On the agenda

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

   ↳You arrived here from a search for “Penny for Pasco” — transcript expanded below

   Annexation Study

   discussed

   Staff and consultant Phil Gonad (PMG and Associates) presented an updated annexation feasibility study focused on eliminating enclaves and annexing neglected properties along US 19, Leisure Lane/Van Doren, and other areas without referendum under Chapter 171, F.S. Council discussed expanding to areas like Seaforest and Gulf Harbors Woodlands via referendum, tying annexation to potential acquisition of the Gulf Harbors/Seaforest utility system, and extending sewer service to Trouble Creek homes. No formal vote was taken; council gave general direction to proceed with the non-referendum annexations and continue exploring larger referendum-based annexations.

   • direction:Council gave direction to staff to proceed with the non-referendum annexation of identified enclaves and to continue exploring larger referendum-based annexations including Seaforest and possibly Gulf Harbors Woodlands. (none)

   📍Cross Bayou📍Fire Station 2 area (parcel 3)📍Leisure Lane📍Trouble Creek📍US 19📍Van Doren Avenue🏢PMG and Associates🏢Pasco County Housing Authority👤Clyde Hobby👤Debbie Manz👤Deputy Mayor👤Joe👤Phil Gonad👤Robert Rivera#Annexation Feasibility and Strategy Study#Chapter 171, Florida Statutes#Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) expansion#FGUA#Gulf Harbors/Seaforest utility system acquisition#Penny for Pasco

   ▶ Jump to 0:15 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:15] next item on the agenda is the annexation study. Mrs. Manz. All right. [00:00:19] Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. This isn't the first time that we've had the [00:00:24] opportunity to talk about this matter. We were actually around the table on [00:00:30] March 27th, at which time we presented to you some preliminary findings and all of [00:00:40] which were based in Chapter 171 of the Florida Statutes, which allows [00:00:45] municipalities to annex contiguous pieces of property that are currently [00:00:53] unincorporated and are served by our utilities. In certain occurrences, this [00:00:59] can be done through a mutual consent order with the county. In other cases, [00:01:07] it's achieved through a referendum vote. [00:01:11] When we talked about it last, we had an annexation feasibility and strategy [00:01:19] study and it was based on three assumptions. The first of which was [00:01:25] purpose and we wanted to square off the city's boundaries where we could. We [00:01:32] wanted to acquire enclaves and we wanted to pick up some of the property on US 19 [00:01:40] that is actually in unincorporated Pasco County rather than in the city so that [00:01:49] we could address some of the ordinance-related deficiencies at those [00:01:53] properties. We conducted a level of service analysis which really was a [00:01:59] fiscal impact of annexation and assessed both the cost of service along with the [00:02:09] revenues that would be associated with paying taxes and service fees to the [00:02:17] city. I should introduce Mr. Phil Gonad who is here with us from PMG and [00:02:26] Associates and he provided a lot of preliminary information to you. The [00:02:33] last assumption, I'm sorry I forgot to mention, is that we weren't going to [00:02:37] approach in the first phase of the project anything that would require a [00:02:41] referendum vote. We learned some things since that presentation and really as a [00:02:47] result of that presentation which had given us cause to go back and do some [00:02:53] additional work to the study and at this point we're going to present that to you [00:02:59] and we're prepared to respond to what questions you may have of us at the [00:03:03] conclusion of the presentation. The criteria for establishing the boundaries [00:03:15] for the study was first to eliminate enclaves. There are a number within the [00:03:21] municipal boundaries that occur now and then proceed without a referendum. [00:03:30] Okay. There is certainly more annexation that could occur later but those would [00:03:38] require a referendum. There is in the package or in the study areas one [00:03:45] voluntary annexation. As the managers mentioned there was a couple types, one [00:03:50] of the there's another which is the voluntary. There is a shopping or a [00:03:56] commercial area that the owner there asked to be included in any annexation. [00:04:04] The results that are looking at a number of different areas and those are [00:04:09] highlighted in the yellowish area. Obviously the enclaves, there's the [00:04:16] largest one here. This one is the housing authority property primarily. This is a [00:04:25] one church. The area right here is the one that's a voluntary. That's the one [00:04:31] commercial area. The other one that is of significant nature obviously is the [00:04:36] leisure lane area that I think you all talked about for many years. There are [00:04:43] further to the to the north three different lots. This entire area [00:04:51] around it is in the city. For some reason when that got annexed these three [00:04:57] lots were left out and we're including them because they are considered [00:05:03] enclaves. There is nothing on those lots. They are all vacant today but those are [00:05:10] to do again to clean up those particular areas. The demographics of the study area. [00:05:19] There is not a significant amount of additional population that would be [00:05:25] added. We're looking at approximately 401 people to be added to the current [00:05:33] 15,700 there in the city. The taxable value of this annexation area is [00:05:43] approximately 8.4 million dollars. Again add to the 523 million that the city [00:05:50] already maintains. There were a number of different planning issues that we looked [00:05:56] at. One of the things that might be benefit for some of the commercial areas [00:06:01] along US 19 is the floor area ratio which is amount you can be built is [00:06:07] higher in the city than in a county. So some of those property owners might see [00:06:12] this as an advantage and not just for now but for later on. We looked at the [00:06:20] revenue. We looked at every item, every line item that the city currently [00:06:27] generates revenue from taxes all the way down to licenses permits. Then there's [00:06:36] also what we hate to call a negative revenue but there is a utility surcharge. [00:06:44] That's for the people who are outside the existing city limits. [00:06:49] They pay a surcharge. When they become annexed you would lose that surcharge. [00:06:54] It's not a significant amount of money but it should be considered. The other [00:07:01] point is that most of these items are those that go into the general fund. You [00:07:08] have several different other