On the agenda

1. 1Call to Order – Roll Call▶ 0:00
2. 2

   Pledge of Allegiance

   Pledge of Allegiance and moment of silence in honor of servicemen and women.

   ▶ Jump to 0:18 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:19] If you would please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance and remain [00:00:23] standing for a moment of silence in honor of our servicemen and women at [00:00:26] home and abroad. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the [00:00:34] Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

3. 3

   Moment of Silence

   Procedural moment of silence.

   ▶ Jump to 0:40 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:44] Thank you. You may be seated. Next item on our agenda is the approval of the April

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

4. 4

   Approval of the April 4, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes

   approved

   Council approved the minutes of the April 4, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting.

   • motion:Approve the April 4, 2016 Regular City Council Meeting minutes. (passed)

   ▶ Jump to 0:50 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:51] 4th meeting minutes. Motion to second. Any discussion? Hearing none, all [00:00:57] those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed, like sign. And next is the

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

5. 5

   Oaths of Office: Elected Candidates

   The City Clerk administered the oath of office to newly elected Councilmembers Chopper Davis and Jeff Starkey. Council members welcomed the two other election candidates in attendance and encouraged them to stay involved with city boards or commissions.

   👤Chopper Davis👤Jeff Starkey#Oaths of Office

   ▶ Jump to 1:05 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:01:05] oath of office to the newly elected members of the City Council. Madam Clerk, [00:01:10] take it away. [00:01:21] I, Chopper Davis, a citizen of the state of Florida in the United States of America and a full-time resident of the City of [00:01:45] New Port Richey and being an officer of the City of New Port Richey and a [00:01:48] recipient of public funds as such officer, do hereby solemnly swear and [00:01:52] affirm that I will support the Constitution and the laws of the United [00:01:55] States, the Constitution and laws of the state of Florida. I hereby swear or [00:01:59] affirm that I will in all aspects observe the provisions of the Charter [00:02:05] and Ordinance of the City of New Port Richey and faithfully discharge the [00:02:08] duties of the office of Councilmember of said city to the best of my ability. [00:02:18] I, Jeff Starkey, a citizen of the state of Florida and of the United States of [00:02:38] America and a full-time resident of the City of New Port Richey and being an [00:02:41] officer of the City of New Port Richey and a recipient of public funds as such [00:02:45] officer, do hereby solemnly swear and affirm that I will support the [00:02:48] Constitution and laws of the United States and the Constitution and laws of [00:02:52] the state of Florida. I further swear or affirm that I will in all respects [00:02:57] observe the provisions of the Charter and Ordinances of the City of New Port Richey and will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Councilmember [00:03:04] of said city to the best of my ability. [00:03:18] Thank you gentlemen. I would like to recognize we've got two of the candidates [00:03:23] that were in the election last week also in attendance and I've encouraged both [00:03:27] of them to get involved, remain involved with the city. Hopefully we can find a [00:03:32] board or commission that they would like to get some experience on. I'd like [00:03:36] to say I'd welcome them at any position in the city, except mine of [00:03:41] course, but no it was great working with we had a lot of fun and had a lot of [00:03:45] smiles and did a little celebrating the night of the election. Thank you. And [00:03:49] I'll just add to that unlike some elections on a larger scale this city [00:03:53] election as it was when we ran three years ago everybody got along well all [00:03:58] the candidates and no one was bashing each other and we got to know each other [00:04:01] further and kind of learned a little bit from each other so it was nice [00:04:04] getting to know you all and look forward to knowing you more in the future. Thank

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

6. 6

   Selection of Deputy Mayor

   approved

   Councilman Bill Phillips was re-nominated and selected to continue serving as Deputy Mayor for the next year by a 4-0 vote.

   • motion:Motion to nominate Bill Phillips to serve as Deputy Mayor for the next year. (passed)4–0

   👤Bill Phillips

   ▶ Jump to 4:09 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:04:09] you. Next item on the agenda is the selection of a deputy mayor. Councilman [00:04:16] Phillips has been serving in that capacity. I'd like to nominate Bill again. We have a motion to [00:04:22] nominate Bill to serve as deputy mayor for the next year. Second. We have a second. [00:04:26] Any other nominations? Hearing none, all those in favor please signify by saying [00:04:32] aye. Aye. Opposed, like side. Deputy mayor, congratulations. Thank you sir. [00:04:38] Would that be a 4-0 vote? He can't vote, Kenny. Would that be a 4-0 vote? I'm not sure. I guess it is in that case. [00:04:51] The next item we have is a proclamation for Beta Sigma Phi Day. We're reading

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

7. 7

   Proclamation - Beta Sigma Phi Day

   Mayor read a proclamation declaring Beta Sigma Phi Day by title only; no representative of the organization was present to accept it.

   🏢Beta Sigma Phi#Beta Sigma Phi Day proclamation

   ▶ Jump to 4:53 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:04:57] this by title only. As I understand, we do not have representative of Beta Sigma Phi

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

8. 8Vox Pop for Items Not Listed on the Agenda or Listed on Consent Agenda▶ 5:02
9. 9.a

   Purchases/Payments for City Council Approval

   approvedon consent

   The consent agenda, including purchases/payments for council approval, was moved and approved by voice vote with no items pulled for discussion.

   • motion:Motion to approve the consent agenda. (passed)

   ▶ Jump to 5:20 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:05:20] no one come forward, I'll close Vox Pop. Next item is the consent agenda. Do we [00:05:25] have any items anybody wishes to pull? Move for approval. All those in favor [00:05:32] please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like side. Next item is a public reading of

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

10. 10.a

    Second Reading, Ordinance 2016-2076: Golf Cart Operation on City Roadways

    approved

    Council held the second reading and public hearing on Ordinance 2016-2076, which creates Article 9 regulating golf cart operation on designated city streets, including equipment requirements and police inspections. After significant discussion about which streets to allow, possible US-19 crossings, and safety concerns, council adopted the ordinance with amendments to open Main Street up to Van Buren and add Indiana Avenue, with direction to pursue an FDOT-authorized US-19 crossing jointly with New Port Richey.

    Ord. Ordinance 2016-2076

    • motion:Adopt Ordinance 2016-2076 with amendments extending Main Street golf cart use to Van Buren, adding Indiana Avenue, and directing staff to pursue FDOT authorization for a US-19 crossing in coordination with New Port Richey. (passed)

    📍7333 Jasmine Drive📍Congress Street📍Grand Boulevard📍Gulf Drive📍Indiana Avenue📍Madison Street📍Main Street from River Road to Grand Boulevard📍Marine Parkway📍Massachusetts📍Rowan Road📍US-19📍Van Buren📍Woodridge subdivision🏢DHSMV🏢FDOT🏢Hooters🏢Pasco County🏢Publix🏢Southgate🏢West Pasco Pregnancy Center👤Doug Van Etten👤Mr. Burnett👤Mr. Manette👤Mr. Publick👤Ms. Mams👤Starkey#Article 9 Golf Carts sections 9.0-9.12#Chasco#Holiday Parade#Main Street city designation#Ordinance 2016-2076#Port Richey golf cart ordinance#Section 9.10 Restrictions#Section 9.7 Inspection of Golf Carts

