Built from draft minutes printed in an agenda packet — no AI-written textBriefing final
The City's record
What the City's record shows
Draft minutes printed in the City's agenda packet of 2025-04-07, pp. 6–15; approval not found in the records on file (the meeting that received these draft minutes was 2025-04-07).
Built only from this meeting's draft minutes (1780_Cocoa_CRA_Regular_Meeting_Agenda_04_07_2025_Packet.pdf, packet pp. 6–15). Page numbers are the minutes' own. Discussion is in the minutes' text; it is not summarised here.
Attendance (the roll call)
Listed present when the roll was taken: Mike Blake, Patricia Weeks, Janne Etz, Lorraine Koss, Candace Rogers
(Checked against the ballots and the printed roll lines; no independent membership list of this board is available to confirm that the roll is complete.)
Listed absent: Alex Goins, Lavander Hearn
Also listed as present (staff and other roles): Anthony A. Garganese (Agency Attorney), Ryan Browne (Recording Secretary)
Named on at least one ballot later in the meeting: ETZ, Lorraine Koss, Mike Blake, Patricia Weeks, ROGERS (participation, which can differ from the roll: arrivals and departures are in the minutes' text)
Adopted actions (5)
to approve the Agenda for the Regular Meeting of March 3, 2025, as written (moved by Patricia Weeks, seconded by ETZ); PASSED 5-0; ayes: Mike Blake, Patricia Weeks, ETZ, Lorraine Koss, ROGERS; nays: none — the draft minutes, packet pp. 6–15
to approve the Minutes for the Regular Meeting of February 3, 2025, as written (moved by Lorraine Koss, seconded by Patricia Weeks); PASSED 5-0; ayes: Mike Blake, Patricia Weeks, ETZ, Lorraine Koss, ROGERS; nays: none — the draft minutes, packet pp. 6–15
to approve the motion (moved by Patricia Weeks, seconded by Mike Blake); PASSED 5-0; ayes: Mike Blake, Patricia Weeks, ETZ, Lorraine Koss, ROGERS; nays: none — the draft minutes, packet pp. 6–15
to approve the motion (moved by Mike Blake, seconded by Patricia Weeks); PASSED 5-0; ayes: Mike Blake, Patricia Weeks, ETZ, Lorraine Koss, ROGERS; nays: none — the draft minutes, packet pp. 6–15
to adjourn the meeting (moved by Patricia Weeks, seconded by Mike Blake); PASSED 5-0; ayes: Mike Blake, Patricia Weeks, ETZ, Lorraine Koss, ROGERS; nays: none — the draft minutes, packet pp. 6–15
Draft minutes, as printed in a later agenda packet
Draft minutes printed in the City's agenda packet of 2025-04-07, pp. 6–15; approval not found in the records on file (the meeting that received these draft minutes was 2025-04-07).
MINUTES DRAFT
COCOA CRA
March 3, 2025
The Regular Meeting of the Cocoa Community Redevelopment Agency was held on March
3, 2025, at City Hall, 65 Stone Street, Cocoa, FL, as publicly noticed.
I. CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson BLAKE called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.
INVOCATION: Vice Chairperson WEEKS led the assembly in the Invocation.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Cocoa Police Department Lieutenant MILLS led the
assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.
ROLL CALL:
Michael C. Blake Chairperson
Patricia Weeks Vice Chairperson
Janne Etz Agency Member
Alex Goins Agency Member
Lavander Hearn Agency Member
Lorraine Koss Agency Member
Candace Rogers Agency Member
Anthony Garganese Agency Attorney
Ryan Browne Recording Secretary
PRESENT:
Michael C. Blake Chairperson
Patricia Weeks Vice Chairperson
Janne Etz Agency Member
Lorraine Koss Agency Member
Candace Rogers Agency Member
Anthony Garganese Agency Attorney
Ryan Browne Recording Secretary
ABSENT:
Alex Goins Agency Member
Lavander Hearn Agency Member
Page 2 of 10
STAFF PRESENT:
Community Services Director NEUTERMAN and City Manager WHITTEN.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND MINUTES:
AGENDA: Regular Meeting held on March 3, 2025, either as written, or with amendments.
*MOTION by Vice Chairperson WEEKS; SECONDED by Agency Member ETZ to
approve the Agenda for the Regular Meeting of March 3, 2025, as written.
AYES: BLAKE, WEEKS, ETZ, KOSS, ROGERS.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0)
MINUTES: Regular Meeting held on February 3, 2025, either as written, or with amendments.
*MOTION by Agency Member KOSS; SECONDED by Vice Chairperson WEEKS to
approve the Minutes for the Regular Meeting of February 3, 2025, as written.
AYES: BLAKE, WEEKS, ETZ, KOSS, ROGERS.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0)
III. DELEGATIONS: Two cards; spoke under Action Item 1.
IV. PRESENTATIONS: None.
V. ACTION ITEMS:
1. Staff to provide a status update on the negotiations with 360 Hospitality Group, LLC
for the property located at 603 Brevard Avenue. Request Agency authorization of an
extension not to exceed ninety (90) days to complete the negotiations.
i. Introduction. Manager WHITTEN.
1. Working on the Redevelopment Agreement, multi-step process; with
certain milestones; three phases; financing and parking; 360 group is
here tonight to answer questions; working on a draft redevelopment
agreement; parking analysis; feasibility study; we will show you
elevations; we will discuss the parking; requests to us for TIF Rebates;
significant to them; can we get the project across the finish line.
Parking. John Garrin 67 spaces; Factory 65 spaces; on-site parking 29
spaces total of 121 spaces; need these extra spaces; we propose they
Page 3 of 10
contribute to a Village Parking Fund to assist us in building up the
parking availability in the Village; Oleander West, for example, is a
parking area we are actively working on; soon to be designs for on-
street parking; contribution toward the land; $500k – contribution
(number fluctuates; still in negotiation, depending on other factors
considered); taking some parking away; Traffic Impact Analysis;
Parking Analysis; Economic Impact; Pool – enclosed (rendering);
walkable; corner of Brevard and Factory. Timeline for Development
Agreement; does not show evidence of Financing project; they want to
talk to us about TIF; we are in 2025; CRA expires in 2041; not a long
life; not as big a TIF (look at TIF estimate handout); second phase –
hotel brand approval – Marriott brand letter (interest; not an approval);
we’ve been working on this for ten years; we want to know that this
project can be funded; move Evidence of Project Financing (move to
Phase I to help us see that); Draft there; more to be done; takes time;
each side has schedules to consider; we are requesting additional time;
2. Agency Member ETZ asked for clarification: 29 spaces on-site
(surface); no garage. Total of 121 spaces; for 103 rooms plus
employees; sounds like a deficit; plus loss of the 75; we don’t’ net out
a positive; trade-offs for public parking; $500k for the no net increase;
Marriott requires them to have Valet Parking; they are seeking a lot for
that. Closest parking for southside is John Guerin; for customers. So
far removed from trade off of land for parking; we are now at a
parking deficit.
3. Vice Chairperson WEEKS asked: so, underneath parking went away.
The RFP talked about replied parking land for parking; curious where
that went. Manager WHITTEN: original yes, but, has been modified.
Height? Constraints. They can discuss that.
4. Agency Member ROGERS asked: shared not dedicated; are we not
fulfilling parking spaces, no state statute; that is City Code. Manager
WHITTEN: you can exempt yourself out of it. Free transportation
from Oleander to shuttle? Recurring expense that the CRA will not
want to get into. CRA and City purchased six lots at Oleander West;
we do have other on-site – behind Tin Whiskey; doing parallel
parking; additional spots on John Guerin; several locations
contemplated under the parking plan to generate spots; due to the
easements – along with this fund to fund spaces. Agency Member
ROGERS: same conclusion of parking studies; pay into parking bank
fund; first I’ve heard; variances is an issue. You will need to shuttle
people; reality; its in the parking studies. Manager WHITTEN: not
disagreeing with you.
5. Agency Member KOSS: just deciding tonight an extension? Manager
WHITTEN: yes. KOSS: want to understand the Financing Request;
TIF Request; $3.3M over 16 years. Wouldn’t take effect until
completion (CO issued); plus property – appraisal $1.275 M, several
Page 4 of 10
years ago. Chunk for $20M project. Developer can answer that.
You’re asking for 20% - a sizeable chunk;
6. 360 Hospitality Group, LLC
• Victor Watson, Real Estate Attorney
• Deek Patel (ASing)
• Delish (spelling ?)
