Council appointed Timothy P. Driscoll as City Attorney for a one-year term and ordered abatement of an unsafe structure at 5820 Missouri Avenue.
15 items on the agenda · 10 decisions recorded
On the agenda
- 1Call to Order – Roll Call▶ 0:00
- 2
Pledge of Allegiance
Pledge of Allegiance and moment of silence in honor of servicemen and women.
▶ Jump to 0:17 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:00:17] Thank you. [00:00:18] You can all stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance and remain standing [00:00:22] for a moment of silence in honor of our servicemen and women at home and abroad. [00:00:25] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the [00:00:32] Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with
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
Moment of Silence
Procedural moment of silence following the Pledge of Allegiance.
▶ Jump to 0:37 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:00:37] 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.
- 4
Regular Meeting Minutes and CIP Work Session Minutes - August 16, 2016
approvedCouncil approved the regular meeting minutes and CIP work session minutes from August 16, 2016.
- motion:Approve the regular meeting minutes and CIP work session minutes from August 16, 2016. (passed)
▶ Jump to 0:45 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:00:45] Thank you. [00:00:45] You may be seated. [00:00:45] The next item is approval of the regular meeting minutes and the CIP work [00:00:56] session from August 16th. [00:00:58] Move for approval. [00:00:58] Second. [00:00:59] We have a motion and a second. [00:01:01] Any discussion? [00:01:02] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:01:05] Aye. [00:01:05] Opposed? [00:01:06] Like 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.
- 5
Special Recognition of New Port Richey Police Department Sergeant Christopher Trapnell
The City Manager and Police Chief recognized Sergeant Christopher Trapnell for bravery during an off-duty incident on June 9th, in which he spotted, pursued, and detained Brandon Goggins—a fugitive wanted on multiple violent charges—until Pasco Sheriff's deputies arrived. A certificate of recognition was presented.
Hayes Road, approximately 200 feet north of State Road 52State Road 52 approaching Hayes RoadNew Port Richey Police DepartmentPasco Sheriff's OfficeBrandon GogginsChristopher TrapnellMs. ManzOff-duty apprehension of Brandon Goggins, June 9▶ Jump to 1:07 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:01:07] Next is special recognition, New Port Richey Police Department Sergeant. [00:01:11] Ms. Manz. [00:01:11] Mr. Mayor, members of the council. [00:01:14] I've asked the police chief to make a presentation to you this evening in [00:01:19] relationship to an off-duty response on the part of Sergeant Trapnell, who is a [00:01:28] very valued member of our department, does something each and every day to make [00:01:32] us proud in his service to the city. [00:01:36] In this particular case, as I indicated, he was off-duty, and I'd like the chief [00:01:40] to tell the story of that incident, please. [00:01:44] Thank you for giving me this opportunity to address you, and it certainly is my [00:01:52] pleasure to bring to your attention an incident that happened on June 9th. [00:01:58] And on June 9th, the Pasco Sheriff's Office initiated an extensive 21-hour [00:02:03] manhunt to locate a criminal by the name of Brandon Goggins. [00:02:09] Goggins, who had fled from deputies, was wanted on charges of aggravated battery [00:02:13] with a deadly weapon, false imprisonment, possession of methamphetamine, and [00:02:18] vehicle theft. [00:02:19] Goggins had also threatened to shoot a law enforcement officer. [00:02:23] Due to the potential threat to the community, the manhunt continued nonstop [00:02:27] and involved many deputies in support from the area law enforcement agencies. [00:02:33] Just before noon the next day, Sergeant Trapnell, who was off-duty in his [00:02:37] personal vehicle with his two children, with his two young children, was [00:02:42] traveling on State Road 52 approaching Hayes Road. [00:02:46] He noticed a subject who he already knew, and because he had dealt with him in the [00:02:52] city, he recognized Goggins' scale of fence along State Road 52 and run into a [00:02:57] wooded area. [00:02:58] While attempting to keep Goggins in sight, Sergeant Trapnell paralleled the fence [00:03:02] line along Hayes Road and called 911 for backup assistance. [00:03:07] Approximately 200 feet north of State Road 52, Goggins emerged from the woods [00:03:12] and jumped the fence back onto Hayes Road. [00:03:15] At that time, Sergeant Trapnell locked his children in his car and confronted [00:03:21] Goggins to detain him. [00:03:22] Goggins jumped the fence and ran back into the woods. [00:03:26] Sergeant Trapnell challenged Goggins again, this time at gunpoint. [00:03:30] Goggins surrendered by lying on the ground, and Sergeant Trapnell held him at [00:03:34] gunpoint until deputies arrived and took him into custody. [00:03:38] The Sheriff's Office recently recognized Sergeant Trapnell for his bravery and for [00:03:44] his taking this off-duty action, and I think it's an outstanding example of one [00:03:50] of our police officers doing their duty, even when it's really unusual [00:03:56] circumstances. [00:03:57] And it sounds like, from what I know of this entire incident, he absolutely did a [00:04:02] commendable thing. [00:04:03] So with that, I have an award, this certificate, that I'd like to present to [00:04:07] him, and certainly give you an opportunity to show your appreciation. [00:04:12] Thank you so much. [00:04:23] Why don't you get the rest of the staff, put your leadership down. [00:04:34] Okay, lieutenants. [00:04:59] Thank you. [00:05:00] Thank you. [00:05:02] Thank you, Sergeant Trapnell. [00:05:05] Awesome.
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.
- 6Vox Pop for Items Not Listed on the Agenda or Listed on Consent Agenda▶ 5:14
- 7.a
Purchases/Payments for City Council Approval
approvedon consentCouncil approved the consent agenda with the police pension board minutes pulled for separate discussion.
- motion:Motion to approve the remainder of the consent agenda after pulling the police pension board minutes for discussion. (passed)
▶ Jump to 5:33 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:05:33] Next item is the consent agenda. [00:05:35] Move for approval, and I'd like to pull the police pension board minutes to [00:05:39] discuss. [00:05:41] So I'd make a motion for the remainder of the consent agenda. [00:05:44] Second. [00:05:45] We have a motion and a second. [00:05:47] All in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:05:49] Aye. [00:05:50] Opposed, like sign. [00:05:51] Next is police and pension board minutes.
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.b
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes - June 14, 2016
approvedon consentParks and Recreation Advisory Board minutes from June 14, 2016 were approved as part of the consent agenda.
- motion:Approve the remainder of the consent agenda (including the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board minutes), with the police pension board minutes pulled for separate discussion. (passed)
▶ Jump to 5:33 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:05:33] Next item is the consent agenda. [00:05:35] Move for approval, and I'd like to pull the police pension board minutes to [00:05:39] discuss. [00:05:41] So I'd make a motion for the remainder of the consent agenda. [00:05:44] Second. [00:05:45] We have a motion and a second. [00:05:47] All in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:05:49] Aye. [00:05:50] Opposed, like sign. [00:05:51] Next is police and pension board minutes.
