On the agenda

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

   Pledge of Allegiance

   Pledge of Allegiance was recited, followed by a moment of silence for citizens affected in Texas.

   ▶ Jump to 0:15 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:16] I'd ask that you all stand, join me in the pledge of allegiance and remain standing for a moment of silence and memory and thoughts and prayers to our fellow citizens in Texas. [00:00:27] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

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

3. 3

   Moment of Silence

   The council held a moment of silence and recited the Pledge of Allegiance, with thoughts and prayers offered for fellow citizens in Texas.

   ▶ Jump to 0:16 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:16] I'd ask that you all stand, join me in the pledge of allegiance and remain standing for a moment of silence and memory and thoughts and prayers to our fellow citizens in Texas. [00:00:27] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

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

4. 4.a

   Public Hearing - Stormwater Utility Assessment

   discussed

   Council held a public hearing on the stormwater utility assessment, with Ayers & Associates presenting a five-year rate study (FY2018-2022). The methodology charges residential parcels one ERU, general parcels by impervious area, and now adds undeveloped parcels at 35% of the developed rate, with the rate increasing from $77.36 to $80 per ERU. Several residents spoke with concerns about flooding, drainage, and assessment fairness; the item presented was Resolution 2017-26.

   📍4709 Big Loop📍5005 Muriel Lane📍5326 Darkmouth📍5407 Berkeley Road📍6131 Kentucky Avenue📍6519 Celeste Lane🏢Ayers & Associates🏢Briar Patch Condominium🏢Florida Stormwater Association👤Andy Hatcher👤Glenna Summerall👤James Tillman👤Jan Ashe👤Michael Stoffel👤Mr. Driscoll👤Mr. Rivera👤Ms. Manz👤Robin Knight👤Vance Ray#$80 per ERU rate#Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) of 2,629 sq ft#FY2018-2022 rate study#MS-4 permit (Clean Water Act)#Pasco County tax payment/deferral program#Resolution 2017-26#Stormwater Utility Assessment