• $30,000 per parking space – not feasible; working hard;
good process back and forth; the developer is looking to
secure a parking lot for Valet Parking; looked at a location
in Consent Decree Area – so can’t do; they are now looking
at other potential sites; tried to layout the site plan to
configure – Marriott requires dedicated Valet; don’t go
west of Florida Avenue.
• Vice Chairperson WEEKS: why not west of Florida Ave.
Director NEUTERMAN: Consent decree area; Manager
WHITTEN: sites limited in CRA for parking use.
Attorney GARGANESE: Federal Consent Decree – we
have to maintain area “Heart of Cocoa” – court-ordered; by
feds; under that for decades.
• Agency Member ROGERS: secure additional parking?
• Deep Patel. Actively looking to find a lot; regulations for
lot for right price, actively looking;
• Agency Member ROGERS: Jack Brown’s two lots? Patel:
financially purchasing. Patel: not ideal to lease (WEEKS
question)
• Financial Evidence; Patel: from Developer standpoint; can
we make our debt service; operate it for the long-haul;
during that process – construction team and requirements
numbers: can build; risky to put in a building to 5-6 years
to stabilize a hotel; especially a hotel from ground up; want
to address – financial model we put 25% - 30 % down; they
need to see the profit eventually return to them. Attorney:
clarified to KOSS – TIF actual cost is $25M, taxable value
$20M. Value Engineer; pool on roof; due diligence on
parking; land constraint; work together to get it done.
• Vice Chairperson WEEKS; TIF for seven years. $1.4 M.
Manager WHITTEN: Deep Patel – evidencing how would
we address that question? Some assurance you can fund.
Patel: approval letter from the bank. More – is this going
to make enough profit for our investors are happy with the
return. No issues getting an approval letter. We can show
the down payment;
• Depak Patidaa (spelling) – we built four hotels in county;
Marriott won’t come to aid you. We can show you the
equity; two three months to get bank note; 30 years in hotel
business. Underground retention – interferes with parking
Page 5 of 10
also; $24-26M project. Deep – pro formas – are you going
to be able to sustain $200/nite; financially the bank would
not add up – what can we do – we’re putting in 5% more;
can city help more too.
• Chairperson BLAKE: financing reassurance helpful.
• Agency Member ROGERS: I have a lot of concerns still;
are we looking at too small of a lot? Could this be
relocated to the five acres; not prepared – too many
unknowns for careful consideration; look at another lot for
dedicated parking – would make it easier; parking has
always been a tremendous problem. I know that you’ve
worked really hard; my concern is: Marriott Tribute down
to Fairfield after awarded; TIF don’t know to supplement
the financing? Maybe a bigger lot. City vs. CRA – as to
entertain that as a possibility. The two lots not at a
reasonable price; don’t feel good about continuing to
extend; are we forcing for something that should not be
forced.
• Agency Member KOSS: Ms. Rogers hit it on the head;
initially site was parking garage; does seem like square peg
in round hole; we have the five acres; the issue with the
hotel; how will we fill 100 rooms, with parking issues;
better land another place? Deep Patel - .82 acres –
challenging site; two acres would be ideal; feasible – has
not been easy to get thread needle; Florida Ave is five
acres; regretted that we did not try to push for event center;
we don’t have that; would be ideal for that use; you still
have to do the Economic Analysis. Deep Patel – able to do
that. KOSS: hotel by US 1 would be better.
• Vice Chairperson WEEKS: other lot? Deepak alure is a
hotel in Cocoa; the question is parking; why don’t we
work; create a garage; plus surface parking for the village;
look for a win-win; identify for a place to put;
• Chairperson BLAKE: we are getting close. But, we need
them to collaborate. Let’s give them the extension to keep
negotiating.
• Vice Chairperson WEEKS: I would support an extension.
• Deepak – five acres – make part of that parking
• Vice Chairperson WEEKS: in favor of this project.
• Agency Member ETZ: no one who is a bigger cheerleader;
I have a business here for 32 years; always wanted it;
confident in your financing; issue is with the TIF money;
that is not the city; it s the CRA – TIF is all we get for all of
our projects; this is a great one; but we only have so much
time; nervous giving any of that away; with so little time
left in the CRA; we would be setting new precedent – there
Page 6 of 10
are others who might want to come in and say we want TIF
– small money – but large for us. TIF, plus the property.
$1.4 M & 1.2 M for the property. $2.6M; I have concerns.
• Deep: we appreciate that ; economic study; through direct
and indirect contribution - $12M in revenue for the city for
the long-run.
• Chairperson BLAKE: a bill to eliminate all CRAs – we
need to capitalize; I was born here; the challenges; we
know – please, lets not get bogged down; lets move
forward; all will benefit.
• Agency Member KOSS: Framework (BOA) they want TIF
too; infrastructure expenses; that will not relieve.
• Chairperson BLAKE: CRAs – lets not lose it.
ii. Discussion.
1. Delegations:
• Pam Shaia – speaking on item no. 1
i. Own two businesses in the Village; celebrated 18 years
and 9 at another;
ii. 21 hotels opened in Brevard – five have opened in Cape
Canaveral.
iii. Average of three nights in hotels
iv. 1500 rooms hotel properties.
v. Mayor Parrish; Mayor Williams; Mayor Blake - 9
years we have been talking about this hotel; how much
more can the CRA – I’m hearing – no parking. Now:
tough to tell the community – 100 parking from the
village. Rooftop experience goes away – Like using
another area; ask the CRA – give 30 more days to look
at another property; five acres – could use three acres;
walking distance of the village.
vi. Chairperson BLAKE – as second term as Mayor;
“Emerald Lakes: would not survive – now Adamsons
Creek. Phase III – build it people will come. These
gentlemen have the financial backing; lets proceed
forward; growing pain; we address day-by-day;
• Alex Greenwood -speaking on item no. 1
i. Give an extension for them to put their funding
together; not your position; they are experienced; don’t
insult successful people – the five acres is not in the
down town – actions lauder that words; bad idea, to
move; still develops; still involved; they’ve done the
homework – let them do their job. Condo project;
banks will lend; building a business – work with them.
They are experienced. Parking is an issue. They have
Page 7 of 10
to answer to Marriott and the City and the CRA – give
them more time; they have the money. Let’s not delay
them anymore; I’ve been here more than 40 years; this
is glad we are redeveloping CRA. Thank you.
ii. Chairperson BLAKE: 90 days to finish. 120 days, I’d
give you.
iii. Agency Member KOSS: Mr. Greenwood is who
brought us the last hotel project; I don’t think anyone
here is being disrespectful of these developers.
iv. Vice Chairperson WEEKS: open?
v. Deep: break ground. 18-24 to complete.
vi. Vice Chairperson WEEKS: two to three years to figure
out.
vii. Attorney – Victor – doing everything together; moving
promptly.
iii. Vote.
*MOTION by Vice Chairperson WEEKS; SECONDED by Chairperson BLAKE to
approve the motion.
AYES: BLAKE, WEEKS, ETZ, KOSS, ROGERS.
MOTION PASSED – (5-0)
====================================================================
*(Note for the Record: KOSS and ROGERS were silent; which defaults to an AYE because
they did not voice a vote of NAY; abstention is not allowed unless a conflict of interest exists
and was filed with the Recording Secretary by a deadline certain prior to the meeting. No
such conflict exists or was reported. This ruling was confirmed with the City Clerk.)
=====================================================================
2. Request Agency direction of the Community Policing Program Update to add Armed
Security Guards in addition to Cocoa Police Officers to improve Public Safety
Services to the Cocoa CRA.
i. Introduction. Director NEUTERMAN. FY23 added Community Police in
CRA. Interlocal agreement. Contribute to funding. Since April 2023;
1. Differences in cost to us as Officers choosing whether to use Comp
Time vs. Overtime; or straight officer time.
2. We are asking to supplement with Armed Security Guards. Agency
Member ROGERS referenced “Ambassadors” used in Orlando.
3. We are seeking direction. We have an agency that provides to City
Hall; proposal; three security officers; Principal for St. Marks; School
Page 8 of 10
Resource Officer (8-3 PM) 10 AM -2 AM; get direction to pursue
engaging with security company; $300k for three officers, with one
used for St. Mark’s. Manager WHITTEN: Lt. MILLS is here. In lieu
of CPD Officers; we’ve been budgeting – use part.
4. Lt. MILLS: discontinue CPD – special detail; overtime; Manager
WHITTEN: 72.8k could supplement the $300k.
ii. Discussion.
1. Chairperson BLAKE
2. (Need Delegation Card) Cerrano: Jay Cerrano – Board of St. Marks.