    ▶ Jump to 5:38 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [00:05:38] ordinance, second reading, ordinance number 2016-2076, golf cart operation on [00:05:44] city roadways. Ms. Mams? In Mr. Publick's absence, I'll read the ordinance. An [00:05:51] ordinance of the City Council of the City of New Port Richey, Florida, creating [00:05:55] Article 9 golf carts in sections 9.0 through 9.12, providing for the operation [00:06:01] of golf carts upon designated city streets, providing for mandatory [00:06:05] equipment requirement, providing for restrictions related to the operation of [00:06:09] golf carts, providing for severability and effective date. In short, Mr. Mayor, [00:06:14] members of the City Council, the use of golf carts on municipal roadways have [00:06:20] become popularized in the state of Florida. They are widely accepted and a [00:06:25] good way to provide an alternate means of transportation and reduce the impact [00:06:30] of parking. In that respect, at your last meeting, a first reading was conducted [00:06:38] of an ordinance related to the use of golf carts on city roadways. Since that [00:06:43] time, a few changes have been made to the ordinance. Specifically, in section 9.0, [00:06:49] we deleted a reference to certified mechanics and amended golf cart [00:06:54] definition to include golf carts modified to be a low-speed vehicle. Under [00:06:59] section 9.7, inspection of golf carts, we indicated that they will be conducted by [00:07:05] the Police Department in lieu of a certified mechanic. And finally, on the [00:07:11] map, we amended the eligible boundaries for transport, or I'm sorry, for use of a [00:07:20] golf cart on Main Street from River Road to Grand Boulevard. With all of those [00:07:26] changes, the staff is recommending that you consider adoption of the ordinance. [00:07:30] Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone wish to address Council on this [00:07:35] issue? Please come forward, give us your name and address for the record. [00:07:44] My name is Doug Van Etten. I'm at 7333 Jasmine Drive. My concern on the ordinance is [00:07:51] that there seems to be some limitations. I know I've spoke with Councilperson [00:07:57] Starkey, and they said there's a map available that we could put up. [00:08:02] A lot of people are going off the description. [00:08:05] Different streets that were allowed for use of golf carts. The concern I had is that with the state of [00:08:14] Florida, my wife and I, we own a street legal golf cart. It's licensed, tagged, [00:08:19] insured, and with that we can travel on any road that has a speed limit of 35 [00:08:25] miles or under. And I was thinking that rather than to try and have a map that [00:08:31] says you can or can't drive on these certain roads, just kind of do a blanket [00:08:36] coverage similar to like what New Port Richey has, that anything 30 miles or [00:08:41] under is available for golf cart usage as long as it's met the code [00:08:46] restrictions that the city is going to impose, similar to like what New Port Richey [00:08:49] has on theirs, so that there isn't a confusion, so to speak, of if I go past [00:08:55] this road, then I have to go here to get there, and I can't cross this road [00:08:59] because I have to go down two streets to go where I want to. I've been [00:09:03] traveling on the Main Street Road, Golf Drive, Grand Boulevard, all the roads, you [00:09:10] know, in and around through New Port Richey and have not had any problems as [00:09:15] far as traffic being delayed or slowed down due to the transport. Golf carts [00:09:20] usually travel around 20 miles an hour for their top speed, and I'm just [00:09:24] thinking that it would be a lot less confusing for the golf cart owners once [00:09:30] they get certified and approved by the city, just to have a blanket 30 mile an [00:09:35] hour or under coverage, and that allows people to travel throughout the city [00:09:40] without having to worry about what street they are on, and the other [00:09:43] concern is whether or not there was going to be allowing some of the golf [00:09:47] carts to travel to the west side of 19, crossing at Main Street and 19, and also [00:09:53] Golf Drive and 19, which will allow some of the residents to get from this side [00:09:58] of New Port Richey over to Publix and or other businesses on the other side of [00:10:04] 19, crossing at the light, just as we, my wife and I, are able to do with our golf [00:10:10] cart. We can cross at the light. We can't travel on 19, but we can cross at the [00:10:15] intersections and get from one side of 19 to the other. I just want to bring that [00:10:19] up to the council to see if they might want to revisit the possibility of a [00:10:23] blanket 30 mile an hour or under street usage, similar to what New Port Richey has. [00:10:29] Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wish to address council on this issue? Seeing no [00:10:37] one else come forward, I'm going to close it and bring it back to council. Since I [00:10:41] can't make a motion, I'd have to hand the gavel off. I just wanted to say I've had [00:10:51] some considerable thoughts about this and my wife's car has mostly around town [00:11:00] an average speed on the last tank of gas of 16 miles an hour. My son's car is [00:11:06] showing an average speed mostly around town of 17 miles an hour. Coming here [00:11:12] tonight, I had to stop in a section of Main Street that is not proposed to be [00:11:17] golf cart legal and stop for an extended period of time waiting to make a turn [00:11:21] and then I had to stop again for a duck. I really think the restrictions in [00:11:30] section 9.10 are overreach. At least for the the initial term, I would suggest [00:11:38] that we just reserve that section without prohibiting any traffic. Let it [00:11:43] run for six months and if we need to go back and specifically mark off streets [00:11:48] that are just simply too dangerous, we can do it then. I don't think there's [00:11:54] going to be a problem, but since somebody else is likely to make a [00:11:58] motion, I want to toss that out. For clarification, just so we're clear and I [00:12:03] explain this to Mr. Burnett, if you have a street-legal golf cart currently, this [00:12:06] ordinance doesn't pertain to street-legal or does it? What's the [00:12:09] difference between a street-legal golf cart and one that's not street-legal but [00:12:14] meets the qualifications of getting the endorsement? The difference is the individual [00:12:18] that has a street-legal golf cart has gone through the process of adding the [00:12:24] things that they need to add to it, like the turn signals, the windshield wipers, [00:12:27] and those types of things are part of that, but then it doesn't change the [00:12:32] speed of the golf cart, the maximum speed. Other low-speed vehicles are actually [00:12:37] designed to go between 20 and 25 miles an hour. Golf carts, if you chose to, the [00:12:47] city could allow them to go everywhere on these streets, but the fact is that [00:12:54] they are tagged and they're insured, just as the gentleman just got through [00:12:57] saying, it doesn't change their performance, it doesn't change the top [00:13:00] speed for them, so they would be limited for top speed of 20 miles an hour [00:13:05] because they're designed to be a golf cart, not a regular low-speed vehicle. But prior to [00:13:10] this ordinance, they can currently legally drive on the street because [00:13:15] they've been doing it, the ones with the tags, the golf carts with the license [00:13:19] plates. We've never addressed it, but yes, that is true. But this ordinance is just [00:13:24] allowing the non-license-plated, three-legal golf carts to also be able to [00:13:28] drive on the streets. This ordinance, as it's written, applies to both the tagged [00:13:34] golf carts and the ones that would be, and the other golf carts. Right, but until now, the [00:13:39] non-tagged golf carts were not allowed on the street. Now we're allowing them, [00:13:42] but as far as the restrictions, they are going to pertain to whether they're [00:13:46] tagged or not, or have license plates or do not have license plates. [00:13:49] And the mayor is saying that you think we should open up all of the [00:13:53] streets or just that section of Main Street? Any of the sections that are [00:13:56] 30 miles an hour or under, let's let the thing go for six months. I don't believe [00:14:02] any of the people, that I know at least, that have the golf carts have a [00:14:05] death wish. I don't think they're going to do anything stupid. Can I just ask a [00:14:11] question here? Maybe you can help me. What brought about separating certain [00:14:17] streets? What brought that about? We have some streets that are so heavily [00:14:23] traveled that, and people are doing 30 miles an hour and sometimes even more [00:14:29] because you know the vehicles don't all stay at the speed limits. But the high [00:14:33] traffic areas were the areas that we identified. We tried to be as [00:14:38] reasonable with this as we possibly could be, but we also have to look out [00:14:43] for the people who come to our community, drive through here, and they [00:14:48] see speed limit signs that say 25 miles an hour, 30 miles an hour with their [00:14:52] regular vehicles, and they're going to be coming down Main Street at those speeds. [00:14:56] And the other streets like Madison... [00:15:00] Van Buren. If you go down Van Buren and you're in a golf cart and you're doing your maximum [00:15:07] speed of 20 miles an hour and you're coming up near our recreation center off of Van Buren, [00:15:15] the likelihood of someone getting wiped out right there over that blind hill is over the [00:15:20] top. It would happen. We took the police department gem and drove on every one of these questionable [00:15:29] streets and we drove at the 25 mile an hour mark and also at the 20 mile an hour mark. [00:15:39] When we were at the 20 mile an hour mark, we had traffic backing up behind us and trying [00:15:44] to shoot around us and we're marked as a police vehicle. These are high traffic streets and [00:15:51] just coming from the safety perspective and certainly we are not the end all with this [00:15:57] thing. We tried to identify ways where everybody could get to all these destinations, the restaurants [00:16:03] downtown, get to the recreation center, be able to use Grand Boulevard where it's open [00:16:10] and where a golf cart can get off to the side and other traffic can make it through there. [00:16:15] That's what we have tried to do with this and again, as I said, trying to be open. I [00:16:23] can tell you from a safety perspective, I don't want us to have to come back. I would [00:16:28] prefer us not to have to come back to this after someone's hurt. And that's, if there's [00:16:35] anything that I would suggest you do is to have some restrictions in these areas. First, [00:16:43] see how it all goes. We have people that are totally ignoring the golf cart, well the fact [00:16:49] that we don't address golf carts. So many people are out there now, not just during [00:16:54] our events like Chasco and Holiday Parade, where they're concentrated in a certain area [00:16:59] for a certain, just for a short period of time. We have people using them all the time [00:17:04] and they do hold up traffic. That's just reality. [00:17:10] You've got the police end of it. You've got the road end of it. Give us the road end of [00:17:14] it. Why have an explosion here? [00:17:17] One of the reasons why we wanted to call the streets out is that all of the streets don't [00:17:24] belong to New Port Richey. If you take US 19, somebody crosses US 19, that road is owned [00:17:33] and maintained by the district FDOT. If you were to allow 30 mile an hour, and I think [00:17:42] we talked about it in our last meeting, over in Woodridge, where we have a subdivision [00:17:48] that's in the city, for that person to get in a golf cart and get to downtown, they would [00:17:53] have to go down either Conger Street, which is owned by Pasco County, or they would have [00:18:00] to go down Rowan Road, which is owned by Pasco County as well. If you went by speed limits, [00:18:07] you'd come into a conflict where you're letting somebody drive on someone else's roadway that [00:18:13] we don't have the jurisdiction over. That's the problem that we face looking at it, is [00:18:20] it was easier to call the roads out that you couldn't simply because we didn't own them. [00:18:29] I just want to continue this just for a second. We're real close to doing something on Congress [00:18:36] anyhow. Is that probably true? It's not wide enough or safe enough as it is, is it? [00:18:41] There are no plans to do anything on Congress. [00:18:44] That one, there's not even sidewalks on one side of it. So I'm concerned about Congress, [00:18:53] any vehicle that's driving on Congress. Motorcycle, bicycle, whatever. And also Massachusetts. [00:19:02] I have a problem from, let's say, Congress going down Main Street. But back to what you [00:19:10] said, Chief, that going down is that people coming into town are not going 25 or 30 miles [00:19:17] an hour coming in from Congress on Main Street. [00:19:20] Yes, they are. I drive it every single morning. [00:19:22] No, or faster. [00:19:23] Or faster, yes. [00:19:24] Faster, that's my point. They're not going 25 or 30, they're going faster. Yeah, that's [00:19:29] my point. So I kind of tend to go, let's go safety first. We can always open it up. [00:19:39] If we are still having a discussion about this, back in the early 90s we did streetscaping [00:19:46] on Main Street when we became a Main Street city. We did streetscaping that was the purpose [00:19:51] of that was for street calming. I think that if we are at the point where we are looking [00:19:58] to permit golf courts in our streets, then we're suggesting to the community, we want [00:20:05] to calm the traffic down. We don't want people zipping on Main Street. That was the purpose [00:20:11] of that street calming, streetscape. [00:20:14] We're in the midst of making some improvements on the Marine Parkway. We're doing some [00:20:22] streetscaping there, which first and foremost was safety and the aesthetics of it. But I [00:20:31] think that it would be a very important consideration that we remind people that this city is golf [00:20:37] court friendly, hence we don't want to see. [00:20:40] I've lived on Grand Boulevard for years and that was like a thoroughfare, the fact that [00:20:45] that big wide street is beautiful. And yes, as a golf carter it would be safer to navigate [00:20:51] because it's wider and you can stay to the right, et cetera, et cetera. But still I think [00:20:56] that we're going to have to be smart about signage and indicate that we are a golf court [00:21:01] friendly city, hence look out for golf courts. [00:21:05] And I think some of the concerns I had south of where we're allowing the traffic to go [00:21:14] only to Louisiana on Grand, going over the bridge to Grand Boulevard. So if someone were [00:21:24] coming out of say Wyoming and heading down to the laundromat on Golf and Grand, that [00:21:31] is going to be a really circuitous route for them to go that way. And if they were wanting [00:21:37] to go to George Street for the West Pasco Pregnancy Center, again they're going to have [00:21:42] to go a really very circuitous route. [00:21:45] I'm not sure that that was necessarily our thought or our vision on this, but rather [00:21:51] that we allow golf carts, we needed to put some rules in place. You know, the fact that [00:22:00] we are suggesting that we're not allowing children under five to be on a golf cart, [00:22:07] I mean it's unfortunate. I really almost feel like that's an overreach because I don't [00:22:15] want to be dictating to people. I mean, you have children and you need to be thinking [00:22:19] of their safety, and the fact that we have to tell people that is, you know, I kind of [00:22:25] have a difficulty with that. [00:22:27] But as far as the traveling and whether we're restricting the streets or the miles per hour [00:22:35] that they go, I think that we need to educate the community that if you're coming into New Port Richey, it's not to get through it, but rather to calm down and enjoy it, and especially [00:22:48] whether you're in a golf cart or in a car. [00:22:53] You mentioned another question, and that was the issue of crossing US-19, people on the [00:22:59] east side of 19. By statute, the city cannot, they're not allowed to cross US-19 without [00:23:08] DOT authorization. We can't just say that they can use golf carts over there and cross [00:23:15] over 19. That cannot be done without authorization from DHSMB or the Department of Transportation. [00:23:23] Yeah, I think that's one of the discussions we've had is to get an ordinance that is close [00:23:30] to New Port Richey's and then go with New Port Richey to FDOT and see if we can't get permission [00:23:39] to cross at one or more locations to with Grand and US-19 so that people can get from [00:23:44] downtown New Port Richey down to the waterfront in New Port Richey. [00:23:48] And then Chief, from what I understand the gentleman is speaking, so there is a distinction [00:23:52] between street legal golf carts and golf carts that are being made to be street legal, is [00:23:59] that correct? Because if I heard the gentleman correctly, owning a street legal golf cart [00:24:05] permits him to cross over 19? [00:24:07] No. [00:24:08] It does not? [00:24:09] It does not. [00:24:10] Maybe he didn't know that. [00:24:13] You can't operate them on a roadway that has a speed limit of more than 35 miles an hour. [00:24:19] Even crossing? [00:24:20] And a state highway or a county highway, you actually have to. I'm going to address the [00:24:26] state one because that's the important one. There's a process for the city to apply to [00:24:32] get authorization to have a crossing across US-19. That is not in place. [00:24:41] And you're not suggesting that you necessarily want to move in that direction? [00:24:46] Oh, I think that isn't a bad idea, but I don't know which intersection would be the best [00:24:50] one. We've looked at that. And I just don't think Maine, because of the number of crashes [00:24:55] that we have there, is the ideal intersection. But I was talking earlier today with the city [00:25:01] manager about other options, and I think if we went a little further south, there are [00:25:05] some streets there that I think traffic is less heavy, less likelihood of crashes. [00:25:14] Gulf Drive comes immediately to mind as one that might be a safer one. [00:25:18] Well, the only problem with Gulf Drive is, I'm sure everyone up here has driven down [00:25:24] Gulf Drive. Gulf Drive itself, from 19 over to Grand, is not a very safe area. It's very [00:25:32] narrow. There aren't good places for a golf cart to pull up and let cars through. [00:25:36] And yet what we've come up with is a plan that would say it's legal to be on Gulf Drive, [00:25:41] but not to be on Marine Parkway, which is much wider. [00:25:44] No, I just misspoke. It was, we originally had Gulf Drive blocked out, and then we looked [00:25:51] at Marine Parkway, a dangerous one. So Gulf Drive, I think, is still... [00:25:55] Gulf Drive is open. [00:25:59] Yes, I'm sorry. So I misspoke. I meant Marine Parkway with that. [00:26:04] Mr. Starkey. [00:26:05] I'm in favor of the golf carts. I mean, I think the purpose with this ordinance is to [00:26:10] make it a golf cart-friendly community, but like I told Mr. Van Etten, for me it's tough [00:26:17] to compare any road that's 30 miles per hour speed limit, because New Port Richey, the only [00:26:24] one I can really think of that comes to mind is Bay Boulevard. And I have a hard time comparing [00:26:27] the safety of someone on a golf cart going from Louisiana to Massachusetts on either [00:26:33] Congress or Madison Street to someone going west on Bay Boulevard coming home from Hooters [00:26:38] if they live in Sand Pebble. I mean, it's just, it's a residential neighborhood. [00:26:42] These are both residential neighborhood streets as well, but people fly down Madison. [00:26:46] People fly down Congress. [00:26:49] I want, the way I'm looking, I mean, if we want to open up maybe a little, a couple more [00:26:55] sections, but I just, I think the way we have it is a good starting point. I don't think [00:27:01] there's a whole lot to memorize. If you're crossing the bridge and you want to head downtown, [00:27:05] you just get off on Boulevard and take a side road, whether it's north or south of Main [00:27:09] Street. I just, I'm not sure I'm comfortable at this point opening up all of Madison and [00:27:15] Congress and Massachusetts to golf carts. I just, I'm not, I don't, you know, I don't [00:27:21] think that was the point. I think the point was more residential to allow people like [00:27:25] Mr. Manette, who lives right around the corner from me, to be able to get downtown or his [00:27:29] sister-in-law, I believe, owns a golf cart on the east side of Madison off of Main Street. [00:27:36] Maybe even opening up a little bit more Main Street I could possibly deal with, but I just, [00:27:42] at this point, I'm going to agree with the police chief here. I just, I don't, I'm not [00:27:46] comfortable opening up all of Madison and Congress and Mass at this point. I don't think [00:27:50] it's a fair comparison, comparing those three roads to basically Bay Boulevard and New Port Richey. That's about all they have. [00:27:56] I would concur as far as Congress and Mass are concerned. Those, you wouldn't get me [00:28:02] on a golf cart on them. I'm leery about getting on a bicycle on them. [00:28:06] Or a smart car. [00:28:07] I'm okay opening up Indiana. [00:28:08] Or a smart car. [00:28:09] Well, my smart car can go a little faster than a golf cart. [00:28:11] Well, I would be okay opening up Indiana. I think there's plenty of room on that road [00:28:14] for ambulances to get by and plenty of parking lots where someone can pull over if an ambulance [00:28:19] was coming through in a golf cart to get out of the way. I'm just, like I said, those [00:28:23] main roads, I'm just not real comfortable with those. [00:28:25] If we could take Main Street and take it all the way up to, I've lost the name of it, the [00:28:33] street that goes by the rec center. [00:28:35] Van Buren? [00:28:36] Van Buren. That would get people easy shot up there without any issues. [00:28:43] Central and the South and Montana. Anywhere in the other state streets is fine. [00:28:50] And again, if it slows people down, I'm not sure we would consider that a disadvantage. [00:28:56] Yeah, that's a good thing. [00:28:57] People coming into town. [00:28:59] Yeah, that's why I would say it would be a good idea up to Van Buren because coming around [00:29:04] that retention pond on East Main, people fly down there. And that gives them a little chance [00:29:09] to slow down. And like the mayor said, through downtown, you're constantly stopping, no matter [00:29:14] what time of day it is. [00:29:15] So I'm okay opening Main up to Van Buren, but not the other two main streets, Madison [00:29:20] and Congress at this point. [00:29:22] I would like to see us revisit the idea of having a, maybe it's just one place, safe [00:29:32] place for crossover because some of the folks that contacted me, the folks that live near [00:29:38] Southgate, behind Southgate, or on this side that want to get to Southgate or that area. [00:29:44] So I'm not suggesting that we do it immediately, but I would love to look into what New Port Richey [00:29:48] is doing and how they're doing it and then pursue at least one place that they can travel [00:29:54] over. [00:29:55] Right, and then eventually, as well as far as contacting the DOT, I would like to be [00:29:58] able to, whether in a local agreement. [00:30:00] with the two golf cart ordinances, [00:30:02] be able to take your golf cart all the way up Boulevard [00:30:04] and cross Grand Boulevard at 19 [00:30:06] to get to the New Port Richey waterfront. [00:30:07] But I guess that's an issue we'd have to discuss [00:30:09] with the DOT as far as the legality of crossing 19. [00:30:13] But ultimately, I think that would be a good goal [00:30:15] if we could tie their waterfront into our downtown [00:30:17] and be able to safely navigate a golf cart [00:30:20] from point A to point B. [00:30:21] I think that'd be great. [00:30:22] And one other thought, if we're going to vote on this, [00:30:26] I would like to see at least a 90-day opportunity [00:30:30] to put this in order, because I just don't think [00:30:33] June 1st is enough time for us to manage this. [00:30:36] I don't know if a 90-day is about as usual thing that we do, [00:30:41] but I think that it would be appropriate [00:30:44] to have a 90-day pass. [00:30:48] What I would ask you now is, [00:30:50] which ones are we talking about backing off from? [00:30:54] To be clear. [00:30:55] Indiana. [00:30:57] Main Street to Van Buren. [00:31:04] Grand to Gulf. [00:31:09] Grand to Gulf's currently open. [00:31:10] No, that's open already. [00:31:11] It's Gulf South. [00:31:12] I mean, Gulf to Louisiana is closed right now. [00:31:15] Can you roll that up a little bit [00:31:18] so we can see the bottom part? [00:31:20] I see it's South. [00:31:21] Gulf to Louisiana is open on Grand, just not on Madison. [00:31:24] Grand is open all the way, basically, [00:31:26] to Portage and it limits North to Gulf Drive. [00:31:28] Yeah, but South, it's only to... [00:31:30] Gulf Drive. [00:31:32] I thought it said in there, Gulf to Louisiana was... [00:31:35] I'm looking right here. [00:31:36] We're looking at the map of the ordinance, though. [00:31:41] Oh, saying you would like it from, just simply... [00:31:46] I misunderstood. [00:31:47] Gulf Drive would be open all the way from the North [00:31:50] to the South, all the way to Gulf Drive, to Gulf Drive. [00:31:52] Grand Boulevard all the way to Gulf Drive. [00:31:54] Yeah, I'm sorry, the map shows it open, [00:31:56] but the ordinance shows it closed. [00:31:57] Yeah, the ordinance shows D in the ordinance [00:32:00] and section 9.10 prohibited Grand Boulevard [00:32:03] from Gulf Drive to Louisiana Avenue. [00:32:05] If we could be Grand Boulevard to Gulf Drive. [00:32:10] Delete D. [00:32:13] Would that mean, then, you can travel North on Gulf Drive? [00:32:18] Gulf Drive goes East-West. [00:32:19] I'm sorry, East. [00:32:21] Brainy. [00:32:22] So, if you're traveling South on Grand [00:32:24] and you come to Gulf Drive, you can make a right turn [00:32:26] onto Gulf, heading towards 19? [00:32:30] Not restricted. [00:32:31] It's not restricted. [00:32:32] As it stands right now. [00:32:33] Okay, thank you. [00:32:36] It was just Grand Boulevard that was... [00:32:39] Oh, what I've got from you is open Main to Van Buren. [00:32:44] Remove H and open up Grand to Gulf Drive. [00:32:50] So, a person could go left or right. [00:32:54] I'm not really part of the discussion, [00:32:55] but my department made the map, [00:32:57] so I want to ask for one clarification [00:32:59] on the Main Street one. [00:33:00] We're talking about from Grand Boulevard to Van Buren. [00:33:04] Is that correct? [00:33:04] Is that the stretch of Main Street you're talking about? [00:33:07] Not all of Main, but just the stretch between Grand. [00:33:09] It's already cleared across the river. [00:33:12] It's already open. [00:33:13] It'll be river to Van Buren, actually. [00:33:18] Deputy Mayor, you've been pretty quiet. [00:33:20] You got some thoughts on this, sir? [00:33:22] I'm ready for somebody to make a motion or to move. [00:33:25] I mean, I don't want to touch on what everybody else [00:33:29] has tossed around the room. [00:33:31] Personally, I just think we need to test drive it, [00:33:33] bring it back in six months, [00:33:35] and then we can tweak it from there. [00:33:37] Well, then I'll make a motion. [00:33:38] I really don't, I'm really not in favor [00:33:41] of going all the way to Van Buren on Main, [00:33:43] but if that's the consensus, I mean, [00:33:47] because I think Central's just a good avenue, [00:33:50] but if, just as long as in the motion somebody makes [00:33:54] that we get to revisit this once we test drive it. [00:33:59] I would definitely want to revisit in about six months [00:34:01] and see how it's going. [00:34:02] So I'll make a motion that we accept [00:34:05] the golf cart ordinance with the revisions [00:34:09] that we made to section 9.10 pertaining to the streets, [00:34:13] that we revisit this in six months, [00:34:15] and that we allow the time, [00:34:21] the ordinance to take effect 90 days from today. [00:34:26] Second. [00:34:28] To the maker, any further discussion? [00:34:30] No, I think we did that. [00:34:32] Deputy Mayor? [00:34:33] I mean, we discussed it. [00:34:34] No, it's been around the horn. [00:34:35] One more question. [00:34:36] Yes, Mr. Mayor. [00:34:37] I'm not sure, what's the reason for waiting 90 days? [00:34:40] No, not waiting, giving people 90 days. [00:34:42] I don't think that between, it's April 30th right now. [00:34:45] We're essentially giving them 30 days to get that in place. [00:34:49] I don't think it's enough time. [00:34:51] Implementation. [00:34:52] Implemented. [00:34:53] As far as the inspections go? [00:34:55] Yeah, absolutely. [00:34:56] I mean, you're. [00:34:57] Chief, you don't think that 60 days would be enough time? [00:34:59] We've already been preparing for it, so. [00:35:02] I just know that there's several residents [00:35:04] chomping at the bit to get their golf cart on the road. [00:35:06] I realize that, that's why we've been [00:35:09] trying to get ahead of the curve with this. [00:35:10] Perhaps I misspoke, if it's going to take effect, [00:35:16] I think that we should give people up to 90 days [00:35:18] to put it in place. [00:35:19] In other words, right now what we're looking at [00:35:22] is essentially 30 days, you've got to get, [00:35:24] if you want to use your golf cart, [00:35:25] you have 30 days to get it into motion. [00:35:29] And I don't think that that's enough time. [00:35:31] 60 days or 90 days to get the inspection? [00:35:33] It's ongoing once you put it into play. [00:35:34] You can register at any time once you're ready to go. [00:35:37] Yeah, but you have to have your brakes, [00:35:39] your side things, you have to have all of that equipment, [00:35:44] your seat belts, all of that. [00:35:45] I don't think that 30 days is enough time [00:35:47] to order them, get them in, put them in place. [00:35:49] They're not legal on the road now. [00:35:51] Yeah. [00:35:52] Those that are already good to go? [00:35:54] Yeah, I'm not suggesting that people, yeah. [00:35:55] We could be accommodating them as early as June 1. [00:35:59] Yes, I think that's correct, but okay, well. [00:36:06] Basically, they just wouldn't, [00:36:07] if their golf cart wasn't legally ready, [00:36:09] they would not apply for a permit [00:36:10] and they would not be able to have [00:36:11] their golf cart on the road until then. [00:36:12] I just don't want someone that's ready, [00:36:14] and they have to wait 90 days. [00:36:15] Oh yeah, no, and I'm sorry. [00:36:16] Well, that's how the ordinance is. [00:36:17] Okay, yeah. [00:36:18] So then we'll revisit the ordinance [00:36:20] the way I spoke it, so then we'll remove the 90 days. [00:36:24] And so it will take effect June 1. [00:36:28] Any other discussion? [00:36:30] No. [00:36:31] Hearing none, all those in favor, [00:36:32] please signify by saying aye. [00:36:34] Aye. [00:36:34] Opposed, light sign. [00:36:36] Thank you. [00:36:36] Is that your vehicle out front? [00:36:40] I was thinking of driving around for a while. [00:36:44] You didn't leave the keys in it. [00:36:48] Oh, it's very nice, very nice. [00:36:52] And since it's sitting out front, [00:36:53] it's illegal where it is now after we changed the, okay. [00:36:56] If I could make a suggestion. [00:36:59] And if I could make a suggestion [00:37:01] that we get the map up on the city website [00:37:03] and the information about the golf cart, thank you. [00:37:08] Very good, thank you very, very much.

