Brevard County Board of County Commissioners on 2026-07-07 5:00 PM - Regular - Jul 07, 2026

If you wish to speak to any item on the agenda or during the public comment portion of the meeting, please fill out a speaker card. Each person addressing the board shall have three minutes to complete his or her comments on each agenda item for which he or she has filled out a card. The chair has the discretion to determine or alter the time limits on any agenda item. The Board of County Commissioners requests that speakers appearing under the public comments section of the agenda limit their comments or presentations to matters relating to county business that are within the board's control, authority, and jurisdiction. I'd like to call the meeting to order. Our invocation today will be delivered by Donnie Legg, 2nd Adam Ministries. I just want to thank the commission. Years ago, I talked to my granddaughter, who's 25 now, living in Virginia, who came up here with me years ago when I was doing the invocation. And you all said, well, you may have not been there, but you said, come up and stand with your grandpa. And she stood next to me, but she was a little girl. She remembers that today. You made a memory there. So I just wanted to thank you for that. That's awesome. She could have been watching. Yeah. Pray. We're so thankful that you're a God that allows us to come directly before your throne because of the price that was paid for it. And, Father, we don't take that lightly. We recognize that you're a God that hears all and sees all. You're a sovereign God that is strong and in control. And this is why we need you. And, Father, I come to you today because we just celebrated our country's 250th year anniversary. Father, we call it Freedom 250, and freedom it's been. We live in the greatest country in the world. And all of its faults and all of its downsized things that happen, Father, we still have the greatest country in the world. And we thank you that you orchestrated us to live in this country. May we be led by the correct people. Father, we thank you for the commissioners that are before us and, Father, the elected officials. And we ask you not only to bless them but give them wisdom, Father, in the decisions they must make. Bless their families, Father, because I think of the military, men and women of our military, and our first responders who, Father, have fought and reacted to things, Father, to give us these freedoms that we have. I personally fought next to some who gave all, Father, so that we might have the freedoms that we have today. And so, Father, I thank you for those. And I pray for those behind me who, because of that freedom, because some has paid it all, because some have made it back, and some are even in this room that fought in wars. Father, I pray, thanking you, we live in a country that can have different opinions and voice those opinions. Father, I ask you, Father, to bless them and their families as well. And so, Father, I also ask you to bless those that are behind the scenes here to make this meeting work. I think of Kathy Lively, who, in my personal opinion, is my first impression of these commissioners that's set before me right now. So, bless her and her family, and we'll thank you for that. So, as the meeting continues today, may it be conducted in such a manner that brings honor to you, Father. And we'll give you the praise for it in Jesus' name. Amen. Amen. Our Pledge of Allegiance will be led by Commissioner Atkinson. I pledge allegiance to God, the United States of America, the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible. Okay, I'd like to officially call the meeting to order and to acknowledge that Commissioner Goodson is on. Do we need a motion for that? I'll make a motion for Commissioner Goodson to participate by phone. I second. Motion's second. All in favor say yay. Yay. Passes unanimously. Passes unanimously. Okay, first order of business. Minutes. We have the minutes for February 10th, 2026, February 24th, 2026, March 17th, March 19th, April 2nd, April 7th, April 21st, and another April 21st, the budget workshop, and May 5th. I'll make a motion to approve. Motion to approve. Those minutes. A second. A second. All in favor say yay. Yay. Yay. That carries unanimously. Okay. We have resolution awards and presentations, a resolution honoring community legal services on their 60th anniversary in Brevard by District 4. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you said, I have a resolution tonight honoring the 60th anniversary of community legal services, and we have Joe Colombo and Adriana Tran. You're welcome to come up. I'll read the resolution. We'll vote on it, and then the chair will recognize you to speak. Thank you for being here. Thank you for being here. Whereas many Americans are one civil legal problem away from falling into poverty or further into poverty, annually, three in four low-income American households experience at least one civil legal problem, and yet 92% of these households do not get any or enough legal for their civil legal problems. And whereas community legal services has served the residents of Brevard, Citrus, Flagler, Hernando, Lake, Marion, Osceola, Orange, Putnam, Seminole, Sumter, and Volusia counties for six decades since its founding in 1966 through the provision of no-cost legal services for those who could not otherwise gain access to counsel. And whereas the communities served by community legal services include low-income Floridians and their families, seniors, veterans, survivors of domestic violence, children with disabilities, disaster survivors, and other at-risk individuals facing critical hardships such as the potential loss of a home, fraudulent contracts, financial instability, denial of benefits, barriers to housing, challenges in disaster recovery, and the need to obtain legal protections. And whereas through its dedicated staff and the hundreds of pro bono attorneys who have volunteered their time over the decades, community legal services have served our clients with more than 300,000 civil legal cases and committed more than 1 million hours of direct legal assistance for Floridians over the past six decades, embodying its commitment to legal access for all, thus strengthening communities and economic stability across its service area. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners does hereby recognize and commend community legal services for its 60 years of service and dedication to its mission, to provide no-cost legal services to the most vulnerable in Central Florida and help them protect their families' health and livelihoods done in order and adopted in regular session the 7th day of July, 2026. With that, Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor, say yay. Yay. Yay. Yay. Carries unanimously. Thank you. Sir. Thank you. Once again, Joe Colombo. I'm the board director representing the Brevard County Board Association, and I'm here with Ms. Adriana Tran, who's our government relations director, came over from Orlando. Just very briefly, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, individually, Commissioner Feltner, and thank you to all the commission and all the staff from the county for this wonderful proclamation. It's much appreciated. Once again, we've been working for 60 years in Central Florida in 12 different counties. We're the largest legal aid in the state of Florida. We work here in Brevard County in conjunction and in concert with Brevard County Legal Aid. We fill some gaps or some areas that they don't do work in, but we work in concert with them. And, you know, safety, human safety, a right to shelter, food. These are basic human rights, and oftentimes people have to walk across the street to the courthouse to address certain issues involving those rights. And we're here to make sure that people aren't alone in court. Obviously, there's mechanisms to have people represented in criminal court, but this is in civil court where lower-income people have an attorney to help them out, whether it's an eviction, a domestic violence issue, a veterans' benefits issue, a tax issue. There's a whole host of them that we're involved in, and we're proud to be involved in. And once again, we thank you for this proclamation. Our executive director is a colonel in the reserve, so he's big on the challenge coins. So he's got challenge coins for all the commissioners we'd like to hand out tonight. Thank you. Thank you. That's commemorating the 60-year anniversary. It's a nice coin. Thank you, and hopefully we'll move on, you know, 60 more years and onward and upward. Thank you. We like challenge coins, too. So, and this is a beautiful one. Excellent. Please tell them that. I have a frame of resolution for you to take back. It's not as pretty as this, but I hope you'll accept it. Thank you. Much appreciated. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for the proclamation. Thank you. Thank you so much for what you do for our community. It's so important to help those who can't afford an attorney, and our society is so much based on the ability to have representation, and I can't say enough how much I know I appreciate how important it is that what you do. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We will now move to the consent agenda. I have one item that I just want to pull for a little discussion. That's F4. Is there any commissioners that have anything they would like to pull? I do not. I think that's the only item. Okay. We do have some cards. We'll listen to the cards. Item F3. Rick Heffelfinger. Rick Heffelfinger, District 1, 2000 Juniper Drive. I had one question on this one. This is a big number, and it's a transportation impact fee. And my question was, I pulled the, I looked at all the attachments like I'm supposed to. So I pulled all these, the memos and stuff, and I know that we go through and we vote on this stuff with Titusville. We've got public works involved. It never says how much is in that fund. Because that typically we don't want to disclose that or we don't know that. And it also says the North Mainland area. And I was wondering if anybody could, I don't know if anybody's here for that one, could describe that because this is doing some good stuff. I'll say that right now. It's doing some good stuff. It's previously, a couple months back, it's paving some of the roads in Canaveral Groves, and the people in Canaveral Groves are excited to hear that. It's also improving. This one, I guess, is, yeah, the one from 317 paved some roads in Canaveral Groves and did some grissom up farther north. But this one right here is also putting in the, we're modifying the street lamp, or the signal, rather, at Canaveral Groves and grissom, and I think a lot of people will appreciate that one. But I don't know how much is in that, and whether that's fenced to D1, or is that just one big fund that all those impact fees go into? So those were my questions, and if you could answer them, that's about all I had. Is there one question? Well, one question is, well, you're right. There's one? Okay. Well, what's the balance in that fund? Because I guess they look at that balance and say, hey, do we have the money to do this from the impact fees? All right. I'll write that down, and we'll have staff answer it. Okay. But we'll move on, and then we'll have all the questions. And then the other one is, is the north mainland a fenced? Is that fund fenced by districts or not? Okay. So that was the other question. So that's it on F3. All right. F8. Oh, is that me, too? Oh, that is me. I'm going to hear yours while you're up, might as well. This one was an interesting one. I mean, I know we go through, this is all about the as-is deed for the board, where we had a problem with a pumping station, I believe, and the fence was 30 feet too close to the county, or it was giving up 30 feet. My question was, I thought we always went through zoning and all that stuff, and we pulled permits, but somebody built a screen room four inches away from the property line. And I don't know how that got through, and then did the county install the fence in the wrong place, or did the homeowners, was that the homeowners fence? It's not clear, but it just shows me a little bit, I'm concerned that we do all this stuff with permitting, we do all this stuff with, you know, you're supposed to have a plot plan, and I don't know who screwed that up, but the county was very, very nice, and they sold that piece of property so the guy would still have, I think, three feet so he could go beside his screen room. So that was a nice thing, I think, but how did we get into that situation in the first place? I don't know if there's any corrective action that we need to look at what we're doing with permitting, but either the county screwed up and put the fence in the wrong place, the homeowner assumed that's where it was, and then the homeowner pulled a screen room permit, didn't pull his own survey, and so he went into the easement. So just trying to find out why that happened, and why we had to, although the county made what? It made $332 by selling them that little plot, so that was revenue. So I just didn't know if anybody wanted to look at that and figure out why that happened. Do you want to get through on the answer? I could answer this maybe really fast. Okay. Cool. This is a lift station in, it's in Indian Harbor Beach, but it's a county facility, and so Indian Harbor Beach would have issued the permit. Aye. So do they need to get... But we're working with the homeowner. We don't want them to have to take down fences, and they have a, I think they have a pool. Et cetera. So for $300, we were able to get this fixed. Yeah, the fence, you're going to move the fence, I understand, but you're not going to move it all the way as far as you could. You're going to sell them that little piece that they got three feet. I think that's right, and I think it's about three feet. So that would have been an Indian Harbor zoning or planning? Not zoning necessarily, but permanent? I think it's just a permanent issue there. Yeah, well that's... And I don't know who owned the fence. Did the county own the fence? No, I think it's their fence. Ooh, they tried to seal your property then. I think we're working with the homeowner to... Yeah, well, they shouldn't have put that fence there, so I don't know why they were allowed to. All right, that's... Again, that's... I just don't know if somebody's going to give a heads up to that district that they didn't permit that very well. We can get you a meeting schedule for any hour beach if you want to go. Oh, no, no, no. I don't want to go. I just figured when we get caught... You can ask them. When we get caught in a situation like that, we ought to ask them, hey, how did you let that fence get put there 30 feet on your property, our property? Yeah. F11. F11. This one was, I think, just a review to standardized utility service department operations. But I flagged it because it said approximately $3 million annually is spent on utility service operations. I don't know what... Does that have some bearing on what we did with this update in the document? Because I always flag those for money, so that's the only reason I'm up here. $3 million. But it doesn't sound like we spent $3 million. It sounds like it's a big item, and we're trying to standardize it. Did I get that right? We'll get through all these. Okay. I don't know if that's... Yeah, that came from utility services. So they're doing a good job updating all their control documents. I like that. Am I moving to F12? Yep. This one is an interesting one. This is about an emergency purchase order. This is utility services again. We had a problem with the front side of the water processing facility, the headwater odor control and structural assessment. And I pulled all the purports, because this is an emergency, right? And I wanted to see what this emergency was. And water's a hot topic these days. So it says, I pulled the report by somebody in Veatch. Who's the report here? Anyway, those guys that were called in to do a report, there's an annotation in that report that says the first indication of this problem was 2021. And I don't know if that's a typo or when was Veatch brought in, but that's only two years after this water plant was updated. And the liner was coming off inside. And so from 2021 and then 2024, they came in, they took some pictures, they had some before and after, and then again in 2026. And by the time you get into 2026, it's an emergency. And it's going to cost us a lot. $1,130,635 is an emergency. And it looks like, I think we even skipped the multiple bidders, because this has to happen sooner than later, because it's an emergency. And I was just wondering, did we drop the ball and not catch, because I would have thought two years after something was built, we might be able to get a warranty claim on that. Because