On the agenda

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

   Pledge of Allegiance

   Council recited the Pledge of Allegiance and observed a moment of silence in honor of servicemen and women.

   ▶ Jump to 0:20 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:20] We have a quorum. [00:00:21] I'd ask everybody to please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance and remain [00:00:22] standing for a moment of silence in honor of our servicemen and women at home and abroad. [00:00:23] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for [00:00:29] 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. 3

   Moment of Silence

   The Mayor offered a moment of personal privilege noting his son traveled from home toward Japan to see family, in connection with the moment of silence for servicemen at home and abroad.

   ▶ Jump to 0:40 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:40] Thank you. [00:00:41] You may be seated. [00:00:42] It's a moment of personal privilege. [00:00:45] The servicemen at home and abroad, that was my son today. [00:00:48] He started off the morning at home and he is somewhere over the Pacific Ocean now, headed [00:00:55] to see his family in Japan, so we're real happy for him. [00:00:59] Next item is approval of the minutes.

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

4. 4

   Approval of December 20, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes

   approved

   Council approved the minutes from the December 20, 2022 regular meeting.

   • motion:Approve the December 20, 2022 regular meeting minutes. (passed)

   ▶ Jump to 1:00 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:01:02] Move we approve. [00:01:03] Second. [00:01:04] Any discussion? [00:01:05] Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:01:08] Aye. [00:01:09] Opposed, like sign. [00:01:11] Motion passes.

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

5. 5Vox Pop for Items Not Listed on the Agenda or Listed on Consent Agenda▶ 1:12
6. 6.a

   Purchases/Payments for City Council Approval

   approvedon consent

   Council approved the consent agenda, which included Purchases/Payments for City Council Approval, by unanimous voice vote with no discussion.

   • motion:Motion to approve the Consent Agenda. (passed)

   ▶ Jump to 7:20 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:07:20] Next item is the Consent Agenda. [00:07:22] Move for approval. [00:07:24] Second. [00:07:25] Any discussion? [00:07:26] Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:07:30] Aye. [00:07:31] Opposed, like sign. [00:07:32] Motion passes. [00:07:33] Next is Public Reading of Ordinances.

   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. 7.a

   ↳You arrived here from a search for “6110 Florida Avenue” — transcript expanded below

   First Reading, Ordinance No. 2023-2268: TDR Revisions

   approved

   Council held a first reading of Ordinance No. 2023-2268, which amends Chapter 20 of the Land Development Code to expand the Coastal Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. The amendments allow private property owners in the Coastal High Hazard Area to transfer development credits to the city's bank, expand receiving sites to anywhere in the city, allow City Council to determine credit values, and remove the conditional use permit requirement (rolling it into PDD approval). The motion to approve passed; staff will clarify deed restriction issues for city-owned land before second reading.

   Ord. Ordinance No. 2023-2268

   • motion:Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance No. 2023-2268 amending the Coastal TDR program. (passed)
   • direction:Staff directed to clarify deed restriction implications for city-owned land contributing to the TDR bank before second reading. (none)

   📍5939 Grand Boulevard📍6110 Florida Avenue📍Gulf Harbors👤Chopper Davis👤Frank Starkey👤Mr. Driscoll👤Mr. Hall👤Mr. Murphy👤Ms. Manns#Chapter 20 Land Development Code#Coastal High Hazard Area#Coastal Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program#Development Review Committee (DRC)#FEMA insurance rating#Land Development Review Board (LDRB)#Ordinance No. 2023-2268#Planned Development District (PDD)

