On the agenda

1. 4.a

   ↳You arrived here from a search for “Debbie Manns” — transcript expanded below

   Public Hearing - Resolution No. 2022-15: Approval of Annual Assessment for Stormwater Management Services

   approved

   Council held a public hearing and adopted Resolution 2022-15, approving the FY 2022-2023 non-ad valorem assessment roll for stormwater management services at $80 per ERU, unchanged from the prior year. No public comment was offered, and council members spoke in support of the assessment as essential funding for stormwater management and resiliency.

   Ord. Resolution No. 2022-15

   • motion:Motion to approve Resolution 2022-15 adopting the FY 2022-2023 non-ad valorem assessment roll for stormwater management services. (passed)

   🏢Pasco County Tax Collector👤Councilman Murphy👤Mr. Altman👤Mrs. Feist👤Ms. Manns👤Ms. Smothers#$80 per ERU#Florida Statute 403.0893#Resolution 2022-15#Stormwater Utility Assessment Program#Trim Notice (Notice of Proposed Property Taxes)

   ▶ Jump to 0:00 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:00] We have four business items on the agenda tonight. [00:00:07] First is public hearing on resolution 2022-15. [00:00:11] This is resolution number 2022-15, a resolution of the City Council of New Port Richey, Florida [00:00:17] approving the fiscal year 2022-2023 non-ad valorem assessment role for stormwater management [00:00:24] services directing certification of the assessment role to the Pasco County tax collector and [00:00:28] providing an effective date. [00:00:31] Ms. Manns. [00:00:35] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. [00:00:36] I think that Mrs. Feist is prepared to say a few words on this agenda item. [00:00:43] Good evening. [00:00:44] The item is before the City Council to solicit public comment on the stormwater utility assessment [00:00:52] levy against all developed property in the city and to adopt resolution 2022-15 as the [00:01:01] City Attorney just stated. [00:01:03] In September of 2001, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing this stormwater [00:01:09] utility assessment program by way of section 403.0893 in the Florida statute, and it specifically [00:01:20] authorizes a municipality to establish stormwater management as a municipal utility function [00:01:27] for which utility fees may be levied. [00:01:31] The city found that the use of non-ad valorem assessment is the most equitable method of [00:01:37] providing the necessary funding for this program. [00:01:41] Each year, the city must certify the stormwater non-ad valorem assessment role, and as part [00:01:46] of that process, parcel owners who were not assessed a stormwater assessment in the previous [00:01:52] year are given an opportunity to make public comment and address the City Council, which [00:01:58] is the purpose of tonight's meeting. [00:02:00] The billing of the stormwater assessment fee is administered by Pasco County and can be [00:02:07] seen in a line item on the non-ad valorem portion of the county's tax bill. [00:02:15] All property owners receive notice of their non-ad valorem assessments on their Notice [00:02:20] of Proposed Property Taxes, otherwise known as the Trim Notice. [00:02:26] The stormwater utility fee is established by city ordinance, and the dollar amount of [00:02:32] this utility fee has not changed from last year and is assessed at $80 per ERU or equivalent [00:02:40] residential unit. [00:02:42] So, again, the item before you is to solicit public comment and to approve or adopt Resolution 2022-15. [00:02:53] Thank you. [00:02:54] We'll open this public hearing up for public comment. [00:02:59] Seeing no one coming forward, I'll bring it back to Council. [00:03:02] Move for approval. [00:03:04] Second. [00:03:05] To the maker. [00:03:07] No. [00:03:08] I think this is a good source of revenue for a very important task that we have ahead of us. [00:03:15] To the second. [00:03:17] I would echo those comments. [00:03:21] I know in years past, it was adopted in 2021. [00:03:25] I know the county as well was late in adopting stormwater management as well, but they've [00:03:31] come on strong as well. [00:03:33] I think it's important for our residents to understand that while this money is used [00:03:40] for stormwater control, it's limited as far as what it can do for something as a major [00:03:46] storm that comes in. [00:03:48] So just understand this is for our day-to-day, month-to-month, summertime storm issues and [00:03:56] so forth. [00:03:57] And while it can work towards protection from a major event, it by no means is funny enough [00:04:06] to do that. [00:04:08] Councilman Murphy. [00:04:10] I'll just say that this is something that's very important to the way of life here in [00:04:16] the city. [00:04:17] And it's something that most people don't think about until there's a problem. [00:04:23] But it's very important how we manage that from an environmental and a position of quality [00:04:35] of life for our waterways and things like that. [00:04:39] So it's an important thing and nothing's cheap. [00:04:41] Everything costs money. [00:04:43] Thank you. [00:04:45] Ms. Smothers, go ahead. [00:04:47] I 100% agree. [00:04:50] I am hopeful that this will take care of the problem. [00:04:56] I did see a news article earlier today, a scientist predicting the collapse of one of [00:05:05] the major ice sheets in the Antarctic, which if that sets things in motion with the glacier [00:05:16] behind it, could result in a sea level rise of upwards of 10 feet, possibly within the [00:05:22] next 5 to 10 years. [00:05:25] And I don't need to tell you how much of our city is below 10 feet above sea level right [00:05:30] now. [00:05:31] So I think we all need to be praying that the scientists are mistaken. [00:05:38] But from a resiliency standpoint, as Mr. Altman has told us on many occasions, we need to [00:05:45] be prepared. [00:05:46] So there's no further discussion. [00:05:49] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:05:52] Aye. [00:05:53] Opposed, like sign. [00:05:55] 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.

