Council stayed demolition of the former La Casa Inn (6523 US 19) for 180 days, tabled a Candice Lane demolition appeal, and approved a $23,455.50 annual WatchGuard police camera contract.
17 items on the agenda · 10 decisions recorded
On the agenda
- 1Call to Order – Roll Call▶ 0:00
- 2
Pledge of Allegiance
Pledge of Allegiance led by members of Boy Scout Troop 86 at the invitation of a former Scoutmaster, followed by a moment of silence for servicemembers.
▶ Jump to 0:18 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:00:18] As a former Scoutmaster of Troop 86, I'm going to exercise my prerogative and ask if the [00:00:22] young men from Troop 86 would come forward and lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, and [00:00:27] I would ask that everybody remain standing for a moment of silence after that in honor [00:00:31] of our servicemen and women at home and abroad. [00:00:35] Flag's back here, gentlemen. [00:00:42] Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. [00:00:54] Those who are not in uniform, please place your hand over your heart. [00:01:00] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for [00:01:07] which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 3
Moment of Silence
Procedural moment of silence; Boy Scouts were noted as observing the meeting as part of a citizenship merit badge requirement.
▶ Jump to 1:15 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:01:16] You may not be seated. [00:01:19] He's going to be mayor some day. [00:01:22] You may all be seated. [00:01:25] The Scouts are here as one of the requirements for one of the citizenship merit badges, so [00:01:31] they're going to be observing us tonight.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 4
Approval of February 15, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes
approvedCouncil approved the minutes from the February 15, 2022 regular meeting by voice vote.
- motion:Motion to approve the February 15, 2022 regular meeting minutes. (passed)
▶ Jump to 1:35 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:01:35] Next item on the agenda is the approval of the February 15th regular meeting minutes. [00:01:39] Move for approval. [00:01:40] Second. [00:01:41] Any discussion? [00:01:42] Hearing none, all those please signify by saying aye. [00:01:48] Aye. [00:01:49] Opposed? [00:01:50] Aye. [00:01:51] Opposed? [00:01:52] Likewise. [00:01:53] Motion passes. [00:01:54] Next, I'd like to ask Kami Austin, Al Renato, and Kurt Conover if he's here to join me at
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
Proclamation - Chasco Fiesta 100th Anniversary
approvedMayor Rob Marlowe read a proclamation recognizing the 100th anniversary of the Chasco Fiesta, founded in 1922 and billed as the oldest annual festival in Florida. Chairman Cammie Austin and other board members accepted the proclamation and thanked the city, volunteers, and residents for their support.
- direction:Mayor issued a proclamation congratulating the Chasco Fiesta on its 100th anniversary and encouraging residents to attend. (passed)
▶ Jump to 1:55 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:01:59] the podium. [00:02:00] There's some other board members, too. [00:02:02] And whatever other board members are hiding in the back there. [00:02:07] Come on down. [00:02:09] Where do you want us? [00:02:16] Right here. [00:02:17] On the pedestal. [00:02:20] Whereas the Chasco Fiesta was founded in 1922 and is the oldest annual festival in Florida, [00:02:26] and whereas the Chasco Fiesta pays homage to the Native American Indians, and whereas [00:02:31] 2022 marks the 100th anniversary of the first Chasco Fiesta, and whereas the Chasco Fiesta [00:02:37] is a fundraising event that supports over 20 local and surrounding area organizations, [00:02:44] and whereas the Chasco Fiesta's boat and street parades, car show, concerts, carnival, and [00:02:49] food are enjoyed by all, and whereas the sponsors and more than 700 volunteers make this event [00:02:55] successful, now therefore I, Rob Marlowe, Mayor of the City of New Port Richey, do hereby [00:03:00] congratulate the Chasco Fiesta on their 100th anniversary in beautiful downtown New Port Richey, and I encourage all the residents to visit one of our city's greatest events, [00:03:10] and this starts the last weekend in March and goes through the first weekend in April, [00:03:15] and it is going to be dynamite. [00:03:17] Chascofiesta.com. [00:03:20] That's great. [00:03:21] Thank you very much. [00:03:22] You can say a few words if you want. [00:03:31] People at home don't know that you're here. [00:03:35] Well, I just wanted to thank Mayor Marlowe for being one of the very first volunteers [00:03:40] to sign up. [00:03:41] As soon as I sent out the sign-up links, you and I were both up at midnight, and you signed [00:03:46] up immediately, sir, and thank you so much for your support. [00:03:48] Thank you. [00:03:50] If you need a place to volunteer, it is a lot of fun. [00:03:55] I've discovered the information booth is a great place for people watching. [00:03:59] And he sells a heck out of T-shirts. [00:04:01] I'm just saying. [00:04:03] Cammie Austin, Chairman, I'm very honored that I have been with Chasco this long. [00:04:09] Chuck Gray got me involved back in 1993 when I was two. [00:04:13] But I would just like to thank the city and all supporting services for what they do for Chascofiesta [00:04:21] without the city and everybody, all the volunteers, the steering committee. [00:04:27] I'd like to recognize them, too. [00:04:29] We've been working all year long on this. [00:04:31] So I just want to thank and thank, of course, the residents of New Port Richey for everything, too. [00:04:38] So thank you. [00:04:39] Thank you. [00:04:40] Thanks, Cammie. [00:04:41] Thank you. [00:04:45] Hello.
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
Proclamation - Problem Gambling Awareness Month (By Title Only)
approvedCouncil issued a proclamation by title only recognizing March as Problem Gambling Awareness Month. The proclamation was forwarded to the city clerk for handling.
▶ Jump to 4:50 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:04:52] It is now. [00:04:55] Somebody had you turned off. [00:04:59] Next is proclamation by title only, recognizing March as Problem Gambling Awareness Month. [00:05:07] And I will forward this on to the city clerk so that she can report it on accordingly.
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.
