On the agenda

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

   Pledge of Allegiance

   Council recited the Pledge of Allegiance and observed a moment of silence for servicemen and women.

   ▶ Jump to 0:17 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:18] and remain standing for a moment of silence in honor of our servicemen and women, [00:00:22] home and abroad. [00:00:24] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America [00:00:28] and to the republic for which it stands, [00:00:31] one nation under God, indivisible, [00:00:34] 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

   Moment of silence in honor of servicemen and women, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

   ▶ Jump to 0:18 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:18] and remain standing for a moment of silence in honor of our servicemen and women, [00:00:22] home and abroad. [00:00:24] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America [00:00:28] and to the republic for which it stands, [00:00:31] one nation under God, indivisible, [00:00:34] 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.

4. 4

   Approval of October 18, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes

   approved

   Council approved the minutes of the October 18, 2016 regular meeting on a voice vote.

   • motion:Motion to approve the October 18, 2016 regular meeting minutes. (passed)

   ▶ Jump to 0:42 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:42] Thank you. You may be seated. [00:00:47] The first item on the agenda is the approval of the October 18th regular meeting minutes. [00:00:51] Move for approval. [00:00:53] Second. [00:00:54] Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:00:57] Aye. [00:00:59] Opposed, 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. 5

   Proclamation - World Pancreatic Cancer Day

   approved

   Mayor Rob Marlow proclaimed November 17th as World Pancreatic Cancer Day in the City of New Port Richey. Representatives from the Tampa Bay affiliate of the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PANCAN) accepted the proclamation, with survivor Suzy Swenson sharing her story and noting November as National Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month.

   • direction:Mayor proclaimed November 17, 2016 as World Pancreatic Cancer Day in the City of New Port Richey. (passed)

   🏢Pancreatic Cancer Action Network👤Joanne👤Perry Swenson👤Richard Marlow👤Rob Marlow👤Suzy Swenson#National Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month#Whipple procedure#World Pancreatic Cancer Day

   ▶ Jump to 1:01 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:01:01] Next item is a proclamation on World Pancreatic Cancer Day. [00:01:05] We've got some representatives who would meet me at the podium, please. [00:01:24] Whereas in 2016 an estimated 53,000 people in the United States will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, [00:01:31] one of the deadliest cancers, and 41,780 will die from the disease, [00:01:36] and whereas pancreatic cancer surpassed breast cancer this year to become the third leading cause of cancer death [00:01:43] in the United States and is projected to become the second leading cause by 2020, [00:01:49] and whereas pancreatic cancer is the only major cancer with a five-year relative survival rate [00:01:54] in the single digits at just 8%, [00:01:57] and whereas the symptoms of pancreatic cancer present themselves that is generally in the later stages, [00:02:02] and 71% of pancreatic cancer patients die within the first year of their diagnosis, [00:02:08] whereas approximately 3,000 deaths will occur in Florida in 2016, [00:02:13] whereas pancreatic cancer is the seventh most common cause of cancer-related death in men and women across the world, [00:02:19] there will be an estimated 418,451 new pancreatic cancer cases diagnosed worldwide by 2020, [00:02:30] and whereas the good health and well-being of the residents of the city of New Port Richey are enhanced [00:02:33] as a direct result of increased awareness about pancreatic cancer [00:02:37] and research into the early detection causes and effective treatments, [00:02:42] now I, therefore, Rob Marlow, Mayor of the City of New Port Richey, [00:02:45] do hereby honor and recognize November 17th as World Pancreatic Cancer Day in the City of New Port Richey [00:02:52] and do call upon all of our residents to increase their awareness of this tragic disease [00:02:57] and support those who are currently fighting the battle against this disease. [00:03:03] And as I told these folks when they got here before the meeting, my own brother, Richard, [00:03:13] passed away at 26 complications of surgery after he had his pancreas removed. [00:03:19] So if you'd like to say a few words. [00:03:25] I hope you can hear me. [00:03:28] Mayor Marlow and council members, we thank you so very much. [00:03:33] We are here. [00:03:36] My name is Suzy Swenson. [00:03:39] My husband, Perry, and Joanne, we are representatives of the Tampa Bay affiliate [00:03:42] of the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, and the short term for that is PANCAN. [00:03:48] And PANCAN is a national organization that puts on fundraising events, [00:03:54] gathers researchers, doctors, and try to come up with some answers. [00:04:00] We're looking for researchers to find early detection. [00:04:03] We're looking for researchers to find a cure for this disease. [00:04:08] I am a pancreatic cancer survivor. [00:04:11] In December of 2013, I was diagnosed. [00:04:14] And I had my surgery. [00:04:17] And the surgery you were talking about earlier, I had, it was called a Whipple. [00:04:22] And I now have half of a pancreas. [00:04:25] I'm one of the very few that can stand here before you today. [00:04:30] The survival rate is 8% to live beyond five years. [00:04:38] That means in January, I have an 8% chance to live another two years. [00:04:46] Just to kind of narrow down some of the statistics that were mentioned from the proclamation. [00:04:51] Florida is second in the nation in terms of cancer-related deaths from pancreatic cancer. [00:05:00] In the nation, pancreatic cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths. [00:05:06] In the state of Florida, it's number two. [00:05:11] And in just a little over three years, it will be number one. [00:05:14] 2020, that's what the projection is. [00:05:19] For half of all of us who are here today, and for those who cannot be here today, [00:05:24] because they have succumbed to the cancer, we thank you very much from the bottom of our hearts. [00:05:29] And as you can tell, we are all in purple. [00:05:32] There are many shades of purple. [00:05:35] So we ask you to go through your closet and find whatever shade of purple you can find. [00:05:40] For the month of November is National Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month. [00:05:45] March 17th is World Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Day. [00:05:50] We thank you. [00:05:57] Just so you know, there's people at home watching, too.

   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

   Proclamation - National Adoption Month

   approved

   Mayor Rob Marlow read a proclamation declaring November as National Adoption Month and recognizing November 4th as National Adoption Day in the City of New Port Richey. Megan Slaughter, Outreach and Event Coordinator with the Hart Gallery of Pinellas and Pasco, accepted the proclamation and spoke about the gallery's 10-year history and its 301 adoptions to date.

   🏢Hart Gallery of Pinellas and Pasco🏢Recreation and Aquatic Center👤Gerald Ford👤Megan Slaughter👤Mike Dukakis👤Rob Marlow#HartGalleryKids.org#National Adoption Day#National Adoption Month

   ▶ Jump to 6:08 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:06:08] Next item on the agenda is Proclamation for National Adoption Month. [00:06:13] Are we getting the audience here to receive this? [00:06:18] We do, Mayor. [00:06:23] We have Ms. Megan Slaughter, who is the Outreach and Event Coordinator with the Hart Gallery for Pasco Pinellas. [00:06:32] Whereas the first major effort to promote awareness of the need for adoptive families for children in the foster care system [00:06:38] occurred in Massachusetts in 1976 by then Governor Mike Dukakis, who proclaimed Adoption Week [00:06:45] with the idea then grew into popularity, spread throughout the nation. [00:06:50] And whereas President Gerald Ford was the first to issue a National Adoption Week proclamation in 1990, [00:06:57] the week was expanded to a month due to the number of states participating and the number of events. [00:07:02] And whereas National Adoption Month gives voice to children who are still waiting for the opportunity to celebrate the bond [00:07:08] that unites adopted parents with their sons and daughters. [00:07:13] And whereas the City of New Port Richey recognizes that all children need love, support, security, and a place to call home. [00:07:20] And whereas the Hart Gallery of Pinellas in Pasco is a museum-quality exhibit of professional portraits featuring the faces [00:07:26] and stories of foster children seeking adoptive forever families. [00:07:32] And where it is the hope that the visitors to the Hart Gallery will be touched and will take steps towards adoption or sponsorship. [00:07:39] And whereas at the present time there are 88 children in foster care in Pasco and Pinellas, [00:07:45] with 39 of them in the Hart Gallery of Pinellas and Pasco. [00:07:50] And whereas there are 169 children throughout Florida and the many families who have already adopted children deserve [00:07:56] and require agency and community support in the days and years ahead. [00:08:01] Now therefore, I, Rob Marlow, Mayor of the City of New Port Richey, do hereby proclaim the month of November as National Adoption Month [00:08:07] in the City of New Port Richey and also recognize November 4th as the National Adoption Day [00:08:13] and urge all residents to join in a national effort to raise awareness about the importance of adoption. [00:08:20] Thank you. [00:08:25] Would you like to say a few words? [00:08:30] Yes. Thank you very much. [00:08:35] The Hart Gallery of Pinellas and Pasco has been around for 10 years. [00:08:40] We celebrated our 10-year anniversary this summer and our 300th and 301st adoption. [00:08:45] The children on our gallery are generally the kids who have been in the foster care system the longest, [00:08:50] so larger sibling groups, older children, and then children with medical needs. [00:08:56] And our goal is to prevent children from aging out of the foster care system without a family. [00:09:01] Statistics show that once a child ages out of the foster care system, [00:09:06] they have less than a 3% chance of completing a college degree, [00:09:11] a high school diploma, or a GED. [00:09:16] Drug use is higher. Teenage pregnancy is higher. [00:09:21] So our goal is to find every child their forever family, [00:09:26] and we have found that you never stop needing a family. [00:09:31] So thank you very much for this. We are very appreciative. [00:09:36] We have hosted the Hart Gallery several times. [00:09:41] It was hosted at our Recreation and Aquatic Center, [00:09:46] and you can currently go to their website, HartGalleryKids.org, [00:09:51] and view the 41 children that are currently in that gallery and that are looking for forever homes. [00:09:56] 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.

7. 7

   Audit Presentation of FY15 Financial Statements

   discussed

   Auditors Andrew Laughlin and Sue Pagan from Clifton, Larson, and Allen presented results of the FY15 financial statement audit, reporting an unmodified opinion but identifying two material weaknesses (2015-001 on transaction review/account reconciliation and 2015-002 on payroll segregation of duties), several uncorrected prior year findings, and a modified opinion on investment compliance under FL Statute 218.415. Multiple findings related to delayed reconciliations, utility billing rate errors, IT security policies, budget amendment timing, and PCI compliance were discussed.

   🏢Clifton, Larson, and Allen🏢Florida Retirement System (FRS)👤Andrew Laughlin👤Debbie👤Jim Barton👤Mr. Davis👤Sue Pagan#FY15 CAFR#Finding 2014-01 (red light camera cash account)#Finding 2014-03 (bank reconciliations)#Finding 2014-05 (financial reporting/closing process)#Finding 2014-06 (investment policy non-compliance)#Finding 2015-001 (transaction review and account reconciliation)#Finding 2015-002 (payroll processing segregation of duties)#Finding 2015-03 (compliance with Florida statutes on budget)#Finding 2015-04 (consideration of IT controls)#Firefighter and Police Officers Retirement System#Florida Statute 218.415 (investment compliance)#GASB 68 (pension accounting standard)#MLC14 (IT security policies)#MLC3 and MLC4 (improper utility rates billed)#PCI DSS compliance#Single audit threshold ($500,000 federal/state; $750,000 under uniform guidance)