Increased security concerns; three incidents; Commander Marchicha
(spelling) – automated call 15 mins. In morning and afternoon;
homeless behind the school; Matthew’s Hope providing food behind
the Academy – making it difficult for the kids to play; another incident
– a man drove by to yell obscenities and telling the kids they were
“going to hell;” another incident shooting during school while parent
grown concerns; Jan 27 roll of duct tape after hours trying to force
entry to school;
3. Vice Chairperson WEEKS: $300k for armed security officers; longer
hours? Manager WHITTEN: increase the time; Lt. School resource
officer; and downtown detail;
4. Agency Member ETZ: in addition to police; Stockton – instead of?
Manager WHITTEN: armed security would replace CPD. Security
Guard – dedicated to the Village? Yes. Enhanced Law enforcement;
Private school pay for? The school is in the district; during daytime
only; Lt. Officers working the detail – their primary focus is
downtown; they may respond to a high priority;
5. Agency Member ROGERS; can they issue a ticket? Lt. MILLS – no
arrest authority whatsoever; security officers – they call PD; they
cannot detain; no legal authority. Example: Lee Wenner Park:
camping issues. How would they address that? Manager WHITTEN:
they would call PD. Not a criminal offence for being in park after
hours; can fish in the dark; Manager WHITTEN: state statute not to
park; PD does a morning sweep; Agency Member ROGERS: can you
lock the wheels? Lt. MILLS – we can look at that; and come up with a
plan. Lost control of the park; if you have laws but don’t enforce it’s
been the “wild west” down there.
6. Agency Member KOSS: is this a cost issue? Manager WHITTEN: we
struggle with the numbers – takes officers away from other needs in
the city; fund three more PD would be salary costs; additional costs;
this is the most cost-efficient in village. Having the presence of Cocoa
PD is helpful. Dedicated security guards vs. Cocoa PD. Trying to
understand. Cost issue? Public relations and building our own
department; Manager WHITTEN: officers cost more; expansion of
more hours; not just night watch that CPD is only. Thu. – Sat. 11 PM
– 3 AM; This is 10 AM – 2 AM; expansion of time. Calling officers
Page 9 of 10
in from outside; this is a getting you seven days a week and expanding
timeframe; huge cost -efficiency gained; and our officers can
concentrate elsewhere.
7. Vice Chairperson WEEKS: how long for contract sign for? Manager
WHITTEN: proposal one year; contract; multi- if cost less.
8. Agency Member ETZ: preventative measure that would save PD from
having to come down to the village. Deter Shoplifters; saves PD time.
PD more intimidating – provide security less scaring people.
9. Attorney GARGANESE: agenda item; different; supplemental; not
consistent with the Interlocal – agenda is about getting direction; St.
Marks is going to cover the cost – another issue -he did not hear that;
use existing to retain additional; multiple questions – he has. Give
staff direction; he needs to look more at it. Manager WHITTEN: we
can work with those concerns; did not go over the agenda; was meant
to be in lieu of; but interlocal was for law enforcement; give us
direction to work with agency attorney.
iii. Vote.
1. Motion: Vice Chairperson WEEKS – Staff work with Attorney to
determine feasibility of Security Guard detail for the Village.
Second Chairperson BLAKE.
• AYEs have it. (5-0): BLAKE, WEEKS, ETZ, KOSS,
ROGERS.
(Amended)
3. Request Agency approval for the City to Prepare and Submit a Grant Application for
Repairing the Cocoa Waterfront Utilizing the Florida Inland Navigation District
(FIND) Grant (Phase II – Build Protective Barrier System). The FIND Grant
application for $3,005,925.00, with a 50% match requirement of $1,502,962.50,
would be awarded for Fiscal Year 2026.
i. Introduction. Director NEUTERMAN.
ii. Discussion.
iii. Vote.
*MOTION by Chairperson BLAKE; SECONDED by Vice Chairperson WEEKS to
approve the motion.
AYES: BLAKE, WEEKS, ETZ, KOSS, ROGERS.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0)
VI. ATTORNEY REPORT: Pending legislation; we will need to keep track of.
Page 10 of 10
VII. UPDATES AND STAFF REPORTS:
1. Director NEUTERMAN
i. - no report
VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE:
Monday, April 7, 2024, at 6:00 pm in the Council Chambers located in Cocoa City Hall,
65 Stone Street, Cocoa, Florida.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
* MOTION by Vice Chairperson WEEKS; SECONDED by Chairperson
BLAKE, to adjourn the meeting.
AYES: BLAKE, WEEKS, ETZ, KOSS, ROGERS
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0)
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 7:53 PM.
________________________
Michael C. Blake, Chairperson
Respectfully Submitted by:
________________________________
Ryan Browne, Recording Secretary
Agenda (the City's wording)
Time links are automatic matches to the machine transcript and may be off.
An item without a time link may still have been discussed; the link is only added when the automatic match is strong.
I. CALL TO ORDER
1. Invocation
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Roll Call
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND MINUTES
1. Agenda: Regular Meeting of the Cocoa CRA held on Monday, March 3, 2025.
2. Minutes: Regular Meeting of the Cocoa CRA held on Monday, February 3, 2025.
III. DELEGATIONS
IV. PRESENTATIONS
V. ACTION ITEMS
1. Staff to provide a status update on the negotiations with 360 Development LLC for the property located at 603 Brevard Avenue. Request Agency direction related to an extension not to exceed ninety (90) days to complete the negotiations. — 00:02:36
2. Request Agency direction of the Community Policing Program Update to add Armed Security Guards in addition to Cocoa Police Officers to Improve Public Safety Services to the Cocoa CRA. — 01:19:54
3. Request Agency approval for the City to Prepare and Submit a Grant Application for Repairing the Cocoa Waterfront Utilizing the Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) Grant (Phase II - Build Protective Barrier System). The FIND Grant application for $3,005,925, with a 50% match requirement of $1,502,962.50, would be awarded for Fiscal Year 2026. — 01:50:07
VI. ATTORNEY’S REPORT
VII. UPDATES AND STAFF REPORTS
VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Transcript Partial transcript
Machine transcription of the meeting recording. The words are the recognizer's, except where a passage is marked as corrected or machine re-recognized; most have
not been checked against the audio, so words, numbers and names can be misheard.
It describes what was said. It cannot establish who voted how, an amount or an outcome — the City's
minutes do that (above).
A time links to its passage, and “Copy link” copies that link. “▶ Play” opens the recording at that moment, as the City's file, in a new tab.
372 suspect passage(s) marked in place; inspection incomplete: language review.
How this transcript was made. New machine transcription of the whole recording, with 16 voices separated from the audio.
28 short machine repair(s) (35 word(s)) are labelled in place, with the original words beside them: an ordinary word was replaced only where two further machine readings agreed on a different one.
Checks run on this transcript: the recognizer's own warning signs and whether a voice was detected where the words are. Not completed: language review.
A second, independent machine reading was compared with it word by word: the same words for 92.2% of 16,556 content words.
Dotted words (411 places) are ordinary wording differences: hover or tap to see the other reading.
372 passages (22% of the words) are marked suspect: their words are not shown ("unclear audio") and support no statement: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ; the language review questioned them; or no voice was detected there.
Agreement between two machine readings is not verification.
Inspection is incomplete: language review.
Speakers were separated by voice. A plain name rests on evidence tied to that voice; “provisional” is a name from an earlier text-only pass and is not verified; “Speaker N” is an unidentified voice.
Yes, Mr. Chairman. Chairperson Blake. Present, sir. Vice Chairperson Weeks. Here. Agency Member Etz. Here. Agency Member ‸ Goins. Agency Member Hearn. Agency Member Koss.
Fantastic. Just to be on the safe side, and I'm applicable to as well. Will everyone secure your cell phones, pagers? I'm going old school on you. Okay. Proceeding on to item number 2-1, agenda regular meeting of the
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:01:13–00:01:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:01:49–00:01:49 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:02:10–00:02:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:02:33–00:02:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:02:40–00:02:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:02:51–00:02:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Chair and members, ‸ let me just jump right into it. And so we've been working on the redevelopment agreement for quite some time, as you ‸ all are aware. ‸ And this is a process. It's a multi-step process where there's a redevelopment agreement that has certain milestones in it. And so it's divided into three phases. And we'll talk about those. You know, as is the case in any project and getting any project across the finish line, you know, it's ultimately going to boil down to can the project be financed? Mm-hmm. And so at the end of the day, I think we have to park on financing and parking and talk about those.