- 7Vox Pop for Items Not Listed on the Agenda or Listed on Consent Agenda▶ 5:15
- 8.a
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes - January 2022
approvedon consentConsent agenda was moved, seconded, and approved without discussion.
- motion:Motion to approve the consent agenda, which included the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes from January 2022. (passed)
▶ Jump to 19:05 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:19:05] We hear you and it may be effective to be up here because she may get calls from us. [00:19:10] But please understand that's the way it works here. [00:19:16] Thank you. Next on the agenda is the consent agenda. [00:19:26] Second. Any discussion? [00:19:28] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 8.b
Purchases/Payments for City Council Approval
approvedon consentThe consent agenda, including purchases/payments for council approval, was moved, seconded, and approved by voice vote with no discussion.
- motion:Motion to approve the consent agenda. (passed)
▶ Jump to 19:05 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:19:05] We hear you and it may be effective to be up here because she may get calls from us. [00:19:10] But please understand that's the way it works here. [00:19:16] Thank you. Next on the agenda is the consent agenda. [00:19:26] Second. Any discussion? [00:19:28] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 9.a
Appeal of Order to Demolish RE: 6523 U.S. Highway 19, the Former La Casa Inn
approvedCouncil heard a quasi-judicial appeal of an order to demolish the most westerly building at the former La Casa Inn property (6523 US Hwy 19), owned by the ARA Group/Mr. Patel. After staff (Ms. Manns) recommended reversing the demolition order based on submitted rehabilitation plans from Spring Engineering and Marquis Contracting falling within FEMA's 50% substantial improvement rule, Council moved to issue a 180-day stay of the demolition order to allow the owner to complete repairs.
- motion:Motion to issue a stay of the demolition order for six months (180 days) to allow the owner to complete rehabilitation work. (passed)
100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 1490, Tampa, Florida, 336026523 US Highway 19 NorthARA Group LLCBass Fletcher & AssociatesFirst Citrus BankLa Casa InnMarquis ContractingSmoker MatthewsSpring EngineeringAndre PerroneClay MatthewsCouncilman DavisMr. AllmanMr. BeckishMr. PatelMr. PetersMs. MannsTom PavelAppeal filed June 18, 2021FEMA 50% substantial improvement ruleInspection warrant May 7, 2021Marquis Contracting Substantial Improvement Cost Evaluation WorksheetOrder to Demolish issued May 19, 2021Section 6-185 (demolition criteria)Section 6-190 (appeal provisions)▶ Jump to 19:30 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:19:31] Aye. Opposed? [00:19:32] Like sign. [00:19:33] Motion passes. [00:19:34] Next is item 9A. [00:19:36] Appeal of an order to demolish regarding 50, 60. [00:19:44] Tim, thank you. [00:19:47] 6523. [00:19:47] Yeah, sorry, Mayor. [00:19:49] 6523 US Highway 19 North. [00:19:55] Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. [00:20:00] This is an appeal from an order to demolish of a commercial structure which is located as indicated at 6523 US Highway 19. [00:20:10] It is most commonly known as the former La Casa Inn property and it relates specifically to the most westerly building which is located on the property. [00:20:23] It meets our criteria for demolition from the city's code of ordinances under Section 6-185. [00:20:35] The subject property in general is 2.17 acres in size located at the southwest corner of US Highway 19 and Green Key Road. [00:20:46] It is located within a floodplain designation with base flood elevations between 10 and 11 feet. [00:20:57] The site does contain approximately 58,900 square feet and a total of 120 hotel rooms between two two-story buildings. [00:21:12] As a matter of record, I think you should be advised of the fact that on May 6th of 2021, the two-story structure, again most westerly, was inspected by the city's building official along with other city officials and it was determined at that time that the structure did meet the criteria for demolition as outlined in the city's code. [00:21:37] As a result of that, an inspection warrant was obtained on May 7th to receive access into the additional buildings on the property. [00:21:47] On May 10th, the staff conducted a second inspection of the property and we will review some of the photos that were taken on that day. [00:22:00] The owner on May 19th was notified by certified mail of an order to demolish and given 30 days to demolish the structure. [00:22:10] Let's pull up the PowerPoint if we could at this time. [00:22:18] And the city's code of ordinances, let's keep flipping, and there are seven conditions. [00:22:28] This is a site location map, seven conditions by which, and this is the order which was posted on the site, and there are seven conditions which [00:22:47] indicate the existence of criteria which are indicative of slums and blight. [00:23:00] In our case, the building official indicated that there were four conditions. [00:23:08] The first was that the structure is so unsanitary or so utterly fails to provide the amenities essential to decent living that it manifestly unfit for human habitation or is likely to cause sickness or disease so as to work injury to the life, health, or safety on the general public or the occupant. [00:23:32] Amenities essential to decent living included but not limited to the availability of potable water, at least one working toilet, and protection from exposure to the elements. [00:23:43] Secondly, that the structure or a portion thereof as a result of decay, deterioration, or dilapidation is likely to fully or partially collapse. [00:23:56] Thirdly, the condition of the structure or a portion thereof poses an immediate threat to life or property by fire or other causes, excuse me. [00:24:09] And lastly, there is a serious and substantial falling away, hanging loose, or loosening of the siding, block, brick, or other building material, creating a hazard for occupants of the public. [00:24:23] Under the code, the owner or the owner's agent may appeal an order to demolish and that's what is happening this evening. [00:24:37] The owner's agent is appealing the city's order to demolish and that appeal officially came in on June 18th of 2021. [00:24:50] And there are conditions under which an appeal can be considered. [00:24:55] And there