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.c
You arrived here from a search for “Police Pension Fund” — transcript expanded below
Police Pension Board Minutes - July 26, 2016
approvedon consentCouncil accepted the Police Pension Board minutes from July 26, 2016, but the Deputy Mayor expressed significant concerns about the board's functioning, the size and performance of the pension fund, consultant agreements being signed, and the fact that the board tasked the City Manager with an assignment. She requested that representatives from the pension board come before council to provide more information, given that any underperformance of the fund becomes a council obligation to make up.
- motion:Motion to accept the Police Pension Board minutes of July 26, 2016, with a request that the board reach out to council. (passed)
▶ Jump to 5:53 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:05:53] Deputy Mayor. [00:05:56] We have these in our consent agenda, and we have an opportunity to read [00:05:59] through them. [00:06:01] This is the third or fourth time that we've had a series of information [00:06:07] provided to us through these minutes, and there's a number of items in these [00:06:12] minutes that create, in my mind, elements that I think we need more [00:06:20] information on. [00:06:22] We need to understand better how that board is functioning. [00:06:27] But over and above that is in reading the minutes this time, and they had an [00:06:33] overview, and I've talked previously about how they've utilizing their [00:06:38] consultants and the merging of two into one, and some of the things that have [00:06:43] come before them. [00:06:45] I believe that because of the size of this fund, and unfortunately in this [00:06:51] minutes, at least I tried to read through it to see what the value of that [00:06:58] fund is, and I couldn't find that documented amount. [00:07:01] It has to be fairly substantial. [00:07:04] Obviously, the performance of that particular fund and that pension fund, [00:07:09] because of our obligation to our officers and to what we have obligated [00:07:15] ourselves, not only in the past officers, but future officers, and over and [00:07:22] above that, Ms. Manns was in attendance at that meeting, and they actually [00:07:26] tasked her with an assignment, and I think if they want to task our city [00:07:32] manager with items to do, please have someone from the board come see us so [00:07:38] that we can task her appropriately. [00:07:42] I encourage you to read those minutes, and especially, they're making major [00:07:50] decisions on those consultant agreements that are paying fees, not only to the [00:07:59] financial groups, but also to the attorneys. [00:08:03] They have three of the consultants come to see us to make their presentation, [00:08:09] and any amount of money that there's an underperformance of this fund, we have [00:08:15] to make it up as a council. [00:08:17] At the end of the day, we're in the middle of going into budgets. [00:08:21] I don't know going forward what potential obligations, and from some of the [00:08:27] minutes, it indicates that there was some extended recovery. [00:08:34] There was underperformance. [00:08:35] They dropped some groups out of the fund, and they have some others. [00:08:40] With those kind of dollars, and also in our consent agenda night, there were [00:08:44] two of our monthly payments that we're obligated to make. [00:08:49] I'm just wanting to have someone from the board, or the attorney, or someone, [00:08:56] please come to us, because if this is underfunded, we have to make up the [00:09:00] difference, and they're also signing these contracts with these financial [00:09:08] consultants, and I don't know that you're signing those contracts, Mr. [00:09:11] Mayor, and I don't know to what obligation they're to be. [00:09:15] If we're giving those away on our collective bargaining agreements, we at [00:09:19] least need to know what the representation elements are, because, as I [00:09:24] said, at the end of the day, when it underperforms because of the way that [00:09:29] the money is there, it comes back to us to make up the difference. [00:09:33] To me, if we don't have a clear understanding, I don't know that we're [00:09:38] providing all of the guidance and what we need to do from our position as [00:09:43] city council people. [00:09:46] With that, I'd make a motion that the minutes be accepted, but I wanted to [00:09:50] make sure that we at least talked about it again. [00:09:53] Thank you. [00:09:54] Do we have a motion? [00:09:56] I'll second it, and I'd like them to reach out to us. [00:10:01] Thank you. [00:10:02] Any further discussion? [00:10:04] Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:10:07] Aye. [00:10:08] Opposed, the like 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.
- 8.a
Recommendation of City Attorney - Timothy P. Driscoll, Esq.
approvedCouncil appointed Timothy P. Driscoll of the firm Goddard, Steele, Reynolds, and Driscoll as the new City Attorney for a one-year term, filling the seat vacated by Judge Poblik. The City Manager recommended Driscoll after an RFP process that drew seven firms and four finalist interviews.
- motion:Motion to approve the appointment of Timothy P. Driscoll as City Attorney for a one-year period. (passed)
Goddard, Steele, Reynolds, and DriscollJudge PoblikMs. MimsTimothy P. DriscollRFP issued July 27, 2016 for City Attorney services▶ Jump to 10:10 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:10:10] Next item is a recommendation for a city attorney. [00:10:12] Ms. Mims? [00:10:13] Mr. Mayor, members of the city council, the purpose of this agenda item is to [00:10:19] fill the seat that was vacated by Circuit Court Judge Poblik, and in that [00:10:24] respect, the city issued a request for proposals on July 27th, 2016. [00:10:32] We enjoyed a good response to that request, having seven firms submit their [00:10:39] qualifications to the city for consideration. [00:10:43] In that regard, interviews were scheduled and conducted with the four [00:10:49] top-rated firms. [00:10:53] Mr. Driscoll, representing the firm of Roddard, Steele, Reynolds, and [00:10:58] Driscoll, is the recommendation that I have for you this evening. [00:11:04] He has experience both in the cities of Gulfport and St. Pete Beach in terms [00:11:09] of serving as a municipal city attorney. [00:11:12] He also has experience as a special magistrate in both South Pasadena and [00:11:18] St. Petersburg. [00:11:20] In the opinion of the staff, he is well qualified and suited to perform in all [00:11:25] legal litigation and administrative matters related to the city, and we are [00:11:29] asking for your consideration in that regard of his appointment this evening [00:11:34] for a one-year period of time. [00:11:36] Thank you. [00:11:37] Seeing no one, I'll open it up for public comment. [00:11:39] Seeing no one, come forward and bring it back to council. [00:11:42] Move for approval. [00:11:43] We have a motion. [00:11:46] Second. [00:11:47] Second. [00:11:48] To the maker? [00:11:49] Nothing. [00:11:50] To the second? [00:11:51] No, I trust Ms. Manns in picking her staff, and I think she's not let us [00:11:55] down, so I look forward to working with Mr. Driscoll. [00:11:58] Councilwoman? [00:12:00] Yes, I would agree. [00:12:01] I have every confidence in Ms. Manns' ability to choose an attorney. [00:12:05] I'm glad to see that he is coming from cities that are similar to ours and [00:12:09] had some of the issues that we've been dealing with, so I appreciate that you [00:12:13] took that into consideration. [00:12:16] Thank you. [00:12:17] Deputy Mayor? [00:12:18] No, I'm fine. [00:12:19] Thank you. [00:12:20] Likewise. [00:12:21] If there's no further discussion, all those in favor, please signify by [00:12:23] saying aye. [00:12:24] Aye. [00:12:25] Opposed? [00:12:26] Like sign. [00:12:27] Motion passes.
