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 the 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 or 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 August 11, 2026 at 630. I'm going to call this meeting to order. City Attorney, do we have a quorum?

Yes.

Thank you very much. In lieu of a prayer for our invocation, we'll have a moment of silence. Thank you very much. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you very much. Member Stoeckel.

Yes, Mayor. I had a request to move item 12C, performance bond reduction request, Tranquility Phase 2 subdivision to right before boards and commissions. That would be a motion.

Second. I have a motion by Member Stoeckel, a second by Member Nelson. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. City Manager, on to 12C, please.

Yes, sir. 12C is a performance bond reduction request. And the action is to consider the request to reduce the amount of the performance bond for Phase 2 of the train cooling subdivision. And we have Brad Parrish here to give you the details on that item.

The Tranquility Subdivision Phase 2 currently has a performance bond with the city in the amount of $4.6 million, which was accepted by the city on January 9th, 2024, as part of the final plot approval. The developer has requested a reduction of the performance bond to cover only the remaining uncompleted improvements. Consisting of landscaping and irrigation. According to the developer, the estimated cost to complete the remaining work in phase two is $459,000. A copy of the cost estimate prepared by the engineer record is enclosed. The reduction applies only to the attached performance bond. Sidewalk performance bond, which was also approved by city council on the same date in 2024, will remain in effect until the sidewalk infrastructure has been constructed. The code requires that a performance bond be maintained at 120% of the value of unconstructed improvements, which results in $551,000 plus. Staff reviewed the developer's request, the current bond status, the completion of status of infrastructure improvements, the remaining construction cost estimate, and the proposed reduced bond amount. As part of this review, site inspectors conducted a field inspection to verify the remaining unconstructed improvements and confirm the engineer of records cost estimate.

All right, city clerk, are there any cards?

We have one card. It's Gary Allen.

Hi, Gary Allen, Sunbelt Land Management. Basically what Brad said is just the summary of everything and just wanted to be here in case there are any questions that I need to answer.

Thank you very much. Any questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Any discussion from this board? All right, I'm not seeing anything. Does anybody want to make a motion? Member Nelson.

Move to reduce performance bond to 551. Is that the correct amount?

$55.28. Yeah. $55.28.

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

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

Motion carries. Thank you very much. City Manager on the 6A.

It's for the Boards of Adjustments and Appeals Semi-Angular Report, and that is a report that is submitted for the record. No action is requested. City Manager, it's your show. Yes, sir. Moving on to 6B, Planning and Zoning Commission, P&Z Semi-Angular Report. It is also a written report and submitted for the record. No action is requested. Any questions? Seeing none, city manager. So moving on to item 6C is the Titusville Social Services Ad Hoc Committee recommendations. And the action is to consider the Titusville Social Services Ad Hoc Committee Recommendation Report and provide advisability on the recommendations. As you recall, back in February, City Council created a Titusville Social Services Ad Hoc Committee under resolution 2-2026. And for the past six months, they have been meeting to come up with recommendations on the best utilization of the Harry T. Moore Center. And I understand Dr. Gina Beckles, the chairman, will be presenting their recommendations and findings.

Dr. Gina?

Good evening. As you know, six months ago, Mayor Connors appointed me to be chair of the committee for the Social Services Ad Hoc Committee. And we've done a lot of meeting discussions, looked at a lot of old surveys and old... Archived data and interviews just in all kind of things, and we tried to incorporate all of this into what we wanted to do is our recommendations. We also had an open meeting where we invited the public out to come in and express their opinions so that it wouldn't just be coming from the committee itself. So we worked hard to get. the community involved so that we could reflect exactly what they wanted and basically we came up with our recommendations are in came under five areas. The first one that we came up with dealt with underutilization of the operations and Basically, the building is not being utilized as much as it should be or as much as it could be. And we recommend that these actions be taken by the city to kind of help encourage better usage. But first of all, downsizing or eliminating the city use of the facility, offering more flexible rental opportunities, utilization of outdoor spaces. official invitations to various organizations and agencies to regain Tennessee, and outsourcing the management of the facility to a social services organization. The next area is basically tenancy, which we've already kind of mentioned. But basically, in order to encourage more social service and nonprofit organizations to come back, we recommend that we have a robust campaign to regain interest in the facility, and including marketing strategies and targeted outreach to community stakeholders. We also want to pursue separate non-city entity management and oversight of the services being offered at the facility by a North Brevard nonprofit. So that was also mentioned previously. The third general area is public use and we felt that there were limited hours and other limitations that prevented people from having activities say beyond normal business hours. And so the committee recommended that the city review its current policies, which is actually policy two dash two to address costs and use limitations for the Harry T Moore center to create a mechanism to manage the facility for evenings and weekend use. and to expand the dinner hours up to 7 o'clock p.m. when they do the community dinners and seek more sponsorship. The next area that we dealt with was transportation, and even though it wasn't recommended that the city actually provide transportation, but one of the concerns from community members was sometimes having having transportation issues to get to certain places, say doctor's appointments or what have you. And we felt that the city through Harry T. Moore Center could increase partnerships with public and private transportation programs so that we could have more options. So it's not actually the city, but it's just through partnerships and by just having providing more information and in helping citizens find appropriate transportation options. So it's not actually taking on transportation. The last recommendation was that the city have a grand reopening and rebranding of the building and basically like handing over the keys to whatever organization that would be assigned to manage the facilities so that people could see that see that the facility is going back to more of a social services and being more of a more community centered building. Okay, so those were all of my recommendations. Now I'm going to go back and summarize them because I know I just said a lot and the basic recommendations that we're making is that number one, the city downsides or eliminate city use of the facility. Two, review the policies and establish a mechanism for more flexible rental options like evenings and weekends. Utilize outdoor spaces more, invite more tenants, outsource the management of the facility, do more targeted community outreach, expand the community dinner hours to 7 o'clock, provide transportation partnerships and information, and do a grand reopening.

And that's it.

Questions, any questions or comments?

Thank you very much, Dr. Gina. Really appreciate all the hard work that the committee did because I know it's hard when you get, was it nine or 11 of you? It's 11. 11 people in a room. It's tough to come to a consensus, right? But going through your list of priorities, and I feel like if we tackle that first one, those other things are going to come. And I know there wasn't a lot of people at our budget workshop, but that was definitely a talking point of giving back that building back to the community for a nonprofit to run that building. I think once that happens, some of these other things will kind of fall into line with, you know, engagement, hours, those type of things to be more successful. And I'm really, really excited that, you know, you guys came to that same conclusion because we obviously want to do what the community would like to see. So really, really appreciate that. Member Moscoso.

Thank you. Thank you for all the work that you and your team did. I did pull and I hope you guys got it. The operational budget for 2027. And that was really telling the budget or the total expenses was over 330,000 to run the center. And it only 8000 was spent on community meals. and special events. And so I think that number is very telling. Um, there's a lot of numbers on here that I have questions about, but I know this isn't the budget hearing. Um, and so this is one question I think we'll have to to decide. Is it if we are we outsourcing? Are we handing the building over because without personnel, that's about $250,000 a year to keep that going. And is there a nonprofit that will take on those costs, or would it be something we're just letting them handle the services and we keep on the maintenance, the electricity, all of those things?

Yeah, I think that's definitely a topic for a budget hearing, but I do believe we will find somebody to take on that kind of commitment. Member Nelson?

Gina, when North before our charities ran it, how is that working? How did it work?

Okay. Back then, um, the city maintained the facility and paid all the utilities and all of that. And, um, North of our just managed the operations of the facility.

Okay.

But, but it was not a contract. It wasn't a paid contract.

Okay, but what I recall is you guys were having activities there? Yes. So there was dance classes, computer classes.

Right. Okay, there was a grant called Genomi, I think, no, Genomi or something like that. I can't remember the acronym for it. But it was a special grant that brought different community activities like meal planning for better health and the Zumba classes that they had. And they offered some other like... enrichment programs through this grant.

Okay. So that's a possibility. And I guess my question is, can we do that again? Where we're basically having a non-profit managed building.

What Dr. Beckles is referring to is when the city got all of the ARPA money, we provided that to North Providence Charities to provide those services.

Okay. Member Stoeckle.

Yes, I would say listening to this, it was kind of giving me flashbacks to our budget workshop where we were talking about social services and what to do with this building. So my question would be, or what I'm hearing is what your recommendation is and what I think we are trying to do is utilizing less taxpayer dollars but providing more services for the community. And I think that's where the private public partnerships and nonprofits come in. So my question would be for mostly for staff, I think a lot of this would be done during our budget hearing. So now moving forward with the ad hoc committee's recommendations is our next steps for us to discuss this at our budget workshop and then utilize the committee as needed based on kind of as we flesh out some of these options or what would be the next step?

Member Stokely, I think it's whatever council dictates.

That's kind of what I'm thinking then, I guess. So I didn't know how anybody else felt. But I like the direction that I feel like we are going, what the committee came up with, and I look forward to kind of fleshing out some of it so we can provide the best services to the community. So thank you.

Vice Mayor. Yeah, I hate to talk for the whole council, but what your report brought out was some of the things that really mirrored what we wanted to do. And I guess my question would be, can we go out with an RFP to the various nonprofits to see what type of proposal they would like to do or what they would like to see when that would happen. I don't know, but that's the question I'm asking because it appears that that's the direction we have to go in and I'm not sure about the maintenance and the utilities. I don't know how we would handle that, but if we got a nonprofit to run it, they can run all the social services programs that I think would be required for that facility.

City Manager. Yes, we can do that. We have done it in the past for outsourcing the management of it. And as Dr. Beckles indicated, the city retained the ownership as a landlord and North Park Charities ran all the operations. Or if Council gives us directions to basically divest the entire asset, we could also do an RFP. So we'd want some clarification as to how Council wants us to proceed. But either way, we could... go ahead and solicit an RFP for nonprofits.

It would be my recommendation of council that we put out a request for proposal to any nonprofit that would like the opportunity to provide social services in that building. I think a fair rent is a dollar a year. And what I would like to see is, you know, that nonprofit to also pay the utilities and the maintenance and things like that. And I think that's a fair trade. You're basically getting a building for, for next to nothing and you guys kind of pay the utilities and the maintenance. So that's where I'm at, Vice Mayor.

Yeah, I agree, but I think we need to delineate the types of things working with the committee to determine what that nonprofit should do for us as far as in the RFP, here are the requirements that we want. It may be that some of our nonprofits may not be able to meet all the requirements, but I think we need to delineate those requirements in the RFP.

So just, again, if the RFP goes out and we say, hey, here's the operating expenses, here's what our committee's looking for, and let everybody kind of give us their best pitch, it's going to come back before us. And I'm assuming the committee will be here to weigh in on the various different nonprofits and what kind of services that they're looking at providing. But when it comes to social services, there's not going to be a one-bullet solution. One organization is not gonna provide all the social services that are needed within a community. So the idea of modeling after what COCO has done with Family Promise to have one tenant that oversees the entire building and then have multiple sub-tenants, whether it be Career Source or Brevard Health Alliance, there's a lot of different possibilities. And that's really what it's all about. It's about connecting all the different social service providers under one roof to provide all the different aspects for our community. And that's what I'm really excited about tackling. Member Moschetto.

Thank you. I mean, I love the idea. I think realistically it's costing $200,000 to run this building. And I mean, right here we have $80,000 for a security guard. which seems like a lot. And I know, you know, if a nonprofit runs that, those numbers might come down. And I love the idea of it only being a dollar for rent, but I've worked in nonprofits, and I don't know many nonprofits that have an extra $200,000 to provide services. Most of them, if they are established, they will have it. But I'm not against going out for an RFP, and, you know, perhaps somebody would want to do this and help us in this area.

All right. Thank you very much. Thank you so much for being here. We very much appreciate it. We have two cards. City Clerk, go ahead and call the cards.

Tony Shiffalo.

And after the cards, I'll ask for a motion to be made to put direction on staff to put out an RFP.

Shuffalo Tropic Street, I'm really encouraged by what I heard because I had prepared to come up and say, you know, back when this I read the staff report and they just don't get it. The recommendations of the way that they were countering the recommendations who would have wanted to come back to be a tenant in the building with the. Proposals and things they put out and that policy 212 for after-hour uses I remember looking over the prices it would have been extraordinary for the community and Recommendation number three they have the staff had a problem with parking which in this neighborhood. Come on. It's not an issue It's a walkable neighborhood. Everybody walks or rides their bicycles or Everywhere in the middle of the street not on the sidewalks, but everywhere in the middle of the streets I want to say that I think it's a wonderful idea of this is not rocket science And it's nothing new and before I move from Atlanta back in God do I dare say? in the late 70s, early 80s, we got a closing elementary school in the little Five Points community, and we got a contract from the school board, 10 years at $1 a year, to rent the facility to run it as The little Five Points Community Center, not only the home for the radio station, the nonprofit listener-supported radio station, WRFG, which is still, this building is still vibrant and really going. We formed our own board of directors. We formed our own 501c3, and we ran that building, which is exactly what I think that these nonprofits ought to do with this building. And I'm just very excited because this is an issue in my neighborhood and concerns my neighbors. And I just love the idea of having it be a community center. Don't forget when it was built, if you look at the history, it was built to be a community center. serving the community, not as offices, although they're doing a great job, neighborhood services, but the CDBG grant can be run from an office somewhere else, maybe even, or from one of the little offices there. I don't know the facilities there because we never get to go anywhere except the cafe and the lobby. When I did get to go to the bathrooms, they're very nice too. So thank you very much for your suggestion of a dollar a year that makes it affordable. And Ms. Moscoso, they will find a way to bring that $200,000 into the realm of reality in this day and age. So thank you very much for your considerations.

Thank you. City Clerk?

The last court is Christina Stokes.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and members of City Council. My name is Christina Stokes, and I'm here to speak in support of continued financial support and funding opportunities for the creation of an ongoing community memorial wall with engraved legacy bricks connected to the Harry T. Moore Social Services Center. The Social Services Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation report identifies several needs at the center. including underutilization, limited nonprofit tenancy, greater public use, expanded social services, and transportation barriers. Importantly, the report specifically identifies a memorial wall among the community uses that should be welcomed and considered at the center and its grounds. Since the committee's work began, I have also reached out to organizations that could potentially contribute to the Center's future as a community resource. Space Coast Volunteers in Medicine, Curative Care Center, and Career Services of Brevard have expressed interest in learning more about this initiative and potentially becoming involved. Their areas of interest reflect the kinds of services identified in the committee's recommendations. Wellness and healing-centered services, job training and employment support, and stronger connections between residents and community resources. Transportation is especially important. Space Coast volunteers in medicine identified transportation as a barrier to providing services to Titusville residents. That directly reflects the transportation concerns documented through the committee's public input, where residents consistently identified difficulty getting to available services as a community problem. The committee recommends increasing public or private transportation programs through partnerships and providing information about transportation options. To me, this is what community investment should look like. We should not simply ask historically underserved communities to endure the consequences of disinvestment. We should invest in their ability to remember, organize, heal, create, and determine what their community spaces become. A memorial wall is not simply bricks in the ground. It can become a physical expression of community memory, dignity, self-determination, and collective care. while creating opportunities for organizations to build relationships with the people they serve. So tonight, I am asking the city to continue pursuing financial and grant opportunities that can help make this memorial wall possible, while continuing to develop partnerships that strengthen the Harry Timor Social Services Center.

Thank you very much. I feel like you only have one sentence left. I'll entertain a motion by council to put out an RFP for the outsourced management and maintenance of our Harry T. Marshall Services Center. So moved. Second. A motion by Member Nelson, a second by Vice Mayor Cole. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Well, I appreciate the round of applause. It does feel a little bit like common sense. So thank you very much. We nailed it here. Now I believe we're on to petitions and requests from the public, non-agenda items.