are actually three conditions. [00:24:58] And the first one, and first I'll remind the council that this is a quasi-judicial hearing. [00:25:06] The first petitioner must show that the structure does not meet the criteria for demolition or that the structure cannot be demolished within the timeframe specified in the order. [00:25:23] Or lastly, that the structure can be reconstructed, repaired, or restored. [00:25:31] Mr. Patel, who is the owner of the property, at the time that the original order was submitted in June of 21, was contesting that the structure can be reconstructed, repaired, or restored. [00:25:51] And what he failed, though, to produce was some of the requirements of the ordinance that call for a list of the proposed work to the structures, an estimated cost, an estimated timetable for obtaining permits, or a timetable for completing the work. [00:26:15] As a result of that, some discussion occurred between the city and Mr. Patel and his representatives, and extensions were given to them in order for them to put together the required materials. [00:26:34] And on February 16th of 2022, those materials were obtained, and Marquis Contracting has now submitted, along with Spring Engineering, a list of proposed work to the most westerly building on the property. [00:27:02] They have also proposed work for Building 1 and 2, which are not the subject of the demolition order, but are also buildings on the property where work is warranted. [00:27:18] And if we could show the pictures on the PowerPoint, if we could get back to that. [00:27:26] Somehow we missed it in the PowerPoint. [00:27:33] Okay. [00:27:39] No, it shouldn't be further. It should be after this. [00:27:45] After that. [00:27:47] Okay. [00:27:52] No pictures. [00:27:57] It should be before that. [00:28:01] Do you have anything after? [00:28:03] No. [00:28:04] Okay, then something is wrong with the PowerPoint. [00:28:08] The Council has the benefit of the photos in their Council packet, and I'm sorry for the fact that the PowerPoint obviously wasn't transmitted appropriately. [00:28:23] But you all have the pictures in front of you, which demonstrate the conditions that we witnessed as part of the staff's visual inspection of the property. [00:28:43] The recommendation, though, after we have had an opportunity, and I have the city's building official in attendance this evening with me in the event that there are questions that I am unable to respond to. [00:29:06] This is a very unique situation because it is in the floodplain, because there is a substantial improvement question. [00:29:17] And one of the slides that you weren't able to take a really good look at is the one with the appraised value. [00:29:26] And the appraised value dictates how much money you can actually spend on repair and not exceed the substantial improvement number on the work to be done without raising the building or bringing it all up to current standards. [00:29:56] And... [00:30:00] The summary worksheet that was provided by the applicant demonstrates that they are able [00:30:09] to complete the work based on the market value determination provided by the appraiser and [00:30:21] the Marquis Contracting Substantial Improvement Cost Evaluation Worksheet along with the work [00:30:34] specified by Spring Engineering. Now we have some pictures. I'm seeing some. [00:30:41] Oh. [00:30:42] Okay. So... [00:30:45] You were just getting to the good part. What is the... [00:30:48] So our recommendation, sorry, I don't want to keep everybody in waiting, is that we allow [00:30:56] the applicant to go forward with the repair work as they're presenting to us in this package this [00:31:06] evening in accordance with the time frame as specified in the package which indicates a [00:31:17] three to four month time period to complete the proposed improvements and remedy the [00:31:24] substandard conditions as they exist on the property. [00:31:31] This is Quasi-Judicial. I would ask if any of the members of Council have had any [00:31:35] ex parte communications on this matter? [00:31:39] No, Mr. Mayor, but I would appreciate a brief direction from the City Manager as to [00:31:46] what that means in terms of what can be presented to us and what we are going to act upon. [00:31:53] So there are actually three things that the Council has the authority to do [00:32:00] this evening as it relates to this item. You can either affirm the order, [00:32:09] you can modify it, or reverse the order to demolish. [00:32:13] The staff's recommendation is to reverse. Very good. [00:32:20] Open it up for the applicant or the applicant's representative. [00:32:32] Ms. Mann and I have gotten to know each other extremely well over the last seven months. [00:32:37] Thank you. My name is Andre Perrone. I'm an attorney licensed in Florida [00:32:41] and I represent the ARA group and LLC in connection with this matter. Since this [00:32:49] permit, this situation developed, we have engaged Spring Engineering, Mr. Beckish, [00:32:56] who is here with us today to answer any questions in connection with the proposals in front of you. [00:33:02] We have worked with the City, with Ms. Mann at Great Lakes, over the last several months because [00:33:07] this was not a project that could be done quickly. There's 130 units roughly at issue, [00:33:15] many of which have to be repaired. My understanding is, and as I said, Mr. Beckish will speak to this [00:33:21] because I'm the attorney, not the engineer, but there's no major structural issues involved here. [00:33:26] This is, and I don't want to use the word cosmetic, but it's more dealing with the plumbing, [00:33:32] the fixtures, the flooring, the wall boards, and things of that nature. [00:33:38] So in connection working with Mr. Beckish, we also engaged the services of Tom Pavel, [00:33:47] Marquis Contracting, and we have prepared for the board, and I brought those with us [00:33:55] as well to enter into the record, the estimates of costs, the timetable for obtaining the permits, [00:34:03] the timetable for completion of the work, which has been submitted, and our people have been [00:34:09] working with the building officials to run this through and to make sure everything is appropriate [00:34:15] and meeting the City requirements. So we think we have successfully developed a plan [00:34:22] to complete this structure timely, to do the repairs timely, and bring it within the ordinances. [00:34:28] The buildings do have significant value, even in their current state, so