to be participating in some sort of investigation but not actually giving any sort of case number and using this technology to stalk previous exes or just people that they found and wanted to get to know a little more. I'd like to stress you vote no, at least to this form of the proposal, specifically because of this ALPR capability. And one more thing, just because it's something that came in the news recently, there is a proposal on the Senate floor right now when it comes to Title 23 funds, federal funding for our roadways, saying that they were threatening to cut funding for any city that uses automated license plate readers for any purpose other than toll collection. So you might be taking these down in the future anyway after you lock yourselves into a five-year contract. Same with FLOG. Thank you. Thank you, sir. City Clerk?

We have one additional call, Earl Johnson.

Well, the previous speaker just addressed one of the issues that I had. I don't understand why this actually has to be a five-year contract. Maybe there's a cost benefit to making it five years as opposed to three. Five years seems like a long time to obligate ourselves for something like this. And it seems to me that this contract could be a little more incremental than just five years. Thank you, sir.

City Clerk, any other cards? My name is John.

You met me before. A couple quick questions. You guys said that you did extensive research into Flock. Do you guys know who created Flock? And being like the gentleman said here, they're in the playground, what stops people from angling in our children and such? We're living in a world right now where I mean, this may be a tinfoil hat moment, but I heard that flock is owned by somebody who was mentioned in the files the most times. So this warrants a little bit of looking into. And that's all I ask.

Thank you, sir. Sorry, sir. Lieutenant Byrne.

Sir. Just some of these things. Thank you for bringing those up. Those are very valid questions. Questions that we ask ourselves. To answer yours first, sir, Deputy Chief and I have actually met the creator of Flock. He's a very young gentleman, so I don't think he's in any files. He's awkwardly young because he's a CEO of a giant monopoly taking over the public safety sector. You're talking to the CEO or the creator? Both. He's both. Okay.

Excuse me, sir. Lieutenant Burn has the floor. Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen, Lieutenant Burn has the floor.

And just to put in context, we went to Flock HQ, the headquarters, and did a full walkthrough. We spent our time and invested ourselves to get to know what we were walking into because we have the same concerns as everybody. We did meet the CEO. He was a very sharp guy, was very impressed. And he was very humble and brought police officers in to ask them, even though he was very smart technologically, he wanted to know what works for public safety. And his entire spiel was about privacy. And you have to balance the concerns of the private citizen with public safety. And that's Flock's model. And we support that as well. The other gentleman's question about privacy. statement about privacy. So there are rigorous standards and flocks use of their data control is gold standard. It is an AES 256 encryption at transit and rest. What that means essentially is That's military-grade encryption. It doesn't get much better. I don't know what that means, to be honest. That's just what they say. That's what it is. And when you ask the professionals who really know this stuff, it doesn't get any better. It passes every test from military to CJIS-compliant to everything that you need to be fully encrypted and protect the privacy and the data that's there. Essentially... While the data is being transferred, it jumbles it up, and then once it lands where it's going, then it's readable, if that makes sense. So it's a very high-end encryption. It doesn't really get much better than that. The data is deleted automatically after 30 days, and we the city own the data. So people ask, can ICE come in and get the data? Not if we don't want them to. What if ICE goes to FLOC themselves and says, hey, give us the data for Titusville Police Department? FLOC doesn't have it. We do. There's no hidden backdoor, anything with the privacy. The cameras are stationary, and they take pictures of license plates. They take pictures of vehicles. That's it. What they don't do is they don't track people. They don't have facial recognition. They just take pictures of cars and where we have ours are on our major intersections are open roads. Similar to ring. That was a great comparison. The citizens have access to buy flock as well. Companies have bought flock. Walmart buys flock. Home Depot buys flock. And then similar to ring, people give law enforcement access with that system. So if somebody commits a shooting burglary or steal something on a porch and we come up and that person has a ring camera. We get access. They give us the access to that camera that's open to the public. It's the same fashion with some of these flock cameras and then obviously we have our own that we put strategically throughout the city. Um, entrances and exits into our city that we feel benefits the citizens. Totally understanding the privacy concerns. We there is an option to go past 30 days. We denied it. We think 30 day door storage. That's the minimum. We're good with that. And that's where we kind of landed. Just from this past year, I'll give you just a quick brief examples. Mayor Moscoso was asking about, you know, does it work? Do we need them? What helps with that? Recently, last week actually, a few days ago, a grandmother called and her grandson was suicidal and missing. There was all sorts of bad things going on. The dispatcher had access to flock is trained on it is credentialed and was able to find that car within minutes and get that grandchild home to their mom. That just happened a few days ago. There was a fugitive a few weeks ago from Tampa area that came into our town was wanted for murder and the marshals task force was after him. Flock let us know that he was coming into our city and the task force moved in and took him into custody. Um, we've had multiple homicides, murders solved from flock and flock provided evidence in all those cases. We've had multiple retail theft rings, some statewide, some interstate national, so multiple states over in the spanning into Florida that were involved here in Titusville. That flock provided evidence and closure to those cases. And what I'm talking about so far is just this year. Within 12 months, we have had a kidnapping from a domestic violence situation where you able to get a female victim home and find her safely. We've had multiple mental health and life safety responses. Um, three people who were mentally ill or Baker Act, um, suicidal. And then you've got purple alert, silver alerts, those kind of things. Mental mental illness, someone with dementia, your loved ones are missing. It helps us find them immediately, track them better than anything else that we have. So the benefits are there, and then, the cost, you know, we look at the cost and we try to be very transparent with our money. We applied for a grant. I personally applied from a grant with you guys recently for a drone and we got that approved. So we try to save where we can. But when you're talking about cost, um, there's some studies out there that are national and they, you can just look them up online and some, some are, you would get access to being in law enforcement. But, um, Titusville is actually rated A on this website for crime grades and for a crime rate. We get an A for the state average. And the cost per resident for crime, according to this study, is $107 per year per resident. And the average for Florida is $156. So we're below the average. And then that national average is $258. Where do those costs come from? Those costs come from when there's a retail theft, people got to pay for that cost. They got to pay insurance. The product goes missing. Law enforcement gets paid to go and investigate that case. The state prosecutes that case. When there's a homicide, there's all sorts of costs with any type of crime you can think of. There's costs associated. So, um, Estimated cost $107 per person per year annually and then it's in the millions when you get in when it really breaks it down. We're looking at it. So flock some of these technologies. Yes, they cost money, but crime costs money and this system has proven to reduce crime to solve crime to prevent crime to get our loved ones home when they go missing solve murders. So when we look at what we do is to provide the city of Titusville the best Public safety services that we can while balancing privacy and data and flock does check all those objectives for us and we just continue to have successes with it and this is coming from a fellow skeptic when when we started taking this on I was I had my own concerns, but You know, I've got kids here that are in Titusville, and if they get kidnapped or something, I do not want it to be in a city that doesn't have flock cameras.

Can you guys speak on the safeguards that are put in place, you know, to the questions of, you know, can any officer access my data? How does that work? Can BCSO log in and check out our data? You know, maybe somebody at another agency. Can you go into that a little bit, please?

Yes, sir. So just like similar to Axon, Flock embedded a rigorous audit system. Every single click is logged. Every search is logged. It requires a case number, a reason for the search, a crime that is associated, and then a time frame for the search. And all those are logged forever. That data does not go away. So at any time. We have activated independent audit system that FLOC implemented. So any irregularities... For example, if an officer were to start searching the same license plate for an extended period of time, like 60 days or something, that's just one example. All of administrative would get a notice that there's an irregularity. It doesn't necessarily mean that anything is being done wrong, but hey, look into this. There are plenty of safeguards and our audit system is robust. And again, it tracks every single use of flock.

And we're also conducting our own internal audits in addition to this new automated system that sends us these alerts.

And then the policy we gave you guys outlines all that. And I just want to throw one other thing out there. I was thinking about when I was getting into flock and everything. We have a lot of systems that we understand that officers are given. some privileges information wise dispatchers do firefighters do nurses do and so we have access to systems we can pull someone's social security everybody in this room has a camera right now on their phone and if someone goes missing and they're a threat to themselves or something we can track that person if we have the legal authority just by pinging their phone So technology is here. It is a little scary, but every store you go into has a camera. Every street you go into has a camera. There's ring cameras. And I just want you guys to know we absolutely look at the privacy and the data collection and everything and take it very seriously. And all the audit functions are activated. And then we do our own, like, deputy chief said.

Member Moscoso?

Yeah, I think part of my concern is at least now if my license plate is being looked up, I can pull my David file and see exactly why it's being pulled. Where with this, I can't request information of, I mean, can I do a FOIA request for any information with flock cameras?

Yes, you can.

Okay.

As long as you're the owner of the vehicle can show proof that you're who you are and you own the vehicle and then you make that request and

So I could request like how many times flock has tracked my license plate throughout the city. Yes. And that's going to be a normal price for someone to pay to get that information.

It would be dependent on who the person is fulfilling the quest. Yes.

So it's not the same for everyone.

Everybody is as expertise in the getting into those files. So you asking that question is buried in there. So myself and Lieutenant Byrne are the ones that really know how to get in there. Not everybody knows that side of it.

Okay. And then you mentioned we had a grade a, was that as a good or a bad?

A good. A through F. I thought so.

Okay. Well, congratulations on that.

So that was good news for us. We're very happy with that.

Okay. Thank you guys very much.

Member Nelson. Um, I will say I'm in favor of this. And I remember last year somebody that we all knew and loved was murdered. And I didn't ask about the investigation. I won't ask about the investigation. But my guess is this is how you tracked that car. It was. And I really appreciate it, and I think that was just a great use of technology. So I will also say that my neighbor disappeared, and you pinged his phone and found him for me. He died, but he had dementia, and he just wandered off and jumped in somebody's car and left. And 15 minutes later, you guys had it. So to me, technology is a tool, and we need to use it. So my motion would be to approve consent agenda item A.