All right.

Who wants to come up first? You? Yeah, he raised his hand probably because he had to get through a bunch of people.

My name is Adam Dickinson. I grew up here in Titusville. My father built the skate park here in Titusville 26 years ago. It was named after him. The site blew down, so I'm here to start a petition to put the skate park sign back after my father. I have the letters from Cheryl Lawson when it was named after him June 11th of 2000. I'm happy to help and facilitate that in any way possible.

All right. Question for staff. Does the city manage or do the maintenance for Marina Park or is that the county? That's the county. Okay.

So I spoke to Parks and Rec and they told me to come to an open city council meeting and here I am.

Yeah. Well, thank you for coming. I think we could have knocked this out pretty well via email. If that was something that was approved in the past, I don't know where the sign went.

I think it was the storm that came through because the skate park originally was over in the main hub of Sandpoint Park, and then it was moved to the marina after it was torn down. Gotcha.

All right. City Manager, can you look into that and provide a resolution, please? Absolutely. I'd be happy to meet with them and have staff look into it and get back to you. Make sure you give your contact information. Thank you. Sir, did you want to?

I want to talk a little bit more about my name is Al Barrett and I live in Titusville since 1982. I want to talk a little bit more about license readers, what people call flock. I've heard a lot about them being intrusive. But this is intrusive, and we're all addicted to it. If you have a weather app, you can click on it, and it will tell you exactly where you are. Before I came, I tested it, yeah, I'm home. I tested it right before I got up, yeah, I'm at City Hall. Weather apps, especially the free ones, sell that information. to whoever wants to buy it. And probably the government can easily do that. And so these cameras, what have we got, 15, 16 of them around town? They don't hardly do anything. They just tell you, oh yeah, you pass by that street. This will tell you exactly where you are at a moment's notice. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Sir? Mr. Johnson, you're on deck.

Good evening. My name is Barry Forbes. I am a lifelong resident of Titusville. And I'm also the board president of Hope for North Brevard. And I've been a personal friend of Stacey Lincoln for the last 35 plus years. And I'm here tonight to express my disgust, quite honestly, of the criticism and the attacks that my friend and our organization has endured over the last several months. Stacey's more than a friend. He's part of my family. I know no other person who gives in a more Christlike, sacrificial manner than Stacey. I'm more proud to say Stacey is a friend of mine than anyone in this world. 20-plus years ago, my friend made a mistake. He's always been very honest with me about what occurred, and he accepted the consequences imposed upon him. In my opinion, based upon the adjudication of the case, the court concurred with Stacey's description of the incident. I was his friend then, and I've watched what he's done with his life in more than 20 years since. The people attacking his character today have not lived this story with him. I have. Whether they misunderstand him, disagree with him politically, or simply see his past differently, they are presenting only a small part of his life. Stacey didn't just visit my home. At one point, he lived in my home. My wife and children know him, and they too consider him part of our family. I've trusted him with the people that are precious to me. So when I tell you that I know this man, I mean something very different than knowing his name from a police report. Stacey's not an outsider who suddenly appeared in Titusville. This is his hometown. We've watched him grow up, go away to college, come home, and spend much of his adult life here serving the neighborhood that raised him. When government publicly tears down someone who is deeply respected in a historically black neighborhood, it doesn't build trust, it destroys it. Stacey rightfully believes the youth in his community are in crisis and he is desperately trying to get people to help him address their needs. This passion has often led to calling out those who have the ability to allocate resources and attention to his community. His criticism stings and is often harsh, but it's validated by the obvious willingness to sacrifice to serve and his call to others to join him. You may not agree with his political views or what he supports, but discounting his sacrifice and good works and evaluating his character is plain wrong and not consistent with my faith. It is particularly wrong when attacks are made by an elected official in an official government meeting. I would be glad to meet with any of you to discuss my work, my relationship, my admiration of my friend, but more importantly, I'm sure he would be willing to meet with you to have those same discussions. I'm quite certain that if his detractors were willing to take his place and replicate and increase his level of service to his community, Stacy would gladly sit down and rest. If anybody wants to volunteer, just let Trey, Stacy, and I know. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Johnson, you're on deck. That means you're up now. All right, who wanted to be next? Raise your hand real quick. All right, I got that guy next. You're up right now, Mr. Johnson.

Yeah. Okay.

I'll give you an additional seven seconds. Okay. All right, they restarted it.

Seven seconds. My name is Stan Johnson. I certainly am... feel good about what the last speaker spoke about. I'm involved in that kind of stuff. Uh, and, uh, I've got two items to bring to your attention. And one is that, uh, uh, the parole board is supposed to, uh, decide, uh, on the situation with, with Crosley green has been in, in, uh, um, he'd been in prison for many years for something he didn't do. In fact, uh, the, uh, The police used John Preston and his magnificent dog to trace where the criminals had been a long time after the trail had disappeared. And it's just nonsense. But anyhow, so I'm just giving a prayer for Stacey, not Stacey, but for Carlson Green. You can see my shirt. It's Free Calls the Green. So that's an issue that's going on right now. The second thing I want to bring about is something that has to do with money and has to do with truth. And so I've sent you an email that says it's titled Titusville is the legal dam capital of the world. So what you're doing is you're breaking God's law. God's law is that water flows down hills. And if you understand that water flows downhill, you understand that these dams are illegal. And fact is, is that I offer anybody $100 for the first person who will bring, any professional engineer who will disagree with that, any of them. So what we have is, I've counted at least a number of dams and there's some small dams too. There's about 10 dams that I can itemize in the city of Titusville that are illegal and they contribute to the flooding. Not only that, it is against your oath of office. Your oath of office was you're going to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Constitution of the United States, Amendment No. 14, and another amendment too, is that you should not take property without due process of law. And that's what you've done. That's what you've done with these dams. And I've asked you to go into consideration of this, and you don't do it. So in other words, just like this one, I didn't bring it up, but spraying people with suey, that this is another issue, that you discredit my engineering profession, you spit on my engineering profession. Let me say it again, you spit on my engineering profession with what you're doing, with these decisions. So again, I offer you $100 for anybody, the first person who could disagree with what I said about these dams, that they're illegal. especially these four people right here. And that goes for Mr. Cook.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

Okay, thank it over, please.

Mr. Cook, I have a question for you. Are you an engineer? Yes. Are any of the dams or weirs that Mr. Johnson is talking about, are they illegal?

They're all permitted through state agencies as required.

Thank you.

Who wants to be next? All right, you're next. Thank you.

Good evening. Joey Myers, 1965 Country Club Drive. Tonight, I just wanted to share these sinkholes and just make sure council was aware of it and staff was aware of it and kind of curious of how to assess and potentially resolve a greater issue. Like many issues that have popped up around the city due to the fiber optic cable companies doing, in this case, underground hydraulic drilling, they've breached the stormwater pipe that crosses from one stormwater catch basin to the other on Country Club, and it's over near Trepino Circle. And you can see in the first image, there's two black patches, which the city addressed and fixed. The first one, January 22nd, 2026. The second one, May 23rd, 2026. And then another one popped up and I observed it when mowing the yard and there was a big dip in the easement in the grass. And so I got down to take a look to see what was going on, and as you can see in the second picture, the arrow on the left side is pointing out the small sinkhole. It's not as terrible in the street there, but actually it looks like there could be a potential issue at the actual stormwater catch basin. I don't know how long the cracking has actually been there next to the manhole. The curb has failed leading up to the actual catch basin, and I can't really tell how much dirt is actually being pulled in when there's heavy storms, but it's happening. Given the issue that first came up in January, another one in May, and now another one in July, it's like, There's obviously a greater issue here, and the city is doing a good job patching it, but it seems like they're, I don't know, like a full blown replacement is in order and not coming and saying that's required. But it's like, how do we assess what's actually going on and figure out what the problem is and how to fix it on the 2nd page? There was. I mean, a decent rain event May 12th and like a typical afternoon that time of year. And I've never seen Trevino Circle once you pass the ingress and actually get into there. I've never seen it flood before. And so it was pretty crazy to see. You can see all the different arrows. are pointing to where it's actually flooded to, sidewalks, driveways, the entire road up into a certain point to the neighborhood and then as also illustrated in the second picture. So just wanted to bring it to your attention and see how do we go about it and then in the future if I catch things like this, what's the proper channel to communicate this information?

I would say the real easy way is you can send any one of us an email because I know we're all pretty good at checking our email and then funneling these resident concerns to staff and getting back and letting people know what's going on. But very appreciate you bringing this to our attention. Ms. Sandy, do we know about this?

Well, it looks like we knew about the first two. I'm not sure about the third one, so we'll take a look.

Okay. Is there any way we can find out if it is a third-party provider?

Usually, especially when they hit a water line, we know right away. When they hit a sewer line, we know pretty soon after. When they hit a stormwater line, they've been taking a while for us to find them. So if we dig it up and see that there's a line through there, yes, we can go get to our risk manager and try to get reimbursement for the fix.

All right.

Yeah. And for the for the first fix, I believe the foreman on site, he did say, you know, everything was being communicated back to the proper, you know, ranking staff personnel and that reimbursements would be made there. And one of the pictures I can share more. But the fiber optic line is probably a foot or two that's next to it, which is kind of mind numbing because whenever doing developments, whenever you're dealing with trenches, you want to stay outside of those trench paths into like a certain radius on both sides. And I actually have pictures of them with the ditch, which doing the horizontal drilling. I mean, if that if there was ever a need for it, I've I've got it. But they definitely did it. They breached the line. And, yeah, to your point, should be responsible.

Well, if you have the pictures of them doing the horizontal, I'm sure we'll need that as evidence. So thank you for bringing it to our attention. Yeah, you're welcome. Absolutely. Member Stoeckle?

Yeah, I was just going to say Joey had sent me before some of this and staff has worked on fixing the issue. My main concern now seeing this is again. I'm concerned that we're doing band-aid approaches and not really getting to the root of it. This is an area in Royal Oak, which I know there's a lot of Royal Oak residents here tonight as we're going to talk about the study, but A couple things for me is one. This is not the first time I'm hearing about a fiber optic issue So it'd be helpful for me to know how many issues have we had? Obviously that staff time to go after the money after the fact because it might be an issue that we need to bring to the state That this is a reoccurring thing that's happening at least in our communities probably helping happening elsewhere and then to understanding With this development, obviously built decades ago, who's at fault, who's the responsible party on this, and to ensure that we're not having this happening later. Because seeing this, it's a big issue, in my opinion. So thank you for bringing this up.

You're welcome. City Manager, do you have anything to add?

With regard to the fiber optic installs, that's a state-mandated project, and there's several different AT&T YR3 vendors, and I can tell you that we've had many, many breaches of our infrastructure. Our risk manager is maintaining a spreadsheet of probably several dozen claims that he's trying to work through. So it's an issue that we are working very diligently to solve and to get reimbursements for. So it's a complex issue. City Attorney?

Yes, and our office has been working with our risk manager, and we've filed several small claims suit that we've got – claims reimbursed to us from, and we will continue to do so as long as the risk manager sends us those claims.

This seems a little bit bigger than small claims court. Yeah, exactly. Sir?

How are you all doing this evening? Tim Curtis. I'm a lifelong resident of Titusville. I got a couple questions I'd like to ask. I asked a question here a week ago. Is it correct that it's going to take over $500 million to repair our infrastructure?

Is that correct?

I believe that's correct. Pardon me? I believe that's correct. Where are we going to get the money, Megan?

Address the chair, please.

Where are we going to get the money? I got one more question. Do any of y'all feel that it's okay for your children to be around someone that has been accused of sexual assault? I hear a lot of mm's, but I can promise you one thing. I'm not letting my child be around them. I'm not gonna let my grandchild be around them. Order. Do you feel it's okay? I'm concerned about that. Nobody?

Thank you. Anybody want to go next? Are you getting up for petitions or requests? Okay.

So just a quick question for, I don't know if there would be a petition or request. I brought up a while back about the water bills coming at unreliable intervals. And what it results in is an inconsistent water bill where one month you might have 60 and the next month you might have $118. And that's because the periods billed for go anywhere from 23 days to 38 days. So I asked the city to pick one day each month, and that's when the cutoff is, so that it's a consistent, it's the fifth to the fifth, so you're looking at 28 to 31 days, so that people aren't blindsided who are on a very tight budget with their water bills, especially with the lack of kindness with forgiveness in being late paying a bill. Some people are really down to the last dollar and it affects their ability to pay their bill on time. So I just ask that we choose a date each month and do that many days, 28 to 31 days in a cycle so that people aren't blindsided.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. City Manager, I believe a while back, Council asked you to bring back those policies before us for us to have a discussion to determine what those policies will look like in the future. When will that be coming back before us?

We had on the City Manager's report the last time the policy for cash payment. I wasn't aware we were asked to bring back a schedule change for our meter reading, but we brought back... The city manager had on his last reporting that we altered our cash acceptance for billing to allow anything that is secured funding. But if you'd like for us to look into billing cycles as well, we can. That's something we can bring back if you'd like for us to look at a defined cycle.

Additionally, we have a very lenient policy as far as two months before a disconnect, and we're always willing to work with our citizens who are experiencing hardships. We rarely turn back anyone who's struggling and is trying in good faith to make their bills, but we will continue to do that.

Member Stoeckle?

Yeah, and just to add to that, if we could get down to 30 days, because I think our current policy is right now if you go above a certain amount, we actually charge a higher rate to try to incentivize not using as much water. And so if you happen to use more in the 38-day period, now you're charged more as well. So it's not really fair to a customer that's trying. So if there is a way that we can get that more consistent, I would like to do that.

Member Nelson.

I agree with Sarah. The bills are a problem, especially right now. And if we could get it back to 30 days where it's even, I think it would help people.

All right, yes. I think all the policies should come back before us for us to review, just like we're doing with some of the other things, and look at them to make sure they're applicable to today. Because I think there's been many residents that I've personally had to sit down with to review their water usage, audit everything, and then issue refunds because we overcharged them because of the way that it was counted. So I think it'll be appropriate for us to look at this as a board. Any other discussion? Seeing none, sir.

Because of the time limitation, I have submitted a fuller report for the public record and I respectfully ask each of you to read it. My name is Trey Gordon and I have called Titusville my home since 2001 and in 2009 my wife and I found it hope for North Brevard. I'm responding tonight to statements made at the May 26th and July 28th council meetings concerning Stacey Lincoln, HMB, and me personally. Let me say clearly that children should be protected, but protecting children does not require us to abandon fairness nor accuracy. HMB was well aware of Stacey's past, but we also knew that the man he had become He was raised in the Gibson community. He's trusted by people that I deeply respected and uniquely able to lead at the Gibson Complex. Stacy helped us build Gibson into a thriving youth center, so much so that in February of 2014, the Brevard County Commission formally recognized HMB for our work with youth and families at the Gibson Center. We also followed all of the background check rules that were in place at the time as a parks and rec partner. Stacy's conviction was aggravated assault, not sexual battery, which didn't disqualify him. Years later, the county changed their policies, and when the county determined Stacy could no longer serve at the Gibson gym, we complied. Councilwoman Nelson has publicly said that we have had problems with this person before. that I was aware of what was happening at Gibson, that I never stopped it, and that even after I was told to keep Stacey away from children, I did not do so. Those are serious accusations, so I am asking, who is the we she is referring to? What exactly was I supposedly aware of? Who instructed me to act, and upon whose authority? When did that happen, and what evidence shows that HMB refused to comply? I ask that evidence be produced on those statements or that they be corrected. During all of our years of serving with Stacey at the Gibson facility, the only complaint filed was the 2014 complaint that Councilwoman Nelson read, though partially. The part she left out was the 2014 complaint. The part she left out is that Titusville concluded, Titusville Police concluded there was insufficient evidence that any crime occurred and close the case is unfounded. If the allegation is read publicly, the conclusion should be read as well. And if you had concerns about his involvement in the summer food program that happened this summer, you simply could have asked. I have been serving youth and families now for 31 years. and my heroes are people who give their lives away in sacrificial service. Stacey is one of those heroes, and I'm a better man today because of him. May we all be challenged by his example. I will now ask for a few additional minutes.

