Council advanced first readings on backyard chickens (up to five, no roosters), new bulk water and sewer rates, and two Orchid Lake Road industrial rezonings.
16 items on the agenda · 9 decisions recorded
On the agenda
- 1Call to Order – Roll Call▶ 0:00
- 2
Pledge of Allegiance
Pledge of Allegiance followed by a moment of silence.
▶ Jump to 1:03 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:01:03] So, can we please stand now for the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by a moment of silence. [00:01:07] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, [00:01:15] 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
The Council observed a moment of silence as part of the meeting's opening procedures.
▶ Jump to 1:27 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:01:27] 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 April 28, 2020 Work Session and May 19, 2020 Regular Meeting Minutes
approvedCouncil approved the minutes from the April 28, 2020 work session and the May 19, 2020 regular meeting.
- motion:Approve the April 28, 2020 work session and May 19, 2020 regular meeting minutes. (passed)
▶ Jump to 1:33 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:01:33] The next order of business is approval of the April 28, 2020 work session and May 19, 2020 regular meeting minutes. [00:01:40] I entertain a motion. [00:01:41] Move for approval. [00:01:42] Do we have a first? [00:01:43] First and second. [00:01:44] All those in favor? [00:01:45] Aye. [00:01:46] Opposed? [00:01:47] Like sign? [00:01:48] 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.
- 5Vox Pop for Items Not Listed on the Agenda or Listed on Consent Agenda▶ 1:49
- 6.a
Cultural Affairs Committee Minutes - February 2020
approvedon consentThe Cultural Affairs Committee Minutes from February 2020 were approved as part of the consent agenda.
- motion:Motion to approve the consent agenda, including the Cultural Affairs Committee Minutes from February 2020. (passed)
▶ Jump to 1:59 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:01:59] We'll move on to the consent agenda. [00:02:05] Move for approval. [00:02:07] Second. [00:02:08] First and a second. Any discussion? [00:02:10] All those in favor? [00:02:12] Aye. [00:02:13] Opposed? [00:02:14] 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.
- 6.b
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes - March 2020
approvedon consentThe Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes from March 2020 were approved as part of the consent agenda.
- motion:Motion to approve the consent agenda, including the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes from March 2020. (passed)
▶ Jump to 1:59 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:01:59] We'll move on to the consent agenda. [00:02:05] Move for approval. [00:02:07] Second. [00:02:08] First and a second. Any discussion? [00:02:10] All those in favor? [00:02:12] Aye. [00:02:13] Opposed? [00:02:14] 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.
- 6.c
Police Pension Board Minutes - April 2020
approvedon consentThe Police Pension Board Minutes for April 2020 were approved as part of the consent agenda.
- motion:Motion to approve the consent agenda, including the April 2020 Police Pension Board Minutes. (passed)
▶ Jump to 1:59 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:01:59] We'll move on to the consent agenda. [00:02:05] Move for approval. [00:02:07] Second. [00:02:08] First and a second. Any discussion? [00:02:10] All those in favor? [00:02:12] Aye. [00:02:13] Opposed? [00:02:14] 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.
- 6.d
Purchases/Payments for City Council Approval
approvedon consentCouncil approved the consent agenda, which included purchases/payments for City Council approval, by unanimous voice vote.
- motion:Motion to approve the consent agenda. (passed)
▶ Jump to 1:59 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:01:59] We'll move on to the consent agenda. [00:02:05] Move for approval. [00:02:07] Second. [00:02:08] First and a second. Any discussion? [00:02:10] All those in favor? [00:02:12] Aye. [00:02:13] Opposed? [00:02:14] 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.
- 7.a
First Reading, Ordinance No. 2020-2186: 2020 Water and Sewer Wholesale/Bulk Rate Analysis
approvedCouncil held first reading of Ordinance No. 2020-2186, amending the city code to adopt updated bulk water and wastewater rates based on a cost-of-service analysis by Stantec. The new rates are $4.8642 per 1,000 gallons for bulk water and $4.156 per 1,000 gallons for bulk sewer, effective FY 2021. Councilman Bill Phillips (Alton/Altman in transcript) raised concerns about FGUA impact fee amortization and Pasco County's potential acquisition of the Lindrick system; the motion to approve passed.
