On the agenda

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

   ↳You arrived here from a search for “Main Street” — transcript expanded below

   Proposed Pavement Management Plan

   discussed

   Staff and Genesis Group consultant David Fleeman presented a Proposed Pavement Management Plan with three options developed in coordination with a Citizens Advisory Committee. Option 2, the preferred approach, classifies parcels as residential ($85/year), small commercial under 5,000 sq ft ($257/year), and large commercial over 5,000 sq ft ($514/year), with churches treated as single-family residences. Council discussed the methodology, exemption/appeal process, road classifications, and concerns about treatment of large multi-tenant properties and church schools.

   • direction:Council discussed the proposed Pavement Management Plan and Option 2 methodology without taking formal action; directed continued review of appeals/exemptions oversight. (none)

   📍Main Street📍North and South River Road📍US-19📍Washington north of Massachusetts Avenue🏢Genesis Group🏢Southgate👤Andy Hatcher👤David Fleeman👤Hal Kias👤Heather Fiorentino👤John Gallagher👤Lois Robinson👤Michael Beam👤Mr. Rivera👤Peter Altman👤Robert👤Ronald Capilongo#$1.7 million annual program#20-year roadway design criteria#2009 street assessment project#Board of Equalization#Citizens Advisory Committee#Local option gas tax#Option 1 methodology#Option 2 methodology#Pavement Management Plan#Solid waste franchise funding#Uniform method of collection for street assessments

