Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cocoa council tables decision on new LED message board amid funding and placement disputes
Summary
The Cocoa City Council debated installing an LED message board at Fisk and Dixon Boulevard, including cost, visibility, electrical hookup and proposed funding from leftover Juni Rios splash-pad funds. After debate and objections over using district-reserved funds, the council voted to table the item for more information.
The Cocoa City Council on March 10 debated whether to install an LED message board at the southwest corner of Fisk Boulevard and Dixon Boulevard and tabled the proposal for further study.
Staff presented three procurement options and noted the selected site lacks electrical service; Florida Power & Light (FPNL) would need to extend power and the city must engage an electrician to reach the sign location, adding unknown costs to the vendor quotes (Mrs. Singer, staff). Public Works supplied quotes for a single-sided sign, two single-sided signs (to cover all approaches), or one double-sided board; staff emphasized the quote did not include the electrical work.
Councilman Hearn moved to approve two single-sided signs at the Fisk–Dixon location with funding taken from leftover funds for the Juni Rios splash pad project. Supporters said the sign would improve outreach to residents in a walkable, lower‑speed area and could be used for emergency messages during hurricane season. Opponents said the council should not appropriate funds reserved for another district without clear replacement funding and questioned whether Fisk–Dixon is the best location given other high‑traffic sites and property‑ownership constraints.
Council members also raised practical questions: whether the city owns suitable property at alternative sites, the visibility of messages at higher-speed roadways, bilingual displays (staff reported existing marquees are not bilingual), procurement and Coast Guard permitting for waterfront projects (in earlier public comment), and an approximate $2,100 estimate for a power drop referenced by staff during discussion.
After extended debate about location, cost and equity between council districts, the chair made a motion to table the item pending additional information. The motion to table carried; two council members voted against tabling. The chair said staff should return with more detailed cost estimates, property/right‑of‑way confirmation, and funding recommendations.
The motion was procedural (tabled), so no funds were committed and no sign was approved. The item will return to a future meeting with the requested information.