    This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

11. 10.b

    Second Reading, Ordinance 2016-2077: Code Amendment - Front Porches

    approved

    Council adopted on second reading Ordinance 2016-2077, a land development code amendment defining 'front porch' and amending residential zoning district setbacks to allow front porches to extend 10 feet into the required front yard setback (but no closer than 10 feet to the property line). Deputy Mayor asked about variance capabilities for modern porch elements like pergolas; staff confirmed variances remain available and that porches qualify for the city's grant program.

    Ord. Ordinance 2016-2077

    • motion:Motion to approve Ordinance 2016-2077 amending the land development code to define front porches and modify residential setbacks. (passed)

    👤Mrs. Spears👤Ms. Manns👤Starkey#Front porch grant program#Land Development Code Section 2.01.00#Ordinance 2016-2077#Section 7.01.03 R1#Section 7.02.05 R2#Section 7.02.11 R2#Section 7.03.03 R3

    ▶ Jump to 37:10 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [00:37:10] Next item is second reading of ordinance 2016, [00:37:14] section 2077, code amendment, front porches. [00:37:16] Ms. Manns? [00:37:17] An ordinance of the city of New Port Richey, Florida [00:37:19] amending the land development code, [00:37:21] section 2.01.00, definitions to provide [00:37:25] a definition of front porch, [00:37:26] amending section 7.01.03R1, zoning district setbacks, [00:37:32] amending section 7.0205R2, zoning district setbacks [00:37:36] on lots planted or property annexed after May 19, 1981, [00:37:42] amending section 7.02.11R2, zoning district setbacks [00:37:46] on lots planted or property annexed [00:37:49] on or before May 19, 1981, amending section 7.03.03R3, [00:37:56] zoning district setbacks provided for severability, [00:37:59] providing for codification, [00:38:01] and providing for an effective date. [00:38:04] Mr. Mayor, this, and members of the city council, [00:38:08] this ordinance was presented to you first on April 5th. [00:38:12] 2016, for a first reading. [00:38:15] Specifically, the staff was proposing [00:38:17] amending the setback standards to encourage [00:38:20] and accommodate the provision of front porches [00:38:22] on single family homes in the city's residential district. [00:38:26] In that regard, a definition has been advanced to you [00:38:30] for a front porch, and the ordinance also amends [00:38:34] setback regulations extending 10 feet [00:38:37] into the required front yard setback, [00:38:39] but not closer than 10 feet to the property line. [00:38:42] And Mrs. Spears has a few words, I'm suspecting. [00:38:49] I think Ms. Manns did an excellent job [00:38:51] in staff's recommending approval. [00:38:53] Thank you. [00:38:54] This is a public hearing. [00:38:55] I'll open it up for public comment. [00:38:57] Would anybody wish to address council on this matter? [00:39:02] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to council. [00:39:04] Move for approval. [00:39:05] Second. [00:39:06] Motion and a second to the maker. [00:39:07] Second. [00:39:08] A second. [00:39:09] I'm just delighted to see the forward thinking [00:39:12] that we have as far as front porches go in the city. [00:39:15] Deputy Mayor. [00:39:18] Is there going to be any variance capabilities [00:39:21] underneath this ordinance? [00:39:24] You know, you talk about, with new technologies [00:39:29] and things today, you know, a pergola [00:39:33] as a front porch element is becoming widely acceptable [00:39:39] with enhanced properties. [00:39:41] Just want to make sure that we give some thought to that [00:39:44] after we put this into effect at how we can, you know, [00:39:48] balance traditional front porch over, you know, modern day. [00:39:55] I mean, we spent a lot of time with regards [00:39:58] to the front yard parking elements [00:40:00] and different textures and different types [00:40:04] of products that could be used. [00:40:05] I just want to make sure [00:40:06] that there is some variance capabilities here. [00:40:09] I think we'll obviously try to interpret it [00:40:11] as broadly as possible to accommodate different design types [00:40:14] but there's always the opportunity for variance [00:40:16] when it comes to any development standard. [00:40:19] And this would also qualify for our grant program? [00:40:25] Correct. [00:40:26] I just want to make that public. [00:40:27] Thank you. [00:40:28] Councilman Starkey. [00:40:30] I have nothing. [00:40:32] There's no further discussion. [00:40:33] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:40:35] Aye. [00:40:36] Opposed, like sign. [00:40:37] Next item, before we go to the next public reading,

    This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

12. 10.c

    First Reading, Ordinance 2016-2083: Code Amendment - Mobile Home Park District

    approved

    Council held first reading of Ordinance 2016-2083, amending the Land Development Code to update the definition of mobile home, add definitions for permanent legal residence and recreational vehicle, and prohibit RVs as permanent residences in mobile home parks. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote. The item was preceded by an introduction of the new Main Street Program head, Casey Horati.