That's what comes before this body and ‸ approval of that. And you can see some of the things that are required in the draft redevelopment agreement are parking analysis, feasibility studies. It is the development agreement is actually a requirement of the ‸ redevelopment agreement.
‸ So we'll show you the elevations that they've presented to us. We'll talk about the parking. But again, just want to, again, and I think they would agree. They have some requests that they're going to make in terms of TIF rebates, the tax increment revenue rebates there. And so I think they're going to say to you that that is significant in terms of making the project for them. I
so ultimately, we're going to get back to, you know, can we get the project across the finish line in terms of the financing? Let me just talk about the parking and we'll show you the elevations there.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:05:47–00:05:47 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
that problem with the original proposal, ‸ we're having that problem now. And so really what this is at this particular point is there would only be 29 spaces on site, accommodated on site.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:06:07–00:06:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:06:40–00:06:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And if you if you get into the redevelopment agreement, that's why we're proposing that they fund that they they contribute to the pot of money that we're setting aside to do parking in the village. Recall that I don't know that you do recall, but but we do have parking that we're working on on the Oleander. I'll call it the Oleander West parking lot. And then we have a number of soon to be designs for on street parking. And so what we put into this deal is for for for for not meeting the on site parking requirements ‸ and as a as a consideration for the land that it's a it's a contribution towards that. You know, originally we talked about one number. I just gave back to them a five hundred thousand dollar number because, again, you know, there's there is parking, if you will. There's no net increase in public parking
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:08:19–00:08:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And so so that's the consideration for the for the five hundred thousand dollars in parking. So so just wanted to make you aware of that again in in in the redevelopment agreement in the phases, the milestones are the amount of the benchmarks are traffic impact analysis. The floor floor area ratio, the floor area
analysis, economic impact, the conceptual development plan. ‸ And again, if we can just flip through some of the elevations. And I don't know if you want to if you want to ask questions there.
think they at our last meeting, you guys agree that that that would be something that they would undertake to actually enclose the pool. Because, again, part of part of the ‸ redevelopment plan actually talks about bringing developments to the street. And so that it's sort of it's it's sort of walkable. And and you have this concept where where the street sort of meets the developments there.
up. So so phase one includes all of the things that I've mentioned. It includes a timeline for the development agreement, but it does not include the evidence of project financing, which as staff, we've talked with them very briefly about moving up into phase one, because again, none of us want to spend a whole
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:10:46–00:10:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So we don't have a long life left on the CRA and it's not as much. Not as big a TIF cash cowl as you would think, you know, right now, if you if you look at the numbers ‸ and I don't know, Charlene, if we if we if we gave them this. But but if you look at the estimate of funds available for the tax increment financing ‸ based on a taxable value of 20 million, it's a little over 200000. And that's just real simple math there. That is that is the tax rates times times the taxable value
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:11:49–00:11:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:12:06–00:12:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
You would actually have to write into your plan. You would actually have to come up with the program guidelines to do that. Your plan does allow for you to create financial incentives for projects. But again, we don't have any particular program or protocol in place.
sort of move through the phases, the second phase contemplates a hotel brand approval financing. Again, I think we've given you the letter that they got from Marriott. You know, we
we'd like a letter that said we're we're doing this project and Marriott is putting 10, 15, 20 million towards it. But I think this is this is, you know, a letter that says,
little gun shy. Because of, you know, the I've been here for four years and you guys have been working on it for six, you know, and so and so we're a little we're a little gun shy on the financing. We want to know day one that the financing is there and that this project can can be funded. And so that's why we're we're we would suggest that we move the evidence of project financing up to phase one of whatever final redevelopment agreement that we bring back to you or if it's supposed to be in the development agreement there. They can they can they can address that again. I want to give them time to address that.
points there. I want to give Mr. Garganese an opportunity to to to clean up or clarify anything that I misspoke on or anything that I missed there. But at the end of the day, I think this meeting is important because we've given you a draft. That's not nearly a final draft there. There's a lot of meat ‸ left on the bone in terms of this draft.
you to approve tonight. And so that's why we're asking for the additional time. ‸ Again, I want them to to give you guys some comfort about the financing, because, again, we all are sitting here with the exception of agency member weeks.
so, I'll, I'll, if we want to park on the financing and you guys want to want to sort of come to the to the podium and we can talk about that. But again, giving ‸ a
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:16:08–00:16:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:16:16–00:16:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:16:24–00:16:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
positive in terms ‸ of public parking spaces there. Again, when we reissued the RFP, we talked about parking and the ability to sort of do some trade offs for the public parking.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:17:01–00:17:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And again, that's why you have that $500,000 as sort of a, as the trade off for, for either the loss of the parking spaces or the, or the no net increase in the parking spaces. But, but ‸ it is again, on, on John,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:17:31–00:17:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
are surface parking on the hotel site there. Those are exclusive to the hotel, uh, for 121. They are, uh, and I'll let them talk about it. They are, um, Marriott does have a requirement for them to have, uh, valet parking. And so I know they're, they're in pursuit of some, uh, lot, uh, somewhere to actually do the valet parking. Um,
closest parking now, then if, if this is what happens, the closest parking for the businesses and the customers of the businesses on the south end of the village
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:18:22–00:18:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And, and I'm aware that that would, was going to go away all along because we're going to put a building there, but. I'm probably been involved with this. I want to say longer than anybody here, except maybe Anthony. Um, it's so far removed from the original, we're going to give you this property. You're going to give us parking spaces. That was, it was supposed to be a solution to some of our parking issues. And this just looks to me like, again, a
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:18:59–00:19:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:19:22–00:19:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:19:33–00:19:34 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:19:45–00:19:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:19:59–00:20:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
discussions included, can we get some parking, uh, on site there? But I don't think the original contemplated that depends on what you're calling the original. You
we can give you the language that we put in the RFP because the RFP did talk about, hey, there's a consideration of, uh, things of the land for public parking. So it did talk about that. It has that specific language in there. Well,
why I was curious. I mean, obviously I wasn't on the council then, so I'm not aware of what all has been proposed before, but that's what ‸ I was curious.
you're losing the 60 or 70 that we have, and those were going to be replaced again in the original RFP with the, with the, with the parking spaces that were within the hotel. That would be public spaces within the hotel. Uh, originally when I came on, I think there was a contemplation of a hundred spots. Uh,
I'll let them talk about their, their constraints with regards to ‸ parking on site there. Uh, parking is expensive and so, ‸ but I'll, I'll let them address that question.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:22:22–00:22:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
There's no state requirement that requires a certain number of spaces that, that is your city codes, you know, that is. Okay. City codes. You gotta meet, you gotta, you gotta meet the required,
parking requirement for the project. You can obviously exempt yourself out of that through the development agreement or redevelopment agreement, which is what this, this would contemplate, you know.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:23:31–00:23:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:23:39–00:23:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:23:54–00:24:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:24:03–00:24:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:24:14–00:24:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
that were contemplated under the, uh, under the parking plan for us to create additional spots. Again, you know, through the, through the easement that was, uh, granted to Florida Power and Light and, and Florida City Gas.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:24:54–00:25:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:25:06–00:25:07 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:25:20–00:25:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
worst enemy. I feel by giving all these variances, as we do have a deficit. I'm not, uh, I, I kind of disagree. I think if you're going to go to this extreme, you're going to need to shuttle people. They're just not going to walk that far. It's raining or it's hot or it's humid. And, uh, trust me, I live in the village and I don't want to even,
And I, I don't, I didn't, I'm not disagreeing with you. That's a, that's a sort of a Florida phenomenon. You know, we want to, we want to, we want to park right in front of the venue that we're, that we're, uh, we're going to. So, yeah, I agree with that. Um,
But there are a couple of big issues you brought to our attention, the parking and the other is the finance. And I'm trying to understand the finance more because the, ‸ what are we calling it?
okay. I'm sorry. Can you hear me? Okay. Um, I'm concerned or I'd like to understand more the financing, the request for financing. Um, because we're looking at the TIF request.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:27:27–00:27:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:27:29–00:27:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:27:41–00:27:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:28:10–00:28:10 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:28:41–00:28:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:28:56–00:29:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:29:33–00:29:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:29:50–00:29:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
guess we'll hit the parking and then, and then the numbers.
[00:29:57]▶ PlaySpeaker 10 (introduced as “Victor Watson” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
Yeah. Good evening, everyone. I'm Victor Watson. I'm a real estate attorney. I'm working with, uh, 360 hospitality, um, on this project. Uh, we also have,
[00:30:09]▶ PlaySpeaker 10 (introduced as “Victor Watson” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:30:09–00:30:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:30:14–00:30:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:30:15]▶ PlaySpeaker 10 (introduced as “Victor Watson” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
ago.