   ▶ Jump to 10:01 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:10:01] Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, [00:10:06] we have two representatives from Clifton, Larson, and Allen here this evening. [00:10:11] We have Sue Pagan and Andrew Laughlin that will provide our financial report. Thank you. [00:10:16] Good evening. I'm Andrew Laughlin. [00:10:21] I'm the Engagement Principal with Clifton, Larson, and Allen. With me is my manager, Sue Pagan. [00:10:26] She was our senior on the engagement. [00:10:31] We also had Jim Barton. [00:10:36] He was our IT auditor that reviewed the general controls and application controls surrounding IT on the audit, [00:10:41] and that's your core audit team for the four of us. [00:10:46] Today I'm just going to give you a presentation this evening on kind of the results of the audit as we currently stand. [00:10:51] We're in the early stages of the audit, and then the CAFR draft preparation stage, [00:10:56] final reviews, tying all loose ends to get this thing finalized and issued in the near future. [00:11:01] So at least now I have something to report to you all in the way of some of our findings that we encountered during the audit, [00:11:06] and also I'll give you some financial results from the information we've compiled thus far in the financial statements. [00:11:14] So that's my plan here for this evening, and of course I'll field any questions that you all might have along the way. [00:11:22] So just to give you kind of an overview of the reports that we render, [00:11:28] we render a report on the financial statements, and then there's also a compliance aspect to our audit. [00:11:33] The biggest aspect to what we audit from a compliance standpoint is in the single audit. [00:11:40] However, the city did not expend the minimum necessary that would mandate a single audit. [00:11:45] That threshold is $500,000 for both federal expenditures, [00:11:50] or expenditures of federal awards, and on the state side, [00:11:55] expending state awards of $500,000 or more would necessitate a state single audit. [00:12:02] The city was below that $500,000 threshold for both federal and state for the fiscal year, [00:12:07] and it's September 3, 2015, so we did not need to perform a single audit. [00:12:12] We will continually evaluate that each year. [00:12:17] The guidelines at the federal level under the adoption of the uniform guidance now, [00:12:23] subpart F of that guidance says it's now $750,000 threshold, [00:12:29] so when we go and evaluate this for 2016, that threshold will have raised. [00:12:34] So our compliance work that we actually opine on and report on is actually an examination report [00:12:39] that we perform with Section 218.415 Florida Statutes, that's on investment compliance. [00:12:45] So I'll give you all the results on that shortly. [00:12:50] So that's the type of the audit that we do. We do a financial statement audit. [00:12:55] Hey, are the numbers in the financial statements, are they complete and accurate, [00:13:00] and can we give them a modified opinion on that, and then we do a compliance audit. [00:13:05] So the reports that we deliver here are these five that you see. [00:13:10] These five statements are accurately presented within all material respects, and we opine on that. [00:13:15] In the draft reports that you have, we're showing an unmodified opinion. [00:13:20] We also have a, which means that we agree, yes, the numbers are accurately stated. [00:13:25] We also have a report on internal control over financial reporting and on compliance and other matters. [00:13:30] This is basically where we evaluate the internal controls of the city, [00:13:35] on the financial processes, so looking at the city's closing process, [00:13:40] how they compile financial information, how they present it, is it accurate, [00:13:45] what are their controls around that process. [00:13:50] And then we also dig into each of their transaction processing cycles. [00:13:55] So how do you receive, generate revenues, collect those revenues and receipts, how do you record them, [00:14:00] how do we process payroll, do we do it accurately, are there controls in place around the processing of payroll. [00:14:05] And then what I call AP disbursements, accounts payable, so when we have to pay vendors, what are their controls around that. [00:14:11] So those are the primary significant account transaction processes that we look at [00:14:16] and evaluate the controls around those, and if there are any deficiencies, we will report them to you. [00:14:21] The management letter is another required report that's required by the Florida General. [00:14:26] The main thing on that is if we didn't find anything in number two report that was material, [00:14:31] what we call either material weakness or significant deficiency, [00:14:36] but it might be a recommendation to improve financial management, we would report those findings in that management letter. [00:14:41] Communication of governance is just a letter that we present to you, kind of giving you an overview of the audit, [00:14:46] any significant accounting policies or estimates that we encountered this year, [00:14:51] any difficulties dealing with management, any significant uncorrected misstatements or corrected misstatements [00:14:56] that we present to you in that letter, which will be forthcoming. [00:15:00] coming as we conclude the audit. And the last thing on number five is the independent accounts [00:15:03] report. We've provided a draft of that to you. That's our examination report on investment [00:15:08] compliance. So in the next slide, just kind of going through the results of the procedures [00:15:14] on the independent audit report, we do have an unmodified opinion that's in draft form [00:15:20] right now. We'll finalize that when we finalize the actual CAFR. We do have an emphasis of [00:15:26] a matter paragraph that there's restatement that occurred in fiscal year 2015. Some of [00:15:33] that is due to a correction of previous errors that we encountered in the audit. Another [00:15:38] is due to the adoption of a new accounting policy, GASB 68 on pensions. I'll go through [00:15:42] that in a moment. That required a restatement to your beginning net position of the city. [00:15:46] Also we have a reference to other auditors. The city has two pension plans, firefighter [00:15:51] and police officers retirement system. That's audited by separate auditors. So we did not [00:15:57] essentially duplicate those efforts. We relied on the work performed by those other auditors, [00:16:02] got assurances from them and our communications from between us. And so we referenced that [00:16:08] work performed by the other auditors and those numbers that they opine on in our audit report. [00:16:14] Then you've got our independent auditor's report on internal control. So we did have [00:16:19] in the current year two material weaknesses that we did identify, material weaknesses [00:16:24] in internal control. One was finding 2015-001. That's basically review of transactions and [00:16:31] reconciliation of account balances. So in essence what that relates to is, you know, [00:16:36] it's kind of why we're standing here today on November 1st still talking about a 2015 [00:16:41] audit. There's just been significant delays in trying to get information completed, reconciled [00:16:47] and a lot of that has been due to, you know, this playing a catch-up that finance management [00:16:53] has had to go through to try to get things reconciled on a more timely basis. So we're [00:16:57] getting there going forward but, you know, it's no indictment on your current finance [00:17:03] management. They certainly inherited a situation that was fraught with challenges when they [00:17:11] took the position because there were some unreconciled accounts going into 2015. And [00:17:16] so it's been kind of a catch-up game ever since trying to get things complete and reconciled. [00:17:19] And in my finding, I gave you all a couple examples. One was on capital assets, the fact [00:17:24] that capital asset additions were not getting recorded on an ongoing basis to the fixed [00:17:30] asset subletter. So there's a lot of back and forth and trying to figure out what was [00:17:34] an addition, what was not and compiling that when they're presenting the capital assets [00:17:39] information that we need to audit. Another was on, similar to that, was on retainage [00:17:43] payable and recording retainage payable as it relates to construction and progress activity. [00:17:49] Then on what we had some issues in the water and sewer area, a lot of revenue accounts, [00:17:54] receivable accounts that weren't timely reconciled on a recurring basis that needed some significant [00:18:00] post-closing entries and adjustments that obviously took time and effort both from finance [00:18:06] and from the auditor to try to get that hammered down and reconciled. So a lot of this contributed [00:18:13] to the delays that we're seeing here in the audit and why it's taken longer than anyone [00:18:17] would have liked. So that's all those issues surrounding financial closing and reporting [00:18:23] is kind of encompassed in this finding. And really the issue isn't as much, hey, what [00:18:28] are we doing at year end to close the books? The issue is more of what we need to be doing [00:18:32] is on an ongoing basis. So your year-end closing process is only as good as your monthly closing [00:18:37] process and your monthly closing process is only as good as what you're doing day in [00:18:41] and day out. So that's what we're trying to get, like I kept saying, play that game [00:18:45] of catch up, get caught up, get the processes and related controls in place on an ongoing [00:18:50] basis. We're not going to be at year end saying, oh my God, we have all these unreconciled [00:18:53] accounts and we've got a lot of work on our plate to try to get this rectified. So the [00:18:58] better we can be on an ongoing basis with our reconciliations, then this finding will [00:19:03] disappear and I'll be standing in front of you all more like in a reasonable time frame [00:19:08] instead of in November issuing and discussing the results of the audit. [00:19:14] Second finding on that is 2015-002, that's on payroll processing. This really is kind [00:19:19] of a segregation of duties issue. So throughout fiscal year 2015, it's been subsequently reconciled, [00:19:26] but during fiscal year 15, which is the period under audit, we had some segregation of duties [00:19:30] issues and that the payroll processing function was largely controlled by one individual. [00:19:35] So that clearly caused some segregation of duties issues and not having more individuals [00:19:42] involved in the review and reconciliation and approval process of payroll transactions [00:19:48] each pay cycle. So that was a finding we had on that. [00:19:52] We did have, as part of our responsibilities as your auditor, we have to address any findings [00:19:57] from the previous audit. So I have here the uncorrected prior year misstatements and prior [00:20:02] year material weaknesses and significant deficiencies. I listed here the ones that were either partially [00:20:08] corrected or uncorrected. Just review them real quick. We had 2014-01, that was your [00:20:13] cash account balance on the red light camera. We have made progress in that area. We do [00:20:19] have now a red light camera general ledger account that was established, but again, I [00:20:24] know I sound like a broken record, reconciliations weren't being performed timely during FY15, [00:20:30] so we're playing the catch-up game on that. 2014-03, these were bank reconciliations. [00:20:37] They were being done, but not timely and didn't have a proper review process in place during [00:20:41] our period under audit, which is fiscal year 2015. [00:20:46] Then 2014-05, that was on financial reporting in general and their closing process. So that [00:20:51] persisted because that's enveloped under 2015-01. And then 2016-06, there was a finding last [00:20:59] year about some non-compliance with the city's investment policy. We had that same, very [00:21:05] similar finding this year, I say here, not followed with regard to education requirements, [00:21:12] reporting requirements, and the maximum allocation limits. I'll expand on that a little bit in [00:21:17] a future slide. [00:21:23] We have a few, some uncorrected prior year findings that persist. MLC3 and MLC4, I kind [00:21:32] of put these together. In fact, I'm not sure why last year they were segregated. It kind [00:21:36] of relates to the same core issue, and this is on improper utility rates billed. So this [00:21:41] was a risk that we identified in our audit, so we literally tested every customer account [00:21:46] in FY15 and did a full recalculation of what the rate should be. We did find some small [00:21:51] errors, and so as a result, this finding still persists. It's a manual process in [00:21:57] terms of inputting rate-based rate changes into the utility billing system so you can [00:22:03] have some keying and input errors, and that's what we encountered when we encountered several [00:22:10] discrepancies as we did this massive recalculation. So that finding did persist. [00:22:16] Then on MLC14 on security policies, we have noticed some progress on that in developing [00:22:23] some core IT security policies. When our IT auditor evaluated that, he did note that there [00:22:28] was a few policies that he'd like to see written and disseminated to applicable employees within [00:22:38] the city. One is on mobile devices, so anyone that has a mobile device, we should have a [00:22:42] written policy around proper usage, et cetera, IT security in general, and then a technology [00:22:47] strategic plan. So that was a recommendation on some additional security policies that [00:22:53] we'd like to see in place. Then we had two current year recommendations to improve financial [00:22:58] management. So one was 2015-03, that's compliance with Florida statutes on the budget. So we [00:23:04] did notice that in the preparation, or throughout the budgeting process, there were some amendments, [00:23:12] budget amendments that were done well after the fact, not until February 2016. So there [00:23:16] was not following policy on the budget amendments. So we want to make sure that we're following [00:23:23] policy because that also makes sure that we are adhering to state law in terms of Florida [00:23:28] statutes that govern how we adopt a budget and any all budget proceedings. 2015-04 was [00:23:36] on consideration of IT controls. So this is more work from my IT auditor, Jim Barton, [00:23:42] that came in. We actually provided a report to management of some of his findings and [00:23:47] recommendations, and I highlighted some of them, what we felt were the more medium to [00:23:52] higher risk areas, and so that's included in the finding. Real quick, one was just doing [00:23:58] a formal risk assessment process that kind of identifies and assesses any potential security [00:24:03] weaknesses, and one thing you can do on that is what we call an external penetration test. [00:24:07] So we recommend that the city obtain one of those since they haven't had that in quite [00:24:11] some time. Basically an external penetration test is hiring an outside vendor to come in [00:24:18] and actually ethically hack into the city's network and systems and see how far they can [00:24:24] go and what kind of damage they could inflict, and so any penetration that is able to be [00:24:28] done, share those results with management and say, okay, now what can we button down [00:24:32] to ensure that this wouldn't happen again? So that's the concept behind an external [00:24:37] penetration test. Number two is validating user accounts within the system NAVA line [00:24:42] just to ensure that only current employees have active user accounts and make sure that [00:24:47] any terminated employees were removed and that nobody that shouldn't have an account, [00:24:51] whether it's an employee or a contractor or consultant, is not in that active directory. [00:24:57] And then number three was on PCI compliance because the city does accept credit cards [00:25:02] and engage a third party to do the actual processing, but because the city actually [00:25:08] accepts credit card, there is something called PCI compliance that the city should be aware [00:25:13] of and ensure that they are complying with, and there's various what we call the PCI payment [00:25:17] card industry, DSS, the standards, and so there's a number of them. We've got to make [00:25:22] sure that we're protecting cardholder data as we should. So whether it's in a cashiering [00:25:30] function, taking cardholder data, swiping the card, to taking online payments, even [00:25:35] though the actual credit card processor, which is a third party, is the one that's ultimately [00:25:39] responsible for purely processing that transaction as your merchant account provider, there's [00:25:45] still things that the city needs to be doing to ensuring that that cardholder data is protected. [00:25:50] So that's what that's about. [00:25:52] The last thing on here is an independent accountant's report. That's a, we did have a modified opinion [00:25:58] on that because we did have some findings in this area. So one I mentioned was on the [00:26:04] education requirements. So during 2015, remember, which is the period under audit, I know we're [00:26:09] all the way now in 2017, but we have to go back to the actual period that we're auditing. [00:26:15] The finance director, your former finance director at that time, is supposed to get [00:26:19] eight hours of investment-related CPE, and that was not achieved. Secondly, we have the [00:26:30] reporting requirements. So the city, so management is supposed to provide quarterly reporting [00:26:34] to council that's supposed to contain certain performance-related information and information [00:26:39] just about the portfolio of investments of the city. So those quarterly reports were [00:26:44] not being provided during FY15. And then lastly, just the allocation of the investments. [00:26:51] There's a maximum allocation that's allowed, so we've got to make sure that we're following [00:26:55] policy in terms of if we can only invest this, you know, 25 percent in a local government [00:27:00] investment pool, there was times during the year when that allocation was exceeded. So [00:27:06] we've got to make sure that that's rectified. And it's not just at one point in time at [00:27:09] year end, we've got to make sure that we're complying with those allocation, maximum allocation [00:27:14] percentages all throughout the year. So better monitoring needs to be taking place going [00:27:19] forward on that. [00:27:23] Just stop me any time if you have questions on any of the findings as I'm discussing them. [00:27:30] We'd never get out of here if we started to do that, but I'm sure Mr. Davis and I, I'm [00:27:35] going to wait until you get finished because it's just way, way too much. Because we've [00:27:41] been through all this, but that's where I'm at. Anybody else can... [00:27:46] Well, I just asked Debbie, she said when they're ready with everything, then we'll have a work [00:27:50] session. [00:27:50] Yeah, I mean, if that's... [00:27:53] I'm going to get my points in tonight because I spent four hours going through this, and [00:27:58] if you're going to do the final report, I want to make sure that any adjustments or [00:28:02] any suggestions or anything that I have to say goes on the record tonight. I'm not waiting [00:28:07] around for another two weeks, another four weeks because we've already been delayed throughout [00:28:12] this entire process over and over and over again. [00:28:17] Sure. Okay, so I'll finish the presentation and then we'll open up for questions. So on [00:28:24] the required communication to governance, this is a letter that you'll be receiving [00:28:29] that contains what we thought were significant estimates and counting policies. So we did [00:28:34] have a few significant estimates that I mentioned. I did send you all the previous communication, [00:28:39] formal communication letter regarding the delay in the audit and why that delay had [00:28:44] occurred, which I expanded on in my previous discussion on that finding 2015-001. And throughout [00:28:52] the course of the audit, we didn't have any disagreements with management on how to account [00:28:55] for certain transactions, so we were all on the same page between external auditor [00:28:59] and management. [00:29:02] Just a couple highlights of some of the audit procedures that we performed. So we do have [00:29:06] a risk-based audit approach, so we basically follow the risk and perform some additional [00:29:09] procedures around that. So again, we noted there were some deficiencies in the payroll [00:29:15] processing and deficiencies of controls around payroll processing, so we did recalculate [00:29:20] a sample of wages and benefits for individual employees and did testing around that, recalculated [00:29:26] not only what their salary wage should be for that period, but also what their employee [00:29:31] and employer-born portion of benefits are. So we did a full recalculation on a sample [00:29:36] of employees, and then we also calculated those individual utility customer accounts, [00:29:42] like I mentioned. And then because of the issues with capital asset additions, not getting [00:29:47] the book to the sub-ledger on a consistent basis, we tested a sample of capital asset [00:29:52] additions for not only accuracy to make sure they recorded properly, but we also went and [00:29:56] physically observed those assets to make sure that they did indeed exist. [00:30:00] I mentioned some of the non-traditional work that we did. [00:30:03] One was an IT controls review, we talked about the findings on that. [00:30:06] We also did a complementary telecom cost savings assessment where we evaluated the phone and [00:30:13] internet bills of the city and tried to identify any errors or discrepancies in the bills and [00:30:19] opportunities that could be cost savings for the city. [00:30:24] We found only some very minor things, maybe a couple of taxes like the communication services [00:30:28] tax which local governments are exempt from paying. [00:30:31] We saw that on a couple bills, but it was for minor amounts. [00:30:34] So we have an intention to sit down with management and go through our results and let them know [00:30:40] where they can find those cost savings. [00:30:47] So just next slide on the implementation of the pension standards. [00:30:50] So this was a big change in fiscal year 2015. [00:30:53] This wasn't specific just to the city, this is basically all local governments across [00:30:58] the country and in the state of Florida, it was quite a painful process for those [00:31:04] that have FRS employees. [00:31:06] So FRS is the Florida Retirement System, that's what the bulk of your city employees, the [00:31:12] pension plan that they are in. [00:31:14] We also have some defined contribution plans of the city that some city employees are in [00:31:20] and we also have police and firefighters within the city and they're in their own standalone [00:31:24] single employer plan. [00:31:26] So when this standard came about, I'll just kind of give it to you in layman's terms, [00:31:32] there was really the extent of the obligation of the city before implementation of this [00:31:37] new statement was we make payments to FRS on behalf of our employees. [00:31:43] So employee A earns a wage and then we pay 7% and change of that and we remit that to [00:31:49] FRS and that was the extent of it. [00:31:51] We relieve cash and we record an expense. [00:31:55] Maybe if we haven't paid it by the end of the month, then we have a payable that's paid [00:31:58] that's then relinquished that next month. [00:32:01] So then the GASB gods said, no, no, no, let's overcomplicate things. [00:32:06] Let's now say that instead of the entire obligation just in this multi-employer state pension [00:32:12] plan, each individual participating employer in this plan deserves a sliver of that obligation [00:32:21] and the obligation quite simply is what's called the total pension liability, which [00:32:25] is what the actuary says is what's going to be owed by the plan for all its membership [00:32:31] as of today, which is your current retirees that you're currently paying plus active employees [00:32:36] that are earning that benefit but not getting paid yet. [00:32:39] So that whole membership in that plan, what's it going to cost us to pay them out over time [00:32:45] until, sorry to sound morbid, until everybody dies off. [00:32:48] That's the total pension liability. [00:32:50] And then you have what's called your fiduciary net position, which is what you actually have [00:32:54] in investments and assets to pay those future obligations. [00:32:58] The difference between total pension liability and fiduciary net position is your net pension [00:33:02] liability. [00:33:03] This is a big number in the billions for the FRS plan, but it gets allocated among each [00:33:07] participating entity based on the amount that you, the city, contributes in relation to [00:33:13] all other participants. [00:33:15] So this required not only now a liability that's now getting recorded for 2.1 million [00:33:22] for FRS pension and then 1.8 million for the health insurance subsidy. [00:33:27] That's kind of a secondary plan under FRS that you get a stipend, which is about $5 [00:33:32] a month up to, I think, $150, depending on how many years you work, and you literally [00:33:36] get $150 in cash each month to help pay, you know, alleviate your health insurance costs. [00:33:45] So that's, those are the two new liabilities that we have recorded, almost $3 million just [00:33:52] for the FRS participants. [00:33:54] And then it's the same concept on the city side, on this police and firefighter plans. [00:33:58] Now there's single employer plans. [00:34:00] What we used to record was a net pension asset for about $70,000, and then as a result of [00:34:07] adopting GASB 68, that $70,000 was basically just whatever the actuary says is our required [00:34:12] contribution for the year, we pay that, and that means we have no obligation, no net pension [00:34:17] asset. [00:34:18] Anything we'd pay in excess is a net pension asset. [00:34:20] That's a current mindset. [00:34:22] What is the current service cost, and that's what the actuary estimates and says, here's [00:34:26] what you should remit to the plan. [00:34:28] Now it's the same concept of, all right, well over time, what the actuary now thinks, well, [00:34:34] we have to pay all the police officers and the firefighters over time until, like I said, [00:34:38] they all die off. [00:34:39] What is that liability? [00:34:40] What do we have in investable assets? [00:34:43] That difference is the net pension liability, and that's $1.5 million for the police officers [00:34:48] and $592,000 for the firefighters plan. [00:34:53] So that was a big difference. [00:34:54] Last thing I'll cover just in a few minutes is just some financial highlights. [00:34:59] Curious, okay, what has changed significantly in the financial landscape of the city from [00:35:08] prior year to current year? [00:35:09] Any major changes that I should be concerned about, so I gave you all just a snapshot from [00:35:15] 2015 and 2014, doing kind of a year-to-year comparison on the governmental fund analysis [00:35:21] for revenue. [00:35:22] So we're looking at revenues here, governmental funds. [00:35:25] The big difference you'll see here is just in charges for services. [00:35:31] We have a decrease from prior year to current year, and this is really more of a reclassification [00:35:37] issue. [00:35:38] There's an inter-fund allocation of costs that in the current year, we're recording [00:35:42] it as a transfer, and the prior year was recorded as revenue to the general fund. [00:35:48] So in the current year, we're recording the costs associated with other funds, namely [00:35:53] water and sewer, for general admin-related costs. [00:35:59] That money that gets remitted over the general fund, the general fund used to record as revenue, [00:36:02] now we're recording as a transfer in. [00:36:04] So that's the difference there from prior year to current year, and that basically explains [00:36:10] the revenues on that slide. [00:36:15] And then, oh well, and then on fines and forfeitures, we do see a difference from prior year to [00:36:20] current year. [00:36:21] We actually have an increase in current year, and the difference there is that it's on the [00:36:24] red light camera revenue. [00:36:26] So in the prior year, we just netted the expense and the revenue associated with operating [00:36:31] the red light cameras. [00:36:32] So the amount that we received net from the provider, American Traffic Solutions, ATS, [00:36:38] that's what we recorded at the end of the day just as revenue, and we netted all the [00:36:42] expense and the revenue in just one revenue account. [00:36:44] Now we're breaking it out in the current year, showing revenues separately and expenses [00:36:48] separately in the expense line item. [00:36:50] That was for $1.4 million in the current year, and so that caused the change in fines and [00:36:57] forfeitures from last year to this year. [00:37:01] Then on the expenditure side, we have an increase in your public safety expenses from [00:37:07] last year to this year. [00:37:09] That's again related to the red light camera issue last year. [00:37:12] We netted it this year. [00:37:13] We're reporting the revenue and the expense separately. [00:37:18] Other big change from prior year to current year is in capital outlay. [00:37:22] So we just had some additional