First reading passed for Ordinance 2023-2277 banning shipping containers citywide and mobile homes outside park zoning; council also OK'd a $42,763 LED crosswalk at Grand and Missouri.
17 items on the agenda · 13 decisions recorded
On the agenda
- 1Call to Order – Roll Call▶ 0:00
- 2
Pledge of Allegiance
Pledge of Allegiance and moment of silence.
▶ Jump to 0:19 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:00:19] Please stand for the pledge. [00:00:20] In a moment of silence. [00:00:24] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America [00:00:29] and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, [00:00:33] 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
Council observed a moment of silence and recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
▶ Jump to 0:19 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:00:19] Please stand for the pledge. [00:00:20] In a moment of silence. [00:00:24] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America [00:00:29] and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, [00:00:33] 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.
- 4
Approval of June 6, 2023 Regular Meeting Minutes
approvedCouncil approved the minutes from the June 6, 2023 regular meeting.
- motion:Approve the June 6, 2023 regular meeting minutes. (passed)
▶ Jump to 0:50 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:00:50] June 6th meeting, do we have a move we approve, second? [00:00:57] Second. [00:00:58] All those in favor? [00:00:59] Aye. [00:01:00] Aye. [00:01:00] Aye. [00:01:01] Aye. [00:01:03] Aye votes, thank you.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 5Vox Pop for Items Not Listed on the Agenda or Listed on Consent Agenda▶ 1:06
- 6.a
Purchases/Payments for City Council Approval
approvedon consentCouncil approved the consent item for purchases/payments by unanimous voice vote.
- vote:Approve purchases/payments for City Council approval. (passed)5–0
▶ Jump to 35:46 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:35:46] second second all those in favor aye [00:35:54] all right that's five um public reading of ordinances first reading of ordinance
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 6.b
Library Advisory Board Minutes - March and April 2023
approvedon consentThe Library Advisory Board minutes from March and April 2023 were accepted on consent with a second and unanimous voice vote.
- vote:Accept the Library Advisory Board minutes for March and April 2023. (passed)5–0
▶ Jump to 35:46 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:35:46] second second all those in favor aye [00:35:54] all right that's five um public reading of ordinances first reading of ordinance
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 6.c
Environmental Committee Meeting Minutes - May 2023
approvedon consentCouncil approved the Environmental Committee Meeting Minutes from May 2023 as part of the consent or routine business with a unanimous 5-0 vote.
- vote:Approve the Environmental Committee Meeting Minutes from May 2023. (passed)5–0
▶ Jump to 35:46 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:35:46] second second all those in favor aye [00:35:54] all right that's five um public reading of ordinances first reading of ordinance
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 7.a
First Reading, Ordinance No. 2023-2277: Prohibited Structures
approvedCouncil held first reading of Ordinance 2023-2277, which prohibits shipping containers in all zoning districts (except temporarily on active construction sites) and prohibits mobile homes outside the mobile home park zoning district. Two residents spoke against the shipping container prohibition, citing affordable housing examples. The motion passed 5-0 on first reading, with several councilmembers asking that definitions be revisited before second reading to potentially allow modified containers for commercial or planned residential projects.
Ord. Ordinance No. 2023-2277
- motion:Motion to approve Ordinance 2023-2277 on first reading prohibiting shipping containers and mobile homes outside designated areas. (passed)5–0
6141 Pine Hill6235 FloridaAcorn StreetNeighborhood Lending PartnersPalm Beach Housing AuthorityGeorge RomagnoliKellyMarlo JonesMr. DriscollMr. HallMurphyLDRB (Land Development Regulatory Board) recommended revisionLand Development Code Chapter 7Ordinance No. 2023-2277Section 2.01.00Section 7.22.00Section 7.22.06Wesley Chapel shipping container project (referenced)▶ Jump to 36:00 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:36:00] number 2023-2277 prohibited structures this is ordinance number [00:36:05] 2023-2277 an ordinance of the city of New Port Richey Florida [00:36:10] providing for amendment of section 7.22.00 chapter 7 of the land development [00:36:16] code pertaining to general district [00:36:18] regulations in the zoning chapter providing for a new section 7.22.06 [00:36:24] pertaining to prohibited structures providing for prohibition [00:36:27] of shipping containers in all zoning districts providing for prohibition of [00:36:31] mobile homes outside the mobile home park [00:36:34] zoning district providing for amendment of section 2.01.00 pertaining to [00:36:39] definitions of terms providing for definitions of terms used herein [00:36:44] providing for severability providing for conflicts [00:36:46] providing for codification and providing an effective date [00:36:51] do you have a presentation Mr. Hall will present the agenda item [00:36:56] unfortunately I don't have a powerpoint presentation I know you're very upset [00:36:59] about that tonight but this is a pretty straightforward [00:37:02] request for the ordinance it was outlined very well and by Mr. Attorney Driscoll [00:37:10] but I do want to add in a couple things for clarity purposes [00:37:14] right now it's the policy of the city to allow for temporary placement of [00:37:18] shipping containers on construction sites that have a valid building permit [00:37:23] that are actively under development though that that would still allow for [00:37:28] construction or for shipping containers to be used in that purpose what we're [00:37:33] doing is making sure that it is prohibited in all districts for [00:37:37] buildings and construction that are permanent like some areas on the west [00:37:41] coast have they use them for housing or they use them for commercial [00:37:48] buildings and that doesn't really fit the aesthetic of this community and it's [00:37:53] outside of what our comp plan is trying to achieve so we strictly prohibited the [00:37:57] use of shipping containers unless it's on an active construction site the second [00:38:02] item is for mobile homes mobile homes are permitted in mobile home park zoning [00:38:08] district this ordinance will say that they are prohibited as placement in [00:38:13] other residential areas outside mobile home parks there is an addition or there [00:38:18] is a or I'm sorry a definition that's added to there that clarifies some of [00:38:23] these items last but not least when this was presented to the LDRB they had [00:38:29] a slight revision that they recommended to put in there and that's in your [00:38:32] packet for consideration however staff strongly recommends adoption of the [00:38:38] staff's prohibited structure ordinance I'd be more than happy to further [00:38:44] explain anything you might need give any public comment [00:38:54] in George Romagnoli 6235 Florida just to clarify from our planning director so [00:39:03] shipping containers used for housing is not going to be allowed under this [00:39:07] ordinance sure that that is that is the purpose of this order okay because I [00:39:16] it's ironic because right now one of my jobs working in neighbor lending [00:39:20] partners is I underwrite housing projects and I'm working with the Palm [00:39:24] Beach Housing Authority that's building 150 unit container apartment complex and [00:39:30] if you looked at it you would be very impressed so I think before we get to [00:39:35] second reading of this ordinance we need to look at that because if these storage [00:39:40] units can meet aesthetic standards because let's face it we can have houses [00:39:44] that look like boxes too and just because it's a shipping container [00:39:48] doesn't mean it's a proper housing unit they can be used for housing it not [00:39:53] necessarily not necessarily is affordable per se but it's been used for [00:39:57] both affordable and market rate housing for both single family multifamily and I [00:40:03] think we really should look at that or take that part of the ordinance out [00:40:06] until further study can be done by planning and maybe they can look at some [00:40:09] examples of some storage unit buildings that are very suitable and would be an [00:40:15] asset to the city. Those are my comments. Thank you. Anybody else like to talk? [00:40:28] I oppose the ordinance 100% in terms of shipping containers and many reasons [00:40:36] exist. I've been traveled all over the country and it is a preferred method to [00:40:42] build. It's effective. I mean there are many many different benefits but as a [00:40:55] matter of fact I've requested to use one simply as a shed in my backyard and I [00:41:01] was denied. Just a small one but they're cost effective. They don't invite rodents. [00:41:09] They don't invite termites. They're simply placed, dropped, and left. They [00:41:15] don't fly away in hurricanes generally because of the weight and they're easily [00:41:21] delivered. They're all over the country. Easy to access so and that's my