On the agenda

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

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

   Pledge of Allegiance

   The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

   👤Driscoll👤Manz

   ▶ Jump to 0:14 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:14] City Manager Manz? Here. City Attorney Driscoll? Here. And for the Pledge of Allegiance, I'll [00:00:18] move in silence. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America [00:00:26] and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

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

3. 3

   Moment of Silence

   Moment of Silence.

   ▶ Jump to 0:37 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:37] 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

   Approval of January 10, 2024 Special Meeting Minutes

   approved

   Council approved the minutes from the January 10, 2024 special meeting.

   • motion:Motion to approve the January 10, 2024 special meeting minutes. (passed)

   #January 10, 2024 Special Meeting Minutes

   ▶ Jump to 0:43 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:43] Looking for approval of the January 10th special meeting minutes. Move for approval.

   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. 5

   Approval of January 16, 2024 Work Session and Regular Meeting Minutes

   approved

   Council approved the minutes from the January 16, 2024 work session and regular meeting.

   • motion:Approve the January 16, 2024 work session and regular meeting minutes. (passed)5–0

   ▶ Jump to 0:49 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:49] Second. All those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? Five zip. Let's have approval for [00:00:56] January 16th, 2024, work session and regular meeting minutes. I move we

   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. 6

   Proclamation: West Pasco Quilters Guild

   approved

   The Mayor read a proclamation recognizing the West Pasco Quilters Guild for its community contributions, including making over 500 quilts per year, supporting local charities, and participating in the Quilts of Valor Foundation. The Guild announced its 18th quilt show running February 16-18, 2024, with displays at multiple downtown venues.

   • vote:Motion to approve (preceding agenda item, likely minutes/agenda). (passed)5–0

   🏢African-American Club🏢Art Guild🏢Congregational Church🏢Dart Trolley🏢Habitat for Humanity🏢Methodist Church downtown🏢Pasco Kids First🏢Peace Hall🏢Quilts of Valor Foundation🏢Recreation Center🏢Salvation Army🏢West Pasco Quilters Guild👤Chopper Davis👤Rhonda Coning#18th Annual Quilt Show (Feb 16-18, 2024)#Ambassador Quilts program

   ▶ Jump to 1:02 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:01:03] approve. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? Five zip. Proclamation for [00:01:11] the West Paschal Quilters. Who's coming down? Everyone? Sure. Bring the whole crew. [00:01:56] This is a proclamation of the Office of Mayor of the City of New Port Richey, whereas the West Paschal Quilters Guild was formed in [00:02:09] 1988 and has since grown to 270 members, and whereas the West Paschal Quilters [00:02:14] Guild makes and distributes over 500 quilts per year to schools and other [00:02:19] organizations that will distribute them, as well as distributing 550 Christmas [00:02:23] quilts and handmade pillowcases to members of the community, and whereas [00:02:27] the West Paschal Quilters Guild supports a number of local charities, including [00:02:31] Habitat for Humanity, Pasco Kids First, Salvation Army, the African-American [00:02:36] Club, and many more, and whereas the West Paschal Quilters Guild is a participant [00:02:40] in the Nation Quilts of Valor Foundation and has awarded over 200 handmade [00:02:46] patriotic quilts to our veterans, and whereas the West Paschal Quilters Guild [00:02:51] will hold its 18th quilt show, February 12, 2024 through February 18, 2024, and [00:02:57] expects up to 3,000 attendees, now therefore I, Chopper Davis, Mayor of the [00:03:02] City of New Port Richey, do hereby recognize the West Paschal Quilters Guild [00:03:05] and encourage all citizens to attend the quilt show and view these wonderful [00:03:10] works of art on display. [00:03:40] 282 members, and we're growing all the time, you know. I just wanted to thank the [00:03:47] Rec Center and the City for allowing us to have this venue, and I wanted you to [00:03:55] know that this is the second time that we're getting the City involved with [00:04:03] this. We actually, here, see all those businesses? They all have Ambassador [00:04:08] Quilts in there. There's 64 businesses that we have sent our street walkers to, and the street walkers have put, you know, quilts in each of them, and we're hoping that we can expand it more. We actually have four venues where we are displaying quilts, also, besides just the Rec Center. [00:04:39] Yeah, yeah, you want to tell them? Come on. This is one of our co-chairs. This is Rhonda Coning. Tell them where they are. [00:04:46] Good evening, everybody. I'm Rhonda Coning. We, this year, are working with the Methodist Church downtown, the Congregational Church. Peace Hall will have a beautiful antique quilt display. The Art Guild is also hosting an art quilt display for us, and we're very excited. We've worked out [00:05:02] arrangements with the Dart Trolley to have transportation between all of those [00:05:07] venues during Friday and Saturday of our show. So we really expect the attendance [00:05:12] of the show to benefit many organizations within the City, not just [00:05:16] what we do as a guild. The days of the show are set for February 16th, 17th, and [00:05:24] 18th. That's a Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. The hours of the show are 10 to 4, and we go from noon to 4 on Sunday. We invite all of you to come and see us. We would love to have you come in and see what we do with the guild. [00:05:37] And the importance of the guild to the community. [00:05:41] Most of the people who come have come from outside New Brunswick, so it's really not the case that we have to hear them brag about it. [00:05:56] 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.

7. 7Vox Pop for Items Not Listed on the Agenda or Listed on Consent Agenda▶ 6:07
8. 8.a

   Purchases/Payments for City Council Approval

   approvedon consent

   Council approved the consent agenda, which included purchases/payments for City Council approval, on a unanimous voice vote with no comments.

   • motion:Motion to approve the consent agenda. (passed)

   ▶ Jump to 32:07 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:32:07] We'll go to the consent agenda. [00:32:11] Move for approval on the consent agenda. [00:32:13] I move for approval. [00:32:16] Second. [00:32:17] Do we have any comments? [00:32:19] Seeing none, all those in favor? [00:32:21] Aye. [00:32:22] Those opposed? [00:32:23] Aye. [00:32:24] Nothing? [00:32:26] Public reading of ordinance.

   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. 8.b

   Consideration of Year-End Amendment to the FY2022-2023 Adopted Budget

   approvedon consent

   Item was handled as part of the consent agenda. A motion to approve the consent agenda was made, seconded, and passed unanimously without discussion.

   • motion:Motion to approve the consent agenda, which included the year-end amendment to the FY2022-2023 adopted budget. (passed)

   #FY2022-2023 Adopted Budget#Year-End Budget Amendment

   ▶ Jump to 32:07 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:32:07] We'll go to the consent agenda. [00:32:11] Move for approval on the consent agenda. [00:32:13] I move for approval. [00:32:16] Second. [00:32:17] Do we have any comments? [00:32:19] Seeing none, all those in favor? [00:32:21] Aye. [00:32:22] Those opposed? [00:32:23] Aye. [00:32:24] Nothing? [00:32:26] Public reading of ordinance.

   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.

10. 8.c

    Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes - December 2023

    approvedon consent

    The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board minutes from December 2023 were approved as part of the consent agenda.

    • motion:Motion to approve the consent agenda, including the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board minutes from December 2023. (passed)

    #Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes - December 2023

    ▶ Jump to 32:07 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [00:32:07] We'll go to the consent agenda. [00:32:11] Move for approval on the consent agenda. [00:32:13] I move for approval. [00:32:16] Second. [00:32:17] Do we have any comments? [00:32:19] Seeing none, all those in favor? [00:32:21] Aye. [00:32:22] Those opposed? [00:32:23] Aye. [00:32:24] Nothing? [00:32:26] Public reading of ordinance.

    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.

11. 9.a

    First Reading, Ordinance No. 2024-2283: Amendments to Firefighters' Pension Ordinance

    approved

    Council conducted the first reading of Ordinance 2024-2283, amending the Firefighters' Pension Ordinance to clarify the definition of salary, address Board discretion in recovering overpayments, and update the required minimum distribution age to 72 in conformance with SECURE Act 2.0. The actuary letter from Foster and Foster confirmed no financial impact. Council passed the motion 5-0 and scheduled second reading for February 20, 2024.

    Ord. Ordinance No. 2024-2283

    • motion:Motion to adopt Ordinance 2024-2283 on first reading and schedule second reading for February 20, 2024. (passed)5–0

    🏢Board of Trustees of the Firefighters' Retirement System🏢Foster and Foster👤Kelly👤Pete#Article 3 of Chapter 17, Code of Ordinances#Firefighters' Retirement System#Ordinance No. 2024-2283#SECURE Act 2.0#Section 17-36 definitions#Section 17-39 finances and fund management#Section 17-42 pre-retirement death#Section 17-50.1 minimum distribution of benefits

    ▶ Jump to 32:27 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [00:32:27] First reading ordinance number 2024-2283, amendment to the firefighter suspension ordinance. [00:32:34] This is ordinance number 2024-2283, an ordinance of the city of New Port Richey, Florida, [00:32:38] providing for amendment of Article 3 of Chapter 17 of the Code of Ordinances of the city of New Port Richey, [00:32:44] pertaining to the firefighter's retirement system, providing for amendment of Section 17-36, definitions, [00:32:50] providing for amendment of Section 17-39, finances and fund management, [00:32:55] providing for amendment of Section 1742, pre-retirement death, [00:32:59] providing for amendment of Section 17-50.1, minimum distribution of benefits, [00:33:05] providing for severability of provision, providing for codification, [00:33:08] repealing all ordinances of conflict herewith, and providing an effective date. [00:33:14] Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. [00:33:16] The Board of Trustees of the firefighter's retirement system has reviewed this matter, [00:33:20] and they're recommending in favor of virtually three changes to the current firefighter pension ordinance. [00:33:32] The first, as indicated by the city attorney, deals with definitions, [00:33:36] and the definitions section is being recommended for an amendment to clarify the definition of salary [00:33:44] as it relates to the determination period. [00:33:48] The section relating to finances and fund management [00:33:54] is being amended to provide language relating to the Board's discretion [00:34:02] related to recovery of assets in the event that an overpayment is to occur. [00:34:09] Pre-retirement death and minimum distribution of benefits is actually one change, [00:34:15] and the change is being made to reflect changes that relate specifically to internal revenue code, [00:34:25] changes that have been made in response to the SECURE Act 2.0, [00:34:31] changing the required distribution age to age 72, [00:34:37] and that, of course, can be amended in the internal revenue code, but that's what the current state is. [00:34:45] The proposed changes in the ordinance do not reflect any financial impact on the funding requirement of the plan. [00:34:55] As such, an actuary and letter from foster and foster is attached to the agenda item, [00:35:03] which supports that statement, and we are recommending that you conduct your first reading of this ordinance [00:35:13] and schedule a second reading of the matter to be conducted on February 20th of 2024. [00:35:23] We have any public comment on this? [00:35:27] Seeing no one come forward, we'll bring it back for a vote. [00:35:35] Mayor, I make a motion we adopt this ordinance. [00:35:40] Second. [00:35:42] Any comments? You want to start it out? [00:35:45] I don't have a lot of comments on it. [00:35:47] It's basically, I think it's updating the current phase schedule, [00:35:51] and the fact is we have the, it gets it up to speed with current federal legislation, [00:35:58] as well as it does not result in financial impact on the funding requirements. [00:36:06] No, nothing on good. Kelly? [00:36:07] Nothing to add. [00:36:09] Pete? [00:36:10] I'm good with the agreement. [00:36:11] All those in favor, signify by aye. [00:36:13] Aye. [00:36:14] Those opposed? [00:36:15] Okay, that's five zip. [00:36:17] Moving on to the second one. [00:36:18] First reading of ordinance 2024-2284, amendments to the police pension ordinance. [00:36:25] The pension. [00:36:26] I need to read the title. [00:36:27] Go ahead. [00:36:28] Firefighters celebrating or something? [00:36:30] Not tonight. [00:36:31] Ordinance number 2024-2284, an ordinance of the city of New Port Richey, Florida, [00:36:35] providing for amendment of Article 4 of Chapter 17 of the Code of Ordinances of the city of New Port Richey,

    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.

