On the agenda

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

   Pledge of Allegiance

   Pledge of Allegiance and moment of silence for servicemen and women.

   ▶ Jump to 0:12 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:12] Thank you. We have a quorum. If you would all please stand. Join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. [00:00:16] Remain standing for a moment of silence in honor of our servicemen and women at home and abroad.

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

3. 3

   Moment of Silence

   The council held a moment of silence in honor of servicemen and women at home and abroad, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

   ▶ Jump to 0:16 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:16] Remain standing for a moment of silence in honor of our servicemen and women at home and abroad. [00:00:22] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, [00:00:29] one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [00:00:39] 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. 4

   Approval of June 8, 2021 Work Session and June 15, 2021 Regular Meeting Minutes

   approved

   Council approved the minutes from the June 8, 2021 work session and the June 15, 2021 regular meeting.

   • motion:Approve the June 8, 2021 work session and June 15, 2021 regular meeting minutes. (passed)

   ▶ Jump to 0:42 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:42] Next item on the agenda is the approval of the June 8th work session and June 15th regular meeting minutes. [00:00:48] Move for approval. Second. [00:00:49] Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign.

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

5. 5

   Audit Report Presentation by Clifton, Larson, Allen LLP

   discussed

   Lance Schmidt of Clifton, Larson, Allen LLP presented the audit report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020. The City received an unmodified (clean) opinion on the citywide financial statements with no findings, while the CRA financial statements (now standalone) received a clean opinion but had two compliance items: a late budget submission to the county (beyond the 10-day requirement) and overexpenditures in two CRA budget line items (though the overall CRA fund was not overexpended).

   • direction:Council received and discussed the FY2020 audit report; staff to address CRA compliance items including timely budget submission and budgetary level of control policy. (none)

   🏢Clifton, Larson, Allen LLP👤Brian👤Crystal Feast👤Lance Schmidt👤Vance#CRA budget submission timeliness#CRA budgetary level of control#Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) financial statements#FY2020 Audit Report#Florida Auditor General compliance requirements#General fund cost allocation to CRA#Government Auditing Standards (GAS) report