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.b
Non-Emergency Resolution #2016-17 - Abatement and Removal of Unsafe Structure at 5427 Tangerine Drive
discussedCouncil conducted a quasi-judicial hearing on Resolution 2016-17 to declare the fire-damaged structure at 5427 Tangerine Drive an unsafe nuisance and authorize abatement. The owner, Jim Robertson, appeared and asked for more time to sell the property to an investor. Council discussed the process, noting the owner could pull a demolition permit and request an extension from the city manager if making good-faith progress.
Ord. Resolution 2016-17
- direction:Council discussed adopting Resolution 2016-17 declaring the structure at 5427 Tangerine Drive a nuisance with a date certain of September 30th for abatement, with the owner free to pull permits and seek an extension from the city manager. (none)
5427 Tangerine DriveDavisJim EbbetsJim RobertsonLisa PierceStarkeyFlorida Building Code 50 percent ruleNon-Emergency Resolution 2016-17non-emergency condemnation▶ Jump to 12:28 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:12:28] Next is non-emergency resolution 2016-17. [00:12:32] Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, the purpose of this item is to [00:12:39] conduct a quasi-judicial proceeding related to damage and a designation of [00:12:46] an unsafe structure at 5427 Tangerine Drive, and Mrs. Pierce will be [00:12:51] representing the city on this matter. [00:12:54] Let me just make a comment. [00:12:57] As it's been indicated to you, this is quasi-judicial, but additionally, this [00:13:04] one and the other one that follows it, your ordinance says that you have to [00:13:09] specify a date certain upon which the action will be taken, which can be no [00:13:16] sooner than 16 days after the date of your resolution. [00:13:19] So, why it says that, I'm not sure, but that's what it says. [00:13:23] So, talking with Lisa Pierce, we're suggesting that your resolutions state [00:13:32] that the demolition or abatement will occur on September 30th. [00:13:39] That would be in both of these resolutions. [00:13:42] Thank you. [00:13:44] Yes, thank you. [00:13:48] The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Tangerine Drive [00:14:05] and Alamanda Drive, and by code, City Council may declare a damaged [00:14:11] structure to be a nuisance and authorize the abatement through [00:14:15] non-emergency condemnation. [00:14:18] The property, you can see the damage to the extent that was caused by the fire. [00:14:25] It's evident in these photographs. [00:14:28] Staff worked through all the procedures required in the code, including [00:14:33] posting the property with a condemnation notice, sending certified mail to [00:14:38] property owners and interested parties, and advertising the condemnation [00:14:42] and this hearing in the local newspaper. [00:14:45] To date, we've had no response from any owner or any interested party. [00:14:49] No one has taken responsibility. [00:14:52] So, tonight we're seeking approval of the resolution declaring the structure [00:14:55] as a nuisance, and as the city attorney indicated, [00:15:00] estate to abate would be September 30th. Thank you. I believe at this point it would be appropriate [00:15:06] to ask if the property owner is in attendance, if you'd like to come forward and say anything. [00:15:13] Please give us your name and address for the record. Also I want to announce that Jim Ebbets [00:15:18] is here tonight, the building official, in case you have any specific questions relative [00:15:23] to the structure. Thank you. Yes sir. I'm Jim Robertson, I'm the owner of the 5427 Tangerine [00:15:28] Drive property. And what I would like there, my hands have been kind of tied on this, there [00:15:35] was no insurance on the property, I had a squatter, I was trying to get evicted and [00:15:38] as a going away president they burned down the house. So I was in the process of purchasing [00:15:44] another house, which I have done, and my hands were tied with a shed issue, there's a shed [00:15:50] on this property. And I didn't want to sell it, I've been talking to some investor type [00:15:56] people that would go in there and do something with the property, but I don't want to do [00:16:00] that until I resolve the issue with the shed. I couldn't do the issue with the shed because [00:16:04] I'm months behind on my new shed being put up, which was finally done. Now I'm waiting [00:16:09] for an electrician to finish it out, so I can finish on, I was there today as a matter [00:16:13] of fact, mow the property, and moved some more stuff out of that shed into my new home's [00:16:19] shed. So what I'd like to see is if I could get some more time before you guys decide [00:16:26] to do what you want to do, you know, see if I can sell the property, or maybe question [00:16:31] more on what you have in mind. Would the city be interested in purchasing the property? [00:16:40] Thank you. Any questions for the property owner? [00:16:47] Why didn't you comment back on any of the letters and stuff that were, when they tried [00:16:53] to contact you? [00:16:54] It really didn't, it's, yeah, these are a little bit complicated for somebody that doesn't [00:16:59] normally go through this. [00:17:00] Well, I mean, you could just call them. [00:17:02] I didn't even realize there was a thing on there until I was reviewing it today. I just [00:17:07] thought I'd come down to this meeting and see what was going on here. [00:17:10] How long ago was the fire? [00:17:13] June 30th. [00:17:15] I've had my hands busy trying to move and do everything else, and I was doing the legal [00:17:20] aspects of this, trying to pursue legal manners against the people that burn it down, with [00:17:25] no avail. So, I had my hands full. [00:17:32] And you're, so what you're asking is if we, if there's a chance to extend the time, are [00:17:40] you going to make any cleanup, any improvements, or are you just trying to sell it, have somebody [00:17:44] else come in, take the liability, do what they need to do? [00:17:49] Because our history in this neighborhood, unfortunately, is we've had other landlords [00:17:55] that have exhausted our patience, not that you have, but they have, and it's created [00:18:03] detrimental quality of life for their neighbors, and that's the reason this ordinance came [00:18:12] into existence about a year and a half, two years ago, so that we could begin to identify [00:18:16] some of these properties. And of course, when you don't respond back, we take that as abandonment [00:18:24] or do whatever, so we've gotten into a formality of going through the process to make sure [00:18:31] that we can address that, not only for safety in the neighborhood, but also for clarity [00:18:37] for what we have there. So, but right now, you're asking us to give you an extension, [00:18:44] but not make any improvements or do anything from a sales standpoint? I'm just trying to [00:18:50] understand what you're doing. [00:18:51] Well, that's, yeah, as what I'm looking at now is a couple options that I had before [00:18:55] this became a time, I didn't realize it was going to be such a short period of time involved [00:19:01] with it. The two issues that I had is that I thought that I had was, one, I could either [00:19:06] sell the property to an investor, which I've had a couple offers on, not much to speak [00:19:10] of, or remove the building myself, and when things cooled down, I had a little more time [00:19:17] to do that, and then sit on the land and try to resell the land once the building was removed. [00:19:25] Then I didn't know, even if you guys removed the building, what would the bill be for that, [00:19:32] and would that be held until the property was sold, and then that would be removed from [00:19:37] it? [00:19:40] You're saying pretty much what's going to happen. [00:19:42] Okay. [00:19:44] I suggest that you take it down yourself. I mean, you really pretty much haven't tried [00:19:49] to communicate with us the way I see it, and you're thinking your options as you're talking [00:19:54] to us, more than... [00:19:55] No, I've