Ord. Ordinance No. 2020-2186
- motion:Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance No. 2020-2186 adopting updated bulk water and wastewater rates. (passed)
BMOCity of Port RicheyFGUA (Florida Governmental Utility Authority)Pasco CountyStantecTampa Bay WaterU.S. Water WorksCouncilman AltonCouncilman DavisCrystalJeff DykstraMr. DriscollMs. Myers2020 Water and Sewer Wholesale/Bulk Rate AnalysisFinancial management planLindrick system acquisitionOrdinance No. 2020-2186Revenue sufficiency analysisSection 24-20, Article 2, Chapter 24 of Newport Richey Code of Ordinances▶ Jump to 2:16 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:02:16] And next we're going to move on to public reading of ordinances. [00:02:20] First reading is going to be Ordinance Number 2020-2186, 2020 Water and Sewer Wholesale Bulk Rate Analysis. [00:02:27] Mr. Driscoll. [00:02:28] Thank you very much. [00:02:29] This is Ordinance Number 2020-2186, an ordinance of the City of New Port Richey, Florida, [00:02:33] providing for amendment of subsections A and B of Section 24-20 of Article 2 of Chapter 24 of the New Port Richey Code of Ordinances [00:02:43] pertaining to bulk water and wastewater utility rates, respectively. [00:02:46] Providing for adjusted bulk water and wastewater utility rates, providing for conflicts, severability, and an effective date. [00:02:53] Thank you very much. [00:02:54] Ms. Myers, is there any input on the public on this? [00:02:57] I did not receive any comments. [00:02:59] We'll bring it back to Council then. [00:03:03] Mr. Deputy Mayor, if you'd allow me, I'll make a couple of introductory comments related to this agenda item. [00:03:11] The City staff has been working with StanTech since about the middle of 2019 on a revenue sufficiency analysis to identify first [00:03:23] the costs of providing bulk water and wastewater services, as well as developing a single rate for both of those elements, [00:03:37] and reviewing financial implications if the rate is to be adjusted at all. [00:03:44] In short, the City has three customers for bulk rate. [00:03:50] It's Pasco County, it is U.S. Water Works, FGUA, and the City of New Port Richey also is a customer of ours for water. [00:04:03] Robert, is Mr. Dykstra on still for us? [00:04:07] He is from StanTech and worked with us on the rate analysis and has prepared a short presentation for you this evening, [00:04:17] and if I could ask him to move forward with that, that'd be great. [00:04:23] Good evening. [00:04:24] It's good to be with you again. [00:04:26] Jeff Dykstra with StanTech. [00:04:28] We have a theme going on this evening relative to water and sewer rates, so we'll keep that going here today. [00:04:35] I have a brief presentation just to summarize the results of the analysis that was performed. [00:04:41] A little bit of background and objectives. [00:04:43] The City provides bulk services primarily to FGUA and the City of New Port Richey. [00:04:49] The City's bulk water agreement with New Port Richey expired in 2019, although my understanding service is still being provided on an as-needed basis. [00:05:03] Current revenue relative to bulk customers is approximately $1.3 million, just under 10% of overall rate revenue, just to give you some perspective. [00:05:12] One key or major impact on your system is expected reduction in revenue in next fiscal year or in 2022, depending on the timing of Pasco County's potential acquisition of the Linderick system. [00:05:28] But you've seen reduced demands and flows from New Port Richey, so we expect a reduction there just relative to those two components, beginning essentially in 2021, [00:05:41] but you've seen some of the reductions already. [00:05:43] And then, depending exactly on the timing of the Pasco County acquisition, if that moves forward, that's a potential revenue loss of about $800,000 a year to the City. [00:05:54] So that has implications for your overall financial picture, but the City and utility has been planning for that as part of the periodic revenue sufficiency analysis and financial management plan. [00:06:06] So this isn't something that's brand new news to us from a planning standpoint, and this is something we've been factoring into our analysis over the past couple of years. [00:06:16] There hasn't been an adjustment to the bulk rates over the past two years. [00:06:20] Part of that is, you know, we're pending the results of this study. [00:06:24] Staff wanted to do a comprehensive cost of service analysis to determine the cost and then establish, you know, cost-based rates going forward. [00:06:32] And so that's really the main objective of this analysis is to, you know, perform a cost of service analysis, develop rates that reflect your current costs for bulk service, both water and sewer, [00:06:45] and then input those into your financial management plan and see what the impacts to your existing rate players and financial plan is to the utility. [00:06:52] First step in the analysis was to perform a cost of service analysis, and this graphic just depicts the overall process. [00:06:59] But in summary, we're taking your utilities, the water and sewer utilities revenue requirements, we're allocating them between services, water, sewer, and reclaimed, [00:07:09] and then within each system, allocating to certain functions for each system. [00:07:16] And then on to customer groups. [00:07:18] And so in this case, we're talking about costs being allocated to either retail only or costs that are allocable both to retail and bulk customers. [00:07:27] And the overlying objective with the bulk analysis is to identify the cost to provide service to your bulk customers. [00:07:38] These two graphs, I'm