Council approved an $850,000 water and sewer revenue bond to acquire three subdivision utility systems, advanced dog-friendly dining rules, and denied an early-morning beer permit for the RAP River Run.
19 items on the agenda · 15 decisions recorded
On the agenda
- 1Call to Order – Roll Call▶ 0:00
- 2
Pledge of Allegiance
Boy Scout Troop 24, sponsored by American Legion Paradise Post 79, led the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by a moment of silence for servicemen and women.
▶ Jump to 0:17 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:00:17] It is my pleasure at this time to introduce the scouts from Boy Scout Troop 24, [00:00:22] sponsored by American Legion, Paradise Post 79. [00:00:25] They're going to come down and lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. [00:00:27] So, if you would all please rise and remain standing for a moment of silence afterwards [00:00:32] in honor of our servicemen and women at home and abroad. [00:00:41] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America [00:00:45] and to the republic for which it stands, [00:00:47] one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 3
Moment of Silence
Moment of silence observed at the start of the meeting.
▶ Jump to 0:57 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:00:57] Thank you. You may be seated.
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
Approval of December 13, 2016 Work Session and December 20, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes
approvedCouncil approved the minutes from the December 13, 2016 work session and December 20, 2016 regular meeting.
- motion:Approve the December 13, 2016 work session and December 20, 2016 regular meeting minutes. (passed)
▶ Jump to 1:03 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:01:03] The scouts are working both on one of their citizenship badges and are also looking at pets, [00:01:09] and there's an item coming up on the agenda tonight I think they're going to find interesting. [00:01:15] With that, the next item on the agenda is the approval of the December 13th work session [00:01:19] and December 20th regular meeting minutes. [00:01:21] Move for approval. [00:01:22] Second. [00:01:23] We have a motion and a second. [00:01:25] Discussion? [00:01:27] Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:01:29] Aye. [00:01:30] 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.
- 5Vox Pop for Items Not Listed on the Agenda or Listed on Consent Agenda▶ 1:32
- 6.a
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes - November 2016
approvedon consentThe consent agenda, including the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board minutes from November 2016, was approved by unanimous voice vote without discussion.
- motion:Motion to approve the consent agenda. (passed)
▶ Jump to 6:26 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:06:27] Thank you. [00:06:28] Thank you. [00:06:29] Anyone else? [00:06:31] Seeing no one else come forward, I'll close box pop. [00:06:36] Next item on the agenda is the consent agenda. [00:06:41] Move for approval. [00:06:42] Second. [00:06:43] We have a motion and a second. [00:06:46] There's no discussion. [00:06:47] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:06:49] Aye. [00:06:50] Opposed? [00:06:51] Like sign. [00:06:52] Motion passes.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 6.b
New Port Richey Main Street, Inc. Quarterly Report
approvedon consentThe consent agenda was moved, seconded, and approved unanimously by voice vote. The transcript segment does not actually contain the New Port Richey Main Street, Inc. Quarterly Report content.
- motion:Motion to approve the consent agenda. (passed)
▶ Jump to 6:26 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:06:27] Thank you. [00:06:28] Thank you. [00:06:29] Anyone else? [00:06:31] Seeing no one else come forward, I'll close box pop. [00:06:36] Next item on the agenda is the consent agenda. [00:06:41] Move for approval. [00:06:42] Second. [00:06:43] We have a motion and a second. [00:06:46] There's no discussion. [00:06:47] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:06:49] Aye. [00:06:50] Opposed? [00:06:51] Like sign. [00:06:52] Motion passes.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 6.c
Purchases/Payments for City Council Approval
approvedon consentConsent agenda was approved by unanimous voice vote with no discussion.
- motion:Motion to approve the consent agenda. (passed)
▶ Jump to 6:26 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:06:27] Thank you. [00:06:28] Thank you. [00:06:29] Anyone else? [00:06:31] Seeing no one else come forward, I'll close box pop. [00:06:36] Next item on the agenda is the consent agenda. [00:06:41] Move for approval. [00:06:42] Second. [00:06:43] We have a motion and a second. [00:06:46] There's no discussion. [00:06:47] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:06:49] Aye. [00:06:50] Opposed? [00:06:51] Like sign. [00:06:52] Motion passes.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 6.d
Amendment to FY17 Operating Budget
approvedon consentThe consent agenda, which included the amendment to the FY17 operating budget, was approved by unanimous voice vote without discussion.
- motion:Motion to approve the consent agenda including the amendment to the FY17 operating budget. (passed)
▶ Jump to 6:26 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:06:27] Thank you. [00:06:28] Thank you. [00:06:29] Anyone else? [00:06:31] Seeing no one else come forward, I'll close box pop. [00:06:36] Next item on the agenda is the consent agenda. [00:06:41] Move for approval. [00:06:42] Second. [00:06:43] We have a motion and a second. [00:06:46] There's no discussion. [00:06:47] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:06:49] Aye. [00:06:50] Opposed? [00:06:51] Like sign. [00:06:52] Motion passes.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 7.a
Second Reading, Ordinance No. 2017-2105: Authorizing Issuance of W&S Revenue Bond, Series 2017A
approvedCouncil held the second reading and public hearing on Ordinance 2017-2105, authorizing issuance of a water and sewer revenue bond Series 2017A in an amount not to exceed $850,000 at 2.53% interest, to fund acquisition of the Lakewood Villas, Barbara Ann Acres, and Silver Oaks subdivision water systems. No public spoke; the Deputy Mayor noted one written objection from a user, and another councilmember reiterated concerns about debt financing versus cash flow. The ordinance passed.
Ord. Ordinance No. 2017-2105
- motion:Motion to approve Ordinance No. 2017-2105 authorizing issuance of water and sewer revenue bond Series 2017A not to exceed $850,000. (passed)
Barbara Ann AcresLakewood VillasSilver Oaks subdivisionDuane DraperJerry FordMr. DriscollStarkeyOrdinance No. 1878Ordinance No. 2017-2105Water and Sewer Revenue Bond Series 2017A▶ Jump to 6:53 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:06:53] Next is public reading of ordinance. [00:06:54] Second reading, ordinance number 2017-2105, authorizing issue of water and sewer revenue bond series 2017-A. [00:07:03] Ordinance number 2017-2105, an ordinance supplementing ordinance number 1878, [00:07:09] as amended authorizing the issuance of a water and sewer revenue bond series 2017-A [00:07:14] of the city of New Port Richey, Florida in the principal amount of not to exceed $850,000 [00:07:20] to finance the cost of acquisition of certain water and sewer system assets [00:07:24] and construction and equipping of certain improvements to the water and sewer system of the city. [00:07:29] Providing that such bonds shall be limited to the obligation of the city, [00:07:32] payable as provided herein and therein, [00:07:35] designating the bond as a qualified tax-exempt obligation within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code, [00:07:40] providing for the right securities and remedies for the holder of such bond, [00:07:44] making certain covenants and agreements in connection therewith, and providing for an effective date. [00:07:50] Do we have any staff report? [00:07:53] Mr. Mayor, members of the council, as indicated to you by Mr. Driscoll, [00:07:58] this is the second reading of the ordinance authorizing the issuance of water and sewer revenue bonds [00:08:05] for the purpose of the acquisition of the Lakewood Villas and Barbara Ann Acres [00:08:13] and Silver Oaks subdivision water system. [00:08:17] The price of the purchase is $850,000. [00:08:20] I'm sorry, the total amount of the bond is $850,000. [00:08:25] The interest rate is 2.53%. [00:08:28] We have Duane Draper in attendance this evening on behalf of legal counsel [00:08:34] and Jerry Ford, who serves as our financial consultant, [00:08:38] in the event that you have any additional questions that weren't previously responded to [00:08:43] at your first reading of the ordinance. [00:08:47] Thank you. [00:08:48] This is a public reading and public hearing on this ordinance. [00:08:51] Anyone in the audience wish to address council on this issue? [00:08:58] Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to council. [00:09:01] Move for approval. [00:09:02] Second. [00:09:03] We have a motion and a second to the maker. [00:09:05] I think we have a second. [00:09:07] No, thank you. [00:09:08] We had a good discussion last time this was up for first reading. [00:09:11] Deputy Mayor? [00:09:12] Yes, I just want to recognize that we did have one letter that was sent to the city clerk, [00:09:19] an objection to the purchase of the three, and I'm just summarizing, [00:09:25] but it wasn't clear on how much the increase might be to their overall costs. [00:09:31] It just says that it might be, [00:09:35] and I just want to make sure that it was expressed in the public record [00:09:39] that there was one user within the three systems that's not happy about being acquired [00:09:45] without knowing what the cost is going to be to them going forward. [00:09:52] Again, I expressed my concerns at the last meeting over the non-use of cash flow [00:10:02] as opposed to doing a debt service exercise, [00:10:07] but obviously that's the course of action on which we determined to take. [00:10:13] But once again, during the process, which seems to have taken almost nine months this year, [00:10:20] and it was all predicated on a stronger return on investment, [00:10:25] and I just think that by borrowing money it takes that out further [00:10:32] and wasn't the course of action that I was under. [00:10:36] I didn't believe we were under when we were going through the process. [00:10:39] Thank you. [00:10:40] Thank you. [00:10:41] Councilman Starkey? [00:10:42] I have no further comments. [00:10:43] Thank you. [00:10:44] I have no further comments. [00:10:45] If there's no further discussion, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:10:49] Aye. [00:10:50] Opposed, like sign. [00:10:51] Motion passes. [00:10:52] Next is first reading of an ordinance 2016-2098,
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 7.b
First Reading - Ordinance #2016-2098; Amended Land Use Plan Amendment - Hyundai of New Port Richey
discussedFirst reading of Ordinance #2016-2098, an amended land use plan amendment for Hyundai of New Port Richey to change designation of a 10.21-acre parcel west of US-19 from high-density residential (HDR30) to highway commercial (8.51 acres) and conservation (1.7 acres) to allow an inventory car lot. Adjacent residents raised concerns about lighting, noise, and overnight truck deliveries; council expressed reservations and emphasized that detailed site plan concerns would need to be addressed before second reading.