reason. [00:41:28] I'm not real prepared but those are my reasons. Anybody else like to speak? [00:41:39] I have to state my name and everything? All right, Marlo Jones, 6141 Pine Hill. Mr. Hall [00:41:53] is it? Mr. Hall said that it does not fit the aesthetic. I'm trying to figure out [00:41:59] what is the aesthetic? Condos? High-rises? Because from what I can see, residents [00:42:06] are being moved out. Condos are being moved in. I concur with Mr. Romanola. [00:42:14] Some of the shipping container homes, as you can see all over the internet and [00:42:19] other counties, sister counties, they're actually quite well and they do fit [00:42:25] certain aesthetics in certain places and they do help people that can't afford [00:42:29] the high-rises and the condos that are popping up all over our city. So maybe [00:42:35] that might be worth something looking into like George said. I strongly [00:42:41] encourage you doing that and definitely making some changes before you vote on [00:42:45] this and we would definitely like to see a PowerPoint next time. [00:42:54] Anybody else like to speak? If not, we'll bring it back to the council. Anybody have a [00:43:01] motion at this time? Is it a problem to ask some questions? Well, we can go that way first. Go ahead. [00:43:09] So mobile homes provided in all zoning districts except those [00:43:18] located in the mobile home park zoning district. What governs our mobile [00:43:25] home placement now? Am I reading this correctly? I'm not sure what the question is. [00:43:33] All right, prohibited structures. I'm reading from the ordinance. [00:43:36] One is mobile homes are prohibited in all zoning districts except those [00:43:40] located in the mobile home park zoning district. So that is a change, correct? [00:43:47] Correct. All right, so before it just was not addressed, is that the situation? So [00:43:53] mobile homes were able to be placed anywhere on a residential lot? Not expressly allowed. No, [00:44:00] there's some discussion on whether mobile home is a type of construction or whether that is a [00:44:08] type of home. So we're clarifying this in our code saying that despite whether it's a construction [00:44:15] or a type of home, a single family home is what's allowed on stick built on a residential lot, [00:44:24] but mobile homes are only allowed in mobile home parks. Okay, just wanted to clarify. Okay, thank you. [00:44:30] Anybody else have any questions? Do I have a move for approval? I move we approve. [00:44:37] Kelly? I guess it's being tabled. A second? Okay, we have a second. All those in favor? [00:44:53] What did we just have? No questions. Okay. We didn't have a motion yet, [00:44:56] so the maker goes first if you got further. [00:45:00] Yeah, we're a city of five square miles, largely developed already. We have limited areas that's [00:45:11] open for development. I'm not even sure we have a partial that could fit 150 some unit [00:45:21] container construction. I'm just not sure, and I haven't seen it. But I don't know that, [00:45:30] and I agree as far as the aesthetics. We'd have to, before we would allow these, and [00:45:36] we could always come back and revisit this if we find something that would be viable [00:45:42] and would work. But, you know, I would be in motion to go ahead and prohibit the containers [00:45:52] until such time somebody brought something that was otherwise somebody's going to be [00:45:56] able to come in, park one, it's on the back of the house, the side of the house, and goes [00:46:02] on. And sure, they can dress them up, but they can also just let them rust away too. [00:46:07] So I would be in favor of the ordinance. [00:46:13] Second. Kelly's second. Kelly, you got anything to say? [00:46:20] Yeah, so the only thing I want to add is that, you know, I agree that we don't have a whole [00:46:26] lot of land that can be developed and to put a mobile home in an area where there are already [00:46:31] housing kind of aesthetically isn't in the right area. There are, we do have areas for [00:46:38] mobile homes, and they're not as easy to take down and remove when they become in disrepair [00:46:46] either. So I do think that we need to limit where those are going to be and how they're [00:46:52] going to be and maybe on an individual basis. [00:46:57] Yeah, I'm good with the mobile home, the wording for that. I guess I'm just a little hesitant [00:47:02] on the railroad, or not the railroad, but the shipping containers. There are some applications [00:47:08] that I've seen in other places, like commercially, like they had like a food court village and [00:47:15] they use those for that. That's one thing I could see that would be positive and wouldn't [00:47:21] be bad. So I guess I'm just a little hesitant about not having any at all for any reason, [00:47:28] but if we have a good project that comes up, I mean, I suppose we can come back and address [00:47:32] it then and, you know, try to fit it in. I mean, I'll go along with it as is, but I'm [00:47:39] just a little hesitant about that. [00:47:43] Mr. Mayor, for my part, I think the first thing, I have mentioned this before and, you [00:47:49] know, forgive me if I didn't hear this discussion before it became an ordinance and presented [00:47:55] through the system to come back up to City Council, but I really would love for us to [00:48:02] follow the sort of mother may I approach to ordinances. When ordinances come before us [00:48:08] that have already been drafted, presented to committees that are organizations within [00:48:15] the city and then recommended to us before we've even had a chance to put our two cents [00:48:22] in because I think the two cents I would agree with you, Councilman Murphy, is it was actually [00:48:31] a recommendation of a consultant to the city that the area around Acorn Street be turned [00:48:37] into a shipping container pop-up entrepreneurial space. And then we saw all of the excitement [00:48:45] and delight over in Wesley Chapel a couple years ago with the much heralded, and I haven't [00:48:50] been there and I don't know if anybody still goes there, or what the outcome is, but outfitted [00:48:57] shipping containers as some kind of a fad. I'm sure that there was a lot of excitement [00:49:05] for discos when disco was king and there aren't any more, so fads are fads. Kelly makes [00:49:11] a good argument that it's heavy, it's hard to move, and so I would really like to be [00:49:16] presented with these issues so we could talk them out because perhaps, especially since [00:49:23] so much is being prefabbed now, you have prefab buildings that are dropped onto properties, [00:49:29] you call them stick homes, you've got the kicker from the Bucks who now does these compressed [00:49:37] styrofoam board projects that are put together, and I think you mentioned it, the definition [00:49:46] I think is the critical issue, and if the definition of an unmodified shipping container [00:49:55] is not allowed, that a modified shipping container would have to meet some codes and [00:50:01] match our city's construction codes, I think then we would not have to come back and have [00:50:09] a first and second reading and rewrite an ordinance, so this is first reading, I'll [00:50:14] vote to approve it on the first reading, but I would love, now that I'm late to the party [00:50:20] here, and forgive me if I should have known or we've had this discussion, but I'd like [00:50:26] to see a good strong definition and maybe a simple word that our attorney can come up [00:50:32] with that can identify in the definition an opportunity as has been outlined by Councilman [00:50:40] Murphy and some of the residents, so I'll vote for it on first reading, I'm on the fence [00:50:47] Kelly, you want to add something? [00:50:52] I don't have anything to add. [00:50:57] I just, I think there's two projects here that have been brought up, one's kind of a [00:51:01] commercial project, and one's a residential project, and I think sometimes with the properties [00:51:06] we have in town here, that somebody could throw a container in their backyard and plug [00:51:11] it into their house, you know, virtually a little bit stronger than that, but then they'd [00:51:15] start renting it, and I don't really want that. [00:51:18] So that's kind of why I'm leaning to this prohibited structures. [00:51:22] I think if the commercial property or somebody comes with an acre or two property and wants [00:51:27] to put in four or five container homes and then presents that project to us, well then [00:51:32] we'll reevaluate and make maybe an exception to this ordinance. [00:51:36] So at this point, I'm going to go ahead and favor this and allow the people that want [00:51:42] to come and present a project, whether it's commercial or residential, but I'm just kind [00:51:47] of afraid of somebody throwing a container in their backyard and renting it out. [00:51:50] So, anybody else have a comment? [00:51:53] Can I add just another question, clarification? [00:51:56] So if I'm reading this ordinance correctly, it prohibits it in residential zoning areas, [00:52:03] right? [00:52:04] Is that what it says specifically? [00:52:05] Correct, unless it's an active construction site with an active permit. [00:52:10] So what we're doing is we're basically saying, hey, you're not going to put this in your [00:52:14] side yard somewhere, right? [00:52:17] So, okay. [00:52:18] Just clarifying. [00:52:19] Okay, I move for approval. [00:52:22] All those in favor? [00:52:23] Aye. [00:52:24] Aye. [00:52:25] Aye. [00:52:26] Aye. [00:52:27] That's a 5-0.