funds, stormwater, the paving, and the street [00:07:13] lighting, and those revenues would go to those particular funds. The total areas [00:07:22] would generate $215,000 a year, most of which is general fund monies, but [00:07:29] there's also in the other funds additional monies. Looking at expenditures, [00:07:37] when we conducted them the more extensive analysis we met with all the [00:07:41] department heads. We look at what needs to be addressed in terms of final [00:07:46] expenditures and we've had a number of meetings with the city manager to go [00:07:51] over that because these are things that will eventually have to be considered in [00:07:56] a budget. The staffing limitations for the general fund because there's $134,000 [00:08:04] a year, the limit to the additional staffing would be one full-time police [00:08:14] officer and one code enforcement officer. That annual expenditure is $133,000 [00:08:22] a year. There are some other expenditures which include the vehicle [00:08:27] for those particular personnel and some other costs and in discussing it with [00:08:33] the manager we came to the conclusion that that's something that has been [00:08:37] funded in the past through the penny for PASCO and that's where those monies [00:08:42] would come out as well. The stormwater fund generates money and that would [00:08:48] include an additional position which is one equipment operator. We would like to [00:08:54] make sure that you understand that these cost values here for this personnel is [00:09:01] what we call a fully loaded price. It would include their salary and all their [00:09:07] fringe benefits that they would also accrue. There are a question about [00:09:15] expanding the CRA to cover those particular areas. We looked at the cost [00:09:22] of adding that and obviously what that would happen is that in the future the [00:09:31] increase in ad valorem taxes would not go to the general fund it would go to [00:09:37] the CRA. So what we looked at is the question of if there was a growth of [00:09:44] expenditures based on the previous experience that for at least eight years [00:09:50] there would be no negative impact which means the increased expenditures would [00:09:55] not be higher than the increased revenues. The reason that that could [00:10:00] occur beyond that time frame is you're limited to growth in the ad valorem taxes. [00:10:05] But one of the things that might be very important to note, excuse me get back [00:10:11] there we go, [00:10:18] the the leisure lane area could definitely benefit from being included [00:10:25] in the CRA. And one of the best advantages of that is that the CRA could [00:10:32] be used as a mechanism to improve that area and that would clean up some of the [00:10:38] crime issues, code enforcement issues, and some of the others that might occur [00:10:44] over time. So that particular area which could benefit by being in a CRA. In [00:10:54] addition to that I think it's important to note to you that none of the [00:11:00] properties are prime properties. They're all neglected properties without [00:11:05] question. Which is why as part of the proposal we determined that it would be [00:11:11] appropriate if you decide that you'd like us to go forward that we're going [00:11:15] to need an extra police officer and we're going to need a code enforcement [00:11:19] officer because we're going to have to effectuate real change in those areas [00:11:23] and that's the resources that we would need in order to do so. I guess for the [00:11:30] implementation you begin a discussion with the county so that you would end up [00:11:37] with an interlocal agreement that to have this annexation without a [00:11:42] referendum. You're required under state law to prepare an ordinance, to pass the [00:11:47] ordinance, to do an analysis that shows that you can cover the needs of this [00:11:53] population, that's been done, and then get the agreement from the the county. The [00:11:59] only other thing is that you would have to have a survey of the area. Again, [00:12:05] that's under state law. You could possibly work with a simplified survey [00:12:11] which do it by parcel ID and all those parcel IDs have been provided for you. [00:12:18] Then you complete the annexation. I think you also look to future annexation [00:12:24] identifying those areas, particularly some of those along US 19 that might be [00:12:30] more advantageous coming into the city. However, they would all require a [00:12:35] referendum. Coordinating that with Pasco County for the ultimate is [00:12:40] probably the best course of action with that too. What you would have to do is [00:12:46] show those areas that you can provide them better service than they can get [00:12:51] now. In other words, faster response by public safety and more interest, and in [00:12:58] some cases for the commercial areas, a better chance of developing their [00:13:03] property. That's all we have for you. We certainly anticipate questions. [00:13:09] As part of what we're proposing to you, we're not suggesting that at no point [00:13:18] should we contemplate a referendum vote. I think in fact we should. I think we [00:13:25] have a responsibility to straighten out our Swiss cheese sort of looking [00:13:31] boundaries into something that makes sense from a logistics and a service [00:13:38] delivery perspective. I think though before we're prepared to go to a [00:13:44] referendum vote, we have to demonstrate some success and we've got an [00:13:48] opportunity to demonstrate some success in picking up some of these neglected [00:13:54] properties that as you as a group have communicated to me in the past, end up [00:14:02] having spillover negative and adverse consequence to properties near them as [00:14:11] a result of the fact that the problems aren't currently being addressed as [00:14:16] completely as they should be. Leisure Lane and Van Doren Avenue I think are [00:14:22] an effective example of that. The other area that you've got marked on [00:14:29] item number, parcel number three, which is down by Fire Station 2 in that general [00:14:38] area. I know we have had complaints from people that are residents about [00:14:45] gunfire in that area. It's relatively undeveloped and because that's all [00:14:52] county of course the city can't go in and stop the shooting. So there's [00:14:59] something to be said for that. [00:15:00] for having that one brought under city control as well. [00:15:04] Deputy Mayor? [00:15:05] When we first had this annexation meeting, [00:15:07] y'all were not elected, correct? [00:15:10] An audience? [00:15:11] OK. [00:15:12] So you're an audience. [00:15:12] But I'm very eager to hear what y'all have to say. [00:15:15] If you're in the audience, you kind of heard my opinion [00:15:19] is we're picking up these problem areas. [00:15:21] I don't mind going to