On the agenda

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

   Pledge of Allegiance

   Pledge of Allegiance and moment of silence honoring servicemen and women.

   ▶ Jump to 0:22 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:22] Thank you. [00:00:23] We have a quorum, so if you could all stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance and [00:00:24] remain standing for a moment of silence in honor of our servicemen and women at home [00:00:25] and abroad. [00:00:26] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for [00:00:32] 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

   Brief moment of silence observed at the start of the special meeting.

   ▶ Jump to 0:43 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:43] Thank you. [00:00:44] You may be seated.

   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

   Final Public Hearing - Resolution No. 2018-20: Adopting Final Millage Rate

   approved

   Council held the final public hearing on Resolution 2018-20, adopting a final millage rate of 8.900 mills for FY 2018-2019, a decrease from the prior year's 8.9950 and 6% less than the rollback rate of 9.43949. The resolution was adopted unanimously after discussion noting that the $460,000 increase in ad valorem revenue largely flows to the CRA, and that further reductions were deferred pending the November ballot Homestead exemption amendments.

   Ord. Resolution No. 2018-20

   • motion:Motion to adopt Resolution 2018-20 establishing the final millage rate at 8.900 mills for FY 2018-2019. (passed)

   🏢Pasco County Property Appraiser's Office👤Councilman Davis👤Ms. Manz#CRA#Florida Statute 200.065#Homestead exemption ballot amendments#Millage rate 8.900#Resolution 2018-20#Rollback rate 9.43949#Truth in Millage Notice

   ▶ Jump to 0:50 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:50] Next item on tonight's agenda is the final public hearing, Resolution 2018-20. [00:00:57] Resolution 2018-20, a resolution of the City of New Port Richey of Pasco County, Florida, [00:01:02] adopting the final levying of ad valorem taxes for all non-exempt real and personal [00:01:06] property in New Port Richey, Pasco County, Florida, for fiscal year October 1, 2018 to [00:01:12] September 30, 2019, providing for an effective date. [00:01:16] Ms. Manz. [00:01:17] Mr. Mayor, Florida Statute 200.065, Section 2C.1 prescribes that the Council adopt the [00:01:27] millage rate prior to adopting the 2018-2019 fiscal year budget. [00:01:33] A notification regarding the public hearing has been provided to every property owner [00:01:38] in the city by the Pasco County Property Appraiser's Office. [00:01:44] This notification was in the form of the Truth in Millage Notice and was mailed the [00:01:49] week of August 13. [00:01:52] Action requested is to adopt Resolution 2018-20. [00:02:00] The name of the taxing authority is the City of New Port Richey. [00:02:04] The tentative millage rate of 8.900 mills is 6% less than the rollback rate of 9.43949 [00:02:16] mills. [00:02:17] Total ad valorem revenues that will be generated are estimated to be $4,913,930. [00:02:27] That is approximately $460,000 more than what was generated in ad valorem in fiscal [00:02:35] year 2017-2018 due to the increase of property values. [00:02:41] The millage rate is 8.900 and is a decrease from the previous year's millage rate of 8.9950. [00:02:53] Although the statute requires discussion regarding the percent increase over the rollback [00:02:58] rate and the specific purposes for which ad valorem is being increased, for the record [00:03:05] in neither case does that apply to the City of New Port Richey. [00:03:11] It is requested that the Mayor invite public comment on the millage rate. [00:03:18] Thank you. [00:03:19] I'll open it up for public comment. [00:03:22] Seeing no one come forward, we'll bring it back to Council. [00:03:25] Move for approval. [00:03:26] Do we have a motion? [00:03:27] Second. [00:03:28] Second. [00:03:29] To the maker? [00:03:30] We've discussed it. [00:03:31] Previous meetings have nothing further. [00:03:32] Okay. [00:03:33] To the second? [00:03:34] Nothing further. [00:03:35] Councilman? [00:03:36] Yes, just again to reiterate my comments at the previous meeting and get them back on [00:03:39] the record again. [00:03:40] The comments in the introduction and the discussion that we heard from the City Manager reflected [00:03:47] two things. [00:03:48] One, which is a $460,000 increase in the revenue coming in from ad valorem taxes. [00:03:55] And two was that the rollback rate actually is to a higher degree than our assessment [00:04:04] level. [00:04:05] And the explanation for that, as I understand it, and perhaps if there's anyone to correct [00:04:12] me, is the fact that that $460,000 pretty much all goes to the CRA, which ends up with [00:04:22] the General Fund having a net increase of zero and with a reduction of the millage rate [00:04:29] which is being proposed will result in less money coming in to usable funds for the General [00:04:35] Fund. [00:04:36] So if we did not have a CRA, the rollback rate would have been to get us back to that [00:04:44] level that would have brought the General Fund the same amount of money as last year. [00:04:49] So bottom line is more money is going to the CRA, General Fund doesn't get it, and so we [00:04:56] don't have a rollback rate discussion. [00:04:59] That being said, one final thing. [00:05:01] I know we had discussed as well the desire to get us down in our millage rate, but as [00:05:08] the Mayor had pointed out and commented by other members of Council, it didn't seem prudent [00:05:13] to do that in a year when the Homestead exemption is on the ballot and the uncertainties of [00:05:19] revenue in the future. [00:05:21] So I will agree with the comments made by my colleagues and support the motion. [00:05:26] Thank you. [00:05:27] Councilman Davis. [00:05:28] Nothing. [00:05:29] I would hope that the citizens of New Port Richey will be judicious when they go to the polls [00:05:39] on November 6th and defeat that particular amendment that would basically, there's two [00:05:45] of them, that would basically screw up the Homestead exemption and also create some limitations [00:05:53] on the business tax side. [00:05:57] Because if those are defeated, I think we're going to have a lot more latitude as we start [00:06:02] discussions in the spring of next year to continue working on the millage. [00:06:07] But with that up in the air and the possibility that the property taxes are going to be crippled [00:06:13] next year because of two very ill-advised amendments, I think it's judicious for us [00:06:19] just to hang tight right now with a modest decrease in the millage rate and take another [00:06:25] look at it in the spring. [00:06:27] So with that, if there's no further discussion, all those in favor, please signify by saying [00:06:32] aye. [00:06:33] Aye. [00:06:34] Opposed? [00:06:35] Like sign. [00:06:36] Motion passes.