   ▶ Jump to 0:20 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:20] Mr. [00:00:20] Mayor. [00:00:21] Take it away. [00:00:22] I will, with great pleasure. [00:00:25] All of us in attendance today around the table, and we've got a good number of folks in [00:00:36] attendance as well that served on our Citizens Advisory Committee, recognize that [00:00:43] quality roads are an essential function of a thriving community. [00:00:47] In that regard, it is a function of local government to manage the maintenance of a [00:00:53] roadway system. [00:00:55] In that respect, we have been working since November of 2014 with the Genesis Group to [00:01:07] establish a mechanism by which to implement that shared common goal amongst us of a [00:01:15] sustainable roadway system. [00:01:17] In addition to that, we were looking for a fair and equitable distribution of cost [00:01:22] method. [00:01:25] In that respect, a pavement management plan is something that we were looking to [00:01:31] implement so that we would have a tool in place that would assist us in the decisions [00:01:38] that needed to be made, not only in the short term, but in the long term, in respect to [00:01:45] maintaining pavement surfaces in a serviceable condition. [00:01:52] In November of 2014, as I indicated, the Genesis Group was contacted and they performed [00:01:57] a roadway needs assessment of our approximately 70 miles of paved roadways owned and [00:02:05] maintained by the system. [00:02:07] The premise of that was to identify a 20-year design criteria and the cost for the [00:02:22] program was aggregated to be $1.7 million per year, in large part due to the fact that [00:02:30] we identified considerable inventory of our roadway system that required deferred [00:02:34] maintenance. [00:02:37] The traditional method that was employed by the city has been the special assessment [00:02:44] method, and in that respect, 12 projects have been implemented over the last 30 years. [00:02:54] The mechanism fell short in a couple of respects. [00:03:01] One is that we spread the payments over a 10-year period of time, and secondly, the [00:03:08] collection rate was very low, and the city has been determined to be not a very good [00:03:16] collector of that form of debt. [00:03:20] In January of 2016, as long as I'm providing the history, is when the staff talked to you [00:03:29] about the uniform method of collection for street assessments. [00:03:34] And at that time, there was a generalized nod of approval for that method, and we went [00:03:42] forward with the evolution of a system that included EAUs and ERUs and a lot of other [00:03:54] variables that were determined to be overly difficult. [00:04:01] It was a system that, in August of 2016, concerns were raised specifically relating to the [00:04:13] appeals procedure and a Sunshine Clause and potentially an exemption for jurisdictional [00:04:21] wetlands. [00:04:23] As a result of the concerns that were expressed at that public hearing, a Citizens Advisory [00:04:29] Council was convened to study the issue and to assist in what would be the succeeding [00:04:37] recommendation. [00:04:39] In that regard, I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Rivera, who will talk to you about the [00:04:44] actions of our Citizens Committee. [00:04:48] Thank you, Mayor and Council. [00:04:49] Before I get started, I would like to recognize and thank the Citizens Advisory Committee. [00:04:55] I will say this, that it was a difficult item to tackle, but everyone came together and [00:05:03] their positive input, their time and effort, really was constructive. [00:05:08] And those following people were Mr. Peter Altman, Mr. Michael Beam, Mr. Ronald Capilongo, [00:05:16] Mrs. Heather Fiorentino, Mr. John Gallagher, Mr. Hal Kias, Mr. Andy Hatcher, and Ms. Lois [00:05:23] Robinson. [00:05:25] And finally, I'd like to recognize Mr. Fleeman with the Genesis Group. [00:05:30] He's gone back and forth with us, had a difficult time and picked up the phone, still picks [00:05:35] up the phone when I call him. [00:05:36] So with that, I'd like to turn it over to him so he can explain the proposed methodology [00:05:42] to you. [00:05:42] Thank you. [00:05:45] Can you pull that mic because this has to be taped? [00:05:48] So this afternoon, I would like to provide a brief overview of the methodology report [00:05:55] and a little history of the progress since we last discussed this in last summer. [00:06:02] Thank you. [00:06:08] So the report has identified objectives of the report. [00:06:15] The first objective is to review the previous street project methodology. [00:06:21] During the discussions with the Citizens Committee, we had some detailed discussions about what [00:06:29] has been done in the past. [00:06:30] So we took a little time and staff helped do some research to dig up what had been done [00:06:36] in the past so we could establish a frame of reference. [00:06:41] Then we also collected input from the Citizens Advisory Committee, developed a sustainable [00:06:47] program that will provide roadway maintenance required to maintain a functioning roadway [00:06:52] network and review the existing alley maintenance program. [00:07:03] So we begin by trying to develop a roadway maintenance program. [00:07:07] So we begin by trying to develop a little context with previous projects. [00:07:12] So we review the methodology of the previous street program and there have been 12 projects [00:07:23] that have occurred in the last 30 years as the city manager had mentioned a few moments [00:07:29] ago and the funding has been allocated as defined by the Board of Equalization on a [00:07:36] per project basis and that usually includes accumulated gas tax proceeds