referendum. [00:15:22] Ms. Manns, I would be 100% confident with her [00:15:25] going to a Seaforest Homeowners Association meeting, [00:15:28] talk about the benefits of joining [00:15:30] the city of New Port Richey. [00:15:31] But I'm still 100% adamant that we're picking up [00:15:34] these problem areas. [00:15:35] We're squaring off the city a bit. [00:15:37] I think we really need to try to go after Seaforest, [00:15:40] and maybe even look into Gulf Harbors Woodlands. [00:15:42] It doesn't have to be today, it doesn't have to be next month. [00:15:45] I'm fine seeing how this goes. [00:15:46] But let it go to referendum. [00:15:47] Let them decide. [00:15:49] They may want to be part of the city limits, [00:15:51] and part of the city of New Port Richey, [00:15:53] where they can drive their golf cart from their home [00:15:56] to our downtown. [00:15:58] We're picking up these problem areas, [00:15:59] which I don't have an issue with. [00:16:00] We'll get them cleaned up. [00:16:01] I get all that. [00:16:02] But I would just love to see us go west. [00:16:04] And I think the Seaforest subdivision, [00:16:06] we already have a part of it. [00:16:07] The Seaforest townhomes, right off of Cross Bayou, [00:16:10] a part of the city of New Port Richey, [00:16:11] butts up to Van Dorn and Leisure Lane. [00:16:13] I'm not saying we should go after all the Gulf [00:16:15] Harbors, Gulf Harbors Woodlands, and Seaforest to start with. [00:16:18] But I really, really think, even if we have to go to referendum, [00:16:21] just my opinion, I'd like to hear both your opinions as [00:16:24] well, I think Seaforest would be a great place [00:16:27] to start. [00:16:27] It's a pretty condensed waterfront area. [00:16:30] And they have their own home restoration, I believe. [00:16:34] And then maybe go from there and start going south. [00:16:36] But I think the acquisition of Seaforest [00:16:39] would be beneficial for the residents of Seaforest. [00:16:41] As far as policing, we talked about these issues [00:16:44] where we're going to prove ourselves. [00:16:46] When it comes to policing and code enforcement, [00:16:48] we don't need to maybe policing, but we [00:16:49] don't have to prove ourselves to Seaforest. [00:16:52] They don't need code enforcement in there. [00:16:54] They're responsible property owners [00:16:56] that take care of their own property. [00:16:58] So code enforcement isn't something [00:16:59] we have to look at for additional expense [00:17:01] on our code enforcement. [00:17:02] But it's a high value dollar as far as ad valorem tax homes, [00:17:07] the other waterfront homes. [00:17:08] And that's why the city of Newport, which is, [00:17:13] why am I drawing a blank? [00:17:19] Our tax base. [00:17:21] Yeah, not tax base, but what's the term? [00:17:23] Millage. [00:17:23] Thank you. [00:17:24] I know I couldn't think of millage. [00:17:25] The millage rate is so low, but they [00:17:27] have so much value in all the waterfront homes [00:17:29] they have in the city of New Port Richey. [00:17:31] And I think this would help add more value. [00:17:33] And I just think we should not forget about it. [00:17:35] I really think Seaforest would be a viable option [00:17:38] to try to annex. [00:17:39] And I'd like to see what the residents thought about it, [00:17:41] but I'd like to hear what you all think as well. [00:17:43] Joe? [00:17:45] Yeah, no, I agree with you. [00:17:46] I think any of those areas that we could pick up [00:17:48] by referendum or whatever would be just a huge benefit [00:17:51] to the city overall. [00:17:54] We definitely have to sell it. [00:17:55] So you have to give them a reason to want to join us, [00:17:58] especially with a referendum. [00:17:59] But I think that we can make a case for ourselves [00:18:04] by maybe picking up what Ms. Maynes is saying, [00:18:06] picking up these other properties or bad areas [00:18:08] and say, hey, this is what we've done. [00:18:10] So it may be something that we have [00:18:11] to wait a little while for. [00:18:12] But if we can go after them and sell them on it [00:18:16] and make them see that it's worthwhile to join us, [00:18:20] then absolutely, let's do it. [00:18:23] Councilman? [00:18:24] Yeah, a couple of questions about the presentation first. [00:18:28] You may want to pull the mic closer to you. [00:18:30] Thank you. [00:18:33] I know back in the day, it was a 10-acre limit of an enclave. [00:18:39] And the legislation changed about the time [00:18:41] I left the city to make it 100 acres, is my right? [00:18:45] Was it one acre to 10? [00:18:47] It is 100. [00:18:48] It's 100 now. [00:18:49] It was 10 acres until 2015 or 16 or something, [00:18:54] the law changed, to make it 100 acres, [00:18:57] to make it more feasible. [00:18:59] So is 03 is more than 100 acres, is it not? [00:19:06] This one right here? [00:19:07] Yeah. [00:19:09] No, it's not. [00:19:10] I don't believe it is. [00:19:10] No. [00:19:11] But it is certainly under 250 voters. [00:19:17] That, pardon me? [00:19:20] There's the other criteria of, it [00:19:23] has to be less than 250 voters. [00:19:26] And less than 100 acres. [00:19:28] Yeah, and that area is less than the 250 acres. [00:19:31] But it's not less than 100 acres, I don't think. [00:19:35] I think it's more. [00:19:36] Our 80-acre preserve, our nature preserve, maybe it [00:19:39] is, if you've measured it out. [00:19:43] And there's some other things in the provisions [00:19:45] in the law about vacant land. [00:19:48] And I don't know how they put the break [00:19:50] between one piece of vacant land among a handful of houses. [00:19:54] But there was something I noticed [00:19:55] that talked about that didn't apply if it was vacant land. [00:20:01] Yes, the issue is that it be an enclave. [00:20:06] And there's two definitions of the enclave. [00:20:10] One is, this one, these are very perfect examples. [00:20:13] You're completely surrounded. [00:20:15] The other is this particular one here. [00:20:18] You can't get to it without coming through the city. [00:20:22] I'm talking about the use of the land, though. [00:20:24] There's some discussion about you [00:20:26] can't do it if it's vacant, if it's undeveloped, [00:20:30] or it hasn't been parceled out, or something like that. [00:20:33] Yeah, but these have been parceled. [00:20:36] Right, OK. [00:20:36] OK, they have been cleared. [00:20:38] Right, so that answers my question. [00:20:40] Thank you. [00:20:41] So as to the issue of a referendum, [00:20:52] if you do a referendum, there's also a time frame [00:20:55] that you have to wait if it doesn't pass before you [00:20:57] can do another referendum. [00:20:59] But it's only a few years, if I'm saying. [00:21:00] That's correct. [00:21:01] So the worst case scenario, Councilman, [00:21:04] if we put it up for referendum, is [00:21:07] that we would learn