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

5. 4.b

   Final Public Hearing - Resolution No. 2018-21: Adopting FY2018-2019 Operating Budget & Capital Improvement Program

   approved

   Council held the final public hearing on Resolution 2018-21 adopting the FY2018-2019 operating budget of $59,583,970 and the $14,414,000 Capital Improvement Program. Staff presented minor changes from the first proposed budget (corrected Street Improvement Fund transfer, decreased Tampa Bay Water interest contribution, adjusted interest revenue). Councilman Altman put extensive comments on the record about FEMA reimbursement revenue, the CRA loan, and upcoming county bond issues before the resolution passed by voice vote.

   Ord. Resolution No. 2018-21

   • motion:Motion to approve Resolution 2018-21 adopting the FY2018-2019 operating budget and Capital Improvement Program. (passed)

   🏢FEMA🏢Tampa Bay Water👤Councilman Altman👤Councilman Davis👤Councilman Phillips👤Crystal Dunn👤Crystal Feist👤Debbie Manson#CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency)#Capital Improvement Program#FY2018-2019 Operating Budget#General Fund#Millage rate 8.900 mills#PLOF (payment in lieu of fees)#Pasco County November bond issues#Penny for Pasco#Resolution 2018-21#Street Improvement Fund#Water and Sewer Fund