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.a
Acceptance of Donation from the Kiwanis Club of Greater West Pasco
approvedThe Kiwanis Club of Greater West Pasco presented a $20,000 check to the city to purchase wheelchair-accessible playground equipment (swings and a merry-go-round) to be installed at Francis Park. Council accepted the donation and approved the corresponding budget amendment unanimously.
- motion:Accept the $20,000 donation from the Kiwanis Club of Greater West Pasco and approve the corresponding budget amendment. (passed)5–0
1136 Finland Drive, Spring Hill, Florida, 34609Francis ParkFlorida Kiwanis FoundationKiwanis Club of Greater West PascoSalvation ArmyWheelchairs for KidsBill KoenigJody KoenigKelly$10,000 matching grant from state Kiwanis FoundationSpecial needs playground equipment at Francis Park▶ Jump to 52:31 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:52:31] Now going on to business, acceptance of donation from Kiwanis Club. [00:52:36] I think I see them all there in purple. [00:52:37] Come on down. [00:52:38] We have some very hardworking members of the Kiwanis Club of Great West Pasco with us this [00:52:46] evening. [00:52:47] Principally, we have Bill and Jody Koenig, the president of the West Pasco Club, who [00:52:53] would like to present a check in the amount of $20,000 to the city mayor. [00:52:58] If you could accept the check on behalf of the city. [00:53:00] Bring the rest of the crowd down. [00:53:01] Come on down. [00:53:02] The purpose of the check is to be used to purchase special needs playground equipment, [00:53:12] and our plan is to install the equipment at Francis Park, and it'll be wheelchair accessible. [00:53:25] Mr. Koenig. [00:53:26] My name is Bill Koenig. [00:53:29] My address is 1136 Finland Drive, Spring Hill, Florida, 34609, but I'm a member of [00:53:35] the Greater West Pasco Kiwanis Club, as well as some other members came here. [00:53:43] Our club has been in existence over 50 years. [00:53:48] The main focus of Kiwanis is doing things for children. [00:53:54] Our club, every year, has donated one or two wheelchairs to children whose families [00:54:01] could not afford them, or for financial reasons couldn't get them. [00:54:08] One of our members, unfortunately, after he came up with this idea, passed away in February. [00:54:15] The idea is to put wheelchair accessible swings and a merry-go-round in a city park. [00:54:25] There are children that can't get out of, the parent or guardian can't take them out [00:54:29] of the wheelchair and put them in a swing or on the merry-go-round in the park. [00:54:34] They make these wonderful swings that are wheelchair accessible. [00:54:40] It's a platform with a little ramp. [00:54:42] The parent or guardian wheels the chair up onto it. [00:54:46] The wheels get latched in, and then the parent and guardian can push the child, and they [00:54:51] can enjoy a swing, or the same with the merry-go-round, like any other child. [00:54:59] We happened to be at Wheelchairs for Kids annual luncheon two weeks ago, and to see [00:55:11] the expression on some of the kids' faces that just got brand new wheelchairs because [00:55:15] they outgrew the other ones is incredible. [00:55:18] I'm looking to see the expression on kids' faces that have never been on a swing or on [00:55:24] a merry-go-round in a playground. [00:55:28] We were very fortunate. [00:55:30] Our club has raised $10,000, and we applied for a grant from the state Kiwanis Foundation. [00:55:40] They liked it. [00:55:41] It's very unusual, but we were given the maximum $10,000 matching grant. [00:55:48] In my 33 years in Kiwanis, I've only seen three $10,000 grants come through the state [00:55:56] foundation. [00:55:58] This, I believe, is the fourth one. [00:56:00] So with that, I'd like to present this check. [00:56:58] I'm going to say without hesitation, we accept this, and we're looking forward to being out [00:57:04] there at Francis Park when it opens up and gets all built. [00:57:08] Thank you very much. [00:57:09] Thank you. [00:57:10] We'd also like to extend an invitation to anyone, the council, anyone in the audience. [00:57:18] We meet the second and fourth Thursday, currently right now, at the Salvation Army building [00:57:25] on Ridge Road at 6.30. [00:57:28] Our meetings last an hour from 6.30 to 7.30. [00:57:31] You're all welcome, and we're always looking for new members. [00:57:35] Thank you. [00:57:36] Thank you. [00:57:37] Thank you. [00:57:38] Thank you. [00:57:39] Thank you. [00:57:40] Thank you, Debbie. [00:57:41] Thank you. [00:57:42] Mr. Mayor, in addition to accepting the check, we're [00:57:56] asking you to approve the corresponding budget amendment attached to this item. [00:58:01] Move approval. [00:58:03] Second. [00:58:04] Any comment? [00:58:05] Oh, this is wonderful, and I can't wait to see the smiling faces, too. [00:58:10] Oh, yeah. [00:58:11] Perfect spot. [00:58:12] Perfect spot there at Francis Park, too. [00:58:14] All right. [00:58:15] All those in favor? [00:58:16] Aye. [00:58:17] Aye. [00:58:18] Aye. [00:58:19] Kelly? [00:58:20] Aye. [00:58:21] Thank you. [00:58:23] Thank you. [00:58:24] Unanimous. [00:58:25] Five to zip. [00:58:26] All right. [00:58:27] Thank you. [00:58:28] Moving on is the 2023 Fireworks Display at Friendly Fest 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.
- 8.b
2023 Fireworks Display and Friendly Fest Special Event
approvedCouncil approved the annual fireworks celebration, branded this year as Friendly Fest in partnership with John Gillis, including a special event permit allowing Wheelchairs for Kids to sell alcohol from 4pm to 11pm as a nonprofit fundraiser. Steve Sherdell presented on behalf of Gillis and Judy DeBella Thomas, noting entertainment by Jam Jones (featuring Curtis Gray) and the Black Honkies.