2. 4.b

   Public Hearing - Resolution No. 2022-16: Approval of Annual Assessment for Street Lighting

   approved

   Council held a public hearing and adopted Resolution 2022-16, approving the FY 2022-2023 non-ad valorem assessment roll for street lighting services at $37.81 per ERU, unchanged from the prior year. No public comment was received.

   Ord. Resolution No. 2022-16

   • motion:Motion to approve Resolution 2022-16 adopting the FY 2022-2023 non-ad valorem assessment roll for street lighting. (passed)

   🏢Duke Energy🏢Pasco County Tax Collector👤Allman👤Mrs. Feast#$37.81 per ERU#Chapter 197 Florida Statutes#FY 2022-2023 street lighting non-ad valorem assessment#Resolution 2022-16

   ▶ Jump to 5:57 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:05:57] Next is public hearing resolution 2022-16. [00:06:01] This is resolution number 2022-16, a resolution of the City Council of New Port Richey, Florida [00:06:07] approving the fiscal year 2022-2023 non-ad valorem assessment role for street lighting [00:06:12] services, directing certification of the assessment role to the Pasco County Tax Collector, and [00:06:17] providing an effective date. [00:06:19] Mrs. Feast will represent the agenda item as well. [00:06:23] Very good. [00:06:24] Thank you. [00:06:28] Again, this item is before the City Council to solicit public comment on the city's street [00:06:33] lighting assessment program and the assessment fee levied against all developed property [00:06:38] in the city and to adopt resolution 2022-16. [00:06:43] In September of 2003, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing a street lighting [00:06:49] assessment in the city of New Port Richey. [00:06:52] The ordinance stated a means of recovering costs incurred by the city in providing street [00:06:57] lighting services to properties in the city. [00:07:00] These fees are collected each year as non-ad valorem assessments to the property owners [00:07:05] under the provisions of Chapter 197 of Florida Tax. [00:07:09] These fees are chargeable to the property owner regardless of whether or not the property [00:07:14] is tenant-occupied. [00:07:16] Again, the city has found that the use of a non-ad valorem assessment is the most equitable [00:07:22] method of providing necessary funding for providing this program, and the city must [00:07:29] certify its street light non-ad valorem assessment role with Pasco County each year. [00:07:34] As part of that process, parcel owners who were not assessed a non-ad valorem assessment [00:07:41] last year were given an opportunity to make public comment and address the City Council [00:07:47] concerning the street lighting non-ad valorem assessment. [00:07:51] The billing of the street lighting assessment fee is administered by the county and can [00:07:55] be seen as a line item in the non-ad valorem portion of the county's tax bill, otherwise [00:08:03] known as the term notice. [00:08:05] The street lighting fee is established by city ordinance, and the dollar amount of the [00:08:09] street lighting fee has not changed from last year and is assessed at $37.81 per ERU. [00:08:18] So again, this item before you is to solicit public comment and to adopt resolution 2022-16. [00:08:25] Thank you. [00:08:26] Thank you. [00:08:27] Open it up for public comment. [00:08:29] Seeing no one coming forward, I'll bring it back to Council. [00:08:33] Move for approval. [00:08:34] I'll second. [00:08:35] To the maker. [00:08:36] Got to keep the lights on. [00:08:38] To the second. [00:08:39] Yeah, that's one of my big things is making the neighborhoods safe. [00:08:41] They're not safe anywhere if you don't have lighting at night. [00:08:44] Deputy Mayor? [00:08:45] Yes, sir. [00:08:46] Mr. Allman. [00:08:47] Good points. [00:08:48] And for the benefit of anybody in the audience or who is watching this broadcast, certainly [00:08:55] if you have lights that are out, street lights that are out, please report them. [00:09:01] Or covered by trees. [00:09:02] Or covered by trees, which seems to be the issue on my street more often than not. [00:09:08] Because Duke Energy will indeed send somebody out and make sure they work, because street [00:09:15] lights that aren't lighting anything aren't helping. [00:09:20] But it is a service that does indeed help keep our neighborhoods safer. [00:09:24] So if there's no further discussion, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:09:29] Aye. [00:09:30] Opposed, like sign. [00:09:32] 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.