it is something that [00:34:34] my clients want to preserve and protect as the property owners, and they have been working hard [00:34:39] with the City to bring this to proper conclusion. As Mr. Mann has talked about, part of the holdup, [00:34:47] part of the complexity of this little thing to get this done was the FEMA requirements, [00:34:52] and I'm sure you all have dealt with that before. We had an appraisal done. I brought that appraisal [00:34:57] to put in the record. I'm going to put some things in the record later. I think you all have seen [00:35:01] that from Bass Fletcher & Associates, and the City went out and got their appraisal as to what the [00:35:06] FEMA numbers are. They came in with a lower number, but the purposes of this effort here today, [00:35:13] we're using the City's numbers because we can fall within the City's numbers. So our appraisal [00:35:18] was higher, but we're working with the City on their numbers, so I think we're pretty comfortable [00:35:24] with the FEMA situation with the City. Engineering, you all have worked with before, and know they [00:35:30] have done the plans necessary to do the renovations on this project, and of course, Mr. Pavel is here [00:35:37] as well to address questions from this Board that the Board may have in reviewing these plans and [00:35:44] specs and cost estimates and the like, and I will let them speak to that. My client is also here. [00:35:51] I have also brought Clay Matthews from First Citizens Bank, who has the mortgage on the [00:35:55] property, and he obviously represents the interests of the bank in connection with that, [00:36:01] but with that, I would like to put a few things in the record to give it to the Clerk, and we [00:36:05] have a good time, and to the extent that you need to talk to have questions, [00:36:11] my people are here to answer those questions. Very good. Thank you. [00:36:16] Are there any substantially affected parties that wish to address Council on this? [00:36:24] Any members of the general public that wish to address Council on this? Yes, please. [00:36:31] Good evening, Council Members. My name is Clay Matthews. I'm an attorney with the law firm of [00:36:36] Smoker Matthews in Tampa. Our address is 100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 1490, Tampa, Florida, 33602. [00:36:44] As Mr. Prohn noted, I'm here on behalf of our client, First Citrus Bank, [00:36:47] who is a lender on the property, and obviously, we're here to argue in favor and advocate for [00:36:52] the granting of the appeal of the demolition order. I'm here to address the issue of the [00:36:58] appeal of the demolition order. As Ms. Manns was noting, there are certain requirements under [00:37:05] section 6190 sub a sub 3 that an appellant must provide to show entitlement to an appeal. [00:37:13] There are certain documents you must provide, and I think that the owners provided all of that, [00:37:16] and then some to establish its entitlement to the granting of the appeal. That section provides, [00:37:22] you provide a list of the proposed work to the structure of the estimated cost, the timetable [00:37:26] for obtaining permits, and the timetable for completion of the work. The owners have provided [00:37:31] all of that. Mostly, it was in the documents that Mr. Prohn just handed to the clerk. [00:37:37] There are documents that set out the proposed work to the structure, very detailed, provided [00:37:42] by the contractor, who will get up and comment here shortly. It lists out the estimated cost [00:37:46] for all the improvements. The timetable for obtaining permits is pretty clear. We've submitted [00:37:52] applications, or the owners submitted applications for all the permits, so that's already been done. [00:37:55] It's my understanding that two of the permits have already been issued, and the third permit, [00:37:59] we're just waiting on the demolition order to be reversed so that we can then get the building [00:38:03] permit to then conduct the work. The timetable is pretty clear there. Then also, a timetable for [00:38:08] completion of the work. We've established through a letter from the contractor who estimates that [00:38:13] it'll take about three to four months for the work to be completed, barring any setbacks or delays [00:38:17] from their vendors due to bottlenecks and so forth. We believe that the proper documentation [00:38:25] has been submitted to establish entitlement to the granting of the appeal. Notably, as Mr. Prohn [00:38:32] noted, it does fall within the FEMA 50% rule. Going off of the city's appraiser's opinion of [00:38:38] the costs available for rehabilitation, it was about $1.2 million change, and that the cost of [00:38:44] the improvements comes in at about $1.15 million, so well under that $1.2 million range meeting the [00:38:49] FEMA requirement there. Just to wrap up, I'll say I'll note and emphasize that the staff's [00:38:54] recommended to reverse the order, and we respectfully request that you follow the [00:38:58] staff's recommendation to grant the appeal and to reverse the demolition order and allow [00:39:02] the owners of the property to proceed with the rehabilitation of the hotel. [00:39:07] As a personal note, I'll note that on behalf of my client, they're very invested in this property. [00:39:11] They're here to have me attend to hopefully ensure that the appeal is granted. They're [00:39:16] very invested in this property, as I know the owners are as well. So that's all I have, [00:39:20] and I'll defer to Mr. Pakesh and the contractor to provide more detail. Thank you. [00:39:29] Anyone else? [00:39:34] Seeing no one else come forward, I'll bring it back to Council. [00:39:37] Mr. Mayor, if I could just comment on what your options are as well. You also have the option [00:39:42] under subsection 3 of section 6-190 to issue a stay of the order of demolition to allow the owner [00:39:53] to undertake its rehabilitation effort, and if you're inclined to do that, that's what I would [00:39:59] recommend you do is you stay the order for a period of time, let them go through the permitting [00:40:04] process and complete the work associated with those permits, and if for some reason that is not [00:40:10] timely completed at the end of the stay, it'll come back to you to take further action as you [00:40:15] deem appropriate, and I think that's the best way to proceed. They've recommended that they need [00:40:20] three to four months, given construction possible delays and those sorts