as well as an [00:07:46] assessment of the directly affected property owners. [00:07:49] What's somewhat interesting is the percent of construction costs borne by the property [00:07:54] owner classes has varied from project to project having a little bit of inconsistency and arterial [00:08:02] and collector roads have been sometimes paid without any assessment to the adjacent property [00:08:09] owners. [00:08:17] After we established what had been done in the past, the committee started exploring [00:08:24] what we're going to call option one and it's really just a slight variation of what's been [00:08:30] done during the past 30 years and this option is if the council decides to continue basically [00:08:40] utilizing the methodology from the past 30 years, these are some recommendations tweaks [00:08:47] that the committee has observed and is recommending. [00:08:52] Reduce the delinquent payment by [00:08:54] my apologies, slide behind, reduce the delinquent payments by utilizing the tax collector versus [00:09:03] direct billing. [00:09:05] This will help improve the collection rate of the individual assessments. [00:09:15] The Board of Equalization should establish a contribution formula that can be used consistently [00:09:21] year after year so that projects that are spread over time are more consistent in the [00:09:28] distribution of what's paid for by the city versus paid for by the adjacent residents [00:09:34] and the front footage methodology should be eliminated for future projects because it [00:09:38] creates an appearance of disparity between project houses that are located on a pie-shaped [00:09:45] lot on a cul-de-sac that has very little front footage versus a corner lot that has [00:09:52] a significant amount of front footage and if they're both single-family houses, presumably [00:09:57] the usage of the roads is pretty similar between the two. [00:10:03] Arterial and collector roadways should be viewed as a priority and all property owners [00:10:09] receiving direct benefits should be assessed which means that it should include schools [00:10:16] and county and state facilities and not just private individuals. [00:10:30] The second option that was explored is a, we began with where we were at last summer [00:10:37] with that trip generation model that utilized numerous variables in order to compute trip [00:10:46] generation and then use trip generation to compute the assessment amount and the committee's [00:10:53] directive was pretty clear in that regard that they wanted much simplified methodology. [00:11:01] In addition, the directives that the committee provided to us and feedback was they also [00:11:07] didn't want to have an excessively heavy burden on neighborhood businesses or on neighborhood [00:11:12] churches and they wanted those agreement to consider the city as an interconnected network [00:11:19] of streets meaning that you are benefited by Main Street even if you don't live on Main [00:11:26] Street because Main Street provides connectivity to other collector and arterial roads. [00:11:31] You mean not all roads lead out of New Port Richey? [00:11:41] You have to drive on more than the road in front of your house in order to get somewhere. [00:11:48] Include every residential dwelling unit and not just on roadway frontage and include [00:11:56] consideration for parcels that are not contiguous to city maintained local roadways. [00:12:02] For example, private gated communities that have [00:12:08] their streets in front of their house are maintained by their homeowners association. [00:12:12] They should be provided some consideration separate from everyone else. [00:12:17] Plus some of the streets in New Port Richey that both have county and city on the same block or [00:12:24] within the same thing with 19 and other places just as an overview. [00:12:30] Exactly. [00:12:36] From reading the report option two I believe in the recommendations [00:12:41] was the preferable option that the CAC was most comfortable with? [00:12:47] That's correct. [00:12:48] I just wanted to qualify that because when you go to three we can judge them as their merits, [00:12:55] but from the recommendations that I read I thought two was the one that collectively received... [00:13:02] Most support. [00:13:03] Most support. [00:13:05] Still spreading the risk, right? [00:13:08] Basically what we looked at originally just with these tweaks and changes, correct or no? [00:13:14] Yes. [00:13:15] Yes. [00:13:17] So the option two methodology is similar to the most recent 2009 street assessment project in that [00:13:26] it creates three classes of individuals. [00:13:31] Residential, small commercial, less than 5,000 square foot, and large commercial parcels. [00:13:37] And then as we mentioned a minute ago we're treating the city as a roadway network. [00:13:44] So there are arterial and collector roads that provide connectivity to other arterial [00:13:52] and collectors and are vital to making a trip across town. [00:13:56] And then there are local roads. [00:13:58] And the distinction is as the Federal Highway Administration notes on this chart, [00:14:07] it's really more of a sliding scale of access and speed and trip length. [00:14:14] So your freeways are the extreme example of a limited access. [00:14:20] And then unlimited access would be a cul-de-sac where you're going to have driveways, [00:14:24] low speeds, short travel distances. [00:14:30] The chart on the bottom right gives you a little breakdown as to [00:14:34] kind of a percent range that you would expect to find 60 to 80 percent, I'm sorry, [00:14:40] 65 to 80 percent of the streets in an average city are going to be local streets. [00:14:52] There is not a hard and fast trip count number that