On the agenda

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

   Approval of May 12, 2020 CRA Meeting Minutes

   approved

   The CRA Board approved the minutes from the May 12, 2020 CRA meeting.

   • motion:Approve the May 12, 2020 CRA meeting minutes. (passed)

   #May 12, 2020 CRA Meeting Minutes

   ▶ Jump to 0:20 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:20] The first item on the agenda is the approval of the May 12th CRA meeting minutes. [00:00:26] Move for approval. [00:00:27] Second. [00:00:28] Any discussion? [00:00:29] Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. [00:00:40] Aye. [00:00:41] Opposed? [00:00:42] Like sign. [00:00:43] 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 “Mike Moore” — transcript expanded below

   Resolution No. 2020-29: Amendment of the CRA Redevelopment Plan and Map

   approved

   The CRA Board considered Resolution 2020-29, recommending to City Council an amendment to the CRA Redevelopment Plan and Map to remove the Woodridge Estates and Briar Patch subdivisions (372 parcels) from the CRA boundaries because they no longer meet slum/blight definitions. The change reduces TIF income by $67,901 but increases the city's general fund by $36,321 and was framed as a good-faith gesture toward Pasco County. The motion was made and seconded; the item appears to have been approved.

   Ord. Resolution No. 2020-29

   • motion:Move approval of the recommended course of action to adopt Resolution 2020-29 amending the CRA Redevelopment Plan and Map to remove Woodridge Estates and Briar Patch from CRA boundaries. (passed)

   📍Briar Patch📍Woodridge Estates🏢Bank of America🏢Bavarian Gardens / Tokyo Restaurant🏢Publix🏢U-Haul dealer👤Commissioner Moore👤Director Altman👤Director Davis👤Mr. Driscoll👤Mr. Murphy👤Mr. Rudd👤Ms. Manns#1988 blight study / finding of necessity#CRA Redevelopment Plan and Map#Pasco County joint meeting#Resolution 2020-29#TIF revenue reduction of $67,901#parking structure bond