   ▶ Jump to 0:56 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:56] Motion passes. Next is the audit report by Clifton, Larson, Allen, Elk. [00:01:03] Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, it's our pleasure this evening to have Mr. Lance Schmidt of Clifton, Larson, and Allen before you this evening. [00:01:13] Unfortunately, we have tried to connect with Crystal Feast, who was to be with us on Zoom this evening, [00:01:23] and unfortunately, as a result of some technical difficulties, she's not going to be on Zoom, as I understand it. [00:01:31] I think Brian's still trying to connect with her, and maybe she'll be able to connect at some point, [00:01:37] but we're going to let Lance get started and tell us about our audit report for the financial year ended September 30th, 2020. [00:01:51] Thank you, Ms. Vance. Appreciate the introduction there. [00:01:53] Just for the record, my name is Lance Schmidt, and I did serve as your engagement principal for your audit for the year ended September 30th, 2020. [00:02:01] I believe you've received both the city-wide audited financial statements and also a set of financial statements for the CRA, which we'll be covering tonight. [00:02:11] I've got a short presentation for you, just to really recap the highlights. [00:02:15] In lieu of reading the 200-page financial statement to you, we'll give you the highlights in this presentation, if that works. [00:02:23] Just in summary, just a quick disclosure here. [00:02:25] Obviously, I'm going to cover some summarized information at any time. [00:02:29] Feel free to stop me, ask any questions. [00:02:32] I just always want to reiterate to take everything we say in light of the entire document. [00:02:38] There's a lot of good information in there as it relates to our financial statement. [00:02:44] The first thing I want to cover is really some of the key things that we're required to communicate to the board as it relates to our audit. [00:02:52] I just want to cover a couple of those things on this very first slide here. [00:02:56] First of all, if we had any other consultations or if management consulted with another CPA firm, kind of think of this as like a second opinion in the medical profession. [00:03:06] If there were any second opinions, that CPA firm would be required to consult with us to make sure they have all the facts. [00:03:13] To our knowledge, there were no consultations with other CPA firms as it related to our audit. [00:03:18] Usually, that would arise from some type of difference of opinion on maybe an accounting matter or compliance matter, but there were none. [00:03:24] If we had any difficulties encountered during the audit, we would be required to report those to you. [00:03:29] Glad to report that we did not have any. [00:03:32] We were able to meet the June 30th deadline and made sure that you had a timely issued financial statement, so good news there. [00:03:41] If we had any corrected or uncorrected misstatements, corrected misstatement is basically an audit adjustment that we found during the course of the audit. [00:03:48] An uncorrected misstatement would be a smaller immaterial adjustment that we wanted to let you know about, but it wasn't material, so we didn't require that to be booked. [00:03:57] We had neither of those. [00:03:58] We did have some audit adjustments that came from staff during the audit, but again, we booked those and they were things that were found by your staff as we kind of went through the process, [00:04:07] but we made sure all those were reflected in the final audited financial statements that you have in front of you. [00:04:13] If we had any disagreements with management, we'd be required to report that to the council as well. [00:04:18] Glad to report that we did not have any disagreements with management as it related to any accounting or compliance matters. [00:04:25] We do receive a management representation letter. [00:04:29] What that means to you and what that means to us as auditors is that we've asked both your city manager and your finance director to basically sign a letter stating that these financial statements are true and correct to the best of their knowledge. [00:04:41] Again, that they're not withholding any information or there's not any misstatements that they're aware of. [00:04:46] So again, we did receive that as part of our engagement. [00:04:49] And then lastly, as it relates to some of the qualitative aspects of the audit, I'll be covering those on some of the next few slides and also wrap it up with a few financial highlights as well. [00:05:03] As it relates to our audit, I think it's just helpful just to kind of explain just exactly how it works and some of the key things that we look at. [00:05:11] We're looking at all your key significant transaction cycles from an internal control perspective. [00:05:16] We really start with governance by looking at the minutes, doing interviews, and then going down and saying, okay, let's talk to management. [00:05:23] Then let's talk about some of the specifics. [00:05:25] Let's look at the controls you have in place over cash, revenue receivables, payroll, expenditures, financial close process, et cetera. [00:05:32] So we go all the way from really governance all the way down to the ultimate financial statement that you have in front of you. [00:05:38] And the way that we kind of analyze risk and ultimately do our testing, again, conducting interviews and looking at transactions and saying, okay, this is what's being told to us. [00:05:46] Is it actually in practice and do we see it? [00:05:48] Looking at that from an internal control perspective. [00:05:51] From a risk assessment, we analyze data. [00:05:54] We receive every single one of your transactions that you record that we put into our data analytics software that we will use that to pull samples. [00:06:02] And we start off by making sure, hey, let's make sure we have all the data before we start our audit engagement. [00:06:08] From there, we're identifying higher risk transactions, pulling those, looking at those. [00:06:13] That's where you're looking at. [00:06:15] Show me the support. [00:06:17] Show me the money. [00:06:18] Let me see what actually happened. [00:06:20] And then ultimately we end with our report, which I want to go over at this point in time. [00:06:26] And so as it relates to what you've actually hired us to do, three main things as it relates to your citywide financial statements. [00:06:36] The first is what you typically think of. [00:06:39] It's issuing an opinion on your financial statements. [00:06:42] And I'm glad to report today that you received an unmodified opinion. [00:06:47] What that means is you received a commonly referred to as a clean opinion or the best opinion you can receive. [00:06:55] When we say unmodified, what we mean is we were able to opine and say your financial statements are materially correct. [00:07:04] And we didn't have to say except for. [00:07:06] So we're able to kind of stop at that. [00:07:08] And, again, I'm highly summarizing our audit report. [00:07:10] It's three pages long. [00:07:12] It's in the front of the report. [00:07:14] But basically that's what it's saying is that it's, you know, there's no material misstatements. [00:07:18] And we're not saying but there's, you know, this part is not right. [00:07:22] So, again, clean opinion, the best opinion that you can receive. [00:07:26] The second report we issue is what we commonly refer to as our GAS report. [00:07:30] It's our government auditing standards report. [00:07:34] And that's really looking at do you have proper internal controls in place to ensure that your accounting department is capturing financial activity correctly, [00:07:43] reporting it correctly, and ultimately getting it correct in the audited financial statements. [00:07:48] And, again, glad to report that we had no findings there. [00:07:52] So, again, good news there. [00:07:54] If we had any findings, we would be reporting those to you tonight. [00:07:58] And then, lastly, we also do an examination on compliance. [00:08:03] The Auditor General a couple years ago came out and said, hey, [00:08:06] these are some of the things that we think are critically important to us, important to the state, important to our governments. [00:08:12] And we want you to make sure that they are complying with some of those rules and regulations. [00:08:17] We look at your investment of public funds, which really includes two things. [00:08:21] Are you following your investment policy? [00:08:23] Are you getting the proper or your management team getting the proper training? [00:08:27] And then also making sure that the banks that are holding your money are qualified public depositories, [00:08:33] which means all of your assets are fully collateralized, meaning they're not loaning out against those assets. [00:08:38] And I'm glad to report that we had no compliance issues on that either. [00:08:42] So, again, a clean opinion or unmodified opinion on your examination. [00:08:47] And so as we take a look at that over on the right, again, no findings on the financial statement audit. [00:08:52] We do issue a management letter as well, which would cover any other compliance not covered in our normal audit or any other items. [00:09:00] I do want to report, even though we don't have findings, which, again, is an awesome thing, [00:09:04] good news for the council to hear. [00:09:08] Also, I want to just communicate as well, there are several best practices that we do communicate throughout the audit. [00:09:14] This year, we always do a couple of different things to make sure that we're keeping both management and finance department on their toes. [00:09:21] And so this year, we did a couple of things, but one of the things that we looked at was IT. [00:09:26] A lot of talk about ransomware these days, both with businesses, companies, private organizations, et cetera. [00:09:32] And so we did find some opportunities for improvement or just some best practices that we recommended to the IT staff and also management as well, [00:09:43] along with several other things that are more kind of transactional in nature. [00:09:47] So, hey, we saw this at this other city. You might want to take a look at that or you might consider doing that. [00:09:51] So, again, even though we don't have any written findings here, I want to make sure, too, that we do try to add value as much as possible in our audit process. [00:09:59] Again, very good news as it relates to the audit. Any questions on that part specifically or anything I've covered so far? [00:10:07] No, sir. [00:10:09] Okay. Moving on, I do want to highlight one significant change for the 2020 audit. [00:10:17] I mentioned earlier that the Florida Auditor General will prescribe certain tests that they want us to perform as external auditors. [00:10:27] We do that for the citywide financial statements. [00:10:30] This year they came out with some pretty significant changes in the area of CRAs. [00:10:36] So community redevelopment agencies have, you know, had varying degrees of attention over the last few years. [00:10:42] They seem to be getting more and more attention recently. [00:10:44] And as a result, some of the things that they're asking us to do is specifically opine on certain compliance requirements related to the CRA. [00:10:53] And I've got, I'm not going to go over in detail, but we've always looked at, I do want to just make sure this is clear. [00:11:00] We've always looked at sources of revenue and recalculated the incremental tax income or ad valorem they would receive. [00:11:08] We've always done that. We've always put a little sample of transactions, made sure that the CRA was spending money on, you know, qualified activities. [00:11:15] But now we're looking at, you know, was the budget filed timely? Was it submitted timely? [00:11:21] You know, looking at any money provided to nonprofits, was that, you know, properly accounted for? [00:11:26] And a variety of other state rules and regulations they want us to look at. [00:11:30] So in the past we did that. We didn't necessarily have a separate opinion on that. [00:11:34] Now we have a separate opinion. And I want to cover that on this next slide. [00:11:38] And also I should say, too, the other big important item is that the CRA has always been audited. [00:11:45] Now it has a separate financial statement, which you guys have that in front of you as well. [00:11:50] So, again, that's a change. It's always been audited, but now it's a standalone financial statement. [00:11:57] So, again, same thing here. We issue three reports, a clean audit report. [00:12:01] So, again, very good news there, unmodified opinion, the best that you can receive. [00:12:04] We had no findings, again, on the internal controls over preparing those financial statements. [00:12:10] However, when it came to compliance, we did have a couple things to note. [00:12:13] No issues at all with public depository or any investments allocated within the CRA. [00:12:20] However, I mentioned previously some of the CRA compliance requirements. [00:12:26] This is the first year they've asked us to look at that. [00:12:29] When we were going through that, we did have two items to note as part of our testing, [00:12:33] and those are listed on the screen and also in the CRA financial statements in the back. [00:12:39] The budget submission is required to be submitted to the county within 10 days. [00:12:43] It was not. It was a few days over. [00:12:45] So, again, this is one of those things. Some of these requirements are new. [00:12:50] Some of them have been around, but no one's really looked at them or made a big deal of them, [00:12:54] and now we're coming in and we are testing it. [00:12:56] So, again, I've talked both with the finance director and your city manager. [00:13:02] It should be very easy to remedy this, making sure that it gets submitted timely. [00:13:06] The second one had to do with the overexpending particular budget line items in the CRA budget. [00:13:14] So I just want to clarify a couple things. [00:13:16] Very first item, your CRA fund was not overexpended. [00:13:22] So you approved a budget for X number of dollars. [00:13:25] You did not spend over that. [00:13:26] However, within those budget line items, you did have, I believe, two line items that you did overexpend in. [00:13:33] And so one of the things we look for, we have to look for the budgetary level of control. [00:13:39] And so what that means is the level at which this council approves the budget is what we deem to be the budgetary level of control. [00:13:49] And so we've talked, I've talked to the finance director about just some different opportunities on how to, you know, [00:13:56] kind of address this or make the compliance maybe a little bit easier going forward. [00:14:00] So we've talked about that as well. [00:14:02] A couple different options on exactly what gets presented, how it gets presented, [00:14:07] and or possibly having a separate policy which says our budget specifically states your budgetary level of control is the total budget, [00:14:13] not the individual line items. [00:14:15] So, again, a couple different options there on how to remedy that to make that administratively a little bit easier going forward. [00:14:21] So with that, any other questions on the CRA? [00:14:25] I know this was kind of new this year. [00:14:27] Are you just saying there, let's say we had 100 percent of the money to spend [00:14:32] and we had 55 percent in 45 but we did 50-50? [00:14:37] Great. [00:14:38] That's a good example. [00:14:39] Is that a good example? [00:14:40] Yeah, yeah. [00:14:41] So basically you've got basically two line items that you overexpended in those, but you underexpended in some others. [00:14:45] So in total you didn't go over the total threshold, but within those individual line items there were some overages. [00:14:51] I do have a question. [00:14:53] Sure. [00:14:54] The revenue, as you indicate, of the CRA only recognizes [00:15:00] Internal revenue coming in from the county, and it shows a transfer from the city because [00:15:05] you have a combined statement, I guess. [00:15:08] So when I read the report, it talks about the revenue to the CRA, and in my thought [00:15:14] as a separate entity that's got to stand alone to its own audit, it just doesn't feel right. [00:15:23] I understand that that may be an accounting function. [00:15:29] But our budget is $3 million, it's from us and from the county, and so when the county [00:15:33] looks at how we fund our CRA, they see that only they provide the revenue. [00:15:40] The transfer maybe should be highlighted in a better way or identified in a better way [00:15:44] to show or even to explain to folks who might read the financial statements that how it [00:15:51] works because CRAs are so misunderstood and they have been also under attack. [00:15:59] The other thing that they have been under attack for is misusing the funds or using [00:16:04] them for something that's not really in the CRA plan. [00:16:12] And I know that my understanding is, and when I look at it, I see general government coming [00:16:18] out of the CRA sort of equal to the money that the general government puts into the [00:16:24] CRA, which is an estimate or some calculated value that recognizes the amount of effort [00:16:34] that the general fund can get reimbursed for. [00:16:41] Any thoughts on whether that's as drilled down as it should be? [00:16:46] Sure, yeah. [00:16:47] That's a really good question, and one of the things we've highlighted is one of the [00:16:50] biggest risk areas for CRAs because everything you said is spot on, and we're seeing a lot [00:16:55] of that where the state or counties are coming in and saying, hey, you're allocating X amount [00:17:00] of costs from your general fund over to your CRA. [00:17:03] Is this legitimate? [00:17:04] And it is getting more attention, and so we do look at the basis for allocation, make [00:17:09] sure it's documented well, there's an objective measure that it's not, hey, what do I need [00:17:14] to do to plug the general fund budget, and let's just plug a number over there. [00:17:17] We are looking at the actual underlying support as to how management's coming up with, again, [00:17:22] some of those costs that might, could go in a couple of different buckets to make sure [00:17:25] they're being properly accounted for. [00:17:27] So yes, definitely something that we do take a look at. [00:17:30] One thing I noticed is that it's a percentage of the CRA budget, but it's not a percentage [00:17:40] of the general fund budget. [00:17:42] So the CRA budget climbs because of the tax increment building it up, and so the reimbursement [00:17:50] back to the general fund increases even if the general fund's budget doesn't, which would [00:17:54] tell me that more of the general fund effort is going into the CRA every year than it did [00:17:59] the year before. [00:18:00] So I'm not sure I understand the logic is defendable, and that's what I'm worried about. [00:18:06] Gotcha. [00:18:07] Yeah, I mean, we did look at, we didn't have any concerns with, again, what we had looked [00:18:10] at for that, but something we could definitely, you know, either look at closer or, you know, [00:18:16] come back and maybe do a, you know, further presentation on, or have, you know, maybe, [00:18:20] you know, something management wants to also talk to as well. [00:18:24] It is a, it is a lot, it's a kind of a gray area, I will say, in terms of how that works [00:18:30] because some CRAs say, hey, I want to only do, you know, what we call hard costs or, [00:18:36] you know, things that are, you know, we have some that don't allocate anything at all because [00:18:40] they want to be uber-conservative and make sure that there's no question, you know. [00:18:45] However, it is allowable to allocate costs over there, and just how that methodology [00:18:49] works is, you know, something that we are spending, we're increasing the scrutiny of [00:18:55] that to make sure that it's reasonable and, most importantly, making sure that it's necessary [00:19:02] as well because it's, you know, we want to make sure that whatever costs go over there, [00:19:06] clearly that time is being spent on the CRA, otherwise it would be a compliance issue. [00:19:11] So the reason it's a big issue to us is because, A, we've had a local county commissioner raise [00:19:17] issues with us before, B, we have a sister city that's under an audit right now, and [00:19:22] C, because we were the supposed bad boy that got a lot of the state CRAs in trouble because [00:19:28] our city is such a citywide CRA, and so, consequently, there's a lot of reasons that folks would [00:19:34] look at us, and I've been anxious about that. [00:19:38] Yeah, and it's, you know, doing these presentations, I'm spending quite a bit of time talking about [00:19:42] CRAs, and one of the things that we're heavily leaning on and obviously recommending is those, [00:19:49] the studies, the necessary, and the wording is escaping me, but I'm sure you guys could [00:19:53] write a lot off the necessary. [00:19:57] Allocation method. [00:19:58] Yes, the funding necessity, you know, basically, what is it needed for? [00:20:00] Is it doing its purpose? [00:20:02] Is it still needed, you know, moving forward? [00:20:05] And certainly, city of New Port Richey, is a little bit different in terms of geography [00:20:07] boundaries and all that, and we recognize that, but at the same time, those studies [00:20:12] are really what you guys can, you know, kind of hang your hat on to say, look, we have [00:20:17] analyzed it, here are our costs, and making sure that, you know, those are reasonable. [00:20:20] So something that we actually had talked about as well, we actually had kind of a policy [00:20:25] or kind of a study review, and that was one of the things that kind of came up was, you [00:20:30] know, making sure that's on a regular rotation, that's being looked at, so, yeah, but very [00:20:36] good questions. [00:20:38] Thank you very much. [00:20:39] You too. [00:20:40] Sounds good. [00:20:41] I do have a few more slides, if you want me to go over those too, or I can wrap it up [00:20:48] as well. [00:20:49] Go ahead. [00:20:50] General fund, yeah. [00:20:51] Sure, yeah, we'll just, I'll give you a couple of quick highlights here that might be difficult [00:20:53] to see on the screen, but I'll just go ahead and give you the quick synopsis. [00:20:57] Most important thing there is looking at the very bottom, you'll see an upward trend. [00:21:00] This is your analysis of your governmental fund, again, citywide. [00:21:04] This is increasing due to that very top line, it's kind of difficult to see, but the very [00:21:09] top line basically is your ad valorem or your property taxes. [00:21:12] So again, we're in a very good real estate market, so we'll continue to see increases [00:21:18] in your general revenue. [00:21:20] General fund, fund balance, something that, again, is very important to take a look at. [00:21:28] Something that's important to note here is that general fund balance is important both [00:21:31] for your reserves, but also making sure that it kind of tells you as a snapshot in time [00:21:35] how healthy the city is. [00:21:39] This chart, even though it is going down slightly, we're comparing $11.6 million to $11.3 million, [00:21:44] so again, not a big decrease, and you can see it does go up and down over time. [00:21:46] Again, a lot of this is going to be timing on overall expenditures, and so again, something [00:21:53] else to take a look at. [00:21:57] One of the things I do want to note, the back of your financial statements does have a lot [00:22:00] of good information that's required with the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. [00:22:04] This is just a quick slide, this is some of the other demographic information that's in [00:22:08] the back. [00:22:09] It kind of shows population over time, so again, some other good metrics and data that's [00:22:13] in the back. [00:22:14] Obviously, you guys know this, but increasing population, so again, we're going to see an [00:22:18] increase in a lot of other metrics as well, tax revenues, property values, et cetera, [00:22:23] as a result of that. [00:22:26] Looking at the CRA again, since we did have the CRA as a separate financial statement, [00:22:30] you'll notice that 2017 and 2018 are a little bit lower than what we typically expect to [00:22:34] see. [00:22:35] This is general government-wide. [00:22:37] The reason you're seeing a decrease in 2017 was there was a write-down on certain assets [00:22:43] that were held. [00:22:47] And so, 2017 was an anomaly year, a little bit in 2018 as well, but again, we're going [00:22:54] to see this trend the same as your other ad valorem and property taxes, that that CRA [00:22:59] is going to increase really at the same rate as well. [00:23:04] And then, it is important to note, when we take a look at the fund balance just for the [00:23:07] CRA, it actually is negative, largely due, and I think Council is very aware of that [00:23:13] due to the general government fund. [00:23:16] I was speaking with your finance director, Crystal, before this meeting, and she said [00:23:19] you guys were fully aware, but if any questions, we could talk about that. [00:23:22] But again, the important thing here is that it's trending to be a smaller negative number, [00:23:28] but again, that's just the reason that's negative is it wasn't for that $4.8 million payable [00:23:32] and receivable between the general fund. [00:23:35] This would be a positive. [00:23:36] May I stop you again? [00:23:37] Sure. [00:23:38] Because this really goes back to the write-down of the Baptist Church property when that was [00:23:42] turned into, when we demolished the building and wrote it down because it was inventory [00:23:49] to the CRA, and consequently, that threw the fund balance into the negative, but that's [00:23:59] only because we had an asset that we had to say we lost all the money on, but now it's [00:24:05] working out well for us. [00:24:08] Correct. [00:24:11] I won't spend a ton of time on this, but looking forward, the GASB, which is our standard-setting [00:24:16] board for governments, has been very busy, coming up with a lot of new standards, so [00:24:19] again, things to look forward to because I know everyone on the city council loves to [00:24:23] hear about new accounting principles and standards. [00:24:26] We have both new leases, they've got some additional guidance on public and private [00:24:29] partnerships. [00:24:30] GASB 84 and 97 basically say if you've got a deferred comp plan, there's some other metrics [00:24:36] we have to look at. [00:24:37] Potentially, currently, that's not on your books, but that might be something that comes [00:24:40] on to your books based on some new guidance, so something that we'll be taking a look [00:24:44] at as we move forward, so again, just know your accounting folks are busy at work dealing [00:24:51] with some of the changes that are coming down the pipe, and so I do just want to take a [00:24:55] second again, and I'm glad to answer any questions you guys may have, I just want to say thank [00:24:59] you again for the opportunity to serve New Port Richey. [00:25:01] It's obviously been a pleasure to work with Debbie and Crystal and the entire team. [00:25:06] I think we have a great working relationship, and again, don't take the responsibility lightly [00:25:10] from city council to make sure that we provide a high quality audit, but we could not also [00:25:16] do it without management. [00:25:17] We're not the IRS or an OIG office, we need help. [00:25:21] The information has to come from management, and so when we talk about having a timely [00:25:25] audit and a good working relationship, it's two-way street, so again, thank you again, [00:25:28] Debbie, for you and your team. [00:25:31] But with that, if there's any questions, I'd be glad to take those this time. [00:25:35] Unfortunately, I have one more. [00:25:37] Sure, go for it. [00:25:38] And that is in your statement of activities, your net position, when you list the restricted [00:25:47] assets, net investment in capital assets, and then the restricted assets, you have a [00:25:54] negative unrestricted balance of 593. [00:26:00] Is that because the governmental activities includes the CRA and the general fund, or [00:26:04] is that, in our general fund, a negative? [00:26:08] So that statement of activities includes a couple of things. [00:26:10] The largest reason why that's negative is actually because of your FRS obligation. [00:26:16] So a couple years ago, you had FRS, which your only obligation, really, is to just pay [00:26:20] them monthly or every pay period. [00:26:24] Again, I mentioned New Gatsby Standards a few years back that said you have a very minuscule [00:26:30] share of the liability at the state of Florida as it relates to your retirement plan. [00:26:36] So now what they're saying is, we want you to take your share of that liability and record [00:26:39] that on the books. [00:26:41] And I'm not sure, I can't recall exactly what that amount is. [00:26:46] Net pension asset is 2.3 million. [00:26:49] Is that it? [00:26:51] That's actually not it. [00:26:52] So that's with your police plan, but there's also a pension liability on the liability [00:26:58] side, and that amount really is what causes that to be negative, because that's not a [00:27:03] liability that you can pay off or even fund, but again, you are required to pick up that [00:27:07] share of the liability on your books. [00:27:09] And so that's really what's driving that negative, along with OPEB and the full accrual. [00:27:15] So long-term debts also included, et cetera. [00:27:17] Does that cause us to revisit our minimum reserve balance, or does it not calculate [00:27:24] into that? [00:27:25] It should not, because that's a full accrual number. [00:27:28] The most important number is that general fund number, which is more of a modified, [00:27:32] more immediate term, more cash-like, as opposed to that one, which includes certain obligations [00:27:38] you can't even pay down that come from the state of Florida or other long-term obligations [00:27:44] that are in there. [00:27:45] So that number is important and useful, but not something I would necessarily make a budget [00:27:50] decision based on that. [00:27:51] So we do have a required reserve that requires four-fifths vote in order to go into, and [00:27:59] that is still at the safe level? [00:28:02] Yes, it is. [00:28:03] And that amount is what you see primarily, well, it's in the committed number, which [00:28:08] is roughly $2 million, is still there, which is 15 percent, I believe, of your total budget. [00:28:14] Right. [00:28:15] Good. [00:28:16] Thank you. [00:28:17] I have a question about the reserve fund and so forth. [00:28:20] You look at those numbers, or do you have discussions with the finance director about [00:28:26] how that might compare with similar cities of our size, and where you've used your experience [00:28:33] over the years to see on exactly where we might compare, are we favorable, are we on [00:28:43] the line, are we over-reserved, for example? [00:28:46] Sure. [00:28:47] So do you have those kind of discussions? [00:28:49] We do. [00:28:50] Actually, the state of Florida requires us, there's basically a financial assessment that's [00:28:54] done at the state level. [00:28:55] So the state aggregates financial data for all cities, and you're probably familiar with [00:28:59] this, and what happens is you submit, it's called an annual financial report, they basically [00:29:04] tell us, give me all your financial data in this prescribed format, and then what they [00:29:08] do is they actually compare you to what they consider to be some of their safe benchmarks [00:29:12] and they also compare you to other cities and municipalities as well. [00:29:16] We do this analysis where we take a look at those metrics, there's 27 of them, I believe, [00:29:22] they look at both your enterprise funds, business type, your general funds, entity-wide, they [00:29:27] look at all kinds of stuff, and what they do is they actually track those 27 metrics [00:29:30] and they tell you, are you trending in a favorable position, an inconclusive, or an unfavorable [00:29:37] position. [00:29:38] If you have too many unfavorables in these calculations, I would report that to you and [00:29:42] tell you, hey, the city has some financial concerns based on the metrics provided by [00:29:48] the state and how you're doing with other cities. [00:29:51] So we do do that. [00:29:52] I want to just share that. [00:29:54] But at the same time, to answer the question, which I think the real question is, how do [00:29:59] we solve this problem? [00:30:00] stack up on the reserve piece compared to other cities, [00:30:02] and that is very much a loaded question [00:30:04] in terms of risk appetite for cities. [00:30:07] In fact, I joked around with Crystal before this meeting, [00:30:09] I said, you know, I hope we don't get into the question [00:30:11] of how much should we have in reserves, [00:30:13] because it's a very difficult question to answer, right? [00:30:16] And it does take, you know, it's really a risk question. [00:30:21] It's an appetite question [00:30:22] as to what you guys are comfortable with. [00:30:24] A lot of times we see 30%, we see 15%. [00:30:27] Other times they say we want six months, you know, [00:30:29] and so that number is gonna be something [00:30:33] you kind of have to look at, [00:30:34] and I believe, if I'm not mistaken, [00:30:36] you guys are actually going through a general fund [00:30:38] study review right now, [00:30:39] or something that you guys are looking at, [00:30:41] which should provide you some scenarios. [00:30:44] So if we have a disaster of this size, [00:30:47] or property values were to decrease, [00:30:50] how would that impact some of those numbers? [00:30:53] All of those discussions, or those decisions, [00:30:56] really should weigh in to answer that question, [00:30:59] to make an informed decision. [00:31:00] And so I would say, and I'm not privy to the study [00:31:03] that's being done, or the timing on that, [00:31:05] or when that'll be ready, [00:31:07] but I think when that study comes out, [00:31:08] it would be a great time to ask a lot [00:31:09] of those detailed questions to say, [00:31:11] you know, in a disaster scenario, [00:31:13] if we have another, you know, 2017, or 2004, [00:31:17] or we get four hurricanes that hit us, [00:31:19] what's gonna happen, you know? [00:31:20] Or if property value, we have no 2008, what happens? [00:31:25] Following up on that, one of the things [00:31:26] the American Rescue Act is saying [00:31:28] is that we can calculate the shortcomings [00:31:31] from the year with COVID, [00:31:33] prior to the year where there was no COVID, [00:31:35] and take from the allocation of cash [00:31:38] that's coming to us, that differential, and use it. [00:31:42] And in their regulations, it says you cannot use it [00:31:46] to shore up your reserves. [00:31:48] So I guess someone anticipated that folks would say, [00:31:52] hey, we got a lot of money, let's put it in the bank. [00:31:54] And it's coming for the purpose [00:31:56] of putting it into the economy [00:31:57] to make, to improve the conditions. [00:32:00] Correct it. [00:32:02] Yep. [00:32:03] Anything else? [00:32:05] Thank you. [00:32:06] What do you do for fun? [00:32:08] That's a good one. [00:32:09] That is a great question. [00:32:11] That is a great question, so. [00:32:14] Appreciate your diligence. [00:32:15] Thank you very much. [00:32:16] Thank you, I appreciate it. [00:32:17] Thank you. [00:32:19] Next item on the agenda is Vox Pop. [00:32:20] This is for items that are not listed on the agenda, [00:32:23] or that are listed on the consent agenda. [00:32:25] Judy, do we have anyone that's signed up? [00:32:28] I have two people that have signed up to speak. [00:32:29] The first one is David Vela. [00:32:43] Good evening. [00:32:45] I came up here a few weeks ago, [00:32:48] wondering if the city was going to ever pave the alleys [00:32:52] on the east side of Madison. [00:32:55] They were done on the west side of Madison. [00:32:58] They said there was a study that was done, [00:33:00] and they would give me that study. [00:33:04] And I did receive that study. [00:33:07] Shortly after the meeting, I met up with leadership here. [00:33:10] I guess I'm not supposed to say names. [00:33:12] So I met up with leadership, and we sat down. [00:33:16] And there was a couple of options [00:33:19] that could help me get my alley paved, [00:33:22] and help the city finance part of it. [00:33:25] So we went through a few options. [00:33:28] The options that were given to me aren't going to work. [00:33:31] Most of the properties on my street are landlord-owned, [00:33:35] so they're not going to put any money into an alley [00:33:36] that's actually very rarely used.