Is there a motion by Council to extend the time? Member Nelson? Sorry, Member Moscoso?

Yes, I move to give a few extra minutes.

Is there a second? Is there any discussion? All those in favor say aye. All right. How many of you? All right. Everybody go three. All right.

Stacey already went through the justice system for a decades old offense and received a legal disposition. Reassembling old accusations in a government meeting and placing him back on trial in the court of public opinion without giving him a meaningful opportunity to respond was, in our view, inappropriate and a misuse of power. I'm not asking anyone to ignore Stacy's past. I'm not asking that his past not, but I am asking that his past not erase everything that came after it. After he was let go at Gibson, Stacy has continued to serve, leading supervised college tours for at-risk youth, facilitating summer camps, funeral fundraisers, mentoring recruitment, Christmas gift giveaways, COVID meals, and summer food programs, almost all of it unpaid. There's also a larger issue of trust. Titusville has racial wounds that generations have worked to heal, which HMB has dedicated years to mend. Stacy is a hometown figure known in the African American community as Ball. Someone who earned a college basketball scholarship, graduated from the University of Denver, came home and chose to pour into his community. Whatever anyone's intent, reducing a respected black community leader to his worst moments while leaving decades of service untold damages trust rather than building it. Part of your role at City Council is to lead in this endeavor to restore hope and unity to our community. And you did just the opposite. And for that, I am deeply grieved. Some of you see Stacey as a problem, someone to be shamed and discarded. I see someone who has incredible value and has chosen to live a life of service. Some of you say he is unfit to serve because of his record. I say the Bible is littered with unfit heroes just like him. Some of you use allegations and fear to discredit him. I use faith and decades of proof of performance. I believe if we had any sense among us, we would be celebrating Stacy's sacrificial service, not degrading him. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. One second. Miss Lynn, who wants to go next?

I'm sorry.

I'm not seeing anybody else. Okay.

Hi, I'm Lynn Golden, 1100 Country Club Boulevard, Titusville, Florida, and the president of Concerned Citizen Group. I didn't attend the last meeting, and I've heard so much about Stacey Ball Lincoln. I don't really know that much about Stacy, only what his background, what you're saying, and what the police department is saying. Someone posted maybe several months ago about Stacy, but the police, I think, I'm not sure which one, called me and said, we did not put that out. We're trying to keep a rapport in the community. We didn't do that, Ms. Golden. And so my question is to you, John 8 and 7. Jesus said, he that is without sin among you, let him first cast the stone. And if any one of you all have not sinned, Please stand up.

So we all have stand and come to short of glory.

Let us be a community. If you have a problem with Stacy, call him to the side. And in fact, you approved for this program, food program. So you're part of the problem too. Because if you had not been you would say no I'm not gonna have this program Stacey you can bring in other people, but you're not going to be a part of it. So I'm tired of this Every City Council meeting you're bringing this up Let us go for it. We got so much things to do in this community and Clean up our black target area. Trash is everywhere. I want to apologize to Mayor Conner because he did come when I called him about the trouble we were having at Blue's Grocery. But when I called, it says Conner, and I said, I don't know him. And I meant to apologize to you because you did call me back and say, what is the problem? I'll come out. So let us not be so into people background because as I say, let us go forward. I'm here to serve our community. I don't have many years maybe left. And so let us come together. Let us be, let Titusville be the best place it could be. If not, we can fake it till we make it. Amen. Thank you, Ms. Williams.

All right, seeing none others, we're moving on to consent agenda. Any members of council want to pull a consent item? Member Moscoso?

Yes, sorry, one second. I'd like to pull 8B, the code enforcement lien reduction.

Any others? All right, well, I'm going to be a jerk and I'm going to pull A and C. So we're on to items D, E, F, G, H, I.

I'll read D through I for the record. Consent agenda item 8D, task order MHT-007 for the Osprey filter evaluation. 8E, amendment number two for the Seminole lift station project. 8F, the in-depth contract repair and maintenance of existing clear wells at Morning Dove Water Treatment Plant. 8G, use of Titusville Police Department forfeiture funds. 8h public works equipment paint machine and 8i the budget amendment for the Argyle Westwood ditch grading Thank you very much city clerk one card at Stan Johnston No, it's not on all of them, okay Stan Johnston I

There's a number of items that I've picked. I'm especially concerned about, for example, 8C.

No, we're not on that item. Yeah, I pulled C.

AD and what?

D through the rest of them. Okay. All right. I'll have a separate three minutes for a seat.

Well, I lost 20 seconds, 21 seconds. You had questions. Okay. 8F is in-depth incorporated. And... I'm not sure what that does, but I circled that because it's mysterious. And then 8i, budget amendment for Argylewood, is that this is something, this ditch grading, I think it should be part of the report that... Public Works is preparing on our flooding that happened because we're having some number of ditches that are being improved right now. Well, they should be in a report because if somebody is considering the flooding of their home, they should have this report. I think it's important to have a report of what you're doing because it also shows what you should have been doing and that you were negligent of. And that's what the city should admit. This is a big deal, and it has also especially to do with cities' failure to implement the Stormwater Master Plan for over 50 years. And that's a big deal. That's a big deal because people have lost their jobs. their vehicles, they've had their houses flooded and so forth. And they have a right to know what the city has done and what the city hasn't done and what the city is negligent of doing. Because I have complained numerous times that the city is not following the stormwater master plan and it's being illegal. And they're making false reports, false sustained military reports that are in fact, as far as I know, they're fraud. And that's a felony. So we have rewarded Mr. Parrish for his false sustainability report. We shouldn't reward him. We should punish him, and we should correct our reports. So right now, as far as I see, the city is committing felonies and more crimes. And this is something that should be cataloged or put, there should be some report made by the city of Titusville on the flooding. We've lost a lot. People have had their homes flooded. And they should get an answer.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Any discussion from the board? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion.

Move to approve items D through I.

Second. Motion by Member Nelson, a second by Vice Mayor Cole. City Clerk, can you call the roll, please?

Yes, sir. Member Nelson? Yes. Mayor Connors?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Cole?

Yes.

Member Stoeckel? Yes. Member Moscoso? Yes.

Motion carries. Thank you very much. On to item 8A.

Yes, sir. Item 8A is the employment agreement for the city auditor. and in your packet is a employment agreement that was negotiated between the HR director and the internal city auditor and using nearby cities as a benchmark. There are no internal city auditors within Brevard County, so we had to go to neighboring cities to get some benchmarks data for the salary level. And all the other terms and conditions are commensurate with other charter positions. with the exception of the severance pay only being four weeks, which is equivalent to what the assistant city attorney. So we felt that it was a negotiated agreement, and salary level is based on benchmarks of the cities that have internal city auditors. Thank you. City Clerk, are there any cards?

Stan Johnston.

Stan Johnson, and I'm interested in... City Clerk. Okay. Okay. I'm interested as an engineer and as a resident here of what the heck is going on with our money and how we're spending it and misspending of it. And I told you about some things that we're misspending it on. For example, we didn't do it on the stormwater master plan for well over 50 years that we haven't done. And we still do it today. So we have built dams. The dam at the senior center cost well over a million dollars, and it's illegal. It's an illegal dam. That little question you had with Mr. Kevin Cook, who's a professional engineer, he didn't answer your question about is it legal. It's illegal for many reasons, compensatory storage.

Stay on topic of the contract.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you for reminding me. So, in other words, this auditor, I think instead of having so much as an auditor, you should first look about where you have misspent money or you're not truthful about. So, in addition, before you have the auditor, I think you ought to look at those things that are quite obvious. that the city has done that is illegal, that is throwing money away and so forth. And I gave an idea, I gave an example the last time I was up here is that the $600,000 that was spent on some gateway project was a bust. So I'm saying in addition to an auditor, actually even before you have the auditor, you should investigate those things which are costing the city money. For example, these dams. And I mentioned two dams that are costing over a million dollars. That's all I have for that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Vice Mayor Cole. Oh, I'm sorry. Member Stoeckel.

Yes, a question for staff. If there are none in Brevard, what are other municipalities do to ensure that they're complying with policies and statutes and making sure I'm aware that Melbourne has what they call a compliance officer, not quite an order. Okay.

And I'm not sure of how other cities maintain that.

So one has a compliance officer. Do you know how much they get paid?

I believe less than 100,000. I'm not 100% sure.

Yeah, and I am not opposed to this one. I will tell you, as we're going through budget season right now and talking about restructuring and potentially eliminating positions, it's making it difficult for me to say, okay, we just had our budget. Workshop and we were going through line by line trying to cut items and now this would be an additional 40 K added I just want to make sure one to have a little bit more information and I my biggest biggest frustration is that we have not had our consultant come in yet and I'm I would like to see kind of what those recommendations are and Unfortunately, we're having to make budget decisions without having those recommendations. So I'm not necessarily against it. I just maybe want to postpone this until I can get some more information on what we decide is a high priority concerning our budget. That's kind of where I'm at right now.

Member Nelson.

Well, the thing is, you know, six months ago we were like, we're missing all these items over 50 years, but we're missing a million dollars. And this lady was able to find almost all of it. And by the way, I would say our prior mayor told me he spent years looking for a musical instrument at Titusville High School from 1970. I mean, this lady found almost everything. So to me, I agree. I hate spending the money, but we need to keep track of what we have.

I don't disagree. We definitely need to keep track of it. I just don't know what that... I want to feel confident in what that looks like, and I do feel like she works above and beyond as one person, and now we just hired somebody else, an asset manager, to thankfully help that, which I'm glad, but yeah. Yeah.

I just point of information. It was our new asset manager that found a lot of those things that were missing. Um, obviously this is coming before us because we have taken the step collectively to say we are going to follow the charter as written. When our internal auditor was hired, they should have always been reporting to council as stated in our city charter. The fact that they weren't reporting to council and reporting, Exclusively to the essentially the person that they're auditing the city manager was the issue Nothing has changed in her job description or duties in my opinion to warrant this kind of pay bump now I don't fault our internal auditor for for asking however at this point nothing's changed in our duties with the exception of who her Report T reporter is the City Council so if we want to talk about maybe a slight increase but a 30 plus percent increase just does not sit right with me I Get it.

I don't fault her for asking remember Musco so I would love to hear from our internal auditor because I would love to know what He's saying that you know your job description hasn't changed and so I would love to know if there's anything that has changed or hasn't changed and Thank you.

Good evening, everyone. I want to address the benchmark. Um, so let me, when you guys voted on changing my position to a charter position back on March 10th, I was tasked with doing a, um, a benchmark of city auditor salaries. Um, uh, from the HR director and what I was told was that you use, um, Daytona Beach. They normally use Daytona Beach and Melbourne, the compliance analyst position. Okay. The compliance analyst position in Melbourne was 104,000 and the Daytona Beach, um, city auditor was 164. So according to the HR director, um, he did an equation and it came out to $135,000. And then I went a little lower. I asked for lower than $135,000. As far as my job duties are concerned, yes, I went from a protected position to an at-will position. And a lot of this is... A lot of my duties is... basically reporting to you guys whenever you want. Um, uh, and um, just the regular duties that I do have currently. Um, so the main thing is, yes, I went from, uh, protected to at will. Okay. Um, in that and saying that, um, when doing the research, Most of the city auditors, they do the same thing I do, okay? And the difference is charter versus staff. So, I mean, it's up to you guys how you guys want to vote on it, but I am doing the job. I enjoy what I do, and I'll continue to do the job.

Thank you very much. Member Stoeckle.

Just question. I don't think that we got that benchmarking in our packet. So I'm going off what I have, just so you're aware. Okay. Yeah. And as I mentioned, it's not necessarily that I'm against it. I have a lot of ideas for moving forward. And we're talking about going to rollback rate and not raising taxes this year. And so That's my big hesitation. I think that you do a fantastic job. It just gives me pause as we're in the middle of budget season. And like I said, most of my frustration is not with you. It's with not having an outsider coming in yet. and trying to help us because I think we all know that there's some issues that we want to kind of work through and get us in a better position.

And I want to make it clear that it wasn't that I'm asking for, for this amount. This was a number that, um, we negotiated. HR came up with a number and then we negotiated down to the number that you guys have.

Again, I don't fault you. We're all people. Business is business. But I guess, again, to your point, the duties really haven't changed much. My other question is, you know, we have in the contract a vehicle allowance. Is that currently in your contract currently? Do you get a vehicle allowance as it says?

I don't have a contract currently.

But you know what I'm saying. Do you have a vehicle allowance now?

No. I'm staff, so no.

Okay. So with that being said, I think, you know, Daytona Beach is a whole different animal. They have a lot of issues. I don't know why their compliance officer makes that kind of money. But I would be inclined to recommend $100,000 with the vehicle allowance, you know, a slight, you know, almost 10% increase. But I think going over to, you know, the 30-plus percent is a little tough for me. Member Moscoso.

I would just say thank you so much. I imagine being the internal auditor is not easy. You're probably not well liked in all of the departments because you have to ask all the tough questions. And on top of that, you get to deal with five different personalities. And so I just applaud you for what you're doing and for the years that you spent giving those reports to your superior and knowing that they weren't being, I think you have great character and you're perfect for this job. So I just want to publicly thank you for what you have been doing. Thank you.

Any other further discussion, city manager? I just wanted to clarify that the reporting is still to the city manager. However, the agreement was that any one of the five council members at any time could have a one-on-one with the auditor to provide information back and forth. So I just wanted to clarify the reporting.

Any other discussion? All right, seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. If anybody wants to adjust the amount, please specify that in your motion.

So I'll take a stab. All right. So I would move to approve the employment agreement for the city auditor at $100,000.

She's making a motion. Can you let her finish her motion?

With the vehicle allowance.

Is there a second? I'll second.

City manager? I would recommend that it be a 10% bump. That's normally what we do. I don't know what the current salary is, but I think a 10% bump would be appropriate because $100,000 may not be that much of a bump. I think it gets to about 10% when you factor in the auto allowance. And that's just my recommendation for council.

You can decide. Any further discussion? Seeing none. City Clerk?

Mayor Connors?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Cole? Yes. Member Stockel? Yes. Member Moscoso? Yes. And Member Nelson? Yes.

Motion carries. Thank you very much. Really appreciate you, Amelia. All right.

City Manager, on to Item 8B. Yes, sir. Item B is a code enforcement lien reduction request for 508 Lucky Street. And the recommended action is to approve the special magistrate's recommendation for a code enforcement lien reduction to the amount of $1,000 plus $4,651 in city costs. for a total of $5,651,000 payable to the City of Ticeville within 90 days. And this action is for the property located at 508 Lucky Street. And the Magistrate has based his findings on the requirements of the City Code 31-71G. And our Code Enforcement Manager, Glenn Tolleson, is here to explain how the reduction was arrived at.

All right, Glenn, one second. City Clerk, how many cards are on this matter? All right. Is that the applicant? Glenn, is that the applicant? Okay. Yes. Go ahead.