[00:30:16]▶ PlaySpeaker 10 (introduced as “Victor Watson” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:30:24–00:30:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:30:27]▶ PlaySpeaker 10 (introduced as “Victor Watson” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
And, uh, they can answer questions ‸ in greater detail than I can, but you did have a couple of questions on the, uh, parking, and that is a very difficult issue. Uh, my clients looked at a, you know, trying to, uh, incorporate some extra floors of parking or an, an extra floor of parking. And the cost for
[00:30:47]▶ PlaySpeaker 10 (introduced as “Victor Watson” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:30:47–00:30:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:30:52]▶ PlaySpeaker 10 (introduced as “Victor Watson” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
it just made the project not feasible. Um, so we've been working around that, uh, with the city. And, um, and by the way, we have been working very hard, you know, on this. We've been having weekly meetings, city
[00:31:07]▶ PlaySpeaker 10 (introduced as “Victor Watson” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:33–00:31:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:31:37]▶ PlaySpeaker 10 (introduced as “Victor Watson” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
young guys who can run fast or maybe, I don't know if they could use a scooter. So some way of getting back and forth. Uh, but that can be worked out. And they, they have looked, they did initially locate a spot where they could do that, but they didn't realize that they couldn't go west of Florida Avenue, you know, due to the federal agreement. Uh, so they're looking at, uh, other locations to secure for that purpose. And obviously that's very, very important and something that will have to be done in these later phases and would be part of the redevelopment agreement. Um, uh, so that was, that was our, our plan for that. And we've also worked,
[00:32:46]▶ PlaySpeaker 10 (introduced as “Victor Watson” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
in the vicinity. Um, I don't know that it has to be within the CRA. I think we could go outside, but we know we can't go west of Florida Avenue. Um, so did, did you have any more questions on the parking? You know, we know it's an issue. Go
parcels within the city or areas within the city, within the CRA that can't be standalone parking lots. Also, we don't just allow you to, to create a parking lot within the, uh, within the CRA district.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:33:37–00:33:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
That's the, when they say the federal consent decree, you haven't really been exposed a lot to the federal consent decree. That's a federal court order that requires the city to preserve the single member, not the single family residential character of the consent decree area, which is predominantly, uh, west of Florida Avenue. Okay. So when the manager says there's an, there's an agreement, that agreement subject to court order and enforced by the federal courts. All right. So, so yeah, it's a, it's a biggie and we've been under that for decades.
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 00:34:27–00:34:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
to secure, uh, additional parking dedicated to the hotel, is that what we read in here where it says, um, you will look for other property. If you would get approval or a signed agreement with the city. Is that correct?
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:34:53–00:34:53 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:34:59–00:35:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I'm with 360 hospitality. We have actively been looking to find a lot, but it's, you know, there's a few constraints, uh, either there's federal regulations or, you know, city regulations. So it's just finding the right lot in the right place for the right price.
I think the, it just didn't work out for what they were asking in terms of, um, you know, the amount to purchase a lot. So it just didn't make sense for us financially.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:35:56–00:36:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
developer standpoint, um, you know, we look at our pro formas, what we project to do financially. Um, and can we make our debt service with the appropriate, um, you know, margins that we need to sustain the hotel. Meaning, are we going to build a $25 million hotel and not be able to service a debt because it costs so much, ‸ right? So not only do we have to build it, but we have to operate it and for a long, you know, for the long haul that way everybody can benefit from it. So during that process, we looked at all of the cost numbers that were coming in from, from our construction team, along with, um, you know, all of the, the requirements that we needed to hit for the CRA. And what we realized is two things. We can still build the hotel. It's how much money are we willing to put in there to get the right return, right? It's always a money in money out conversation, right?
know, there is a true partnership with the city and we are going to get a break, um, at some point, you know, in time, because it's, it's really hard for, and really risky for a developer to put a $25 million building and then wait five, six years to stabilize it. Because it does take five, six years to stabilize a hotel. And, you know, I would, I would encourage you guys to ask other developers how long it takes, um, especially, you know, starting up a brand new hotel from the ground up.
successfully. So we want to make sure we get off on the right foot and, you know, we can continue to operate the hotel. So to address the, the comment from Stockton earlier, we don't have any issues going out and putting more money down.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:38:14–00:38:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
down, but we just need to know at some point in time, we will see a profit to, to, you know, make that worthwhile. So I think that's what Stockton was referring to.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:38:32–00:38:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:38:35]▶ PlaySpeaker 10 (introduced as “Victor Watson” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
in a large chunk of that, but you have to realize that the calculations we
[00:38:40]▶ PlaySpeaker 10 (introduced as “Victor Watson” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:38:40–00:38:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:38:43]▶ PlaySpeaker 10 (introduced as “Victor Watson” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
taxable value.
[00:38:45]▶ PlaySpeaker 10 (introduced as “Victor Watson” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
we want a rooftop pool, but putting a pool that much weight on the rooftop costs a lot of money structurally, which is why we've had to put it on the ground floor. We did want to build a parking lot, but you know, we did our due diligence and it's coming out extremely high. So we, we have a few constraints in terms of how and what we can do because there, you know, there is a little bit of a land constraint that we have. So it's just a matter of trying to work together to see what we can come up with to get it done.
Um, how, how many years would the TIF be in effect then that you would want the rebate for? I think you asked that, right? I believe we said seven years, seven years. Okay.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:39:50–00:39:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:40:02–00:40:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:40:06–00:40:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:40:21–00:40:22 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Yeah. So one of the things we can do is, is it a matter of getting an approval letter from the bank? Because that we can do, but the, that I don't think has ever been a challenge on our side. It's more so is this project going to be able to make the people investing in our company money,
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:40:55–00:40:56 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
investors are also, you know, happy with the return. Um, so it's a matter of that. That's, that was the essence of, you know, having that conversation. But if it's a matter of getting an approval letter, we have no issues in doing something.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:41:40–00:41:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:41:48–00:41:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:42:08–00:42:08 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:42:08–00:42:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:42:11–00:42:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I think when we started out Stockton, that was the first thing we mentioned that we have, uh, four hotels that we built grounds up in our county. Uh, ‸ therefore challenges. Yes. We understand the challenges. We understand the returns. End of the day is can you get the financing in place? And can you get the equity that you need without asking the Marriott?
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:42:40–00:42:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:42:48–00:42:49 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
I think, you know, at this stage, we can show you the equity, but to get a better letter from a bank saying, yeah, we'll be willing to finance it. That might be a
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:43:04–00:43:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:43:13–00:43:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So that's not a, I mean, I understand end of the day, you want to build something, you better know how to get your money together. Right. That's, that's what works. And then, uh, the other cause the reason the cost is higher at this property, it's not just the parking. Um, we have to create underground retention because the lot is so small. So that seemed, you know, every, it's like we're building a hotel in Melbourne beach area right now. And it's 1.6 acre and we put in underground retention. And actually my son-in-law was with us today and he goes, Dad, where's the retention? And I go, it's all underground. He said, how much did that cost you? And I said, it
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:44:03–00:44:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
You and I would never see it because there's a parking lot on top, but it's all underground. So it has to work properly. So I think that's the reason the price of this project for 103 rooms will be about 24 to $26 million.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:44:22–00:44:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Okay. So, and I was just adding, um, to what Deepak was saying, the pro formas based on the numbers that we work, right? The bank's going to look at it and say, hey, are you really going to get this much revenue based on 100 room hotel? Are you really going
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:44:39–00:44:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
that's why I had the conversation with the, with the CRA to say, Hey guys, financially, if I'm the bank trying to approve this loan, things don't add up. Right? So let's come back and figure out what do we need?
then is there anything the city can do? Because we're already putting in 5% more money than, you know, we would normally to help, you know, with that cost. But is there anything else we can help we can get from the city to help, ‸ you know, get this project underway and completed? So
Go ahead. Well, it just seems to me, I, I, I have a lot of hesitation because there's a lot of unknown considerations after a year of negotiations. You know, is it, I'm not saying it's anybody's fault here, but are we looking at too small a lot and trying to put a square peg in a round hole when if we went up the street to the old Oaks trailer park lot, where it's 10 acres, gives you a lot more freedom, puts you a little closer to US 1. And
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:46:31–00:46:31 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:46:33–00:46:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
again, I just saw this tonight. I wish I'd had it earlier, but it does seem that I'm not prepared to say, yes, let's go ahead because I think there's too many, too many unknowns here for careful consideration. Um, I'm just saying maybe we need to look at another lot so we can provide dedicated parking. Um, it just seems to me that makes it a little easier. I'm not even talking about what the finish out is or the exterior. I'm just saying the parking has always been a tremendous problem. I mean, I'm, I'm all for stopping any more variances for parking. That's how I feel about it.
what I was told during the ‸ selection committee and what I'm considering today, it's just completely different. I was told it would be a Marriott. Um, what is it? The, um, tribute, but two minutes after it was awarded, it was like, well,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:48:13–00:48:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:48:20–00:48:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:48:23–00:48:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
‸ I just, um, I'm just concerned, but I think maybe on a bigger lot, it's a city property. It's not a CRA property and the people that sit up here are on the council. So it would be up to you if you wanted to even entertain that as a possibility. Um, you know, I know why, well, I'm not going to say about the, the additional two lots that got tied up and then not willing to sell at a reasonable price. I understand that. So
I'm, I, we keep giving extensions and I just don't feel good about it right now. I'd like to contemplate it. So that's kind of where I'm at. And I'm just thinking, are we forcing something that shouldn't be forced and look up further up the road? It's just food for thought.