12. 9.b

    First Reading, Ordinance No. 2024-2284: Amendments to Police Pension Ordinance

    approved

    First reading of Ordinance No. 2024-2284 amending the Police Officers' Retirement System ordinance. Five amendments address salary definition, overpayment recovery, required distribution dates (Secure Act 2.0 compliance), statutory minimum disability benefit with workers' comp offset, and in-service distributions. Council approved on first reading 5-0; second hearing scheduled for February 20, 2024.

    Ord. Ordinance No. 2024-2284

    • motion:Motion to approve Ordinance No. 2024-2284 on first reading and schedule second hearing for February 20, 2024. (passed)5–0

    📍5853 Lafayette Street🏢Foster and Foster🏢Gabriel Roeder Smith and Company👤Lori Baker👤Pete#Board of Trustees of the Police Officers' Retirement System#Ordinance No. 2024-2284#Police Officers' Retirement System#Section 15-51 definitions#Section 17-54 finances and fund management#Section 17-57 pre-retirement death#Section 17-58 disability provision#Section 17-65.1 minimum distribution of benefits#Section 17-65.2 miscellaneous provisions#Secure Act 2.0

    ▶ Jump to 36:37 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [00:36:40] pertaining to the police officer's retirement system. [00:36:43] Providing for amendment of Subsection A of Section 15-51 definitions to amend the definition of salary. [00:36:49] Providing for amendment of Subsection 6 of Section 17-54, finances and fund management, [00:36:54] pertaining to overpayments and underpayments. [00:36:56] Providing for amendment of Subsection C of Section 17-57, pre-retirement death, [00:37:01] pertaining to the required distribution date. [00:37:04] Providing for amendment of Subsection G of Section 17-58, pertaining to minimum benefit under workers' compensation offset. [00:37:12] Providing for amendment to Subsection B of Section 17-65.1, minimum distribution of benefits, [00:37:19] pertaining to the required distribution date. [00:37:21] Providing for the addition of Subsection J to Section 17-65.2, miscellaneous provisions, [00:37:27] pertaining to in-service distributions, providing for codification, providing for severability of provisions, [00:37:33] repealing all ordinances in conflict you're with, and providing an effective date. [00:37:39] The ordinance before you this evening was also reviewed by a Board of Trustees. [00:37:47] It was the Board of Trustees of the police officer's retirement system, and it has been recommended to you for approval. [00:37:56] The first three provisions of the ordinance are in the definition section, the finances and fund management section, [00:38:06] and the pre-retirement death and minimum distribution of benefits section. [00:38:12] Those three provisions contain the exact same language as what was presented to you in the firefighters' pension ordinance. [00:38:23] And again, the definition section is to clarify salary by presenting a determination period. [00:38:33] Financing and fund management was to provide discretion to the Board so that there was a recovery in the event of an inadvertent overpayment from the fund. [00:38:45] Pre-retirement death and minimum distribution of benefit is simply just to comply with recent changes to the Internal Revenue Code [00:38:55] as a result of the Secure Act 2.0 changing the required distribution date. [00:39:02] The disability provision, which is in section 17-58, is new, [00:39:11] and it is being provided to amend the definition to provide the statutory minimum, [00:39:20] which must be provided to police officers who are declared to have a disability, [00:39:27] and they must receive a minimum under the pension, [00:39:34] and it is to include a minimum with an adjustment for a workers' compensation offset. [00:39:46] The last provision is under the miscellaneous provisions, [00:39:54] and it is to provide for an in-service distribution from the plan, [00:40:01] and the only time that there would be an in-service distribution from the plan is when it is allowed by law [00:40:10] and in accordance with any Internal Revenue Code rules. [00:40:16] And with those five amendments or changes to the police pension ordinance, [00:40:27] we're recommending that you approve the proposed ordinance [00:40:32] and schedule your second hearing of the matter also to be conducted on February 20th of 2024. [00:40:42] I'm looking for any public opinion on this. Come on down. [00:40:59] Lori Baker, 5853 Lafayette Street. [00:41:04] I listened, but I didn't hear anyone say what the financial impact was of any of these changes, [00:41:10] and I would like to hear. [00:41:11] That's a really good question, and I should have indicated in the second agenda item as I did in the first [00:41:18] that the proposed ordinance does not have a cost associated with the adoption of the ordinance [00:41:28] and that we do have an actuarial opinion to support that prepared by, in this case, [00:41:37] it was prepared by Gabriel Roeder and Smith and Company, and the first was by Foster and Foster. [00:41:48] Anybody else like to speak? [00:41:51] I'll bring it back for a vote. [00:41:55] May I move we approve? [00:41:58] I'll second. [00:41:59] Do you have any comments? [00:42:01] No, really, same comments as before, except as the young lady pointed out, [00:42:05] there was a question in my mind about the funding. [00:42:07] I appreciate that being clarified. [00:42:09] Thank you. [00:42:10] No, nothing. [00:42:11] I'm good. [00:42:13] Pete? [00:42:14] No, I think this makes everybody happy. [00:42:19] I agree with that. [00:42:20] All those in favor? [00:42:22] Aye. [00:42:23] Those opposed? [00:42:24] Be five zip. [00:42:25] Okay, moving on to the business items.

    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.

13. 9.c

    First Reading, Ordinance No. 2024-2285: Modification of the Solid Waste Collection System

    discussed

    Council held first reading of Ordinance 2024-2285 amending Chapter 10 to support transition to a single trash hauler system, including fee criteria, billing, liens, and city manager administration. After public comment largely opposed and concerns about a potential legal challenge from displaced haulers, council discussed history of the single-hauler decision and proposed fee structure.

    Ord. Ordinance No. 2024-2285

    • direction:Council discussed first reading of Ordinance 2024-2285 with concerns about potential legal challenge; second reading scheduled for February 28, 2024. (none)

    📍5853 Lafayette📍6153 Massachusetts Avenue🏢Faith in Florida🏢J.D. Parker🏢The Patriots👤Darla Schwendeman👤Debbie Manns👤Kelly Mothershead👤Laurie Baker👤Marlo Jones👤Mike Peters👤Ms. Dunn👤Murphy👤Peter Altman👤Rivera👤Tim#Chapter 10 of Newport Richey Code of Ordinances#December 2, 2020 notification to haulers#February 28, 2024 second reading#Ordinance 2024-2285#Single trash hauler system