Go ahead, Mr. Glenn. This item was previously brought in front of the magistrate and Mr. Burse didn't appear. It was recommended denial. It was brought back to us again almost March of this year, went back to special magistrate, looked at it, and Miss Bland was there. And she testified about hardship and passing of her husband. And he reduced it to $1,000 plus cost. It should be noted that the code does allow for that. What did you say? The code does allow the magistrate that availability. Thank you. Ma'am?

Hi, Ms. Burris. We currently purchased the property not knowing that there was a lien on the property in the first place. So we built a home thinking that everything was good, and then we got hit with all these liens. We paid a water lien that was like $20,000. And then after a year, I mean, we got the seal for the home. We still had no idea of the liens. And once I was aware of the liens, I was aware after my husband got sick and he passed. So that's why we had the first hearing. Um, he didn't make it. Well, we didn't make it because he was in the hospital doing heart transplant. So once I was aware of the liens, I put in for it and that's why I'm here today.

Thank you very much. Member Stokoe.

Yes. Um, we are, we're used to seeing some of these and I think our intent is to get people into compliance and make sure it's not to find people. I guess my question is what's concerning to me is that it looks like it's over a 19 year period of time. And so that's where I don't know what, why did it take 19 years?

I guess we purchased the property maybe three or four years ago. My, um, great grandparents. on the property next door, which the property that we purchased was my grandmother's best friend, Miss Daisy. But the house, I guess her son was living in the house at the time, and the house had burned down, and some other people purchased the home, and then it was purchased by someone else, and then we just so happened to stumble upon it. It had a for sale sign on it by a private owner, and I was like, I would like to purchase it. And we ended up purchasing it. So I'm not sure why though.

So you didn't have it for the 19 years. Okay. That's what I needed clarification on. Okay.

Actually, they purchased it April 18th of 2023 under 1019 LLC, which was Ms. Bland. And then they quit claimed it from 1019 LLC to Ms. Bland and also in September of 23. And then in December of 23, it was quick claimed from Ms. Bland to her husband. And then in September of 24, it was quick claimed back from Mr. Burst to Mrs. Bland. And they were. Mr. Burst was well aware of the liens on the property.

And that was my question, too, is with the quick claim, is there no protections for whoever's getting it for them to be aware?

Unless it goes through a title company.

So the title company is the only way for them to be aware of it. So that's what I was concerned about. Yeah, and I would like to approve it because I don't think it's the applicant's fault. My issue is moving forward, if there's something we can do to try to... One try to get better compliance if it's over this period of time and I know some areas I think from my briefing when I was talking about why it's so long Because I don't want this happening to other areas within our city Is there like a minimum that we place like it's 10% because this is it went from I think a hundred and fifty four thousand Which I don't think the applicant necessarily should be at fault for but the person that was aware of it maybe should be so I don't know what that looks like moving forward, if there's some type of policy changes we can make.

Well, ma'am, that would require a code, change code. It's very vague and very open right now. It doesn't have any minimums or any actions that would be taken like that.

I just, my concern would be that then, I mean, there's no incentive for somebody to get into compliance if we just keep waiving, oh, don't worry, I'll just go to council, you know, 20 years later, and they'll just waive it. I would like to make sure that we can try to get people into compliance and not have that be our reputation.

That's also not in the code. They can keep coming back.

Yeah, yeah. Anyway, but for this situation, I would be inclined to approve it.

Member Moscoso.

Is this property homesteading?

No, it's not. It's actually we built other homes in the area. My husband kind of wanted to clean the area. Sorry, I can't hear you. My husband wanted to clean the area that the neighborhood is in. So we've built several homes and this is the last home that he built before he got sick. So we cleaned up the neighborhood pretty much a lot.

So it's a rental? Yes. Okay. And then I did notice, yeah, like Member Stockel said, it had liens dating back to 2007, 2018. It says that the lien was recorded in public records and there was a lien against the property. And then in 2023, the deed from the prior owner says the property was being conveyed as sold as is. So you had no idea that there were liens on this property?

I had no idea. My husband usually handled everything with the real estate and everything.

Because for me, I understand your situation, but I also think it sets precedent. especially going from $154,000 down to $1,000. What stops other people from buying properties with liens on them? I think the council in 2019 or 2020 actually asked for this property to be torn down. And so what I don't understand is how the property got torn down and how there got to be a permit for a new building with all of these liens.

Right. And that's what I said when they, sorry, I can't hear you. I'm sorry. When, um, in order to get the COCO, we were to pay an amount and it was a, like a large water bill, like $20,000. Like I said, that was the only lien that was seen at the time when we closed. So that's the bill that we paid for the water bill. So when that, um, when he told me, um, that he had to go before the city, I met the council for, A lien reduction, we were confused because, like I said, we got the CO2 seal, we got the approval to bill, we got everything done that we were supposed to do.

So I'm not trying to be not sympathetic, but I do think there's a lot more to the story, and I would be very happy to send it back to the special magistrate. Like our code enforcement was saying, what an applicant can do, there's no application fee. So an applicant can wait another six months and just continue, and that's kind of been what's happened. Code enforcement did recommend denial. Now, I know $140,000 or $150,000 is a lot of money, but as Member Stoeckle was saying, perhaps this is a way we can look into the code and set, you know, maybe the lowest can go as a 25%, because what I don't want to do is set a precedent where people say, and I'm not saying this is the case, but I could see people using this as... you know, hey, they reduced 150,000. Why can't I get mine reduced? I didn't know about it either. It states it was in public record. So my suggestion would be I'd like to get more information. I'd like to have a little bit more time to sit down with Glenn and send it back to the special magistrate.

I'd be in favor of that, too.

Thanks, Mayor. Yeah, I agree with that. But my question would be, how do you get a clear title with a lien on a home? I mean, how do... How do you, after 20 years and the number of times that the house has changed hands, how can you get a clear title? And you have to have a clear title. And I've gone through this in my HOA where I had a house that had a lien on it. When the house was sold, the lien had to be paid off. So I guess that's a legal question that I'm trying to figure out. Thank you, Vice Mayor, City Attorney.

Thank you. I've had my mic on for a little bit just to provide some clarity. One, yes, it's the title company's responsibility to make sure that all the liens are, if you do a proper title search, that it comes up. Again, your action should be against the title company if, in fact, the lien did not show up. Under the law, that is not the standard. The notice goes to the owner because it's been publicly recorded, as Council Member Moscoso stated. So that is not an excuse because the lien was properly and duly recorded. on your property and that's plenty notice for us to move forward as it pertains to collecting on the liens. My question and probably to Glenn, were there any new violations since this current owner had the property?

No, ma'am, it's been in compliance.

For the past three years?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, so that usually something that's taken into consideration by the special magistrate. However, another consideration not to reduce the lien to this significant decrease would be that it is rental property. It's not homesteaded, and so that, again, I was not at the hearing. However, the fact that it's not homesteaded and it is rental, gaining revenue for the homeowner, that should be something that should be taken into consideration as well. But to your question, yes, a title search, a proper title search should show that there's a lien that's been on there for a significant time. But again, that's not the city's responsibility. The lien being recorded is plenty of notice for the property owner.

Thank you, City Attorney. Mr. Glenn, what was the total fine accrual at the date that they brought their property on April 18, 2023?

At that date, I don't know. I'd have to go back and refigure it all because it was continuing running. It continually ran until it was actually brought in compliance was when they built the new residence on top of it. And when did they get into compliance? 2024? June 2nd of 2025. Okay. So just recently. Member Nelson?

Well, I was thinking two things. One, if people are not in compliance, then maybe we need to change the code so that each year they're not in compliance, there is a percentage they have to pay. Because you're right. Otherwise, you know, why bother? And second, there should be an application fee. But in this particular case, rather than sending it back to the magistrate, I would suggest maybe we come up with a figure that we think is appropriate, and that should be fine. The magistrate has said 5,600. We don't have to agree with that figure.

Thank you, Member Nelson. Yes, they said the hard cost of the city was $4,651.01, but if you read in there, that was our cost to demolition the building. That wasn't all the cost of staff time and all the work that they've done to get to that point. Member Stockel.

Question for Glenn. I wasn't at the hearing. If we were to send it back to them, do you think that there's more information that the magistrate would be aware of that the magistrate was not aware of? Like, for instance, to Member Moscoso's question, I did not think that this was a rental property. I thought this was a homesteaded property. So that changes my view as well. But I don't know what the magistrate was aware of.

And can I say something? The home is going to be homestead. We just have to wait until the rental expires. Rental person moves out. That was the last home. It's all I have.

But yes, man, there is additional information. There's two other rentals on Lucky, one on Booker, one in Coco and one in Rockledge that are still under Ms. Burse's name and or 1019 LLC.

Okay, so there's been and the magistrate was not aware of that. Yeah, that's where I would be in favor of it going back to the magistrate.

If I may, I'm sorry, Mayor. I believe the special magistrate was aware that this is a rental property. I don't know if the other properties have any bearing.

No, he wasn't aware of the other properties.

No, not that he wasn't aware of the other properties. Was he aware that the particular property that's in violation or the subject of this matter was a rental property? I believe he did.

I believe he did. Yes, he did.

So he knew that this property was a rental property. The fact that the owner has other rental properties, I don't know if that's significant as far as decreasing the lien amount.

Well, it sounds like the special magistrate pretty much had everything minus the fact that there was other properties tied to this company and person's name. So outside of that, which doesn't really bear that much weight, it's not a homesteaded property. There's fines. There's cost to the city. I'll entertain a motion. Member Nelson.

So my motion would be to reduce the lien to $11,200, which would be doubled. What the magistrate was suggesting.

Is there a second? Second. All right. Is there any discussion? Before I call a roll. How do you feel about that? No. No?

Yeah, no.

I didn't think that motion was going to pass, so I figured I'd save us the time. Come up with another number. Member Moscoso or Member Stoke will throw out a number.

I personally don't like to arbitrarily throw out numbers like this because I get what we're trying to do. Well, I mean, in all fairness, the full price. I mean, if we're going to be fair, I know that might not be reasonable, but the full price.

All right. So there's a city attorney.

Yes, I just want to read the ordinance. Rather, it says after a recommendation has been rendered by the special magistrate, the item shall be placed. on city council agenda for final action.

That's what your ordinance states.

Well, I should say our ordinance state.

Yes, so sending it back to the magistrates, no go. Are you, okay. You guys did make a motion for double the price and there was a second. Thank you for Robert's rules and I appreciate that. All right, all those in favor of approving member Nelson's motion of double, say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, say nay. Nay. Sorry. All right, so, Member Moscoso, are you gonna make a motion?

No, because I don't think that will pass. So if anybody has a different one, I'm willing to listen.

I mean, it's a big number. I mean, the value of the property is not really there. But at the same time, it did take a lot of pain and expense of the city to the point where city council in 2019 had to physically get involved and pay to demo this building. There's a lot of time, effort, and money exude. I think if we go to $75,000... Approximately half. I think that's reasonable Without getting too much into a precedent setting of we're just gonna kind of forgive everybody.

I remember so cool Yeah, I would be okay with that Mike my concern with making a decision right now is As we've been discussing more information came to light and I just haven't had time to process it I have not had the chance to talk to Glenn specifically, which I know he would know this property very well How many years have you been with the city gone?

12 next month

Yeah, so he's had some history with this and I thought I kind of knew and then things have now come more than what was in our agenda packet. So I have some hesitation and that's why I don't feel comfortable with the low amount kind of I would be okay with half but less than that at this point. Otherwise, I would want to table it and discuss more with staff. I don't again. I don't like making just throwing a number out there, but There's a lot more information apparently that's come out.

Yeah, so that, I mean, we can't send it back to the special magistrate. We need to make a decision. We are, you know, the judges in this case. So either we settle on a number or even we can postpone it to the next available meeting if council wishes to discuss further. But either way, I'll entertain a motion. Member Stoeckle.

Yes, I would move to postpone it to, is that the correct terminology? To our next meeting, which I think is April 25th?

August.

August, August, sorry. It starts with an A, okay? August 25th.

I'll second it, Dr. Stoeckel.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Is there any further discussion? I have a motion by Member Stoeckle to postpone to our next meeting and a second by Vice Mayor Cole. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you for being here and answering our questions. Okay, I have another question.

How do you guys expect me to pay that amount of money, even with five properties that we have mortgages on? That doesn't make any sense for me to pay that amount of money that I don't have and raise five kids at the same time and lose my second source of income, which is my husband.

I don't understand how you guys would think that I'm supposed to pay that or even know. If you look at most of the... Most of the writing, you see that Derek's the one that came in and did everything. I've already lost a lot. I feel like it's just too much. And then for you to say $70,000 after the fact, if we've built this community, we've been building homes, our tenants are loving the properties, and I may have to move in the property. It doesn't make sense. The price doesn't make sense for me to pay $70,000 if we're building the community that we live in. It doesn't make sense.

Ma'am, thank you for expressing your concerns. What I would recommend that you do is meet with each one of us individually to talk, because obviously we didn't make any decisions. Okay, so please just reach out to us. We're going to keep digging on this. We didn't make any final decision. Thank you very much.

Vice Mayor. I just want to ask a question to the city attorney. Does the young lady have any grounds to go back on the title company because of what they did?

I can't give legal advice, Court. Oh, I thought you're an attorney. I am, but I can't give legal advice.

Okay, not everybody's an attorney. Okay, all right, fair enough, thank you.

All right, 8C. Yes, sir. That is task order CDMTO004, Perceptic to Sewer Feasibility Study. And the recommended action is to approve the award of that task order to CDM Smith in the amount of $122,730. to provide engineering consulting services, including but not limited to feasibility of the gravity sewer to three areas located in the city, including lift station, siting, phasing, and cost evaluations, and authorize the mayor to execute the task order. City Clerk.

We had one card at Stan Johnston, but he has left the room.

All right. Moving on. All right, guys, I pulled this item. Again, going back to our budget meeting where we're talking about important projects we need to fund all over the city, I feel that spending $122,730 on a feasibility study on this particular project is not the tippy-top need at this point, just because if you think about what this project would entail and after conversations with our director of public works, I think it would be very tough to have that project come to fruition. Because even once the study is done, the idea of getting plans designed, engineering, and re-piping multiple neighborhoods, I just don't think we're there yet. And I think there's a lot of things, if you remember the unfunded list on public works, from water and sewer, there's just a ton of need everywhere. And I think we need to focus on maybe one of those projects instead of putting $120,000 in this study. So that's my opinion, and hence why I pulled it. Member Stockel.

Yeah, so my question would be, why did this come before us as an agenda item at this point in time?

Septic to sewer has been a priority, I think, for us, for the state, for the county. These are all in the Indian River Lagoon Basin. We do have one. Once we get a concept plan and we realize it's feasible, there's a lot of grants for these types of projects, but we need to first make sure it can work. We've got a grant with the county that we're having trouble finalizing because of a feasibility issue. So I'd hate to go and start spending money on full design where we're not sure if it can work. The feasibility study isn't necessarily a waste of money. It's kind of, hey, let's do it in a small piece before we spend a big amount to design the whole thing. It will help further the design. There is a state legislature that says by 2030, anyone within the Lagoon Basin who has a septic tank either has to connect to sewer if it's available or upgrade their septic tank to an advanced system. So, yes, there are people who don't like these projects because they're messy. I can tell you they're very messy. They're destructive. People don't like when you're tearing up the road because that's the only way to do it. But then there are some people who say, well, If I have to spend the money to upgrade my septic, why aren't you bringing me sewer so I can do that? So it's hit or miss what this council decides is their priority.

Okay. And that would be, I guess my question, it sounds like... It's needed to potentially get grants. So that's one thing. And then talking with our lobbyists, especially with the state wanting to do this, this would be a top priority for us to potentially get a state appropriation to help fund it. And I'm wondering if part of getting a state appropriation would need a feasibility study. to move forward. And I don't know if you had any conversations with our lobbyist as well.