   ▶ Jump to 6:37 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:06:37] Next is final public hearing, Resolution 2018-21. [00:06:41] Resolution number 2018-21, a resolution of the City of New Port Richey of Pasco County, [00:06:45] Florida adopting the final operating budget for fiscal year 2018-2019 and the capital [00:06:51] improvement program for fiscal year 2018-2019, providing for an effective date. [00:06:57] Ms. Manson. [00:06:58] Mr. Mayor, the budget was developed in accordance with the City Charter, also the annual budget [00:07:05] calendar, the financial management policies and guidelines of the City, along with your [00:07:12] vision and strategic focus. [00:07:15] The budget is the result of many months of work between both the elected officials and [00:07:20] the City staff. [00:07:21] And I'd like to thank all the members of the City Council for your direction in establishing [00:07:26] the strategic plan, steadfastness in review of the budget document, and your commitment [00:07:32] to fiscal responsibility. [00:07:34] I'd like to thank specifically Crystal Feist and Crystal Dunn and the other department [00:07:39] heads for your work in submitting appropriate and prudent requests, and your commitment [00:07:45] of course to providing the best possible service at the lowest cost. [00:07:51] Our total proposed budget for the fiscal year 2018 to fiscal year 2019 is $59,583,970. [00:08:06] And Mrs. Feist will make a short presentation to you on the budget by fund, at the conclusion [00:08:12] of which we're prepared to respond to your questions. [00:08:15] Thank you. [00:08:16] Good evening. [00:08:17] As City Manager Manns mentioned, I do have a brief presentation that will simply focus [00:08:26] on the changes between the first proposed budget, which was presented to you September [00:08:30] 6th, and the budget before you. [00:08:36] As already mentioned, in total, the budget for fiscal year 2018-2019 totals $59,583,970. [00:08:46] This includes all City funds, from the General Fund to the Street Improvement Fund. [00:08:52] You'll note that the General Fund and Water and Sewer Fund remain the two largest funds [00:08:57] for the City, with the Capital Improvement Fund, which houses the Penny for Pasco funds, [00:09:04] and comes in at third. [00:09:09] This slide is a complement to the previous slide, and presents to you the same information [00:09:15] just as a percentage. [00:09:16] Again, the General Fund makes up 37% of the City's total budget, and the Water and Sewer [00:09:24] Fund makes up 33%. [00:09:27] The remaining funds make up the remaining 30%. [00:09:37] Some key highlights to point out include, as already mentioned and already adopted, [00:09:45] the budget includes a millage of 8.900 mills, which is a note from the previously proposed [00:09:54] budget, and there have been no changes to the proposed departmental budgets, as previously [00:10:01] presented to you, or proposed to you. [00:10:04] And the same goes for the Capital Improvement Program. [00:10:07] It remains at $14,414,000, with no changes as previously proposed. [00:10:19] This last slide goes over the detailed changes. [00:10:26] It provides it to you in detail. [00:10:28] So the first item shows that the transfer from the Street Improvement Fund to the General [00:10:35] Fund, there was a change there, and the change is due to an inputting error. [00:10:41] The amount that was presented in the Street Improvement Fund didn't agree to the amount [00:10:45] in the General Fund, so the newly proposed budget has those two amounts agreeing, and [00:10:52] changed to $350,000 in the General Fund. [00:10:57] The second item is a decrease in the contribution from the Water and Sewer Fund to the General [00:11:04] Fund, related to the Tampa Bay water interest. [00:11:09] As I did go back and review the established amortization schedule, and for fiscal year [00:11:15] 18, that amount was decreased, or is decreased from $387,320 to $328,730. [00:11:27] So items two and four presented here on this slide are one and the same, and affects the [00:11:33] General Fund and Water and Sewer Fund. [00:11:36] Finally, the last item relates to the interest revenue in the General Fund. [00:11:42] That amount was adjusted to be more in line with what's been received in the prior two [00:11:47] fiscal years, and what is projected given the current market conditions. [00:11:53] And that's all I have as far as changes. [00:11:57] There weren't very many changes from the first proposed budget. [00:12:02] Any questions for Ms. Feast? [00:12:06] In that case, I'm going to open this up for public comment. [00:12:09] Anyone wish to address Council? [00:12:12] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to Council. [00:12:15] Move for approval. [00:12:17] Do we have a motion? [00:12:19] Second. [00:12:20] And a second to the maker? [00:12:21] Second. [00:12:22] Nope. [00:12:23] Councilman? [00:12:24] I can't help myself, really. [00:12:25] This is our final public hearing on the budget, but appropriate to make some comments, particularly [00:12:33] issues in the budget that I had raised, which I think are, you know, I'm going to approve, [00:12:40] I'm going to be with you in approving the budget, but I want to just comment and put [00:12:44] on the record a few things. [00:12:46] One, the $450,000 FEMA income that's shown in the budget for the current year represents [00:12:55] a reimbursement of expenses in the prior period, or in the current period and before. [00:13:01] Those expenses do appear in the budget under the items of trash removal, trash grinding, [00:13:08] some of those expenses that went way up in the current year that we're in. [00:13:12] From a standpoint of an accountant and the matching principle, which requires