Ord. Ordinance No. 2016-2098
- direction:Council directed that detailed information on lighting, buffer zones, noise, and delivery hours be provided before the second reading, and that the matter return to council rather than be administratively approved. (none)
4820 Square Rigger Court, New Port RicheyWest side of US Highway 19, approximately 1,070 feet north of Trouble Creek RoadHyundai of New Port RicheyVolkswagen of New Port RicheyBob DisporgesChris MettlerDarlene DisporgesDriscollMs. MannsRaleigh DoveCON conservation categoryCoastal High Hazard AreaComprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map amendmentDevelopment Review Committee (DRC)HC highway commercial categoryHDR30 high-density residential categoryJurisdictional wetland surveyLDRB meeting December 15Ordinance #2016-2098▶ Jump to 10:55 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:10:56] amended to land use plan amendment for Hyundai of New Port Richey. [00:10:59] Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, as I'm sure you'll recall, [00:11:03] this ordinance was considered by you during the last quarter of 2016, [00:11:12] and the applicant is Hyundai of New Port Richey. [00:11:17] The reason that it is back before you this evening is because they decided to [00:11:22] incorporate wetlands as a conservation category as part of their overall [00:11:28] development. [00:11:29] Therefore, the subject site, which is 10.21 acres in size, [00:11:34] will contain 1.7 acres of wetland on the western [00:11:38] and northern portions of the site. [00:11:40] We have Mr. Chris Mettler in attendance this evening on behalf of the [00:11:45] development department, and he will present the formal recommendation to you. [00:11:49] Thank you. [00:11:50] Thank you. [00:11:51] Mr. Mettler. [00:11:55] And as Ms. Manns indicated, [00:11:56] this is a proposed change to the city's comprehensive plan future land use map, [00:12:01] and the applicant did come to you back in November the 1st with a request. [00:12:08] The site is 10.21 acres. [00:12:10] It's located on the west side of US-19, about 1,000 feet north of Trouble Creek Road. [00:12:16] It's located behind Hyundai-slash-Volkswagen of New Port Richey. [00:12:20] To the north are duplex residential homes. [00:12:24] To the south in the unincorporated county is some single-family residential, [00:12:28] and to the west is some vacant property owned by the city. [00:12:34] The property is currently vacant, [00:12:36] and it's located within the coastal high hazard area, [00:12:39] which is the area subject to flooding in a Category 1 hurricane event. [00:12:44] The applicant proposes to develop the site with an inventory car lot. [00:12:50] They came to you before November 1st with a request to change the designation [00:12:55] on the future land use map from high-density residential to highway commercial [00:13:00] to accommodate the inventory car lot. [00:13:03] However, at that meeting there was discussion about the presence of wetlands on the site, [00:13:07] and the applicant was invited to provide a jurisdictional wetland survey, [00:13:12] which may very well end up changing their request. [00:13:15] And with the survey that they provided to the staff, [00:13:19] they have changed the request to include both conservation as well as highway commercial. [00:13:26] The jurisdictional wetland survey that was provided shows 1.7 acres of wetlands [00:13:31] on the north and west sides of the property. [00:13:35] The upland area comes to 8.51 acres, [00:13:38] and in the package that I sent to the state I'll indicate that in the revised ordinance. [00:13:47] This was a conceptual plan that was provided at the LDRB meeting on December the 15th. [00:13:54] It shows the wetlands located to the north and to the west and the proposed inventory car lot to the east. [00:14:03] This was another conceptual plan that was provided for illustrative purposes. [00:14:08] The applicant provided this last week. [00:14:11] It shows a little bit more detail with the landscaping on the parking lot, the proposed lighting. [00:14:18] Again, this is for illustrative purposes only. [00:14:21] It's not yet been submitted for development review committee. [00:14:25] It will be subject to DRC review with our city engineer and city public works department [00:14:31] as well as the development department staff reviewing it. [00:14:36] This is a photo of the Hyundai Volkswagen dealership located on US-19. [00:14:44] This is the view from the east. [00:14:47] And this is a site of the subject property. [00:14:49] This is from the Hyundai Volkswagen dealership looking to the west, [00:14:54] and you can see how heavily vegetated the site is. [00:15:00] That is on the south side of the Hyundai dealership [00:15:03] looking west towards the subject property. [00:15:07] May I ask another question if you go back to that again? [00:15:09] So the area that they're talking about [00:15:10] is the greenery or the asphalted area? [00:15:14] They're proposing to change the designation [00:15:16] on the site that is green. [00:15:18] It's currently vacant, highly vegetated, [00:15:22] and again to the north and to the west [00:15:24] there are wetlands that have been identified on the survey. [00:15:28] The asphalt that you see here [00:15:30] is on the existing dealership site that's been developed. [00:15:36] The request meets concurrency requirements. [00:15:38] It's consistent with the comprehensive plan [00:15:41] which recommends developing this area [00:15:43] with commercial uses as opposed to residential uses [00:15:46] and staff would recommend that you approve the request. [00:15:52] Thank you. [00:15:53] For the record, can we have the reading of the ordinance? [00:15:56] Yes, Mr. Mayor, and as Mr. Metler pointed out, [00:15:58] there's a change in the title [00:16:00] and the body of the ordinance reflecting the correct acreage [00:16:03] of the highway commercial portion of the site. [00:16:07] The ordinance reflects 8.84 currently [00:16:10] and it should be 8.51 which adds up to the 10.21 [00:16:14] as specified. [00:16:15] The ordinance is number 2016-2098, [00:16:18] an ordinance amending future land use category [00:16:20] for 10.21 acres located on the west side of US Highway 19, [00:16:24] approximately 1,070 feet north of Trouble Creek Road [00:16:27] from HDR30, high density residential category [00:16:31] to HC, highway commercial category, 8.51 acres [00:16:35] and CON, conservation category, 1.7 acres [00:16:40] further described herein and in Exhibit A [00:16:42] providing for severability [00:16:43] and providing for an effective date. [00:16:45] Thank you. [00:16:46] This is a public reading of this ordinance. [00:16:48] It would be appropriate at this time [00:16:50] for anyone who wishes to address council on this matter [00:16:53] to come forward. [00:16:57] Thank you. [00:17:08] Certainly. [00:17:12] If you just put your name and address, write that in [00:17:15] and if you could verbally give us your name [00:17:17] and address for the record. [00:17:18] My name is Bob Disporges, this is my wife Darlene Disporges, [00:17:22] 28, I'm sorry, 4820 Square Rigger Court, [00:17:26] New Port Richey Park. [00:17:27] Thank you. [00:17:33] Should I call the, I should open the door. [00:17:36] What are you saying? [00:17:48] Okay, I've heard the meetings, [00:17:52] I've heard what you're talking about. [00:17:54] I have a lot of questions. [00:17:56] First of all, is there any kind of restriction [00:18:00] on the lighting? [00:18:01] We're gonna be lit up like a Christmas tree, [00:18:03] our bedroom, our lanai, everything faces [00:18:06] what we thought was this beautiful greenery [00:18:08] which we paid extra to have this private lot, [00:18:12] now all of a sudden we're gonna have. [00:18:13] And believe me, there's plenty of noise there right now. [00:18:16] I had a call the other day and asked [00:18:18] if there was any kind of noise ordinance in New Port Richey. [00:18:22] I mean, I like music, but this was so ridiculous. [00:18:26] They had this, I don't know if it's a radio, [00:18:27] I don't know what they have, but I called [00:18:30] and I left this scathing message [00:18:31] because you can't talk to a human being, [00:18:33] they keep switching you from one thing to another. [00:18:37] So anyhow, that's one thing. [00:18:39] How about lighting? [00:18:42] Is there gonna be a restriction on height on this thing? [00:18:44] It sounds like this is a done deal to me, I don't know. [00:18:47] I am just very aggravated. [00:18:49] We buy this beautiful villa, our dream home or whatever, [00:18:53] and now we find out that it's not gonna be [00:18:56] a beautiful dream home. [00:18:59] So I'm gonna get my thoughts together. [00:19:04] Okay, I have a hard time realizing how you can [00:19:09] all of a sudden change all the rules [00:19:12] and make this now a commercial property. [00:19:16] I mean, I know it's probably all about money, [00:19:18] but we're paying plenty of taxes [00:19:19] for what we thought we were getting. [00:19:26] Is there anything else you can think of? [00:19:27] Down the road, well, let's say six months from now, [00:19:32] if this car dealership's decided to build the building, [00:19:36] is that gonna be in effect, [00:19:38] or is this gonna go on and on and on? [00:19:40] And once it's re-zoned, is that leaving it wide open? [00:19:43] Are we gonna have a 7-Eleven behind us? [00:19:45] I mean, what are we gonna do? [00:19:47] I mean, all we hear now is horns, exhausts, [00:19:52] horns constantly, music, foreign languages, [00:19:56] it's all we hear. [00:19:57] And you add this parking lot, it's gonna be worse. [00:20:00] Truckloads unloading cars, off and on. [00:20:05] It's lighting, too, that's gonna be bad. [00:20:09] So it's really an upsetting situation at this time. [00:20:15] Thank you. [00:20:16] Mr. Matler, could you address the question [00:20:19] about the lighting and noise? [00:20:20] Is this, particularly on the lighting, [00:20:23] this is gonna come before council, [00:20:26] or go through the review process [00:20:28] before they put the first light pole up? [00:20:30] Correct, in order for the site to be developed, [00:20:33] it's gotta be approved by the Development Review Committee. [00:20:36] So the request currently before you [00:20:38] is to look at the land use, [00:20:40] and to decide to approve or deny the request [00:20:42] to change the land use. [00:20:44] It's currently high-density residential, [00:20:46] which would allow residential development [00:20:47] at 30 units per acre. [00:20:49] And the request is to change it to highway commercial, [00:20:52] with conservation along the north and west sides. [00:20:55] As for the development of the site, [00:20:58] the City Council will not see the site plan. [00:21:00] It will be reviewed by the Development Review Committee. [00:21:03] That will be reviewed by the Development Department staff, [00:21:05] the City Engineer, the City Public Works Department, [00:21:08] and the City Fire Chief as well. [00:21:11] Okay, yes, sir, Councilman. [00:21:13] So we're not gonna see the plans [00:21:14] until after the DRC meeting? [00:21:17] The city, the site plans are gonna be approved [00:21:20] by the Development Review Committee. [00:21:22] It's just not typically- [00:21:23] Are we gonna see those before we vote [00:21:23] on the second reading? [00:21:25] Here's my concerns. [00:21:26] Number one, ma'am, this isn't a done deal by any means. [00:21:29] You have legitimate concerns, [00:21:30] and I understand your concerns. [00:21:32] If I was living where these people live, [00:21:34] one thing I would wanna see if I was on the DRC, [00:21:37] or anybody else looking to approve this, [00:21:39] including ourselves, [00:21:40] is a computer generation at grade [00:21:43] as to what these folks are gonna be looking at [00:21:45] when it looks out. [00:21:46] Because right now, they're looking at green vegetation. [00:21:49] So it's easy to show aerial drawings, [00:21:51] but that really shows us nothing [00:21:52] as to what they're gonna be looking at [00:21:54] when they step out their door in the morning, [00:21:55] and in the evening, or afternoon, [00:21:57] or whenever that may be. [00:21:58] They have a legitimate concern about lighting as well. [00:22:01] I'd like to know how the light's gonna face, [00:22:04] how much lighting. [00:22:05] I'm sure, I mean, I read in here it's not gonna be [00:22:06] as the light's supposed to be projected to be dimmer [00:22:09] than the ones out front where they're actually selling cars. [00:22:11] They have a legitimate concern about noise. [00:22:13] If I lived there, I wouldn't want a semi-trailer [00:22:15] unloading cars at three or four in the morning. [00:22:17] So these are all legitimate concerns [00:22:19] that we need to address before I'm personally [00:22:21] and willing to approve this. [00:22:23] And I think that's all I have for now. [00:22:27] Again, this request is for the land use change. [00:22:31] The site plan is subject to the review [00:22:33] by the Development Review Committee. [00:22:35] Isn't there a step before that, though? [00:22:38] This has to go to the state, [00:22:40] because you're altering the comp plan, correct? [00:22:43] That's true. [00:22:44] So