   ▶ Jump to 0:50 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:50] We have two business items on the agenda tonight. [00:00:52] Ms. Manz, the first one is the public hearing on the stormwater utility assessment. [00:00:57] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. [00:00:58] There are three forms of revenue raising mechanisms that are available to cities to rely on to fund public improvements, programs and services. [00:01:11] The first of which is a benefit assessment, and that's what we're going to talk about tonight. [00:01:16] It's an involuntary charge that property owners pay for a public improvement that provides a benefit to their property. [00:01:23] The second is a tax, and that's different, although it's involuntary as well, and that covers improvements that are paid regardless of a taxpayer's relative benefit. [00:01:38] The third is a fee, which is voluntary, and it relates to charges for costs for services. [00:01:46] Benefit assessments are traditionally relied upon to fund things such as flood control, streetlights and road improvements. [00:01:55] And tonight we'll be talking about both stormwater and streetlight benefit assessments. [00:02:01] In preparation for the discussion, you conducted a work session on May 16, 2017, at which time we discussed the methodologies and rates, [00:02:12] which included discussions about expenditures and revenues related to the city's stormwater and streetlight systems. [00:02:20] On June 20, 2017, you conducted a final rate study analysis, and tonight's meeting we're asking you to pass a resolution in support of the stormwater utility assessment role and the streetlighting assessment role. [00:02:40] To provide some more specific history on this matter, the city initially implemented a stormwater utility fee in 2001. [00:02:49] The rate for that assessment was based on equivalent residential units, and it was $40.32 per ERU. [00:03:01] That rate stood in place until 2012. [00:03:05] In 2012, the city conducted an assessment which covered a five-year projection of expenses and revenues, and it necessitated a rate of $77.36 per ERU, and the rate has remained there since that time. [00:03:24] This evening we are going to have a presentation by Ayers & Associates, and we have Jan Ashe and Michael Stoffel here this evening to represent that. [00:03:37] And they will do so as a result of the fact that we have engaged them for their professional services to conduct a stormwater assessment rate study covering the fiscal year 2018 through 2022 years. [00:03:54] The purpose of their study is to determine a five-year rate for continued investment in the city's stormwater infrastructure system. [00:04:03] And with that, we'll allow Michael to start with his presentation, which will review some of the assumptions that we've made along the way, as well as the revenue and expenditure projections. [00:04:17] Thank you. [00:04:19] Good evening, everyone, again. [00:04:20] It's been a couple months since I've got to see you, so thank you. [00:04:25] As Ms. Maness mentioned, we performed the rate study preliminary, brought that in in May, where you finally adopted it in June, and then you did the initial assessment resolution at your July meeting. [00:04:44] So this evening, this is kind of a summary overview. [00:04:49] Some of this information you have seen, but maybe the public has not, so I just wanted to cover that again. [00:04:56] Florida stormwater, there's approximately 165 utilities in the state, and that number continues to increase year over year. [00:05:06] The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the validity of this program, and the public support is for user fees versus general taxes. [00:05:18] People are much more willing to pay for something where they can see the benefit versus just a blanket tax where they don't get to see the benefit and the improvement being made. [00:05:32] And unfunded mandates are always continuing to come down from above. [00:05:39] You're continuing to have to deal with the legislature passing and the federal government passing rules, regulations of which you need to comply. [00:05:48] So based on the 2016 summary by the Florida Stormwater Association, roughly 70% of the utilities are using an impervious area methodology, and in 2011 that was 83%. [00:06:05] So you can see that some utilities have either taken it upon themselves to try to simplify their structure by just passing a flat fee versus a benefit by impervious area. [00:06:21] Larger the impervious area, more impact, more fee charged accordingly. [00:06:26] So that's the impervious area method. [00:06:28] 45% of the utilities are now charging undeveloped lands. [00:06:33] In 2011, that was only 40%. [00:06:37] So utilities are continuing to recognize that undeveloped property contributes to the storm system just as developed, but maybe to a lesser degree. [00:06:48] The average ERU is 2,842 square feet of impervious area. [00:06:53] In 2011, that was 2,594. [00:06:58] So some utilities have increased the size of their ERU, and your current ERU, which you have continued to adopt, is 2,629 square feet. [00:07:12] So you're right there in the middle with the rest of the utilities. [00:07:17] The average revenues, and granted these vary based on the size of the utility itself, is 3.66 million. [00:07:26] In 2011, that was 3.8 million, and yours is just over a million. [00:07:32] The average annual rates went up to $78.84 from $62 in 2011. [00:07:43] So you can see the cost of providing these services continues to increase. [00:07:48] Your past rate was $77.36, and your updated rate is $80 even. [00:07:57] The low, you can see the low and the high. [00:08:01] Thank goodness your residents aren't in the high, where you're charging $720 per ERU. [00:08:08] So the history of the city's program, which Ms. Vance so graciously provided most of that information already, thank you. [00:08:18] You implemented it in 2001, based on the memo. [00:08:23] As she mentioned, the rate was just over $40, and then it went up to $77 in 2013. [00:08:32] And historically, prior to this, undeveloped parcels were not charged. [00:08:39] So what is the money used for? [00:08:42] Operation maintenance expenditures, staff, equipment, maintaining the system that you currently have. [00:08:50] As you get floods, storms, walls need to be fixed, pipes need to be fixed, inlets need to be fixed, manholes. [00:08:57] So your system continues to degrade over time. [00:09:01] And also to improve your system. [00:09:03] Recognize that maybe there are certain areas in your system that are undersized and need to be expanded, capacity expanded. [00:09:12] But this program doesn't fund 100% of those improvements. [00:09:17] The city staff has been very good at looking for external funds, grants, programs, [00:09:25] to augment the funds that you raise through your program so that 100% of the cost isn't borne on your residents. [00:09:33] So the capital improvements are funded also with outside funding. [00:09:38] And then as mentioned, the additional cost to comply with the MS-4 permitting. [00:09:43] And then MS-4 is the municipal separate storm sewer system under the Clean Water Act. [00:09:50] So the methodology that you adopted at the June meeting was residential parcels will continue to be charged one ERU, [00:10:03] just as historically they have been. [00:10:06] Single family homes, condominiums, mobile home parks, RVs, one residential unit per family. [00:10:14] General parcels will continue to be charged based on their square footage of impervious area. [00:10:20] So if they have a large impervious area, divide that by the equivalent unit of 2,629. [00:10:28] And that's the number of ERUs that a parcel either larger or smaller. [00:10:33] So you could have larger fractions of one and smaller fractions than one. [00:10:38] If they don't have that much area, it's maybe only half or less. [00:10:43] Undeveloped parcels, and this is the change that occurred in this particular revision. [00:10:51] Undeveloped parcels will now be charged, not equal to a developed parcel, but at a 35% rate. [00:10:59] And the average parcel size is 7,204 square feet. [00:11:05] And the adopted was 35%. [00:11:10] So a vacant parcel will contribute approximately 35% of the stormwater that a developed parcel would contribute. [00:11:23] And based on the equivalent residential size. [00:11:27] With that, the council adopted the $80 per ERU. [00:11:32] Now how is that 35% calculated? [00:11:35] And you could see and apologize for the text size, but there's a number of storms. [00:11:41] The one year, two year, five year, 10 year, 25, 50 and 100 year storms. [00:11:46] That are published data by the stormwater modeling associations. [00:11:52] And with those, you'll have various inches of rainfall in a 24 hour period. [00:11:59] So an average residential site will contribute this many cubic feet of water for these various events. [00:12:09] And then an undeveloped parcel will contribute less, but nonetheless still contributes runoff to the storm sewer system. [00:12:19] And so adding all of those up and dividing those, roughly 35% of the undeveloped lot. [00:12:28] Or 35% of the water that falls on an undeveloped lot will enter the system compared to a residential lot. [00:12:39] So that's the stormwater component, which is a brief summary. [00:12:45] Any questions? [00:12:48] Mr. Driscoll, could you read the... [00:12:51] Yes, Mr. Mayor. Resolution number 2017-26. [00:12:54] A resolution of the City Council of New Port Richey, Florida. [00:12:57] Relating to the delivery and funding of a stormwater related essential services within the