Second. I have a motion by Member Nelson, a second by Vice Mayor Cole. Any further discussion? Seeing none, City Clerk?

Member Nelson? Yes. Mayor Connors? Yes. Vice Mayor Cole? Yes. Member Stoeckel? Yes. Member Moscoso?

No. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you, guys. City Manager?

Moving on to Ordinances Item 9. And that is ordinance number 11-2026, the Aerospace and Light Manufacturing Ordinance. And this is to conduct a first reading and the first of two required public hearings for the Aerospace and Light Manufacturing Ordinance. And Brad Parrish, our Community Development Director, will read the ordinance for the record.

An ordinance of the city of Titusville, Florida amending the code of ordinances relating to uses within the planned industrial development PID zoning district to allow childcare facilities as a limited use and standalone parking structures as a limited use and to expand the definition of light manufacturing to include aerospace and defense related research and manufacturing by amending sections 28-54 use table. Section 28-110 child care facility, 28-154 parking structures, and 28-210 light manufacturing, providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinances, incorporation of the code, and an effective date. This ordinance is primarily just expanding the definition of light industrial in the PID and all the other industrial zoning districts. So it's really clarifying what we would consider to be light industrial. It's also touching on child care facilities inside the PID. zoning district specifically, changing it from if it would require a conditional use permit because a childcare facility could be located on a local road, that in this case, it would be allowed to be a limited use. In other words, permitted with some limitations without a public hearing, and then a standalone parking garage would be a limited use also inside the PID. Those are the main changes. Again, this is the first of two public hearings. This will go before planning a zoning commission on the June 3rd and come back to you again on Tuesday, June 9th for a final public hearing and adoption.

Thank you, Mr. Parrish. City Clerk?

We have one card. It's Kathleen O'Rourke.

Thank you. I want to speak specifically about the proposed expansion of the definition of light manufacturing to include aerospace and defense related research and manufacturing within the PID zoning district. I support responsible economic development and the aerospace industry, but the concern tonight is that this ordinance might create unintended, possibly intended, consequences far beyond what the citizens are being told. Modern aerospace and defense operations increasingly include AI systems, satellite data processing, cloud computer and secure data infrastructure. In many parts of the country, that's translated into rapid expansion of industrial scale data centers. So citizens are right to ask, could this ordinance eventually be interpreted to allow data centers in Titusville? And if the answer is no, then I would suggest data centers should be explicitly prohibited. If they are intended, then the City owes the citizens a clear and transparent explanation before this ordinance is adopted so the public has meaningful opportunity to understand the impacts and provide informed input. Because once broad zoning language is adopted, future interpretations can expand dramatically. And the stakes here are very, very high. Data centers consume enormous amounts of water and electricity. Some facilities across the country use millions of gallons of water per day for cooling operations. And at a time when Florida communities are already facing increased pressure on water supplies, aquifers, infrastructure, and stormwater systems, Titusville cannot afford to ignore these realities. Our first obligation must be protecting the long-term needs of the people who already live here. Citizens should not someday face water restrictions, rising costs, infrastructure strain, or declining environmental quality because the city failed to put reasonable limits on industrial expansion today. And this is especially important in Titusville where residents are already deeply concerned about flooding, drainage failures, stormwater runoff, and overdevelopment. Data centers also bring enormous building footprints and paved services that increase runoff and heat generation while often creating relatively few permanent jobs. So that's compared to environmental and infrastructure demand. So I'm asking the council to slow this process down and provide precise written definitions and limitations before adopting this ordinance. A decision which impacts this substantially on water availability, infrastructure, stormwater, and the future character of Titusville should not move forward without extensive public engagement and arguably be important enough to warrant direct voter approval. Thank you.

Thank you. City Clerk. All right. Thank you very much. City Manager, or sorry, Member Moscoso.

Yes, thank you. So I had kind of an extensive discussion about this with Brad today, and I do have on the map where our PID is located, and a lot of it is kind of around the airport area. And so one of the suggestions I had, because it is changing the definition of light manufacturing to include a lot more, was to make sure that perhaps It would we could somehow incorporate it to be mainly for this area because if we're changing the definition of light manufacturing that can also change what will be allowed in other areas. For example, on South Street, if they're allowing light. light manufacturing, then in essence, from my understanding, then that could include missiles, rockets, defense system, all of those things. And so if we're able to limit it to this location specifically, which is more of an industrial area, I would feel more comfortable. And so that was kind of my discussion with staff and looking into how we could craft that into this.

member Nelson sorry had the same a thought and basically the area downtown mixed-use around South Street Park garden us one that area is a mix right now of residential and industrial And to me, that industrial doesn't really belong in there. So my concern is we're adding more light industrial in there, expanding it, or light manufacturing, and we should be foreclosing that. and making it more residential. We're turning around and saying we can do it downtown mixed use. There were a couple other classifications that I just sort of went, not sure if that really goes there. So I would like to have us look at it and maybe restrict it a little bit.

Thank you, Member Nelson. Member Stockel?

Yes. So I guess along those lines, Brad, what were your discussions that you have had? And what do you feel like could potentially be possible after what you all have drafted already?

We tried to be as incremental as possible about this. We believe that what you see on page 827 of your packet, which is the expanded definition of light industrial, those listed types of activities are, we would generally find them to be consistent with the definition of light industrial. The current definition of light industrial, which you see in the black text, is really general enough for us to make a call depending on what an applicant's proposing to do as far as their operations. And that helps us determine whether they fall under this category, light industrial, heavy industrial, or whatnot. In this case, we're just expanding what we believe it would be considered under the light. I do understand the concerns, several of you have already expressed. You'll see on that same page, that use table, the zoning districts and whether it says P or L or C, P meaning permitted. So in other words, in the light industrial, is it permitted use in the PID? It's also considered to be a permanent use of limitations in certain sub-districts of the downtown. And in other parts of the downtown, it would automatically require a public hearing process to mitigate any potential issues with what they're doing. As you know, as every industrial use, it depends on what they're doing. A printing, what do you say, a printing office, You know, just creating certain parts using printing material, machines, could be considered industrial. Those could be housed in the downtown. A plate, I'm sorry, an applicant that wants to use a large warehouse probably is not going to find a space like that in the downtown, so they're going to look elsewhere where the zoning districts are appropriate. It really depends on what's being asked. As far as what to do about your concerns. My only concern is that if we say that, for example, as. Remember, Wisconsin mentioned maybe limited us to a certain area. This expanded definition to a certain area within the city that could be construed by future staff to say, well. What we currently believe would be considered light of dust would not be prohibited in some of these other zoning districts. So that could be construed as making this ordinance more restrictive, which means we would have to go back to the drawing board and re-advertise this. Another alternative is to maybe pull this out as a secondary definition. and then identify which zoning districts you would like to call this. But again, I think we might have that conflict again, potentially, where we might be saying that now these types of operations are no longer permitted in certain zoning districts. That would be my only concern. But we'll take any direction from you and come back to you with how we can incorporate it into this ordinance, hopefully within the advertised parameters. If not, it will have to be re-advertised.

Is there a map in the agenda packet that shows all the areas that currently have that zoning?

I did not include a map that shows all the properties with that. There are so many properties. It would probably be really difficult to really illustrate exactly where everything is. I did provide to Ms. Pascoso some maps with the PID only.

Okay.

And so I believe if you still have your land use map, you could take a look at that. Wherever you see that dark gray or that light purple PID and industrial. Those are primarily the areas where you'll find industrially zoned properties.

Okay.

And the majority of the PID, actually the bulk of it is around the, uh, um, the airport, Tyco Airport, the south part of the state.

And I think that's kind of where I'm coming from. I could, and I get what you're saying about, you know, picking and choosing, but I definitely could see some areas this makes perfect sense for, and then other areas, depending on what it is, there could be some caution. So I would like to see, especially like the aerospace component, I think, I mean, we are the Space Coast, so I'd like to, us to be a place, and we keep talking about, you know, we want to have jobs here, we want to build, industry here, and so if there's things that we can do to make sure that we're getting those space positions and industry, and I don't know if you guys know this, but the aviation program for the college is moving at the Titusville campus. The hangar's built there now, and so that's really exciting to have, and so Again, I don't want to have another barrier to prevent businesses from coming here. But at the same time, if it's all over the map and now it doesn't make sense to maybe say, hey, you know, something defense related should be right next to a restaurant right here. Those are the kind of things that I want to make sure we're accounting for.

The more specific you get here, sometimes the future staff may make the call that this particular zoning district is no longer viable. And so that's where you get into the issue of creating things more burdensome.

Okay.

The definition of light industrial right now is pretty broadly written at the moment to allow some flexibility. What's being suggested here is to really just clarify additional uses in there that, again, staff believes is already consistent with light industrial. But we always ask, and that's always the first question whenever we get an applicant coming in, what is your use and what is your operation? And that helps us determine where they fall and which particular classification of use is in a particular zoning district. And industrial is kind of unique because, as you know, they're all different. They're all different processes, a whole variety of them. So we do offer what's called a zoning verification letter. So they provide to us an application with requests and some additional information about their operations that helps us develop an interpretation for them to say this zoning district is consistent with what you're proposing to do. And then they can move forward and have some certainty and move forward with a plan of action as far as a site plan or whatever that might be for us.

Member Nelson.

Oh, Member Stockel. Member Moscoso had this. Would that help? Yes. Can you pass it down?

It's just an enhanced map of Tyco where all the PID is pretty much around Tyco. And I think... No, it's just Tyco.