has a single digit that if you pass this [00:14:59] then you're [00:15:00] you change classifications. [00:15:03] This exhibit shows the arterial collector roads [00:15:08] that were identified during this process. [00:15:16] See it's a network or matrix of major roads [00:15:20] that provide connectivity of the city [00:15:23] and to other county and state maintained roads [00:15:28] in addition to the city maintained roads. [00:15:30] Excuse me, David, if I can interrupt you for a second. [00:15:32] We went ahead and put that sheet in front of you. [00:15:35] I just want to explain the difference. [00:15:37] When we submitted this package, [00:15:38] we still hadn't ended up getting [00:15:40] all of our traffic studies back [00:15:42] and we're still in the middle of it. [00:15:44] If you look over at North and South River Road, [00:15:48] we were trying to determine [00:15:49] where all that cut through traffic is [00:15:51] on whether or not we should classify that road [00:15:54] as a connector road or an arterial road [00:15:57] simply because of the volume, [00:15:59] which it looks like in the beginning now [00:16:02] we're getting around 14,000 a week south of River [00:16:06] and up around 9,000 north, I'm sorry, of Maine. [00:16:11] And so that area that stopped at Veterans [00:16:15] doesn't look like that's where it's going to be. [00:16:17] It looks like it's going to make that turn [00:16:18] and go all the way down River Road. [00:16:21] Right now we've got additional counters out there [00:16:23] to find out exactly where they're turning back on [00:16:26] to get back onto US-19 to determine that. [00:16:29] So this map will change a little bit, [00:16:32] but the effect as far as the dollar amount will be minute. [00:16:37] Do we have any responsibility for Washington? [00:16:40] I see that's not. [00:16:42] No responsibility for Washington [00:16:43] north of Massachusetts Avenue. [00:16:46] Just a place where we would talk about [00:16:51] collector roads, arterial collectors, [00:16:54] or do you want to wait and do it at the end? [00:16:56] What's the best? [00:16:58] Because first of all, I don't want to run us off [00:17:01] down some paths that I'm sure the CAC [00:17:05] had the opportunity to talk about. [00:17:07] We all have different insights. [00:17:09] So I was just going to wait until he concluded [00:17:12] and then we can go back and collectively [00:17:15] throw it all in the pot and see what all goes around. [00:17:18] I just wanted to make sure we didn't deviate [00:17:22] from whatever kind of presentation you wanted to make. [00:17:25] Correct, I agree. [00:17:26] I agree. [00:17:27] Thank you. [00:17:31] That we have is what we were looking. [00:17:33] It's slightly different than what you saw on the PowerPoint. [00:17:42] The arterial collector assessment, [00:17:46] the annual maintenance cost was computed [00:17:48] for that network of roadways [00:17:51] and then a 20th of that was used [00:17:54] to determine what the annual cost of maintenance [00:17:58] was going to be. [00:18:01] Working with the citizens committee, [00:18:06] we had discussions about directing gas tax money [00:18:11] and other city funds. [00:18:12] So as a product of that, [00:18:14] we anticipated a $200,000 city contribution. [00:18:20] Therefore, the balance of that needs to be made up [00:18:22] by assessing the parcel owners. [00:18:25] The residential dwelling units were established at $15 a year [00:18:29] and then small and large commercials share the difference. [00:18:32] The small commercial being $196, I'm sorry, [00:18:35] $96.79 and the large commercial at $193.58. [00:18:40] Thank you. [00:18:47] Local roads were done similarly. [00:18:49] We take the $1.7 million citywide number [00:18:54] and deduct the maintenance estimate [00:18:58] for the arterial collector roads. [00:19:01] And this one anticipates $225,000 of local option gas tax, [00:19:07] $75,000 of solid waste franchise money [00:19:12] and a $400,000 general revenue transfer [00:19:17] with a balance of that being made up [00:19:19] by the citizens property owners. [00:19:25] Residential dwelling units were established at $70 a year [00:19:28] and small and large commercials share the difference [00:19:32] at $160 and $320. [00:19:37] Just a quick summary of that [00:19:40] so you can see the individual components. [00:19:44] The arterial plus the local together [00:19:48] creates a total of $85 for the single family residence [00:19:53] and then small commercial has a grand total of $257 [00:19:57] and large commercial at $514. [00:20:00] Yeah, $5,000 below and $5,000 above [00:20:08] was on one of his screens. [00:20:10] The churches are put into the small and large then? [00:20:13] The committee was concerned about churches [00:20:16] and we agreed to treat them as single family residents. [00:20:24] All non-profit or just churches? [00:20:27] Just churches. [00:20:30] So no matter if they have a school, [00:20:36] a activity there every day [00:20:44] which obviously would increase trip allocations [00:20:48] which is a factor everybody, [00:20:50] they just want to treat that as just one residential [00:20:54] not even on the size. [00:20:56] I'm just trying to make sure that I understand. [00:20:59] So collectively they put them all in a pot [00:21:00] and said big, small, whatever. [00:21:02] It's only $80 a year you're gonna pay us [00:21:04] no matter how many traffic trips you're gonna generate. [00:21:08] Correct. [00:21:09] Several members of the committee were concerned [00:21:13] that churches provide a valuable resource for the community [00:21:17] and they were concerned about driving some of them away [00:21:22] and very sensitive to the financial burden on the churches. [00:21:29] Was