The date is the archive folder's. For a video from the City's channel this is usually the day it was posted, not necessarily the day of the event.
This recording is not attached to a meeting in the meetings list.
The title above is the recording's own. This page does not establish what kind of event the recording is of, and it shows no City record for it.
Other recordings lists the recordings with a machine transcript that are shown on pages of their own; Meetings lists the meetings.
Transcript Partial transcript
Machine transcription of this 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.
A time links to its passage, and “Copy link” copies that link. “▶ Play” opens the recording at that moment, on YouTube; on this page it moves the player above the transcript.
13 suspect passage(s) marked in place.
How this transcript was made. New machine transcription of the whole recording, with 4 voices separated from the audio.
No word has been replaced by anything else.
Checks run on this transcript: the recognizer's own warning signs, whether a voice was detected where the words are and a language review for likely mishearings.
A second, independent machine reading was compared with it word by word: the same words for 97.8% of 494 content words.
Dotted words (1 places) are ordinary wording differences: hover or tap to see the other reading.
13 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.
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.
that could be implemented within three to four years. ‸ So in the end we identified six projects throughout the county and Florida Avenue was one of those projects. I think Florida Avenue is a success story because of the vision of the city to extend the village to the west.
We also have on-street parking and we have sidewalks on both sides which allow for pedestrians to move freely throughout the village, move freely throughout the businesses on Florida Avenue, and to provide a sense of community in the Cocoa Village area.
A complete street is streets that are designed for everyone. They accommodate all people that use the roadway, not just cars. Some of the features may include wider sidewalks, bicycle lanes,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:01:18–00:01:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
which is a bicycle emblem painted on the roadway, which signifies that a vehicle and a bicycle can share the road. Comfortable and accessible public transportation stops, street trees, decorative lighting, pattern pavement, the list can go on and on. But these are all elements that are traffic calming features. In coordination with all the businesses and the city, the TPO really did a lot of public outreach and we wanted to find out what was the vision for the local businesses in the area.
More businesses are interested in coming into the village. More businesses are interested in expanding their businesses, improving their facades. You can see pretty much every street in the village, there
or it's doing it on their own. We're really trying to change the face of Cocoa Village. And I think Florida Avenue really started that process with the
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:03:07–00:03:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording