On the agenda

1. 10.a

   Second Reading, Ordinance No. 2021-2245: Conditional Use for 6218 US Highway 19 RE: Hotel

   Second reading of Ordinance 2021-2245 granting a conditional use for a Comfort Suites hotel at 6218 US Highway 19. The applicant Paul also announced Marriott approval for a Spring Hill Suites with rooftop on the Magnuson property, projecting a $40 million, 90-room project with groundbreaking within 45 days and opening targeted for March 2023.

   Ord. Ordinance No. 2021-2245

   📍6218 US Highway 19🏢Comfort Suites🏢Hilton🏢Kaiser🏢Magnuson🏢Marriott🏢Spring Hill Suites by Marriott👤Bill👤Dale👤Debbie👤Paul#City height restrictions#Conditional Use#Gulf Harbors height comparison#Ordinance No. 2021-2245

   ▶ Jump to 0:00 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:00] If Paul is willing to share, he had received some very good news today on [00:00:06] another deal that he's working on in the city. If you're ready to share. Okay, so I [00:00:13] know we're here for the comfort suites, but you know the Magnus and everything, [00:00:17] we were approved today by Marriott to put a Marriott flag hotel on the [00:00:21] property, and that's, I would say, 100% happening. Wow. So, comfort suites first, right? [00:00:32] I have a question. Yeah. I'm not much of a talker, more of a builder, but Debbie and [00:00:40] everybody, the front staff here, has been, you know, very welcome. Build hotels [00:00:49] everywhere, and just want to say thank you. Happy 29th birthday. If everything [00:01:04] goes good, you know, we'd like to break ground probably in within 45 days. We'll [00:01:10] submit the plans and, you know, move. So, we'd like to be open for March of 2023, hit the [00:01:23] season, and the guys, Dale and Bill for Kaiser, have been real good to work with. [00:01:35] It's a good fit. I'm not much of a choice hotel fan. I've always been a Hilton guy, [00:01:44] but this brand, it's a new prototype, and it fits well, and what you're all doing [00:01:50] to the city, it'll be a good addition. And then, we have big plans for the [00:01:56] Magnus, and I'm sorry that been a lot of problems, but we're almost there. We're [00:02:03] drawing, we're doing bylaws right now, and Debbie's been helping tremendously, so [00:02:10] it's gonna be a great addition. So, Bill, we got approved for Spring Hill Suites by [00:02:17] Marriott today, with the rooftop part. It'd be real nice. Very cool. So, we're planning on spending $40 million. [00:02:26] How many units will be there? 90 rooms. [00:02:34] Yeah, I think when you presented the first time, you indicated the size that it fit within the city's height [00:02:41] restrictions, and I noticed across from you, not too far, in the Gulf Harbors is [00:02:47] a taller building, and I just want to ask whether or not that height restriction [00:02:52] is of, well, this is probably not the appropriate time to say, but I, you said [00:02:59] you would build within our limits, and you know, our city can only grow in one [00:03:03] direction at this point, so I'm curious to have that discussion with my [00:03:07] colleagues at some point. If you have any opinions, if you would share them with [00:03:11] the management, I'd like to hear them. Thank you. Thank you.

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

2. 10.b

   Second Reading, Ordinance No. 2021-2246: Amendments to Police Pension Ordinance

   discussed

   Second reading of Ordinance No. 2021-2246 amending the Police Officers Retirement System. The ordinance updates the definition of retirement to commence at entry into the DROP program, allows DROP participants to serve on the Board of Trustees but not vote for elected trustees, and updates the required distribution age from 70½ to 72 to conform with IRS code changes. The actuarial firm determined no cost impact.

   Ord. Ordinance No. 2021-2246

   🏢Gabriel Roeder Smith👤Ms. Manz#Chapter 17, Article 4 of the Code of Ordinances#Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP)#Ordinance No. 2021-2246#Police Officers Retirement System#Section 17-51#Section 17-53#Section 17-56#Section 17-57#Section 17-60#Section 17-65.1

   ▶ Jump to 3:15 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:03:18] So, any other public comment? Seeing nobody else come forward, I'll bring it back to Council. [00:03:24] Move for approval. Second. To the maker. I just want to know if you have shovels for each one of us up here tonight. [00:03:31] We'll be down there. To the second. No, sir. Mr. Murphy. Looking forward on that. That's huge news at the [00:03:39] old Magnuson, so that's awesome. Councilman? Looking forward to it. In that case, if [00:03:47] there's no further discussion, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. [00:03:51] Opposed, like sign. Motion passes. Next, second reading ordinance 2021-2246. [00:03:57] This is ordinance number 2021-2246, an ordinance of the City of New Port Richey, Florida, providing for amendment of article 4 of chapter 17 of the Code [00:04:06] of Ordinances of the City of New Port Richey, pertaining to the police [00:04:09] officers retirement system, providing for amendment of subsection A of section [00:04:14] 17-51 definitions to amend the definition of retirement, providing for [00:04:19] amendment of section 17-53 pertaining to the Board of Trustees, providing for [00:04:24] amendment of subsection H of section 17-56 pertaining to the required [00:04:29] distribution date, providing for amendment to subsection C of section [00:04:33] 17-57 pre-retirement death pertaining to the required distribution date, [00:04:39] providing for amendment of subsection E of section 17-60 optional forms of [00:04:45] benefits pertaining to the required distribution date, providing for [00:04:49] amendment to subsection B of section 17-65.1 minimum distribution of [00:04:55] benefits pertaining to the required distribution date, providing for [00:04:59] codification, providing for severability of provisions, repealing all ordinances [00:05:03] in conflict herewith, and providing for an effective date. Ms. Manz, do you have an [00:05:07] English translation? I do, Mr. Mayor. Most important, I think it should be noted [00:05:13] first that Gabriella Roeder and Smith, who is the actuarial firm that [00:05:19] represents the Board of Trustees to the Police Pension Board, has reviewed the [00:05:26] ordinance and determined that there is no cost associated with the ordinance [00:05:32] under the state minimum funding requirements. And in short, what the [00:05:38] ordinance does is three things. It changes a definition section to reflect [00:05:43] that retirement commences at the time of entering the drop program, which is the [00:05:51] deferred retirement option plan. Two, it amends the Board of Trustees section [00:06:03] of the retirement system code to reflect that draw participants may be elected to [00:06:10] serve on the Board of Trustees, but they may not vote for elected trustees. And [00:06:18] then lastly, it changes four sections of the code to reflect a change in the [00:06:27] internal revenue code that changes the reported distribution age from 70 and a [00:06:34] half to 72, and those sections are the benefit amounts and eligibility section, [00:06:39] the pre-retirement death section, the optional forms of benefit section, and [00:06:44] the minimum distribution of benefit section. And with that, we are [00:06:52] recommending that you approve the second reading of the ordinance. Thank you. We'll [00:06:56] open up for public comment. Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to

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

3. 11.a

   Request to Approve Florida Resiliency Coastline Grant Program Match

   approved

   Council approved committing an $800,000 match (from the stormwater fund, $80,000 in FY22-23 and $360,000 in each of the following two fiscal years) for a Florida Resiliency Coastline Grant Program application. The $1.6 million project would create a stormwater detention basin/floodable park on city-owned River Road church property and a portion of the SunTrust property to treat stormwater discharge to the Cotee River and support future redevelopment of the ~23.5-acre downtown basin bounded by Main Street, US 19, River Road, and South Road.

   • motion:Motion to approve committing $800,000 in matching funds for the Florida Resiliency Coastline Grant Program and authorize the City Manager to submit a letter to FDEP regarding the match. (passed)

   📍23.5-acre basin bounded by Main Street, US 19, River Road, and South Road📍5614 Red Snapper Court, Newport Richey🏢Florida Department of Environmental Protection🏢River Road Church🏢SunTrust🏢Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council👤Brent Heath👤Chopra👤Dan Holbeck👤Dana Gatos👤Matt Murphy👤Peter Altman#American Rescue Plan Act#Florida Resiliency Coastline Grant Program#Harbors Project (Pasco County)#Main Street Landing#Orange Lake stormwater project#Resiliency Steering Committee

   ▶ Jump to 6:59 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:07:00] Council. Move for approval. Second. Mr. Murphy? Good, thank you. In that case, all those in favor, [00:07:11] please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Motion passes. Next is a request [00:07:19] to approve of the Florida Resiliency Coastline Grant Program match. Sir, Mr. [00:07:24] Mayor, members of the Council. Down in front, down in front. As you may have [00:07:33] noted, I asked Brent Heath and Dana Gatos to be in attendance this evening to help [00:07:39] present this agenda item to you. Brent is an engineer that works with the city [00:07:45] with regularity, and Dana is a scientist that works with the city, and they both [00:07:50] worked with us in putting together a grant application for Florida [00:07:58] Resiliency Coastline improvements. And this grant was made available on a very [00:08:07] short schedule. It, though, was an opportunity to ask for funding to make [00:08:17] improvements as it relates to stormwater funds, and more specifically, it allowed [00:08:27] for direct conveyance of waters to the Cody River, in our case, to be contained [00:08:39] in a detention basin and best practices to be put in place so that their [00:08:49] ultimate discharge into the river was of a better quality. And that certainly was [00:08:57] of interest to the city. The grant amount was $800,000, and so we quickly put [00:09:06] together an application to do that. It involved using some of the River Road [00:09:15] Church property, and it involved using a portion of the property located to the [00:09:24] west of that property, which is currently occupied by the SunTrust building. [00:09:32] And it is basically the plan that was presented to you earlier this year by [00:09:40] the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council when they did their study for us, and we [00:09:48] mirrored that plan. The match for the project is $800,000. They quickly [00:09:56] asked us to commit to an $800,000 match for the project, which would be a [00:10:04] $1,600,000 project. I was unable, though, to commit to a grant without your [00:10:13] approval, and so I indicated to them in the grant submittal that I would be [00:10:19] coming to you for a subsequent approval of matching funds. In my communication to [00:10:28] you of November 16th, I indicated that there was funding established in our [00:10:36] American Rescue Plan Act, which would allow us to make downtown stormwater [00:10:46] improvements. In retrospect, though, a better funding source would be the [00:10:54] stormwater fund, particularly because if we were funded for this grant [00:11:02] opportunity, it would be financed over a three-year period of time, which would [00:11:07] allow us to budget for the expenditure. Specifically, what we'd be asking for [00:11:14] would be $80,000 in the fiscal year 22-23, and in the succeeding two fiscal [00:11:21] years, we'd be asking for an appropriation of $360,000, which would [00:11:27] then allow us to use the American Rescue funds with a little bit more creativity [00:11:35] and latitude within the downtown area. So, the specific request is for you to [00:11:42] consider supporting the project by committing to a financial commitment of [00:11:52] $800,000 and allowing me to submit on your behalf a letter to the Florida [00:12:00] Department of Environmental Protection related to the required funding match of [00:12:06] $800,000. And we are all collectively prepared to respond to questions that [00:12:15] you may have related to the application. Very good. Any public comment? [00:12:26] Good evening. Dan Holbeck, 5614 Red Snapper Court, New Port Richey. What [00:12:40] specific properties is it going to affect? You said something about a church [00:12:46] or something? Do you have a map or anything like that? We put the [00:12:50] map up on the... I don't know that we can put a map up, but I can make one available, and I [00:12:58] can pass on one for my packet if that's helpful. It's in the packet. I just think, [00:13:06] certainly as a realtor and with the downtown plans, with the redevelopment [00:13:10] things going on, it's just important to know where the... It's the church on [00:13:15] South River. Is it the one that the city already owns? Yes, yes, yes. Okay. Yep, that's it. [00:13:23] And I should have identified that more clearly, and the basin that would be [00:13:38] created would actually be over an acre in size, and there would be... So it's [00:13:52] exclusive to just that property, though? Oh, it would be sitting... It would service other [00:13:56] parcels? It would encroach onto other properties? Where the [00:14:00] trust is untrustworthy. Oh, untrustworthy. Okay, thank you. Still want a picture? Sure, if you'd like. I can provide it. [00:14:07] Anyone else? Seeing no one else coming forward, I'll bring it back to Council, if you [00:14:18] guys can be ready to answer any questions. Does anybody have any [00:14:21] questions for our consultants? I have just a couple of questions. Right just down the [00:14:27] street on the east side of River Road, there is a water basin. You know, is [00:14:37] that anywhere near that... I mean, is that anywhere near that's [00:14:42] going to be used that property? Do you know which one I'm talking about? [00:14:47] It's on the east side of the road. It's pretty much [00:14:55] where there's an AC business. [00:15:00] It's not shown on the map here? No, it's not, it's just, it's a basin, it's a basin right on the river, and I think it was for drainage, but I just wondered if it was going to be any part of it. [00:15:11] That was not intended to be part of this project. Okay, all right. Just to kind of reiterate, the project scope was looking at the basin that was surrounded by Main Street, US 19, River Road, and South Road. [00:15:27] So there's approximately a 23-and-a-half, 24-acre parcel that... Is South Road the one just south of the bank building? Yeah. Okay, well then where I'm talking about is about another half a block down on the east side, okay. [00:15:42] But as it currently stands, this basin does not have any stormwater control other than just conveyance, and what's happening is that when you do have a storm event, all water goes directly to the river. [00:15:56] So there's no treatment, there's no attenuation. That must be what happens further down from south of South Road, that other little basin, it's right on the river, and it's probably a couple hundred feet by a couple hundred feet, right up on the edge of the road. [00:16:15] It must be what's doing for the next section of property down. Yeah, so this was really focused on the basin that's contained within those road areas. Because that South Road cuts it. Thank you. [00:16:26] Mr. Murphy. I guess my only question or concern is it looks like a pretty big parcel there. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against this type of project at all. I guess it's just not knowing what we're going to do with all that area as far as redevelopment, and how's that going to impact that in the future. [00:16:44] I'm just not sure how that's going to work out, is my question on that. I don't think the consultants can respond to that question. That's really a question for us to respond to. [00:17:04] And we have had some discussion about some future uses for the SunTrust property once they vacate their property, the building itself. [00:17:22] And if you're to contemplate this plan, then what's left for developable purposes is really 1.06 acres of property fronting US Highway 19. So it would be a commercial or some form of a residential use. [00:17:53] I'd like to make a motion to approve it for the purpose of discussion, if I can get a second. [00:17:57] Yeah, I'll second. Okay, go ahead. [00:17:59] So to answer the question from a redevelopment standpoint, if you look at that site, and I think when you read the application, we have this existing parking lot, impervious, large area, 20-some acres. [00:18:17] So whenever someone new wants to build something there, they're going to be required to have a retention, just like the Main Street Landing in the picture does in the middle there. [00:18:27] And so if I could ask the consultants this question, I think the answer might be, if I could ask you all, the pond is designed to support the drainage needs of the entire area, so to speak, which would allow for the unponded areas to have both a recreational area. [00:18:50] Those trees are incredible and would be a great little small park, but would help to support some more dense residential and become an amenity, which is kind of the whole concept that Regional Planning Council brought, which was a floodable park that is a feature, not a retention pond with a fence around it that's blocking development, but maybe something that would entice development. [00:19:15] And again, to state, this is conceptual. [00:19:19] So what was done, we have a lot of assumptions based on. [00:19:24] This was put together in a reasonably fast time where we had to make some assumptions, and we assumed what property would be available for our use. [00:19:34] So that's kind of where we are as far as the overall site. [00:19:39] Can it be modified? [00:19:41] I believe so. [00:19:43] So we're not particularly locked to this configuration or site area. [00:19:50] I think there's ability to adjust this to better match what uses you will have coming into this overall project area. [00:20:00] It's somewhat flexible to move around. [00:20:02] And what Councilman Altman is saying is that that area or that amount would go towards any future development, even around that area. [00:20:12] That would be counted. [00:20:14] That's potential. [00:20:16] So that would have to be a discussion with the district to ensure that we have the available attenuation capacity of the pond to accept off-site credit, so to speak. [00:20:29] So... [00:20:31] To help you understand, Peter, you mentioned 20 acres of parking lot. [00:20:36] We see it. [00:20:38] It's all of that impervious. [00:20:41] That first line is the little, you see that inset, that table. [00:20:46] I think you have an arrow on there. [00:20:48] Doesn't she have the ability to... [00:20:50] I don't think you can read it, but yes, this inset is blown up on this. [00:20:55] Oh, okay, that area. [00:20:57] For this initial application, it was for 23.5 acres. [00:21:05] That area you're talking about is what you designed. [00:21:08] That's correct. [00:21:09] It's within those road boundaries. [00:21:12] So... [00:21:14] And that's basically what we see in the photographs, those 23 acres, right? [00:21:19] Yeah, some of the area is cut off here on the south side, but... [00:21:22] It goes a little bit further south than that. [00:21:24] So... [00:21:27] So if I'm understanding you correctly, what you're saying is that if we, [00:21:31] this size pond, which is what, an acre and a quarter or how much? [00:21:35] 1.6. [00:21:36] 1.6. [00:21:38] That we think that that would handle all the necessary stormwater requirement [00:21:45] for development in that 23 acres. [00:21:48] Absolutely. [00:21:49] It doesn't have to be in that particular spot. [00:21:52] No. [00:21:53] It doesn't have to be that particular shape. [00:21:55] Correct. [00:21:56] But we just need that size, and what is it, five feet to, [00:22:01] there's a five-foot acre. [00:22:03] Would you explain that a little bit, what that means? [00:22:05] Okay, so basically what we're talking about for an acre feet, so correct, [00:22:14] it's volume calculation where over one acre, one foot high. [00:22:19] So that's the amount of volume that you would have in that type of area. [00:22:24] The pond, as we have it designed now, we have available five acre feet [00:22:30] without any manipulation. [00:22:34] One of the things that we did