    ▶ Jump to 42:27 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [00:42:28] No, we have one more. [00:42:29] I'm sorry. [00:42:30] First, an Ordinance 2024-2285, Modification of Solid Waste Collection System. [00:42:37] Ordinance number 2024-2285, an Ordinance of the City of New Port Richey, Florida, [00:42:41] providing for amendment of Chapter 10 of the New Port Richey Code of Ordinances [00:42:44] pertaining to solid waste collection, providing criteria for determining the solid waste collection fee, [00:42:49] providing for collection thereof, providing for a lien for nonpayment of the fee, [00:42:53] providing for administration by the city manager, providing miscellaneous requirements, [00:42:57] providing for definition of terms, providing penalties for violation hereof, providing for enforcement, [00:43:02] providing for conflict, severability, and an effective date. [00:43:06] As the city moves forward with the single trash hauler service, [00:43:11] the need to modify the existing ordinance was identified. [00:43:16] The changes that we have added include the updated edits to satisfy definitions, [00:43:23] as Tim had talked about, level of service methodologies for customer classification and frequencies, [00:43:30] cost of services, customer billing frequencies, [00:43:35] the administration adjustments for items not identified in the attached ordinance was included, [00:43:41] as well as service interruptions. [00:43:44] The approval of the first reading is recommended, [00:43:47] as well as scheduling of the second reading for the February 28th, 2024 meeting is also recommended. [00:43:56] One of the notes that we wanted to correct is your memorandum that is attached states that the first notice that was sent out to the [00:44:06] existing trash haulers that operated in the city when this process started, [00:44:11] the memorandum called out February 2nd of 2021. [00:44:16] That was incorrect. [00:44:17] The first notification came out on December 2nd, 2020. [00:44:22] And so with that, we would recommend that you approve the ordinance. [00:44:27] For public opinion, those who'd like to come and speak. [00:44:36] Marlo Jones, Faith in Florida organizer. [00:44:39] I recommend that you vote down on this ordinance. [00:44:43] Why? [00:44:44] Because you all don't even know what you're doing. [00:44:47] Let's be honest. [00:44:48] The public is confused. [00:44:49] You all are confused. [00:44:51] You are trying to do this in a haphazard way, just throwing it together without much thought. [00:44:58] Business owners. [00:45:00] Residents have come up here and spoke about these costs that are just not what you all said they would be. [00:45:04] So why are we voting to give the city manager more power? [00:45:09] And I want to let the public know when it comes to the solid waste in this particular ordinance, [00:45:13] there are certain business owners and certain people that the city manager knows that she's giving favors to [00:45:21] who can get a discount on the amount that they pay. [00:45:24] You don't believe me? Don't take my word for it. [00:45:26] Look it up. Public records request. [00:45:29] So in regards to this ordinance, the public has come many times. [00:45:33] Vote down on it. Bring it back to the public. [00:45:36] Let's have some discussions because we're going to get here. [00:45:39] You're going to approve this. We all know you're going to approve it. [00:45:41] You don't care what I say or any of us say you're going to approve it. [00:45:44] She's going to have the ultimate authority again to be the end all be all. [00:45:49] So if a business owner comes into the city or a lawyer that she likes wants a discount, [00:45:56] she has the sole authority to give them that. [00:45:59] You all have nothing to do with it. And you know I'm right. [00:46:02] And it's already happening. We have business owners who are saying that their costs are going up, [00:46:06] but her friends get favors. That's the truth. [00:46:10] And I'm here to let the public know. Vote down. [00:46:24] I just want to ask, please, my Darla Schwendeman. [00:46:27] You can bring it, pull it down. [00:46:28] Okay. I just want to ask, please, that if you could verify or let us know, [00:46:33] is there a lawsuit concerning that you would have to pay this other hauler that, you know, concerning this law? [00:46:41] Is that something that if you vote this in that that is still going to be a cost? [00:46:46] And there is one other thing and I forget what it is right now. [00:46:52] But anyways, if you would verify that and see if, you know, if there's going to be more than that, [00:46:56] you know, is it is this right to do? I don't know. [00:47:00] Please verify that. Please clarify. I'd appreciate it. [00:47:12] What our government's becoming favors, no discipline for the people. [00:47:18] You are supposed to be for the people, not for yourselves. [00:47:22] That's where all of our government is going in a bad direction. [00:47:28] You want to make a comment on that? No. [00:47:36] Hey, the Patriots, W6153 Massachusetts Avenue. [00:47:40] So I requested a meeting with Mr. Rivera after speaking with Miss Dunn regarding my fees [00:47:46] that were going to be exactly what was presented, even though I was told otherwise, [00:47:49] because I waited several months and nobody could get back to me. [00:47:52] And when I actually spoke to Mr. Rivera, he did say that it was up to the city manager, [00:47:58] Debbie Manns, to change prices. [00:48:03] You yourself said you were going to address it, Mr. Mayor. [00:48:07] And so nothing happened. The same price came back. [00:48:11] And so, I mean, you had the audacity to make me thank you. [00:48:17] And I did. So now I'm asking you to reconsider this. [00:48:24] Mr. Peters, Mr. Murphy, Miss Mothershead, Mr. Altman. [00:48:31] We know that I'm not in favor of Debbie, Debbie Manns. [00:48:34] I sat in a meeting with Kelly Mothershead where she accused me of motherfucking her to her employees. [00:48:40] And as you said this morning on your little video, be kind to others. [00:48:46] I said nothing of the sort and I challenged her as to who it was. [00:48:49] I'm not in her favor. That's why I got lowballed and grant, [00:48:52] even though you said take the lesser amount and I'd work on getting you the rest. [00:48:56] That didn't happen. You said you'd help me with the trash issue. [00:48:59] That didn't happen. I would prefer, [00:49:04] since I am covered by three sides of my property that I just annex out. [00:49:09] It would save me a lot of money. It'd be very reasonable. [00:49:15] Just draw one line different and I wouldn't have any city problems. [00:49:18] No sign issues, no trash issues, no Debbie Manns. [00:49:22] And I could just go about my business. [00:49:24] And that way, whenever you guys have a nice little event in downtown and my business takes a hit [00:49:28] and there's no police around, I can just say, well, it's cost of doing business [00:49:31] because I'm on the outskirts of the city and I get no benefit from events in the downtown area. [00:49:36] So let me annex out. Let me not be part of the city. [00:49:40] I mean, you live here, but your business isn't in the city. [00:49:44] So you don't have to pay the same taxes I do. [00:49:47] You don't have to manage your business around your poor decisions, Mr. Peter Altman, or Mike Peters. [00:49:53] Sorry. So let me annex out. [00:49:57] If you don't want to vote this down, which would be very reasonable, [00:50:00] or delay it where you actually do some research and find out what people like me pay for trash [00:50:05] before you decide to dictate a price. [00:50:07] And I've got the J.D. Parker bid right in front of me. [00:50:10] And what it looks like is that not only did you guys take the bid that was significantly higher [00:50:16] than what I already pay and not even try to negotiate in my behalf and the rest of the city taxpayers, [00:50:22] but you actually added about $4.44 per month extra just so you could get that little bit. [00:50:27] Because I see it written and then I saw it penciled in beside it what the actual is. [00:50:33] So it's an insignificant amount of money at the end of the day when you don't have to pay it. [00:50:38] But for taxpayers like myself, it matters. [00:50:45] Anybody else like to speak? Come on down if you're going to speak. [00:51:00] Laurie Baker, 5853 Lafayette. And I guess I'll ask the same question. [00:51:04] I've listened to all this. Does the city stand to make money on this garbage thing? [00:51:09] Or does the city stand to lose money because of the administration? [00:51:16] I didn't hear any discussion from the people on the impact to the city's budget. [00:51:21] That's what I asked for. Anybody else like to speak? [00:51:34] Seven thousand eight grand. You have to hear all these people speaking. [00:51:38] I feel the proposal I just said having two companies and let the people choose when you pick a two companies, [00:51:44] you know, Parker and another one and let the citizens choose which one they want. [00:51:48] And it eliminates all these problems. You don't have to worry about billing. [00:51:51] You don't have to worry about, you know, potential. We're worried about future revenue. [00:51:54] Like we need more money in two years. We'll raise the trash bill, everybody, a dollar a month. [00:51:59] If everybody just had their own choice, pay, continue to pay like we do. [00:52:03] Give us a choice to people. Everybody will be happy, I think. [00:52:06] And you sort of vote no and maybe think about that. I mean, after three years of plenty, [00:52:10] you never thought about doing something like that. Want to go right to the one thing and you make all that extra money every month? [00:52:17] Doesn't seem fair when I'm doing for twenty five years paying on my own. [00:52:21] I don't need you to handle my money. I don't know why we just can't have two. [00:52:26] Think about having two of them eliminate 60 percent of the traffic. [00:52:30] It's only two trucks going down the road and you get what you want. [00:52:32] You save the wear and tear on the road and the people happy. [00:52:36] We don't we're not like being mandated by you. But big government was a little government. [00:52:40] We don't want the mandate. We want to be, you know, a little town, a little government. [00:52:44] We're supposed to be. I think you should think about what I'm saying. [00:52:48] You have a choice. Give the people a choice. [00:52:52] And you can pick the two that you want. Parker and another one. [00:52:56] Well, you know, we could pick which one of the two that we like. [00:52:59] I think that'd be fair for everybody. Something to think about. [00:53:02] So maybe going down now and thinking about it and maybe come back with another plan. [00:53:08] Three years. What's another couple of months, three months, six months? [00:53:14] Thank you. Anybody else like to speak? [00:53:23] See no one else come forward. Bring it back for vote and discussion. [00:53:31] I've been looking. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not going to say any given illegal opinions, [00:53:37] but I know that it was suggested that we had a legal issue and just full disclosure. [00:53:41] I did discuss and have a meeting with the city manager and attorney related to a challenge. [00:53:48] So, you know, that's that's a great concern, obviously. [00:53:55] And I'm I'm trying to read this rule. So just to recap my memory of this, [00:54:00] it started with the idea of not having multiple trucks on the same street. [00:54:07] And it started with an idea of having multiple users by looking at the fact that we already knew how many, [00:54:16] how much money all of the garbage companies made because they were paying us a 10 percent, [00:54:20] I believe, assessment fee. [00:54:23] So the city has always gotten a tax or made money on the licensing of the solid waste disposal. [00:54:33] So the garbage haulers have their own collection system and their own. [00:54:40] And I've been to the offices on, you know, off of Massachusetts on Osteen many times pay my garbage. [00:54:49] And so they operate to receive those dollars from those who would sign up for them. [00:54:55] So for the city to keep track of and maintain the cleanliness of the city was one of our arguments. [00:55:02] Those streets was another of the arguments is to make sure that folks did act responsibly in the city. [00:55:09] Now, a lot of the new subdivisions that we compete with have single haulers because they've made those agreements as part of their homeowners [00:55:18] associations. And so it's very common for one hauler to operate in an area. [00:55:25] And it is efficient. Our city didn't do that. [00:55:28] And three years ago, we did enter into a plan to notice the haulers that we wanted to go to a single hauler system. [00:55:35] For the record, it's my recollection that we did, in fact, began by trying to look for more than one hauler. [00:55:43] And I think this to tag on to the gentleman's comments, [00:55:49] the concept that I had promoted to the city manager when I worked here was that we would look at the relative share of the city, [00:55:58] knowing that all of the residents weren't paying, and offer each of the haulers a proportionate share based on their own self-admitted receipts. [00:56:11] Different sections of town. And so without getting into the collection process, [00:56:19] I felt that was a way in which haulers could make more money. The city could be cleaner. [00:56:25] We'd have less trucks on the road. And so when we went out to bid for two haulers, [00:56:33] my recollection is the second hauler would not agree to do the fees for the same price as the first hauler. [00:56:41] So the effort was made to allow haulers more than one hauler. [00:56:48] Then that resulted in us delaying it, going out for one bid. Tell me if I'm wrong. [00:56:52] I'm just trying to recap the history of what brought us to this point. But then we will go to the one hauler. [00:56:58] Now that is more complicated by all of the other nuances of who were we going to bill and who didn't get billed before, [00:57:07] and vacant lots and all of the other things that have added to the confusion. [00:57:14] And so for this particular ordinance, the real concern that I have is are we, and this is first reading, is that correct? [00:57:23] Are we stepping into a situation we could avoid if, in fact, [00:57:28] we do have a challenge that could cost our residents a lot of money? [00:57:33] And in fairness to the hauler who's been told he was going to start in January and whose representative is here, [00:57:40] I believe, who's made a lot of effort towards that end, it's a very unfortunate position that we're in, right? [00:57:51] So I think that the real question that I have, and I just looked up the statutes to read them for myself. [00:57:59] I'm not going to interpret them. That's what the lawyer is there for. [00:58:02] But if you read them directly, it does talk about a 15-year potential, 15-year gross revenue payment [00:58:11] if the three-year provision is very muddy and needs lots of lawyers that love to make money and fight over this whole situation. [00:58:19] So if other haulers are unhappy and are challenging us, we certainly need to try to come to some agreement in order to resolve it. [00:58:32] My suggestion would be that as a council, if there is a legal challenge, [00:58:37] that we should take advantage of the opportunity to have this discussion to discuss any legal issues. [00:58:45] What I'm reading is if we've been given a notice, we've got 30 days in which something has to happen. [00:58:51] So 30 days from now is already into March when this process is supposed to already be underway. [00:59:01] So if the objective is to push this through so on March 1st, all our residents need to have their garbage pulled home. [00:59:12] I certainly don't want to create a train wreck here, but at the same time, [00:59:17] I don't know what we're facing because I only have preliminary information as I imagine that you all do as well. [00:59:25] I don't know that you do, but I had that conversation. I'm guessing that you all have as well. [00:59:30] So to the comments directly as to the fees, we did get exhibits handed to us on the dais which showed the kind of fees. [00:59:43] And I think one of the confusion with the city trying to bill is understanding what commercial properties use a trash can and what commercial properties use a dumpster. [00:59:52] So I would certainly not agree that [01:00:00] We implement this plan, if we do, based on individual judgment, but rather on what is it that that person is getting, what is the price, and what do they need. [01:00:13] So if you're in the cigar business, I'm expecting they just smoke them down to this far. [01:00:17] And so I don't know how many of those cigars or how much trash is being generated. [01:00:22] But if that was a garbage can, according to what we've been given, and the frequency for a commercial curbside, non-residential curbside, twice a week, the monthly fee would be $43. [01:00:39] Once a week is $26. [01:00:46] For residential, it's twice a week, and that's half of a public's bag each week or each time. [01:00:56] For someone who is so efficient and doesn't use it, it's certainly a compelling argument. [01:01:01] But nothing is perfect, and we're in a bit of a pickle right now, it seems. [01:01:07] So I'll