city. [00:13:02] Amending, ratifying, confirming the initial assessment resolution. [00:13:05] Determining that certain real property is specially benefited by stormwater management services. [00:13:11] Establishing the method of assessing associated stormwater costs against real property. [00:13:15] Specially benefited thereby. [00:13:18] Establishing other terms and conditions of the assessments. [00:13:21] Approving the assessment rule. [00:13:23] Providing the method of collection and providing an effective date. [00:13:26] Thank you. This is a public hearing. [00:13:28] Public comment would be appropriate at this time. [00:13:30] If anyone wishes to address Council, please come on down. [00:13:33] And if you could write your name and address on the sheet. [00:13:37] Is that your folder? [00:13:46] My name is Andy Hatcher. [00:13:50] I live at 6131 Kentucky Avenue here in New Port Richey. [00:13:54] But what I'm talking about is a property that I own at 4709 Big Loop. [00:13:59] The City Council went to me in 1982 to want to annex that property into the city. [00:14:07] So they could annex Briar Patch Condominium and later on Hazel Don and the churches out there and the storage yard. [00:14:15] I did not come to the city to get that annexed. [00:14:18] They came to me. [00:14:20] And now my normal taxes is $113 a year. [00:14:24] And when you tack on all these fees, it's going to go to $400 a year. [00:14:30] And what I am saying right now, the stormwater they're talking about goes back in on my property which is not in the city. [00:14:38] So it has nothing to do with the city storm drain. [00:14:41] And the street lights, there's no street light within 500 feet of my property. [00:14:46] And I don't want one. [00:14:48] And as far as I'm concerned, I've asked the Director of Public Works and the Finance Director to exempt me from these fees. [00:14:56] And if not, then I've got to go through the process of taking the property. [00:15:00] property that I own back out of the city [00:15:02] and leaving it one property in the county. [00:15:05] Because this has got to be ridiculous. [00:15:07] I've paid taxes out there for 35 years [00:15:11] and not had a question about nothing. [00:15:15] And I do have a bad question about this, [00:15:17] and I am not happy a bit about it. [00:15:23] Thank you. [00:15:26] Who else has glasses? [00:15:32] Thank you. [00:15:32] Anyone else? [00:15:41] My name is Glenna Summerall. [00:15:43] I'll put it on here. [00:15:45] And I live at 5407 Berkeley Road, [00:15:49] and I support the city wholeheartedly. [00:15:51] But my question is for the stormwater. [00:15:54] They're charging us more than the average [00:15:56] because my son and I live in a duplex together. [00:16:00] 5407 is our address on the deed. [00:16:03] I don't mind paying my part, but we [00:16:06] have no drainage on our street. [00:16:09] Every time it rains, the people above me, [00:16:13] it comes down from Park and it comes on down Berkeley. [00:16:16] It turns and goes in my driveway. [00:16:19] And I had my driveway fixed and had them excavate the property, [00:16:23] but it just comes in. [00:16:24] And we have no drain whatsoever. [00:16:28] And I also got extra charge on it for the lights. [00:16:31] We only have one street light on the whole street. [00:16:36] Why do I pay extra if I have another street light? [00:16:39] And if I lived on the next street that comes on back to us, [00:16:44] I would be here every day because they [00:16:46] have no street light. [00:16:47] So we don't mind paying to support the city, [00:16:52] but we need to have our part of the city serviced. [00:16:57] Could you give Mr. Rivera that street number again? [00:17:00] 5407 Berkeley. [00:17:03] And it's a problem because it comes down my driveway [00:17:06] and goes to my back and comes almost to my back door. [00:17:09] And I've had the people, the engineers, [00:17:12] come for our property, but it's just [00:17:14] because we don't have any drain. [00:17:18] And where do you put your name? [00:17:19] Because this doesn't show up on here. [00:17:22] No, I need to bring it back here. [00:17:25] Oh, OK. [00:17:26] Use the second line. [00:17:26] I'll use the first one. [00:17:27] OK. [00:17:30] I support our city wholeheartedly, [00:17:32] but I want to get the things. [00:17:33] And I'm so proud that the city is looking so much prettier, [00:17:36] all the stuff around. [00:17:38] I'm not against doing my part, but I get frustrated with it. [00:17:43] What is the other road that you said [00:17:45] that there's no lights on? [00:17:46] It's green. [00:17:49] OK, thank you. [00:17:49] The only thing that does it is the church up there, [00:17:53] because we're across the street from the church. [00:17:55] And my neighbor and I walked together, [00:17:57] and I said, if I was you, I'd go to the board meeting [00:17:59] and tell them it's pitch black over there [00:18:02] if they don't leave their porch lights on. [00:18:04] Mr. Mayor, could I get your phone number, please? [00:18:06] I don't think they have one. [00:18:07] And also, while I'm, I know it's not on the, [00:18:10] but with our section of the town, I love it over there, [00:18:13] but we keep potholes in the street all the time [00:18:16] because it keeps coming and coming and coming. [00:18:18] And we try not to complain, because I love where I live. [00:18:21] It's just that I don't want it to get to looking bad. [00:18:24] Well, that's the gentleman you need to keep on, right there. [00:18:26] Yeah. [00:18:27] Yes, ma'am. [00:18:29] I don't know if the robber, or if he's off, [00:18:38] get the guy right behind him. [00:18:44] We call that deflecting. [00:18:47] As soon as my health gets better, [00:18:48] I won't be getting volunteered for the city again. [00:18:50] I used to, but I've been sick, so I'm sorry, y'all. [00:18:54] Thank you. [00:18:55] We'll welcome you back, ma'am. [00:18:56] We'll welcome you back. [00:18:57] Thank you. [00:18:57] Well. [00:19:04] Hello, everybody again. [00:19:05] Welcome back. [00:19:09] My question is, if I understand why we're [00:19:11] being assessed for the drain water, [00:19:14] don't have a problem with it. [00:19:15] I don't understand why it's being assessed the way [00:19:17] it is on our property taxes, instead of being assessed [00:19:20] to us, especially those who have city of New Port Richey water, [00:19:25] instead of putting it in a smaller increment [00:19:27] throughout the year, coming through our water bill. [00:19:32] Especially for those people who have a fixed income, [00:19:35] it'd be a lot less. [00:19:38] It seemed like a less hit to the pocketbook, [00:19:40] having it done monthly, like that, through the water bill, [00:19:42] versus having it done yearly on the property taxes. [00:19:46] Mr. Mayor, I can respond to that. [00:19:47] It's not permissible by law to put a benefit assessment [00:19:53] on your water rate bills. [00:19:57] And that's why the city doesn't do it that way. [00:20:02] And it is an involuntary charge, which is different than a tax. [00:20:06] A tax is something that you pay for services [00:20:09] that you may or may not receive, [00:20:11] like police or fire service. [00:20:14] But a benefit assessment means it's a direct benefit [00:20:17] to your property. [00:20:18] And that's why it's assessed in that fashion. [00:20:22] OK, well, I get that. [00:20:25] But at the same time, we're getting paying for sewer. [00:20:30] It's all going through the same system. [00:20:34] And a lot of times, the sewer is more than what our usage of water [00:20:38] is that we bring into the house. [00:20:40] Typically, they have a combined sewer, what they call that. [00:20:43] And the older cities up north, down here, [00:20:47] they're all separated. [00:20:48] So it's two different systems. [00:20:49] The sewer here actually goes to the treatment plant [00:20:52] off of West Main Street. [00:20:54] And then your stormwater systems go to individual outfalls [00:20:57] to the river, gulf, or in retention ponds. [00:21:01] So it's two separate systems. [00:21:03] And maybe Ms. Mayans can correct me. [00:21:06] If you're on a fixed income, I think [00:21:08] you can go through that one program as well. [00:21:12] I'll finish your statement, if you'll allow me, Mr. Rivera. [00:21:15] There's a tax payment program that Pasco County administers. [00:21:20] And it applies to your taxes as well as to special assessments. [00:21:25] And if you're not able to pay it or it's a bigger challenge [00:21:29] than what your household can withstand, [00:21:33] they will pay those for you on a loan basis with no interest. [00:21:39] And you pay them back at the time [00:21:42] that you sell your property. [00:21:44] And we have information on the city's website [00:21:47] about that program. [00:21:49] And I also have brochures in case it's of interest to anyone [00:21:52] this evening. [00:21:54] You may even think that you don't qualify [00:21:57] because it is income-based. [00:21:59] But the standards are very liberal by which they [00:22:04] provide assistance to folks. [00:22:07] Thank you. [00:22:08] Thank you. [00:22:30] Robin Knight, 6519 Celeste Lane. [00:22:33] And I have a few suggestions for some people [00:22:36] who might be having problems. [00:22:38] If you do have a drain, and I live on low-lying land, [00:22:45] and it always floods. [00:22:47] So when the guys come out to put the barricades up, [00:22:53] now they have a machine that cleans out the drain. [00:23:01] So you could ask your public works to do that. [00:23:07] I found that out because last year, the fire hydrant, [00:23:11] they have quarterly tests they have