So they like shovel-ready projects. This we could, you know, once you get to this, constant plans are like 30% design. It's not 100% design, but I would feel comfortable at that point asking for state money at that point.

Okay. And then are there any other, do we have any shovel-ready projects that we could ask the state for, for state appropriations now?

Yeah, we have a few, yeah, we have a few lift stations, I think some forest mains that we could, that we can add when we review those to the list.

Yeah, I don't think everybody's disagreeing that septic to sewer conversion is not important. But when we look at, like I said, the laundry list of projects that Public Works has that are unfunded that address water quality, wastewater, stormwater, we obviously don't want anything to break at Osprey and go into the lagoon. Like, there's a ton of need. And let's say we do move forward. Let's say, hypothetically, Sorrell's 100% funded. We get all the money funded by grants. You're still...

Make a lot of people mad when you start telling them that now you're on sewer You know so I think that also needs to be calculating the conversation I do want to point out what the previous public worksheet director Just told me is that that that project the subject to sewer is funded with tap on a connection fees So that can only be used for increase the capacity so maintenance projects Could not that the funding couldn't be used for but it could be used for anything that increases the capacity of the system member Nelson

And I was just going to say our lobbyist feels pretty strongly that he will be able to get money for this project. And remember when we talked to Dr. Coby? Yeah. And he was saying one of the problems with septic tanks is they leak, and they're leaking into our water system. They're leaking into our river and causing problems. I see our budget and I know what our needs are, but I think this is one of those needs.

Not saying there's not a need. I'm saying there's a lot of need, but what's the number one need?

There's a lot of needs.

Okay. So that's the reason I wanted to have the conversation and not just sweep it under the rug. We're not talking about a small amount for a study.

You could look at lift stations and increasing capacity of some of them in the river. Those are projects that could be funded with this money. So there's a lot of different ideas.

Vice Mayor. I agree with everything that's been said. However, I feel strongly that we have to have shovel-ready projects increase, we get a grant. Because we would not be able to fund this. Not the study, but the actual work if we didn't have a grant. And if we didn't have at least a 30 to 60% design, we would not get the grant. So I could just see us losing a grant by not having it. So it's six of one half done than the other, really. What do you do? I feel strongly that we should have that design done so we could have a shovel-ready project.

Sandy, what is the biggest need that you face in public works right now?

Money.

Other than that, what's your number one priority project?

I don't think I can answer for public works or even... or even for water sewer. I mean, I have operational needs, pipes that need repaired. I have, I think, you know, I'm still kind of new into looking at all this stuff, but I mean, there's a lot of list stations that need work that I think that we haven't really concentrated on. If I were to, you know, if you were to say, take this money and look elsewhere, that's probably where I would go first. But there's a lot of plant needs. There's a lot that has been kicked down the road for years that we're starting to work on significantly.

And so, you know, I mean, remember Moscoso's brought up many times before is, you know, we're spending money on studies. Don't get me wrong. There are certain studies we have to do to plan for future design and engineering and construction. But, you know, just looking at something like this, I'm not sure it's going to get to that end goal is, you know, where I'm kind of just stopped in my tracks a little bit. And I know there's a ton of need out there that I think needs to be focused on fixing some of the infrastructure pieces that need to be addressed. Member Nelson.

So. lift stations or the feasibility study?

I need both. I think, I mean, the feasibility study, I think I have a better chance to get grants to do the projects. The lift stations, you know, we would have to It would be harder to get grants to do the full design, but with the amount of money we have funded, it wouldn't, not this 122, we have 500,000 in septic to sewer right now. That, you know, might get a look at one of the lift stations on the river, possibly.

So, no preference? No. No? No help. No help.

Just to help the conversation, septic sewer is a committed project of the cities for the BMAP. So these are projects being registered against us from the DEP standpoint. The city has committed to septic sewer, so we do have an obligation to begin that sewer expansion. Regardless of 2030, we did have to develop a plan that said the city will address septic sewer in the city limits. So we do have a commitment in the BMAP to start septic sewer projects.

And both of these projects are listed projects in the BMAP as of last year.

Okay, that helps. Last answer didn't help.

I guess it's the challenge we have, right, is we have a commitment to expand our sewer while at the same time we haven't fixed our current sewer. So that's kind of where I'm, again, having pause about making sure that we're able to not have things fail on us on a recurring basis. But I'll entertain a motion. I just had to say my piece. We already called you. I apologize. I didn't realize you were back in the room because we were engaged in a discussion. Mr. Johnson?

I'm an engineer, and I've lived in homes. First home in Timesville was on septic tank and well. And it's only about a hundred feet by a hundred feet. And there's a number of houses that have done that same way. The second, the first house that I lived in when we were married, it, it, it has a septic tank and I can convert it to city. The third house we were in, which we're in right now, it had, it has a septic tank, but it was converted to sewer. The, the, And the thing is, is that, for example, my father-in-law, my mother-in-law and father-in-law, they lived in Oak Hill. And for many years, they owned a septic tank and well. And so does my brother-in-law, septic tank and well. Another brother-in-law, septic tank and well. They have no health problems. And there seems to be what I call a, I'm going to give you an opinion, is there's a scare. There's a scare that's been created that these septic tanks are so dangerous. I mean, I've lived in West Virginia for almost all my life. Well, I guess all my life when I was in West Virginia. Lived on septic tanks. So I'm inclined to say is that there's a lot of nonsense going around as far as saying how dangerous they are, how dangerous they are and how much they're polluting the rivers. Because what it appears to me is that I have a different opinion. And it's a shame that we've got this B map that says we've got to. And the second thing I want to add to that is that... it appears to me is, is that the city of Titusville could have just one engineer to design this. I don't know that you have to have all this money that you spend. It seems like you can do a conceptual plan and something like that. And, and, uh, that would probably be, uh, uh, applicable for, uh, uh, bidding or something, but anyhow, I'm amazed at the fear that this, and I'm giving you an opinion and not my, because there's plenty of people who disagree with me, but that septic tanks have been used for many, many years without people getting sick And that's all I want to add. So just consider that and consider having an engineer here locally. I mean, hired by the city to do a lot of these projects. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson. City Clerk, just to confirm, there are no other cards, correct? Correct. Thank you very much. Vice Mayor Cole.

I'd like to make a motion to approve task order. CDMT O004 for septic to sewer feasibility study.

Second.

There's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, city clerk.

Vice Mayor Cole?

Yes.

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

No. Thank you. Motion carries.

City Manager. So moving on to ordinances second reading 9a is ordinance number 15-2026 cell towers and the community commercial CC zoning district and the recommended action is to conduct the second reading and the final public hearing of the ordinance 15-2026 and Brad Parrish will read the ordinance for the record.

Mr. Parrish hold on one second.

Sorry, I was going to ask, Commander Wright is here, or Chief Wright is here to give us an update on the flock cameras and with Palm Bay. And I didn't know if you guys were willing to move it forward so that we don't spend much of our precious police time here and they can go home. Or we could keep it toward, it's not on the agenda, or we could keep it to my report where I ask, but.

Yeah, let's keep it on your report because we're moving into a public hearing right now, so. Okay. I tried. He's on salary. Mr. Parrish.

An ordinance of the City of Titusville, Florida, amending the Code of Ordinances to allow transmission towers as a conditional use in the Community Commercial CC Zoning District by amending Sections 28-54, Use Table, and 28-2... 20-220, transmission tower, providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinances, incorporation into the code, and an effective date. On page 399 of your packet, I'll just briefly describe what was presented here. This is a privately initiated application for a change to the code. The city received an application to amend the city's land development regulations to allow transmission towers in this particular zoning district only, the community commercial zoning district. If you recall, there are several commercial zoning districts, the most intense one being regional commercial. A step down is community commercial, a step down to that is neighborhood commercial, and then you have office professional. So this is, right now we only allow transmission towers inside industrial zone. districts, um, this request will expand them into the community commercial zoning district. There are many properties throughout the city that do have community commercial. The applicant was invoking a specific section of the statute related to allowing us to have some kind of discussion about this in the back and forth with the applicant. We recommended that they submit a proposal for an ordinance change, which is they've done. So this is your second and final public hearing on this item. help mitigate some of the potential issues of allowing transmission towers on properties with community commercial zoning. We did include several conditions. You'll see that on page 404 of each packet. They specifically state, in addition to the existing conditions or limitations for a transmission tower described in section 28-220 of the city's code, The additional standards will include Transmission towers specifically in the community commercial zoning district shall be located within one mile from the nearest transmission tower And must be located a minimum of 400 feet from a residential building The enclosure shall be a screened with an opaque solid fence and evergreen vegetation vegetation shall reach a minimum eight feet in height within one year planting and We'll certainly entertain any additional conditions or changes to this if you request. If you approve this, it will become effective and allowed on those properties with community commercial zoning, provided they meet all of these conditions with the public hearing, of course. If this is denied, then transmission towers will continue to be relegated to the industrial zoning districts. I'll try to answer any questions you have.

Thank you, Mr. Parrish, City Clerk.

Elizabeth Parker.

I apologize. How many cards do you have?

We have two. Okay.

Applicant? Sorry, Ms. Parker. Okay.

Good evening, Mary Solick, 121 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1500, Orlando, Florida. I'm legal counsel for the applicant. I'm very delighted to be bringing forth a infrastructure solution to you that doesn't cost you any money. Um, we discussed at the last hearing about why we need to do this and why we have a coverage hole in the middle of your city. I'm happy to go through all of that again if you would like me to. I'm happy to answer questions. You had a long meeting. You've got a lot more to go. I'm I don't want to waste your time and repeat myself.

No, I was just going to say most of my questions were answered at the last meeting, so thank you for that. So I'm good on this.

Okay, anybody else? I have Alan Ruiz with me here tonight. He's the principal of Vertex. So if there's something I couldn't answer that you might want to ask him, I'll bring him up.

Thank you.

I do have a question. I think last time I talked about design. And I'm only bringing this up again because on 50 and Barna here, we've got a new cell tower. And I've heard a lot about it. It looks like it's getting ice cream cone, which is never good. And so I'm just curious, do we know what this design will look like?

We have not put together our application. We'll have to, again, the proposal is for a code amendment. It's not for a specific application. We'll bring it in, and we'll figure out what we think makes the most sense in that community, and you'll have your compatibility standards that you can use to evaluate it. I believe that 50 in Barna is a small cell application in the right-of-way, if I'm not mistaken.

I didn't realize a tower cell would create so much commotion in town, so just warning you.

Those small cells, your state law requires that you allow them in your right-of-way, and they just pop up. I have people call me and say, I've got one in my front yard. Well, it's really in the right-of-way. Thank you.

Just to clarify on the agenda, what was provided by the applicant illustrates a 200-foot tall tower. Right, that was the intent.

Our proposal?

Your proposal from one of our discussions with you was that- No, 150, 150. No, 150?

Yes. No, no, no, we wouldn't do 200 there.

No.

It's too windy. Thank you.

This ordinance significantly concerns me. The effects of EMF and the dangers to human health are not fully studied at this point in time. And the CC zoning is next door to people's homes. It's not a mile away. It's not even 500 feet away. and they find cancer clusters in buildings where they put these towers on the roof of the buildings. This is dangerous to human health. The National Institutes of Mental Health have found that there are significant oxidative stresses that this puts on the human body. And the fact that we have CC zoning all across the city means that no neighborhood's gonna be safe. And God protect those people who are already EMF sensitive, who are unable to run Wi-Fi in their homes. Or, for instance, have a severe epileptic event after a smart meter was deployed on their home. Those people will have nowhere to hide and their health will be at risk. We need to protect the community and it's far less important for the convenience of some developer who wants to get a cheap piece of commercial property and shove a tower on it. Not to mention what it looks like for the neighbors because the shielding foliage is not going to shield a 150 foot tower from a 40 foot house. Thank you.

Thank you. City Clerk, any other cards?

The last card is Dan Johnston.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion.

Move to approve ordinance number 15-2026, South Towers CC zoning district.

Second. I have a motion. I have a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, City Clerk.

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

Yes. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Mr. Parrish, I believe you're up again.

The next item is 9B. That is the Urban Forest Trust Fund Ordinance. An ordinance of the City of Titusville, Florida, amending the Code of Ordinances to rename the Landscaping Trust Fund to the Urban Forest Trust Fund by amending sections 30-32, Criteria for Removal, and 30-34, Mitigation Plan Incentives, providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinances, incorporation into the Code, and an effective date. This is your second and final... I'm sorry. This is your second reading and final... hearing on this ordinance to change the name of the Landscape Trust Fund as stated in the city's code. That would be consistent with the resolution that you adopted a couple of meetings ago, expanding the use of the funds that would be collected in this fund. I'll try to answer any questions here.

Thank you, Mr. Parrish, City Clerk.

Casey Onge.

I knew she was going to call your name, Kay.

I called your name before you even came on.

K. St. Onge, Maryland Avenue, Titusville Tree Team. A big thank you to Lily Galeo and Sandra Reller, their staff, and Parks and Rec's Tex Lode Holtz for the well-organized urban forest kickoff ceremony and tree planting on July 23rd at Sandpoint Park. Thirty-six native cedars and live oaks were planted by staff and volunteers along Neptune's Trail in Sand Park on July 23rd. The trees look absolutely beautiful. The Titusville Tree Team volunteers have committed to watering these trees as needed until established. The trees are watered twice a week in the early morning unless it rains significantly. We are also staking the cedar trees with bamboo stakes so that they all are standing up straight. It's really sort of fun to go out there and water these trees. You guys, you ought to come join us. People walking along, stop and talk and ask questions and express their pleasure in seeing these newly... planted trees along the walkway where they exercise regularly. These native trees planted on this narrow peninsula will help reduce stormwater runoff and prevent erosion while providing wildlife habitat, shading pedestrians, encouraging outdoor activity, and beautifying our community. So yes, rename and repurpose the Landscape Trust Fund, which receives mitigation fees in this ordinance 162026. This will help protect the city's tree canopy and ensure that many more such tree planting initiatives can go forward under the Urban Forest Management Plan. When you get a chance, take a walk down Neptune's Trail at Sandpoint Park to see the beautiful newly planted trees. This is just the beginning. More trees to come. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Kaye. City Clerk?

Tony Shiffalo.

Shiffalo Historic Norwood House. My week away with artist activists was filled with business meetings about the organization, budgets, bylaws, et cetera, but also artistic sessions and performances by wordsmiths, poets, playwrights, singer-songwriters. Language is important. I was gonna get up and say, you know, by naming the urban forest, trust fund, the image invoked by the language urban forest is much shadier than landscape fund. But then I realized language is very important. And so what I really want to say is that by changing the name from the landscaping fund to the urban forestry trust fund, it's so much more invoking of lots of shade and is much cooler than the landscaping fund.

Thank you. City Clerk.

Last call to stand, Johnston.

Thank you. Thank you, TEC.

Thank you, Mr. Johnston. All right. Member Nelson.

Can I move to approve ordinance number 16, that is 2026 Urban Forestry Trucks Fund. Second.

Second.

There's a motion and a second. 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.

City Manager? Yes, sir. Moving on to 9C and D. 9D is an actual quasi-judicial, so at this time, let the City Attorney read that before we go on to 9C.

During the public hearing portion of the meeting, anyone wishing to speak on a quasi-judicial item must complete and sign a speaker card along with the corresponding oath on the card. The cards are located on the table in the front of the chambers. City staff will make the initial presentation. then the applicant will present. Then the hearing will be open for public comments and those who wish to make a public comment on the item will speak third. The applicant may make a brief rebuttal if they desire. Witnesses may be cross-examined and all photographs, sketches, or documents for the hearing must be submitted to the city clerk and will be retained by the city. Members, please disclose any ex parte communication or site visits at this time.