   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. 6Vox Pop for Items Not Listed on the Agenda or Listed on Consent Agenda▶ 33:39
7. 7.a

   Cultural Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes - March 2021

   approvedon consent

   Council approved the Cultural Affairs Committee meeting minutes from March 2021 by voice vote.

   • motion:Approve the Cultural Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes from March 2021. (passed)

   #Cultural Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes - March 2021

   ▶ Jump to 38:31 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:38:31] Move for approval. [00:38:33] Second. [00:38:35] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:38:39] Aye. [00:38:39] Opposed, like sign. [00:38:41] Motion passes because we had to reschedule this meeting [00:38:46] on short notice Tuesday since Elsa decided to pay a visit.

   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. 7.b

   Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes - May 2021

   approvedon consent

   Council approved the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board minutes from May 2021. The meeting had been rescheduled on short notice due to Tropical Storm Elsa.

   • motion:Approve the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board minutes from May 2021. (passed)

   #Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes - May 2021#Tropical Storm Elsa

   ▶ Jump to 38:31 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:38:31] Move for approval. [00:38:33] Second. [00:38:35] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:38:39] Aye. [00:38:39] Opposed, like sign. [00:38:41] Motion passes because we had to reschedule this meeting [00:38:46] on short notice Tuesday since Elsa decided to pay a visit.

   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.

9. 7.c

   Purchase/Payments for City Council Approval

   approvedon consent

   Council approved purchases/payments. Item was briefly noted as having been rescheduled due to Tropical Storm Elsa.

   • motion:Motion to approve purchases/payments for City Council approval. (passed)

   #Tropical Storm Elsa

   ▶ Jump to 38:31 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:38:31] Move for approval. [00:38:33] Second. [00:38:35] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:38:39] Aye. [00:38:39] Opposed, like sign. [00:38:41] Motion passes because we had to reschedule this meeting [00:38:46] on short notice Tuesday since Elsa decided to pay a visit.

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

10. 8.a

    Second Reading, Ordinance No. 2021-2233: Design Guidelines for Multi-Family Projects

    tabled

    The second reading of Ordinance No. 2021-2233 regarding design guidelines for multi-family projects was postponed because the city did not have time to adequately re-advertise it. It will be re-advertised and heard at the July 20th meeting.