look at as part of the design concept [00:22:38] is something similar to what we did at Orange Lake, [00:22:40] which is to put control gates on the outfalls, [00:22:43] which would allow us to do some drainage of the pond [00:22:46] if we know that a large system is coming in. [00:22:48] That gives you additional capacity. [00:22:51] Can you speak to that? [00:22:54] Okay. [00:22:57] So with the Orange Lake project, we have additional storage capacity [00:23:01] by being able to reduce or lower the gates prior to a storm event, [00:23:06] allow the pond to go, you know, have a lower level, [00:23:11] and thereby we have an additional volume as the storm event comes in [00:23:15] for the downtown area. [00:23:17] So we looked at this project here as a similar type application [00:23:21] where we would have the ability to lower the pond prior to a storm event, [00:23:26] and what we're showing here is that in this concept, [00:23:30] we are gaining approximately another two acre feet of volume [00:23:36] within this storage pond. [00:23:39] The ability to lower it. [00:23:40] Yes. [00:23:44] Is the question for you, Debbie, the $1.6 million project, [00:23:52] is that just a cost to construct this or is that to purchase the property [00:23:58] or is that what is the? [00:24:00] That purchase does not include any acquisition of property. [00:24:08] I'd like to suggest that the planning work that was done [00:24:12] by the Regional Planning Council [00:24:14] and showed that sort of flushable pond is the innovation [00:24:17] that is the enticement to get the funding because of all the money [00:24:22] that's been put out there to try to deal with the sea level rise, [00:24:25] and so the benefit is that we also clarify, you know, [00:24:30] solve an existing problem that is a preexisting surface [00:24:39] that doesn't require someone that builds on that surface [00:24:41] to put in a retention pond. [00:24:43] So effectively we've got an area that's already been paved back in the old days [00:24:47] that if it was open land would not be allowed to rebuild the way it is, [00:24:51] but we're trying to correct that problem by creating something [00:24:55] that would properly address that and allow future development [00:24:59] and the right sensitivity to get the water into the river. [00:25:03] Let's go. [00:25:04] This is something that I've been promoting as a member [00:25:08] of the Resiliency Steering Committee for the Regional Planning Council, [00:25:12] and the city got a lot of attention in several times [00:25:18] from the work done by the Planning Council, [00:25:21] and for us to be able to claim some ownership of that [00:25:24] through what we did in Orange Lake, [00:25:26] I mean, finding out that the lake could be evacuated [00:25:31] to allow us not to have flooding in downtown. [00:25:34] Main Street is one of the few east-west evacuation routes, [00:25:40] and I think this application got points [00:25:43] if it helped to mitigate potential problems with evacuation. [00:25:50] So many people that live where our city manager lives across the river [00:25:54] would have to come across Main Street, [00:25:56] or they'd have to get to Gulf Drive to try to get out that way [00:26:00] or all the way to Ridge Road if they're going to cross the river at the bridge. [00:26:06] And so I think it's a good, strong application, [00:26:10] and I think it could be a great way for the city to entice development. [00:26:14] Point being, we own the land. [00:26:17] We've talked about selling it. [00:26:19] We have three years to do it if we get it. [00:26:23] I would like to see the city consider going out for proposals [00:26:27] or finding a developer, whether it be someone that we saw earlier, [00:26:31] that could look at what would you do if you didn't have to pay for the drainage [00:26:36] and you'd have a pond and you could put some residential around it [00:26:39] and you could create a new corner. [00:26:43] Now, Pasco County was supposed to review this corner back 13 years ago, [00:26:51] however long, when that first came up with their award-winning Harbors Project. [00:27:00] And they spent a lot of time looking at it, [00:27:02] and they came up with what seemed to me like a plaza of medical buildings as their solution. [00:27:07] So for us to do something that's current, which is part of our logo, [00:27:13] I think it's exciting and it's a way to entice some investment in the site. [00:27:19] To be able to have that flexibility to let contractors and builders come in and say, [00:27:25] okay, there's money to do a floodable pond, I think is a worthwhile investment, [00:27:34] putting aside saving the manatee or whatever else you want to say. [00:27:39] Deputy Mayor, do you have any thoughts? [00:27:41] Yeah, I just want to say this is one of the things that I am proud of, [00:27:46] that we're going ahead and fixing a problem before there is a problem. [00:27:49] You said before a storm comes. [00:27:51] And when you guys came with us and talked to us about Orange Lake and this is another step, [00:27:56] we're ahead of the storm, which could happen before we even finish this project. [00:28:02] So I think to be ahead of it and see that, I think that's just great on staff's part. [00:28:08] Thank you. [00:28:09] Mr. Murphy. [00:28:10] Yeah, I mean, what Councilman Altman is saying and Deputy Mayor, I mean, I agree with. [00:28:16] It's a good thing. [00:28:17] I guess my question is the location of it. [00:28:20] And, I mean, if we were to say yes to this, how soon would it be that it was built? [00:28:28] Well, it would be several years before a project would be completed. [00:28:41] But to respond to your question, it would be plans and specifications would be initiated [00:28:55] in the fiscal year 22-23. [00:28:58] Construction would be initiated in the following year. [00:29:03] And the project would be completed in 24-25. [00:29:08] So we'd have a couple years to talk to developers and things like that. [00:29:11] Right. [00:29:12] Before anything was set in stone, I guess. [00:29:14] Because if it didn't work out, then we'd have some leeway to change it? [00:29:19] Well, certainly we could, yes. [00:29:23] And, I mean, we could even not accept the grant if it were awarded to us. [00:29:30] If we determine later on, as Brent gets further along in his work, [00:29:38] or that it isn't worth the value of what it costs. [00:29:49] Or that it might be more efficient to put it somewhere else. [00:29:53] Right, that's my question. [00:29:54] I just don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot. [00:29:55] That's what I thought it sounded like. [00:29:56] I just don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot later. [00:29:58] Yeah, that's all. [00:29:59] I'd be in. [00:30:00] In agreement with you there Matt that you know is a question on that is is the [00:30:05] timing required. I think this this whole parcel this 20 acres is is going to be [00:30:12] is one of a couple larger tracks that for long-range development and [00:30:19] enhancement enrichment for the for the city particularly is important. You know [00:30:25] both still maintaining maybe some commercial footage there along 19 and [00:30:30] then transition on back to the single-family dwellings there on the on [00:30:34] the on the river. So if and if I remember correctly some of one of the one of the [00:30:46] sketches we saw the potential development show not necessarily just a [00:30:51] round pond but it may be a meandering not a necessary meandering but a free [00:30:55] form type water feature you know detention pond. She's excited to see if she understands you. [00:31:04] Yeah that would be both aesthetically pleasing for people to for [00:31:11] residentials there and and still work. So the only question I have I think is a [00:31:17] very valuable property but you know is is the timing is it are we in a time [00:31:23] frame that we can make it work? Is that if we've got to just start designing it [00:31:29] you know in 22 that gives us basically a year to find a developer that's gonna be able to work with it. [00:31:37] It sounds like maybe a question needs to be asked to DEP the agency that's [00:31:42] administering the grant is what is their flexibility? So in several other grants [00:31:46] that are issued federally and statewide you have different time frames where you [00:31:51] can step back your grant by a year but you have to ask for permission for that. [00:31:55] So there might be an opportunity that say after phase one or during phase one [00:32:00] that first fiscal year that we need a break we need a one-year delay before [00:32:04] implementation or construction to be able to accommodate the development [00:32:08] time frame. So I just don't know that answer it's a it's a new grant so the [00:32:13] process is being developed as we go along for this particular grant. So some [00:32:17] of those questions like oh can we have a one-year delay? Can we have a one-year [00:32:21] rest period in the various phases of this? I don't know the answer to that yet [00:32:26] but it sounds like we probably need to go back and ask that for you. [00:32:31] It seems like this was put on such a quick timetable they must go there must [00:32:36] gonna be give you some slack it just seems to me I mean we got to ask but it [00:32:40] seems that they're going to do that. I think my concern from seeing that the [00:32:48] development of the existing property under the existing rules would allow for [00:32:53] the continuation of the kind of development that's there and if our [00:32:56] long-term goal is to is to do something by way of resilience which is being [00:33:01] pushed which is where all this money is coming from then accommodating that [00:33:07] there's got to be an enhancement to any development that comes and the ability [00:33:12] to modify it to where you have these these rolling rivers or whatever I think [00:33:19] it's a way for us not to have to give incentive and pay somebody to demolish [00:33:24] all of those old buildings but to say look what we're doing we've got a [00:33:29] parking lot we got a drainage facility and see if we can bring the private [00:33:33] money in that wants to work with us if they came in first and we told them we [00:33:38] were going to go for a grant that would take three years then they would say I'm [00:33:42] not interested so you know if the city is going to step a step forward I think [00:33:47] this is a way for us to do it and show being progressive as Chopra has said so [00:33:51] I'm hoping we get to the third vote here on this yeah I think the the the idea of [00:33:59] having some sort of stormwater retention in that area is good it's showing on the [00:34:07] back part of the SunTrust property but that doesn't necessarily mean that it [00:34:12] ultimately has to be there if we are unable to secure that so there's there's [00:34:18] some options and we're far enough out that we can adjust those on the fly so I [00:34:26] don't have any problem with doing this I think it's well-needed and it will [00:34:31] help us keep these places high and dry is there any further comment or [00:34:39] discussion I would just I just like to say I mean I think it's the concept and [00:34:42] the project itself is definitely worthwhile I just don't have that [00:34:46] crystal ball to see in the future how it's gonna affect the that area there [00:34:49] for for development I mean but if we can get some those answers question I mean [00:34:55] questions answered and then if we do have an ability to change some things I [00:35:00] mean I'm for voting for it now and let's see what we can do there's no further [00:35:06] discussion all those in favor please signify by saying aye aye opposed like [00:35:12] sign motion passes next item thank you and keep working yeah please keep a

   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. 11.b

   Appeal of Order to Demolish RE: 6812 Garden Drive, Ronald Howarth

   denied

   Council heard a quasi-judicial appeal by property owner Ronald Howarth of an order to demolish a 1956/1965 mobile home structure at 6812 Garden Drive, located in a special flood hazard area. Staff (City Manager Schneider/Building Official Rob Perry) determined the structure met four of seven slum/blight criteria and that proposed repairs exceeded the FEMA 50% substantial improvement threshold based on the assessed building value of $6,641. Howarth, assisted by contractor John Lehman, presented a private appraisal valuing the structure at $44,000 and rental/purchase offers, but Council denied the appeal and upheld the demolition order.

   • motion:Motion to deny the appeal and uphold the staff/city manager recommendation to demolish the structure at 6812 Garden Drive. (passed)

   📍6812 Garden Drive🏢Home Depot🏢J.D. Wallace and Associates👤John Lehman👤Rob Perry👤Ronald Howarth#FEMA 50% substantial improvement rule#Order to Demolish#Slum and blight criteria#Special Flood Hazard Area AE

   ▶ Jump to 35:17 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:35:17] close eye on us I like what you're doing demolish 6812 Garden Drive mr. [00:35:27] mayor members of the council this matter is a quasi judicial proceeding and it is [00:35:34] an appeal from an order to demolish a mobile home structure located at 6812 [00:35:40] Garden Drive the subject property is located at the northeast corner of [00:35:48] Garden Drive and snug Harbor Road it lies on a 0.17 acre parcel of property [00:35:58] which is located in a special flood hazard area AE with a base flood [00:36:04] elevation of 10 can we blow that up thank you as a matter of record please [00:36:12] be advised of the fact that on August 19th 2021 the city's building official [00:36:23] whose name is Rob Perry and he is here and present this evening to represent [00:36:29] the plan determined that the structure met the criteria for demolition as [00:36:35] outlined in the city's code of ordinances as a result of that [00:36:41] inspection on September 8th the property owner mr. Ron Howarth was notified by [00:36:47] certified mail of an order to demolish the property within 30 days or to appeal [00:36:55] the order to demolish the city's code of ordinance states that the building [00:37:03] official is to indicate criteria by which his opinion is based for [00:37:16] designating the proper the property as a slum and blighted property in this case [00:37:23] the following four criteria were met of seven possible criteria the first being [00:37:29] that the structure is so unsanitary or so utterly fails to provide the [00:37:35] amenities essential to decent living that it is manifestly unfit for human [00:37:40] habitation or is unlikely to cause sickness or pardon me or is likely to [00:37:46] cause sickness or disease so as to work injury to the life health or safety on [00:37:53] the general public or occupant amenities essential to decent living include but [00:37:59] are not limited to the availability of potable water or at least one working [00:38:04] toilet and protection from exposure to the elements secondly the structure or [00:38:10] portion thereof as a result of decay deterioration or dilapidation is [00:38:16] likely to fully or partially collapse thirdly there is a serious and [00:38:22] substantial falling away hanging loose or loosening of the side and siding [00:38:28] block brick or other building material creating a hazard for occupants or the [00:38:34] public lastly the structural parts have become so dilapidated decayed or [00:38:41] deteriorated or there is an unusual sagging or leaning out of plum of the [00:38:48] building or any part thereof caused by deterioration or over stressing of the [00:38:55] structure of structural parts that the structure is manifestly unsafe the [00:39:04] following are some of the photos that the building official took of the [00:39:09] structure if you could flip through those for me I would appreciate it [00:39:39] you [00:39:55] okay the ordinance states that the notice provided to the property owner [00:40:07] indicates that an appeal package in order for it to be complete must [00:40:20] contain a list of proposed work to be completed an estimated cost to complete [00:40:29] the work a timetable for obtaining permits and a timetable for completion [00:40:36] of the work one of the complications to this property in particular as indicated [00:40:44] earlier on is that it is located in a floodplain what that means is that it [00:40:50] must comply with an order of substantial completion and or substantial [00:40:58] improvement pardon me in calculations meaning that the improvements cannot [00:41:06] exceed 50% of the assessed value of the property the assessed building value for [00:41:16] the property is six thousand six hundred and forty one dollars 50% of [00:41:22] that is three thousand three hundred twenty dollars and fifty cents well you [00:41:31] can move on to the next slide what mr. Howarth submitted as an appeal flipping [00:41:38] to the next slide is a letter in his letter he provides moving on a list of [00:41:48] materials that he would like to buy from Home Depot and their estimated cost [00:41:54] which falls short of our requirements in the ordinance which indicate that he is [00:42:03] to submit a list of proposed work items and estimated cost of those work items [00:42:13] and a timetable for obtaining permits and a timetable for completion of those [00:42:19] items which quite frankly provided insufficient data for the staff to gauge [00:42:28] the true cost of a responsible manner of implementing the necessary repair work [00:42:37] though having said that we relied instead on the fees that he provided for [00:42:50] his assumed labor and his assumed cost of purchasing materials in even that [00:43:01] calculation we found that his calculation for his substantial [00:43:11] improvement would have been at 56 percent which would have exceeded the [00:43:16] substantial improvement allowed on the property so as a result of the fact that [00:43:23] the substantial improvement calculation does not support the refurbishment of [00:43:29] this structure mr. Howard's application falls short in terms of appropriate [00:43:39] documentation the staff recommends fully that we go forward with the our [00:43:49] original recommendation to you that this property be raised and if you have any [00:43:54] questions of mr. Perry he is here this evening to respond this is quasi [00:43:59] judicial does anyone have any ex parte communications that they need to declare [00:44:05] in this matter seeing none of mr. mr. Howard is welcome to come and address [00:44:16] council if he would wish if anyone on the council had been contacted and had [00:44:24] ex parte communications on this the answer was no is mr. Howard's here did [00:44:33] you wish to address council [00:44:34] the city has rested the case at this point [00:45:00] My name is John Lehman, I'm a state certified Class A general contractor. [00:45:14] I had some slides. [00:45:37] I wanted to let you know that I have no credentials, but I have experience. [00:45:57] My grandfather was a builder, and my father was a builder. [00:46:04] And this is a structure that the architects and the professionals said couldn't be done, [00:46:10] which is a self-standing pyramid with no supports. [00:46:15] This is the model of that, and this is the finished product. [00:46:27] This is a pyramid that's 40 feet square and 53 feet high, freestanding. [00:46:35] But that being said, I just wanted you to know that I understand structure. [00:46:43] This is a model of that 6812 garden, which I had an artist do the rendering of what it [00:46:55] could look like. [00:46:57] And this is another picture, if we put an additional window on, and this is yet another [00:47:03] picture of how it could look. [00:47:08] So I have ... That would be applying hardy board siding to match the other side. [00:47:34] To present my case, I have spent a lot of time in preparing some exhibits, so you can [00:47:45] follow along with me. [00:47:47] I would like to present each one of you with ... [00:47:49] You can hand them to the clerk, and she'll pass them down. [00:48:47] If you could, please start with the first page of the green folder. [00:49:15] And if you would read it, it would save a lot of time for this. [00:49:21] I'd like to be as quick as possible on it. [00:49:45] I'll go over each one, but if you just read the first one, when you're done with that, [00:49:49] I'll go over the exhibits, please. [00:49:52] That first page is what I'm referring to. [00:50:00] Are you guys done with the first page? [00:50:13] Yeah, I'm good. [00:50:15] Yeah, we're ready. [00:50:17] Okay. [00:50:18] The white folder, the large, legal-sized white binder has the appraisal from a certified appraiser as to the value, [00:50:38] the depreciated market value of the structure, and that being $44,000. [00:50:46] I have ... Well, it's on ... The summary of that appraisal is midway into the third page. [00:51:03] Well, I don't know ... Well, maybe ... [00:51:08] One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. [00:51:19] The seventh page and the eighth page show the value, the depreciated value, market value, [00:51:38] which is within the guidelines of FEMA on the 50% rule. [00:51:43] So I understand that the county has it at a much lower rate, but in today's market, it is worth a lot more. [00:51:55] I have other documentation of offers, which I have included in the packet of a wholesaler who buys wholesale properties [00:52:14] and resells them who's given me an offer of $50,000 for the property. [00:52:19] I also have a broker, which I can refer you to in the exhibits, a broker who has done a comparative [00:52:32] and has some 20 comparatives of properties that have sold in the area of comparable, [00:52:42] and they've sold for over $60,000. [00:52:46] In addition, I can go through the exhibits one by one if need be, but they're included in the green folder [00:52:56] or the smaller 8 1⁄2 by 10 sheets of persons who have visited the property since this action started, [00:53:13] which there's some 10 or more people who would like to rent it and they've looked at it [00:53:23] and it doesn't appear to them to be in such a condition. [00:53:28] Granted, it does need some repairs, and I would like to do them. [00:53:33] Also, I have an as-is offer from a wholesaler. [00:53:43] The broker did the comparative as well as gave me the suggested price, which I can go by individually again, [00:53:53] of what we should ask, and he said in today's market you can get $75,000 for it as it is. [00:54:05] Like I said, I don't really want to have to labor on it, but I believe that I do. [00:54:12] So that's just one example here, $75,000 in cash or rent to own for $110,000. [00:54:19] Did you find that surprising when you got that? [00:54:22] Surprising? [00:54:23] Yeah, did you find that surprising? [00:54:25] No, I've sold others. [00:54:27] For that kind of price? [00:54:29] Yes, I sold one. Yes. [00:54:32] Do you have insurance on this property? [00:54:36] Do I have insurance? No, I'm self-insured. [00:54:40] Homeowner's insurance. [00:54:41] I think there's confusion here, and you're talking about value of the property itself. [00:54:46] We're talking about the 50% rule. [00:54:48] We're talking about the structure itself. [00:54:50] The property doesn't count. [00:54:51] I understand. [00:54:52] Yeah, so two different things. [00:54:54] You're right, and the certified appraiser, which is one of the – FEMA has three guidelines. [00:55:01] You can have a certified appraiser appraise the property, and the certified appraiser in the white legal size folder [00:55:12] has certified the property based on a depreciated value that the structure is valued at $44,000. [00:55:22] Well, I'm sorry, but he should be fired. [00:55:24] There's just no way. [00:55:25] She is – have you seen the property? [00:55:27] I'm not trying to argue with you, but – [00:55:30] I mean, I'm just a little jittery because I'm an electrical contractor, so I'm in the business. [00:55:36] Okay. [00:55:37] And I know what's going on there, and you're going to have to put three times as much money into that [00:55:41] what it's worth to even get it back to par. [00:55:44] So I'm sorry. [00:55:45] In my opinion, you're trying to sell this as something you can get done for $4,000 or $5,000. [00:55:50] Well, you're just patching something that's going to fall apart. [00:55:54] I mean, it doesn't address electrical alone. [00:55:57] I guarantee you there's probably some major electrical problems in this thing, too, [00:56:00] and they don't even address any of that. [00:56:02] Well, what we're here for, for what was just read, is the structure. [00:56:13] May I ask the attorney a question here as we're in this quasi-judicial position here? [00:56:21] The process is for us to hear the appeal, and then once that's done, then we discuss it. [00:56:32] We could sit here and talk all day about whether we find the evidence to be of merit [00:56:42] to use a 30-year depreciation method to identify the value of something that we've been shown, [00:56:49] and whether that's appropriate or not is something we could certainly discuss. [00:56:53] But I'm just curious as to what is appropriate. [00:56:56] Whether we get into a back-and-forth in this process, or we listen to what's being said, [00:57:01] and then we take action. [00:57:04] Can I say something? [00:57:05] I'm asking the attorney a question. [00:57:07] What I would recommend is you allow him to make his presentation. [00:57:15] If you want to ask him questions as he's going along, you certainly can do that, [00:57:19] or have him answer questions that you have after he's made his presentation. [00:57:24] But we should give him an opportunity to make the record as to what he thinks you should be considering, [00:57:28] and then I can guide you some more as we go through it. [00:57:31] Okay, so I'll hold back. [00:57:32] If you will finish your presentation, please. [00:57:34] And you can limit his presentation to a certain extent, Mr. Mayor, if it becomes repetitive. [00:57:40] But I would give him an opportunity to present whatever he thinks is relevant to this proceeding. [00:57:45] Proceed. [00:57:46] I just wanted to say the pictures that you saw was after the eviction of a tenant [00:57:51] that was in there for quite a lengthy time. [00:57:55] So I'm a property owner. [00:57:58] I know I have to get somebody in there to put things back together again. [00:58:03] Out of that, what you saw, and again, we don't know what these tenants were doing inside that place. [00:58:10] They were evicted. [00:58:12] But those pictures were after eviction. [00:58:17] The tenants said that if they were evicted, they would make it so I would never be able to rent that property again. [00:58:31] Those tenants did damage to the property, which I can still repair because I am within the scope, the FEMA guidelines. [00:58:47] But from the first page that I asked