- motion:Approve the 2023 Fireworks Display and Friendly Fest special event, including permit for Wheelchairs for Kids to sell alcohol. (passed)5–0
Jam JonesKiaThe Black HonkiesWheelchairs for KidsCurtis GrayJohn GillisJudy DeBella ThomasSteve Sherdell2023 Fireworks DisplayFriendly Fest▶ Jump to 58:32 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:58:32] Yes, it's that time of year again, and the city hosts its annual fireworks celebration [00:58:39] with its partner, John Gillis, who has dubbed the event this year as Friendly Fest, and [00:58:51] we have Steve Sherdell in attendance this evening representing the application of wheelchairs [00:59:00] for kids to sell alcohol at the event between the hours of 4 p.m. and 11 o'clock p.m. as [00:59:10] a fundraiser for the not-for-profit, and do you want to come up and say a couple of words [00:59:19] about the entertainment that will be featured that evening, Steve? [00:59:24] My favorite band is actually playing. [00:59:31] I'm here on behalf of John Gillis and Judy DeBella Thomas for the event, and John wanted [00:59:37] me to convey his thanks to the city for allowing him to do this. [00:59:41] It's his opportunity to continue to support wheelchairs for kids, his significant other [00:59:47] in his life, her granddaughter is a recipient of the services from wheelchairs for kids. [00:59:53] They do great work in the community, and last year was, I think, a real [01:00:00] Big year for them, the chance to earn the alcohol revenue from the event. [01:00:03] And as a lot of people know, John has sold his dealership, but [01:00:06] he's probably one of the biggest proponents of the city of New Port Richey I've ever met in my whole life. [01:00:13] Years ago, I said, John, why don't you move into Pasco? [01:00:15] And he kind of made this Pinellas County face at me and was, I don't know, Pasco? [01:00:20] Let me see. [01:00:21] And he's just fallen in love with the city and our area. [01:00:24] And we're excited about it this year. [01:00:26] There will be Jam Jones as the opening band, and that's Curtis Gray, [01:00:30] who was a finalist in the American Idol competition. [01:00:33] And then the Black Honkies, which, because of the size of their band and [01:00:37] the cost of their band, don't very frequently make it to Pasco County. [01:00:41] So there's always a great representation of people showing up. [01:00:45] And I know John appreciates it, and we appreciate it. [01:00:47] We just enjoy the events in the city. [01:00:50] And like I said, I feel like New Port Richey is everybody's hometown, [01:00:54] no matter what county or city we actually reside in. [01:00:56] So if there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. [01:01:00] I don't know all the details, but I'm helping John and Judy, so I may know some. [01:01:05] I think Steve made an important point that needs to be reinforced. [01:01:09] And that is that John Gillis has made his support outside of the scope [01:01:17] of his corporate sponsorship through Kia, and he's made a personal commitment [01:01:23] to support this event, and that's outstanding. [01:01:26] And thank you so much for that. [01:01:28] Yeah, I agree, 100%. [01:01:29] I know he very much appreciates it. [01:01:32] I know he knows we feel that way, but you can express it back to him. [01:01:37] I'll make sure he knows. [01:01:38] All right, thank you very much. [01:01:40] Thank you, Steve. [01:01:41] Okay, move for approval. [01:01:43] Move for approval. [01:01:44] Second. [01:01:44] I think we've got three. [01:01:46] Three approvals. [01:01:49] All those in favor. [01:01:50] Mr. Mayor, do you want to open it up to the public? [01:01:52] Anybody in public would like to speak? [01:01:54] Sorry. [01:01:55] Public comment? [01:01:57] Seeing no one come forward. [01:01:59] Bring it back. [01:01:59] We'll move for approval. [01:02:01] So I have a first and a second. [01:02:07] All right. [01:02:07] All those in favor. [01:02:09] Aye. [01:02:11] Aye. [01:02:12] Unanimous five zip. [01:02:14] Moving on to the next item.
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.c
6602 Candice Lane – Order to Demolish Reconsideration
approvedCouncil reconsidered the December 2021 order to demolish the mobile home at 6602 Candice Lane after the city court remanded the matter. The current building official determined the structure is now structurally sound and fit for habitation after the owner removed unpermitted structures and provided engineering documentation. Council voted 4-1 to withdraw the demolition notice and rescind prior demolition orders.
- motion:Motion to approve staff recommendation to withdraw the notice of demolition and rescind all prior orders requiring demolition of the structures at 6602 Candice Lane. (passed)4–1
6602 Candice LaneBill LarderKellyMr. HallMr. HowarthOrder to Demolish reconsiderationquasi-judicial hearing▶ Jump to 1:02:17 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[01:02:17] The 6602 Candidate Slaying Order for Demolition reconsidered. [01:02:23] And this is a quasi-judicial, so I'd [01:02:26] like to know if anybody has any ex parte communication with this group. [01:02:31] No, sir. [01:02:31] Kelly? [01:02:34] Kelly? [01:02:36] No, good. [01:02:37] OK. [01:02:38] All right, then we'll go ahead and get a presentation, please. [01:02:42] OK. [01:02:43] Mr. Hall. [01:02:46] Thank you. [01:02:48] I'll give a brief history of this, and then I'll [01:02:52] open up for any questions you may have. [01:02:55] In December of 2021, the city council issued an order [01:02:59] to demolish the structure at 6602 Candidate Slaying [01:03:03] based on recommendations from the building official at that time [01:03:09] in employment with the city. [01:03:10] The owner appealed the order, which the city council denied back [01:03:15] in March of 2022. [01:03:18] The owner further appealed to the city court, [01:03:21] which remanded the matter back to city council for reconsideration. [01:03:25] Since the council's original decision, the property owner [01:03:28] has removed unfit and unsafe structures [01:03:31] and provided additional materials necessary for establishing [01:03:34] the structural soundness of the existing mobile home. [01:03:39] The current city building official, Bill Larder, [01:03:42] who is in the audience this evening to answer any questions you may have, [01:03:46] has inspected the structure, reviewed all the submitted materials, [01:03:51] and has determined that the mobile home no longer [01:03:53] meets the criteria for demolition. [01:03:55] Staff has prepared a report for city council [01:03:59] that's part of the public record that goes into detail [01:04:01] on several matters of this. [01:04:04] Therefore, the recommendation for city council [01:04:06] is to withdraw the notice of demolition, [01:04:10] rescind all prior orders requiring demolition [01:04:13] of the structures at the property. [01:04:15] The property owner, Mr. Howarth, is also in attendance [01:04:17] and can answer any questions you may have. [01:04:22] Any public comment? [01:04:25] See no one come forward. [01:04:26] Move for approval. [01:04:28] I have a question before I act, which is one of the issues at the appeal [01:04:34] was the cost of the improvements and the estimated cost. [01:04:38] Have we seen the receipts to be able to verify the actual expenditures [01:04:43] and are in agreement with that? [01:04:45] City staff does not have information for what was, [01:04:49] or there was no inspections done between the time [01:04:53] that it went to city council originally and where it is right now. [01:04:57] So there were no receipts of that and no inspections [01:05:01] to know what was removed and not removed and placed. [01:05:04] When the city building official, the new city building official [01:05:07] went out there at that time, he looked at the structure as it exists, [01:05:11] looked at it as it stayed at the time he went out there, [01:05:15] and it is currently fit for habitation and it is structurally sound. [01:05:21] So my question, I think, is for our city attorney, [01:05:24] which is what are the implications on the city's ability [01:05:29] to ensure that our legal requirements are met with respect [01:05:35] to replacement which may exceed the value of a property [01:05:42] in a flood area or an area subject to flooding? [01:05:46] Well, no permits were issued for this, [01:05:49] so that would be the process by which those determinations would be made. [01:05:55] The removal of unpermitted structures can be done without a permit in most cases, [01:05:59] so that was part of what the property owner did in this particular case. [01:06:03] What he provided was additional information about the structural soundness, [01:06:08] some engineering that supported the existing