capital projects that were initiated in the current year that [00:37:25] weren't in place in the prior year. [00:37:28] We've got, in the capital projects fund, for example, we've got $1.8 million related [00:37:37] to the Sims Park renovation. [00:37:40] We've got, in the general fund, we've got some roofing and HVAC work in the city hall [00:37:44] and library. [00:37:45] That was about $600,000. [00:37:46] Then we've got a paving project on Plath Row and then a street improvement project for [00:37:51] about $500,000. [00:37:53] These are all projects that were going on in 2015 that were in existence in 2014, hence [00:37:57] the increase in costs and your expense line item for capital outlay for governmental funds. [00:38:04] Last two real quick, just on proprietary funds on the revenue side. [00:38:09] Pretty comparable if we're looking at charges for services and impact fees on your proprietary [00:38:15] funds. [00:38:16] A little bit of an increase and as you're likely aware, there is a 4% increase in your [00:38:21] base water and sewer fee annually. [00:38:23] So you generally should see, unless there's significant reduction in usage, you should [00:38:27] generally see at least a little bit of an uptick each year in your charges for services [00:38:31] revenue in the water and sewer fund. [00:38:35] Then on the expense side, we did have other operating expenses. [00:38:40] You can see that's quite different, $5.6 million in 2014 compared to $3.3 million in 2015. [00:38:49] Again, that relates to the difference in how we accounted for those inter-fund allocations [00:38:56] of administrative expense between general fund and water and sewer fund. [00:39:01] So before it was recorded as revenue and expense and this year we're recording the actual physical [00:39:05] cash transfer from one fund to the next just as a transfer, not as a revenue and expense. [00:39:11] So that's the change there. [00:39:13] And then just lastly on net position and fund balance, I just gave you a multi-year look [00:39:21] at what the city's net position and fund balance looks like for both governmental activities, [00:39:26] business type activities and governmental funds. [00:39:29] Just a couple highlights real quick on governmental activities. [00:39:32] You do see a decrease from 14 to 15 and that mostly has to do with the adoption of that [00:39:38] new pension standard. [00:39:39] So we didn't record all that, because remember now we have to record this new big pension [00:39:43] liability and these deferred inflows and outflows on our balance sheet. [00:39:47] So do we record that offset entirely to expense? [00:39:50] No, just the current period portion goes to expense, but all the effect from prior years [00:39:58] is what changes our beginning net position number and so that reduced net position by [00:40:03] adopting that standard and that's what caused that $4 million, largely what caused that [00:40:07] $4 million decrease. [00:40:10] Pretty consistent on the business type activities and then on the governmental funds, some relative [00:40:18] consistency as well. [00:40:21] So overall again, the biggest change here was from 14 to 15 on the governmental activities [00:40:28] due to the adoption of the pension standard. [00:40:30] On business type activities, you do see quite a change from $64 million to $57 million. [00:40:35] That wasn't in the period under audit, but what happened there was in 2014 there was [00:40:39] about a $9 million transfer out. [00:40:42] Those were the interest earnings on the agreement you have with Tampa Bay Water that was transferred [00:40:48] from the water and sewer fund in 14 to the general fund and so that caused a bit of a [00:40:53] reduction in your net position in the water and sewer fund in 14. [00:40:56] So that explains that $64 to $57 from that previous year. [00:41:04] And that's all I have just in my piece of the presentation, but of course I'm happy [00:41:07] to address any questions, concerns. [00:41:09] Can you explain, you mentioned you kind of passed over governmental funds. [00:41:14] Sure. [00:41:15] Between 14, 15, 9 and 15, what were the, it's on that last page, page 13, it went [00:41:25] from 17, 4 down to 15, 9 and you explained the upper two, I'm not understanding. [00:41:32] What was the difference in the governmental funds? [00:41:34] So why we had a decrease in getting governmental funds? [00:41:37] I think a lot of it does have to do with those capital, the increase in capital outlays I [00:41:41] went through. [00:41:43] The change in fund balance is really just a function of revenues minus expenditures [00:41:48] and then any other, you know, other sources and uses of funds. [00:41:54] Largely that difference between revenues and expenditures drives the change. [00:41:57] So when we had an uptick in some of that capital outlay in the current period. [00:42:04] So as you can see, if you look at, going back to your slides on governmental fund analysis [00:42:10] on expenditures, total expenditures on 10, I believe, 2015 governmental expenditures [00:42:28] were 23,034,092 and then 2015 there were 16,856,710. [00:42:35] So expenditures are exceeding revenues and you make up for that by having transfers [00:42:41] in to the general fund that reduces the deficit, but at the end of the day we still have a [00:42:47] deficit as expenditures exceed revenues. [00:42:52] My question is a little more generalized. [00:42:57] I serve on a non-profit board of directors with a fiscal year that ends on June 30th. [00:43:04] We got our final audit report last week. [00:43:09] Now in order for the City of New Port Richey to correct items so they don't show up as [00:43:17] uncorrected the following year, you sort of need to have that information before the end [00:43:22] of the fiscal year. [00:43:25] We didn't get the 2014 report until after the end of 2015. [00:43:30] Here we are again in fiscal 2017 and you still haven't given us a final report on 2015. [00:43:38] What do we need to do to get this so that we're getting these reports on a timely basis? [00:43:43] Sure. [00:43:44] Like I said, it gets back to that finding 2015-01 that I discussed and it's the catch-up [00:43:54] game where we're reconciling accounts on a more timely basis so when it's time for the [00:43:59] auditors to come in and do their thing, we have everything laid out and ready for them [00:44:03] to audit, get in and get out and get done. [00:44:05] So when things aren't reconciled and we're still trying to figure out, okay, what should [00:44:11] this balance be within this water and sewer revenue account and a lot of research has [00:44:15] to go in and it's difficult, especially when a lot of time has elapsed so it's no longer [00:44:19] fresh in the mind, you know, that's how delays arise. [00:44:25] So your question, you know, how do we curb that is let's get caught up and that's the [00:44:30] goal of finance. [00:44:32] Of course, we all want to get this thing done much earlier and so that's what the team is [00:44:38] trying to do. [00:44:39] Quite frankly, we had trouble getting budget numbers because our staff was tied up with [00:44:44] you guys still during the summer and from my perspective, there is no excuse for the [00:44:50] audit still being in progress beyond late winter, very early spring. [00:44:55] This makes no sense at all that we're here in November of 2016. [00:45:00] talking about a fiscal year that ended in September of 2015. I don't find that acceptable. [00:45:08] I'm very concerned that you guys have run this thing out beyond all reasonable understanding. [00:45:19] There were numbers that were provided at the end of last year. There were things that were [00:45:24] given as things to correct. I'm sure our staff has been working hard on those. But to beat [00:45:32] them up in this report for stuff that wasn't corrected in 2015, well hell spells they didn't [00:45:37] get the report last year until after the end of 2015. I fully expect that you guys are [00:45:44] going to come back and tell us there's stuff uncorrected from 2016 here. If you tell us [00:45:52] that a year from now, I'm not going to have a whole lot of sympathy because that information [00:45:58] should have been provided to staff in the middle of fiscal year 2016, not in fiscal [00:46:05] year 2017. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Latham. What I've been told is that you are unable [00:46:14] to complete these audits because of basically errors that have been made in the finance [00:46:20] department in the past. That's what we still keep hearing. I personally don't think this [00:46:24] is your company's fault by any means. I think the blame lays more on how our finance department [00:46:30] conducted business over the last several years. What's frustrating me as a council member [00:46:35] though is that I don't want to be here, like the mayor said, two years from now talking [00:46:40] about how we're still not caught up. So then I would rather defer the mayor's comment or [00:46:45] question to our city manager. And I've asked before publicly, do we need more manpower [00:46:51] in the finance department to get us caught up? We need to get this taken care of. I understand [00:46:55] we're fixing problems that were years in the making, but do you need more help in that [00:47:00] department getting them fixed on a quicker basis so we can get caught up is the question [00:47:05] I have. Because if so, let's look into how we can find the resources to hire people needed [00:47:11] to get us caught up. Because I understand you inherited a huge mess. I think you're [00:47:15] going to be, both of you, Crystal, are going to be an asset. But it's a tremendous amount [00:47:21] of work. I mean, it's slowing down the implementation, as you know, of our new management system. [00:47:25] It's just a snowball effect. So if you need more help, speak up. Let us know on council [00:47:30] so we can approve more staff for whatever we need to do to get these mistakes caught [00:47:36] up so we're not constantly dealing with this. I don't think it's your company's fault by [00:47:39] any means. You can't perform the audit because the figures just weren't there, from what [00:47:43] I understand. Did we not get good audit numbers from last year's auditors that you're now [00:47:47] having to go back multiple years to fix stuff that was still not right? I mean, we did encounter [00:47:57] some issues that affected prior periods, but I mean, the bulk of it is we had a full year [00:48:01] of activity that, you know, that was largely ignored because we were playing catch up from [00:48:08] the prior year. And so that's the situation that your current finance director has inherited. [00:48:13] And so she's undergone a great learning process, you know, from when she started until now. [00:48:20] So that's why I'm personally hopeful that, you know, this is going to rectify for next [00:48:26] year's audit because now, like I said, we're getting caught up slowly. But, you know, from [00:48:34] the completion of the FY14 audit that was finally completed and to then, you know, turn [00:48:40] over in the finance department, someone new taking that position, and then you have FY15 [00:48:46] activity to deal with and try to get a handle on, you know, that's what caused the, you [00:48:52] know, the delays. But at the end of the day, now that we've gone through this audit cycle [00:48:57] with a competent team in place, you know, I have full confidence in the future that [00:49:02] we'll, that next year going forward and future years are going to be easier. And to your [00:49:08] point, do we need some temporary, you know, manpower? [00:49:11] I say we, I'm talking about the city, not your company. [00:49:14] Sure, of course, the collective we. Does the city need? [00:49:17] No, we. [00:49:18] I'll defer to finance on that, but, you know, that's certainly something that, you know, [00:49:22] we talk about with the team. Okay, what help do you need and is there something on a temporary [00:49:27] basis that. [00:49:28] Can I ask a practical question? Just wanted to ask a practical question. Obviously, we're [00:49:35] not the only city that you provide services to. Have you run up against this condition [00:49:49] in other places and what actions did they take? Because we can make it up on the fly, [00:49:56] which I don't prefer to do. But I want to be clear, and I won't use the role of crystal [00:50:04] because we have two, part of the people that are here were on last year's audit team that [00:50:09] gave us a 15 page weakness report that we all felt like we'd been taken to the principal's [00:50:15] office and summarily, you know, educated in where we were at. And we all had great [00:50:23] hopes and the new management team came into place, one in August of last year, another [00:50:31] one in September, in October. Then we were delayed out. I'm like, I'm kind of standing [00:50:40] on the sideline like a coach saying, maybe we need to time out. Maybe we need to time [00:50:46] out and let's stop and figure out where the hell we are. And if that means that we have [00:50:56] to take away from some capital items so that we understand our fiscal house, then I'm willing [00:51:05] to do that because I don't want the music to stop and not have a chair to sit down in. [00:51:11] That's my biggest issue. And you can look at my pages. I've got highlights. I asked [00:51:17] for last year's information. I tried to compare back and forth because I'm trying to see where [00:51:22] we were, where we are, and kind of what's going on. And if that's the case, and then [00:51:29] because we have two other issues that are coming up. One, and you allude to it about [00:51:36] seven times in your letter or your unmodified letter, that we have a new computer system [00:51:44] coming. Well, we don't have our ducks in a row. What we put into that, we're going to [00:51:51] have to go back and fix. That's number one. Number two, you got two huge liability points [00:51:58] in this that you did a cursory look at because it wasn't part of your assignment. And that's [00:52:05] the police and the pension funds. And both of those funds, if there's an issue with them [00:52:14] long term, we have to make, the city has to make up those differences. So if we go off [00:52:20] in one path and correct this, but these other two aren't audited correctly or audited by [00:52:25] us, instead of an outside third firm, and then they come in and say, oh, by the way, [00:52:30] we misspoke or we didn't have it quite right, then we're all back to square one. So I'm [00:52:38] looking at this trying to understand where we are, but I'm also saying if we don't have [00:52:45] that fiscal house in order by Jan 1 or Jan 15, if that's 90 days out, we're providing [00:52:55] a disservice at the moment, and I will not do that. [00:52:59] Councilman Davis? [00:53:02] I made my opinion made at the time we adopted the budget. [00:53:09] His opinion, for your benefit, was that we shouldn't adopt a budget or do anything until [00:53:14] we got these stinking numbers back from last year, because we just haven't been able to [00:53:20] get that report out of you guys. Can we expect at some time in the spring to have the fiscal [00:53:27] 16 budget completed, or audit report completed? Are we going to be looking at it again this [00:53:33] time next year? That's my concern. It is impossible for us to govern properly if we don't have [00:53:41] valid numbers, and we're depending on you to provide us with an audit report about that, [00:53:46] and quite frankly, an audit report that happens a year later is useless. It is absolutely [00:53:51] useless. [00:53:52] Sure. I understand completely, and I think that's an achievable goal to have the FY16 [00:53:57] audit done and completed springtime of next year. If you're looking at me specifically, [00:54:04] there's only so many things we can do. We're the external auditors, so we can only audit [00:54:08] what's available to us to audit. But yes, we will work with the finance, with your finance [00:54:14] team in place to obviously expedite for next year and get this audit completed as quickly [00:54:20] as possible. [00:54:21] What was the fee we paid for this particular service? Do you remember? [00:54:27] I think our engagement letter fee was just around $40,000 or slightly below. We did have [00:54:35] some additional procedures that we performed that caused some fee increases, but that was [00:54:40] the base fee, was the $39,000 and change. [00:54:43] Mr. Mayor? [00:54:44] I just want to clarify. It wasn't that I was against the budget. I was against any [00:54:51] new pay, any kind of pay raises, any kind of capital improvements. That's what I was [00:54:56] against. I mean, the day-to-day budget, we're going to have to go ahead with. But anything, [00:55:01] any capital improvements, any kind of pay raises, anything, any new employees is what [00:55:05] I was against until we got this. [00:55:08] Councilwoman? [00:55:09] Did you want to? [00:55:10] I did, but go ahead. [00:55:11] Thank you. Well, first of all, I want to applaud you for explaining that information on page [00:55:17] 8 to a layman. It was very well done and I appreciate you putting that effort into it [00:55:24] so flawlessly. [00:55:26] You know, I think that we're all, you know, it's almost like the elephant that's in the [00:55:30] room that we're ignoring. We know that we had issues with our own internal issues. I [00:55:37] think what I'm hearing you say is that we are on track on staff's side in terms that [00:55:42] we have competent, capable individuals. That the catch-up time is troublesome because, [00:55:51] you know, the world isn't stopping. It's continuing to move and we've got lots of financials [00:55:55] that are still continuing to come in. [00:55:57] I'd like to think and I'd like to hear you tell us that we are on the right track in [00:56:02] terms of having all the right things in place to do. Two things that I heard you say is [00:56:08] that we're not getting information, some information in a timely manner and so I'm thinking at [00:56:14] one point, do we put those things in place because we're still playing catch-up and trying [00:56:19] to get our numbers correct? And the other piece of it was going forward, do we have [00:56:34] the right, I guess, procedures, for lack of a better word, in place so that we're able [00:56:41] to, as we're correcting the things that need to be corrected, are we doing the things, [00:56:47] you know, in the correct manner? [00:56:49] Is that question directed to the external auditor or to management? It's more of a management [00:56:55] issue but... [00:56:56] Well, I guess a general statement to whoever can answer it. I'd like to feel that we are [00:57:02] moving in the right direction and I don't necessarily, I'm not sure if this is the time [00:57:08] for us to point a finger at who did what when. The point is, are we on track for what we [00:57:13] need to have going forward in terms of the audit but also just procedurally so that we're [00:57:20] doing the right thing at the right time? [00:57:22] I'd like to respond to the question if you'd allow me, Mr. Mayor. And I can tell you that [00:57:30] a large part of the reason that our audit report is delayed is because we've been building [00:57:37] the right control procedures to implement so that we don't have audit findings in future [00:57:44] years. Not only do we catch up for some of what's occurred in previous years and previous, [00:57:53] more than years, and I feel confident that Crystal Feast and Crystal Dunn are on the [00:58:02] right track. I think you'll note that in the audit findings based on the number of [00:58:10] material weaknesses that were identified for last year that have already been addressed. [00:58:17] You couldn't expect them to have addressed every one of the audit findings because there [00:58:22] were just too many and it was too big of a task. But we've got at least 75%, I'd say, [00:58:29] of the audit findings tended to and remedied already. So we're well on the right track. [00:58:35] Which ties into my question, and I'm glad we're on the right track, but I'm growing [00:58:39] impatient and I believe my colleagues up here are growing impatient as well. So I'm going [00:58:43] to direct this question to you, Ms. Feast. Do you need additional personnel in the finance [00:58:48] department to get us caught up? Councilman Phillips is talking about maybe a 90-day time [00:58:54] period to hopefully get us caught up. I mean, how far out are we based on your current [00:58:58] personnel? And in your honest opinion, could you use additional personnel to get us caught [00:59:03] up quicker? As Andrew mentioned, that is something we [00:59:08] have discussed, you know, possibly hiring temporary staffing to help with specific needs [00:59:16] of the department, maybe specifically with the year-end closing process, doing those [00:59:21] reconciliations that, you know, we had to take a lot of time to correct for the fiscal [00:59:28] year 15 audit. So we are discussing it and we do recognize that there is a need. And, [00:59:36] you know, City Manager Mayhens and I, we do recognize that there's a need either for some [00:59:43] restructuring within our department or hiring temporary staffing to get the audit done in [00:59:50] a more timely manner. We are on track and we already have the fiscal year 16 or we've [00:59:56] discussed the scheduling of the fiscal year 16 audit for May. [01:00:00] mid-February-March time frame so that it can be completed in a more timely basis. [01:00:04] And we are on track to get that done. [01:00:07] So that you, like you said, you will be provided with relevant [01:00:11] financial data that can be useful to City Council and to, you know, the [01:00:15] City staff members. [01:00:18] Mr. Mayor? Yes, sir. [01:00:22] Ms. Manns, is it possible by Friday to look at [01:00:25] the fiscal year budget for this year [01:00:28] and identify a couple of sources for revenue that we can use? [01:00:35] Because to balance with you, my feeling is I don't care if you're talking about it, [01:00:41] I don't care if you're discussing it. [01:00:43] I don't care. [01:00:45] I want to see it. [01:00:46] I don't want to, well, this sounds good. [01:00:49] No, no, no, no. [01:00:51] Give me a revenue stream, show me the plan, give me the dates, [01:00:56] and then let's execute. [01:00:59] Because this, we're talking about, I'm just, in conjunction with that, [01:01:07] along with the IT, you know, there's just a whole series of things. [01:01:11] I know the final report will come back, we'll do the work session. [01:01:16] But in the meantime, standing here and watching time pass is not getting us [01:01:23] to where I believe we need to be. [01:01:26] I want Tyler finished. [01:01:27] I want that implemented. [01:01:29] We've been going on this for how many years now? [01:01:32] And that's part and parcel of the issue, because we're not [01:01:36] collecting the numbers on the front end. [01:01:38] So thank you for mentioning the IT part of this. [01:01:41] If we need to bring extra people in to get Tyler completely implemented [01:01:46] and to get the year-end stuff done, then give us a plan, what you need. [01:01:51] Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. [01:01:53] If I might make a suggestion, and we are in November now, [01:01:56] and I did hear February, and I did also hear that we need [01:01:59] to have quarterly investment, I think, information. [01:02:03] Might I suggest that we try to schedule quarterly work sessions [01:02:07] where we're sitting down and we're reviewing these pieces so that it [01:02:11] doesn't get away from us so long? [01:02:14] You know, finance and numbers can be overwhelming when you're [01:02:21] looking at the whole year. [01:02:23] But if we're able to sit down on a quarterly basis and review it, [01:02:27] I think it will help us in the long run in putting a budget together [01:02:30] better for next year and also for reviewing where we are. [01:02:34] Thank you. [01:02:35] Mr. Mayor, the only thing is that it's one part of the puzzle, [01:02:41] and the other two come back to the fire and the pension. [01:02:45] Fire and police. [01:02:47] Fire and police. [01:02:48] And to me, if those numbers aren't audited and correctly identified, [01:02:53] I'm not saying that the other auditors haven't done what they need to. [01:02:58] I'm just saying we haven't directed it to be done. [01:03:03] We're taking it from those in the pension boards, [01:03:06] and those are huge unfunded liabilities if those show up. [01:03:10] And those have severe impacts. [01:03:13] So if you're going to complete the process, [01:03:17] you need all three legs of that stool, table, [01:03:21] I don't care what you want to call it. [01:03:22] But we need to make sure that all three of those areas are audited and up [01:03:30] to date so that it can be implemented and put into whatever program. [01:03:33] In fairness to our current auditors, tackling [01:03:38] FRS is probably way beyond what our city could afford to fund them to do. [01:03:43] When did you get the numbers for the fire and police pension liabilities? [01:03:50] Sir, are you referring to the actual net pension liability I showed you [01:03:54] on the implementation of 68? [01:03:57] This is not a funding mechanism, just so I'm clear. [01:04:00] And I've had other governing bodies ask the same question with their FRS members. [01:04:05] Now we, oh my God, we have this $8 million net pension liability. [01:04:09] Now do we need to set up a funding mechanism over time? [01:04:13] Really, the operation of the plan isn't going to change. [01:04:17] You're still going to get your annual actuarial evaluations from your actuary. [01:04:21] We have a separate one for each plan, and they're going to tell you what your ARC is, [01:04:26] your annual required contribution that the city should make on behalf of the plan. [01:04:29] That's not going to change. [01:04:31] So this is more of a, you can call it a paper entry if you want. [01:04:35] No different than FRS to say, if something were to happen where Armageddon occurs and, [01:04:41] you know, the FRS now is, the FRS plan is terminated, for example, what would we owe on the, [01:04:53] you know, what's our respective share that we have to pony up to get everybody paid? [01:04:57] But that's an unlikely scenario. [01:04:59] I mean, FRS, that pension plan is, that state plan is one of the better funded in the country. [01:05:04] And so you're, the net pension liability you're recognizing now for FRS as well as for police and fire, [01:05:10] that's more just an adoption of 68, GASB 68, to let the readers of the financial statements know [01:05:16] that this is now a more long-term obligation. [01:05:18] What our obligation is over the long haul, which is basically the deficit that we have [01:05:26] in investable assets that we're going to have to pay these retirees over time, over many, [01:05:31] many, many years, but this isn't reflective of the actual current contribution that you should make [01:05:37] that the actuary puts out in his annual evaluation to say, okay, [01:05:40] if you make this contribution, the plan remains actuarially sound. [01:05:44] So there's a difference there, and so, like I said, the funding mechanism really shouldn't change. [01:05:50] And so when questions have been asked to me, what I, should I set up, you know, a committed fund balance [01:05:56] or a net position to try to accumulate resources to fund FRS liability or net pension liability [01:06:03] related to our single employer plans, I said it's certainly up to you. [01:06:05] I'm not a policymaker, but that's not common practice, because, again, [01:06:09] this isn't a current obligation that you're going to need to pay. [01:06:13] My question was how late was it for you to get those numbers? [01:06:17] It was mid-October before we received the numbers from the police and the fire pension board audits. [01:06:22] The actual, the police and fire pension plans, one was, the financial statements were issued in, [01:06:30] I think, sometime in the late spring, early summer, and then one earlier than that. [01:06:36] Is that fiscal year-end the same as ours? [01:06:38] Yeah, their fiscal year-end is September 30 as well. [01:06:41] If I may add to that, the police pension board's financial statements and audit report, [01:06:49] theirs were issued timely, I believe it was maybe during the summer. [01:06:53] The firefighter pension board's plan audit report and financial statements, [01:06:59] those were the ones that were delayed and issued late August. [01:07:03] We then, because of information that was not included in those, [01:07:08] both reports that we needed to complete our CAFR and for the audit report to be issued, [01:07:14] we had to go back to those pension auditors and ask them to provide a supplemental audit report [01:07:20] to provide that information that we needed, and that was done mid-August. [01:07:27] I'm sorry, October. [01:07:29] So just a couple of weeks ago, we received that. [01:07:33] Any other questions? [01:07:34] I just have discussed behind the scenes, both with IT, both with INETs and the city manager, [01:07:42] that we're all up here in our own businesses, and you build a business like a pyramid, [01:07:52] and the basis of the foundation in any city or any business is the IT and the finance department, [01:08:01] and it just seems like our pyramid's upside down right now, and it's been upside down for a couple of years. [01:08:08] I would say I've known three of the four years that I've been here, it took me a year to figure it out, [01:08:12] but I appreciate everything you've done to give us the guidance to try to turn our pyramid upside down, [01:08:19] to the correct way. [01:08:22] We're here to help as best we can. [01:08:24] Thank you. [01:08:25] Thank you. [01:08:27] Next item on the agenda is Vox Pop.