not sure how well you can see them based on your screen, but they're really important. [00:07:44] This summarizes the results of the cost allocation part of the study. [00:07:48] On the left-hand side is a donut chart for your water system. [00:07:52] And the total revenue requirements allocated to water, we've called out the blue bar there. [00:07:58] It's $1.3 million. [00:08:00] Those are the distribution costs for the water system, and those are not allocable to bulk customers. [00:08:06] All of the other components, your raw water, purchased water, transmission system costs, your supply and treatment costs, and customer costs are allocable to bulk customers. [00:08:16] And over on the right, that's the results of the sewer system cost allocation study. [00:08:22] You see $1.7 million relative to your localized collection system, and those costs are not allocable to your bulk sewer customers who don't use that component of the system. [00:08:35] That's just a summary of the results of the cost allocation part of this. [00:08:40] And what that means, just in an order of magnitude, is that roughly 80% of your system's costs on the water side are allocable to bulk customers. [00:08:49] And on the wastewater side, roughly 73% to 74% are allocable to bulk customers, just to give you an idea of what that means. [00:09:00] The resulting calculated rates for bulk water is on the left. [00:09:05] You see the existing rates for both FQA and New Port Richey, and we're calculating a bulk water rate of $4.86, $4.8642, four decimals there. [00:09:18] That reflects the current cost to provide service to these bulk customers for water. [00:09:23] One of the city's main objectives was to develop a single rate for bulk service that could be used to establish rates through negotiation agreements with other bulk users. [00:09:36] You do have contracts in place that allow you to adjust the rates as you need to to meet your cost of service, and so this reflects your current unit cost for bulk water. [00:09:47] And then on the sewer side, you see the calculated bulk rate is $4.156 per 1,000 gallons as compared to the existing rates. [00:10:00] Two main points I want to just highlight here. [00:10:03] On the water side, the Tampa Bay water unitary rate is $2.56, and what we're recommending is that be a pass-through into this bulk rate. [00:10:16] And so anything above the $2.56 is reflective of the city of New Port Richey's cost to provide bulk service. [00:10:25] And we'll talk about what that means as far as future rate adjustments in a moment, but wanted to point that out as well. [00:10:33] And then on the sewer side, that rate of $4.15 or so excludes any separate agreements that you have relative to capital recovery charges or impact fees that you have through negotiated agreements with existing bulk customers. [00:10:48] So that's something to point out as well. [00:10:52] The next step was to take these new or calculated bulk rates and plug them into your financial management plan to highlight, you know, to see what the impacts would be. [00:11:03] And what you see there in the blue bars is the results with the new bulk rates or the calculated bulk rates compared to the green bars, [00:11:13] which reflects the utility's most recent financial management plan and revenue sufficiency analysis. [00:11:21] But I want to point out here, there's some graphics and things that you may or may not be able to see very clearly based on depending on your vantage point there. [00:11:29] But the main takeaway from this is that while these rates will result in a slight reduction in revenues for the system and our associated debt service coverage ratios will slightly decline as a result of that, [00:11:45] they're still in a pretty good position over the forecast period. [00:11:48] And we're continuing the existing adopted rate indexing plan that you have in place with 4% per year. [00:11:57] And so with these new bulk rates, it doesn't require a modification to that plan. [00:12:03] You can see in the bottom right graph, it does result in a slightly more borrowing forecast over the period. [00:12:09] But like I said, you're maintaining strong debt service coverage ratios, and you should be able to absorb that under your current rate indexing plan. [00:12:19] And one of the reasons why you don't see a huge increase, I mentioned at the outset, or a huge decrease in performance for the plan as a result of this [00:12:26] is the revenue sufficiency study, as I mentioned, has already factored in the anticipated loss of the Lendrix revenue. [00:12:33] And so we're obviously already incorporating and planning for that to occur. [00:12:40] And that's one of the reasons why this plan isn't as drastic as it could be if the assumption was that you maintain them as a bulk customer. [00:12:54] In conclusion, I recommend that Council adopt and publish these updated bulk rates reflecting your current cost of service, effective 10-1 of this current year. [00:13:07] The effective fiscal year 2021 at the rates calculated and shown at 486.42 for water per 1,000 gallons, and $4.15 in 4.156 cents per 1,000 gallons for sewer. [00:13:24] One thing to consider in any negotiation or contract for bulk service like you have with these two entities is to consider potential capacity reservation or minimum take or pay amount. [00:13:37] That's certainly an option that you have. [00:13:41] And that also ties into whether or not you charge them impact fees or capital recovery charges. [00:13:47] So what I want to just point out is that these rates are separate from those discussions, and you're certainly encouraged to take advantage of those where they make sense for the city. [00:13:58] I recommend