you to read, it states that there were six feet of garbage. [00:58:58] No wonder it would be. [00:59:01] I don't think Mr. Perry was there on that day of the eviction. [00:59:07] I'm not even sure that the people were there, were allowed to be there. [00:59:13] But that doesn't matter that much. [00:59:16] But they did damage to the property, which is repairable. [00:59:24] It's repairable. [00:59:26] To have to tear this down and rebuild is cost prohibitive because you have to build up, [00:59:39] and you have to build up, I think it's 10 feet or 11 feet above sea level, which then, just to do the foundation, [00:59:48] I know it doesn't sound that it costs that much, but I was going to do it eight years ago when they wanted $50,000 to $75,000. [01:00:00] for that kind of a foundation, it doesn't include the structure, and I don't think [01:00:03] you want to see a mobile home. Point of order, I don't see that this is [01:00:07] relevant to the appeal in front of us, so if we could get to the point, please. [01:00:12] Okay, so in Exhibit 1, the demolition order is quite vague. It doesn't give any [01:00:35] specifics, but if you can see, go with me on Exhibit 1, can we put this back on the [01:01:27] was inspected back in April, and the only thing that was found to be of any problem [01:01:45] was on the second page, you can see on the first page, it says an external [01:02:06] inspection on the above property was conducted at 6812 Garden, and on the next [01:02:13] page it says, you need to fix, this is on the residential permit, rental [01:02:24] permit process, that there was no address, and I didn't have a [01:02:38] renter's permit at the time, and then there's some pictures on the third page, [01:02:41] page three, there's some pictures. We have the exhibit. Yes, well, I wanted to [01:02:48] go over these in detail because, you know, I want to repair it, and I want to [01:02:55] plead my case, and I've spent $500 to do that, and I think... You've got to give us a case, sir. [01:03:05] I'm sorry, you're reading stuff and telling us pictures and documentation, [01:03:09] and I'm not following you. Okay, well, okay, you can see from the pictures, all [01:03:20] right, then on Exhibit 3, six pages, these are different people who want to rent it, [01:03:27] who have gone there and looked at it as it is, and they found... The cost of [01:03:35] repair. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Well, do we have an appraised value that's acceptable? I'll bring you to testify when I want, okay, so let me, let me, I don't want to get into an argument here, if you want to sit down and talk. [01:03:52] The question is, can it be repaired within the guidelines of what is allowable without [01:04:02] having the thing meet current code? That's the issue, not who you might rent it to. [01:04:11] Most certainly, but the reason I'm bringing this up, because I don't think it meets the criteria of being slum and blithe when ten or more other people are wanting to rent it as it is, who have inspected it, so that is the point of this, not if it's in the category. [01:04:31] Alright, so I'll go on. There's many, many, if you go through it, you'll see that that is the case. Okay, so here is a person on Exhibit 4, Exhibit 4, who has made an application to purchase it on a rent-to-own, where the value would go more than over [01:05:01] the ten-year period, it would be $120,000 that they would pay for the entire property, but that is, the reason for that is to show the value, the value in today's market of what it is at. [01:05:16] Okay, so those are my exhibits on what it is. The person is certified. She's been in business for many, many years. Her firm, J.D. Wallace and Associates, and it's a very in-depth [01:05:45] You're saying she should be fired, sir, but I don't know. She did her job, and per the FEMA guidelines, she is a certified appraiser, and she's performed her service, and I think we have to go by what the value of the structure is in her [01:06:15] By her performing this professional appraisal, I think if you look it over a little more depth, it consists of some 20 pages, and it's not just a fly-by-night person who I got to say that it's worth more. [01:06:40] I paid her. I didn't coerce her. There was a team of people. They came. They took pictures. They evaluated everything. So, per the guidelines and per the law, I should be able to fix it. [01:07:07] I mean, I could spend up to $22,000 if need be based on that. So, it's really, we haven't really looked to see how terrible it might be. I don't think Mr. Perry actually went inside, although there were some pictures that somehow were acquired from the inside. [01:07:31] These tenants, they pulled out an electrical wire to make it look bad, but it's not beyond repair. Certainly, my general contractor has an engineer who can tell you the structure, and tell him what it can be done. [01:07:59] He's personally inspected. He's personally inspected the place. He's been there at least once, and he can tell you from his professional opinion. [01:08:15] The whole thing is, what value will you allow him on this? The assessed value from five years ago, 30 years ago, however long the time it was, or more of a current value? [01:08:37] I mean, it's easier to work with $40,000. Half of that's $20,000. No problem. You can get your electric gun in there and other things, but it's $5,600 from how long ago? [01:08:57] Then you're looking at a whole different ballgame. You'll get aesthetics, but an electrician to come in there and go through the electrical that may be not the code? [01:09:17] I noticed there were some areas where you'd have to take some of the siding off on one side to see what was done in there. I understand that was never permitted. That would have to come off. I'd have to see exactly what was in that wall, how it was done, what kind of piers they put below it. [01:09:42] There's things like that that you have to open up and investigate. Same with the bottom of the trailer. How's the piers lasting on those? [01:09:52] Now I know why he didn't want you to talk. [01:09:55] Well, that's being honest. I would have to see all of those things and open it up and see what I've got there. [01:10:04] So you don't know yet? [01:10:07] I could visualize without tearing things out, like taking some of the paneling off. [01:10:12] In my experience, when you start tearing it apart, you're going to open up. [01:10:16] Oh, can of worms, they say. Remember that saying? [01:10:18] I sure do. [01:10:20] But then again, you know, that's construction. [01:10:24] I know. I know. [01:10:27] I'm kind of from the old school, too. I like to fix what's there, not tear it down. [01:10:33] We have an appraised value, or value we're using, and that's it. [01:10:40] Is there anything else on your presentations? [01:10:44] Not at this time, but I would like to. [01:10:49] We may have questions for you. [01:10:51] Okay. [01:10:52] I would ask the attorney to give us some instructions on this. [01:10:55] Yes, if you have any questions for the witness, this would be the time to ask them, [01:10:59] and then he needs to rest and let you deliberate over whatever decision you want to make. [01:11:04] Do you have any other witnesses that you want to present? [01:11:06] Is your appraiser here or any of these other folks that you've identified? [01:11:10] No, I didn't bring a witness. [01:11:13] So unless you have any questions for him, I would have him sit, [01:11:16] and then you deliberate and close the public hearing. [01:11:20] How long have you owned the property? [01:11:24] Seven years, I believe it is. [01:11:29] Other questions? [01:11:30] I didn't change it. [01:11:31] No questions. [01:11:32] It was like that. [01:11:33] Okay. [01:11:34] Yeah, seven years. [01:11:35] When did your tenants move out? [01:11:38] The day we had started having the problem. [01:11:40] What date was that? [01:11:45] September. [01:11:48] I would approximately. [01:11:53] You've got some questions, huh? [01:11:54] I don't know exactly the date. [01:11:57] It was about two months ago. [01:11:58] Two months ago. [01:11:59] Okay. [01:12:00] Thank you. [01:12:01] And so this is a manufactured home built in 1956? [01:12:05] It was placed, according to the records which you have, it was 1965. [01:12:15] 1965. [01:12:16] Maybe I was dyslexic. [01:12:17] Okay, so in a 30-year depreciation schedule from 65 would take it to what, 95? [01:12:23] Whatever she has. [01:12:24] I didn't. [01:12:25] This is actually 56. [01:12:27] So 56. [01:12:28] Okay, so, yeah. [01:12:31] I'm not seeing. [01:12:34] I'm in the insurance business, and I had to ask that question. [01:12:37] You know, I don't know that you could get it insured if you wanted to, [01:12:41] but because of the age, the insurance companies wouldn't value it enough [01:12:47] to probably offer you coverage. [01:12:51] So. [01:12:52] Is that a question? [01:12:53] That is. [01:12:54] So the question, that's what. [01:12:56] That prompted my question earlier, how much you had it insured for, [01:12:59] and you told me. [01:13:00] No, I haven't insured, but. [01:13:06] Thank you. [01:13:07] You may be seated. [01:13:09] Bring this back to council. [01:13:14] I recommend that we go along with the city manager and the staff recommendations. [01:13:18] Second that. [01:13:20] Is that the right motion, or do we deny the appeal? [01:13:23] That's the motion. [01:13:24] Okay. [01:13:25] So the motion to deny, that was second. [01:13:27] That's what I thought was to deny. [01:13:29] Deny the appeal. [01:13:30] Let me just point out a couple things for the record, too, Mr. Mayor. [01:13:33] The application did not include any plan for reconstruction of the site, [01:13:39] and all the material that was provided was first provided tonight, [01:13:43] so none of this was provided within the application, [01:13:47] which is what's required by our code. [01:13:51] The appraiser is not here, [01:13:52] so you don't have an opportunity to question the appraiser about the validity of this appraisal. [01:13:56] You can make your own determination as to whether you think that this structure, [01:14:00] in its current condition, has a depreciated value of $44,000 in the absence of anyone to corroborate what's in this report. [01:14:09] The materials that he provided with respect to who would like to live there and all of that, [01:14:13] I think, as you've pointed out and recognized, is irrelevant. [01:14:17] So most of this material is irrelevant. [01:14:19] He's not presented you with an actual plan for rehabilitation of the structure [01:14:24] and explained to you how he plans to finance that rehabilitation. [01:14:28] So regardless of whether it would authorize $22,000 in repair, [01:14:34] you don't have a valid plan in front of you that would indicate that that would even repair it. [01:14:40] You have no engineered drawings. [01:14:41] You have no engineered plans. [01:14:43] You have a contract that has very limited information in it as to exactly what they're going to do. [01:14:50] And I think once you have the building official go in there, [01:14:53] you will see that the repairs will be quite extensive [01:14:56] and much more so than what's being put in front of you. [01:15:00] has testified basically that he needs to know how much value he's got available, and that's [01:15:06] when he's going to decide on what's going to be repaired, and that's not how it needs [01:15:10] to be done. [01:15:11] It needs to be repaired properly. [01:15:13] So I think based on this record, you have the ability to deny it. [01:15:16] If you wanted to give him an opportunity to submit plans, you could do that as well. [01:15:21] That would be within your discretion, but I don't see anything in this record that would [01:15:25] support you having to do that. [01:15:27] So if there's any questions I can answer, I'll be glad to answer them. [01:15:34] I've made the proposal. [01:15:35] The only thing that I'd say, I'm looking at the pictures, both his pictures and our pictures. [01:15:43] This case was decided by time and weather and not by tenants. [01:15:49] I think you were second. [01:15:53] Good. [01:15:54] Mr. Altman? [01:15:55] Only to say that, as a former accountant, that a depreciation schedule is not a thorough [01:16:05] review of the actual value of something. [01:16:08] It's used for depreciation purposes as estimates. [01:16:13] We did receive testimony. [01:16:15] It did show the condition. [01:16:21] The case is pretty clear. [01:16:25] What someone's willing to pay for a piece of property is what it's worth to them. [01:16:31] It's a beautiful location. [01:16:32] It's a beautiful place that that property is at, and hopefully something beautiful will [01:16:38] happen. [01:16:39] The 50% rule was done for a reason because of repetitive flooding. [01:16:45] Uninsured property that's flooded still gets some attention and requires funding, and so [01:16:51] this is a mandate that, in my view, all cities along the coast are going to have to figure [01:16:57] out what to do with the rising tides and the threats that resilience and what is sustainable. [01:17:04] So continuing to kick the can down the road of property that's so old and invested, and [01:17:10] I think that our action may actually be of benefit, which I hope it is to you as the [01:17:17] property owner, because I don't see keeping that in condition that's in with $5,000 or [01:17:25] $6,000 worth of patchwork is good for anybody. [01:17:30] I'd have to agree with the Councilman there that this is a great opportunity to tear that [01:17:37] thing down and go ahead. [01:17:38] If it's worth the value it is on its ground and the condition it is, I just imagine what [01:17:42] the value would be if you built that up on piers, people wouldn't worry about flooding [01:17:46] a new building. [01:17:47] There's a great opportunity there. [01:17:48] I'd take full advantage of it. [01:17:53] I have to sit here and wonder whether or not the property value would go up if the structure [01:17:59] were gone. [01:18:03] That isn't an area that has flooded repeatedly in the past. [01:18:08] I'm sure that during the no-name storm there had to have been a lot of water there because [01:18:15] of how low it is. [01:18:17] So this structure, in all likelihood, has got a repetitive flooding history already. [01:18:22] So the 50% rule, as I understand it, accumulates over time? [01:18:28] Yes, so it will be based on the value of the structure at the time that the work is applied [01:18:32] for. [01:18:34] But if it's already been dealt with with a flood damage repair previously? [01:18:43] There's a time period that we have, I think it's five years, right? [01:18:47] So you can phase work. [01:18:54] You know, I'm just not seeing this. [01:18:57] Call the question. [01:18:58] The question's been called. [01:18:59] All those in favor of the motion to deny, please signify by saying aye. [01:19:05] Aye. [01:19:06] Aye. [01:19:07] Opposed? [01:19:08] Mr. Mayor, I'd also like you to consider a motion to require the structure to be demolished [01:19:15] 30 days from today and or allow the property owner to submit their own application to demolish

   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. 11.c

   2021/2022 Street Improvement Project Task Order No. 41994.003 - Engineering Services

   approved

   Council approved a task order with Hahl Associates for engineering services for the 2021/2022 Street Improvement Project (paving cycle six) in the amount of $153,850. The project area is bounded by Louisiana Avenue (south), Congress Street (east), Illinois Avenue (north), and Rio Drive (west); design occurs in 21-22 with construction in 22-23.

   • motion:Approve task order with Hahl Associates for engineering services on the 2021/2022 Street Improvement Project in the amount of $153,850. (passed)

   📍Congress Street📍Illinois Avenue📍Louisiana Avenue📍Rio Drive🏢Hahl Associates👤Murphy👤Peters👤Robert#2014 Roadway Study and Assessment Report#2021/2022 Street Improvement Project#Paving Cycle Six#Street Improvement Funds#Task Order No. 41994.003

   ▶ Jump to 1:19:19 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [01:19:24] it within that time period. [01:19:26] So that if he wants to demolish it at his expense and not have the city place a lien [01:19:29] on it and demolish it, he can do so. [01:19:31] So I'd ask you to entertain that motion. [01:19:34] I would entertain that. [01:19:35] We have a motion. [01:19:36] Second. [01:19:37] To the maker. [01:19:38] Second. [01:19:39] Yeah. [01:19:40] It's time to move on. [01:19:41] Anybody? [01:19:42] In that case, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:19:45] Aye. [01:19:46] Aye. [01:19:47] Opposed? [01:19:48] Like sign. [01:19:49] Motion passes. [01:19:51] Next is the 2122 Street Improvement Project Task Order Engineering Services. [01:19:59] The agenda item is a request to enter into a task order with half associates for the [01:20:08] engineering services associated with the 2122 Street Improvement Project in the amount of [01:20:15] $153,850. [01:20:23] And the work associated with the task order would be for implementation of paving cycle [01:20:32] six. [01:20:34] They would be preparing the base drawings, the construction drawings, providing bidding [01:20:40] assistance and construction for the project. [01:20:44] And Robert has prepared a PowerPoint to provide you with some additional detail. [01:20:48] Thank you. [01:20:49] Not a PowerPoint, just a site map so that you could see. [01:20:53] This is the first project, like we talked about in our last meeting, that we will be [01:20:56] able to concentrate on one area. [01:20:59] So this is towards the south of town. [01:21:01] Limits would be Louisiana Avenue to the south, Congress Street to the east, Illinois Avenue [01:21:08] to the north, and there's a little portion of it on Rio Drive that would be your boundary [01:21:13] to the west. [01:21:15] And the contractor, or not contractor, but the consultant and staff work together. [01:21:21] We also talked about the rankings on the 2014 roadway study and assessment report, [01:21:30] that the rankings of the detrimental roads have all been taken care of pretty much. [01:21:35] So now where we're at is we're going out in the field and we're re-ranking and looking [01:21:40] where we need to apply some asphalt. [01:21:43] So this is basically how we selected this area. [01:21:47] And with that, the funding is in the street improvement funds available, and we'd recommend [01:21:52] approval. [01:21:53] Open up for public comment. [01:21:54] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to council. [01:21:59] Move we approve. [01:22:00] Second. [01:22:01] To the maker. [01:22:02] Yes, it would be great. [01:22:06] Just to clarify, Robert, when it says 21-22 street improvement site map, that means this [01:22:12] actual improvements to the roadways would occur when? [01:22:17] We're going to do the design. [01:22:18] So your years are based on the design. [01:22:21] Our construction would be in 22-23. [01:22:24] That's always confusing to those of us who look at these maps and share them. [01:22:28] You're not the only one. [01:22:30] To the second. [01:22:32] Yeah, I think it's going to be exciting. [01:22:35] I mean, I've had commentary tonight from some county residents who really commended our [01:22:40] city for what we're doing. [01:22:42] And you know, for those of us who've been through street assessment hearings and the [01:22:46] turning of neighbors against each other, it really has been one of the big successes [01:22:51] for us to get through this point. [01:22:53] I'm going to be curious to, once we get these roads to not be in failing condition, to hear [01:23:00] how much patching we end up needing to do. [01:23:03] I'm sure that still happens from time to time, but one of the theories is we can save some [01:23:09] money on repairs and putting in so much time and effort on old, you know, pay me now or [01:23:16] pay me later. [01:23:17] And I think in the long run, this is the most efficient way to do things. [01:23:20] If I could make a comment to that. [01:23:22] We are seeing results from that already because the amount of staff time, maintenance staff [01:23:28] time, that we used to have to devote to that type of work, we've noticed it's considerable [01:23:36] And it's really helped us out during these times where we have our staff shortages and [01:23:41] where, you know, every job assignment matters. [01:23:44] And so to be able to have the luxury of not having to take three guys out doing repairs [01:23:49] as often as we used to is helping us get through these times. [01:23:53] Mr. Murphy, anything? [01:23:56] No, I mean, in that area, I mean, I live where we were that way. [01:24:02] So I mean, I definitely see where, you know, it's needed. [01:24:05] So I'm glad it's happening. [01:24:06] Deputy Mayor? [01:24:07] I just want to double check the funding. [01:24:09] That's not coming out of the asphalt funding? [01:24:13] Or? [01:24:14] No, sir. [01:24:15] All. [01:24:16] Okay. [01:24:17] This is, but this is, you know, what do you call it? [01:24:23] Street assessment. [01:24:24] Street assessment. [01:24:25] That's not coming out of our street assessment fund. [01:24:27] Correct. [01:24:28] We're still taking and doing nothing but asphalt. [01:24:31] I wanted that to be said out loud. [01:24:33] Thank you. [01:24:35] I've got to say out loud, I'm glad that you're following the suggestion to satisfy my colleague, [01:24:45] but I respectfully disagree that we should be able to start at some point charging our [01:24:51] assessment for the entire cost of the projects as they come up. [01:24:57] I'm happy to see us moving one step further with another zone of the city getting, getting [01:25:04] repair work. [01:25:06] If there's no further discussion, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:25:12] Aye. [01:25:13] Aye. [01:25:14] Opposed? [01:25:15] Like sign. [01:25:16] Motion passes. [01:25:17] Next, elevated water storage tank rehab. [01:25:18] This agenda item two was advanced by Mr. Rivera. [01:25:22] It's a request to seek approval on a final pay request submitted by Raise Your Back LLC [01:25:32] in the amount of $59,150 for the sandblasting, cleaning, and painting of an elevated water [01:25:40] storage tank in the amount of $59,150. [01:25:45] The original project cost was $239,150, and it is budgeted in the water treatment plant's [01:26:00] account budget, and with that, we're recommending approval of the payment to them for the services [01:26:08] completed. [01:26:09] Open it up for public comment. [01:26:11] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to council. [01:26:15] To the maker? [01:26:16] Nothing. [01:26:17] The second? [01:26:18] I'm good. [01:26:19] Mr. Altman? [01:26:20] No, sir. [01:26:21] Mr. Peters? [01:26:22] I enjoyed seeing the pictures inside the tank. [01:26:23] Yeah. [01:26:24] Wasn't that great? [01:26:25] I always wondered what it looked like. [01:26:26] That case, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:26:29] Aye. [01:26:30] Aye. [01:26:31] Opposed? [01:26:32] Like sign. [01:26:33] Motion passes. [01:26:34] Next, granular activated carbon bulk purchase. [01:26:37] Mr. Rivera, do you want to take this one? [01:26:40] Sure. [01:26:42] This is for your consideration of approval. [01:26:44] It's a tax proposal submitted by Continental Carbon Group. [01:26:48] It's an amount not to exceed $28,980 for the purchase of, as you said, bulk granular activated [01:26:56] carbon. [01:26:58] This purchase happens every five years. [01:27:00] Typically, you probably don't recall that because we were able to do it under the $25,000, [01:27:05] but this is the first year that the price increases have caused us to have to submit [01:27:11] the counsel on this type of product. [01:27:14] This is used in the wastewater treatment plant's treatment of sewage. [01:27:20] This basically eliminates the hazardous gas during the treatment process that creates [01:27:26] hydrogen sulfide, and it also keeps the odor down during that treatment as well. [01:27:33] So with that, we would recommend that you approve this purchase. [01:27:36] I have for public comment, saying no one come forward, bring it back to counsel. [01:27:41] Move for approval. [01:27:42] Second. [01:27:43] Maker? [01:27:44] Nothing. [01:27:45] Second. [01:27:46] I'm good. [01:27:47] Mr. Altman? [01:27:48] No, sir. [01:27:49] Mr. Peters? [01:27:50] So it's gone from under $25,000 to $39,000, the same amount? [01:27:53] It's gone up to $28,000. [01:27:54] We used to be able to get it for around $25,000. [01:27:57] It's up to $28,980, and the other two proposals were around $35,000, and the other one was [01:28:02] $39,000. [01:28:03] Okay. [01:28:04] I see. [01:28:05] Okay. [01:28:06] Thank you. [01:28:07] And there's no further questions. [01:28:08] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:28:10] Aye. [01:28:11] Opposed? [01:28:12] Like sign. [01:28:13] Motion passes. [01:28:14] Next, hydraulic vehicle lift system purchase. [01:28:17] This purchase is a piece of equipment that's being requested by our Fleet Maintenance Division. [01:28:24] They're specifically requesting to purchase four 74,000-pound working capacity hydraulic [01:28:36] vehicle lifts at a price not to exceed $36,648 from Sturtill Connie USA, Incorporated through [01:28:51] the Florida Sheriff's Association contract, heavy trucks and equipment. [01:28:56] And approval of the purchase is being recommended as a result of the fact that the funds were [01:29:03] approved in the capital improvements program for the 21-22 fiscal year. [01:29:14] Opened up for public comment. [01:29:17] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to Council. [01:29:21] Second. [01:29:22] Mr. Maker? [01:29:23] I just have one question. [01:29:24] Are we going to put them in the old building or are we going to be putting them in the [01:29:27] new building? [01:29:28] They're portable. [01:29:29] They're mobile, so we're going to set them up in the old building. [01:29:31] We'll be utilizing them until hopefully the other building is constructed and then we'll [01:29:35] relocate them. [01:29:36] My question is that we will be able to use them really in the new building? [01:29:39] Yes, sir. [01:29:40] Okay. [01:29:41] Second? [01:29:42] Yes, sir. [01:29:43] Mr. Murphy? [01:29:44] No. [01:29:45] Mr. Sheldon? [01:29:46] No, sir. [01:29:47] In that case, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:29:49] Aye. [01:29:50] Opposed, like sign. [01:29:51] The next item is the 2020 Jasmine Park Seawall Improvement Projects Closeout, subsequent [01:29:58] to the letting of this contract. [01:30:00] my wife discovered that they have a division of signature construction that [01:30:06] does roofing work and we have in fact contracted with them to work personally [01:30:12] and so because of that I am declaring a potential conflict of interest and I [01:30:18] will let the deputy mayor handle this and I will not be voting on this item. Do [01:30:23] we have anybody in the audience who'd like to speak on this? Oh you want to [01:30:28] give us a number? I would if you'd allow me, Mr. Deputy Mayor. Well I got the hammer already. [01:30:35] This matter is an attack. Is a deductive change order and a request for a final pay request, Mr. Rivera? [01:30:41] The deductive change order is in the amount of $6,267 and the final pay request is in the amount not to exceed $179,063. [01:30:54] This was part of the 2016 seawall assessment that we performed on all of [01:31:01] the seawalls that the city owned. This was the only seawall that the [01:31:06] engineer recommended that it be replaced due to the deteriorated condition of it [01:31:12] and with that the replacement design was similar to what we have at Sims Park and [01:31:19] the Cody River Park and so with that we would ask that or we would recommend [01:31:24] that you approve it and the funding is penny-for-Pascoe. It is approved in the [01:31:28] CIP. Anybody from the audience that would like to contribute? Bring it back to [01:31:34] council. I move we approve. Second. If I could just briefly address the mayor's [01:31:43] potential conflict. He contracted with this same contractor after the city had [01:31:48] already entered into this contract and this actual agenda item calls for a [01:31:54] reduction in the amount that we're paying so arguably there is no benefit [01:31:58] to anyone that's the mayor's related to but in an abundance of caution I've [01:32:05] advised him to declare a conflict and not vote on it. [01:32:08] I'm second. So the the only comment to make on that is that unfortunately it