    Ord. Ordinance No. 2021-2233

    • direction:Postpone the second reading of Ordinance No. 2021-2233 to the July 20th meeting due to inadequate re-advertisement. (tabled)

    #Ordinance No. 2021-2233

    ▶ Jump to 38:51 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [00:38:53] We did not have time to adequately re-advertise [00:38:57] the two second readings, and so those are going [00:39:00] to be re-advertised and will be held [00:39:04] at the meeting on the 20th. [00:39:07] So if you're here for that, [00:39:09] we'll be doing those on the 20th. [00:39:12] Next is, we'll go into business items. [00:39:14] Board appointment to the Land Development Review Board. [00:39:19] Yes, Mr. Mayor. [00:39:21] The request before you is to approve an appointment [00:39:25] of Alan Sofranek III to the Land Development Review Board. [00:39:30] Mr. Sofranek submitted his application to serve on the board

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

11. 8.b

    Second Reading, Ordinance No. 2021-2231: Amendments to Golf Cart Ordinance

    tabled

    The second reading of Ordinance No. 2021-2231 regarding amendments to the Golf Cart Ordinance was postponed because it could not be adequately re-advertised; it will be heard at the July 20th meeting.

    Ord. Ordinance No. 2021-2231

    • direction:Re-advertise the second reading of the Golf Cart Ordinance amendments and hold it at the July 20th meeting. (none)

    #Ordinance No. 2021-2231

    ▶ Jump to 38:51 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [00:38:53] We did not have time to adequately re-advertise [00:38:57] the two second readings, and so those are going [00:39:00] to be re-advertised and will be held [00:39:04] at the meeting on the 20th. [00:39:07] So if you're here for that, [00:39:09] we'll be doing those on the 20th. [00:39:12] Next is, we'll go into business items. [00:39:14] Board appointment to the Land Development Review Board. [00:39:19] Yes, Mr. Mayor. [00:39:21] The request before you is to approve an appointment [00:39:25] of Alan Sofranek III to the Land Development Review Board. [00:39:30] Mr. Sofranek submitted his application to serve on the board

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

12. 9.a

    Board Appointment: Allan Safranek, III, Land Development Review Board

    approved

    Council appointed Allan Safranek, III to the Land Development Review Board for a three-year term ending July 8, 2024. Staff noted a correction that Safranek is a past, not current, president of the West Pasco Board of Realtors; Scott Barrett is the current president.

    • motion:Approve the appointment of Allan Safranek, III to the Land Development Review Board for a three-year term expiring July 8, 2024. (passed)

    🏢Land Development Review Board🏢West Pasco Board of Realtors👤Allan Safranek, III👤Scott Barrett#Land Development Review Board appointment - term expiring July 8, 2024

    ▶ Jump to 39:31 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [00:39:33] back in February of 2021, [00:39:38] and Mr. Sofranek has worked with me [00:39:43] over the course of the last seven years [00:39:45] on various planning and zoning-related issues. [00:39:50] I believe that he would be a very effective [00:39:52] and valuable member to the Land Development Review Board. [00:39:57] I do want to correct myself in that I did state [00:40:01] in the communication to you that he is the current president [00:40:06] for the West Pasco Board of Realtors, [00:40:08] and that is not accurate. [00:40:09] He has served in that capacity in the past. [00:40:12] The current president is Scott Barrett. [00:40:16] If it is your opinion that Mr. Sofranek's appointment [00:40:22] should be approved, his term would be for a three-year [00:40:27] term, and the renewal would be up on July 8th of 2024. [00:40:34] Thank you. [00:40:35] Open up for public comment. [00:40:36] I don't see Alan in the audience. [00:40:40] No. [00:40:41] Move approval. [00:40:42] Second. [00:40:43] In that case, any discussion? [00:40:45] That's a great choice. [00:40:46] None. [00:40:47] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:40:50] Aye. [00:40:50] Opposed, like sign. [00:40:52] And Alan, if you're watching, thank you very much [00:40:55] for your willingness to serve the community. [00:40:57] Next is a special request for New Port Richey Main Street

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

13. 9.b

    Special Request by New Port Richey Main Street RE: Beer and Wine Tent for the Preservation on Main Street Conference Welcome Reception

    approved

    Council approved a request from New Port Richey Main Street to host a beer and wine welcome reception in Sims Park on July 21st from 5:30-7:00 PM as part of the Preservation on Main Street Conference (July 20-24). Approximately 125-150 attendees expected; the event will be kept inside the Hacienda area. Applicant must still submit proper application, licensing, and insurance prior to the event.

    • motion:Move to approve the special request for a beer and wine tent at Sims Park for the Preservation on Main Street Conference welcome reception on July 21st. (passed)

    📍Sims Park🏢New Port Richey Main Street👤Amanda Murphy👤Annette👤Debbie#Hacienda#Preservation on Main Street Conference

    ▶ Jump to 41:00 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [00:41:00] for a beer and wine tent for the preservation [00:41:03] on Main Street Conference welcome reception [00:41:06] coming up in a week or two. [00:41:08] Very quickly, yes. [00:41:10] July 21st, as a matter of fact. [00:41:14] I have been asked by the Main Street Organization [00:41:25] if they could host a welcome reception in Sims Park [00:41:31] on July 21st in relationship to the preservation [00:41:37] on Main Street Conference, which they would like to serve [00:41:43] beer and wine to their conference attendees [00:41:46] from the hours of 5.30 to 7 o'clock. [00:41:50] Since that would occur in Sims Park, [00:41:53] they need your permission to do so. [00:41:58] This conference will be a collection of attendees [00:42:02] from all over the state of Florida who will be [00:42:06] in attendance and visiting our city during the conference, [00:42:09] which runs from July 20th to July 24th. [00:42:14] They have not submitted all of the requested materials [00:42:20] yet related to this request, but they have indicated [00:42:25] that they will submit the proper application [00:42:27] and licensing and insurance requirements prior to the event [00:42:31] if you approve their request. [00:42:33] Open it up for public comment. [00:42:36] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to council. [00:42:39] Move for approval. [00:42:42] Do we have a second? [00:42:43] Second. [00:42:44] To the maker. [00:42:45] I'm good. [00:42:46] Second. [00:42:47] Yeah, just one question, Debbie. [00:42:50] Did you indicate the number of people [00:42:52] they expect to attend? [00:42:54] Was that Annette? [00:42:55] I didn't indicate, but I'm certain that [00:42:57] one of the representatives here today could respond. [00:43:11] Good evening, Amanda Murphy, Conference Chair. [00:43:13] Currently, we have 125 people signed up for this one event. [00:43:17] We're expecting by the end of it, [00:43:20] 150 people will be in attendance for this one, [00:43:22] and it's going to be kept inside of the Hacienda area. [00:43:28] Thank you. [00:43:29] Anything else? [00:43:30] Yeah, I need to abstain. [00:43:31] I'm renting the tables, tents, and chairs. [00:43:34] Okay, so noted.

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

14. 9.c

    Pre-Annexation Agreement with Hudson Bay Developers, LLC

    approved

    Council approved a pre-annexation agreement with Hudson Bay Developers, LLC for an 18.9-acre property on both sides of Seaforest Drive, proposing 82 dwelling units (townhomes on the south side, apartments on the north) at 4.33 du/acre—well below the county's 24 du/acre maximum. This is step one of a two-step voluntary annexation process; future land use amendment, rezoning, and formal annexation petition will follow.

    • motion:Move approval of the pre-annexation agreement with Hudson Bay Developers, LLC. (passed)

    📍6327 Grand Boulevard📍Seaforest Drive📍Wyoming Avenue🏢FGOA🏢Gulf High School🏢Hudson Bay Developers, LLC🏢Pasco County🏢Way Trim👤Barbara Wilhite👤Brad Cornelius👤John Moody👤Mr. Almond👤Mr. Murphy👤Ms. Mann#Coastal high hazard area#Development Review Committee (DRC)#High-density residential 24 future land use#Land Development Review Board#Pre-Annexation Agreement#Residential plan development zoning#Small-scale future land use map amendment (threshold increased from 10 to 50 acres)#Transfer of density rights#Voluntary annexation process