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 00:49:28–00:49:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
this square peg in a round hole and we do have that other property. And we had even, I think that even came up in our discussion, but we were kind of headset on a hotel. Um,
issue with the hotel is, and I'm sure you're going to be doing more analysis, but I keep thinking about how are we going to fill a hundred rooms there, particularly if the parking is so difficult.
I would agree with you ladies in the sense that I do kind of feel we're putting a square peg in a round hole. 0.82 acres. Just between the CRA requirement and the
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:50:59–00:51:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:51:02–00:51:02 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:51:10–00:51:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:51:16–00:51:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
wish we had two acres. If we had two acres, we could do it all and not have to worry about underground retention and all of these different things that we're having to worry about as of right now. So that would help again. We're we're all for
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:51:32–00:51:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
It's just a little bit challenging trying to do parking, retail, hotel all in one. And I know I appreciate the spirit that everybody has, but it's just is it feasible to to do it all in that land?
But is it going to be a is it going to be a what you want it to be at the end and the cost? And it's just a lot of we're kind of having to thread the needle as a group. And it may be challenging to do. That's all. But I do agree with you ladies.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:52:03–00:52:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:52:11–00:52:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Yeah, just one other thing. I've just often thought regretted we didn't try to push for the convention center or a bigger facility for events because I think that's what a hotel really needs, right?
[00:52:41]▶ PlaySpeaker 14 (introduced as “Pam Shea” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
In fact, that's a perfect location for that. But yeah, I ‸ think the well, you still have to do the economic analysis. You've kind of done some analysis.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:53:03–00:53:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:53:04–00:53:05 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:53:10–00:53:10 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:53:37–00:53:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
this has totally changed the, I mean, I really want a hotel ‸ in Cocoa Village, but would you all be interested in this other lot that they're talking about?
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:53:58–00:54:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:54:06–00:54:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So why don't we as a team figure ‸ out, identify ‸ area and maybe that's where the city needs to come in with our funding, the city's funding and some other funding and create a garage or ‸ parking. And maybe until we build that funding to put a car garage, we do surface parking for not just the
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:54:46–00:54:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:54:48–00:54:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:54:57–00:55:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:55:03–00:55:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
at, even the city can't afford that. What we can't afford right now is say, okay, we identify where we can put a garage. We don't have the funding, but there's a
You know, I think Stockton already said that we may end up paying half a million into the coffers. That's a start. And then down the road, somehow you're going to have to come up with that parking, whether you put a garage there or just create parking there.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:55:47–00:55:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:55:51–00:55:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:55:57–00:56:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:56:00–00:56:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:56:27–00:56:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I think we... So the parking seems to be the number one issue for all of us. And you guys have the five acres. And if you dedicate some of that to be just parking, then that... And from there on, I think it makes everybody's job easier. You just got to figure out the numbers.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:57:06–00:57:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:57:15–00:57:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:57:26–00:57:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
got that. I got that. But anyway, I am very much in favor of this project and want to see it go forward. And so anyway, ‸ that's my thing. Thank you. Thank
you have the parking offsite, the main thing that's going to drive revenue, the hotel, is going to be in the city, which allows customers to walk to local restaurants, local shops, and spend their money.
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:57:55–00:57:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:58:01–00:58:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:58:13–00:58:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:58:56–00:59:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:59:07–00:59:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:59:15–00:59:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
about giving any of that away to anything when we have so little time to do what we still need to do. ‸ That's one issue that I have. And the other is giving... It sets a precedent. We've never done this before. Stockton was saying we're going to have to rewrite some things to be able to do this and that's fine. There are people that are perhaps less concerned about the village than you guys that might want to come in ‸ and push that, you know, hey, you did it for them. You got to do it for us or we're not going to do what, you know, whatever it I I'm just I'm not a fan of setting precedent with little. I don't know. It's
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:00:44–01:00:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:00:52–01:00:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:00:54–01:01:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:01:01–01:01:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:01:06–01:01:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
we sold the property, we'd have that money to do something else with. ‸ That's all I'm saying. It's just it's not like I'm not completely opposed. I'm just I have concerns and I just wanted to express them. Well, you guys are all here.
So I understand it may impact the CRA in a negative manner in the short term. But in the long term, the city will have, you know, much, much greater funds that they can do things with.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:02:25–01:02:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:02:29–01:02:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the hand. ‸ Yes, ma'am. While we have this bird in the hand, we need to capitalize on this opportunity. That's the point. There again, heavens, I was born here in Cocoa. I've seen the transitions. There was a time I could not even come downtown Cocoa Village. So I know the strains of growing up in the cities and the challenges just like they have faced it. So this is the
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:03:06–01:03:07 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:03:13–01:03:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Because at the end of the day, all business in the downtown area will benefit from this economic development. That's all we want to hear. Dollars and cents. ‸ Amen?
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:03:36–01:03:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:03:55–01:03:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
to Jan's point. And that is that ‸ the framework group, the Bank of America property, they've been very transparent that they are also coming to us. You know, for some tax relief. So just to know that there are infrastructure expenses and things that this development burdens that will not necessarily be relieved. Right. But
[01:04:55]▶ PlaySpeaker 10 (introduced as “Victor Watson” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
and I think you know this, but I just wanted to make the point of it, that although the ‸ funds from this project is what we're talking about, you know, your CRA funds are from the whole area,
[01:05:06]▶ PlaySpeaker 10 (introduced as “Victor Watson” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
Thank you, Esquire. You may assume the position in the chair, please, ‸ gentlemen. Thank you. The schoolteacher's coming out of me. Mayor Pam, come to the podium. Then after that will be count former Councilman Greenwood.
[01:05:38]▶ PlaySpeaker 14 (introduced as “Pam Shea” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
Okay, guys. Good evening. I'm Pam Shea, and I own two businesses here in the village. One of them has been here almost 18 years, and I just celebrated nine years this past weekend. One of them. So guys, I'm gonna ‸ give you a little history. You've already heard a lot. But according to the hotel industry, as of June of 18 of 2024,
[01:06:01]▶ PlaySpeaker 14 (introduced as “Pam Shea” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:06:07–01:06:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:06:11]▶ PlaySpeaker 14 (introduced as “Pam Shea” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
Families traveling for the cruises, spending an average of three nights in the area after cruising, maybe watching a launch, baseball and softball games. Employees are coming here because they're on TDY for tech based reasons with a total of additional 1500 rooms, which is
[01:06:31]▶ PlaySpeaker 14 (introduced as “Pam Shea” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:06:44–01:06:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:06:49]▶ PlaySpeaker 14 (introduced as “Pam Shea” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
Now, let's go back to how this all started. This concept started back for those ‸ that remember, you guys may not, but we did have Mayor Parrish. We won't go down that rabbit hole. Then we had Mayor Williams. And now we have
[01:07:04]▶ PlaySpeaker 14 (introduced as “Pam Shea” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:07:04–01:07:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:07:08]▶ PlaySpeaker 14 (introduced as “Pam Shea” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
Ladies and gentlemen, that is nine years. We have been talking about this hotel for nine years. I'm done talking about this hotel. How much more can this CRA do but kick this can down the road? I love the fact that we're having a hotel. I have done nothing but preach to have this hotel, but I'm hearing the struggles that you're having.