And I think I'd be okay if we got rid of the downtown mixed use. Because to me, if we have aero... engineering manufacturing there already, but do we want to add more industrial kind of use in what's basically a residential area? So to me, getting rid of it in the downtown mixed use would be appropriate.

Okay. But you can't. That would be, we would have to re-advertise them.

Well, the D is a conditional. The U is conditional. M is limited. C is limited. So I don't think it's as just laissez-faire and they can do whatever they want. You know, the big part of this ordinance is codifying aerospace and defense and the PID usage. Because unfortunately, if you're, you know, refurbishing satellites, let's say Astrotech, like what is that? Taking things off, they had things on, gluing things on, maybe they're welding. And welding was not permitted in planned industrial development. And I think that's kind of an important part of industrial development is being able to do these things. And because our specific focus in this PID language when the ordinance was first written was we want to attract aerospace and defense contractors, but we really had no way to do that to where they can come in and use this zoning district. And to Member Moscoso's point, all of the PID for the most part is around the airport. And if somebody wanted to take this language and then apply it to the middle of town, they'd have to go through a rezone, which sounds like, you know, I wouldn't approve.

Just to clarify the downtown, you wouldn't need necessarily need to do a rezone, but I do want to point out on that same page and further down, you'll see limitations within the downtown. So it does control. There's some performance standards of that zoning district. So the zoning district wouldn't necessarily have to be rezoned the downtown. They could use the existing zoning, They just have to adhere to the conditions that you see here on page 827 and 828 of your packet, which can be limiting.

And that was already in the PID prior to...

It's already in the downtown code is what I'm saying.

Exactly. Member Moscoso?

Yeah, I think by changing the definition of light manufacturing, then that has to apply across the board for every zoning that allows that. And so... Yeah, so you're saying it's not possible to limit it to around the airport? That would not be something you would recommend doing?

Not without re-advertising the ordinance. It is possible. We would have to come back to you with a rescheduled ordinance, new public hearings.

Okay. Do you think it would be more beneficial? Like a member Nelson was saying to look at the areas that allow, um, light manufacturing and perhaps go through that and say, we, we don't want to allow light manufacturing. I mean, that could be just a good practice anyway in our downtown mixed use area or, um, what would you recommend?

That sounds to me like a bigger project than what's presented here tonight.

Okay.

So that might be something we could look into as a separate study for you because that could have serious implications of properties that already have zoning and operations going on.

Yeah, I don't want to create a problem to create a solution.

Okay. Because you could end up creating non-conforming uses.

Yeah, absolutely. I was just trying to think through how we could do this because it is important to make sure that we can attract these businesses and manufacturing but also protect our other zoning areas. So thank you.

Mr Parrish, by us amending the definition of light definition or light manufacturing in the PID ordinance specifically, does that change the definition of light manufacturing throughout the entire city?

So on that page, eight 27, you'll see all the zoning districts, uh, M one M two M three. Any property that has that particular zoning district also qualifies to allow light industrial. So wherever they're located in the city, would be able to utilize this definition.

M1, M2 being the higher use.

M2 is the heavy industrial. M1 is more warehouse, but they could do some light manufacturing on a limited basis in there, yes.

Well, that we don't have many light manufacturing throughout the city, right? It's mostly we have some M1, M2, some PIDs,

We have many properties with M1 and M2 zoning and a few properties on South Street with M3. Again, the properties zoned PID are around the airport and then the downtown.

All right. Well, obviously, we have still more questions. And I think it would be good because we still have another public hearing to continue to do research, dive into it, look at the maps and do all those things. And we'll have another public hearing in two weeks. And then council can decide what it wants to do. Member Sokol, any final thoughts?

Yeah, that was my question is since we wouldn't potentially be making it more strict than what was advertised, why would we need to re-advertise if we did decide to lessen?

Less than it.

I mean, you may take it more to yes, only allow it in part of what was already advertised. Like I could understand re advertising if we were going to broaden it and now all of a sudden we're including. But if we're lessening what was already advertised, why would we need to re advertise?

So if you right now, light and dusters allowed in these zoning districts which were mentioned, if you, as was mentioned earlier, maybe restrict this portion of this definition, does this that area around the airport? You know, certain staff in the future could say, well, now that particular expanded use, which allowed around the airport is no longer allowed in other properties that are further away that have that particular zoning. In other words, we would not right now. We will consider this these kind of aerospace types of uses potentially to be allowed in light industrial. With your suggestion, that wouldn't be possible anymore on a lot of properties throughout the city. Because the definition would be applied in such a way that now light industrial is specific. So in other words, if it's... Yeah, it's general to say you can have it in all these different zoning districts, but if you throw in aerospace, you're only limited to this area. Whereas right now, we can allow a lot of properties that have M1, M2, and M3 zoning.

So another alternative that we could look at is maybe... Strengthening these limitations that are mentioned you could do that at by to look into that before next reading potentially, okay Thank you, but that's your direction.

We'll definitely explore that All right Sorry, could you explain the strengthening the limitations a bit?

Yes, so on as Brad was mentioning on page 827 and 828 regarding the downtown mixed-use there are Limitations right now. So if they did want to come in, they'd have to meet certain standards. So we felt those were not strict enough to prevent things that we don't want to see there. We can look at that.

Okay. Thank you. And so I can ask one more question just to, I don't want to forget Dr works question about data centers by doing this. We're not. I mean, and what, what zoning districts can a data center? I know there are a lot of other restrictions. They have to be able to get the water and the electricity and things like that. But I just don't want to unintentionally open us up for having a data center administratively approved. So just to confirm, we are not doing that, correct?

That was not the intent here. I have not been approached at all as to whether is a data center permitted inside our city's code. So I don't have a good answer for you on that. But I can imagine that it probably would qualify under the current definition of light industrial, depending on what they're really doing. If I understand it better, what they're trying to do, it's possible that they could get it permitted under that. That is a topic of discussion in planning circles right now about what to do. It's definitely a topic of discussion around the state. Um, so we, if you do want to explore that further, I would ask for direction from you to maybe come back to you with some research information on that topic separate from this ordinance.

Yeah, I personally would would like more information on that. Um, I'm not sure. I mean, it goes to the rest of council as well, but I think it'd be at least worth the discussion.

Vice Mayor. My understanding is data centers use a lot of water, and it's a lot of electricity. And when we were looking at that plant down close to Port St. John, we talked about the amounts of water that they would be using. And this is the same thing here. So we would still have the opportunity, if a data center was to come in, And we may not have the water capacity for them. So that would be a way that we can disapprove it, let's say. And the amount of electricity that a data center would use would also be a limiting factor, I would think.

I would think so, too. Every project has to meet concurrency level service standards for the city, including water.

All right, well, let's not complete the two. This has nothing to do with data centers. It's about manufacturing aerospace. Member Moscoso?

Yes. So whether you bring information to the council or not, I would love to sit down with you and understand the zoning and how that works with data centers, the possibility. But I'm with Vice Mayor Cole. I mean, it does have to, there have to be other things, concurrency. So thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. City Manager.

Yes, sir. Moving on to 9B, that is a resolution number 12-2026, a right-of-way vacation, application number 1-2026, Cali Corte Avenida Real. And the recommended action is to adopt the resolution vacating the public right-of-way as described in application 1-2026. And on May 6th, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of 7-0.

Thank you, City Manager. City Clerk? All right. Mr. Parrish?

The application is for a paper right-of-way on... Sorry. Avenida Real. It is not an approved right-of-way. It did go through the process, reviewed by all relevant agencies, and there have been no objections, including the city has no objection to vacating this right-of-way.

If it is approved by you, it will become immediate and a resolution is necessary to be adopted.

With that, we won't answer any questions. We did find it consistent with the city's code and a comprehensive plan.

Thank you, Mr. Parrish.

City Council? Member Nelson? I've moved to adopt resolution number 12-2026, right-of-way vacation for Cali Corto Veneta at Real.

Second.

I have a motion by Member Nelson, second by Vice Mayor Cole. Any further discussion? Seeing none, City Clerk?

Mayor Connors? Yes. Vice Mayor Cole?

Yes.

Member Stoeckel? Yes. Member Moscoso? Yes. Member Nelson? Yes.

Motion carries. Thank you very much. City Manager?

Yes, sir. Moving on to item number 11 under old business, and that is the employee benefits and HR consulting services RFP CO-26-P-001-TB. And the recommended action is to approve the evaluation committee's ranking and recommendation of the RFP. for employee benefits and risk management consulting of the number one ranked firm and the amount to exceed, not to exceed $75,000 annual fixed fee per year during a three year term and renewable for two optional one year periods and authorize staff to conduct negotiations and finalize the contract terms with the number one firm. Century of public risk and we have our HR director and our risk management

Coordinator here to answer any questions that present the item Thank you very much city clerk All right, mr. De Niro Good evening mayor council members speaking the microphone, please Can you hear me now?