   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▶ 1:08:28
9. 9.a

   Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes - September 2016

   approvedon consent

   Council approved the consent agenda, which included the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board minutes from September 2016. A councilmember raised concerns about the police pension board fund decisions not being reported back to council, and noted he would address the parks master plan during communications.

   • motion:Motion to approve the consent agenda, including the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board September 2016 minutes. (passed)

   👤Gallagher#Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes - September 2016#audit report#parks master plan#police pension board

   ▶ Jump to 1:16:11 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [01:16:12] Next is the consent agenda. [01:16:13] I'll move for approval. [01:16:14] We have a motion. [01:16:15] I might want to second, but I just have a question. [01:16:25] We can ask it when we're in... [01:16:27] Yeah. [01:16:28] I'll second it with a question. [01:16:29] Yeah. [01:16:30] I mean, there's a number of items in the park board, talks about the master plan. [01:16:37] I'll speak to that at communications. [01:16:40] Police pension board, again, same comments I've made since the first of last year, which [01:16:50] piggyback on some of the comments that Mr. Gallagher just made, is I appreciate their [01:16:58] service, appreciate what they do, but at the end of the day, it's a huge fund, and there [01:17:05] are decisions that are being made on that fund that have not matriculated, have not [01:17:14] come back to us, and at some point in time, they will, and we'll ask the question, why [01:17:22] weren't we on top of this before? [01:17:26] So that's the other reason with the audit report, I would like to make sure that we've [01:17:31] got all three elements in order. [01:17:34] That's all I have, Mr. Mayor. [01:17:37] My comment is a timely thing.

   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. 9.b

    Police Pension Board Minutes - September 27, 2016

    approvedon consent

    Council accepted the Police Pension Board minutes from September 27, 2016, as part of routine board minutes acceptance. A councilmember noted concern about the timeliness of board minutes coming to council, observing that some minutes are several months old by the time they appear in the packet.

    • direction:Council requested that advisory board minutes be brought forward in a more timely manner. (none)

    #Land Development Review Board#Parks and Recreation Board#Police Pension Board minutes - September 27, 2016

    ▶ Jump to 1:17:40 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:17:41] In our packet today, we had a lot from the land development board, land development review [01:17:46] board, and their minutes were in there, and that was October 20th, which is not even ten [01:17:52] days ago, and we're accepting now the parks and recreation from September, and they probably [01:17:59] met October, and I would just like, you know, maybe we can get these minutes caught up a [01:18:04] little bit more in a timely thing. [01:18:07] The credit card payments, I just want to know where we're at with, I know it's an industry

    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. 9.c

    Purchases/Payments for City Council Approval

    approvedon consent

    Council discussed credit card processing costs tied to utility bill payments and the timeline for the Tyler Technologies implementation, with the utilities phase being the final phase, estimated around eight months out. Council pressed staff on accelerating that timeline.

    • vote:Approval of the consent agenda including purchases/payments for City Council approval. (passed)

    🏢Tyler Technologies👤Brian👤Davis#Tyler Technologies implementation#credit card processing fees on utility payments

    ▶ Jump to 1:18:10 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:18:14] that I'm involved in. [01:18:15] I know that it's costing us a lot. [01:18:16] How close are we getting, Tyler, that we can, you know, save some money on the credit card? [01:18:21] Because I know we're paying right now for anybody that pays a utility bill, and in the [01:18:26] future, when Tyler's fully up and running, then we won't have that charge, because that's [01:18:32] a penny, you might say, for a city. [01:18:35] In response to Councilman Davis's comment on the timeliness of minutes, the minutes [01:18:43] are taken by members of boards and commissions who are volunteers. [01:18:48] As soon as they are received in City Hall, we do turn them around to you, but we can [01:18:54] certainly encourage them to get them to us on a more timely basis. [01:18:59] In respect to the Tyler technology question, Brian, I'm going to defer to you. [01:19:03] Yeah, the utilities phase is the final phase of the project implementation, so that is [01:19:08] a good distance away at this point. [01:19:12] What does that mean? [01:19:13] I don't know. [01:19:14] Eight months. [01:19:15] Reasonably obvious question, what would it take to get it to two or three months? [01:19:26] Yes, sir. [01:19:27] Understood. [01:19:28] Eight's not good. [01:19:29] Anything else on the consent agenda? [01:19:30] The money saved in credit card processing would probably pay for this person. [01:19:35] Anything else on the consent agenda? [01:19:36] Hearing none, 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.

12. 10.a

    First Reading, Ordinance #2016-2098: Land Use Plan Amendment - Hyundai of New Port Richey

    tabled

    First reading of Ordinance #2016-2098 to amend the future land use category for a 10.21-acre parcel west of the Hyundai of New Port Richey dealership on US Hwy 19 from High Density Residential (HDR30) to Highway Commercial (HC), to allow expansion of vehicle inventory storage. After discussion of buffers, wetlands, and neighbor concerns from Gulf Harbors Villas Phase 2, council moved to table the item pending a jurisdictional wetland survey so the wetland portion could be designated conservation.

    Ord. Ordinance #2016-2098

    • motion:Motion to table Ordinance #2016-2098 until the jurisdictional wetland survey is received so a conservation designation can be applied to wetland portions. (passed)

    📍4808 Square Rigger Court📍West side of U.S. Highway 19, approximately 1,070 feet north of Trouble Creek Road🏢Gulf Harbors Villas Phase 2🏢Hyundai of New Port Richey🏢Spring Engineering👤Dewey Mitchell👤John Hudson👤Mary Ann Lawrence👤Mr. Driscoll👤Mr. Gray👤Mr. Hudson👤Mr. Smallwood👤Mrs. Spears👤Ms. Fierce👤Raleigh Dove#HC Highway Commercial#HDR30 High Density Residential#Jurisdictional wetland survey#Land Development Review Board recommendation (October 20)#Ordinance #2016-2098#Transfer of development rights / coastal high hazard area

    ▶ Jump to 1:19:40 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:19:40] Aye. [01:19:41] Opposed, the like sign. [01:19:42] Next is public reading of first reading of ordinance number 2016-2098. [01:19:48] Mrs. Spears will handle the representation of this agenda item. [01:19:57] This is ordinance number 2016-2098, an ordinance amending future land use category for 10.21 [01:20:04] acres located on the west side of U.S. Highway 19, approximately 1,070 feet north of Trouble [01:20:09] Creek Road from HDR30, high-density residential category, to HC, highway commercial category, [01:20:19] further described herein and in Exhibit A, providing for severability and providing for [01:20:23] an effective date. [01:20:24] Good evening. [01:20:25] Good evening. [01:20:26] I'm going to show you several slides on your screen, and I'm going to point to the one [01:20:32] that's behind my friends across the way there, so on the north side of the room. [01:20:38] And this is an aerial view, and north is at the top of the slide. [01:20:42] And in this case, the Hyundai dealership operates along the west side of U.S. Highway 19. [01:20:50] That location is somewhere between the Trouble Creek Road and Florimar Terrace, and it also [01:20:56] owns a 10-acre parcel immediately to the west of the dealership. [01:21:01] I will point that out to you. [01:21:06] The dealership is located here, and then the subject property to the west is the 10-acre [01:21:11] piece that's under the discussion of tonight's proposal. [01:21:16] Is that the former Lincoln Mercury dealership? [01:21:19] If you give us some context, because in Volkswagen also, is Volkswagen on this site? [01:21:26] I believe it is. [01:21:27] I'm going to let the... [01:21:28] So, but basically, it's the old Lincoln Mercury across from Ritchey Lanes and all that. [01:21:35] Which is, I guess, behind it. [01:21:36] Across from IHOP and the tax collector's office, correct? [01:21:38] Yeah. [01:21:39] That's the correct dealership. [01:21:40] I don't have the full history of the ownership of it. [01:21:43] I know that the current owner bought it about a year ago. [01:21:46] Nonetheless, I'll move on to what the proposal is. [01:21:50] The proposal is to allow the Hyundai dealership to expand its inventory use, and they want [01:21:55] to do it along that 10-acre piece that you saw in the last slide. [01:21:59] In order to do so, the applicant has asked for an amendment to the land use plan category [01:22:04] from high-density residential category, which you see on the left, to the highway commercial [01:22:10] category, which you see on the right. [01:22:13] On the right, the subject property is kind of showing up in an orange, and it's supposed [01:22:16] to be red. [01:22:17] So, I apologize for the change in color there. [01:22:21] The highway commercial land use category is consistent with the highway commercial zoning [01:22:28] that is on the subject property today. [01:22:30] Ms. Fierce, I'm sorry. [01:22:32] Could you... [01:22:33] So, what you're saying is what is showing as orange should be red, so that all of it [01:22:38] should be red. [01:22:39] Correct. [01:22:40] Okay. [01:22:41] Thank you. [01:22:42] Did the current owner buy both parcels of land at the same time, or did he buy the dealership [01:22:46] and then acquire the land after the fact? [01:22:47] That I don't know. [01:22:48] Okay. [01:22:49] But the point I'm trying to make about color is it's a problem with our GIS, not a problem [01:22:53] with anything else. [01:22:54] We just couldn't get the orange to look like red, so it looks like orange. [01:22:58] So, a couple ground shots of the existing dealership. [01:23:02] This is looking at it from... [01:23:03] Ms. Fierce, I'm sorry. [01:23:05] Can you go back one? [01:23:06] I'm sorry. [01:23:07] I meant to ask the question. [01:23:09] Can you point with your pointer to the north where the city's property is? [01:23:15] Yes, I shall. [01:23:16] I'm going to go back one more to show you on the aerial, and I would tell you that the [01:23:20] city owns property to the west of the subject property. [01:23:24] It doesn't show the entirety of the city-owned property, but we own 10 acres in this location [01:23:31] and probably farther off the screen over here. [01:23:33] Right. [01:23:34] And it's zoned as what? [01:23:35] It's zoned multi-family, 30 units an acre. [01:23:40] We bought it with the intent of transferring those development rights onto other property [01:23:45] in the coastal high hazard area. [01:23:46] It was simply a purchase to transfer entitlements at the time of the purchase. [01:23:52] That was my understanding. [01:23:53] Have we transferred them? [01:23:55] We have not. [01:23:56] I'm going to move on. [01:24:00] Back to the ground slides. [01:24:01] You probably have driven by this a number of times, so you can see there's a car dealership [01:24:06] on the property today. [01:24:09] From the east side of 19 looking to the west, you can see the property. [01:24:14] This is a view of the property moving farther west on the site, and in the distance you'll [01:24:22] notice vegetation, and that's the location of the 10 acre subject property that's under [01:24:28] discussion tonight for the land use change. [01:24:30] Again, Hyundai would like to expand its inventory on that particular property. [01:24:37] The site for the new inventory space has not been approved in terms of its site plan, but [01:24:44] the applicant is working through the DRC process. [01:24:47] I would tell you that the process will include reviewing the drainage, the landscaping, and [01:24:52] the lighting. [01:24:54] I would also tell you that staff has had contact with a few of the folks that live in the [01:25:00] adjacent Gulf Harbors Villas Phase 2, which is to the north of the subject property, and [01:25:06] they have had a few comments. [01:25:08] I think some of them were under the impression that the subject property was either not developable [01:25:13] or was not going to be developed, and so I think this is a little bit of an education [01:25:20] for them in that respect. [01:25:21] I would be happy to meet with any of them after tonight's meeting if you actually do [01:25:26] approve this. [01:25:28] I would be happy to address any of their site plan concerns, which I assume is really what [01:25:32] their concerns are addressing. [01:25:34] I would tell you that I had a conversation with the project engineer tonight, who's here [01:25:40] tonight representing the applicant, and I told him that we'd certainly be looking at [01:25:45] making sure that the required buffer would be in place as well as addressing lighting [01:25:52] so it would not create any light trespass. [01:25:55] Can we go back to the area? [01:25:56] The Gulf Harbors folks, are they county residents or are they city residents? [01:26:00] For us, and I'll show you on this. [01:26:01] Because I know we wrapped back around, because we did part of that, and then we had the development [01:26:06] that Dewey Mitchell's son and someone, and John Hudson's son did that. [01:26:12] Right, and Mr. Hudson is here tonight as well, and so the property that Gulf Harbors Villas [01:26:17] is locating is here. [01:26:19] This is immediately to the north of the subject property, and most likely the folks that are [01:26:23] here tonight live along the south side of this road, and I'm sorry, I don't recall the [01:26:27] name of that. [01:26:28] Is that an aerial photo with them, with the villas currently there, or is it an old photo? [01:26:32] It's an older photo, that's the most recent one we have. [01:26:36] That was my question, so if he levels all those trees and puts a parking lot, I'm sure [01:26:40] their concern is, or I'm sure we're going to hear from many of them this evening, there's [01:26:44] no wood line buffer or anything, instead of looking at nice pretty trees, they're looking [01:26:48] at Hyundais looking to get out the door. [01:26:50] So I would just tell you that... [01:26:52] And also, Ms. Fierce, I'm sorry, another thing that you said was that they're going for another [01:27:00] day approval from LDRB, so this is kind of like, isn't it kind of like putting the hard [01:27:06] cart before the horse? [01:27:07] Yeah, actually the process works this way. [01:27:09] They actually have applied for site plan approval. [01:27:13] We kind of stopped them midstream and said you need to have an amendment to the land [01:27:17] use before we proceed further. [01:27:18] So we've only had one iteration of their site plan. [01:27:23] It's not approvable in its current form, so we expect them to resubmit. [01:27:29] If this were approved? [01:27:30] Correct. [01:27:31] So it's subject to the land use plan amendment being changed through you as well as the state. [01:27:37] So they are kind of operating at a risk by going forward with a site plan before this [01:27:42] land use plan amendment is effective. [01:27:45] And just so I'm clear, just how it's currently zoned, let's say Mr. Hudson owned that property, [01:27:49] the way it's currently zoned, he could build villas there if he wanted to, correct? [01:27:52] No, actually... [01:27:53] What's it currently zoned for again? [01:27:54] Right now the zoning is highway commercial, but the land use is high density residential, [01:27:59] so it's inconsistent. [01:28:00] Right. [01:28:01] It's odd and inconsistent at the same time. [01:28:03] So they're trying to change the land use so it would be consistent with the existing zoning. [01:28:08] If that makes sense to you. [01:28:10] No, it does. [01:28:11] We see that all over the county unfortunately, there's proposed land use and then conflicts [01:28:16] with zoning and it's just a mess that happens over and over again. [01:28:19] And so back to the site plan comments I made earlier, the applicant will need to show us [01:28:27] the required buffer between the subject property and any residential property that it's adjacent [01:28:33] to. [01:28:34] And in this case, I believe it's a 25 foot depth requirement, which would include a six [01:28:40] foot privacy fence, as well as four canopy trees planted at 33 feet on center and a continuous [01:28:49] shrub. [01:28:50] That's what I recall reading earlier today from our land development code referencing [01:28:54] buffers. [01:28:56] Do we have authorization to increase that buffer? [01:29:00] Do we have the ability to increase the buffer as part of our approval or potential approval? [01:29:11] Because I've not seen that happen in land use cases, I've seen it happen most often [01:29:17] in rezoning cases, especially when we do a planned development district. [01:29:23] It doesn't mean the applicant can't voluntarily agree to make a larger buffer requirement. [01:29:30] I would also tell you that one of the things we ask the developer to provide us with is [01:29:36] a jurisdictional wetland survey and if there is a case where there's jurisdictional wetlands [01:29:42] on the property, they will have to provide an even greater setback from that. [01:29:49] The wetlands I'm thinking are there or along that north property line. [01:29:55] You certainly can ask the applicant if they want to provide additional buffering. [01:30:00] I'm not sure if your attorney will be able to advise you about the legal foundation for [01:30:05] how we require that. [01:30:08] At the site plan approval process, you can require additional buffering if you can justify [01:30:12] it. [01:30:13] You'd have to show the justification for the requirement. [01:30:17] You have a criteria on what we'd have to do to prove our point? [01:30:22] I'd like to know what I have to do to prove it before I get to that point and not ... I'd [01:30:28] like to know what my end game is, because personally, I'm concerned about the neighbors [01:30:35] that are there and the 25 feet and your tree line and all that, but what's even more interesting [01:30:42] is we're talking about transferring developable rights on property that we own that, in essence, [01:30:49] we bought it to not use it, which to me is a standard MO for the city of New Port Richey [01:30:56] in the last 15 years, but there's my editorial comment again, but in the same token, I'm [01:31:02] also concerned about the runoff and jurisdictional wetlands and the impact that it has to my [01:31:08] developable rights to go along with your wetlands up the side, so I was upon that. [01:31:16] I want to just make two other comments, and it might be time to let the applicant speak [01:31:21] as well. [01:31:23] This proposal does meet concurrency requirements. [01:31:25] It is consistent with the comp plan. [01:31:28] Your Land Development Review Board did review this at a public hearing on October 20th, [01:31:33] and they recommended approval to you on this proposal. [01:31:37] Question, were all the standard members of the Land Development Review Board there, or [01:31:45] did alternates sit in because people were not there? [01:31:48] One member was absent, so an alternate sat in the place of that regular member. [01:31:53] So Mr. Gray wasn't there? [01:31:55] That's correct. [01:31:56] And so Mr. Smallwood sat in for you? [01:31:57] That's correct. [01:31:58] Okay. [01:31:59] All right. [01:32:00] I just want to make sure I understand who all the players were. [01:32:01] Thank you. [01:32:02] Mr. Driscoll, who's to determine the justification if we were to require additional buffer? [01:32:05] Because I mean, obviously, I see the resident's point of view. [01:32:08] These are new developments. [01:32:09] It's a very nice wooded area. [01:32:12] It's going to bring property values down to look out over a car lot. [01:32:15] I mean, we all understand that, I'm sure. [01:32:17] So if we were to require an additional buffer, you said it has to be justified. [01:32:20] Who determines that justification, whether or not it's valid? [01:32:23] Ultimately it would be you initially, and then if it's challenged, a judge would make [01:32:28] the ultimate decision as to whether it was justified by the record. [01:32:32] So you just have to have something established on the record to be able to show it. [01:32:37] But you have to look at a land use amendment as, you have to look at that in isolation [01:32:41] regardless of the project or site plan that might be out there. [01:32:45] You have to determine whether you're comfortable with changing this land use to this particular [01:32:50] designation. [01:32:51] And since you have an inconsistent zoning at this point, if the land use isn't changed, [01:32:57] then at some point the zoning needs to be changed because the zoning needs to be consistent [01:33:00] with the land use. [01:33:01] And so right now we have an inconsistency that needs to be rectified. [01:33:05] Whether you decide to do this or not, something has to be done. [01:33:11] The question I have is, the way that I understood what they're looking for is a place to come [01:33:15] in and park cars so that they can move them around between two dealerships. [01:33:21] I don't know that it's between two dealerships. [01:33:23] They haven't advised us of that, but they want another place to store inventory. [01:33:26] Which means they're going to be coming in at all types of hours and with the trucks. [01:33:37] So those are things that have to be, please, please, we definitely will get your input, [01:33:46] but the play-by-play from way out there right now takes us off of what we're trying to establish [01:33:52] with all of our information. [01:33:53] I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. [01:33:54] If we might, do we have anything else from your report? [01:33:58] No. [01:33:59] Is the applicant here, care to address council? [01:34:06] Mayor, members of the council, my name is Raleigh Dove with Spring Engineering, and [01:34:15] I'm here on behalf of the applicant to describe the site, even though we're not talking about [01:34:23] site plan approval tonight. [01:34:25] Talk to us. [01:34:27] Okay. [01:34:29] The 10-acre parcel is bound on the north by an existing wetland. [01:34:35] We have had it surveyed. [01:34:37] It ranges in width from probably 50 to 75 feet. [01:34:42] We cannot, obviously, have no intentions of encroaching into that. [01:34:46] That's an expense that doesn't need to be borne. [01:34:50] Secondly, our present site plan calls for a retention pond to be constructed parallel [01:34:56] with that wetland, which would provide another 50 to 60 feet of buffer. [01:35:01] And then beyond that, we would provide the required landscape buffer that the city requires. [01:35:07] So as far as the north property line is concerned, we would have a substantial buffer there as [01:35:13] part of our site plan process. [01:35:16] The other thing to keep in mind is we're not asking on our site plan to develop the entire [01:35:21] 10 acres as a parking lot for inventory storage. [01:35:26] We're using approximately 5 to 5 1⁄2 acres on the east side of the 10 acres. [01:35:32] Any questions? [01:35:36] Is there, what is on the south side? [01:35:38] Because there's residential on the south side, too. [01:35:42] On the south side, there's an existing 40-foot wide access easement along there. [01:35:47] We still have to provide buffering along there, be approximately 25 feet along there, also [01:35:53] with required trees and shrubs. [01:35:56] I guess my question is, you could say, the developer could say, or the owner could say, [01:36:00] now I'm only going to use half of them, use 5 acres. [01:36:03] What's to say two years from now, it needs more additional space, clear out, you know, [01:36:06] and we've already approved it, and then there's nothing we can do to prevent that, correct? [01:36:10] That's right. [01:36:11] That's right. [01:36:12] No question about it. [01:36:13] But the farther west we go, the more the development costs are, because it keeps dropping off in [01:36:17] elevation. [01:36:18] Okay, so as of right now, his plan is to use 5 acres, so he's just going to level 5 acres, [01:36:23] he's going to leave the wooded area for the additional 5 acres he's not using, other than [01:36:25] the buffer? [01:36:26] Not exactly 5, but yes, the western half will not be developed. [01:36:32] And your site plan obviously hasn't been approved, but because all we're looking at is, we're [01:36:39] looking at what the parcel is. [01:36:42] So by looking at the parcel, we're taking it to the maximum, corner to corner. [01:36:48] You're saying that on the north side, not only with our buffer, but then there's a wetland [01:36:52] and then there's a step back from there, you're going to put a retention area into? [01:36:58] Is there any way to, on their preliminary site plan, do you have something that shows [01:37:04] what it looks like? [01:37:05] I don't have anything, I'm sorry. [01:37:07] We did not get a PDF of their site plan. [01:37:10] Okay. [01:37:11] So if I could just ask a question, whomever can answer it. [01:37:17] So the site plan can't be approved because the land use and the zoning are out of consistency? [01:37:23] That's correct. [01:37:24] Okay, thank you. [01:37:25] And even if we approve it, it still has to go up for state approval? [01:37:28] That's correct as well. [01:37:29] Alright, I'm just trying to make sure it connects all of those. [01:37:32] If you take all of that out of that 10 acre site, if you take our buffer and then the [01:37:37] wetlands and the other on the north side, is there a net usable, because obviously you've [01:37:45] got a buffer on the south side too, is there a net land area that you have an idea what [01:37:52] that net land area would, because you're going to use 5.5, by doing all this, does it take [01:37:58] it back to 7 usable, I'm just trying to picture it in my mind, sir. [01:38:05] I don't have a number for you, I could get that. [01:38:07] Alright. [01:38:08] Any other questions for the applicant? [01:38:12] Thank you. [01:38:13] At this point, this is an opportunity, yes. [01:38:16] Mr. Mayor, could I just ask a question, or maybe impose a suggestion, that I think from [01:38:22] a staff perspective, we would want, when we get the jurisdictional wetland survey, and [01:38:28] I wish we had it prior to tonight, but I think we would want to impose a restriction that [01:38:32] only the upland portion of the land be designated with highway commercial category, and any [01:38:39] wetland area would be conservation category, because you wouldn't be able to develop it [01:38:44] anyway. [01:38:45] That also allows the owner, if he zones it correctly, he can get some favorable treatment [01:38:53] from a taxing benefit from the conservation as part of, yeah, so I mean, but as long as [01:38:59] it creates a significant buffer on the backside of the Gulf Harbors 2, is that correct? [01:39:09] Yeah, I'm just trying to make sure. [01:39:11] As the city attorney, would it be appropriate for us to defer any further action on this [01:39:17] until we get that information? [01:39:20] When do you expect that? [01:39:21] Mr. Dove, do you know when you expect the wetland survey? [01:39:26] I should add a follow-up to that, I... [01:39:32] This might be moved. [01:39:34] Well, you're going to be, if you designate a conservation area, you're actually reducing [01:39:41] the land use on a portion of it, but it would make sense to divide the property into a conservation [01:39:48] and a highway commercial, so you really can't do that without that information, so I think [01:39:53] it would behoove you to postpone it until you get that information, if you're interested [01:39:58] in doing that. [01:39:59] A move. [01:40:00] A move to table it? [01:40:01] Yep. [01:40:02] Okay, and we have a motion and a second to table the ordinance until we get that information. [01:40:08] These folks came here just to wait for a public comment, they've been extremely... [01:40:14] They've been very patient. [01:40:15] They've been patient. [01:40:16] Would any of you like to address counsel on this? [01:40:19] We'll be bringing it back, obviously, when we get the other information. [01:40:24] We expect to be able to show you a much more comprehensive site plan and show you the buffering [01:40:28] and those things, but please, you've been here an hour and 40 minutes, so please, give [01:40:33] us your thoughts now so that we can understand those, so that we can put those into our collective [01:40:39] approach, so that we protect your interest and that we do the best thing that we can [01:40:44] for the city and for yourself, so please, we're here. [01:40:48] If you want to say something, please come on down. [01:40:50] Odd finger, who's coming up? [01:40:53] Yeah, yeah, I mean, you know, I mean, we usually don't beg for you people to come on down and, [01:40:59] you know... [01:41:00] Well, the gentleman on that bar, his wife's coming down, kind of looks like my brother. [01:41:05] I'm good. [01:41:07] Hi, my name is Mary Ann Lawrence. [01:41:10] I live at 4808 Square Rigger Court, and I am one of the residents on the, that backs [01:41:17] up on the north side of this property. [01:41:20] I just wanted to clarify some of the things that I heard tonight, because what I heard [01:41:24] was encouraging to me, because from what I understand, I was trying to take some notes [01:41:29] here, so if you'll just bear with me. [01:41:31] Is the gentleman, that gentleman there that spoke on behalf of Hyundai, he says there [01:41:37] is already an existing wetland that is on the north side of the property, is that correct? [01:41:42] Correct. [01:41:43] And that is 50 to 75 feet? [01:41:45] It varies, it kind of bands, yes, it's got some, yes ma'am. [01:41:49] So if it is, this survey that you're waiting for, that's for the wetlands, if that confirms [01:41:56] that there is a wetland there, does that mean that property cannot be developed? [01:42:00] That's correct. [01:42:01] Correct. [01:42:02] And part of what we're trying to do on the parcel is to designate that as conservation, [01:42:10] which means you can't build on it without incurring substantial fines and all that, [01:42:19] so that would even take our initial buffering even further back. [01:42:24] Okay, and make it even larger. [01:42:26] My understanding from the applicant is he was also going to put a retention pond on [01:42:31] the far side of the wetlands, and then put the buffer up just below that, so you'd have [01:42:38] the wetlands, the retention pond, and then the buffering all between you and... [01:42:43] That was my understanding too. [01:42:45] And we have requirements in our buffering that Ms. Fierce talked about with some trees [01:42:51] and some fencing and everything else, so yes. [01:42:57] So if this is approved going forward, would all of that be in writing and part of... [01:43:04] Yes. [01:43:05] Oh, man. [01:43:06] Absolutely. [01:43:07] I just want to make sure... [01:43:09] Not much done in a handshake anymore. [01:43:11] We've been here for an hour and 45 minutes. [01:43:13] I appreciate you asking us that question. [01:43:15] Actually, I'd like to wait, because I was at church, and I said a prayer for all of you. [01:43:19] Well, we needed all the prayers we could, no doubt. [01:43:22] We need it every week. [01:43:24] But yeah, I just... [01:43:26] Well, my husband is a retiree from Day County School Board, so I kind of know how the political [01:43:32] system works a little bit, so I just want to make sure that, you know, okay, this is [01:43:37] what we're going to do now, but a couple years down the road, oh, sorry, we've changed our [01:43:41] minds, and now we're going to do something else, you know? [01:43:43] So yeah. [01:43:45] You just got Lisa's card. [01:43:47] Just keep in touch with her, and she'll keep you abreast. [01:43:49] I will do. [01:43:50] And we will ask for public comment again after we have that information. [01:43:55] Because we have to properly notice it again, correct? [01:43:58] And that was another thing. [01:43:59] We didn't receive, as homeowners, any type of notice. [01:44:02] We found out about this accidentally, because one of the homeowners happened to see, I guess, [01:44:07] a survey crew or someone out there putting stakes and said, what did you do? [01:44:10] Well, come here every other Tuesday, not just this Tuesday. [01:44:13] Is this every Tuesday or once a month? [01:44:15] First and third. [01:44:17] How are they not notified, though? [01:44:18] The legal requirement for a land use plan amendment is that we... [01:44:21] And for a site that's over 10 acres, is an advertisement in the newspaper. [01:44:26] We do not send notices to adjacent property owners by mail. [01:44:31] We have to send it via the newspaper. [01:44:33] That's a state requirement. [01:44:34] Well, we're going to be nice to these people, right? [01:44:36] We certainly can go above and beyond that legal requirement. [01:44:39] And to the extent folks would want to contact me through you as the contact, [01:44:43] we'd be happy to notify them directly. [01:44:45] Okay. [01:44:46] In the paper, where would I look? [01:44:48] This is all new to me. [01:44:49] So where in the paper does that... [01:44:50] The PASCO Times section. [01:44:52] The real narrow section. [01:44:53] You can't even read it. [01:44:54] The print's so small. [01:44:56] Is that in the Tampa Bay Times? [01:44:58] Yes. [01:45:00] Can't even read them. [01:45:00] Can't even read them. [01:45:01] Maybe you could give us an address. [01:45:02] You'd have to go to another school. [01:45:04] Okay, well thank you very much. [01:45:06] Thank you. [01:45:06] All the best, Diana. [01:45:07] Thank you so much. [01:45:08] All right. [01:45:09] Thank you for talking to the card, too. [01:45:11] Oh, sure. [01:45:13] When is the wetland survey? [01:45:15] Need your name and address for the record. [01:45:18] Yes. [01:45:19] Oh, my name's Diane Gilman at 4800 Square River Court. [01:45:21] Thank you. [01:45:22] Also in Gulf Harbors, too. [01:45:24] When is the wetland survey going to be done?