thought about the options except for the last part. I just didn't realize it [00:19:59] was going to come up so fast. I thought this was just the beginning of the process. With [00:20:07] everything else, it seems like a legal process takes forever, so I didn't get in a rush. [00:20:11] When I tried to get the person evicted, that was taking forever. I tried to do all the [00:20:16] legal processes, and it cost me thousands of dollars, and I got a house burned down [00:20:20] for it. [00:20:20] How many times did we try to contact him? How many different letters? [00:20:24] I mean, I can speak to the two notices were in the newspapers required by law, as well [00:20:29] as the certified mail, and I can't speak to whether we received the card back. I think [00:20:35] also attempts were made to make phone calls, but again, without any response back. [00:20:38] Well, I've never... [00:20:39] And then, of course, we post the property with our name and our phone number, so in [00:20:42] case you visit the property, you can see who to contact. [00:20:46] Mr. Mayor. [00:20:46] Yes, sir. [00:20:47] I'd like to point out that the code also provides that if the owner or an interested [00:20:55] party shall obtain a building or demolition period within the specified time period, which [00:20:59] here is September 30th, and in good faith promptly begin work, comply, and abate the [00:21:05] nuisance, but they can't, it appears they could not complete it by the date specified, [00:21:10] they can file for a written request with the city manager for an extension. If reasonable [00:21:15] grounds are shown, the city manager may issue extensions not to exceed 60 days. Exceptional [00:21:21] cases, the manager may extend it by 30 days. So what the code, I think, contemplates is [00:21:26] if you take this action and you specify September 30th, that leaves the owner free to go ahead [00:21:33] and pull permits and attempt to abate it, and if the owner is making progress along [00:21:39] that line within that time period, the owner can apply to the city manager to extend the [00:21:44] time period if he shows good cause. The city manager is not required to grant that extension. [00:21:51] So in other words, there's a safety valve, but obviously it contemplates that the owner [00:21:55] should be the one to take the structure down, only as a last resort, obviously, then the [00:22:01] city's got to do it. [00:22:05] The other reason it was identified, you asked us a question, so we'll answer it, because [00:22:10] it's in the memorandum. It basically says if we go in and have to incur those costs, [00:22:15] it's about $6,000 estimated. So Mr. Davis, the way I understand it is if we give the [00:22:24] date of September 30th, he could go about getting his permit to demolish it or to make [00:22:31] improvements, and then if early before that date he could submit a request for extension [00:22:38] to the manager. Is that the way that I understand the target points? [00:22:44] That's the process. What the code says, he's got to show reasonable grounds, which I would [00:22:49] think means that not just pulling a permit, he's got to actually be doing something, and [00:22:54] then the manager could consider that. [00:22:56] Would it be appropriate for me to ask for substantially affected parties as well? [00:23:04] Yes, if there are any, yes. [00:23:06] Are there any substantially affected parties in the audience? Any members of the general [00:23:14] public who wish to address counsel on this? Hearing none, Mr. Starkey. [00:23:23] So this house is not repairable. Are we clear on that, or we're not clear on that? [00:23:28] Everything's repairable with enough time and money, I would say, but it presented itself [00:23:32] with such a condition that it warranted a non-emergency condemnation. [00:23:37] And the people that you've been speaking to as far as possibly purchasing the property, [00:23:41] are they looking to demolish it and start from scratch? Do they want you to demolish [00:23:45] it, or are they saying, we're going to buy it and repair it? [00:23:48] Actually the best offer that I had, and I can't remember the gentleman's name off the [00:23:50] top of my head, but I can get into contact with him easy enough, that offered the most [00:23:55] so far says he'll rebuild the home. He says he flips 50 homes a year, and his crew will [00:24:00] come in and rebuild that home. [00:24:00] This is quite a flipper, though, from what I can see in the pictures. [00:24:02] Yeah, it is. I was kind of surprised of his answer. [00:24:05] The only other thing that I don't understand is, once again, you understand we're up here [00:24:09] to protect the neighborhood as well. If this was next door to my house, this is going to [00:24:13] invite kids that could get hurt in there. It's going to invite drug addicts. It's going [00:24:17] to invite vagrants. No one wants that next door. [00:24:19] Well, it's boarded up. Nobody wants to go in it, trust me. Nobody wants to go in it. [00:24:23] It's got all the stuff on the ground that stays wet, so it needs to be addressed. [00:24:27] Well, vacant buildings attract criminal activity at the bottom of it. [00:24:30] I almost had my hands tied because I didn't feel comfortable selling the property until [00:24:34] I was able to get that shed. [00:24:37] That's another thing I'm a little confused about. I mean, the fact that you didn't reply [00:24:40] to the city at all, and then what does it deal with the shed? Why can't you sell a property [00:24:44] because it has a shed on it? I mean, were you using it for storage? You couldn't move [00:24:48] it anywhere else? [00:24:49] Right, right. [00:24:50] To me, that's not really a good excuse. It's just my opinion. You can run a storage unit. [00:24:54] You're a landlord. I'm sorry this happened to you. It's a horrible thing that happened [00:24:58] to you. I understand you're trying to get these squatters out of your house. That must [00:25:01] be an extremely, extremely frustrating situation to go through, trying to get people kicked [00:25:06] out, spending thousands of dollars. You don't carry insurance. Obviously, you learned that [00:25:10] lesson. You know, if you're going to rent homes to people. [00:25:12] Well, I was going to sell it and let everything turn bad quickly. [00:25:15] Yeah, it takes half a second for something like this to happen. [00:25:17] So I guess the issues that I have are, number one, I don't know if this is repairable. And [00:25:21] then if we give you an extension, you do sell it to somebody, what if they drag their feet [00:25:26] and it looks like this for another six months before they start working on it? I'm looking [00:25:30] out for the neighborhood as well, but we're not trying to come down too harsh on you either. [00:25:36] I just want you to kind of get it from our point of view because you're not the first [00:25:40] person that stood here and fought for your rights, and I understand that. But this looks [00:25:46] like it's pretty much this house is done. I mean, just from the photos, I'm not a contractor, [00:25:50] but I would think it would cost more to repair this than it would just to level and build [00:25:55] a new home. But I guess that's where I'm at. I'm not buying the shed thing because [00:25:59] of the storage in the shed. That's not a reason to not be able to sell a home in my opinion, [00:26:03] but... [00:26:04] Well, if the city tears it down, then they're going to have to spend the $6,000 to tear [00:26:08] it down. [00:26:09] Right, and then we're going to lien you, and then when you sell it, we'll get our six million [00:26:11] back. [00:26:12] Right. So their money is going to be tied up until the property is sold, which could [00:26:15] be 10 years down the road. There's a property that's probably not too far away from there [00:26:20] that the house was demolished, and it's been sitting there for years for sale. [00:26:23] And in the meantime, the neighbors don't have a burned down house next door as well [00:26:26] though. [00:26:27] But you have to consider that you're going to be tying up $6,000 a year instead of giving [00:26:34] me a couple more months. [00:26:36] Councilwoman? [00:26:37] Well, that was my next question is, what time frame, if we had not connected with you, what [00:26:43] were you looking to do? [00:26:44] I'm really so close. Like I said, the electrician is not giving me... I've got the building [00:26:48] now. They finally completed that. It was months behind. So I'm waiting for the electrician [00:26:51] to finish. [00:26:52] But I've already, because I told the electrician, look, I can't wait anymore. I'm getting pushed [00:26:55] on this. So it would be easier to wire the building without it being packed full. But [00:27:00] he says, okay, just keep it away from the wall. So I've been in the process of moving [00:27:04] that stuff out. [00:27:05] I've already got the place on 19 that sells sheds that I bought my shed from that's going [00:27:10] to sell that shed. And I just didn't feel comfortable selling the property until that [00:27:16] shed because I'm going to get more money off that shed than I will off the property. [00:27:19] So I'm trying to recoup as much as I can. That did me financial hardship to lose that [00:27:25] home. [00:27:26] Okay. [00:27:27] Of course it did. [00:27:28] So I'm trying to do the best I can under the circumstances and recoup as much as I can [00:27:35] before I let go of that property. So once I get it set, I've already got, there's at [00:27:40] least two investors that's already made me offers on the property. All I have to do is [00:27:44] call them and say, okay, cheers. But I didn't feel comfortable doing that until I got the [00:27:50] shed removed because I'm just trying to cover my butt because every time I don't, somebody [00:27:54] burns it. [00:27:55] Councilman Davis. [00:27:56] I just have a question for some, maybe some way this direction. If we get, if, if he sells [00:28:04] the property before, let's say the 30th, you know, are we back to square one on the, on [00:28:11] the, on the taking repair of this place and fixing this place up? [00:28:15] No, you, if you issue your, if you issue this resolution, which is the demolition order, [00:28:21] then that's a matter of public record. Somebody buys it, they buy it subject to that. [00:28:26] Okay. So it would still. [00:28:28] Okay. And just for the record, I haven't even been offered 6,000. The best I've been offered [00:28:32] is five for the, for the house. So if you guys go in there and spend six on it, that [00:28:36] means you're going to be stuck with it for a long time. [00:28:38] Did you, this really doesn't have anything to do with that. [00:28:40] Well, you got a chance to flip it over and make a nice home. [00:28:43] Yeah. I understand the financial aspect of it, but do you rent to these people? They [00:28:47] just moved in. [00:28:48] It was. [00:28:49] I'm just curious. [00:28:50] The person that I, that burned it down was supposed to be buying it. And I let, I made [00:28:54] a mistake of letting them in there two days before the sale of the house. [00:28:59] Once I let them in there because I was a trusting person doing, then they turned into a squatter. [00:29:05] So then I had to go to the legal process to get them out because they informed me, they [00:29:09] said, well, they laughed right in my face. We've been here for more than five days. Now [00:29:13] you've got to follow the legal eviction process. [00:29:15] I was just curious if there were tenants because we had a gentleman in here. [00:29:17] No, there weren't tenants. [00:29:18] The last person we, we had to review this type of situation on, had their house burned [00:29:23] as well. So I'm just trying to fathom what kind of people these people are, you know, [00:29:28] landlords are renting to or selling to. Were they're coming in and burning your house down? [00:29:32] You would think. [00:29:33] I actually think it was a, it was a scam thing after I put all pieces of the puzzle [00:29:37] together, that they were going to try to collect insurance from the contents. There [00:29:41] are the loss of contents, but they couldn't do that either. [00:29:45] Okay. So your, your objective here is to sell it. So you're, you're on board where it needs [00:29:51] to be demolished either way. Correct. And I personally think it's be worth more once it [00:29:55] is demolished, whether you burn it or not. [00:29:56] Well, no, no. There's where we disagree because I have a gentleman in the. [00:30:00] the best offer. He's $5,000 and he said he'll rebuild that property. So you want [00:30:04] to buy it as is? As is. To rebuild it? Yep. And the city's okay with that? It is [00:30:10] rebuildable? It's not a flood zone where it's damaged 150 percent, has to be [00:30:14] elevated, anything like that? The normal person couldn't do it, but he's done it [00:30:17] enough. He knows all the red tape to go through to get it done. It's not in a [00:30:22] FEMA rated flood zone then? No sir, it's not. Okay. This is Jim Eddits. I'm the [00:30:26] building official and the floodplain manager for the city. From what we could [00:30:30] see, it was more than 50 percent, but it's not the FEMA 50 percent, it's the [00:30:34] Florida Building Code 50 percent, which means that everything in the house would [00:30:37] have to come up to code. The reason we were looking at such a high cost was the [00:30:42] value of the property. From the tax assessor, we add 20 percent to that. That [00:30:47] gives us a number of what the property is worth. When the value of to repair it [00:30:52] is estimated being more than what that is, it becomes a 50 percent rule. At that [00:30:57] point, everything has to come up to code. What is the value? I don't have it [00:31:03] off the top of my head. I believe it was $23,000 for the actual structure, I [00:31:07] believe. And also, if you have that there, what is the value of the property? Not [00:31:14] what you're going to sell it for, but what's the value of the property? And that's why [00:31:17] we add 20 percent to the tax appraisal. Right. That was a number that they've [00:31:20] used quite some time in the area. And if I might ask... The building? Go ahead. The [00:31:29] building is $22,627 on the tax assessors, and then we add 20 percent to that, which [00:31:35] would be $4,534. So it would be $27 something, and it was going to take more [00:31:42] than $13,000, $14,000. Was on that sheet there what the value of the property is? [00:31:47] The total value of the property is... No, not with the building, just the property, the [00:31:51] land. The land is $8,580. So if I could ask a question. So if we were to move [00:32:05] forward on the resolution to demolish, for us to take down the house, and he [00:32:09] were to put in writing a request to pull the permits, that puts our thing, the [00:32:16] clock is still ticking until the 30th, and if he is able to either get this [00:32:21] problem resolved, whether it's that he sells the property or... Because it sounds [00:32:26] like you're wanting to sell the property, not keep it yourself. Yeah. Does that... If he [00:32:33] then sells the property prior to the 30th, does it need to be this... The [00:32:38] closing has to take place, or that he's got a, you know, a contract in hand and [00:32:45] it's moving forward, etc.? Well, here, once you take, once you adopt this resolution, [00:32:52] assume you specified September 30th as the date, doesn't have to be that date. [00:32:57] You can pick another date, as long as it's 16 days out, but then at any time [00:33:04] during that time period, he can pull a permit. Actually, he can pull a permit now. He [00:33:09] doesn't need anybody's permission. He can come in and get a permit, but then the [00:33:14] code says if he pulls a permit and he's making good faith, has good cause, [00:33:21] which means that he's doing something other than just has the permit, [00:33:26] presumably some action taken on the permit. And the permit would be a permit to do what? [00:33:31] Well, it could be a permit to demolish. Oh, okay. Could be a permit to rebuild, but I [00:33:35] think what the code contemplates is more than just a permit. Then, if it takes [00:33:40] longer