No, all right. Can you hear me? Good evening mayor council members The employee benefits solicitation consulting services was a very competitive process. The city received seven respondents The evaluation committee at its first meeting had the purpose of shortlisting the respondents and chose in lieu of shortlisting using the data that was presented to them, inviting all seven of those respondents to a meeting subsequent to that shortlist meeting, asking the respondents to clarify their responses to the RFP and the components, inviting them to engage in conversations with the evaluation committee. That meeting was held a week after that shortlisting meeting and resulted in an engagement of all those presentations clarifying components of their responses The evaluation committee was engaged in asking questions of the respondents. And at the end of that meeting, Accenture rose to the top of the list based on their articulation of the components of the RFP and their their customers and local government, the services that they provide to local government services. Before I ask Mark to also just give his input as a member of the evaluation committee, I want to share with you the state of our of our health program as it exists today. Over the last two and a half years, our per member, per employee costs have increased from a A cost change of per member per month cost today about $886 per month per employee. Two and a half years ago it was about $777 per member per month. So those plan costs have increased over the two and a half years. We've also been spending more than what our budget has allowed for. So this trend has increased, and suffice it to say, a need for our benefits consultant at this point in time is certainly important. But let me share with you what's driving some of these trends. particularly these costs, it's high-cost claimants. Through April of this year, we have 44 claimants who have costs over $25,000. Six of those high-cost claimants represent about 1% of our members. Those members have a cost representing over 30% of our costs, of our planned costs. So 1% of those members resulting in representing about 30% of our planned costs. So our high cost claimants are driving the expenses and there's certainly a need to look at those medical issues that our consultant can use in their technology to evaluate what's occurring with those medical conditions. Currently, we're working with our healthcare administrator to determine if those high-cost claimants illnesses have resolved or whether continuing. If they're continuing, four of those high-cost claimants will go into reinsurance, meaning that we will receive reimbursements for those high-cost claimants. We have also met on two occasions with our employee evaluation committee, advisory committee. We've done a couple things that, in listening to the concerns of our employees, particularly those that are healthy, if you will, and asked the questions about premiums increasing and why did the premiums increase when, you know, I'm taking care of myself in terms of my wellness and life balance work. So those changes we've been discussing with our employee committee. in terms of some of the high performance plan components that were addressed in the RFP. For example, we're gonna continue our conversations with Parish. They have a closed integrated network that's here in Brevard County that can result in lower premium costs to our employees for those healthy employees. And within the broader context of our health plan, our employees would also have some options to use the network to their discretion. We've also talked to our employees about including, as you know, we have a partnership with with Parish and our employee health clinic and how to incorporate that into the network to contain costs. We've been discussing these and we'll continue to discuss these with our employees. There's also the narrow networks that Accenture has proposed in their plan that they're familiar with, the tiered provider concepts. So we're looking at all of these items as we move along. benchmarking. We've been benchmarking with our employees to talk about where we stand with our plan design and where our competitors are standing with their plan design. So we've been talking about those and we look for the guidance from our consultant to be able to come back to you in July during budget meetings. Right now, as you know, we're putting together our budget plan as a result of some of the high costs. While we're managing to a good degree our prescription costs, we still have some high costs that we're addressing and challenging us with our high cost claimants that we know our consultant will help us with. So our plan is While we build the budget, and we're probably looking at about a 22% increase in healthcare costs due to those high cost claimants, a plan design that would help us contain costs and address the issues that we're challenged with. We're faced with a very short time frame right now. City managers proposing to bring back, should you approve our recommended agenda item to Accenture to begin the contract negotiations, bring that back to you at the next meeting, and then begin the discussions of moving forward with containing those costs briefing you on our plan design during the budget meetings in July. And also, we're looking for, as I think we've spoken at a later meeting, your guidance and approval to support us in possibly moving from a fiscal year to a calendar year transition where all of our benefits align with each other in the calendar year. it's probably very appropriate because all the accelerators, meaning the deductibles, occur on those calendar year basis. So I'm gonna stop there and Mark, if you have any additional input about your experience with the committee and if you could share that with the council.

Sure. Just to let you know, we went through the regular bidding process. We had the seven respondents. All of them were excellent. A lot of reading. So there was a lot of time spent going through all of those documents. The rank order was made by myself, Joe, representatives from the Public Works Department, our fire department. as well as our assistant city manager sat on that. They ranked order, and in the end, a sentry was the one who was selected from that group. I think the appropriate purchasing took place, or purchasing process took place. I thought it was made equal to everybody that was there, and obviously they were the best candidates selected by the parties that represented the bidding process. I thought it went very well. I've sat through several bids, not just here but in other locations, but I thought it was a good process itself, and if you approve it, we're looking forward to working with Accenture.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mark. Mr. De Niro? Member Stoeckel?

Yes. I had just one question regarding the rankings because it looked like there was four different, four of the seven had the score of one as their top. And so you guys were kind of all over the place with your rankings. Could you just explain how you guys decided, what criteria were you looking at? And I've seen this type of ranking before because we've almost ranked like this on council and I'm not the hugest fan of it. I almost would prefer you to kind of, there was, there were several on here that I could say, hey, let's eliminate those and then have a fair shot because there's a strategy that could be involved with ranking. I'll just leave it at that. And so I am curious about how you came about your scores.

I could just speak about how I ranked mine. There were certain things that I was looking for myself. At one time I was over a benefit program and there were certain things that I liked compared to others. So that's very reflective in my scoring. Obviously my number one candidate was not Accenture, but they were number two. They presented very well. I think they would do very well here, so I wasn't too surprised with the outcome. We gave everybody a fair process. I'm not sure what more you would like me to say. What I liked about one candidate over another or what are you asking me to do?

Yeah, kind of what were the factors that made you determine this was my top choice and this was like my last choice? What were you looking at? And I don't know if everybody was looking at the same thing, the criteria. Was it cost? Was it what they would provide?

I will share with you, Member Stoeckel. In my ranking, you can see that. I think we can learn in the public sector from the private sector in terms of some of the initiatives that are appropriate and the private sector using now. can be transferred to the public sector. And that's kind of where I was going and listening to the presenter and the respondent that I ranked mine. However, you know, Accenture, when I go back and think, you know, in my ranking, they have a number of local government services that they provide to communities and their customers. But they also use the same plan designs, the same enhancements, the same performance plans that are brought about in the private sector. So that's kind of my thought process. While, yes, I had an interest in transferring some of those, maybe that group didn't have the experience that the Centria had in local government, but certainly they could provide those same components of a of a high performance plan that the private sector responded could. That's kind of my thought process.

Mayor, I'm deferring to you on some of this because this is your area of expertise.

Anybody else read all the packets? No, just me. I get it. It was very tough, you know, and I even had to make notes of what I liked about one versus another. And, you know, it's very challenging to go through. And I think it just brings up bigger questions about, you know, the RFP process for a consultant in general because, you know, out of the – Five people looking at this, you know, love our fire chief, but does not his background. And same with, you know, Miss Sandy and Mr. Kevin. I mean, you guys kind of live in this world. So, I mean, I get it. Mark, I did have one question for you. Who is our property and casualty broker for the city?

Accenture, actually.

And so that's who you work with on a day-to-day basis, right? I do. And I think it's just interesting because, remember, Stokel brought it up, is just the numbers are everywhere. And so if you throw out three out of the five scores, then it's like there's three companies that are pretty much right there, right? And so how do you pick one over another? And what I was looking for when we brought this whole RFP process up to begin with was a proven track record of saving the plan money so that it's whole, it's solvent. I think Joe hit the nail on the head with who he ranked number one in that regards. I think the other thing I was looking for was aligning the incentives. So just us paying a broker or consultant $90,000, whatever the number is, because they all quoted different numbers, just to get that and just kind of be status quo, we want them to be motivated to drive the same results that we want. And that was when we talked about, you know, the price is, you know, I would definitely prefer a cost model regarding to percentage of savings. So decreasing that flat fee year over year and incentivizing them to delivering results because any consultant can say, oh, I'm delivering results, but, you know, are they, right? And so really tying their bottom line to our bottom line, I think, makes a lot of sense. So in that regards, I mean, I agree with how Joe ranked them. I think it is difficult to... Pick and choose. There are some things I liked about Accenture. I think the most unfortunate one was the one question I really wanted to know was give me all your public sector companies that you work with in a 50 mile radius and give us the per member per month cost over the last five years. Most of those people declined to answer. That number and probably because cost keep going up, you know. So again, you got to look at who can drive a, you know. Drive savings for the plan, because ultimately that's going to help the employees. So more is not coming out of their paycheck. every two weeks because at the rates that Mr. DeNiro just said of a 20% increase, what is that to our family of four? That's a big number, right? And, you know, the city can't just keep eating those costs year over year. So really trying to drive home the savings stuff so that it can translate into, you know, lower out-of-pocket costs to our employees. So with that being said, that's kind of how I – I saw it as I looked through all the proposals and, you know, at the end of the day, it's Council's decision what you guys want to do. Member Moscoso.

Do we have any of the companies that put in a proposal here tonight?

I believe Accenture is here.

Okay.

Not sure if you guys want to come up and speak at all, but you don't have to. I was just curious if who came.

evening my name is Corey McMeeking I am the southeast employee benefits practice leader for Centria happy to answer any questions I think the process was obviously very thorough it's unusual that you listen to seven companies present in the situation so you would you did have a lot of competitiveness in the process a lot of good companies responded you know Companies are actually much larger than us. I think from our standpoint, we did not finish outside the top three on anyone's scoring list. So I think we're in the top three in all three categories. Looking through your January notes, there was a mention of doing a comparison to the state's plan designs. We are actually the consultant for the state of Florida right now. So one of the items that we brought to the table was the fact that the work that we're doing for the state of Florida, we can bring down market to the city of Titusville. So I think when you're talking about different point solutions to address the high cost claimants, when you're looking at pharmacy solutions that we're bringing to the table with outsourcing and sourcing medications from different areas. We talked about different direct contract negotiations with different providers. So I think there's a lot that we can bring to the table, and I just want to commend these guys on a great process, honestly.

Anyone else? She's like, I'm out of here. Thank you. Member Nelson?

I think my thought is there were three committees that were really close together, and we could split hairs and say, oh, let's substitute our judgment for the committees. And I will say I looked at the way you guys scored them a little more than the way the others scored them. That being said, I would suggest that we accept the rankings that you had, the committee had, and go from there.

If that's a motion, I'll second. That could be a motion.

Is it a motion? Please clarify. Yes. Okay. Motion by Member Nelson, second by Member Moscoso. Any further discussion from this board? Seeing none, City Clerk?

Vice Mayor Cole?

Yes.

Member Stoeckle? Yes. Member Moscoso? Yes. Member Nelson? Yes. Mayor Connors?