leave it to you all to speak to it as well. [01:01:10] But if need be that we approve this on first reading in order to get answers, I'm okay with that. [01:01:17] But if we don't get answers and bring this up for second reading and try to push it through without those answers, I'm not. [01:01:24] And I've been asking, again, on the collection side to see just how much it's going to cost us to be the collector. [01:01:31] And you all know my opinion on how that can be done less expensively. [01:01:38] So that's all I have to say. [01:01:43] Yeah. [01:01:45] Peter, I think some of your recollection is correct, that the whole idea of – [01:01:52] I don't know that there's many people that would disagree with the whole idea of a single hauler. [01:01:59] It has multiple benefits. [01:02:05] First of all, and part of it is less – yes, streets can use trucks, but more trucks, more wear and tear. [01:02:14] We used to have no highways all over the county and all over the state. [01:02:18] So, yeah, the roads does make a difference. [01:02:20] It's the noise, right? [01:02:22] It's the up and down of these trucks. [01:02:24] They're noisy and so forth. [01:02:26] Some of them leak hydraulic fluid. [01:02:28] Guess what? [01:02:29] If we have a hydraulic fluid leak now, we'll know which hauler did it because it's the one that's using it. [01:02:35] They don't have to point fingers at each other for that, for the cleanup and so forth like that. [01:02:42] Most of you know that, you know, when you purchase services or items, [01:02:48] that there's always typically a discount when you buy them in bulk, right? [01:02:54] Most people expect the more I buy, you know, I'll get a little better price. [01:02:59] And that's not untrue for services such as this. [01:03:03] And so the fact is that, you know, contracting with one service and, you know, we had people to bid on it. [01:03:13] Some chose not to bid. [01:03:15] Some did. [01:03:18] And, you know, without the bid, these folks have a, you know, automatic 5% increase each year. [01:03:25] We were able to forestay that increase for this year. [01:03:29] And we think that basically it looks like it's going to be a better buy for the majority of our residents going forward. [01:03:39] So, you know, so you take it off and you go less wear and tear, less cost to the city, [01:03:47] less noise and confusion to the citizens, you know, more consistent because now we've got a situation where if there's a problem with a hauler, [01:03:58] as far as service, you know, one of the things in our bid requirement was they had to have a local presence in the city. [01:04:05] And, of course, we have that with the J.D. Parker folks. [01:04:10] And so we have that. [01:04:13] So we have them for the accountability on that. [01:04:16] And we hold our feet fire on that. [01:04:20] We can terminate the contract if the service standards aren't performed, right? [01:04:27] And now we also get in a situation where, you know, we talk about the billing. [01:04:34] And I was all for putting the billing on the tax rolls. [01:04:37] We could have done that for 3% and it would have been easy. [01:04:40] People say, well, I don't like to do that. [01:04:41] I want to pay it monthly. [01:04:42] Well, most people have mortgages and they pay that tax bill on a monthly basis anyway. [01:04:48] And I'd still be in favor for that going forward. [01:04:51] It just, you know, makes it that much easier. [01:04:55] So I think that, you know, when we started this conversation, I had to be back first when I was initially on a council, [01:05:06] you know, got surprised that, you know, you just can't, you know, change this from year to year. [01:05:11] They've got a very strong lobby in Tallahassee about, you know, laws that affect the services. [01:05:19] We had to give the folks three-year service, three years' notice that we intended to change our ordinance to go to the one hauler. [01:05:30] And I remember I think the first Florida League of Cities meeting I went to, I talked with most of the haulers that time, [01:05:39] and they were aware that we already were looking at that, and they gave, you know, some ideas. [01:05:45] And they talked how they explained that, you know, this hauler used this city and this hauler used that county. [01:05:52] And they seemed to think, hey, it works really well, and it provides an opportunity for them to do so at a lower service. [01:06:03] There's a cost of sending out bills and collecting the premiums. [01:06:06] That's either that or collecting the payments. [01:06:09] That's going to be either on the city or it's going to be on the hauler, and then they're going to turn around and bill that as well. [01:06:17] So, yes, and the city does make money on the haulers, whether it's multiple haulers or one hauler. [01:06:23] That is a part of, you know, the revenue source. [01:06:29] There was no, this was a, the purpose, we reviewed this, and we talked about it many times. [01:06:37] We talked about other haulers. [01:06:38] We talked about putting this zone A would be hauler number one, hauler number two would be zone B. [01:06:44] You know, we had several different discussions about that, you know, starting years ago. [01:06:50] And as we learned more about it and so forth, it came back down to, you know, [01:06:56] the single hauler was going to be the most cost-efficient way for our citizens to have this service. [01:07:02] And so that's the route that we went on. [01:07:07] I think that, you know, because we started as early as we did, knowing what the rules were, the notice is there, [01:07:15] and that there is, you know, I don't see any reason why we can't go forward on this. [01:07:20] I'm not fearful of any ramifications that, you know, that somebody's crawling sour grapes, [01:07:28] that if, you know, if they didn't, you know, they're losing the service, they didn't even bother to bid on the project. [01:07:37] So it didn't seem to be, they were really interested in doing business with the city. [01:07:41] So I don't see any reason why we can't move forward on this. [01:07:46] What about my issue, sir? [01:07:48] Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me. [01:07:51] You've already had your chance to speak, sir. [01:07:54] Go ahead, Kelly. [01:07:56] Yeah, so, I mean, no matter what we decide to do, everybody's not going to be happy. [01:08:01] Can't make anybody happy with this kind of a decision. [01:08:04] I think that for our roads and for what we need as a city, it's the right decision to move forward. [01:08:10] I do have some concerns still about the cost for some of our residents who don't have service now. [01:08:17] Although, as a realtor, when I sell a house, I make sure they know they have to pay for trash. [01:08:21] But a lot of people don't still. [01:08:24] And some of the businesses that are going to have a higher expense, we're all struggling right now. [01:08:30] You know, a lot of people are still struggling because everything's more expensive. [01:08:35] And now we're going to add one more back on to that. [01:08:37] And I totally understand that as well. [01:08:40] It's a really hard thing. [01:08:42] You know, we also want to take away some of the issues with the trucks being on the roads. [01:08:46] And I can tell you, I've taken pictures this week of three trucks coming down the nice new River Road, [01:08:51] three big semi trucks who shouldn't be on that road because, well, the road was just redone. [01:08:57] And we don't want to start tearing up a road that's brand new because we have big semi trucks coming on a road where they shouldn't be. [01:09:03] This is a community street. [01:09:06] It shouldn't be a cut through for big semi trucks. [01:09:09] And we're having those issues already on a brand new road. [01:09:12] People driving on the sidewalk. [01:09:14] I mean, we're not taking care of those things that need to be taken care of to begin with. [01:09:18] And so we're causing more damage to those roads. [01:09:21] And I think that, you know, that's the issue that, as a city, we're trying to resolve, [01:09:24] but still be able to not have an additional charge for our residents. [01:09:28] And I'm still kind of stuck on that, the cost of it being more than I think it should be. [01:09:37] Yeah, I mean, I think overall the single provider is the way to go, and it should be, you know, [01:09:43] just for the mere fact of cost and benefits to the residents and businesses. [01:09:49] I mean, I do have some questions. [01:09:50] I don't understand why rates should be higher than they're paid before. [01:09:54] I don't understand about, you know, discounts based on city approval. [01:10:00] So, I mean, I do have some questions, and it being first reading, I'll go along with this one. [01:10:07] But, I mean, I have some questions that I need to get answered before we go to second reading, [01:10:12] because those parts just don't make sense to me. [01:10:17] One of the reasons we reached out, you know, over three years ago to start discussing this, [01:10:24] and it's been brought up in a lot of meetings that I'm sorry people did that, you know, [01:10:29] saying you weren't aware of it, but we've had, you know, we've had work sessions on, [01:10:34] and we've talked about it numerous times over the last three years. [01:10:38] It's nothing we're trying to hide anyhow. [01:10:40] But I also we found like over 1,200 residents in the city didn't have trash pickups. [01:10:46] So, what are they doing with the trash? [01:10:48] So, excuse me. [01:10:50] Excuse me. [01:10:52] So, but I also don't see a difference in going along with the Patriot Bar. [01:10:58] I don't see any difference in them putting out two trash cans or a resident putting out two trash cans. [01:11:03] So, a non-residential curbside service for twice a week and two trash cans, [01:11:08] I can see that being the same price as a residential, and I kind of brought that up, and I still believe in that. [01:11:14] So, I'm going to go along with this, but I'd like, you know, some help from my cohorts up here to, you know, [01:11:20] take a look at why are they, just because it's a commercial business, [01:11:23] it's not having any more trash than it has already or that a resident has or has the opportunity to leave on his corner. [01:11:30] So, with that, I'm looking for approval, but I'd like to modify the non-resident two-week price. [01:11:42] Can we ask some questions? [01:11:44] Sure. [01:11:46] Well, maybe we're going to make a motion or you want to do a motion or a question? [01:11:53] So, just real quick, though. [01:11:55] The ordinance is describing the services and going to one hauler. [01:12:02] The ordinance that we're looking to pass does not include any type of fee schedule, if I'm not mistaken. [01:12:09] Exhibit A is the fee schedule. [01:12:12] That's all I got here. [01:12:20] So, it does. [01:12:23] Anything else? [01:12:25] So, the question is, let's just talk about that for a minute. [01:12:29] All right. [01:12:30] So, as far as any changes in fees in going forward, future years, [01:12:41] that's going to require an amendment to the ordinance? [01:12:47] Ernie, is that what you case? [01:12:48] Yes, potentially. [01:12:50] I put language in the ordinance that allows you to do it by resolution, [01:12:53] but there might be circumstances under which we would want to or should do it by ordinance. [01:12:57] But either way, it can be amended going forward. [01:12:59] Anyway, so that's a council decision. [01:13:01] Correct. [01:13:02] Any time going forward. [01:13:04] It's not any individual has the right to change fees and so forth. [01:13:08] That's correct. [01:13:09] Right. [01:13:10] Okay. [01:13:11] Well, that's why I'm asking, you know, in this initial approval, [01:13:14] if we could just modify that two-week non-residential, the same as residential fees, [01:13:20] because that's where they are at right now, [01:13:23] if they're getting service from at least J.D. Parker, I'm aware of. [01:13:27] Well, if there's going to be a change in the fee of that nature, [01:13:30] we'd have to coordinate that with the hauler, [01:13:33] because they're charging the city based on these rates that are in Exhibit A. [01:13:39] So the city is going to be paying that, [01:13:41] and so you're going to be subsidizing those businesses if we don't work out something [01:13:46] with the hauler to reduce those fees. [01:13:48] So we can certainly look into that between now and second reading. [01:13:51] But as it stands right now, this is based on the contract awarded to the successful bidder, [01:13:58] and that's what the rates are. [01:13:59] I don't think it's costing the hauler anything more to pick up two trash cans next door to a business, [01:14:07] you know, and a resident, so, you know, especially from the fee of, you know, whatever, [01:14:15] you know, let's say $60, you know, what, $60 to, you know, $40 monthly, $60 quarterly. [01:14:24] You know, it's a big difference. [01:14:31] Do we have a motion? [01:14:34] Nobody else talk? [01:14:35] Anybody have a motion? [01:14:36] To avoid any amendments. [01:14:38] Just as presented. [01:14:39] Yeah. [01:14:42] I'll make a motion. [01:14:45] Do we have a second? [01:14:46] I'll second. [01:14:49] All those in favor? [01:14:50] Whoa, whoa, whoa. [01:14:51] I would like to address the motion, if I may. [01:14:54] Okay, go ahead. [01:14:56] So I'm looking. [01:15:00] I spoke to you all about a potential objection, and it's been brushed off like it's a mosquito. [01:15:08] It's not a mosquito. [01:15:10] So I'm just going to say our attorney hasn't answered a thing, and neither of you all have [01:15:17] suggested that we ought to be meeting this. [01:15:20] If the citizens of our city are going to be potentially impacted by a legal challenge, [01:15:26] it's not up to us to make those decisions privately, individually. [01:15:32] It's up to us collectively to talk about it. [01:15:35] And that's what we need to do, because I'm going to read the letter of this. [01:15:42] I'm not a lawyer. [01:15:43] I'm just going to say that there's something under the subsection that was brought up, [01:15:49] three that says displacement of private waste companies. [01:15:53] And under that it talks about following the final public hearing held in paragraph B, [01:16:06] but not later than a year after the hearing, the local government can proceed to provide [01:16:10] the service. [01:16:13] So it's been three years since we said we were going to do this, and we didn't do it [01:16:18] within a year. [01:16:20] So just me trying to think logically. [01:16:25] Before it engages in the provision of the service that displaces the company, but as [01:16:30] an alternative to the delaying displacement three years, a local government may pay a [01:16:38] displaced company an amount equal to the company's preceding six months gross receipts for the [01:16:45] service in the displacement area. [01:16:50] And so if this is, and I don't know if this is the section that we're being challenged [01:16:54] on, we need a legal opinion, because if we have financial liability, and if the law changed [01:17:06] from when we first thought it was what it was, and that liability is excessive, we're [01:17:13] a collection service, we're not a garbage service. [01:17:17] When I sold my CPA practice, I sold it for a year's worth of revenue to somebody who [01:17:22] could make money off of it. [01:17:24] We're already making 10% from all of our garbage hauling, we're adding a service which should [01:17:31] be a regular service so we could give service to our residents, which some of you all are [01:17:37] proposing to be an annual or a quarterly service, and we already know from just a few people [01:17:43] that are here, once they get their bill, they're going to come in and start talking [01:17:45] to us. [01:17:46] So we're going to have to do some work here, to the point of how much money is it going [01:17:50] to cost the city, we haven't heard that. [01:17:54] And I've asked three times, twice publicly, how much money is it going to cost us in staffing [01:18:01] and service to do this? [01:18:04] And you're worried about the cost of the residents going up, and I'm worried about the cost of [01:18:10] the city going up, and we don't seem to be on the same page. [01:18:16] So if you all will agree to meet to learn whatever legal issues we have together, are [01:18:27] we allowed to meet privately? [01:18:29] Are we in that position yet, or are we just been given a shot across the bow, and so we're [01:18:36] going to, because we haven't signed the contract, and I'll tell you, if there's damages, I'd [01:18:40] rather pay damages to the good faith person that's been here, than I would pay five times [01:18:47] that to pay off haulers that are suing us. [01:18:53] Concession at this time, correct. [01:18:55] Yeah, so that's what I'm asking. [01:18:57] If you all will agree to that, I'll vote for this on the first reading, but if you want [01:19:01] to dismiss the challenge as not, and it costs us, I don't want to see the city get hurt. [01:19:07] I agree. [01:19:08] You know, it's, from what I understand, it's a date thing. [01:19:13] The dates are real close, and we're, you know, and I just... [01:19:16] Well, let's find out privately, and then I'll feel better if I can get some legal counsel, [01:19:21] but I would like us all to be in on that discussion, and not based on a recommendation that we