that revenues [00:13:19] and expenditures are combined in the year in which they occur and in the same year, [00:13:25] I believe that the revenue that we're showing this year needs to be pointed out is not going [00:13:31] to be, hopefully, a recurring revenue and won't be around in the future years. [00:13:35] So, you know, it's really an accounting issue, but also for a reason, and that is that we [00:13:41] understand that the budget that we will be approving today includes revenue that won't [00:13:47] come back next year. [00:13:50] Alternatively, we also saw that the CRA loan back to the city is not generating any revenue [00:13:59] to the general fund this year. [00:14:01] So, beginning next year, that revenue, in effect, can help to offset the loss of revenue [00:14:06] from the FEMA, and that revenue is going to be critical for us next year to balance the [00:14:13] budget, and it also is causing the CRA to be in a position in future years to be able [00:14:20] to make those payments back to the general fund. [00:14:24] That being said, we had a really great presentation a week or so ago from the CRA. [00:14:28] We have some very ambitious plans and programs that have been laid out for the city. [00:14:33] I'm extremely excited to be part of the City Council as we go through those discussions [00:14:37] and decide what we're going to do from parking to redevelopment to growing our city. [00:14:44] All of those discussions are critical for us to have, and in particular, I think it [00:14:51] had been mentioned publicly that I've spoken to a few members of the County Commission [00:14:54] and we have a future work session or a meeting coming up shortly to discuss. [00:15:00] us the potential for us to go to the county to find them to give us some assistance. [00:15:05] I think it's also critical to know and to reflect that the county has four different [00:15:12] bond issues on the ballot as soon as November, and it's an unknown whether those bond issues [00:15:19] one or more or all will pass. [00:15:22] In my mind, all of those bond issues will have a direct effect on our citizens because [00:15:27] it will increase their tax payment to make those bond payments. [00:15:32] In no case that I'm aware of are any of those bond funds earmarked to be used to the benefit [00:15:38] of our residents other than in the pure sense of county residents who might decide that [00:15:43] we want to go to Hudson to the rec center or that we might actually be in Dade City [00:15:47] when there's a fire or that we might find ourselves otherwise incarcerated, which we [00:15:53] don't want to see that happen. [00:15:55] But bottom line is there's a lot that's happening that's very dynamic that's coming up soon. [00:16:02] So from a standpoint of us completing our required budget hearings, I reflect back to [00:16:11] something I heard from Councilman Phillips a number of years back where he said the budget [00:16:15] is a planning document and it's one for us to be able to approve, but that it is an active [00:16:23] document and one that can be modified. [00:16:27] So I am imploring my colleagues as we approve this for us to take the time to go through [00:16:35] the steps to have some professional advice to us related to the interaction between public [00:16:42] utilities, which is our big moneymaker, which has really helped us over the years because [00:16:47] it's provided a substantial amount of money in our budget this year. [00:16:51] There's something called a PLOF, which is like a payment in lieu of taxes or fees. [00:16:57] There's an interest payment that comes in from the sale to Tampa Bay Water of our well [00:17:04] fields. [00:17:06] That's a diminishing revenue. [00:17:08] And there are issues in front of us for the acquisition of additional water and utilities. [00:17:14] And we have a study, which I think we're going to hear in just a few weeks from. [00:17:18] So between the three different major account groups, not counting the capital part, the [00:17:28] CRA is such a huge component and the decisions we make are going to be long-lasting. [00:17:36] This is the final year that, in my view, and I'm not sure the lawyers will determine, but [00:17:42] this is the year that we've talked about amending the CRA so that we can make it go out another [00:17:46] 30 years. [00:17:48] And I think it's critical that we do. [00:17:50] We've got this big debt that the CRA has back to the city and the general fund. [00:17:56] But how we do that and the manner that we do that will also be determined as we move [00:18:01] forward. [00:18:02] So those are issues that will affect us in the next year. [00:18:05] I only want to have this discussion to put it on the record that I hope that these major [00:18:09] capital improvements and capital decisions we make will not, that the approval of this [00:18:14] budget today will not activate actions to do major capital improvements without coming [00:18:23] back to City Council for us to discuss and approve. [00:18:25] Very good. [00:18:26] Thank you. [00:18:27] Councilman Davis. [00:18:28] Nothing. [00:18:29] Okay. [00:18:30] And thank you, Mr. Altman, for bringing up the point about the four assessment votes [00:18:38] that are on the November ballot. [00:18:41] I happen to agree with you, the residents of the City of New Port Richey should get [00:18:47] some benefit of that if they're going to be taxed for it. [00:18:51] Thank you for pointing that out and I'm sure we will have that discussion with our colleagues [00:18:57] on the County Commission. [00:18:59] There's no further discussion. [00:19:01] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:19:03] Aye. [00:19:04] Opposed? [00:19:05] Like sign. [00:19:06] 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. 4.c