of things, [00:40:25] I'd recommend that you stay it for 180 days. That gives them a full six months to complete the work, [00:40:31] get all the permitting that they need, and to complete those improvements. That would be my [00:40:35] recommendation. You can certainly do something less, but I think giving that leeway would give [00:40:41] them an opportunity to try to rehabilitate the structure. Entertain a motion? [00:40:50] I'll make that motion to go along with the attorney for a stay for six months. [00:40:56] Okay, I'll second that. I just, what really bothers me, and I have to say it out loud, [00:41:03] and I'm the type of person that does this, and not just for this property, but any property in town, [00:41:09] you know, I just don't believe that you let it get to the point that we had to come in and [00:41:13] shut it down and then go through all this, that you didn't step up. If the bank's going to back [00:41:18] you to go ahead and fix this at 1.1 million, you know, that you didn't do this without us [00:41:24] knocking on your door. That just really bothers me, and it's taken, you know, almost a year, [00:41:30] and I suspect that probably nothing's been done to the building in that almost year, 10 months, [00:41:35] so it just, I just have to put this out on the table. I'm, you know, I'm supporting you to go [00:41:39] ahead and clean it up and get it straightened out, but, you know, why? It just baffles me. [00:41:45] Do you have a second? I'll mirror what Councilman Davis said also [00:41:51] with that, and the fact that the, what you can spend on it that pays the 50 percent because of [00:41:57] the flood rule for FEMA, and what it's going to cost to actually fix the property, it's pretty [00:42:04] close. So, you know, in today's world, especially in construction, it's never the lower number, [00:42:12] it's always a higher number, and if it's your money, you got to decide what, you know, what's [00:42:16] viable and what makes sense to you, but I guess in that case, I'd like to just ask Ms. Manns [00:42:22] if it goes over what it is, and then what happens then as far as the cost of renovation? [00:42:32] That's a really good question. [00:42:36] Okay, all right. [00:42:39] Yeah, so I've got to, can I ask a couple questions to get some, you said the contractor was here? [00:42:44] Yes. [00:42:45] Yeah, we'll talk to, hang on a second. So I've got a couple questions to clarify. So [00:42:52] as we look at the cost associated with this and comparing it with the valuation, [00:42:57] are we doing that building by building, or are we doing the entire property? [00:43:00] Only one building on the property is isolated as slum and blight. The other two, the [00:43:11] office lobby and the most easterly building, are in need of repairs, but they are not the [00:43:17] subject of a demolition order. I understand that. So, but in calculation of the values [00:43:23] and the 50% rule, is that applied by each structure on the property, or is it the entire [00:43:31] value of the property as a whole? You know, I'm not some, okay, so yeah, so the question. [00:43:36] Each property has its own, I'm sorry, each building has been assigned an independent value [00:43:45] on the property. And I understand that. What I'm not clear of, and maybe that's something I [00:43:51] maybe should have looked into, is as far as application, and maybe someone here knows this, [00:43:55] the 50% rule, when that's analyzed on a property, do we do that building by building, or do we do [00:44:05] it as the entire property in its entirety? You know, relating it to maybe a residential property [00:44:12] where there's the home and a detached garage, there can be, you know, the numbers can skew [00:44:18] that one way or the other, depending upon the damages and repair costs. So, it's building [00:44:25] building, okay, okay, so we're good enough with that. Mr. Allman? Well, he's not done yet. [00:44:31] Yeah, okay. Yeah, and the other, so the other thing, following up on that is, now you gave us [00:44:37] some documents to the clerk today. Did that include some of the construction costs? Correct. All right, [00:44:44] so we, you know, we in our packet, we got a summary of construction costs, you know, [00:44:50] flooring and so forth and on that, and there's quite a complex matrix that spring engineering [00:44:57] performed indicating what room and what [00:45:00] items in each room needed to take care of, right? [00:45:03] So, but what I did not see, I didn't see, [00:45:06] when I look at construction costs, [00:45:07] normally I look at estimates to see things like [00:45:10] so many linear square feet of baseboards [00:45:14] and so much square feet of paint, wall board, and so forth. [00:45:17] Do we, is that what you brought up today? [00:45:19] Do we have that information? [00:45:21] Yeah, I'm gonna call on Mr. Pavel to speak to that. [00:45:23] Point of order, Mr. Mayor. [00:45:25] We're in a motion, and under the Roberts Rules of Order, [00:45:28] in a motion, it's to us. [00:45:31] You are correct. [00:45:32] So, if there was a question we needed to ask, [00:45:34] I don't know how important it is to your vote, [00:45:36] but maybe the staff can respond, but I'm not, [00:45:43] this is for us to debate now. [00:45:48] So, do you know what the cost is, Councilman? [00:45:51] I know that the city manager provided us [00:45:54] that the cost was 1.25 out of 1 point, [00:46:00] what, it could have been 1.5. [00:46:02] I heard verbal testimony that it was below the cost. [00:46:06] I wasn't happy with the documentation I received [00:46:09] that supported that. [00:46:12] So, that's a reason for a vote. [00:46:16] Mr. Allman, do you have comments on this? [00:46:19] Well, I mean, when we're in a quasi-judicial situation [00:46:23] with court reporters and lawyers [00:46:26] who apparently hadn't understood the process [00:46:30] to cause us to have delays, [00:46:33] and of course I hear one of my colleagues [00:46:35] talk about how he supported this process up to this point, [00:46:38] but I don't recall us as a board supporting anything. [00:46:44] It comes to us as judges, not as members of the team. [00:46:48] So, to me, and particularly in response to you, [00:46:55] Mr. Peters, we have to rely on the evidence [00:47:02] that's provided to us, that's been provided to the staff [00:47:06] and their professionalism. [00:47:07] So, that's what I intend to do, [00:47:11] and I'm not happy about it, but that's what I intend to do. [00:47:15] Thank