   ▶ Jump to 7:35 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:07:35] Public Reading, First Reading, Ordinance 2023-2268, LDR Revisions. [00:07:43] This is Ordinance number 2023-2268. [00:07:48] An Ordinance of the City of New Port Richey, Florida, providing for amendment of Chapter [00:07:51] 20 of the Land Development Code pertaining to the Coastal Transfer of Development Rights [00:07:56] Program. [00:07:57] Providing for the expansion of sending sites to privately owned properties. [00:08:01] Providing for the calculation of the value of development credits by the City Council. [00:08:06] Providing for planned development district PDD approval. [00:08:09] Providing for removal of the requirement for conditional use permits. [00:08:12] Providing for expansion of receiving sites to all property within the City. [00:08:16] And providing for conflicts, severability, codification, and an effective date. [00:08:20] Thank you. [00:08:21] Ms. Manns. [00:08:22] Yes, certainly. [00:08:23] As you already know, the City's, excuse me, Transfer of Development Rights Program allows [00:08:30] for transfers from City-owned land into the Coastal High Hazard Area to other properties [00:08:38] in the Coastal High Hazard Area. [00:08:41] The proposed ordinance expands the program by allowing private property owners in the [00:08:49] Coastal High Hazard Area the opportunity to transfer their development rights. [00:08:53] In that respect, Mr. Hall has a bit of a presentation for you. [00:09:01] Mr. Hall. [00:09:02] Thank you, Ms. Manns. [00:09:03] First of all, I want to apologize. [00:09:08] I have a little bit of a sore throat, so if I sound a little froggy, that's probably the [00:09:13] reason. [00:09:14] We're going to start off very briefly and talk about some terminology. [00:09:19] These slides might be something that you've seen before and you might remember this, but [00:09:23] I'm going to say this for the people that have joined in with us and for the people [00:09:26] that are actually in the audience today. [00:09:31] Some terminology we're going to be using, a TDR is a Transfer of Development Rights, [00:09:35] and as Ms. Manns said, this allows for residential development rights from one property to be [00:09:41] utilized at another property. [00:09:43] A sending site is where the property you're transferring the development rights from. [00:09:50] The receiving site is the property that would be gaining those development rights and credits [00:09:56] of the number of residential units that we would be talking about. [00:10:01] A quick example of what TDRs are is the upper left square. [00:10:06] Let's pretend that's a one acre property. [00:10:09] If that property had 10 dwelling units per acre allowed on it, then that development [00:10:14] would have 10 total credits. [00:10:18] What our ordinance allows for is the property in the high hazard area to potentially take [00:10:27] that density of credits and put it into a bank, that's the city-owned bank, to potentially [00:10:35] be used on another property. [00:10:38] As this diagram shows, again looking at the blue property, if this is 10 acres at 5 density [00:10:45] units per acre, then that blue property could have 50 units. [00:10:51] Transfer of Development Rights allows for the 10 credits in the brown square to be added [00:10:57] to the 50 credits in the blue square, so the blue square could have a total of 60 credits [00:11:02] on that lot or property. [00:11:05] So the proposed ordinance allows TDRs to be transferred from city-owned property to coastal [00:11:11] high hazard area to other properties within the high hazard area. [00:11:15] This is what the existing ordinance says, and receiving sites must go through a conditional [00:11:20] use permit to have the TDRs be a consideration. [00:11:26] The proposed ordinance allows for private property owners located in the high hazard [00:11:33] area to transfer development credits to the city's bank. [00:11:39] Now this is subject to city council approval. [00:11:42] Any developer that wants to give their credits to the city does not mean that the city would [00:11:46] accept them. [00:11:48] This is subject to council approval. [00:11:51] But this also allows for receiving sites anywhere within the city to receive those TDRs subject [00:11:56] to city council approval. [00:11:58] So we're taking the ability to take the credits from the high hazard area and move it to other [00:12:03] areas within the city outside the high hazard area or within the high hazard area depending [00:12:08] on what the city council deems appropriate. [00:12:11] This also eliminates a step for the requirement for a conditional use permit. [00:12:16] As a TDR is part of a PDD zoning, this just eliminates a step and rounds them up into [00:12:22] one item. [00:12:24] LDRB had reviewed this recommended approval, of course, based upon the DRC recommendations [00:12:30] of approval, and I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you have. [00:12:39] I think it's probably obvious, but just confirming, this would allow us to reduce the density [00:12:44] in the coastal high hazard area and increase density somewhere where it's not going to [00:12:49] be subject to flooding in a few years. [00:12:52] That's one of the benefits of it, yes. [00:12:55] Any other questions? [00:12:57] Open up, go ahead. [00:13:03] Last time we discussed this, there was a development in the Gulf Harbors and Woodlands [00:13:08] area. [00:13:09] A proposal came in to us. [00:13:12] We're not using all our credit, all our available density. [00:13:17] We could do 50, but we're only doing 10. [00:13:20] Private property owner, I raised the question at that time, if they're not doing them, is [00:13:27] this something we could then get or collect? [00:13:30] And I think this sounds like the sending unit coming to the city doesn't mean the city [00:13:37] has to buy the property, but that we can receive those credits through some agreement, development [00:13:43] agreement, whatever it might be at our option. [00:13:45] So it sounds like this is a cure for what was not available, so that property at that [00:13:52] time could not have transferred or traded or provided those densities to us. [00:13:59] I don't know if you know the property in question, right? [00:14:01] It was a senior center, I think, a year or two ago. [00:14:06] Those are two different items. [00:14:09] This ordinance is a separate track or separate item, but it could be utilized for development [00:14:14] such of that in the future to be considered for the credits. [00:14:19] You say they're two different items, but when they came before us, they said, I have a right [00:14:23] to build, as in your expression there, 60 units, but I'm only building 30 because people [00:14:31] didn't really want to build anything there, and so they were indicating that they were [00:14:36] using less than the zoning, the land use, or their development rights allowed. [00:14:45] So if that happened after this ordinance was passed, there would have been an opportunity [00:14:51] for you all to have that discussion when they said they weren't going to use all of their density. [00:15:00] of this consideration. The ordinance that's recommended before you does not put a time [00:15:04] limit on when this could be done. So at any point someone wishes to be considered for [00:15:09] unused property or unused development credits, they could petition at a later date to do [00:15:15] that and the city council would consider their option. [00:15:21] Because in that calculation it was also expressed that there would be some appraisal process [00:15:26] and valuation so that we could identify a value of these density rights. [00:15:33] Yes, sir, and that's in the ordinance right now. [00:15:36] And so citywide, the city council as it looks, I just was listening to public radio coming [00:15:43] in listening to Sarasota, a new building, multiple stories, 16, 18, 20 stories going [00:15:50] to their downtown. We have elevation limits which are related to our density assessments [00:15:58] under our comprehensive plan that we have. So as a city, we have the ability to modify [00:16:04] our density subject to sending that to the state for approval and all of those things, [00:16:10] irrespective of whether those high hazard ones. [00:16:13] So my recollection of how this started, if I'm right, I wasn't here at the time, was [00:16:17] because there was some density in property the city bought for a million dollars. There [00:16:29] are some, was it five acres, that we bought in Gulf Harbors that was bought for the purpose [00:16:36] of stopping the development in there because it was part of that whole Floor Mar, Gulf [00:16:43] Harbors, well-heeled, with plenty of density rights that was, that were established by [00:16:52] the original developer. So when we bought it, we said, okay, we're going to turn that [00:16:57] into conservation area, which is different, may or may not be in here, but bottom line [00:17:01] is the goal was to move those density units, I believe, to a hotel property that wanted [00:17:08] to stop being short term and have residential property on it. Different council, I wasn't [00:17:14] part of it before all of our time, but that's my understanding of why we bought that piece [00:17:20] of land and why originally it said trade high density, you know, trade it in the flood zone [00:17:28] so you could build, or in the coastal high, so you could build something else in the coastal [00:17:32] high hazard area somewhere else. And now you're saying, as the mayor has pointed out, [00:17:39] you don't have to build that, we just assume you take some of those densities and move [00:17:43] them out of danger, but you could still do it if you had met all the criteria within [00:17:49] it. So I appreciate what you're saying there. The one question that I have has to do with [00:17:55] the discussion that also happened near that time or perhaps the next time when we had [00:18:01] another development come in, and the issue there related to the density value, and I've [00:18:23] lost my train of thought, I've actually talked myself out of remembering what I had, but [00:18:26] I will remember during the vote what it is, but the bottom line is you have established [00:18:35] in here that I know what it is, a deed restriction from the sender to the use of those units, [00:18:43] but not a restriction which came up at that point in time as to the use of the conservation [00:18:49] area, because one of the arguments for doing this was that we could lower our fire rating [00:18:57] by making sure that we were lowering the potential for damage through the FEMA insurance rating [00:19:05] system by taking land that could present a future problem off of the books, making our [00:19:13] city a safer place. And the comment was made at that time that once you put something on [00:19:18] there that you would not be able to do it ever again. That's if it's a conservation [00:19:25] area, but this is saying I'm putting a restriction on this land that I can't build on it because [00:19:32] we're sending that to the bank. So if the city owns it, the land, because it started [00:19:40] to be city-owned land, that's the other part of this, right, is you're expanding whose [00:19:44] land can contribute to it. If I may clarify, if there's a development, it's a private development, [00:19:50] and let's say they can put 100 units on there and they only put 50, they could take those [00:19:58] extra 50 units and donate them to or work out a negotiation to give those to the city [00:20:04] bank. Now, we do not take over those extra. The city does not own that property, but they [00:20:10] have restricted that property for future use, and in the negotiations and in the paperwork [00:20:15] that we would write up, it would restrict their use for that they could not build on [00:20:20] that. They've lost the ability to do those 50 credits for the remainder of the properties. [00:20:25] Let me open this up for public comment. We'll come back for more discussion. Is there any [00:20:29] public comment on this? [00:20:31] Good evening. Frank Starkey, 5939 Grand Boulevard. I have a question. In the example that you [00:20:41] used, a receiving property could potentially go from 50 units to, well, 5 units to the [00:20:49] acre to 6 units to the acre in your example. If 5 units to the acre is the zoning and or [00:20:57] the comp plan density, what's the mechanism for exceeding the zoning or the comp plan [00:21:02] density? Does it have to be a PDD? Can it be done on an individual lot basis? If somebody [00:21:08] wanted to, say, build a duplex on a single family lot, how does that get handled mechanically? [00:21:17] Mr. Hall? The ordinance requires that it be a PDD, that you actually put a PDD and it [00:21:24] would be put on the property through the development agreement that you came up with [00:21:29] or development standards that are placed through that PDD. [00:21:33] So it really is kind of aimed only at larger, more intense projects? [00:21:37] That is correct. [00:21:38] Any other... [00:21:39] Chopper Davis, 6110 Florida Avenue. Let me ask, and maybe you can help with some of this [00:21:54] understanding. Right now our ordinance says that we get our credits basically from city [00:22:02] property and then we can move it to somewhere else. Is that true? There's a new ordinance, [00:22:06] if I remember correctly, from the Land Development Review Board, we can take private property [00:22:11] credits, put them in a bank, and then we can move them to somebody else. So that's really [00:22:15] what's happening here. Is that right? That helped me out a lot. [00:22:20] Anyone else? Seeing no one else coming forward, we'll close public comment and bring it back [00:22:25] to Council. [00:22:26] Move approval. [00:22:27] I'll second. [00:22:28] To the maker. [00:22:29] Okay, so back to my question. Under deed restriction, it says a legal document recorded by the Pasco [00:22:36] County Clerk of Circuit Court describing restricted activities on a sending site which may or [00:22:41] may not include a conservation easement. And so the sending site always was, as has just [00:22:49] been mentioned by Mr. Davis, the city, because we bought it and we sent it somewhere else. [00:22:56] And so the fact that it says may or may not include a conservation easement, that's the [00:23:07] two elements that I have gotten a bit confused with, but I think I'm protected why I voted [00:23:12] for this, because if the city owns land, I'm not inclined to have us record a deed and [00:23:19] send it to the county restricting anything more than simply the number of units that [00:23:25] we've said we don't want to put on it. And the follow-up question is going to be, if [00:23:29] the city has this bank and we own land and we put that development right that we have [00:23:35] on the land we own into that bank, and we subsequently decide we want to do something [00:23:40] with that property down the road, I would be hard-pressed to put a restriction on us [00:23:48] from doing that. And so I think that's a nuance that I would like to get a little further [00:23:53] comments. I'm just trying to protect the city's right and not vote for something that [00:23:59] is irreversible if we determine down the road, let's say there were 60 units, we give them [00:24:04] all into the bank, and then we turn around and say, well, geez, we probably would like [00:24:08] one residential unit next to this park because we seem to like to have city employee maybe [00:24:15] to keep an eye on it, and now we've given that right that we would like to move that [00:24:19] one unit back to that property. And then a lawyer comes to tell us, well, wait, you can't [00:24:25] put anything on there because you gave those up. But we put them in our own bank account. [00:24:30] So I think the way we've done it as city-owned property into this, and now we're expanding [00:24:37] it to have others go into it, I just want to make sure that when others have to record [00:24:42] a deed, that's fine. They've given that up. We own it. They can't argue. But when we, [00:24:49] if we did buy something and put it into that, I'd like to see the city protected in a way [00:24:54] that we aren't obligated or obligating a future council from being able to say, okay, they're [00:25:01] in the bank. We're going to get them back on our own land. [00:25:05] If I may clarify. [00:25:06] Sounds like a fiscal question, actually. [00:25:07] Yeah. [00:25:08] That's something we can certainly look at, and I'll make sure that we have an answer [00:25:11] for you for a second reading because we put back in the deed restriction that we had taken [00:25:15] out before when it was just city property. So it may need some more nuancing to address [00:25:21] your question. [00:25:22] That's fine. Thank you. [00:25:23] And that was my question, too. Can you get them back once you give them away as part [00:25:28] of the city? [00:25:29] I would ask Mr. Driscoll to please see if we can clarify that a little between now and [00:25:34] the second reading. [00:25:35] Yes. And I'd also like to point out, Mr. Mayor, if I could, that this ordinance will also [00:25:39] remove the appraisal requirement and will just allow the city council to determine the [00:25:44] value using any method you deem appropriate. And I think that just gives you more flexibility, [00:25:49] and I'm sure you're going to look at those kinds of things. But I didn't want to have [00:25:53] you tied down too much and give you some flexibility on how you could do that. [00:25:57] Does the second have any other comments? [00:25:59] No, that's it. [00:26:00] Mr. Murphy? [00:26:01] Yeah. I mean, it seems like it's going to make things a little more flexible and easy [00:26:05] to move around, but I'm a little concerned, too, about whether we converse or not or go [00:26:09] back. So I'd definitely like to follow up on that. [00:26:12] Deputy Mayor? [00:26:13] Well, I apologize if I didn't step out for a moment, but I like the idea of us having [00:26:20] the flexibility. I think that, you know, I've got to trust this council and future councils [00:26:28] in making the right calls and not having to backtrack. I mean, obviously, we've all made [00:26:34] mistakes, right? But I think this opens the flexibility to do this. [00:26:40] We do not have an abundance of property in this city left for development, and so I think [00:26:48] it's very key for us to utilize it the best we can. [00:26:53] My comment would be basically a follow-up to the question that I had from Mr. Hall. [00:27:02] To the extent that we can reduce the density in the coastal high-hazard flood area, I think [00:27:11] ultimately is going to do well for everybody because our flood insurance and everything [00:27:17] else is ultimately going to be affected by how many units are sitting in there the next [00:27:24] time a big storm comes rolling through. And to the extent that we can take development [00:27:30] rights out of that danger zone and move them into other parts of the city that are safer [00:27:38] and well above sea level, I think that's a really good thing. So I like where we're going [00:27:44] with this. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying [00:27:52] aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Motion passes. Next is a first reading on Ordinance 2023-2269.