   Public Hearing - Resolution No. 2018-22: Stormwater Utility Assessment

   approved

   Council held a public hearing and adopted Resolution 2018-22, approving the FY 2018-2019 non-ad valorem stormwater utility assessment roll at the existing $80 per ERU base rate, with certification to the Pasco County tax collector. No public comment was offered; a councilmember used the discussion to advocate for joint city-county stormwater improvements, particularly on the west side and Main Street.

   Ord. Resolution No. 2018-22

   • motion:Move for approval of Resolution 2018-22 approving the FY 2018-2019 stormwater utility non-ad valorem assessment roll. (passed)

   📍Main Street🏢Pasco County tax collector👤Mr. Rivera👤Ms. Mann#$80 per ERU#Chapter 197 Florida Statutes#FY 2018-2019 non-ad valorem assessment roll#Resolution 2018-22#Stormwater Utility Assessment

   ▶ Jump to 19:07 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:19:07] Next is public hearing resolution 2018-22. [00:19:11] Resolution number 2018-22, resolution of the City Council of New Port Richey, Florida, [00:19:15] approving the fiscal year 2018-2019 non-ad valorem assessment role for stormwater management [00:19:20] services directing certification of the assessment role to the Pasco County tax collector and [00:19:26] providing an effective date. [00:19:28] Ms. Mann. [00:19:29] Mr. Mayor. [00:19:30] Yes. [00:19:31] The purpose of this public hearing, first, is of course to solicit public comment on [00:19:36] the stormwater utility assessment fee. [00:19:39] Secondarily, for you to consider the adoption of resolution number 2018-22, which approves [00:19:48] the assessment and allows for the certification of Pasco County. [00:19:52] In September of 2001, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing a stormwater utility [00:20:00] assessment in the City of New Port Richey under the provisions of Chapter 197 of the [00:20:06] Florida Statutes, whereby municipalities may establish stormwater management as a municipal [00:20:14] utility function for which utility fees are levied. [00:20:20] And Mr. Rivera has some more detailed information about this specific proposed assessment. [00:20:28] Mr. Rivera. [00:20:29] Thank you. [00:20:30] I just want to say that there was no increase to the base rate. [00:20:32] It remained at $80 per ERU. [00:20:36] There were some exceptions, however, and those were properties that were annexed subsequent [00:20:43] to last year's assessments, property classification changes, development of vacant properties, [00:20:50] and properties missed during last year's assessment role creation. [00:20:55] And for those exceptions, the property owners were notified prior to that, before the public [00:21:03] notice came out September 5, 2018. [00:21:06] And with that, we'd recommend that you approve the resolution. [00:21:10] Thank you. [00:21:11] I'm going to open it up for public comment. [00:21:14] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to Council. [00:21:16] Move for approval. [00:21:17] Second. [00:21:18] To the maker? [00:21:19] No, I'm good. [00:21:20] To the second? [00:21:21] Nothing. [00:21:22] Councilman? [00:21:24] Certainly. [00:21:27] Regarding the stormwater assessments and the budget for stormwater, I just would suggest [00:21:35] again that the cooperation of, that we have a variety of western border stormwater issues [00:21:44] that back up to us that relate directly to the county. [00:21:48] We have Main Street, which floods regularly and serves a much larger portion of residents [00:21:55] than just the city, and so there's another example of a potential joint improvement that [00:22:01] could occur to the benefit of not only our residents, but also county residents. [00:22:06] I think that the residents that live on the west side of our city have a right to see [00:22:10] some of their stormwater improvement funds be used to improve the stormwater conditions [00:22:15] that they're in. [00:22:16] Historically, for those of you who remember some of these major rain events that we've [00:22:22] had in the past, internal to our county, there were a lot of development that was built in [00:22:28] our basins. [00:22:29] The basins flooded, there were substantial efforts that were required to pump those out, [00:22:35] and there are a lot of stormwater plans that the county has that I've not seen stormwater [00:22:41] plans as they relate to our Gulf of Mexico. [00:22:44] The excitement we have with the scalloping and the potential for that marine life to [00:22:50] survive is critical that the coastal areas and the stormwater and the runoff is properly [00:22:58] managed. [00:22:59] So, you know, as we move forward, I hope we can advocate that some, you know, efforts [00:23:05] that can help to solve problems for our residents as well as the residents to the west. [00:23:11] That's just one particular area that has gone unresolved for a long time, and we even [00:23:16] had a zoning issue or development plan that was shot down primarily because of the lack [00:23:23] of ability for emergency services to feel comfortable and concerns about evacuation. [00:23:30] So I think it's going to be in our, you know, benefit to look at some of these shared problems, [00:23:35] and hopefully we'll be able to do that this year. [00:23:38] Very good. [00:23:39] Deputy Mayor. [00:23:40] Thank you. [00:23:41] That case. [00:23:42] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:23:44] Aye. [00:23:45] Opposed? [00:23:46] Like so. [00:23:47] Motion passes. [00:23:48] Next is public hearing resolution 2018-23.

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

7. 4.d

   ↳You arrived here from a search for “Peter Altman” — transcript expanded below

   Public Hearing - Resolution No. 2018-23: Street Lighting Assessment

   approved

   Council adopted Resolution 2018-23 approving the FY 2018-2019 non-ad valorem assessment roll for street lighting services. The base rate remained $37.81 per equivalent residential unit, and staff confirmed the 2017 study supports 100% cost recovery including U.S. 19 grant revenues.