Yes. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Appreciate your hard work.

City Manager? Yes, sir. Moving on to Item 12, New Business. And 12A is the Zoning District Density Standards. And the recommended action is to approve... Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation to remove the maximum density standards from the zoning districts and allow the comprehensive plan to regulate safety. And Brad Parrish is here to answer your questions.

The staff is supportive of the P&Z's recommendation. The maximum density, residential density per acre is prescribed in the land use categories of the comprehensive plan. There may be some exceptions. And they're also prescribed separately in each zoning district where residential is allowed. So typically, the zoning districts regulate the size of lots, which is in itself a density calculation. So it just seems duplicative for us to have both a density regulation and a lot size regulation inside the residential zoning districts when density is already prescribed in the comp plan. If you agree to this, we'll come back to you with our findings and suggestions. Unless you would like us to go ahead and draft an ordinance, we can do that.

City Clerk?

Earl Johnson.

Yes, Earl Johnson here. This is a little bit puzzling to me. I'm wondering how this even came to be. Who would have requested this? And we've been operating this way for how many years? And why is this a problem now? It's kind of a puzzle to me. So I'm wondering why is this a good idea? I think I heard a couple of reasons why from Brad just now mentioned just one. But I'm wondering what real problem does this actually address? Uh, I'm thinking that I mean, I don't I'm not really sure because I didn't really have enough time to look into this thoroughly, but. There could be some unforeseen consequences here. I mean, I just did a quick look at the comp plan. There are, um. 154 references to density in the comp plan, and if all of a sudden we decide that none of the zoning categories are going to carry any weight connected with density, then it seems to me that, I don't know, it seems like there's some questions there that aren't answered. I mean, it may be perfectly fine. It just seems a little odd. And that's basically what, when I discovered that there were so many references to density in the comp plan, I wasn't aware that there were that many. So I just found myself thinking there could be some unintended consequences here. I don't know. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kathleen O'Rourke? Okay.

Yeah, I'd like to express some serious concern regarding the proposal to remove maximum density standards from the zoning districts and rely solely on the comprehensive plan to regulate density. It just sounds like a technical change, but density is actually one of the most important factors shaping the future of a city. Density affects traffic, flooding, stormwater runoff, infrastructure demands, neighborhood character, and long-term pressure on water resources. Right now, the citizens have two layers of protection, the zoning code and the comprehensive plan. This proposal removes one of those protections and that matters. Many citizens are concerned because we've already seen situations where the comprehensive plan was not meaningfully enforced. In the example of the Apollo Gardens development, citizens raised concerns that the project violated the comprehensive plans access requirements. Residents repeatedly asked for a fair hearing, but the Board of Adjustments and Appeals referred to hear the issue, and the council declined to rule on the concern by the citizens. That development was ultimately allowed to proceed, even though the comprehensive plan required access from a collector road rather than a local road. We're now paying the price for that decision. By the way, nearby property values have dropped in the surrounding neighborhood has experienced some serious and flooding issues. So now the city's proposing to remove density protections from the zoning code and telling the citizens that the comprehensive plan will be our only protection. That's really concerning. Many residents no longer have confidence that the comprehensive plan will be consistently enforced when major development pressure exists. If density standards are removed from zoning classification, future increases in development intensity may become easier over time and less transparent to the public. I think the citizens deserve clear answers. Why are the current density standards considered a problem? What public benefit is gained by removing them? Will this make future increase in density easier? And how would the city protect roads, drainage systems, infrastructure, and water availability if density controls become more flexible? If the intent is not to allow greater development intensity, then why remove existing protections? This isn't a minor technical amendment. It's a significant policy decision that deserves broad public discussion because it will shape the future of Titusville. Thank you.

Thank you. City Clerk?

The last card is Elizabeth Parker.

Back again, Elizabeth Parker, Trevino Circle. The comprehensive plan feature land use map sets the maximum allowable land density and intensity, while the LDR zoning districts implement these policies parcel by parcel. And across the city, we actually have particular zoning districts with zoning that's unique to each district. specifically developed to enhance or maintain that area's character. Zoning must be consistent with the comprehensive plan and generally doesn't exceed the flume density without a change to the comprehensive plan through amendment. The districts are found in the LDR's land development regulations, specifically within the zoning code and zoning map. The LDR's established permitted uses, setbacks, height limits, lot requirements, and implementation densities, as the city was saying. FLUME categories are found in the comprehensive plan and only address future land use elements and future land use. Eliminating residential zoning districts and relying primarily on the FLUME significantly reduces protections for existing homeowners. It also requires fewer public hearings. Rezoning currently requires public notice hearings and city council approval, and if projects are approved administratively under FLIM standards, homeowners lose the opportunity to participate or negotiate conditions. Eliminating current zoning limits increases maximum densities allowed by the comp plan, effectively bringing more traffic, parking shortages, stormwater runoff noise, taller buildings, and reduced privacy. Deleting zoning districts causes loss of predictability. Our districts provide clear expectations for use, setbacks, lot sizes, heights, and seek to preserve neighborhood character. Flume-based standards are far more broad, leaving homeowners uncertain about what will be built next door. More administrative discretion is not a good thing for citizens, but will provide a boon for developers. Replacing objective zoning rules with flexible approvals, design review, or negotiated development agreements increases the risk of inconsistent decisions, reduced transparency, and political favoritism. Current zoning creates transitions between low density neighborhoods in multifamily areas and commercial uses. Eliminating zoning districts weakens these buffers and places apartments or mixed use projects close to single family homes. Where have we heard that before? It relates to property value instability as well, Apollo Gardens. Non-conforming property risks as well. Once you eliminate the zoning, then existing properties are at risk when they need to be modified. There's infrastructure strain risk as well, with higher density without matching infrastructure upgrades, which could increase congestion, flooding, sewer demands, school crowding, and put pressure on parks and emergency services. there would be a commercial encroachment, and there's legal transition uncertainty leaving the city ripe for lawsuit. Thank you.

Thank you. City Clerk? City Council? Member Moscoso?

Thank you. Yeah, I had some of the same concerns. So Brad has printed out a lot of documents that I need to go through because I was concerned with that as well. I will tell you, I went back and watched the PNC meeting because I was curious of how this came about. And it was a member on PNC. And I think the idea behind it was to make sure that our The zoning, the zoning matched our comprehensive plan. So, for example. Our zoning says that for our 1 B, which is single family, it says density maximum 5.8 and our comprehensive plan says 5. and so the idea, I believe, was to clean it up. Now. I'm not I'm not sold on it. I'm not sold on it. So I'm in the process of looking through and just making sure. But I just want to say that's where it came up because I was very curious. It came out of nowhere. I went back and watched the meeting. And I would encourage you to go back and watch that PNZ meeting if you get a chance. And you'll understand the why behind it. But I also would like more time to, because I just got all of this today. And I appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me. But kind of to go through it and just to... feel a little bit more comfortable before I personally move forward.

Member Stoeckle?

Yes, I'm kind of in agreement. I'm all for cleaning up, especially if they are at odds. My concern is, as was mentioned, is what happens I like us having it in two spots, essentially. That way, if a developer comes in, there's no ambiguity with it. You know it's there. My concern would be, oh, but I knew I'm going by this in our zoning, and then the comp plan's at odds again, and then we or staff is... confused as to what to do. And we've seen that happen. So I would rather clean it up and have it in both spots and they align would be my recommendation just because again, the more we can communicate as we just got the presentation of maybe we need to be a little bit more clear with sidewalks. Maybe we need to be more clear. I think that developers would appreciate clarity and then they can make an informed decision rather than us maybe being unintentionally vague with them. That would be my recommendation.

Member Nelson. I agree with Member Stoeckel. I don't have a problem with it being in both places. It's probably a good time for us to look at it and change whatever is conflicting. Just make sure we're all clear about what happened. So I think I appreciate them bringing it up, but that would be my request.

All right, so is that the direction that you guys would like to thank staff, or would you guys like to table this item for another time of just, you know, hey, we're okay with making sure it matches in both places instead of just completely removing it from the code of ordinances? Where do you guys want to go with this, Member Nelson?

I wouldn't mind tabling it until the first meeting in June, but if we do that, I would love to have the information, Brad, that you gave Megan. And maybe have a little bit of one-on-one time to go through it. So maybe give all of us the information and then sit down, schedule a time to talk to each of us.

Well, it sounds like it probably won't come back in June because that's in two weeks. So maybe we can down the road a little bit. Maybe first being in July.

I think that would give us ample time to come back with those recommendations. Member Moscoso?

Yeah, I mean, for me, this was one page. There was not any information provided. And so I will, when I request information, I'll try to make sure that it gets sent to you guys as well. It's not trying to gatekeep it. I literally got it today, so...

Vice Mayor. Yeah, I think that we need to have some concurrency between the two. And I agree with tabling it. And I will make a motion to table it. To our first meeting in July.

Second. All right. There's a motion by Vice Mayor Cole to put this on the agenda for the first meeting in July, correct? Yes. Second still stands. Member Nelson? Yes. All right. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much.

All right.

I believe we're on petitions or requests from the public, non-agenda items. Anybody who did not speak the first time, this is your opportunity now, but I believe you spoke. Yeah, you spoke on an item.