that you apply an annual rate indexing to these bulk rates equal to any change in your retail rates. [00:14:07] The only slight exception to that is the portion of the water rate associated with the Tampa Bay water, the unitary rate, which we recommend being a direct pass-through. [00:14:15] So as that rate changes, so too would that component of the bulk water rate. [00:14:22] I recommend a periodic review and update. [00:14:25] To this analysis, the cost of service study reflects a snapshot in time, if you will, of your system's costs. [00:14:31] And so updating this periodically is going to be important to make sure that you're maintaining the current costs of your system and recovering them from the bulk customers. [00:14:44] And then the key point there at the bottom, this does not require – these updated rates do not require any action or change to your adopted retail or otherwise annual rate indexing plan. [00:14:58] So with that, I'm going to turn it over to you. [00:15:00] I know there's a lot of information to take in, but I'd be happy to answer any questions [00:15:04] or field any discussion you may have. [00:15:06] Thank you, Mr. Dexter. [00:15:07] And that was a little premature earlier. [00:15:09] Ms. Myers, has anyone from the public emailed or called in on this agenda item? [00:15:12] I still have no comments. [00:15:13] No? [00:15:14] Thank you very much. [00:15:15] Bring it back to Council then. [00:15:16] Councilman Alton? [00:15:17] I spent way too much time studying all the water rates and the bulk agreements in the [00:15:24] short period of time that I had the opportunity to be in that position. [00:15:29] And I recall, and I'm particularly interested, we put a good bit of cross then to allow for [00:15:37] both FGUA and the City of New Port Richey to take water, and I was disappointed to see [00:15:47] that they weren't taking very much. [00:15:48] I guess FGUA was still using their wells, or New Port Richey as well. [00:15:53] So from a water standpoint, I guess my first question is, do we even have a significant [00:15:58] number of sales in the water department in the bulk sales? [00:16:04] Is that a significant number? [00:16:06] No, it's roughly, the projection this year, yeah, really not around $25,000 or so, I think [00:16:19] is the projection. [00:16:20] So $25,000, so that's really hardly worth spending too much time talking about. [00:16:27] On the sewer side, though, one of the things that you indicated that it does exclude the [00:16:33] capital recovery or impact fees, our agreement with FGUA had as a component of what they [00:16:40] were paying us an amortized impact fee because the area had a capacity of X number of units, [00:16:50] and so I believe that the developer, I don't want to say dumped those costs onto the existing [00:16:59] customers in advance of the actual units coming in, so if somebody went to build in the area, [00:17:08] the developer didn't have to pay an impact fee because the impact fees were being absorbed [00:17:13] by this amortization. [00:17:15] And then some years ago I was told that they may never have that, build that many units, [00:17:25] and then I also thought that it was an important component of our discussion of the FGUA that [00:17:32] if they take over this $800,000 versus $25,000 number, if they take over that bulk rate that [00:17:40] you have planned for the loss of that, at the same time, we've been paid for a lot of [00:17:46] impact fees that if we aren't the bulk provider and it comes out of our service area, so to [00:17:55] speak, by being purchased by the county and that whole area is taken away from us, that [00:18:00] there's some potential for the county to, and I wouldn't put anything past them, try [00:18:05] to come back to add us. [00:18:06] So I think that there are some complications in this whole FGUA thing that I'm a little [00:18:13] uncomfortable with given the fact that, you know, I believe Stantec is not only doing [00:18:18] studies for Pasco County, but also for FGUA and for us, so I want to make sure that somebody [00:18:25] is looking out for us in terms of this whole agreement and the bulk agreement and how this [00:18:32] whole thing is going to go down. [00:18:33] Well, I can address that, answer a couple of your questions. [00:18:36] The original interlocal agreement included a capital recovery process. [00:18:44] When FGUA and the city went back into renegotiations, they changed that terminology from capital [00:18:52] recovery to impact fees because they said that your capital recovery charges could go [00:18:57] on indefinitely, and there was bonding issues that FGUA needed for their customers to try [00:19:06] to lower their rates. [00:19:09] Being a good steward, we went ahead and said, okay, we'll go ahead and we'll do that. [00:19:13] It made it a little bit cleaner as far as the dollar amounts. [00:19:16] I know Crystal could probably give you those numbers as far as what the city gets monthly [00:19:22] in the impact fees, but if the county doesn't take over until 2023, that issue goes away. [00:19:32] If they take over before that, then we do have that discussion as far as what are we [00:19:38] doing with those unpaid impact fees, if you will, and we have sent a letter to the county [00:19:46] to address them with points of discussion when it comes to their takeover of the utility [00:19:52] of FGUA to call out some of those items. [00:19:58] It's too complicated really to talk about now, but I'll just say one more time for the record. [00:20:04] We're losing $800,000 worth of sewer, but we're also having the county take over a substantial [00:20:13] part of our service area with retail water rates that are 1.25 