    Ord. Ordinance 2016-2083

    • motion:Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance 2016-2083 amending the Land Development Code regarding mobile home park district definitions and standards. (passed)

    🏢Main Street Program👤Casey Horati👤Chief Bogart👤Mrs. Spears👤Ms. Manns#Ordinance 2016-2083#Section 7.17.02 definitions#Section 7.17.05 mobile home park plan#Section 7.17.09 other uses

    ▶ Jump to 40:40 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [00:40:41] I was supposed to put this in a little earlier [00:40:44] and just realized because of where I wrote it. [00:40:47] But I'd like to introduce all of you to Mrs. Casey Horati [00:40:52] and I hope I didn't murder the name too badly. [00:40:56] She is our new head of the Main Street Program [00:41:01] for the city of New Port Richey. [00:41:02] Welcome aboard. [00:41:04] Can I just come to the podium? [00:41:06] Thank you. [00:41:07] Thank you. [00:41:08] Ms. Horati. [00:41:09] You can come up if you'd like to say a few words. [00:41:15] I would just like to say thank you for this opportunity [00:41:17] to work with the Main Street Organization. [00:41:19] I have a number of years working [00:41:21] within the Main Street Organizations. [00:41:24] I am a firm believer in all the good that they can do [00:41:27] for our downtowns in this area [00:41:29] and I'm just absolutely thrilled to be here. [00:41:31] If you all have any questions about my background [00:41:34] or anything, I'm happy to answer them. [00:41:35] The office door is always open to all of you [00:41:38] and absolutely to everyone in the city of New Port Richey. [00:41:43] Thank you. [00:41:46] Next item on the agenda is first reading [00:41:47] of the Ordinance 2016-2083, [00:41:50] Code Amendment, Mobile Home Park District. [00:41:52] Ms. Manns. [00:41:53] An ordinance of the city of New Port Richey, Florida [00:41:55] amending the Land Development Code, [00:41:57] amending section 7.17.02 definitions [00:42:01] to amend the definition of mobile home [00:42:03] and to add definitions for permanent legal residence [00:42:07] and recreational vehicle, [00:42:09] amending section 7.1705 mobile home park plan [00:42:12] to prohibit recreational vehicles [00:42:15] as permanent legal residences and mobile home parks [00:42:18] and provide additional mobile home standards, [00:42:21] amending Section 7.17.09 other uses [00:42:25] to prohibit recreational vehicles [00:42:27] as permanent legal residents and mobile home parks, [00:42:30] providing for severability, providing for codification [00:42:33] and providing for an effective date. [00:42:35] Thank you. [00:42:36] This is a public hearing. [00:42:37] I'll open it up for public comment at this time. [00:42:41] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to council. [00:42:43] Move for approval. [00:42:44] Second. [00:42:45] To the maker. [00:42:46] I can't believe we didn't have this currently, [00:42:48] and it's a very, very good thing. [00:42:49] It sends a message we're not gonna put up [00:42:51] with the standards that some people think [00:42:53] that they can create living facilities for [00:42:56] and rent out and get money for in our city. [00:42:58] It's absolutely unacceptable. [00:43:01] In a few of the mobile home parks we have, [00:43:02] a couple of the ones we have are very, very nice, [00:43:04] but you can't just set up an RV [00:43:06] and rent it out to someone for five years. [00:43:08] It's not right, so very much needed, [00:43:10] and I was surprised we didn't have it already. [00:43:12] The second. [00:43:13] There's just places for mobile homes [00:43:16] and there's places for RVs, [00:43:17] and the society's already set those places up. [00:43:20] We're just doing it here. [00:43:22] Deputy Mayor. [00:43:23] I'm good, Mayor. [00:43:24] Councilwoman. [00:43:25] I'm good, except I just have a quick question. [00:43:29] What is the rule, if that's a good word, [00:43:36] for RVs being on property? [00:43:39] You know, we live in Florida, [00:43:40] and we've got lots of folks that come and visit us, [00:43:42] and I just wonder, do we have anything in place [00:43:44] that stipulates that folks visiting [00:43:46] and having RVs on their property, [00:43:49] is there any limitation on how long [00:43:52] they can be there or not be there? [00:43:53] Mrs. Spears, can you respond to the question [00:43:55] on behalf of the city? [00:43:56] Sure, we do have provisions that allow [00:43:58] for that sort of circumstance, [00:44:00] and we purposely did not write that [00:44:02] into the most recent parking ordinance [00:44:04] that you had adopted last fall, [00:44:07] so you're still allowed to have an RV on your property, [00:44:11] even in the front yard, [00:44:12] along with your boat trailer and your boat, [00:44:14] but you just can't have it as a residence, [00:44:16] as a permanent residence. [00:44:18] Right, but there's nothing that addresses [00:44:22] folks that come and visit and stay. [00:44:24] How long is that? [00:44:25] It is, and I'm looking across the way to Chief Bogart, [00:44:29] because his office looks for those things [00:44:33] under the streets section of the codified ordinances. [00:44:36] There is a limitation, I believe, to the duration. [00:44:39] It's something covered under the streets section. [00:44:42] You're correct, but I do not know [00:44:44] the specifics on it. [00:44:44] It does address that. [00:44:46] Thank you, appreciate that. [00:44:48] And the only comment I had, [00:44:49] I noticed that this also provides [00:44:52] that these mobile homes are single-family occupancies. [00:44:58] I know we've had an issue with. [00:45:00] some of our slum lords that have been subdividing mobile homes into [00:45:04] multiple residences [00:45:06] and this will put an end to that. [00:45:10] If there's no further discussion, all those in favor please signify by saying aye. Aye.

    This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

13. 11.a

    Consideration of Appointments to Intergovernmental Committees

    approved

    Council discussed appointments to intergovernmental committees, with all members opting to remain in their current assignments. One councilmember expressed frustration with the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council's evolving mission and inconvenient Monday morning meetings but agreed to stay on. Discussion also touched on the Suncoast League of Cities membership, which the city retains.

    • motion:Move for approval of intergovernmental committee appointments as status quo. (passed)

    🏢MAP group (Metropolitan)🏢Suncoast League of Cities🏢Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council🏢Tourist Development Council👤Deputy Mayor#DRI projects#Hacienda#Suncoast League of Cities#Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council

    ▶ Jump to 45:15 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [00:45:15] Opposed, like sign. [00:45:17] Motion passes. Next item [00:45:19] is consideration of appointments to intergovernmental agencies [00:45:24] and I'd like to start this off by asking is anybody [00:45:28] want off of what they're on? [00:45:31] Yes. No. [00:45:33] I guess that means I get to stay on. [00:45:36] I mean, I gotta tell you, Tampa Regional Planning Council really doesn't. [00:45:39] That Monday meeting is very difficult for me. I'll stay on. [00:45:43] I really do think that we [00:45:45] ought to be able to change these ups a little bit, especially since [00:45:48] some people were the economic development folks on the last campaign. [00:45:54] I just really am at a point where [00:45:56] you know, I just don't see the planning council being all that [00:46:02] innovative anymore. [00:46:04] I think they've been searching for a place to be. [00:46:07] But since everybody wants to stay where they are, [00:46:10] I'll do it for another year. I'm just saying that that Monday meeting [00:46:14] and the way that they've changed their structure [00:46:17] makes it very difficult to be involved. [00:46:20] We have to have someone on that committee? [00:46:23] What is your thought on that? [00:46:25] I think we pay to be part of that group, so you know, I know they come in handy. [00:46:31] I know they have been helpful when it came to the Hacienda. [00:46:35] I know for some regional perspectives, but I have to tell you, [00:46:38] their mission is ever-changing, and the governor's had them in his sights [00:46:45] for the last couple of years, and they've been searching over the last [00:46:50] two years to figure out, since they took away the plan, [00:46:56] approving plan urban developments and large DRI projects, [00:47:00] they've been searching for a way, and they've been fighting for their money, [00:47:04] and their Monday morning meetings are at 10 o'clock, [00:47:07] and since their new directors come on, everything is online, [00:47:11] and it makes it very difficult to stay in tune with them. [00:47:14] Just straight up, I'll do my best to be there, but it's not, [00:47:20] I just don't see the impact that they've had over the last 25 years, so. [00:47:25] I was on that for a year before I went to the tourist development, [00:47:29] and I found that they were doing some minor things in Tampa, [00:47:35] but I didn't really see a regional development plan. [00:47:40] So we, I mean, it sounds like we're thinking that they're not, [00:47:46] perhaps our participation is not necessarily necessary [00:47:50] where it's not mutually beneficial, and if that's the case, [00:47:53] we belong to it, to belong to it, or, and if we belong to it, [00:47:59] we must have a participation, we must have a representation on it, [00:48:02] or can you... [00:48:02] We can vote, we can do a lot of things. [00:48:04] I'm just telling you that their mission right now is in flux, [00:48:09] and as I said, everybody wants to stay status quo, [00:48:13] I'm okay with that, I'll stay on. [00:48:15] I just wanted to represent that to everyone about the organization, [00:48:20] where it's at, and obviously the timing that it has, [00:48:26] so that's fine, Mr. Mayor, we're good. [00:48:29] Would entertain a motion for the appointments to the intergovernmental committees? [00:48:35] Move for approval as status quo. [00:48:41] I'll second that if we can continue the conversation for a minute. [00:48:46] We used to belong to the Suncoast League of Cities, [00:48:51] is that the, yeah, and I represented us on that council, [00:48:59] and I found that the size of the cities that were in there [00:49:05] more patterned after us, there was a lot of information, [00:49:10] or exchange of information, a lot of the cities, [00:49:13] Indian Rocks, and Gulfport, and all the group, [00:49:17] they just seemed to be more in line with what we as a city deal with, [00:49:26] and I just wondered why we backed away from that. [00:49:30] I know that we belong to the Metropolitan, the MAP group, [00:49:34] and I think that's very effective, I think that we learned that, [00:49:37] and over the last two years with the kind of effectiveness [00:49:43] that we could be collectively, and I just wonder, [00:49:46] you know, why we not consider being part of the Suncoast League? [00:49:48] I believe we're currently members of the Suncoast League. [00:49:51] We are members of the group, that's correct. [00:49:53] I can't respond more specifically to it, [00:49:57] I know it appears that Mr. Deputy Mayor has something to offer, though. [00:50:03] Yeah, when I first got on council in 12, [00:50:05] I tried to make it to some of their meetings, [00:50:07] I went to a couple of their weekend events that they had, [00:50:11] I went to their annual meeting in March, [00:50:15] you know, they have a dinner and they recognize. [00:50:19] What I found is that the cities in Pinellas County [00:50:26] and Hillsborough on the Bayside were very active, [00:50:31] but once you got to the Pasco County line, [00:50:35] we would be there, but none of the other Pasco cities [00:50:40] were in consistent attendance. [00:50:43] Most of their events that they have are on Fridays. [00:50:47] I will tell you that they did offer the ethics class, [00:50:52] which was very accommodating, but once again, [00:50:57] you know, because most of the group that was participating [00:51:02] was in the Pinellas area, that's really kind of the home area. [00:51:10] Because none of the meetings, [00:51:12] I don't think they ever got past Dunedin. [00:51:16] I don't know that they've been to Tarpon Springs [00:51:17] in a long, long time. [00:51:19] Well, I'm just pleased to know that the members, [00:51:20] because there's a lot of correspondence that comes in, [00:51:22] I didn't realize, so I'm pleased that we're members [00:51:25] and we can participate as members, [00:51:26] that's good enough for me, thank you. [00:51:30] Maker, any other? [00:51:33] In the middle of a vote. [00:51:35] Yes. [00:51:36] There's no further discussion, all those in favor, [00:51:38] please signify by saying aye. [00:51:40] Aye. [00:51:40] Opposed, light sign.