    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. 10.b

    First Reading, Ordinance #2016-2095: Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Downtown and Downtown Core Categories Revised

    approved

    First reading of Ordinance #2016-2095, a Comprehensive Plan amendment to increase maximum residential density in the Downtown future land use category from 15 to 20 dwelling units per acre and in the Downtown Core category from 30 to 40 dwelling units per acre, plus minor changes to encourage (rather than require) ground floor retail. The ordinance is needed to support the Residences at Orange Lake project (86 dwelling units). Council moved for approval for discussion purposes; the item will go to the state for review before second reading.

    Ord. Ordinance #2016-2095

    • motion:Move for approval of Ordinance #2016-2095 (first reading) for discussion purposes. (passed)
    • direction:Staff to provide reminder of the downtown residential overlay district provisions at second reading to address concerns about low-intensity uses. (none)

    📍Central Avenue📍Grand Boulevard📍Lincoln📍Main Street📍Sims Park📍southeast corner of Central and Adams🏢Baptist Church🏢Bifo Brady's🏢Hacienda🏢Residences at Orange Lake👤Altman👤Davis👤Lisa👤Manns👤Pridgen👤Spheeris👤Starkey#Comprehensive Plan Table FLU 1.1.3#Department of Economic Opportunity review#Downtown (D) future land use category#Downtown Core (DC) future land use category#Downtown residential overlay district#Land Development Review Board recommendation (October 20th)#Ordinance #2016-2095#Residences at Orange Lake (86 dwelling units)