what the people are thinking. [00:21:12] So I think it does make sense to pick a larger [00:21:15] area for referendum purpose if you're going to do it. [00:21:19] Give it your shot. [00:21:20] And then if you do it on a large scale, [00:21:23] you might find after a few years to say, well, [00:21:26] you know, we tried in that area, but it didn't work. [00:21:31] But the people in this area seem to be inclined to do it. [00:21:34] It would almost help to inform you [00:21:36] on which places would be ripe for you to go back to again [00:21:40] if it didn't pass. [00:21:42] The area on Trouble Creek on the bottom, [00:21:45] I spoke to Mr. Rivera in the past, [00:21:49] doesn't have sewer to those homes. [00:21:53] Am I correct, Robert? [00:21:55] And yet, they're in our service area. [00:21:58] So there's a great opportunity there [00:22:02] to let the folks in that community [00:22:04] know that if the city annexed it, [00:22:08] we could bring sewer to them and make a sewer project. [00:22:11] And that might be a great encouragement. [00:22:13] Because I understand it's not the nicest place [00:22:16] to be after a big storm. [00:22:17] Well, I bet. [00:22:18] So it has a need for that municipal infrastructure. [00:22:23] And we have the ability to put it in. [00:22:25] And it's in our service area. [00:22:27] I also had conversations with Robert years ago. [00:22:30] And we could pull him up here to give his opinion. [00:22:34] But I'll share what he can agree or not. [00:22:38] But that a lot of the land to the east that is undeveloped [00:22:43] provides that opportunity for the better housing, [00:22:48] doesn't have the high problem areas [00:22:51] that we're looking at with just the ones that are up here. [00:22:54] And so potentially, if we said, here's [00:22:57] the line we'd like to be, talk to the county [00:23:00] and say this is, whether it's Trouble Creek to Rowan to Ridge [00:23:05] or whatever it is, wherever that line is, [00:23:07] kind of aligning with our water and sewer service area, [00:23:13] we could, in theory, put that whole area up [00:23:18] with the exception, maybe, of a high, dense area [00:23:21] like Gulf Harbors that may not be ready yet. [00:23:24] But we could include Seaforest and those areas in it [00:23:29] and just put it on the ballot and see how it goes. [00:23:34] But the other thing that I think needs [00:23:38] to be interjected into this conversation about Gulf [00:23:42] Harbors and Seaforest is that there [00:23:48] had been multiple requests for meetings with the city [00:23:52] to have us acquire the utility system there. [00:23:56] They really have a great desire to leave that utility system. [00:24:03] And currently, we only provide them with bulk. [00:24:09] There's a bulk charge. [00:24:11] So to the degree we acquire the utility system, [00:24:15] that 25% upgrade helps to offset. [00:24:21] It's a good argument to say annex in, because if you annex in, [00:24:24] we lower your water and sewer bills. [00:24:26] We're not giving them water and sewer bills now. [00:24:29] So we're going to lose a good selling point. [00:24:35] And I'm hopeful that, at some point, [00:24:37] we look at that FUGA thing. [00:24:39] And I know Robert has got to come forward now, [00:24:41] because I'm really getting him going. [00:24:44] But my point is that we wouldn't have that loss in those areas, [00:24:51] because we're not providing them retail service. [00:24:54] But what we are losing is we're not providing them [00:24:57] water service at all, or retail rates on those services. [00:25:00] So I'd be curious to look at the economics [00:25:03] so we know what we're getting into. [00:25:05] There's this elaborate study about staffing, and police, [00:25:09] and fire, and cost to the city. [00:25:13] There's another little study that would be of great interest, [00:25:16] I think, to the city economically, which would be, [00:25:20] what about this option that these people are asking us for? [00:25:23] What does it cost us in repairs and liabilities? [00:25:28] My position has always been that we [00:25:30] have the sewer water going through our sewer plant. [00:25:34] And so any failure in the collection service [00:25:37] ends up in our plant. [00:25:39] And so I'd kind of take a stewardship viewpoint of it. [00:25:42] And I know that there have been problems [00:25:45] with the pipes, and the quality of it, [00:25:47] and all of that sort of thing. [00:25:49] Anyway, I think the Gulf Harbor Seaforest [00:25:52] is going to be tied to, potentially, [00:25:55] our utility services. [00:25:58] And because they're so valuable, an individual like Clyde Hobby, [00:26:03] or somebody who lives out there who's an attorney, [00:26:08] I already know that they're watching [00:26:11] with their ears perked. [00:26:12] Because if you have a $300,000 house, [00:26:15] and you're charging them nearly 10 mils, [00:26:19] then that's a $3,000 bill. [00:26:23] So I think you're on the right track, though. [00:26:28] And I agree. [00:26:30] They belong here. [00:26:32] There are other elements of those costs [00:26:34] that you've identified up there that the city could also, [00:26:37] and needs to also, target to collect from the county [00:26:46] with a service area agreement. [00:26:48] Because that's another possibility for us [00:26:51] in advance of annexation, to make those folks realize [00:26:55] that they're part of the watershed going out [00:26:57] to the Gulf. [00:26:58] They're potentially part of our drainage. [00:27:01] And so they don't have to be annexed in, [00:27:04] if we're in agreement with the county, [00:27:06] to assess them for their stormwater, [00:27:10] and assess them for their streets, [00:27:12] and assess them for some of the other things. [00:27:15] The county can give us authority, [00:27:17] extra municipal authority, to collect some of those fees [00:27:22] from them. [00:27:24] And this is really going to require sitting down [00:27:26] with them in a more detailed fashion [00:27:31] to look at the services we could provide versus what they can. [00:27:34] But I would agree with you that we could identify an area [00:27:38] and put a referendum in place. [00:27:43] And I think, at the very worst, it [00:27:45] would give us a sense of what those people are thinking. [00:27:49] I think, at the very least, float some trawl balloons [00:27:53] with the homeowners group that Deputy Mayor was talking about. [00:28:01] Would there be interest? [00:28:03] Councilman Altman's made some great points [00:28:05] about some of the things that we bring to the table, [00:28:09] besides just police and fire service. [00:28:13] Sorry. [00:28:13] Real quick. [00:28:14] If we can continue to lower our millage rate [00:28:15] and prove ourselves with Van Doren, Leisure Lane, [00:28:18] and cleaning up Southgate area, I [00:28:20] think those two things