    This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

14. 11.b

    Resolution 2016-09 - Imposing & Assessing Cost of Abatement and Removal of Unsafe Structure at 6035/6037 High Street

    approved

    Council adopted Resolution 2016-09 to impose a lien of $5,289.35 (plus 4.79% statutory interest) to recover the cost of demolishing an unsafe duplex at 6035/6037 High Street. The prior property owner is deceased and no family member has come forward.

    Ord. Resolution 2016-09

    • motion:Move for approval of Resolution 2016-09 imposing and assessing cost of abatement for the unsafe structure at 6035/6037 High Street. (passed)

    📍6035-6037 High Street👤Mrs. Fierce👤Ms. Manns#Resolution 2016-09

    ▶ Jump to 51:43 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [00:51:43] Next item is Resolution 2016-09, [00:51:45] imposing and assessing cost of abatement [00:51:48] and removal of unsafe structure at 6035-6037 High Street. [00:51:53] Ms. Manns. [00:51:54] Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, [00:51:55] as Mrs. Fierce indicated to you in her communication [00:51:58] of April 19th, 2016, a duplex was demolished [00:52:05] on the High Street property on December 16th, 2015. [00:52:10] The purpose of this agenda item is to impose a lien [00:52:13] to recover the cost associated with abatement [00:52:15] of the unsafe structure. [00:52:17] The cost associated with the abatement was $5,289.35. [00:52:24] And if you see fit to impose the cost associated [00:52:31] with the abatement, it will accrue interest [00:52:34] at the statutory rate, which is 4.79%. [00:52:39] We open this up for public comment. [00:52:42] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to Council. [00:52:44] Move for approval. [00:52:45] Second. [00:52:47] Yeah, my only question is, is do we know [00:52:51] who we're trying to get the money from? [00:52:55] Because, you know, this is reminiscent [00:52:58] of our conversation through the budget process last year [00:53:03] where we imposed fines for citations [00:53:08] and then had the ever-running clock, [00:53:12] but no way to collect, and then we took the position [00:53:15] that we wanted to collect and we would give them a discount [00:53:19] if they would pay now. [00:53:20] And I remember a case with a gentleman on Tennessee [00:53:26] where he had a high enough fines that the fines were higher [00:53:30] than the value of the house, and he wanted [00:53:34] to make some improvements, so we came back. [00:53:35] So I made the motion so we can seek restitution [00:53:43] for tearing it down. [00:53:45] I just, who are we chasing? [00:53:48] Or are we gonna file a lien and try to get the property? [00:53:50] Just to clarify, this is to recover the cost [00:53:53] because we've already demolished it. [00:53:54] So I guess we won't know that until someone tells us [00:53:58] that they own the property. [00:53:59] I mean, there is a deceased property owner now [00:54:01] and no one has come forward as a family member, [00:54:04] but absent. [00:54:05] I think it's important to additionally note

    This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

15. 11.c

    Resolution 2016-12: Historic Preservation Small Matching Grant

    approved

    Council approved Resolution 2016-12 authorizing application for a $100,000 Historic Preservation Small Matching Grant from the Florida Department of State for additional stabilization and preservation of the Hacienda Hotel, with a required 50% match ($50,000) to be budgeted in FY 2016-2017 if awarded. A councilman expressed concern about putting more taxpayer money into the project, but was reassured the city would not be required to accept the grant and would vote again before committing the matching funds.

    Ord. Resolution 2016-12

    • motion:Move to approve Resolution 2016-12 authorizing application for a $100,000 Historic Preservation Small Matching Grant for the Hacienda Hotel. (passed)

    🏢Florida Department of State🏢Hacienda Hotel👤Mr. Iazzoni#FY 2016-2017 budget#Hacienda Hotel development agreement#Historic Preservation Small Matching Grant#Resolution 2016-12

    ▶ Jump to 54:07 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [00:54:08] that the city can foreclose upon the lien at any time. [00:54:11] Okay, second. [00:54:14] I don't know why we wouldn't approve this, though. [00:54:16] Any other discussion? [00:54:18] I just, you know, just to back up Bill for a second, [00:54:21] I just don't want this to run out and come back [00:54:24] and we have to negotiate it. [00:54:25] Let's just deal with it. [00:54:27] If we have to see, it gets to a point [00:54:30] where it's valued more than the property, [00:54:31] let's take the property. [00:54:33] Let's do it and put a set in the books. [00:54:36] Let this thing run up to some ungodly number. [00:54:41] There's no further discussion. [00:54:42] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:54:44] Aye. [00:54:45] Opposed, the like sign. [00:54:47] Next item is Resolution 2016-12, [00:54:49] Historic Preservation Small Matching Grants. [00:54:51] May I ask? [00:54:53] Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, [00:54:54] the purpose of this agenda item [00:54:56] is to ask for grant consideration [00:54:58] through the Florida Department of State [00:55:00] for additional stabilization and historic preservation [00:55:03] of the Hacienda Hotel. [00:55:05] The grant request is in the amount of $100,000. [00:55:09] The required match on the grant is 50%, [00:55:12] which would be $50,000. [00:55:14] And if you approve the city's request for grant funds, [00:55:20] the required match would be budgeted [00:55:22] in the fiscal year 2016-2017 budget. [00:55:25] Thank you. [00:55:26] Open up for public comment. [00:55:29] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to Council. [00:55:31] Yeah, just a quick discussion on this one. [00:55:33] Certainly. [00:55:34] I mean, grants sound great. [00:55:35] I'm just not sure I'm on board with this one, [00:55:38] to be honest with you. [00:55:38] I'm all about the Hacienda. [00:55:40] I want it to open, be a great boutique hotel, [00:55:42] be the cornerstone of downtown. [00:55:44] But how much money as a city [00:55:45] are we gonna keep putting into it? [00:55:47] At some point, the developer has to step up [00:55:49] and start carrying the load. [00:55:51] I mean, it's great if we can get 50,000 from the state, [00:55:53] but bottom line is we're putting $50,000 more [00:55:55] taxpayers' money into the Hacienda. [00:55:58] I'm just, you know, I'm just, [00:56:01] we had this agreement drafted pretty much, [00:56:03] if I recall, or close to drafted [00:56:05] before we got the million dollar grant, [00:56:07] and they were willing to develop it as is. [00:56:09] And here we are, maybe pledging another 50 grand. [00:56:12] I'm just, it'd be great that we get matching funds, [00:56:14] but I'm just not sure it's the best move [00:56:17] for the city at this point. [00:56:18] I think it's time to turn it over to the developers myself. [00:56:22] Unless I'm reading it wrong. [00:56:23] No, Mr. Councilman, you're not reading it wrong. [00:56:26] But in response to your question, [00:56:27] I'd suggest that if the city were awarded the bid, [00:56:30] it would be a point of renegotiation [00:56:32] with the developers as an addendum [00:56:35] to the development agreement. [00:56:38] We don't know if they're gonna wanna renegotiate anything [00:56:40] at this point, right? [00:56:41] They have indicated that they'd be [00:56:42] interested in doing so. [00:56:45] I expect them to renegotiate every point until they, [00:56:50] I'm just, I don't, I just anticipate that. [00:56:55] Plus, we did have to take, is that correct, Mr. Iazzoni? [00:56:59] We ended up having to take some things [00:57:01] out of the original improvements [00:57:05] or restoration to the facility? [00:57:08] Because we ran into, I mean. [00:57:12] No, we've been following along with the agreement so far, [00:57:14] and we haven't modified it at all. [00:57:17] I appreciate your interpretation. [00:57:19] I know that we had a laundry list of things [00:57:21] and that we had to back off to meet our million dollars. [00:57:25] I noticed we didn't do any windows, [00:57:26] we didn't do any doors, we did everything else, [00:57:29] and we're in a position to turn it over to the developer. [00:57:31] No, but in the development agreement, we never, [00:57:33] well, we were emphatic from day one [00:57:36] that the million dollars was to be [00:57:38] completely controlled by the city [00:57:39] because it was money held in trust by the city, [00:57:42] and that the developer has no control over that. [00:57:45] We did express that we would consider a review of that [00:57:48] and listen to all options, but we were, [00:57:51] and so there was never anything written [00:57:53] in the development agreement that would say [00:57:54] that we would take it up to a specific point, [00:57:57] largely due to the fact that there are [00:57:58] so many different variables as we proceed [00:58:01] through the Hacienda scope of work. [00:58:04] You know, I just go back to the geotechnical survey, [00:58:06] and there was always a potential [00:58:08] that we might make a huge shift left or right, [00:58:12] and we didn't quite know until we got done with the plans. [00:58:16] I would say that the architectural plans [00:58:18] are drawn all the way up until where the windows are put [00:58:21] and or to a point where you get mechanicals, [00:58:23] and so that's just an added benefit for us [00:58:28] when we look at what might possibly happen next. [00:58:33] We haven't come to, okay, so if we apply for the grant, [00:58:39] and we are awarded the grant, is there a stipulation [00:58:43] that says that we have to proceed with it [00:58:46] if, let's say we start to negotiate with the firm? [00:58:48] No, we do not have to accept the grant if we are awarded. [00:58:51] Okay, so I would say that if it's potentially [00:58:55] going to behoove us to do that, [00:58:57] to have some leverage with contractors, [00:59:01] then I don't see why we wouldn't do that. [00:59:04] We were actually encouraged by the architects. [00:59:07] When we received the million dollar grant, [00:59:09] we were under the impression that we couldn't reapply [00:59:11] for other grants, but having passed through [00:59:14] about four historic architects, [00:59:16] they simply had encouraged us to continue. [00:59:18] The historic resources likes to continue [00:59:21] to fund projects going forward in time, [00:59:24] so when we found that we were available to do that, [00:59:26] we were just simply trying to pursue that, [00:59:28] but we always thought that we could only go [00:59:30] for the one grant and that would be it for the property, [00:59:32] but this is simply an opportunity that we're pursuing. [00:59:36] I see a difference between a grant and a matching grant. [00:59:40] We're putting out more money. [00:59:42] But I mean, if we don't have to proceed, [00:59:46] if it's approved, I guess I'm okay. [00:59:48] We would have to vote again whether or not, [00:59:50] let's say we get disapproved, we are awarded the grant, [00:59:54] it would have to come back to council [00:59:55] to then decide and vote on whether or not [00:59:57] we want to proceed and put $50,000 in. [00:59:59] I would. [01:00:00] back to you for your consideration. Please do. I'm okay with that then. [01:00:03] In this case I'd entertain a motion from somebody. Move to approve. Second. [01:00:07] The maker? No sir. Second. Nothing. Councilman? Councilman? Nope, that's it. [01:00:13] There's no further discussion. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. [01:00:17] Opposed, the like sign. [01:00:19] Next item is a bid award, RFQ-16011, Recreation

    This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

16. 11.d

    Bid Award: RFQ 16-011, Recreation Center Fitness Equipment

    approved

    Council awarded RFQ 16-011 for Recreation Center fitness equipment to Life Fitness in the amount of $122,795.05 for 33 pieces of equipment including treadmills, recumbent bikes, ellipticals, flex sliders, and weight training equipment. The motion passed unanimously after discussion of warranty/maintenance coverage and the need to refresh aging equipment.