3. 4.c

   Public Hearing - Resolution No. 2022-17: Approval of Annual Paving Assessment

   approved

   Council held a public hearing and adopted Resolution 2022-17 approving the FY 2022-2023 non-ad valorem assessment roll for street and road paving services. No public comment was received. Council members expressed support and discussed potentially broadening allowable uses of the paving assessment funds to include design/engineering costs and sidewalk improvements.

   Ord. Resolution No. 2022-17

   • motion:Move for approval of Resolution 2022-17 adopting the FY 2022-2023 non-ad valorem assessment roll for street and road paving services. (passed)

   🏢Pasco County Tax Collector's Office👤Altman👤Mrs. Feist👤Peters#Chapter 197 Florida Statutes#FY 2022-2023 non-ad valorem assessment roll#Pavement Management Plan#Resolution No. 2022-17

   ▶ Jump to 9:33 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:09:33] Next is public hearing resolution 2022-17. [00:09:37] This is resolution number 2022-17, a resolution of the City Council of New Port Richey, Florida, [00:09:43] approving the fiscal year 2022-2023 non-ablorum assessment role for street and road paving [00:09:49] services, directing certification of the assessment role to the Pasco County Tax Collector, and [00:09:54] providing an effective date. [00:09:55] Mrs. Feist, if you could take this one as well. [00:09:59] Sure. [00:10:00] This item before you, City Council, is to solicit public comment on the road and street [00:10:07] paving assessment fee levied against all developed property in the city, and to adopt resolution [00:10:12] 2022-17. [00:10:13] In 2017, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing a road and street paving assessment. [00:10:21] The ordinance created a means of recovering costs incurred by the city in providing paving [00:10:27] services. [00:10:28] These fees are collected each year as a non-ablorum assessment to the property owners under the [00:10:34] provisions of Chapter 197 of the Florida Statute. [00:10:38] These fees are chargeable to the property owner regardless of whether or not a property [00:10:43] is tenant-occupied. [00:10:44] The city has found that the use of a non-ablorum assessment is the most equitable method of [00:10:50] providing the necessary funding for this program. [00:10:53] And as part of that process, parcel owners who were not assessed the paving assessment [00:10:59] in the previous year are given an opportunity to make public comment tonight and address [00:11:04] the City Council concerning the paving assessment. [00:11:07] Again, the billing of this assessment is administered by the Pasco County Tax Collector's Office [00:11:13] and can be seen as a line item in the non-ablorum portion of the county tax bill. [00:11:21] So, in summary, if you could open it up for public comment and adopt resolution 2019, [00:11:29] 2022-17. [00:11:32] Thank you. [00:11:33] We'll open it up for public comment. [00:11:36] Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to Council. [00:11:40] Move for approval. [00:11:41] Second. [00:11:43] On this paving resolution, it's really proven to be a great investment by the city. [00:11:51] It's allowed us to have people say what nice streets we have in town, minimize damage to [00:11:56] public and private vehicles, etc. [00:11:59] And I'm excited to see the savings or the redirecting that we can do to improving roads [00:12:06] in the future. [00:12:09] There is one element I would just like to clear up, at least from my standpoint. [00:12:15] I don't know if any of you all have weighed in on this, but the policy of the city has [00:12:21] been, apparently, that the funds from this assessment are only used for actual asphalt [00:12:29] and do not include the engineering costs and designing costs and the related costs to it. [00:12:36] And my understanding is that it's because we had one council member who felt he promised [00:12:41] on behalf of all of us that we would never use it for that. [00:12:44] But it's never been in any motion or action. [00:12:47] And to me, the road paving project should pay all of the expenses related to our road [00:12:53] resurfacing and paying. [00:12:54] So I would like maybe some clarification, I don't know if now or later, or a chance [00:13:02] for us to discuss this as a group, that sometimes in the desperation to try to get support for [00:13:08] something, people will say something to say, well, it'll only go for paving. [00:13:13] But the cost of everything we do includes all of those other ancillary costs. [00:13:17] And it is appropriate that we use it for that if, in fact, we continue on. [00:13:25] I think it's easier for accounting. [00:13:27] It's easier for us to be able to utilize those dollars in ways that we may be restricted, [00:13:37] use other dollars, gas tax dollars than other dollars we have