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

8. 7.b

   First Reading, Ordinance No. 2023-2269: Amendment to Chapter 12 of the LDC RE: Detached Garages

   approved

   Council held first reading of Ordinance 2023-2269, amending Chapter 12 of the Land Development Code to allow detached garages in front yards subject to setback and architectural compatibility standards, and prohibiting shipping containers. Council moved approval but directed staff to address several issues before second reading, including corner lot side-yard setbacks, alley-abutting setbacks, the 15-foot height limit, and the definition of 'vehicle' (e.g., golf carts).

   Ord. Ordinance No. 2023-2269

   • motion:Move for approval of Ordinance 2023-2269 on first reading. (passed)
   • direction:Staff to investigate corner lot side-yard setback issues, alley setbacks, definition of 'vehicle' (including golf carts/microtransit), and the 15-foot height limit before second reading. (none)

   📍River Road🏢DRC🏢Land Development Review Board🏢Longleaf👤Carl Stanley👤Councilman Peters👤Dale👤Mr. Allen👤Mr. Blackwell👤Mr. Hall👤Mr. Starkey👤Ms. Vance#Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)#Chapter 12 Land Development Code#Ordinance No. 2023-2269#Section 12.03.00#missing middle housing

   ▶ Jump to 28:01 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:28:01] This is Ordinance number 2023-2269, an ordinance of the City of New Port Richey, Florida, providing [00:28:06] for amendment of Section 12.03.00 of Chapter 12 of the Land Development Code pertaining [00:28:12] to detached storage buildings and greenhouses, providing for detached garages, providing [00:28:16] location and design standards for detached garages, providing for prohibition of shipping [00:28:21] containers, providing for severability, providing for conflicts, providing for codification, [00:28:26] and providing an effective date. Thank you. Ms. Vance? In large part, the purpose of the [00:28:32] ordinance is to allow for detached garages to be built in front yards with certain conditions. [00:28:41] The conditions are that they be built within existing setbacks and additionally that they [00:28:49] are architecturally compatible with the primary structure on the property. Mr. Hall, do you [00:28:57] have additional comments that you'd like to present to the City Council on this matter? [00:29:02] No, the only thing I would add is that LDRB recommended approval along with the DRC prior [00:29:08] to bringing it to the LDRB. I think most prominently, the architectural features that we'd be looking [00:29:16] at to be compatible would be the roof structure, the façade material, the roof material pits, [00:29:29] windows, and it was also suggested in the reports of the Land Development Review Board [00:29:36] that the front door would remain unobstructed, as I recall. And with those conditions, there [00:29:46] was also a recommendation that no variances would be allowed from the front yard setback. [00:29:55] That was an important condition attached to whether or not [00:30:00] not, this amendment should go forward. [00:30:05] And with that, the Land Development Review Board [00:30:09] recommended approval to you of the ordinance. [00:30:12] Very good. Open up for public comment. [00:30:19] Two comments. One is the code treats side yards [00:30:26] on corner lots like front yards. [00:30:29] And you routinely have to grant variances [00:30:34] for people to be able to build reasonably on a 50-foot lot [00:30:37] that has a 25-foot setback on the side. [00:30:41] So I think you should have a provision for side conditions [00:30:46] as opposed to fronts, meaning the front. [00:30:50] The code needs to be clarified on that anyway, [00:30:54] but that's a potential snag in the way this is written. [00:31:00] Also, the 15-foot limit, [00:31:03] because I think your code measures to the peak of the roof, [00:31:07] and if somebody has a two-car garage [00:31:10] and their house has an 8-12 roof pitch, [00:31:13] that may exceed 15 feet unless you make an extremely low plate, [00:31:18] which would not be architecturally compatible. [00:31:21] In order to be architecturally compatible with the house, [00:31:24] you might have to exceed 15 feet, [00:31:27] given the footprint of a normal-sized garage, [00:31:30] without making it look goofy. [00:31:32] So you might want to provide an allowance for a variance to that [00:31:38] for architectural compatibility. [00:31:42] Those are just my thoughts. Thanks. [00:31:45] Thank you. Anyone else? [00:31:48] Seeing no one else come forward, bring it back to Council. [00:31:52] Move for approval. [00:31:56] Second. [00:31:58] The maker. [00:32:00] Yeah, I like this. [00:32:02] I know we have some in the city already, I think on River Road also. [00:32:10] I mean, I can tell you, you can always use more space or more room. [00:32:14] I'd love to be able to do that on my property, [00:32:16] but I don't think it would work. [00:32:18] But I like it for the ability, if you have the property [00:32:20] and you have the space, why not make it work, [00:32:23] as long as it follows one of the guidelines and looks good. [00:32:26] I guess the other thing that kind of popped in my head is, [00:32:29] do we have anything similar or maybe it's already there for ADUs, [00:32:34] for accessory dwelling units with the same kind of requirements? [00:32:40] We don't currently have an ordinance [00:32:42] which addresses specifically accessory dwelling units. [00:32:46] We do, though, have a schedule slated for the Land Development Review Board [00:32:53] to consider a draft ordinance in conjunction with their February meeting schedule. [00:33:01] Is that correct, Dale? [00:33:03] It's tentatively scheduled for February, yes. [00:33:08] Okay. [00:33:09] And I know we have some of those in the city, too. [00:33:11] I mean, the ones I've seen, they look really good. [00:33:14] I mean, it's kind of unique. [00:33:16] So if we don't, hopefully we can do something like that with them. [00:33:21] Hopefully it will go well, [00:33:22] and you'll have something before you in March then for your consideration. [00:33:26] Do you have a second? [00:33:28] So, you know, it's interesting that you start off at a 15-foot height. [00:33:34] I don't know. [00:33:36] I was just thinking about that myself, [00:33:40] and, you know, I'm trying to find in my mind areas of the city this might apply to, [00:33:45] but I guess that's limiting all these garages to one story, [00:33:50] that if they were indeed on a resident with a two-story house, [00:33:55] that perhaps a two-story garage would be architecturally compatible [00:33:59] and would allow, you know, additional space above that. [00:34:05] You know, what's difficult, and I admire staff for trying to put these rules together, [00:34:14] to try to put down in rules and papers what ultimately is good taste, right? [00:34:22] And so, you know, and then if you don't put the rules in there, [00:34:30] then you've got people pushing you all the time against that, you know, deal. [00:34:36] So I just, you know, I like the ordinance. [00:34:40] I like to allow it. [00:34:42] We have some areas of the city have pretty nice-sized lots. [00:34:47] This would work well with. [00:34:48] Others, they're pretty tight, and it just won't work, [00:34:52] and people will want to try to make it work, and it's going to be tough. [00:34:57] But I think the rules we have put in place, like the front door being visible and that kind of deal, [00:35:07] you don't want to put a garage out there in front of the house. [00:35:09] To block it off, it just would not look right. [00:35:12] And I'm trying to put myself in a home on a street where two or three of these might pop up [00:35:19] and what that would look like and how would I feel about it. [00:35:23] We all kind of like the way things are for the most part, and changes kind of disrupt us, [00:35:28] but I think this would, I think this type of allowance allows our city to move toward a grander, [00:35:41] larger idea that we have of a more densible, walkable, bikeable, livable, workable city. [00:35:49] And I think this is one of those little pieces that it allows that. [00:35:54] Thank you. [00:35:55] Councilwoman? [00:35:56] Yeah, I think that we do have structures now where cars are parked everywhere in the front yard, [00:36:02] so it's kind of nice that they can put the garage to be able to utilize that. [00:36:08] I think it's going to look better for us to begin with. [00:36:12] Mr. Allen? [00:36:13] Yeah, I think a couple things that come to mind. [00:36:18] First of all, I'm going to ask the definition of a vehicle. [00:36:21] Do we have that in the code? [00:36:24] And do you know what that definition is? [00:36:28] I do not know it verbatim at this moment. [00:36:31] Okay, so I'm just thinking I've got a golf cart. [00:36:35] There's 400 of them in town. [00:36:37] I want a golf cart. [00:36:38] We say we have to have a garage door that will fit a vehicle. [00:36:40] I don't care about my car. [00:36:42] I want my garage to be my golf cart because we live in a golf cart, going on the discussion from earlier. [00:36:51] So I think it would be helpful to make sure that we are accommodating, as has been suggested, [00:36:57] the new lifestyle we're building