On the agenda

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

   Pledge of Allegiance

   Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

   👤Altman

   ▶ Jump to 0:24 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:24] Try again. Councilman Altman. Here. Okay. Loud and clear. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the [00:00:39] United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, [00:00:45] indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. This is items container discussion

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

3. 4.a

   ↳You arrived here from a search for “JD Parker” — transcript expanded below

   Continued Discussion Regarding Modifications to the Solid Waste Collection Ordinance

   discussed

   Staff continued discussion on proposed modifications to the Solid Waste Collection Ordinance ahead of its second reading on Feb 20, 2024. Finance staff presented revenue/expense estimates ($64,532 net for FY24; $116,470 net for FY25) and outlined benefits of the single-hauler system including avoiding a 6.9% rate increase. Councilman Altman objected to the billing method, arguing it would be cheaper to bill via water bills or property tax bills; a business owner complained during public comment about commercial rates.

   • direction:Council continued discussion of proposed solid waste ordinance modifications and received staff presentation in advance of second/final reading on February 20, 2024. (none)

   📍6153 Massachusetts Avenue🏢J.D. Parker🏢Patriot Stogies🏢Suncoast News🏢WastePro👤Crystal Dunn👤David Pollack👤Debbie Manns👤Murphy👤Pete Altman#Residential administrative fee (1.5%)#Road program funding from franchise fees#Second/final reading February 20, 2024#Single-hauler system conversion#Solid Waste Collection Ordinance#Solid waste franchise fee (10%)