    • motion:Motion to approve award of RFQ 16-011 to Life Fitness for Recreation Center fitness equipment in the amount of $122,795.05. (passed)

    📍5822 Indiana Avenue🏢Life Fitness👤Davis👤Greg Smith👤Ms. Manns👤Ms. Smith#RFQ 16-011#Silver Sneakers program

    ▶ Jump to 1:00:23 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:00:24] Center Fitness Equipment. Ms. Manns. Mr. Mayor, I make a very exciting bid award. [01:00:30] Including 33 pieces of equipment for the recreation center, including treadmills, recumbent bikes, [01:00:40] ellipticals, flex sliders, as well as several pieces of weight training equipment. The project [01:00:47] was competitively bid. The bids were opened on March 18th. Three firms submitted bids. [01:00:54] The lowest and most responsive bid was submitted by Life Fitness in the amount of $122,795.05. [01:01:04] Ms. Smith has spent some time reviewing their references and the specifications on the equipment [01:01:18] that they included in their bid. And based on her review, she is recommending that we award [01:01:25] the bid to Life Fitness to provide the equipment for the Recreation and Aquatic Center. [01:01:29] Thank you. Open this item up for public comment. Thing is, I think we've got some people that are [01:01:34] members of the Rec Center in attendance. I'd be surprised if nobody shows up. Podium on this one. [01:01:41] Your name and address for the record. Greg Smith, 5822 Indiana Avenue. What is in this purchase? [01:01:48] Is there also maintenance? Which is the biggest problem we have today is maintenance. It's not [01:01:57] usually the equipment, it's the maintenance. So what is built into this quote for the maintenance [01:02:02] coverage? The maintenance warranty agreement varies for different types of equipment. It's [01:02:16] more extensive on the treadmills and so forth that use data. But you have anywhere from, [01:02:23] I believe it's 10 years on structure and then it progressively goes to I think three years for the [01:02:29] data and so forth. Even the upholstery and things like that are covered. Once the warranty runs out, [01:02:35] we will be purchasing a maintenance agreement. And that is great for long-term. It's like [01:02:40] the suspension on your car. But what's the day-to-day, how we're going to maintain? Because [01:02:44] today that's one of our biggest challenges, the day-to-day maintaining of not only the [01:02:49] equipment, but the facility itself. Right. It will be a different company than what we're [01:02:52] currently using. That's my concern. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Anyone else? [01:03:00] Seeing no one else come forward, bring it back to council. Move for approval. We have a motion. [01:03:05] I'll second that with discussion. Okay, to the maker. Yeah. [01:03:13] We need the new equipment. And as a lifetime person who's worked out a lot, life fitness is [01:03:21] good product. Holds up well. I have a major hospitality customer that has 220 hotels around [01:03:33] the United States. And in 90% of all their hotels, they have life fitness. And I just think it resets [01:03:41] the deck. It doesn't have anything to do about the other conversation, which will come up on [01:03:46] Thursday night. But we promised the people in New Port Richey, if they come to the rec center, [01:03:53] they're going to have safe and adequate equipment to work out on. You can't market something if you [01:04:01] don't keep it up. And the equipment we have in there now is, I think, going on eight years. [01:04:07] I think it's eight years old. The four new pieces that came in, people were excited. [01:04:12] Money was in the budget. We've had it in here since last October. So, let's put it in place [01:04:21] so that as the rec center continues to market itself and its present condition, [01:04:28] they will have new equipment and they can springboard that as they go out into the community. [01:04:34] But I will tell you that I know some people in the audience and some people that I've seen [01:04:41] that I used to work out with that are no longer at the rec center [01:04:45] because the equipment is not correct. It gives them some concern. But I think it's time [01:04:53] that we spend the money to put the equipment in and then we'll worry about the setting for it [01:05:00] as we move forward. Thank you. Councilwoman? Yes, I am delighted to see the new equipment coming in. [01:05:08] I live with someone who has that same exact issue that I'm delighted to know that he'll [01:05:14] be coming back to the gym. Just a quick question. How effective is the Silver Sneakers program for [01:05:21] our gym? I don't have the exact current totals because that changes, but the last number that [01:05:27] I was given, we had 541 active members. We've got over 600 that have registered, but we're [01:05:33] counting the ones that actually come regularly is 541. So that number has really increased [01:05:41] with that usage. Thank you. Councilwoman? No, well said, both of you. Councilman Davis? [01:05:48] Money's been in the budget for a long time. Glad to see us do it. If there's no further [01:05:53] discussion, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Motion

    This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

17. 11.e

    2013 Sewer Improvements Project Close-Out

    Council considered the closeout of the 2013 Sewer Improvements Project, including a final deductive change order of $245,311.22 and a final pay request of $49,177.28 to Suncoast Development. The deduction reflected elimination of lift station upgrades and unused owner's contingency.

    • motion:Staff requested approval of the final deductive change order of $245,311.22 and final pay request of $49,177.28 for the 2013 Sewer Improvements Project.

    📍Kentucky Avenue and Anderson Street🏢Suncoast Development of Ellis County👤Rivera#2013 Sewer Improvements Project#Water and Sewer Construction Funds

    ▶ Jump to 1:05:59 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:05:59] passes. Next is the 2013 sewer improvements closeout project. Mr. Mayor, members of the [01:06:05] council, this project was a $978,085 project. Mr. Rivera will present the agenda item to you, [01:06:16] which includes both a final deductive change order and a final pay request. [01:06:22] Thank you. What we would ask for your approval for is to approve the final deductive change order [01:06:28] in the amount of $245,311.22 and the final pay request in the amount of $49,177.28 from Suncoast [01:06:41] Development of Ellis County. This project's scope of work included the installation of about [01:06:49] 4,000 feet of sanitary sewer pipe, panel upgrades to the lift station at Kentucky Avenue and Anderson [01:06:58] Street. The deductive change order was due to the elimination of the lift station upgrades that [01:07:05] were called out of the original scope and the non-expenditure of the owner's contingency. [01:07:12] Funding for the project was identified as water and sewer construction funds, [01:07:17] and we would ask for your approval for the deductive change order as well as the final [01:07:21] pay request. Open this up for public comment. Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to

    This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

18. 11.f

    ↳You arrived here from a search for “Census” — transcript expanded below

    Notice of Intent to Purchase Utilities

    discussed

    Council considered a Notice of Intent to purchase three utility systems—Lakewood Villas, Barbara Ann Acres, and Silver Oaks—as a single acquisition not to exceed $600,000. Staff and consultants from McKim and Creed presented valuations, capital costs (including $251,500 in smart meter upgrades), and an estimated 11.6-year ROI. Councilmembers Phillips and the Deputy Mayor raised concerns about infrastructure age, maintenance records, CapEx exposure, well closures, and borrowing costs before considering approval.

    • direction:Council discussed the Notice of Intent to purchase the three utilities for not more than $600,000 and raised due diligence concerns to be addressed before final approval. (none)

    📍south of Indiana and east of Conger Street📍south of Marine Parkway, east of Grand Boulevard📍south of Massachusetts Avenue and east of Rowan Road🏢Badger🏢Barbara Ann Acres Utility🏢Census🏢Lakewood Villas Utility🏢McKim and Creed🏢Orangewood Utility🏢Silver Oaks Utility🏢Southwest Florida Water Management District (Swift Mud)👤Crystal👤Jim Weeks👤Mitch Chiaveroli👤Phillips👤Rick Miller👤Robert Rivera👤Starkey#1988 bulk water agreement#Closing date January 1, 2017#Enterprise Fund#Florida Statute 180.301#Notice of Intent to Purchase Utilities#Smart meter / IPROM conversion