higher than our water rates, [00:20:20] so it's an existing customer. [00:20:23] It would have been a larger purchase than the ones that we've made, and it would have [00:20:26] stretched us in terms of what we might have thought was how much money we wanted to have, [00:20:32] and also there was concern of saltwater intrusion and the condition of the pipes, all valid [00:20:37] points, but I would feel more comfortable making sure that whoever is advising us on [00:20:46] this is not working for the other two entities, and nothing disrespectful to you, sir, but [00:20:52] just from a comment of making sure we're looking at these numbers from our end of the table. [00:20:58] And I apologize. [00:20:59] If I could address that, just maybe, just one point of clarification. [00:21:02] We do not work for, Santec does not work for FGUA in this capacity, so I just wanted to [00:21:09] point that out. [00:21:10] Thank you. [00:21:11] But to answer your last question, I apologize for not doing that, I had forgot. [00:21:15] We typically use BMO when it comes to those types of negotiations, and BMO doesn't have [00:21:21] anything to do with Pasco County as far as I know, where they didn't the last time we [00:21:24] used them. [00:21:25] But BMO doesn't give us, they don't give us analysis and recommendations. [00:21:35] Well they, what they end up doing is they have a utility attorney office that takes [00:21:42] and reviews your existing interlocal agreements that you have in place, and then when you [00:21:48] go into negotiations and you tell them that you think that this is what you're entitled [00:21:53] according to that agreement, they represent you. [00:21:58] So while they're not analyzing any revenues or anything like that, they're strictly looking [00:22:02] at that interlocal agreement, that contract that you signed. [00:22:07] And I know you're cognizant of all this and you're on top of it, so I have faith that [00:22:12] the city is looking out for itself in that regard, so don't take this as an insult. [00:22:17] But just the fact that there are a number of big dollar issues that are going to come [00:22:22] to play with the removal of that from our service area, and it allows me to then try [00:22:30] to say let's look at our other service area, and you've got a certain amount of bulk capacity [00:22:36] in the sewer plant. [00:22:37] So that's where our master planning comes from, where can we best have our business [00:22:43] move to if we lose business, because those county rates are higher and that has a lot [00:22:51] to do with the fact that the utility helps to support the general operations of the city [00:22:56] because of the finance department and all of the other aspects of it. [00:23:01] So anyway, pardon me, I didn't mean to get wonky about it. [00:23:06] Move for approval. [00:23:08] Councilman Davis, you made a motion, is there a second? [00:23:10] Second. [00:23:11] First and second, back to the nothing. [00:23:15] Alderman Altman, anything further? [00:23:16] No, thank you. [00:23:17] Okay, all those in favor? [00:23:18] Aye. [00:23:19] Aye. [00:23:20] Aye. [00:23:21] All those opposed? [00:23:22] Like sign. [00:23:23] 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.b
You arrived here from a search for “Judy Myers” — transcript expanded below
First Reading, Ordinance No. 2020-2179: Rezoning of 6656 and 6700 Orchid Lake Road (RNTC, LLC)
approvedCouncil held first reading of Ordinance 2020-2179 to rezone 6656 and 6700 Orchard Lake Road from General Commercial (C2) to Light Industrial (LI) to accommodate Elegant Touch Stonework, a granite fabrication business that had moved in after the prior automotive tenant vacated. Staff and the Land Development Review Board recommended approval, and the motion passed on first reading.
Ord. Ordinance No. 2020-2179
- motion:Approve Ordinance 2020-2179 on first reading, rezoning 6656 and 6700 Orchard Lake Road from C2 to LI. (passed)
6656 and 6700 Orchard Lake RoadElegant Touch StoneworkRNTC, LLCCouncilman AltmanEarl HahnMs. ManceMs. Myers12 rezoning review criteriaLand Development Review Board May 21st meetingOrdinance No. 2020-2179Parcel 332516015A00000240▶ Jump to 23:24 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:23:24] We'll now move on to first reading of ordinance number 2020-2179, the rezoning of 6656 and [00:23:34] 6700 Orchard Lake Road. [00:23:37] This is ordinance 2020-2179, an ordinance of the City of New Port Richey, Florida, amending [00:23:42] the Land Development Code, Zoning District Act, granting to the owner RNTCLLC a development [00:23:48] order approving a change in the zoning district as is displayed in Exhibit A from General [00:23:54] Commercial C2 to Light Industrial LI for a 0.726 acre property. [00:24:01] The street address being 6656 and 6700 Orchard Lake Road, the parcel identification number [00:24:09] being 332516015A00000240, and the legal description providing Exhibit B and providing for an effective [00:24:20] date. [00:24:21] Thank you. [00:24:22] Ms. Mance? [00:24:23] Yes, Mr. Hahn is prepared to make a presentation related to this request. [00:24:27] There's no need for that. [00:24:32] Let's move on. [00:24:33] Okay. [00:24:34] Please. [00:24:35] Yes. [00:24:36] Good evening. [00:24:37] My name is Earl Hahn. [00:24:38] I'm the Development Director. [00:24:39] Today we're going to talk about two items that are similar, 7B and 7C are amendments [00:24:44] for two contiguous properties that change the zoning from C2 to L1 or LI to accommodate [00:24:49] existing land uses. [00:24:51] So this first one is for 6656 and 6700 Orchard Lake Road. [00:24:57] So RNTC is the owner of the property and it's developed with a 5,000 square