for transportation. [00:13:42] So I'm not one to see non-official policy restricting the use of these funds. [00:13:52] Thank you. To the second? [00:13:55] Yeah, I believe that the comments I've heard from residents is that this is one of those [00:14:03] taxes they don't mind paying because they've seen the results. [00:14:07] And we've almost been through the entire city. [00:14:10] I know there's a series of, was it five or six years, that it was going to take to bring [00:14:14] all our roads up to a certain level, quality level. [00:14:18] And I think we're just about there. [00:14:21] And will allow us now to go forward to this program in a more geographical or a quadrant area [00:14:30] rather than moving equipment and people from one side of the city to the other side [00:14:35] as we can be a little bit more efficient and maybe stretch our dollars a little bit further, [00:14:43] particularly as costs go up. [00:14:46] I'd be open to talk about this fund and to see if it could be used for other things. [00:14:54] Particularly for me, it would be as we go in and pave an area. [00:15:00] We might pave a street, we might analyze a sidewalk on that street as well. [00:15:07] And oftentimes, I know we do that already, but maybe that's something that we could explore [00:15:12] a little bit more to improve and repair our sidewalks. [00:15:19] Spent the weekend in a city this weekend that I don't even know how they can still survive. [00:15:26] I was in New Orleans and just walking down the street, the potholes and the sidewalks [00:15:32] and the cracks and so forth, I don't see how the city has any money. [00:15:35] People falling and breaking legs and so forth. [00:15:38] And it just made me that appreciative of the conditions, why we want them to improve, but [00:15:44] really what the conditions we have. [00:15:46] So I think it's a good use of our tax dollars. [00:15:50] Thank you. [00:15:51] Councilwoman? [00:15:52] Yeah, I think it's a good use of our tax dollars, too. [00:15:54] We definitely want to make sure that we keep the roads, and I agree with Mr. Altman and [00:16:02] Mr. Peters, too, on the using it for other things, and I agree the sidewalks should probably [00:16:10] be included. [00:16:11] Councilman? [00:16:12] Yes, everybody likes a nice paved street, and from experience and talking to other people, [00:16:19] you know, you put them, they live on a street with potholes and messed up road, and they're [00:16:24] going to be disgruntled, and it's not going to be good complaints, and so that's one of [00:16:30] those things that's kind of like a, it's not an easy fix, but it's an easy fix for good [00:16:35] morale. [00:16:37] I think Mr. Altman brings up a good point. [00:16:46] The discussion by a former councilman was very definitely that the funding should be [00:16:54] used to put asphalt in the ground. [00:16:57] I think I would tend to take a slightly broader view of that. [00:17:06] If we're involved in doing design and engineering work on a paving project, I think that probably [00:17:16] falls into that direct benefit for the project, and likewise, doing something with the sidewalks, [00:17:25] which people will notice when their street gets better sidewalks or gets sidewalks for [00:17:33] the first time ever, and I think that fits the spirit of the recommendation that the [00:17:46] former councilman made. [00:17:49] The thing that I would not want us to do would be to pull money out of this fund for overhead [00:18:00] and that sort of stuff that isn't directly related to putting asphalt or concrete on [00:18:06] the ground. [00:18:07] I think that would be a mistake, and we do have some other sources for covering overhead [00:18:13] on all sorts of stuff, so I don't terribly worry about that, but the whole concept of [00:18:22] the pavement management plan has been proven over the last several years. [00:18:29] The residents love it. [00:18:31] They love the fact that they can see improvements in the streets. [00:18:35] It's not just the arterials that everybody tends to use, but it's residential neighborhood [00:18:41] streets, and there are still a few that need work. [00:18:47] I can think of one right down the block from me, but I think it's on the hit list for the [00:18:54] next year or so, so they're getting done, and to me, it's exciting because it does give [00:19:02] a very favorable impression of the city when you're not having to dodge potholes all the [00:19:08] time. [00:19:10] The only downside that we've run into is sometimes we make the streets nice enough and then people [00:19:17] are in a tendency to speed, but we can deal with that, so I'm very pleased to be able [00:19:24] to support this. [00:19:27] Any further discussion? [00:19:30] Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:19:33] Aye. [00:19:34] Opposed, like to sign? [00:19:36] Thank you.