it has to go there. [00:22:45] It'll go to the state twice. [00:22:47] So obviously, when we did our comprehensive plan, [00:22:50] we balanced our uses throughout the city. [00:22:53] We didn't make everything highway, commercial. [00:22:56] We didn't do all that. [00:22:57] Now, of course, I don't know if they have [00:23:01] a legitimate course of action to present their views. [00:23:09] At the state level, because this has to go [00:23:11] through that process, which could take, what, [00:23:14] 30, 60, 90 days? [00:23:15] 30 days or so, typically. [00:23:17] So if, at that platform, with that group of people [00:23:21] or whoever it lands on, they could come back and say, [00:23:25] no, this is a totally change of use [00:23:27] because you're altering your comp plan, [00:23:30] because they're going to ask us, [00:23:30] where are you going to pick up this other high residential [00:23:33] to offset that, because the reason the comp plan [00:23:35] was put together was so you balance [00:23:37] your overall development within the city of New Port Richey, [00:23:40] which wasn't done until the 90s. [00:23:43] Because prior to that, we let people build [00:23:44] whatever they want, wherever they wanted to build them, [00:23:46] side by side, and we're living with that adventure now. [00:23:51] So really, that's the first step. [00:23:54] It has to go through there. [00:23:56] And then from that point, obviously, [00:23:59] the impact it's going to have. [00:24:01] We didn't sell them the property. [00:24:03] We didn't make representations [00:24:05] about what their backyard was. [00:24:08] That obviously came about through their purchase process. [00:24:13] And now this property is being used, [00:24:16] and the city has a piece of property adjacent to this. [00:24:20] But at that point, we need to understand [00:24:22] what the overall impact is, [00:24:23] because my understanding as a car lot, [00:24:26] for what they're using this for, [00:24:28] is they are going to be getting deliveries [00:24:29] at two and three and four o'clock in the morning. [00:24:31] And obviously, butting up not only to city residents, [00:24:36] but the people of the South, [00:24:38] who don't have any position with us tonight [00:24:40] to say good, bad, or indifferent, [00:24:42] because they're in the county. [00:24:43] So obviously, there are concerns. [00:24:50] They are villas that were bought [00:24:51] in the $175,000 to $300,000 range, [00:24:54] depending on what it was. [00:24:55] It was quaint, it was tucked in, we understand all that. [00:24:58] But over and above, there are steps, [00:25:01] other steps that have to go through [00:25:03] before it gets to the DRC. [00:25:05] And then not to bring it back to us [00:25:07] to take one more overview at it, [00:25:10] that it's just going to arbitrarily go [00:25:12] through the development department, [00:25:13] because it's been signed off on, have a nice day. [00:25:17] I don't think I want to go through that personally, at all. [00:25:22] Mayor, if I may ask a question as well. [00:25:24] The picture that we're looking at on page seven, [00:25:26] which is the color print that, yeah. [00:25:31] So the one that I have doesn't have [00:25:33] all of what I think I see there now. [00:25:35] But where is that in relation to the current property, [00:25:40] a building that's on the property? [00:25:42] Like, where does this sit in relation to the actual auto? [00:25:46] To the right of this graphic is the dealership. [00:25:49] And to the right of the dealership is US-19. [00:25:53] So the subject property, which is the 10.21 acres, [00:25:57] which is represented here, [00:25:58] is located between the dealership on US-19 [00:26:02] and other undeveloped property to the west, [00:26:06] and then farther on, you have the Gulf farther on to the west. [00:26:09] So kind of where that logo is, is the actual dealership, [00:26:13] and this sits behind the dealership. [00:26:15] Correct, and if we go to the aerial, [00:26:19] again, we see subject property. [00:26:21] That represents the area that's been shown in the graphic [00:26:24] with the wetland area to the north and to the west. [00:26:27] And you see the dealership [00:26:28] that currently exists to the east. [00:26:31] Chris, can you point out where these folks live? [00:26:34] They mentioned Square Rigger, [00:26:36] so I'm assuming that they live here, [00:26:38] just to the north and adjacent to the subject property. [00:26:42] And so the orientation of the picture, then, [00:26:45] is that this... [00:26:48] Turn your iPad. [00:26:49] Yeah, well, if I turn it... [00:26:50] There you go. [00:26:51] Yeah, but it resets. [00:26:52] There you go. [00:26:53] I can do it that way. [00:26:57] That's north. [00:26:58] That's looking north. [00:26:59] So the slimmer band on the photo is at the top, [00:27:05] and the wider band comes down on the western side, [00:27:08] which backs up to the city property, which is that square, [00:27:12] and then Pasco County has that other square in between, [00:27:16] because this sits over near that Gulf Harbors, [00:27:19] Flormar Terrace, and that used to be [00:27:21] the old Mercury-Lincoln dealership across from... [00:27:25] So that's kind of the orientation. [00:27:27] So the reason that they're wanting to play it like this [00:27:32] is so that, essentially, this parking area [00:27:35] is an extension of what they have. [00:27:37] Correct, and is adjacent to the existing dealership. [00:27:41] Just moving that concrete further back, basically. [00:27:43] Right, right, right. [00:27:45] There's a discussion maybe you should bring it up to, [00:27:48] that buffer zone and how wide that buffer zone is [00:27:50] between there and there. [00:27:53] Raleigh Dove of Spring Engineer, excuse me? [00:27:56] I'm not sure they were here when we discussed that before. [00:28:00] You can talk buffer zones all you want, [00:28:01] but unless you want to come over and see where we live [00:28:05] and what's going on, it all sounds great. [00:28:08] It looks real good on there. [00:28:10] Well, I wanted to express my concerns as well. [00:28:13] The one concern I have is the height of the lights, [00:28:15] because if this is not a lot that they're needing to share [00:28:21] because they're selling these products, [00:28:23] but it's rather their inventory, [00:28:25] then that would be a very big concern, [00:28:27] is because I know that the lights on those car dealerships [00:28:30] can be very, very high, [00:28:32] and then it would definitely impact y'all. [00:28:35] The lights would shine up over any buffer [00:28:37] that you had of vegetation right into their windows. [00:28:42] And then the other thought I want to just be sure [00:28:46] that I understood, we will see, whatever transpires, [00:28:50] we will then see, will we be voting on the final outcome, [00:28:56] or did I understand you to say [00:28:57] that once we approve the environmental change? [00:28:59] No, this is strictly a request to approve the land use. [00:29:02] Tonight. [00:29:03] Correct, and then it'll be forwarded to the state [00:29:07] for the state's review, then it'll come back to you [00:29:09] sometime in the future for a second public hearing. [00:29:13] The site plan review is subject to approval [00:29:16] by the Development Review Committee. [00:29:18] And I don't know if our city attorney has any comments [00:29:22] about the approval of specific site plan aspects [00:29:28] with this land use request. [00:29:32] The zoning on this particular property [00:29:34] is not consistent, correct? [00:29:36] The zoning is highway commercial. [00:29:38] They already have the zoning that they need [00:29:41] in order to develop the site. [00:29:42] So this will not require a zoning change, correct? [00:29:44] That's correct. [00:29:45] Okay. [00:29:46] Generally speaking, with a land use plan amendment, [00:29:49] you can't really place conditions on that approval. [00:29:52] So this is the only time that you will see this, [00:29:55] this reading and the second reading [00:29:56] of this particular development. [00:29:58] All of the site plans. [00:30:00] criteria that the city has is administered by staff and they have to [00:30:04] administer the ordinances that are provided. You have an unusual [00:30:08] situation because you have a zoning that's inconsistent with the land use. [00:30:12] The zoning is actually more intense than the current land use. This is an [00:30:16] increase in the intensity of the land use for this particular property. [00:30:20] The land use is pretty intense though at high-density residential 30 units per acre. [00:30:25] Wouldn't you say highway commercial is more intense? Yes. Okay that's all I'm [00:30:29] saying is that it's an increase in intensity but you have a non-conformity [00:30:33] because the zoning is not compatible with the current land use. So one or the [00:30:39] other has to be changed. So the decision you have to make is whether [00:30:43] or not you want to allow this to be highway commercial or you would rather [00:30:49] it be residential. For purposes of the residents they need to understand that [00:30:53] that entire property is not conservation. It's only the boundaries to the outside. [00:30:59] And all of that greenery can be removed pursuant to a development of a [00:31:05] high-density residential as well. High-density residential let's make sure [00:31:09] we clarify that means apartment towers potentially? It means multi-family. It [00:31:17] could be a large development regardless. 30 units per acre. Correct. So that would be 30 times. [00:31:24] So this is really the only this and the second reading of this is the only [00:31:28] opportunity you will have to see this development. I'm gonna ask you to clarify [00:31:34] one thing and then I'm gonna ask you a little bit of advice of what I'm [00:31:39] looking for. Okay. Can you explain to the public what the [00:31:42] Development Review Committee, who that consists of? The Development Review [00:31:46] Committee is a staff committee that is administered by the Development [00:31:52] Department and has participation from all of the other departments in the city [00:31:58] that have to do with physical utilities. And then the problem I'm having, I'm [00:32:07] glad to hear Mr. Driscoll say it is going to come back to us for a second [00:32:10] reading, but the problem I'm having I understand if you move into a home and [00:32:16] you back up to in this particular case these folks back up to undeveloped land [00:32:21] you always have the option or there's always a possibility that land could be [00:32:25] developed. Like I said right now it's zoned for multi-unit residential [00:32:28] whatever. What I'm still having an issue with is us just saying okay it sounds [00:32:33] good we're gonna have a buffer and no clarification on when the deliveries [00:32:36] are gonna be made by these trucks. No clarification on what the lighting is [00:32:39] gonna look like. The same concerns we're all we're all bringing up. I want if I'm [00:32:44] gonna vote on this for a second time I'm telling you right now whether DRC [00:32:47] creates this or something you know believe me the Hyundai dealership but [00:32:51] they're great business partners. They take care of their property it looks [00:32:53] phenomenal. I understand they're a very successful car dealership and they need [00:32:57] more room for inventory. I get that. However these folks have a right to not [00:33:01] have deliveries and deal with that day in and day out on a regular basis as [00:33:05] well and just to hear there's going to be a buffer to me I'm just letting you [00:33:09] know this man's that's not good enough for me. I want some kind of computer [00:33:12] generated drawing to show us either at or before a second reading what they're [00:33:17] going to be looking at. What kind of landscape there's going to be that [00:33:21] hopefully soak up some of that loud noise from the radio and everything just [00:33:25] to put a few rose bushes down isn't going to do much. So I'd like to some [00:33:28] kind of visual and some kind of plan as to what that buffer is going to consist [00:33:31] of. When the delivery is going to be made. What the lighting issue is going to be [00:33:34] and basically all the concerns we're all raising here. Okay I understand Mr. [00:33:39] Councilman the direction that you are providing to me and I will make a [00:33:44] connection with the applicant for the rezoning and see what I can do in terms [00:33:50] of providing the detail you seek for your second reading. And as a city can [00:34:01] we require the particulars on the buffer that it at this point it's [00:34:06] landscaping but you know is there can we require that there be actual structure [00:34:11] or for yes we certainly can establish standards and most of them are contained [00:34:19] in our city ordinances that the Land Development Review Board would ensure [00:34:25] that there is compliance with. Thank you. Deputy Mayor. Yeah can you can you go to [00:34:33] the to the site plan to the site to the site plan? And that's fine. It is after [00:34:45] they did their wetlands survey or report is all of the is all of the green [00:34:56] area to the west is that all