Member Moscoso? None. Member Nelson?

I talked to Woody. Other than that, none.

Vice Mayor Cole? None. Member Stoeckel?

None.

And I have none also. Thank you. Mr. Parrish?

9C. 9C is a master plan amendment. Just so you know, it is processed as a rezoning according to the city's code. Amendments to the master plan, so it falls under the closet additional as well. Page 456 of your packet, I'll briefly go through the staff report and our recommendation and why we're here today to allow this hotel in the vector space development of regional impact, or DRI. The DRI was something that was a tool that the state had come up with several decades ago and then eliminated in certain areas of the state. back in 2011, but the procedures that helped establish it and still continue to govern it are still in place and we use the master plan process to make any amendments or changes to it as requests are submitted to us. So this request tonight is to change some of the conditions that allowed the dri to go in existence which specifically stated the maximum number of square feet of industrial that maximum number of square feet of commercial and maximum number of hotel rooms that could be distributed throughout this entire development You'll see on page 456 of your packet the aerial of the development of regional impact, several parcels that are currently not, that are vacant right now. A lot of those are being under construction right now, so we may see this entire DRI to be built out fairly soon, actually. In this particular request, the applicant is asking to allocate hotel rooms on a parcel within this DRI that is currently not allowed. And so there are a couple of options that we laid out to the applicant so that doesn't trip any kind of amendment that would have to mean a new study or traffic study or other kind of threshold changes to this DRI. And that was to convert some industrial square feet into hotel rooms, and also to reallocate hotel rooms from one parcel that currently is allowed to have them to this particular parcel. So there was some agreements that were made by the property owner, the applicant here, and another property owner, and with the association who is the successor of the developer and the manager of the DRI. We reviewed their request, the conversion methodology. We reviewed it against the rezoning criteria. We provided that to you in our staff report here, starting on page 456. On page 458, you'll see the actual amendment in that table there. This is the governing document or an excerpt of the governing document for the entire DRI allocates how much square feet should be on each parcel and how many hotel rooms should be on each parcel. So you'll see in red that's what's actually changing. The applicant is proposing to put 110 units of hotel rooms onto their property. They need this amendment approved in order to go forward with the site plan that they've gotten reviewed by us right now. We reviewed this against the criteria, and on page 462, we recommend the transfer of 28 hotel rooms from parcel track F-34 and the conversion of 71,352 square feet of industrial uses into 96 hotel rooms for a total of 124 hotel rooms to be allocated to parcel or track 5A5, rather, of the DRI. Approval of the master plan application will allocate these rooms to this parcel. The site plan will be consistent with the DRI, the planned industrial development zoning district, and the LDRs of the code regarding setbacks, buffers, and the location of parking and stormwater retention requirements, and including the city's airport impact overlay. We recommend approval of this request. We find it to be consistent with the city's charter, city's code of ordinances, land development regulations, and section 34-40 of the city's code.

Thank you, Mr. Parrish. City Clerk?

Would he rise?

Woody Rice, 505 Indian River Avenue, Titusville, Florida. Thank you, Mayor and City Council, for considering this tonight. The property was annexed into the city in 1999 under Ordinance Number 19, 1999. One of the conditions of that approval was that the uses that were currently adopted in 1988 when it was created in the county would carry over into the city of Titusville. Some of the uses included hotels, commercial, office, industrial, and to my surprise, even multi-family units. Throughout the last 38 years that this DRI has existed, the DRI actually has a sunset, but the uses still remain The lots had hotels allocated to particular lots, not to every lot. But think 38 years ahead as you went through time, how can you project where a hotel needs to be or where it should not be? And in fact, how could you even project the quantity of hotel rooms that you would want to have in this DRI? So I think they did their best at the time, but that's the process that we live under and that's why we have to do the allocation. So there was a few ways of doing it that Brad outlined, and we did transfer 28 rooms from another lot. But think about it, there's 500, I think close to 500 hotel rooms allocated to other lots that have not been built yet. But an owner that owns one of those lots isn't going to give up a right of something that they may or may not use in the future. But one person did step up forward and say, hey, we'll transfer 28. So that left us with 96 that we had to transfer. You'll see in your packet with my original submittal, part of the transfer predicated on what the concurrency was for traffic. In a hotel, actually... generates a lot more traffic than an industrial site. My analysis initially when I submitted it was doing a one-to-one ratio of square foot of area and analysis for one square of industrial for one square foot of hotel. In that analysis, what that shows you is how much more trips a hotel would typically generate versus an industrial site. During staff's review, they decided that they would like to keep the overall number of trips solid based on the industrial site. So we had to use a multiplier. They used a multiplier saying, well, a hotel versus an industrial generates so much more that it's worth more square footage. So that's why they did what they did. We concur. I think that's a good analysis. I think because at the end of the day, the DRI is gonna have very similar trips that was originally designed for. And so we concur with staff's recommendation for the 71,352 square feet of conversion for that. It was more conservative. If you look at just our site, the 85 site, we're developing 3.5 acres. If you look at that, the 1999 ordinance allows 50% of the site to be building use site, let's call it industrial. If you take that analysis, that is worth 76,230 square feet for what we're developing. Well, the analysis that the staff did for the square foot of transfer of 96 rooms, that's less than that number. That was 71,352. So what does that tell us? That tells us that the actual AA-5 site that we're transferring hotel rooms actually doesn't impact any other site on the site with industrial capability. All those same... development potential rights still exist because we're absorbing that conversion completely on our own site. So planning and zoning recommended 7-0. You know, this is on the NASA causeway going to the Kennedy Space Center. What's our motto? Gateway to nature and space. Part of that with the robust, who would have thought 38 years ago that we'd have SpaceX, Blue Origin, and NASA in our community, and we have such a robust industry in the space industry. Well, part of that robustness is providing the support services that this community needs to support that industry and hotels happen to be one of those. So we would appreciate your support tonight and I'd be happy to try to really answer any questions you may have. Any questions?

Not necessarily a question for Woody, maybe for Brad. Could you just clarify for me, looking at the ratio of commercial office industrial hotel from 1986 to fast forward to proposed amendment, why did commercial and office significantly decrease in square footage? Is that based on studies, it's a preservation of wetland area? How do we make that jump?

There were amendments. So prior to 2011, there was something called a notice of proposed change process that the state required. And that was the official process to make amendments to this. So depending on what the need was, what the developer desired at the time, it was processed to make an amendment where there was a reduction in one type of use or an expansion in another. And then depending on whether it it was going to be something significant or exceed the thresholds that were originally established, they would have to go through a major amendment, which means another traffic study, another mitigating factors have to be included in this. So there have been several amendments to this DRI in the past 40 years. After that, then it's just, ever since 2011, we haven't seen anything significant other than just minor conversions.

Okay, so would it be fair to say, based on the studies as they were going through the process, that they realize there's more wetland area or protected space? Because it looks like 200,000 square feet plus. I don't think that's going to be the equivalent of 100 additional hotel rooms. So that's where I don't know what's happening to that space that we've lost. Are we preserving that with this proposed amendment?

So some of these have been reduced because they've been eaten up by development. So as development happens in the DRI, you see...

So this is not cumulative development. It says cumulative development at the top, so that's where I think I'm confused.

Okay, let me see. My understanding is that as these developments happen, you start seeing these numbers start to reduce because they're being utilized now. So what you're trying to see is what's available.

Yeah, I'm trying to see the ratio. So what I'm getting at is, and I have no problem with this project, is I don't want to chip away at our industrial commercial, as I say, numerous meetings. And I think that when I see those significant decreases, I'm like, that gives me pause to say what happened here.

Understand. So right now, if this is approved, you'll have remaining 751,000 square feet of industrial square feet that could possibly be put into vector space. that could be combined or exclusive with office, which has 373,000 square feet available. That's a significant number. And if in the future someone decides, you know, we've eaten up all the industrial and we've got all this commercial office we can't use, that could probably be converted to industrial, but that would require a major amendment. In other words, that will exceed the thresholds of what you see established here.

So with commercial going from 221 back in 86 to 83 now, did we lose that commercial, proposed commercial, or is there commercial that's there? So it's 83 left plus the commercial that we've already developed.

Well, yeah. So I think that 83,000 is the result of some conversions that happened in the past and some commercial areas that have been utilized. So it's a combination of both. Okay. This is a very, I mean, if you really want me to get into the details of this one, it's a very difficult DRI to kind of backtrack to see what happened. We could certainly try and do that, but.

I think my biggest concern is just, you know, as we continue to develop it, we do not lose that industrial and commercial use.

I'd say that 750,000 square feet of industrial is pretty significant. I mean, I agree.

But then until another proposed amendment comes and says, we want to, as you can see, you know, things have fluctuated. And so that's, I would agree. Um, but just depending on who's at council, when other proposed amendments come, I want to make sure that we maintain that. And obviously I'm one of five, so I don't know how the others feel. But for me personally, when I look at this space, that's, I want to maintain that feel for that area. I don't have any questions for you, Woody.

Okay. I just want to point out that our site with 3.5 acres, we actually cover the transition of the loss of the industrial all on our site. So it doesn't affect any other site. Because we were allowed by the 1999 ordinance to have 76,230 square feet of industrial building on that site. Okay. But the allocation and transfer is only $71,352. So it really affects no other site. That was the point because I looked at that. I was looking at the same track. We don't want to lose the potential of retail or industrial. Yep. Thank you.

Member Moscoso.

Thank you. My question is for Brad. Brad, is this the property that got the variance? I don't think it is for the sidewalks.

There was a property just to the west of it that did receive a variance to sidewalks.

So will this property be required to have sidewalks? Or has a variance been requested?

So all development is required to put in a sidewalk. There is a waiver process which you amended a couple of years ago. But right now that only applies to local roads. Collector and arterial roads do not qualify for that waiver.

Okay. Yeah, I'm going to bring this up during my report, but the property next to it, they got a variance for the sidewalk. So if they build the sidewalk, the property next to it doesn't have a sidewalk. So it's a sidewalk to nowhere. And if we're looking at tranquility and building that up with commercial and things like that, if you have the hotel, it just isn't connecting. So thank you.

Any other questions? City Clerk?

The last card is Al Barrett.

My son is a general manager at one of these hotels and he at this current time with nothing going on is 75 to 100% capacity. And that tells you that we are in need of hotels. The last launch of Artemis, he was able to sell the last three rooms for $1,600. Now he's probably mad that I'm talking in favor of a hotel, but we really do need hotels. You know, I mean, we're going to be in the next 10 years packed. And where are we going to put the people? And if we want to put them here in Titusville, and we do, because we want our restaurants, we want our hotels, we want all of our businesses making money, first of all, we have to get hotels. If Space Lab, and not Space Lab, Rocket Lab, and Blue X, and Space Blue, and all these other guys come in, My blood sugar is crazy right now. If they're to come and to visit, they're gonna stay in hotels. Well, where are they gonna stay? Right next to the Space Center. And so I'm highly encouraged that we need hotels. We need them at these places. Like I said, in the next 10 years, there's estimating that these places are going to spend $1.8 trillion in all these space things. We don't want them in Melbourne. Let's get them here. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

City clerk, any other cards? All right.

And I'm a big fan of Woody.

Thank you.

Woody and I went to Israel together.

So, yeah. Any other questions? No? Okay. We can kind of get into the discussion, please. I'm in favor of converting some of these things. My big thing is... There's a lot of concentration of hotels on the south end of town. I really would like to see us have more hotels in our downtown so that people spend money at our more local businesses. Because while they do come in for work, we don't really have families touring Titusville. And I think that's where we need to focus our planning efforts and our direction. because space tourism will eventually go down. It's all diminishing returns. Nobody blinks at a Falcon 9 anymore. People don't go out to MCO to watch airplanes take off eventually those numbers are going to come down But the workers are still going to be there and I understand that but there's a lot of hotels being built on 50 and the 405 Corridor and I really would like to see some get more downtown spending money in our downtown area Supporting our Main Street programs and things like that. So while I am in favor of this I I think if another hotel wanted to pop up in the same area, I might ask some more questions about need. And I do serve on the Tourism Development Council, so I do look at the tourism numbers throughout the county. I am proud to say that Titusville is beating unincorporated Brevard. We still have a long way to go to take out Cocoa Beach. So, Member Nelson.

I'm in favor of this, and I'm very hopeful that we will be able to mitigate the wetlands in Titusville. That's what I was talking to Woody about. That's something that St. John's is allowing us to do now. And so we can buy property within Titusville and preserve those wetlands. So I'm hoping this works. But we do need hotels.

We still got a long way to go before we get to that point, Member Nelson, with some of the St. John's requirements. But yes, that is definitely the goal we're working towards. Any other feedback? Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion.

Move to approve Master Plan Amendment 1-2026 to amend the vector space development of regional impact.

Second. Motion. I have a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, City Clerk.

Does that include the resolution as well? Yes. Okay. Member Nelson? Yes. Mayor Connors? Yes. Vice Mayor Cole? Yes. Member Stoeckel? Yes. Member Moscoso? Yes.

Motion carries. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Woody, city manager. So moving on to 9D, that's the small-scale amendment 1-2026, Canaveral Avenue. And this is to conduct the second reading and public hearing of ordinance 17-2026, amending the comp plan future land use map and ordinance number 18-2026, rezoning the property for the small-scale comp plan amendment 1-2026. And we have two ordinances to read, and Brad will do that.

In the ordinance of the City of Titusville, Florida, amending the code of ordinances by amending ordinance number 60-1998, which adopted the comprehensive plan of the City of Titusville by amending the future land use designation on property located along Canaveral Avenue, located south of Pine Street and north of Palmetto Street, from medium industrial residential to high density residential. Point one six plus or minus acres of property having parcel num ID number 22-35-03-03-26-7 Provided for severability repeal of conflicting ordinances and providing for an effective date And the rezoning ordinance An ordinance amending ordinance number 5 dash 1993 of the city of Titusville, Florida, by amending the zoning map made a part of said ordinance by reference by changing the zoning classification of property located along Canaveral Avenue, located south of Pine Street and north of Palmetto Street from the single family high density R1C to this multifamily high density. residential R3 zoning district on 0.16 plus or minus acres of property having parcel ID number 22-35-03-03-26-7 providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinances, and providing for an effective date. This is the final public hearing for this land use amendment and rezoning. The property The applicant is requesting this small scale amendment and rezoning for property that's less than 7,000 square feet. Primarily to put a duplex on this property. It's currently got the R1C single family zoning and they want to change it to multifamily. The staff report is on page 528 of your packet. You'll see the aerial on page 529 of your packet, and you'll see the location of this one small parcel within this neighborhood, which is north of 408 and west of the railroad tracks. The surrounding area – actually, I do want to point to the maps, rather, on – On page 566 of your packet, you'll see the future land use map. See the various colors there. The blue represents the downtown mixed use land use category along the major corridors. And then inside this area, you'll see a hodgepodge of properties with the high density and medium density residential land use categories. That's a difference of 15 units per acre versus 10 units per acre. And north of that, you'll see in that teal color there, that is the urban mixed use land use category. On the next page is the zoning map, which corresponds to those land use categories. The reason I'm showing this to you is because a couple of years ago, you had directed us to do a study and a land use amendment to possibly expand the urban mixed use land use category into this particular neighborhood. We put that on hold only because of Senate Bill 180. We're still working on that, but based on those meetings that we've had with you and with the public and with Planning and Zoning Commission, And reviewing this consistent with the rezoning criteria and the land use, I'm sorry, the comprehensive plan policies, we can support this because this particular neighborhood can handle with this neighborhood, this development pattern here with the gridded streets, multifamily mixed in with single family. So we recommend approval of this land use amendment and this rezoning amendment to allow a multifamily development on this property. The applicant is proposing to put a duplex. They provided to us an image, a rendering of what that might potentially look like, which is illustrated on the screens before you. The applicant is here to answer any questions about this. I do know they want to clarify that the last meeting they mentioned this might be just a one-story building. The code does allow it to be two stories provided it doesn't exceed 35 feet. You'll see on page 532 of your packet we've put an illustration there of what's a missing middle concept We've brought this up several times with our meetings with you about the Canaveral Heights or urban mixed-use comprehensive plan amendment discussions and that's allowing that type of housing pattern where That has kind of been Negated a lot of development you see single-family or garden style apartments only so one allowed duplexes triplexes or quadruplexes in certain areas And that's what we're proposing in that plant that land use amendment So I believe the applicant is trying to propose something here consistent with that effort Based on our review consistent with the comprehensive plan and the rezoning criteria I We find that the application is consistent with the comprehensive plan, the charter, the code of ordinances, and the land development regulations, specifically section 34-40 of the code. And we recommend approval of the land use amendment and the rezoning. We'll try to answer any questions you have.