    ▶ Jump to 1:45:26 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:45:28] It's indicated within the next couple of weeks. [01:45:30] And after that is? [01:45:32] We will re-agenda the whole thing. [01:45:35] Okay, and once that is done and you've reconvened, [01:45:40] when would, what is the process to do? [01:45:44] We'll have a first reading on the ordinance, [01:45:46] which was what was scheduled for tonight. [01:45:49] Assuming that it's approved [01:45:51] and it doesn't go down in flames, [01:45:52] then there'll be a second reading of the ordinance, [01:45:55] which typically happens at the following meeting. [01:45:58] And we meet on the first and third Tuesdays. [01:46:00] And then you actually vote on the conservation? [01:46:04] We would vote on the land use amendment. [01:46:07] And then at some point after that is dealt with, [01:46:10] then the applicant comes back again [01:46:14] and there will be a, Lisa? [01:46:18] What happens is after first reading, [01:46:20] we send it off to the state. [01:46:21] The Department of Economic Opportunity [01:46:23] has to weigh in on the land use plan amendment. [01:46:26] That's what I was trying to find out. [01:46:27] Right, after the state tells us their review of it, [01:46:31] we either make modifications to it [01:46:32] based on their review or not. [01:46:34] And then we schedule it for second reading [01:46:36] through city council for adoption. [01:46:38] And then you've still got the zoning change? [01:46:41] There would be no zoning change. [01:46:42] It already has a highway commercial zoning [01:46:45] attached to it currently. [01:46:46] And I actually still have one more question. [01:46:48] You know, in terms of the distance [01:46:51] of that conservation area, [01:46:56] how far back would that be? [01:46:59] So we're talking a 10 acre, [01:47:01] because currently it's up to the line, [01:47:03] that multi, high density multifamily, okay? [01:47:08] So how far would the conservation area be [01:47:13] in terms of then the rezoning to now the highway, [01:47:20] the highway commercial? [01:47:22] That's going to be dependent upon [01:47:24] what we get back from the surveyor [01:47:25] that shows where the wetlands are located. [01:47:27] Okay, so then, oh, so it all depends on the distance. [01:47:31] And then that would determine then, [01:47:36] like say, it would be determined maybe six acres [01:47:39] for the highway commercial, [01:47:42] and then the rest would be conservation, [01:47:44] or they would say maybe seven acres? [01:47:46] We would propose probably that the jurisdictional [01:47:50] wetland area would be coterminous [01:47:52] with the conservation category area. [01:47:55] And what does that mean? [01:47:57] Same boundary. [01:47:58] Whatever shows up as jurisdictional wetland, [01:48:01] we would want to mark that as a conservation category, [01:48:03] which would be basically something you couldn't develop. [01:48:06] And right now that sits directly adjacent [01:48:10] to your property line. [01:48:12] Exactly. [01:48:13] And the indication that we were given [01:48:14] by the representative is that wetlands, [01:48:18] it meanders from 50 feet into the property to 75 feet, [01:48:22] and then they were talking about putting [01:48:24] a retention pond up to that, [01:48:26] and then our buffer area starts there, [01:48:29] and then everything else coming south [01:48:32] would come in to be the upland parking area. [01:48:36] Yeah, I was hoping it would be something a little different. [01:48:40] That's why I was talking to her. [01:48:41] Again, I'd be happy to meet with any of the neighbors [01:48:43] who have more specific questions about the proposal. [01:48:46] Yeah, and we'll, we need more information [01:48:49] before we can give you more information. [01:48:51] Right, right. [01:48:52] I'll talk to her. [01:48:53] That's what I was just trying to figure out [01:48:55] in terms of what it meant. [01:48:56] I was trying to get more information [01:48:58] in terms of what it was categorized as. [01:49:02] You and us both. [01:49:03] Okay, thanks. [01:49:04] Okay, no problem. [01:49:05] Come on down. [01:49:07] Anyone else? [01:49:09] With that, we have a motion to table this [01:49:11] until we get the additional information. [01:49:13] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:49:15] Aye. [01:49:16] Opposed, the like sign. [01:49:17] Mr. Mayor, can we take 10 minutes, please? [01:49:19] I would be willing to do that. [01:49:22] We will recess for 10 minutes, [01:49:23] come back here at nine o'clock. [01:49:26] Next is, next item on the agenda [01:49:28] is first reading ordinance 2016-2095, [01:49:31] downtown and downtown core categories. [01:49:34] Mr. Spheeris, could you represent the item? [01:49:37] The short title first. [01:49:39] Yes, ordinance number 2016-2095, [01:49:42] an ordinance amending the city of Newport Ridgey [01:49:44] comprehensive plan amending table FLU 1.1.3 [01:49:48] to increase maximum residential density [01:49:51] in the downtown D future land use category [01:49:54] from 15 dwelling units per acre [01:49:56] to 20 dwelling units per acre. [01:49:58] To increase maximum residential density [01:50:01] in the downtown core DC future land use category [01:50:05] from 30 dwelling units per acre [01:50:07] to 40 dwelling units per acre. [01:50:09] To encourage ground floor retail uses [01:50:11] in the downtown future land use category [01:50:13] and to clarify that portions of the downtown core [01:50:16] future land use category had been designated [01:50:18] with the downtown future land use category. [01:50:21] Providing for severability [01:50:22] and providing for an effective date. [01:50:25] Ms. Spheeris. [01:50:26] Yes, council, this ordinance furthers the city's goal [01:50:29] of increasing the residential footprint in the downtown [01:50:32] by way of greater entitlements to density. [01:50:35] Higher densities will drive the demand [01:50:37] for commercial turnover that follows [01:50:39] as a result of increased demand for services. [01:50:42] And this ordinance is needed to support the proposal [01:50:44] for the residences at Orange Lake. [01:50:48] Simply, this is an increase in density [01:50:51] in the downtown land use category [01:50:54] from 15 units an acre to 20 units an acre. [01:50:57] It's also an increase in density [01:50:58] from the downtown core category [01:51:01] from 30 units an acre to 40 units an acre. [01:51:04] And it also makes two minor changes to the comp plan. [01:51:08] One of which is to encourage rather than require [01:51:12] ground floor retail in the downtown category. [01:51:15] And the other is to clarify that the downtown core category [01:51:19] was originally designated [01:51:21] with a downtown category designation. [01:51:25] When we looked at this amendment from a staff perspective, [01:51:28] we compared ourselves to some other similarly sized cities [01:51:32] in the Tampa Bay region [01:51:34] and we found that our proposal is consistent. [01:51:39] So this is a map of a portion [01:51:41] of the future land use of the city. [01:51:43] And the pink area represents the existing downtown category. [01:51:48] And again, our goal with this ordinance [01:51:50] is to change the entitlement from 15 units an acre [01:51:53] to 20 units an acre. [01:51:56] The brown color represents the downtown core category [01:51:59] that you adopted last year. [01:52:01] And this proposal would increase the density [01:52:04] from 30 units an acre to 40 units an acre [01:52:07] in that brown area. [01:52:10] This is a second reading and, [01:52:13] or I'm sorry, this will have a second reading [01:52:15] that follows the state's review of the ordinance. [01:52:19] Your Land Development Review Board [01:52:21] did recommend approval of it at its October 20th meeting. [01:52:24] Thank you, I'll open it up for public comment. [01:52:28] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to council. [01:52:34] Move for approval for discussion purposes. [01:52:36] Motion is seconded to the maker. [01:52:42] Can you go back to your last slide? [01:52:47] Understanding that we've got the downtown and the core. [01:52:53] The residence at Orange Lake, [01:52:56] obviously it piggybacks two separate categories. [01:53:02] It has three actually, it's got downtown, core, [01:53:04] downtown, and low, medium density residential. [01:53:06] Oh, because you got the purple there [01:53:07] or whatever that is on the one side, [01:53:09] on the one side of the property. [01:53:10] Can you point to it with your thinking? [01:53:11] Sure, I'd be happy to. [01:53:12] So down, the residence is at Orange Lake. [01:53:15] If I could tell you, this is Main Street. [01:53:18] Yeah, keep going. [01:53:20] And this is Grand Boulevard. [01:53:22] Yep, you're. [01:53:23] And central, as you can see, [01:53:24] has a wide right of way here. [01:53:26] Right. [01:53:27] And the big piece of residence [01:53:30] is at Orange Lake is located here in the brown. [01:53:32] There's a tiny little piece that's over here [01:53:34] on the southeast corner of central and Adams. [01:53:37] And then there's another piece here on the north side. [01:53:40] That was the old parking lot [01:53:41] for the Baptist Church property. [01:53:43] So in essence, and you used the word eager [01:53:48] to encourage higher density residential. [01:53:50] I don't recognize that I've been eager to do that. [01:53:54] I'm not sure that I've been eager to do that. [01:53:57] I've necessitated that we have to change some things [01:54:01] to allow higher density. [01:54:07] My question is, is with the residents at Orange Lake, [01:54:13] are they gonna maximize the number of units [01:54:18] pursuant to this change? [01:54:20] Yes. [01:54:21] So basically, we're changing it to meet their criteria [01:54:26] for that property. [01:54:27] This will allow them to develop 86 dwelling units, [01:54:31] if I recall correctly from the calculation. [01:54:33] Does it all, and it also will have a monumental impact [01:54:39] on the old Altman property, is that correct? [01:54:44] Which is across from the Hacienda, [01:54:46] which the Hacienda's in brown right there on Sims Park, [01:54:51] and then that's the old Altman property, correct? [01:54:53] This is Bifo Brady's here. [01:54:55] Correct. [01:54:56] And then across Lincoln is property [01:54:58] that I believe Mr. Pridgen owns as well. [01:55:00] It used to be owned by Mr. Altman. [01:55:02] And so yes, all the brown area will go [01:55:04] from 30 units an acre to 40 units an acre, [01:55:06] and that site itself will enjoy that increase in density. [01:55:10] And part of the conversation [01:55:12] at the Land Development Review Board [01:55:15] was talking about density and also height. [01:55:19] Correct, there was a question asked. [01:55:21] And that hasn't changed from the last time we changed [01:55:24] the downtown development standards. [01:55:29] We have not changed our thinking [01:55:32] in terms of any need for any additional height. [01:55:34] So 50 feet or five stories is still the magic number [01:55:38] for height maximum in all of that area. [01:55:45] In the pink area, we're discussing it's 15 now [01:55:50] and it's going to 20. [01:55:52] My concern or my question is that we have some [01:56:00] interesting use of properties next door to each other. [01:56:04] Sometimes they're only like usually 75 wide [01:56:06] or 70 wide in that area. [01:56:08] And some people put triplexes and duplexes [01:56:11] in next to a single family house. [01:56:14] Is that going to open up the possibility [01:56:17] of more first come first serve [01:56:19] to get the extra five shots? [01:56:22] I don't know that that's going to be the case. [01:56:24] I mean, certainly your downtown is meant to be [01:56:26] your mixed use development core. [01:56:29] I'm hoping it will turn over properties [01:56:31] that have been stagnant or underutilized [01:56:34] for the past 20 years or more. [01:56:37] I don't know what underutilized, [01:56:39] if it's a rental property or if it's somebody's [01:56:41] living there and next door they got a triplex [01:56:42] and then the next side of it is another single family house. [01:56:46] And we're certainly hopeful that developers [01:56:49] will aggregate property to gain a more productive [01:56:53] site acreage, because there's really not a lot [01:56:55] you can do on some of these postage stamp properties, [01:56:58] even with this increase in density. [01:56:59] You really need more land coupled together. [01:57:03] So you don't think there's a possibility [01:57:06] we'll have more triplexes? [01:57:08] Not specifically. [01:57:10] That's not been a fear that we've considered. [01:57:14] Wouldn't they have to come for approval [01:57:15] to the city to build a triplex? [01:57:16] You'd have to approve it. [01:57:18] All of it would have to go through [01:57:19] the review process, correct. [01:57:21] So we just say no, thank you. [01:57:22] We don't want a triplex. [01:57:23] Well, if it's permitted by the code, [01:57:25] then you have to have a good reason to say no. [01:57:27] But multifamily is permitted in the downtown. [01:57:31] Triplexes specifically, I don't know if that's [01:57:34] a residential use that's on the permitted list. [01:57:37] Single family and duplexes are. [01:57:38] And multifamily is. [01:57:40] Triplexes per se, I don't know that it's listed [01:57:42] as permitted. [01:57:43] We have a few of those. [01:57:45] In truth, there's really nothing wrong with a triplex. [01:57:47] What's wrong with a lot of the development [01:57:49] is they're not well cared for. [01:57:50] They're not well designed. [01:57:52] Yeah, but it goes back to our, you know, [01:57:55] you're paving the whole front yard [01:57:57] so you can get the three or four cars [01:57:59] that you need into the triplex. [01:58:01] Well, if we're concerned about parking. [01:58:04] Well, I'm not concerned, I'm just saying [01:58:06] you're taking a look at your neighborhood. [01:58:07] You got a nice grass yard, you got a nice grass yard. [01:58:09] This person put a, you know, we just approved [01:58:12] front porches, nice front porch. [01:58:14] We got a triplex paved all the way across [01:58:16] so they can have their parking. [01:58:18] I understand. [01:58:19] So one of the things we are working on [01:58:22] is parking regulations regarding multifamily [01:58:26] and commercial uses. [01:58:28] And when we had talked to you all about that [01:58:30] some time ago, before we separated residential [01:58:34] from commercial, we were looking at providing [01:58:36] alternate means of parking. [01:58:39] So everyone didn't have to have all the parking [01:58:41] on their property that they currently have [01:58:43] to provide to do today. [01:58:44] Especially in the downtown, we know there's [01:58:46] alternate means of transportation. [01:58:50] So if you're on the bus line, for example, [01:58:53] you wouldn't really need to have parking [01:58:54] because we know you're taking the bus instead. [01:58:56] So I think those things probably will discourage, [01:59:00] if you will, that parking lot development [01:59:02] in the front yards. [01:59:05] Well, I just, I can foresee a smart developer [01:59:10] coming in and buying a 1940s house [01:59:12] and throw a triplex in there. [01:59:16] And we can't do anything about it. [01:59:17] I don't know, I don't see that as being a problem. [01:59:21] Again, my issue with it is, what is it going to look like? [01:59:25] Right, well that's what we have right now. [01:59:28] Mr. Starkey, I believe you were the second. [01:59:30] I was. [01:59:31] I guess, the question I have is the parcel [01:59:34] north of Central that Mr. Starkey also owns, [01:59:36] that's not going to be in Brown. [01:59:37] So is the number of units he's wanting to put, [01:59:40] does that already coincide with what's allowed [01:59:41] density-wise on that parcel? [01:59:43] Because that's where he's starting, correct? [01:59:45] He's starting, he's telling us he's starting [01:59:47] his first phase on the north side of Central. [01:59:50] What we're going to be doing with the piece [01:59:52] when you sell it to him, which he does not own it yet, [01:59:54] you still own it, or the CRA still owns it, [01:59:57] we will be rezoning all of the property. [02:00:00] that he will be developing into a planned district. [02:00:02] And we will be unifying all those property [02:00:05] under unity of title, so it's one master parcel. [02:00:08] So for us, it doesn't matter where he puts the density [02:00:12] on that unified parcel. [02:00:14] He can put all of it on the north side [02:00:16] or all of it on the south side, it doesn't matter. [02:00:19] He'll get to enjoy the density that we're providing him [02:00:22] with this change across all of those pieces combined. [02:00:25] Would you just answer my next question? [02:00:27] So the 86 dwelling units is for north side [02:00:30] and south side of Central, all of it combined? [02:00:32] Correct, as well as that small piece [02:00:33] on the east side of Adams. [02:00:36] The other piece that will be coming to you [02:00:39] as part of the rezoning will most likely be [02:00:44] a vacation of a portion of Central Avenue, [02:00:47] so the property can get a little bit larger [02:00:50] to afford Mr. Starkey the density he wishes to develop. [02:00:55] And I do agree with Mr. Davis on this. [02:00:57] I mean, I don't want to pass this and just have [02:01:00] landlords that don't care about our downtown [02:01:02] and don't care about what their duplexes [02:01:04] and triplexes look like come in [02:01:06] and just build cookie cutter multi-unit developments [02:01:10] that don't look nice and they rent to whoever. [02:01:13] You know, I talked to Ms. Manns, [02:01:15] isn't the city trying to take strides [02:01:17] to prevent things like that happening? [02:01:20] So how does that coincide with what we're approving here then? [02:01:24] Would you rather not discuss it right now? [02:01:26] No, I'm just not certain I completely understand [02:01:29] the question, so I want to respond appropriately to you. [02:01:31] Well, the last thing we want, we're always talking about [02:01:34] trying to clean the area up because we have [02:01:36] so many landlords and councils from decades past [02:01:40] have allowed and the city's allowed [02:01:43] nice, beautiful frame homes along the street [02:01:45] and then it's mixed uses is an understatement. [02:01:48] I could take you up any street that's got a state name [02:01:52] in our downtown and show you beautiful homes [02:01:55] with a trashy duplex or triplex next to it. [02:01:57] So, you know, we're dealing with decisions [02:02:00] that were made for decades [02:02:02] and I think that's what Mr. Davis is addressing [02:02:04] and I agree with him on it. [02:02:05] You know, we need to take whatever strides we can legally [02:02:08] as a city to prevent more rundown housing units [02:02:11] like that going in and this, [02:02:13] I agree that we have to pass this tonight [02:02:14] but it kind of opens up a little bit of a door [02:02:17] for them to be able to do so. [02:02:19] What I want to offer to you for the second reading is [02:02:22] and what I didn't provide to you in this packet [02:02:23] is I want to remind you of the [02:02:25] downtown residential overlay district. [02:02:29] Essentially, it's most of that pink area [02:02:31] to the east of the brown area [02:02:33] and the overlay district represents [02:02:35] the portion of the city that's got residential zoning [02:02:40] that the city has allowed non-residential uses [02:02:43] to operate on. [02:02:44] Like when you drive Main Street to the east [02:02:46] as you're heading around the bend, [02:02:48] all those little houses, [02:02:49] some of which have been converted to commercial, [02:02:52] that's in the overlay district. [02:02:53] I don't expect this change in intensity [02:02:55] to really impact that because there's this overlay [02:02:57] that says they have to be low-intensity types of uses [02:03:02] and for your second reading, [02:03:03] I will remind you of that provision in our zoning. [02:03:07] So maybe it will allay some of your concerns [02:03:10] you're having about that. [02:03:11] It still doesn't, back to what he's saying,

    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. 10.c

    First Reading, Ordinance #2016-2091 Relating to Noise

    discussed

    Council held first reading of Ordinance #2016-2091 to repeal and replace noise ordinance sections 14-21 through 14-25, replacing the current subjective standard with measurable decibel limits for residential and non-residential areas, day and night. Police Chief explained enforcement approach: readings will be taken from property adjacent to the noise source, and decibel meters will be issued to supervisors and field training officers for 24/7 coverage. Citizen Ron Holliday spoke in support, citing long-standing noise issues in his neighborhood.

    Ord. Ordinance #2016-2091

    • direction:Council conducted first reading of Ordinance #2016-2091 relating to noise; discussion continued toward second reading. (none)

    📍6330 Montana Avenue🏢Baptist Church🏢Main Street Landings🏢Venom👤Chief👤Dan👤Mr. Davis👤Mr. Posma👤Mr. Starkey👤Ms. DeBolt-Thomas👤Ron Holliday#Orange Lake#Ordinance #2016-2091#Section 14-23(B) outdoor sound level measurement provision#Sections 14-21 through 14-25 of the New Port Richey Code of Ordinances#downtown parking issues