   ▶ Jump to 0:50 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:57] regarding solid waste program. I'd like to begin. We definitely want you to begin. [00:01:09] Tonight's discussion is really a follow-up to comments made during your February 6, [00:01:19] 2024 regular meeting. The purpose of the agenda item this evening is to respond to specific [00:01:29] questions that were posed and to continue discussion related to proposed modifications [00:01:36] to the solid waste collection ordinance, which is up for a second and a final reading at your [00:01:43] meeting on February 20, 2024. You have an ordinance in front of you this evening which [00:01:51] contains two revisions in it from when it was presented to you on February 6. There are several [00:02:01] changes to the definition section of solid waste. The original definition contained a lot of items [00:02:16] in it that perhaps were appropriate at one time and have become obsolete. And as such, [00:02:32] the hauler has asked that we remove items such as aircrafts and farm machinery and equipment and [00:02:41] items of that nature from the definitions, and we agree that it's appropriate to do so. The other [00:02:49] change relates to service interruptions, which we thought was an important part of the program to [00:02:57] offer. And we've inserted the word residential because that is something that applies to our [00:03:04] residential customers. If I could just jump in, too, there's another change in the billing [00:03:12] section that just updates some of the language with regard to the city's lien rights and lowered [00:03:19] the interest rate on unpaid charges to 8%, which is consistent with the statute. So that was the [00:03:29] only other changes that was made from the first reading. Sorry about that interruption. [00:03:35] Thank you for that. I'm going to ask Ms. Dunn to present to you some information that Councilman [00:03:50] Altman has asked for, and it relates to revenue and expenses and so net operating revenue as it [00:04:01] relates to the operation of the program. And she has prepared an estimate which I presented to you [00:04:11] in your packet last week, which covers the fiscal year 24, which is seven months remaining in the [00:04:25] fiscal year, and then a net operating revenue for the following fiscal year. And please present that [00:04:32] if you would, Ms. Dunn. The information presented to you, the residential properties were determined [00:04:42] based on the property appraiser. We estimated those to be approximately 4,300 and approximately [00:04:51] 400 commercial accounts within the city. And these are property owners. In the first chart, [00:05:00] the fiscal year 24 estimated revenue is based on seven months of revenue. That would be beginning [00:05:06] March 2nd and continuing through the end of September. Billing residents up front quarterly [00:05:14] and commercial accounts and arrears monthly. The residential administrative fee is calculated at [00:05:23] one and a half percent. And for fiscal year 24, that's $8,823 in estimated revenue. And the [00:05:32] residential franchise fee is calculated at 10% of the rate of the individual rate, bringing it to [00:05:39] $58,820 in annual revenue for fiscal year 24. Commercial accounts, the administrative rate is [00:05:48] again one and a half percent, calculated at $7,250 for 2024. And commercial franchise fees are [00:05:58] calculated at $48,336. This is just an estimate. It's based on our calculation of the rates associated [00:06:12] with the commercial accounts and the monthly collection fee that's provided to you at the back [00:06:20] of the ordinance. We took the first three columns, the frequency of one week, two weeks, and three [00:06:28] weeks, monthly collection fees for dumpster sizes two yards, four yards, six yards, and eight yards. [00:06:35] We took an average of those rates and calculated it over approximately 400 commercial accounts, [00:06:42] and that's how we came to the revenue calculations that we have here. So the total estimated revenue [00:06:49] for 2024 to the city is $123,229. The expenses are broken out here for billing and postage, [00:07:01] and again that's quarterly for residential. So we would have three quarterly bills going out, [00:07:07] that one for the month of March, and then the next quarterly bill for April through June, [00:07:14] and then the final quarterly bill for 2024, July through September. And again for commercial, [00:07:21] it'd be billed monthly, so that's seven months of billing. The billing and postage for 2024 is [00:07:27] $13,775, and that again is based on 4,300 residential and 400 commercial. Wages and [00:07:35] benefits for the position is $39,901, and we have additional fees in here. It includes the [00:07:45] envelopes and postage for the initial notices to go out that'll be mailed out shortly after [00:07:52] our final hearing, and minimal expenses for a desk phone rental for that position, and the [00:08:00] implementation costs for the billing software. The module was already implemented, it's just [00:08:07] adding the billing portion for the solid waste. It's all within our utility billing, but it's a [00:08:16] separate billing. The total expenses for 2024 are $58,697, so the net operating revenue to the [00:08:27] city for 2024 is estimated to be $64,532. Do we have any questions on the first page, or do you [00:08:35] want me to elaborate any more on those expenses? The next page covers 12 months, so the revenues [00:08:44] are increasing. The expenses change a little bit. The wages and benefits are for a year for that [00:08:52] position for one employee at $75,320. Billing and postage for the full year for quarterly, [00:09:00] residential, and monthly commercial is $19,310, and operating expenses are minimal at $150. That [00:09:07] brings the total estimated annual expenses for the billing portion to be $94,780. At the top of [00:09:18] the chart, we calculate the total annual residential billing