wetlands? And the reason I'm asking is is [00:35:04] obviously they're looking to stretch this structure this this parking area to [00:35:12] the north. Mine is is how if they were able to bring it back to leave a larger [00:35:19] green band and obviously then we get the rights to do other you know other [00:35:28] other elements to block but if they were to bring it back and to square it off [00:35:33] instead of rectangular make it go further to the to the west I'm just [00:35:38] trying to understand if that's an option because obviously the further [00:35:44] back we get that asphalt and lighting area the further back and then whatever [00:35:51] kind of blocking elements you put in which we have a right to do for peaceful [00:35:56] enjoyment of neighborhoods from different business types then we we [00:36:02] increase that area because I know in our last meeting we had hoped that a [00:36:07] larger portion of the green area was going to be north on the property that [00:36:15] backed up to those villas but it's not represented obviously it's not [00:36:18] represented here so I'm just trying to see if they lay their parking area out [00:36:23] differently and not because obviously everything to the west majority on the [00:36:29] west is not impacted some of its undeveloped land part of its city own so [00:36:36] that would be another another question or criteria that I would ask to try to [00:36:40] look at. That's something that the Development Review Committee could [00:36:44] consider but again it's my understanding from Mr. Driscoll that the City Council [00:36:49] would not be able to condition the site plan as part of the recommendation of [00:36:54] approval of the land-use change. Can we offer strong recommendations to the [00:36:59] developer and the business owner to work a little bit I mean I mean you know [00:37:05] maybe it's a strong objection or an ultimately stronger stronger objection [00:37:11] but I think that if we could find some common ground here to add additional [00:37:16] buffering on the north and then add additional buffering elements that we're [00:37:21] at least trying to work our way through the problem that we've been placed in at [00:37:26] the moment. In response Mr. Deputy Mayor we will work towards that objective. [00:37:30] Raleigh Dove of Spring Engineering is the representative of the applicant and [00:37:35] I believe he is present if you would if Ms. Vance would like to have him speak. [00:37:40] That would be super before we ask him to come up. Do we have any other people in [00:37:45] the audience that wish to address us on this issue? Thank you. [00:37:50] My name is Darlene Cullen and I also live on Square Rigger. My husband and I have lived in Pasco County for over 30 years but we've only lived in the city of New Port Richey for the last year when we bought our pretty little home on Square Rigger. [00:38:14] I did not know the dimensions of what the the buffer space would be coming back [00:38:21] onto our property. It doesn't look like there's that much but my husband had [00:38:25] come to the last meeting and he had some dimensions of 50 feet and 25 feet and all [00:38:30] these different dimensions but I'd like to hear what those what the buffer is [00:38:33] because we actually were told when we bought our property that we had 20 feet [00:38:36] beyond our fence that went into the green space that was already ours so I'm [00:38:43] wondering how close you're getting to that 20 feet when you use your wetlands [00:38:46] and I don't understand I thought wetlands were protected so if we can [00:38:52] just change the zoning and then we don't have to worry about the wetlands I don't [00:38:55] know what's what happens with the wetlands protection and I also had the [00:39:01] concern about the lights but I'm very thrilled to be living in a city now that [00:39:05] Mr. Starkey that you would speak up very quickly on how you had concerns for us [00:39:11] as a neighborhood and I appreciate it and then all of you kind of felt went [00:39:14] into that as well so I feel encouraged that at least you're thinking about the [00:39:19] families that have come to live in this city and I would hope that you continue [00:39:24] to think about that that it's homes that have I feel like we've added a lot of [00:39:29] tax base that it's just a cute little cut out of the neighborhood but I feel [00:39:34] like we've added a big tax base to the to the city and I would like you to take [00:39:38] some concern about the wetlands and if you could give me information about the [00:39:42] buffer I'd appreciate it. The jurisdictional wetland survey that was [00:39:47] provided by the applicant shows a depth of about 50 feet more or less give or [00:39:52] take along the north and to the west containing the wetlands in addition for [00:39:58] the state they're required to provide a 25 foot buffer adjacent to the wetlands [00:40:02] here they show a 25 foot buffer the regulations for the city would require a [00:40:10] 25 foot buffer against residential uses and so they've met that with the buffer [00:40:16] provided to the north and to the west the city staff is also going to have [00:40:19] concerns about a buffer being provided to the south adjacent to unincorporated [00:40:25] area in the county which is developed with single-family residential so the [00:40:31] city staff will have issues about the buffer that's proposed to be provided [00:40:36] so it's a 50 feet a 25 feet another 25 feet plus our 20 feet that's already [00:40:42] there no I'm referring first to there's a roughly a 50 foot depth of wetlands [00:40:48] along the north and west sides of the property. I'm just looking at [00:40:56] they've mapped with their survey the location of the wetlands and there's a [00:41:03] depth of approximately 50 feet and it fluctuates in addition to that the state [00:41:08] requires them to provide a 25 foot buffer between the use and the wetlands [00:41:14] and they've provided this 25 foot buffer here the city regulations will require a [00:41:19] minimum 25 foot buffer also to the north and to the west and in addition there'll [00:41:25] be a concern about the location of single-family residential to the south [00:41:29] and the city staff will also require an additional 25 foot buffer along the [00:41:34] south property line. So the property that we were told our 20 feet is included in [00:41:38] that 50 feet of wetlands. I'm not sure where your 20 feet was located. [00:41:45] One of the builders is here too because I don't know where our 20 feet starts and ends then. [00:41:52] Thank you. Thank you. Certainly is anybody else wanting to address us on this? [00:42:03] Okay come on and if you could help clarify this for us. Thank you mayor [00:42:10] members of the council. The 25 feet behind the duplexes is shown [00:42:22] shown along this area here and it's platted as a five foot buffer slash [00:42:29] wall ease but and a 20 foot landscape buffer natural buffer. So the dark [00:42:37] gray area right there is a 20 feet that was represented to the property owners [00:42:42] in addition by the developer on the property. I would think so. That [00:42:47] darkest gray area before you get to the wetland area okay. The wetland is [00:42:52] depicted on this drawing as the blue and as it's been described to you it's [00:42:56] approximately 50 feet wide. Then we have the 25 foot upland buffer beyond that. [00:43:02] Then we have our retention pond which is another 43 feet and in addition to that [00:43:09] we're going to provide some landscaping along the north end of the parking lot. [00:43:14] That's close to a hundred feet is that is that is that my math is little. It's [00:43:20] about a hundred and twenty five feet total if you add them all up from the [00:43:24] back so the duplexes to the parking lot. And their townhomes are not duplexes [00:43:29] these people paid a lot more money than a duplex. I know I know it's a [00:43:33] nomenclature but I don't want them to go away thinking that the city didn't [00:43:36] realize what the development criteria was so you're good. They are townhomes [00:43:40] and they're very nice. Yeah it's a nice infill project. [00:43:47] So is it an option to orient the properties of the development further [00:43:53] west shaving off some footage from the north and south to make it almost the [00:43:59] opposite direction going into the green green area? Yes I heard that discussion [00:44:04] and we took note of it and that is a possibility. It creates a little bit of a [00:44:09] development issue for the client in that as you go further to the west the [00:44:15] property continues to decrease in elevation. So we don't want to have to [00:44:20] destroy a bunch of this area and fill it just to be able to get it above the high [00:44:27] water elevations. But we can look at a little bit of maybe pulling this [00:44:32] back another 50 feet or so. So that would be somewhere in 150 175 feet and then [00:44:37] you'd square off a little bit in trying to make some [00:44:43] accommodations correct? Yes that's correct. Thank you. And then I just wanted [00:44:48] to clarify one other thing. It's my understanding that this is not wetlands [00:44:51] now and we're changing it from wetlands to commercial but rather that it's [00:44:57] high-density residential that we are changing to [00:45:00] or asking to change to commercial, is that correct? [00:45:03] That's right, when I was here in November, [00:45:05] you asked us to look at the possibility [00:45:06] of putting this area here and here [00:45:10] in a conservation land use classification, [00:45:13] which we agreed to do and provided this survey for you. [00:45:17] Thank you, I just wanted to clarify that [00:45:18] for Ms. Kohler who was thinking that it was wetlands. [00:45:20] We're not paving over wetlands, [00:45:22] but you're protecting, you identified the wetlands [00:45:26] and you're protecting those [00:45:27] as part of the overall development. [00:45:29] Yes, that's correct. [00:45:30] Okay, all right. [00:45:35] Thank you, any further public comment? [00:45:59] My name is Edward J. Brereton. [00:46:14] I am the owner of 4816 Square Rigger Court. [00:46:18] Bring that mic up so people at home [00:46:20] can hear you a little bit, thank you. [00:46:22] And I have a couple of other questions, comments. [00:46:28] If this is rezoned, what's to prevent in a year [00:46:33] the owner deciding to build some kind of a structure [00:46:36] on that property to further expand the service department, [00:46:43] the get ready department or anything like that, [00:46:47] which would then bring more noise? [00:46:52] Is there any way that the hours for delivery [00:46:57] Well, let me ask a different question. [00:46:59] Is there a noise ordinance in the town? [00:47:06] Yes, sir, we just passed it in December. [00:47:11] If the deliveries are kept within a standard timeframe, [00:47:19] I'm sure that that would be a plus [00:47:22] that there aren't any two and three o'clock deliveries [00:47:26] because as quiet as they try to be, [00:47:27] they're not gonna be that quiet. [00:47:42] I think it shows on the top there [00:47:44] that that line of small circles [00:47:47] right at the top of the parking area. [00:47:52] Those are trees or vegetation of some kind [00:47:54] that they're gonna put in. [00:47:57] That's correct, this is some vegetation [00:47:59] that they are proposing here [00:48:02] on the north side of the parking lot, [00:48:04] which is just south of a drainage retention area, [00:48:07] which is adjacent to the 25 foot vegetated buffer, [00:48:11] which is just south of the wetland. [00:48:13] And the vegetative buffer exists today, correct? [00:48:17] Correct, the site's all pretty heavily vegetated. [00:48:22] As long as it would be stipulated [00:48:24] that those are some kind of a tree, an evergreen, [00:48:27] or something that's gonna grow tall, fill in, [00:48:31] and that would help to abate the sound. [00:48:34] Because if you go to the top, [00:48:36] each one of those units are the duplexes, two of them. [00:48:41] I'm the second one from the right. [00:48:43] And so that's gonna be right behind me [00:48:47] and all these things are concerns. [00:48:51] You know, we've only owned this six or seven months [00:48:54] and already we're having problems. [00:48:56] So if the council or whoever can address these [00:49:00] to try and see if there could be, [00:49:03] even as far as building on it, [00:49:05] some kind of a deed restriction [00:49:07] for a certain amount of time [00:49:09] before they would be able to even think [00:49:11] about putting up any kind of structures. [00:49:16] Thank you. [00:49:17] Thank you very much. [00:49:19] Mr. Mettler, a question to the gentleman's point [00:49:23] and the previous folks. [00:49:25] Were they to decide to convert that parking lot [00:49:28] into an additional structure area, [00:49:30] what would be involved? [00:49:32] The highway commercial zoning would allow it. [00:49:36] The redevelopment of the site [00:49:38] would still be subject to DRC approval. [00:49:41] So they would still have to review the site plan [00:49:44] for the impacts that are proposed [00:49:46] in terms of setbacks, parking, building height, [00:49:50] and so forth. [00:49:51] Thank