you. [00:47:17] I would echo the Deputy Mayor's comments. [00:47:20] This building should have never, ever been allowed [00:47:23] to deteriorate to the point that it required [00:47:26] it to be red-tacked. [00:47:29] That is absolutely atrocious. [00:47:38] Getting it fixed up, I suspect, [00:47:40] is the better part of valor at this time, [00:47:44] but I sure hope we don't have the Patels [00:47:47] coming back in front of us in a few years [00:47:50] because the thing has deteriorated again. [00:47:55] May I ask another question? [00:47:56] Yes, sir. [00:47:57] So, the current order of demolition that's been issued, [00:48:01] is there, what is the timetable deadline on that? [00:48:06] It's a 30-day order, but the property owner [00:48:09] has the right to appeal it, [00:48:10] and that's what you're here for today. [00:48:12] So, there's been an appeal and an extension [00:48:14] of the time for that appeal. [00:48:16] I would point out to you that the vote that you're making [00:48:19] if you approve this motion is to stay that order, [00:48:23] which will give them the right to pull permits [00:48:25] to rehabilitate the structure. [00:48:27] That just gives them the right to pull those permits. [00:48:30] They still have to establish that those permits [00:48:33] can be lawfully given, and they have to provide [00:48:35] all the information that the building official requires [00:48:38] to issue those permits. [00:48:39] If for some reason they can't be issued, [00:48:43] then they won't be able to proceed, [00:48:44] and they're gonna have to make a determination [00:48:46] that they'll have to tear down the building, [00:48:48] or the city will tear down the building. [00:48:51] So, all you're doing tonight is you're saying [00:48:53] we're gonna give you some time to try to get those permits [00:48:56] and to fix the building if you wanna salvage it. [00:48:58] So, that's what you're really voting on here, [00:49:00] and you're giving a period of time to do that, [00:49:02] and as I said, I recommended you give them 180 days [00:49:05] so they have plenty of time to accomplish that [00:49:08] if they intend to do it. [00:49:10] That was the motion, and the second was for the 180. [00:49:12] I may speak the second time to the motion, [00:49:14] then, to follow up on what was a really good question, [00:49:19] because one of the experts who we're relying on, [00:49:23] and all of the discussion that we heard [00:49:26] from the testimony was proposed estimate. [00:49:30] So, this is my question, then. [00:49:32] If we have a law, as going back to [00:49:35] Councilman Peter's question, if we have a law [00:49:37] that says you can't spend more than 50% [00:49:41] of the value of a building, and we're being represented [00:49:44] that this can be done, and we put a stay on this order, [00:49:48] do we have the right to ask for evidence [00:49:51] to show that the cost, in effect, [00:49:53] did come in below that 50%? [00:49:56] Absolutely. [00:49:57] So, I would like to ask if we could get [00:49:59] a friendly amendment to the motion, [00:50:01] because that's what's being told, [00:50:03] and that's what we should be holding to. [00:50:06] This is floodplain property. [00:50:08] I'll add that to the motion. [00:50:09] Is that acceptable to the second? [00:50:11] Yep, second. [00:50:12] So, can I speak to the amendment? [00:50:14] Sure. [00:50:15] Then, so, do you think in us accepting that amendment, [00:50:20] and that we go forth, give the permits, [00:50:25] that we've reviewed it, the fact that we're, [00:50:28] that they are permitted to do this work? [00:50:32] And who makes, you know, and so, [00:50:34] and they do the work, and the work comes in [00:50:37] far above the FEMA guidelines. [00:50:41] Now, are we responsible for having allowed them [00:50:44] to do the work outside those guidelines? [00:50:46] We can tear the building down. [00:50:49] You're not allowing them to do the work. [00:50:51] What you're allowing them to do is to pull the permits [00:50:54] to do the work, and then to complete the work, [00:50:56] and avoid the demolition of the structure at this point. [00:50:59] That's all you're allowing them to do. [00:51:01] They still have to meet all the requirements of the code. [00:51:03] They still have to meet the building code. [00:51:05] They still have to meet the 50% rule [00:51:07] before they can actually complete that work, [00:51:09] and they will not be allowed to exceed it. [00:51:11] If they come up short, then you'll have to look [00:51:14] at the situation at that point, [00:51:15] and determine what is the best solution [00:51:17] to deal with the building at that point. [00:51:18] And it may be tear it down, [00:51:19] and they may have put money into it, [00:51:21] and still have it torn down. [00:51:23] So, that's the risk that they're taking. [00:51:25] They're saying, well, I can, [00:51:26] we can rehabilitate this structure. [00:51:28] They need to be able to go ahead and do that. [00:51:30] And if they're unable to, it's gonna come back to you [00:51:34] to determine what to do with it. [00:51:35] Thank you. [00:51:36] With the cost of materials, [00:51:38] we'd definitely like an answer, or keep abreast of it. [00:51:41] I'm sorry, I'm trying to hear again. [00:51:41] Councilman Davis, oh, I can't hear you. [00:51:45] I just think that we, you know, [00:51:47] that the staff will keep us abreast of what's going on, [00:51:50] and that's all that I ask. [00:51:52] And I think the, you know, the, you know, [00:51:55] permits and stuff will tell us that, too. [00:51:58] Any further discussion? [00:52:00] Hearing none, I. [00:52:03] Just for the record, I think if I'm listed [00:52:06] as the amender of the motion, [00:52:08] I guess I can still amend it, [00:52:09] as long as it hadn't been voted on. [00:52:11] So, only person can amend a motion, [00:52:13] someone who voted for it, [00:52:14] but we got it before it happened, so. [00:52:17] We're covered. Thank you. [00:52:19] All those in favor of the motion as amended, [00:52:23] please signify by saying aye. [00:52:25] Aye. Aye. [00:52:27] Opposed, like sign. [00:52:28] Aye.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 9.b
Appeal of Order to Demolish RE: 6602 Candice Lane, Ronald Howarth
tabledRonald Howarth, appellant for the order to demolish at 6602 Candice Lane, requested a continuance so he could properly submit his PowerPoint presentation in advance. Council voted 4-1 to table the matter to the next meeting.