than September 30th, then he can apply to the city manager, and if good [00:33:44] cause is shown, the city manager has the authority to grant an extension. Not [00:33:49] required to, but has that authority. And I would think that the city manager might, [00:33:55] in exercising that discretion, the city manager might want, in addition to [00:34:01] him showing good cause, the city manager might want to have a contract with him [00:34:05] that specifies, yeah, I'm going to take X, Y, Z action. I'm going to do it by these [00:34:12] dates. If I were advising the city manager at that point, which I won't be, [00:34:17] that's what I would tell her to do, is if you're going to give him an extension, [00:34:21] get an enforceable agreement from him that he's going to actually do [00:34:25] this stuff. So, yeah, it's built into the code. There's a lot [00:34:31] of things that can be done, other than just having the city tear it down. [00:34:38] And then, once again, if we did approve the resolution and he sells it, say, to [00:34:43] the gentleman who says he's going to rehab it, how does that affect what we [00:34:48] voted on today? I guess what I want to prevent is, whether [00:34:55] we approve a resolution or give an extension tonight, him selling it to a [00:34:59] gentleman, we're not starting all over again with that new gentleman. [00:35:02] That's what he said. It's still the date of the 30th. That's what he said. [00:35:06] No, you don't have to start over again. Right. [00:35:09] Now. The resolution runs with the land, correct? [00:35:11] Well, well. We will record it tomorrow, if you. [00:35:14] The resolution. Right. And then, in terms of imposing the [00:35:16] lien, the lien is a separate process that occurs later. [00:35:21] And so, whomever owns the property at that point would be notified of the [00:35:27] hearing to impose the lien. But this resolution is to demolish, correct? [00:35:31] This is demolish. This is not to impose the lien. [00:35:33] Right. But you have the authority later to impose [00:35:35] the lien. Right. [00:35:36] But I guess my concern, then, is if he sells to this guy who says he's going to [00:35:40] rebuild the home or rehab the home, we pass a resolution to demolish it. [00:35:45] Is that what you're saying, then? Does it negate that option? [00:35:47] But, at the same point, you can come back. If he sold it, let's just take a [00:35:53] what if. If he sold it any time before the demolition date where we come in, [00:36:00] or where it's demolished, whoever has the obligation has all of those rights [00:36:07] that are in that ordinance to submit a request to the city manager under good [00:36:13] faith, and if the person's bought it, is going to rehab it, then we're going to [00:36:18] enter into some agreement. She's going to take counsel from our counsel on how [00:36:24] to respond, and at the end of the day, she gets to make a business decision, [00:36:31] whether it's you or the person you sell it to. So, in essence, it travels with [00:36:36] the property. It doesn't go away unless there's total inaction, and then you [00:36:42] either tear it down, or on that date, we mobilize, tear it down, and then take [00:36:47] the steps appropriate from there, correct? Correct. All right. I'm okay with [00:36:51] that, then. Then I'd make a motion. Here's the motion. Make the [00:36:59] motion to adopt the resolution. I'm willing to, since you've come to see us, [00:37:05] extend that date basically one extra week. 30 days. No. And what he said, he said [00:37:14] the minimum date I could set is September 30. I could set it out further, [00:37:19] so because you've come to speak with us, and there's some dynamics here, I'm [00:37:24] willing to offer the date of September the 7th, which is one week later than [00:37:29] what we could do. October 7th. October 7th, and that way it'll allow you those [00:37:35] extra days to show good faith one way or the other. That's my motion. [00:37:41] You have a motion? We have multiple seconds. I'll second it. Thank you, Jeff. Go ahead. Yes, you know, and one of my [00:37:52] constituents, I mean, my colleague said a minute ago, you know, unfortunately, we've [00:37:56] been burned. Me personally, having seconded another issue somewhere else, so [00:38:00] taking all the pieces together, I'm trusting that you have good [00:38:06] faith to see that this is accomplished as well, and on that basis, I [00:38:11] will agree to this. Councilman Starkey? No further comments. Thanks for showing up [00:38:15] tonight and pleading your story. We appreciate it. Now, for further [00:38:19] information on this matter, this is the lady I need to be contacting. [00:38:25] I get a business card or something? Thank you all. Thank you. Come see us when you get notices. [00:38:32] Any further discussion? Come see us when you get notices. Yeah, the people that got [00:38:38] notices, a lot of them showed up a week ago Tuesday. They came and saw us for two [00:38:43] and a half hours. There's no further discussion. All those in favor of the motion, please [00:38:49] signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Motion passes. Next is a non-emergency
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.c
Non-Emergency Resolution #2016-21 - Abatement and Removal of Unsafe Structure at 5820 Missouri Avenue
approvedCouncil held a quasi-judicial hearing on Resolution #2016-21 to declare the structure at 5820 Missouri Avenue a nuisance after vehicle damage on May 23, 2016. Lien investors Brigitte and Kim Ballard, awaiting a tax deed auction on September 29, 2016, asked for additional time to potentially acquire and rehabilitate the property. Council approved the resolution with an amended effective date of October 28, 2016 to allow the Ballards time after the auction.
Ord. Resolution 2016-21
- motion:Approve Resolution #2016-21 declaring the structure at 5820 Missouri Avenue a nuisance, with the effective date amended to October 28, 2016. (passed)
160 Fairway Point Circle, Orlando, Florida5820 Missouri AvenueBrigitte BallardCouncilman PhillipsKim BallardMr. DavisMr. StarkMr. SullivanMs. Spears50% rule (code compliance threshold)Non-emergency condemnationPasco County tax deed auction (September 29, 2016)Resolution #2016-21▶ Jump to 38:55 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:38:55] resolution 2016-21. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, this agenda item relates to [00:39:03] the property situated at 5820 Missouri Avenue. It also is a quasi-judicial [00:39:09] proceeding, at which time the city is asking you to consider declaring the [00:39:15] structure to be a nuisance and authorizing the building official to [00:39:18] take appropriate specific action at a time certain, but in no case sooner than [00:39:23] September 30th, 2016. Mrs. Spears? This is quasi-judicial, so Ms. Spears? This property is located at the [00:39:35] southeast corner of Missouri Avenue and Adams Street, and again the council is [00:39:41] able to declare structures that are damaged to be nuisances and authorize the [00:39:46] abatement through non-emergency condemnation. In this case, there was [00:39:51] damage to the structure as the result of a vehicle that crashed into it. [00:39:58] Staff posted the property. Staff notified the owners and interested parties via [00:40:04] certified mail. Staff published the notice of the hearing and the [00:40:10] condemnation in the newspaper as required, and also tried to make contact [00:40:14] through the telephone and again had no response. So with the last, as with the [00:40:20] last case, we're seeking approval of the resolution declaring the structure as a [00:40:24] nuisance. Thank you, and this is a quasi-judicial hearing. Is the [00:40:30] property owner in attendance? Do we have anybody that is a substantially affected [00:40:36] party who would like to address council? Please come forward. [00:40:41] My husband and I drove from Orlando, Florida for this hearing. We have [00:40:55] called the county. We have called the several phone numbers. We are investors [00:41:00] and we live in Orlando, Florida, and we have purchased several