On the agenda

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

   Approval of December 3, 2019 CRA Meeting Minutes

   approved

   The CRA Board approved the minutes from the December 3, 2019 CRA meeting.

   • motion:Approve the minutes of the December 3, 2019 CRA meeting. (passed)

   #December 3, 2019 CRA Meeting Minutes

   ▶ Jump to 0:13 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:13] Here. [00:00:13] All right, next item on the agenda is the approval [00:00:17] of the minutes from the December 3rd meeting. [00:00:19] Move for approval. [00:00:19] Second. [00:00:21] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:00:23] Aye. [00:00:24] Opposed, like sign. [00:00:26] 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. 3

   ↳You arrived here from a search for “2019 Redevelopment Plan Amendment” — transcript expanded below

   Second Reading, Resolution No. 2020-01: 2019 Redevelopment Plan Amendment

   approved

   The CRA Board held the second reading of Resolution 2020-01, recommending adoption of the 2019 Community Redevelopment Plan Amendment to the City Council. Staff incorporated three changes from the first reading: a title tweak to '2019 Community Redevelopment Plan Amendment,' adding intensity along with density as an incentive, and adding reference to transfer of development rights. The resolution passed unanimously by voice vote.

   Ord. Resolution No. 2020-01

   • motion:Move approval of the 2019 Community Redevelopment Plan Amendment (Resolution 2020-01). (passed)

   📍6041 Florida Avenue📍Main Street and River Road📍Walgreens property on Highway 19🏢Walgreens👤John Cain👤Mr. Driscoll👤Mr. Murphy👤Mr. Rudd👤Mr. Starkey👤Ms. Mams#2019 Redevelopment Plan Amendment#CRA plan extension through September 30, 2049#Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)#Land Development Code#Land Development Review Board#Resolution No. 2020-01#Transfer of development rights