    ▶ Jump to 43:36 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [00:43:36] Mr. Almond? [00:43:37] Yes, when you said that many for this event, [00:43:40] do you have a number of how many are expected [00:43:41] for the conference? [00:43:43] So far, we have 182 people signed up as 30 minutes ago. [00:43:49] Very good. [00:43:49] And still, you haven't closed the sign-up period? [00:43:51] No, and we'll have people registering up until Thursday. [00:43:56] We'll still have people registering for different events. [00:44:00] Mr. Murphy, anything? [00:44:01] No, I'm good. [00:44:02] In that case, if there's no further discussion, [00:44:04] all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:44:07] Aye. [00:44:08] Opposed, like sign. [00:44:10] We pass four to nothing with one abstention. [00:44:16] Next, we have a pre-annexation agreement [00:44:19] with Hudson Bay Developers. [00:44:21] Yes, the city received an application [00:44:25] for property located both on the north [00:44:28] and the south side of Seaforest Drive, [00:44:32] and the property is 18.9 acres in size, [00:44:37] and Mr. Brad Cornelius and I have been working [00:44:41] with the developers, and he is prepared [00:44:43] to present the pre-annexation application [00:44:46] to you this evening. [00:44:47] Thank you, Mr. Cornelius. [00:44:49] Thank you. [00:44:50] Again, my name is Brad Cornelius with Way Trim, [00:44:52] and I serve as a consulting planner [00:44:54] for the city of New Port Richey. [00:44:56] As Ms. Mann says, what you have before you this evening [00:44:58] is a pre-annexation agreement. [00:45:00] with Hudson Bay Developers, LLC. [00:45:03] Hold on, I got my little thing here. [00:45:05] So as Ms. Mann says, this is property [00:45:07] that's located on Seaforest Drive, [00:45:08] and you can see it here on the map on the screen. [00:45:11] It's highlighted in red. [00:45:13] It's 18.9 acres on both sides of Seaforest Lane, [00:45:16] and it's adjacent to the city property there to the north [00:45:19] where the utility plant is, as you can see. [00:45:21] So that is the area that's being proposed [00:45:23] to be annexed into the city through voluntary annexation. [00:45:27] And the applicant is Hudson Bay Developers, LLC. [00:45:34] They are the contract purchasers of that property, [00:45:37] and they are here this evening. [00:45:39] In terms of your code and how you address annexations, [00:45:43] your code has basically a two-step process for annexations. [00:45:47] That we're in tonight, we're in step one, [00:45:49] which is the pre-annexation agreement. [00:45:50] And what this does is this just says that, [00:45:53] yes, the city is interested in annexing the property, [00:45:56] and the applicant wants to be annexed into the property. [00:45:59] So that's step one. [00:46:01] If the city council does approve [00:46:02] this pre-annexation agreement tonight, [00:46:05] then they would move into the second phase [00:46:07] of an annexation process here, [00:46:09] which is then they would actually submit [00:46:11] the formal petition for annexation [00:46:14] and go through that formal process, [00:46:16] which then would actually annex it into the city. [00:46:18] So right now, what's before you this evening [00:46:20] is just step one, where we're just, [00:46:22] the city is saying, yes, we do, [00:46:24] we would like to annex you into the property, [00:46:26] into the city. [00:46:28] And the general statements of the pre-annexation agreement, [00:46:31] just generally, again, as I said, [00:46:34] it's the applicant and the city's intention [00:46:35] for voluntary annexation. [00:46:37] They do provide us a proposed conceptual use plan, [00:46:40] or a conceptual plan for the property. [00:46:42] They also, it identifies the appropriate future land use [00:46:46] and zoning of the property within the city, [00:46:48] and also the acknowledgment of appropriate public services, [00:46:51] which I'll go over each of these issues here next. [00:46:55] So the next slide. [00:46:57] Again, a little bit more detail here. [00:46:58] We're at 18.9 acres, [00:47:01] adjacent to the city boundary, which is to the north. [00:47:03] It's on both sides of Seaforest Drive. [00:47:05] The proposed concept plan is 18 dwelling units [00:47:08] of a townhome and an apartment project. [00:47:10] We'll get more into that here in just a moment. [00:47:13] In terms of the density of that proposed project, [00:47:15] this is important. [00:47:16] It's only at 4.33 dwelling units per acre. [00:47:19] That's 82 units on 18.9 acres. [00:47:23] Why that's important is currently, [00:47:25] the county's adopted future land use on that property [00:47:28] allows for up to 24 dwelling units per acre. [00:47:32] When, if the city does annex this in, [00:47:34] we then have to basically match what the county has. [00:47:37] So when it would come into the city, [00:47:40] it would get assigned a future land use [00:47:42] of high-density residential 24, [00:47:44] which would match the county. [00:47:46] It wouldn't be any change to what the county has. [00:47:48] It would be the same if it came into the city. [00:47:51] However, they're proposing a development density [00:47:54] well under that limitation, or that maximum potential. [00:47:58] And why that's important, [00:47:59] because this is a coastal high hazard area, [00:48:00] and we don't want to increase development there. [00:48:02] So this is coming in well under that maximum density [00:48:06] that could go there. [00:48:10] In terms of the concept plan, [00:48:11] what's very important to understand here, too, [00:48:13] this is a concept plan only at this point in time. [00:48:16] We're not approving anything [00:48:19] in terms of what will actually happen on the property. [00:48:22] That'll still go through the next processes. [00:48:26] What'll happen is, if this gets approved tonight, [00:48:29] it goes through the annexation process. [00:48:32] They'll have to come back to the city council [00:48:34] for the future land use map amendment [00:48:36] to give it the 24 unit per acre land use. [00:48:39] It'll also have to come back to the city council [00:48:41] for the rezoning to the residential plan development zoning [00:48:44] for the property. [00:48:45] So this still will come back before you [00:48:47] for the actual development plan [00:48:49] if this does move forward through annexations. [00:48:53] Once they would go through that process, [00:48:55] then they would go through the city's site plan [00:48:57] review process and building permitting processes. [00:48:59] So there's still quite a few more steps after annexation [00:49:02] before something can actually get built out there. [00:49:05] And again, I'd just like to just reiterate, [00:49:07] pre-annexation does not approve anything for development. [00:49:10] This just says this is the intent, [00:49:12] and they still have to go through the next processes. [00:49:16] Here's the concept plan. [00:49:17] I know it's a little bit difficult to see on the screen. [00:49:19] It is in your packet, and the applicant is here. [00:49:24] There's my little point. [00:49:26] So here's Seaforest Drive. [00:49:27] So basically, here's the north piece, [00:49:29] and here's the south piece. [00:49:30] What they're proposing is apartments on the north side, [00:49:34] and then a townhome development here on the south side. [00:49:38] Staff has conceptually looked at it. [00:49:40] Generally, it does meet the city's codes. [00:49:43] We did not get into a detailed review yet. [00:49:45] We'll wait until it gets to that part of the process, [00:49:47] but generally, it does meet the city requirements. [00:49:50] This property does have quite a bit [00:49:52] of coastal wetlands through here, [00:49:53] and you can see they do their best working around that, [00:49:56] and that's how you see that layout [00:49:58] of those buildings in that area. [00:50:01] So that is the concept plan. [00:50:03] In total, there's 82 dwelling units being proposed. [00:50:08] In terms of public services, [00:50:09] that's important with annexations. [00:50:11] If this is annexed, then the city would be [00:50:13] the police, fires, and solid waste [00:50:15] would be provided by the city instead of the county. [00:50:17] That would then be a city-provided service. [00:50:20] However, related to utilities, the potable water and sewer, [00:50:22] this is in the FGOA service area. [00:50:25] So FGOA would be this provider of water [00:50:28] and sewer services to this property currently. [00:50:31] However, there was a discussion at the DRC. [00:50:35] In the future, there may be the opportunity [00:50:37] for the city to become the bulk water provider [00:50:39] for this area, but it will fall under the FGOA service area, [00:50:45] and that is the agreement that's before you. [00:50:48] I will say that the agreement that is before you [00:50:50] is the city's standard agreement [00:50:52] for properties that are in the FGOA service area. [00:50:57] In terms of the statutory requirements, [00:51:00] we looked at that preliminary [00:51:02] through this pre-annexation agreement [00:51:03] because we wanted to make sure this can be annexed [00:51:05] if this does get approved. [00:51:08] So under Florida statute, [00:51:10] there's requirements for voluntary annexation. [00:51:12] Basically, it has to be contiguous existing city boundary. [00:51:16] We can't create an enclave of unincorporated areas, [00:51:18] meaning we can't create a little island [00:51:19] of unincorporated areas surrounded by the city. [00:51:21] And also, the area is reasonably compact. [00:51:23] It's not linear serpentine looking. [00:51:25] It's a compact area. [00:51:27] And this property does meet those requirements. [00:51:29] It is contiguous. [00:51:31] It doesn't create an enclave, [00:51:32] and it is a relatively compact area. [00:51:35] So it does meet those statutory requirements [00:51:37] for annexation. [00:51:40] The next steps. [00:51:41] So if this does get approved [00:51:42] by the city council this evening, [00:51:44] what would happen next is the property owners [00:51:48] would then have to submit that formal petition [00:51:50] for annexation to the city, [00:51:52] consistent with the requirements of Florida statute. [00:51:55] So the next thing would happen [00:51:56] is they would submit that petition [00:51:57] for annexation to the city. [00:52:00] When we receive that, [00:52:01] when the city receives that petition, [00:52:03] we then have to notify Pasco County, [00:52:06] give them the opportunity to comment on it. [00:52:08] That is required by statute. [00:52:11] And I will tell you, [00:52:12] we've already talked to the county. [00:52:14] They are aware of this [00:52:15] and have already had preliminary conversations, [00:52:17] and I don't see any concerns or objections [00:52:19] from them at this point, [00:52:21] from preliminary conversations that we have had with them. [00:52:25] What will also have to happen is [00:52:27] we'll also have to do public noticing of the annexation, [00:52:30] which will be required. [00:52:32] Once all that noticing occurs, [00:52:33] it'll come back to the city council [00:52:35] for your public hearing to annex the property, [00:52:38] to approve the ordinance to annex in the property. [00:52:41] So that's that process. [00:52:43] What, how this will most likely move forward, [00:52:46] talking with the developer or the applicant, [00:52:48] is at the same time, [00:52:50] and they can do this under the statute, [00:52:53] when they come through with the annexation, [00:52:55] there will also be the small-scale [00:52:56] future land use map amendment [00:52:58] that would come before you, [00:53:00] as well as the rezoning. [00:53:01] So it'd be basically the whole package [00:53:03] is what you would get. [00:53:05] And that will also be reviewed [00:53:06] by your development review committee, [00:53:06] as well as your land development review board. [00:53:08] And then that'll come to you all for the final approval. [00:53:11] Just one quick note, [00:53:12] the small-scale future land use map amendment threshold [00:53:15] did get approved to get increased. [00:53:17] It's now 50 acres. [00:53:19] Before it was 10 acres, now it's 50 acres. [00:53:21] So this can now qualify as a small-scale amendment [00:53:24] under the new law, and that did take effect. [00:53:29] So that's my summary of my presentation. [00:53:31] Again, the DRC, we did review this, [00:53:33] and your staff, and we do make a recommendation [00:53:35] of approval of this pre-annexation agreement. [00:53:37] Again, the applicant and their team are here this evening [00:53:40] for any questions or any more information you may need. [00:53:42] Thank you. [00:53:43] Open it up for public comment. [00:53:46] Seeing no one come forward, [00:53:47] I'm going to bring it back to council. [00:53:50] Will, for full public disclosure, [00:53:55] the applicant has an office two doors down from mine. [00:53:57] They did ask me to come take a look at their drawings, [00:54:01] at which point I said they look lovely, [00:54:03] and I suggested they call Mrs. Manns [00:54:05] to get the ball rolling, so. [00:54:07] Move approval. [00:54:08] Second. [00:54:09] To the maker. [00:54:11] I think, welcome to the city, hopefully, [00:54:15] and thankfully the timing is good [00:54:17] with this small-scale amendment [00:54:19] to get to the 18 acres from the 10. [00:54:22] I am curious that, two things. [00:54:24] One, that you said, which we don't want, [00:54:26] which had to do with your resting on our comprehensive plan [00:54:32] as the intentions of the city, [00:54:35] that it indicates that we don't want [00:54:38] to have development in a high-hazard area, [00:54:41] but we do have something called transfer of density rights, [00:54:44] which I think we're using to potentially allow [00:54:47] some development if it was built right. [00:54:50] There's so much discussion about hardened structures [00:54:53] and the potential to stay in place [00:54:56] and build things in those areas [00:54:57] that are to a higher standard, higher construction standard, [00:55:01] so I'm not so sure that I would agree [00:55:03] that that continues to want to be our overall strategy, [00:55:09] other than that we want to make sure [00:55:10] that whatever we do in the high-hazard area [00:55:13] in the future will meet maybe a stronger standard, [00:55:15] which is there's a lot of discussion about that. [00:55:18] But it does cause me to say, [00:55:19] if they're not going to use all their densities, [00:55:22] it reminds me that the city paid [00:55:23] that million dollars for the 10 acres, [00:55:25] which I don't know that any of us were here [00:55:27] to participate in that when it happened, [00:55:29] but that's what we have, [00:55:32] and one of the reasons for buying it [00:55:34] was so that we could capture the density [00:55:37] to do and to put them into our bucket of potential rights. [00:55:44] So I would suggest that if there are rights [00:55:48] and they're not to be used, [00:55:50] that it's an issue that maybe the city [00:55:52] would want to look at to determine [00:55:53] whether it's going to collect some of these density rights [00:55:55] for its program that it has. [00:55:58] But I think it's great. [00:55:59] I look forward to hearing more about it. [00:56:01] Mr. Murphy. [00:56:02] Looking forward to seeing the final proposal. [00:56:06] Ditto on welcome to the city. [00:56:09] So I have a couple of questions for the applicant. [00:56:13] Yes, sir. [00:56:14] If you could come up to the mic, please. [00:56:25] Good evening. [00:56:26] Hi, so welcome. [00:56:28] Thank you for just a couple of questions. [00:56:29] So one question. [00:56:32] Why do you want to be in the city? [00:56:36] The A-team is in the city. [00:56:41] The rights in the city are more lenient. [00:56:45] The city needs more tax revenue. [00:56:49] And I did my last year of high school in the city, [00:56:53] Gulf High School, and I was here as a teenager. [00:56:58] So now I'm back, and I love Newport Ridge. [00:57:01] Good answer. [00:57:03] Okay, the A-team. [00:57:06] Barbara Wilhite, 6327 Grand Boulevard [00:57:10] is where my office is. [00:57:11] I'm proud to have my office down here, [00:57:13] about five blocks from Wyoming Avenue, where I grew up. [00:57:18] Your process and your leadership is outstanding. [00:57:21] I've been doing this for 25 years in Pasco, [00:57:25] and I'm excited to bring this client to you [00:57:28] with John Moody, who also has an office [00:57:31] next to my office on Grand Boulevard. [00:57:34] You're doing all the right things, [00:57:35] and I can't wait to do more projects with you. [00:57:39] I think that answers why they want to be in the city. [00:57:41] Okay, well that's good. [00:57:42] So now part two, right? [00:57:44] Two questions I have. [00:57:45] So, and thank you for entertaining my questions, [00:57:48] but so we have this land and property with a density [00:57:53] that you could build many more units [00:57:54] than you're proposing to build, right? [00:57:56] Correct. [00:57:57] And I think most times when you build more units [00:57:59] per square footage, you can reduce the cost, [00:58:01] or maybe create more profit. [00:58:03] So why are you looking to not take advantage [00:58:07] of the density there on that property? [00:58:09] Because we are not your cut and dry developers like that. [00:58:15] We want to create a brand, a luxury place, [00:58:18] a place where people want to go to live. [00:58:21] I presented the renderings the last time I was here. [00:58:27] I don't know if you saw them. [00:58:29] You know, they're going to be a place to live. [00:58:32] And also the apartment building will be, [00:58:37] oh, there you go. [00:58:38] Also the apartment building will be the sister of this. [00:58:42] Same look, same concept, but in an apartment building [00:58:46] with a gym, amenities, a three-hole chip and putt, [00:58:52] a swimming pool, these have docks. [00:58:55] We have 42 docks, slips, [00:59:00] and the apartments will have the same amenities as well [00:59:03] on their site, separate, except for the docks and the gulf. [00:59:09] They had me at the pictures at the beginning [00:59:12] if you had the pictures. [00:59:14] Thank you for sharing those. [00:59:15] Thank you. [00:59:17] So yeah, we don't do the density in areas like this. [00:59:23] This has to be luxury. [00:59:24] It's on the waterfront. [00:59:26] You know, we don't want to kill it. [00:59:29] Want it to be something nice. [00:59:33] Now if we're east of here, you know, [00:59:37] it's a different ballgame. [00:59:39] Is the apartment, so those are the townhomes. [00:59:41] These are the townhouses. [00:59:43] Parking is underneath, right? [00:59:44] Two car garage, rooftop deck, elevators. [00:59:47] And I couldn't tell from the drawings I saw, [00:59:49] the parking for the apartments are, are they? [00:59:52] They're underneath. [00:59:53] They're underneath as well, okay. [00:59:55] And outside, I think. [00:59:56] Yeah, there's outside. [00:59:57] I saw that space. [00:59:58] So there, I wanted to see if there was underneath as well. [01:00:00] Okay. Very nice. [01:00:01] No pickleball courts, though. [01:00:02] Well, you can go to... [01:00:03] Chip and putt. [01:00:04] Chip and putt. [01:00:05] So, yeah. [01:00:08] I mean, we're still tweaking it a little bit here. [01:00:11] That's the main concept. [01:00:13] Good luck. [01:00:14] Very cool. [01:00:15] We'll get this process started, I think, tonight. [01:00:17] Thank you. [01:00:18] Let's annex it tonight. [01:00:19] Welcome back to New Port Richey. [01:00:21] Thank you. [01:00:22] We have a motion and a second on the floor. [01:00:24] Is there any further discussion? [01:00:26] Hearing none, all those in favor, [01:00:28] please signify by saying aye. [01:00:30] Aye. [01:00:31] Opposed, like sign. [01:00:32] Motion passes. [01:00:34] See you soon.