you. [00:49:52] And to be clear right now, [00:49:54] in its existing state, [00:49:57] it could be multifamily, [00:49:59] which means that it could be storied, [00:50:02] could be in a multifamily setting. [00:50:05] So, and at 30 units an acre, [00:50:08] obviously to get that probably would be vertical. [00:50:11] So it's the lesser of the evils [00:50:16] or whatever might be there, [00:50:17] but obviously this has an existing zoning on it today. [00:50:21] That's- [00:50:22] And as Mr. Driscoll pointed out, [00:50:23] there's this mismatch. [00:50:25] The future land use designation [00:50:27] is high density residential at 30 units per acre. [00:50:30] And the current zoning is highway commercial. [00:50:34] Thank you. [00:50:34] Any further public comment? [00:50:37] Seeing none, I'm gonna bring it back to council. [00:50:41] Move for approval. [00:50:43] We have a motion. [00:50:44] Second. [00:50:45] Second to the maker. [00:50:47] No, I'd just like to back up the things [00:50:51] that we've asked for [00:50:51] and then we can get before the next reading [00:50:54] so I can do more evaluation. [00:50:58] Deputy Mayor, you were the second. [00:50:59] Yeah, I was the second. [00:51:01] After this meeting, [00:51:02] can you put together an overview, [00:51:04] not an overview, [00:51:05] but a concise list of all the concerns [00:51:09] and provide that to Ms. Manns [00:51:11] so she can provide it back to us? [00:51:14] Because we've taken copious notes [00:51:16] and the clerk will do a nice job, [00:51:20] and I appreciate the developers, [00:51:23] architect and engineer again, [00:51:25] trying to work through the process [00:51:27] and understand the challenges that we're in. [00:51:30] But I want to make sure that as the process moves through, [00:51:34] we've recognized their concerns. [00:51:39] Councilman Starkey pointed out, [00:51:41] obviously, some kind of ground level visualization [00:51:45] and obviously the ability to get 150, [00:51:47] 170, 200 feet back away from what's there now. [00:51:51] I just want to make sure that as we go through the process, [00:51:54] we have all those elements to look at and evaluate [00:51:58] as we go to the second reading. [00:52:00] But obviously, this has to go to state [00:52:02] to get the original comp plan change [00:52:04] and then from there, [00:52:05] I just want to make sure that they understand [00:52:07] where we're at working through the entire process. [00:52:10] I can provide that list to Ms. Manns. [00:52:12] Thank you. [00:52:13] Thank you. [00:52:14] Councilman Starkey? [00:52:15] Can you please provide it to the owner of the car dealership [00:52:16] so they know what their neighbor's concerns are? [00:52:18] Yes. [00:52:19] Thank you. [00:52:20] Councilman? [00:52:21] Yes, thank you. [00:52:22] And if with visuals, and perhaps it's just me, [00:52:25] I don't know, but I would like to see [00:52:28] what they're planning to do with what's there. [00:52:31] So if we're able to have a visual [00:52:34] so that we would see what the overall image would be. [00:52:38] Thank you. [00:52:39] One other thing, Mr. Mayor. [00:52:39] Yes, sir. [00:52:40] As this moves to that point, [00:52:43] could you ask the developer to allow us [00:52:46] to visit the site ourselves [00:52:49] as long as we don't violate on-site? [00:52:53] Because this is going to get quasi-judicial at some point, [00:52:56] in some ways. [00:52:57] But obviously, to answer a lot of questions [00:52:59] is to go out and walk it, see it with the plan in hand [00:53:02] and get the visuals and all that [00:53:04] so that we can, when it does come back, [00:53:07] we've had that opportunity. [00:53:08] But whatever approvals, whatever, [00:53:11] yes, you can come on my property, whatever those are, [00:53:14] because obviously we want to make sure [00:53:15] that we balance the overall evaluation of this project. [00:53:21] I'm going to vote in favor of this on first reading, [00:53:25] but my vote on second reading is not guaranteed. [00:53:30] I share Deputy Mayor Phillips' question [00:53:35] about why not get that parking lot further south [00:53:39] and maybe extend it out a little bit further to the west [00:53:42] to increase the buffer distance. [00:53:46] And I'm not sure who it was that raised the question [00:53:48] of the light height, [00:53:51] but I've got real concerns about that right now. [00:53:55] Because I can just see if these are the typical lights [00:53:58] in a car parking lot sitting up 50, 75 feet in the air, [00:54:06] it's going to be intolerable [00:54:08] for the people living adjacent to it, [00:54:10] and I don't want to be a part of that. [00:54:13] Councilman Davis. [00:54:14] Yeah, can I get one other thing? [00:54:14] Can I get an example of 30 units per acre? [00:54:20] Sure. [00:54:21] Just curiosity. [00:54:26] There's no further discussion. [00:54:29] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:54:30] Aye. [00:54:31] Opposed, the like sign. [00:54:32] Motion passes on first reading.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 7.c
You arrived here from a search for “Deputy Mayor” — transcript expanded below
First Reading, Ordinance #2017-2102: Dog-Friendly Dining
approvedFirst reading of Ordinance 2017-2102, which amends the Land Development Code to allow dog-friendly outdoor dining at restaurants and cafes pursuant to Florida's Dixie Cup Clary Local Control Act. Following discussion about implementation costs, liability, and enforcement concerns, the motion to approve passed 3-2.
Ord. Ordinance No. 2017-2102
- motion:Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance 2017-2102 allowing dog-friendly outdoor dining. (passed)3–2
Christina'sLand Development Review BoardBell ThomasCouncilman BakerCouncilman DavisDeputy MayorMr. MettlerMs. MannsChapter 7 zoningDixie Cup Clary Local Control ActLand Development CodeOrdinance 2017-2102Section 7.26.00▶ Jump to 54:35 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:54:35] Next is first reading of Ordinance 2017-2102, [00:54:38] Dog-Friendly Dining. [00:54:43] Ordinance 2017-2102, [00:54:45] an ordinance of the City of New Port Richey, Florida, [00:54:47] amending the Land Development Code [00:54:48] by amending Chapter 7 zoning [00:54:50] by adding Section 7.26.00 thereto, [00:54:54] providing for designated areas for dogs [00:54:56] and outdoor seating areas [00:54:57] and public food service establishments, [00:55:00] providing for permitting and applications, [00:55:02] providing for restrictions, [00:55:03] providing for complaints and reporting, [00:55:05] providing for severability, [00:55:06] and providing for codification, [00:55:08] and providing for an effective date. [00:55:11] Thank you. [00:55:12] Ms. Manns. [00:55:13] Yeah, sure, Mr. Mayor. [00:55:14] In 2006, the state legislature passed [00:55:19] what's called the Dixie Cup Clary Local Control Act, [00:55:23] and in short, that act provides an opportunity [00:55:26] for local units of government [00:55:28] to provide exemptions from federal regulations [00:55:33] which restrict the feeding of animals [00:55:39] in outdoor dining areas of restaurants. [00:55:42] The purpose of this ordinance [00:55:45] is to allow for dog-friendly dining [00:55:49] in the outdoor dining areas of restaurants and cafes [00:55:53] located in the City of New Port Richey, [00:55:56] and this matter was reviewed by the Land Development [00:56:02] Review Board in conjunction with a public hearing [00:56:05] that they conducted on December 15th of 2016. [00:56:10] At the conclusion of that public hearing, [00:56:12] their recommendation was in favor [00:56:16] of recommending the adoption of the ordinance to you. [00:56:20] Mr. Mettler, is there anything additional [00:56:21] that you'd like to provide related to this agenda item? [00:56:24] I really do not have much more to add. [00:56:25] Okay. [00:56:26] Thank you. [00:56:27] Open this up for public comment. [00:56:30] Anyone who wishes to address council on this matter, [00:56:32] please come forward. [00:56:35] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to council, [00:56:37] and I'll just make the observation. [00:56:39] I thought this was the law here already. [00:56:41] I didn't realize it wasn't. [00:56:43] Councilman Davis. [00:56:44] Move for approval. [00:56:45] Second. [00:56:47] Councilman Baker. [00:56:47] Yeah, this was brought to my attention [00:56:49] by a restaurant in town, [00:56:51] although we have like a half a dozen restaurants, [00:56:53] and they were already doing this, [00:56:56] and they were informed by the health department [00:56:59] that we didn't have the ordinance [00:57:00] and that they would be fine [00:57:02] if we didn't work on it and get the ordinance, [00:57:04] so I'm the one who kind of presented it [00:57:06] and kind of been following through. [00:57:08] Thank you. [00:57:09] To the second. [00:57:09] Just for the record, I'm sure if a restaurant owner [00:57:12] does not want to allow dogs in his or her restaurant, [00:57:15] they don't have to. [00:57:16] That is correct. [00:57:17] That's correct. [00:57:19] It simply offers the option. [00:57:21] The option to apply for the permit. [00:57:23] Councilman, Councilwoman. [00:57:25] Yeah, I'm a great dog lover, [00:57:27] but I just can't see dogs in restaurants, [00:57:30] and I understand it's not in the restaurants, [00:57:32] it's outside, sidewalks, whatever. [00:57:34] I just came back from California, [00:57:35] and I could see where this, you know, [00:57:37] way out in left field, [00:57:39] so although I'm not in favor of this [00:57:43] in terms of wanting to see that happen, [00:57:46] I do understand that the market will balance that out. [00:57:51] If people are not happy with having dogs in restaurants, [00:57:55] they probably won't go to that restaurant, [00:57:57] so I know that that's the great equalizer, [00:58:00] but I just wanted to go on record [00:58:02] that I just don't cotton to it, so thank you. [00:58:08] Deputy Mayor. [00:58:10] Well, there's, this is once again an opportunity [00:58:15] for us to fail miserably [00:58:20] in trying to put this into place [00:58:22] without enough information on the front end. [00:58:26] First of all, there's not been a cost analysis [00:58:29] on what this is gonna do to staff time, [00:58:32] and who's gonna police it, [00:58:34] and you know, if I don't get a return [00:58:36] on my investment with this, [00:58:37] I don't wanna have my police officers [00:58:40] or my development people being sidetracked. [00:58:43] I know there's only seven or eight locations [00:58:45] that possibly could do this. [00:58:47] Second of all, the fee is ridiculous. [00:58:51] It's absolutely ridiculous at $50, [00:58:54] because once you get involved, [00:58:57] chief gets involved, fire gets involved, [00:59:00] I got more than $50 in there, you know, [00:59:03] before you even sit down and get a cup of coffee. [00:59:06] Second of all, you know, [00:59:09] there's many implementation things in this ordinance [00:59:14] about, you know, you have to have a site plan, [00:59:18] you have to have a description of the hours [00:59:21] that you can allow dogs and not allow dogs, [00:59:24] so people get confused whether you can have dogs [00:59:26] there that night or the other night. [00:59:29] Obviously, over and above that is the cleanliness issue, [00:59:35] and having the ability to sanitize the area [00:59:38] if something happens, and Mr. Bell Thomas [00:59:42] pointed out greatly that the market will correct itself, [00:59:45] but you still, and because some of these restaurants [00:59:49] that this would have aren't brand new construction, [00:59:53] so providing the right sanitation, [00:59:56] and then we get down to all the signage issues. [01:00:00] Where's the area, where's the sign got to be located, and I don't have any descriptions [01:00:04] of any of that. [01:00:05] And I'm supposed to take it on face value that once this rolls out, that everything's [01:00:10] going to be fine. [01:00:12] And what I see coming back is wrong night, wrong location, and by then we're going to [01:00:19] have $1,000 involved in the overall process, and then we have to write a ticket for the [01:00:26] dog, and who's going to police that, and is it going to take a special certification [01:00:31] in the development department to be able to authorize the permit to be done. [01:00:36] So to me, it's a nice lob shot over the net, but I don't see, this to me is an opportunity [01:00:49] to get our nose bloodied a little bit, and I'm just not, I'm really not. [01:00:57] It brought up more questions, the more I read it, the more I said, don't we have quality [01:01:05] of life issues that we're approaching, going after, and like I said, I just feel like there's [01:01:15] more unanswered questions with the overall presentation of this, as opposed to when [01:01:21] it, there'll be more questions from the public if it goes in place. [01:01:25] Thank you. [01:01:26] And there may be some truth to that, I certainly hope not. [01:01:33] When I read this, I viewed this as being a, basically just recognizing the facts that [01:01:40] are already on the ground. [01:01:41] I mean, we've got dogs on these patios now. [01:01:48] I'll have coffee with the city manager