    ▶ Jump to 2:03:13 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [02:03:14] it still doesn't address the Delaware [02:03:16] or the Illinois duplex that's gone long way [02:03:19] on a 75-foot or a 70-foot piece of property. [02:03:22] Well, in fact. [02:03:23] Aren't those non-conforming uses now? [02:03:26] In some cases, they are. [02:03:27] I mean, if something happens to them, [02:03:28] they can't, if more than 50% of them is damaged, [02:03:31] we're not giving them a permit to rebuild. [02:03:34] In some cases, that may be true, [02:03:35] but I think to Mr. Davis's point, [02:03:37] you're talking about more of an appearance code issue [02:03:40] that we just don't have currently. [02:03:42] We do in the downtown, in the downtown zoning, [02:03:45] we have design guidelines. [02:03:46] We don't have an appearance code [02:03:48] that tells people how they can orient, [02:03:52] for example, their development. [02:03:54] They have to work within the buildable envelope, [02:03:58] you know, operating under the setbacks, [02:04:01] but beyond that, I don't have a provision [02:04:03] that says you can't orient it to the side [02:04:05] or to the rear or something to that nature, so. [02:04:10] Yeah, my only other concern with the increased density [02:04:14] and the elements like this and where it begins to take into, [02:04:22] especially in the Brown area, is that [02:04:29] the parking requirements for the developer on site, [02:04:33] what he's gonna push to our roadways, [02:04:37] and what's gonna be parked there overnight [02:04:40] with our economic development strategy, [02:04:45] I think we're backing ourselves into a pretty good corner. [02:04:50] Really, because we started it, [02:04:54] we have a residence at Orange Lake, [02:04:56] but we had the conversation about Main Street Landings, [02:05:01] and basically their plan was they're only gonna put [02:05:04] so many parking spaces for X amount of their units [02:05:08] on their site, and the remainder we get to deal with. [02:05:12] And our parking spaces that hamper retail [02:05:18] and other entities that are adjacent to that, [02:05:21] and I see us doing that around Circle in that area, [02:05:26] so I mean, the density improvements brings along with it [02:05:30] additional opportunity to create parking. [02:05:34] It's a great point, I mean, just people using the park [02:05:37] right now, the north parcel has basically become [02:05:39] a parking lot for people walking around Orange Lake, [02:05:41] it's half full throughout the day. [02:05:42] Yeah, all I can tell you is, was it a week ago Saturday [02:05:45] when we had six things going on in the downtown that night? [02:05:49] I don't know how many people criticized [02:05:51] we didn't have parking, and I'm like, [02:05:53] you know, 95% of the time you can find a place, [02:05:57] but that night there just happened to be all those things. [02:06:00] The entire Baptist Church property, [02:06:01] both the paved parking area and the dirt area [02:06:05] was completely, completely full. [02:06:08] That's a discussion for another evening and another topic, [02:06:13] but I will repeat to my colleagues, [02:06:15] we got to get serious about getting parking dealt with, [02:06:18] because it is going to get much more acute. [02:06:22] If Mr. Starkey starts building soon after the first [02:06:25] of the year, it's going to be sooner rather than later, [02:06:28] we got to deal with it. [02:06:29] And you're absolutely right, but we have to plan, [02:06:31] you know, I don't want to compare ourselves to the county [02:06:33] that's building subdivision after subdivision, [02:06:35] doesn't have really an east-west roadway to support it, [02:06:38] or allow these people, these developers, [02:06:40] which we want, we have to have parking. [02:06:42] Yeah, the previous county administration [02:06:45] did a lot of stuff that in hindsight [02:06:47] he probably wouldn't have done today. [02:06:53] Yeah, it was fine right up until the roads got trashed, [02:06:56] but let's see if we can move on this, Ms. DeBolt-Thomas. [02:07:01] Thank you. [02:07:03] Two questions. [02:07:03] So one of the little ticks was that we are encouraging, [02:07:07] not requiring, or I forget exactly what he said [02:07:09] about retail, is that, are we changing something, [02:07:12] are we enhancing something, [02:07:13] are we using the word encouraging over not encouraging, [02:07:17] or we're using the word encouraging over requiring? [02:07:23] For the retail, Dan. [02:07:24] The current language in the crop plan says [02:07:25] residential development shall include ground floor retail, [02:07:29] and what we're changing is that we are encouraged, [02:07:33] so not to require it, [02:07:34] because we think that could turn people off [02:07:37] in case they don't want to provide the retail. [02:07:39] Does that, that includes Mr. Starkey [02:07:41] that's looking at not having retail [02:07:43] on the ground floor of his project? [02:07:46] Thank you. [02:07:47] And the other thing is, yes, I think that, [02:07:51] you know, we're looking at other cities that have done this, [02:07:53] and, you know, encouraging the type of development [02:07:56] that we want, which I think we would all agree, [02:07:58] the type of development that Mr. Starkey [02:08:00] is looking to bring in is the kind of developments [02:08:03] that we do want, and I would just remind ourselves [02:08:08] that, you know, any other type of development, [02:08:10] I mean, right down to the look on the fascia and whatever, [02:08:15] that, you know, we do, councils, not just us, [02:08:17] but councils have the opportunity to nix or agree, [02:08:22] so I would say that we need to be aware and alert [02:08:26] when those things are happening, [02:08:27] and I do agree that some of the development [02:08:31] that we have in our city right now, [02:08:33] really, it's more of an issue of deteriorated quality [02:08:38] of the properties rather than the particular design, [02:08:42] so we have to stay on top of our code enforcement, [02:08:45] our minimum requirements for all of that, [02:08:48] so it's kind of all hand in hand, [02:08:50] and to remind us about, you know, [02:08:54] that it's a South Beach issue [02:08:57] when you have parking problems, [02:09:00] so I agree that we do need to address them, [02:09:03] but that's a very positive thing [02:09:05] that we are now experiencing, so thank you. [02:09:08] Any other comments? [02:09:11] Hearing none, all those in favor, [02:09:14] please signify by saying aye. [02:09:15] Aye. [02:09:16] Opposed, black sign. [02:09:17] Motion passes. [02:09:18] Next is first reading of Ordinance 2016. [02:09:21] Can we have the reading by title, please? [02:09:24] Ordinance number 2016-2091, [02:09:26] an ordinance of the city of New Port Richey, Florida, [02:09:28] providing for the repeal and replacement of Article II, [02:09:31] sections 14-21 through 14-25 [02:09:34] of the New Port Richey Code of Ordinances [02:09:37] pertaining to noise, [02:09:38] providing definitions of terms, [02:09:40] providing noise limitations, [02:09:42] providing exemptions, [02:09:43] providing penalties for excessive noise, [02:09:45] providing for enforcement, [02:09:46] providing for conflict, severability, [02:09:48] and an effective date. [02:09:50] Thank you, I'll open this up for public comment. [02:09:52] Anyone wish to address council, [02:09:54] please come on down and give us your name [02:09:56] and address for the record. [02:10:05] Ron Holliday, 6330 Montana Avenue. [02:10:08] I hope what you're passing is gonna take care [02:10:10] of the issue in my neighborhood. [02:10:12] I mean, for years I've been hearing [02:10:13] we're gonna have this pass, [02:10:15] and every time I call PD out for the noise [02:10:18] that happened across the alley, [02:10:20] they say they have nothing they can enforce. [02:10:23] And I'd like to also address the blocking of the alley [02:10:26] that was mentioned earlier. [02:10:28] I own 300 feet across the alley from Mr. Posma, [02:10:32] and I only have access to one of those properties [02:10:36] through the alley as well, [02:10:37] and there's been many, many times, [02:10:40] couldn't access it because many trailers [02:10:42] are visiting people to that property. [02:10:46] And the noise from the garage and the carport [02:10:49] when he's welding at midnight or grinding, [02:10:52] running several different businesses out of that operation, [02:10:55] and he mentioned he runs a business out there [02:10:57] with all the trailers. [02:10:58] He doesn't have enough property [02:10:59] to park all those trailers over there. [02:11:02] Sometimes they're in the street out front, [02:11:03] on the front yard. [02:11:05] And before I blocked off my property, [02:11:08] a lot of the trailers and vehicles and guests [02:11:11] would park on my property. [02:11:13] If we could keep this to the noise source. [02:11:15] Okay, it's part of the noise. [02:11:16] It all ties in with the noise. [02:11:18] So hopefully what you're passing [02:11:20] is something that Chief and his staff can enforce. [02:11:24] Because for years I've had to deal with this, [02:11:26] and to the point that maybe the city [02:11:29] needs to buy my 300 feet of property [02:11:31] instead of spending millions on churches downtown, [02:11:33] and I'll leave town. [02:11:35] I'm to that point, or hire an attorney [02:11:36] to make that happen for myself. [02:11:38] I'm really aggravated about it. [02:11:40] And I've been up here many times. [02:11:41] You all know this council and probably four others, [02:11:45] and a couple different police chiefs [02:11:47] and city managers, on and on. [02:11:48] I mean, it's time to nip in the bud [02:11:50] and let's take care of it, please. [02:11:52] So hopefully you're passing something that's enforceable. [02:11:54] Thank you very much for your time, everyone. [02:11:56] Thank you. [02:11:57] Anyone else wish to address council on the noise ordinance? [02:12:01] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to council. [02:12:04] Can we, can the chief make some initial [02:12:10] insights into this? [02:12:12] Because obviously there's been a lot of time and effort, [02:12:19] and before we start asking you 50 questions [02:12:22] that you might preemptively answer [02:12:24] before we get to ask them, [02:12:26] we know every city in the Tampa Bay area has noise issues, [02:12:34] because we've seen Tampa try to deal with theirs. [02:12:38] I'm just wanting to get a better understanding, [02:12:41] plus, minus, kind of where you are. [02:12:43] So if we could get some oversight, thank you. [02:12:46] I'd be happy to respond. [02:12:48] Thank you for asking me to. [02:12:51] We routinely get noise complaints. [02:12:55] They come from neighborhoods, like from Mr. Holiday, [02:12:58] and we also get those from some of the noises [02:13:02] that come out of our bars and restaurants downtown, [02:13:06] where they have music outside, [02:13:08] or the doors of the business opens up, [02:13:11] and it's late at night, and it wakes up the neighborhood, [02:13:15] and we have some regular call-ins. [02:13:19] 11 o'clock at night, they're calling us and asking us, [02:13:21] what can we do about it? [02:13:23] We get out there, and the way the current ordinance [02:13:26] is written is it's very subjective. [02:13:28] It pretty much says that if noise bothers someone else, [02:13:33] then it's a violation, [02:13:35] and that doesn't work with the judges. [02:13:37] It doesn't work with the magistrates. [02:13:39] You have to have something [02:13:41] that takes the subjectivity out of it. [02:13:44] Measurable? [02:13:46] Well, and that's where we're going with this ordinance, [02:13:48] and with that, we did some checking [02:13:55] with other jurisdictions to see how they addressed it, [02:13:58] and Tampa is one that I looked at, [02:14:01] and I passed it on to our attorneys, [02:14:04] and there were a number of other communities. [02:14:07] There are still a bunch of them, even in our county, [02:14:09] that are very subjective and without measurement, [02:14:14] but they also continue to get the complaints. [02:14:20] What we did is we got some decimeters, [02:14:25] and I had my officers take readings [02:14:31] during some of these complaints [02:14:32] to find out at what levels those readings were. [02:14:36] When we had some concerts down in the park, [02:14:38] we took some readings there, [02:14:40] but I don't want my hearing [02:14:44] to be the subjective determination in this, [02:14:47] so what we did is we looked at [02:14:48] what other jurisdictions have done [02:14:50] and that they have settled upon, [02:14:52] and that's where we have come up with the limits [02:14:55] that you'll see written in this ordinance. [02:14:57] Now, [02:15:00] There may be some individuals who live in our community who want to have no noise in their neighborhood. [02:15:06] Well, this ordinance isn't going to make that happen. [02:15:09] There are other people who need to be able to enjoy the property during reasonable hours and a reasonable level of noise. [02:15:17] And this gives us something both during daytime hours in residential areas and limits during nighttime hours. [02:15:25] It also sets some limits for the non-residential areas, which we receive a number of complaints on sounds from those areas. [02:15:36] I have a question for you, Chief. [02:15:38] Yes, sir. [02:15:39] So where and how would this be measured? [02:15:41] I've had an issue myself with Venom, the biker bar, which I think is a great place, and I'm glad they're there. [02:15:47] There's a tidal lake right behind there, and my house is literally 70 yards away. [02:15:54] So to compare Mr. Hawley's issue with his neighbors and myself with when they have live concerts at Venom, [02:16:00] if Mr. Hawley were to call, would the police officer come and stand in his backyard with that decibel reader, [02:16:05] or would he stand in the alleyway behind the house that is projecting the noise? [02:16:11] Or if I were to call on Venom, which I haven't, but if I were, would they stand in my driveway outside my window, [02:16:17] or are they going to stand right outside the property line and do their reading? [02:16:22] That was an important consideration with this and something that we examined with other ordinances [02:16:27] to try to be sure that we wanted to hold the right person accountable for this, [02:16:34] just because you happen to live four ways from Venom. [02:16:38] But there's other neighbors who are just as upset as you are that that noise is going on, but you finally have had it. [02:16:44] You call it. [02:16:45] I'm just saying. [02:16:46] I'm not that mean. [02:16:47] No. [02:16:48] But let's say that you called us. [02:16:50] If we were to take that reading from your property line, it might be annoying, [02:16:54] but it may not rise to the level that it is back for those many other neighbors that are just as upset. [02:17:01] So what we found were ordinances that put the burden back on that property owner who was creating the noise, [02:17:09] to where the reading under Section 1423, subsection B, it says, [02:17:16] Outdoor sound level measurements shall be taken from any public or private property adjacent to the property [02:17:22] from which the sound being measured reasonably emanates. [02:17:26] So that means anything next door to where that sound is emanating from. [02:17:35] Does that answer your question? [02:17:36] That's how I read it. [02:17:37] I just want to be sure the officers know to stick to that, because we have to be consistent. [02:17:42] Because we've had complaints about the Reaganite adult set, so if they come out, [02:17:46] I just hope they're going to do the same reading from the same location, not from a street over, [02:17:51] if that's where they call from. [02:17:53] I was on that section when I asked the question. [02:17:55] I just wanted to bring it up vocally, publicly, so that we're all on the same page, so everyone knows. [02:18:01] And to be surprised, I'm very, very extremely surprised we don't have more people in the audience regarding this, [02:18:05] because it's been such an issue. [02:18:08] We advertise it. [02:18:09] I was just very surprised we don't have restaurant bar owners [02:18:11] and people that live close to downtown here speaking their mind. [02:18:14] I'm very, very surprised by it. [02:18:16] I initially intend to issue the decimeters to all supervisors, that's corporals, sergeants, [02:18:25] as well as every field training officer, because they're on duty. [02:18:32] There's someone out there who will have a decimeter 24-7 to where readings can be taken. [02:18:38] And then they will also be trained in the proper use of them. [02:18:43] Entertain a motion? [02:18:46] Just a couple of questions. [02:18:49] One, when and if this is passed through first and second 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.

15. 11.a

    Confirmation of Joan Nelson Hook to the Pasco County Library Board

    Council discussion (apparently bleeding over from a prior noise ordinance item) where a councilmember raised concerns about 7 a.m. weekend noise allowances and asked about enforcement against persistently barking dogs. The transcript provided does not actually address the confirmation of Joan Nelson Hook to the Pasco County Library Board.

    #Pasco County Library Board appointment#barking dog complaints#noise ordinance

    ▶ Jump to 2:18:54 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [02:18:59] I want a mechanism by where the information is disseminated, especially to the non-residential users. [02:19:10] I don't want to get the, oh, I didn't know comment. [02:19:17] And I see there are some exemptions, obviously on Sundays. [02:19:26] I just find 7 a.m. in the morning on the weekends to be a little early with some of the, [02:19:31] and I'm just, it's for topic of discussion, really. [02:19:36] You know, I try to not do anything in my yard until at least 9 out of respect to my neighbors. [02:19:45] But that's obviously, with this, I could turn on my radio, my leaf blower and everything else. [02:19:54] I'm just trying to make sure that we address this through the process. [02:19:59] And I have to ask one other question because I was told to ask it by my spouse, my wife. [02:20:07] I know we can't deal with it, but she did want to say, at what level can I take care of a barking dog on a regular basis? [02:20:18] Now, that takes us completely off subject, but I do want to make it known that I'm a little perturbed [02:20:26] that our dog owners in the city just let their dogs go crazy from 7 o'clock until 10 o'clock at night continually. [02:20:35] And so I was asked to make sure I asked that question.

    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.b

    Mural Design - Little Corona's Cigar Lounge - 6324 Grand Boulevard

    discussed

    Discussion appears to be misattributed to this agenda item; the transcript covers implementation of a noise/sound ordinance, including how the Police Chief would notify businesses with recurring sound problems, use newsletters or water bill inserts for general notice, and the first-offense voluntary compliance provision. No decision was made on a mural design in this excerpt.

    📍6324 Grand Boulevard🏢Little Corona's Cigar Lounge👤Chief#Decibel level enforcement#First-offense voluntary compliance#Noise/sound ordinance

    ▶ Jump to 2:20:38 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [02:20:38] But I'm just trying to make sure that I understand how we're going to, especially to our non-residential, [02:20:44] how, if this goes to a second reading, how we're going to implement it. [02:20:48] It's a great point. It goes back to delivery is everything. [02:20:50] Are we going to send them just a real black and white letter, or are we going to have an officer go out [02:20:54] and maybe explain, deliver the ordinance to them in a friendly manner, explain to them, you know, [02:20:59] this has been an issue for a while, we know you guys play your live music, you have DJs and whatnot. [02:21:03] We're just letting you know here's a copy of the ordinance you all are going to have to hear by and just handle it hospitably. [02:21:11] Go ahead, Chief. [02:21:13] With our businesses, we have recurring problems. [02:21:17] And it's pretty easy for us to pull up the stats out of our data system to know where our sound problems are. [02:21:26] So those folks are pretty easy for us to get to and to explain to them what the ordinance is, [02:21:33] how it affects them, what the penalties are, [02:21:37] and, you know, explain to them that we're going to expect that they comply with it. [02:21:41] For the others, what we could do, for everyone else in the city, [02:21:46] I see no reason why we couldn't put a notice in our newsletter that goes out to everyone, [02:21:51] or with whatever else we send out with a water bill. [02:21:56] I've never sent out anything that way, but I know that there are some notices that we put out like that. [02:22:01] To do just a grace period, to me, makes no sense, because it'll be a grace period forever. [02:22:08] You know, people will wait until that first complaint, [02:22:11] and I'd like to see that everybody gets educated on this and tries to be a good neighbor. [02:22:16] I think it might be additionally important to note that your first offense, [02:22:21] there's no ticket associated with it if you voluntarily comply with the decibel level. [02:22:28] stated in the ordinance. [02:22:30] Councilwoman, do you have anything? [02:22:32] No, just a question. [02:22:34] You know, I think that sometimes people inadvertently don't even, [02:22:38] I have a very dear neighbor who does his lawn at ungodly hours at night [02:22:43] and doesn't think it, you know, it doesn't matter to me. [02:22:47] So I don't know what loud is. [02:22:49] I don't know what, you know, these decibels mean in terms of what are we hearing. [02:22:54] You know, somebody's painting their house and they're listening to, you know, whatever. [02:22:57] Sometimes it's a subjective thing. [02:22:59] It's the kind of music you're listening to that you're going to complain about instead of the loudness. [02:23:03] That's our problem today. [02:23:05] With this, there's a clear reading. [02:23:08] These measurement devices are very accurate. [02:23:12] I personally went around with one of my officers and tested it all around the park. [02:23:17] We did it in the center of the park, the perimeter, back several blocks, [02:23:20] just to see what were we hearing and then how was it registering. [02:23:25] And I think these ranges are reasonable, and, you know, [02:23:30] if it ends up that we generate complaints either side of the aisle, you know, [02:23:34] whether it's the person who's creating the noise or the person who's objecting to it, [02:23:39] if that happens, then we have to, well, we can relook at it, [02:23:43] just as Tampa has had to do many times over the years. [02:23:47] So it's a starting point for us right now. [02:23:50] Right now I have no tools to deal with this problem.

    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.c

    2015/2016 Roadway Striping Project Close-Out

    Council briefly discussed enforcement of a noise complaint ordinance, with discussion of how officers handle loud parties and radios. A motion for approval was made and seconded, though the transcript fragment does not clearly tie this to the roadway striping project close-out item.

    • motion:Motion for approval was made and seconded.

    #2015/2016 Roadway Striping Project Close-Out

    ▶ Jump to 2:23:54 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [02:23:54] So it could be, like Ms. Manns just said, so someone gets a complaint [02:23:58] and it turns out it's someone that's playing their radio or whatever. [02:24:02] You're able to be right on site and they can lower their radio to the level where you're saying, [02:24:06] okay, now it's okay. [02:24:08] Oh, yeah, and, you know, most times when we go out to let somebody know they've got a party that slowly got out of hand [02:24:12] and we'll go out, this happens, and we'll go out there and we'll say, [02:24:15] hey, we've got a complaint, could you turn it down? [02:24:17] Oh, yeah, officer, we're sorry, and they do it, and that's the end of it. [02:24:21] But then there's other places that know what they're doing, they push the limits, [02:24:27] and they frankly don't care about their neighbors. [02:24:31] So would this also refer to those incredibly annoying birds that come on my lawn in the mornings? [02:24:37] Just saying. [02:24:39] What, wild birds? [02:24:40] I don't know what they are. [02:24:41] They're just loud, noisy, noisy, noisy. [02:24:43] Whisper nearby. [02:24:45] I would entertain a motion on this. [02:24:47] Can I talk? [02:24:49] Yeah. [02:24:50] Let's get a motion and a second. [02:24:51] Move for approval. [02:24:53] Okay. [02:24:54] Councilman? [02:24:56] I'll second it. [02:24:57] I'll second it. [02:24:58] 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.

18. 11.d

    ↳You arrived here from a search for “Parks and Recreation Fee Resolution” — transcript expanded below

    Fee Resolution for Parks and Recreation

    discussed

    Council reviewed an amended Parks and Recreation fee resolution. Staff removed group-of-2/3/4 options in favor of standard rates for youth, seniors, adults, and households, with separate resident and non-resident fees. Councilmembers debated the resident discount level (15% vs. 25%), terminology (resident discount vs. non-resident surcharge), and compared NPR's structure to Clearwater and Largo before extended discussion; no final vote captured in this excerpt.

    • motion:Motion to approve the fee resolution for Parks and Recreation for discussion purposes. (none)

    🏢Kimberly Horn👤Councilman DeVos👤Councilman Starkey👤Deputy Mayor👤Mr. Smallwood👤Ms. Manns#Comparison to City of Clearwater fees#Comparison to City of Largo fees#Parks and Recreation Fee Resolution#Recreation and Aquatic Center project#Resident vs. non-resident fee structure