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

15. 9.d

    Second Lease Extension Agreement w/Pasco County RE: Pine Hill Park

    approved

    Council approved a second one-year lease extension with Pasco County for the Pine Hill Park ball fields, extending the lease to July 26, 2022 or until a property transfer is executed, whichever occurs first. Staff updated council that appraisals are complete (ball fields at $1,140,000; downtown building at $1,050,000) and only an environmental assessment of the Main Street building remains before closing on the property swap.

    • motion:Approve second lease extension agreement with Pasco County for Pine Hill Park, extending the lease to July 26, 2022 or until property transfer is executed, whichever occurs first. (passed)

    📍Pine Hill Park ball fields📍building on Main Street📍old Red Cross building🏢Pasco County👤Murphy👤Peters#Ball field appraisal $1,140,000#Downtown building appraisal $1,050,000#Pine Hill Park property transfer

    ▶ Jump to 1:00:35 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:00:35] Thank you. [01:00:36] Thank you. [01:00:37] Next, we have a second lease extension agreement with Pasco County [01:00:40] regarding the Pine Hill Park. [01:00:45] The current lease agreement with Pasco County in relationship to the Pine Hill [01:00:51] ball fields is due to lapse on July 26, 2021. [01:00:58] Earlier this week, Pasco County took action to extend the lease agreement for a [01:01:06] one-year period of time. [01:01:09] Tonight, I am asking that you do the same thing and extend the lease to [01:01:16] terminate on July 26, 2022, or at which time a property transfer is executed or [01:01:26] whichever occurs first. [01:01:29] At this point, I'll update you on the property transfer and the documents have [01:01:38] all been drafted, the appraisals have been conducted, [01:01:43] and the final item that needs to be tended to is an environmental assessment [01:01:50] will be conducted on the building on Main Street. [01:01:54] Hopefully that will come back clean, and if that's the case, [01:02:00] we can proceed to closing. [01:02:02] Very good. [01:02:03] Open up for public comment. [01:02:05] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to Council. [01:02:08] Move for approval. [01:02:09] Second. [01:02:10] To the maker. [01:02:11] How close are the assessed values of the two different properties? [01:02:15] The ball field appraisal came in at $1,140,000, [01:02:23] and the appraisal on the downtown building came in at $1,050,000. [01:02:29] Almost as close as you could have gotten. [01:02:32] That means they can throw in the old Red Cross building then, huh? [01:02:36] To be second. [01:02:40] To be second? [01:02:42] Anything? [01:02:43] I think that's great. [01:02:44] Mr. Murphy? [01:02:45] No, I was looking forward to the final product there. [01:02:47] Mr. Peters? [01:02:48] It can't happen fast enough. [01:02:49] You couldn't have those numbers as close as that if you'd tried. [01:02:54] If there's no further discussion, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:02:57] Aye. [01:02:58] Aye. [01:02:59] Opposed, like sign. [01:03:00] 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.

16. 9.e

    Cottages at Oyster Bayou Final Plat Approval - Revised

    approved

    Council approved the revised final plat for Cottages at Oyster Bayou, a 58-unit cottage/RV project north of Green Key Road between Manor Beach and Heaven's Way. The revision was needed because Pasco County required Heaven's Way right-of-way to be widened from ~30 feet to 50 feet, slightly reducing lot one and drainage tract E. A future minor amendment to the PDD ordinance will follow.

    • motion:Move to approve the revised final plat for Cottages at Oyster Bayou. (passed)

    📍north of Green Key Road between Manor Beach and Heaven's Way🏢Pasco County🏢Precision Land Surveying and Mapping🏢Way Trim👤Ariano👤Brad Cornelius👤John Robbins👤Mr. Dumas👤Mr. Murphy👤Ms. Mann#Cottages at Oyster Bayou#Green Key Park trail discussion#PDD ordinance (plan development ordinance) minor amendment#Pasco County substandard road process

    ▶ Jump to 1:03:01 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:03:01] Next, cottages at Oyster Bayou. [01:03:03] Mr. Bayou, final plat approval. [01:03:06] This is a final plat approval revised, [01:03:13] and it is going to be presented by Brad Cornelius for property north of Green Key Road [01:03:24] between Manor Beach and Heaven's Way, and it's for cottage units with RV parking. [01:03:31] I think we ended up with 58 units there. [01:03:34] That's correct. [01:03:35] And please go forward with the presentation. [01:03:37] We have the applicant in attendance this evening. [01:03:40] All right. [01:03:41] Again, Brad Cornelius with Way Trim, your contracted planner. [01:03:44] Again, as Ms. Mann said, [01:03:46] tonight is your consideration of revised final plat for the cottages Oyster Bayou. [01:03:51] As you all may remember, back in December, [01:03:55] you did do an approval of the final plat with a condition related to Heaven's Way. [01:04:01] At the time when this came before you for the final plat back in December, [01:04:05] there was an issue identified at the last moment that the right-of-way for Heaven's Way, [01:04:09] which is a Pasco County road, maintained road within their system, [01:04:14] was not appropriately depicted on the plat. [01:04:18] It was actually a wider right-of-way than what the plat had shown. [01:04:23] So when you did approve it then, the condition was to have that issue be resolved. [01:04:29] So what's been happening since December is Mr. Dumas and his development team [01:04:34] have been working through that process with Pasco County, [01:04:37] and we're happy to come to you tonight. [01:04:39] It's finally been resolved with them. [01:04:44] And what happened to the right-of-way is on the original plat, [01:04:48] it was roughly about 30 feet was shown on the original plat for Heaven's Way. [01:04:52] The county is requiring that right-of-way to be 50 feet, which is the standard. [01:04:56] So he's had to widen that right-of-way, which impacted his plat. [01:05:02] So what's happened is he's had to revise the plat to change the depiction of Heaven's Way. [01:05:08] I will say we were hoping at the time in December that the county would accept that 30 feet that he showed [01:05:13] and we wouldn't have to change anything. [01:05:15] But unfortunately, he does, so that's why it's back before you. [01:05:18] He had to change the depiction of the right-of-way. [01:05:21] Now what happened, though, when that right-of-way had to get adjusted and get widened, [01:05:26] it did impact two of his properties. [01:05:28] It reduced the size of lot one, and it also reduced the size of one of the drainage tracks, [01:05:33] drainage tract E. [01:05:36] So that was the impact of that. [01:05:41] What the county, though, has done since that time, they have reviewed this final plat, [01:05:46] this revised final plat, and they have verified that this final plat is correct. [01:05:51] It does correctly depict Heaven's Way right-of-way, [01:05:54] and they have no objection to the city approving this final plat before you this evening. [01:06:00] A couple more issues just to make the council aware. [01:06:03] In discussion with the developer with this impact to lot one, where it's being made smaller, [01:06:10] that lot will actually be limited to the use of guests to the project only. [01:06:15] It's really not large enough now to park a full-size RV on there because of this reduction in the size. [01:06:21] So there will be a limitation on that use of lot one. [01:06:25] The drainage tract E also is slightly reduced, but there's really no impact to the drainage on the site. [01:06:31] They've compensated for that within their development, [01:06:34] so there really is no issue with the impact to that drainage tract. [01:06:38] But it is changed on your plat, and that's why it's before you this evening. [01:06:42] As Ms. Mann says, the number of lots aren't changing. [01:06:45] It's still 58. [01:06:46] The amenities aren't changing. [01:06:48] They're still having their recreation area. [01:06:50] All those things are still staying. [01:06:51] Nothing is changing with this project. [01:06:55] In the future, you will see in an upcoming meeting with the city attorney, [01:07:01] we will be bringing forward a minor amendment to the plan development ordinance [01:07:06] for this project to reflect this change as well, [01:07:08] just so we have a consistency with that PDD ordinance, the plan development ordinance, with this plat. [01:07:13] So that will be coming to you in the future. [01:07:16] But that doesn't impact the ability to approve this plat this evening. [01:07:21] And the other issue with Pasco County, just so that this council is aware, [01:07:25] what the developer had to do is they had to go through the county's substandard road process. [01:07:30] Because as you all know, Green Key Road is a substandard roadway, as well as Heaven's Way. [01:07:35] And that's what Mr. Dumas and his team have been dealing with for the last few months. [01:07:40] The end result of that is the county is requiring the developer [01:07:45] to make a proportionate share of payment to the county [01:07:49] to fund potential future improvements to Green Key Road and to Heaven's Way. [01:07:54] So the developer is not required to fix Green Key Road, because it's already a problem, [01:07:59] but the developer is being required by the county to make a payment to them [01:08:03] to fund future improvements to that roadway. [01:08:06] So that is part of their approval with the county for their impacts to those roadways. [01:08:14] Again, it doesn't impact the plat and what we're doing here at the city. [01:08:18] This is an issue between the county and the developer, being that that is a county road. [01:08:24] This is the revised plat. [01:08:26] So the only change that's happening that I just described, this is Heaven's Way right here. [01:08:32] So initially Heaven's Way was probably about in this area here, kind of where that center line is. [01:08:38] Is it larger at all? [01:08:42] Thank you. And if you can kind of zoom over to that area. [01:08:46] Perfect. [01:08:48] Thank you. [01:08:49] Perfect. [01:08:50] Perfect. [01:08:51] So this is lot one, and this is the drainage track that's being impacted. [01:08:55] So initially lot one would have come down about to here, but because of that additional right-of-way, [01:09:01] it cuts into lot one, which reduces it in size. [01:09:05] And then drainage track F, or E, I'm sorry, here, it would basically come down this way, [01:09:11] a little corner of that's being taken away with that right-of-way. [01:09:14] So that's the only change. [01:09:16] That is the change on the plat is just this widening of Heaven's Way and the reduction of this lot [01:09:21] and a small reduction in that lot as well. [01:09:24] So that is the change to the plat. [01:09:29] My final is in conclusion. [01:09:31] Oh, that's right. [01:09:32] In conclusion, this did go through your development review committee. [01:09:35] The development review committee did review this, and they did recommend approval of the revised plat. [01:09:41] This was also reviewed by the city's contracted surveyor, John Robbins, [01:09:45] of Precision Land Surveying and Mapping. [01:09:47] He's required to review it per Florida statute. [01:09:50] He has reviewed it for consistency with Florida statute, and he has signed it, [01:09:54] so it has been approved by the surveyor. [01:09:56] And also, as I said before, Pasco County has also verified that they do agree with the depiction of Heaven's Way [01:10:01] and have no objection to the plat being approved by the council this evening. [01:10:05] With that, that's my presentation. [01:10:07] I'd be happy to answer any questions. [01:10:09] Open up for public comment. [01:10:12] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to council. [01:10:16] Move for approval. [01:10:17] Second. [01:10:18] To the maker. [01:10:19] I'm looking forward to that whole unit. [01:10:21] That brings a different clientele to the city, I think. [01:10:25] Second. [01:10:26] RVs. [01:10:27] It looks like that lot one, what's that going to be, a tiny house and a teardrop camper? [01:10:32] I'm not asking. [01:10:34] I'm just kidding. [01:10:36] But it might work. [01:10:38] That's actually a valid question. [01:10:39] Because of the reduction in lot one, that's really the requirement for the amendment to the PDD. [01:10:45] So you'll have an opportunity to address how that can be used, [01:10:48] because the use of that is going to be modified as a result of the dramatic decrease in the size of that lot. [01:10:55] Just a thought, then. [01:10:57] Mr. Murphy? [01:10:59] The change in the drainage track E, our whole parcel is good as far as the drainage, [01:11:07] but the county wanted extra funding for substandard roads to put in a fund. [01:11:12] Has the county addressed flooding also or drainage on their part? [01:11:16] I was not part of that process. [01:11:18] I don't know if Mr. Dumas, the applicant, if he can provide information. [01:11:21] Because Mr. Dumas did go through that process with the county. [01:11:31] They're making you put in a fund for substandard roads, like in a county park, to help in the future if they need it. [01:11:36] Does that include drainage also? [01:11:39] As far as drainage on Green Key? [01:11:41] There's a lot of flooding around there. [01:11:44] We're good where you're at, but I know there's a lot of flooding in part of New Port Richey, too. [01:11:50] They had me do a study from 19 into the west side of my project, [01:11:57] and the bulk of it was to widen it to a 20-foot road. [01:12:01] Some part widened it 2 feet, some part widening it 3 feet, some part it was okay. [01:12:06] That was their biggest thing, not so much drainage. [01:12:09] There was a previous agreement that I fix the drainage along my property, [01:12:16] which we plan on doing as we fix that, [01:12:19] which will alleviate a lot of the issue coming down Manor Beach and around the corner. [01:12:25] That will be taken care of as soon as they give me my right-of-way use permit. [01:12:28] Then I can put that culvert in and fix the drainage through there. [01:12:32] But that was separate from this issue. [01:12:34] We're doing our part, but I know they need to invest a little and fix the area around that, too. [01:12:40] I offered to pave all the area in front of my site and Heaven's Way [01:12:47] to expedite the process and simplify it, and that was an option. [01:12:51] They said, do the study, and it came back. [01:12:54] Give me the money, and we'll do it later. [01:12:56] It came back financially in my favor from what I offered was about $40,000 of work, [01:13:01] and what we'll pay will be a little bit less than that. [01:13:05] There were a couple of questions in there. [01:13:07] I know it was probably fun dealing with the county there. [01:13:11] Not so much. [01:13:13] Did they give you any indication of a timetable when they planned to repave Green Key Road? [01:13:18] They didn't indicate it at all. [01:13:20] I had heard it was on the books for 2022. [01:13:25] The other part, follow-up to the question, Ed, did they talk to you about it? [01:13:30] What is the right-of-way there between your property and Green Key Road? [01:13:34] Do you know about what that is? [01:13:35] Is it only 10 feet? [01:13:37] From the back of my property to Green Key, I believe that one's 25 feet. [01:13:43] Okay, I must just not be interpreting this correctly. [01:13:46] That might be the center line and be included in that, [01:13:50] because I think there has been some discussion about a trail alongside Green Key Road, [01:13:59] and so my concern was is there still going to be room there when they go about doing that, [01:14:07] because I think part of the city owns some of that Green Key Road is near the U.S. 19 area. [01:14:16] We don't go too far west, but we go a little ways, right? [01:14:19] Right. [01:14:21] And so I think I've heard some discussion that the county might be considering a trail to Green Key Park, [01:14:30] and I don't know which side of the road they're going to put it on. [01:14:32] I'm just trying to get a clarification. [01:14:34] I did hear some of that from one of the county commissioners. [01:14:38] Ariano? [01:14:39] Yeah, but none of the officials said anything about it. [01:14:44] Okay. [01:14:45] We will have room for it if that's part of it. [01:14:50] It would be beneficial to your property. [01:14:53] Right. [01:14:54] Okay. [01:14:56] Chauffeur, anything else? [01:14:57] Thank you. [01:14:58] Good luck, Val. [01:14:59] There's no further discussion. [01:15:00] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Opposed, like sign. Motion passes. Next, request for equitable use funds to pay for a parking lot resealing.