improvements [01:06:13] so there were no changes made to the structure. [01:06:15] He just provided documentation that allowed the building officials [01:06:19] to make a determination that the structure was sound. [01:06:22] So therefore, there are no improvements that would trigger [01:06:25] a substantial improvement decision that would need to be made. [01:06:29] So you're saying that the improvements to this property, [01:06:34] all the improvements that were made, [01:06:36] none of them would have required a permit? [01:06:40] No, if I may clarify, all the improvements that were done on this site [01:06:46] did not have a permit, were not permitted, [01:06:50] and were not structurally sound at that time. [01:06:54] and were not structurally sound at that time. [01:06:57] And since the original inspections by the building official, [01:07:02] the unpermitted structures that were not structurally sound have been removed. [01:07:08] Do we know when that activity took place? [01:07:14] Sometime between 2021 and this summer of 2023. [01:07:24] Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion to approve the recommendation of staff. [01:07:30] Do we have a second? [01:07:31] And I'll second it. [01:07:33] Any other discussion? [01:07:35] Apparently not. [01:07:36] Yeah, so you know, I'm just a little mystified here that, [01:07:43] you know, we gave notice to this property owner about the condition of it [01:07:48] even prior to us voting to have it demolished. [01:07:53] And he took no action at that time. [01:07:56] We ordered it demolished and then he comes back and appeals it March [01:08:02] without still having done detachments. [01:08:04] I'm just mystified. [01:08:06] I know he knows, I know this particular property owner [01:08:08] owns several rental properties within the city. [01:08:11] And I just kind of missed it. [01:08:17] He doesn't take control of these and maintains them to the point [01:08:22] until we order it to be destroyed. [01:08:26] And then he takes some action. [01:08:29] I would hope that, you know, a responsible property owner would, [01:08:32] given service notice either by the building department [01:08:35] or first action of the city, would jump at the chance to save the property. [01:08:41] I just, you know, I remember the pictures, the photographs of this property [01:08:46] at the time when we made that decision to have it condemned. [01:08:51] And it was just dreadful. [01:08:55] And I'm just surprised that an individual would allow a property [01:09:01] that he valued to go in that condition. [01:09:06] Matter of fact, I think the property record shows zero value to the structure itself. [01:09:13] There's some value associated with the land, [01:09:15] but there's no property, no value associated to the structure, [01:09:19] which I think probably was appropriate at the time we first looked at it. [01:09:24] Anyway. [01:09:26] Anybody else like to speak? [01:09:29] No, we've already done that. [01:09:33] I drove by the property and I actually thought it was a step up from some of the neighbors. [01:09:38] So I was kind of pleased I can say that. [01:09:42] So all those in favor? [01:09:46] Aye. [01:09:47] Aye. [01:09:47] Aye. [01:09:48] Those opposed? [01:09:49] Aye. [01:09:50] We have four to one. [01:09:52] All right, moving on.
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.d
LED Crosswalk System Purchases
approvedCouncil approved the purchase of one LED crosswalk system from Universal Signs and Accessories for an amount not to exceed $42,763.45, to be installed at Grand Boulevard and Missouri Avenue. The original request for two systems was reduced to one. Staff cited safety concerns due to parallel parking, high traffic volumes, and special events.
- motion:Approve purchase of one LED crosswalk system from Universal Signs and Accessories not to exceed $42,763.45 for Grand Boulevard and Missouri Avenue. (passed)
5755 Indiana Avenue, New Port Richey, FloridaGrand Boulevard and Missouri AvenueUniversal Signs and AccessoriesKellyMr. MurphyMr. RiveraShiniki WhitingGrand Boulevard re-striping to two lanesOmnia cooperative contract▶ Jump to 1:09:53 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[01:09:54] The LED crosswalk system purchases. [01:09:59] Mr. Rivera. [01:10:00] Thank you, Mayor and City Council. [01:10:03] We are going to make an amendment to this item request. [01:10:07] We originally were requesting two systems to be purchased. [01:10:11] We've reduced that to one system purchase request. [01:10:16] So the proposal that is submitted by Universal Signs and Accessories, [01:10:22] this is in an amount not to exceed $42,763.45. [01:10:28] The dollar amount is in accordance with the Omnia cooperative contract [01:10:33] that's allowed under our purchasing guidelines. [01:10:36] The location that we're requesting to install is at Grand Boulevard and Missouri Avenue. [01:10:42] Over the years, we've received several complaints from business owners as well as patrons [01:10:48] having difficulties crossing that intersection. [01:10:51] The intersection does present some safety concerns that we have identified, [01:10:58] particularly how you have your parallel parking. [01:11:01] Very difficult for drivers to be able to see that side of vision [01:11:05] with a pedestrian standing there trying to cross the street. [01:11:09] And so for several other reasons, [01:11:11] we are recommending that you do approve this purchase for us [01:11:16] and the maintenance staff would install the system in-house. [01:11:22] It would be purchased direct or we would save on tax dollars. [01:11:27] And then the other thing that leaves us some concern is [01:11:30] the high traffic volumes that we do have and as well as a lot of special events. [01:11:35] So with that, we would recommend the purchase of one LED system. [01:11:42] Any public comment? [01:11:46] Shiniki Whiting, 5755 Indiana Avenue, New Port Richey, Florida. [01:11:52] As I'm hearing all these issues about the speeding, [01:11:56] the issues with the citizens and the children in this community, [01:12:02] technically, we wouldn't have this issue if the grants that DeSantis gave us. [01:12:08] Excuse me, please stay on the topic here. [01:12:10] I am on a topic. [01:12:11] It's about speed and... [01:12:12] No, I was talking about a crosswalk, ma'am. [01:12:14] Okay, and I'm talking about the streets. [01:12:16] If the city would have used the grants that DeSantis gave us for COVID, [01:12:21] we wouldn't have these issues. [01:12:22] And if I'm lying, I'm flying. [01:12:24] If I'm lying, I'm flying and I don't have wings. [01:12:28] I was definitely informed that we received a grant during COVID [01:12:35] to spreading to widen the sidewalks for our citizens and our kids. [01:12:40] This has to do with an LED crosswalk, ma'am. [01:12:43] Okay, that has to do with the city streets, correct or not? [01:12:46] We're talking about a crosswalk, purchase of a crosswalk. [01:12:48] Please stay on topic. [01:12:50] I'm staying on topic, sir. [01:12:51] Please do your research. [01:12:52] Thank you. [01:12:55] Am I telling it to you, Deb? [01:12:56] Anybody else like to speak? [01:13:11] Testing, testing. [01:13:13] 20,000, is that how much it's going to cost us? [01:13:17] No, it's 42,000. [01:13:18] 42,000. [01:13:19] And where is the exact location of the crosswalk for the LED? [01:13:24] Boulevard, Missouri Avenue. [01:13:26] Okay. [01:13:28] Can that money be better spent somewhere else, Mr. Rivera? [01:13:33] Excuse me, you're not addressing him, you're addressing the council. [01:13:37] Okay, Mr. Mayor, can that money be better spent somewhere else? [01:13:41] I think what's been brought up is a safety factor. [01:13:43] Yeah, it's a safety factor. [01:13:44] We understand that, but we have people speeding down the street. [01:13:47] The city thinks that it's a safety factor. [01:13:49] Okay, so the city cares about safety factors is what you're explaining to me, [01:13:52] but you can't email me back when I tell you that a kid got hit and killed on the street. [01:13:56] That's not a safety factor. [01:13:57] Excuse me, we're talking about LED crosswalks. [01:13:59] Okay. [01:14:00] Could you stay on topic, please? [01:14:01] Okay. [01:14:02] Well, I was talking about the LED crosswalks. [01:14:04] I was asking how much it costs, sir. [01:14:06] And I was asking the person who knew the figure. [01:14:10] So I'm sorry, I don't know why you guys are so frustrated. [01:14:13] I'm talking calmly. [01:14:15] I just asked how much it costs and is it needed? [01:14:18] Because right now, from where I'm looking at, can we do something like that on Pine Hill Road? [01:14:23] Is that possible in the areas that the city controls? [01:14:28] I'm pleased to take up that with the city manager or the... [01:14:32] Nobody