   Ord. Resolution No. 2018-23

   • motion:Motion to approve Resolution 2018-23 adopting the FY 2018-2019 non-ad valorem assessment roll for street lighting services. (passed)

   📍U.S. Highway 19🏢Pasco County Tax Collector👤Mr. Allman👤Mr. Rivera👤Ms. Mantz#$37.81 per ERU base rate#2003 street lighting ordinance#Chapter 197 Florida Statutes#Resolution 2018-23

   ▶ Jump to 23:51 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:23:51] Resolution number 2018-23, a resolution of the City Council of New Port Richey, Florida [00:23:55] approving the fiscal year 2018-2019 non-ad valorem assessment role for street lighting [00:24:00] services directing certification of the assessment role to the Pasco County Tax Collector and [00:24:05] providing an effective date. [00:24:07] Ms. Mantz. [00:24:08] This resolution, Mr. Mayor, creates a means of recovering the costs incurred by the city [00:24:14] in providing street lighting services to properties in the city. [00:24:18] It is a method authorized under Chapter 197 of the Florida statutes that allow these fees [00:24:26] to be collected on a non-ad valorem assessment basis. [00:24:31] The City Council established an ordinance in September 2003, which allows the methodology. [00:24:41] And Mr. Rivera, do you have some additional comments on this assessment? [00:24:47] We were able to keep the base rate the same as similar to the stormwater utility. [00:24:52] That rate stayed at $37.81 per equivalent residential unit, which was based on square [00:24:58] footage of different parcels. [00:25:00] The study that we performed back in 2017 appears to be right on the money as far as [00:25:07] us getting our 100% reimbursement and taking into account the revenues that we get from [00:25:13] grant money along U.S. Highway 19 for those lighting elements that are along that corridor. [00:25:18] So we would ask that you approve this resolution as well. [00:25:22] Thank you. [00:25:23] This is a public hearing. [00:25:24] I'll open it up for public comment. [00:25:27] Seeing no one, come forward and bring it back to Council. [00:25:31] Second. [00:25:32] We have a motion and a second. [00:25:35] To the maker? [00:25:36] Nothing. [00:25:37] To the second? [00:25:38] No. [00:25:39] Good. [00:25:40] Mr. Allman? [00:25:41] Nothing to say on this one. [00:25:45] It's hard to argue about street lights. [00:25:47] They just need to stay on. [00:25:51] There's no further discussion. [00:25:52] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:25:55] Aye. [00:25:56] Opposed, like sign. [00:25:57] Motion passes. [00:25:58] Public hearing, Resolution 2018-24. [00:25:59] Resolution 2018-24, a resolution of the City Council of New Port Richey, Florida, approving [00:26:06] the fiscal year 2018-2019 non-ad valorem assessment role for street and road paving [00:26:10] services, directing the certification of the assessment role to the Pasco County Tax Collector [00:26:15] and providing an effective date. [00:26:16] Ms. Manns? [00:26:17] The ordinance, Mr. Mayor, as the City Attorney indicated, creates a means of recovering costs [00:26:24] incurred by the City for paving services. [00:26:28] The resolution is based on Chapter 197, also of the Florida statutes.

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

8. 4.e

   Public Hearing - Resolution No. 2018-24: Street and Road Paving Assessment

   approved

   Council held a public hearing on Resolution 2018-24, the annual non-ad valorem street and road paving assessment funding the city's 20-year Pavement Management Plan. A representative of First Church of the Nazarene objected to the $1,800 assessment burden on his small mission church. Council approved the resolution and directed staff to inspect Avery Road for pothole maintenance and follow up with the church.

   Ord. Resolution No. 2018-24

   • motion:Motion to approve Resolution 2018-24 adopting the street and road paving non-ad valorem assessment. (passed)
   • direction:Direction to staff to send asphalt crew to inspect Avery and Green for potholes/maintenance and to keep in touch with the church regarding the repaving schedule. (none)

   📍5342 Avery Road📍Avery Road📍Congress📍Green (Street)📍Gulf Drive📍Madison🏢First Church of the Nazarene👤Councilman Altman👤Councilman Murphy👤Councilman Starkey👤Crystal👤Mark Doyen👤Robert Rivera#Local option gas taxes#MPO#North River neighborhood public workshop#Pavement Management Plan#Penny for Pasco#Resolution No. 2018-24