    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.

14. 10.a

    Board Re-Appointment: Marilynn deChant, Land Development Review Board

    approved

    Council reappointed Marilynn deChant as first alternate to the Land Development and Review Board for a three-year term through February 6, 2027. A councilmember voted against, preferring resident George Romagnoli for the seat, and subsequently asked that Romagnoli be considered for another alternate opening on a future agenda.

    • motion:Motion to reappoint Marilynn deChant as first alternate on the Land Development and Review Board for a three-year term ending February 6, 2027. (passed)
    • direction:Direction to staff to bring back a future agenda item to consider appointing George Romagnoli to an open alternate seat on the Land Development and Review Board.

    👤George Romagnoli👤Marilynn deChant#Land Development and Review Board

    ▶ Jump to 1:19:22 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:19:26] can win something if we are challenged, but one that we can have a thorough discussion. [01:19:30] I agree with that. [01:19:31] Thank you. [01:19:32] Excuse me. [01:19:33] We can schedule that. [01:19:34] We'll work with you, if that's what the council wants to do. [01:19:35] Oh. [01:19:36] Second reading. [01:19:37] Yes. [01:19:38] Correct. [01:19:39] Oh, I'm still looking for a motion. [01:19:40] She's got the motion, I think. [01:19:41] And the second. [01:19:42] Second? [01:19:43] Okay. [01:19:44] All those in favor? [01:19:45] Aye. [01:19:46] Those opposed? [01:19:47] It's five nothing. [01:19:48] Thank you. [01:19:49] All right. [01:19:50] Board reappointment. [01:19:51] Marilyn DeChant, Land Development and Review Board. [01:19:52] Aye. [01:19:53] Aye. [01:19:54] Aye. [01:19:55] Aye. [01:19:56] Aye. [01:19:57] Aye. [01:19:58] Any discussion on Marilyn DeChant, Land Development and Review Board? [01:20:05] Marilyn DeChant has been a member of the Land Development and Review Board since 2020 and [01:20:11] her term elapsed on November 17, 2023. [01:20:15] She serves as a first alternate on the Board. [01:20:20] She's indicated her interest in continuing to serve. [01:20:25] Her term of office is for three years and we would like to reappoint Mrs. DeChant to [01:20:30] serve on the Board if that recommendation meets with your approval. [01:20:36] Her term of office would span through February 6th of 2027. [01:20:40] Do you have any public opinion? [01:20:46] Seeing no one come forward, we'll bring it back for a vote. [01:20:49] Move for approval. [01:20:50] Second. [01:20:51] Any comments? [01:20:52] Yes, sir. [01:20:53] Yeah. [01:20:54] I see George Romagnoli in the back. [01:20:56] He came and made a speech to us that he would like to be on that Board. [01:21:02] I know that he has indicated his credentials. [01:21:04] He's a resident of the city. [01:21:07] You know, we just regularly appoint and reappoint folks to Boards and I don't know why, if there's [01:21:21] a reason that we should not be considering him, but I think that Board appointments should [01:21:27] come from the Board and I have respect for George. [01:21:30] I think he has a lot of knowledge, so I don't know if we have any more Board openings [01:21:40] or if we're where we are. [01:21:42] Do you have any Board openings available? [01:21:45] Well, here's one right here. [01:21:47] Well, this is a reappointment. [01:21:49] That's what I'm saying. [01:21:51] So, let's put a new person on the Board that has the credentials. [01:21:54] So, we should implement term limits, is what you're saying? [01:21:57] No, I'm saying, you know, I'm going to vote against the motion because I would like to [01:22:02] see George on the Board. [01:22:07] That's fine, but quiet down, please. [01:22:09] It's for the Board to decide, right? [01:22:13] For us to decide. [01:22:14] Yes. [01:22:15] Right. [01:22:16] The Board doesn't tell us who they want to join them and management doesn't control the [01:22:21] Boards. [01:22:22] We have Boards so they can give us their opinions, not so we get the opinion through the staff [01:22:27] to us. [01:22:28] So, the whole Board set up and committee set up, in most places, either the Mayor makes [01:22:33] the appointments on certain committees or individuals of us each have one. [01:22:37] All right, so what is the change you would like to make in the Boards and not just randomly [01:22:42] saying, no, I don't want that person, I want somebody else. [01:22:45] What is the change you want to make? [01:22:46] That's all I'm asking. [01:22:47] I've told you that before. [01:22:48] Let's agree on that. [01:22:49] I'll say, I would love to see us have the Boards be reconfigured in a way in which each [01:22:55] of us as a member can make an appointment that we would like to make and that way that [01:23:00] represents us. [01:23:01] That's a whole different thing. [01:23:02] Well, we don't. [01:23:03] Isn't there, according to this, there's another open, alternate position. [01:23:04] Is there another open seat? [01:23:05] Yes. [01:23:06] There's another open seat. [01:23:07] Okay, so. [01:23:08] Well, this is an open seat. [01:23:09] Can I make that motion? [01:23:10] Well, right now we're dealing with Maryland. [01:23:11] Sure. [01:23:12] Okay. [01:23:13] So I'll vote for her. [01:23:14] Anybody, any other comments? [01:23:15] All those in favor, signify by aye. [01:23:16] Aye. [01:23:17] Aye. [01:23:18] Now, I'd like to make a motion to put George Romanoli as another alternate to the Board. [01:23:19] Could you please hold it down, sir? [01:23:20] Why, we can't do that. [01:23:21] I'm sorry. [01:23:22] I'm sorry. [01:23:23] I'm sorry. [01:23:24] I'm sorry. [01:23:25] I'm sorry. [01:23:26] I'm sorry. [01:23:27] I'm sorry. [01:23:28] I'm sorry. [01:23:29] I'm sorry. [01:23:30] I'm sorry. [01:23:31] I'm sorry. [01:23:32] I'm sorry. [01:23:33] I'm sorry. [01:23:34] I'm sorry. [01:23:35] I'm sorry. [01:23:36] I'm sorry. [01:23:37] I'm sorry. [01:23:38] I'm sorry. [01:23:39] I'm sorry. [01:23:40] I'm sorry. [01:23:41] I'm sorry. [01:23:42] I'm sorry. [01:23:43] I'll hold it down, sir. [01:23:44] While we conduct business. [01:23:45] I'm really excited. [01:23:46] We love George. [01:23:47] I'll be glad to second that. [01:23:48] Thank you. [01:23:49] Well, we'd have to bring that back, so if that's something that you want us to do, we [01:23:50] can certainly bring that back if there's an opening and put it on an agenda. [01:23:55] Okay. [01:23:56] Yeah. [01:23:57] It wasn't on the agenda. [01:23:58] I can't do it right now. [01:23:59] Oh, okay. [01:24:00] All right, so we'll see it on the next agenda then.

    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.

15. 10.b

    2024 Chasco Fiesta Alcohol Beverage Special Event Application and Car Show Wet Zone Request

    approved

    Council approved the 2024 Chasco Fiesta Alcohol Beverage Special Event Application for beer and wine sales in Sims Park during festival dates March 15-23, 2024, and approved an extended wet zone for the Chasco Car Show on March 17, 2024 from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. Both requests were approved together in a single 5-0 motion.

    • motion:Approve the 2024 Chasco Fiesta Alcohol Beverage Special Event Application and the Car Show extended wet zone request together. (passed)5–0

    📍Sims Park🏢Chasco Fiesta👤Andre👤Manz#2024 Chasco Fiesta#Chasco Car Show

    ▶ Jump to 1:24:06 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:24:06] So 2024 Chasco Fiesta Alcoholic Beverage Special Event Application and Car Show Wet [01:24:12] Zone Request. [01:24:13] Andre, if you could present the agenda item for us tonight. [01:24:20] Thank you, City Manager Manz. [01:24:21] Good evening, Mayor and City Council members. [01:24:23] We have two agenda items before you this evening. [01:24:26] Agenda item one is for you to consider is the Alcohol Beverage Special Events Application [01:24:31] for beer and wine to be served in Sims Park for the Chasco Fiesta during the festival [01:24:37] dates in March 2024. [01:24:39] Chasco Fiesta intends to sell beer and wine in Sims Park on the following days and times, [01:24:46] Friday, March 15th, 5 p.m. to 11 p.m., Saturday, March 16th, 1 p.m. to 11 p.m., Monday through [01:24:53] Friday, March 17th through 22nd, 5 p.m. to 11 p.m., and then again on Saturday, March [01:24:59] 23rd from 1 p.m. to 11 p.m. [01:25:02] So that is part one. [01:25:05] The second agenda item is for the Chasco Car Show attendees to have permission to consume [01:25:10] beer and wine within an extended wet zone area for the car show, which will be held [01:25:16] on March 17th, 2024. [01:25:19] The consumption of beer and wine will occur between the hours of 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. on [01:25:23] Sunday, March 17th, 2024. [01:25:26] Additionally, there is a site map which denotes where beer and wine will be sold, contained [01:25:31] in your packets. [01:25:32] At this time, the recommendation before you would be to approve it. [01:25:37] Thank you, and I can answer any questions that you have at this time. [01:25:39] I also recognize that there are some folks from Chasco seated here and can help us to [01:25:45] answer any questions that you may have. [01:25:47] Thank you. [01:25:50] We have any public comment on this? [01:25:55] Seeing no one come forward, we'll bring it back for approval. [01:25:58] Question, can we approve both these on one motion? [01:26:03] You can, yes. [01:26:04] Okay, so I would make a motion that we approve the two requests. [01:26:07] I second. [01:26:09] Any comments? [01:26:12] Just would comment that I do sit on the board, but it's a voluntary position. [01:26:17] I don't make any money, and I'm very happy to see that they have revenue sources that [01:26:22] they can keep it going. [01:26:24] I just have one question. [01:26:27] We're setting the boundaries for the car show, and there might be an increased volume of [01:26:32] cars between now and then. [01:26:34] Is there a way that we can modify that zone without coming back to us? [01:26:43] Modify the wet zone? [01:26:44] Yes. [01:26:45] No. [01:26:46] You're declaring the zone tonight. [01:26:49] Is there going to be room for 350 cars? [01:26:52] Yes. [01:26:53] Okay, that's a good start then, because that's what I heard, there's at least 350. [01:26:59] Any other comments? [01:27:01] All those in favor, signify by aye. [01:27:04] Aye. [01:27:05] Those opposed? [01:27:06] We have a 5-0. [01:27:08] Moving down to recommendation, affirm for RFP 24-009, purchase of 3D crime scene mapper. [01:27:17] Chief Colchon, please. [01:27:19] Thank you, Ms. Vance. [01:27:20] Thank you, Mayor, Councilmembers. [01:27:22] We are asking to recommend approval of RFP 24-009 for the purchase of a 3D crime scene [01:27:27] mapper. [01:27:28] The request is for the City Council to approve the purchase of a 3D crime scene mapper from [01:27:33] Faro Technologies in the amount of $61,793.79. [01:27:39] Also we're asking you to approve the corresponding budget amendment that allocates the United [01:27:42] States Department of Justice grant funding dollars to the FY23-24 police budget for the [01:27:47] purpose of the crime scene mapper. [01:27:49] As you remember, on November 7, 2023, we came to you and asked you to approve a USDOJ Reducing [01:27:55] Violent Crime Through Technology and Community Engagement project grant in the amount of [01:27:59] $183,120, which you approved. [01:28:04] When we went for approval of that grant, there was an itemized list of all the equipment [01:28:08] that the grant included, and this crime scene mapper was in there. [01:28:12] We went out to bid on December 27, 2023, and we received two bids under RFP 24-009. [01:28:21] One bid was from Faro Technologies in the amount of $61,793.79, and the other one was [01:28:27] from Duncan and Parnell in the amount of $65,634.38.

    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.

16. 10.c

    Recommendation of Firm for RFP24-009 Purchase of 3D Crime Scene Mapper

    approved

    Council approved the selection of Faro Technologies for RFP 24-009 to procure a 3D crime scene mapper for $61,793.79, fully funded by a USDOJ grant with no budget impact to the city. The corresponding budget amendment allocating the federal grant funding to the FY23-24 police budget was also approved.