gets back to us, sir. [01:14:33] So who do we take it up with when nobody gets back to us? [01:14:36] So we're working with an LED crosswalk in Missouri and Grand. [01:14:39] If you'd like to discuss that, we'd be glad to. [01:14:41] Otherwise, we're going to move on, sir. [01:14:44] You guys only care if it's developers up here. [01:14:46] Excuse me, sir. [01:14:48] Yes, sir. [01:14:48] I'm going down. [01:14:49] Thank you. [01:14:50] You have a good day, sir. [01:14:52] Don't let the power go to your head. [01:14:56] Any other public comment? [01:15:00] Can move for approval. Can I get a question, clarify? Yeah. So once this [01:15:09] crosswalk goes in, providing this crosswalk goes in there, if there was [01:15:17] any alteration to that intersection there as far as the widening of the [01:15:22] sidewalk or removal of parallel parking space or anything like that, that would [01:15:27] not really have an effect upon the crosswalk? No sir, and that and it can be [01:15:32] relocated. The sensors as well as the lighting system can be removed and [01:15:39] you can relocate it. Without too much trouble. Okay. Thank you. I just have one [01:15:43] other question. Is it on the south side of Missouri or the north side of Missouri? [01:15:46] It's on the north and south side of Grand Boulevard. We would have lights on [01:15:51] both on both ends because you have you have actually have a four crosswalk [01:15:56] system at that intersection. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? [01:16:02] Move approval. Second. Any other comments? I have a question. Yes. The maker goes first [01:16:08] generally. Can we follow Robert's rules? We have a motion. We've already had a couple [01:16:14] questions. Sir, we already had a couple questions. That's not the way Robert rules work. Okay sir, go ahead first. [01:16:20] Yeah, so that's one of the strategies for making a motion is the [01:16:23] opportunity to speak to it so that you can encourage support and and I would [01:16:29] encourage the second Mr. Murphy that he that he held a little town hall here and [01:16:35] we heard an awful lot of conversation about the safety of our downtown and we [01:16:40] know that the pedestrian traffic is is is busy so yes it does benefit the local [01:16:48] businesses who pay property taxes and don't receive all the benefits that [01:16:53] residents do. More importantly it can help it can help in the safety issue [01:16:58] and consequently I'm in favor of it. Thank you. Hey Kelly, do you have anything else you'd like to [01:17:04] add? A question you had? I just had a question. Are we just approving for the [01:17:11] intersection at Grand and Missouri or are we already approved at River and [01:17:17] Grand Key? No, just that one. River and Grand Key is not on the picture, not on not on the agenda at all. [01:17:26] Okay. Yeah, no I'm really happy about this one. This is some something we've [01:17:35] talked about for a long time. I think it's really gonna help with the safety [01:17:38] there in downtown, slowing down the traffic coming in and out. That's one of [01:17:42] the biggest complaints of most of all the businesses along Grand downtown so I [01:17:48] think this will really help so I'm looking forward to see this one put in. [01:17:54] Yeah I think it's I think it's needed and it's just it complements the I think [01:18:00] complements the work that's done as far as the re-striping and configuration of [01:18:05] Grand Boulevard into just two lanes. I think that also aids a little bit in the [01:18:12] the speed of the traffic that's entering the downtown core and this will help as [01:18:16] well. Kelly, you have anything else you'd like to ask or say? No, I think it's [01:18:21] definitely needed in that area. All right, all those in favor? Aye. Those opposed?
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.e
ITB23-019 Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)/Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Bulk Chemical Purchase Bid Award
approvedCouncil awarded ITB23-019 for bulk sodium hypochlorite purchase to Allied Universal Corporation at $1.44/gallon, an increase from the prior $0.98/gallon due to industry-wide shortage. Staff explored piggybacking off Pasco County's contract but couldn't secure a guaranteed price; the contract is one year with two one-year renewals and a 30-day cancellation clause allowing the city to switch if a better Pasco County contract becomes available.
- vote:Award ITB23-019 bulk chemical purchase contract for sodium hypochlorite to Allied Universal Corporation at $1.44/gallon. (passed)5–0
Allied Universal CorporationCity of EdgewaterCity of PlantationPasco CountyKellyMattMikeMs. MannsPeteRobertITB23-019Wastewater Treatment PlantWater Treatment Plantsodium hypochlorite▶ Jump to 1:18:24 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[01:18:29] Carries unanimous. Moving on to the next item is the ITB 23-019 [01:18:37] wastewater treatment plant water treatment plant bulk chemical purchase [01:18:42] bid award. The purchase is for sodium hypochlorite which we use in the [01:18:48] treatment of wastewater and raw water and Robert will present the item that [01:18:54] has recently been put out to bid. Thank you Ms. Manns. There were three bids that [01:18:58] were submitted. Two of them actually were submitted that had numbers. The [01:19:02] third bid that was submitted was actually no bid but the company still [01:19:08] submitted and so the low bid was submitted by Allied Universal [01:19:13] Corporation in the amount of $1.44 a gallon. This is an increase from the [01:19:19] current amount on our current contract of 98 cents a gallon and so what does [01:19:24] this mean? The price increase would result in approximate budget increase [01:19:28] for the wastewater treatment plant of about $6,500 and it would have be an [01:19:35] increase for the water plant of approximately $57,500. [01:19:42] Now, to try to figure out what was going on here when we talked with a couple of [01:19:51] the other distributors, there's a shortage of it and the shortage is so bad that [01:20:03] there are several different companies that are not able to supply the agencies [01:20:09] that they have contracts with. The federal government actually has reached [01:20:14] out to Allied which is one of the largest distributors to ask them if they [01:20:19] could assist in filling those contracts for those agencies. So once we looked at [01:20:25] that and got the input from the contractor, we went ahead and reached out [01:20:28] to the City of Edgewater. They just went out to bid. Their bid results that they [01:20:33] ended up getting was $1.49 for a low to $1.73 for a high. The City of [01:20:40] Plantation actually submitted was $1.36 to $1.67. When we talked with Allied [01:20:50] again, we asked them if we were able to piggyback off of any contracts that they [01:20:54] had and they were not amenable to that. We went to Pasco County. As you know, [01:21:00] Pasco County is a part owner of the plant. Right now, they're about 49.2% [01:21:07] I believe of it. So we talked with them. They are under a contract that's been in [01:21:12] place for two years now. They are expected to go out to bid in a few [01:21:17] months. Asked them if we could piggyback off of their contract. They had no issues [01:21:21] but there was nothing in the contract that stated that the contractor had to [01:21:26] guarantee us that piggyback price. So when we reached out to the contractor, [01:21:31] they denied it for obvious reasons and said that Pasco County could expect an [01:21:36] increase as well. So we thought a little more. We said, you know what, let's get [01:21:42] let's talk with Pasco staff again and let's see if we can approach this at [01:21:46] another angle. And so we asked them if in their RFP advertisements, would [01:21:56] they be amenable to adding a piggyback clause on that RFP stating that any [01:22:03] agencies located within Pasco County were able to piggyback off of that [01:22:08] contract, maybe get an economy of scale pricing. We also said if that wasn't [01:22:14] possible, would it be possible because they were part owner of the plant? Could [01:22:20] it be that they added our facilities on their list and we just were incorporated [01:22:24] into their contract? They would bill us and we'd go ahead and pay them and we do [01:22:29] that all the time. The utility staff said that they didn't have a problem [01:22:33] with it, but that obviously they would have to present it to legal to see if [01:22:39] that was possible. But if it was, they didn't have a problem with it. The good [01:22:43] news with the contract that we have is there is no penalties for cancellation. [01:22:49] So the only thing that we have to do is either party can give a 