of $1,008,343. Of that amount, an amount is [00:09:30] paid to the hauler, but the revenue portion for the city, the annual administrative costs that [00:09:35] the city would receive on the 4,300 accounts is $15,125, and the annual franchise fee is $100,834. [00:09:46] So that brings the total annual residential revenue to $115,959. The commercial revenue, again, as an [00:09:56] estimate, is based on 400 accounts, and I came up with that rate as an average by taking the fees on [00:10:02] the chart. And again, that's the first three columns. We're assuming that the fees in the final [00:10:10] three columns aren't common based on the city, our size, and the types of businesses that are here in [00:10:15] the city. So for commercial accounts, the annual administrative fee is calculated $12,429, and the [00:10:24] annual franchise fee is $82,862. So we have total estimated annual revenue of $211,250 for both [00:10:34] residential and commercial administrative and franchise fees to the city. The net operating [00:10:42] revenue after the expenses are deducted would be a total operating revenue of $116,470 to the city [00:10:51] for the following, for a full year or for 2025, based on the current rates that are laid out in the [00:10:57] schedule in front of you. I can elaborate more if you have questions. Other than that, that's my [00:11:09] presentation for the fee schedule. I think the only thing that is additionally appropriate to [00:11:17] note is that these are estimates at this point, and typically the operating revenue or the [00:11:27] franchise fee that the city receives by way of solid waste is dedicated for use to support our [00:11:39] road program. And my expectation is that that's what it would be used for going forward. And what, [00:11:54] are there any questions from the council at this point? Do we know what our revenue was for the [00:12:03] franchise fees in 2023? I don't have it offhand, but I can get that for you. Do you have any idea? You've taken [00:12:19] these estimates based on the residents. Do you have any indication because of the amount of [00:12:26] residents and commercial properties that were utilizing the service before we implement this [00:12:33] program based on the, you know? We wouldn't know. They've got to come up with a fee that, to pay the [00:12:44] road fee. They do pay the franchise fee. It's not always provided in detail of the type of, the level [00:12:51] of service that they're providing or the type of service. So you don't, you haven't audited them [00:12:57] or whether audited their accounts? We fully audited them in 2020 and we've proceeded with one. So we're [00:13:09] currently looking at the total revenue that we've received for franchise fees to date. Well, why I [00:13:18] was asking that is I wonder what the percent of people using the service now and what we're looking [00:13:23] at basically 100% now. Okay. That's what I'm looking for. I can get that for you. Any other questions? Pete? Yes. [00:13:40] Well, that was quite an elaborate response and certainly well documented. It's a large number. My [00:13:51] questions remain unanswered with respect to the reason to do this, knowing that it would be very [00:14:00] inexpensive to put this on the water bills. And the argument has been that people aren't paying their [00:14:07] bills or may not pay the bills and we may lose money. So I have two questions. One is how much are we [00:14:13] getting annually now in terms of revenue to the city from our franchise program? And two, it's just beyond me [00:14:27] that we're, that we're going to spend this much money, which obviously comes from a resident's pockets to do [00:14:35] what is a duplicate collection system. So how much money do we think we're losing from bad debt? And is [00:14:47] there not an understanding that if we don't collect money from customers, that we could shut them off and [00:14:55] therefore they don't [00:15:00] We don't collect that money, but we don't lose it because we don't pay the vendor. [00:15:09] And if they're not using water because we're cutting them off because they're not paying [00:15:12] their water bill, I know nobody wants to talk about it or that's another item, but it's [00:15:20] the same situation. [00:15:21] The difference is we're just collections agents on this, and in the respect of water, we're [00:15:27] paying for that supply that we don't get. [00:15:29] So I still am not in agreement with the collection method that's been described, $100,000 a year [00:15:39] when we don't have to spend that much to collect it. [00:15:43] I don't see the argument of it being beneficial financially to us. [00:15:51] It would be beneficial to the hauler, obviously, to get money from everybody, but I'm not comfortable [00:15:59] with it. [00:16:00] But I'm just one member of five, so that's my question. [00:16:04] There's never been an attempt, apparently, to answer those questions, and there's just [00:16:09] this full force forward on this collection method, which I don't understand, and I don't [00:16:18] think it's typical, but again, I'm one of five. [00:16:23] It'll be up to the board, and it may not change my vote, but... [00:16:33] I answered one part of that in my own situation in such that my landlord pays my trash hauler, [00:16:39] but I have to pay the water, and I think there's probably other examples of that in town. [00:16:45] In fact, actually, for my same landlord, I'm sure he does it with other people in town. [00:16:49] So there's an example of it, like, why would I be paying trash when my landlord pays it? [00:16:57] I gave that example before. [00:17:00] Yeah, I heard that, but that doesn't justify $100,000 to the residents to pay when there's [00:17:09] no analysis that's been done. [00:17:12] One example doesn't really make good business decision making. [00:17:19] Let me check again, you know, with Crystal. [00:17:24] The money isn't up at $100,000, is it, for the residents? [00:17:28] How much are we actually