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

17. 9.f

    Request to Use Equitable Sharing Funds to Pay for Parking Lot Resealing

    approved

    Council approved use of equitable sharing funds in the amount of $6,474.47 to pay Yellow Dog Asphalt for resealing and striping the police department parking areas, as requested by Chief Bogart.

    • motion:Approve use of equitable sharing funds in the amount of $6,474.47 to pay for police department parking lot resealing and striping by Yellow Dog Asphalt. (passed)

    🏢Yellow Dog Asphalt👤Altman👤Chief Bogart#Equitable Sharing Funds#Police Department parking lot resealing

    ▶ Jump to 1:15:10 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:15:11] Resealing and striping at the police department parking areas. Chief Bogart is requesting to use equitable sharing monies in the amount of $6,474.47. [01:15:29] Any questions about the items to pay for these repairs? Chief Bogart is available and can respond to those questions. [01:15:43] No. Okay, open up for public comment. Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to Council. Move for approval. Second. [01:15:51] Yellow dog asphalt. To the maker. A lot less than $6,000 compared to what we're spending on a parking garage and behind the Ritchie Suncoast Theater, but let's go for this. Second. [01:16:03] You need striping? Do you have a meter made or anything to make sure they don't park on the stripes? We're doing the stripes. [01:16:12] Mr. Altman? No. In that case, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Motion passes. [01:16:21] Request to use equitable sharing money to pay for bicycle enclosure fencing. Chief wants to spend more equitable sharing funds. Yes. [01:16:33] And he would like to work with Keeler Landscaping to establish a fencing closure at the Police Department to securely store property and evidence that he takes into custody at a cost of $3,260. [01:16:52] We'll open it up for public comment. Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to Council. Move for approval. Second. To the maker.

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

18. 9.g

    Request to Use Equitable Sharing Monies to Pay for Bicycle Enclosure Fencing

    approved

    Council approved a request to use Equitable Sharing Monies to pay for bicycle enclosure fencing at the Police Department. Staff explained that by statute the city must securely maintain recovered property such as bicycles, and the secure aluminum enclosure is also a mandatory accreditation requirement.

    • motion:Approve use of Equitable Sharing Monies to pay for bicycle enclosure fencing at the Police Department. (passed)

    👤Murphy👤Peters#Equitable Sharing Monies#Police Department bicycle enclosure#mandatory accreditation requirement

    ▶ Jump to 1:17:01 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:17:02] Chopper, I think you were the second. You're all fenced in, I don't understand. [01:17:10] I'll respond to that. Anytime by statute, anytime we take custody of property, we're obligated to maintain it in the same condition that we got it, whether it's found property or stolen property that we recover. [01:17:23] And bicycles are recovered all the time, literally hundreds of them throughout the course of the year. And we have to maintain them securely and protect them. [01:17:36] So they're going to be under an aluminum enclosure as well as secured because someone could hop the fence and toss a bike over it and we wouldn't know. [01:17:47] And then we would be obligated to reimburse. And it is, by the way, a mandatory accreditation requirement. [01:17:57] Mr. Murphy, you're the second. Second. No, I'm good. Mr. Peters? Are you really going to steal from the Police Department? [01:18:08] You think they got the bikes to begin with? [01:18:15] I will entertain an additional motion to declare the police parking area as a public nuisance. [01:18:24] If there's no further discussion on the motion, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. [01:18:32] Motion passes. Next, 2019-2020 Gravity Sewer Pipelining Project Closeout.

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

19. 9.h

    ↳You arrived here from a search for “Mr. Rivera” — transcript expanded below

    2019/2020 Gravity Sewer Pipe Lining Project Closeout

    approved

    Council approved a change order of $10,162 from Granite Inliner LLC for additional sanitary sewer pipe lining work identified in the Tanglewood Terrace area, and approved the final project cost of $143,420.50 for the 2019/2020 Gravity Sewer Pipe Lining Project.

    • motion:Approve the change order of $10,162 from Granite Inliner LLC and the final project cost of $143,420.50. (passed)

    📍Tanglewood Terrace🏢Granite Inliner LLC👤Altman👤Manns👤Murphy👤Rivera#2019/2020 Gravity Sewer Pipe Lining Project

    ▶ Jump to 1:18:38 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:18:38] Mr. Rivera has a change order request, which he'll be presenting to you. [01:18:43] Thank you, Ms. Manns. So this item is a request to consider for the approval of the attached change order that's submitted by Granite Inliner LLC. [01:18:53] It's in the amount of $10,162, and we're also requesting that you approve the final project cost of $143,420.50. [01:19:05] This is part of our annual sewer lining project. While crews were out in the field, it was around the Tanglewood Terrace area that's across from Golf High. [01:19:17] They identified a couple additional sanitary sewer pipes that were in need of immediate attention. [01:19:23] We did not have any owner's contingency on here, and so that's what's created the change order that we are requesting and recommending that you approve. [01:19:32] Thank you. I'll open it up for public comment. Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to Council. [01:19:38] I move we approve. Second. To the maker. [01:19:42] Got to fix it. Mr. Murphy, I believe you were the second. Maintenance, maintenance. Mr. Altman. [01:19:49] Stay ahead of the game. In that case, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. 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.

20. 9.i

    Wastewater Treatment Plant/Water Treatment Plant Bulk Chemical Purchase ITB21-008 Award

    approved

    Council awarded ITB21-008 for bulk sodium hypochlorite purchase to low bidder Allied Universal Corporation at $0.66/gallon, an increase from the current $0.125/gallon, resulting in roughly $21,000/year more for the wastewater plant and $16,000/year more for the water plant.