    • motion:Motion to approve selection of Faro Technologies for RFP 24-009 3D crime scene mapper at $61,793.79 and approve the corresponding budget amendment allocating USDOJ grant funds to the FY23-24 police budget. (passed)5–0

    📍5335 Bellevue Avenue, Newport Ritchie, Florida, 34652🏢Faro Technologies👤Matt Hortel Butler IV#FY23-24 police budget#RFP 24-009#USDOJ grant

    ▶ Jump to 1:28:30 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:28:34] After a thorough evaluation of the bids submitted in response to RFP 24-009, we are recommending [01:28:40] that the City Council approve the selection of Faro Technologies to procure the 3D crime [01:28:44] scene mapper in the amount of $61,793.79. [01:28:50] Faro Technologies met all the criteria set forth in the bid process, they have a stellar [01:28:54] reputation among law enforcement agents in the Tampa Bay area, and they were the lowest [01:28:59] bidder. [01:29:00] So our recommendation, again, is to approve the 3D crime scene mapper from Faro Technologies [01:29:04] in the amount of $61,793.79, and approve the corresponding budget amendment that allocates [01:29:11] the USDOJ grant funding dollars to our FY23-24 police budget. [01:29:16] And this has no budget impact to us whatsoever, because it's all funding from the federal [01:29:20] government. [01:29:21] I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. [01:29:23] Do you have any public comment? [01:29:32] I'm Matt Hortel, Butler IV, 5335 Bellevue Avenue, New Port Richey, Florida, 34652. [01:29:38] Again I just, my timer. [01:29:41] Matt, my timer. [01:29:44] Again, I wasn't planning on speaking, but that last part caught me and I just wanted [01:29:48] to say, I haven't been following the City Police Department as much as I'd like to recently, [01:29:52] as I had been when the new chief first joined, but I am just thrilled to see all of these [01:30:00] innovative programs. I feel like every time I hear, month after month, bi-weekly, there [01:30:05] is something new on the agenda that has to do with our police department that's innovative. [01:30:09] And then to be told, wait, we're not paying for this, this is coming from a grant. I mean, [01:30:15] this chief has hit the ground running, and I'm sure he has a phenomenal team behind him [01:30:19] and the support of the city manager. And so I appreciate you guys putting your support [01:30:23] behind him so we can get things done for our community. Thank you. [01:30:30] Anybody else like to speak? Did that bring you back for a vote? [01:30:35] Move to approve. Second. [01:30:37] Any comments up here? No, I mean, that's what we approved in the [01:30:41] budget to begin with, and the grant money to pay for it is even better, so yeah. [01:30:47] All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? Are you a yea or nay? [01:30:57] So that's five zip. Moving on to the next. ITB 24-006 WWTP Sand Filter Expansion Joint [01:31:08] Restoration Bid Award. Mr. Rivera will present the agenda item. [01:31:12] Thank you, Ms. Vance. This request is for you to consider for approval of the attached [01:31:17] low bid in the amount not to exceed $48,000 and award the ITB 24-006 to Razorback LLC. [01:31:27] There were two bids that were submitted to the city for this, the high bid being in the [01:31:32] amount of $61,000. As we stated, this project includes the sealing of the joint cracks and [01:31:39] the plant's sand filter, number two. There are four of them. The tank has approximately [01:31:44] 1.2 million gallons of effluent that passes through it daily under constant pressure. [01:31:51] The repairs are directly related to the plant's expansion back in the 1990s. Funding is allocated [01:31:59] in the Water Pollution Control Capital Equipment Budget, and as you are aware, Pasco County [01:32:04] is responsible for approximately 49% of the cost of this ITB. So with that, we would [01:32:11] recommend the approval of the low bid as well as the award of the project. [01:32:17] Do we have any public comment? Seeing no one come forward, we'll bring it back for a vote. [01:32:28] Move for approval. Second. Any comments? [01:32:33] No. Needed. [01:32:35] Pete? I'm good. [01:32:37] Okay. All those in favor? Aye. [01:32:40] Those opposed? We have five zip. Moving on, ITB 24-007, WWTP Biosolids, Hauling, and Disposal Services Award. [01:32:51] Yes, Mr. Rivera, please. [01:32:53] Yeah, this request is for you to consider approval of the attached ITB. This is for the Sludge Hauling and Disposal Services. [01:33:03] It was submitted by Sonago South LLC. The contract term is for one year from the date of execution [01:33:12] and includes two automatic renewals of one year annually, terms unless either party gives written [01:33:21] notice of cancellation. As you are aware, the sludge is a byproduct of the city's wastewater [01:33:26] treatment plant. The material has to be transported in accordance with FDEP standards prior to final [01:33:32] disposal site. On January 12, 2024, we had three sealed bids that were opened. They ranged from [01:33:41] $86.50 per ton to a high of $115.41 per ton. The low bid submitted is a $6.50 [01:33:54] decrease from the existing contract that we have now at $93, and it comes out to approximately a [01:34:02] decrease of $52,650 annually. We have worked with Sonago LLC previously. We do feel confident that [01:34:13] they can meet all the terms and conditions of the contract. Once again, this funding is identified [01:34:19] in the wastewater treatment plant's budget, and Pasco County is responsible for approximately 49%

    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.

17. 10.d

    ITB24-006 WWTP Sand Filter Expansion Joint Restoration Bid Award

    approved

    Council awarded the ITB24-006 WWTP Sand Filter Expansion Joint Restoration bid. Discussion noted the cost decreased compared to the prior contract three years ago, which had been a sizable increase.

    • motion:Motion to approve the ITB24-006 WWTP Sand Filter Expansion Joint Restoration bid award. (passed)5–0

    👤Robert#ITB24-006#WWTP Sand Filter Expansion Joint Restoration

    ▶ Jump to 1:34:20 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:34:27] of the cost. We have any public comment? [01:34:32] Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back for comment and vote. I'll move approval. Second. [01:34:41] Comment? Robert, if I recall, let's see, the contracts that were [01:34:48] expiring now, that was done, was that two years ago or three years ago? [01:34:51] It was three years ago. Three years ago, okay, and if I recall correctly, that contract was a [01:34:57] a pretty sizable bump at that time, so nice to see this is going back down. Correct, it went down, [01:35:03] but not like it was before. Not like that, yeah, so at least we're, okay, because I remember last time it [01:35:08] was a pretty healthy bump, so. Okay, any other comments? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. [01:35:17] Those opposed? We have five, seven, moving on next, ITB 24-008 RAC Locker and Restroom [01:35:25] Improvement Project bid award. Mr. Rivera gets to present some good news to you on this project. [01:35:32] This loan submitted for your review and request for approval is in the amount not to exceed [01:35:39] $393,795.59 and award the contract to QALYS General Contractors. We also have attached for [01:35:51] your review the bid recommendation from Watermaker Jensen's Architects. They are the lead designers [01:35:59] of this project. There were three bids that were opened by the City on January 19th. [01:36:05] The other two bids were submitted at $491,111 and then the high bid of $571,918. [01:36:17] The low bid did come in lower than what we had, what the architects estimated project bid amount

    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.

18. 10.e

    ITB24-007 WWTP Biosolids Hauling and Disposal Services Bid Award

    Council considered awarding the WWTP Biosolids Hauling and Disposal Services bid (though the transcript portion shown discusses a recreation center locker room/restroom renovation project, recommending award to Qualus General Contractors). A citizen spoke in support and suggested adding a diaper changing station to the men's restroom.

    • direction:Staff recommended approving the low bid and awarding the rec center renovation project to Qualus General Contractors. (none)

    📍5335 Bellevue Avenue, New Port Richey, Florida 34652🏢Qualus General Contractors👤Berto Butler IV#Capital Improvement Program#ITB24-007#Rec Center locker room/restroom renovation#WWTP Biosolids Hauling and Disposal Services

    ▶ Jump to 1:36:23 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:36:25] should have been, so that was also good news. The project includes locker and restroom floor and [01:36:33] wall tile removal, replacements, shower and partition upgrades, the installation of bathing [01:36:39] suit, dryers, electrical upgrades, LED lighting conversion, and then finally plumbing upgrades [01:36:46] that includes water conservation elements. Basically this is a total renovation of both [01:36:52] locker room, restroom areas there at the rec center. The project is included in the City's [01:36:58] current capital improvement program and with that we would recommend that you approve the [01:37:03] low bid as well as award the project to QALYS General Contractors. Do we have any public opinion? [01:37:17] Berto Butler IV, 5335 Bellevue Avenue, Newport Ridge, Florida 34652. Okay this is the agenda [01:37:24] item I did see that I wanted to speak on due to my time working at the rec center and understanding [01:37:30] the prior frustrations that came with the previous bid and personally that at that time I was very [01:37:36] frustrated that they weren't going to move forward with that bid but looking at it now that was an [01:37:42] awesome decision with how much money is being saved with the new bid so my hat's off there. [01:37:47] My water heater actually just broke two weeks ago and I'm in the process of getting it fixed [01:37:51] and as a result of that I have been using the rec center on the cold days. I could take a cold [01:37:57] shower but I've been using it on the colder days in the mornings and the staff is always welcoming [01:38:01] and it is just great to see that we're moving forward with getting those bathrooms redone. [01:38:05] My only thing is I know it's small but the men's restroom could use a diaper holder as well because [01:38:11] we have a lot of families that come in whether it's dads without their the moms in the picture [01:38:17] whoever it may be and that that is not accessible. I know there's a family restroom but some of the [01:38:22] male people they don't know that they're allowed to go in there with their child and so they take [01:38:27] them into the men's and realize there's not a diaper dispenser so if you could add one of those [01:38:32] into it little footnotes. Thanks. Any other anyone else like to comment now bring it back for comment

    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.

19. 10.f

    ITB24-008 RAC Locker and Restroom Improvements Project Bid Award

    approved

    Council approved the bid award for the RAC Locker and Restroom Improvements Project (ITB24-008) by unanimous 5-0 vote. Members noted the long wait for the project and expressed optimism that declining building material costs contributed to favorable bid results.

    • motion:Motion to approve the bid award for ITB24-008 RAC Locker and Restroom Improvements Project. (passed)5–0

    #ITB24-008#RAC Locker and Restroom Improvements Project

    ▶ Jump to 1:38:37 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:38:40] and vote. I'll move to approve. Second. Yeah definitely needed and I'm glad we waited as well. [01:38:50] It was good news. Good job. I'm looking forward to it. Yeah this might be a little peak of [01:38:57] of some good things about inflation and costs coming down. I know that some of the [01:39:03] some of the building materials costs have have come down off their peaks and so hopefully [01:39:09] we're getting this is this is the kind of results we're getting from some of that movement of [01:39:15] of materials so I'm looking forward because it's been a long wait to get that done so I'm ready to go. [01:39:25] Okay all those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed. So five zip moving on to WWTP [01:39:33] um clarifier number two gearbox purchase. I don't even know what that is. [01:39:41] The purpose of this agenda item is for you to approve an emergency purchase that has [01:39:50] already been authorized and Mr. Rivera will formally introduce the item. So the amount is [01:39:56] is in an amount not to exceed $121,600. It is a purchase of an originally spec'd design [01:40:06] gearbox for one of the tanks at the wastewater treatment plant. The maintenance crews were doing [01:40:13] regular maintenance on the gearboxes and the the gearboxes are these units that sit on top of the [01:40:19] tanks and they actually have a a huge rake down on the bottom and that's what circulates [01:40:25] your effluent and they move rather slowly but methodically. They're huge takes a lot of power [01:40:32] to move a lot of that liquid that you don't typically take and just replace these every [01:40:39] 10 years or so. This unit here is 35 years old. When the maintenance guys were doing their their [01:40:46] regular checkup with the gearbox they found out that there were some displaced bearings that [01:40:53] had fallen out and when they were changing the fluid they could see where they had fallen out [01:40:58] where the channels are in the casing. So that makes this unit non-replaceable. You have to [01:41:06] or I'm sorry not you can't repair it you have to replace it so that's where the cost comes [01:41:11] into play. We consider it an emergency purchase as well because right now while we can handle the [01:41:17] volume the thing that we worry about is if we have a large storm event then our capacity that [01:41:25] we have isn't as great as what we typically have so it increases our potential for things that [01:41:31] could happen as far as any kind of discharge in that. The lead time on this type of equipment is [01:41:37] 16 to 18 weeks. We have already made contact with the vendor. We have asked for permission from the [01:41:43] finance director as well as the city manager to start the emergency process as far as purchasing [01:41:50] with the po numbers to get this thing started and so with that we would ask that and would [01:41:56] recommend that you do approve this. We have any public comment? [01:42:05] Seeing no one come forward we'll bring it back for vote discussion. Move for approval. [01:42:10] Second. Comments? No it's needed badly so we need to get it done. [01:42:20] Robert is it a useful life the gearboxes 30 years or so? It depends with these. These things are [01:42:28] built to last a very long time to where you can rebuild them several times but then again there [01:42:36] comes a point where you got to take and replace. Are they universal? Can they be on different [01:42:43] size tanks or so forth? Are they kind of unique? They're universal because the size of the [01:42:51] tanks are all standard depending on your plant so we did reach out to Pasco County to see because [01:42:58] we are partners with them to see if they had one to where we could grab that and then be able [01:43:04] to utilize theirs until we were able to get this one but for the most part this is a piece of [01:43:09] equipment that you will change out once you have the failures. Yeah and and thank you for sharing [01:43:16] that and I don't mean to you know many times I've asked about the useful life this equipment so [01:43:22] forth this is where I'm I got my telescope and my microscope looking out you know we got to get this [01:43:27] fixed now but you know I'm thinking 35 years from now that plant needs to be relocated you know [01:43:33] sometime between now and then and I'm just you know that's got to we got to move that off the [01:43:39] coast eventually and work with the county and the state to to and the federal government help us do [01:43:44] that. I don't think that's going to something in in imminent here in the next few years but I think [01:43:50] we need to understand that that is something that is out there a ways that we need to be

    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.