    ▶ Jump to 1:07:25 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:07:27] council. Move for approval. Second. To the maker? Nothing. To the second? Nothing. Mr. Starkey? [01:07:32] Nothing. Thank you. Deputy Mayor? No, I'm good. Thank you. All those in favor, please signify by [01:07:38] saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Next is notice of intent to purchase utilities. [01:07:45] Mr. Mayor, members of the council, this request is submitted to you [01:07:51] in respect to the Lakewood Villas, Barbara Ann Acres, and Silver Oaks utility systems. [01:07:57] The notice of intent indicates do not exceed number of $600,000 and treats the three utilities [01:08:05] as a single acquisition. Mr. Rivera has prepared a presentation for you this evening in that respect. [01:08:14] I just wanted to introduce a couple people that are here. Mr. Jim Weeks and Rick Miller, [01:08:25] they are the owners of the three utilities. Mitch Chiaveroli is the project engineer that [01:08:33] created the evaluation studies for the city. He works with the firm of McKim and Creed. [01:08:39] I wanted to give you a little bit of background on how we got here. [01:08:43] February 2015, the owners made contact with the city to discuss the possible sale and purchase [01:08:50] of the three utilities. March and June of 2015 was information collection process [01:08:58] where utility crews gathered the different information on the existing system and [01:09:04] collected that and submitted it to McKim and Creed to begin the [01:09:09] utility evaluation process that began in June. November 2015, the evaluation reports were [01:09:19] completed and the city sat down with the current owners, offered a $550,000 initial offer to [01:09:29] purchase the utilities. There was a break between the two parties over the holidays, [01:09:35] and we met again back in January of this year, and the owners came back with a counter offer of [01:09:41] $600,000, which staff approved on the condition that council would approve the purchase. [01:09:50] The utility evaluation reports that the city looked at to get an idea of what we thought [01:09:56] the utilities were worth were based upon three main criterias. There was the asset valuation [01:10:05] that included the current value of the infrastructure, its appreciation value, [01:10:10] or its condition and age. The income valuation, which was the value of the potential earnings [01:10:17] plus operation and maintenance, which gave us that net revenue annually. And then the [01:10:24] comparable sales valuation, which consisted of recent sales of utilities in the region. [01:10:33] And we took the average of all three of these to come up with what we thought the valuation was. [01:10:44] The first area, or the first utility that we were looking at, was the Lakewood Villas area [01:10:49] that currently has 443 water customers. All three of these utilities were on septic systems [01:10:56] and currently are not part of a sewer system. This is the largest of the three utilities, [01:11:02] and it's located just south of Massachusetts Avenue and east of Rowan Road. The city currently [01:11:08] has a 1988 bulk water agreement with the utility, and we don't supply them with water, [01:11:16] but we're tied in with a six-inch meter to supply them with water in case of an emergency. [01:11:24] If you took all three of the criterias that we talked about and we averaged it, [01:11:30] the value of this utility came out to $512,999. In the valuation report, we also took a look at [01:11:43] what immediate capital costs the city would incur if we were to purchase this utility. [01:11:49] As you recall, we recently converted over to our smart meter system, so this would be a cost that [01:11:55] the city would immediately have to incur. We took the estimates off of the current contract that we [01:12:02] had and came up with an estimate of $221,500, which came out to a total investment by the city [01:12:13] for this utility of $734,499. Now, you've got your total number of what you think you're going [01:12:22] to invest. Now you need to find out if you can get your money back and if you can do that without [01:12:27] it costing your existing customers. The annual revenue based on what the city charges now for [01:12:35] non-residents came out to an estimated $138,964. That's based upon the average consumption that [01:12:48] the utility had taken in for the last, I want to say four years, 2010 to 2014, [01:12:55] so it was an average over a period of time of what that utility was consuming. [01:13:00] We came up with what we have as far as our annual operating costs and put that into the equation, [01:13:10] and then when we reduced it, we ended up having an annual net revenue for this utility of $88,979. [01:13:21] The second utility that is included in this is the Barbara Ann Acres. [01:13:25] It has 28 customers. Again, they're all water customers. This is south of Indiana and east of [01:13:34] Conger Street. There is a 1988 bulk water agreement that the city has in place with the existing [01:13:42] utility. This utility is different than the first one. We actually sell water to these customers [01:13:50] or to the company at a bulk rate. We combine the three, [01:14:01] average of the three criteria as we come out with a valuation of $50,003, or I'm sorry, [01:14:09] average of the three was $40,910. We add in our meter upgrades and we come up with a total [01:14:16] investment of $54,910. The annual revenue is $7,228, and when we add in our operating costs, [01:14:28] we have a net annual revenue of $5,087 for this utility. [01:14:35] The last of the three is the Silver Oaks area. This utility is the same as the Barbara Ann one. [01:14:41] We sell water and supply water to these customers as well at a bulk rate. This is located just south [01:14:49] of Marine Parkway, east of Grand Boulevard. It currently has 51 customers and there is no sewer [01:14:58] service as well. [01:15:00] Comparable sales value, or not comparable sales, the average of the three was 53,578,000. [01:15:10] The AMI cost to install the smart meters brought this total to $79,078. [01:15:20] And then, of course, once we counted our annual revenue and included the annual operating cost, [01:15:26] we were down to an annual net revenue of $9,070 for this utility. [01:15:34] And so when we tried to summarize all of these things to see where we stand, [01:15:41] the sum total of all of them are $607,487. [01:15:49] The valuation memo that was supplied by McKim and Creed had actually summed everything up [01:15:55] between $560,000 and $610,000 that they considered that these three utilities were worth. [01:16:04] And, again, we have agreed on a potential $600,000 purchase price in condition with council approval. [01:16:17] One thing that I did want to mention is the report also stated return on investments or payback times. [01:16:25] And instead of going over for each utility, we combined them all. [01:16:29] We came up with an average of 11 and a half years that the city would start seeing pure profits [01:16:37] other than operating in May. [01:16:41] Now, the notice of intent that we've put before you to take a look at and to consider for approval [01:16:47] is basically a good faith document. [01:16:50] It's not like a contract or an agreement that spells out detailed items on it. [01:16:56] It's basically a simple good faith document that lets both parties know that they're invested [01:17:02] and that in good faith they will try to meet each of the requirements. [01:17:07] And in this case, they want to sell the utility and would like to purchase it. [01:17:13] The listed items, there were 10 listed items on the notice of intent. [01:17:17] And just wanted to call those out real quickly. [01:17:21] Obviously, the first item was for your approval to allow staff to begin the purchase process [01:17:29] in amount not to exceed $600,000. [01:17:32] And I'll touch on that dollar amount a little bit later. [01:17:36] Item number two was the purchase is to include the existing customer and future customers [01:17:41] located in all three of those utility service areas, as well as a piece of land [01:17:49] that has two wells located on it. [01:17:53] Our thoughts on that is that once we take over and we convert the system, [01:17:59] we should be able to dismantle everything in-house with in-house forces [01:18:03] and then go ahead and sell that property and recoup the money that it costs [01:18:08] for the closure of that well. [01:18:12] We would also call out that the purchase process should be in accordance with the Florida statute 180.301. [01:18:22] Item four would be that prior to the purchase date, [01:18:26] the owners would be permitted to pursue past due receivables [01:18:30] and retain those revenues collected for their services. [01:18:36] Or five would be the accounts delinquent as of the purchase date [01:18:41] would become the property of the City of New Port Richey. [01:18:45] Any funds collected subsequent to the closing becomes the property of the City of Newport. [01:18:53] Item number seven would be prior to closing or purchase date, [01:18:57] the existing utility owners would transfer all of their existing security deposits over to the City. [01:19:05] That would be part of the process that we would be leading to as far as getting their customer list [01:19:09] and being able to incorporate that into our system. [01:19:13] Staff is asking that we would be allowed to follow the City's finance directors [01:19:19] and the City's financial advisors' recommendation for purchasing the utilities [01:19:25] by a request for competitive loan submissions, [01:19:30] and that City Council's approval to accept the funding recommendation. [01:19:34] And then we've put a closing date of January 1, 2017, [01:19:39] which can be extended if both parties agree, [01:19:43] but we would fully expect that this process can be concluded at some time during the summer. [01:19:51] And our recommendation would be to have Council approve the NOI so that we can start the process. [01:20:03] Any questions? [01:20:06] Open it up for public comment. [01:20:09] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to Council. [01:20:12] I do, Mr. Mayor. [01:20:13] Yes, sir. [01:20:18] You ready, Mr. Rivera? [01:20:20] I don't know. [01:20:21] If I don't know the answer, I can find it for you. [01:20:23] I know you can. [01:20:24] I appreciate the opportunity to look at purchasing these three water services. [01:20:38] It's a little disappointing that they're still all on septic, [01:20:41] because that's going to create another dynamic unto itself. [01:20:45] But your presentation was fine. [01:20:49] I just think there are a few things that weren't pulled out. [01:20:55] $600,000 acquisition cost, $251,000 for the meters, [01:21:01] and that was included in the memorandum and included in the documentation [01:21:06] that we would go out and try to borrow that. [01:21:10] I have some concerns with making sure that, because in two out of the three reports, [01:21:19] we couldn't get any maintenance records on the service. [01:21:25] So that concerns me. [01:21:31] One of the wells was closed off in swift mud, along with swift mud, [01:21:36] so I'm obviously concerned about any citations, any carryover with well closures. [01:21:47] What it would cost in the Lakewood Villas entity to disconnect from the Orangewood [01:21:56] utility system, because they have a redundant backside system [01:22:00] where they have us for emergency and they also have Orangewood utility systems. [01:22:07] And then the real question that comes around is CapEx. [01:22:15] I know you made some projections. [01:22:17] I know we have historical, but those are historical CapEx in the city of New Port Richey. [01:22:23] All three of these facilities were built anywhere between 30 and 48 years ago. [01:22:33] And I don't know about you, but every time I bought an old house or I bought an old car, [01:22:43] it wasn't really good until I get way underneath the hood, and that concerns me. [01:22:54] As my colleagues can see, I've got my green highlights, I've got my arrows. [01:22:59] Obviously we're talking about selling a piece of property once we close, [01:23:03] after we take that processing facility, and then what the flip side is going to be on that. [01:23:10] And if I read this correctly, we're going to replace the meters [01:23:15] that have a 10-year useful life. [01:23:20] And so correct me if I get too far straight. [01:23:23] We're going to spend $251,000 that we're going to borrow. [01:23:27] We don't have any borrowing costs forecasted into our return on investment [01:23:32] at the moment that I can see. [01:23:34] And over and above that is in 10 years, before we even get to our return on investment, [01:23:42] we're going to have to possibly spend another $200,000 to replace the meters again. [01:23:51] That's the way that I read the reports. [01:23:56] And the reason the one jumped out to me with CapEx potential, [01:24:02] over and above what your projections were, [01:24:07] is that in the Lakewood Villas, the larger of the systems, [01:24:12] it talks about there's a small section of galvanized pipe as well. [01:24:18] And I know the way that we've approached operating city water and city sewer, [01:24:26] we stay true to all of the latest trends. [01:24:30] We've tried to be out in front with our preventative maintenance, [01:24:34] at least over the last five or six years. [01:24:37] And I'm just anticipating, as you do your further due diligence, [01:24:42] I'd like to be able to cost that out because if we're going to go borrow the money [01:24:48] to pay it back to get a return on investment, it does impact our enterprise fund. [01:24:56] And we don't mind sharing our CapEx dollars on something we purchase, [01:25:04] but I'd like to make sure we've got that cost effective on the front end [01:25:08] because we have a lot of things we have continued to improve with our own service areas [01:25:13] from people that are paying ad valorem taxes, that are paying for water and sewer. [01:25:22] And then there were some references in each one of these reports [01:25:27] about fire and potential fire hydrants. [01:25:32] So I just, like I said, I'm OK with moving forward between now. [01:25:39] I just wanted to bring my concerns because if we are going to go out, [01:25:44] I projected, and these are my projections. [01:25:48] I don't believe I've discussed them with Crystal, [01:25:51] and I know I haven't discussed them with you, Robert. [01:25:53] But you're looking at 600, you're looking at 251, [01:25:57] you're looking at 10 grand that you estimated to tear down [01:26:03] as something to go borrow and take on as a debt onto our water and sewer service. [01:26:09] So, again, I understand where it gets us down the road, [01:26:16] but for me to put that older car without all the details on how it was maintenance and stuff [01:26:24] gives me some pause, and I'll wait back to hear from your experts [01:26:29] and your internal people on the overall quality. [01:26:33] I just don't want to buy a 442 that I buy for 20 grand, [01:26:38] which is my old car from 1968, and I want to put it on the road so bad [01:26:43] that it's going to cost me another 10 that I don't have any idea about. [01:26:46] And I want to be up front. [01:26:48] Gentlemen, I appreciate the opportunity to buy this. [01:26:51] I also see the opportunity down the road that there'll be sewer service in here [01:26:55] so we can get these people off of the septic systems, [01:27:03] so it'll clean up if it's close to the water, [01:27:05] all those things that we've done within the city to make our things. [01:27:09] I just want to make sure that as we do our due diligence, [01:27:13] I just want to make sure the total impact to the Enterprise Fund, [01:27:20] and I would really, if at all possible, like to shrink that return on investment. [01:27:26] That 11 years is great. [01:27:29] It could be $1.1 million or $1.2 million onto the fund, [01:27:34] and that I want to make sure doesn't impact some of those costs that we have, [01:27:42] how they impact not only our city residents, [01:27:45] but how we're going to impact the outside service zone. [01:27:48] So those are my thoughts. [01:27:51] I'm sure we'll have other opportunities to talk about it, [01:27:54] but I wanted to make sure that I was out front up, [01:27:57] and it's 522 potential new users that we're only getting the water on. [01:28:03] And one of the calculations you used about comparing it to other systems that were sold, [01:28:12] I'm discounting those completely, [01:28:14] because those in many cases were water and sewer combined, [01:28:19] and I don't know how you discount to a certain level to really get at a base point. [01:28:24] But the $600,000 falls right in between that. [01:28:28] I just want to make sure we know all the things up front, [01:28:31] because I don't want any surprises. [01:28:34] It's funny. [01:28:35] I had called Mitch up today, and we were talking about the evaluation report as well, [01:28:40] and the consolidated third utility that it was based on was based on just water. [01:28:47] That figure did include that. [01:28:49] I've got a lot of these items that you talked about. [01:28:51] I've got them written down, and we have already addressed some of them, [01:28:55] or we've started the process of addressing those items. [01:28:59] So I'll definitely get you the info. [01:29:03] I have some questions and concerns. [01:29:06] Reading the condition, existing infrastructure, I almost, Mr. Phillips likened it to purchasing a car. [01:29:14] I almost feel like we're purchasing a pig in a poke, if that's the right expression. [01:29:19] There's a couple of things that kind of jumped out at me. [01:29:24] The Lakewood Village utility system indicated that only minor maintenance has been required. [01:29:28] This is supported by repair expenses, et cetera. [01:29:31] The six-inch connection, the remaining useful life of the distribution pipe is approximately eight years old. [01:29:38] The hydropneumonic tank is greater than 15 years old, so the remaining life is zero. [01:29:48] There's a couple of things that we have to just kind of go make assumptions, [01:29:52] and I'm not sure that I like that idea. [01:30:00] Useful life for the purposes of the water meters. [01:30:04] Well, you had mentioned that we would be purchasing [01:30:06] new water meters. [01:30:06] It said in there somewhere where the likelihood [01:30:08] of putting in fire hydrants. [01:30:10] The chemical feed commonly used, et cetera, et cetera. [01:30:13] The age of the chemical feed system is not known. [01:30:17] Therefore, the purpose we've assumed, [01:30:19] it has a useful life of five years. [01:30:21] There's that word again, assumed. [01:30:25] The life well is approximately 10 years old. [01:30:28] The age of the wells are not known. [01:30:30] Again, it's unlikely. [01:30:31] The existing well pumps are the original pumps. [01:30:34] Therefore, the purpose of the evaluation, [01:30:35] we are assuming a remaining useful life of five years. [01:30:40] I don't know. [01:30:41] I just am thinking, [01:30:46] why would we want to do this? [01:30:47] Well, the items that you're talking about, [01:30:50] the city won't utilize. [01:30:53] Once we finish our conversion, [01:30:55] our plant is capable of water. [01:30:59] So the condition of those facilities really [01:31:05] are a wash to ours, [01:31:06] especially when you compare the price of it [01:31:09] versus what its value is. [01:31:13] The condition of the pipe, industry standards, [01:31:17] it's the majority of the pipe that's in those utilities. [01:31:19] We're very familiar with all three of the utilities [01:31:22] because utilities are pretty close-knit communities. [01:31:26] We borrow from one another. [01:31:28] We help one another out when there's need to. [01:31:32] We've been connected with these utilities since 1988. [01:31:36] If they had major problems or anything like that, [01:31:41] we would be well aware of that. [01:31:42] That's not the case. [01:31:44] We've just done a painting a system [01:31:47] and the condition of it is identified by city staff [01:31:53] who have gone out and it took a whole month [01:31:57] to be able to go out and just have free reign [01:31:59] over the system to dig it up, [01:32:01] take a look at the different facilities. [01:32:05] In addition, we feel like the city currently [01:32:09] has numerous areas that were, [01:32:13] the system was constructed at the same time [01:32:16] that these utilities were constructed. [01:32:18] It doesn't mean that you're gonna have [01:32:20] a total system failure and say industry standards [01:32:25] or when you say the expected life, [01:32:28] it just means that the potential [01:32:30] for some problems could arise. [01:32:32] And then of course, that's where it comes into play [01:32:34] as far as your maintenance. [01:32:39] And so we feel like the systems are in good enough shape [01:32:42] to where before we started doing any kind [01:32:45] of major repairs or rehabs in it, [01:32:49] that the city would be taking the revenue loan [01:32:54] and everything would be paid off. [01:32:56] We fully expect with discussions [01:32:58] with the finance director and the advisor [01:33:00] that we feel that the revenues, [01:33:03] the net revenues that we can expect [01:33:05] will pretty much cover what we're gonna loan. [01:33:09] So that doesn't impact, [01:33:10] there is no debt to the utility, [01:33:12] so it doesn't impact the existing customer. [01:33:16] The sewer connections, if we were to connect later on, [01:33:20] typically would be assessed to where the residents [01:33:25] would share in that cost of connections. [01:33:28] So we can't forget as well that it kind of helps us [01:33:34] sew up our whole sewer, or not sew up, [01:33:40] our whole service area to where we can start consolidating [01:33:43] almost like annexation, and it gives the utility [01:33:47] in the city a lifetime income, so to speak. [01:33:54] And there is no capital investment as far as having [01:33:59] to take and run any kind of water line to connect. [01:34:04] There's no impact where we have to run [01:34:07] a sewer system to connect. [01:34:09] We're basically taking over three utility systems. [01:34:14] I think when we look at it that way, [01:34:16] and then we look at us wanting to invest [01:34:20] in a smart system, the IPROM meter [01:34:23] that's constructed by Census is known [01:34:26] to be 99.9% accurate in water consumption at low rates. [01:34:31] That's when you start losing most of your income [01:34:35] when it comes to being able to collect revenue [01:34:38] from selling water. [01:34:40] The existing meters that are there, badgers, [01:34:42] we would fully expect that within three years [01:34:44] we'd get our money back just from installing the IPROMs, [01:34:48] and they would pay for themselves. [01:34:50] So I think doing those initial investments [01:34:53] to the system is the same thing that we've just done now [01:34:57] as far as trying to account for every water [01:35:01] that goes out of our pipeline. [01:35:03] And so the bottom line when you mentioned before [01:35:06] about the return on the investment [01:35:07] would be in approximately 11.6 years, is that a? [01:35:11] I expect that to be lower. [01:35:12] That was based upon a 5%, and Mitch can correct me [01:35:17] if I'm wrong, but I think if we're looking at, [01:35:21] if we were to change that and we look at going [01:35:23] to competitive loans, the rates, I believe you got a 2.6 [01:35:27] on the last one that you looked at. [01:35:29] So I think that return on investment [01:35:32] is a broad conservative number, [01:35:36] and I think it would be far less. [01:35:39] Councilman Starkey. [01:35:42] I mean this is, I'll be honest, [01:35:43] this is one of those situations where as a council member [01:35:45] I have to trust staff. [01:35:46] I'm not by any means qualified to say, [01:35:49] especially with all the projections and what is [01:35:51] and what could happen, as to, I'm just not qualified [01:35:54] to say that yeah, we're gonna make money off this, [01:35:56] we need to do it. [01:35:57] My first thought was this is necessary. [01:36:00] Apparently you thought it was, and in the long term [01:36:02] we're gonna, in your opinion, we will make money. [01:36:04] That's why you're trying to acquire these. [01:36:05] But this is tough for us, at least for me [01:36:08] as a council member, I can read these reports [01:36:09] and everything, this isn't what I do for a living. [01:36:12] This is what you do for a living, [01:36:14] and you've done a good job as our department head. [01:36:17] So on this one, I'm gonna trust you. [01:36:20] If you think it's a wise decision and you feel like [01:36:22] we're gonna make money by acquiring these three facilities, [01:36:26] then I'll trust you and go with it [01:36:27] because you've never led me down the wrong road. [01:36:29] You know, I think you're a conservative guy [01:36:31] and I'm gonna have to trust you on this one [01:36:33] because this is not, I'll be honest, [01:36:34] it's not my area of expertise and by any means [01:36:38] pretend that it is, so this is one of those [01:36:40] where we have to, at least I have to trust staff. [01:36:43] Councilman Davis. [01:36:44] I'm right along with you, Jeff. [01:36:46] I learned everything I know from this report. [01:36:49] It's way above my pay scale. [01:36:50] I knew things that I didn't know I knew [01:36:52] or didn't know things that I don't know or whatever. [01:36:55] I just have a couple quick questions. [01:36:58] What do you think, you know, is your possibility [01:37:01] that these people are being interested [01:37:03] in hooking up sewage down the road? [01:37:06] Are they, you know, they've been there 30 years, [01:37:07] 40 years or whatever with septic tanks, are they? [01:37:12] Typically, a homeowner won't go to a sewer system [01:37:17] and pay for that connection unless they have a problem [01:37:21] or unless their system fails. [01:37:23] But rolling out something, you know, [01:37:25] that's gonna take a major investment to roll that out [01:37:27] into the smaller ones, maybe not, [01:37:29] but in the large one, you know. [01:37:31] It would and, you know, my thoughts would be [01:37:34] if we were gonna approach something like that, [01:37:36] it wouldn't be until we had the systems paid off. [01:37:40] All right, and then also you would want [01:37:42] some kind of high percentage of hookup [01:37:44] before you ever went that route. [01:37:46] It would be mandated. [01:37:47] Oh, okay. [01:37:48] It would be all or nothing. [01:37:49] Now, another question, maybe somebody else can speak. [01:37:52] Are any of these communities interested in annexing in? [01:37:57] Does anybody know? [01:37:59] In response to the question, we haven't asked [01:38:01] whether there'd be any interest in annexing, [01:38:03] but it is a possibility as long as we're providing water. [01:38:07] Then they would get cheaper water. [01:38:09] And that would receive a 25% discount. [01:38:13] All right, and then their deposits, [01:38:15] how do they compare to our deposits? [01:38:19] We haven't got to that point yet. [01:38:21] Okay, I just, you know, I mean, I figured they, you. [01:38:24] The only thing that we know that's really in depth [01:38:27] with the whole thing is that if everything stayed [01:38:31] the same the way it is, those residents, [01:38:33] those customers could probably expect a reduction [01:38:37] because the rates that they pay are higher [01:38:39] than what the city charges for people [01:38:43] that are outside the city limits. [01:38:46] But if you all decide to approve us [01:38:49] to issue the notice of intent, then the next step [01:38:52] would be to get all that detailed information [01:38:54] that you're. [01:38:57] Thank you. [01:38:58] Thank you. [01:38:59] Councilman Davis asked the question that I had, [01:39:01] which was about the sewer tie-in, so I'm good. [01:39:05] Entertain a motion? [01:39:06] Move for approval. [01:39:08] Going forward, seconded. [01:39:10] Okay, to the maker. [01:39:11] No, I have my questions, and we have a few more months [01:39:14] to dig through the other elements, [01:39:17] and, you know, we'll find out at that point. [01:39:20] You know, we have an intent that we want to purchase. [01:39:25] Now we take the next steps. [01:39:26] The second. [01:39:28] Councilman, Councilman. [01:39:30] Nothing further, thank you. [01:39:31] No, thank you for answering. [01:39:33] Nothing further. [01:39:34] There's no further discussion. [01:39:36] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:39:38] Aye. [01:39:39] Opposed, like sign. [01:39:41] We are at the time of night when we normally [01:39:43] take about a five minute break, [01:39:44] and so we will come back at 8.45. [01:39:53] Order. [01:39:53] Thank you.