it a church with a school [00:21:34] separate than a church without a school? [00:21:36] We didn't discuss those nuances. [00:21:40] Talking churches. [00:21:41] Okay, what about schools? [00:21:42] You said that you were gonna be concerned about [00:21:47] schools early in the presentation. [00:21:51] So like a public school, [00:21:52] a property that is coded as a school [00:21:58] would fall under the small and large commercial. [00:22:02] Then technically a church school [00:22:04] could fall under one or the other. [00:22:06] Is that fair? [00:22:09] Good. [00:22:10] It is up to the Board of Equalization [00:22:12] to make some of those distinguishing decisions. [00:22:18] Clarify too, it's a pretty broad statement [00:22:21] saying less than 5,000 square feet [00:22:22] and greater than 5,000 square feet. [00:22:24] What about these really, really large, [00:22:26] say Southgate, for instance, [00:22:28] under one ownership of the building, correct? [00:22:30] Several tenants, obviously, so. [00:22:32] You're not telling me Southgate's [00:22:33] just gonna pay $514, are you? [00:22:35] That's the way that the committee. [00:22:38] The body shop that might be 5,100 square feet, [00:22:41] same amount? [00:22:43] Correct. [00:22:56] We also explored the exemption and appeal process [00:22:59] and provided a mechanism for the city manager [00:23:03] to review appeals and exemptions, [00:23:06] but it would be limited to a methodology application [00:23:09] and not allowed to jump off into creating new exemptions. [00:23:18] One of the concerns. [00:23:19] So what you're basically saying [00:23:21] is that there'd be a methodology to that, [00:23:23] not just if the then sitting city manager [00:23:27] didn't like somebody or didn't like that business [00:23:30] or didn't like that concept, [00:23:31] he or she wouldn't have the capability [00:23:34] of arbitrarily marking it up or marking it down. [00:23:40] Correct, if somebody had discovered, [00:23:43] because these numbers come off the tax rolls. [00:23:46] If somebody discovers that the property appraiser [00:23:49] incorrectly lists their property at 5,100 square feet [00:23:54] and it's really $49,999, [00:23:57] if he gets to get the property appraiser to correct it, [00:23:59] then this can be. [00:24:07] Is there any consideration to mixed use structures? [00:24:12] No, we were trying to keep it simplified. [00:24:15] There was a strong urge to not complicate things [00:24:19] and to keep things very simple [00:24:21] so they could be explained and understood by somebody [00:24:23] in a very brief way. [00:24:25] Well, I think we created our own dynamic with that [00:24:29] because when we went through this assessment, [00:24:33] as we stepped up to it last year in July and August, [00:24:37] at every meeting we showed up, [00:24:40] we had new numbers in front of us, [00:24:42] as well as no way to explain some of the dynamics [00:24:48] that you have in place now, [00:24:49] which is letting people [00:24:52] that have already pay in their assessment, [00:24:55] people that needed consideration. [00:24:59] We didn't have those answers. [00:25:01] So every time the question was asked, [00:25:03] it was like, nope, don't have it. [00:25:05] So you can get people riled up pretty quick [00:25:08] if you don't have specific answers in areas. [00:25:11] I understand the CAC being gun-shy, [00:25:16] less than, I don't want to call it trustworthy, [00:25:21] but less than feeling comfortable about where we were [00:25:25] and where we were going to go, [00:25:26] especially with our track record of 12 projects in 30 years [00:25:31] and each one of them had a different dynamic. [00:25:34] I mean, my question to you is going to be, [00:25:37] if I took those 12 and you told me I got 50 miles of road, [00:25:41] I'm sure those 12 projects probably didn't equal [00:25:46] maybe five, maybe eight miles, maybe max. [00:25:52] I'm just, it's just a guess. [00:25:54] So I'm just trying to, we're coming into it now. [00:25:58] So I'm just, as I said, on the city manager thing, [00:26:01] just making sure that there is a methodology [00:26:03] because in over and above that, [00:26:06] they wanted to let it yes or no. [00:26:09] I still think it needs to come back to council [00:26:11] at some point with the exemption and the appeal. [00:26:14] Because at the end of the day, [00:26:16] I'm sure if we get this under ordinance and not resolution, [00:26:20] we'd have the ability to oversee it [00:26:24] because we just don't want it to be a big, [00:26:27] because I know what you're guarding against, Robert. [00:26:29] You're guarding against it being a football [00:26:31] because what happened on the other assessment projects [00:26:34] is everybody got a different look [00:26:36] every time an assessment was done [00:26:38] and whoever showed up got to scream, whatever. [00:26:42] And then all of a sudden the balance point [00:26:46] of who was actually paying for it shifted. [00:26:50] And usually it shifted more on the city side [00:26:54] than it did on the owner's side. [00:26:55] So I recognize that, but those are all things [00:26:58] we're going to have to kind of open up and talk about. [00:27:02] Right, and I think what we tried to do with this [00:27:04] is we tried to make it available [00:27:06] that the only type of appeal that you would have [00:27:09] would be that the city manager or her designee [00:27:12] would have authority to correct, [00:27:15] would just be on the methodology, the wrong class. [00:27:19] Those types of things may be a mathematical error [00:27:22] that needed to be corrected. [00:27:24] But as far as anything else,

   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. 3Adjournment▶ 27:26