   ▶ Jump to 0:27 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:27] Next, second reading resolution 2020-01. [00:00:31] Resolution 2020-01, a resolution of the Community Redevelopment [00:00:34] Agency of the City of New Port Richey, recommending to the City [00:00:37] Council of New Port Richey, adoption of an amendment to the community [00:00:40] redevelopment plan and providing an effective date. [00:00:45] Ms. Mams, would you care to? [00:00:46] Good night, Mr. [00:00:47] Mayor, as you'll recall in April of 2019, the city staff advanced to you [00:00:59] for your consideration, an amendment to our community redevelopment authority [00:01:04] plan in large part purpose of which was to modify the plan and it was [00:01:15] additionally to extend the term of the plan through September 30th of 2049. [00:01:25] As we discussed with you at your last meeting in October of 2019, the state [00:01:34] legislature initiated some changes as it relates to the administration of the CRA [00:01:41] program, as a result of that, we felt it was prudent to update our current and [00:01:49] potential activities through the plan document and Mr. Rudd presented to you [00:01:55] at your meeting, a outline of the proposed activities and initiatives that [00:02:05] we thought it would be appropriate to specify in the document and [00:02:12] additionally, the plan was reviewed by the Land Development Review Board for [00:02:20] concurrency with the Land Development Code. [00:02:24] It was their thinking that the plan was in concurrence and Mr. Rudd will [00:02:29] introduce to you a couple of the changes that we made since the first reading. [00:02:34] Very good. Mr. Rudd. [00:02:35] Thank you. [00:02:36] Yes, we made just a few changes you had recommended or directed us to make. [00:02:41] We tweaked the title. [00:02:43] It's the 2019 Community Redevelopment Plan Amendment and then we added [00:02:48] intensity with density as an option, as an incentive, as well as reference to [00:02:58] transfer of development rights was brought up and you asked us to add that [00:03:02] in and additionally, I think that was it. [00:03:07] Those were the three changes you asked us to make and so the document you have [00:03:10] tonight reflects those changes. [00:03:12] Very good. Thank you. [00:03:13] Open up for public comment. [00:03:20] If you would please, please sign in, put your name and address for the record. [00:03:32] I'm not entirely sure if this is the spot where I speak, but I'm representing [00:03:52] a fever arcade bar that we were trying to open up the last 10 months and we're [00:03:57] located on Main Street and River Road and they said that we're not allowed to [00:04:05] open up an arcade because of the laws that were placed in the 80s or 90s that we [00:04:10] can't have arcades or have, I'm assuming, coin-operated machines, so I was [00:04:17] wondering if we could settle what I can actually open up. [00:04:21] That would actually come in the City Council meeting, but we'll have some time. [00:04:24] We can talk between this meeting and the next if you'd like. [00:04:26] Okay. [00:04:27] Okay. [00:04:28] Thank you. [00:04:29] Anyone else? [00:04:36] John Cain, 6041 Florida Avenue. [00:04:39] I just, you know, once again, I wasn't sure I heard the three changes, but, and I sat [00:04:44] here for that. [00:04:47] My memory isn't the best. [00:04:49] Maybe you could just highlight exactly what it is that you're going to be voting as [00:04:54] far as the effectiveness of how that affects the overall CRA or any of us in the city or [00:05:02] your ability to do things better or worse, or, I mean, I'm just curious. [00:05:07] And I figured now's a good time. [00:05:08] I'm not looking for a real in-depth. [00:05:10] I'm not, you know, just maybe something a tad more than what we just got there. [00:05:15] That's all. [00:05:16] Thank you. [00:05:18] Anyone else? [00:05:21] Seeing no one else, I'll close public comment. [00:05:24] Mr. Driscoll, could you address Mr. Cain's question? [00:05:29] I'm not sure if I can. [00:05:30] I'm not sure exactly what he's looking for. [00:05:32] I mean, this is the first reading document with the changes