20. 10.g

    WWTP Clarifier No. 2 Gearbox Purchase

    discussed

    Council considered change order #1 to the 2023 Meadows Park Improvement Project with SC Signature Construction Corporation, not to exceed $82,950, to reconstruct the shell entrance road at the James E. Gray Preserve connecting to Plath Road. Staff negotiated the shell price down from $3.50 to $1.50 per square foot, saving versus an estimated $245,000. Public comment included a request to apply similar attention to Pine Hill Road sidewalks.

    • direction:Council discussed and moved toward a vote on approving change order #1 with SC Signature Construction for shell road reconstruction at James E. Gray Preserve, not to exceed $82,950. (none)

    📍5335 Bothew Avenue, Newport Ritchie, Florida📍Pine Hill Road📍Plath Road area🏢SC Signature Construction Corporation👤Alfred👤Bertel Butler IV👤Mr. Rivera#2023 Meadows Park Improvement Project#Capital Improvement Program#Change Order No. 1#James E. Gray Preserve Entrance Road resurfacing project

    ▶ Jump to 1:43:55 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:43:55] just keeping it back from mine and at some point in time probably put a target on that. [01:44:01] If I may respond please do to to kind of update you on council on that we are planning in a couple [01:44:09] months to be able to present to you a review of the plant's location its vulnerability [01:44:17] to where we can discuss those types of things as far as our five ten year future with it and then [01:44:26] the 50 year future that those are types of relocations taken in building and resiliency [01:44:34] and leaving it at its location different options for you to review so that we can start on a path [01:44:41] of corrective measures because you are correct the plant has been upgraded several times and so we're [01:44:48] at that point now where we need to make those mid to long term plans to say okay this is what we [01:44:56] need to do and then we need to start. [01:45:00] that process of rehabilitating the plant as a whole. [01:45:05] Great, thank you. [01:45:06] I'll put forward to that. [01:45:07] Any comments? [01:45:08] Oh, I agree. [01:45:09] I just, like everybody else in here, we turn the water on. [01:45:12] We hope it goes down the drain. [01:45:14] We flush our toilet. [01:45:15] We hope it goes down the toilet. [01:45:16] So when it doesn't, then we all wake up real quick-like. [01:45:20] So anyhow, all those in favor, signify by aye. [01:45:23] Aye. [01:45:24] Those opposed? [01:45:25] 5-0. [01:45:30] WWTP, well, that is the gearbox, excuse me. [01:45:34] 2023 Meadows Park Improvement Project, [01:45:38] change order number one. [01:45:40] This request for you is to consider for approval [01:45:43] the change order one that we've attached. [01:45:46] It's an amount not to exceed $82,950. [01:45:50] The contractor that is on the Meadows project, [01:45:54] or Meadows Park project, is SC Signature Construction [01:45:59] Corporation. [01:46:01] As you may recall, the James E. Gray Preserve Entrance Road [01:46:05] resurfacing project is in the city's current capital [01:46:09] improvement program. [01:46:11] The existing roadway that connects to the Plath Road area [01:46:18] was constructed in 2007. [01:46:20] City staff members annually take and regrade that shell road, [01:46:25] but it's come to a point now where it's in need [01:46:28] of total reconstruction. [01:46:31] And so we looked at it from a standpoint of, OK, [01:46:35] could we do something similar as the street improvement [01:46:38] projects, where we will do a change order [01:46:40] to be able to expedite that process, [01:46:43] reduce the bidding costs, and take advantage [01:46:46] of having a contractor that's already in town. [01:46:50] So we approached Signature Construction. [01:46:52] There was a line item that was in the Meadows Park project. [01:46:58] We took a look at that for the shell road. [01:47:00] The line item was $3.50 a square foot. [01:47:05] So when we got with the contractor and talked with him, [01:47:08] he actually said, well, with the economy of scale, [01:47:11] for the amount of shell that you're looking at, [01:47:14] we've got people that can supply it for $1.50 a square foot. [01:47:19] So that comes out to your $82,950, [01:47:24] when if he would have kept to the price [01:47:28] that he had in the beginning of his submitted bid [01:47:30] for the Meadows, it would have been considerably more. [01:47:33] It would have been around $245,000. [01:47:36] So with that being said, we would [01:47:39] say that we recommend the approval of this change order. [01:47:43] And the contractor has told us that he could probably [01:47:46] start within the next week, the two weeks at the most, [01:47:50] and start the reconstruction out there. [01:47:53] Do we have any public comment on this? [01:48:01] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. [01:48:02] I just had a quick question. [01:48:03] Did he say shells? [01:48:06] Shells? [01:48:07] Like gravel shells? [01:48:09] So we're spending $80,000 on shells? [01:48:12] Is that what it is? [01:48:13] Yes, you are. [01:48:14] OK. [01:48:15] And there is guidelines. [01:48:16] The federal government gave money for the city [01:48:21] to acquire the preserve. [01:48:23] And so there's only so many different types of material [01:48:27] that you're allowed to use. [01:48:29] You're allowed to use shell. [01:48:32] Thank you, Mr. Rivera. [01:48:33] I would just like, Mr. Rivera, if we [01:48:35] could keep that same energy and focus it [01:48:38] on finishing the sidewalks on Pine Hill Road. [01:48:40] I love the parks. [01:48:41] I think it's great that we improve our parks. [01:48:44] Excuse me, sir. [01:48:45] You can use that at Box Pop. [01:48:47] Right now, we're dealing with this project right here, sir. [01:48:48] I'm speaking about the park, sir. [01:48:50] No, we're talking about this park, not Pine Hill. [01:48:53] I know, but I was saying it's great with the park, [01:48:57] what we're doing. [01:48:59] $80,000 is a lot of money to spend on shells. [01:49:01] I get it. [01:49:02] We have to do that. [01:49:04] All I said was, can we keep that same energy [01:49:06] that we're spending all this money? [01:49:09] And I've already had this conversation with Mr. Rivera. [01:49:13] The city manager has already commented [01:49:15] that you guys are going to do your part [01:49:17] and fill in the sidewalks on Pine Hill. [01:49:19] So I just said, don't forget about it. [01:49:21] Thank you, Alfred. [01:49:24] You got a comment, please? [01:49:29] Bertel Butler, the fourth, 5335 Bothew Avenue, [01:49:32] New Port Richey, Florida. [01:49:34] I just wanted to say that I really appreciate democracy. [01:49:38] And for what it's worth, I don't [01:49:40] think it's appropriate for us to address them. [01:49:44] I think that's the whole reason why we vote you in, [01:49:47] that we address our concerns to you. [01:49:49] And they have a barrier of protection [01:49:51] against partisanship, politics, so they can do their jobs. [01:49:55] And so I would appreciate if someone [01:49:57] were to do that, if we can make it a habit to prevent them [01:50:00] from continuing to speak. [01:50:01] Because as a taxpayer, I don't want [01:50:03] them to lose their ability to do their jobs effectively, [01:50:06] because they start fearing public retaliation. [01:50:08] So I know I've made praise towards the departments, [01:50:12] but I make it a point to be third person [01:50:15] and address it towards you. [01:50:17] And so I would appreciate it if that universally [01:50:20] was applied to everyone in the same respect. [01:50:22] Thank you. [01:50:24] Anybody else like to speak on this item? [01:50:28] Bring it back for a vote and an opinion.

    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.

21. 10.h

    2023 Meadows Park Improvements Project – Change Order No. 1

    approved

    Council approved Change Order No. 1 for the 2023 Meadows Park Improvements Project by a 5-0 vote with minimal discussion before moving on to the next agenda item.

    • motion:Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 for the 2023 Meadows Park Improvements Project. (passed)5–0

    #2023 Meadows Park Improvements Project#Change Order No. 1

    ▶ Jump to 1:50:30 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:50:32] I move to approve. [01:50:33] Yeah. [01:50:34] Move to approve. [01:50:35] I'll second it. [01:50:37] All those in favor? [01:50:38] Aye. [01:50:39] Votes 5-0. [01:50:40] Moving on to resolution number 2024-02, [01:50:44] authorizing the city manager to prepare and require business [01:50:47] impact estimates for ordinances. [01:50:50] This is resolution number 2024-02, [01:50:52] a resolution of the city council of the city of New Port Richey, Florida, authorizing or requiring the city manager [01:50:57] to prepare a business impact estimate for all ordinances [01:51:00] prior to enactment, where required under Florida statute [01:51:04] 166.04174, as provided herein. [01:51:11] In the last legislative session, Senate Bill 170 [01:51:15] was approved, which requires governing bodies to prepare [01:51:19] a business impact statement prior [01:51:23] to the enactment of ordinances, which are not [01:51:26] exempt from state statute. [01:51:29] The business impact statements, in short, [01:51:32] are to provide a summary of the proposed ordinance, [01:51:35] as well as an estimate of the direct economic impact [01:51:40] of the proposed ordinance on private for-profit businesses [01:51:44] located in the municipality, a good faith [01:51:48] estimate of the number of businesses [01:51:50] likely to be impacted by the ordinance, [01:51:53] and any additional information that the governing body [01:51:56] determines may be useful. [01:52:00] The recommendation that we have advanced for you [01:52:03] tonight is to adopt a resolution which [01:52:06] authorizes the city manager to prepare the business impact [01:52:11] estimates for all ordinances, which [01:52:14] are required under section 166.0404 of Florida statutes [01:52:21] prior to enactment, as submitted. [01:52:26] Can we public comment on this? [01:52:34] I won't be long, sir. [01:52:39] For this ordinance, I strongly encourage all of you, [01:52:44] especially those of you who are running for, I know, Matt. [01:52:49] We're almost there, Matt. [01:52:50] I know, man. [01:52:51] Been a long day, right? [01:52:53] We're almost there. [01:52:54] I promise. [01:52:56] I encourage you all to maybe start [01:52:58] doing some of the power sharing. [01:53:00] I know we have an assistant city manager. [01:53:03] I know you guys do not do a good job of holding your city [01:53:06] manager accountable, but authorizing the city manager [01:53:10] to prepare everything, she has too much power. [01:53:13] And whatever you do authorize her to prepare, [01:53:15] let's make sure it's made public, [01:53:17] because everybody should be watching everything [01:53:19] that she is doing and everything that the attorney is doing. [01:53:25] We don't trust you. [01:53:27] We've spoken, and all you do is gaslight us. [01:53:32] Not one of you has told us if the city is being [01:53:34] sued for this trash stuff. [01:53:36] You're going to go talk about it behind closed doors. [01:53:40] But you can't tell the public if the city is being sued or not, [01:53:42] because you all know what's going on. [01:53:46] So I think that you should really consider this ordinance [01:53:49] or maybe modify it. [01:53:51] Maybe you guys help her collectively, [01:53:53] because she has too much power. [01:53:57] This is not Saudi Arabia. [01:53:59] This is not an absolute monarchy. [01:54:00] This is a democracy for the people, by the people. [01:54:05] And I understand that you all want to turn this into some HOA, [01:54:09] but New Port Richey is not for sale. [01:54:11] And she should not have all the power. [01:54:13] And I'm sorry that I have to constantly come up here [01:54:16] and say this. [01:54:16] Matt's falling asleep in his chair. [01:54:18] I know you guys are tired of hearing it, [01:54:20] but you guys are the one giving her the power. [01:54:22] You're the one giving her this big raise. [01:54:24] You're the one giving her attorney, who can't even [01:54:27] cut off Taylor Swift and his Tesla, a raise. [01:54:31] So let's stop giving her all the power and maybe delegate it. [01:54:37] It might help, because since she's been here, [01:54:39] the city's been under numerous lawsuits. [01:54:42] And she even brags about it in her text messages, [01:54:45] where she talks about how many depositions [01:54:47] she has to go and sit for before she [01:54:49] goes to lunch with the developer of her choosing. [01:54:52] Good night. [01:54:54] Good night. [01:54:59] Any other comments? [01:55:04] Mollick, 6153 Massachusetts Avenue, New Port Richey, [01:55:08] Patriot Stogies. [01:55:10] So will this ordinance impact, or this vote [01:55:13] impact the trash ordinance? [01:55:16] Just for clarification, can I ask? [01:55:18] No, it won't. [01:55:19] It won't. [01:55:20] OK. [01:55:21] All right. [01:55:21] Thank you. [01:55:26] We're going to bring it back for a vote and comment. [01:55:32] I move we approve. [01:55:35] Second. [01:55:36] Comment? [01:55:38] Yeah. [01:55:39] I'm sorry, you're the microphone. [01:55:41] Go ahead. [01:55:42] Yeah, yeah, yeah. [01:55:43] This is, again, another one of those state statutes [01:55:47] to put in that really forces us to do this. [01:55:51] Some, I think, generated out of South Florida, [01:55:56] a municipality put in a ordinance that really [01:56:03] created a large financial loss for a certain number [01:56:06] of businesses. [01:56:08] And so I think this ordinance is set to put that out there, [01:56:15] exactly what the cost would be in enacting those ordinances. [01:56:20] It could be something pretty difficult and laborious to do, [01:56:24] but yet it's going to have to, there [01:56:26] may be circumstances where we have to do it. [01:56:28] So for that reason, I would approve it. [01:56:35] Just to clarify, this is not the city manager [01:56:38] writing the impact ordinance report. [01:56:41] It's a financial person that has examined it [01:56:45] that's qualified to do the financial. [01:56:47] And it's a requirement for every ordinance, I believe, [01:56:50] that could have a business impact. [01:56:51] So I'm not sure your answer was correct, Mr. Mayor. [01:56:55] I would suggest that if we pass an ordinance, it probably does apply. [01:57:00] Well, I was thinking that we're already working on this one, [01:57:02] and this is coming forward. [01:57:04] So yeah, I'm guessing we should put it. [01:57:08] Yeah, we're guessing. [01:57:09] That's the problem, we don't know. [01:57:12] Do you have a comment on that? [01:57:15] Well, it's required by state law in some circumstances, [01:57:18] and there are exemptions for it. [01:57:19] And it will take people under the city manager's control

