Palm Bay City Council Meeting Highlights: Public Safety, Impact Fees, Pickleball
Key Decisions and Community Concerns: Palm Bay City Council Meeting Recap
Palm Bay, FL -- The Palm Bay City Council convened for a pivotal meeting on Thursday, July 18th, 2024, addressing a range of issues vital to the city's future, including public safety funding, transportation impact fees, and the growing demand for pickleball courts.
Recognizing Dedicated Service:
The meeting began with a well-deserved recognition of Donald Boerema for his five years of dedicated service as a member of the Planning and Zoning Board. The City Council expressed appreciation for his commitment to shaping the city's growth and development.
Expenditure Approvals and Key Decisions:
The council approved a series of expenditures under the consent agenda, totaling $5,810,184, which included:
Infrastructure Improvements: Funds for culvert pipe replacement on Rockabye Avenue, Nash Street Repump Station rehabilitation, and paving of Emerson Drive from Malabar Road to Waco Boulevard.
Fire Rescue Department: Funding for professional services, equipment for Engine 9, and renovations for the Finance Department.
Community Engagement: Funding for annual membership fees with the Brevard Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
Public Hearings and Development Plans:
The meeting included several public hearings on key development projects and variance requests:
Chaparral P.U.D. Phase 4A Final Subdivision Plan (Case FS23-00016): The council approved the final subdivision plan for Phase 4A of the Chaparral Planned Unit Development (PUD), paving the way for a 167-lot residential subdivision on 160.51 acres of vacant land.
Odyssey Preparatory Academy Variance Requests (V24-00003 and V24-00004): The council approved variance requests from Odyssey Preparatory Academy to reduce the rear parking setback and allow for a higher building height. The variances were granted after careful consideration of the unique characteristics of the property and the project's design requirements.
Filling the Council Vacancy:
The council discussed the process for filling the vacant Seat 3 position following Randy Foster's resignation. Applications for the position will be available from July 19th, with a deadline of August 7th. The council aims to appoint a new member at the August 13th meeting.
Fiscal Year 2025 Budget and Millage Rate Discussion:
The council initiated the process for reviewing the proposed Fiscal Year 2025 budget, which includes the 2024 Certification of Taxable Value, proposed Operating Millage Rate, and Debt Millage Rate. Public hearings are scheduled for September 12 and 26, 2024, to discuss the proposed rates and gather community input.
The proposed budget includes maintaining the current operating millage rate of 7.0171 mills, despite the roll-back rate being calculated at 6.5627 mills due to increased property values. The preliminary budget is built on a capped rate of 6.7339 mills, but final adjustments will be made once state revenue estimates are available.
Public Safety Funding and Millage Rate:
The council's discussion of a potential referendum for the November 2024 election to authorize a dedicated public safety millage rate of up to two mills (2.0000) to fund police, fire, and emergency medical services dominated the meeting. This proposal, which would be exempt from the 3% cap on tax increases, has generated considerable discussion and debate, with residents expressing a mix of concerns and support.
A significant number of residents voiced strong opposition to the proposed millage rate. They emphasized the 3% cap and the historical rejection of a similar proposal in 2022. They argued that the city should explore alternative funding options before resorting to a tax increase, highlighting the burden this could place on residents, especially those on fixed incomes. Several speakers argued that the council should prioritize fiscal responsibility, emphasizing the city's existing financial resources and the potential for budget reallocations.
Those in favor of the millage rate acknowledged the city's pressing public safety needs, including the need for new fire stations, increased police staffing, and updated equipment. They argued that a dedicated funding source is essential to address the city's growing public safety challenges and the risks associated with inadequate response times. They highlighted the city's ranking among the lowest in Florida for police officers per 1000 residents and the increasing crime rates.
This debate, marked by passionate public comments, underscores the complexity of balancing public safety needs with fiscal responsibility. The council ultimately tabled the discussion until the August 1st meeting, indicating a need for further analysis and deliberation on this critical issue.
Pickleball Courts and Recreation Expansion:
The council received a proposal for the development of 8 pickleball courts each at Fred Lee Park, Veterans Park, and Nungesser Park, along with plans for a larger pickleball facility at Fred Poppy Park and a vision for a new park in the 32909 zip code. The proposal highlighted the growing popularity of pickleball in Palm Bay and the need for more courts to accommodate the increasing demand.