I DID ALSO WANT TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM A BIT MORE LEVITY THOUGH I DID JUST WANT TO GIVE A BRIEF UPDATE THAT I DID HAVE A NICE CONVERSATION WITH THE POLICE CHIEF ABOUT MY CONCERNS AND PROBABLY BE A ROUTINE MEMBER HERE BUT I JUST WANTED TO ASK ABOUT some consideration for installing bollards when it comes to the coast-to-coast bikeway that starts here in Titusville. Just because of the nature where it is there's always going to be some people who bring things like e-bikes or golf carts on there and with the pace that they go I don't see that as much of an issue but I've seen as much as I ride it a lot of people bring rather large all-terrain vehicles or dirt bikes or even a few actual cars taken onto these bike paths because of the lack of bollards off of the intersections, one of which is going over multiple bridges that are clearly not designed for cars. I just feel like installing some bollards to help dissuade some of the people breaking the no motorized vehicles rule would at least make it more clear what they're doing is not meant to be happening and could hopefully prevent somebody from being hit or breaking a bridge. Thank you.

Question for you. Where exactly on the bike trail are you talking about over the bridge on Garden Street?

Well, the bridges that I've seen, I think those are more up towards MIMS, where I've seen, like, fishermen take their trucks out onto the, bike path and go over these bridges. Um, but the like real wide, uh, all terrain vehicles, like they are nearly the entire size of the road. I've encountered a few while I've been biking. So I'm just nervous, especially at the speed that they go, that they might end up hitting a cyclist without seeing him or a pedestrian.

Well, thank you for bringing that to our attention. Like I said, if you tell me exactly where you think they should go so that we can work on it, and if it's outside the city's purview, we can work on it with the county who may maintain that portion of the trail. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else for petitions and requests? Mr. Johnson, did you already speak at the first petitions and requests? Yes, I did. All right. I'm sorry. Anybody else? Seeing none. All right. Moving on to council reports. Member Moscoso. Member Nelson. I have a request for everybody.

I was out in Seattle. Gas is $5.50 at Costco. We're getting there. And as I was sitting there filling up, I filled up my daughter's car. And it was pricey and I was thinking we're spending a lot of money in the city on gas. So my question to our city manager, I warned him, was, I did warn him, was, okay, guys, at what point is it cheaper to drive an electric car, especially for her staff vehicles? Some of the cars that aren't getting used all the time. I talked to Major a little, and he told me how much it cost to fill up his truck. I spent $10 filling up my truck. charging it so my question is at what point do we need to seriously look at electric vehicles at least for the staff cars where we're just driving around town, those kind of things. Maybe we need to look at our take-home policy for some of the city cars. So that's what I'm hoping that we can do. Question one, at what point is it economically economic for us to change to electric. Obviously, we can't do all the vehicles at one time, but as we start buying new cars, replacing cars, at what point is it cheaper to buy the electric? So I know Satellite Beach actually looked at it with their police cars. So I want to know.

Well, Mr. City Manager, I think that's up to you to answer, but Satellite Beach is like two square miles. Four, four.

Well, actually... The easy answer to your question regarding take-home vehicles and car allowances, that is the number one priority that I've given to our internal auditor. After she finishes some follow-up work on an existing audit, clearly there is room for tightening our belt in take-home cars and allowances, especially with the price of gas approaching the $5 market. The second question, there's no definitive answer at what point. I can tell you that we're not there yet. But if prices keep going up, I think that's a question that needs to be answered. And my personal opinion is that, and I know you probably don't agree, I think there will be a transitional, incremental transition to electric vehicles over a number of years, I think the first step. because it doesn't require charging stations and the high capital cost hybrids are, I know people who have, two people who have.

This is one of the arguments we had, because I was like.

They are basically the same cost as a ICE vehicle, but long term, definitely admin vehicles will be electrified. At what point? Probably sooner rather than later, but I can't give you a definitive date. The high capital and also the availability and the limited selection of EVs preclude that from happening right now. And before I get any further into this, I would ask Kevin to bail me out here and give some more information on this.

Well, before Kevin responds, I remember this coming up before and Ms. Sandy responding with the state statute that, you know, basically ties our hands in a lot of ways. We can't just go to EV just because we want to go to EV. I think there is a big cost component to it, but I'm interested to see what that calculation is as well.

That was my curiosity because I was like, I'm seeing like Hyundai has got a really cute EV and it's like $32,000. And I'm like, okay. And like Tom said, I guess it's Ford's making a truck, which is $32,000. And I know Florida Power and Light was offering to put in charging stations. So, you know, at one point... I don't know the answer and that's why I'm asking.

It's an issue that we'll have to grapple with in the coming years. I think we would first prefer to stay with American manufacturers. Ford.

Ford. Yeah, I get that. I get that. But I don't know if it's economically feasible at 450 a gallon. Or does it become economically feasible at $5.50, $6 a gallon? So, does Kevin have an answer?

So, as the mayor mentioned, there was a House bill passed. The governor signed it. It does restrict the procurement of local government, restricting the type of vehicle purchases. You can't make an electric-only bid. You would have to bid it versus the gas version and the hybrid version. And essentially the low bid wins. So in that case, electrics may not win. We've shifted roughly 30 of our F-150 fleets to hybrids. The advantage is they still run a gas engine. So when we respond to hurricanes, we're not trying to fund generators to charge our vehicles. Those vehicles operate, you know, much higher gas mileage in general. All the employees like them. They're the full size F-150, not the lightning versions. They are crew cabs. The other tough thing with the pure electrics are they really don't make reliable pure electric large trucks. They're not in existence. So we looked at solid waste vehicles. That uptake is about 700 grand versus our entire vehicle purchase is 400 right now to go pure electric. So there are communities going that way. They're mainly in California. They're doing it for emission standard purposes out there. That's exactly what the law says we can't do here. The new that the governor signed. So I think we will continue to evaluate. But as Thomas mentioned, we historically the Tyson fleet has not had any foreign vehicles in it. We say that we don't have any. We haven't bought Nissan's Toyota's. We've only purchased from the U.S. manufacturers historically. So it does limit the pool that we use for our items. Okay. But we certainly can continue to evaluate as time changes. as technology catches up and they get a little more readily available on the commercial side.

Or as gas continues to climb? I mean, I think we're all crossing our fingers and saying it may come down, but I don't know if that's really realistic. Thank you, Kevin. I'll bring it back up next year. Does that conclude your report?

No, I have a question for Joan. How come you said no hybrids?

What's the... Hybrids actually have a higher incidence of catching on fire than gas. Believe it or not, EVs are the safest. On the other hand, if they catch on fire, that's it. I mean, they're gone. But hybrids catch on fire quickly.

Okay, because I thought we did have hybrids, and so, yeah, when Kevin mentioned that.

And hybrids, actually, and gas. You're talking about changing oil. You're talking about changing brake fluid, blah, blah, blah.

And I think our police said that they didn't want them for certain vehicles, too, when it got brought up before. Yeah. Do you remember that? Yeah. And so maybe partial. Okay. Yeah.

Well, part of the reason is, where are you going to put the prisoners? Because it's not really built right now for transporting prisoners.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And they leave, I don't know.

Shall I say I was in the back of a police car? Gosh, okay.

We'll revisit.

They thought that was funny. Does that conclude your report? Yes. All right. Vice Mayor Cole?

Aye.

Member Stockel? Aye.

Uh, I have a request to, um, wanted to see if you guys would be interested in doing an advisability on, uh, banning marijuana dispensaries, uh, in Titusville. If you saw Palm Bay just recently did it. Melbourne, I think has already done it. As you know, there's not many things that we can ban when people complain about tire stores or dollar generals or whatever else is popping up. But this is something we're allowed to per state statute. And then the ones that we do have would just become nonconforming and still be allowed. So I'm definitely interested in it and wanted to see if you all were interested in it as well.

Thank you for bringing this up, Member Stockel. I think it's definitely worthy of the conversation. Member Moscoso.

Yeah, I mean, I've thought about it. I've talked to Sue in the CRA, and it has to be a city-wide band. But I kind of would like to see how it plays out in Palm Bay and Melbourne and kind of watch. If you start looking at some of the comments, some people are very for it, and then some people think, well, if you're restricting this, what else could you restrict? So I don't know. I definitely think it's a great conversation, and we might want to give it like a – a few months just to see how it goes there. I don't know if there could be any lawsuits involved. I don't think so. But a lot of times watching what they do helps us make better decisions up here.

No, and I would agree with that, except for I do feel like people are already interested in it. And especially in our downtown area. And this is something that we are allowed to do per state statute. So I would rather do it sooner than later.

Yeah, because, I mean, in the city of Titusville, we ban fun.

What? What?

Land Development Regulation 28-175, amusement. Okay, okay. But it still needs to come back before us, by the way, Brad.

So would you guys be in favor of an advisability, and then we can decide?

Member Nelson? How many do we have in Titusville? Four. Four? Four currently.

Four and one under review, one additional one under review. So five. Five.

You know, and I get it, but on the other hand, I also look at the number of people who have medical issues that are using it, and so I don't want to see them restricted from the use of marijuana. I mean, for some of these people, it's...

If we do ban it, we could always lift it. And we already have four with one under review. So they still have access. Again, I think I'm just thinking as we are developing our city, what do we want our city to look like? And I'm sure you all see comments of lots of things that are being built within our city that we don't have control over. Yeah. And so I just... That's kind of how I feel that the direction I think that people would want us to go in. I feel like if they do start popping up everywhere, people are going to say, why is this happening again? This is why can't we get something else? And again, there's very little that we can have control over. So this is one area.

I think I agree with Megan. I'd like to find out what the other cities are doing and how. how it's going for them.

And then that can be part of the advisability because some have already done it. They've already banned it and they've banned it a while ago.

City attorney.

I just would want clarification as to using my favorite word, advisability. What would it be? What would you want us to do? Because it's either you'd want an ordinance banning it or we'd leave it as is. There's nothing further to research.

It sounds like there might be interest in seeing what other cities, communities have done around the state under the statute.