somebody built it wrong. And the evidence is, somebody went back through in the notes and said, yeah, the liner was improperly applied. So this was a manufacturer or an installer defect. And I don't know why, if it was actually detected in 2021, why it took until 2026 and it became an emergency. Because it's quite clear in here that I think everybody knows that hydrogen sulfide gas produced by part of the leachant that's in it and the nasty stuff that's in the processing water, it creates hydrogen sulfide, which is why you have to put that odor detection system in, right? So it stops. But the stuff's also colorless, corrosive, toxics, and flammable. So, and they measured readings that were way too high, which has probably helped along with the liner. I just don't know how we got here into an emergency when that, it looks like to me, that thing was breaking down in 2021. And it was only two years old. I mean, right now it's only seven years old. And it's a big project and they're talking about, it actually says that the secondary system is not even working at all now. I guess water's still going through it, but I don't, maybe it's not screening anything. So that one concerned me because it appears like we didn't catch that or we did catch that because the report says it was updated. I don't know when it was originally done, but if it was in 2021, then I would have thought that all those warnings would have been there. So that's all I had on that one. Fourteen. Fourteen. Yeah. Twelve had a lot of attachments, a lot of pictures. Fourteen. Let's see. The only comment on that one is that this house that we're doing this $20,000 septic tank for is in District 1, not District 2. So there's just a, I don't know if that matters. I don't know if that, who is it, the home agreement with home grant costs, if it matters where they do that work or not. But that's District 1. I'm done with that one. Okay. F-15 is next. Again, the fiscal impact caught my attention on this one. This is all for buying more buses and whatnot for Space Coast Area Transit, I guess. And I don't know whose money this is. It says they're Federal Transit Administration Fund. And I can add those up, and you add the two of them. I did some of the math, and I'm sitting there. But the fiscal impact says that you're using $30 million. I think that's $30 million. Yeah. $30 million. And the cost of the project is only, total cost is only $22,838,920. So I don't know why we're liquidating or utilizing more expenses than it costs to do the bus stuff. Well, it's buses. It's a security system. So just a clarification on when you say fiscal impact, usually it will say, hey, these aren't tax dollars. These aren't. And some of it does say that. Florida Department of Transportation toll revenue credits, it sounds like we get some, but they don't have any monetary value, and we can use them to get grants. I think that's how that works. But, again, that one is just a question of where's that money coming from because they're buying a lot of buses and whatnots. I'm done with that one. So I think I'm done. I think that's all the consent item comments and questions. That I flagged, yes. Do you want us to maybe have staff? Yeah. That way we can answer them rather than get it. Okay. So we're going to defer that. Somewhere we're going to get some answers. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Cool. Thanks. Mr. Chair, you want us to go through them now? Yes. Okay. Yep. Thanks, sir. So I believe the two questions on F3 were what was the fund balance in the North Mainland Benefit District Project Fund, and the second question was whether that fund was fenced. The first question I don't know the answer to off the top of my head. I'd have to get back with the comment there. Obviously, there's adequate funding for the $3,598,000. That's part of this request. On the second question, the answer is generally yes. There's five transportation impact fee districts. Generally, whatever district the money is collected in is where it has to be expended. And so the North Mainland Benefit District, the reason why the advisory committee is made up of Titusville and Brevard County is all the impact fee benefit districts, the advisory committee is made up of the municipalities within that district as well as Brevard County. So in the North Mainland Benefit District, it's the city of Titusville and Brevard County. Okay. Have faith? Oh, we did that one. I got it checked off. Good job. Yeah, thank you. F-11. That's why I have a check there. Okay. So, Commissioner, with regard to F-11, as we stated, our objective is to standardize equipment for a consistency across our utility. Exhibit A discusses what we're adding to our standardization with regard to the $3 million reference. Those are big-ticket items. The clarifier equipment alone, I think, believe, go for close to a million each for each clarifier. So, I don't feel comfortable with that number where it stands. Okay. Just F-4. What's that? F-12, I mean. F-12, yes. So, item F-12, Commissioner. So, the dynamic of this is that there was a condition that occurred years ago as referenced in the agenda report. It was observed that it was minor. Along the way, we did have a turnover in staff that the communication with regard to this item may not have been conveyed over. However, recently, as it's stated in the agenda report, we not only had one, we had two engineering firms independently do an evaluation that was consistent. Given South Central is the largest wastewater plant in our service area, where, you know, in the headworks is the first point of entry for sewer, it's unsafe as it speaks. So, we've gone through the collaboration of finding the most expeditious way in order to get this repaired and back online. And that's the necessity of that emergency PO. I think there was a question also, is it under warranty? Yeah, and we do have the county attorney's office. We've provided it on many of the documentation, and they're going through that review. Okay. Maybe some good news will come out of that. F-14. Oh, that one was corrected. Yeah, it was corrected, yeah. Yeah, it was in the wrong district. F-15. Mr. Chair, I'm handling F-15. Terry's out. As I do this, nine years old knowledge, but I think I have it down. Yeah, the $22 million and change, that's Federal Transit Administration money. That's money from the federal government comes through the Department of Transportation. Mr. Heffelfinger is correct. The $4 million toll revenue credit is just a paper credit. It shows our match for that $22 million. And then you see a couple other numbers, transportation block grant, whatever that adds up to about $3.7 million. When you look through on the pages, our operating assistance requires a 50-50 share. So that's the state's share of that 50-50 share. So that's why the numbers are – we're applying for $22 million and change of federal money, but then we're showing the impact is what we have to match with share. Okay, great. Okay, that's all. I have my item, and I think we can just have a quick discussion on it. I don't think we need to have a separate vote. But I thought it was interesting. We had some interesting conversations. Staff did a really good job in their briefing. But the issue came up, and something I think we need to be aware of, maybe in future meetings or thinking of a future policy, this is a final plat approval. It's in District 4, but I think – I pulled this because it applies to all districts. It doesn't matter where it's located. But as we put more and more of these developments in roads and public ownership, our present MSTUs are not adequate for the maintenance. We're digging a hole for ourselves every time we do that. Now, if there's a gate, the streets may be private, so they're maintained by the private developer. But perhaps we need to do an analysis and see how deep a hole we're digging and maybe try to adjust. I don't know if it's more private streets or have an MSTU that's adequate to cover, but I just think the point is these plat approvals come and go, but we know that we're building ourselves in a debt situation or inability to maintain the roads. Can I ask a technical question? Sure. Can they – when we're at this plat approval process, can they be designated private roads if they're not behind a gate? Is that something that can be done? I'm just wondering for the future going forward. So typically the roadway maintenance is discussed during the preliminary subdivision process. So at that point, they could be private. You don't necessarily have to have a gate for the ownership and maintenance of the roadway. But typically they are gated. The reason they want the gate – and if they have a gate, then they do have to be private. So it's kind of – they want to have the private road. They want to have the exclusive – you know, being exclusive or being – where they can limit access to their neighborhood. So that's what they typically do through the development process. And that's sort of been my working knowledge since I've been here is that if it's behind a gate, that's a pretty good indication that it's private. But do they have to – because, you know, there is some maintenance with the gates. I live in a neighborhood like that, and it's surprising how much, you know, they spend on that. And so going forward for these, they don't necessarily have to be behind a gate for them to be private. That's just an agreement early on with the county, right? Yes, sir. Yes. All right. That's my question, sir. Thank you. That's good questions. Okay. I think we can go ahead. I'm sorry. May I? Sure. I don't want to pull anything. I just wanted to make a comment. On F-19 and F-21, we have a new IT director, Lois Boiseau. Congratulations and thank you. And we also have a new Verde County Fire Rescue Department director, James Stables. Thank you, sir. Ask him to stand. Will you guys stand? Lois, are you here? Where's Lois here? Oh, yeah. James, you get the best-dressed award here tonight. Okay, a motion would be in order. I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. I'll second. Motion is second on the consent agenda. All in favor, say yay. Yay. Yay. Yay. Carries unanimously. Thank you. Okay, we will now move to D, a G, public comments. And I think we have some public comment cards. Matt Albert is our first card. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Matt Albert, and I'm a resident at the Woods at Crook and Mile in Merritt Island. I'm here today to continue the discussion started by my neighbor, Adrian Vargas, who spoke before this board on May 5th, 2026, regarding the growing peafowl population affecting our neighborhood. Adrian, Ms. Vargas is out of town today. At the May 5th meeting, Adrian provided a packet documenting the issues, including sounds, photographs, residents' signatures, and information showing the impact of these birds are having on our neighborhood. Since that meeting, she and we have made multiple attempts to follow up by both email and phone with Commissioner Gordon's office. Unfortunately, we have not received a response. We understand that this is not a simple issue, and we are not expecting an immediate solution. We don't know whether anyone is looking into the issue or what our next steps should be. Over the past several months, our neighborhood has contacted Animal Services, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the Sheriff's Office, our HOA, and so on. Each agency has either said the issue falls outside its authority or referred us to someone else. Meanwhile, the peafowl population continues to grow, and the impacts on our residents goes on. Today, we're asking for communication about status and any next steps specifically. Has this issue been assigned to a county department or staff member? Is anyone currently evaluating possible options? And if the county is unable to assist, could you please let us know so we could further focus our efforts? Our neighborhood has approached this through the proper channels. We've documented the issue, gathered community support, and followed every recommendation we've been given. At this point, we're asking for a response and some guidance on what might come next. Thank you very much for your time and consideration, and I respectfully ask that a member of the county contact Ms. Vargas with an update on the status of the issue. Even if there isn't a solution yet, we would greatly appreciate knowing where things might stand. Thank you very much. Okay. I don't know if anyone has any comments. I know I made an inquiry as a result of our meeting. I know we've got an issue with FWC and animal control, and the peacocks are sort of in the middle of a no man's land legally. But we probably need to give you more information, so I'm glad you're here, and we will get on it. Do we have anything else? But I think we definitely, it's an action item we need to act on. Yeah, and there was a bunch of discussion. The minutes happened to be there, and I haven't got to the end, but it kind of looked like it just went there. But we'll come up with some kind of follow-up for you. Okay. Well, we need to respond to you. I appreciate you bringing that. Okay. My aid is back there. I'll make sure. I know our staff is here. We'll get you an answer on that. Our next card. I hit one with my car one afternoon, walked right in front of me. I couldn't sleep that night. I felt bad. I think it survived. Those are tough animals. Dented my car, and I got out of the car to find it, and it had run away. I'm like, wow. Okay, but we'll follow up. Okay, our next item, speaker, Sandra Sullivan. Good evening, Sandra Sullivan, and happy 250th anniversary to our great nation. As Ben Franklin said, a republic if you can keep it. And so there's a lot of people that share my concerns about data centers and the mass surveillance and the digital currency risks that that would bring to our society. And so now there are 20 counties and municipalities that have done moratoriums on hyperscale data centers. I'm requesting Brevard County to consider a moratorium on these data centers. EDC is in emails for data centers in Brevard, and we're hearing potential plans at Tyco and perhaps Palm Bay Compound. EDC gets 12 months of records request exemptions. We're hearing about NDAs in Titusville. So Brevard County officially voted to approve legislative intent and permission to advertise an ordinance excluding data centers from receiving economic development property tax abatements on April 7th, 2026. But you have not advertised legislative intent. So if you could give an update on that. Did Brevard violate the law when it did not go to legislative intent before the vote on December 17th, 2024, which gave data centers 20 years tax exemption under Florida statute 196.1995 when Brevard County voters passed the referendum on November 5th, 2024, they voted for very specific strictly bound constitutional authority. The statute says any ad valorem tax exemption granted by a county board under this program cannot exceed 10 years. But you did 20 years. On November 5th, 2024, the voters approved the tax exemption abatement for EDC. Would voters have voted for the EDC tax abatement if it included 20 years tax exemption for data centers? I think not. It looks like a bait and switch. Right after that referendum, on December 17th, right before Christmas when everybody's busy with their holidays, with Felner then on the EDC board and was chair of the Brevard County Commission. They changed the ordinance for a 20-year tax exempt for data centers as established by Florida statute 125.66, which says you cannot change an ordinance without first going out to legislative intent for a voter referendum. Brevard County Board of County Commissioners quietly granted data centers an unprecedented 20-year timeline without a formal advertised public hearing cycle alleged in violation of Florida law. And so I would like your consideration to correct these things. And if we could also get a moratorium on data centers, hyper-scale, hyper-scale. Okay. Thank you. All right. That's our first public appearance section. We will move on to public hearings. Item H1. We have no cards. We have no cards. Good evening, board. H1 is a petition to vacate a portion of two public utility and drainage easements. This is in District 4, Vera and Weston Morrell Road. It is for the ability for an existing pool form board to continue being constructed after discovering the pool had encroached into an easement area not shown on the original survey. Okay. It's my district. If there aren't any questions or comments, I'll make a motion to approve. Motion and second to approve. All in favor say yay. Yay. Yay. Aye. Chairs unanimously. H2. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Brevard County Levy is a local provider participation fund non-ad valorem assessment on hospitals to fund Medicaid payments for those hospitals who provide services to low-income and Medicaid-eligible citizens. Hospitals pay the assessment to the county. And we transfer the funds to the state where they qualify for federal match. This assessment costs local taxpayers nothing. And the hospitals actually requested that the county implement it because the benefits flow to those hospitals and increasing reimbursement for Medicaid services and eligible care. This ordinance updates the assessment structure in order to address the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which affected how states can finance Medicaid programs. It incorporates certain waiver provisions that exempt some facilities from provider taxes. It also allows for the opportunity to participate in a new managed care quality incentive program, in addition to the existing Medicaid payment programs already funded by the assessment. It does not affect the assessment rate, which is set by resolution after a public notice and a public hearing. And the same hospitals that requested the county's enactment of the assessment in the first instance have requested this ordinance and the updates it would make to the program. And I believe someone representing those hospital interests is here and has submitted a speaker card if you have any questions. We have that card. Colleen, questions only. We have another card. Stephen Lord. Did you want to speak? Wave and support. Wave and support. Oh, I like that. Okay. Hi, Colleen Ernst. I'm the technical expert on this item, so if there are any questions from the board, I'm happy to answer those. But otherwise, just happy to be here and support. Fantastic. Wonderful program. I'd like to make a motion to approve as written. A motion. You have a card? Okay. Can you hand us the card before you speak so we can get it in the pile? Thank you. Sandra Sullivan. I'll be quick. Sandra Sullivan. So I just want to just remind you when this was initially voted on as a formal hearing, the proper notice wasn't given, and the date that it was advertised on was a later date than what the hearing was, actually. So, you know, there does appear to be some impropriety there. That's it. Okay. I'm not – there's an allegation of an impropriety. Is there any substance to that? Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any discussion? All in favor, say yay. I think you need a second. I'll second it. Oh, I'm sorry. Second. Okay. Thank you. Motion and second. All in favor, say yay. Yay. Yay. Yay. Carries unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Let's move on. Next item, unfinished business. I-1. Discussion, stormwater utility assessment rate, design, credit removal, and minimum fee adjustment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll handle the first part. This is – we're bringing this back as staff. Back in February, you all voted to remove the design credit off the folks' stormwater fees, if they're eligible for it, and begin the process of that. That would generate about $850,000 a year. We're in the process. We're about ready to start the process to notify the homeowners. In between the February vote and one happened on June 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, the legislature have put the amendment number three on the ballot. Now, the stormwater credit, the stormwater assessments helps us build projects, but a good majority of our funding for maintenance and drainage comes from our road and bridge MSB – MST – excuse me, MSTUs. Let me slow down there a little bit. And based on some of the numbers we see from the property appraisers, the voters voted for Amendment 3, we would lose about $2 million in revenue from the MSTUs, and that's how we maintain a lot of our stormwater and drainage. So, as staff, we want to bring this back for your discussion to see if you'll be willing to talk about putting off the design credit notification in the process until after we see what the November vote will happen. I can tell you, if the November vote happens, there's going to be a lot of changes, structural changes we'll have to do to our budget and the county and how we provide some of the services. Luckily, this is a core service, but there may not be enough funding to go around. So, we have a number of options, but we're looking at option number one, asking if you could direct us to schedule an item during the fiscal year 26-27 to consider adoption of stormwater assessment rate amendments following the referendum. Okay. It looks like we have cards on this. I lost my voice on that. Let's go ahead and hear from the public, and then if any commissioners have a question. Sandra Sullivan? Sandra Sullivan, South Patrick Shores. So, what I just heard you say is that you'll wait until after the referendum to decide about the rate increases. So, there have been a couple conversations here on the dais about increasing stormwater fees to address flooding. So, a lot of flooding identified in District 1. We had flooding up there just, you know, yesterday. And in District 2. And so, I think that we also need to have some real conversations about cause and effect and looking at not just putting the burden of rate increases on we the people. So, there's been some conversations here. In fact, Commissioner Felder mentioned when it was brought up by Katie Delaney about addressing putting some funds from the budget to addressing that. There was a commitment made to allocate some funds from the lagoon tax, reprioritize some of that to address that need, and that conversation did not ensue. So, that's certainly one avenue. I would like to note that there's $9 million plus in appropriations for some stormwater projects up in District 1, which is great to see. So, it's very important to address stormwater, especially as it affects the lagoon, because it lowers salinity that seagrass doesn't grow. So, where the lagoon tax can be adjusted, I think a lot of the scientists agree that the freshwater impacts, the lagoon, those are funding that could be utilized. The other thing is space. So, I've been at meetings with Commissioner Goodson, and plus there's a half a million dollar hydrology study showing tremendous impact, millions of dollars of impact of flooding coming from, as Space Florida brings in Phil, and how that is affecting the flow to District 2 in North Merritt Island. And I think it's time to have a real conversation about space paying stormwater fees for the impact that they have on their neighbors. It's not fair for people who are saying that their property is becoming worthless. So, there's some conversations that we need to have on this, and then it goes back to impact fees, as the last point, is that you had an opportunity prior to July 1st to increase impact fees with the feasibility study by delaying it until after July 1st. You have taken away an opportunity in limiting how much you can increase that, which has not been increased in over 25 years. This one is really very complicated and confusing, because it stemmed from a discussion that we had back in February, the 24th meeting, it was I-2, and we put forward this idea that we were going to do possibly five, oops, wait a minute, six things. The result of that vote, if I'm correct, is decided not to do anything with one, three, four, and six, but did decide to eliminate the design credit only. So, you didn't raise the fee on everybody that was going to create $2.4 million. We all went, yay, we're not getting more fees for paying for this stuff. So, and the design credit is a weird thing, because it seems that, and I think I remember right, because I did watch the movies on this one to prep for this, it's really weird how the design credit impacts District 1, District 4, by $593,000, and it only impacts District 1 by $37,000. And I think that's, I guess a bunch of people in District 4 are getting those credits somehow. Do they have pawns on their property? I don't know, but I don't think that Commissioner Felder, you weren't in favor of that when we voted for number two. So, we did, we waived off three, which was $2.4 million. Well, we also had a conversation about the revenue split. So, when those MS2 values come in, and I think Commissioner Atkinson, you had brought that up and Katie was interested in that, but then it was said that, well, we can't really decide that now, we need to have more conversation, because it may be legally, you're changing how that money is spent, and you need to notify, or something. I think Morris had some input on that. So, if we vote on this now, are we ever going to talk about the split issue again, or should we wait? My recommendation is to wait, pick option number one, which I think is to put this off, and then when we bring it back up again, is to already have that split conversation decided. Why do a legislative, why spend, jeez, what are we going to spend here, $120,000 on mailings when we're not addressing the split. So, I don't think we ought to waste that money, and we're only receiving $857,000. I mean, that doesn't even buy a nice house anymore, right? So, the return on investment is not very good, and I think we need to discuss the split. Maybe we, oh, I hate to say it, but you want to talk about jacking up the, no, dude, let's not do that. So, that's all I had to say about that one, because it was very confusing the first time we addressed it, and what we actually achieved is not a lot. So, that's my recommendation, option one, don't do anything. Okay. All right. I think that's kind of what the recommendation is. I have some discussion. Okay. So, I stand by my vote last time, which was to remove the design credits and increase the minimum collection, but a lot of what people have said in the conversations that I've had, I'm wondering if we shouldn't do a little bit more right now, because justifying the increase, talking about the split, maybe we need to find out some more facts before we decide what we are actually going to do here. I mean, what's the sense of increasing it now and then later having to do it again if it's not enough? So, dare I say it, do we do a study to get some facts before we do this? I don't know. I don't, like I said, I'm just having a conversation right now. I don't know if we have anybody on staff who wants to comment or what my fellow commissioners think. Maybe we have staff to give us a little bit of information, background. We did have a rate study the last time the board changed the stormwater fee. We could do that again. We could include in the scope to look at the maintenance needs that the county manager described with MSTU. So, we could take all of that into account and it would probably take about six months, cost on the order of $150,000, bring that back to you early 2027 in time to send notices out by next summer. Could I clarify something? That's just a rate study. Yes. Which is largely a survey of us or other municipal governments, surrounding counties, all of that sort of thing to figure out that we are somewhere in the middle, we're low, we're high. I mean, is that how we assess it, all of those kinds of things? Is that what the rate study does? So, you know, rates, sorry, do you want to? It's hard. An assessment rate study looks at the benefit that's conferred by the program, the cost of providing the program, and then how you apportion that among the payers into the program. So, what slice of that benefit are they receiving? So, it decides, you know, how you apportion it. It could be based on things like pervious square footage on a property or the drainage improvements existing on the property, like the current design credit. So, all those factors are taken into effect, and they try to do rough justice to apportioning the cost of that program to the rate payers who pay into it. And they can do forecasting, you know, looking at more of the long-term needs and how to apportion that and provide alternatives. And they can also assist with public information workshops, if you want that. So, the rate study scopes vary from community to community, depending on what all you want included. Are there any of those that are done by another county, municipal government, DEP, St. John's, any of those kinds of things that we could adopt and not have to spend over $100,000 for a separate study? I mean, I understand you need to provide county. Area-specific. So, the most recent similar one was Clay County last year. That cost $148,000. That was also, you know, it's a county. It's an existing stormwater utility, not looking at establishing a new one. So, they did rate modeling and public outreach. Yes. Virginia, when was our last rate study done? 2013, before the board adopted changes in 2014. And it's possible that rather than a study, we just need to look at the overall cost of the program. And you can keep the methodology of the existing study and assessment and just look at what rates should be in order to fund the cost of the program today. Right. Right. We have the roles. We have the impervious area. So, we might be able to pare down the scope considerably. I'm not sure what all Clay County had to work with. I'm not crazy about spending money on studies at all. But I also, I'm also not comfortable just saying, you know, yeah, let's do this without having it specific to us. If the last one wasn't done in 2013, you know, that's a while ago. Commissioner Feltner? If we're done with questions, my comment on this is, I think tonight I would go with option one, and then we could consider some study in the future, as staff mentioned, after we, it's not just even just the referendum, but all the implementing language that will come in December, and we can better consider things after that. So, I would go with us, and of course, I was on the other side of this vote, as you know, so it wasn't something I wanted to do at that time. So, if we don't do this, and we agree on that tonight, that's where I would be. So, I'll make a motion for option one, if that's where we are tonight. I have a question, more of a motion in the second. We don't need a motion for reconsideration, do we? I ask our counsel on the parliamentary procedure. It has to be from the prevailing party. Technically, under Robert's rules, that applies at the same meeting, a motion for reconsideration. Okay. What we have done in the past to prevent items from coming up ad nauseum, and I think this one, the posture is a little bit different, because there are intermediary steps, and I think the staff is looking for direction now in whether to do the mailer or not, so I wasn't inclined to say that's required. However, if the board wanted to, just as a formality, you could say, for purposes of entertaining this, we're going to waive Robert's rules of parliamentary procedure for this item and entertain a motion to reconsider. But I think I'll leave that to the discretion of the chair. I'm fine. I'm fine. We have an intermediary, and time has passed, and things have changed, so I'm okay with the motion. I have a question. So I have a motion, a second, a discussion, a question on the motion? So my question would be, if we're going to come back and talk about this, like actually doing a study, when would that conversation happen? You're asking me? I'm asking anybody. I think after we know both the referendum, but more importantly, I think the legislature has said that they'll have implementing language in a special in December, so I think we'll know a lot more after that special session. So we could do it in early January. So why couldn't we say that we were going to do a study if, in fact, this thing does pass in November? You know what? I'd rather like, I'd like to know what the implementing language is and all the other consequences that we have to deal with. I made my motion. Okay. There's a motion, a second. Is there any other discussion? All those in favor, say yay. Yay. Yay. Yay. Opposed? Nay. Okay, it passes 3-1. Okay. That's a tough issue because it affects districts so differently. All right. We'll move on to J-1. Permission to advertise a public hearing to amend the utility service rate resolution that comes in South Beaches, Merritt Island, North Bard, Port St. John, and South Central Mainland service area. We have a couple cards. Sandra Sullivan. Sandra Sullivan. South Patrick Shores. So I have some heartburn because we were first promised with the lagoon tax for advanced wastewater treatment, which is to remove the high nutrient loading, which of course, you know, goes into the wetlands, goes into the lagoon when we dump, and goes down in deep injection, et cetera. So we were promised AWT with the lagoon tax. We got less than 3% of it going to that. So then in 2021, we got a 46% compounded rate over five years to, again, tax us to put money towards advanced wastewater treatment. And now we're looking at another 46%, whether it's going to be over one year or two years or three years or five years, you guys are going to decide. So, I mean, that works out to roughly, depending on your decision, but roughly 