tomorrow morning, and I would give you better than [01:01:53] even odds that before we finish our coffee, there will be at least one dog on the patio [01:01:58] at Christina's. [01:02:04] The current law is being honored more in the breach than the observance, I think is the [01:02:08] correct term, and by passing this, we're simply recognizing that the people are doing [01:02:13] it now and trying to get some minimal control over it. [01:02:20] I just don't see getting too excited about it. [01:02:23] Mr. Mayor, let me just point out to you, in my opinion, this puts all the liability on [01:02:27] the restaurant owner. [01:02:28] You might lose business. [01:02:29] People might not want to come to your restaurant because you have dogs on your patio. [01:02:32] If that dog bites somebody on the property you're leasing or that you own, you're liable. [01:02:37] Just keep that in mind. [01:02:38] I mean, I'm not opposed to it, like the mayor said. [01:02:40] It happens in a lot of cities throughout Florida that I visit, and I'm kind of seeing it now. [01:02:46] Just keep that in mind. [01:02:47] If you are the restaurant owner, you're the one that's going to be responsible if that [01:02:51] dog bites somebody and causes a disturbance and a ruckus, and you might lose business [01:02:56] over it if your current customers aren't okay with it. [01:02:59] Excellent point. [01:03:00] Any further discussion? [01:03:03] Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:03:07] Aye. [01:03:08] Aye. [01:03:09] Opposed? [01:03:10] Light sign? [01:03:11] No. [01:03:12] No. [01:03:13] Motion passes 3-2. [01:03:14] It's been a while. [01:03:16] Business items. [01:03:17] Alcoholic beverage special event permit, Wrap River Run. [01:03:21] And recognizing, I don't believe this happens until June, so this is probably recognized [01:03:27] as the furthest in advance anybody has ever applied for an alcoholic beverage permit. [01:03:33] That would be an accurate statement, Mr. Mayor. [01:03:36] They are, as I'm told, anxious for determination from you as to whether or not you will permit [01:03:45] the alcoholic beverage sales so that they may, in turn, advertise well in advance of [01:03:53] the event if you so determine that it's appropriate for them to sell alcohol in conjunction with [01:04:02] the Wrap River Run event, which, incidentally, will be held in Sims Park on June 9th. [01:04:10] They will have a packet pickup, and they are requesting to provide beer during the race [01:04:18] packet pickup from 4 o'clock p.m. to 7 o'clock p.m. [01:04:24] And following the run on Saturday, June 10th, from 6 o'clock a.m. to 1 o'clock p.m., I [01:04:34] was told, Mr. Mayor, that there would be a representative of the applicant in attendance [01:04:39] this evening, and I'm not certain. [01:04:41] Now I am certain that there is a representative who can speak more specifically to this application. [01:04:51] Thank you. [01:04:52] Thank you. [01:04:53] Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers. [01:04:54] Andy Coble with Youth and Family Alternatives. [01:04:55] I can answer any additional questions you have. [01:04:58] Just for clarification purposes, on the day of the race, and I don't know if we need to [01:05:01] amend our application, we would be looking for from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. [01:05:08] Six to ten? [01:05:13] So you're asking for permission not from 6 to 1, but from 6 to 10 a.m. for beer?
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 8.a
Alcoholic Beverage Special Event Permit - RAP River Run
deniedRAP River Run committee requested a special event alcoholic beverage permit allowing beer service from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. during their 10th anniversary 5k/10k race, deviating from the city ordinance hours of noon to 11 p.m. Council expressed concern that approving would set a precedent against established hours and voted to deny the permit application.
- motion:Motion to deny the special event alcoholic beverage permit application for RAP River Run. (passed)
5706 Riverview DriveJasmine Drive, Newport RicheySims ParkRAP River RunYouth and Family AlternativesAmanda MurphyAndyBell-ThomasDavisDebbie MannsJoan Nelson-HookPhillipsCity alcohol ordinance hours (noon-11pm M-Sat; 1-9pm Sun)RAP River Run 10k/5kSpecial Event Alcoholic Beverage Permit▶ Jump to 1:05:17 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[01:05:17] Yes, ma'am. [01:05:18] Man, that's kind of early in the morning to be drinking. [01:05:22] Can I ask what time the race goes off? [01:05:25] The race will start at, we're looking at a 10k this year in addition to the 5k, so the [01:05:32] race will probably start around 5.45 or 6 for the 10k. [01:05:37] I wasn't there last year, was there beer in the morning last year? [01:05:40] There was not. [01:05:41] No. [01:05:42] This is new. [01:05:43] I don't know if this sends the right message. [01:05:45] It is inconsistent with our current ordinance, which is why the applicant is asking for the [01:06:09] authority to amend the hours of the alcohol consumption. [01:06:15] What does the current ordinance provide, Ms. Manns? [01:06:19] It's noon to 11, and that's Friday, Saturday, and Sunday has a different time, I think it's [01:06:30] 12 to 7, I believe. [01:06:33] I do have a couple of questions. [01:06:35] One, it's referenced, not so much in the application, but more or less in the cover memorandum, [01:06:46] a site plan for the event, and it says you're only going to have one location, that's what [01:06:53] it said. [01:06:54] Number two, what is this expected revenue from this? [01:07:04] I'm trying to understand the messaging too, so, you know, four hours as a revenue expectation [01:07:13] level? [01:07:14] I mean, I'm just... [01:07:15] Sure. [01:07:16] So, actually there's no revenue. [01:07:18] There would be no sales. [01:07:19] This would be alcohol being given out at that point. [01:07:22] And it's called a one beer tent or something like that? [01:07:25] Essentially, yes. [01:07:26] And it's just really to come out, and the main idea was to draw more people in. [01:07:31] All right. [01:07:32] Well, 6 a.m. [01:07:33] The other is, is that I looked at your mission statement, and I've known about your group [01:07:38] for a long, long time, and I have to tell you that it, to me, and I've always liked [01:07:47] the event because it is super family oriented. [01:07:51] It's early in the morning, in and out, but with the mission that you have and some of [01:07:59] the programs and stuff, I'm not sure, and I'm a lot older than I used to be some days, [01:08:07] but the connection there still gives me pause, and the real thing that this does, and unfortunately [01:08:15] we get caught in this dilemma every once in a while, is trying to alter what we spent [01:08:22] an inordinate amount of time trying to get as structured hours. [01:08:27] Because if it goes back, the mayor can tell you in his tenure, it was a mud wrestling [01:08:34] event to even get beer and wine in Sims Park, because it was such a pristine area before [01:08:43] we improved it, that it really drew lines in the sand, and there's a lot of people that [01:08:48] still aren't over that. [01:08:51] And by establishing this as doing this for you, we open the door to others coming and [01:08:59] then saying, well you did it for youth and family alternatives, now we're having to do [01:09:04] this, and that's where I get the real problem with it, because then I can't say to someone, [01:09:14] no, we spent a multitude of hours figuring out the hours that we could let it in, and [01:09:20] now we've opened the door, and then we're starting to pick and choose which groups we [01:09:25] do, and I really have a hard time, because every group is entitled to their ability to [01:09:31] draw the public, and again, those are my four or five things that really sit with me, and [01:09:36] I just wanted to express them to you, so thank you for your time. [01:09:41] The hours are as follows, it's noon to 11 p.m. for events held on Monday through Saturday, [01:09:46] and 1 to 9 p.m. for events held on Sunday. [01:09:49] Thank you. [01:09:52] This is open for public comment, does anyone else wish to address council on this? [01:09:59] Seeing no, if you could come up to the front, Joan, so the folks at home can hear you, thank [01:10:07] you. [01:10:08] Good evening, Joan Nelson-Hook, Jasmine Drive, New Port Richey, do I understand that they're [01:10:23] asking to give beer away at 6 in the morning to 9? [01:10:29] 11. [01:10:30] It was to 1, and now it's to 10. [01:10:33] To 10. [01:10:34] And then they're going to pause, and then they're going to sell. [01:10:38] No. [01:10:39] No. [01:10:40] The way the application and stuff came back, and they've asked to amend it from 6 a.m. [01:10:44] to 10 in the morning. [01:10:47] Why would racers want to drink beer at 6 in the morning? [01:10:53] I've been a runner myself, you aren't going to have the beer at 6, you're going to have [01:11:00] the beer after you finish, and so if it goes off at 6 or 7 in the morning, you're going [01:11:04] to have your one beer at 9 or 9.30 or whenever. [01:11:08] I just wanted to make sure I understood. [01:11:10] Usually, that's what kind of happens. [01:11:15] Maybe he could explain to us why they're doing this? [01:11:21] Inquiring minds want to know. [01:11:22] Well, he thinks they'll draw people, they have like roughly 1,200 people that are coming [01:11:26] to this race now. [01:11:28] Which is probably the largest. [01:11:29] So if they give away a beer, they'll get more people? [01:11:32] That's what they think. [01:11:33] Oh, OK. [01:11:34] And I think it is the largest race in Pasco County already. [01:11:39] Thank you so much. [01:11:43] I can address that question, ma'am. [01:11:56] So essentially, yes, it's looking to pull folks in. [01:11:58] There are races out there that have successfully done basically beer runs, where they draw [01:12:05] having folks come in and having beer that early in the morning. [01:12:07] As Councilman Davis mentioned, it really would be more for after running. [01:12:12] Folks would have a beer at that point, and it's something that we've looked at and have [01:12:18] looked at over the years and decided whether or not it's something we wanted to get into. [01:12:23] The committee decided this year that we would take a look at that and see whether or not [01:12:26] it was something that was plausible for us this year. [01:12:33] Amanda Murphy, 5706 Riverview Drive. [01:12:36] This is my 10th year on the committee, so I thought, well, I feel bad that Andy's getting [01:12:40] beat up a little bit about the beer. [01:12:42] It is something that the runners have brought up to us. [01:12:45] Those of us that are not participating in these activities thought it was a little bizarre. [01:12:50] But yes, they do drink the beers at 9 a.m., 8 a.m. when they come across the line. [01:12:57] As gross as that is, because I don't like beer at all. [01:13:00] It is one of the things that we think will bring the race up. [01:13:03] We have 1,200 runners consistently, and this is our 10th anniversary, so we're trying to [01:13:08] do a blowout and get up to 1,600 runners in downtown New Port Richey. [01:13:13] This was one of the ideas that they came up with. [01:13:22] Thank you. [01:13:23] Anyone else? [01:13:24] I'll bring it back to Council. [01:13:29] One of the concerns I have, and I know we need to make a motion at this point, but that [01:13:35] issue of that our ordinance states noon to 11 p.m., and I don't know what our argument [01:13:44] would be for any other group to come to us and say, well, we want to do beer at 10 because [01:13:48] we believe that that will bring the blues musicians or a Chasco that folks would like [01:13:54] to have a beer that time of the morning. [01:13:57] The times are established and the criteria is in place based on probably good practice [01:14:05] in terms of across the board with the city. [01:14:07] I know that it was just a few years ago that we brought the time down to, I think our bars [01:14:18] in downtown can serve it at 11 because their concerns were that the law had changed and [01:14:22] they weren't able to do it to a certain time or whatever. [01:14:25] That is one of my concerns, is that how we would be able to legitimize our making this [01:14:33] at six in the morning when that is against our own ordinance and just for one particular [01:14:41] organization. [01:14:42] I would see that there would be no holding back that, and if that's the direction we [01:14:47] want to go in, then we need to address the time that we have our ordinance set up. [01:14:52] So that would be my point. [01:14:53] Just one more comment. [01:14:54] I wish your committee nothing but success with this event. [01:14:57] I truly do. [01:14:58] I think it's an awesome event. [01:15:00] I just can't support beer in the park from 6 to 10 a.m. whether you I mean if [01:15:03] you if this ended at someone's house big old house on the river and they want to [01:15:07] give the runners beer and that's their own property have at it have fun drink [01:15:10] 60 if you want prior to 11 I don't care but just to be serving beer in our in [01:15:14] our public park from 6 to 10 a.m. I'm not trying to be a stick in the mud I like [01:15:19] beer but I just I just can't support it. Make a motion to deny the the permit [01:15:25] application to the maker you know I've expressed my my position but I think [01:15:33] everybody else has done it also and to me setting that new precedent would be [01:15:41] hard to put the genie back in the bottle unfortunately it'd be we we fast-tracked [01:15:46] something recently outside of our norm which is going to set up for things in [01:15:50] the future so I just otherwise then as mr. bell-thomas said we need to go and [01:15:56] look at the overall element again I just really don't want to go through that [01:16:01] exercise to be honest with you thank you to the second mr. bell-thomas [01:16:07] councilman Davis a lot of races and I never chose the race because I got a [01:16:12] free beer I've done hundreds I'm aware of some some races that that have that [01:16:20] as an option including some triathlons but it's never particularly induced me [01:16:25] to want to go to one either and and I do have concerns about the the hours when [01:16:31] when councilman develop Thomas gasped at the the opening hour I knew there was an [01:16:36] issue here it just seems way too early and I do share deputy mayor Phillips [01:16:44] concern that this would set a horrendous precedent we'd wind up having [01:16:50] to go back into the weeds as as we have done in the past so I will support the [01:16:59] motion is there any further discussion hearing none all those in favor for the [01:17:07] motion to deny the application please signify by saying aye opposed the [01:17:12] likes of motion passes next is a request to allow public comment on rate [01:17:18] increase and consider for approval resolution 20 1709 authorize I