    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.

22. 10.i

    Resolution No. 2024-02: Authorizing the City Manager to Prepare the Required Business Impact Estimate for Ordinances

    approved

    Council adopted Resolution 2024-02 authorizing the City Manager to prepare the Business Impact Estimate required for ordinances, including the upcoming waste hauling ordinance. Approved 5-0.

    Ord. Resolution No. 2024-02

    • vote:Adopt Resolution 2024-02 authorizing the City Manager to prepare the required Business Impact Estimate for ordinances. (passed)5–0

    👤Mike#Business Impact Estimate#Resolution No. 2024-02#waste hauling ordinance

    ▶ Jump to 1:57:20 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:57:24] to put together the information, including finance, [01:57:27] and maybe other departments will have to weigh in. [01:57:29] But it is a statement that we require to do, [01:57:32] and so you have to give her, I'm recommending [01:57:34] you give her authority to do it, so that you [01:57:36] will have that statement for each ordinance as required. [01:57:39] Do you think it will affect the waste hauling ordinance? [01:57:42] We will be preparing one for the waste hauling ordinance, absolutely. [01:57:47] Excuse me, sorry. [01:57:48] That's good, I just wanted to clarify. [01:57:50] Mike, anything else? [01:57:54] No. [01:57:57] I think it's more of a, when we say city manager, [01:58:01] it's all 235 people underneath it that will be helping her come up with this, [01:58:06] won't be just off of her desk. [01:58:09] OK, all those in favor, signify by aye. [01:58:12] Aye. [01:58:12] Those opposed? [01:58:14] That's five nothing. [01:58:15] Do you want to go ahead and use communication after we do the CRA? [01:58:22] OK, we'll adjourn this and open the CRA. [01:58:25] OK, now we'll go on to communication. [01:58:28] No, start there. [01:58:33] Mike? [01:58:36] Well, thank you, Mayor. [01:58:37] I don't have a lot to say tonight, other than a couple things [01:58:44] to communicate in that several of us were at an opportunity [01:58:50] to visit this past week with a number of legislators in Tallahassee. [01:58:57] Everybody might recall that we did elect the services of a lobbyist, [01:59:05] the Southern Group, and we were, I think, payoffs we'll see, [01:59:12] but I think we were somewhat rewarded in helping [01:59:15] us visit with a number of legislators. [01:59:18] We visited with all three senators that represented parts of Pasco County, [01:59:26] our own Senator Ed Hooper, as well as Senator Danny Burgess to the east [01:59:32] and Blaise N'Golio to the north, and all the House members as well, [01:59:37] including our own resident, I'm going to miss his name, Brad Yeager. [01:59:45] So it was varied, both of which had entered on behalf of the city [01:59:52] requests for appropriations to help us on some of our city projects. [01:59:56] And the most notable one was some assistance in the funding. [02:00:00] our fire station number two that's really just started under construction. [02:00:07] That's a $4 million plus project and obviously it came in over budget when we, the budget [02:00:16] was a lot more once we finally got it going than we'd hoped to spend. [02:00:21] So we asked for some money and with their assistance and particularly Senator Hooper's [02:00:28] assistance has gotten it through the first hurdle of getting approved some appropriations [02:00:33] a little over a million dollars, a million point two. [02:00:36] So we've got a long way to go. [02:00:37] The house hasn't approved it and but we're hopeful that that might move along and then [02:00:43] we still have to get through the governor's office but you know these things don't happen [02:00:47] every legislative session but it takes time and to build relationships. [02:00:51] I think that we have the representatives that are working here within the people of [02:00:58] Pasco County are exceptional legislators and all seem willing to help us and for that you [02:01:05] know I thought we had a great great visit up there and I look forward to hopefully this [02:01:10] will go through this year if not we'll be prepared for next year. [02:01:19] Looking my way? [02:01:21] Sure. [02:01:22] Okay, so I'll stay with the CRA comments first and just indicate that I'm aware that the [02:01:28] Schwetman's property came up at the school board today and there was some discussion. [02:01:35] I happen to have gone to school with Allison then Montgomery now Allison Crumley and I [02:01:43] was able to review her comments so I understand that the closing is not going to occur because [02:01:51] they deem the contract to be out of the time zone and due to their opportunity to wanted [02:01:58] to insert some support I think for the local efforts of the folks who are advocating for [02:02:07] us to keep that property to be used as a community asset. [02:02:11] We certainly heard from a large group of them but I want to first of all say that Allison's [02:02:17] concerns were with the Live Local Act because she made a speech about that and the with [02:02:24] Mr. Starkey here the quality of the apartments that could be rented are nearly at the level [02:02:33] of low-income housing and the Live Local Act exempts as you all have reminded me when I [02:02:39] suggested it exempts from property tax collection for multiple family housing. [02:02:45] So I believe that was her main concern and the support of the effort but I would read [02:02:53] to you something that I did provide to her that she shared which was the interest of [02:03:01] St. Leo College which was misunderstood by Cynthia Armstrong who by the way suggested [02:03:09] that the highest and best use of that property would be for residential and maybe even low-income [02:03:16] housing which would be the last thing I would like to see with the last available piece [02:03:20] of open space on our river. [02:03:22] So I have on my own gone out to St. Leo University and I've shared that with you but this is [02:03:29] something that they wrote and I'll just read it and that will be the end of it for tonight [02:03:33] but the central location of the former Gulf High School site in New Port Richey represents [02:03:39] an opportunity to provide many scientific, cultural and social experiences for youth [02:03:45] and adults in the New Port Richey community. [02:03:48] One such opportunity is a proposed partnership with St. Leo University located in Pasco County. [02:03:55] St. Leo's Natural Sciences Department is well positioned to provide on-site instruction [02:04:03] and experiences related to the important Cody River ecosystem on which the former Gulf High [02:04:09] site is located. [02:04:10] Similarly, St. Leo University's History and Art Departments are prepared to provide comprehensive [02:04:16] historic, cultural, music and arts programming for area residents. [02:04:21] Additionally, St. Leo University will offer select courses online for their own university [02:04:26] students introducing them to New Port Richey, increasing St. Leo's brand awareness in West [02:04:32] Pasco and creating lasting bonds between the New Port Richey community and St. Leo students [02:04:38] and faculty. [02:04:39] As such, this partnership will be mutually beneficial for both New Port Richey and St. [02:04:44] Leo University. [02:04:46] So I mentioned to you before their interest and I think it was Dewey Mitchell years ago [02:04:50] who told me that, man, if we could get a university in our city, that that could help [02:04:55] to increase the viability and help to put us on the map. [02:05:00] So the reason I mention it is because they are very interested in pursuing what has been [02:05:07] my lifelong mission, which is protecting our river, improving it, and so yes, I think Armstrong [02:05:16] is right. [02:05:17] The highest and best uses, if you were the owner of that property, would be housing. [02:05:21] Because who doesn't want to have and how much money can you get for a house on the river? [02:05:26] But the CRA's job is to determine whether that's inventory, as in Mr. Starkey's purchase [02:05:33] of that, or what we have on Highway 19, or as was reflected, possibility of these multifamily [02:05:39] going in the Highway 19 corridor. [02:05:42] But that has been a community treasure and I can assure you that the house will be filled [02:05:50] up on the 20th with people who want to know whether or not this goes into our CRA plan [02:05:56] and whether or not this council is willing to commit to at least give an opportunity [02:06:01] for us to preserve that property for the enjoyment of all the people in our city. [02:06:07] And so I know very well that mathematics and what we just heard is a part of the CRA [02:06:14] and I will defend that function of the CRA fully and I agree with everything. [02:06:22] But I fought for four terms to get the array preserved and the idea that we could have [02:06:28] paddle boarders and ferries back and forth and really light up our city's river while [02:06:35] we're cleaning it and getting education is, I think, a shot that we ought to be able to [02:06:41] give before we consider going out for proposals. [02:06:46] Now, to that end, they want to start classes this summer and my question really is, let's [02:06:53] evaluate the building if we get it and see if we can't begin to use it because the idea [02:06:57] that we have to spend millions of dollars sort of goes against the idea that the people [02:07:02] were just there a few years ago. [02:07:05] So the university came and they looked at it. [02:07:07] They were ready to go in and start teaching classes. [02:07:10] So I hope that you'll give an opportunity for the community to really speak to their [02:07:16] wishes and as I understand it, the school board is going to present us with a contract [02:07:23] change that's going to say no multifamily housing on that property. [02:07:27] They've sold it at a discount to us. [02:07:30] I know there's a lot of folks would probably have to agree with Ms. Armstrong and she's [02:07:36] not wrong, but for me, it's a community asset and our whole community is fired up for it. [02:07:43] So I'm just letting you know that what you can expect and that I'm supporting it and [02:07:49] to talk to the city manager today, she suggested that we wouldn't want to give up any of our [02:07:55] rights to acquire it. [02:07:57] I'm willing to give up the idea of putting housing on that site and if the rest of you [02:08:02] are not, then I think you need to make yourselves known because the public is watching. [02:08:10] So that's all I have to say today. [02:08:12] Mike? [02:08:13] You know, I've already made my comments. [02:08:16] You always help them out, that's why I'm asking.

    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.

23. 11Communications▶ 2:08:20
24. 12Adjournment▶ 2:15:08