113% increase. I just like, I think we need some accountability when we're talking about we've been taxed now, this will be the third iteration, essentially for the same thing. In the last five years, 66% of that money was supposed to go to capital to the projects that were identified. These are from documents that you uploaded to these agenda items that you passed. I take issue in particular that in December of 2024, there was a discussion here where all of you, all of you, all of you, all of you promised that you would not put on the rate pairs, the burden of the $130 million for Space Florida. You made that promise, but you didn't keep it. So now that number is $197 million. You don't have funding, you don't have state funding. We doubled how much money we're paying the EDC from $700,000 to $1.4 million. They didn't deliver. I'm bringing you money. So now you want to raise our rate while Space Florida pays no property tax. As of 2026, pays no sales tax. So they're not even helping offset what they do to the lagoon. And now you want to insult us by putting the cost of Space's connection to Sykes Creek on our rates. It's despicable on all of you. You made a commitment. Commissioner Felder, your eyes are cast down. You guys all made a commitment that you're breaking. Rick Heffelvinger, District 1, 2000 Juniper Drive. I'm going to object on the grounds that this is a mess. This packet is a mess. If I pull the J, because this is what I learned to do, right? Because when I come up here and I don't shoot from the hip, I pull the information, and I look at what J-1 says it's all about. And it says that the fiscal impact is an estimated minimum fiscal impact adjustments made to the water and sewer connection fees, $4.8 million. And you look at that, you see a chart of how we could phase it in or we could drop it all at once, and that's great. Then it says the proposed adjustment to the service fees are projected to increase $15,000 per year. I don't know where that number came from. Because this thing is all about the rate payer is getting nailed hard. And if you look at the packet, I cannot create a valid timeline to figure out what the hell you've been doing over the last couple of years. I think Sandra just mentioned, well, it was a couple of years back and it was a progressive rate. It was 46%. And then this one drops. It's another 46%. So I have no idea what the revenue actually is. And this doesn't say. So how could I approve this when I don't even know how much money it's bringing in? I do know that it's bringing in like a big chunk of change, $4.8 million for the connection and the, what is it? The chart's got, we're connecting water and we're connecting wastewater. And boy, I'll tell you what, it doesn't specify, I don't think, there's a differentiation between a single family residence and a mobile home park. Are you telling me if I put a mobile home park in the future with this, like this, I'm going to pay $8,500 for water and I'm going to pay $4,500 for sewer. And I bought a mobile home. That hurts. The previous schedules had something in there that was an offset that said, because that's low income housing people, isn't it? Or it could be my retirement home and I have a property and I want to put a mobile home. Now I have to pay that? Now that's, that's an impact to everybody that's growing. So that kind of slows everybody down, but boy, I'll tell you what, if it doesn't have a rate differential for four bedrooms, five bedrooms, this all, this all bases the rate on what it was for a single family three bedroom, I think. It had a higher rate for fours, it had a higher rate for fives, had a whole bunch of other crap for condos and whatnot. I don't see any rates scheduled. Nail them with 45 and 85. Boom, boom, boom. Everybody who builds anything. Now that's really great. I think it'd be great if that was all, every apartment building had to pay that for each unit. That would be, that'd be some serious revenue there, right? All new building. You miss the big building boom though. That's kind of, this thing's a mess. The financial disclosure. If I was a citizen, looked at J1, I'd say, yeah, nail them. All the new people nail them. And then you look at it and go, wow, what are you going to do? There's mobile home people and all those, whoa. So this is misguided from the get go and it's a screwed up package. I'd say, dismiss this, bring it back with the right documentation. You can't even get a clear copy of the previous resolutions. They're half marked up from one year and then half, it's terrible. That's what I got. Okay, that completes the cards. Bring it back to the board. Yeah, we'll have staff give a report here. Good evening, commissioners. So this is a, this is to get permission to advertise the rate resolution. And I'll touch a little bit about what this rate resolution revisions are. And I'll tie that in with the fiscal impact, as it was mentioned previously. The bulk, we did some, in the resolution, we did some cleanup work with regard to some of the definitions and languages. As it associates to the fiscal impact associated with server fees and Exhibit B, those are really related to water turnoff, towing fees that we were just adjusting from like $55 to $75. It's minor incremental service fees that are done for the residents. With regard to the connection fees, commissioner, they do function as impact fees. So these are the fees associated with growth. This is for new construction. Nothing is related to the existing rate payers, because once you pay your connection fee once, it's for perpetuity. So the intent of this is understanding what the growth is in Brevard County and making the adjustment. We went through an analysis to determine what the appropriate rate would be for now, today, in order so that we are making sure that future development are paying their fair share of what the growth or the expansion of utilities would be needed. And if I may, commissioner, with regard to the line item, on the exhibit, what we do is we represent, when it comes to different criteria of development, whether it's a restaurant, a mobile home, or whatnot, what we had previously in the resolution that went back 20, 25 years, there was a table in there that, quite honestly, was not correct. In the exhibit of the rate resolution, we're referencing the Florida Administrative Code 62-2.008. This is what the state of Florida uses as the ratio of homes. So it is a reference, the starting point of a connection fee is a reference to a one- to two-bedroom home. But depending on if it's a bigger entity or a smaller entity, it would be listed in the Florida Administrative Code 62-6.008 that we would use as the guidance to provide the correct ratio and the adjustment of any connection fee for other than a single family. Okay, do we have any additional questions? I do. Yes. Commissioner Aikenson. Eddie, if I may? So just two questions from me. First of all, we haven't increased since 1993. That's correct. I'm wondering why. My second question is, isn't this making us come in line and comply with some federal standards here? This is not just us increasing because we feel like it? This is basically, we know we have to, in order to provide for the future development, we have to expand our capacity in order to service that. This fee is a calculation for every equivalent single family home, and I used the word equivalent. It's what their initial payment would be for the capital cost to provide the capital for us in order to provide that expansion. In 1993, how come we haven't gone up since then? It hasn't been brought to the board, so this is our opportunity to get it corrected. Okay. Okay. Any other questions? And I just wanted to highlight one point. These are connection fees, in effect. It's not an impact fee because it's a connection fee and there's a legal difference, but we're looking at growth, paying for growth. Correct. And I know we've heard a lot about that, how it should. Okay. Any other questions? I think a motion would be in order. So, I'm sorry, Commissioner. So, if we could also get some guidance in terms of the advertisement on which of these options. And, again, these are just some suggestions, and if any of the commissioners wish to talk of a different option, we may. I have a question on that. Okay. Representative Atkinson. So, Eddie, I'm wondering, if we did a phased approach, do we need the money right now? Or, if we did a phased approach, is that going to be sufficient to get us where we need to be? I think, obviously, the sooner you get it, the better, because as construction costs are going up every year, it may have an impact on this. But, going with a phased approach is still getting the rates in the right position. Okay. I'll read the options while we're thinking. Option one, adjust fee once from current fee to full amount to the recommended fee. Two, spread increase over two years to achieve recommended amount. Three, spread increase over three years to achieve the recommended amount. Four, spread the increase over five years to the recommended amount. And five would be any additional direction provided by the board. So, maybe while we're thinking about this, what is the real-life impact of spreading it out or putting it at full year, option one? The more you spread it out, as I said, Commissioner, so every new home, every new connection that's on the service, that's a lost opportunity for the adjusted rate. So, that's really the impact of it. There's one opportunity when it comes to getting a connection fee. And once you pay the connection fee, as long as that structure remains the same, the connection fee is paid per perpetuity. So, you know, it's really, we're comfortable with the phased approach, as we've shown here, and we'll take direction from the board. So, it's a big fee up front and done, or just a recurring fee that's going to be coming? This is a one-time fee. And this is typically paid by the contractor, not the homeowner. So, that's typical. Okay. Okay. But if it's a phased approach, you're going to have to pay it over a two-year period. Explain the phased. So, the phased approach would be, if you did it over, per se, three years, whoever builds, who's ever asking for a connection fee on year one are going to pay that amount, and that's it. So, it's not, and then whoever builds during the year two period would pay that amount. Right. So, whoever pays in year one would not pay the fee of year two or three. So, it's a one-time fee. So, as I said, if we, you know, the longer we spread it out, you know, once people in year one or year two are paying that connection fee, we don't go back to them and say, oh. Okay, I see what you're saying. Okay. And what's the disadvantage of spreading it out? The disadvantage is just it's a form of lost revenue. The calculation that we've come up with is the 8,500 and the 4,500 for water and sewer. So, you're just receiving a lesser revenue because they're getting it at a reduced rate because of the phased-out approach. And what is the impact of the lesser revenue? I mean, that's a function, that's quite honestly a function to the amount of connection fees for that given year. But like I said, Commissioner, you know, given where we were currently today, if the board does decide to do it over a period, we're comfortable that, you know, once it gets to the desired rate, that we would be in a better position than we would today. Okay. Okay, we have a few options here. With that said, I'd like to make a motion. You can't talk from the audience. Let's finish the dialogue that we have here amongst the staff. Commissioner, by no means is this a, the study or this agenda is associated with water or sewer user rates. Well, if you want to ask a couple more questions, come on up. Direct your attention to exhibit B. It's red line. And if you go to page 12, you will see that this is taking a base charge of $17.40 for a 5 eighths meter, taking it from $17.40 to $25.40. It is taking a one-inch line from $29 to $42. And then you get, that fee covers you for 3,000 gallons on the 5 eighths, and that will cover you for 5,000. Then you got the overage. The rate has a scale. All those scales have increased. They went from five, tier one went from $5.44 to $7.96. This is, the people that are paying the water bill are getting nailed by this. Is that true or false? Commissioner, if I may explain. When this resolution was approved in 2022, it was also approved with an annual index. Every time we go through and do an update to the rate resolution, we are merely taking those rates to the current of the indexed amount that was already pre-approved by the board. So rather than go back and provide you a rate resolution that was referencing 2021, so the fees are redlined, that is correct. However, the fees are appropriate on the annual index that was approved by a board and not a penny more. So this is a restatement of what we did in 2022. Yes, sir. So there's no rate increase on the users. This is a result of the phased four years that Sandra was talking about, I think. So this is not a user rate fee. It's just that it's the big connection one, right? I don't know why this was in there then. It's confusing. I guess maybe you took the opportunity to fix the 22 resolution because it wasn't in the – I don't know what the original 22 resolution looked like. It looks like you marked up one from 13 and then half marked up the one from 22 to this year. So I don't think the resolution was ever right. That's why I said this is so confusing that now you had me thinking and Sandra thinking that you're raising the user rates. But we're not. Everybody understood that, right? Because we're only talking – I don't understand why these documents were in there. I really don't. Thank you. Sandra, did you have a question? I didn't print it out to bring it here. What I read in the document written of the agenda item, but the rates that were increased in the last five years were 9.5 percent, then 8.5, then 8.5, 8.5, and then 7.5. And then it says after that, each year after that will be CPI. And, you know, I'm pretty good at reading this stuff. I can't find – I didn't print it out to come here, but I'm pretty sure that it was talking about a rate increase on our water usage and our sewage usage. But I'll go back and I'll dig down, you know, the files of download and go take a look at it because – and you guys have even talked up here about increasing our rates. But if you're – you know, I'm all for the impact fee part of it being up, and presumably this is coming out of that impact fee study? Is there a report that should have been attached here where you got these numbers from? I think in staff – I think this is separate than that. Well, no, he said this is essentially an impact fee, right? Well, let's explain the difference between a rate and an impact fee. Is this from the impact fee feasibility study? I'm sorry, Commissioner. What is the – This is not from the impact fee study. This is a rate increase. This was an independent exercise that we did as utility services beyond what the county is doing and from the collective. And there's a technical difference between a rate increase – I know it's a big – it's a legal thing, but in the vernacular, they're the same. But there is a legal difference. All right. Okay. All right. Any other questions or comments or – I was just going to say, you know, without being a builder or a contractor, like you were saying, Eddie, if we do the progressive approach, right, then all of the connection fees in the first year are going to be less. They're going to be paying less than those people in year three or five or whatever, right? So I'm of the opinion, of the feeling that we do it all at once or we do two years. That's – I'm – that's where I am. I agree. I agree with that. I agree with that. If we're going to do it, we might as well get it done in the most efficient way and go with year one. And then, of course, if we had a fallback year two, it would be the second best. Right. So I'm prepared to make a motion if you're ready to entertain it. Yes. I'd like to make a motion to approve the requested action with the implementation date being just the one-year option. The chart doesn't show the rates currently, so that's probably – That's my motion. Okay. Let's – let's – I'm just pointing out. Okay. All right. Maybe we'll have staff clarify that. You said the chart doesn't show the year one rates. He's actually correct, sir. However, we do state what they are within the agenda report. Yeah. Why don't we get that number before we vote, then? So the number – the number is the 8,500 and the 4,500. So as you look at the chart, the – in any implementation plan, it always gets to the total of 8,500, 4,500. Okay. So it's really a question of when do you want to achieve that, and I think you're discussing one year. Right. Okay. Okay. There's a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. There's a second? Okay. Do we have any discussion? All those in favor say yay. Yay. Yay. Yay. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Okay. We will move on to J2. We have no cards. No cards on J2. Good evening again, board. J2 is a contract for sale and purchase, an addendum for Fire Rescue Station 90. It's west of Derry Road on the south side of Eber Boulevard in Melbourne, District 3. It's located at 1207 Eber Road, and it is a strategically advantageous site for fire rescue for the placement of a rescue-only station. The value is $365,000, and it's got an amendment to the contract, which states that if it is not rezoned by the city of West Melbourne, we do not have to go forward with this request. Okay. Any questions? Any motion? I'll make a motion to approve. There's a motion to approve. I'll second it. Seconded by Commissioner Atkinson. Okay. All in favor say yay. Yay. All in favor. Carries unanimously. J3. We have cards on J3. Let's have the staff give us a report. I'm sorry. We got three. Yep, we got you. Could we take a maybe five-minute break? Sure. Absolutely. All right. We'll come back to that. Let's take a ten-minute break. Okay. Thank you. J35, we'll be back. It's probably time we do that. We're on J3, and we're going to have staff give us a report, an update. So, Commissioner, this is a legislative intent and permission to advertise an ordinance to sunset the Barefoot Bay Water Sewer District on December 31st of 2029. So, just a little bit of the background behind this. The last bond payment for the Barefoot Bay is December of 2029. December of 2029, there will be no debt service associated with the district. And as a result, we are currently working on the replacement of the water and wastewater plant of the Barefoot Bay that will actually be outside of the district. So, compound that with the fact that with the legislature of the mandate related to discharges and the integrity of pipes and whatnot, it also gets restrictive in the Barefoot Bay Water Sewer District because it's a dependent district, which means we can only spend what we generate within that district. So, you know, the way we see it is debt service in 2020, at the end of 29, it'll be paid off. It'll be transferred over to the countywide system, which we're still operating currently, and it'll give us more freedom to transfer money for expenditures that are needed within the district without the financial confines of the dependent district. Okay. Let's go to the cards. We have Sydney James. Okay. Okay. Thank you. The information that I handed you is a good faith estimate of accurate data that I was able to research. I have focused in my document on base wastewater rates because Barefoot Bay water rates are similar to other communities, but our wastewater rates are not. The Barefoot Bay water and sewer system was purchased in 2000 from the Florida Governmental Utility Authority. The residential customers who are serviced by it are the only customers in unincorporated Bavard County who pay for our own specific water treatment plant. It is neither fair nor equitable. The base wastewater rate for approximately 5,000 Barefoot Bay customers is currently $54.28. For the other 69,400 residential customers in unincorporated Bavard County, their base rate is $28.17. The agenda item tonight is to integrate into the countywide system on December 31, 2029, after the current debt obligation is fulfilled. The question of when to make this happen, integrating us, should not be about current Barefoot Bay debt. It should be about deciding when you will eliminate the inequity, the disparity, the unfairness. Call it what you will, it's all of these things that the Barefoot Bay water and sewer plant have to be burdened by only 5,000 residents when the other five plants, serviced by 69,400 residential customers, they get to divide that up amongst so many more people. The rollback to 2025 rates indicate in the press release amounts to a decrease of only $2.66 a month on sewer rates. It's too small of an amount to have any meaningful relief. If Barefoot Bay was immediately integrated into the countywide system, the customers' base sewer rates would increase everybody else, not Barefoot Bay, by approximately $1.58 a month. That's it. Not even noticeable. But Barefoot Bay would decrease from $54.28, or the proposed lower rate of $5.162, to only this $2.975. This decrease would make a profound impact to the lives of many customers in Barefoot Bay, especially those who only live on a Social Security income and are struggling to get by. We're not asking for a handout. We're not asking for special treatment. All we ask is that you remove the yoke tying us to the Barefoot Bay District and treat us like all the other residential customers in unincorporated Brevard County. Many cannot bear the heavy weight of this yoke until for three and a half more years. Please do it now or at the very latest, December 31 of this year. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. John Requa. I've been here twice. Said the same thing. She said it much more eloquent than I did. And I spoke to this man over here to my left before. I even sent him by registered mail four questions that I never got answered. What was the price of the bond when you started? How much has been paid in? How much do we owe? And did we get the upgrades that I was told was part of the deal of the bond? I'd really like to have them answered. The other thing is for Ms. Atkinson to hold true in what she said in the Tatler of October of 2025. Cost of the bond should be spread across the district. We're District 3. Barefoot Bay doesn't own that facility. We don't run that facility. You do. That's what we're asking. That's what legal counsel has asked you from Barefoot Bay. That's all we want. We are suffering under these fees. People are leaving. The price of the water. Homeowners want modular homes. And taxes. You're going to turn us into a trailer park. And then maybe Ashton Park will take it over. But that's how bad we're hurt. We're hurt. So I hope you listen to me. I hope you respond. I hope you talk to one another. She's absolutely correct. Spread the cost of the bond over the district. That's all we want. I don't have any hope in a new plant. I don't have any hope in that reducing our prices or anything. I don't believe that. I don't believe you. Not one bit. I have no reason to see any good merit that's going to come when you won't listen to us and you won't act on our police. I'm going to surrender the rest of my time. I've said it twice before. I live in Barefoot Bay. And I would like to address the monthly rising cost of our water bills. I believe they're being estimated. We have had several customers that are getting $200 and $300 bills that are just older couples. And they don't understand why their bills are so high. They go to the water company. The water company says they have leaks. They get plumbers out. There's no leaks. I am on Social Security disability. I live on $1,400 a month, which is not easy, especially with the rising cost of our insurance as well. I have the same routine every month. I don't do anything differently. I am a one-person household. And we're being told that there's one meter reader for approximately 5,000 homes in our district. There's no way one person, even with the new digital meters, can get to 5,000 homes to read these meters. I have three bills here. I have May, June, and July. May and June were $92.59. They were the exact same amount. And they had the exact same water usage. I find that to be physically impossible. You can't use the exact same amount every month or two months in a row. Then in July, my bill jumped from $92.59 to $100.08. What I have found is happening is every two months, I am getting duplicate bills. And then the third month, they just arbitrarily raise my bill anywhere from $8 to $10 a month. When I first moved to Barefoot Bay, my bill was $50. Now I'm looking at over $100. I am literally drowning. I cannot afford it any longer. So I'm asking, I don't know all the details. This is what I came to talk about. I'm asking that you please address our community and try and do what the customers are asking you to do, if at all possible, because we cannot afford $200 and $300 water bills. As of next year, this is totally, you know, not within the scope here, but as of next year with the insurance crisis, because we're all under citizens, I'm probably going to lose my home. I'm paying $4,000 right now. Next year, we're going to have the flood assessment, even though we're not in flood districts. So these bills are just getting astronomical and ludicrous, and something's got to be done. And there's a lot of lower-income families there. And I would like Ms. Atkinson, if possible, to address the fact we would like to see exactly how many employees they have going around and, you know, doing the reading of the meters. One of the ladies told us that they were short-staffed, and, you know, they didn't know what to tell us. So I appreciate it. Thank you. Sandra Sullivan. Sandra Sullivan. One of the things that Katie Delaney brought to this board, which I really appreciated, was her transparency. And when it comes to this, okay, so District 3 is in the process. You just were, had approved buying a parcel next to this facility to put in, presumably, a toilet to tap, water to, sewage to drinking water. Sorry, I got that around the wrong way. So sewage to drinking water facility. Now, that was estimated to be, as I recall, $319 million, if I recall correctly, from last year. And when I looked at legislatively out there on what counties were asking for, what I didn't see for Brevard was any appropriation requests to any of our state reps for that. Obviously, if you keep putting the burden on the people, because, you know, to their point, Barefoot Bay, when we had the increases, ours was 46% over five years. I did not calculate Barefoot Bays. Theirs was way more. They were, like, over 10% a year increases. I don't know, and I, this is just a question, does all the rest of the county for sewage and for your water systems, are they at the same rate? Like, all the other sewage? Because you've got certain plants that are in worse condition, sewage plants on that side. That's not sewage, that's water, but you have, even up in Titusville, their water plant is, you know, there was something on the agenda tonight. You have issues with plants, water, sewage, and different areas, you know, different critical needs to be addressed. And so, to that point, is there validity? It's just thought to have everybody on the same rate for equity. I mean, you guys manage things. You took it over, I remember the vote, when you guys took over that facility as a special district. It doesn't need to be a special district. Waiting to 20 to 29, you know, is there a way to get out of that earlier? I guess questions more than anything, given the comments that were made, because it is a very high rate compared to what everybody else has. But I would like to see some transparency regarding your plans for funding the new facility, because this agenda item says this plant is at its end of its life. You can't, you can't, like, recoup it and keep it going. It's end of life. And so, what is your replacement plan? How do you plan to fund it? And, you know, what are you going to do to try to mitigate that so it doesn't all end up on the people? Thanks. Rick Heffelfinger. Rick Heffelfinger, 2000 Juniper Drive, District 1. I am glad this is my last item, because this is just a, hey, man, it's the Utility Services Department again. This whole water situation, I never have been able to understand how many water plants, who pays for them, how people are rate increased, and how they're not. I don't know who controls this one. It sounds like the Barefoot Bay facility is part of the big Brevard system. They're obviously charging different fees. Now it turns out we're going to sunset them after they pay off their debt. But they're going to collect fees from now until then, and I guess they haven't been saving anything for a plant because the plant's shot, right? So, do they have a fund that they've accumulated money so that they can give it to Brevard County so that we can work on that other plant? I don't know what that other plant is. Why don't you just shut this one down, run a pipe to that new plant, and just put that one over capacity, too? Because this one, I don't know if it's over capacity. Is it still 1 million gallons per day? Or has that been upgraded from that? Don't know. This chart that's on the county page, I already know it's out of date because it says that we were going to have the South Central Park part completed in 2019. Well, it was. It's at 12 million. So, this hasn't been updated, so I can't use the county webpage to figure anything out. So, when I try to figure out what's going on, but I did pull these service billing rates, and this is the most convoluted thing. I have to try to figure out what zone and area I'm in, and there's no connection fee or anything. I don't know if anybody's building a new place in the Barefoot Bay, but are they going to get those connection fees, too? Are there any empty properties in there? We could get some serious cash just by nailing them with those connection fees right there. So, that might go into the coffers. So, I don't know. Why are you waiting to pay off debt? They're collecting services. They're not putting any of that service fee money into an account because they haven't maintained the plan. It's dead. It's way past its use. So, nothing was reinvested. Was that their job to reinvest, or was it your job to reinvest? I don't know. I don't know what they did. They just stood around and managed it. I don't know. The water system here sucks. Thank you. I think that's all our cards, I believe. Did you fill out a card? You're under public comment. Did you want to speak on the Barefoot Bay issue? No, no, no. Oh, okay. All right. Okay. Come here. Yes. Thank you. Eddie, I have a couple questions, if I may. So, I understand that the new plant that we're going to have down there is going to service Barefoot Bay, Snug Harbor, and the rest of the residents who need servicing. So, can you tell me what the total debt is for Barefoot Bay? Currently? Currently. Commissioner, I think it's... Approximately is good. It's somewhere around, I believe, $4 million, but I'd have to double-check that if I could. Approximately $4 million. Can you tell me how that debt occurred very briefly? Uh, so, Barefoot Bay, from its existence, um, was operated as a development with their own private water sewer system. Um, I don't know if, I think it's late 60s, early 70s, where this occurred. The, um, and as they, as they grew, um, my understanding is around the mid-90s, mid to late 90s, the people of Barefoot Bay were complaining of the service that the private utility was providing them. Um, based on that, and again, I don't know much of the detail, it made it to the board, and the board, I believe, in 97 or 99, agreed to bring Barefoot Bay as part of the county system on the condition that it be done as a dependent district. Why it was decided to do it as a dependent district, I don't have the background. I think there was, there was discussion that there was fear back in 93 that, um, people of Barefoot Bay were concerned that the revenue generated there would go to other areas. Right. So that's how the debt happened, and that's what the debt was, how it was incurred. So in order for, in order for the county to, in order for the county to get ownership of the Barefoot Bay water sewer district, and again, Commissioner, I apologize for not having the number with me, there was an amount that had to be paid to that entity of, I believe, 25 or, 25 or 30 million in order for that transaction to occur. Okay. So clearly we hear tonight that people would like to just be on the county system because they feel that it will be better. So my question to you is, if, if I said, hey, Eddie, could you please sit down with me behind closed doors and help me concoct an argument that I can give to the rest of my commissioners, how would you help me convince them that all of the other residents in Brevard County should take on a debt? Could you help me with that argument? Commissioner, I think that's more of a legality question about how user rates in the countywide system can be used in that regard, and, you know, we can have a further conversation. Maybe that's a Morris question if we're talking about legality. Sorry to put you on the spot, Morris, but is there? No, it's fine. I mean, I think you're absolutely right about the discussion that happened back then. I mean, it was viewed by the county commission and by county residents as a bailout of this private system, and so they did want to wall it off. They created that district, but because of the bond issue, the revenue bonds do not constitute