30 day notice [01:22:53] when they want to back out of the contract. So what we can do is we can [01:22:57] continue to search, see if there's any other contracts that do come out in the [01:23:03] meantime while Pasco's working on theirs. And then if we can piggyback, if we can [01:23:09] take and get included in the contract, then obviously we would give our 30 day [01:23:14] notice and back out and then go ahead and team up with Pasco. But other than [01:23:20] that, this is the industry pricing that's out there. It's in line with it and we [01:23:24] would recommend that you approve the and award the contract. [01:23:30] We have a public comment. [01:23:39] Well, this if the contract is awarded, will it be an increase in in residents [01:23:44] water bills and sewage bills and things like that? No, there would be no [01:23:48] increase to to the rate. Okay, thank you. Because of this. Thank you, sir. [01:23:54] So I know. Let's bring it. Let's bring it back. And since he wants doesn't want [01:24:00] questions until we got somebody. Oh, no, no. Robert's rules. Thank you. Got a [01:24:05] second. Go ahead, Matt. Great question. No, I'm good, Mike. So, yeah, the [01:24:12] question I had the contract is for what length of time? One year with two one [01:24:18] year renewals at the same rate. Yes, sir. All right. So we were kind of protected [01:24:23] from this for the worst case scenario. We're stuck with this rate for three [01:24:26] years. The best scenario is the rate comes down. We're able to drop off and [01:24:31] add on for the worst. The worst thing that could happen is the contractor [01:24:35] sees an increase and he he can't supply that product at that rate. And so he [01:24:41] would just give us a 30 day notice and he would back out of the contract. That's [01:24:45] the worst case. Okay. All right. Well, I just I just didn't want us locked in [01:24:49] forever that we couldn't get out because typically, you know, there's a [01:24:52] shortage now, but I'm sure there's work done to catch that up. And at some point [01:24:57] in time, perhaps this will come down kind of like lumber did maybe. So we'll [01:25:01] see. Pete? Nothing. Kelly? I don't have anything to add. Okay. All those in [01:25:13] favor? Aye. Unanimous 5-0. Okay. Moving on to the request for council approval [01:25:24] the use of opioid. Yeah, opioid. Yeah. Drug. Prescription lawsuit funds. Yes. The [01:25:36] city has received a payment of initial monies earlier this year from the [01:25:46] settlement of the national prescription opiate lawsuit. Specifically, the city [01:25:51] received $31,000 of its initial share of the settlement funds. And as you'll [01:25:59] recall from discussions earlier this year, I tasked the police chief with [01:26:07] developing a program for how these funds would be used, both the initial funds and [01:26:15] all the succeeding disbursements. And I'd like the chief to introduce how the [01:26:23] funds will be used. Ready, chief? Yes. Thank you, Ms. Manns. Mayor, council members. So [01:26:29] we're really excited about this money. And we have our LIFT team, which stands [01:26:32] for the Life Improvement Facilitation Team, up and running. And it's been very [01:26:36] successful so far. Within the first week, we helped five homeless folks. We've [01:26:40] already been visiting people that have been known to have mental illness and [01:26:43] trying to work with them and get them, you know, services. So the team is [01:26:47] definitely off and running. We've got really good people in it. So with [01:26:50] these funds, we really feel it's necessary to kind of expand the radar, so [01:26:55] to speak, of the LIFT team by training all of our officers with crisis, with [01:26:59] what crisis is, how to respond to it, how to respond to it proactively, what [01:27:03] services are available. And all officers will go through this training. It will be [01:27:07] developed in partnership with our LIFT team and BayCare social workers. So this [01:27:12] will be a validated training program for the officers. It will be in addition to [01:27:17] the crisis intervention team training that they have. So this is a great way to [01:27:21] spend these funds to train these officers. And again, it's a very [01:27:25] proactive approach. And this is truly helping people in crisis. And it's a [01:27:30] very good proactive approach. So for these initial funds, we want to again [01:27:34] utilize them to train all of our officers in the aforementioned training [01:27:39] issues. Also, we know that there will be succeeding disbursements from this [01:27:43] lawsuit. So in the future, we could be looking at social workers. We will be [01:27:47] developing plans to utilize any more funds that we receive again to to [01:27:53] further and you know, make make much more readily available these services to [01:27:58] members of our community. So it's a great use of these funds. And we're [01:28:01] asking you to to approve that $31,000 to go to this training for all of our [01:28:06] officers. Thank you. [01:28:09] Just to add, we have already appropriated funds to work with a social [01:28:14] worker in the police department. And we did that through use of our ARPA funds. [01:28:20] What funds? ARPA. Okay. All right. Um, any other public comment? [01:28:32] I'd like to follow up with what your city manager just said. When did you [01:28:36] guys appoint that social worker? [01:28:40] You can give her permission to speak, sir. She's been around for a while, [01:28:44] hasn't she? We've appropriated funds. We have not contracted with the agency [01:28:51] at this time. Oh, okay. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. And I certainly [01:28:55] agree with you, Chief. I like your proposal and what you're planning to do [01:29:01] with these funds. Um, thank you for coming into the city and not just being [01:29:07] a part of the old gang that used to harass the homeless, but you're actually [01:29:11] trying to find a solution. You're coming with mental health aspects, [01:29:16] trying to help them because, you know, it's a lot of components to what these [01:29:19] people are going through. So thank you. I support you in that endeavor. Um, I do [01:29:24] ask, you know, you did say something about there will be another six or so [01:29:28] disbursements. So I do ask, you know, definitely to make sure we can get some [01:29:32] diversity training in there, if that's possible. I know you said that they will [01:29:36] be doing some training around the lift team, but maybe if we can also have some [01:29:41] diversity training as well, I think that would be great. But I am in support [01:29:46] of it if it is going to actually help our community and help the people that [01:29:50] are in need. As you know, we have suffered with this opioid crisis for [01:29:56] many years in our community, and we all know someone [01:30:00] has lost their life or dealt with this sad addiction that [01:30:07] is being put on by the pharmaceutical industries. [01:30:11] I just hope that when we get the remaining money, [01:30:13] that it is actually going to be given to the citizens in ways [01:30:18] that help them. [01:30:19] And also, I don't know if this would be you, [01:30:21] Chief, or the city manager, but maybe getting some input [01:30:24] from some organizations that deal [01:30:26] with this in the community. [01:30:28] I know one of my colleagues asked last time [01:30:31] about some updates from this, but we never [01:30:33] got anything back from the city manager's office. [01:30:36] So thank you, Chief. [01:30:37] Appreciate it. [01:30:39] Anybody else like to comment? [01:30:43] Not seeing anybody come forward, bring it back, [01:30:45] move for approval? [01:30:47] Yes, I'll make the motion, Mr. Mayor. [01:30:49] Second. [01:30:49] I'll second. [01:30:50] We already got it. [01:30:51] Thank you. [01:30:52] Go ahead. [01:30:53] Yes, sir. [01:30:54] Yeah, I think it's good to hear that we're [01:30:57] making a strong effort. [01:30:59] I would like to see a nexus between the pharmaceutical [01:31:03] crisis and the use of the funds. [01:31:05] I know that the comment made about mental health [01:31:08] and homelessness maybe assumes that that [01:31:12] is where the problem is with the opioid crisis, [01:31:15] but I think it's a much broader problem. [01:31:17] And I don't think that only focusing on the homeless [01:31:21] is the only potential opportunity here, [01:31:26] whether it's having the facilities that you [01:31:29] need for the Narcan. [01:31:30] Maybe you already have it, or whether it [01:31:32] is what other program can be put forward. [01:31:38] There are poor and homeless and rich and too much money [01:31:44] in their pockets. [01:31:44] There's a lot of people that are affected by this.