foot modular [00:25:04] building with 140 foot canopy and 4,000 square feet of asphalt. [00:25:11] Recently an automotive business that operated from the property vacated the premises and [00:25:15] a new business, Elegant Touch Stonework, a granite fabrication business, began operating. [00:25:21] Manufacturing uses aren't allowed in the C2 zoning district, hence they applied for a [00:25:25] rezoning to LI. [00:25:26] So as you can see here, this is a picture of the site. [00:25:31] This is the building and this is the back showing what it looks like with the concrete. [00:25:36] These are the surrounding land uses. [00:25:38] Again, this is a little bit better picture, but you can see, and there's a table there. [00:25:42] All of this is in your staff report. [00:25:45] This is the future land use map. [00:25:46] You can see all of this area here is designated for industrial. [00:25:52] And this is the zoning map. [00:25:54] This parcel, the affected parcel is here in green. [00:25:56] You can see it's C2 and it's going to be going to industrial, light industrial. [00:26:02] So we added this table here to show you that manufacturing uses are allowed in the industrial [00:26:09] zoning district. [00:26:12] So recently you passed an ordinance having 12 criteria or guidelines that you use when [00:26:18] reviewing a rezoning amendment. [00:26:20] We reviewed those amendments and we found that it was in conformance with seven of them, [00:26:25] not in conformance with two guidelines, and one was inapplicable. [00:26:29] We brought this to the Land Development Review Board at their May 21st meeting and they recommended [00:26:34] that you adopt the ordinance as submitted. [00:26:37] And based on the totality of the circumstances, the staff is also recommending that you approve [00:26:42] it on first reading. [00:26:43] And that concludes my presentation and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. [00:26:47] Thank you, Mr. Holland. [00:26:48] Before we move on to questions. [00:26:49] Has anyone emailed or called in on this agenda item, Ms. Myers? [00:26:52] I did not receive any comments. [00:26:53] Okay. [00:26:54] Bring it back to council then. [00:26:55] I'm going to move for approval, but I have one question. [00:27:00] You know, is this property, once we go to L1, what's that? [00:27:07] Industrial 1. [00:27:08] Industrial 1. [00:27:10] Is it become, what kind of industrial type things could happen if this company leaves? [00:27:14] I mean, should we reevaluate whether another company comes? [00:27:18] Should we have, we approve it for this company only? [00:27:21] So this, if I may, this chart here shows you the uses that are allowed. [00:27:28] So these are the uses of manufacturing. [00:27:30] So if some other company came, they'd have to go through this? [00:27:33] If any of these other, if any of these uses came in, then they would not need a use. [00:27:37] But if there was something that was similar to what's there now, then they'd have to come [00:27:40] back and rezone to C2. [00:27:43] Okay. [00:27:44] Councilman Altman? [00:27:45] Go ahead. [00:27:46] I have a question. [00:27:48] Do we know if there are real estate agents involved in this transaction when the business [00:27:52] moved in? [00:27:53] No, I'm not aware whether there's any. [00:27:55] I would think that if, like, if I'm moving a business into a new area before I actually [00:28:01] sign the lease and put money down and moved in, I personally would assume that I'd probably [00:28:05] check with a real estate agent or real estate attorney and make sure that my type of business [00:28:09] is allowed in the building that I'm moving into. [00:28:12] It just kind of always, always kind of makes me take a step back and wonder why things [00:28:17] like this aren't done ahead of time. [00:28:19] I understand it would still come to us for the rezoning, but I just don't really get [00:28:24] when a business moves in first and then asks for rezoning afterwards. [00:28:28] It's just a little surprising to me. [00:28:30] I'll leave it at that. [00:28:31] And that is very common, that code enforcement goes out and then sees them there, and they're [00:28:35] not operating with a local business tax. [00:28:38] And many of them are like this one, we're not even zoned, so they have to go back and [00:28:42] do that. [00:28:43] And it's a common occurrence. [00:28:44] I agree with you that I wouldn't invest money in real estate without first consulting somebody. [00:28:49] I was just curious, thank you, Mr. Ron. [00:28:51] Any further discussion? [00:28:52] We have a first and a second. [00:28:54] All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. [00:28:57] Aye. [00:28:58] Opposed, like signed. [00:28:59] The motion passes. [00:29:03] Move on to first reading ordinance number 2020-2187, rezoning of 6626 Orchard Lake Road. [00:29:11] This is ordinance 2020-2187, an ordinance of the City of Newport Ridge, Florida, amending [00:29:17] the Land Development Code zoning district map, granting to the owner Unicam Group 2, [00:29:22] Inc., a development order approving a change in the zoning district as is displayed in
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
First Reading, Ordinance No. 2020-2187: Rezoning of 6626 Orchid Lake Road (Unicam Group II)
approvedCouncil considered first reading of Ordinance 2020-2187 to rezone a 0.46-acre property at 6626 Orchid Lake Road from General Commercial (C-2) to Light Industrial (L-I), owned by Unicam Group II Inc., to accommodate Paratec Door Solutions, an indoor storage warehouse business not allowed in C-2. Staff and the Land Development Review Board recommended approval, and Council approved on first reading.