collecting that was going to be that 1.5%? [00:17:35] The 1.5% for the annual cost? [00:17:38] Yeah. [00:17:39] The administrative cost, 1.5%, is $15,125. [00:17:43] Yeah, see, that's not $100,000. [00:17:45] You're taking in the franchise fee, which actually goes to the roads, and they're already [00:17:50] paying that, Pete, so we can't put those two things together there. [00:17:56] You've got a big number, but it's actually, the cost is, what, $15,000? [00:18:03] It's real money. [00:18:04] It comes from somewhere, so I don't know how you can make that disappear, but, you know, [00:18:08] it could effectively result in a reduction in the fees to the residents. [00:18:12] That's been one of the concerns of, I know Councilman Murphy has mentioned as well, why [00:18:17] aren't we being able to do this for less? [00:18:20] I think the answer is because we're using a very costly method on what has been, to [00:18:27] me, an unproven argument other than, you know, whatever example of whether it's going to [00:18:33] inconvenience your landlord or you versus what's going to happen to most of the community [00:18:40] and the way the system is laid out. [00:18:43] I want to emphasize this. [00:18:44] You know, you don't have to satisfy me, I'm just making my point. [00:18:46] I just want you to know that the fees for charging this, the billing, it's $100,000. [00:18:54] The billing is only $15,000. [00:19:00] So anyway, you know, we missed the boat, I couldn't get enough people to agree with me [00:19:08] that the proper way to bill this would have been on the property tax bills. [00:19:12] Made it a lot simpler. [00:19:15] People would have paid, you know, through their property tax, a lot of people are paying [00:19:18] that monthly through if they have mortgages or their estimated payments, but quarterly [00:19:24] payments, but so I think still attaching it separately to the property owners makes sense [00:19:32] that perhaps the wisdom will roll around to move it away from the billing altogether and [00:19:39] put it back on the property tax bills in future years. [00:19:44] I'm not going to argue with you. [00:19:46] You continue to say that, but you're using an inefficient collection method to make your [00:19:52] argument. [00:19:52] It is inefficient to have twice as many transactions or when you can have just that transaction [00:20:00] happen at one time on the water bill, and in fact, even your ordinance reflects looking [00:20:05] to the utilities for guidance on how the billing works, but again, we have the right to disagree [00:20:15] but just disagree. [00:20:17] Anything else over here? [00:20:24] And the main reason for doing it separately is just one for the homeowner, one for the [00:20:34] waterers, for whoever's got their water turned on, so there's no way of doing it together. [00:20:39] Is that correct? [00:20:41] Garbage will be charged to the owner, the water is charged to whoever has their water [00:20:47] turned on. [00:20:50] There are ways to do it, yes. [00:20:53] And when we made the decision to go with an independent bill, we talked about some [00:20:58] of the difficulties there were with charging it. [00:21:04] We said it was possible, yes, but certainly it was possible, but the decision of the council [00:21:11] at that time was that it was in our best interest and the best alternate to do an [00:21:18] independent bill, and so that's the road we've been pursuing since that time. [00:21:25] May I remind you that the information you gave was faulty, that there is no difficulty [00:21:42] in doing it, and in fact, it's the most common way to do it, so when you say it's a decision [00:21:47] of the council, I'm not sure how that arrives from the difference between the strong recommendation [00:21:55] from management that you do it this way. [00:21:58] It's the wrong way to do it, but if that's the decision that's made, then that would [00:22:04] be made, but I'm telling you, the things that you presented to us and how it's been done [00:22:12] is not consistent with what's happening in the real world around us, and nobody has looked [00:22:20] to see how many people put it on the bill versus create a whole separate billing method, [00:22:26] and no one has been able to quantify that spending $100,000 to do it this way, because [00:22:33] it is the expense and it is in the report, on the annual report, the cost to the city, [00:22:38] that spending $100,000 is the wise decision when you can simply put it on the same bill [00:22:46] that goes out to the renters. It's not wanting to give it to the renters, and that's the [00:22:52] bottom line. [00:22:53] Still not $100,000. [00:22:54] Well, the... [00:22:55] Look at the report, it's $100,000. [00:22:56] You talk about what's going on... [00:22:57] Most of the billing... [00:22:58] So the real world, more and more people are moving to the property tax bill on this, and [00:23:05] I think that, if I remember correctly, the discussions on that was that if we weren't [00:23:19] going to do that, that the least disruptive thing to the majority of our citizens, receive [00:23:27] quarterly bills, and they'll continue to receive quarterly bills on their trash, or commercial [00:23:32] people on monthly. So that makes it a little bit smoother transition. [00:23:40] Well you'll find out when you do it, and just remember I told you. [00:23:48] I'm still not sure this is the right billing method either, but we don't really have examples [00:23:53] of having it done this way in other cities, which is really what I would like to see. [00:23:59] I did notice that some of the prices were changed and have gone down a little bit, so [00:24:03] I think that's good for our residents and for some of our businesses. The non-residential [00:24:11] has gone down a little bit, so I think that's good. [00:24:16] Do you want anything more? [00:24:21] I actually have a little bit of a PowerPoint presentation that I thought would be appropriate [00:24:27] this evening, based on