    This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

19. 11.g

    City Manager Performance Evaluation

    tabled

    Council deferred the City Manager's performance evaluation to the next meeting, as members had not had sufficient time to review the evaluation form included at the end of the City Manager report. The Deputy Mayor noted the discussion needs to conclude with salary discussion and a vote, which cannot be done at a work session.

    • motion:Move the City Manager performance evaluation to the next meeting. (passed)

    👤Ms. Manns#Chasco Fiesta#City Manager Performance Evaluation

    ▶ Jump to 1:39:54 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:40:04] The next item on the agenda is the [01:40:06] city manager performance evaluation, [01:40:09] which was at the, the form was at the very end [01:40:13] of the city manager report that came out [01:40:15] on the first day of the Chasto Fiesta. [01:40:21] In the agenda package. [01:40:23] If, what is the pleasure? [01:40:27] Are you guys ready to discuss this, [01:40:28] or do you want to put it to the next meeting? [01:40:31] Well, I, for one, will have to admit that I [01:40:34] made the assumption that it was there [01:40:36] for us to look at now, so it blew past me. [01:40:39] I wouldn't want to hold anything up if it's meaning, [01:40:43] the bottom line is discussion about [01:40:47] evaluation for performance, performance evaluation, [01:40:52] which would serve as a tool for a wage adjustment. [01:40:54] I wouldn't want to hold anything up, [01:40:56] but I think I would, if the rest of you would agree. [01:41:02] But I see some of you have your papers there, [01:41:04] so I'll defer if you want to hold, [01:41:06] if you want to do it to me. [01:41:08] I'd rather do it collectively as a group, [01:41:10] and you know, I just said a favorite phrase [01:41:15] that one of my family members uses on the fly, [01:41:18] so what, if Ms. Manns is amenable, [01:41:22] we could take two more weeks before we do this? [01:41:27] Of course, Mr. Deputy Mayor. [01:41:28] May I suggest we do it at a work session, maybe? [01:41:31] I believe we need to finish it off [01:41:36] with a discussion of salary and voting. [01:41:42] That can't be done at a work session. [01:41:45] We could certainly do it at the next meeting, [01:41:47] if that works. [01:41:49] I'm good either way, but I would certainly [01:41:53] defer to my colleague. [01:41:57] I just move that we move it to the next meeting. [01:41:59] Let's just move it to the next meeting, then. [01:42:01] I appreciate that. [01:42:02] Thank you. [01:42:03] Next is a three-minute report from finance.

    This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

20. 11.h

    Three-Minute Report: Finance

    The Finance department reported on two primary focus items: the ongoing audit of the fiscal year 2015 financial statements, which began the prior week and will continue through May, and preparation for the fiscal year 2017 budget process. A final budget timetable will be presented to City Council as early as the following week.

    #FY15 financial statement audit#FY17 budget preparation

    ▶ Jump to 1:42:08 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:42:08] Good evening. [01:42:10] At this time, what I want to share [01:42:13] are the two primary focus items [01:42:16] that we've been focusing on in the finance department, [01:42:20] one being the audit of the fiscal year 15 [01:42:24] financial statements. [01:42:25] We began the audit last week, [01:42:26] and we will continue to go through it [01:42:30] pretty much through the month of May. [01:42:32] The other item is preparing for the fiscal year 17 [01:42:36] budget preparation process. [01:42:38] The city manager and I have met [01:42:40] to come up with an appropriate calendar [01:42:42] or a timeline of the process, [01:42:46] and a final timetable will be presented [01:42:48] to city council as early as next week. [01:42:53] Thank you.

    This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

21. 11.i

    Three-Minute Report: Fire

    discussed

    Fire department gave its three-minute activity report covering call volume (1,369 calls since Jan 1), inspections, new hires, awards, and community involvement. Mayor questioned why staffing has not improved to a consistent seven-person shift since January; staff agreed to report back.

    • direction:Fire department to report back to the Mayor on why shift staffing has not increased to a consistent seven-person crew since January. (none)

    🏢American Legion🏢VFW (local post)👤Chris👤Davis👤Debbie👤Rob Springer👤Robert Lachance👤Rory Hokanson👤Rustin Hammes👤Tim👤Wayne Lawson#Chasco events / golf tournament#County EOC mock disaster drill#Fire station replacement project#Ladder truck refurbishment in Daytona

    ▶ Jump to 1:42:55 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:42:55] Three-minute report from fire. [01:42:59] Good evening. [01:43:00] I just got a brief report here. [01:43:03] To go over the activity report since January 1st, [01:43:07] our fire department has responded to 1,369 total calls, [01:43:12] which include all emergency-type calls. [01:43:15] We have conducted 189 monthly building inspections, [01:43:18] 10 business tax receipts, and 25 plan reviews. [01:43:22] As you know, recently, at the last city council meeting, [01:43:26] we added two new full-time firefighters to the vacancies, [01:43:30] and they were sworn in on April 5th, [01:43:32] Robert Lachance and Wayne Lawson. [01:43:35] This year's Firefighter of the Year Award, [01:43:38] presented by our local VFW, went to Rob Springer, [01:43:42] and EMT of the Year Award went to Rustin Hammes [01:43:46] back in February. [01:43:48] The VFW post had a nice award ceremony [01:43:51] recognizing our two firefighters, [01:43:53] along with some police officers from the city [01:43:55] and other recipients from other local organizations. [01:44:00] An article and pictures were posted [01:44:02] on the fire department's and city's Facebook page. [01:44:05] I'd like to announce that Firefighter Rory Hokanson [01:44:09] was recently recognized for 25 years of service [01:44:14] on the fire department with a service pin. [01:44:16] He retired as a full-time career firefighter back in 2006 [01:44:22] and returned in 2009 as a part-time firefighter. [01:44:25] We are pleased to have his knowledge and wisdom [01:44:29] in our ranks to help in mentoring our younger firefighters. [01:44:33] Our 21-year-old ladder truck is currently in Daytona, [01:44:37] getting a new paint job and lettering [01:44:39] to match our other trucks that we have in the fleet, [01:44:43] and as well as a reflective Chevron on the back. [01:44:48] And just to let you know, it also recently passed [01:44:51] its required ladder testing by an outside agency. [01:44:55] The fire station replacement project [01:44:57] is still in the planning stages [01:44:59] with the architect. [01:45:00] firm looking at different designs and to figure out what will best meet our needs [01:45:06] long-term. Several recent community involvements that we've been a part of. [01:45:14] We assisted teaching our local American Legion host here in the city that [01:45:20] received an AED which is an automatic external defibrillator like we have on [01:45:24] the hallways here in City Hall. We taught all of their staff an orientation [01:45:30] process on how to use that and we are also continuing that orientation process [01:45:39] and CPR training for any city employee or department that needs it. We provided [01:45:46] personnel throughout the week of Chasco during the major events with firefighter [01:45:50] paramedics on our Gator. They responded to several incidents and the fire [01:45:55] department represented the city well in the annual Chasco golf tournament which [01:45:59] was a great event. Last but not least, we are active in working with the [01:46:07] county's EOC. We participated in a mock disaster drill. We represented the [01:46:12] city with Public Works and Police Department in preparation for any [01:46:17] possible natural disaster and we worked well with the other outside agencies and [01:46:24] the unified command structure. That's all I have. Thank you. Any questions? Yeah, I [01:46:29] have some. As you know, I had the attendance or the schedule put into our [01:46:40] Friday report and the reason I had that put in there was that when I came [01:46:44] board three years ago, we were running on a steady five-man crew and we didn't [01:46:51] have the staff and so I went to bat for the fire department to make it a [01:46:56] seven-man force on each shift and when I met with you Chris and Tim and Debbie [01:47:04] in January, you gave me some reasons that we weren't running in the seven-man [01:47:09] staff, those two, but you also said you had eight people that were qualified as [01:47:17] a volunteer or as part-timers, part-timers and you needed 11 so you [01:47:23] were working on getting that and then the numbers that I got in January, I [01:47:29] don't really see a major change in the numbers in February and March. You know, [01:47:33] we still run some five-man shifts. We had a lot of six-man shifts and I work for [01:47:38] the citizens and I want a seven-man staff as often as possible. You know, a [01:47:43] rarity that I would see not a seven-man staff. So I would wonder why hasn't [01:47:48] anything changed pretty much since January. [01:47:53] We'll report back to you, Davis, with the response. [01:48:00] Other questions? If it's okay with my colleagues, I'm going to suggest that we

    This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

22. 12Communications▶ 1:48:06
23. 13Adjournment▶ 1:48:22