that were made by staff as [00:05:38] a result of the first reading. [00:05:40] We reflected what you advised us and required us to do. [00:05:45] This is essentially providing some more specificity into the types of programs and things that [00:05:51] the CRA can do and provides some level of comfort that when a project is approved by [00:06:00] the CRA that it will actually be within the plan so that it will be defensible if anyone [00:06:06] were to challenge that plan. [00:06:08] Which is a reason for the specifics. [00:06:11] Correct. [00:06:12] Correct. [00:06:13] I'll move approval of the plan. [00:06:17] I'll move approval of the plan. [00:06:20] Second. [00:06:21] To the maker. [00:06:22] Just under discussion again, I know that it was also mentioned that part of the reason [00:06:28] of this by our director was to comply with some of the statutory changes that were made [00:06:34] by the state legislature. [00:06:36] Most importantly, that they required action to be taken to reiterate the modification [00:06:46] of the length and the date of it. [00:06:49] We had previously added 30 years to this and we had to do something subsequent to that [00:06:54] which is incorporated in this plan. [00:06:56] That would be the legal side, if I'm not mistaken. [00:06:59] Yeah, but that's not being accomplished with this particular amendment. [00:07:02] That is something else that we will have to do, the majority vote to extend the plan. [00:07:06] So that will be a follow-up. [00:07:08] Correct. [00:07:09] But this will allow us to do some of the activities without question that we've identified. [00:07:15] Would I be correct to say that this will also assist us in the defense of the acquisition [00:07:20] of the Walgreens property on Highway 19? [00:07:24] I'm sorry, Mr. Attorney. [00:07:26] Yeah, very much so. [00:07:28] That's one of the major drivers for this, I think, is that we needed to add some specificity [00:07:34] for those types of projects. [00:07:36] So if the CRA wants to purchase, make large purchases like that, that it's demonstrable [00:07:41] within the plan that that is something that's been planned for. [00:07:44] Thank you. [00:07:45] That's all I have. [00:07:47] Very good. [00:07:48] To the second? [00:07:50] Mr. Starkey? [00:07:52] No, it just sounds like we're just covering ourselves here for potential projects we have in the future [00:07:57] to make sure that we're doing them within the guidelines of the CRA. [00:08:02] And we're just making, instead of having it under more broad uses from how I interpret this, [00:08:08] we're specifying, like you said, in a more acute way as to exactly what we're using the funds for, [00:08:15] project-wise, correct? [00:08:17] Yes, and the idea being that there may not be a problem with the way that the plan was structured prior, [00:08:24] but this will solidify that because the prevailing thinking is that if it's not in your plan, [00:08:30] you shouldn't be doing it, and a more broad-based plan may not be as defensible as a very specific plan. [00:08:37] And it's a very good idea, and as we all know, our CRA, along with other CRAs from municipalities across the state, [00:08:43] have been under the microscope. [00:08:45] There's a lot of people that, for whatever reason, don't like them that are on a different level, [00:08:50] whether it be county level, state level, but for whatever reasons, [00:08:54] everyone has a reason to like certain programs and not to like certain programs. [00:08:59] I personally, once again, feel that since we've been up here [00:09:02] and even historically looking at some of the things that have been done with our CRA, [00:09:06] that it's always been within the guidelines of what we have the right to do with those funds, [00:09:12] and this is just one more step to show everyone we have nothing to hide and we're using them appropriately. [00:09:19] Thank you. [00:09:21] Mr. Murphy? [00:09:22] Nothing. [00:09:23] In that case, I would call for the question then. [00:09:28] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:09:30] Aye. [00:09:31] Opposed, like sign. [00:09:33] 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.