some of the questions and comments that were made during Vox Pop [00:24:32] at the last meeting. I felt that some of the benefits of the program, I don't think as [00:24:40] a staff we've touted enough, and that we needed to sort of review those. And so we've put [00:24:48] together a little something, if you feel it's appropriate to review. [00:24:52] Sure. [00:24:53] We're ready then. The first is a rate reduction. Under the county's ordinance, the waste haulers [00:25:02] are allowed to effectuate up to a 9% price increase each year. It is to be consistent [00:25:12] with the Consumer Price Index. In the specific case of J.D. Parker, who does business as [00:25:20] WastePro, and they were the successful bidder of the city's contract, they were due to implement [00:25:29] a 6.9% wage increase. So if not for the fact that we went to competitive bid, the customers [00:25:38] in the City of New Port Richey would have been subject to the 6.9% rate increase. [00:25:46] So, on the next chart, you can see, you can barely see, but you can see that the fee for [00:26:00] the bill on a quarterly basis under J.D. Parker's system would have been $62.49 for a quarterly [00:26:08] fee. Under the City of New Port Richey, because we put it out to competitive bid, it's $59.28 [00:26:19] for residential customers. We didn't do the calculations on all of the quarterly, I'm [00:26:29] sorry, on the monthly charges for all of the non-residential customers, but the same premise [00:26:36] holds true for the commercial customers as well. [00:26:42] The other benefit is the efficiency of having one hauler on the road. It streamlines the [00:26:47] routes. Fewer trucks on the road means less fuel consumption and less noise pollution. [00:26:56] Community aesthetics is the third benefit of having a one hauler system rather than [00:27:04] an open market system because you contribute to a cleaner and a more visually appealing [00:27:09] system. The fourth benefit certainly is participation. The City currently has an ordinance in place [00:27:19] that requires that every property in the City subscribe to a trash hauling system. That [00:27:25] system though, admittedly, is very difficult to enforce. The implementation of a single [00:27:33] hauler system does improve accountability and reduces the incidence of illegal dumping. [00:27:45] Road maintenance is another important one. Fewer trucks on the road results in less wear [00:27:50] and tear, which results in a savings on road maintenance costs. Accountability is also [00:27:57] important because under a contract with a selected service provider who has to comply [00:28:03] with very specific customer service standards, they do so because their failure to comply [00:28:12] with the standards bears specific consequences, which they do not want to be subject to. [00:28:19] Lastly, there was a seven. I know there was a seven. [00:28:28] I thought it was important, in large part driven by an article that was featured in [00:28:34] the Suncoast News by an author that did not spend time talking to the City to at least [00:28:47] make record corrections about the fact that this has been a very public matter. We have [00:28:53] been having deliberations on this matter with the City Council for over three years. Tonight [00:29:01] is the tenth public meeting at which time various matters related to the conversion [00:29:08] from an open market to a single hauler system have been discussed. Residential properties [00:29:15] will be built quarterly. Commercial properties will be built monthly. And of course, while [00:29:22] the City's roads are sufficiently constructed to withstand the weight of waste hauling vehicles, [00:29:29] it's the repeated use of these maximum load vehicles that does increase the rate of degradation [00:29:36] of our roadway system. And much was said about the City not talking about these, and so I [00:29:47] thought it would be appropriate just to put it out there that the City will be imposing [00:29:52] a 1.5 percent administration fee to cover the cost of taking on the billing and the [00:30:00] And the expected revenue at this time is $27,554. [00:30:08] We have always imposed a 10% franchise fee since the time that a franchise was put in place. [00:30:17] The estimated revenue associated with the franchise fee is $183,696. [00:30:26] Of course, these are estimates, and the costs associated with the billing function are $94,780. [00:30:36] With that, we're prepared to respond to any questions or to accept additional direction from you as you see fit. [00:30:46] Do we have any public comment at this point? [00:31:05] You have one minute left. [00:31:06] Oh, how many did I get? [00:31:08] He's running three times. [00:31:09] He needs new glasses. [00:31:10] He's running three times. [00:31:11] David Pollack, Patriot Stogies, 6153 Massachusetts Avenue. [00:31:15] Okay, so you guys didn't negotiate the rate for businesses like mine. [00:31:18] That's a failure on your part. [00:31:21] I'm still waiting for it to be addressed. [00:31:22] I was – I thanked you. [00:31:24] You made me thank you for addressing it. [00:31:26] You didn't do it. [00:31:28] Can I get a response? [00:31:30] I hate it when I stand here and talk because I have good points, and I just – I'd love for at least a dialogue, reasonable. [00:31:37] I'm not going to yell and cuss and carry on, but I think it's reasonable that you made me thank you for looking into it. [00:31:43] You didn't do jack. [00:31:46] So as Ms. Manns tells us that it could have been a 9% increase, malarkey, garbage, hot garbage, just like this, what you're hauling. [00:31:56] Because the number that I paid the previous year was the same number as I paid last year, but I added 9% to it just to do your little math. [00:32:05] So 325 should have gone up to about 354, but you're charging me 517. [00:32:11] So I don't know who maths in the room, but I do, and that's pretty simple. [00:32:15] So why didn't you advocate for businesses? [00:32:17] Why