Thank you, Mr. Parrish. City Clerk, how many cards?

I do not have a card from the applicant, but I have one from Tony Shiffalo.

All right. Are you the applicant?

Yes.

All right. Go ahead, and then I'll ask you to fill out a card once you're done.

Yes, sir. Will do, Mr. Mayor. Hi, I'm Joshua Wilson. Thank you for having me here today. Address 121 Drennan Road, Orlando, Florida. As Brad stated, we aim to build a duplex on this parcel. We intended to initially follow through with the Canaveral Heights UMU project. change that was supposedly coming through, but given the Senate bill that was passed, that did not happen. So we delayed that approach. And as a result, we've now gone forward with the R3 and the high density residential. We are required to pursue that higher density in order to achieve a duplex on this lot because of the size. It's so small. So we wouldn't be able to Get a medium density or an R2 zoning in order to achieve our development goals. I did make an error in the planning and zoning meeting in saying that we were going to be building a single story. I was referencing a different project. We're also building duplexes around the corner off of 470 and 480 South Robins. So I made a mistake in referencing that project. I built a wonderful little 3D model to show you guys today. But the pictures will have to do. If you guys have any questions, I will gladly answer them.

Member Moscoso?

Yeah, I think I got a little confused because I think in your meeting where you had Ms. Tony Shiffalo, you mentioned... 470 Robbins, 480. And so I was trying to figure out which one.

I actually met with Ms. Shiffalo and showed her the plan to make sure that it kept with the rhythm and the vibe of the community as she so intently desires, right? Because we do want to make sure that we are upholding the character of the community and it did meet her standards. So I hope that it can meet you guys as well.

If you met her standards, that's hard.

I do my best.

Seeing none, thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Don't forget to fill out a card. Ms. Shiffalo?

Shiffalo Tropic Street. This is a small-scale amendment to you guys, but it's a big deal and fill in my neighborhood right down the street from me, as a matter of fact. But I want to comment on the process more than anything. I've been following this a while, you can tell, and... Other than the fact that these guys got off to what I figure kind of a bad start by having the public meeting in a working class neighborhood on a Wednesday morning at 9 a.m. What working person isn't at work on Wednesdays at 9 a.m.? Anyway, another neighbor and I showed up, and they've been very good about following through. And I also want to commend staff who has also worked with me on convincing me that this is a good idea. We've had cards and when it was pulled and changed, the other cards came out. The fellow sent me a letter and I've shown up and he's shown me plans. The process is working. And so I have no real problem except that all of a sudden now it's two stories instead of the one story that was projected. But I can understand about needing to maximize space in affordable housing and going to a second story probably gives each of the duplex sections more room. So not to belabor the point, I just want to say that the process that we have and the staff has followed, I really appreciate and I really wish that developers would have their meetings, their public meetings at times more conducive for the public that's affected. Thank you.

Thank you. City Clerk, any other cards? Any further discussion from this board? All right, I'll entertain a motion.

Move to approve SSA number 1-2026, Canaveral Avenue.

Second.

So there's a motion, but yeah, I want to clarify, are you talking about the first ordinance, which is the legislative item of the future land use ordinance number 17-2026?

Let's do ordinance number 17-2026 first. All right.

That's a motion by Member Nelson. Second. All right. Any other discussion? Seeing none, City Clerk?

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

Motion carries. Thank you very much. And can I have a motion to approve ordinance number 18-2026?

Move to approve ordinance number 18-2026. Second.

Motion by Member Nelson, second by Vice Mayor Cole. Any further discussion? City Clerk.

Sorry. Vice Mayor Cole?

Yes.

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

Yes. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Appreciate you. I think a 10-minute break.

There's actually three ordinances there. Oh, there's another one? You had 17? No, I apologize. I'm incorrect.

Okay. I mean, you're very possible I could have made a mistake, so I just want to make sure we're good. All right, so in the meantime, we're going to take a 10-minute recess. We'll be back at 925.

I'm gonna call this meeting back to order

City Manager? Yes, sir. Moving on to Item 10, Ordinance's First Reading. 10A is the Administrator Approval of Platts and Re-Platts Ordinance, and the action is to conduct the first reading of Ordinance Number 19-2026, amending the plat procedures and the land development regulations consistent with Chapter 2025-164, Laws of Florida, and Brad will read the ordinance.

The ordinance of the city of Titus of Florida amending the code of ordinances to create procedures for the administrative approval of preliminary and final plats. Amending sections 31-31, powers and duties. 34-8, public hearing. Approvals required, 34-151 procedure, 34-172 procedure, 34-173 required exhibits, 34-179 final plat, 34-180 recording of final plat required, 34-182, improvements required to be installed, 34-201, recording of final plat required, and development review procedures technical manual sections 11, preliminary plat, and 13, final plat, providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinances, incorporation of the code, and an effective date. This ordinance was supposed to have been completed in October, I believe, of 2025, but because of the complexity of trying to incorporate this state requirement into our code, we were not able to bring it to you until tonight. Chapter 2025-164 of the Laws of Florida amended Section 177.041 of the Florida Statutes in connection with how local governments review and approve PLATs. Specifically, the bill requires local governments to review procedures and approve PLAT submittals without action or approval by the governing body through an administrative authority and an official designated by ordinance. So we tried to amend this or adopt this ordinance and draft it in such a way that we believe is consistent with this new law. And with that, I'll try and answer any questions you have. It is a very extensive and large ordinance. So if you have specific questions, I'll try and answer them.

City Clerk. Any questions? Seeing none.

Just one moment the one thing to add the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval, but they asked for an amendment to this ordinance Which you'll see on page 581 of your packet Yes, that's what I was going to say I'm in favor of it with P and Z's recommendation the first recommendation not necessarily with their second recommendation I

then I can further elaborate if anybody wants to know my reasoning ever Nelson please yes so when I was meeting with staff my concern is I discussed with them the process for what gets approved and what are the steps. So first process is they do a pre application and that's administrative. It doesn't come to us. Second step is the preliminary site plan. Uh, and that's administrative as well. And that's the engineering showing everything. Third step is the preliminary plat. Um, and currently that does come to council, correct? Um, And that would show the layout. So we know the engineering is okay. And now we get to see as a council layout. And then the fourth step is the final plat. And that currently goes to council as well. So my thinking is if we pass this, we're eliminated out of this whole process. And so I think. keeping one and two administrative. We get it after the engineering's been approved administratively. We get to see the layout, and if there's any concerns, we can address them. If not, we can say, yep, nope, looks great, and then final plat would stay with the staff. So that was my rationale for that.

I agree with you. I agree with you. And I think that was it.

To the attorney, do you concur with how the ordinance was drafted to make sure we're in compliance with state law?

Yes, I'm supportive of staff's report and the ordinance as currently drafted. I believe it's in accordance with the statute and the amendment as it pertains to the recommendations of planning and zoning. You know, they had the hearing. That was their recommendation. I do not believe that the statute explicitly prohibits this. It may come in the future, but I don't believe as it exists, it EXPLICITLY PROHIBITS PRELIMINARY PLATS COMING BEFORE COUNCIL BUT AGAIN I THINK THE INTENT OF THE STATUTE WAS TO ELIMINATE COMING BEFORE THE GOVERNING BODY AND TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ADMINISTRATIVELY DONE SO THAT THE PROCESS IS A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPEDITED. I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE STATUTE AND THE AMENDMENT.

Thank you, City Attorney. Member Nelson?

So I do, wait a minute, this is first reading. Yeah. Okay, skip.

All right, on to the next item, thank you.

Moving on to 10b, small-scale amendment, SSA number 2-2026 for 1165 Orr Eagle Boulevard. and conduct a first reading of ordinance number 12-2026, annexing land, ordinance number 13-2026, amending the comprehensive plan future land use designation, and ordinance number 14-2026, rezoning property for the small scale comprehensive plan amendment 2-2026. And Brad will read all three ordinances.

In Ordinance of the City of Titusville, Florida, amending Section 7, Chapter 63-2001, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1963, by annexing certain property located at 1165 War Eagle Boulevard, having parcel ID number 21-35-30-00-769 to be included within the city limits, providing for severability, providing for repeal of conflicting ordinances, and providing for an effective date. An ordinance of the city of Titusville, Florida, amending this code of ordinance ordinances by amending ordinance number 60 dash, 1988, which adopted the conference plan of the city of Titusville by amending the future land use designation on property located at 1165 War Eagle Boulevard from residential 15 Brevard County. To residential 1, or, yes, 1. on 1.1 plus or minus acres of property having a parcel ID number 21-35-30-00-769, providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinances, and providing for an effective date. And finally, an ordinance amending ordinance number 5-1993 of the City of Titusville, Florida, by amending the zoning map made part of said ordinance by reference, by changing the zoning classification on property located at 1165 War Eagle Boulevard from Rural Residential, RR-1, Brevard County, to Residential Estate, RE-1. on 1.1 plus or minus acres of property, having parcel ID number 21-35-30-00-769, providing for severability, repeal of conflicting ordinances, and providing for an effective date. This application is a request to annex, amend the comprehensive plan, and to rezone property at 1165 War Eagle Boulevard, which is outside of the city, just in the north part of the city. The code requires that the applicant was asking for connection to the city's utilities. The code of ordinances requires that they, at least because they are adjacent to the city's boundaries, that they have to petition to annex. And that's why this process, our petition to annex includes everything I've just read here, which is the land use amendment and the rezoning. All is one comprehensive application to you. We reviewed the application consistent with the city's code, comprehensive plan and the city's code. You'll see on page 607 of your packet an aerial identifying where this property is located. If it is annexed, it will be surrounded on three sides by unincorporated Brevard County. The only, the contiguous part is across the street. There's one parcel there on the west side of the street that's inside the city. We reviewed this consistent with the annexation requirements, the comprehensive plan, and the rezoning. Sorry. we would recommend you consider annexing the property. The comprehensive plan, we found it to be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan, specifically section 34-40 of the code. And we found the rezoning to be consistent with the criteria of the rezoning, specifically section 34-40 of the code as well. If this is adopted, the new zoning of district on this property would be RE, and there'd be no changes on the property. With that, I'll try to answer any questions you have.

Thank you, Mr. Parrish. City Clerk?

No cards.

Did you want to speak, Pastor?

Actually, this Stewart Boating, 3885 Hickory Hill Boulevard, this is actually about a glass of water. That's what it really comes down to. When we purchased the property in September of 2025, the acre of nicely groomed land in October of 2025, we ended up with lakefront property after the big storm. And in the process of that flooding that didn't go away for quite a while, the well field was pretty much destroyed, in fact. My dog will attest that it is still in not a very good condition because when she runs out there, she comes back smelling like a sewer. So that's just the way it is. So we're trying to get a city hookup because the well field is on potable water. And that's the reason for the process. It has little to do with annexation and everything to do with just being able to hook up to the city water. I just thought to bring a little clarity to the reason why we're applying for that today. Okay, and I thank you for your time. By the way, the planning and zoning did a fantastic job, very detailed job of analyzing the whole thing, and appreciated their really hard work of coming to the conclusion where I totally got zero to seven. It was a stunning loss on that part, but apparently we're going in the right direction, so thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Clerk, do you have a card for him?

I did, but it was just the wrong item number. Okay.

I just want to make sure that that is completed correctly.

Thank you. Yeah, I actually watched the planning and zoning, and I thought they did a fabulous job because I had a lot of questions about this. And I think they recommended denial, and part of it is it's just part of the process. And so, Brad, just to clarify, If say we do deny, I know this is the first reading, he would still be able to get an out of service agreement for water and sewer, correct? Or at least water?

Subject to council approval.

Okay. Yeah, because I was looking and it's the closest sewer hookup is 420 feet away. And I was reading that the city doesn't really have any plans to build a sewer line up there. That would be quite expensive. And so this denial seems like something that's not good, but in this case... It's just part of the process. Just to clarify, right?

The process is that they are required to petition it before you. Okay.

Thank you. Member Stoeckel?

Yeah, question. Brad, do we have a map that shows people that remain unincorporated but use our services, our water and sewer?

We have that information.

That we've approved to allow?

We have that information. It's not part of your package.

No, and it's not. And I'm fine with, I think, where we're going with this one. But I just wanted to mention in my briefing, since we're talking about it, and you can see the map on 609, which kind of shows a little bit of what's unincorporated versus what's been incorporated. And I want to say to the mayor, I feel like you brought this up before about the annexation, is when I was going through this, because if they're not annexed in... And they want services they do pay a higher rate, so that's good for us, but I'm concerned about Will one we can annex at any time should that's part of the agreement Holistically as a city it might be good for us to like put on our radar not say right now But to look at a map that shows how many are still considered unincorporated but they're receiving our services if at some point it would be make sense from a financial standpoint as we're talking about how can we increase revenue with what they're paying or what they could be paying in ad valorem taxes versus their higher water rate? Would it make sense to potentially annex people in? The flip side of that, you have to take into consideration, the math would be tricky, of increase fire, police, all these services, which when you do look at a map, it does make it weird if, you know, sheriff's office shows up here, but your neighbor gets TPD. So just something as I was talking through this with them in my brief, and I was like, this is interesting just to look at the map or the math on how to do this. But yeah, I'm kind of leaning towards denial on this one as well. But we'll wait until next hearing.

I would say with a lot of our interlocal agreements, our police and fire typically do respond anyway because of just calls for service, right? But that was our first reading. No action taken this time, and then we'll move.

Just one small addition. The neighbors to the left and right have water hookup currently, so I just wanted to let you know. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right, now we're on to old business, I believe. Yes, sir. Item 11, Old Business. A is the Professional Planning and Engineering Consulting Services for Royal Oak. And this is to approve the rankings and the final recommendation of the top ranked firm responding to RFQ 26-Q-045TB, Professional Engineering Services for the Royal Oak Study. THIS IS TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RECOMMENDED FIRM. FINAL CONTRACT APPROVAL AND PROJECT COSTS WILL BE BROUGHT BACK TO COUNCIL AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING. AND WE HAVE TWO OF THE MEMBERS OF THE EVALUATION FIRM, KEVIN COOK AND SANDY RELLER ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCESS FOLLOWED AND THEIR FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS.

Yeah, I would just like to hear in your words what set the two the top two companies What was the difference that you saw in them?