[01:07:31]▶ PlaySpeaker 14 (introduced as “Pam Shea” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Machine re-recognized
I
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:07:31–01:07:32 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[01:07:32]▶ PlaySpeaker 14 (introduced as “Pam Shea” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
retired as vice president director of a very large government program. Okay, so understand the struggles. We cannot put the square in the round hole. There's no parking.
[01:07:43]▶ PlaySpeaker 14 (introduced as “Pam Shea” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:07:43–01:07:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:07:47]▶ PlaySpeaker 14 (introduced as “Pam Shea” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
I need a parking lot. I've always said parking is an issue, but we work through it. But now tonight, going to be real tough to go back out there and tell this community with these businesses, especially on the south end,
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:08:09–01:08:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:08:12]▶ PlaySpeaker 14 (introduced as “Pam Shea” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
places off the street. And that's just a hundred if there's only one car per room. Now, if we're going to add people visiting and my understanding in the beginning of this hotel concept is that we're going to have a rooftop experience and some other things. So that brings people to want to stay here, which is going to bring more bodies. I love this idea, but where they're all going to park. Ladies and gentlemen, we do not have a hundred and some parking places to give up. So I do like the idea of possibly considering using another area. It may not fall within the privy of the CRA and that's how I'll leave it. But I would not have a problem asking the CRA to give you 30 more days to look at possibly another piece of property, maybe not owned ‸ by the CRA, but maybe owned by the city that has more than three acres,
[01:09:10]▶ PlaySpeaker 14 (introduced as “Pam Shea” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:09:12–01:09:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:09:17]▶ PlaySpeaker 14 (introduced as “Pam Shea” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
with plenty of parking and still be in the walking distance and the footprint of the village. And that's what I'm going to ask. Other than that, I cannot stand here and sleep at night knowing that I did not
[01:09:33]▶ PlaySpeaker 14 (introduced as “Pam Shea” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:09:33–01:09:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:09:37]▶ PlaySpeaker 14 (introduced as “Pam Shea” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
up for the everyday use of this village. Thank you.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:09:50–01:09:50 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
stated that Emerald Lakes would not survive if they constructed that community there. Emerald Lakes adjacent to the retirement home right there on 524th. What's happening over there? Adamson's Creek. Who wants to live by a dump?
I mean, you know, come on. We're to the promise line. They're saying that they will have the financial institute and the financial backing to make this happen. Let's proceed forward. And there is a plus side to lack of parking. Yes, it is. That means a lot of people are downtown area. Yes, ma'am. Yes, sir. It's a growing pain as we're addressing it day by day. So that is the reason why
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:11:33–01:11:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I'm gonna ‸ be putting on my real estate licensed hat and also my license builder hat for the state of Florida. And we are here to decide on one simple thing. To give an extension for them to put their funds together. That's what we're here for. All the other stuff is just negative killing questions. And I'm not comfortable with that. Nobody on the board should be asking questions. What are you gonna ‸ charge per room? And are you gonna ‸ make enough money? That is not your position. These people are experienced hotel developers.
They're not willing to come up here and talk like that like I am. But I can. You don't insult people that have been successful with multiple hotels. Period. As far as locating it to the five acres, not in the downtown area. It's outside.
there's gonna ‸ be one person on this board that's not gonna ‸ allow it to be five stories taller. Or taller than five stories. I already know that. Actions speak louder than words. Okay? This idea of the other five acres. Absolutely. Bad idea. And that's with me mentioning that I've been developing properties.
I have a tremendous amount of investment in the village with other properties that I bought and developed. And I still have them. That's why I'm still involved. That's why you see me coming here. It's because I am outspoken. And I have more freedom to do that rather than being on the council. Okay? And I can ‸ feel the heartbeat of everybody on the council. Okay? So all I'm trying to say is that we are in the process of needing to let these people take off. They've done the homework. They know what to look for. They know what kind of rooms and how many they have to have. They have all the information. Do not take away the extra time that they're needing. I'll give you an example.
Well, I know as a developer, if you have a condominium project, you can go to any bank. And you all can correct me on this. You can go to any bank. If you go to them, you want to build this condo project.
the banks will say, you want more money? How much you want? Collateral is there. They're building a business. And they cannot do the same thing. That's the key right there. They're building a business, 20 million plus. So, you know, we need to work with them, especially for the fact they've had this experience. And I ‸ just hope that you all allow them to do that. The parking, I agree with you, Jan and Candace. I'm the same way. I'm very concerned about the parking and all that.
It's not easy to please everybody. So we need to stick with the point. They need a little more time. They got the money. There's no question about that. They have the money. They can afford it. Period. Let's not delay them anymore. And let's not drag this out. And I've been here for almost 40 some odd years. Like you mentioned, Mike, I remember when nobody wanted to come to the village. I mean, they were boarded up. There was robberies, rapes, murders. And I'm glad I was on the council at the time to create what we're enjoying now, which is creating the downtown Cocoa Village area as another redevelopment area. And I'm glad that we're talking about, well, we're ‸ getting ‸ over a million and a half or so a year. Never thought that would happen. Thank you for letting me talk.
There again. It is just an extension of 90 days. 90 days. That's all they're asking for. Three months. Hey, since they already secured the ‸ deal, say they have the monies, I'll go 120 days,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:16:28–01:16:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:16:59–01:16:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:17:17–01:17:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Yeah, I'm just curious. I've never heard, and I know we have a whole lot of things to go through, but once approval goes through, what do you think your timeline is to hopefully be open?
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); a language review questioned the wording · 01:17:32–01:17:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:17:43–01:17:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:17:48–01:17:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So we're still talking two to three years before we're even going to have to deal with these parking issues that we can figure something out. Absolutely, yes.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:18:01–01:18:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:18:02]▶ PlaySpeaker 10 (introduced as “Victor Watson” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
the man. Okay. Watson. Thank you. Yes. I just wanted to say that as we've been doing this, you know, we've been working towards the redevelopment agreement, which is kind of the beginning, or it's set out as the beginning. And then you have phase one, phase two, phase three. But as we've been going along, we've also submitted information and been gathering information for that would really apply to phase one and phase two, and you know, getting that together. So we're kind of doing everything at once. So it's not like we're going to drag out this redevelopment agreement and then drag that out. It's like we're trying to do it all. There's no point in, you know, doing something that's not going to come to fruition for, you know, that far off in the future. So they are moving promptly.
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 01:18:48–01:18:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:18:58–01:18:58 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:18:59–01:19:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:19:10–01:19:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:19:23–01:19:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Look forward to the first phase. All right. Proceeding on to item number two, request agency direction of the community policing program update to add armed
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:19:58–01:20:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:20:03–01:20:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So tonight we're requesting some direction from the agency in regards to our community policing program to add armed security guards in addition to the Cocoa police officers to improve our
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:20:33–01:20:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:20:37–01:20:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:20:50–01:20:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:20:58–01:21:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And under the interlocal agreement between the agency and the CRA, the scope of services were as follows to the city agrees to furnish the equipment necessary for the community policing services and that the city is solely responsible for compensating its employees and by providing the community policing ‸ services, all privileges and immunities and liabilities from the laws and ordinances are under under the CRA in the city. And it was subject to section 6.1 of the agreement that each party shall be responsible to the
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:21:37–01:21:38 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
or conduct of its appointees or employees. As part of the agreement, the agency agreed to annually contribute to the funding budgeted and appropriated by the ‸ agency. Since April 2023, the CRA has expended the following amounts per fiscal year on community policing initiatives through the interlocal agreement. In fiscal year 2023,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:22:06–01:22:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
members of our audience who have requested it, but also have been brought up by I believe agency member Rogers who referenced the city of Orlando CRA ‸ who uses their downtown development district has ambassadors, which are security guards as well to patrol the area. ‸ And so what we're looking for tonight is some direction on the use of these security guards. We received we currently have a security agency that does the security for our Coco City Hall. And so we have a good agreement with that that service provider. And I believe I provided you all with a proposal which would
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:23:34–01:23:34 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
three security officers, one of which would be potentially used as a security police officer for a school resource officer for St. Mark's School. And we do have the principal for St. Mark's School here tonight to talk about that. They have agreed to pay for that officer during those school hours.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:24:04–01:24:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And then the possible options for full time guards would be between the hours of 10 a.m. and 2 a.m., which are some of the more peak hours of operation for our businesses and for the restaurants and bars after hours.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:24:41–01:24:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
can talk operational matters. And so my thought was, and I don't know if the chief talked to you about this, but my thought ‸ was that we use the term supplement, but this would be in lieu of the officers. Obviously, they
But but we would we would what we've been budgeting as a special details for the police department. We will now use that as part of the funding for these officers.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:25:33–01:25:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:25:36–01:25:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
kind of the same thing where they were going to maybe make the recommendation to discontinue the officers down there and maybe turn it over to the security officers.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:26:07–01:26:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:26:14–01:26:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Okay. Let me ask this question. I know I have Mr. Jay Serrano here and Mr. Jay ‸ need to submit a card. Please, sir, I do speak and then chair when attain a motion or excuse me, agency members have a question or a dialogue.