didn't you come to me and ask me what I'm paying so that you can negotiate a rate that's reasonable and comparable? [00:32:23] That's what I'm asking. [00:32:24] I don't have a dumpster. [00:32:25] I do one trash can twice a week. [00:32:29] So as you look at me, can I get a response? [00:32:31] I'll go sit down and you can take the extra minute and 30 seconds to respond. [00:32:40] Anybody else like to speak? [00:32:52] Breitenberger 5842, Illinois. [00:32:54] Math is not my strong suit. [00:32:55] I'm going to admit that right now. [00:32:58] So currently I pay to J.D. Parker. [00:33:02] Sixty one dollars about there about every quarter. [00:33:07] So it's not going up by much, right? [00:33:09] It's like a dollar and change. [00:33:10] It showed like 62, whatever. [00:33:12] But the fees that are being put on top of that, how much is that like per person? [00:33:20] I'm not understanding. [00:33:21] Like how much extra is it going to cost me to do what I'm already getting from J.D. Parker right now without any involvement from the city? [00:33:31] Math for me, because you're saying that we have to pay these other fees because you need to bill and stuff. [00:33:37] And I guess what comes out of taxes? [00:33:41] Administratively? [00:33:54] So it's not, you showed 62 dollars and change. [00:33:56] That's what it is, period. [00:33:58] No extra money than that for residents. [00:34:02] I'm sorry. [00:34:03] I have a hard time hearing. [00:34:05] I hear yelling back and forth. [00:34:06] I can't tell what's being asked. [00:34:08] Is there one and a half percent in the fees that are? [00:34:11] That have been published? [00:34:12] Yeah. [00:34:13] Yes, they are. [00:34:15] So is it on top of? [00:34:16] It's included. [00:34:17] Oh, it's included. [00:34:18] That's the price you pay. [00:34:19] So the 62 dollars is it. [00:34:21] Okay. [00:34:22] So my next question real quick. [00:34:23] So I don't mind paying because I make good money, but I know there's people in the city that don't have the money to pay this that are like, I don't know, maybe low income or elderly. [00:34:33] Is there something set aside to help them since it's now going through the city or is it they're just like, they don't pay it. [00:34:38] They don't get it. [00:34:43] Are you asking me to respond, Mr. Mayor? [00:34:45] Yeah, well, you're going to implement the rules there. [00:34:48] Excuse me. [00:34:55] No, the city does not maintain a hardship fund to assist people that are able to pay their waste pickup fee. [00:35:05] Okay. [00:35:07] I'm just asking because I know like, you know, for I don't know about the water, but I know like with the electric, there's like a fund for people that can't afford it. [00:35:15] And I just wanted to know since it's going through you guys, if there's something you can do for the residents that don't have the money to pay this. [00:35:23] Like the elderly people that don't really put out trash, maybe their caregiver takes it away or the snowbirds that aren't here six months of the year, like anything like that. [00:35:32] Has that been addressed? [00:35:34] We do have an interruption of service provision in the contract for snowbirds, but we have not developed any type of a program for people that aren't able to pay their bill. [00:36:05] Hello, my name is Jeff Weinstein. [00:36:09] I live at 5800 Montana Avenue. [00:36:12] I do rent also. [00:36:14] And having a couple of conversations with my landlord, there are five of us in our little spot. [00:36:21] We're all at a loss about what's going to happen. [00:36:26] Where are the billings? [00:36:28] We were told that if we're billed to us, that it's our responsibility, even though it's in our contract, that it's the landlord's responsibility. [00:36:39] So essentially, five of us are going to be leaving on March 31st for breach of contract. [00:36:49] If that does happen, the reality of the situation, though, is three of us are going to be leaving. [00:36:54] Two of them, the people couldn't afford another penny. [00:36:59] So you're going to put two families out on the street, two families with, you know, a mother with both parents at work, with three children. [00:37:09] They're going to be out on the street. [00:37:11] So we don't have any idea what's going on, what is going to happen. [00:37:16] And where am I going to live on March 31st? [00:37:20] Because I'm also on a fixed income. [00:37:23] I was run over by a front-end loader in 2005. [00:37:26] What are we going to do? [00:37:28] What about my neighbors right next door? [00:37:30] They can't afford to fix their home that they own. [00:37:33] That's horrible. [00:37:35] Are you going to put them out on the street? [00:37:37] Are you going to put a lien on their property and put them out on the street because of trash? [00:37:42] They can't afford another penny that they have. [00:37:45] Sir, I think you misunderstood. [00:37:47] It's going to the landlord, not the renter. [00:37:49] Is it? [00:37:50] That's it. [00:37:52] Is that the answer? [00:37:54] Yes. [00:37:55] Well, that's what I really needed because we've been in the dark about everything. [00:38:00] No, it's going to the landlord. [00:38:02] Correct. [00:38:03] All right. [00:38:04] Thank you very much. [00:38:06] Can I say one thing? [00:38:08] I have another minute left. [00:38:10] This man, Nathan Pollack, he served 20 years in the U.S. Army. [00:38:16] From 2001, when everything happened, he's a 20-year veteran. [00:38:27] You owe him an answer because you would not be sitting in those pretty chairs without him. [00:38:37] Yes. [00:38:39] Anybody else like to speak? [00:38:53] I've got to get my three minutes in. [00:38:55] Angela Adino Napolitano, 63rd. [00:38:57] Do I even have to do that? [00:38:59] People watching, beware. [00:39:01] I was reading this ordinance. [00:39:03] I read this tonight with a fine-tooth comb. [00:39:05] I noticed there's a lot of verbiage of the city reserves the right to, or from time to time, [00:39:11] as Mike