to do. [00:23:15] And the water didn't even go down the drains. [00:23:17] We have four drains. [00:23:20] Then they brought the machine and got it all out. [00:23:24] And now we don't have a drainage problem for the last year. [00:23:28] But also, in the 70s, when I first lived there, [00:23:34] we had to have a gully. [00:23:37] And our driveways couldn't go up all the way to the street. [00:23:40] And now that's all changed so that now it's all flooding. [00:23:44] And the people who put their driveways to the street, [00:23:47] I live the third lot in. [00:23:49] So all that flooding comes into my yard. [00:23:52] So what I did is made three big holes [00:23:56] and filled it up with rubber mulch. [00:23:58] And that worked. [00:23:59] So I guess that's it. [00:24:02] Thank you. [00:24:03] Thank you. [00:24:06] Robert, might her property be an easement [00:24:10] that we could take a look at? [00:24:11] Sure, we can take a look at it. [00:24:13] OK. [00:24:14] I'm sure I'm going to go over three minutes. [00:24:20] But my name is Vance Ray. [00:24:21] I live at 5326 Darkmouth. [00:24:24] And I've got a couple of questions here. [00:24:27] Mr. Rivera, I don't mind paying the $38.71. [00:24:30] But I remember a couple years ago, [00:24:32] we changed our street lights in the city [00:24:34] from high-pressure sodium or whatever they were to the LEDs. [00:24:40] They were supposed to save us a lot of money. [00:24:42] Apparently, they didn't. [00:24:43] They were asking for more money. [00:24:45] Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry, Robert. [00:24:48] We haven't really started to introduce the streetlight [00:24:52] discussion. [00:24:53] But it'll be important to note that we [00:24:56] are adding streetlights as part of the cost that [00:25:01] is being recommended. [00:25:02] This right now is specifically on stormwater. [00:25:05] Oh, this is stormwater. [00:25:06] OK. [00:25:08] Well, then I'll sit down. [00:25:10] We'll be doing streetlights next. [00:25:12] OK. [00:25:13] Anyone else? [00:25:26] James Tillman. [00:25:27] I'm from 5005 Muriel Lane. [00:25:32] I have a problem because I don't understand [00:25:34] why these assessments are growing like they are. [00:25:39] And it seems like you started out with the lights. [00:25:43] And then you've gone to the water. [00:25:47] And you may be going to the sidewalks next time I hear you. [00:25:50] I need some clarity in terms of the tax payment [00:25:56] versus these individual nickel and diming programs [00:26:00] that you have in effect. [00:26:02] They may be effective in terms of addressing [00:26:06] individual needs. [00:26:07] But I don't see a return for an overall package [00:26:12] in terms of what we should be getting [00:26:14] in terms of an explanation of how this thing is working. [00:26:18] That's what I don't understand. [00:26:20] And I would like somebody to help me out with that [00:26:23] or give me some background information as to what [00:26:28] I should be looking at to make an assessment of the tax [00:26:31] version of it versus this assessing version of it. [00:26:36] With the tax program, you get a write-off. [00:26:38] With the assessment, unless you're [00:26:40] particularly involved in whatever neighborhood that's [00:26:45] being affected, everybody is not being affected equally. [00:26:50] I can probably address all three of the issues for you. [00:26:54] The road paving assessment, which [00:26:58] was discussed at last Thursday's meeting, [00:27:00] is designed to get all of the streets in the city [00:27:04] onto a 20-year update plan so that all the roads are kept [00:27:07] up to date instead of falling apart, [00:27:09] as some of them are right now. [00:27:11] The stormwater, and it's probably appropriate [00:27:15] that we have that discussion tonight [00:27:16] after having a tropical system roll through. [00:27:19] The reason we're charging for a stormwater assessment [00:27:23] is to try to keep our stormwater system up to date [00:27:27] and improve it so that we don't have severe flooding [00:27:31] like they have down in Holiday and places up [00:27:34] in unincorporated Pasco County north of New Port Richey, [00:27:38] where every time there's a high tide and a full moon [00:27:40] and a little bit of rain, they flood. [00:27:43] We don't have that problem. [00:27:44] We do have some isolated flooding the last couple [00:27:48] of days because we had a tropical system dropping [00:27:51] a huge amount of rain on us. [00:27:53] But that's what we're trying to avoid, [00:27:55] having the severe problems that you're seeing [00:27:57] in other parts of the county and other parts of the country. [00:28:02] All you gotta do is turn on the news. [00:28:04] And the streetlights, we have been working very hard [00:28:07] on making sure that the entire city is adequately lighted. [00:28:12] And again, that's the streetlight assessment, [00:28:14] but that'll be the next thing that comes up [00:28:16] when we get done with the stormwater. [00:28:18] So are there assessment, or should I say a program [00:28:22] that you have weighed the assessment portion [00:28:25] versus the taxing? [00:28:26] Yes, sir. [00:28:27] Can I get a report or some explanation on those? [00:28:32] That's what they've been talking about, [00:28:33] but we're happy to give you the data information. [00:28:39] Mr. Mayor, it might be additionally appropriate [00:28:42] to note that the rate that we're recommending [00:28:47] this evening is a five-year rate, [00:28:49] and it will not be increased at any point [00:28:53] in the next five years. [00:28:53] It'll remain constant. [00:28:59] For stormwater, it is $80 per ERU, [00:29:05] and it's $38.71 for streetlights. [00:29:12] Equivalent residential unit. [00:29:14] Yeah, I don't know if you wanna acknowledge that. [00:29:15] Single family home. [00:29:16] Right. [00:29:19] I'm sorry, sir. [00:29:20] Will this be applicable to the other programs, [00:29:23] the lighting, the pavement, and the light? [00:29:26] Yes, sir. [00:29:27] Okay. [00:29:29] Thank you. [00:29:45] Live on Hemlock Drive. [00:29:47] Our streets floods all the time [00:29:49] because there's no drainage except for way down at the end. [00:29:56] And when it rains, like the past two days, [00:29:59] our streets [00:30:00] floods real badly. They barricaded our streets. Now I did, and I want to say thank you for [00:30:07] coming and letting us know about the construction thing. Thank you very much about that. I was [00:30:13] going to call you about it too. Thank you. I went around looking around and I noticed [00:30:21] that there's quite a few streets that don't have drainage whatsoever. And now these streets [00:30:28] goes down and comes down like tanglewood. There's no drainage whatsoever. And it has [00:30:35] a little pitch to it. And it comes down to Hemlock. And all the water goes right to our [00:30:43] street. Floods there and that. And it has one drainage right there. But guess what? [00:30:51] It does not handle all the water. It floods. And the other street is Elemental Drive. But [00:31:02] long time ago, you all decided to build a little dam there because of Marine Parkway [00:31:11] flooded long time ago because all the water flooded there. So you guys built a dam right [00:31:19] there. And I looked up other streets. On High Street, there's no drainages there either. [00:31:31] So all the water from there comes down Elemental and drains right on to our street too. Now [00:31:39] there's a parking lot. A doctor bought two homes there. Was also going to build a clinic [00:31:45] there. I guess it was supposed to be for abuse for alcohols and drug people to help them [00:31:54] out and everything else. But I guess it got not to be able to do that by people. Because [00:32:03] people didn't want a bunch of people like that hanging around that area. So he built [00:32:07] a parking lot and it's at an angle right there. And I guess he built a somewhat drainage right [00:32:14] there. And it's all clogged up right there. So all the water from his parking lot floods [00:32:24] that street. Everything just piles up in our area. There's no drainages whatsoever. I know [00:32:32] those are the parking lots whatsoever. If we could get you to give Mr. Rivera the address [00:32:39] of that parking lot and take a look at it. I have no idea what parking lot it is. I can [00:32:46] show you. It's on Alamanda, right behind the Catholic Church. That's the parking lot. I [00:32:58] don't think he even has a parking lot right there either. All these don't have no drainages [00:33:07] whatsoever. And all this water just runs right down to our street. [00:33:19] Thank you for bringing that to our attention. We'll have Mr. Rivera and his staff take a [00:33:22] look at it. [00:33:29] I think we talked about this the other day. But we do have in our budget, our CIP program [00:33:36] to take. We purchased a couple of the lots that are near where this gentleman lives off [00:33:41] of Hemlock Drive. And we will be constructing a retention pond and enlarging the two inlets [00:33:48] that are on Hemlock Drive and tying into the existing FDOT system there. [00:33:53] Another thing, when you were talking about building a pond on the other side of Alamanda, [00:34:01] you bought two homes there. And the way you guys built that pond is even with that street. [00:34:07] So when those two ponds fill up with water, that part of the Hemlock, Alamanda, just floods [00:34:15] on that street too. All the way up there. I did an investigation on that part. There's [00:34:21] no drainages up whatsoever on that street either. All the water comes from all the way [00:34:25] out to those streets over there. Floods that street real badly too. I mean, they barricade [00:34:32] that whole street completely. [00:34:35] Is that the Jasmine Heights area? [00:34:37] Yes, sir. [00:34:38] Yeah, Jasmine Heights. [00:34:39] Yes, sir. [00:34:40] It's a basin. [00:34:41] When you guys built that dam. [00:34:43] Yeah, it's light years where it was in the 90s, early 2000s. We continue. It was even [00:34:51] more interesting 10 or 15 years ago when they used to have the rock yards, which can [00:35:00] be totally impervious, but you're absolutely right. We've addressed that and we continue [00:35:05] to try to expand upon it. I know, as you mentioned, in our capital improvement plan, our CIP, [00:35:11] we're over there and adjacent. I think when you tie into the FDOT with the inlets, I think [00:35:20] there'll be improvements. There still will probably be some low-lying areas that'll be [00:35:25] the year after, but at least we've identified them, so we appreciate it. Thanks. [00:35:31] Thank you. Anyone else? [00:35:36] I don't use the minute and a half of my time. This is for talking about the stormwater. [00:35:43] Hey, Mr. Rivera, can I ask you, this gentleman here, back here, he did a study? He did this study? [00:35:50] Yes, sir, the report. [00:35:51] How much was that study? [00:35:52] The rate study. [00:35:53] Can I ask him how much that study was? [00:35:56] Sure. [00:35:57] His own paper. [00:35:58] I think it was just below, was it below 11,000? [00:36:02] 14, I think. [00:36:04] $14,000 for something we already knew. I mean, you know, this is where our money goes. [00:36:13] We have to justify, we have to go back and reassess where we're at to figure out what the baselines are. [00:36:23] That's how we got to the increase back in 2012, because for 10 years, the councils kicked the ball down the field, [00:36:34] wouldn't play with it, so when we came in 12, when we were in the middle of a financial recession, [00:36:42] these two funds were actually taking money away from the general fund, or the ad valorem side, [00:36:49] to pretty substantial dollars, because we were trying to deal with the flooding issues. [00:36:54] So that's what we had to make. [00:36:56] We had to set up, or three of us sat up here in 2012 when it was $44, [00:37:01] and we had to figure out what the new baseline was, and we decided we'll take all the heat that comes with that, [00:37:08] because we needed to continue to address these flooded areas, which we have over the last five or six years, [00:37:16] and then we do it once every five years, so they had to come in and reassess where we were at, [00:37:21] and we raised it $3.74 and actually brought in impervious area, because in 12 we had the big debate and kept it off. [00:37:32] So those are some of the things, but you're absolutely right. [00:37:35] We pay for stuff that we already know, but if we don't, then we look like we're making it up on the fly. [00:37:41] And I guess in 2001 the assessment was $40. [00:37:45] Then in 2013 it's $77. [00:37:47] That's double. [00:37:48] My salary didn't double. [00:37:50] Ten years of inactivity, they could have raised it from there, [00:37:56] but we had to balance out where we were at, and there were a lot of factors, [00:37:59] including the MP4 permit, I believe, which those are federal water standards. [00:38:09] Thank you, Mr. Wright. [00:38:10] Thank you. [00:38:12] Anyone else? [00:38:15] Seeing no one else come forward, bring it back to Council. [00:38:19] Move for approval. [00:38:20] We have a motion. [00:38:23] I'll second it. [00:38:24] Second. [00:38:25] To the maker. [00:38:27] It's historical. [00:38:28] We're trying to deal with flooding issues, and we're trying not to take it away from the ad valorem tax base, [00:38:34] and obviously we paid for a study to reassess where we were. [00:38:39] We tried to compare ourselves to other areas because we know that we are below sea level, [00:38:45] and there are certain times when you can solve flooding, [00:38:48] and we put those elements in place so that we try to enhance the value of not only your property, [00:38:57] but your neighbor's property, and the overall aesthetics for the city of New Port Richey. [00:39:02] This is one of the few things since I've been on Council that I've felt very confident about [00:39:08] and very happy to support. [00:39:11] People ask why we can't do it on the ad valorem side. [00:39:15] It's because we're at nine mills. [00:39:18] Does that mean we have to look at ad valorem? [00:39:20] Sure, but that's because we've assessed these areas and taken off of it and deal with it from the tax roll. [00:39:26] I think every time we don't flood a piece of property in New Port Richey I think speaks well about our approach [00:39:32] and how we've taken it from point A to point B to point C at the moment. [00:39:37] Thank you. [00:39:38] Thank you. [00:39:39] To the second. [00:39:41] These types of fees, as this man said, are directly related to the properties and people that own these properties [00:39:51] and not the individual that may be renting there or staying there. [00:39:55] So they're benefiting from these. [00:39:58] And I think a lot of times when you hear on the news that it's flooding in New Port Richey, it's in the county. [00:40:04] It's not in the city. [00:40:06] And we kind of cringe every time we hear on the news, New Port Richey, and it's not in New Port Richey, it's in the county. [00:40:12] And I think we have been addressing this since 2001 and will continue to address it. [00:40:18] So you'll see very – I was driving around a lot today during the rain, and there was a lot of water on the streets. [00:40:24] And when I came back this evening, there was very little water on the streets. [00:40:28] So the money is going to the project. [00:40:31] It's not an ad valorem where it may be redirected to somewhere else. [00:40:35] It's actually being applied to the program, and it's moving in success. [00:40:40] Deputy Mayor. [00:40:41] No, well said from both of you. [00:40:43] It's not easy for us to assess our residents' more money. [00:40:48] It's not. [00:40:49] And council, like Mr. Phillips addressed in the past, have not done that. [00:40:53] So we've been tasked with hard decisions. [00:40:55] We understand that we're taking more money out of your bank account. [00:40:59] It's not a decision we make lightly, but it's something that we have to do, and I'm going to support it as well. [00:41:06] Councilwoman. [00:41:07] Yeah, I want to thank everyone for coming tonight and speaking to us and also the folks that wrote to us. [00:41:13] It's important when people hear the questions that you have, because they're probably questions that they were concerned about as well, [00:41:20] and it's an opportunity for the information to get out to the community. [00:41:26] No, the public comment is closed. [00:41:29] Go ahead. [00:41:31] I think it's important, and it is very timely that we had a storm like we had today, because I, too, was out in the weather today, [00:41:39] and there are definitely still some areas, some pockets, if you will, of streets that can't take the water as it comes down in a storm. [00:41:52] But I think that through this process, I think that we are being very diligent about addressing those areas [00:41:59] and doing the things that we need to do in order to stay on top of the situation. [00:42:05] So I, too, am a resident. [00:42:07] I'm a taxpayer as well. [00:42:10] I'm thinking that for some of us, this is not money coming out of our bank accounts but coming out of our paychecks. [00:42:17] So we can appreciate that and understand that. [00:42:20] We all are, for the most part, hardworking, and the monies that we make, we have to be as diligent as we can. [00:42:33] But, again, I do appreciate you bringing the questions here. [00:42:36] I hope that we've answered your questions and that you can come to understand how we got to where we are [00:42:43] and how important it is for us to keep moving in the direction so that we are on top of the stormwater. [00:42:51] Thank you. [00:42:52] Thank you. [00:42:53] Of all the things that we spend money on, probably the stormwater is the most critical. [00:42:58] And no, we're not perfect. [00:43:00] No, we still have some areas in the city that need to be addressed, [00:43:06] and I am confident that Mr. Rivera and his staff will continue to work on those. [00:43:11] But I can tell you that we're a site better than some of the surrounding areas in unincorporated Pasco County [00:43:18] where a lack of any sort of stormwater plan over decades and decades [00:43:26] has resulted in massive flooding over and over and over again. [00:43:31] We're not seeing that in Newport Ridge, and it's specifically because we have gone out [00:43:37] and said we are going to assess ourselves to make sure that we have an adequate stormwater system [00:43:43] that we're able to do so. [00:43:46] If there's no further discussion on council, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:43:51] Aye. [00:43:52] Opposed, like sign. [00:43:53] Can I? [00:43:54] Sir, in a sense of order, we have our, you know, run our meetings in a sense of order. [00:44:02] It doesn't mean that we don't want your questions, [00:44:04] so if you want to address your question to any one of us after the meeting or Robert or Debbie. [00:44:09] No, no, no. [00:44:10] We're welcome to take your answer. [00:44:13] It's not that we won't take it. [00:44:14] It's just a sense of order of the way we run the meetings. [00:44:17] Thank you. [00:44:18] The next is the public hearing on the street lighting assessment.