   ▶ Jump to 26:38 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:26:38] Fees are chargeable to the property owner regardless of whether or not a property is [00:26:43] tenant occupied. [00:26:45] And the City has found that the use of a non-ad valorem assessment is the most equitable method [00:26:53] of providing necessary funding for providing paving services in the city. [00:26:57] Mr. Rivera? [00:26:58] Thank you. [00:26:59] As you recall, last year you approved the Pavement Management Plan. [00:27:03] This was a program that was based on a 20-year cycle so that we could continuously make paving [00:27:10] improvements annually. [00:27:13] In addition to the assessment that is collected, the annual budget for construction is $1.7 [00:27:20] million annually, but it also includes $200,000 funded by general fund transfers, $75,000 [00:27:27] funded by solid waste franchise, and $200,000 funded by Penny for Pasco, and $425,000 funded [00:27:37] by local option gas taxes. [00:27:40] So we would ask that you approve the resolution. [00:27:44] Thank you. [00:27:45] I'll open it up for public comment. [00:27:48] Come on down if you could please print your name and address for the record so it gets [00:27:54] spelt correctly. [00:28:18] Thank you. [00:28:27] My name is Mark Doyen. [00:28:29] I am representing First Church of the Nazarene on Avery Road, 5342 Avery Road. [00:28:36] There were going to be some other churches in the community joining me, however they [00:28:42] felt that this would do no good to them. [00:28:46] But I'm here not just for the roads but what was already passed, the lighting and the wastewater. [00:28:53] We are a small mission church that have about 65 members. [00:29:00] We deal with approximately 35 to 40 children ranging from kindergarten to seniors in high [00:29:09] school. [00:29:11] These kids that we concentrate on in the city of New Port Richey and Pasco County either [00:29:19] have single parents that work, that can't take care of them, they're either alcoholics, [00:29:25] drug addicts, what have you. [00:29:28] We have three vehicles that go around every Wednesday, every Sunday to pick these kids [00:29:32] up. [00:29:33] We have programs for these kids. [00:29:38] This street assessment, all the non-ad valorem assessments, and in my mind they're taxes, [00:29:45] I don't care what you call them, we are a non-profit, we're tax exempt, however we get [00:29:51] hit with this. [00:29:52] The bill is $1,800. [00:29:55] We take in approximately $6,400 to $7,000. [00:30:00] month as a church. [00:30:01] Like I say, we're a mission church, there's not a lot of money there, there's probably [00:30:06] a handful of people that give, give over and above what they should give. [00:30:13] This $1,800 that comes out of this and basically the roads are really killing us and nothing's [00:30:19] been done to the roads on Avery and Green, there's potholes. [00:30:24] This is the second year that we've been doing this, I did not realize there were meetings [00:30:28] last year. [00:30:29] In fact, I didn't even realize there was one tonight until I called the city and asked [00:30:34] about a meeting because it was not notated on the assessments. [00:30:40] So that's how I found out about this. [00:30:42] But that $1,800 takes away from what we're doing for these kids. [00:30:48] And I just think it's totally unfair and when we talk about $7,000 a month, $84,000 a year, [00:30:55] there's probably a lot less than some of you people make in a year and we're out there [00:31:00] trying to take care of the kids in the community. [00:31:04] We can't do it, I mean it took away last year from the kids. [00:31:10] I don't think that it's right for churches in our position, whether you put a dollar [00:31:16] figure a year, $100,000 or less, $250,000 or less, to have to pay these things. [00:31:24] That's all I've got to say, I appreciate it. [00:31:28] Thank you. [00:31:30] Anyone else? [00:31:34] Seeing no one else come forward, bring it back to council. [00:31:36] Move for approval. [00:31:37] Second? [00:31:38] I'll second. [00:31:39] Thank you. [00:31:40] To the maker. [00:31:41] Yeah, I just have, do you happen to, off the top of your head, know when Avery and [00:31:50] Green are on the repaving list? [00:31:53] We will know in a couple of months when we get with the engineers. [00:31:56] We're going to do cycle three and that's when we'll reassess all the roads that we have [00:32:00] left. [00:32:01] All right, could you keep in touch with that church and see if we can help there? [00:32:04] And then I just want to reiterate that 100% of this assessment goes to asphalt. [00:32:10] Correct. [00:32:11] And what we will do is we'll send the asphalt crew over there to take a look at those streets [00:32:15] and see if there's any potholes or any kind of maintenance we can do in the meantime. [00:32:19] Very good. [00:32:20] To the second. [00:32:22] Only that in his discussion of the various different revenues that are all conglomerated [00:32:28] in to make our overall road improvement plan, that there are also dollars we get from local [00:32:34] option gas taxes. [00:32:36] A few years back they went from one component to two components. [00:32:41] The county changed the way the formula would work to be what we spent on. [00:32:46] And I believe that the time frame is every five years they re-evaluate that and my understanding [00:32:51] was at some point that got re-evaluated at 2018. [00:32:55] So I'm believing that we're at a point where the recalculations are going to be made for [00:33:00] the next five years. [00:33:02] I don't know if they went into the budget, but it's not really related to this. [00:33:06] But something I'd just like to raise and hopefully we can find out if