to, and the accessory dwelling is another issue that we've talked about here. [00:37:04] So I would ask that, by second reading, that we would consider either a definition of a vehicle [00:37:12] or to just simply add a vehicle or some form of microtransit to include a golf cart or something, [00:37:19] because that is what we're trying to do to get people to stop riding their cars in town and getting around. [00:37:28] Or it could be a riding lawnmower, for that matter. [00:37:31] I mean, there are a number of things people need to use their garages for besides this vehicle that would be useful. [00:37:38] Or a he said, she said, or whatever you want to call it. [00:37:43] So that's part of us having the ability to express ourselves as a city [00:37:51] and not be restricted to the sort of firm zoning thing. [00:37:58] So things like you can't get a variance or nothing can exceed 15 feet in height, [00:38:07] I agree with the comments of my colleagues up here that I would like to see us being able to, once again, [00:38:16] sort of lead this discussion, and I'm not sure if these discussions happen privately [00:38:20] and then percolate up through Land Development Review Board. [00:38:24] But we've had these open public comments about changing the way that our city works, [00:38:29] and I think taking that to heart, there seems to be this break that's going like a hesitant driver into the future. [00:38:42] And I'm not nearly as hesitant at 65 years old as, you know, maybe someone who lived here 20 years ago, [00:38:52] because I'm excited to see what's happening. [00:38:55] And the accessory dwelling unit was restricted to just a very small unit. [00:38:59] We've set up here. [00:39:00] We'd like to see it expanded. [00:39:03] We've had these kind of discussions up here before. [00:39:07] The process of having these ordinances accomplish these goals. [00:39:14] If we had a section of that missing middle that would be similar to some of the urban renewal, [00:39:22] I'd ask Mr. Starkey what the front yard setbacks are in Longleaf, [00:39:28] which was an originally designed community that I've been doing a little bit of work in. [00:39:32] And daily I hear people say we moved here because that's what we wanted. [00:39:37] So trying to hold on to a subdivision set of rules when we want to be this community that gets noticed [00:39:48] as having that sort of use of its property and give more freedom to individuals to use it, [00:39:56] whether it's accessory dwellings or deciding they don't want a vehicle at all, [00:40:00] but they want a little building in the front. [00:40:04] I just think that, as has been mentioned, it's a step forward. [00:40:08] But to me, and I'll vote for it, but I'd love to see it enhanced. [00:40:14] Thank you. [00:40:16] This strikes me in many ways as a back to the future opportunity. [00:40:23] I live, as some of you know, in a 100-plus-year-old house. [00:40:27] At some point in the 1940s, the then-owners of the property built a detached garage [00:40:37] with a mother-in-law apartment on top of it. [00:40:40] And my next-door neighbor has an attached garage with an upstairs mother-in-law apartment. [00:40:49] And catty-corner to them, the Julians also have a detached garage with an upstairs apartment unit. [00:41:01] These, back in the day, were apparently fairly common. [00:41:06] And taking from Mr. Starkey's point, 15 feet may not work if you've got a wide garage, [00:41:15] but it also wouldn't work if you're looking at doing something much like, [00:41:22] I can give you those three examples right in my neighborhood, [00:41:27] and actually thinking about it, the old Wright House on River Road. [00:41:31] Same story, detached garage with an apartment upstairs. [00:41:35] These were very common in some neighborhoods in our town back in the earlier days of the city. [00:41:45] So we're coming right back around. [00:41:48] I am glad that we're working on the ADU issue. [00:41:51] I think that is going to be critical for providing affordable housing [00:41:56] and providing an opportunity for homeowners to actually make a little bit of money [00:42:01] to help cover their own housing expense. [00:42:05] So I would encourage staff to look at this and also the variants, particularly on the corner lots. [00:42:16] I can tell you my garage sits up close enough. [00:42:19] If I had a golf cart, I could pull straight in and park in front of the door. [00:42:24] I don't. [00:42:26] And so my wife has to come in at an angle, [00:42:28] because there's literally not that much space between the front of the garage and the street. [00:42:35] It's very close, and I suspect if we wander around town, [00:42:39] we can find some others that are the same story. [00:42:45] And it's on a side street, because I am on a corner lot. [00:42:50] So it might be worth looking at that, particularly if we go the next step, [00:42:57] which is potentially some of these garages opening out onto the alleyways. [00:43:04] And same story. [00:43:05] Do we really, really want to have a full setback from the alley [00:43:11] when we're trying to encourage people to put their garages there and use it in that way? [00:43:18] Between now and second reading, if we could take a look at some of those, I think that would be very, very helpful. [00:43:24] Any further discussion? [00:43:26] Mr. Mayor, if I could just interject. [00:43:27] Sure. [00:43:28] And I will certainly look into the corner lot issue that was raised and the definition of the vehicle, [00:43:33] and we can provide you some more information and possibly a change if necessary. [00:43:38] I would like to point out that the ordinance that you were provided tonight [00:43:42] does provide that the prohibition on the variants is only for setbacks. [00:43:47] So it would not prohibit a height variance. [00:43:49] So this version that you have now would allow you to get a variance over the 15 feet. [00:43:56] And that's not to say you couldn't set a different standard, obviously, [00:43:59] but just so you know that, and this is strictly on the setbacks. [00:44:03] I think we need to look at the setback issue as well. [00:44:06] Exactly, on the corner lots especially. [00:44:08] Well, corner lots are ones that are abutting alleys, [00:44:11] because I can see that's going to be the next place we have it. [00:44:15] And I don't recall, Mrs. Mance, was it two years ago? [00:44:21] We actually had one of these come up. [00:44:24] And I don't remember the exact details, but it was just south of here. [00:44:29] And they wanted a garage that I think it opened up onto the side street, [00:44:36] and the problem was by the time you did the setback [00:44:40] and had the garage the size they wanted it to be, [00:44:43] they were almost up against the next lot line on the other side [00:44:47] because it was one of those really skinny lots. [00:44:51] Yeah, I'd have to go drive around and see if I can find it, [00:44:54] because it ultimately got approved. [00:44:56] I remember that case. [00:44:57] Yeah, it was an odd situation, [00:45:00] of the setback issue. And keep in mind, this ordinance only prohibits the setback variance [00:45:05] for the front yard. You can get a variance for the side and rear yards. We probably need [00:45:11] to define the issues as it specifically applies to the corner lots. I'll get you some answers [00:45:18] on that. Mr. Mayor? Yes, sir. Because I'm proud that I happen to remember someone's [00:45:22] name from way back, Carl Stanley was the individual who lived only a few houses from Councilman [00:45:29] Peters in the little white garage right there as you walk your sidewalk, a few houses down [00:45:36] from your house. You know which one I'm talking about, probably. Sheds property. Yeah. And [00:45:42] he worked for the city as a code enforcement officer for many years. But there's an example [00:45:47] of one that's right down the street on River Road on the front, in the front. And I know [00:45:54] in our variances we have in the past taken the position that you can go and see if your [00:46:00] neighborhood has been so encroached on the setbacks that you could appeal to get yourself [00:46:06] a little closer. And so, once again, the prohibition against setbacks of any kind next to a property [00:46:14] that's already beyond them or one that had, as we've looked at, the preponderance of what [00:46:20] had been allowed in the past, causes me to join in in saying, give us more of the public [00:46:31] safety reasons for the setbacks and more of the reasons the city should be dictating them [00:46:37] than the enjoyment of the clear vision to side to side of someone's front yard on a [00:46:45] street that may be ripe for some of that expansion. Or even expanding the home farther [00:46:50] out in someone that buys one of these little houses that Mr. Blackwell and others built [00:46:57] and sold for $6,000 or $5,000 back in the day to retirees who came in. You've worked [00:47:04] in it. That, as had been mentioned, are small to begin with and don't offer the opportunity [00:47:10] for development. So I think maybe the whole setback issue is something that the Council [00:47:15] seems to be interested in. I am. Thank you. [00:47:18] Well put. Thank you. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify

   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. 8.a

   2021 Grand Blvd. Multi-Use Path (MUP) Project – Route Confirmation

   approved

   Council confirmed Delaware Avenue (over Montana Avenue) as the eastward route for the Grand Boulevard Multi-Use Path project, which will ultimately connect Starkey Park to the Pinellas Trail. Staff recommended Delaware due to its wider 60-foot right-of-way, and council discussed future considerations including alternate downtown spurs (e.g., via Adams Street), traffic calming, and parking impacts. The motion passed to support staff's recommendation so the grant application (RAISE grant) could be completed.

   • motion:Motion to forward staff's recommendation selecting Delaware Avenue as the eastward route for the Grand Boulevard Multi-Use Path. (passed)

   📍Adams Street📍Central Avenue📍Delaware Avenue📍Grand Boulevard📍Madison Street📍Main Street📍Marine Parkway📍Missouri Avenue📍Montana Avenue📍Nebraska Avenue📍Pinellas Trail📍Railroad Square📍Sims Park📍Starkey Park🏢Pasco MPO🏢West Pasco Press👤Barrett👤Mr. Doe👤Mr. Rivera👤Ms. Manns👤Robert#2021 Grand Blvd. Multi-Use Path Project#Grand Boulevard Multi-Use Path (MUP) Project#Parks and Recreation Trails Feasibility Study#RAISE grant