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

5. 4.b

   Public Hearing - Street Lighting Assessment

   approved

   Council held a public hearing on Resolution 2017-27 setting the street lighting assessment rate at $38.71 per ERU for fiscal years 2018-2022, a $2.47 increase, and for the first time assessing undeveloped parcels at 26% of an ERU. After public comment opposing the assessment and council discussion about ensuring funds address dark spots (including a commitment to revisit progress in spring), the resolution passed.

   • motion:Motion to pass Resolution 2017-27 adopting the street lighting assessment at $38.71 per ERU including assessment of undeveloped parcels at 26% of an ERU. (passed)
   • direction:Council direction for staff to report back in the spring on dark spot remediation progress and consider rate adjustment based on results. (none)

   📍4709 Big Loop📍Central📍Oleander📍US-19 between Main Street and the bridge📍West Grand neighborhood, south of Main Street🏢Ayers and Associates🏢Duke Energy🏢FDOT👤Councilman Davis👤Councilman Starkey👤Councilmember Phillips👤Glen👤Mr. Driscoll👤Mr. Hatcher👤Mr. Rivera👤Ms. Feast👤Ms. Manns👤Ms. Vance#Dark Spot Study#Fiscal Year 2018-2022 assessment period#Initial Assessment Resolution#LED conversion program#Resolution 2017-27#Street Lighting Utility