Peters just said, they can change the rules whenever they feel like it. [00:39:15] We have no rights as property owners. [00:39:18] And at any time, they can change the rules or increase the fees, put it on our taxes, [00:39:23] take away our properties, ultimately. [00:39:25] Quite intense, the bold statements providing for a lien for nonpayment of the fee [00:39:30] and providing for administration by the city manager, giving Debbie Mann's complete control, [00:39:36] as stated in Section 10.6. [00:39:38] Shall have full authority to administer the provisions of this chapter [00:39:42] and shall exercise all powers of the city. [00:39:45] Don't you have enough power? [00:39:47] So she can confiscate and store someone's documents from their trash. [00:39:50] I have nothing to hide, but that's a lot of power. [00:39:54] Section 10-4, Disposal of Yard Waste Debris, is confusing as Sections A and B contradict each other. [00:40:01] A states it must be tied in bundles. [00:40:03] B states it's unbundled. [00:40:05] Is this only if Ms. Mann designates a community collection area instead of one's own property? [00:40:11] Are we eliminating free city mulch? [00:40:14] My main question concern is will I be billed for two parcels, [00:40:17] since my main home and detached 400-square-foot cottage have two separate addresses due to my corner lot. [00:40:24] I currently have J.D. Parker and in 20 years have only had service on Adams. [00:40:28] This is not a benefit to all properties and owners. [00:40:32] You are forcing people to use a service that many do not need or want, [00:40:36] and you have created a forced monopoly, so we don't have a choice. [00:40:42] You claimed that it is to save our roads, but with 100% forced compliance, let's be honest, [00:40:48] it's more about money and you're all power hungry, with the exception of Peter. [00:40:52] And if the city council establishes uniform approved containers, will the city provide those, [00:40:57] or is that another expense to the property owner? [00:41:00] And then I noticed that if spillage gets in the street, you could charge a property owner the fees to clean up the street. [00:41:07] Yet I've never seen a street cleaning truck come down my roads of Adams or Illinois in 20 years. [00:41:13] Again, the scariest part, and Mike Peter said it earlier, [00:41:16] at any time you can change the rules or the billing to go on our taxes. [00:41:22] Since we don't have a choice for this service, you can file a lien against our properties after one month late payment. [00:41:28] It was 10%, but now Driscoll just said it was 8%. [00:41:33] Wow. Silly me for believing that this was my town, a citizen of the United States of America. [00:41:38] You're all a disgrace. [00:41:40] And I've got 16 seconds left. [00:41:42] So to go with the low income families, 85% of our Gulf middle students are low income. [00:41:47] 50% of them are homeless. [00:41:50] They have home instability and they have food insecurity. [00:41:54] And you also said that $100,000 was paid by the residents for the roads. [00:41:59] We pay it on our taxes. [00:42:23] Thank you for starting the clock, Matt. [00:42:25] Appreciate it. [00:42:27] So I'm going to stand here with my colleagues. [00:42:29] As a resident who lived here longer than most of you who come from like Ohio and Michigan or wherever else you come from, [00:42:36] we live here. [00:42:37] This is our city. [00:42:39] Nobody asked any of you to go take it amongst yourselves to come up with a single hauler system. [00:42:45] No one said, Debbie, can you go and do this for us? [00:42:48] No one asked Kelly to do it, but Kelly said she had a list of 20 people. [00:42:51] Never seen that list, Kelly. [00:42:52] Where's the survey that the residents of New Port Richey said, this is what we want. [00:42:56] We can't even get damn sidewalks on the road. [00:42:59] We've got kids and people getting hit by cars. [00:43:02] We have kids that are homeless, people that are homeless. [00:43:05] And what are you all doing? [00:43:06] Sitting trying to figure out how to take more money. [00:43:11] We get it. [00:43:12] You live on River Road. [00:43:13] You have nice houses. [00:43:14] You have a lot of money. [00:43:16] You own businesses. [00:43:17] Shake your head all you want. [00:43:19] But it's the truth. [00:43:20] Elections are coming. [00:43:22] Your constituents are pissed off. [00:43:25] You heard what Peter said? [00:43:27] Is he the only one with common sense? [00:43:30] Your city manager brags when she's out at her luncheons and all this, how she has all of you, all of you men do what she wants. [00:43:39] That's what was said. [00:43:40] You don't believe me? [00:43:41] What is wrong with y'all? [00:43:44] You were elected by the people. [00:43:45] Your city attorney doesn't know what's going on. [00:43:48] He can't even cut off Taylor Swift and his Tesla when he's getting pulled over for you all know what. [00:43:54] And you have the audacity to make provisions in your ordinance to go through people's trash when he's on camera standing next to Eric Jay and the rest of those clowns looking at people's trash. [00:44:09] You might not have been digging in it, but you sure must have been giving direction. [00:44:13] You want to sit here and take our rights away. [00:44:16] This is not an HOA. [00:44:17] This is not the land of Debbie. [00:44:19] This is not the land of Mike Peters or Alfred Davis or Matt Murphy or Kelly Mothershead. [00:44:26] This is not your personal property. [00:44:28] You cannot gentrify every damn person in this community. [00:44:32] I'm speaking like this because I'm upset because time after time we come here and we speak to you all. [00:44:38] We tell you how we feel and you don't give a damn. [00:44:40] You're going to vote on this. [00:44:41] How do we know you're going to vote on it? [00:44:43] Because Debbie's already sending out emails to people telling them that. [00:44:46] It's already going to be voted on. [00:44:48] We're tired