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.f
Request for Council Approval for Use of Opioid Prescription Lawsuit Funds
approvedCouncil approved use of opioid prescription lawsuit settlement funds, with discussion focused on training officers to address mental health and opioid crisis situations. The City Attorney clarified that diversity training would not be an eligible expenditure and that funds should go toward prevention and recovery services for those involved in addiction. The motion passed unanimously 5-0.
- vote:Approve use of opioid prescription lawsuit funds for officer training in mental health and opioid crisis response, plus prevention/recovery services. (passed)5–0
▶ Jump to 1:31:45 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[01:31:47] Theoretically, those with money can afford help, [01:31:51] and hopefully some of this money can actually [01:31:53] help those individuals beyond the advice, [01:31:58] maybe to the programs that you refer them to [01:32:01] or whatever you develop. [01:32:02] So it's not a lot of money to develop [01:32:05] any kind of big program, but it's a good start, [01:32:08] and I appreciate it. [01:32:09] Thank you. [01:32:10] Kelly? [01:32:12] Yeah, I just want to say that I think it's [01:32:15] a step in the right direction. [01:32:16] I know that the county and some of the other organizations [01:32:19] have also received some funding, and they're also [01:32:22] working on some additional programs, [01:32:24] and I think that the appropriate way for us to spend the money [01:32:27] is in training our officers to address mental health [01:32:32] and the opioid crisis as well. [01:32:35] A lot of people go into both situations, a lot of times [01:32:38] both combined, and definitely, I think [01:32:41] that our officers need to be trained [01:32:43] in all of these aspects. [01:32:44] Things are different now than they used to be, [01:32:46] and I think that we have to keep moving forward with that, [01:32:49] and I think it's a good use of these funds [01:32:51] for now, and a step in the right direction. [01:32:54] Mike? [01:32:56] Yeah, we have to be educated to how [01:32:59] to deal with situations when we arrive on the scenes [01:33:02] and come up, because we do that probably daily, right, Chief? [01:33:06] And unfortunately, that's the case. [01:33:09] And so I applaud you for seeking out to become, [01:33:15] you and your officers become very knowledgeable in this, [01:33:18] and also applaud you for your other activities. [01:33:20] I know recently, there was a law enforcement action [01:33:24] on a drug situation, and I applaud [01:33:28] you to keep diligent in that regard as well. [01:33:34] Mike, I mean, Matt? [01:33:36] Yeah, I think it's a great start for these funds, [01:33:38] and I'm looking forward to see what else we [01:33:40] can do with the additional monies. [01:33:43] Mr. Mayor, if you'd allow me to respond just briefly, [01:33:48] it's inappropriate to suggest that diversity training would [01:33:53] be an eligible expenditure for this funding source. [01:33:57] And diversity training is part of our normal protocol [01:34:01] for officers, and we do that routinely. [01:34:05] The type of funding expenditures that you should expect to see [01:34:10] going forward with the program relate [01:34:12] to prevention and recovery services for people [01:34:17] involved in addiction. [01:34:20] I just have one other question. [01:34:22] It's kind of coming from the police chief, [01:34:24] but is the fire chief in the middle of this, [01:34:26] because there's sometimes the other half [01:34:28] of the first responders? [01:34:29] Oh, definitely. [01:34:30] OK. [01:34:30] All right. [01:34:31] I just want that to be, I figured that, [01:34:32] but I wanted to say it. [01:34:33] Absolutely. [01:34:34] You said it out loud. [01:34:34] Thank you. [01:34:35] Ms. Manns, may I add to that? [01:34:36] Oh, please do. [01:34:37] I just want to, I was just giving examples. [01:34:40] Our approach is broad. [01:34:42] The opioid crisis touches everybody. [01:34:44] It doesn't matter if you're homeless. [01:34:46] So our approach is broad. [01:34:47] I was just giving examples of some of the things [01:34:50] they started to do. [01:34:51] But their approach is broad. [01:34:53] Thank you. [01:34:56] All right. [01:34:57] All those in favor? [01:34:58] Aye. [01:35:00] Aye. [01:35:01] That's a unanimous 5-0. [01:35:03] All right. [01:35:04] Communications. [01:35:05] Pete, you want to start it off? [01:35:09] Yeah, I think just one thing, Mr. Mayor, [01:35:12] I want to applaud you for putting in the opportunity [01:35:16] for us to address the public comment. [01:35:18] I think it's much more organized to be [01:35:20] able to let the public speak and have their say. [01:35:23] They oftentimes ask questions, and we sit up here [01:35:28] and don't answer. [01:35:29] So at least it gives us a chance to acknowledge the questions [01:35:32] and respond. [01:35:33] And I think all of us appreciate that. [01:35:36] As to the protocol, and I don't like [01:35:39] to be the Roberts rules guy, but I [01:35:41] did get a little pamphlet handed out to me a few weeks back. [01:35:44] And I just wanted to suggest if we [01:35:47] could divide the way in which we communicate on these items [01:35:52] before a motion is made. [01:35:54] I think it's fully appropriate for any of us [01:35:56] to ask a question to learn more about the issue. [01:36:02] The real separation becomes giving an opinion really [01:36:07] requires a motion. [01:36:09] So we can ask all about what it means, how much it costs, [01:36:13] did it include this, where is it at. [01:36:16] I think those are appropriate. [01:36:18] So I don't want to stop communication before a motion, [01:36:21] just so you'll understand. [01:36:23] I think it's a separate type of communication [01:36:25] once a motion is made. [01:36:27] And it always served me well on the times [01:36:30] when I was a city councilman to be [01:36:33] able to have that opportunity if I really believed in something [01:36:37] to be the person to make that motion. [01:36:39] Because you know, I do like to say something sometimes. [01:36:43] And it gives me a chance to speak [01:36:45] before someone else might have a counter opinion [01:36:48] and give my opinion. [01:36:49] So I think there's a strategy to it, [01:36:51] not just to strictly adhere to some fancy English rules. [01:36:57] And so that's why I mentioned it, not out of any disrespect. [01:37:01] So yes, thank you, Mayor. [01:37:04] I agree in the fact that we can respond.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 9Communications▶ 1:37:05
- 10Adjournment▶ 1:44:47