Well, the statute permits us right plain reading of the statute permits us to either ban it citywide or not, so I Just want some clarification I'm okay with it I feel like I'm hearing that others want some more information regarding how it would if that looks like I guess I think it'd be more information from the development department and what other cities are doing not necessarily the city attorney So what other cities are doing are either?

allowing them, because the state statute says that they're allowed, they have to be treated no different than a pharmacy. Otherwise, they're banning them. There's no in-between.

I mean, my thing is not really, yeah, we know that.

So it's just kind of seeing how it's playing out in these cities or giving us... Can I give you examples or give you a list of cities that are allowing them or banning them?

No, I think we know that. It's just two.

There's more throughout the state. Those are just two in our county. So there's are more throughout the state that have banned it already. I think Melbourne banded a while ago and Palm Bay just recently did it.

So I remember Nelson. I think the more I think about it, more I'd rather leave it the way it is right now.

Okay, that's one. What else? What do others feel?

And just a point of clarification, we're just talking about the actual dispensary, not the doctor's office, correct?

Correct.

They're very different. City Attorney?

Just to be advised that if you are going to make a decision on banning or not banning, this was a notice.

This is for advisability to come back potentially. So it would not be deciding tonight. Okay.

Yeah, it'd be a whole new ordinance.

Yeah.

Well, like anything, you know, you either need to make a motion and get a second or not get a second and the motion dies and, you know, we take it from there.

I will make a motion that we have advisability for staff to bring back an ordinance looking at banning medical marijuana dispensaries in the city of Titusville.

There's a motion.

I will give you a second.

There's a second by Member Moscoso. Any discussion? City Clerk?

Member Stockel? Yes. Member Moscoso? Yes. Member Nelson? No. Mayor Connors?

No.

And Vice Mayor Cole?

No. Motion fails. We've all been there. Does that conclude your report?

Nothing else on my report.

All right. Day after Memorial Day, I just want to highlight the approximate 1.3 million servicemen and women who have given their lives for our country. Yesterday, the city of Titusville featured six different Memorial Day events throughout our community, all done by amazing organizations who love, honor, and respect our veterans and those who also gave the ultimate sacrifice. Like I told everybody yesterday, we don't have 250 years of our country this year on July 4th without Memorial Day. It does not happen. So, you know, again, Thank you. Grateful to those that have given their lives and, of course, their families who are deeply impacted afterwards. And then speaking of July 4th, we're doing our 4th of July parade. If you'd like to get involved, participate, you know, the information's online, Titusville.com backslash America 250. But it should be a great event as we celebrate 250 years of the USA. That concludes my report. Member Nelson?

Can I add one other thing? I understand that Hope of North Brevard is doing summer meals for the kids. And I think some of you know my feelings about Hope of North Brevard. And so my concern is that they would have one employee delivering meals to the kids. So I think part of our job is to protect our community, and that includes our kids. And so if this employee is delivering meals to our kids, then I would ask that the city manager stop it immediately. We've had problems with this person before. We've had problems with the director for Hope North Brevard. He was aware of what was happening at the Gibson Center. He never stopped it. And even after he was told to stop it and keep this person away from kids, he did not do it. So I understand that the concerned citizens have partnered with him. and it's really their bailiwick, but on the other hand, I don't feel comfortable saying that, I feel like we're almost sanctioning it. So if this person is involved, then I would ask that we stop it before it goes further.

member nelson appreciate you bringing this up and you know obviously if somebody's using you know public resources such as a building to to do anything whether it's a non-profit to stage something or you know to get meals out or have a chess club doesn't really matter what it is but at the tourism development council anybody that applies through grants or gets any county funds to to do anything every person that works for that organization or subcontractor has to have a background check and I think that's kind of important when we're talking about the health safety and welfare of the general public so if that is a direction of this council wants to go that would be I think the policy that we could set as counsel that you know if we're allowing somebody to use our facilities that anybody that's operating it whether it be this nonprofit or that nonprofit they have a background check on file for every contractor board member, whoever it may be that's working for them. So just as you were talking about, I was thinking about how we could legislate it. And that would be maybe my recommendation.

I will say the county originally, the people who are using Parks and Rec and the Gibson Center, Nobody got a background check. And in 2016, they changed that policy. And anybody who is using the Gibson Center or any park has to get a background check. And anybody, and I think, well, I know the attorney who wrote it. And what it says is if you have a felony conviction, or a sexually motivated conviction, you are precluded from being around the children.

And to your point, Member Nelson, I know this was a hot topic as I served on the Commission on Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for many years. The Parks and Rec partners would, you know, that run like the soccer club and the baseball fields, they would have to come in and get reasserted with the Parks and Rec to use their facilities. And that was a big change about four years ago where they wouldn't even just accept like a regular background check. Like the Titus LeSoc Club used the Florida Youth Sports Sucker, you know, bulk buying background check. It was actually an FDLE, certain level background check with real-time reporting. So even if they passed the background check, if anything flagged in the future, The club, the county, everybody got notified of that. So again, that's another area of possibility. Member Stoeckel?

Yes. So just to clarify, so Hope for North Brevard is the one giving out the summer meals. Where does the city come into play with this?

If we're allowing them to use the social service center. The Moore Center.

Okay. So if they were using the Gibson Center to do it, they would all have to have a background check. But because they're using the Moore Center.

Correct.

Okay. So maybe that's what we could look into, just making sure if they're using any public buildings, be consistent across the board that, especially, I guess, regarding children, it sounds like.

Correct. Sounds like we don't have a policy in place.

Well, it sounds like somebody has a policy for the Gibson Center. That's county. The county has a policy, so maybe we'd mimic the county's policy. Is it in general or is it mostly for kids?

It is for kids. If you are around kids, then you have to pass it back on.

Okay. Okay. No, I would be in favor of that if we were trying to mimic what's already there with other government buildings to make sure that we're keeping everyone safe.

Member Mosquezo?

sorry, it all feels a little vague to be honest. Um, so I know that there are, um, kids are not going to the, um, service center. I think it's just that the food is being made there and then delivered. And so then my question would be, um, cause they're planning on 250 kids a week. Um, would everyone who's volunteering, for example, I'm volunteering to just pick up the meals and then I'm delivering them to the apartment complex. Um, But I'm not doing anything in the social service. I mean, I'm literally just picking up the food. Would that mean I need a background check as well? And if whoever we're discussing, if they're not with kids, they're just making food, is that? It's just all very vague, to be honest. So, because I know that we've got probably 50 people volunteering. Lots of moms with their kids are going to help pick up the food. It's more of a delivery thing to these areas. And so, if it is something where, I mean, we're requiring everyone to have a background check, it's a big deal. And we have to figure, I mean, it will definitely delay this process. And so, I don't know. It's all very vague right now. So, if anyone has any clarity of this, I'd appreciate it.

Thank you, Member Moscoso. I believe that even Aging Matters for their Meals on Wheels folks require background checks for anybody that's volunteering for them as they deliver meals. Vice Mayor Cole?

Well, the background checks, you know, YMCA, we have our golf tournament, we have a lot of various things, but everybody that does anything with the YMCA has to have a background check, period. No ifs, ands, and buts about it.

Member Moscoso?

So, I mean, where it comes into play with the city requiring it is that we're using the facility to cook the food. If the city is not being used to, the facility isn't being used to cook the food, then it's up to the organization to have the requirement. So you guys are saying not to, unless we're doing background checks on every individual, then we can't allow this Hope for North Brevard to use our facility. Is that?

member Nelson now I totally forgot my my thought I think I understand what you're saying but I think it's very important that we protect kids and I think yeah I think we need to protect the kids and the kids come first

To the attorney.

Yes, I would just need some clarity. My understanding is, are we asking for background checks for anyone that uses our city facility? Because in this particular situation that we're perhaps trying to protect, there are no children that will be at the facility. I think Member Moscoso, who's a volunteer, explained the situation correctly. There is no contact of any children being on city facilities, so I'm trying to figure out what would be the policy that we're trying to mandate as it pertains to using city-owned facilities

Yeah, because what I'm hearing, too, is it sounds like if whoever's there preparing meals, I guess they would all require a background check. But if like Megan's not there preparing meals, but she's going to volunteer and deliver them, she wouldn't need a background check because she's not at the facility. She's maybe in the parking lot and then was going to deliver. And if she does require one, how do we mandate that since they're not now on our public facility?

That's a little confusing to me. I think you mandate it for the people who are there.

Okay.

If there are kids there.

Okay. And I think that was the other thing. So it sounds like there won't be kids there, that the kids are not coming there to pick up the meal.

That's my understanding as well. Okay.

So then if there's no kids there, then I don't know if it's... But if there are kids there, require it.

What I'm saying is if this person starts coming and getting the meals and taking them to kids, that we put a stop to it.

But you cannot specifically go towards a specific individual. We have to have a policy that's general and applicable across the board. How do we do that?

I mean, I guess you could discuss. I guess whoever's using the facility, whoever that organization is, whoever will be there, those people will need to have a background check. That's what it sounds like. Okay. That whoever's using the space, like similar to the county, when they're using the Gibson Center, those people... that work there. And so if somebody is going to be there, whoever's working there, we'll have a background check.

I think it's interesting. It's just the way the county writes their agreements that anybody that's a subcontractor, volunteer, doesn't matter what, even if everybody in the organization basically has to have a background check. So I just find it kind of interesting that we haven't maybe caught up with that. But that was the only thing that I was thinking from a policy standpoint that we can do. But Member Nelson, did you have something? I agree. I agree.

Yes. So then it would apply, obviously, not just for the summer feeding program, but you're talking about across board. So let's say an organization asked to use the Harry Timor Center. Then everybody in that organization who will be on the premises. representing that organization, like say somebody who's coming and to teach a class on parenting, then they will need, I mean, in essence, it's one person's cooking and one person's teaching a class on parenting. So every single person that comes in that building, is that what we're saying?