4. 4

   2019 Nebraska Ave. Parking Lot Improvements - Engineering Services

   approved

   The CRA Board approved an agreement with Kimley Horn, not to exceed $61,050, for architectural and engineering services for the 2019 Nebraska Avenue Parking Lot Improvement Project. Funding source was clarified to be CRA funds (as originally budgeted) rather than Penny for Pasco funds as previously stated. Discussion included a citizen question about a parking garage alternative (deemed too expensive at ~$5 million) and a request for further education on CRA revenue streams.

   • motion:Approve agreement with Kimley Horn for an amount not to exceed $61,050 for architectural and engineering services for the Nebraska Avenue Parking Lot Improvement Project, funded by CRA funds. (passed)

   📍6041 Florida Avenue📍Nebraska Avenue Parking Lot🏢Kimley Horn🏢Urbanomics👤Deputy Mayor Starkey👤John Cain👤Mr. Sharkey👤Mr. Ullman👤Ms. Mintz#2019 Nebraska Avenue Parking Lot Improvement Project#Penny for Pasco#Prigeon property

   ▶ Jump to 9:34 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:09:34] Next is the 2019 Nebraska Avenue Parking Lot Engineering Services. [00:09:38] Ms. Mintz? [00:09:39] Yes, sir. [00:09:40] Mr. Mayors, I'm sure you will recall this agenda item was before you at your meeting on December 3rd, [00:09:51] and at that time the thinking was that we were using a portion of the Penny for Pasco funds. [00:09:59] At that time, we've been able to confirm that we are not using any Penny for Pasco funds, [00:10:04] but instead we would like to use CRA funds, the purpose of which would be to enter into an agreement [00:10:13] with Kimley Horn for an amount not to exceed $61,050 for the architectural [00:10:20] and engineering services associated with the Nebraska Avenue Parking Lot Improvement Project. [00:10:26] Thank you. [00:10:27] I'll open it up for public comment. [00:10:29] Come on down, John. [00:10:37] John Cain, 6041 Florida Avenue. [00:10:41] I remember once a while back there was some discussion. [00:10:46] It wasn't for that particular property, [00:10:49] but I'm just curious whatever happened to the idea of the two-tier parking garage that we were kind of like debating [00:10:58] because I thought actually it was a good idea in the redevelopment of these two parking lots that are a big area. [00:11:08] Has that been a consideration with this, the idea of going up and having two or three levels [00:11:17] and having an in-city parking garage that would afford a lot more space at all? [00:11:28] I think I can answer that for you. [00:11:30] Thank you. [00:11:32] $5 million. [00:11:34] Thank you very much. [00:11:37] Also, I think you might say that we had a survey and the town was not ready for a parking garage yet. [00:11:45] Right. [00:11:46] That's basically what I was trying to say. [00:11:47] Was it in the consideration? [00:11:49] Yeah, special events are the only time when it would actually get used, [00:11:53] and there's some alternatives that are a lot less expensive than $5 million. [00:11:58] I guess, yeah. [00:11:59] It would have been nice to have it, but that's a little pricey. [00:12:02] Anyone else? [00:12:04] Seeing no one else come forward, bring it back to the CRA. [00:12:08] Move approval. [00:12:09] Second. [00:12:10] To the maker. [00:12:11] Second. [00:12:12] Nothing more. [00:12:13] Mr. Sharkey? [00:12:14] I guess I would just like to know why we've decided to use CRA funds for this project [00:12:18] rather than Penny for Pasco funds. [00:12:20] Actually, CRA funds were budgeted for this project from the beginning. [00:12:25] It was an error on our part to think it was Penny for Pasco. [00:12:29] That's it? [00:12:30] There's no specific reason why we changed the funding? [00:12:33] There was funding available in the CRA, [00:12:36] and we planned to use CRA funds to implement the improvements at that location as well. [00:12:44] So it was just a misprint basically saying we were going to use Penny for Pasco funds? [00:12:48] We didn't. [00:12:50] I'm just looking at it like you understand and deal with the funding much more than I do, [00:12:55] but I just look at our CRA being in so much debt [00:12:59] and we're buying a building for $1.6 million, $1.7 million on top of that. [00:13:04] Why do we keep using funds from a program that we're in debt service to [00:13:10] rather than just money coming in from Penny for Pasco? [00:13:14] In response to the question, Deputy Mayor Starkey, [00:13:17] we are paying off debt in the CRA, but it is not exclusively a debt service instrument. [00:13:25] We do have a number of projects that we are able to fund through use of our CRA fund. [00:13:33] And that's one of the reasons that we programmed the Nebraska project [00:13:37] as well as others to be funded through that source. [00:13:42] Thank you. [00:13:43] Mr. Ullman? [00:13:44] I think the Deputy Mayor brings up a topic that I think is one that I have also asked [00:13:50] that we can look in the new year at, which is we had from Kimley Horne, [00:13:55] their financial analyst when they did the plan update, who was the name of it? [00:14:00] Urbanomics. [00:14:01] Urbanomics. [00:14:02] And they gave us a description of the revenue streams with the 30-year revenue stream, [00:14:06] what we could expect to come from the plan. [00:14:09] I know interest rates were at the time at their historic low. [00:14:13] They're even more historically low than they were a year ago. [00:14:17] So I think a good point being made at the capital investments the city may find itself in [00:14:27] in public-private partnerships, we could really use a lesson, I think, [00:14:32] as a group and a better understanding of the revenue streams that we're looking at. [00:14:39] Also, if the interest rates are as low as they are, [00:14:42] the potential may be there for us to do something that would allow us to even further leverage [00:14:50] the dollars that we're getting. [00:14:54] So I think it's an exercise. [00:14:57] We've got a lot of projects that we've talked about. [00:15:00] over there that we're looking to, you know, I think we should be expanding. [00:15:05] We've got the parking facility that if a developer came in and wanted to build something, we [00:15:10] would probably be back at the table again. [00:15:13] The fact is, downtown, we haven't had that request, and we need desperately the parking [00:15:19] immediately for the needs. [00:15:22] Once that prigeon property is no longer available for overflow for events or anything else, [00:15:27] we need every space we can get. [00:15:29] So to me, this is a, I hate to say it, but a potential temporary parking structure, a [00:15:36] parking lot. [00:15:37] It's a lot of money to pay for something that I feel is going to be redesigned once the [00:15:45] private individuals that surround that property come to us, if they do, looking to put their [00:15:50] money into the downtown. [00:15:54] So I support it, it's something we need to do. [00:16:02] Any further comments? [00:16:03] No, I support it as well, I mean, we need, it's a good project, I was just looking for [00:16:09] clarification as to why we're using CRA funds rather than penny funds. [00:16:13] Thank you. [00:16:14] If there's no further discussion, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:16:17] Aye. [00:16:18] Opposed, like sign. [00:16:20] Any CRA communications?

   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▶ 16:21
6. 6Adjournment▶ 19:08