   ▶ Jump to 47:23 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:47:23] by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Motion passes. Next, we go to business items, the [00:47:32] Grand Boulevard multi-use path project route confirmation. [00:47:39] Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of Council. As you know, the city staff has been working [00:47:48] on a grant application related to the implementation of a portion of the Marine Parkway Grand Boulevard [00:48:00] multi-use path project, which is in part talked about and designed in our Parks and [00:48:11] Recreation Trails Feasibility Study. We are at a decision point as it relates to the eastward [00:48:20] direction of the project as it spans along Grand Boulevard, and it could possibly head [00:48:34] down Delaware Avenue and connect at Madison Street, or it could turn down Montana Avenue [00:48:45] and connect into Madison Street. I'm sure you'll recall from our previous discussions [00:48:51] that in its conclusion, this path will connect Starkey Park to the Pinellas Trail. There [00:49:02] will be other decision points that need to be made before this project design is brought [00:49:09] to conclusion. Most notably, we'll need to make decisions about the most westerly and [00:49:17] northerly directions of the path. But for today, we need to make the eastward direction decision [00:49:29] so that we can complete our grant application. Delaware Avenue, from the staff's perspective, [00:49:37] is the preferred route because it contains a 60-foot right-of-way with 30 feet of asphalt [00:49:44] surface. Montana Avenue contains a 50-foot right-of-way with a 30-foot asphalt surface. [00:49:52] Both roadways, as has been indicated by Mr. Rivera in his communication to you, [00:50:02] have similar design and stormwater features, so all things are even in that respect. But from a [00:50:12] design perspective, the staff's feeling is that Delaware is preferable because it provides us [00:50:20] more opportunity for design improvements along the route of the pathway with the extra 10 feet [00:50:34] of right-of-way. And Mr. Doe and I are prepared to respond to any questions that you may have [00:50:40] in respect to this agenda item. Thank you. Before we go to questions, [00:50:45] open up for public comment. Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to Council. [00:50:51] I'll move to forward the staff's recommendation on Delaware Avenue. We need all the right-of-way [00:50:58] we can get. Do you have a second? I'll second. To the maker. So Delaware is where the city's [00:51:07] streetlights start, and Montana is just past the all-paved garage. And the driveway cuts [00:51:17] coming out of that little small building that has a locksmith and a little hair cutting business, [00:51:23] the whole block is kind of driveway in and out. I always thought it was Montana that had the bigger [00:51:32] right-of-way, so thank you for bringing that to my attention. I think the key is what is going to be [00:51:37] our best route to be able to design something that's attractive to people. I think there's also [00:51:43] been a lot of discussion about wanting to make sure those bicyclists come into town, and you [00:51:50] know, I continue to believe that that section back in there where the West Pasco Press Building is, [00:51:57] which backs up to from Missouri to Montana, has a great ability to become sort of a community use [00:52:11] incubator of sorts or whatever. And I've had discussions with folks as recently as last week, [00:52:18] someone who wants 1,500 square feet to open up a, to have an art gallery, not just a gallery, [00:52:25] but an art studio, a working artist. So I think we need to have some room in our downtown, [00:52:30] so if the perimeter becomes Delaware, it just makes our downtown one block wider to me to be [00:52:37] working on on the inside of that if the purpose is to keep the bicycles from getting into all [00:52:44] of that in and out. And we've also had discussion from some of the business owners. I think it was [00:52:52] something that you held to talk about the speeding on Grand Boulevard, where we had all [00:52:58] these arguments about difficulties in pulling out and safety coming out of both Missouri and [00:53:05] Nebraska, which is still off from Montana. But you know, I'll go with, I'm always kind of barking up [00:53:15] the tree at you guys, so I think I'll have to agree with you on this one. I know we've talked [00:53:24] about this in the past and for routes and things like that, so I'm all for, you know, using Delaware [00:53:29] because it's the best, you know, suited for that. I know at a later date or even when we discuss [00:53:37] things in the future, I know we also talked about, you know, we talked about this would maybe be a [00:53:43] best route, but we also talked about going through downtown, down Grand Boulevard, maybe past Maine [00:53:49] or wherever. So maybe it's something we can look at, make some alternate routes, you know, where [00:53:57] they could have a choice. I mean, of course they could just keep going straight, go downtown, but [00:54:00] you'd rather have something built in for safety reasons that they could travel and be safe. So I [00:54:06] don't know if that'd be something we could do as an option later, some alternate routes, I guess, [00:54:11] you know, because see what we can do to get them, you know, because ultimately we want to see our [00:54:17] downtown too versus, you know, going around it. So it's maybe that's an option. Thank you. [00:54:25] So I like the route on Delaware. I do think later on we will want to set something up because they're [00:54:36] going to go through downtown. They're going to see downtown. They're going to say instead of [00:54:39] turning here, let's just keep going. So we need to make it safe for that at some point too. But I [00:54:44] do like the route on Delaware. I like that there's a little more space there. I like that we're going [00:54:48] to also be able to expand that downtown a little bit, but ultimately they're still going to go [00:54:53] through downtown. So we're going to have to do something to make that safer for them. Deputy [00:54:57] Mayor? So yes, if we can add opportunity, I jogged all this area, including the alleyways, and we've [00:55:08] got a couple nice alleys right there that are paved in pretty good shape. And I was thinking [00:55:12] to myself, I said, you know, when an alley make a good trail use with cars and bikes and still be [00:55:21] safe and so forth, and that's just a question I'm mulling about in my mind. I don't know if we [00:55:26] considered using one of the alleys as such. But, you know, if we advance and we have garages and [00:55:34] alleys and back and out, it could be a little bit more traffic. So I was looking at both those [00:55:39] streets, Delaware and Montana, allow themselves a good proximity or, you know, quite a bit of [00:55:46] street side parking, right? And so trying to figure out, taking a look at that, so how would a path [00:55:56] work that? We could put it on one side and then all street parking be on one side or so forth. I [00:56:01] guess we'll work that with some of the designers involved. So for that reason, to give us the most [00:56:08] flexibility to make it most, you know, pleasing to the property owners and maybe not moving into [00:56:19] that right away that they're already enjoying, I would go with the wider street and area of Delaware. [00:56:25] So, and for some reason I might be mistaken, is the actual pavement on Montana wider than Delaware? [00:56:35] Or is it, because one is, one street, and I apologize, and maybe it is the Delaware one that [00:56:42] is, the pavement is considerably wider. The asphalt on Montana and on Delaware is the same, 30 feet. [00:56:51] The right-of-way is what differs. Okay, and well, and I don't know we want to get in the right-of-way [00:56:57] because both those streets, if you start digging in the right-of-way, we're digging into some big [00:57:02] trees. That's going to be an issue. So I'm glad we got 30 feet because if you think about it, 10-foot [00:57:08] lanes, a bike lane, and there's still some parking, you know, we could do that. So I'll go with Delaware. [00:57:16] I would suggest we look at how many of the residents along the street we're choosing, [00:57:26] which in this case can be Delaware, are actually routinely using the street for parking and how [00:57:36] many have driveways or have garages or entrances coming in from the back from the alley. It may [00:57:42] not be that big an issue. One of the concerns that I hear from regularly are the issues with [00:57:53] people speeding and the oversized streets in Delaware and Montana, or poster children for it, [00:58:00] as is Central, are just too doggone wide. They encourage people to speed, and I know it was well [00:58:09] before Robert or Barrett were in public works, but somebody got a deal on paint and they put [00:58:15] racing stripes down all these streets, and that makes them even faster. If we're going to solve [00:58:23] the problem of people speeding, we need to cut those traffic lanes down. We started on Grand [00:58:29] talking about going to a pair of 10-foot lanes plus a center turn lane. I'm not sure I see the [00:58:38] reason for the turn lane, but be that as it may, we've made a commitment there. I think if we look [00:58:44] at Delaware with the same idea, and if it's not going to create an imposition for the people that [00:58:50] live along it, to consider going just to two 10-foot lanes and take that other 10 feet and use [00:58:59] that for where we put the multi-use trail, and that saves all those trees you're talking about. [00:59:06] The other thought, and a couple of you have alluded to it, wanting to get people downtown. [00:59:12] I'm one of the people that will not go out onto Grand on Montana and Missouri because it is simply [00:59:17] not safe. What I have discovered works very well is to go the other direction, go to Adams, [00:59:25] and then go to Main Street and make a turn at the four-way. Perhaps we could look at possibly doing [00:59:38] a spur, I'm not sure how you would want to do it, but some sort of alternate downtown route [00:59:45] coming off of Delaware down Adams to route cyclists in, and then we've got all that parking [00:59:55] immediately adjacent to Railroad Square. If we provided some bicycle parking, that might work. [01:00:00] Solve the issue of getting the people that actually want to be downtown, downtown without [01:00:05] potentially running into traffic issues in that couple of block area on Grand just south [01:00:13] of Main Street. [01:00:16] So just food for thought as you guys are kicking around design considerations, might take a [01:00:22] look at it. [01:00:23] I don't think Adams is that wide and I don't know what sort of right-of-way we've got but [01:00:27] even if we made that a shero, it could be a way of encouraging people that want to go [01:00:34] downtown with some signage to say hey if you're going downtown on your bike, hook a left. [01:00:42] I like the idea and as far as the parking on those two streets, I think I got by there [01:00:46] earlier enough even before church on Sunday so all the overnight parking was still there [01:00:51] and if you could put all the cars parked on the street on one side of the street and [01:00:57] still had spaces left, there was very few cars parked. [01:01:00] One exception, I think there was maybe a tri or quadplex there, had a couple of cars out [01:01:05] in front of it. [01:01:06] That seemed to be the only area that had multiple cars, if that's an indication of what's normal [01:01:13] and I do like the idea about Adams, I just don't know if we can make that work because [01:01:18] Adams, I think it would be great. [01:01:22] Any other discussion? [01:01:23] Yeah, real quick, I just wanted to, Ms. Manns, did you have a comment about the alternate [01:01:27] routes? [01:01:28] I thought you were going to mention something about it or no? [01:01:33] I don't recall at this time but I did think that there would be some other nodes of interest [01:01:43] along the way and yes, I do think that we will talk about methods by which to get people [01:01:51] into the downtown area and also into Sims Park as part of the overall design for the [01:01:58] development of the route. [01:02:02] Thank you. [01:02:03] There's no further discussion? [01:02:05] One thing, just as it's been mentioned, you're applying for a grant. [01:02:09] I know we approved, you're moving forward with this in the budget, so can you tell us [01:02:14] a little more publicly about the grant that you're applying for and what level of funding [01:02:23] that you're looking for? [01:02:25] Well, I believe this is the RAISE grant and I believe the PASCO MPO is also involved. [01:02:33] As far as the level of funding, I'll have to get back to you on that, sir, but I do [01:02:37] know that it is coming from the federal end of things for the RAISE grant that came down. [01:02:41] I think it was part of the $1.5 billion, I want to say, that came through? [01:02:47] Yeah, so that is for where the funding is and as far as where we're at in the reporting [01:02:52] and the stages, I'll have to get back to you on that. [01:02:58] There's no further discussion? [01:02:59] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:03:02] Aye. [01:03:03] Opposed, like sign. [01:03:04] Motion passes. [01:03:05] Next, 2023 Advanced Metering Infrastructure System Project.