   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. 11.d

   Elevated Water Storage Tank Rehabilitation – Project Close Out

   approved

   Council closed out the Elevated Water Storage Tank Rehabilitation project, noting delays due to COVID issues with the construction company and sidewalk damage at the adjacent park (which has reportedly been repaired). The motion passed with one abstention.

   • motion:Motion to approve the close-out of the Elevated Water Storage Tank Rehabilitation project. (passed)

   👤Jeff👤Robert#Elevated Water Storage Tank Rehabilitation

   ▶ Jump to 1:32:16 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [01:32:21] took a lot longer to complete as we had hoped. I know the construction company [01:32:25] had some COVID issues with their teams and so forth and that particular park [01:32:31] there also I know they had I don't know if the sidewalks been repaired yet or [01:32:35] not there was some damage to the sidewalk as it was done and that was [01:32:38] section of the city that sidewalks pink for some reason and so just I haven't [01:32:44] been by there recently so I don't know if the sidewalks been repaired. It has. [01:32:53] Robert it has. It has? Yes. Is it still pink? If it's not it will be. Okay. I just want to say [01:33:01] Jeff if you're listening when we start talking about these walls he says what [01:33:06] about the one by my house and so from 16 to 21 and finally got it done in his [01:33:11] neighborhood so some move the question. Those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? And we [01:33:19] have one abstention. Thank you. Is that an adjournment? No. Nice try. We still got a couple items to go yet. [01:33:31] Thank you very much. The next item is well that's before we even get a break. [01:33:37] The next item is a Recreation and Aquatic Center annual membership drive. [01:33:42] The purpose of the agenda item is to request your approval to offer a discount [01:33:50] of 20% off of annual memberships to the Recreation and Aquatic Center in [01:33:57] conjunction with an annual membership drive which is typically conducted in [01:34:04] December and January and the official dates of the proposed sale are December [01:34:13] 13th through January 13th. The purpose is to encourage new membership purposes and [01:34:20] for membership renewals and it and it is again a 20% discount for both residents [01:34:29] and non-members and I'm sorry non-resident memberships and our [01:34:37] recommendation is that you consider allowing us to conduct the sale. Open up [01:34:44] for public comment. Seeing no one come forward bring it back to council. Move [01:34:50] approval. Second. The maker? No I think it's something's been done before and it's [01:34:56] being recommended so I'll support it. Second. Lots of years. I hope we get a good drive for membership. [01:35:03] The second drive. So let's sell, sell, sell. Mr. Murphy you were the second second. [01:35:10] That was it. Okay. Mr. Pierce. The only comment I make I think this might have been my first [01:35:18] council meeting a year ago this came about and one of the things I do recall

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

7. 11.e

   Granular Activated Carbon Bulk Purchase

   discussed

   This transcript segment appears to be misfiled — it discusses Recreation Center membership sales, pricing, and Silver Sneakers/Renew Active Medicare Advantage participation, not granular activated carbon. Council discussed the value of membership sales, suggested possibly targeting lapsed or never-before members for future promotions, and noted that the new trolley run by the rec center could pick up Silver Sneakers participants.

   🏢Renew Active🏢Silver Sneakers#Recreation Center membership sale#new trolley run by rec center

   ▶ Jump to 1:35:23 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [01:35:23] in that conversation was it seemed like there was some time spent on whether or [01:35:27] not what the value was to provide a sale and maybe that was you know or we just [01:35:33] you know obviously a sale is to bring on new members right people that haven't [01:35:38] experienced before and be interesting to know I first of all I think the prices [01:35:45] at full membership is a great deal that's a that's a great facility and you [01:35:50] know I want our all residents take advantage of it and at a very reasonable [01:35:54] cost in my opinion but be you know I'm just wondering if we've developed a [01:36:00] membership January membership that just keeps renewing at a lower rate and if [01:36:06] we're missing some some real revenue there so you know maybe that's [01:36:13] something to maybe look at in the future I'm not prepared to suggest anything [01:36:17] different tonight but it might be the membership sale might be for in a future [01:36:25] and never before member or a member of it who's been lapsed for over a year or [01:36:30] something like that to acquire those people back just to be fair for all [01:36:34] those I just think some people use it as a Christmas present and some of us get [01:36:41] it through our Medicare Advantage plans for anybody watching or in the audience [01:36:49] both renew active and silver sneakers are participating with the rec center [01:36:56] and if I actually showed up and spent more time there the rec center get more [01:37:00] money from membership but it's it's a great bargain for for any of our seniors [01:37:09] that have that and the the sale price is wonderful for everybody else so I'm in [01:37:18] favor of this also mr. mayor as you mentioned that it just causes me to [01:37:22] think when the new trolley that's going to be run by the rec center comes out [01:37:26] perhaps you could find look at the list of the silver sneaker folks and go pick [01:37:31] them up and bring them to the rec center if we're going to make a little money [01:37:34] off of it you know and help them with their health as well as support them [01:37:41] increasing their usage I don't know what I don't know what the per diem is that [01:37:45] you guys get from those but there's something so more than free yeah yeah [01:37:51] it's um we get $3 is it yeah up to up to $30 up to $30 a month that's what I'm [01:38:03] saying yeah another money-raking way of paying off

   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. 11.f

   Hydraulic Vehicle Lift System Purchase

   discussed

   This transcript segment appears to be mislabeled or misaligned with agenda item 11.f (Hydraulic Vehicle Lift System Purchase). The actual content discusses approval of the DEO (Department of Economic Opportunity) evaluation and appraisal notification letter required for the city's 2030 comprehensive plan update under Chapter 163 of Florida Statutes. Staff requested authorization for the mayor to execute the required notification letter.