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 8.b
Request to Allow Public Comment on Rate Increase and Consider for Approval Resolution No. 2017-09 – Authorizing Extension of the City's Water Utility System in Connection with the Purchase of the Lakewood Villas, Barbara Ann Acres, and Silver Oaks utility systems
discussedCouncil opened the floor for public comment on the rate increase tied to the city's acquisition of the Lakewood Villas, Barbara Ann Acres, and Silver Oaks utility systems, and considered Resolution No. 2017-09 authorizing extension of the city's water utility system. Staff explained the rate methodology (existing outside-city rates with 4% escalation), planned ~$155,000 in meter upgrades, and conversion from chlorine to chloramine treatment. One resident, Dale Webb, spoke with concerns about notice and possible future annexation.
Ord. Resolution No. 2017-09
- direction:Council opened and then closed the public comment period on the proposed rate increase associated with acquisition of the three utility systems. (none)
5647 Kentucky AvenueBMOBarbara Ann Acres UtilityLakewood Villas UtilitySilver Oaks UtilityCrystal FeesDale WebbMs. NatePhillipsRobert Driscoll$155,000 meter upgradesAnnexation of Silver Oaks/Seven Springs/Gulf HarborsChloramine water treatment conversionDecember 6 2016 council meetingNovember 22 2016 objection deadlineResolution No. 2017-09▶ Jump to 1:17:19 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[01:17:24] authorizing extension the city's water utility in connection to purchase of [01:17:28] Lakewood villas Barbara and acres and silver oaks utilities resolution number [01:17:35] 20 1709 a resolution of the city of New Port Richey Florida authorizing [01:17:39] extension of the city's water utility system reciting the findings related [01:17:43] thereto reciting the purpose and territory to be included confirming [01:17:47] costs revenues and intent to finance acknowledging no objections were [01:17:51] received to the pros that proposed extension providing for severability [01:17:54] providing for applicability and providing for an effective date open this [01:17:59] up for public comment seeing no one come forward bring it back to council [01:18:09] I guess I have a question and the earlier item that we were voting on a [01:18:17] question came up about the the person that is concerned about what the rates [01:18:25] are going to be are these them miss man's in response to the question a rate [01:18:35] schedule was contained with all of the notices to the property owners related [01:18:43] to the rate increase and I don't know help me out Robert well according to [01:18:53] Florida's here before you can take and vote on this resolution you have to open [01:18:58] the floor to consider public comment on the rate increase notices that were [01:19:04] received by the customers of the three utilities now the difference is though [01:19:09] is you don't vote on whether or not to to approve the rate increase or not [01:19:16] approve the rate increase you're just opening it up to the public it should be [01:19:20] noted that your rate increase notices that were sent to these customers were [01:19:25] based upon the city's current existing rates for outside the city customers and [01:19:32] are approved by ordinance with that 4% escalation I talked with Miss Nate from [01:19:38] BMO she's attorney that's been working with us on this this afternoon and when [01:19:44] it came to addressing the letter here the person had six items in here several [01:19:51] of them could have been considered objections and of course with that we [01:19:58] have to go back to the December 6 2016 council meeting where we have a council [01:20:06] that approved the resolution and had set a deadline for public objections of [01:20:11] November 22nd 2016 if anybody objected City Council would hear them on the [01:20:19] November 30 days of the November 22nd meeting and so of course no one made [01:20:27] that deadline but in fairness this person had a few items that would apply [01:20:35] to public comment and so for the record we'd like to pull those comments out go [01:20:43] ahead and read them and then I would ask the mayor to ask if there's anybody here [01:20:48] that wants to comment on that if there's not then we would move forward with [01:20:52] whether or not we would approve or disapprove or whether council would [01:20:56] approve or disapprove the final resolution very good the comment that it [01:21:02] talks about as far as wanting to know what the city rates are and what that [01:21:07] percentage is the notice that were sent out is attached to your packet it gives [01:21:12] them basically what their base rates are for the type of meter that they have we [01:21:21] will call this person tomorrow and kind of explain in depth what we can expect [01:21:26] it's hard to tell them what their average bill is going to be because [01:21:29] everybody consumes water at different stages but to give you an example the [01:21:35] city's current rate for outside customers is the base rate which is [01:21:44] 3,000 gallons per month is at a rate of $23.94 the existing utility flat rates [01:21:51] for 3,000 gallons is 1463 and that is with a system that the rates have not [01:22:01] been adjusted and well over 15 or 20 years that I had the input from the [01:22:07] existing owners it should also be noted to that the that the city did not go to [01:22:13] the utility owners the city did not take over their systems the utility owners [01:22:19] are retiring they came to the city to ask if we would be interested in taking [01:22:25] over the utility and so it in all likelihood if a private company utility [01:22:31] system was to purchase these three utilities the rates would be far greater [01:22:36] than the existing ones that we are proposing and the ones we are proposing [01:22:40] are the ones that we have with existing customers the last item that we talked [01:22:45] about or that this letter talked about was what infrastructure improvements [01:22:49] were we including for that rate increase well almost immediately we were going to [01:22:56] start we're going to spend about a hundred and fifty five thousand dollars [01:23:00] in meter upgrades we are going to take and dismantle their old package plant [01:23:06] and that treats water with chlorine switch it over to our existing plant [01:23:11] that treats with chloramines which is a more extensive treatment for the water [01:23:18] raw water and provides higher quality water and of course they would be [01:23:23] incorporated into our system to where we would be able to do our capital [01:23:28] improvements and include them in our system so that letter that was sent was [01:23:33] indirect of receiving this letter that we have in our packet correct okay thank [01:23:38] you very much appreciate that open back up if anyone has any public comment on [01:23:46] the proposed rate increase for these three utilities [01:23:58] I Dale webb 5647 Kentucky Avenue I was here at the last meeting and that was [01:24:06] the first time I was aware of the Silver Oaks I own a home in Silver Oaks [01:24:11] I'm wondering how these notices percent where they sent the addresses or where [01:24:16] they sent to the actual owners of the property I had I had no inkling at all [01:24:21] that this was going on I just happened to be at the last meeting the customer [01:24:25] list was supplied by the existing utility owners for us to supply notices [01:24:32] I want to say about three or four months ago they actually sent out a notice as [01:24:38] well to the existing customers now I can't [01:24:44] you know the homeowners of address I don't know you know I just it just kind [01:24:49] of caught me off guard and then deputy mayor Phillips mentioned something that [01:24:53] concerns me about the possibility of annexation of you know these [01:25:01] subdivisions you know I specifically bought this house in Silver Oaks as a [01:25:07] possible retirement home if I ever downsize because it was not in the city [01:25:17] limits well I mean what's this annexation thing I heard what's what does [01:25:23] it take to go through that is that like going to the dentist and not getting any [01:25:29] Novocaine that's my example because what you do I'm gonna stop and we're having a [01:25:36] discourse here so basically what you do is because we provide outside service I [01:25:41] would give us an opportunity to go out to that group of homeowners and ask them [01:25:45] if as a group they want to come into the city and there's probably some magic [01:25:50] percentage that has to approve that before they come in you know we like [01:25:54] Silver Oaks we'd love that but in our vet and our view my view I'm sorry I [01:25:59] want to speak for anybody my view is the the only way Newport she's ever going to [01:26:03] be what it really is going to be down the road is for us to be able to go out [01:26:07] and approach seaforest Gulf Harbors on a whole different level but what we'd have [01:26:15] to do there's a whole series of things and I'm sure attorney Driscoll could [01:26:19] walk you through them it doesn't it just doesn't say because we provide you water [01:26:23] service we can go out and bring your house into the city it doesn't work it [01:26:27] it's a collective approach that asks them to come in then your neighbors all [01:26:32] get together and that's reason I use the description that by the time we got [01:26:35] through it we think we'd gone to dr. galoo but he didn't give us any [01:26:38] Novocaine so that's that's my but but because we provide a utility service it [01:26:44] gives us an opportunity to have already interacted with those customers or those [01:26:47] owners but it's not something that would happen overnight it probably would take [01:26:52] a multitude of it probably take over a year two years and there'd be so many [01:26:57] public hearings I'm sorry so the homeowner do have a say [01:27:02] absolutely okay thank you mr. I believe that crystal fees our finance director [01:27:09] can answer that question of where they were mailed out to we did receive the [01:27:12] mailing addresses of the property owners so it didn't go directly to the service [01:27:16] location it did go out to the mailing addresses on file that we received from [01:27:20] the current owners of the utility systems which could be totally different [01:27:24] you're saying I should have gotten this notice as the owner yes okay and I can [01:27:31] take your information I mean it may be kind of hindsight at this point but I [01:27:34] can take your information to verify what address it was sent to all right thank [01:27:39] you thank you mr. Webb anyone else [01:27:43] seeing no one else come forward I will close the public comment let me [01:27:49] understand all we're doing is is approving a motion that allows public [01:27:53] comment on the rate increase it's not actually a rate increase you're we're [01:27:58] opening up public comment okay okay all right that's that's what I understood
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 8.c
Board Re-Appointment: William Bennett, Police Pension Board
approvedCouncil reappointed William Bennett as a trustee of the Police Pension Board for a four-year term expiring December 31, 2020. Deputy Mayor Starkey reiterated a request that council review the police pension and police/fire boards to clarify responsibilities and oversight given the multi-million dollar portfolios involved.