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

4. 4.d

   Public Hearing - Resolution No. 2022-18: Approving Special Assessment for City Liens

   approved

   Council held a public hearing and unanimously moved to approve Resolution 2022-18, certifying $42,822 in unpaid code enforcement liens to the Pasco County Tax Collector for placement on tax bills. This is the third year of using this collection method, and councilmembers noted most properties on the list are commercial or non-homesteaded. Councilman Allman raised the idea of a future compassion program (modeled on Largo's 'Angel Network') to assist struggling resident homeowners.

   Ord. Resolution No. 2022-18

   • motion:Move to approve Resolution 2022-18 certifying the non-ad valorem assessment roll for municipal liens to the Pasco County Tax Collector. (passed)

   🏢City of Largo🏢Pasco County Tax Collector👤Allman👤Debbie#$42,822 in code enforcement liens#Angel Network (Largo program)#FY 2022-2023 non-ad valorem assessment roll#Resolution 2022-18

   ▶ Jump to 19:37 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:19:37] Next is a public hearing on Resolution 2218. [00:19:41] This is Resolution number 2022-18, a resolution of the City Council of New Port Richey, Florida, [00:19:47] approving the fiscal year 2022-2023 non-anvilorum assessment role for municipal liens, directing [00:19:54] certification of the assessment role to the Pasco County Tax Collector and providing an [00:19:58] effective date. [00:20:00] This year is the third year in a row that the city is advancing outstanding fines to [00:20:09] you for your consideration in going forward and putting the fines on tax bills. [00:20:19] These fines, in large part, are the result of co-related enforcement fines and liens [00:20:29] on certain properties in the city that are non-homesteaded. [00:20:35] The means by which we do so are through agreement with the tax assessor and the tax collector, [00:20:45] and this year there are a total of $42,822 worth of revenue outstanding on a series of [00:20:59] properties, all of which are noted on an attachment to your communication in your packet, of which [00:21:07] we will be seeking, with your approval, the unpaid code enforcement liens on the property. [00:21:17] And with that, we are asking you to pass a resolution, number 2218, approving the special [00:21:29] assessment liens. [00:21:30] Thank you. [00:21:33] Thank you. [00:21:34] Open it up for public comment. [00:21:37] Seeing no one coming forward, bring it back to Council. [00:21:40] I move we approve. [00:21:41] Second. [00:21:42] To the maker. [00:21:43] Yeah, it's unfortunate that we have to go this route, but I think it's important, it's [00:21:51] important that we enforce our codes, and as you peruse the list, you'll see there's [00:22:04] sometimes the same property owner with different locations with similar or multiple fines and [00:22:15] just do not respond. [00:22:17] I think that our code enforcement officers, for the most part, give people a great chance [00:22:21] to correct things before they start levying fines and heavy, and then for them to turn [00:22:26] around and then after giving all those chances, still ignore it. [00:22:29] I think it's a way that we just, we've got to, you know, just stand by our code enforcement [00:22:36] people and the laws we put in place. [00:22:39] Thank you. [00:22:40] To the second. [00:22:41] It costs a lot of time, and it takes a lot of time, it costs a lot of money to try to [00:22:48] collect these and send out paperwork and do all the legal things you need to do, and [00:22:53] you know, this streamlines it a little bit, too, where, you know, put it on the tax