   ▶ Jump to 44:20 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:44:22] Mr. Driscoll, do you want to start off by reading that? [00:44:25] Yes, this is resolution number 2017-27, [00:44:28] a resolution of the City Council of Newport Ridge, Florida, [00:44:30] relating to the delivery and funding of street lighting-related essential services within the city, [00:44:35] amending, ratifying, and confirming the initial assessment resolution, [00:44:38] determining that certain real property is specially benefited by street lighting management services, [00:44:43] establishing the method of assessing associated street lighting costs against real property [00:44:49] thereby establishing other terms and conditions of the assessments, approving the assessment role, [00:44:54] providing the method of collection, and providing an effective date. [00:44:58] Ms. Vance. [00:44:59] Mr. Mayor. [00:45:00] It was in 2003 that the city started to implement a benefit assessment [00:45:08] form of methodology related to the providing of street light assessment [00:45:13] programs. The assessment at that time was only imposed on developed properties [00:45:19] in the city. That was changed in 2012 when the city conducted a rate structure [00:45:28] and cost analysis and a projection of revenues and expenditures were [00:45:36] associated with that study and the rate necessary to cover the projected costs [00:45:42] at that time were 36.24 cents per equivalent residential unit. The rate and [00:45:49] the structure have not changed since that time. In the study that was just [00:45:56] recently completed by Ayers and Associates to include both our existing [00:46:04] costs and our projected costs along with adding street lights into the system, the [00:46:11] recommendation to fund the street lighting utility for the next five years [00:46:16] is 38.71 per year for five years and that covers the fiscal year 2018 through [00:46:26] 2022. Thank you. Do you have a presentation? [00:46:37] So regarding the street lighting, we did a very similar analysis with that. So the [00:46:44] history of the program, as Ms. Manns mentioned, is implemented 2003. It is [00:46:50] collected on the tax bill and just a little bit about utilities. Utilities are [00:46:56] a way that you can spread the cost out over the users. As Councilmember Phillips [00:47:05] mentioned, your mill rate is roughly nine. If you're only spreading the costs out [00:47:11] over the taxable entities, those non-taxable entities which are still [00:47:15] benefiting from the program are not paying for the program. So both with the [00:47:20] street lighting utility, your stormwater utility, your sewer utility, your water [00:47:25] utility, those are all charging everybody that is using the system [00:47:30] whether or not they're taxable or not. So that's kind of the reason and the [00:47:37] purpose for utilities across the United States. As mentioned, it's collected on [00:47:43] the tax bill. Initially, at inception, it was $26.07. In 2013, it went [00:47:52] up to $36.24. The proposed rate or the adopted rate is $38.71 [00:48:01] for a $2.47 increase. Previously, it was not adopted or charged against [00:48:08] undeveloped parcels of which they benefit just as much or not just as much [00:48:14] but on a prorated basis as compared to developed parcels. Again, the revenues are [00:48:20] used for operation and maintenance. Street lighting services are provided by [00:48:25] Duke Energy, so you have that cost which you need to pay for. Additional lighting [00:48:30] installations. So the staff has gone through and recognized that there are a [00:48:35] number of areas within the community yet that are still in need of some lighting [00:48:40] and those areas are being looked at and additional lights will be installed as [00:48:47] part of these programs. Revenues also are shown as a reduction because some of the [00:48:53] lighting that is provided, FDOT pays for their portion of that on US Highway 19. [00:49:03] So the adopted methodology and rate. Again, residential property. One equivalent [00:49:08] residential unit is still the same. That didn't change. General parcels. So again, [00:49:14] instead of impervious area, it's based on the building size. So 1,860 [00:49:22] square feet is an equivalent building size. So that's roughly what your average [00:49:26] residential property is within the city. Undeveloped parcels. Now this is the [00:49:32] methodology change. They're being charged 26% of an REU. So if you have a [00:49:39] residential lot that is 7,204 square feet, you're being charged 0.26 of an ERU [00:49:47] for a vacant property as compared to a developed residential property. And [00:49:53] that's because the land value portion of the average residential property is 26% [00:50:00] of the total value of that property. So the improvements on vacant property are [00:50:06] approximately 74% of that value associated with residential properties. [00:50:11] So that's how this proportional methodology is being applied to vacant [00:50:16] property. And as I mentioned, the 3,871 per ERU. [00:50:25] Any questions? Mr. Rivera, am I correct, because I know the questions was raised [00:50:33] actually a little earlier before, the question about the LED lights. My [00:50:38] understanding is those are actually a little bit more expensive than the [00:50:41] sodium vapors? Correct, they are. What I'd like to say is when the rate went from [00:50:48] 2607 to 3624 back in 2013, that was due to the fact that rates had increased [00:50:56] over several years and council was not assessing or the staff was not assessing [00:51:02] at a hundred percent. And so the actual, the general fund was actually subsidizing [00:51:08] this fund here. So in 2013, that large rate increase that you see was [00:51:15] mainly affected because of that, because council wanted to make it fair and [00:51:21] equitable to everyone because we look at streetlights as a network and so that [00:51:26] everybody that benefits from it should be paying their equal share into it. Now [00:51:31] the LED project that we did when we converted over to high-pressure sodium, [00:51:36] that is because we don't own the lights is the reason why we did not see a [00:51:41] reduction in electricity because we're not billed by how much electricity we [00:51:46] use. One of the benefits of us just paying a maintenance contract to Duke [00:51:52] Energy is because they incur the capital cost. And so the large dollar amount that [00:51:59] the city would have incurred to be able to convert those lights over to LED, [00:52:04] we didn't have to pay, but in a way you kind of do pay. It's just over a long [00:52:10] period of time at a high rate. As the technology progresses, which it's moving [00:52:16] pretty rapidly, we expect that those rates will go down as we get further [00:52:22] out in the years. But the reason why the rate didn't drop down was simply because [00:52:27] we don't own the lights so they don't charge us per uses, they charge us per [00:52:32] fixture. Thank you. This is a public hearing and public comment would be [00:52:42] appropriate at this time. If you'd like to come forward. [00:52:50] The reason why I'm here on this is package 4709 Big Loop, the property I own, does not have a [00:52:57] street light. I have not asked for a street light and I sure as hell don't [00:53:01] want to pay for somebody else's street light. It's a strip of land 85 feet by [00:53:07] 330 feet that was annexed into the city and if I lived out there for 28 years I [00:53:13] had my own street light. I paid $7 a month for that light from 1982 until [00:53:19] 2010. So as far and at that time the street light was in the city but I paid [00:53:27] for it and the city was paying for the street lights. Well all the time I worked [00:53:32] for the city and all of a sudden now we're paying for the street lights and [00:53:37] the city is getting almost a million and a half dollars a year as from the power [00:53:43] company. I guess for what's that just a I got it right here and I just want to [00:53:51] know why the street lights couldn't come out of that. [00:53:57] Mr. Mayor, I don't know what funding source Mr. Hatcher is referring to. I got it right here. It's a, what is it? [00:54:05] Franchise fee that the city gets almost a million and a half dollars a year in [00:54:09] franchise fee and they dump that money in and the general budget and just just [00:54:16] pay for everything else instead of paying for the street lights. And the [00:54:21] city's been doing it for years and years and years. I worked for the city for 30 [00:54:25] years and then retired for 25 and in 1991 when I retired and the whole 30 [00:54:31] years that I worked for the city before the city paid for the lights and we had [00:54:35] about 1,100 lights and then I find out from Tiffany that we're supposed to [00:54:41] have 2,700 lights since 1991 and that ain't so. There's no way that the city [00:54:48] has put in another 1,400 lights since 1991 in this little two and a half mile [00:54:54] square city. Thank you. Anyone else? [00:55:07] I think Mr. Revere does a great job. The tax that I'll be put on my tax bill is a [00:55:17] couple hundred dollars. My tax is gonna be less than $600 next year. It's not a [00:55:21] big deal. I got my tax money in my couch, you know, the quarters that fall out of my [00:55:26] pocket. But I just don't like the way that we're coming and we have to be [00:55:33] taxed. There's got to be other revenue sources in this town that we can figure [00:55:37] out and we're not doing it. We landscaped that Route 19 for who? We didn't have to [00:55:44] do that. We also put a 1.3 million dollars into the rec center to have a [00:55:50] daycare for 10 kids. Did we really need that? No. I know that stormwater is more [00:55:55] than a million three but that's a start. I just think that we need to find [00:56:00] different sources of revenue for our street lights and our water problems [00:56:04] instead of coming to the residents all the time and asking for more money. Thank [00:56:09] you very much guys. Thank you. Anyone else? [00:56:15] Seeing no one else come forward, bring it back to council. Mr. Mayor, this is just [00:56:22] my personal opinion. I can understand the stormwater assessment for vacant lots. I [00:56:26] mean stormwater does run off vacant lots but to me I don't mind the slight [00:56:30] increase that we're having for the streetlight assessment but I'm having a [00:56:33] hard time with us charging the owners of undeveloped property for streetlights. [00:56:37] When I think of streetlights I think of safety. There's no one living on an [00:56:41] undeveloped piece of piece of land. Like I said, I don't mind the slight increase [00:56:45] but I agree with the gentleman in the front row here. If no one's living there [00:56:49] I have a hard time assessing somebody for street lighting on a vacant piece [00:56:52] of land. I'm alright with the slight increase but I just have a hard time with [00:56:57] that. I can understand the stormwater but not the street lighting. Mr. Mayor? Yes, sir. [00:57:02] Yeah, first of all it's at a reduced percentage. It's on the [00:57:10] non-building sites. It's like 36% or something and I [00:57:17] advocated for this in 2012 but the technology or the oversight wasn't there. [00:57:24] I just felt as though that those vacant property owners were getting a benefit [00:57:31] from the dollars that I was paying into the system to make sure that there were [00:57:37] streetlights throughout the city and it was keeping things from not happening on [00:57:43] their vacant property. I recognize that we've added another partial revenue [00:57:50] stream but at the end of the day that streetlight or the streetlights that we [00:57:56] have in the system benefit both occupied, unoccupied and vacant and [00:58:02] undeveloped property. I don't know how many actual undeveloped properties we [00:58:08] have in the city. I don't know what the actual number is and I recognize that [00:58:13] but at the end of the day I felt as though that if we were all playing in [00:58:20] the same sandbox together with the fees that everybody that [00:58:27] had a positive impact. So I recognize Mr. Starkey, your position on it. I just [00:58:33] felt as though that it was something