Ord. Ordinance No. 2020-2187
- motion:Motion to approve Ordinance No. 2020-2187 on first reading, rezoning 6626 Orchid Lake Road from C-2 to Light Industrial. (passed)
6626 Orchid Lake RoadParatec Door SolutionsUnicam Group II Inc.Councilman AltmanEarl HahnMr. DavisMr. MurphyMs. MyersLand Development Review BoardOrdinance No. 2020-2187Otero and Francine Commercial Center, First Edition▶ Jump to 29:23 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:29:26] Exhibit A, from General Commercial C-2 to Light Industrial L-I, for a .46 acre property, [00:29:34] the street address being 6626 Orchard Lake Road, the parcel identification number being [00:29:40] 3325-16015A-0000-0200, and the legal description being Lot 20, in the east one foot of Lot [00:29:53] 19, Otero and Francine Commercial Center, First Edition, according to the platen thereof. [00:29:58] As recorded in Platinum... [00:30:00] 23 pages 131 to 134 in the public records of Pasco County, Florida, and [00:30:05] providing for an effective date. Mr. Hahn will present this agenda item as well. [00:30:15] Yes, good evening for the record. My name is Earl Hahn, the Bowman director. So [00:30:20] you'll remember that you just, Reese, you just considered on first reading this [00:30:23] property over here. This one's right across the street and it's approximately [00:30:29] 0.46 acres and that's a picture of the building and showing what the it looks [00:30:35] like. This one is owned by Unicam Group 2 Inc. and recently they also lost a [00:30:42] business and a new business, Paratec Door Solutions, came in and they're an [00:30:45] indoor storage warehouse business and that business also isn't allowed in the [00:30:50] C2 zoning district. So it is allowed in the industrial and that's what they did. [00:30:54] They came in and applied for the rezoning to IL, LI. Again, there's the [00:31:00] future land use map showing that it's industrial. The zoning map showing that [00:31:06] right now it's C2 but it's going to go to light industrial. That's what they're [00:31:10] asking for. There's the zoning, there's the land use zoning rather, showing [00:31:15] what's allowed. There's the indoor and storage as part of this industrial [00:31:18] zoning district. These are the criteria for granting the rezoning. We reviewed it [00:31:23] it's in conformance with seven of the guidelines. Based on that, staff [00:31:28] recommended approval. It went to the Land Development Review Board. They also [00:31:32] recommended approval. I submitted. Staff agrees with the Land Development Review [00:31:37] Board and we're asking that you approve this on first reading. Thank you Mr. Hahn. [00:31:42] Ms. Myers, has anyone called or emailed in regarding this agenda item? I did not [00:31:45] receive any comments. Thank you. In that case, we'll bring it back to Council. Move for approval. [00:31:49] First, second, and a second. Any further discussion? Mr. Davis, Mr. Murphy? [00:31:59] I'm good. Councilman Altman? No. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, like sign. Motion passes. [00:32:09] Moving on. First reading ordinance number 2020-2183, amendments to
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 7.d
First Reading, Ordinance No. 2020-2183: Amendments to Chapter 4 Animal Control RE: Regulations for Chickens
approvedCouncil held first reading of Ordinance No. 2020-2183, amending Chapter 4 to allow up to five chickens (no roosters) in rear yards of residential properties with coop and maintenance requirements. The ordinance passed unanimously on first reading after brief discussion about enforcement and the five-chicken limit.