will go a long way with help [00:28:22] convincing some of the residents. [00:28:23] So the question becomes, is this our long-range plan [00:28:26] to say, let's plan to do that in two years [00:28:28] versus put this on the ballot in four months? [00:28:31] And do we move forward with these initial ones? [00:28:35] Is that what you're thinking? [00:28:37] I would say, with our current millage rate, [00:28:39] it would never fly. [00:28:40] Like you said, you got $300,000 a house. [00:28:42] That's a huge impact on their property tax. [00:28:44] But that's the low end out there. [00:28:46] I would say, before we jump into a referendum, [00:28:49] we might even try to do some type of polling [00:28:51] to see what it is they're looking for. [00:28:54] That was what I was alluding to. [00:28:56] Talk to the groups and see, what are the hot buttons [00:29:00] that we need to deal with? [00:29:01] They want our utility services is what they want. [00:29:03] OK. [00:29:04] And for purposes of the record, I'd [00:29:06] like to at least assert the fact that I've [00:29:08] had that conversation with the Homeowners [00:29:12] Association of Gulf Harbors. [00:29:14] I've been told no consistently. [00:29:17] I've had doors slammed in my face. [00:29:19] That's happened to me a lot in life. [00:29:20] I'm not offended by it. [00:29:22] Do you want me to go back? [00:29:24] I'll go back again and give them a shot at that. [00:29:26] What I'm saying is you talk to the homeowners associations, [00:29:29] and sometimes they give opinions of their own, [00:29:32] not necessarily those of the people. [00:29:35] So in a more official capacity, actually, [00:29:37] a polling where it's outside of them [00:29:39] is actually for the homeowners themselves. [00:29:41] Yeah, we could do that. [00:29:43] The other thing I think that Robert came up [00:29:45] to address with you, if I'm not mistaken, [00:29:48] is we are also looking at another opportunity [00:29:52] where the county works with the city. [00:29:54] And if you want to talk a little, does that quite make sense? [00:29:57] Sure, yes. [00:29:58] If not, I'll keep going. [00:29:59] No, that's fine. [00:30:00] I was just going to elaborate and add to you. I think that the options that you've brought [00:30:05] up are worth looking at. Debbie and I have been working on this issue for a while now [00:30:11] because it just keeps popping up. And we'll do a study in-house on what the feasibility [00:30:18] is of acquiring that system and then someone else will come up with another idea and then [00:30:23] we'll look at it again. And so we got together and we said, well, we're doing our revenue [00:30:28] sufficiency study analysis now. Why don't we go ahead, take a look at all the scenarios [00:30:36] that are available so that we can finally put this thing to rest, we can present it [00:30:40] to you. We're getting close. I just had a meeting with the consultant today and we're [00:30:46] going to present you with three scenarios. And those three scenarios are going to be [00:30:50] if the utility operates the way it is currently and does nothing, what the projections of [00:30:56] sustainability is. We're going to give you another option that shows that if we were [00:31:02] to purchase the FGUA system or take it over, it's not really a purchase, you just acquire [00:31:08] it with the county as a partner as far as taking in and possibly assessing the current [00:31:19] debt service that the FGUA system has and then the city take it over and operate it [00:31:26] It will also take into account the loss of revenue that would be acquired if the county [00:31:32] was to take it over and they ran it. Right now we treat all of their wastewater from [00:31:41] their system and that's quite a large chunk of revenue for our utility. So we're going [00:31:46] to look at everything. There is a concern that although you may gain a little bit of [00:31:54] revenue, that the capital cost of the existing system as well as having to put that money [00:32:03] into the system would have a detrimental effect on your current rate payers of the system [00:32:08] that you have now. Wait for the results before you tell us the bad news. But my point is [00:32:15] we're looking at all of this and all of those details that maybe a lot of the people that [00:32:21] are wanting things to happen don't know about and so that study should be coming to you [00:32:27] within the next month and it's pretty detailed and I know that the mayor and deputy mayor [00:32:34] have dealt with STANTEC before Mike Burton has come and presented some of the studies [00:32:39] to you. He does a really good job, detailed job and I think after he presents you'll be [00:32:45] able to make a decision on which way you want to go as far as whether or not some of those [00:32:51] things that you're talking about including in this would be a good idea. Maybe they're [00:32:56] not, maybe they are, but the point is I think we're going to be able to get that information [00:33:00] to you and not slow you down as far as what you're talking about now. [00:33:05] I would also go off one of the comments that Deputy Mayor made about also looking east. [00:33:13] I've got some friends that live on Medlar which is over in Ritchie Lakes and we just [00:33:23] within the last six or eight months bought their utility system so they are now on city [00:33:29] water. They're currently on septic. If we offer to annex them in and provide them with [00:33:37] sanitary sewer system to go along with the water, they'd think they've died and gone [00:33:41] to heaven. The first thing they did after they got the first bill from the New Port Richey Public Utilities for their water was say, when are we going to get sewer and when [00:33:54] are you going to annex us? There is an interest out there. These are not the multi-million [00:33:59] dollar homes like you've got out on the beach at Gulf Harbors, but still it's areas that [00:34:04] we are currently serving in some form or fashion and there is some interest. [00:34:09] As far as code enforcement, the neighbor you're talking about was actually Councilman [00:34:12] Altman that was talking about going east, but it's a nice neighborhood. I mean there's [00:34:16] not a whole lot of problems. [00:34:17] It's all right. It was you who was talking about the museum and I got it in the paper. [00:34:22] Anyway, we're all talking about it and that's the good thing. [00:34:26] Just as a follow-up real quick to what you said, Robert, that the county could do it. [00:34:33] It always had been my understanding that the area was specifically identified as being [00:34:42] within our service area and the county would do it if we chose not to potentially. Is that [00:34:47] what you're saying? Because they don't have rights to it. I don't know who's telling you [00:34:50] that they do, but it's