that it shared cost across the boards. [00:58:39] Now we didn't take the increase into the system and reduce our rate. We [00:58:47] took it because we wanted to add and Mr. Rivera, how many additional streetlights [00:58:52] are we planning to add? I know you've done a, I guess you call it a dark spot [00:58:58] study, is that correct? You have to forgive me, I'm drawing a total [00:59:03] blank on that. I knew that part of it and part of the other was to go [00:59:11] from the from the yellow high-pressure sodium to the LEDs and I know that we [00:59:18] saw a dramatic increase in the light levels throughout the city and I know [00:59:25] that after they shortly they went up there were a lot of positive comments [00:59:30] about how much brighter the city looked. It's almost like being at a car lot [00:59:35] and being able to read the VIN number off of them. There were 68 or 69 [00:59:40] additional lights that were going to come and we're in the middle of doing a [00:59:45] guidelines program as far as the placement of the streetlights so that [00:59:50] we'll be able to follow up from that dark spot project once that's complete [00:59:55] to be able to handle all requests fairly and have a standard [01:00:00] a program that we can go by? [01:00:02] My follow-up question goes to Ms. Feast, Ms. Manns, and Mr. Driscoll. [01:00:09] Passing this this year, if we go back and look to see what that incremental revenue [01:00:15] increase is for the vacant properties, unless we have that number now. [01:00:22] 143 vacant parcels. [01:00:26] At the tune of, what's 36% of $80? [01:00:30] I don't have my calculator, but 26%. [01:00:34] $38. [01:00:35] Oh. [01:00:36] Basically $10. [01:00:37] So how much are you looking at overall for the vacant properties? [01:00:40] So it's about 143 times $10. [01:00:43] That's like $14,300. [01:00:44] No, there's $600 in sum, it's like $6,000. [01:00:48] No, you mentioned 143 undeveloped properties. [01:00:52] No, $600. [01:00:53] $600 at $10 a piece. [01:00:56] So then, I can understand this, like if I live next door to a vacant piece of land, [01:01:01] I would like to have it lit up, I understand that. [01:01:03] So are we using these funds that we're taking from the vacant property owners to make sure [01:01:10] we're addressing that, or are we just using it across the board? [01:01:13] I mean, I think if we're taking money from somebody that owns a vacant piece of land [01:01:17] to make it safer for maybe the resident to live around that vacant piece of land, we [01:01:21] need to be sure that we're putting lights at the vacant piece of land, not in other [01:01:24] places throughout the city. [01:01:27] I understand what you're saying. [01:01:29] We weren't looking at it that way, we were looking at it as a network as a whole, meaning [01:01:33] that not everybody could have a streetlight in front of their address, but if the streetlights [01:01:39] were placed according to specifications, that the neighborhood or those areas would be lit [01:01:45] up enough to where you wouldn't have any property, whether it was developed or undeveloped, that [01:01:51] would be totally dark to where illegal activity could happen or different things like that, [01:01:58] whether you had a structure on it or not. [01:02:04] I have a lot on Oleander, and for $10 a month, not only am I looking at being a good neighbor, [01:02:14] but I just don't want mischief on my lot. [01:02:16] My lot actually is on the river, so there could be a lot of mischief on my lot down [01:02:23] by the river. [01:02:24] So I appreciate that there is lighting in my area and that it keeps the mischief to [01:02:29] a minimum and also helps my neighbors. [01:02:33] Councilman Davis, I think that's $10 a year as opposed to a month. [01:02:38] Oh, okay, yeah, I meant $10 a year, yes. [01:02:45] You're discussing it up here at this point, Councilman? [01:02:49] I just asked if I vote to approve to assess the vacant lots, that we're sure we're putting [01:02:54] lights in front of these vacant lots, because I have a huge vacant lot that's up to 19. [01:02:59] It's overgrown in my neighborhood, personally, and there's no lighting there, and we're constantly [01:03:04] going in and running out vagrants. [01:03:06] So if we're going to assess people that own these vacant lots, I'd like to see lights [01:03:09] in and around the vacant lots to help with the security and the safety that we're using [01:03:15] to substantiate asking for the money. [01:03:18] Does that make sense? [01:03:20] It does make sense, but I would defer to the city attorney on whether or not we would be [01:03:26] able to do that, because we would be deviating from how we are addressing all the lights [01:03:31] as a whole. [01:03:32] But it sounds like his area might be one of those dark areas. [01:03:35] And it could be. [01:03:36] So we would take a look at all of those areas. [01:03:39] Anybody that calls in, we go ahead and go out to the site, take a look at it at night. [01:03:45] If it warrants it, then we go ahead and put one. [01:03:47] Or it might be that there's trees that are existing tree canopies that are blocking the [01:03:52] lights that we need to address as well. [01:03:54] And real quick, on a side note, you address US-19 lighting. [01:03:57] I mean, a young man just lost his life again. [01:04:00] Not the same life, obviously, but another pedestrian died just a few weeks ago. [01:04:06] The lights, and I'll bring this up at the next NPO meeting as well, but if you could [01:04:10] maybe contact DOT, FDOT. [01:04:13] I counted, I think, nine lights that were out between Main Street and the bridge on [01:04:17] 19. [01:04:18] Not even working. [01:04:19] And the ones that do work are extremely dim. [01:04:22] So if you could make a call to FDOT, I'll bring it up to the rep at the NPO meeting [01:04:26] as well. [01:04:27] But when we have people dying, that's absolutely unacceptable. [01:04:33] We are addressing that. [01:04:36] And then we're also, as the lights go out, we're also changing those over to LEDs. [01:04:41] So you'll see over time that those lights will also be LED lights as well. [01:04:46] On 19? [01:04:47] Mr. Mayor, my only follow-up question is, we adopt this tonight. [01:04:52] We take care of our dark spots. [01:04:56] Do we have the ability, if we pass this tonight, to look at it a year from now? [01:05:03] There's no moratorium if this is a five-year set in stone. [01:05:07] So these are questions that we get, and this is how we take step to step to step. [01:05:13] And with that, with Mr. Starkey's comments, which I take heartily that I understand that, [01:05:21] we can address that. [01:05:24] I think it needs just one more step of additional study this following year from the dark spots [01:05:32] as well as to what the overall impact is. [01:05:36] And then it would be easy enough if it's not, because this isn't in stone. [01:05:41] This is a five-year. [01:05:42] It's just that we're fixing that increase for five years before we restudy it with their [01:05:48] analysis. [01:05:50] So what I'm saying is, we've gotten it to this point. [01:05:53] We're going to identify those dark spots sometime incrementally into this year. [01:05:59] Let's see how the impact is, and it may be a point where either we take the revenue that's [01:06:03] drawn and reduce the rate back because of the new players in the sandbox, and or that [01:06:11] we address more of these dark spots in the city to make sure that we're effectively using [01:06:17] those dollars both for occupied and vacant parcels. [01:06:21] I hate to add that extra level, but I think that gives a little more surety of the money [01:06:26] that's being raised. [01:06:28] Mr. Hatcher, I've known him for a long time, and it's a trip down memory lane with him [01:06:32] and Glen is here. [01:06:35] Great citizens, great workers for the city of New Port Richey, and wholeheartedly I can [01:06:41] recognize their position of, I don't want your light. [01:06:44] Don't bring me your light. [01:06:45] If you put it on my property, I don't want it. [01:06:47] I know how it was back in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, but sometimes the state law requires [01:06:52] us to do things these days that we don't have a clue that we wanted to do back in the [01:06:57] 90s or early 2000s, but recognize that. [01:07:00] I'm just trying to make sure that we give surety as this isn't just a haphazard. [01:07:04] We really are looking for the net benefit from the raised light levels, which helps [01:07:09] our police department and all other services. [01:07:11] Councilman Phillips, I would agree with you that we pass this, that we look at maybe in [01:07:18] the spring before things get too crazy. [01:07:22] We see where we are and get a report back from staff where we are, how we've done on [01:07:27] addressing the dark spots, including the one over by Mr. Starkey's house, including the [01:07:33] one that I reported a month or so ago over on Central, and any of the other places where [01:07:39] there are dark spots that need to be addressed. [01:07:45] I think that would be super, so thank you for your suggestion. [01:07:48] With that, I would make a motion that we pass this resolution with regards to the street [01:07:54] light assessment. [01:07:55] I'll second the motion. [01:07:56] We have a motion and a second. [01:07:57] Any further from the maker? [01:07:58] Calm down. [01:07:59] To the second. [01:08:00] Yes, I'd just like to make a comment. [01:08:03] One of the things that concerns me about the fact that we've changed the street lights, [01:08:08] and I was addressing this with Mr. Rivera prior to the meeting, I was very pleased to [01:08:13] see the LED, the lights go from the vapor to the LED. [01:08:17] I was an advocate for that many years ago, so I was very glad to see that happen. [01:08:22] I think that we can see the stark contrast of those lights in our downtown. [01:08:27] What I'm not seeing is the additional lighting in neighborhoods. [01:08:33] The West Grand neighborhood that I was speaking to, Mr. Rivera, possibly, and I was surprised [01:08:40] actually when he told me that they went to LED, because I think possibly because the [01:08:44] lights are so high and they're almost hidden at this point in some of the canopies of the [01:08:50] trees in that section, we lose that value. [01:08:55] So I had asked Mr. Rivera if he would be able to discuss with Duke the opportunity for them [01:09:02] to look at those lights, and they're along all of the streets south of Main Street. [01:09:11] In particular to that, just having driven last night and noticed there are still so [01:09:16] many dark areas. [01:09:19] So number one, we would welcome your participation in that observation, and if you do see streets [01:09:28] that are lacking lights, please refer those addresses to Mr. Rivera or through contact [01:09:36] with us to Mr. Rivera. [01:09:40] But I would like to absolutely be certain that the lighting that we currently have is [01:09:48] addressed to the point where we can see the difference in our community. [01:09:55] I think it would probably almost take public works driving around at night and looking [01:10:00] at the individual fixtures. [01:10:01] I can tell you that I almost need to have blackout curtains on my bedroom because the [01:10:08] light out in front of my house is so bright now with the LEDs that it's like daylight [01:10:15] in the bedroom. [01:10:17] On the other hand, around the corner from me on Mandy, there's one that is extraordinarily [01:10:23] well hidden up in the middle of a tree canopy, and it never put out much light, and even [01:10:29] with an LED fixture, it doesn't put out much light. [01:10:33] So even where we've got gaps, even where we don't have gaps, there's still some issues [01:10:39] that probably need to be put on the list, just to look and see where those dark areas [01:10:45] are that Councilman's addressing. [01:10:48] Deputy Mayor? [01:10:49] I have nothing. [01:10:50] Councilman? [01:10:51] There's no further discussion. [01:10:53] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [01:10:55] Aye. [01:10:56] Opposed? [01:10:57] Like sign. [01:10:58] Motion passes.

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

6. 5Communications▶ 1:10:59
7. 6Adjournment▶ 1:15:25