liens in [00:41:06] Pasco County, and we are in the process of sending the property to the deed [00:41:11] auction. The deed auction has been scheduled for the 29th of September, and [00:41:19] what we would ask, because we are not owners of the property, so obviously we [00:41:24] are not going to invest money to fix a property that doesn't belong to us. So [00:41:29] what we would like to see is a little bit more time. We applied for the deed [00:41:34] in 2014, so that was over two years ago, and now the Pasco County told us that [00:41:42] they were extremely busy. They were behind and this and that, so the deed [00:41:48] auction is now going to take place on the 29th of September. Now, had they done [00:41:53] it within six months to a year, maybe even a year and a half, then this [00:41:58] situation would not have arisen. So what we would like to have happened is for [00:42:07] the City Council to give us more time to see, first of all, if we are going to [00:42:14] be owners of the property or not, so then we can take the appropriate steps to put [00:42:20] the property back on the tax roll, and that's basically it. [00:42:30] Can you give a name and address? Yes, we have a name and address for the record, please. [00:42:33] My name and address? Yes. Brigitte and Kim Ballard, and we live at 160 Fairway Point Circle in [00:42:40] Orlando, Florida. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other substantially affected [00:42:46] parties? Any members of the general public? Seeing no one else come forward, [00:42:54] I'm going to bring it back to Council. You've had the tax deeds for a couple [00:42:58] years then? We bought the liens, and we paid... More than a couple of years. Yes. [00:43:03] The application went in two years ago. That means two years prior to that we bought the lien. [00:43:10] When was this building hit? May 23rd, 2016. [00:43:17] Is there anybody living in it at the time? No, it has been empty for a long time. [00:43:24] My first question was going to be, is Mr. Sullivan still alive? Because it [00:43:29] shows he owns the property since 1986, and I'm like him or his family or [00:43:33] whatever, but if that being the case, and because of the date being the 29th, and [00:43:41] it was just hit in May, I would make a motion that we have the resolution and [00:43:52] the effective date be September the 14th, which is a Friday. That would give you [00:43:59] almost two weeks. I mean October. I got my months wrong. I'm sorry. October the [00:44:03] 14th, at which time staff can bring back and we can do the execution, but [00:44:10] the 14th to allow you to get past that date, because it sounds like the [00:44:15] wheels of justice. I don't want to call it justice, because it's been two [00:44:19] years or more, but we would much rather have you take a house in our inner [00:44:25] core and to fix it back up, because you seem to be, you drove all the way from [00:44:30] Orlando to come to New Port Richey, so I am not opposed to giving him two weeks. [00:44:38] Could we have more than two weeks? Can I ask you a question? That's until October 14th, so you've got the rest of October. [00:44:45] I understand, but could we have until the end of October? Because we've been waiting over two years, three years actually. [00:44:50] We've had to float the taxes to accompany that delay. [00:44:55] You've yet to say what are your plans for the house? [00:45:00] Well, at the tax deduction, two things will happen. Either somebody will bid for the house and get it, or if nobody does, then we will own the property and we will fix the property. [00:45:11] And then do what? Run it out? Flip it? I mean, you're planning on upgrading it, though, I hope, because other than just the property itself and the photos I look like just look horrible. [00:45:19] So, I just, I'm asking you, you plan on fixing the house if you buy it? [00:45:23] Yes, we will fix it and either sell it or rent it. We will return it to a good working order and tax-paying property. [00:45:32] Yeah, I agree with Councilman Phillips. [00:45:35] And realize that the only reason that this got expedited is because it got hit on May 24th. [00:45:41] If it hadn't been hit to trigger the ordinance elements, it probably wouldn't be in front of us as a dwelling or whatever that meets those benchmarks. [00:45:54] And we thought, oh, darn, what is happening? [00:45:57] What is your percentage on this house? [00:46:01] We were looking at this as also being a 50%. [00:46:04] We would not object at all to this, but once it reaches 50%, it has to be brought up to code. [00:46:14] It's not in a floodplain, but it may have more structural damage than we can actually see because we could not get access. [00:46:20] And we couldn't get anyone to respond to us about the value, about what the house was. [00:46:26] The building on this one is $28,225. [00:46:29] So you add 20% to that, which would be $5,600. [00:46:33] So it would be $34,000. [00:46:36] So it's $17,000. [00:46:38] Anything over $17,000 spent on the building would have to be – the entire building would have to be brought up to code. [00:46:44] Wiring, plumbing, A.C., everything. [00:46:51] I'm going to – I just took a look at the calendar here. [00:46:54] And I wouldn't mind – I wouldn't have a problem giving them to the end of the month. [00:47:02] And the reason being we have next council meeting is like the 1st or 2nd or 3rd of November. [00:47:09] End of October then? [00:47:10] Yeah. [00:47:11] Is that okay? [00:47:12] Yeah, I'll take that. [00:47:13] Absolutely. [00:47:14] I mean, anything that's not shorter than that, I'm okay with that change. [00:47:18] We have a motion accepted to the – [00:47:21] Let's use the 28th because that's a Friday. [00:47:24] And then that will give them enough notice we can put it on the agenda for the 1st. [00:47:30] That would be enough for you? [00:47:31] Yes, sir. [00:47:32] I would take that in the form of a second. [00:47:36] Mr. Davis? [00:47:37] Sure. [00:47:38] I mean – [00:47:39] Second on the amendment, right. [00:47:42] We have a motion and a second to the maker. [00:47:45] Any further discussion? [00:47:46] No, just when you go back to Orlando, tell them how nice we are to work with over here, please. [00:47:49] Because we get hit a lot about some things. [00:47:52] But we appreciate you coming over, explaining the situation. [00:47:55] And we look forward to you owning the house and then making necessary improvements. [00:47:59] Good luck at the auction. [00:48:00] Councilman Davis? [00:48:01] We did ask a question about if the demolition were to go forward, would that add to our cost? [00:48:09] Because we've had to float the house to get it to the auction. [00:48:13] Well, it depends on whether you do it or we do it. [00:48:15] Well, if you added the $6,000, would we have to pay that to get it to the auction? [00:48:20] Well, you're getting it to the auction now, so we don't have to worry about that right now. [00:48:25] Mr. Stark, anything? [00:48:27] Nothing further. [00:48:28] Get their cards if you have any questions. [00:48:31] I think you already talked to him. [00:48:32] Oh, yeah. [00:48:33] I've been calling. [00:48:34] Yeah, because we have a daughter that we're putting through medical school. [00:48:37] And we have a lot of expenses. [00:48:39] So it's like, oh, no, we don't want to lose that money. [00:48:43] This is a great town. [00:48:44] We have a great hospital in town, by the way. [00:48:47] She's a graduate. [00:48:48] Yeah, she's going to perform neurosurgery. [00:48:51] Hey, we're selling. [00:48:53] I'm marketing. [00:48:54] We look forward to you being successful in obtaining the property that is a core area of our community. [00:49:01] And we look forward to turning it into a darling residence. [00:49:05] Yes, and we look forward to that, too. [00:49:07] Thank you very much. [00:49:08] If there's no further discussion, all those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. [00:49:11] Aye. [00:49:12] Opposed? [00:49:13] Like sign. [00:49:14] Thank you. [00:49:15] Good luck. [00:49:16] Thank you 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.