   ▶ Jump to 0:45 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:45] Next is resolution 2020-29, amendment to the CRA development plan and map. [00:00:51] This is resolution 2020-29, a resolution of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the [00:00:56] City of New Port Richey recommending to the City Council of New Port Richey adoption of [00:01:00] an amendment to the Community Redevelopment Plan to amend the boundaries of the redevelopment [00:01:04] area and providing an effective date. [00:01:07] Ms. Manns. [00:01:08] Certainly, Mr. Mayor. [00:01:11] As Mr. Driscoll indicated, the purpose of the amendment this evening is to make a change [00:01:21] as it relates to the redevelopment plan and map. [00:01:24] What we're doing specifically is removing certain parcels from the boundaries of the [00:01:30] community redevelopment area and to provide just a small bit of history. [00:01:37] When the City established a CRA, it conducted a study, and the study was a blight study [00:01:49] and that was done in 1988 and the basis of what was a finding of necessity as it relates [00:01:55] to properties that were to be included in the district. [00:02:02] Rolling forward to 2020, it was determined that it would be an appropriate time to re-evaluate [00:02:10] the properties within the boundaries of the district to see if any of the properties identified [00:02:21] could be removed from meeting the definitions of slum or blighted conditions. [00:02:31] That being said, Mr. Rudd, who serves as our Economic Development Director, was responsible [00:02:38] for identifying properties which may or may not have continued to be in compliance with [00:02:47] that definition. [00:02:49] At the conclusion of his investigation, he determined that Woodbridge Estates and Briar [00:02:56] Patch subdivisions no longer met the needs of the definitions, therefore, the recommendation [00:03:06] before you this evening is to remove the two subdivisions from the boundaries of our [00:03:15] CRA district. [00:03:18] You may be interested to know that the two districts represent a total of 372 parcels [00:03:29] and Mr. Rudd indicates in his communication to you on this matter that the combined parcel [00:03:39] values of the 372 parcels are $15,058,839. [00:03:50] That was, pardon me, originally in 2001 and $19,428,365 in 2019. [00:04:05] So if this recommendation meets with your approval, the long and short of it is the [00:04:12] income to the TIF will be reduced in the amount of $67,901. [00:04:21] There are two taxing jurisdictions that would benefit from this property being removed from [00:04:29] the boundaries. [00:04:30] The one is the county, the second is the city, and the city's increase to the general fund [00:04:37] would be in the amount of $36,321. [00:04:44] Open it up for public comment. [00:04:47] Anybody? [00:04:49] In that case, I will bring it back to the CRA. [00:05:00] Just a question to kick off, will this have any negative impact on our bonding for the [00:05:06] CRA? [00:05:07] No, it will not. [00:05:10] And the bond that I believe you're referring to is the bond that is being contemplated [00:05:17] for the parking structure and the plan for that bond is to sell using full faith and [00:05:27] credit of the city, and then in turn making a loan to the CRA from the city. [00:05:34] I'm sorry, from the city to the CRA. [00:05:37] How about existing indebtedness? [00:05:40] There's no encumbrance on that? [00:05:42] No, not in that amount. [00:05:45] Open it up for other questions. [00:05:47] Director Altman, anything? [00:05:49] I would move approval of the recommended course of action. [00:05:53] I second. [00:05:54] We have a motion and a second. [00:05:56] Mr. Altman? [00:05:57] Back to the motion and to your question. [00:05:59] I just have one comment. [00:06:02] Sure, go ahead. [00:06:05] I just hope the county takes its good faith approach that we're taking towards helping [00:06:12] them and they help us with the properties that we're looking to acquire ourselves in [00:06:18] their pockets. [00:06:20] Thank you, sir. [00:06:21] Mr. Altman? [00:06:23] To your question about the bonds, at the point when there were three of those $6.5 million [00:06:31] bonds, the one that was with Bank of America, I believe it was, had a condition that would [00:06:41] not allow for the district to be contracted or dealt with in any way. [00:06:45] So there was, based on your memory, a bond. [00:06:50] The bond was the bond that was paid off by the loan from the city before. [00:06:54] The other two did not have those conditions on them. [00:06:58] And I know, pardon me, but since I've been gone, some of that stuff has been refinanced. [00:07:04] But to any degree, the $35,000 as well that we are not contributing to the CRA means that [00:07:20] the county's taxes that are a lower tax rate than ours, so I'm guessing that's probably [00:07:26] $20,000 worth of annual revenue that they can begin to capture from the growth of those [00:07:34] two areas. [00:07:36] But it's not much, considering how much we have, which I'm guessing reflects the fact [00:07:40] that those areas were developed already, that the values haven't gone up tremendously, [00:07:48] and so consequently I think it's a good-faith move that we had in that joint county the [00:07:54] last time we met with the county commissioners. [00:07:58] And so there's plenty of times we go to the well, whether it's transportation or tourism [00:08:02] or whatever. [00:08:04] So I think it's a wise move on our part to eliminate this concept that the city is 100% [00:08:15] CRA. [00:08:17] So I think in general, I think it's a good move. [00:08:21] Thank you. [00:08:23] That does answer my questions. [00:08:25] Mr. Murphy, I think you were the first second. [00:08:27] I would just say that while it doesn't seem like taking money out of the CRA is a good [00:08:31] thing, it is a sign of the natural progression thing and being positive and making progress [00:08:37] here in the city. [00:08:39] And that's what it's for. [00:08:41] So it's actually a good thing in that respect. [00:08:44] To the second second. [00:08:46] Yes, sir. [00:08:48] Yeah, these are two deed-restricted neighborhoods. [00:08:50] I used to live in one of them, Woodridge Estates in Briarpatch. [00:08:52] They are by far not under the, in my opinion, under the definition of slum and blighted [00:08:58] for the CRA. [00:09:00] Commissioner Moore had reached out to me several, several months ago and just had a, he had [00:09:04] an issue with the fact that our entire city limits was deeded, or was categorized as slum [00:09:10] and blighted for the CRA. [00:09:12] And at that point, Ms. Manns and I had drove over to Dade City to meet with Commissioner [00:09:16] Moore. [00:09:18] And I think this is just an act of good faith. [00:09:20] I think it was the right thing to do when he brought up his concerns. [00:09:22] These are the two subdivisions that came to my mind and that I brought up actually during [00:09:26] that meeting. [00:09:28] It was very nice, Ms. Manns, to make the driver of the Dade City as well. [00:09:30] So I just think it shows that we as a council and a city are wanting to and willing to work [00:09:34] with the county. [00:09:36] And we've had a pretty positive relationship, I would say, over the last few years. [00:09:38] And I think we're gaining traction there. [00:09:41] So it's just one more act on our part, in my opinion, to show that we are willing to [00:09:45] listen and work with the county commission in the best way that we can to move forward [00:09:51] for not just our city, but the entire West Pasco area. [00:09:55] So I think it's the right move for sure. [00:09:57] Excellent points. [00:09:59] Thank you very much. [00:10:01] Director Davis, any thoughts? [00:10:03] Just what I said. [00:10:05] Okay. [00:10:07] In that case, any further discussion? [00:10:10] Yeah. [00:10:12] I want to add one more thing because it was part of our discussion before as well in dealing [00:10:16] with the county. [00:10:18] And that is, you know, when I've spoken to the U-Haul dealer that's on the New Port Richey [00:10:24] side of Highway 19 who has described the daily influx of homeless folks that are coming from [00:10:34] the county as close to Main Street. [00:10:37] And, you know, initially we talked about the area by Publix. [00:10:41] And I've continued to have more people ask me and coming to the door even to knock to [00:10:47] see if they would help to give them some food or drink, including downtown businesses that [00:10:53] they sit in front of. [00:10:55] And we certainly want to be compassionate and sympathetic, but in our goal to increase [00:11:01] the values in our property, you know, driving today I saw, I think, five people up against [00:11:11] the old Bavarian Gardens, then Tokyo Restaurant or whatever it is, again on River Road. [00:11:19] And, you know, the message that I hear from our city businesses is the county doesn't [00:11:28] do anything about dealing with that and we don't have the authority to go into those [00:11:32] areas. [00:11:34] So, you know, hopefully they'll recognize that the elimination of slum and blight and [00:11:38] the economic vitality of our city is going to require some kind of effort on the county [00:11:44] to help deal with the homeless population and find a way in which they either can get [00:11:48] and be offered and receive assistance, or if they choose to live in a primitive fashion [00:11:55] that they don't do it in the middle of an urban setting. [00:11:59] That's all. [00:12:01] That has become a hot spot. [00:12:03] Yes, it has.

   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. 4Communications▶ 12:05
5. 5Adjournment▶ 12:08