- motion:Approve the reappointment of William Bennett to the Police Pension Board for a four-year term expiring December 31, 2020. (passed)
▶ Jump to 1:28:00 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[01:28:05] that's the way I read everything okay make a motion that we approve the [01:28:11] request to allow additional public comment on the on this rating we have a [01:28:15] motion second to the maker to the second councilman Davis he has he has an [01:28:22] issue with the motion what there's there's nothing to do with the public [01:28:27] comment what we have to do now is just approve the resolution that the city [01:28:33] attorney just read right so the motion needs to be approved resolution 2017 0 9 [01:28:38] approved resolution 2017 dash 0 9 second okay okay further discussion [01:28:48] hearing none all those in favor please signify by saying aye aye opposed like [01:28:53] sign next item is board reappointment William Bennett to the police pension [01:28:58] board this man's sure mr. mayor request before you this evening is to appoint [01:29:08] William Bennett as a trustee of the police pension board he was originally [01:29:13] appointed in January of 2013 his current term expired on December 31st of 2016 we [01:29:25] have been in contact with mr. Bennett to indicate his interest in continuing to [01:29:31] serve he has indicated that he would like to continue to serve the [01:29:37] reappointment before you this evening is for a four-year period of time if you [01:29:43] approve the reappointment of mr. Bennett it will be for a term to elapse December [01:29:49] 31st of 2020 comment seeing no one come forward bring it back to council move [01:29:58] for approval second [01:30:00] To the maker, I'm just going to thank you for your continued service. [01:30:03] Just a second. [01:30:04] Yes, same here. [01:30:05] Councilman Starkey. [01:30:07] Deputy Mayor. [01:30:08] I once again ask at some point during this calendar year [01:30:15] that we look at both the police pension and the police fire board [01:30:19] and make sure that we have a clear understanding about what [01:30:22] their responsibilities are and what the overall impact it has to the pensions, [01:30:27] the pension dollars that are being held in those accounts. [01:30:32] We're giving citizens that aren't elected abilities [01:30:35] to make decisions on multimillion dollars of retirement dollars. [01:30:40] And if for some reason it underperforms, it lands back in one place. [01:30:46] Lands back at us to allocate money from whatever sources we have. [01:30:51] So once again, this is about the sixth time and looking at their minutes [01:30:56] that, and I think we were provided the numbers in our CAFRA, [01:31:00] that nine or $10 million in the fire department [01:31:04] and over $22 million in the police pension fund in their investment [01:31:09] portfolios, I just think that we need a clear understanding of those boards [01:31:16] and how we interact and what the ultimate goals are. [01:31:19] Because that's a lot of money that if for some reason it underperforms, [01:31:23] we have to come back and make up the difference. [01:31:26] So. [01:31:27] Well put. [01:31:27] Any other discussion? [01:31:31] Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:31:34] Aye. [01:31:34] 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.
- 8.d
Board Re-Appointments: Kelly Hackman and Elizabeth Harth, Library Advisory Board
approvedCouncil reappointed Kelly Hackman and Elizabeth Harth to the Library Advisory Board for three-year terms expiring in 2020. Councilmember Duvall-Thomas requested an updated handbook listing all committees and current members.
- motion:Motion to approve the reappointments of Kelly Hackman and Elizabeth Harth to the Library Advisory Board for three-year terms. (passed)
▶ Jump to 1:31:35 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[01:31:35] Next is board reappointments Kelly Hackman and Elizabeth [01:31:38] Hearth to the library advisory board. [01:31:40] Ms. Manns. [01:31:41] Yes sir, Mr. Mayor. [01:31:43] Both Ms. Hackman and Ms. Hearth's current terms [01:31:47] are set to expire in early 2017. [01:31:52] They have both submitted their application [01:31:54] seeking reappointment to the library advisory board for your consideration. [01:32:00] If approved, their terms would be for three years [01:32:04] and would be for renewal in 2020. [01:32:10] The staff is recommending that you consider [01:32:12] the reappointments of both Kelly Hackman and Elizabeth Hearth. [01:32:17] Open up for public comment. [01:32:19] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to council. [01:32:22] Mr. Mayor, my packet just had a blank application for Ms. Hackman. [01:32:27] I have no objection to her being renewing, [01:32:29] but my application is completely blank. [01:32:34] I'll make sure that you get a complete copy. [01:32:36] Thank you. [01:32:37] Move for approval. [01:32:38] Second. [01:32:38] We have a motion and a second to the maker. [01:32:40] We don't have to do these separately, do we, Mr. Dristol? [01:32:42] No, you do not. [01:32:43] OK, fine. [01:32:44] Second. [01:32:45] Just again, thank you. [01:32:48] Councilman Starkey. [01:32:50] Thank you. [01:32:50] Councilman Deval-Thomas. [01:32:52] No, but in light of this, I'd like to ask. [01:32:56] I know when I first got on council, we were provided with kind of a handbook, [01:33:01] if you will, of all of the committees and all of the members, current members, [01:33:05] et cetera, et cetera. [01:33:06] And I just wonder, we've done a lot of this, [01:33:07] and I just would like to see what committees we have, who's on them, [01:33:12] what's available, if that's a possibility. [01:33:15] I appreciate that they're in here as an addendum to our application, [01:33:19] but if I could have either a hard copy or just a packet that you could email us [01:33:24] so it's all in one place, we can see who's on what. [01:33:27] I certainly will comply with the request. [01:33:29] Thank you. [01:33:30] Thank you. [01:33:30] And I'd like to offer my thanks to Ms. Hackman and Ms. Sarth. [01:33:36] There's no further discussion. [01:33:37] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:33:39] Aye. [01:33:40] Opposed, the like sign. [01:33:42] Next is three minute report from the finance department.
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.e
Three Minute Report: Finance Department
discussedFinance Department gave a three-minute report on initiatives including closeout of FY16, fund balance estimates being reviewed by the city manager, collection of all past-due special events amounts through end of FY16, and a new quarterly financial reporting process beginning February 2017. Council asked about standardizing water bill due dates; staff explained the city currently has roughly 30 billing cycles and is working to streamline.
Debbie MannsMs. FeastCash investment reportDebt service reportsFY16 closeoutFund balance estimatesQuarterly financial reportsWater billing cycles▶ Jump to 1:33:45 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[01:33:45] Ms. Mance. [01:33:48] Ms. Feast, if you could, please. [01:33:50] Good evening. [01:33:52] Both the accounting and budgeting division and the billing and collection division [01:33:56] have been working on a number of initiatives to better serve the public [01:33:59] and operate and operations internally. [01:34:03] Some of those items include the closeout of fiscal year 16. [01:34:07] We're near completion of this, and we're near completion of this, [01:34:12] and this has allowed for fund balance estimates to be completed. [01:34:17] These estimates are currently being reviewed by city manager Mance [01:34:21] and will be provided to the city council very soon. [01:34:25] Another area is special events. [01:34:27] In the past year, we've been working to collect on amounts owed to the city [01:34:32] for past events held. [01:34:33] I'm happy to report that all money owed through the end of fiscal year 16 [01:34:38] has already been collected. [01:34:41] Beginning February 2017, the finance department [01:34:44] will be presenting to city council quarterly financial reports, [01:34:48] which will include a cash investment report, fund balance estimates, [01:34:53] and debt service reports. [01:34:56] So you can expect that first city council meeting in February. [01:35:02] Ms. Feast, the boss was bugging me earlier this week. [01:35:11] She indicated that our water bill comes at a different time every month, [01:35:17] and her request was if it would be at all possible to get the water bills [01:35:22] so they happen on the same day of the month, [01:35:24] so that when she's figuring out when she owes money, [01:35:27] she knows when it's coming due. [01:35:30] That is something that we are looking into, [01:35:33] but currently the city has several cycles, [01:35:37] and they're read at different times each month. [01:35:39] And so currently it's very difficult to have that done, [01:35:46] have each meter read at the same time each month. [01:35:50] It's just because of the way that the system is set up [01:35:53] and the number of cycles that we have within the city. [01:35:56] I think we're close to almost 30 cycles, [01:35:58] so each cycle is an actual billing cycle. [01:36:02] So we have 30 different billings that we have to go through each month. [01:36:07] So that's a process in itself that we're trying to clean up [01:36:09] and just come up with a more streamlined process, [01:36:13] and that would include trying to have those meters read at the same time each month. [01:36:19] Do we have any other questions or comments for Ms. Feast? [01:36:23] Thank you for all your hard work. [01:36:27] Next is communications and reports.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 9Communications▶ 1:36:30
- 10Adjournment▶ 1:49:14