- 8.d
2016 Report on Repetitive Loss Floodplain Management Plan
approvedStaff presented the 2016 progress report on the Repetitive Loss Floodplain Management Plan, required to maintain participation in the National Flood Insurance Program's Community Rating System, which provides a 20% discount to local flood insurance policyholders. Council discussed accomplishments including stormwater enforcement, debris removal, and property acquisitions near Gray Preserve, and accepted the report.
- motion:Move to accept the 2016 report on the Repetitive Loss Floodplain Management Plan. (passed)
end of Congress Street near the Gray PreserveNational Flood Insurance ProgramPasco County Office of Emergency ManagementC.T. BowenCouncilman DavisGus BilirakisMrs. FierceMs. Manns2016 Repetitive Loss Floodplain Management PlanBigger Waters Flood Insurance ActGray PreserveNational Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System▶ Jump to 49:17 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:49:17] Next is the 2016 report on repetitive loss floodplain management plan. [00:49:22] How on earth did you schedule this before last week? [00:49:27] You didn't bring it to us in the spring. [00:49:28] You brought it to us right in the middle, right in the heart of hurricane season. [00:49:33] Well, it's timely then that we have a progress report for you on our continued credit under the National Flood Insurance Program's community rating system. [00:49:43] Mrs. Fierce, are you prepared to present the report? [00:49:47] Sure. [00:49:48] It's very brief. [00:49:49] You hear from me this time every year on this one. [00:49:51] This is our progress report that we have to send to the state. [00:49:55] And as Ms. Manns mentioned, it provides a continued involvement with the National Flood Insurance Program's community rating system, [00:50:04] which does give the flood insurance policyholders in this community a 20 percent discount. [00:50:10] The report notes several of the accomplishments that we've had over the past year. [00:50:16] We continue to enforce the stormwater regulations through our development review committee. [00:50:21] We have removed 50 tons of debris through our biannual cleanup efforts. [00:50:27] City Council purchased a couple properties at the end of the Congress Street near the Gray Preserve that are in the coastal high hazard area, [00:50:38] which will be used for parkland. [00:50:41] And we've now transferred some of the entitlements out of there, and that gives us credit as well through this report. [00:50:48] And, of course, we continue to participate with the county's Office of Emergency Management, [00:50:53] all of which keeps us in good stead with the state. [00:50:57] So we are seeking your adoption, and we look forward to the state. [00:51:02] Any public comment? [00:51:05] Seeing none, I'll come forward and bring it back to Council. [00:51:07] Move for approval. [00:51:08] Move to accept the report. [00:51:10] Second. [00:51:11] To the maker. [00:51:12] We have to keep doing what we're doing to stay in good standing with the National Flood Insurance Program. [00:51:16] But this is my opinion. [00:51:18] I ride a lot of flood insurance, and I think we're going to be seeing some pretty drastic changes in the near future with flood insurance. [00:51:25] In the state of Florida, I was up here with county commissioners and people fighting, [00:51:30] Congressman Bilirakis, I think, spearheaded the meeting, [00:51:33] fighting against that Bigger Waters Flood Insurance Act that they passed, [00:51:37] which is absolutely just insane, the rates that they were looking to impose right away for new purchases. [00:51:44] But the bottom line is, just for the public's knowledge, [00:51:47] the loss ratio for flood to the National Flood Insurance Program in the state of Florida has been around 30 percent since the 1970s. [00:51:54] That is the lowest loss. [00:51:56] If you were in the home or auto or any insurance industry, 30 percent is just so, so low. [00:52:02] Yet the National Flood Insurance Program continues to squeeze us and squeeze us and squeeze us to make up for losses throughout the rest of the nation. [00:52:11] Our rates, they call them subsidized rates. [00:52:13] I don't think they're subsidized at all. [00:52:15] I personally don't. [00:52:16] There's already one carrier out there that is state-backed, an admitted flood carrier, [00:52:20] that's riding flood policies in the state of Florida right now, backed by the state. [00:52:24] It's not an endorsement. [00:52:25] It's a standalone product. [00:52:26] I think we're going to see more and more and more of that. [00:52:29] But our rates to the NFIP, we still have to stay in good standings with them, and we want to continue to do that. [00:52:34] But they're going to keep going up and up and up and up. [00:52:37] There's no cap on these rates with NFIP. [00:52:39] And the rates, like I said, based on the loss ratio that Floridians have had since the 70s [00:52:44] and the rates they continue to charge us and the increased rates that are projected are through the roof. [00:52:49] So I'm just letting the public know I'm in the industry. [00:52:51] I think you're going to see a lot more options for flood insurance that are state-backed, just state of Florida specific. [00:52:57] There's already one out there. [00:52:58] There's other homeowners companies that are offering endorsements for flood insurance [00:53:02] if you have your home insured through that carrier, which in West Pasco they might not be riding in high flood-prone areas. [00:53:08] But once again, yes, we need to stay in good standing. [00:53:10] But I think you're going to see some drastic changes in the near future. [00:53:14] Thank you, Councilman. [00:53:15] To the second. [00:53:17] No, I just think we need to do a pretty good job of communicating this to the public, [00:53:23] that the actions that we've taken and the things that we've done with our stormwater improvement [00:53:28] and our interaction not only locally but with the county that it entitles. [00:53:33] It's helped our community with the savings and obviously 20% against flood insurance policies. [00:53:39] So those are a lot of things along with our fire rating and everything else. [00:53:44] Those are things that people never see. [00:53:46] I call that what's below the iceberg. [00:53:49] It's that big part below that all the things that we do collectively, [00:53:53] that if it wasn't done from a city or from a council or perspective with staff, [00:54:01] that number could be substantially higher because of some of the inaction [00:54:06] instead of some of the actions that we have taken. [00:54:09] So it has had benefit to the residents of New Port Richey. [00:54:15] Councilman Davis? [00:54:17] Councilman? [00:54:19] Yeah, I would just echo it. [00:54:21] The city of New Port Richey started this plan almost 20 years ago, back in 1998 as I was reading. [00:54:28] We've had a stormwater assessment that's been going on, I suspect, for probably almost as long, if not as long. [00:54:35] A good part of the reason that we did not have the serious problems in New Port Richey [00:54:41] that other parts of Pasco County had is because we have been proactive. [00:54:45] We've had a stormwater assessment. [00:54:47] We've gone out and fixed drainage problems. [00:54:50] We haven't just kicked the can down the road decade after decade after decade. [00:54:56] Last year, last fall, C.T. Bowen reported that there was almost $100 million worth of deferred stormwater work in Pasco County. [00:55:08] They just never bothered to get around to it. [00:55:10] Nobody wanted to tell the citizens of unincorporated Pasco County the truth, [00:55:17] which is you've got to pay to fix this stuff if you don't want to have floods [00:55:22] every time there's a high tide or a tropical storm or anything else. [00:55:27] We'll give credit to previous city councils and previous city administrators [00:55:36] because they had the foresight to actually do things right for the last couple of decades, [00:55:41] and that's the reason New Port Richey made it through the last week as well as we did, [00:55:46] particularly in comparison to some of the other places. [00:55:51] If there's no further discussion on this, all those in favor, please signify by saying 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.
- 9Communications▶ 55:55
- 10Adjournment▶ 1:03:06