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 01:26:47–01:26:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Yep, I am. I am on the board and over the last, I'll say six months, we have some increased concerns of security around the academy. We had three incidents that we needed the assistance of Coco PD. We have worked closely with Commander Marchica. I may be saying that wrong. That's all
minutes in the afternoon. The concern has been mainly with the homeless population behind the school. There's a group called Matthew's Hope that comes over and provides a fitting for the gentleman back there,
and that attracts more people towards the academy and makes it a little bit difficult for the kids to go outside and play. I'll give you a good example. Last year around November, we had a gentleman driving around the academy just yelling obscenities ‸ to the kids ‸ in the playground,
happened right there in the park, right next to the school. So the concern from the parents have grown significantly over the past four months. And just last January on the 27th, we had another gentleman that had a roll of duct tape trying to force himself into the academy. This happened after hours while the kids were gone. But ‸ again, there's a concern that things are happening around the school and the parents are worried. What we are looking for is some type of relief as far as a resource officer for the academy. Right now, we are not in the position to be able to afford one. We have looked at creative ways to either increase tuition ‸ or different avenues to come up with some way to subsidize the funding for a full-time resource officer. Unfortunately, the way that our contracts are documented, we can't raise tuition at this rate right now for next year. So we will have to come out of pocket to do something like that. And based on the cost of the resource officer, we just don't think that we could feasibly get there. So we are asking for some way to subsidize that cost to help us out. Or if that could be provided to us, that would be greatly appreciated. This will be for
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:30:12–01:30:13 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:30:17–01:30:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:30:28–01:30:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:30:57–01:30:58 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:31:01–01:31:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
One is a school resource officer at the school. And then the other one is the security officers, the police officers that work the downtown detail at night on the weekends.
so this would be part of the enhanced law enforcement, part of which one of the security guards would be dedicated during the school hours to serve the school as a school resource officer.
the summary in the packet that you guys gave us, it says it would be a total of three guards assigned to the CRA in addition ‸ to the police officers assigned on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. Doctor, didn't you just say that would be instead of? Yes.
Yeah. Yeah. ‸ This would be... Again, we... ‸ If you gave us three security guards, they would cover the hours that have been covered by law enforcement. And so ‸ I apologize for
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:32:45–01:32:45 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
to the village. They aren't going to get called off somewhere else to handle something else going on in the city, which the police officers do occasionally, I understand.
Okay. And then also, you say that we... Our agreement with ‸ the agency and the city's agreement about the police stuff has enhanced law enforcement is one of the things that... Can... What I
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:33:20–01:33:20 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
so, ‸ again, ‸ but I'm not the attorney. That's the way I would characterize that to you. And ‸ remember, ‸ when we first did ‸ this initiative, ‸ we called it Enhanced Law Enforcement Services there, because during those hours, they are dedicated to the village.
Yes. Typically, the officers that we have working the detailed downtown Thursday, Friday, and Saturdays, they are officers that either come in on their time off, or we hold them over from the shift that's going off duty. And their primary focus is downtown.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:34:42–01:34:43 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
They are in downtown, and pretty much downtown only. Now, if something does happen, say, just on the outside of Florida Avenue, and the officers are closer, and it's ‸ a high priority call, then they probably will respond to that. But it's still part
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:35:01–01:35:01 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
just, you know, just so... I'm referring to the... Kind of the downtown area is where they're usually at. But, so if it does, if they do wander out, it's to go do that.
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 01:35:26–01:35:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Okay, so if we have the security in the daytime, if they see a violation, what... How are they going to handle that? They can't issue a ticket, can they? If they see a violation going on...
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:36:01–01:36:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
they would... They would typically, like all security officers or agencies that we deal with that work at different apartment complexes or other places, if they have something, they pick up the phone and dial 9-1-1 or call the police department.
And yet it was violated all the time for camping, which I know we have other issues coming up. I mean, statutes that are supposedly going to be enacted. So, you know, to me, how would they address that if somebody is camping? What would be the best thing that would make it effective?
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:36:43–01:37:08 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
Flag: the machine readings disagree here; a language review questioned the wording · 01:37:08–01:37:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:37:31–01:37:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:38:16–01:38:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
could we not just do the tag and toe and we lock the wheels I Mean because if they can read and making a bigger sign isn't going to stop it but if you lock the wheels and they're in violation I
fishing I'm telling you they're not fishing. They're washing their clothes. They got a clothesline You know going out to the dinghy or whatever where somebody could get hurt just coming down the path at night And then they're giving you the squinty eye if you drive by like what are you doing here? So we had to lost control Of the park.
It would it would mean again that we struggle with the numbers there. I think we have eight vacancies and so and so to have them dedicated to the village would take officers from awful of whatever their needs elsewhere in the city to, to actually Fund three more officers gonna cost you more than the three hundred thousand
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:40:33–01:40:33 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:40:47–01:40:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
‸ not we were in birthday party party mode. So I didn't hear too much I don't exactly know what was going on, but I know we had two of our officers that
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:41:15–01:41:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:41:33–01:41:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
our cocoa police off of their routes to come in for issues in the village All the time so I'm just trying to understand if it if it really is a cost issue
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:42:05–01:42:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:42:27–01:42:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:42:35–01:42:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And so it's a spat expansion of the time again The very point of again calling officers in from elsewhere for for downtown means that our coverage elsewhere is diluted there And so again this again 300,000
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:43:08–01:43:08 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Yeah, what the proposal that they gave us is Is a one year so we we do a one-year contract if we could beat them down on the cost we try to do something Different but but again, it's so it's a one-year deal.
Uh, just one more thing. I'm thinking that Security guards visible in the village and we've talked about this off and on for a number of months Would be a preventative measure that would Require the police to have to come down less. I think that if there's security guards wandering the village during Daylight hours at least at some point That you know shoplifters may be deterred Oh, I saw a guy you know security so then I don't get shoplifted and have to call the police to come down and take my report So I think I think that's another way of looking at it as cost-effective and I understand that they're not Police officers, but in a way Police officers are a little more intimidating. Oh, there's a problem. There's a police officer here Maybe just the the guards wandering around would get provide a sense of security without scaring people So that was that thank you
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:45:22–01:45:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Perhaps it's me I you know when I looked at this agenda item it did not come across the way that this dialogue is going There seems to be some Differences in my understanding I thought the security guards were going to be supplemental to existing law enforcement So I honestly need to take a look at this. I'm not sure it's consistent with the interlocal agreement between the city and
enforcement personnel, ‸ Not security guards in love law enforcement. I think that's so and I've just read that read this Agenda as being sub something that's supplemental to To assist law enforcement boots on the ground. So perhaps that's my bad, but I really would In this agenda item is also about giving
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:46:29–01:46:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:46:59–01:47:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:47:34–01:47:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
think it's important to give the staff the direction at the very least that this is something that you want to pursue I'm just saying I'm the chairman that
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:48:01–01:48:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:48:05–01:48:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Very well on on when we pushed it out last week there, but the intent Was actually to be in lieu of and again, I think the attorney is correct that that when we inked the enhanced law enforcement And it was for law enforcement Through the police department there so but we can go back and and address those sort of things
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:49:11–01:49:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:49:20–01:49:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:49:56–01:49:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:50:06–01:50:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So tonight we're asking for agency approval for the city to prepare to submit a grant application for repairing the cocoa waterfront utilizing the Florida Inland Navigation District
This will be a phase two to build a protective barrier ‸ system the fine grant application will be submitted by the city and the CRA would be committing a portion of the funds which is 50% of the phase two project
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:50:40–01:50:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:51:22–01:51:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
already touched upon a mayor. There's I haven't reviewed it in detail, but there's some pending legislation now regarding CRA is that we're going to need to take a close look
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:51:33–01:51:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:51:43–01:51:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:51:53–01:52:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:52:05–01:52:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:52:19–01:52:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:52:31–01:52:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:52:38–01:52:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Transcript revision built 2026-10-27T13:15:23 · 12,930 ordinary words, 3,811 in suspect passages, 152 machine re-recognized.
Ask about this meeting
Use the search to ask a question about this meeting in particular,
or compare it across other meetings in the archive.