Because I know you guys chose different ones I've sat on many of these committees And I even said in the committee that this one was tough. They were all very capable firms. I think the top choice is The Tetra Tech was the second choice for me. They were more engineering based and I know they can handle storm water side very well. I can't remember the name of the top one at the moment because it's way late for me. They had more of the planning, which I think is the point of what we're trying to do, is what can go here and what is the best for the community. That's kind of what I saw. Kevin, can I ask you the same question?

Yeah, I think both companies can do the job. I leaned heavily towards the bigger firm. They provide a little more resource development than smaller firms do. but certainly they both can do the job. And there were five members of the committee, so other than myself and Eddie ranked the separate number ones that the majority did rule on the number one ranking.

Member Stoeckel?

Yes, that's kind of what I was looking at, too, and looking and seeing the rankings, and I think we all got an email, too, from somebody from the community just discussing the ranking and how it was done. For me, when I see ranking this close, I believe it's up to council for us to determine the vision of what we're hoping to get out of this, and I would agree. I think one's more environmental engineering in stormwater, and one's more planning, so Like civil planning so they're going to be a little bit more broad smaller company versus in my opinion environmental engineering very specific and That's kind of what I was hoping with this study because of all the stormwater issues the wetlands That we have discussed that was a major concern. I think for us at that time when we were seeing a a proposed development happen here, we wanted to know about the environmental impacts. And so for me, I was kind of leaning more towards the Tetra Tech firm because of those reasons.

Vice Mayor. In the evaluation, cost was not a factor because you don't know the cost yet, right?

That's correct. This is an RFQ. Right.

So once you start negotiating, you're going to negotiate with one and you have a price point that you're using?

We know we have budgeted $90,000. We have no idea. We did add... To the scope of service, we added additional public engagement sessions and also a stormwater element to be analyzed. So that would probably drive the cost up, but we don't know yet until we begin negotiations with the first ranked firm.

So when we start negotiating with the first firm and we can't get them to the price point that we want, do we cease that negotiation and start with the second? How does how does that system have this scenario?

Okay Thank you, and just so the council knows this particular solicitation those prices are in a sealed envelope So they have already been submitted. We only open these selected vendors price, okay?

Thank you It would be really helpful if you opened all three and told us Can't do that to engineers Remember Nelson we can't open the top two at least and find out that

Okay. I was sort of leaning towards Zav Cohen, and I think in part because I know that the stormwater system and the pipes in Royal Oak are a problem, and they're the old cast iron pipes with, I understand, a lifespan of 50 years, and we're at 65. So talking to people, if that fails, we're in serious trouble. Royal Oak is in serious trouble. And I talked to Sandy about it, but I talked to some other people. Not that I didn't trust you, but... I wanted to get other people's opinions. I liked Zeb Cohen because I was interested in a broad scope of what could fit on there without putting so much pressure on the property and the surrounding area that would cause more problems. So that was what I was after. And really, what is an appropriate number of houses on there. That's what it's going to be where we're not making things worse. So I was after more of a broad, um, scope of what should be there. So that's why I was sort of like Zeb Cohen, but putting the envelope up to the light works too. Member Moscoso.

Thank you. I'm kind of leaning like Member Stoeckle to Tetra Tech. I will say I know a few of the council members from Ormond Beach and the Zev Cohen and Associates did one of their golf courses up there. I think it ended up being a three to two vote. It was very contentious and I think one of the things that kind of initiated this was we wanted a lot of participation from folks in our community and I know the folks in Ormond Beach We're not very happy with the proposal up there. So on my side of the public input, I'm not saying that would be repeated here, but I think we have to take that into consideration too of the reasons why we asked for this. And there's multiple, but one of them was it was kind of an outcry from the community of what they wanted. So just knowing that a little bit kind of leans me, I lean a little bit more towards Tetra Tech.

City Clerk.

Tony Shuffler.

I'm obviously not in this neighborhood, but I looked over. I'm disappointed in the process of how these firms were picked. I had thought that the people that were involved, the Royal Oak people and the organization of the Royal Oak, you know, that they would be involved in choosing the people that were going to develop the plan for for this area. And so I looked over the responses from ZEVCON and it looked to me, you know, they're big time developers of developments and they tend to favor, I just was looking up in Port Orange, they did something with 1,300 residential units and lots of commercial stuff and every one of their little descriptions was, so many feet of commercial or retail and residential units. And when you look at land design and their packet and their presentation, no wonder why they didn't want them because it's all open space and parks and wetlands and created beautiful things of nature. And so I'm just disappointed in the process. Thank you.

Thank you. City Clerk?

Seth Adams.

Thank you, Council. I'm going to read a letter from Dr. Kathleen O'Rourke. She could not be here tonight, so I've been designated to read her take on this. her place. So the following is a letter from Dr. Kathleen O'Rourke, professor emerita and retired department chair of the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of South Florida College of Public Health. So she knows what she's doing. Dear council members, I'm writing to present an analysis of the methodology used to identify the winning applicant for the small area studies. Since I cannot be there tonight, I have asked that my letter be read. I know statistics can be complex and can sometimes put people to sleep, but please bear with me because this is an important information for our community. Five evaluators each assigned the applicants an overall numerical score on a scale from 0 to 100 based on the established criteria and their assigned weights. Those scores tell us not only which applicant scored higher, but by how much. However, those scores were then converted into first, second, and third place rankings. That conversion results in the loss of important information. For example, scores of 95 and 94 become first and second place, but scores of 95 and 65 also become first and second place. The ranking system treats these two situations the same, despite the very different underlying evaluations. I went back and totaled the original scores. Applicant A received 422 points. Applicant B received 451 points. Applicant C also received 451 points. In other words, the original numerical evaluations produced an exact tie between applicants B and C. After these scores were converted to rankings, the totals became applicant A, 9, applicant B, 14, and applicant C, 7. This makes the outcome appear much more decisive than the underlying evaluations actually were. The ranking method did not identify a clearly superior applicant. It merely transformed an exact tie in the original numerical evaluations into the appearance of a decisive result. I'm not asking council to select a different applicant tonight. I'm asking council to recognize that the existing evaluation does not establish that either applicant A, applicant B, or applicant C is more qualified. I therefore respectfully request that Council postpone the selection until additional study-specific information is obtained from the tied applicants through an equal and transparent process. That additional evaluation should focus on the qualifications most relevant to this particular study, including stormwater analysis. So do the best you can with this decision. Thank you, everybody. Thank you very much. All right.

Member Stoeckle, do you have a specific question, or can I get through the cards?

Oh, you can get through the cards.

Thank you. City Clerk?

Vicki Conklin.

Vicki Conklin. First of all, I want to thank Tom Abadie. He's been a really delight to work with in this process and has included us so graciously of his time and expertise as well as Brad. And we appreciate that because we all are one big community trying to work together to make it better. He's been really good with transparency, which is something the community's been asking for and provided the proposals, the audio recordings, scheduled meetings with us whenever we requested. And so I just really want to say thank you. I really appreciate that. We all do. So on February 10th, the small-scale study was directed to be done by this council. And so the goal, as we understood it, was objective assessment of the Royal Oak Golf Course property, including stormwater, environmental concerns, land use, and current zoning, and to explore alternatives of development and redevelopment impacting existing homeowners and property owners. So the interviews and presentations were held on July 29th. Our team, you can go ahead with the first set. Our team, being the Royal Oak Neighbors Group, we listened to the audio of the presentations because this session was not open to the public and we read the proposals and the websites and we placed calls to the three firms to help us better understand what these firms recognized. We're excited about the next phase. All three firms were impressive their own ways and so we what we compiled here was a handout to show you and the first is land design and they weren't the top ranked but still we thought they merited because they did a really good job and so what we did was listed what we perceived through everything we studied was the strengths and the weaknesses so we won't go into those as much because the other two are the top two and so the next one is Zev Cohen and then Tetra Tech. And those are the two that I believe that you all are considering the most. And so the list of the strengths with Zev Cohen, and you can see here, we've listed that they do public and private, the local knowledge. And so this is the things that the city. staff ranked them on with the local knowledge and so forth. They listed a process of seven stages but not really defined them. They stated they've watched the council meetings and they've researched social media postings. But they represent that developer in Ormond Beach and we had a little problem with that because I spoke with the HOA president in Ormond Beach, and there were some stories that they were telling me about. It was very contentious and going on for years. They represent that developer. It's 147 acres, and so it's pretty similar to Royal Oak, so we have some concerns there. They seem to lack a depth of resources. They only have 40 employees. They hire three subcontractors, so they don't have their own employees to pull. Their public outreach sessions were not defined. They want to use the city's flash vote and ties till tomorrow. They are interested in doing traffic studies. Even they don't know what the what the hope would be for the land But I really kept referring erroneously to dr. O'Rourke is dr. O'Keefe, which we thought was kind of cute on there But one thing I need to tell you I can't be up I haven't done three minutes.

I don't make the timer go faster I haven't been here three minutes. Yes. No, I don't think I have Pinky promise

Well, then I'm going to request a little more time.

Member Moscoso?

Yeah. Is a minute good or two minutes?

I can do it in a minute.

A minute. Sure. Thanks. Thank you.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Ms. Conklin?

So Mr. Dwight Durant is the owner of the company of Zev Cohen. And I want you to know that Earl and I were working on a drolic project and we decided, he sent them an email and decided to do a phone call. Mr. Durant was very harsh and abrasive to us on the phone because all we were saying, we want to know, have you done a project with culture? and he refused to answer it and he became very abrasive. I don't have to answer anything that you say and I've watched everything that you've posted on Facebook and it's like, whoa, all we want to know is have you worked with Coulter before? It was a simple yes or no question. If that's their first exhibit of community engagement, we have a real problem here. So that's Zev Cohen, so we're not really recommending them. So I've provided you with Tatra Tech. They wrote the SOARL plan, so they're already familiar with Lagoon and the issues. They have a depth of resources. They have 25,000 employees. They have a geologist. They have an environmental engineer. They have a stormwater engineer. They have experience with brownfield and mitigation and resources. So that is our recommendation is Tetra Tech. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I was hoping you were going to tell me it wasn't a minute. I said I hope you were going to tell me it wasn't a minute.

You hope I what?

I said I hope you weren't going to tell me that you didn't talk for a minute. Oh, I told you I could do it.

Thank you very much.

Liz Parker.

All right, Mayor and Council, thank you for being here and listening to us. I'm asking you to pause tonight and ensure that taxpayer money is spent on the right study at the right time for the right purpose. Please don't spend $90,000 answering the wrong question. The city rejected the developer's proposed flume transmittal, resulting in, at this February 10th meeting, and it resulted in the motion for this study. The crux of the discussion we had prior to that motion was stormwater. The question isn't just how can this golf course be redeveloped? It's what future land use designation is appropriate to this property. The city's scoring criteria are weighted toward vendors' redevelopment capabilities, not determining the appropriate land use density, infrastructure limits, and compatibility with the existing community. Both the ZCA and the Tetra proposals received exactly 451 points from city staff. Yet my review found meaningful differences in the technical methodology around stormwater, transportation, fiscal analysis, alternative land uses, which are very interesting if you take the time to look at Tetra's actual proposal. and validation of the already rejected assumptions from the developer. This raises a fundamental question, did the scoring process measure what the study requires? And timing, this property is subject to ongoing litigation over the lakes and stormwater infrastructure deeded to the city over five decades ago. Meanwhile, the study is now spending $748,000 on a citywide stormwater study, which is going to have to include this parcel. Can stormwater, oh sorry, stormwater is a central issue at this parcel and a critical factor in deciding what development this parcel can appropriately support. The lakes and drainage infrastructure play an integral role in the greater basin's drainage system. Yet the scope of this study removes the detailed engineering analysis needed to understand these conditions. The city's larger stormwater study will not publish critical baseline findings until well after our study will end at the current schedule. And litigation continues with the developer in the city over the rejected proposed flume amendment. These issues necessarily affect the purpose, scope and timing of the study. Are we selecting the consultant best equipped to determine what the future land use is? As far as appropriateness for Royal Oak, are we simply looking for a firm adequate to redevelop a golf course? Please pause and clarify the purpose scope evaluation criteria and timing Then select the consultant best equipped to answer the council's actual questions.

Thank you Thank you very much city clerk.

The last card is Earl Johnson. I

Good evening, counsel. First off, again, I'd like to thank. Tom and everybody, city staff, they were very helpful in this and it was nice that they posted all this information for us to look at online. That was great. It was most helpful. So Dr. O'Rourke created some information that she sent to me to further my understanding of this issue and I found that most helpful and so I thought I would just pass that on to You folks, hopefully you will find it as useful as me. So to start off with, she has a proposed method to resolve the statistical ties on an evaluation when an immediate decision is required. So if a decision needs to be made tonight without the opportunity for additional data, a sensitivity analysis is the best method and the best approach to use. It allows the council to determine whether the result will change when the influence of an unusually high or an unusually low individual scores is factored out. This analysis was repeated using three different scenarios. All three of these scenarios produced the same result. The raw numerical scores show that the two firms are tied. So the top two firms are tied exactly with 451. And so the council needs to, if they're going to make a decision tonight, there needs to be a method to break this tie. So this method minimizes the effect of unusually high or unusually low scores, and it preserves much of the original evaluation as possible to resolve this issue. So one reviewer, used a consistently lower scoring range than all the other reviewers did. If the scores from that one consistently low scoring reviewer are excluded for all the firms, four of the five reviewer evaluations remain. the adjusted score totals for those firms then break the tie. So then we have 377 and 373. The firm receiving 377 points prevails by four points in this case, so the tie is resolved. The sensitivity analysis repeated for three different scenarios and each of these scenarios the same firm prevailed. The first scenario was exclude the consistently lowest reviewer for all of the firms. And the second technique is remove each firm's highest score. And then the third technique is to remove each firm's highest and lowest scores. And so the result was firm B came out on top in all those cases. Sorry. Can I have a little more?

Again, I can't do that myself, so I'm going to have to make a motion. But I think your point is made. Pardon?

One minute?

Yeah, a minute.

Motion, second? Second. All those in favor? Aye. All right, motion carries. One minute.

Oh, thank you. So although these scenarios test the scores in different ways, each one identifies the same firm. This consistency demonstrates that the result is not dependent upon a single choice about which an extreme score to remove. So the no tie breaking method selected after the scores are known is perfect. However, the most defensible option available under tonight's time constraint is to exclude the scores of the one reviewer who consistently scored every applicant lowest. That rule is applied equally to all the firms and preserves 80% of the original scoring information and reduces the influence of one unusually low scoring evaluator. This produces a result that remains consistent when the scores are tested in all the other reasonable ways. For these reasons, I recommend that the council recognize the tie in the complete raw scores and resolve it by excluding the consistently lowest scoring reviewers for all the applicants.

Thank you. Thanks. City Clerk. Appreciate the time. Member Stoeckel.

Yes. As I stated, typically when we have two that are very high and close anyway, I think it's up to our discretion. I will point out, though, that this is not the first time I think we've had issues with our ranking. So it might be something that we put on our radar to try to improve our process. I think we had it with our registry process, with the health care, some of those things. Um, so that's 1 issue going back though to I think this Parker brought up a good point of. Are we answering the right question with whatever firm we select and. Going back to the original when we move to do a study, we did that and then what came back for us was. We decided this was not what we were looking for. It was missing some key components with community engagement in stormwater. Um, I think vice mayor, you said that where's the stormwater piece? That was a big component. Um, and I think we all agreed on that. And so moving forward to here, um. I guess that's where I'm at. I'm not looking more for that planning perspective because I think we kind of had that with our first proposal months ago. I was looking for more of that engineering environmental stormwater piece, and that's what Tetra Tech clearly does. So I stand by my decision. I feel like they would do exactly what we had concerns about. So that's where I'm at.

Member Nelson.