- motion:Motion to table the appeal of the order to demolish 6602 Candice Lane to the next meeting. (passed)4–1
▶ Jump to 52:30 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:52:30] Motion passes on a four to one vote. [00:52:34] Next is an appeal of an order to demolish [00:52:38] 6602 Candace Lane. [00:52:43] Mr. Driscoll. [00:52:45] Apparently, the applicant has requested [00:52:47] a continuance of the hearing, [00:52:48] so that he can submit a PowerPoint [00:52:51] that hasn't been submitted to the city in advance, [00:52:53] and I'll let him come up and make that case, [00:52:56] if you would entertain that, Mr. Mayor. [00:53:00] Howard. [00:53:12] Good evening. [00:53:13] At the last hearing, I did a presentation, [00:53:17] and I brought in my PowerPoint, [00:53:19] and there was no problem. [00:53:22] And then, I came in with my PowerPoint [00:53:26] to make my presentation, [00:53:28] and I was told I had to submit it 24 hours ahead of time. [00:53:32] And so, I'm really not prepared [00:53:35] to make an adequate presentation, [00:53:40] so I'm asking for a reasonable postponement. [00:53:44] Thank you. [00:53:45] We'd entertain a motion to postpone this [00:53:47] till our next meeting. [00:53:48] Motion is tabled to the next meeting. [00:53:51] Second. [00:53:54] Somebody? [00:53:55] Second. [00:53:56] Thank you. [00:53:57] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:54:00] Aye. Aye. [00:54:01] Opposed, like sign. [00:54:03] Mr. Howard, we have one, four to one. [00:54:07] If you would give the city clerk [00:54:08] the thumb drive with the PowerPoint. [00:54:12] Now, or when? Yes, please. [00:54:14] No, give it to her now. [00:54:24] Thank you. [00:54:28] Thank you. [00:54:30] Next is a request to purchase [00:54:31] WatchGuard in-car camera systems. [00:54:33] Ms. Vance. [00:54:37] The request is to purchase 15 in-car cameras [00:54:40] from WatchGuard, Incorporated. [00:54:42] The total cost of the purchase is $117,277.50, [00:54:50] and it is to support the expenditure [00:54:55] of purchasing equipment for 15 vehicles [00:55:02] with video evidence solutions. [00:55:06] The amount would be financed
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.c
Request to Purchase WatchGuard In-Car Camera System
approvedCouncil approved a five-year purchase of the WatchGuard in-car camera system for the police department at an annual payment of $23,455.50. The purchase was advanced because 15 new police vehicles are expected and need equipment.
- motion:Motion to approve the purchase of the WatchGuard in-car camera system over a five-year period at $23,455.50 annually. (passed)
▶ Jump to 55:08 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:55:10] over a five-year period of time. [00:55:13] The annual payment would be $23,455.50. [00:55:17] The first year purchase has been already allocated [00:55:27] in the capital purchases account [00:55:29] of the police department budget, [00:55:32] and the reason that we are advancing this to you [00:55:34] at this time is because we are expecting 15 new vehicles, [00:55:41] and we need to purchase the equipment [00:55:45] for the new vehicles for the police department. [00:55:48] Open it up for public comment. [00:55:51] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to council. [00:55:55] I move we approve. [00:55:55] Second. [00:55:56] To the maker. [00:55:58] Let's go with it. [00:55:59] Second. [00:56:00] Nothing more. [00:56:00] Mr. Ullman. [00:56:01] Same here. [00:56:02] Mr. Murphy. [00:56:03] We need him. [00:56:04] In that case, all those in favor, [00:56:06] please signify by saying aye. [00:56:08] Aye. [00:56:08] Opposed, like sign. [00:56:10] Motion passes. [00:56:11] Next is a request to purchase [00:56:12] Siemens Secure Remote Access Management Software. [00:56:16] This agenda item relates not only to remote access, [00:56:21] but also to network management, [00:56:25] and it will handle the water [00:56:33] and wastewater infrastructure systems, [00:56:37] particularly when access to our traditional IT systems [00:56:43] mechanisms aren't available for one reason or another. [00:56:49] It will provide alerts relating to communication issues.
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.d
Request to Purchase SIEMENS Secure Remote Access Management
approvedCouncil approved a sole-source purchase of Siemens Secure Remote Access Management for $56,999.78 to protect the city's water systems and critical infrastructure from hacking. Funds were budgeted in the public works department.
- motion:Approve sole-source purchase of Siemens Secure Remote Access Management for $56,999.78. (passed)
SiemensAltmanBakerBrian WeedPetersRiveraSiemens Secure Remote Access Managementsole source purchasewater system cybersecurity▶ Jump to 56:51 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:56:55] It will also help us to quickly respond [00:57:01] and to diagnose problem areas. [00:57:06] The amount associated with the proposal [00:57:11] is $56,999.78. [00:57:18] It includes the purchase of a hosted server, [00:57:22] the hardware, the data packages, [00:57:25] and the setup from Siemens Secure Management, [00:57:30] covering obviously the city's data network, [00:57:34] and the amount of funds for the project, [00:57:41] have been budgeted in the public works department budget, [00:57:48] and it is being recommended to you on a sole source basis. [00:57:54] Thank you. [00:57:55] Open up for Brian Weed and Mr. Rivera as well, [00:58:00] both know much more about the details [00:58:02] of the system than I do. [00:58:04] Thank you. [00:58:04] Open up for public comment. [00:58:07] Seeing none, I'll bring it back to council, [00:58:09] and just a comment with what's in the news right now, [00:58:14] and the hackers in St. Petersburg, Russia, [00:58:19] being doing what they're doing. [00:58:22] We need to make every effort to make sure [00:58:24] that our water systems [00:58:27] and other critical infrastructure are protected. [00:58:35] Move for approval. [00:58:37] Second. [00:58:38] Mr. Baker. [00:58:39] No brainer. [00:58:40] Second. [00:58:41] Gotta have it. [00:58:42] Mr. Altman. [00:58:43] No, sir. [00:58:44] Mr. Peters. [00:58:45] I would approve the security. [00:58:51] We've talked before in this council [00:58:52] about the neighbor to the south [00:58:55] had some issues with their water plant, [00:58:58] and someone hacking in. [00:59:00] I'm very much concerned about hacking [00:59:02] not only to our water systems, [00:59:03] but our other systems throughout, [00:59:06] and it'd be my hope that we go ahead and take care of this, [00:59:11] and I think the other issue is we're gonna have to notify [00:59:13] or ask the state to help develop some software packages [00:59:17] and securities for our smaller municipalities in the state, [00:59:21] but I would approve this. [00:59:23] In the for what it's worth category, [00:59:26] there are some bills moving through the legislature [00:59:29] that are actually decent, [00:59:31] suggesting that the state will pony up some money [00:59:34] to help with hardening systems, [00:59:37] so keep your fingers crossed. [00:59:41] Anything else? [00:59:43] Hearing nothing, all those in favor, [00:59:44] please signify by saying aye. [00:59:46] Aye. [00:59:47] Opposed, like sign. [00:59:48] Motion passes. [00:59:49] Next is a request to purchase and install equipment
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.e
Request for Purchase and Installation of Equipment for K-9 Vehicle Use
approvedCouncil approved the use of $8,026.90 in equitable sharing funds to purchase and install equipment (temperature alarm, remote pager system, special door locking mechanisms, and carbon monoxide sensor) to outfit a spare K-9 vehicle. The request was prompted by one canine unit's vehicle being totaled in a crash, with a replacement expected to take time.
