Some members questioned whether the plan would result in tangible outcomes or if it would merely become another unused document. One board member expressed a desire for the plan to be substantive, remarking, “if we’re going to do it and put forth the effort, I would want it to actually be something important, not something that just sits on the shelf.” Concerns about the allocation of the $50,000 budget were also raised, with calls for clarity on what could be expected from the consultant’s work. The existing EDAP will serve as a starting point, allowing for revisions based on community input and research.

There was an acknowledgment that updating the EDAP would likely be a long-term project extending beyond the current fiscal year. The board discussed the potential interrelation between various elements of the comprehensive plan, noting that updates to one element might trigger updates to others. Coordination with other ongoing updates, such as the parks and recreation element, was considered. Despite some reservations, a motion to accept the staff’s recommendation to seek RFPs was made.

In addition to the EDAP update, the board engaged in an open-ended discussion about the Community Redevelopment Agency’s (CRA) projects for the fiscal year 2025-2026. This brainstorming session was aimed at gathering thoughts and priorities from board members in preparation for the upcoming budget process. The discussion touched on the need for measurable objectives in CRA projects, a new state requirement intended to enhance accountability and effectiveness. A suggestion was made to focus more on small community-owned businesses rather than larger ones, with an emphasis on enhancing opportunities for small business development.

Another topic of interest was the ongoing renovations along A1A, including the addition of trees and the widening of certain areas. However, there was skepticism regarding the timeline for these improvements, with comments indicating that such projects could take decades rather than years. The competitive nature of securing funding was highlighted, as various communities vie for limited resources. Specific projects, such as improvements at Ellis Road and the train station in Cocoa, were noted as potentially consuming the majority of available funds.

The board also deliberated on its meeting schedule, addressing the challenge of meeting frequency and staff capacity. There was a proposal to hold meetings every other month to avoid long gaps due to cancellations. A consensus appeared to form around this idea, with suggestions to hold meetings in specific months and skip the summer months. The need for more frequent meetings was emphasized to ensure better quorum and engagement. It was proposed to have meetings on either the first Tuesday or Thursday of each month, except for July and September, which was met with unanimous approval.

The need for increased awareness of grant opportunities was discussed, with suggestions for revising the first-come, first-served approach and considering the quality of applications instead.