a debt liability or obligation of the county. They're an obligation of the—they're payable solely from the revenues that are generated from the district, and that's part of the reason that even if you were inclined to say, you know, forget the history and forget the bailout and let's try to reset and just make things on equal standing. Now, you can't use revenues from other parts of the county system to pay those bonds. Those bonds have to be payable and secured by—and the rates have to be sufficient. You'd violate the bond covenants if the rates were not set at a sufficient amount to service that debt. That's why Eddie had to do the study. While he was trying to get them some relief, the study sets the parameters of what relief you can afford but still generate enough revenue to be able to satisfy and service that bond. Now, fortunately, we're very close to the end of the road, and it's been a long time. It was 1999 when all that was established, so it'll be 30 years, you know, when we get to 29. But by providing an ordinance that sunsets the district now and then following up with a rate resolution that gives whatever—affords whatever relief he can, which is rolling back the rates somewhat, but also freezing those rates at that rolled back rate so they don't continue to escalate every year. There will come a point when it's sunset where it will be rolled in, new plan, one county-wide rate. So legally— But right now, legally, and because of the structure of the debt and the bond obligations, that's the bond—the debt service has to be from the revenues generated out of the district. Right now, Chair. So my next point is I asked you, because I'm hearing Barefoot Bay, I asked you, could you please figure out how to make this better for them rather than what originally was continuing to rise over the next years? And you checked, you did some recalculation, and you're telling me that we can freeze it, roll it back and freeze it for a while. So, Commissioner, assuming the board, if we go down the path where we get the approval to sunset Barefoot Bay, then the user rate for Barefoot Bay, the calculation changes, because it's no longer an entity for perpetuity. It would be an entity for four years. Right. So we have done that where we can roll it back to the 2025 rates and flatline it from that point on until the sunset period. Okay. And just, Commissioner, I know you asked me this question, and thank you to Jill for fact-checking. There is $4.5 million left in the bond. Okay. Mr. Chair, may I ask? Yes. So I don't know the answer to this, but are costs estimated down there, or do we have someone reading them monthly? How does that work down in Barefoot Bay? And I know you might not know, but maybe you do. So one of the things we've done in Barefoot Bay, because, again, you know, so we're taking over a really old utility. So one of the things that we've invested in Barefoot Bay is to replace all the residential water meters. So it's all by radio read. One person can do more than 5,000 readings, because all it consists of driving down the road and going, I believe, at 25, 30 miles an hour, and it records it. So there's ample personnel in order to do that. If any of the residents do have a discrepancy in the bill, to please let the department know. But, again, without going through the dynamics. So if anybody has, like, a serious concern about bills being wildly wrong, if they brought them to me, clearly they can bring them to you guys. But if they brought them to me, I could also bring them to you. Yes. Could I ask you to look at them specifically? Yeah, and because of the radio read, it provides a diurnal of what the water flow is. I'll say this. I'm a homeowner. I had a high water bill, and I had the water department for where I get served. They pulled it from our water meter, and the guy literally asked me if I'm throwing parties at 2 in the morning because I had a slow leak. We have that data now that we can check that. Okay. All right. Thank you. That's all the questions I have. Why don't you come up to the— I'd like to clarify if we could read our own meters. I don't believe they're being read. I mean, our maintenance department hangs out under the trees all day, you know, and they still get paid. I don't see how elderly couples have bills of $200 and $300, and like I said, my routine's never changed in the six years that I've been there. And it started at $50, and now it's $100. So I'd like to know if we can read our own meters. Commissioner, we're unable to—it's not like an old-school meter where it would have a dial on it that you could actually read the numbers. Now it's all electronically. If any resident wants to see the data of that, we can provide it. But for the circumstances, we get a variety of issues or dynamics associated with bills, so it would be tough to kind of say this is the reason for any high bill. And how would we go about requesting monthly that data? Billing office. They would just need to contact the billing office and request that? Mm-hmm. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Can we have—did you fill out a card? Did she? She did. Okay, good. Commissioner Atkinson, if I may give you a tiny bit of that argument that why the other commissioners might want to go along with this plan is both groups would then have more people, more residential customers to share the costs associated with repair and maintenance throughout the county. So it's truly a win-win. And I know you guys are creative and imaginative, and I believe you have a strong moral compass to do the right thing. I think you can figure out how to create a new—pay the step on off and create a new one. And, again, it's barely anything more to the residential customers throughout unincorporated Brevard County, but for the barefoot residents, it would have a profound impact. Thank you. Could I ask a question just from my own knowledge here? I also had a small leak and was able to basically turn everything off to the house and could see that the, you know, the digital meter, there was still flow, and I was actually able to find it, and then we had someone come out and fix it. So it wasn't a terrible thing for us, but I was able to do that. I was—can they do that, their meters? Are they digital so that they can see that in real time? I think your mic's on. Sorry, Eddie. The radio read meters provide an actual diurnal, and I can't remember. I think it holds—I think it's two weeks or three weeks. So we can actually look and see what the water usage is on a 24-hour period over that duration to see. So if they know that they've turned everything off, like what Commissioner Feltner is saying, if they know on these days or whatever they've turned everything off, if you say—if they ask you for these particular days, you can see if they're still—okay. My name is Kevin. I'd like to ask a quick question. How is your data— Kevin, we need you to fill out a card. Oh, I'm sorry. If you can go in the back and fill out a card, and we'll have you come up and speak. Let Kevin fill out a card. You sure know we want to hear from you. Why don't you go speak, and you can fill out a card after the fact. Sir, that's just for the record. Just so we can keep it. But you can do it later. Yeah, my question is, just how is it all being managed? We're—like all these sites that I've seen all over Brevard County, all over Florida, all over the country, right? I don't think we really know where we're strategic—or we have strategically placed them. How these—your water pipes are breaking everywhere. I see leaks everywhere I go. Your infrastructure is really bad, and we have to protect the people. Someone could be tampering with that stuff. You know, water is water. Someone puts—I don't know. I don't want to go crazy, but Iran and all that stuff is going on. We have to be careful and protect ourselves at all costs. So I'd just like you guys to think about that and how important our infrastructure is. And maybe we do something where the whole state works together to fix this issue or your issues. Thank you. You know, this is a very difficult issue. I remember when I first came on the commission in 84, the commission had just completed implementation of the Clean Water Act. And if you multiply this problem by probably 100 or maybe 1,000, that was the magnitude of the issue they had to deal with. They had dozens of rickety-rackety old sewer treatment, water treatment plants that developers had put in in the 60s when wild, wild west of trying to build for the Apollo program. And they had to clean them all up. Had massive rate increase. Because I don't know. I don't know if they averaged those rates or if each—that's when we built Sykes Creek and the South Beaches Plan. I don't know if they were able to combine the rates so they could share the impact of the overall cleanup. And when the question was, can they average in with the rest of the county, I thought of that. I thought of that historic time where they—and they were—massive rate increase. But they did fix the problem. Hats off. The county commission back in the 70s and 80s made it a lot easier for predecessors. But I just wonder if there was any precedent there in the way they handled that that we could apply today. I mean, I'm reading right now the minutes from the meeting. And it's the exact same discussion about the equity of the rates where the base rate in Barefoot Bay is higher. Their water use on average is lower. But because the base rate's higher, they still at the time had a higher overall bill than customers outside of the system. But the issue was all about what the county inherited with that system that they took over. And bailout was the term that kept being used back then. And the debt associated with that. And we have bond obligations. And we have to comply with those bond obligations. And that's why everything is staked to the retirement of the debt. And that's when we can level things out and they can come in and be just part of the countywide system. I see. So eventually we can get there, but we can't initially. And this ordinance is the first step to that because it puts a sunset on. It establishes a hard date at which the district will be dissolved when the debt is satisfied. So we may be able to achieve ultimately what? Okay. We will. That's good to know. This is an affirmative statement by the board that you will get there, and this is when we will get there. Okay. You had mentioned you guys have discussed slow leaking data. What about the large leaking data? I've seen in different areas and all over the states, not just Florida, so I don't want to pin it on you, but I've seen areas where there's water running slowly, fast leaks. No one's checking on it for days, days, months. Who's paying for that? Thank you. Commissioners, if there's no further discussion, I would like to make a motion to approve the statement of legislative intent set forth below and direct staff to prepare an ordinance implementing the intent and schedule and advertise the ordinance for public hearing. Okay. I'll second. Okay. Do we have any discussions, any debate? If not, all in favor, say yay. Yay. Yay. Motion carries unanimously. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your input, and hopefully we'll get a final conclusion to this. How many can help the residents in Barefoot Bay? Okay. J4. Good evening, Commissioners. J4 is the creation of the Opioid Misuse Abatement Advisory Committee and amending the Together and Partnership Citizen Advisory Committee to remove opioid funding and responsibilities. On December 7, 2021, the board approved an amendment to the TIP resolution to establish two subcommittees, including representation from municipalities. Under the TIP Advisory Board, the two subcommittees were charged with making suggestions on which approved uses to address and fund with opioid settlement funding, oversee the RFA process, and make funding recommendations to the board. After several years of administering the opioid settlement funds, Housing proposes removing the Opioid Review and Recommendations Committee from the TIP Advisory Board structure and establishing a standalone advisory committee to be known as the Opioid Misuse Abatement Advisory Committee. This will be in line with our other advisory committees. The Opioid Misuse Abatement Advisory Committee shall serve an advisory capacity to the board and to county admin regarding planning, implementation, and oversight of opioid settlement funding activities. The structure will be, as such, to make sure that we remain a qualified county, a representative from the City of Melbourne, City of Palm Bay, a representative from the Space Coast League of Cities, a representative from Brevard County Government, a representative from Brevard County Sheriff's Department, and the four remaining at-large seats will be chosen from citizens who, from the community involvement. With the approval of the creation of Opioid Misuse Abatement Advisory Committee as a separate standalone advisory committee, it is further requested that the existing Opioid Review and Recommendations Subcommittees be removed from TIP, including the standing committee seats that were added for the qualified county purposes. If there's... Do you have a motion? Oh, I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. Motion and a second to approve. All in favor say yay. Yay. Yay. Tarries unanimously. Thank you. Okay, J-5, legislative intent, and permission to advertise an ordinance creating the Brevard Berry Island area of critical state concern land authority. We have two cards. Mark Shantis. Okay. Are you... Hi, my name is Larissa. Larissa Ozzels. Good evening. Okay. Board members, 7302 South Highway A1A. I'm here tonight to ask for a formal deferral of this item. The summary item states that the funds will be acquired from the Sebastian Inlet Park for the next six or seven years. That's going to be under construction, specifically with the laydown and temporary parking going to be roughly half of what it is now. So, the question in front of us is, how is it going to get funded? So, if we have the legislative intent this evening, shouldn't we also have an idea of how it's going to get funded in real? Has this been considered? There's nothing in the summary statement. Nothing. It was advertised, what, the 26th. Today's the 7th. So, I don't know if this really is the time. I'm formally requesting that you defer the item until a later date. Thank you. Okay. Mark Shantis. The end product is ditto that. But, I'm Mark Shantis. I'm the executive director of BIPA, which is the Bayer Island Preservation and Protection Association. We were formed in 1990, which was over 35 years ago, to help balance the population growth on the beaches with the natural habitat and wildlife. A great deal of it, the sea turtles, which is the largest area of sea turtle hatchlings, loggerhead sea turtle hatchlings in the world. I'm concerned. You know, I'm trying to be positive about this. It's always new things. I'm an entrepreneur. I've spent my whole life doing new things. But, we just haven't had time, really, to review. We only found out about this four days ago or five days ago, accidentally. We haven't had time to review anything. The area of critical state concern was put together by BIPA, which is our organization, the community, Sea Turtle Conservancy, Thousand Friends of Florida, legislators, and a bunch of people that have not viewed this at all. And we would like, and I think they should have the opportunity to review this before it goes to advertisement or before we spend any tax dollars for the county to use their employees, which are our employees, our tax dollars, to start developing an ordinance. The ordinance in Monroe County is interesting. It was formed in 1986. Well, anybody gone to the Keys lately? Do you notice that it's an area of critical state concern? The development there, the vacation rentals there is a mess. So, we get down to the issue of who are going to be the people, or the five volunteer advisors on this, who's going to oversee them. And then, there's this issue of a bonding. This organization, this land authority is a specialized authority. It's going to have the ability to do bonding. Bonding to an extremely small area of people. Okay? You've got 5,000 people that are going to pay off some bond that might be, this commission may not approve it, but a future commission may approve something that is outrageous. And then, we're going to end up with some general obligation bond. Possibly. We don't know what the ramifications are. What we do want is, we want to know that the state supports it. The state has not been notified, in our opinion, or that we know. I've spoken to people there. They say they don't know, they don't know about it. SDC, I don't think, has been supported. Community has not been contacted. We also noticed that there was no core mission of this. And we think there should be a core mission, Kim, rather than it just be wide open to whatever the land authority is. And in the end, we have to talk about the funding mechanism. The inlet is not going to be able to fund anything. There is very, very poor funding mechanism. There's not much tourism going on down there. There's three or four little motels. Hitting them with additional taxes is just not appropriate. We think you should defer this to a later date. We can get everybody in a workshop, get everybody sitting down at a table. The people who developed the area of critical state concern can get together and develop the land authority with the proper input from everybody who started the thing in the first place. So give us time to all get together and do that. That's all we're asking. OK, I'm trying to be positive about it because I think it's a good idea. You know, I just don't know what the negatives are. I don't know what the tentacles look like. So thank you very much. Yes, you got a card. That's right. Sorry. I was reading the agenda item. Come on up. Sandra Sullivan. So you're just talking about Barefoot Bay with 5,000 people paying off bond. That's about the same population size for South Beaches. But with a special district, just do an analogy. In order for a special district to do a bond, it has to be by referendum. You guys can't take a vote and create a special district and then do a bond. That's not the way it works. You remember Scott Ellis sued the county over that, over the bond that was created for Blue Origin. So when it comes to creating an entity to do that has the ability to issue bonds, I think if you're going to do a land authority, this should go out to referendum to District 3 for the residents in that area to vote on because you're talking about potentially creating debt. I was at the meeting for the area of critical concern. There were hundreds of people there. A lot of community engagement was part of that process, respecting the people down there. They were very passionate about the area of critical concern. It's a wonderful thing. And thanks to Representative Allman, then, now Commissioner Allman, that spearheaded this and got this across the line. It is just phenomenal. It will be one of those things 20, 30 years from now that we will go as one of the most remarkable things, like the creation of the Archicurgo Preserve. It's very impactful. I would just say that there needs to be communication about what the intent is to the people down there. And if you do decide to do a land authority, I think you should strongly consider that it goes to referendum because you're talking about debt. Thank you. Okay, those are all our cards. Commissioner, if I may? Yes, go ahead. So, I have been in contact with lots of the South Beach residents, which is kind of how this all came to be. So, the idea originally of the area of state critical concern was to protect and preserve that area. Recently, the state has taken some steps which makes that a little bit more vulnerable. So, my intention with this is to have an advisory board by the people who live there. It would be five people, an advisory board, who live in that area, who will be advising this commission on steps that they can take to safeguard their community. People who live outside will not be on the advisory board. So, it's really important to me that the people who live there are the ones making all of the suggestions to this board of five people who may not live there. The idea is to make sure that they have control as much as possible of their area because the way I feel is that the state is slowly kind of taking that away. Now, how we decide to pick those five people, that's yet to be determined. What I'm asking for right now is just legislative intent. I think, while it might be new to some of the residents, this has been ongoing for quite a while. I have been talking to lots of residents because I live, you know, a quarter of a mile from the beginning of that area. I grew up down there. So, I have lots of ties and contacts to the people who still live there. Again, I'm asking for legislative intent. And the idea of how to fund it, Sebastian State Park may not be the only way that we fund it. But to put it off doesn't make any sense, even though there is going to be construction, yeah. But again, why would we put off even funding it a little bit if we can do that now? Why put it off? So, any other discussion? Seeing no other discussion. But just to say real quick, I didn't know that Sebastian Park, it's going to be under construction for a while? Yeah, the bridge. Oh, the bridge. Yeah, the bridge. Yeah, the bridge. Okay. Which is interesting because we will only be able to collect revenue. On the north side. Exactly. Even after the bridge is complete because even though the area of state critical concern extends past that into Indian River County, I think we did ask Mike to check into his counterpart down in Indian River. But these are all the things that the legislative intent will allow us to look at and figure out going forward. I'll tell you what I would split with you today. You know, creating, I think, the advisory board would be one thing. And then maybe with their help, you could come up with some funding mechanism a little bit later that takes into consideration what's happening. I think the statute says that we have to create a funding mechanism in 90 days. Am I, Morris, do you know? Somewhere in my notes it says that, I believe, that we have to. So I think it's, if we create a land authority, the state has to begin remitting that surcharge at the state park within 90 days. So what are you suggesting, Commissioner? Hold on. Hold on. I'm getting there, okay? So if it's not a land authority, it's an advisory board, maybe in the first stage, and then say they create their charter. Let's think of it like that. You have the advisory board. Their first mission is to work on a charter, and that contains several things, funding mechanism, potentially scope, some of that other stuff. And then you call it a land authority, okay? You upgrade it after you have your sort of charter, and in there. I'm sorry. Before you get too far down that road. All right, thank you. The Board of County Commissioners is the land authority by statute. Yes. You just put on a different hat, and you are the land authority. There's an advisory board that advises the land authority. Receiving written notice regarding the creation of a land authority. You create the land authority, but you are the governing board of the land authority, and then there's an advisory board to the land authority. But the advisory board is not the land authority. Right. I guess I was looking for a step in the process. So you could have appointed people. I think once we create the land authority, though, then we can decide how we're going to create the advisory board. And then that advisory board can do exactly what you're saying, which is advise us how maybe they want to proceed, how they want to have their goals, their mission statement. I guess the issue is we have to decide from the beginning how they're going to be funded, right? I mean, tonight. We don't have to fund them, I guess, but I think that's the smart thing to do if we're going to create it. We need to fund it. Well, I guess that's what I'm trying to figure out is if – because I think there's some legitimate questions with that. Yeah. And if you could come back later on the funding part of it. I can come back later. If that would make you more comfortable about funding, I can certainly come back later on the funding. Well, you might – okay. Would you come back with – go ahead, sir. I think if you don't fund it, you sort of got the intent. I think this is a really good thing for the South Beaches. And I haven't been very much involved in the South Beaches for much of my life. I like the idea. I can understand why everyone wants to be a part of it and have input. But that opportunity will arise. We'll have to advertise an ordinance and get input. But what this does is it creates an entity. It creates a land authority that has the mission to preserving the South Beaches. And it has the ability to make recommendations for land use changes and has the ability to do land acquisition. It does all the things that those who supported the area of critical concern wanted to see. So I'm kind of excited about it. As advised by people who live there. Right. It gives local control. And the other thing is that the fees are modest. They are. It is a visitor to the Sebastian Inlet State Park. Unfortunately, most of those visitors are on the South Side. But the influx of people coming to the park are from all over the state. At one point, I think it was the single largest visited state park in the whole system. And they do have impact on the South Beaches. And so it's a fair use that they participate. So I don't have any problems with it. I think I would support moving ahead with an ordinance, which requires advertising. It gives ample opportunity for the residents down there to give feedback. And I think it's a wonderful proposal. The area of critical state concern was created by the community loss of a commissioner that was going to pave everything over. And all the other commissioners sat there and didn't say anything. And they sat there and watched it happen. We did not want to be bothered to have to go to the state. We didn't want to have to go and have the state override the commission. We had a, what we thought was an unthinkably bad commission. You all are not that. You're a great commission as far as I'm concerned. But we have no guarantees in the future that that will be the case. We could have somebody who comes in and we're not, Kim, we're not helping the decision by advising. You're the decision makers. You may not be there. You will not be there in the future. It's guaranteed. Okay. And there'll be other people there. Okay. And no matter who advises them, they're going to vote the way they want. The reason that we went to the state in the first place. Okay. We don't want to have to do that again. We just don't. And it will happen. This is the most developable area in the entire United States. Okay. Everybody wants it. There will be a commission in the future that will bail. Okay. It's not you. We don't want to be in that situation. We do want to put in, and I think it's not a bad idea, but we want to put in the caveats in the beginning before we start advertising and spend tax dollars creating an ordinance where everyone's going to just kind of go the merry way, and you're not going to end up with the workshop. You're not going to end up with anything. Commissioner Feltner, you can set up an advisory committee of these five people and these different organizations first. Have the workshop. Have them create the guts of what this is going to be to protect us, since we are the ones, STC, Thousand Friends, the community, BIPA, and you too, Thad, okay, created this around the commission. Okay? That was the idea. Don't put us in that situation again. Okay? That's all I'm saying. Postpone this just long enough. And by the way, with El Nino, there's a really good chance we're not going to have a landfall this year. And if we don't have a landfall by the hurricane season in 27, 180's gone. So why are you going to jump ahead and create this when it's conceivable that it won't be necessary? And then you're talking about bonding for a small number of people if we get a bad commission. 5,000 people, who knows what they're going to want to do there? I think if you ask Thousand Friends of Florida, I have a strong inclination if we asked the Thousand Friends of Florida, they would strongly support this. So ask them, hey, if you ask a thousand friends and you ask STC and you ask BIPA and you ask the community, listen, Kim, you haven't talked to 5,000 people, guaranteed. You haven't even talked to 1% of 5,000 people, okay? We're talking about, we had 1,000 people show up at the commission in order to talk about vacation rentals. We're talking about BIPA activates the community. We were not contacted. I think that was a bad move, okay? Does it mean it can't be corrected? Okay, I'm going to stop this. Does it mean it can't be corrected? I think it can be corrected. I'm going to stop this. We allowed you to come up and speak. We've given you through. I'll try to be as positive as I can. But if you move forward with this thing. I don't want to create a point-counterpoint type situation. Okay. Okay, that gets me on. All right, I'm just telling you there's more risk to this thing if you move forward now than postponing it. You can always do it now. I think it's a great thing. I will be brief. I want to read into the record the powers of the land authority. The first one is to sue or be sued. This is from Florida statute within 380-0553 Brevard Barrier Highway Protection Designation Area of Critical Concern. The powers of the land authority are broad and they're vast and they're permanent and they're written in the Florida State statute. to be sued or sued, to undertake carry-on studies, obviously, to acquire or dispose of real property, personal property of any interest therein. Such acquisition is necessary or appropriate to protect the natural environment, which is great. Provide public access, that's great too. But there's also the area of bonding that's also written into this statute, which allows all the future boards then to bond our little small population. So thank you very much. Please defer this tonight. So I want to say, Mark, this applies to you too, and Kim, I love you both. I think the world of that's why I don't want to see you get in an argument. I find it incredibly ironic that we have the same goal. Yes. And I think proposing this hurts to South Beaches. I mean, we both want to get there. We just have a difference of opinion. Mr. Chair? Yes. If I may, I don't know if it's helpful to the conversation or not, but the bonding that people seem fixated on, it's, you can only secure payment of bond debt with the revenues that are generated through the statutory mechanisms, which are the surcharge at the state park and the incremental tourist tax that would be imposed on a few facilities down there. So the ability to bond would be virtually nothing. It could never be a general revenue bond obligation that's payable by the taxpayers of the South Beaches or something like that, so to the extent that's been voiced as a concern, that's not a thing. Likely there would never be a bond issue because those revenue sources are so limited that they wouldn't be sufficient to service bond debt. One of the things I like about the authority is the ability to seek out grants, ability to really, to qualify for state funding and special projects and federal funding, environmental programs, partnering with other environmental entities. This also gives the residents of the South Beaches a direct voice to the commissioners. As an advisory board, they have, they're being requested and the commissioners want to hear what they have to say and they have to hear what they have to say. Right now, we don't have to listen to anybody in the South Beaches if we don't want to. All right. We had 300 people in the meeting that the commission didn't listen to. Come on. Sir, Mr. Chair. I mean, I think I agree. Very small, limited ability to collect revenue to service debt in the way of a bond. I think your TIF funding is going to be next to nothing. And, I'm sorry, the, not TIF, the TDT. So, why don't you just take the financial part of it out? There won't be bonds. There won't be, there won't be that. Because it's going to be, I mean, it's going to be next, next to nothing. Then, then you have the rest of it. What if you did that tonight? I don't think, I know what they're talking about. Well, I don't think putting something together and not funding it is appropriate. So, I'm ready to make a motion. Okay. I move to approve legislative intent and permission to advertise an ordinance creating the Barrier Island area land authority and direct staff to draft the ordinance. Okay. There's a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. I'll just say that I think probably you're going to get very little revenue. So, we still, just to clarify, we have to approve any sort of bond. Do we not, as a board? You are the land authority, so the board would be the one seeking the bonding, and it would be limited to the revenue, which is going to be next to nothing. So, I'll second that. Okay. All in favor, say yay. Yay. Yay. Motion carries unanimously. Okay. Thank you for your input. And we'll have an opportunity, we'll have a second bite of the apple of this one. Yes. So, this is just the beginning. Well, I think what this does, it gives an opportunity for the public to have input. And if we talk about the desired input, we're going to advertise a public hearing and get an input of all the people in