and when they're working [00:33:10] on that so we can see what kind of numbers if we've lost or gained in terms of that revenue [00:33:16] stream. [00:33:17] Sure. [00:33:18] And that was one of the things that we had talked to you all about as far as once we [00:33:21] identified that, if the funds had increased, we'd be able to give you that figure and then [00:33:25] you could decide if you wanted to add additional funds to this program to where you would reduce [00:33:34] the responsibilities to the residents that are being assessed. [00:33:38] But that would be up to you all. [00:33:40] Well, thank you. [00:33:43] But that was the intent when we first started talking. [00:33:47] Councilman Starkey is always on the MPO, so I'll bet that he can confirm that the number [00:33:52] of road projects and transportation costs are always identified as much more. [00:33:58] There's what we'd like, and then there's the affordable plan. [00:34:01] So it seems that there's never a shortage of need for keeping up with the deterioration [00:34:06] of roads and the improvement of roads and intersections. [00:34:10] Councilman Starkey? [00:34:11] Hi. [00:34:12] Hi. [00:34:13] I'm good. [00:34:14] I'm looking right at Councilman Murphy. [00:34:18] Councilman Murphy. [00:34:19] Just a quick question. [00:34:20] These assessments that are put against the properties, are they actually listed as an [00:34:24] assessment or are they listed as a lien? [00:34:27] In response to the question, they are listed as an assessment. [00:34:33] Okay. [00:34:34] All right. [00:34:35] And to amplify on what Councilman Altman mentioned, the county did go back a few years ago and [00:34:44] they recalculated the way they figured out the division of the gasoline taxes. [00:34:52] And instead of having some rational basis on the road miles you were dealing with or [00:35:02] the population or anything else, they basically changed it to be based on the number of dollars [00:35:09] that you were spending as a city to determine what you would get down the road. [00:35:21] And we've had over the years a fairly consistent road project list. [00:35:30] So we weren't hurt as bad as at least one or two of the other cities who have a tendency [00:35:37] to collect the gas tax and bundle it all up and then go out and spend the money in one [00:35:43] year and then it may be several years before they do anything else. [00:35:47] And the way the county did this new calculation, it hurt them and it hurt them badly. [00:35:55] I would have to ask Crystal or Councilman Altman might remember from his days, but we [00:36:01] weren't hurt as bad as some of the others were. [00:36:04] But the key is in order for us to get our share of gasoline taxes for the benefit of [00:36:11] our residents, we have to maintain a regular ongoing payment program or at some point they'll [00:36:20] take the money. [00:36:24] I think the bottom line was at the same time they did that, there was also a determination [00:36:29] by the county to add an additional penny or additional cent or two to the gasoline tax. [00:36:35] And so what they did was they effectively got a lot more money for themselves and then [00:36:40] those that were hurt by the calculation change kind of came back to even by when they should [00:36:47] have been seeing additional revenue. [00:36:49] So that was kind of the fix that they did, which was to try to, you know, solve anybody [00:36:55] saying they lost money. [00:36:56] They would have lost money, but then they also added that additional gas tax penny. [00:37:01] And to further expound on that, one of those pennies, and Robert, you can probably tell [00:37:06] me, but I'm recalling, one of those pennies is really restricted just to pavement on roads. [00:37:13] The other one allows for some other uses of transportation such as sidewalks and other [00:37:17] things. [00:37:18] Yeah, I'd have to review it again. [00:37:19] I think there's two different restrictions on the gas tax money. [00:37:24] So we always try to separate those and make sure we knew which penny we were using. [00:37:31] I believe your recollection is correct. [00:37:34] I just want to say that the projects that we have done over the course of the last year [00:37:40] with this first year full implementation of this program have been very noticeable and [00:37:46] very much appreciated by the citizens that have talked to me, and that includes Congress [00:37:53] and Madison. [00:37:56] Probably the worst remaining arterial street in the city, Gulf Drive, I believe, is on [00:38:03] this coming year's hit parade. [00:38:06] Correct. [00:38:07] For the benefit of the folks at the Church of the Nazarene and other folks in our neighborhood, [00:38:15] there are some plans, not necessarily repaving, but some plans to do sidewalks and some other [00:38:25] things that are going to make it a lot easier to get around and a lot safer to get around [00:38:29] in the North River neighborhood. [00:38:32] There is, in fact, a public workshop on that tomorrow night. [00:38:39] I hate to put you on the spot, Mr. Rivera, do you recall if sidewalks on Avery were part [00:38:44] of that or not? [00:38:46] Yes, there was improvements along Avery Road. [00:38:51] I think we were going to take and do some landscaping, widen the sidewalk, and do some [00:38:58] other improvements. [00:38:59] I would encourage any folks that are up in the North River neighborhood to come here. [00:39:06] That is at 6 o'clock tomorrow night. [00:39:12] With that, if there is no further discussion, all those in favor, please signify by saying [00:39:18] aye. [00:39:19] Aye. [00:39:20] Opposed? [00:39:21] Like sign. [00:39:22] 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.

9. 5Communications▶ 39:23
10. 6Adjournment▶ 43:28