Maybe only if it's children. I like that. I'm okay with the children. I don't know if I'm okay with like in general, but if there's children, it sounds like the Gibson Center and Parks kids. I want to protect kids, but I do feel like this is getting a little hard to figure out like how do we protect kids, but also not to that point, like if somebody's just volunteering and it's parents there, I don't know if they need a background check for that.

Member Nelson. So the county did it, whereas if you were going to volunteer with kids, that that's when you needed a background check.

Right.

You were on the board at the time. I was on the TTC.

It's supposed to start in like three days. Yeah. So as a public member who's been promoting this, don't you think it's a little complicated to have? There are hundreds of opportunities to volunteer on a sign-up genius that Hope of Merard has been putting out. And I have been promoting it through my mom group. And it seems incredibly... unreasonable to have hundreds of people in the next three days go through background checks to pick up meals and deliver them to children.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments. I get that, but ma'am, you're out of order. Let us finish our conversation. Member Nelson, to that point, I think the ship has kind of sailed on this item. I don't think we'll be able to take any action about this at this point, but I do think it is important to look at a policy regarding, you know, background checks and people volunteering and city on property, whether it's at our parks or wherever it may be. So I think it is worthwhile having that exploration, but, you know, I think it's too late at this point, unfortunately. Yeah, it probably is.

All right. State manager. We can take a look at the county's policy and adapt that to our future, especially since we're getting ready to reestablish PAL. There'll be opportunities for volunteers in there with the kids. But I agree, at this point, we're at, you know, the meals on wheels for the summer meals is about ready to start, and we have a tremendous outpouring of kids with food insecurities.

All right. City Manager, your report.

Yes, sir. I have one item for action, actually looking for council guidance, and that's on the Royal Oak Small Area Study. As you recall, on the 28th of April, we presented a RFP and bid proposal to have ACOM facilitate the small area study with some public participation. Council, after discussion, denied that proposal. and we're trying to formulate a backup plan that took into account some stakeholder input, including having additional opportunities for public input, also having a competitive RP process, and some other items regarding the public input. Vendor to be selected and to facilitate that process. So we're looking for council direction on if we want to proceed with that. Keeping in mind that $90,000 was allocated. However, should we. Add additional opportunities for public input, including perhaps a public workshop at the beginning of the process. with several opportunities for public input later on. And if any other types of elements, such as stormwater, are to be incorporated, that will significantly increase the cost to the city. So that having been said, we're looking for some guidance on how to proceed.

Thank you, City Manager, City Clerk. All right, Council, Member Nelson.

I like the idea of having a couple scenarios. I don't necessarily... need an engineering study, but I would like them to be able to give us some ideas about the stormwater and how it's going to react. Just general, you know, this is it. This is what we think it will do in terms of how It will protect the residents. To me, that would be appropriate.

Member Stockel.

Yes, I discussed this in my briefing and I know ideally we would wait for this the stormwater master plan, but because we made this a part of the motion now, we do need to take action on it. Had we just denied it, I think we would be in a different situation right now, but because we tied this to the motion, we cannot just keep delaying and delaying. So I think we do need to make some type of decision on it. Um, to member Nelson's point, just like looking at the map, that's kind of what I was thinking. Just address the wetlands in the area, address where water flows. What does that look like? Don't need the full engineering because I don't want to spend more money on the study than we already allocated. Um, and then having those scenarios that we can look at and see, and then from that we could decide if we, you know, what we think at that point. And I also like the idea of having the citizen engagement piece at the beginning. That way, if anybody that shows up to that has an idea for what this space could look like that we haven't thought of or that the company that we hire hasn't thought of, we can maybe incorporate that. That would be what I would like.

All right. Anybody want to make a motion?

Wait a minute. I would move that we approve the scope of work from ACOM in the amount of $77,510 to complete planning and engineering. Oh, wait a minute. Scope of work to include land use scenarios, two meetings with public input, and some ideas of how the water is going to flow, what the stormwater is going to look like.

Second. Does that make sense? Hold on. So I did call cards, and there was an action item in the support, but I will give you an opportunity once the motion, and it was... And it says request council to provide guidance on the flow. So there was going to be a motion made. But please, please, I will give you an opportunity to speak. City Manager?

I just wanted to clarify the motion. Do we want to utilize a competitive bid process to solicit the small area study facilitation? Or do we want to just award it to ACOM?

I would keep it with ACOM. And... Order that would be my suggestion is we keep it with a calm and that, um, that obviously they be able to discuss in a limited fashion, stormwater, water flow and present different scenarios. Does that make sense?

Is that to include a workshop at the beginning?

Yes. I think that actually says two workshops. To public meetings is what it says.

All right, so there's a motion. Was there a second? There was a second. Member Moscoso?

Yes, I agree. I just personally like to talk to the city manager and discuss putting it out to bid just for the sake of transparency. And it might come back to ACOM, but I think for the residents that that would be good. And I don't think it's going to delay it too much, but that's just my preference.

I'd agree with that. I believe there's probably only two vendors that actually would bid on it. And we know both of them are subject to some discussion. And we could have it back if approved with the budget approved at $90,000. We could probably have it back to you for award at the first meeting in July at the latest. It would take us some time because you don't have a second meeting in June.

City Attorney? I see your head moving while you're trying to tell him something. So is there something we should know? Okay. All right. So just to make sure I heard you correctly, city manager, we could potentially do a competitive bid and you could have that back before us for the first meeting in July. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. Based on the feedback I had, anybody want to amend their motions?

I remember there are two engineering firms, and between the two firms, I like AECON better.

All right, so the motion still stands. Any further discussion? City Clerk, call the roll. Oh, sorry, I apologize. I think it's going to get denied anyway. That's why I was trying to move forward, but yes, you can come up. I apologize. Just come up. I apologize. I'm just trying to get through the logisticals of making sure that we have the correct motion.

The problem with this motion and the problem with your direction is you don't need an engineering firm as much as you at this point need people who are able to work with and get community input. That was not AECOM. AECOM's whole plan was just to tell us exactly what they were going to do. give some kind of token thing. And we had suggested somebody who had come in before and had done that. What's the workshop? The natural resources workshop, it was a really well done design if you could have something like that. And you can open this to universities as opposed to just your identified vendors, because the problem is your identified vendors don't really have expertise in this type of thing where you're trying to get input and know what the citizens want. And if you don't do that, the citizens are going to feel very much like their voices haven't been heard. And it's a real problem. So we had suggested that. We have been willing also to help and work with this because this is something I know. I'm in public health. I'm an epidemiologist. I know all of this type of stuff. I had a lot of years of training. I did a lot of work in this area. And what we were looking at from ACON was just a done deal. We might as well not even bother coming and talk to them. Honestly, it was so disappointing. So please don't do that. And don't just use another engineering firm because it's not just the engineering. It's looking at what is it the citizens really want and somebody who can get that. And that workshop that you all did before did such a wonderful job with that. And if we started with something like that, that would be a big step in the right direction.

Anything else? Elizabeth Parker, Tribuna Circle. I disagree that we don't need engineering. We need specific engineering. We need engineering that understands high recharge sands. We need engineering that understands hydrologic and hydrogeologic modeling, vertical recharge analysis. has mod flow software that understands basin interconnectivity and topography and the dam effect, that understands the impact of an AE flood zone being built upon or basins, wetlands being moved from that, that understands the environmental and wetland assessments of the wetlands, that can perform a UMAM analysis that can perform fiscal impact and utility modeling, that can understand stress testing infrastructure for the watered areas, that understands the nexus between planning and the legal fiscal analysis, some kind of an AICP certified planner, that understands compatibility and viewshed for the existing homes, The cost to the community of just recycling what the developer wrote in a crappy plan that was not even appropriate, nor was the data even correct, is unreasonable and unacceptable to this community. And going to AECOM that's exactly what their proposal is. We're gonna take your 2016 ordinance that was rejected, and we're gonna combine that with what the developer said, and we're gonna tell you how we're gonna use those things. That's not a study. It's certainly not a small-scale study of a piece of property that is existing wetlands prior to it ever being a golf course. It certainly doesn't address any of the community's concerns. This should be put out under RFP, and we should be looking for organizations who can bring in the proper professionals to do the proper analysis to understand what this property is and what it could be developed into reasonably, rationally, and in fairness to the existing community, understanding the existing zoning and flume. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, city clerk.

Okay. Call on city clerk. Can I amend my motion?

No, you're going to fail. Because I was going to say, I heard Sarah say she wasn't a favorite, and I was a no, and Megan wasn't a favorite, so I was just like, hey.

Okay, put it out for RFP. That's how I'm changing it.

All right, so Member Nelson amended her motion to put this out for RFP, assuming we can get this brought back the first meeting of July. City manager?

Yes. We will make every effort possible.

I appreciate that.

Pull out every stop.

All right. Is there a second?

I second in my second before stance.

All right. So I have a motion by Member Nelson, second by Vice Mayor Cole. Anybody want to say anything? I do. I'm not part of your council, but we're at June.

This is currently June.

To put out an RFP, get a response from any number of people and analyze that, it's going to take more than a month.

We said hopefully. We're giving them a goal to work with.

It probably will not be July.

We're making progress.

Trying to move it along because that's what the residents wanted. We don't have to do a full 30-day RFP solicitation. We can put it out there for two weeks. We have a...

Sir, ma'am, you're out of order, please. You're out of order, please. Dr. O'Rourke, please. All right. Do an RFP. Do it well. We all agree that we want this done right. We've been listening to the citizens this entire time. City Clerk, call the roll.

Member Moscoso? Yes. Member Nelson? Yes. Mayor Connors?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Cole? Yes. Member Stoeckel? Yes.

Motion carries. Thank you very much. Any other items on your report? No, sir. All right. City Attorney? No. All right. Can I have a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

We're adjourned.