the South Beaches. So, I think it's a good thing. So, are we done? We've got public comment. Oh, we've got public comment. And we made a mistake, and we apologize. We left out three cards. They were in G. They were in G, the first. So, we'll hear them first if they're still here. Mark Shepshire? Shep? Shepshire? Shepshire? Mark's still here? Mark, we apologized. You had to sit through this wonderful meeting. Maybe you were going to do that anyway. I usually start with a joke, but I just don't have nothing. My name is Mark Shepshire. I live at 4645 Allen Shepard Avenue since 1988. One of the things that's on the agenda and in the scope is the intersection at Canaveral Gros Boulevard and Grissom. And I'd like to start with an antidote. I know it's not a good way to make an argument, but many years ago at Thanksgiving time, coming home late at night, my family come across a car turned over and smoking and dust everywhere. And it was kind of a nightmare situation. I sat for about an hour with two small children while their mother died on the other side of the car. And they still had to be airlifted out. It's appalling to me, after living there for so long, how many deaths happened at that stretch of road. And I think it, I've been thinking about it for many years. I think it has to do with the people coming through that intersection extremely fast. My story would be anecdotal if it wasn't for other deaths, numerous deaths that happened at the intersection and along the road. All my family members have come across something horrible at one time or another. My appeal is that you consider a traffic circle. Now, I know everybody hates a traffic circle, but nobody dies at traffic circles. And that's my main point. Please consider it. I don't think it's a big expense to change. So, thank you. Well, I just want to thank you for sitting through the meeting and bringing such an important issue. I felt like it was worth it. Absolutely. And we will definitely, we'll direct staff. Unfortunately, you don't have a district one commissioner at your disposal. I mentioned this, I think, to Katie. Well, and we've all committed to pull together to help support district one during this period. So, let's ask staff to maybe get together and look at potential options that we have and also to reach out to the sheriff's department and see what's happening as far as enforcement. And some, you're talking about traffic calming, which is a wonderful way of gaining control. But I know that area well. My wife used to teach in Challenger 7. It's a wonderful place and want a lot of young families. So, let's see what we can do. Thank you. Help out. And my staff's here. We'll definitely follow up with you soon. Okay. Rick Helfinger. I can't believe you didn't speak up, Rick, when we passed over you. You're slipping. Can you get back to me? I know you take a certain amount to keep the meeting moving. So, I was okay with that. And you knew I was going to stay to the end anyway, didn't you? Got to hear those board reports and see what you guys vote on during them. Impact fee study. We're still going to get it, right? The what? The impact fee study that we... Let's have staff. You know, I'm not a big fan of impact fees. I'm not the one that... Well, I know you're not, but we already kind of did a big impact fee with the water kind of. Yes. We are? Are we going to get that next meeting? Where's my August? Yeah, because Mark Renath gave a presentation to the Citizen Budget Review, and he said that they were still working on it because the staff had to give them inputs in order to do the study. So, now I realize that that's probably going to come over, come by events, but there was transportation impact, you know, all that stuff. I mean, we're going to hit them hard on water already, right? We voted for that. So, I would hope that we would consider that as getting the new people instead of getting the old people. One of the topics that you talked about was, how do you get money for MSTU from these big developments? You might want to look at what they did at Windward Preserve down the end of my street. Of course, it required a lawsuit, but part of that lawsuit made the developer have to pay for road improvements because they're county roads. And you guys did a right-of-way transfer to City of Cocoa, and then City of Cocoa said that the DDC or whatever, it's kind of like a homeowners association, they have responsibility for the feeder road, although it's a public road. So, there are ways to work around making a community like that pay for stuff. I don't know that it takes a lawsuit. And again, that was a play, played a game with the county and City, but it was a mess. But, you know, they put speed humps down a county road, paid for it. Got guardrails. Rita made sure they put guardrails, too. So, that was not paid for by the county, I hope. Somebody said it wasn't going to be, was part of the settlement. But they also paved that, they built that road for their development. So, hey, good, right? They put sidewalks on it, they'll pay for those, too, I guess. Yeah, because they're required for maintenance. So, there's one way to do it. You just have to stipulate when the development comes in that they're going to take us making road improvements, right? Theoretically, they could have paid for a wonderful, well, a roundabout was looked at at one point, but, you know, you could do anything you want that says a feeder road, make improvements or pay MSTU. They're in COCO, and they have to pay county MSTU as part of that agreement as well. So, the county used that lawsuit opportunity. They didn't file it. Somebody, a private party did. But the county got involved and said, hey, you're going to give us MSTU, too, as part of the settlement. They didn't start collecting them until just now, until people move in, but the mechanism was there, and it was instilled as part of that lawsuit. So, that's maybe something. What I really wanted to do is ask a question. I became aware of a letter written by Thea Thorne, and she had some wonderful suggestions for the county about water, and District 1 in particular. And I think it went to the, Jim, you got that, and I think that you forwarded it to the staff for District 1, and I think that it may have gone to Mark Renath, I don't know, but I would love to find out how we're going to get feedback from that. That was just, I wanted to make sure everybody's aware that there's this wonderful letter. Thank you. Thea Thorne. Okay. Okay. That's all of our cards. Oh, no, we have one more. William Porter. Sorry, William. You've been patiently waiting. Hello, my name is William Porter. I live at 1389 South Benet River Drive in Barrett Island. I'm here because of a situation that I have, and I'll make it try and get right straight to point. This is in 5-4 of 2021, where I have an approval of two RVs that are on the side of my home that have been there for 15 years, right about. Been there as long as I have. In 2023, some neighbors that had purchased property filed with the county to have the RVs removed, and I'm pretty sure they filed that first case where they were approved to be there. It had been an ongoing thing and had already been approved in 2009 also. So, in 2023, it was found in the transcripts that I no longer had enough room due to the setbacks for the side yard. There are no setbacks for side yard. So, they used a different code. They used 1340. Well, I won't go into the depths of it. Regardless, so I went through quite a spell. Well, the RV has to meet a setback, and it's not. So, it says parking, locating, RV, and meeting the proper setback of 7 1⁄2 feet from either side of the line. So, the line for the RV is a stored side yard next to a black chain fence, so it doesn't have room in the setback at all. So, the trailers would have to be removed, the two RVs. Well, later, because of the 2021 and the 2009 approvals, I already knew that that was incorrect. So, I went through quite a bit of money and quite a bit of patrols. And then, and this date is 2-6-2024, it was found to be that the RVs were, in fact, in code. So, where I'm at now is they're still there, as they have been. As I said, they were in code the whole time. But now, I'm sitting with a $900 fine. I've already paid $695 in fines and fees. Some, I don't have a clue about what. And then, I have another to pay the cost of this, the RV sitting there, of $3,647. So, it comes up to where now I owe the county for the RVs sitting where they are now for the time frame it took to find that they were in code. After all, I'm being fined. I owe $4,500 to the county now because I still have the RVs where they are, because they're in code. They were in code after all. And, I'm not sure if I need to be right here to discuss this because I don't understand where these actual costs of all this money come by. They never come by. I mean, all it needs to be right by would be to look at it. I think it's a legal issue. We need to, I mean, we probably won't resolve it here tonight, but we should look into it unless the staff feels they can. I'm looking at a picture of your property right now, and I see the RVs. Okay, there you go. Yes, sir. They've been there for 20 years now. If we'll get his contact information, we'll have somebody call Mr. Porter to see what's going on. I would definitely appreciate it. I mean, I don't have $4,500 anymore. Let me ask our attorney, if you prevailed and you were found within code. Yeah. Yeah, we need to look at everything, too. Yeah. Yeah, I think he can be in contact with code enforcement folks, and we'll figure it out. Yeah. Okay, good. We'll follow up. And so I go which way? Go talk to Mr. Persaud in the back. I'm the guy that's waving. He's the guy that... He's the first contact. Thank you all very much. Thank you for your patience. Okay, that's our final card. We'll move to reports. County manager. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I have two shout-outs. One is we had a pretty long meeting last week with representatives from the sheriff's office. In the middle of the meeting, they talked about how well and how wonderful it's been to work with Linda Allison from our risk management department all over the years. Not often risk management gets called out for good work, so I want to thank Linda. Other one is Eddie received an email last week. There's a gentleman at a broken sewer line, a longer email, but we had a crew out there. Gentleman wrote they encouraged each other, looked out for each other's safety, kept me informed on the process. Let me add the icing to the cake. I did not hear any cursing from these men, not once. That and all I've mentioned is sign of character. I'm not sure if they get recognition for a daily job well done, but I want to ask that they will for their great job representing the county, so Eddie's working on recognition. The names of the team are Robert Quigley, Mike Fielder, Alan Gibson, LaTerris Drakeford, Chris Greeson, Trevor Ken Hanson, and the supervisor, Anthony Robertson. So I hope I came close to asking her name, but I'm quite proud of receiving the notification that our folks out there are doing good stuff for the community. Thank you. Great. Thank you. All right, county attorney. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We've discussed with the board a couple times now a matter involving Change Healthcare who handled billing for the county EMS system and had a massive data breach that grinded things to a halt for a while, and we talked about seeking to recoup what we can from them in terms of losses because of delayed billing and billing that didn't occur appropriately. There's litigation pending as part of a multi-district class action litigation in Minnesota. I've talked before to you about the possibility of opening or joining that. The operative class complaint there now expressly excludes governmental entities, but it's looking like we anticipate that there will be a time when governmental entities will be included in the class complaint, and I talked to you about retaining class counsel to represent us there. There is a group of class representative attorneys that I would like for us to engage. We do need, though, as part of that, Morgan & Morgan, who is known sometimes for suing us. They have a complex litigation group that is a part of this consortium of attorneys who's handling this class litigation. Because they have pending cases against the county and like to sue us occasionally for very unrelated matters, we would have to waive that as a conflict. So I'm asking the board tonight, again, just to reaffirm your authorization to retain class counsel to represent us in the multi-district litigation in Minnesota, because that's outside of what I can do now, and to waive the conflict, if it is a waivable conflict, which it should be under all of the applicable ethics rules with the Morgan & Morgan complex litigation group. And if I can... I'm fine with that. Okay, is there a motion? I'll make a motion. Is it a waiver? Is it what we're supposed to say? But just authorization to retain class counsel and to approve the waiver. Okay, I'll make that motion. I'll second that motion. All in favor, say yay. Yay. Yay. Opposed? Carries unanimous. 3-0. I didn't hear... I didn't either. I didn't hear Commissioner Goodson. Maybe you lost him. Yeah, Mr. Chair, yeah, we've lost Commissioner Goodson. Okay, all right. Okay, is that it? Yes, sir, thank you. Okay, District 2. I think we've lost Commissioner. Okay. District 3. I have no report. District 4. All right, we're going to try to make this quick. I have a question for Eddie. You're a proper guy tonight. Yeah. You were within five feet of the door there, Eddie. Can you give us... We heard about Space Florida earlier. Can you give us an update on what you know regarding their needs for wastewater? Yes. So, as you all know, we're working with Jacobs Engineering on the Phase 2 report. We've been doing a lot of shareholder meetings, and part of that includes the U.S. Air Force, the Space Force, and NASA and Space Florida. Recently, I would say in the last three, four weeks, the U.S. Air Force, and I differentiate between the Air Force and Space Force because it is a Space Force station, but the wastewater plant on the facility is an Air Force asset. So, with that being said, the Air Force has made an announcement that they're going to build a new wastewater plant adjacent to their existing plant with the intention of providing capacity needed for the future associated with NASA, and it also seemed like Space Florida would have capacity there. We've done this at, you know, the meetings at the EDC. We've got confirmation from the two colonels, one representing Air Force and one representing Space Force. We have asked Space Florida to provide us what their new direction is because now this dynamic has changed their direction on whether they want to connect into the Sykes Creek plant. In the meantime, we have fallen through on the commitment to draft an agreement for Space Florida. That is, a draft is ready to go. I will say it's a solid draft, and the only thing that we're waiting for Space Florida is to confirm if we are still on the direction which the board was, I believe, in February of 24, I believe, if that was the date, where this was the discussion in the board direction about the $130 million investment. If Space Florida is intending to connect into the Air Force wastewater plant, there is no need for the magnitude of pipe needed for Space Force to come down to our wastewater plant. Even if they wanted some sort of redundant, it would be much smaller, and I think it would provide a minimal, it wouldn't be the $130 million impact to our wastewater plant based on those flows. So, we have reached out to Space Florida to seek confirmation on what direction they're going. Once we can get that direction, we can come back to the board to get authorization from the board to proceed on that new direction, and then from there, we can proceed. Thank you. That's the end of my board report, sir. All right. One short item. I just want to give a big shout-out and thanks to our county administrator, Jim Lesenfeld, and to Tom Mulligan, our solid waste management director. Everyone very much aware of the giant explosion we had on the Blue Origin pad, and they had some significant needs with debris removal, and I really appreciate the time and the effort. I mean, that project is possibly holding up a lunar landing, and I would just really appreciate our county staff, and the county really came through and helped Blue by extending hours and being accessible, even on weekends. I really appreciate the work they did, and it's good to have such a great partner, and I just want to give a big shout-out there. And that's the only thing I have, and meeting adjourned. Hey, Rob. The opinions expressed by any member of the public during any period of public comment do not necessarily...