    ▶ Jump to 2:25:00 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [02:25:00] A couple things. [02:25:01] During this preliminary time when we've been discussing this for the past couple months [02:25:07] and the chief's been going out there, [02:25:09] I've asked that some of the city events where they go out and get the decibel levels on the edge of the downtown area [02:25:17] so we can get an idea, and I'd like to see those before the next. [02:25:22] It was in a collection. [02:25:24] I'll be happy to provide those to you. [02:25:25] Yeah, yeah, I mean, just like a map, where you put the guy, what the event was, [02:25:29] and what kind of decibel levels you got, because that's kind of, to go along with Judy, [02:25:33] I want to know if it was our event, you know, downtown, or if it was an event in Sims Park that was ours, [02:25:39] because that's the one that I asked, you know, to get some decibel. [02:25:43] And just a little grin for you, Robert, [02:25:45] people on Sims Lane have approached me about the guys blowing off the leaves in the park on Sunday mornings. [02:25:53] Chief, last question or comment. [02:25:56] Let's use a great example from Councilman DeVos. [02:26:00] Let's use a country music concert during Chasco. [02:26:04] Would that comply with the decibel ratings, you think, for Main Street? [02:26:08] Well, any concerts, if you look at Section M in the ordinance. [02:26:12] Oh, festival, okay. [02:26:14] Never mind. [02:26:15] Never mind. [02:26:16] Okay. [02:26:17] And also, I mean, you know, between now and in two weeks when we look at this again, [02:26:21] I would like the, you approach the businesses downtown that you think are the more offenders [02:26:28] and just let them know in advance, so if they want to come and talk to us, they can at the next time. [02:26:33] Instead of us going and seeing them after we've passed it. [02:26:36] Maybe they don't live in town. [02:26:38] I'll be happy to do that. [02:26:39] Do we have a motion to second to the maker? [02:26:41] Can I just add two comments real quick? [02:26:44] Sure. [02:26:45] Animals are not exempt from the ordinance, so barking dogs would be covered by it. [02:26:49] And you used the example of having a radio on while you're mowing your lawn. [02:26:53] The radio is not exempt, just the lawnmower is, so just that clarification. [02:26:58] Say that again? [02:26:59] The lawnmower is not exempt, but the radio is? [02:27:01] The lawnmower is exempt between the permitted hours, but the radio is never exempt. [02:27:06] Oh, I got you. [02:27:07] Thank you. [02:27:08] Deputy Mayor, you were the maker. [02:27:10] Did you have any other comments to the second? [02:27:12] No, I think we got what we needed. [02:27:14] That's mine. [02:27:15] Okay. [02:27:18] Councilman Starkley? [02:27:20] Thank you, no. [02:27:22] Yeah, I'll hand a copy to my neighbor that uses a leaf blower at no dark 30 on Sunday mornings. [02:27:30] So, good. [02:27:32] If there's no further discussion, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [02:27:37] Aye. [02:27:38] Opposed, the like sign. [02:27:39] The motion passes. [02:27:40] Next is business item confirmation. [02:27:43] Joan Nelson-Hook to the Pasco County Library Board. [02:27:45] Yes, ma'am. [02:27:46] Yes, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, on October 25, 2016, [02:27:51] the City's Library Advisory Board conducted a regular meeting. [02:27:56] At that meeting, they recommended the appointment of Joan Nelson-Hook [02:28:00] to be the representative to the Pasco County Library Board. [02:28:04] In that respect, we are asking that you confirm their recommendation [02:28:09] on the appointment of Mrs. Hook. [02:28:12] Thank you. [02:28:13] Do we have any public comment? [02:28:15] Seeing none, bring it back to Council. [02:28:16] Move to approve. [02:28:17] We have a motion. [02:28:18] Second. [02:28:19] Second. [02:28:20] To the mayor. [02:28:21] Thank you, Ms. Hook, on our behalf. [02:28:22] To the second. [02:28:23] Thank you. [02:28:24] Councilman Davis? [02:28:25] I can't believe she's not here tonight. [02:28:27] Yeah. [02:28:28] Councilman Starkley? [02:28:29] Thank you. [02:28:30] Yes, and definitely thank you to Ms. Hook. [02:28:32] If there's no further discussion, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [02:28:35] Aye. [02:28:36] Opposed, the like sign. [02:28:37] The motion passes. [02:28:38] Next is mural design of Little Corona Cigar Bar. [02:28:41] Yes, ma'am. [02:28:44] The request before you has been submitted on behalf of Little Corona's Cigar Lounge. [02:28:51] Their request specifically is to establish a mural on the south wall of their establishment. [02:29:01] A copy of the mural design is attached to your November 1st communication from Mrs. Fierce. [02:29:10] The proposed mural, as indicated in our ordinance, requires review by the Main Street Organizations [02:29:20] Design Committee. [02:29:22] In that regard, they have met and reviewed the mural design and are recommending to you [02:29:28] approval of the mural. [02:29:30] Thank you. [02:29:31] Open it up for public comment. [02:29:32] Seeing no one, come forward and bring it back to council. [02:29:35] I'd like to approve for discussion purposes. [02:29:37] Second. [02:29:38] We've got a motion and a second to the maker. [02:29:40] Just a query. [02:29:42] The picture that was submitted to council, is that a rendering of the actual mural by the artist who's going to do it? [02:29:50] It is. [02:29:54] It is, okay. [02:29:56] And is the artist a muralist? [02:29:59] Do we know? [02:30:00] You have the cigar bar or cigar lounge marked off, does that mean that it doesn't go like [02:30:12] a signed ordinance? [02:30:13] That's right. [02:30:14] That's correct. [02:30:15] Okay, then let me go another step further and ask, will it change with a signed ordinance [02:30:23] that you're looking at down the road? [02:30:24] They're no longer putting any text on the barrel. [02:30:29] Right. [02:30:30] But I'm saying, with our new signed ordinance, would it be allowed at that point, the signed [02:30:36] ordinance that we're working on now? [02:30:38] No, because the signed ordinance has already been amended, which says you can't have text [02:30:44] on your barrel. [02:30:45] So do we have to take new porridge off the boat, too? [02:30:48] But I think the mural ordinance, Ms. Pierce, if I'm not mistaken, the mural ordinance [02:30:54] specifically states that it cannot be advertising, that it needs to be the flora or fauna or [02:31:00] historic. [02:31:02] And I think that the mural ordinance would dictate that, that there's no signage, is [02:31:09] that correct? [02:31:10] Which you just amended last year. [02:31:13] To include that, right. [02:31:16] Other discussion? [02:31:17] I look forward to it, that wall was really plain. [02:31:24] How was Tim with not having Scar Lounge on there? [02:31:27] I mean, I know it's a mural, and with the Square New Portraiture, Main Street did their [02:31:30] own murals, and I love them. [02:31:32] But the guy owns the building, it's his business, I mean, if it was me, I'd want Scar Lounge [02:31:35] on there. [02:31:36] He leaves, he leaves. [02:31:39] Other people leave, other buildings' murals are there, I mean, you know. [02:31:43] He was not exactly thrilled when we told him he had to remove the verbiage, but he understood [02:31:48] it, and so he went ahead and X'd it out for your approval. [02:31:51] Right. [02:31:53] If there's no further discussion, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [02:31:56] Aye. [02:31:57] Opposed, the like sign. [02:31:58] Very good. [02:31:59] Next is the 2015-2016 roadway striping project closeout. [02:32:04] Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, the purpose of this agenda item is to request [02:32:11] your approval on the final deductive change order in the amount of $1,154.66. [02:32:20] Additionally, to approve the final pay request to Wine Leaf, LLC for the completion of the [02:32:27] 2015-2016 roadway striping project in the amount of $53,837.52. [02:32:36] Open it up for public comment, seeing no one come forward, bring it back to council. [02:32:42] Move for approval. [02:32:43] Second. [02:32:44] We have a motion and a second. [02:32:45] To the maker? [02:32:46] No. [02:32:47] Not the second. [02:32:48] Mr. Starkey? [02:32:49] I'm fine as well. [02:32:53] No further discussion. [02:32:54] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [02:32:56] Aye. [02:32:57] Opposed, the like sign. [02:32:58] The motion passes. [02:33:00] Next is the fee resolution for Parks and Rec, Ms. Manns. [02:33:05] Certainly, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. [02:33:09] This item was before you during the month of October and a considerable amount of discussion [02:33:16] took place specifically in relationship to some of the group fees that were being requested [02:33:23] upon further review by the staff of that item and additionally the recommendations as advanced [02:33:31] to us by the sports facility advisory group that conducted the perform-off for future [02:33:39] revenue at the Recreation and Aquatic Center project, we have amended the table of fees [02:33:47] so that we do not offer groups of two, groups of three, groups of four as an option, rather [02:33:53] we stick to the rates for youth, seniors, adults, and households and we provide both [02:34:01] a fee for residents and non-residents. [02:34:04] Open it up for public comment. [02:34:06] Seeing no one to come forward, I'm going to bring it back to council, but I would enter into the public record. [02:34:14] I got an email, I believe some of the rest of you did too, from Mr. Smallwood who would like the resident discount to be 25% instead of 15% [02:34:24] and he gives his apologies for not being able to be here tonight. [02:34:27] I received it. [02:34:28] Response. [02:34:29] I'm sorry, Councilman. [02:34:32] In response, the industry standard that we have seen most regularly used by municipalities [02:34:43] when extending a discount to residents is typically 15%. [02:34:48] If it's your desire to do more than that, then we'll do that. [02:34:51] I just wanted to get that entered into the record since he made a point of contacting us. [02:34:56] Entertain a motion. [02:34:58] I'll make a motion for discussion purposes. [02:35:01] A motion and a second to the maker. [02:35:03] I was taking a look at Clearwater's fees and I contacted their department and it was interesting. [02:35:12] What they do is they have a percentage charge for non-members rather than a discount for members. [02:35:22] They have a unique situation specifically to their fitness center and pool where they have a card program [02:35:33] where the residents pay $7.50 a year for the card and then a $3 fee each time they want to come in and use either the fitness or the park. [02:35:42] Or they have an option for a plus card where it's like $115 for the year. [02:35:49] They're non-residents. [02:35:52] It's $180 a year, but they are still charged a daily fee. [02:36:02] I thought that was remarkable. [02:36:04] I know that we are not Clearwater, but it just got me thinking that it's a pretty significant savings to the residents. [02:36:14] They have their, with the recreation card, as a resident. [02:36:23] Again, substantially less for residents and the larger fee for the non-residents. [02:36:31] I just wanted to explore that. [02:36:34] I just think it's terminology. [02:36:36] Personally, I feel like if I'm a non-resident and I'm being told that you have a surcharge because you're a non-resident, [02:36:43] it's going to be discouraging me to want to come use the rec center rather than just saying, okay, here's your fee. [02:36:48] Oh, you're a non-resident? [02:36:50] You actually get a discount. [02:36:51] I like that terminology. [02:36:53] I would agree with Mr. Smallwood. [02:36:55] Let's get people in the door at this point. [02:36:58] Let's get people in the door, especially our residents. [02:37:02] At that point, if we're getting the numbers we want, we're not going to double the rate, [02:37:07] but I'd like to see a higher percentage for New Portage View residents. [02:37:10] They're paying the taxes. [02:37:12] They're funding this. [02:37:16] I'm sorry. [02:37:17] I guess to that point, either way, [02:37:20] but they had a significant discount or less cost for their residents than their non-residents, [02:37:27] so I, too, think that we should do that same thing, significant reduction. [02:37:33] My concern is on the annual membership, which was not recommended by our consultants, [02:37:39] and it appears that we're giving away the farm with the annual memberships. [02:37:50] I looked into an entity, too, and the reason I looked into Largo is because it was brought up by Kimberly Horn [02:37:57] to try to compare us to them with the expansion of the rec center. [02:38:01] I just want to say, first of all, that a couple stats on Largo is, first of all, it's got 85,000 people. [02:38:13] I think on the paperwork today it said 77, but they're up to 85,000, [02:38:18] and they're in the area of I think it's 17 or 18 square miles, and we're at five or under five. [02:38:26] So, you know, it's apples, not apples and oranges. [02:38:30] It's not apples and apples, but they have a $10 membership if you're a resident. [02:38:38] They have a $39 membership if you are a non-resident, [02:38:44] and then there's a half-a-year membership if you're a non-resident. [02:38:47] It's 24, but then if you want to use the equipment and the fitness equipment, it's $99 a year. [02:38:54] Almost, you know, a lot of their activities are, you know, what you want to do there, you pay for. [02:39:01] So people that want to just use the fitness equipment, they pay $99 a year on top of the $10 as a resident. [02:39:09] They also have pool fees, and you pay by the month. [02:39:12] It depends on whether you're a resident or non-resident, roughly around $25 to $30, [02:39:17] because our pools closed six months of the year. [02:39:20] Correct me if I'm wrong on that, but some amount of months of the year. [02:39:24] So people that would want to use it would come and pay that fee. [02:39:29] So those are a couple of things, and their hours. [02:39:32] They have three different facilities, but they also have 12,000 people that have paid the $10, $24, or $39. [02:39:40] So that's just, you know, getting them in there, getting them, and then they can make the money off the fees. [02:39:46] So that was kind of an interesting approach to that, and I thought I'd bring that up for a discussion. [02:39:52] Thank you. Deputy Mayor? [02:39:58] Well, we seem to have spent a great deal of time, a great deal of money. [02:40:05] Seems like we're back to square one, where everybody has a different horse they want to ride in the race. [02:40:12] And at the end of the day, the biggest issue that we had is we had a non-functioning computer system that didn't allow us to do anything.

    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.e

    Three Minute Report: Police Department

    discussed

    The Police Chief presented a three-minute report on the Street Crimes Unit's year-to-date performance, including 4,518 code enforcement activities, 90 arrests (including 46 prostitution arrests), three drug-related search warrants resulting in significant narcotics seizures, and a federal firearms/cocaine prosecution. Agency arrests rose from 683 to 875 year-over-year. Council also discussed golf cart compliance and enforcement in city parks.

    🏢U.S. Attorney's Office👤Councilman Davis👤Elaine👤Police Chief#Code Enforcement#Hacienda#Street Crimes Unit#golf cart ordinance

    ▶ Jump to 2:40:24 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [02:40:26] I would be my recommendation to put these fees into play and then let us be time specific after the first of the year. [02:40:37] If we want to go back down this road again, which to me is covering the same ground over and over again, I'm OK with that. [02:40:46] It's just comparing apples and oranges and what Clearwater does and whatever. [02:40:51] I get back to the same point. We're not Clearwater, we're not Largo, and we're not Dunedin, [02:40:56] and I don't want to be compared to them in any way, shape, or form. [02:41:00] So let's do the best way New Port Richey can and tweak it. [02:41:06] At this point, we paid for a study. We've accepted the study. [02:41:12] We've told them they're our experts, even though we continue to hash good, bad, or indifferent. [02:41:19] At this point, let the rec center start being able to tell somebody something one day and have it be a consistent message the next day. [02:41:31] Consistent message January 1. [02:41:34] And if we want to take additional work session time next year to go back and rethink these fees, then let's go back to that. [02:41:42] But at this point, I would say let's approve what we have in front of us. [02:41:47] That's my recommendation. [02:41:52] Other discussion? [02:41:56] Well, I think the interest and the thought to look at other cities was not to compare us to other cities, but not to have to reinvent the wheel. [02:42:07] To get back to the point that came to us in the letter from Mr. Smallwood, I think that this is a good place for us to start, [02:42:17] which is the fees that we're looking at, but I would like to see us give a more substantial discount for residents. [02:42:27] I know I seconded the motion. [02:42:29] I'm only going to vote for this if we do at least 20 percent for residents. [02:42:34] I'd like to amend that to 25. [02:42:39] You're the maker? [02:42:40] The maker. [02:42:43] Excuse me. [02:42:44] You second that? [02:42:46] Ask me if I will second it. [02:42:48] I mean, we definitely want to see a drop. [02:42:50] I want to see a drop in a substantial amount. [02:42:53] I think that we're probably going to want to review these fees after whatever it is we do to our residential, we do to our recreation center. [02:43:02] So, you know, I would only go for the 25 if it was a second. [02:43:09] If not, I would keep it at the 20. [02:43:11] You've got somebody that your second has suggested 20 percent. [02:43:16] You've got somebody else that's recommended 25. [02:43:18] If you'd like to modify your motion to either, you've got that opportunity. [02:43:25] Well, I would definitely modify it to the 20 percent. [02:43:28] And the second? [02:43:30] I'm okay with that. [02:43:31] I'm just so glad we did away with that group discount. [02:43:33] If I was up for it and we approved that, I apologize. [02:43:35] That was a crazy, crazy thing for us to do. [02:43:40] Any other discussion? [02:43:42] Since nobody bought my comments about the annual fee, I guess I lost on that one. [02:43:48] All those in favor, please say aye. [02:43:50] Mr. Mayor, before you take the roll call, can I just clarify then? [02:43:53] We're talking about changing all of the resident discounts to 20 percent from whatever the other fees are. [02:43:59] That is correct. [02:44:00] And would you like me to read the title as well? [02:44:01] Please, Jim. [02:44:02] Resolution number 2017-01, [02:44:04] a resolution of the City Council of the City of New Port Richey, Florida, [02:44:07] amending the comprehensive table of fees for the Recreation and Aquatic Center and Park Shelters, [02:44:11] providing for an effective date. [02:44:13] Thank you. [02:44:15] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [02:44:17] Aye. [02:44:18] Opposed? [02:44:19] The like sign. [02:44:20] Motion passes. [02:44:22] Next is a three-minute report from the Police Department. [02:44:27] I will keep this under three minutes. [02:44:31] What I wanted to speak to you briefly about was just to report on our Street Crimes Unit [02:44:37] and their progress this year, give you a little bit of numbers to give you an idea of their performance. [02:44:45] Now, this Street Crimes Unit includes our Code Enforcement Officers. [02:44:48] I put those under that same umbrella because I have that squad focusing on quality of life issues in our community. [02:45:00] generated year-to-date by our code enforcement unit, and these are things that are pretty [02:45:06] much any form of enforcement action by the code officers. We had 4,518 of those types [02:45:15] of activities. The most problematic issues that the code officers are dealing with are [02:45:23] high growth in weeds, which there was a total of 135 cases, junk and debris, we had a total [02:45:30] of 361 cases, and junked abandoned vehicles, a total of 112 cases. Now the squad of officers [02:45:39] that works in that unit, they have made 90 arrests, 12 female, or 12 prostitution arrests [02:45:50] of females, and 34 prostitution arrests of males. We've served three search warrants, [02:45:59] which are pretty unusual for an agency of our size to develop drug-related search warrants [02:46:05] and gather the information and develop the probable cause to be able to get a judge to [02:46:13] draft a search warrant, but we have served three of those, resulting in seizures of [02:46:21] 80.3 grams of cocaine, 44.7 grams of marijuana, 85 grams of prescription controlled substances, [02:46:29] which are about 300 pills, and some cash. There were a number of other investigations [02:46:39] that resulted in seizures of illegal narcotics. What I was talking about was just search warrant [02:46:44] seizures, the three that we served, but we've taken guns off the street, currency and vehicles. [02:46:51] One self-initiated investigation by that unit resulted in a federal prosecution by the U.S. [02:46:57] Attorney's Office for a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of a cocaine with [02:47:02] intent to sell. That's just a summary of where we are year-to-date this year, and the numbers [02:47:10] are overall for the department year-to-date this year over last year. I'll give you one number to [02:47:17] think about, and that is our agency arrests. Last year, from January 1st to October 31st, [02:47:26] we had 683 arrests. This year, we're already at 875 arrests, which is 192 over last year. I think [02:47:37] our department is performing at a very high level and being very aggressive going after the issues [02:47:44] that we face in our community. Any questions for the Chief? Just a comment. I think that cocaine [02:47:49] with the intent to sell was about 50 yards from my house, and during the search warrant at 5 a.m., [02:47:55] they broke in there. It sounded like bombs were going off, and then I got a phone call from the [02:47:58] chief saying everything's okay, but they went in with tremendous force. Once again, it was a rental [02:48:04] home with vigilant neighbors that were consistently letting me know and letting the police department [02:48:11] know, so I urge everyone to continue to do that because they can't do it on their own. They need [02:48:15] the eyes and ears on the street, so if you guys see drive-by traffic over and over again in the [02:48:20] same house or neighborhood, please don't hesitate to report those types of things. [02:48:27] Thank you, Chief. It's been not quite six months. Just a question. How has the golf cart thing [02:48:34] worked out? I have not personally received one complaint. I think folks are pretty much [02:48:43] paying attention to the ordinance. I do see them occasionally on some streets that are supposed [02:48:47] to be the restricted streets, and we usually handle that by just re-educating them. I am not [02:48:53] aware of any citations having been issued. That doesn't mean that none have, but I'm not aware of [02:48:59] it. Very good. Thank you. I want to ask along that line. I was in the park last week when the movie [02:49:05] was on, and there was golf carts in the park. What's our situation there? They shouldn't be in [02:49:13] there. If you happen to be there and you see one of our officers, if you point it out to them, [02:49:19] we'll politely ask them to leave. They weren't moving anything. They were sitting there and that [02:49:23] was their chair. The problem is they run over. They block the views of others. Sometimes, and [02:49:30] I've received complaints on that, where some of the people that have golf carts are very [02:49:34] inconsiderate. They'll pull right ahead of other people who are on a blanket on the ground or in [02:49:40] lawn chairs and park right in front of them. Are you handling it, Elaine? Are your people [02:49:46] handling it at all with the police? We've worked it out. For all of our large events, we do have [02:49:53] police officers there present. No, I'm just saying, are you communicating? I mean, it was very obvious [02:49:58] there was two of them there on the backside. Whoever the staff member is, yes. If there's [02:50:02] issues, they always communicate to the officer on site. At the point we revisit the topic, [02:50:09] we may want to talk about a designated cart spot for some of the events because they do seem to [02:50:14] like it and if they can keep them out of the way so they're not parked in front of people. [02:50:19] Just food for thought, but I'm glad to know we're not having problems with [02:50:22] rampant issues on the streets. That was my question. To that issue, however, I have not [02:50:28] used my cart yet because I'm not compliant and I'm waiting to collect money to do whatever needs to [02:50:33] happen, but there's so many golf carts that I see that do not have the three thing in the back, [02:50:39] the lights, the blinkers. Yeah, so I'm just saying, I'm not using my cart because I'm not [02:50:47] complying. I'll pass that on to my officers. I haven't personally noticed that, but I also don't [02:50:53] spend time out actually doing patrol, so I'll pass that on. I can say that I love that we are [02:51:00] a golf cart friendly city. I love seeing the signs and I love that we are. I have less of an issue [02:51:07] with folks coming into the park. Obviously, you do not want to see them trampling or whatever, [02:51:13] but for the most part, the ones that I see are using it, especially when they're coming for the [02:51:18] movie. It's like a drive-in movie then, but being on the streets, as I said, it's just disheartening [02:51:27] to me because I just don't see all those issues. So get it fixed. Yeah, well, I'm not using mine [02:51:35] yet until I get it done, but that's what I'm saying, and I wouldn't think of going out on [02:51:38] the road with it until that was the case. And I've noticed, especially last night with the [02:51:45] trick-or-treating, there were lots of golf carts and they had their lights, but a lot of them don't [02:51:50] have that triangle in the back or the blinker or whatever the heck else. I mean, I'm ready to [02:51:55] review the ordinance again, but anyway, just thought I'd let you know that. And I do want [02:52:02] to thank you. I know I sent you a note about the arrest that you made last week that made [02:52:08] headlines, and just so thankful that you all are safe, that you're doing the jobs that need to be [02:52:14] done, and obviously making an impact in the city. So thank you for that. Thank you. Councilman [02:52:20] Davis, communications and reports. Great. I was at the Hacienda two different times on Saturday.

    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. 12Communications▶ 2:52:22
21. 13Adjournment▶ 3:09:53