ours. It's in our service area. [00:34:54] Right. [00:34:55] That's correct. [00:34:57] But we don't want to make any decision until we know what we've got. [00:35:02] I hear you, but when you say maybe a joint venture or something, it's a good possibility [00:35:06] to look at, you know. And the bonds that were floated were the post- [00:35:13] Build America. [00:35:14] What did you say? [00:35:15] They were Build America bonds. [00:35:16] Build America bonds and the deal that was made on those Build America bonds was not [00:35:23] honored by the federal government and so some of their costs are a little higher than [00:35:27] – they had a high rate, but they would get a rebate check, so to speak, under the Build [00:35:32] America program and apparently that was less than what they thought. So it really takes [00:35:39] the real number crunchers to go back and see what the effect is of interest rates today [00:35:47] versus buying out those bonds or doing whatever. [00:35:50] Sure, and if I may say one more thing, the other thing that the utility is doing under [00:35:56] Ms. Manns is we've added language in our utility service agreements to state that when [00:36:03] developments like R.J. Kilty came online and they are on the east side off of Mass Avenue [00:36:08] outside the city limits, for them to acquire the services of the utility, they have signed [00:36:16] an agreement that states once the city works its way out there and becomes adjacent to [00:36:21] them, they will automatically annex into the city. So along with this, we also have that [00:36:29] that's working its way in the future. [00:36:33] My feeling is we should go ahead and deal with the enclaves that we can deal with trying [00:36:38] to negotiate something cooperatively with the county so we can just take them and we [00:36:42] need to start exploring to what extent there is some interest in places like Seaforest [00:36:48] and those other areas to possibly do a referendum and let's start straightening out some of [00:36:54] these crazy questions. [00:36:55] Okay, so for council, since you seem to be in agreement about looking at other areas, [00:37:01] we had suggested with some of the earlier versions of the analysis that you set some [00:37:06] annexation reserve area, which is an official designation you would probably have to get [00:37:12] agreement with the county on that, which says we are looking toward these areas in [00:37:17] the future. How you designate that and how you move with that might take a lot of finesse, [00:37:25] but we suggest that you do establish a reserve area. [00:37:31] That's the area that you all are looking to. [00:37:34] The county is not going to want to give those areas up, but like I mentioned during the [00:37:37] first annexation meeting, another pro for us, and I can't believe someone slammed the [00:37:41] door in your face, Debbie, I just can't believe it, but we hear this at the NPO meetings as [00:37:47] well, the residents of West Pasco, many of them have been in the tax base and paid a [00:37:52] lot of taxes, waterfront residents, they feel neglected from the county. They do. They look [00:37:56] at Southgate, they look at Vandoren, Leisure Lane. Once it was in the paper, they found [00:38:00] out that was county jurisdiction, not ours. They're looking for answers. They feel like [00:38:04] all of our money is going out to the east side. So if they're here, I think that's another [00:38:10] huge selling point. Hey, keep your money here. We're going to reinvest it in our city where [00:38:14] you live now, not ship it out to Wesley Chapel. So when we have those discussions, I think [00:38:18] that's a key point to bring up as well. [00:38:20] All right, I will do that. [00:38:22] I would like to add one more point as you're listing out the different taxes and assessments, [00:38:27] and we talk and folks look at their tax bill in the county versus our tax bill here. Of [00:38:34] course, you've worked in the cost with the county has a fire district fee versus our [00:38:41] fire department, which is funded through our millage rate. So we could effectively knock [00:38:48] our millage rate down by that millage rate as we try to reach that break-even point even [00:38:54] with our utility charges. But I don't know the truth of it, but I'm understanding that [00:39:02] there's talk of putting a referendum on countywide for libraries and for parks and recreation. [00:39:09] It's going on there in November. [00:39:10] And it is happening. [00:39:12] Just for the $20 million to get caught up. [00:39:14] But here, I'd like to share with you a meeting that I had in my early days with Commissioner [00:39:20] Wells' father and Ann Hildebrand and Sylvia Young, and I'm forgetting the other two. But [00:39:28] we met at Equality Inn, City Council, County Commission, to discuss the fact that we were [00:39:37] under construction with our brand new library. [00:39:39] In the sunshine? [00:39:40] Yeah, it was a posted meeting. [00:39:42] I'm just kidding. I know the sunshine is important. [00:39:44] No, we didn't meet in the bar. We met in a conference room. So we might have, well. [00:39:52] It was recorded and reported, and what happened was we discussed the fact that we were investing [00:39:59] a couple million dollars in our own library. We'd always had a library. The county didn't [00:40:03] have a library system, so they were adding one. And that on Parks and Rec, we had the [00:40:09] basketball courts and a pool, and we had a recreation facility. And that their design [00:40:16] is all of these other facilities were really taking into consideration our facility, because [00:40:21] they don't have one right outside the city limits. You had to go to Hudson or other parts. [00:40:27] And we had an agreement at that meeting that when the bond issue went out for a vote, that [00:40:36] it would exclude the City of New Port Richey, because we were already providing those services. [00:40:42] And so when I went to vote, it was on our ballot. And the answer we got was, oh, I'm [00:40:49] sorry, we must have messed up. So the city residents have paid the entire bond issue [00:40:55] out for all the parks and recreation bond issue, equal share, and library. And I think [00:41:03] that this is a critical issue for us to revisit, because again, if there's a bond issue for [00:41:08] those infrastructures, then we either need to have them recognize our services. And I [00:41:16] was not even opposed to letting the county put their seal next to ours if we were going [00:41:21] to share with them, as long as we ran it. And it was some controversy with our library [00:41:27] at the time, because there was concern that, oh, we can't become a county library. And [00:41:32] then the county didn't use the same service to do the book lookup or something. I'm sorry. [00:41:39] I'm going to say that too rudely. But