- motion:Motion to approve use of equitable sharing funds ($8,026.90) to purchase and install equipment for a spare K-9 vehicle. (passed)
▶ Jump to 59:50 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:59:51] for canine vehicle use. [00:59:53] Ms. Manns. [00:59:55] Chief Boulgar has advanced this agenda item, [00:59:58] and it is... [01:00:00] request to use some equitable sharing funds for the purchase to install some [01:00:06] equipment to outfit a vehicle for canine use. And this is specifically to use as a [01:00:15] spare vehicle and the equipment that we would be putting in the vehicle is to [01:00:22] accommodate the canine team working while we're waiting at this time for a [01:00:29] replacement vehicle. One of our canine units was hit and as a result the [01:00:36] vehicle was totaled. It's going to be some time before we get that vehicle [01:00:41] back in the fleet and as you know there are special needs when we're transporting [01:00:47] a dog and fortunately the chief has been very aggressive and got his hands on [01:00:59] some some equitable sharing funds and this is certainly an eligible [01:01:03] expenditure for those types of funds. We are recommending that we use $8,026.90 [01:01:10] to come up with the temperature alarm, the remote pager system, the [01:01:18] special door locking mechanisms, and the carbon monoxide sensor. We expect to keep [01:01:25] the vehicle in the fleet once we do get the new vehicle in stock just in case we [01:01:31] need a spare vehicle whenever a canine unit is out of service for any other [01:01:36] reason. And we're recommending that you consider allowing us to use equitable [01:01:43] sharing funds to fund this expenditure. Thank you. Open it up for public comment. [01:01:50] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to council. Move for approval. Second. [01:01:54] To the maker? Nothing. To the second? Nothing. Mr. Altman? No, sir. Mr. Peters? Okay. In that case, all [01:02:00] those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Next is 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.
- 9.f
You arrived here from a search for “Liz Meismer” — transcript expanded below
Request to Donate Concrete Blocks to The Concourse in Hudson
approvedCouncil approved donating four surplus concrete blocks (formerly used as pedestrian benches/barricades on Main Street) to The Concourse in Hudson, contingent on the recipient picking up and transporting them. The remaining blocks continue to be used by Public Works.
- motion:Designate four concrete blocks as obsolete/surplus and donate them to The Concourse in Hudson, contingent on the recipient picking up and transporting them. (passed)
Main StreetJilly'sThe ConcourseLiz MeismerMr. MurphyMr. PetersMr. RiveraMr. UllmanMs. ManceDepartment of Public Worksanti-terrorist barricadesbaby manatee coffins▶ Jump to 1:02:05 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[01:02:07] request to donate concrete blocks to the concourse in Hudson. These are also [01:02:13] known colloquially as the baby manatee coffins or the anti-terrorist barricades [01:02:18] that used to be up and down Main Street. Ms. Mance? Yes, Mr. Mayor. In the past, there [01:02:31] were some concrete blocks used on Main Street as pedestrian benches, and since [01:02:40] that time, they have been put to use in our Department of Public Works [01:02:48] Department, and they are used regularly by Public Works, with the exception of [01:03:01] very few of them. I was contacted, though, by Liz Meismer, the director of [01:03:09] operations and marketing of the concourse, who requested the donation of [01:03:15] some of those that used to adorn the bridge. In discussions with Mr. Rivera, we [01:03:26] were trying to determine if there were any that could be considered surplus [01:03:29] property, and there are perhaps four that we could say aren't providing a true [01:03:38] beneficial function and might not have a value attached to them, and so I'm asking [01:03:45] you to designate four blocks as obsolete, agree to donate the property to [01:03:54] the concourse, where they will serve another public purpose. The only [01:04:00] contingency I'm asking is that the donation is contingent on their ability [01:04:08] to pick up and transport those concrete blocks from our yard to the concourse. [01:04:15] Thank you. Open it up for public comment. Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it [01:04:21] back to Council. I'm laughing because when they pulled the benches off [01:04:27] the bridge, they came in with a bobcat, and when they went to lift it, instead of [01:04:33] it lifting out of the ground, the bobcat's rear end came up off the ground. [01:04:37] These things weigh a couple thousand pounds. Motion to approve. They're not small. [01:04:45] I have a motion and a second. Mr. Ullman, anything else? No, they've been [01:04:51] attributed to me for a long time, so I'd be happy to get rid of them. Deputy Mayor, there was [01:05:02] one that I think that was near Jilly's that they thought I was going to be [01:05:05] buried in. Mr. Peters? No, it's fine, thank you. Mr. Murphy? No, good. Good riddance, and if at [01:05:16] any time we discover we're not using the rest of them, I'd be all happy to entertain a [01:05:23] request to donate the rest of them as well when the time comes. And Mr. Rivera [01:05:28] does use the rest of them with regularity, and they are a part of it. So long as he's using it. In that case, all those in favor, please signify by
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.
- 10Communications▶ 1:05:35
- 11Adjournment