It's important to note that all of these recreational improvements will be funded by impact fees, which are collected from new development projects. Florida law restricts the expenditure of impact fees to projects that expand capacity or add amenities to existing parks or build new parks.
The council, with strong support from the public and council members alike, approved a phased implementation of pickleball courts. The proposal for a new park in a high-growth area (32909) further emphasized the need to continue expanding recreational opportunities for residents.
For more details on the agenda items, related information, and coverage of the July 18th meeting, be sure to visit The Palm Bayer at The Palm Bayer. Stay tuned for a full report on the outcome of these key decisions! 🌴🤖📰
Thanks Tom, I watched the last (New Business) portion of the meeting last night. Thank you for attending. Comments weren't open on your previous post about taxes so I'll merge the 2 subjects here. I'm disturbed that the Council seems to view the tax-cap as a emergency piggy-bank that can be broken into if they deem it a emergency. (that line of thinking is a disease as the County Commission recently considered the same thing). When I first moved to Florida 4 decades ago, one of my native College instructors said 'some of you Yankees that move here are nice guys, but I wish you wouldn't bring your taxes with you '. He had a good point, which is why we have tax caps, as people flock here (IMO due to mismanagement of State & Local Govts in the rust belt) , the law of supply and demand will dictate that the value of homes will increase. The voters approved a tax cap (and other measures County and State wide) so long time resident's taxable value don't create a crippling property tax burden (and a unrestricted revenue windfall for local government) . I was a little disturbed by Mr Batten's suggestion (which a revenue hungry Council bit-on) that the tax cap be sunset? (Seems to defeat the purpose of the cap that I just described, which has done its job safeguarding long time homeowners here from draconian property tax increases during this last spike in housing values) . I heard the Council's pleas for improved response times for Police and Fire. Has anybody taken into consideration while benchmarking this that within Florida that we are one of the largest Cities by geography? I would expect a longer resp time in a ~85 sq mile city? I also hark back to former Councilman Baily's admonition that "growth should pay for itself" . It doesn't take a City planner to drive down the Parkway and see huge new PUDs and conclude that they might need some additional Police and Fire coverage? Since most everyone I run into seems incensed about our accelerated growth, it would seem easy to require developers to pick up a greater share of establishing Police and Fire infrastructure? There is plenty of money in the current tax receipts, plenty of potential dollars in new developments. IMO without raising taxes on legacy residents. Another takeaway, the City Attorney successfully lobbied for (what Mr Batton calculated ) a 15% pay raise for her key staff. Her justification was this was required to bring them up to par with the City Mgr's office and Melbourne legal staff. At least Councilman Johnson had the wherewithal to ask the City Attorney if her staff's performance warranted such a raise?(to which she spoke of some accomplishments, not any clear metrics) . I find it odd, that in what the Council would have you believe was a pending budget crunch (always defaulting to higher taxes) , that a 15% pay raise wasn't scrutinized more. I can assure you in my Corporate life , that a 15% pay raise required a detailed set of KREs (key results expected) and critical judgement on if those results were fully met. (not what my industry peers were being paid) . I'm surprised the Council didn't demand more specifics before stamping approval for a 15% raise .
After watching the City Council meeting of 7/18/24 on live stream video, I wish there was a way to interact by chat in real time. The subject of adding a 2 mil special tax to cover Public Safety shows a failure of the City manager, City Clerk and any staff members responsible for administration of providing a budget. The Council and Mayor depend on administration's process & presentation to keep them informed of the financial health of the City. PUBLIC SAFETY which includes the Police Department, Fire Department and Civil Defense are the FIRST and FOREMOST responsibility of the City to protect its Citizens. INFRASTRUCTURE come next. This should be prioritized when creating the budget. Once the PUBLIC SAFETY is fully funded THEN the rest of the budgeting items should be funded by PRIORITY. The Mayor and Council should direct the City Manager, City Clerk and financial supporting staff to rework the budget putting PUBLIC SAFETY and INFRASTRUCTURE first. If other departments get cut, so be it. This is their DUTY! Asking the hard working and retired citizens with limited income to bail the failure of the leaders of the City out of their dilemma is not acceptable.