I think it's going to be important for us. Maybe. [00:41:46] I don't know if there's another county-city meeting planned, or we need to do it ourselves. [00:41:51] But New Port Richey doesn't have a library. Zephyr Hill's already turned over their library to [00:41:56] the county. We kind of stand alone in our position. And this is why it's not, this is [00:42:06] why it doesn't, the folks in these areas outside the city don't want to join us, because of [00:42:12] these double taxes that we're paying. I mean, we're paying our full share of county recreation [00:42:16] taxes and county library taxes, and yet we host more than 50 percent of our visitors [00:42:26] are not in the city. Are we not included in that 20 million? We're not getting any part [00:42:31] of that? No, the county is currently over $20 million behind on the operation and maintenance [00:42:36] of the current facilities. They had a master of parks and rec study done, called for over [00:42:41] 120 million to just catch up with the development right now in Pasco County. We have no, the [00:42:47] district parks we have in our county don't hold a candle to any of the surrounding counties, [00:42:52] any places I go all throughout the state. We're basically, in my opinion, as far as [00:42:56] parks and rec go, a complete embarrassment. The last park other than Starkey Ranch and [00:43:00] this new one they're building in Wester Chapel that we built in Pasco was a holiday recreation [00:43:05] field. It was over 25 years ago. So like Pete said, we paid into that tax for the bond way [00:43:11] back when. We didn't see any of the money. So I just think if we can continue to prove [00:43:16] to the residents of West Pasco that the city of New Port Richey has it together, they [00:43:20] understand the importance of culture, parks and rec, libraries. They're cleaning up their [00:43:25] section of West Pasco. Let's get on board because we're not seeing the same response [00:43:30] from our tax dollars going to the county. I just think it would be a huge selling point. [00:43:34] I mean I'm on the county board for parks and recs and when this was first brought out, [00:43:38] it was my understanding that it was going to be similar to like paying for Pasco when [00:43:44] we got a little piece of it when it came out. So that's why I'm kind of like, we haven't [00:43:48] had a board meeting in six months. All they've done for us is they don't want to take care [00:43:52] of the little league fields anymore. So they're handing that over to us. It's just been poor [00:43:59] planning on the county level. They just haven't made parks and rec a priority for years and [00:44:02] years and years. But as far as that referendum goes, they're going to have a referendum for [00:44:05] parks and rec and the referendum for the sheriff's jail as well on the same ballot. So who knows [00:44:11] which or both will pass come November. But they made a promise to us 25 years ago that [00:44:17] they did not live up to at an official meeting between us. It's coming up again and I think [00:44:24] we should at least raise the flag. And I'm sorry you're here to talk about annexation, [00:44:28] but it really is related in the sense that these are the elements of what we pay on our [00:44:33] tax bill. And we do in New Port Richey pay a double tax for parks and libraries. And [00:44:40] we are the host of all the people that come here. And I've been saying that for 15, 20 [00:44:45] years. And now here it comes again. There are other areas of county that we're also [00:44:51] paying for that we don't get the service for. But those two specifically, when it comes [00:44:56] to the capital improvements, all we have to do is throw on the table. [00:45:00] we just invested in the recreation center again, again in advance of you, and again [00:45:07] making it available to others. Now, if they want us to put all our fees to the same amount [00:45:15] and share with us and let us have, you know, a share of the recreation taxes that they [00:45:21] collect, we should be partners. So we're not a partner, we're a Cinderella, you know. [00:45:29] Good point. I have good direction from you tonight as to how to proceed with annexation. [00:45:39] I have had some preliminary discussions with the county administrator who's very anxious [00:45:45] to enter into an interlocal agreement. I, though, have to say that revenue neutral isn't [00:45:55] my favorite position, so we will be asking for some things, and I'll present a list [00:46:01] to you of items that I'd like to make part of the deal. [00:46:10] Thank you very much. We don't have it on the agenda, but I've been asked if we could [00:46:14] add communications. So, did you have anything, Mr. Altman? [00:46:19] Hello? [00:46:20] Mr. Murphy. [00:46:21] No, no. [00:46:22] I apologize for having to take a phone call, and I will just let you know I may well have [00:46:30] to take them for the next several weeks. We've got an evolving family situation that's requiring [00:46:35] me to take calls. [00:46:39] Mr. Starkey. [00:46:41] Just real quick, just two quick things. We talked about the dumpsters and not enforcing [00:46:45] our current ordinance. Our current ordinance right now does not require gates on the dumpster. [00:46:50] This is a dumpster. Unfortunately, I don't know what it is, if it's well water or whatever, [00:46:53] but we get that stain out of my office. I don't own the office building, but that's [00:46:57] a dumpster at my office building with a gate on it in the front, and if you go to the next [00:47:00] one, you wouldn't even know a dumpster is back there. [00:47:03] Our current ordinance doesn't require, it does require fencing around the dumpster, [00:47:06] which we have been enforcing, but it does not require a gate. So the third picture is [00:47:11] with the gate open. You know there's a dumpster there. I mean, it's just night and day. [00:47:15] So I would like to, if you all are on board and we can get chopper's opinion at the next [00:47:21] regular meeting, to amend our ordinance to require a gate in the front of the dumpster [00:47:25] because three walls is good, but four walls is better. I mean, with that basin. [00:47:30] I can add to that. My church has got all four, including a gate that locks, and it is important [00:47:39] to have a locking gate because otherwise you have stuff that gets dumped into them. [00:47:44] And then one last thing. We tabled the food truck ordinance. You spoke about it a bit [00:47:51] during communications. I didn't, but I was talking to some people at Rotary about it [00:47:55] today, just sitting down at lunch, and I personally am in favor of the food trucks. I just want [00:47:59] to bring up an example because there's going to be a food truck, Outback Ordinance 1 tomorrow. [00:48:03] Got lobster. There's already like 50 people signed up online. They're definitely going. [00:48:07] There's 400 people that are interested. Lobster. Lobster. All the people that are coming to [00:48:12] our downtown to go to that food truck, it's going to be packed tomorrow. It will be. If [00:48:17] you have a chance, swing by. I mean, the menu is incredible. It's like six or seven things. [00:48:21] Lobster mac and cheese, blackened shrimp mac and cheese, lobster rolls. I mean, it's fresh [00:48:25] lobster flown in from Maine. It's going to bring a huge crowd to our downtown. [00:48:29] Tomorrow, and it's not a crowd that would be in our downtown. That's taking away from [00:48:33] other restaurants as a restaurant owner spoke of yesterday, and I think that's the big missing [00:48:39] piece here that not everyone is getting. We don't want to do anything with this ordinance [00:48:43] to harm our restaurants. I think Miss Manns and Mr. Driscoll have taken great measures [00:48:48] to amend the ordinance and create an ordinance to protect our restaurant owners, but for [00:48:53] them to say business is slow, and if you bring in food trucks, it's going to put us under. [00:48:57] I personally just don't think it's a fair argument. Like I said, it's going to be packed [00:49:01] tomorrow. It's going to bring, if I was Roses, what I would do tomorrow is I would open up [00:49:06] a key lime pie stand right across the street because they sell J.J. Gandy's key lime pie. [00:49:10] It's the best key lime pie in Tampa, and I'd be selling slices of key lime pie. Honestly, [00:49:14] it would make a killing because after I eat my lobster roll and have a beer, I'm going [00:49:17] to want to slice a key lime pie and just work with the food trucks, but these food truck [00:49:22] owners, many of them don't just own food trucks. They own restaurants, and they're just bringing [00:49:27] their food from their restaurants to other areas of Tampa. Ordinance One had a friends [00:49:32] and family event two Sundays ago, and it was the best taco truck I've ever seen. Food was [00:49:36] phenomenal. BJ and Natalie, the owners, just bought lunch for everyone, all their friends [00:49:39] and family. You know, a ton of people there, but the owner of the food truck owns two restaurants [00:49:44] in the Tampa Bay area as well. Rusty Belly's then, the Sponge Doc's, to me is the best [00:49:49] seafood you can get around here. They own a restaurant. They're very successful. They [00:49:52] also own a food truck, which we may at some point see downtown, so I'm in favor of them. [00:49:57] I'm in favor of protecting our current restaurant owners as well, but I just don't feel it's [00:50:01] a fair argument, and I'm saying this publicly because I should have said during communications [00:50:05] last night, but I didn't. I don't think it's a fair argument to say if you bring food trucks, [00:50:10] you're going to continue to keep limited people in our restaurants because if you're not getting [00:50:15] a good crowd now without food trucks, there's something wrong, and food trunks, if they [00:50:20] come in, they're not stealing from your crowd. They're bringing people into our downtown, [00:50:24] and that's why I'm in favor of them, so just keep that in mind when you see the lobster [00:50:27] truck tomorrow. It's going to be a ton of people. They're going to do really, really [00:50:31] well, and it's going to be people that would not normally be downtown on a Thursday night [00:50:35] to eat. We're bringing those people to our downtown, which is a positive. [00:50:39] I'll make a point of taking a look at it. It was my observation when Beef O'Brady's [00:50:45] opened up, and they've had good crowds judging from their parking lot since they opened, [00:50:51] but it has had no measurable effect that I can see on any of the other restaurants. [00:50:55] It's bringing a different crowd down, so, and this may well be the case. [00:50:58] At least it helped them, probably. [00:51:00] Mr. Mayor, now, that's the problem. Once you had your chance to say, when I said hello [00:51:05] or goodbye, because it's caused me to think of something else, and I agree 100% with you, [00:51:12] and I would also suggest to the staff that you might look up the food truck ordinance [00:51:17] in Gainesville, because our Main Street Landings owners owned land and redeveloped downtown [00:51:27] Gainesville, and the same issue came up there from having a discussion with them, and they [00:51:35] said that they put some provisions that just limit the amount of it. It's not that somebody's [00:51:39] going to be there every day, free in the parking lot, taking your business, but you're right. [00:51:45] It brings new people in that will see businesses that don't normally come down. [00:51:49] The thing that I was going to mention, and I was going to wait for Chopper to get back [00:51:54] to, but I'll at least put it out to you now, is that the, I have a suggestion or a request [00:52:02] that we lighten the load of the city staff when it comes to their deadlines for getting [00:52:08] our meeting books out. I'm perfectly fine, I'm used to my whole career getting my meeting [00:52:13] book on the weekend or a Thursday or Friday before a meeting. The problem that I see, [00:52:19] and I would like to respectfully request maybe you consult with the city manager or whatever, [00:52:25] is that, you know, when we have these one week after meetings sometimes, and even the [00:52:29] two week meetings, they have a follow-up from our meeting on a Wednesday, and they have [00:52:34] to get the book out in a day or two. And I think it is not helping us when we raise an [00:52:40] issue at a meeting by having an immediate deadline that doesn't allow us to get an item [00:52:44] back in front of us in a timely manner. I don't know what benefit there is or what need [00:52:50] there is to look at your meeting book for over three or four days, but I would like [00:52:56] for us to kind of line up with the typical way in which public meetings are noticed, [00:53:04] published, and I think that gives the staff more time to develop a better program. So [00:53:10] I'll make that pitch again at another meeting, but that's just the thought. I don't know [00:53:15] how badly you all want to research for how long. [00:53:19] I think we had a situation before where we had specific council members that were... [00:53:24] Wanted a big advance. [00:53:26] Because of their schedules requiring it, and I'm flexible, so... [00:53:30] It was Councilman Davis that actually brought up originally, so I read my... two days before [00:53:37] and I'm good, so... [00:53:38] Yeah, that gives the most current information to go in the packet for us at our meetings, [00:53:44] and that's my big thing is, you know... [00:53:47] Bring it up again when Councilman Davis is in the office.

   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▶ 53:50