of it. [00:44:50] Yeah, I got an email where you sent to somebody where you already said it's going to be voted on. [00:44:54] We got it. [00:44:55] We know what you're doing and it needs to stop. [00:45:00] last provision in here i believe in section [00:45:03] ten sixteen [00:45:04] administration [00:45:05] debbie man has all the power [00:45:08] what are you all going to do your damn jobs [00:45:10] and hold her accountable [00:45:11] she has all the power she can [00:45:13] say no we're not going to go to that that's what we're going to go pick do [00:45:15] this person's trash we're going to go pick do that person's trash [00:45:19] we're going to send attorney driscoll to go and hang out with eric j while they do it [00:45:24] do your damn jobs [00:45:26] i'm telling you right now it is not a thank you coming thank you [00:45:30] you know you are going to be elected to come into all your thank you [00:45:34] uh... [00:45:48] it's alan [00:45:49] ilan [00:45:50] grand boulevard [00:45:51] and at the corner of illinois [00:45:54] on the corner of illinois there is a sign that says no truck [00:45:58] i've lived on that corner for over fifty years i have never [00:46:03] seen that in force [00:46:05] for over fifty years there has never been a time [00:46:08] that illinois is used as a cut-through [00:46:12] for both uh... [00:46:13] public works and all kinds of other trucks i mean with [00:46:17] loaded with cement blocks and anything else [00:46:20] nobody's worried about that all you have to do if you're worried about the [00:46:24] damage that trucks are doing to roads is tell them to slow down [00:46:28] put it in there to slow down [00:46:30] i'm concerned because i read a letter here from the attorney general [00:46:35] to the city council last year [00:46:37] that said very clearly the taxpayer has the right to know [00:46:42] how their money is being spent [00:46:44] i have repeatedly sent public information under foyer act [00:46:48] and i still [00:46:50] can't get it [00:46:51] even you mike peters said you didn't understand why we couldn't get a [00:46:55] financial fiscal report [00:46:57] took a year to get a financial fiscal report [00:47:00] this kind of stuff is going on another thing i'm concerned about [00:47:04] is if y'all decide to raise the bill [00:47:07] as we are now if if somebody raises our bill in garbage collecting we just get [00:47:12] another garbage collector because there is competition [00:47:15] which is what democracy is all about [00:47:18] this works mike peter this type of system in a cookie cutter development [00:47:23] which where you came from before you inherited the house on river road [00:47:28] from your mother-in-law [00:47:30] in a cookie cutter development this kind of a thing because the lots are [00:47:33] relatively the same the houses are relatively the same [00:47:36] we have a mishmash we even have people who live on the alleys [00:47:41] there's a mishmash of situations in this town [00:47:44] and you all cannot come to a conclusion on how you're going to handle that [00:47:49] and we have the right as taxpayers to know [00:47:52] how are you going to handle it [00:47:53] we also have proof [00:47:55] and people are coming forward that there are special discounts and special [00:47:59] uh... waivers are being granted to [00:48:02] people from our city [00:48:05] manager [00:48:06] who has way too much power [00:48:08] we also have a twenty five percent increase in our insurance [00:48:12] because of all the lawsuits and more are coming [00:48:16] this isn't going to end here [00:48:18] this town is foreclosure happy [00:48:20] and has been for a long time [00:48:23] and now you're getting ready to put in conditions in which it's going to be [00:48:26] even easier to [00:48:28] to do foreclosures on people's homes [00:48:31] this has got to stop [00:48:34] the people have a right to say what's going on here [00:48:37] we do not have a community [00:48:41] and all of you are ignoring it especially you mike peters this is all [00:48:45] on you [00:48:46] you have stated and we've got it on tape [00:48:48] again and again [00:48:50] how you want the stinky trucks off your north river road [00:48:57] if anybody else would like to speak [00:49:01] seeing no one else coming forward we'll bring it back [00:49:05] we aren't supposed to be voting here to [00:49:08] no the ordinance is set for hearing on tuesday [00:49:13] communication [00:49:14] pete you want to say anything [00:49:26] yeah i just i just want to say my whole goal for the [00:49:30] for doing a single [00:49:31] uh... civil service hauler [00:49:32] was you know was many many [00:49:35] positives to it but the most important to me was [00:49:38] the price for residents residents get a better deal cheaper price [00:49:42] that's really [00:49:44] you know the whole [00:49:45] in my mind the whole point to make it better for the uh... residents [00:49:48] uh... and the business is too [00:49:51] uh... i haven't had many businesses complain to me about uh... [00:49:55] the price increase or going up but i did [00:49:58] talk to one uh... [00:50:00] and his is [00:50:02] according to him his bill is doubled [00:50:05] for me i want to i want to see [00:50:07] why is it doubling [00:50:09] why is our business is not getting [00:50:12] a benefit [00:50:13] if that's true [00:50:14] and should be easy compare with the rate for last year to a our rates are here [00:50:19] for that one bill and and i'd like to see comparing apples apples [00:50:23] and see [00:50:24] what the difference is [00:50:28] that seems like you know [00:50:29] a big increase [00:50:30] but we have to compare to make sure everything is [00:50:34] correct [00:50:36] uh... [00:50:37] as far as the uh... [00:50:39] billing system [00:50:40] uh... [00:50:42] whether it's whether it's uh... going 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.

4. 5Communications▶ 50:45
5. 6Adjournment▶ 57:58
6. 3

   Moment of Silence

   Moment of Silence.