records, [00:22:58] but it's just something we have to do. [00:23:03] Mr. Allman. [00:23:06] I can appreciate the difficulty of collecting, and I do have a question. [00:23:10] This is the third year, and I know originally we saw some really big fines that were on [00:23:16] there and assessments that we had a discussion at the council level about the usage of the [00:23:27] authority to determine when it ultimately is submitted, whether there are any that ought [00:23:35] to be pulled out for negotiation or for whatever purpose. [00:23:41] I had also passed along to city manager after hearing a presentation from Largo about something [00:23:50] they called the Angel Network or something like that, where the code enforcement officers [00:23:53] actually had a little fund, which they took from the fines to help, and I hate to say [00:24:00] the little old ladies, because I feel us little old men don't always get the same treatment, [00:24:06] but there's not as much sympathy because we're, for whatever reason, but there are [00:24:18] some programs, and I talked to Debbie about it, she indicated some interest in following [00:24:23] through on it, so what is positive about looking at this list is that we don't have those giant [00:24:28] ones on there, and the other thing that I also noticed is that a great number of these [00:24:34] are commercial entities or owners who do not live and occupy, so I think the gist [00:24:46] of the project that I had shared with Debbie focused on those homeowners struggling to [00:24:56] take care of themselves and their business of keeping their house up or whatever, and [00:25:02] giving a sense of compassion, I guess, back to some of the hardest jobs in the world, [00:25:08] which is the code enforcement, law enforcement, code enforcement, trying to maintain the rules [00:25:15] is always a difficult job, so I just share that with you, that hopefully in the future [00:25:21] some of these smaller folks that are on here, if they're deserving, that we can satisfy [00:25:31] them without increasing their taxes. [00:25:34] Councilwoman? [00:25:35] I agree with all of that, and I am glad to see that it is mostly businesses or non-resident [00:25:42] owners on here, but I think that our code enforcement does a good job, and that's a [00:25:49] tough job to do, and if they're going to continue to get fines, they're going to continue to [00:25:54] get fines, and I think that you have to have a way of collecting them. [00:25:58] I think that's the key prior to implementing this program, people were, some folks were [00:26:07] just ignoring the fines and letting them accumulate and accumulate and accumulate, and sometimes [00:26:14] the properties would change hands and the fines wouldn't get covered when the property [00:26:21] changed hands, and this gets it out there on the tax rolls so that somebody that's going [00:26:29] to sell a property, yeah, there's a lien on it that is going to be real obvious, and we [00:26:36] will eventually collect those monies that are owed, because it's not fair to all the [00:26:42] rest of the citizens of New Port Richey to have somebody that's just ignoring payment [00:26:50] of a legitimate assessment, and certainly I appreciate Mr. Allman's point about helping [00:26:58] the little old men or the little old ladies that maybe are struggling to keep up their [00:27:03] places, but by and large, these are commercial entities that are just not doing what they're

   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. 5Communications▶ 27:07
6. 6Adjournment▶ 28:22
7. 1Call to Order – Roll Call
8. 2

   Pledge of Allegiance

   Pledge of Allegiance.
9. 3

   Moment of Silence

   Moment of Silence.