    • motion:Approve award of ITB21-008 bulk chemical purchase to Allied Universal Corporation. (passed)

    🏢Allied Universal Corporation👤Murphy👤Peters👤Rivera#ITB21-008#Sodium hypochlorite bulk chemical purchase

    ▶ Jump to 1:19:57 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:19:57] Motion passes. Next, wastewater treatment plant, water treatment plant, bulk chemical purchase, 1 TB 21-008 award. [01:20:09] Which is for hypochlorite or sodium hypochlorite, and we opened three competitive bids on June 11th, 2021. [01:20:21] The apparent low bidder was Allied Universal Corporation, and their bid for the sodium hypochlorite was .66 a gallon. [01:20:37] That was an increase over our current price of .125 cents per gallon. [01:20:44] That aggregates to an increase of $21,000 per year for our wastewater treatment plant and $16,000 a year for our water treatment plant. [01:20:58] The performance standards of the product were verified, and Mr. Rivera has indicated that he is recommending in favor of the low bid for the chemical purchase. [01:21:18] Open it up for public comment. Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to Council. [01:21:24] Move approval. Second. To the maker? No, sir. Second. [01:21:28] Is this an annual thing, or is it like a three-year contract? [01:21:32] It's a contract. Right now, I don't have the term, but it's like a three-year, typical three-year with a renewal. [01:21:40] Okay. Mr. Peters? Nothing, sir. Mr. Murphy? Good. [01:21:45] In that case, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. [01:21:51] Motion passes. Next is Department of Economic Development Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Program,

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

21. 9.j

    Department of Economic Development Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Program

    approved

    Council adopted six resolutions (2021-40 through 2021-45) required to participate in the Florida Department of Economic Development's Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Program, covering grievance procedures, small/women-owned/minority business employment, anti-displacement, citizen participation, purchasing policy, and protection of nonviolent civil rights demonstrators. The City has been awarded $800,000, with funding expected around September.

    • vote:Adopt Resolution 2021-40 establishing complaints and grievances procedures under the CDBG Program. (passed)
    • vote:Adopt Resolution 2021-41 adopting a policy for employment of small, women-owned and minority businesses for CDBG administration. (passed)
    • vote:Adopt Resolution 2021-42 establishing an anti-displacement and relocation policy. (passed)
    • vote:Adopt Resolution 2021-43 adopting a citizen participation policy for the CDBG Program. (passed)
    • vote:Adopt Resolution 2021-44 adopting a city purchasing policy including a minority business enterprise policy for CDBG administration. (passed)
    • vote:Adopt Resolution 2021-45 adopting a policy protecting individuals engaging in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations. (passed)
    • direction:Mayor asked the City Attorney to look into why the city-owned cemetery on Pine Hill Road has never been annexed into the city. (none)

    📍Pine Hill Road🏢Rotary Club👤Debbie Manns👤Mr. Altman👤Mr. Driscoll👤Mr. Murphy👤Mr. Peters#$800,000 CDBG award#Community Development Block Grant Small Cities Program#Resolution 2021-40#Resolution 2021-41#Resolution 2021-42#Resolution 2021-43#Resolution 2021-44#Resolution 2021-45

    ▶ Jump to 1:21:58 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:21:58] and I am told that this is a block of separate items that we have to deal with separately, [01:22:04] so I'm going to turn this over to our city attorney and let him walk us through this. [01:22:10] All right. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There are six resolutions. [01:22:13] Debbie, I was going to let you introduce the overall item, Deb, [01:22:17] and I just wanted to weigh in that we need to vote on each of these resolutions separately, [01:22:21] and I'll need to read the title for each resolution separately. [01:22:24] Very good. Go ahead, Mr. Mayor. Debbie can explain why we're looking at these. [01:22:27] All right. Well, the reason that we are requesting that these resolutions be approved this evening [01:22:36] is because we have decided and applied to participate in the Community Development Block Grant Small Cities Program [01:22:46] through the Department of Economic Development, and in order to be eligible to serve, I'm sorry, [01:22:55] to participate in the program, we have to pass six resolutions, [01:23:00] and the resolutions are as identified in my communication to you [01:23:08] and will be identified specifically by the city attorney, [01:23:14] but they relate to the administration of the program and some other federal laws in respect to the use of funds [01:23:28] and the hiring of small women-owned and minority businesses and other items of concern [01:23:42] and we are asking that you approve the resolution so that we can go forward with our administrative requirements, I should say, [01:23:54] and get the block grant money into our hands so that we can start to provide the assistance. [01:24:01] Those funds were intended to provide to our residents. [01:24:06] Very good. Sir. [01:24:08] All right. Mr. Mayor, the first resolution is Resolution Number 2021-40, [01:24:13] a resolution of the City Council of the City of New Port Richey, Florida, [01:24:16] adopting procedures relating to complaints and grievances under the city's Community Development Block Grant Program [01:24:22] and providing an effective date. [01:24:25] This is a public hearing. We'll open it up for public comment at this point. [01:24:31] Seeing no one coming forward, we will close the public hearing and bring it back to Council. [01:24:37] I move for approval. [01:24:39] Second. [01:24:40] To the maker? [01:24:41] No, sir. [01:24:42] To the second? [01:24:43] No. [01:24:44] To the second? [01:24:45] Second. [01:24:46] Mr. Peters? [01:24:47] No. [01:24:48] In that case, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:24:50] Aye. [01:24:51] Opposed, like sign. [01:24:52] Mr. Driscoll. [01:24:53] Next is Resolution Number 2021-41, a resolution of the City Council of the City of New Port Richey, Florida, [01:24:58] adopting a policy relating to the employment of small women-owned and minority businesses [01:25:03] for use in administering Community Development Block Grants, [01:25:07] adopting a policy relating to the employment of minorities by the City of New Port Richey, [01:25:11] providing definitions, defining an action plan, and providing an effective date. [01:25:16] We'll open this up for public hearing. [01:25:20] Seeing no one coming forward, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to Council. [01:25:24] I move for approval. [01:25:25] Second. [01:25:26] To the maker? [01:25:27] How tall is a small woman? [01:25:32] To the second? [01:25:33] Oh, okay. [01:25:37] No. [01:25:38] Okay. [01:25:39] Mr. Murphy? [01:25:40] Mr. Peters? [01:25:41] No comment. [01:25:44] In that case, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:25:47] Aye. [01:25:48] Opposed, like sign. [01:25:50] Next is Resolution Number 2021-42, [01:25:53] and this is simply an anti-displacement and relocation policy for the City of New Port Richey. [01:26:00] This is a public hearing. [01:26:01] I'll open it up for public comment. [01:26:04] Seeing no one coming forward, bring it back to Council. [01:26:07] I move for approval. [01:26:08] Second. [01:26:09] To the maker? [01:26:10] Nothing. [01:26:11] Second. [01:26:12] Just a brief, tell me about what we're committing to here by the non-displacement. [01:26:22] If we displace anyone as a result of any block grant-related assistance, [01:26:31] we will provide them with rental assistance, [01:26:35] and if their rent is more than what they're used to paying, we'll pay them a differential. [01:26:42] Got it. [01:26:43] Thank you. [01:26:44] Mr. Murphy? [01:26:45] No. [01:26:46] Mr. Peters? [01:26:47] No. [01:26:48] Any further discussion? [01:26:50] Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:26:53] Aye. [01:26:54] Opposed, like sign. [01:26:55] Next, Mr. Driscoll. [01:26:56] This is Resolution 2021-43, [01:26:59] a resolution of the City Council of the City of New Port Richey, Florida, [01:27:02] adopting a policy relating to citizens' participation in the City's Community Development Block Grant Program, [01:27:09] defining an action plan, and providing an effective date. [01:27:12] Public hearing. [01:27:13] I'll open it up for public comment. [01:27:15] Seeing no one come forward, I will bring it back to Council. [01:27:19] Move for approval. [01:27:20] Second. [01:27:21] To the maker? [01:27:22] Nothing. [01:27:23] Second? [01:27:24] No. [01:27:25] Mr. Altman? [01:27:26] No, sir. [01:27:27] Mr. Peters? [01:27:28] No. [01:27:29] In that case, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:27:30] Aye. [01:27:31] Opposed, like sign. [01:27:32] Motion passes. [01:27:33] Next one, Mr. Driscoll. [01:27:34] All right. [01:27:35] This is Resolution 2021-44, [01:27:38] a resolution of the City Council of the City of New Port Richey, Florida, [01:27:41] adopting a policy relating to city purchases, [01:27:44] including a minority business enterprise policy for use in administering community development block grants, [01:27:49] providing definitions, defining an action plan, and providing an effective date. [01:27:53] Open it up as a public hearing. [01:27:55] Any public comment? [01:27:57] Seeing none, bring it back to Council. [01:27:59] Move for approval. [01:28:00] Second. [01:28:01] To the maker? [01:28:02] Nothing. [01:28:03] Second? [01:28:04] No, sir. [01:28:05] Mr. Murphy? [01:28:06] Good. [01:28:07] Mr. Peters? [01:28:08] Yes, sir. [01:28:09] In that case, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:28:10] Aye. [01:28:11] Aye. [01:28:12] Opposed, like sign. [01:28:13] Motion passes. [01:28:14] Mr. Driscoll? [01:28:15] And finally, we have Resolution 2021-45, [01:28:18] a resolution of the City of New Port Richey, Florida, [01:28:21] adopting a policy for the protection of individuals engaging in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations, [01:28:26] repealing all resolutions in conflict herewith, and providing for an effective date. [01:28:31] It's a public hearing. [01:28:32] Open it up for public comment. [01:28:34] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to Council. [01:28:37] Move approval. [01:28:38] Second. [01:28:39] To the maker? [01:28:40] Have we checked with the Governor to see if this is okay? [01:28:43] It's a federal law. [01:28:45] To the second. [01:28:47] These are funded mandates as opposed to unfunded mandates. [01:28:51] Yes. [01:28:52] We're taking money, right? [01:28:53] We're taking money. [01:28:54] Mr. Peters, anything? [01:28:55] No, sir. [01:28:56] Mr. Chuck? [01:28:57] Mr. Murphy? [01:28:58] I'm good. [01:28:59] I'm glad to know we'll follow this one as well in spite of people with unfunded mandates. [01:29:08] If there's no further discussion, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:29:12] Aye. [01:29:13] Opposed, like sign. [01:29:14] Motion passes. [01:29:16] Anything else on this, Mr. Driscoll? [01:29:18] That's it. [01:29:19] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. [01:29:20] How fast is this going to grow or develop or get back to us? [01:29:25] Ms. Vance? [01:29:28] How fast or how long is this program going to get back to us after we've done this? [01:29:34] There are several steps still involved before the funding will be released. [01:29:39] My expectation at this point is that it will be about September. [01:29:44] Could you give a quick review? [01:29:46] This is the three-quarters of a million dollar housing CDBG fund or whatever? [01:29:51] It's been awarded $800,000. [01:29:54] Right. [01:29:55] Yes. [01:29:56] Cool. [01:29:57] Thanks. [01:29:58] Okay. [01:29:59] We're now to communications. [01:30:00] and reports. I continue to receive comments from people most recently when I was speaking [01:30:07] at a Rotary Club about how great they love the things that are happening in the city, [01:30:12] and I told them as much as I'd like to claim credit. It's been a group effort, and I want [01:30:17] to make sure that you all know that I thank you publicly for everything that you guys [01:30:22] do sitting up here. I had a question about annexation, and it seems a little odd to me. [01:30:31] We have a piece of city property up on Pine Hill Road, which is a cemetery, and it's owned [01:30:40] by the city, but it's in the county, and I'm not sure why the city's never annexed it. [01:30:47] I don't think the residents would complain. I don't think they'd show up for a public hearing. [01:31:00] You guys are all getting my sense of humor. Can we schedule this one for Halloween? [01:31:08] Yeah, it's because I'm sitting too close to you, I think. But seriously, I have no idea [01:31:14] why it has never been made part of the city of New Port Richey. It just seems sort of [01:31:20] odd. I mean, the Boy Scout troops from the city go out there and put flags up for Veterans [01:31:26] Day and Memorial Day and all that stuff. It's maintained by the city, but it's in the county. [01:31:31] I've never looked at it, but I'd be willing to do so. [01:31:34] Okay. [01:31:35] Do we pay property tax on it? [01:31:36] Well, we're a city, so we don't pay property tax anyway, and it says the county shouldn't [01:31:41] complain. [01:31:42] Only the residents do. [01:31:43] Yeah. The county shouldn't complain, because they're not collecting any property taxes [01:31:47] on it now anyway. It just seems sort of odd that it wasn't ever part of the city. If you [01:31:58] could look into that, that would be wonderful. [01:31:59] I will.

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

22. 10Communications▶ 1:32:00
23. 11Adjournment▶ 2:23:37