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

10. 8.b

    2023 Advanced Metering Infrastructure System (AMI) Project – Piggyback Agreement

    approved

    Council approved a piggyback agreement with Core & Main (off Citrus County's contract) to install approximately 7,477 new I-PERL potable water meters as part of the 2023 AMI system project, at a cost not to exceed $500,000. Core & Main provided a roughly $250,000 price reduction due to supply chain delays and firmware issues with prior Sensus meters.

    • motion:Approve the piggyback agreement with Core & Main (off Citrus County's contract) for installation of new AMI water meters at a cost not to exceed $500,000. (passed)

    🏢Citrus County🏢Core & Main🏢Sensus👤Mr. Doe👤Mr. Murphy👤Mr. Rivera👤Ms. Manns#2023 AMI System Project#CIP#I-PERL water meters#Water and Sewer Construction Fund

    ▶ Jump to 1:03:12 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:03:12] As Council will recall, back in May, the Public Works Department, specifically Mr. Rivera, [01:03:22] asked for authorization to purchase 7,477 3-quarter inch I-PERL potable water meters [01:03:33] to replace some older meters that were outdated. [01:03:40] The reason that he asked to order them in advance of the onset of the fiscal year was [01:03:48] because there was a large lead time on this item. [01:03:52] At this time, we're expecting them to arrive in early June and the purpose of this agenda [01:04:01] item is to request to hire a contractor to install the meters and Mr. Doe is prepared [01:04:10] to talk to you about a contractor that he's recommending that we hire on a piggyback agreement. [01:04:19] Thank you, Ms. Manns, Mayor and Council. [01:04:21] Again, the request of staff to Council is to review and consider approval of the agreement [01:04:27] between Citrus County and CORE in Maine and for the city to piggyback off that agreement [01:04:33] to complete the 2023 AMI system project. [01:04:38] So for some background, CORE in Maine, that's the company we buy the census meters from. [01:04:45] So CORE in Maine has recently just executed an agreement with Citrus County and they're [01:04:49] doing the exact same thing that we are needing, essentially replacing the meters that we have [01:04:56] already purchased and are slowly coming in due to the supply chain problems and CORE [01:05:02] in Maine being in charge of overseeing a contractor to come in, pull those older meters and then [01:05:08] go ahead and put the new eye pearls in. [01:05:11] In order to do this project in a realistic and timely manner, the city, we would need [01:05:17] to contract this work out. [01:05:19] Nearly 7,500 meters to pull, replace and program would be too burdensome on our staff. [01:05:27] The attached agreement between Citrus and CORE in Maine would be ideal for this. [01:05:32] It's similar to the agreement that we did when we initially pulled the trigger on the [01:05:36] AMI project. [01:05:37] We had, again, another subcontractor come in under CORE in Maine and actually at the [01:05:44] time CORE in Maine was named a different company, but they're the same company, they just changed [01:05:48] names. [01:05:50] We then oversaw subcontractors coming and taking out those older meters or retrofitting [01:05:54] the meters that could be retrofit and then programming them. [01:05:59] Again, direct purchase of the meters has been initiated by the city and the services of [01:06:05] a contractor will be utilized at a cost not to exceed $500,000. [01:06:11] As Ms. Mann stated, the new eye pearl meters are expected to arrive late May, early June [01:06:17] and it's anticipated that the contractor will have them all done before the end of this [01:06:22] new year. [01:06:23] So, we're looking at close to 2024, having all these new meters in the ground and just [01:06:30] of note, the 74, 77 existing meters, that's about three quarters of our three quarter [01:06:39] inch or majority inventory of meters in the city. [01:06:42] We don't have as many larger meters. [01:06:45] This is the majority of our system here. [01:06:48] I'll say that funds for the project are identified in the city's current CIP and the water and [01:06:54] sewer construction fund and also most important to note is that we have been given roughly [01:07:01] a $250,000 price reduction from CORE in Maine for this project due to two things. [01:07:08] One being the supply chain problem. [01:07:11] It's taken a long time for these meters to come in and CORE in Maine value us as a customer [01:07:17] and they feel bad for this taking so long. [01:07:21] The other item that has given us some problems is some firmware issues with census causing [01:07:28] some of the retrofit meters that we have to drop reeds occasionally or spike or fall or [01:07:34] to just stop altogether. [01:07:36] So those two items combined have resulted in them giving us a break to the tune of $250,000 [01:07:44] for this work and if approved, that would lock in tonight, if approved, it would lock [01:07:50] in that rate of labor. [01:07:51] You'll see in the packet that the rates for Citrus County are much higher. [01:07:55] Ours is much lower due to those two issues and approval of the agreement to piggyback [01:08:00] off of is recommended. [01:08:03] Thank you. [01:08:04] I'll open it up for public comment. [01:08:07] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to council. [01:08:09] I'll move approval. [01:08:12] Second. [01:08:13] To the maker. [01:08:14] Yeah, I think I was here when the census meters and the whole modernization of the system [01:08:20] which eliminated the need for meter readers to go and got us all online and provided all [01:08:26] of those great things. [01:08:29] That wasn't that long ago, so the concept of piggybacking on those old meters apparently [01:08:34] was not the best move if I don't know what the life expectancy is of them, but the fact [01:08:40] that you've negotiated the price down and you're recommending it caused me to say I'd [01:08:45] make the motion for it, so let's do it. [01:08:51] Second. [01:08:52] So this is just for the labor for the installation, right, because we're already buying the meters. [01:08:56] We already bought the meters, correct. [01:08:57] This is just for the installation. [01:08:58] So we're a little over $600 a meter to install, right? [01:09:00] $60. [01:09:01] A little over $60, yeah. [01:09:02] $60. [01:09:03] $60? [01:09:04] Yeah. [01:09:05] You're right. [01:09:06] Councilman? [01:09:07] How late? [01:09:08] I wouldn't do it for $60. [01:09:09] You had $7,000 up in your pocket. [01:09:10] Think about that. [01:09:11] Mr. Murphy? [01:09:12] No, I'm good. [01:09:13] I just had some plumbing done at my house, and man, $60 to get a plumber to do anything [01:09:32] is a bargain, so yeah, this is a good deal. [01:09:38] $60 to deliver salt, right? [01:09:40] Yeah, they won't come out and get out of the car for $60. [01:09:45] There's no further discussion. [01:09:46] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:09:49] Aye. [01:09:50] Opposed, like sign. [01:09:51] Motion passes. [01:09:52] Next, 2023 Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration Alcoholic Beverage Special Event.