Ord. Ordinance No. 2020-2183
- motion:Approve first reading of Ordinance No. 2020-2183 amending Chapter 4 Animal Control to regulate chickens (max 5, no roosters, coop/fencing requirements). (passed)
St. Petersburg CollegeCouncilman AltmanCouncilman DavisCouncilman MurphyDebbie MansonKeith McCarthyMs. MyersChapter 4 Animal ControlOrdinance No. 2020-2183▶ Jump to 32:14 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:32:14] Chapter 4, Animal Control, i.e. regulations for chickens. Ordinance number [00:32:20] 2020-2183, an ordinance of the City of New Port Richey, Florida, providing for [00:32:24] amendment of Chapter 4 of the New Port Richey Code of Ordinances pertaining to [00:32:27] animal control, providing for regulation of chickens within the city, providing [00:32:32] for a maximum of five chickens on any property, providing for coops, pens, and [00:32:36] maintenance, providing for prohibition of roosters, providing for enforcement, [00:32:40] providing for conflict, severability, and an effective date. Ma'am? Sir, Mr. Mayor, [00:32:47] Deputy Mayor, pardon me. This ordinance was before you in February of 2000, and [00:32:55] at that time, the recommendation before you was to prohibit chickens in the city, [00:33:03] and there was a good amount of discussion that took place at that time, [00:33:09] and it sounded as if the consensus of the council was for some regulations to [00:33:17] be put in place, and that we did allow chickens in residential areas of the [00:33:23] city. And so the city attorney has drafted an ordinance which, as he's [00:33:29] indicated, does allow live chickens in the rear yards of properties, of [00:33:36] residential properties in the city. We have limited the number of chickens per [00:33:43] house to five. We have additionally asked that they not be slaughtered or processed [00:33:49] for consumption on the property. We have asked that waste products are removed [00:33:57] and properly maintained from the property at all times. We have asked that [00:34:05] if the chickens are not in their coop and they are allowed two square feet of [00:34:10] space per chicken at a minimum, that they be in a yard with a fence. This item [00:34:22] originally came up based on the fact that there were residents in the city, [00:34:27] they were raising chickens, and some of the neighbors considered them to be a [00:34:34] nuisance for various reasons, in large part based on the fact that they weren't [00:34:40] being maintained on the property by the owners. This ordinance does address that [00:34:48] condition, and we are recommending that you consider approving the regulations [00:34:55] for owning chickens within the city limits. Thank you, Ms. Manson. Ms. Myers, I [00:34:59] do believe we received at least one email regarding this agenda item. Did you [00:35:03] want to read it? Yes, thank you, Deputy Mayor. It is as follows. Hello, my name is [00:35:09] Keith McCarthy, and I am a public policy and administration student at St. [00:35:13] Petersburg College. I want to thank the council for taking the time to hear what [00:35:17] I have to say today. I currently live in Spring Hill, Florida, but grew up in the [00:35:21] New Port Richey, New Port Richey area. I am fortunate enough to have enjoyed and [00:35:25] currently enjoy the amenities that both cities have to offer. I am particularly [00:35:30] proud to see the revitalization of New Port Richey's downtown area, with the [00:35:34] improvements to Main Street and the Sims Park area. However, in recent years, I have [00:35:39] noticed the increased presence of free-roaming chickens around the city. [00:35:42] Having raised chickens, I can understand the nuisance problems that they can [00:35:46] cause if allowed to roam freely. I believe these problems [00:35:51] may become a detriment to the progress that the city has made in the last few [00:35:55] years. For this reason, I am voicing my support for Ordinance No. 2020-2183, [00:36:01] Amendments to Chapter 4, Animal Control regarding Regulations for Chickens. The [00:36:07] amendments proposed appear to bridge the gap between an outright ban and the [00:36:11] moderated ownership of chickens in city limits. They also appear to create a [00:36:15] scenario that allows for the highest quality of life for the city's residents, [00:36:19] those who choose to own chickens, and the chickens themselves. I thank you all for [00:36:24] your time and consideration in this matter. Thank you very much, Ms. Meyers. [00:36:29] We'll bring it back to Council. I move for approval, but I have a question. How are we enforcing this? [00:36:40] Is there a fine guidelines? It enforces a violation of the city code, [00:36:49] just like any other Chapter 4 violation. It's already set up. Okay, and I just have to say this because it ran across my mind, but you have a hen telling that she doesn't want any, asking four roosters to vote for hens only. I just have to say that out loud. [00:37:11] Thank you, Councilman Davis. Councilman Altman? I have to. We should cross that road when we come to it. Go ahead and ask for a vote on this. Councilman Murphy, do you have any comments? [00:37:25] The only question I have is how do we come up with five chickens? Is there some magical... [00:37:30] I think I pulled that one out of thin air. That may have come up in my [00:37:36] research about what people generally seem to own, but I was hoping that you [00:37:43] all would weigh in on that. The first, second, and third tier, then? Well, there's five Council members, so one for each of us. [00:37:52] I'm okay with five. I mean, if residents come back, I think, to Council and [00:37:57] request that we look at that number again in the future, I'm sure we can [00:38:01] always cross that bridge when we get there. Absolutely. Okay, all those in favor, then? [00:38:05] Indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Like sign. Motion passes. Communications, who would like to start?
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▶ 38:13
- 10Adjournment▶ 39:40
- 8
Business Items
Business items section of the agenda; no specific items listed.