   • direction:Staff requested authorization to prepare the DEO evaluation and appraisal notification letter for the mayor to execute, addressing updates to the city's 2030 comprehensive plan. (none)

   🏢Florida Department of Economic Opportunity#10-year water supply plan#2030 Comprehensive Plan#Chapter 163 Part 2 Florida Statutes#DEO evaluation and appraisal notification letter

   ▶ Jump to 1:38:14 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [01:38:15] unfortunately put the mayor on the list yeah really if there's no further [01:38:20] discussion all those in favor please signify by saying aye opposed like sign [01:38:27] motion passes next is one of the Kevin can you check in on his attendance and [01:38:32] we'll get the money out of a minute if he doesn't show it's miserable I can [01:38:37] tell you next is approval of the DEO evaluation and appraisal notification [01:38:42] letter mayor we are asking for permission to execute the statutorily [01:38:51] required notification letter to the Florida Department of Economic [01:38:57] Opportunity for the required update to the city's 2030 comprehensive plan it is [01:39:05] required by chapter 163 part 2 of the Florida statutes and it requires that [01:39:13] the city updates its comprehensive plan at least every seven years the letter [01:39:19] that we need to send will address changes to the state statutory [01:39:26] requirements it will reflect current conditions and current conditions and [01:39:31] issues within the city prepare the required 10-year water supply plan and [01:39:37] edit streamline clarify and simplify the comprehensive plan the city staff will [01:39:44] be working on changes to the comprehensive plan over the course of [01:39:48] the next year and with your permission we would the staff is recommending that [01:39:56] you authorize us to prepare the letter for the mayor to execute the required [01:40:01] matter open up for public comment seeing no one coming forward bring it back to

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

9. 11.g

   2020 Jasmin Park Seawall Improvements Project Close Out

   Transcript excerpt does not actually cover the Jasmin Park Seawall Improvements Project Close Out; it contains tail-end discussion of a prior item and council communications including comprehensive plan consulting, a shuttle visit, Tampa Bay Water meeting report, ethics training reminder, an American Legion Post 79 plaque dedication, infrastructure bill funding consideration, and an upcoming golf cart Christmas parade.

   • vote:Voice vote on the preceding motion (not the seawall item). (passed)

   📍Grand Boulevard bridge🏢American Legion Post 79🏢Florida League of Cities🏢Tampa Bay Water👤Autumn👤Barrett Doe👤Ed White👤Mr. Altman👤Mr. Murphy👤Mr. Peters👤Mr. Starkey#Comprehensive plan#Federal infrastructure bill#Golf cart Christmas parade December 19

   ▶ Jump to 1:40:05 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [01:40:08] council to the maker yes very exciting and but also be very interested to see [01:40:19] if some of the effort that's been done to clean our file cabinets out which we [01:40:25] did about a year ago with the hiring of a consultant to look at our land use and [01:40:29] zoning and give us some advice how that's coming because it seems timely if [01:40:34] we're going to look at the comprehensive plan that we look at potential changes [01:40:39] that we have in mind to our land use are up and down so it seemed like we were [01:40:46] preparing to get some advice from mr. Starkey we are indeed working on that [01:40:53] and it would be great to have that input be contributed to your [01:40:59] contemplation of the comprehensive plan changes it will be included thank you [01:41:04] for mentioning that thank you to the second mr. Peters no sir mr. Murphy good [01:41:11] in that case all those in favor please say signify by saying aye opposed like [01:41:19] sign motion passes we're now to communications I'll kick it off since [01:41:26] mr. Altman mentioned the shuttle I got a chance to visit facilities today the [01:41:32] shuttle is here they even let me drive it once around the parking lot with [01:41:36] with apologies to Charlie Daniels it was fun and Tampa Bay water we had our [01:41:45] meeting on Monday morning and the city of New Port Richey gave their report [01:41:51] Barrett Doe did the report and he did us proud he was really really good [01:42:00] coincidentally with my reviewing the agenda and realizing I had a probable [01:42:05] conflict of interest I was doing my state-mandated four hours of ethics and [01:42:10] public records stuff that day and so if the clerk needs a copy of what I did it [01:42:19] was the Florida League of Cities stuff and and if you haven't done it you've [01:42:24] got about six weeks to sit through it and it's really not as painful as I [01:42:28] remember from the last time so by all means you can go to the Florida League [01:42:32] of Cities website and get your training knocked out between now and the end of [01:42:38] the year and finally I did ask the deputy mayor to represent the city [01:42:45] formally there's a dedication at the American Legion post 79 this Saturday at [01:42:51] one o'clock and if any of the rest of you can attend it's a dedication of a [01:42:57] plaque in memory of Ed White who was a fixture there for more years than I can [01:43:05] remember and just an all-around really really great guy and I've given them my [01:43:10] regrets I will be unable to attend but I appreciate the deputy mayor planning on [01:43:16] showing up in my step deputy mayor any communications since we at the federal [01:43:24] level we pass the infrastructure and I just wondered if we'd look into possibly [01:43:30] getting any money for our Grand Boulevard bridge we have received a copy [01:43:37] of the bill and we are analyzing it and determining what projects are best suited [01:43:44] for the funding opportunities we don't have specific recommendations for you at [01:43:49] this time but that is a project that we are considering yeah cool great then I [01:43:55] want to ask the fire chief you said that Autumn was her name right at five [01:44:00] foot nothing how much is a full suit and gear way that she has to haul so [01:44:08] approximately about 45 pounds with SCBA wow that's great you said you could do [01:44:13] it so I was real happy to hear and I just wanted to have the number in my [01:44:16] mind also I'd like to announce that there's going to be a golf cart parade [01:44:20] Christmas parade on December 19th at 6 p.m. so you can get with sips if you're [01:44:27] at home unless you need you got a golf cart because they're ones are putting it [01:44:30] on mr. Peters I don't have anything more than just you know comment it was about [01:44:41] this evening's meeting you know I don't take you know property owners rights [01:44:47] lightly and it's always a difficult decision to come to grips with [01:44:56] demolishing or taking away [01:45:00] property but there's there's just not there's no place in our city for slum [01:45:06] and blight and I would commend our building officials for their inspection [01:45:11] our code enforcement officers as they continue to work diligently towards [01:45:16] these areas that particular neighborhood has some really nice-looking homes and [01:45:22] it has some homes that I you know as I jog through that neighborhood one time

   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. 11.h

    Recreation & Aquatics Center Annual Membership Drive

    discussed

    Mayor reported briefly on a legislative conference in Orlando, highlighting an incoming Senate president's proposed bill that would require every Florida city and county to conduct an economic impact study on every ordinance's effect on the business community. The Mayor encouraged Councilman Peters to attend upcoming Suncoast League of Cities meetings and indicated a fuller report would come at the next meeting.

    🏢Florida League of Cities🏢MPO🏢Suncoast League of Cities👤Councilman Peters👤Mr. Murphy#Legislative conference in Orlando#Proposed state bill requiring economic impact studies on every local ordinance#Suncoast League of Cities meeting in Clearwater

    ▶ Jump to 1:45:25 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:45:25] just seems like there's a lot of opportunities for our code enforcement [01:45:29] to have some discussions with property owners so well at the hour that we have [01:45:38] in a meeting to go I'll spare you the details of the legislative conference [01:45:43] from Orlando that I attended but I would like to sort of report on that at our [01:45:47] next meeting nothing is but there there are some potential laws that have been [01:45:53] introduced the most the one that really needs to be mentioned is the incoming [01:45:59] Senate president's desire and expectation that it will become a bill [01:46:07] for debate to require every every jurisdiction city and I believe County [01:46:13] in Florida to do a study an economic impact study on the impact of every [01:46:20] ordinance that we approve on the business community so go figure how [01:46:28] we're going to do an impact study on how we would damage one business who [01:46:33] might claim that it's damaging them to support another business it's one of the [01:46:38] most insane proposals but apparently the legislature has some kind of rule [01:46:46] themselves to make sure whenever they make a law that it doesn't impact [01:46:49] business negatively because there's a lot of campaign contributions I imagine [01:46:54] that come in from the business community to them getting elected but to [01:46:59] mandate us to do us economic study on every ordinance is something that the [01:47:06] League of City the FRA and probably every other legal mind that's watching [01:47:12] has a mind they must have known who I was because they said please don't go [01:47:18] off the deep end about this and let them do their own lobbying and try to [01:47:24] craft what they think might happen into something that can be lived with but I [01:47:29] would suggest particularly Councilman Peters I know you've had some knowledge [01:47:34] of legislation the Suncoast League of Cities talked about this in Treasure [01:47:40] Island a few weeks ago and they have a monthly meeting I think one is coming up [01:47:47] this Friday there's some kind of a get-together going on in Clearwater so [01:47:51] if I would make sure that the clerk let you know if it's something it's like an [01:47:57] after-hours meet-and-greet but there's some pretty active folks in the Suncoast [01:48:02] League I believe that was something that we threw to you is that right [01:48:08] correct look the MPO and I don't think it's exclusive to any of us to attend [01:48:13] those so anyway mr. Murphy I'm gonna save mine for next time

    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. 1Call to Order – Roll Call
12. 2

    Pledge of Allegiance

    Pledge of Allegiance.
13. 3

    Moment of Silence

    Moment of silence.
14. 4

    Approval of November 2, 2021 Regular Meeting Minutes

    Approval of the minutes from the November 2, 2021 regular meeting.
15. 5

    Swearing In of New Firefighters - Autumn Kelso and Zackary Detty

    Swearing in of new firefighters Autumn Kelso and Zackary Detty.

    👤Autumn Kelso👤Zackary Detty
16. 6

    Proclamation - African American Club of Pasco's 30th Anniversary

    Proclamation recognizing the 30th anniversary of the African American Club of Pasco.

    🏢African American Club of Pasco#30th Anniversary
17. 7

    Proclamation - Small Business Saturday

    Proclamation recognizing Small Business Saturday.

    #Small Business Saturday
18. 8Vox Pop for Items Not Listed on the Agenda or Listed on Consent Agenda
19. 9.a

    Purchases/Payments for City Council Approval

    on consent

    Consent agenda item to approve purchases and payments.
20. 9.b

    ↳You arrived here from a search for “FY2020-2021 Budget”

    Consideration of Year-End Amendments to the FY2020-2021 Adopted Budget

    on consent

    Consent agenda item considering year-end amendments to the FY2020-2021 adopted budget.

    #FY2020-2021 Budget
21. 11.i

    Approval of DEO Evaluation and Appraisal Notification Letter

    Approval of a DEO Evaluation and Appraisal Notification Letter.

    #DEO Evaluation and Appraisal Notification Letter
22. 12Communications
23. 13Adjournment