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

11. 8.c

    2023 Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration - Alcoholic Beverage Special Event

    approved

    Council approved a special event request to allow beer sales from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Sunday, January 15, 2023, during the MLK Jr. Celebration. The Pasco County African American Club is the applicant, with proceeds supporting their scholarship funding.

    • motion:Approve the amended request to allow beer sales from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Sunday, January 15, 2023 for the MLK Jr. Celebration. (passed)

    🏢Pasco County African American Club👤Gene Scott👤Murphy#2023 Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration#Alcoholic Beverage Special Event

    ▶ Jump to 1:09:58 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:09:58] Yes. [01:09:59] The request before you this evening is to sell beer on Sunday, January 15th, 2023. [01:10:11] The original communication before you this evening indicates that beer sales would span, [01:10:21] if you approve this item, between the hours of 1 o'clock p.m. and 4 o'clock p.m. [01:10:29] And since the time that this memo was authored, the request has been amended somewhat, and [01:10:37] we would now like to recommend that the sales occur between 1 o'clock p.m. and 5 o'clock [01:10:44] p.m. on Sunday, January 15th. [01:10:48] Mr. Gene Scott, along with others, is in attendance this evening representing the Pasco [01:10:54] County African American Club, and they are, in large part, the applicant, as they're working [01:11:05] along with the city on this very special event to commemorate and honor the life of Dr. Martin [01:11:12] Luther King Jr. [01:11:14] Thank you. [01:11:15] Open up for public comment. [01:11:18] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to Council. [01:11:21] Move approval. [01:11:22] Second. [01:11:23] To the maker. [01:11:24] That's for 5 o'clock, correct? [01:11:25] Yes. [01:11:26] Of the amended request, till 5 o'clock, yes. [01:11:29] Thank you. [01:11:30] To the maker. [01:11:31] I look forward to it. [01:11:32] Second. [01:11:33] Yep, it's going to be a fun day. [01:11:34] Deputy Mayor. [01:11:35] Yeah, you know, I questioned a little bit, you know, of honoring celebration on this [01:11:43] on a Sunday, and, you know, we don't always have to have alcohol involved, and, you know, [01:11:52] it would be okay with me either way, but the applicant, if that's what they would like [01:11:56] to do and it feels appropriate, then I'm okay with it. [01:12:00] Mr. Murphy. [01:12:01] All good here. [01:12:02] Okay. [01:12:03] I did, and I communicated this with the African American Club, it strikes me as a little incongruous [01:12:12] that we're celebrating the life and works of a Southern Baptist minister by selling [01:12:20] alcohol, but we've had far worse groups. [01:12:24] We've said, go ahead and have your alcohol sales, and the African American Club is a [01:12:34] wonderful organization that has done an enormous amount for the community, and as I understand [01:12:39] it, the proceeds from this are going to go help with their scholarship funding, and it's [01:12:50] a great local organization, so I'm going to go along with it as well. [01:12:56] Any further discussion? [01:12:59] Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:13:02] Aye. [01:13:03] Aye. [01:13:04] Opposed, like sign. [01:13:05] Motion passes. [01:13:06] Next, request for authorization to use equitable sharing funds to purchase replacement pistols.

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

12. 8.d

    Request for Authorization to Use Equitable Sharing Funds to Purchase Replacement Pistols

    approved

    Police Chief requested authorization to use equitable sharing funds to purchase 55 Glock Model 45 (9mm) semi-automatic pistols with accessories from Lawmen and Shooters Supply in Titusville for $11,695 with trade-in, replacing 10-year-old worn weapons. Council unanimously approved.

    • motion:Motion to approve use of equitable sharing funds to purchase 55 Glock Model 45 replacement pistols for $11,695. (passed)

    🏢Glock Incorporated🏢Lawmen and Shooters Supply👤Mr. Allman#Equitable Sharing Funds#Glock Model 27#Glock Model 45

    ▶ Jump to 1:13:11 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:13:11] The request before you is to purchase 55 Glock semi-automatic pistols and all of the accessories, [01:13:20] and I'm going to let the police chief talk to you about that. [01:13:23] Yes. [01:13:24] Mayor and council members, I'm asking your permission to use equitable sharing funds [01:13:32] to make this purchase. [01:13:36] All of our police officers are issued Glock Model 45 pistols, they're .40 caliber. [01:13:42] Officers in some specialized positions, now the first ones I'm talking about are everybody [01:13:47] who wears a uniform, and then the officers in some specialized positions also are issued [01:13:53] Glock Model 27 pistols. [01:13:56] All of these pistols are about 10 years old. [01:14:00] What you may not be aware of, and we don't have many shooting incidents in our city over [01:14:04] the 10 years that I've been here, but what you may not be aware of is that the officers [01:14:09] qualify twice a year. [01:14:11] They go out to the range and they fire whatever weapons they're authorized to carry, and literally [01:14:18] there have been thousands of rounds fired through these weapons in the 10 years that [01:14:21] we've had them. [01:14:23] Glock Incorporated recommends starting at the six year mark that you pay very close [01:14:29] attention to your weapons and consider replacement. [01:14:33] Only replacement of parts, and the parts inside which wear is the magazines, the extractor, [01:14:42] the firing pin, the firing safety, the recoil spring assembly, and of course all of our [01:14:49] weapons are outfitted with Glock night sights, the lights that are on the guns, and so they [01:14:55] are also 10 years old. [01:15:00] In order for us to have all of the weapons inspected, [01:15:04] the likelihood of many of those parts being replaced [01:15:07] is very high. [01:15:09] And because I was talking about 1,000 rounds [01:15:11] being through each weapon, that's [01:15:13] at a minimum in that course of that 10 years. [01:15:17] And it would cost approximately $174 per pistol [01:15:20] to replace those parts. [01:15:23] We have obtained quotes for a Glock. [01:15:29] It's a Model 45. [01:15:31] That does not mean .45 caliber. [01:15:33] They're 9 millimeter weapons. [01:15:35] This is almost a hybrid of the two types of guns [01:15:40] that we carry. [01:15:42] Shorter barrel length, better handle, grip on it, [01:15:45] and they are considered like the perfect weapon for officers. [01:15:49] We don't need to purchase two weapons [01:15:50] for those specialized positions. [01:15:53] So right now is an opportune time. [01:15:55] We've cut an incredible deal with the company that [01:16:00] gave us the very best price as lawmen and shooters [01:16:03] supply in Titusville. [01:16:06] And the total cost to buy, with trade in, [01:16:12] 55 Glock of these Model 45 weapons is $11,695. [01:16:21] And I certainly have that money available [01:16:23] in our equitable sharing account. [01:16:27] Just need your permission to move ahead with it. [01:16:30] Open it up for public comment. [01:16:32] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to council. [01:16:35] I move we approve. [01:16:36] Second. [01:16:37] To the maker. [01:16:39] Seems the right time, right deal. [01:16:45] To the second. [01:16:47] Nothing from me. [01:16:48] Mr. Allman. [01:16:49] Once again, we do rely on our experts from time to time. [01:16:53] This is a time to do it. [01:16:56] Councilwoman? [01:16:56] Yep, nothing else. [01:16:59] As you went through the list of things that needed replacement, [01:17:02] I'm thinking, what's left? [01:17:04] That's basically the whole pistol other than the barrel [01:17:06] and maybe the grip. [01:17:11] Yeah, let's do this and keep these weapons functional [01:17:18] and safe. [01:17:19] Because if you've got stuff like firing pins [01:17:22] and extractors and recoil assemblies that are worn out, [01:17:29] there's a potential for problems. [01:17:31] And I don't think any of us want to see that. [01:17:35] There's no further discussion. [01:17:36] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:17:39] Aye. [01:17:40] Opposed, like sign. [01:17:42] Motion passes.

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

13. 9Communications▶ 1:17:44
14. 10Adjournment▶ 1:38:37