On the agenda

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

   Pledge of Allegiance

   Pledge of Allegiance recited.

   ▶ Jump to 0:50 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:53] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [00:01:06] 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.

3. 3

   Moment of Silence

   The council observed a moment of silence and recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

   ▶ Jump to 0:50 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:53] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [00:01:06] 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 June 4, 2024 Regular Meeting Minutes

   approved

   Council approved the minutes from the June 4, 2024 regular meeting.

   • vote:Approve the June 4, 2024 regular meeting minutes. (passed)

   ▶ Jump to 1:11 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:01:11] Okay, we have approval for the June 4th, 2024 regular meeting minutes. [00:01:32] All those in favor? Aye. And we have a proclamation here. I don't know who's going to be accepting it.

   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

   Proclamation - Recognizing David Prace as "Our Grand Old Man"

   approved

   The Mayor read a proclamation honoring the late David Prace (Pryce) as 'Our Grand Old Man' as a kickoff to the city's centennial celebration, recognizing his decades of volunteer service to numerous local organizations. His daughter Allison, son Terry, and son-in-law Rick accepted the proclamation on his behalf.

   🏢Elfers Cares Senior Center🏢Friends of the New Port Richey Library🏢Richey Suncoast Theater🏢Trinity HCA Hospital🏢West Pasco Historical Society👤Allison👤Chopper Davis👤David Pryce👤Dr. Elroy Avery👤Midge Pryce👤Rick👤Terry#Centennial Celebration#Community Redevelopment Advisory Board#Our Grand Old Man proclamation

   ▶ Jump to 1:41 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:01:42] The whole family? The whole family, bring your husband too. Rick? [00:02:02] This is a proclamation of the office of the Mayor of the City of New Port Richey. [00:02:25] Whereas 100 years ago, when the City of New Port Richey was incorporated, it bestowed [00:02:30] upon Dr. Elroy Avery the title of our Grand Old Man, and whereas the City of New Port Richey would like to honor a true gentleman who was an inspiration in volunteerism, [00:02:41] and whereas David Pryce was a past president of the Friends of the New Port Richey Library and of the West Pasco Historical Society, [00:02:48] David volunteered at the election polls in Pasco County, and for over 25 years, he was a volunteer along with his wife, Midge, [00:02:57] at the community hospital now known as Trinity HCA Hospital, and whereas David also gave years of volunteer service to the Ritchie Suncoast Theater, [00:03:05] and whereas for many years, David served as a librarian at the Elfers Cares Senior Center and facilitated their book club, [00:03:12] and whereas David peacefully passed away on May 22nd, 2024 at 94 years of age, [00:03:19] and whereas the City of New Port Richey deems it proper to recognize David Pryce as our Grand Old Man as a kickoff to our centennial celebration, [00:03:27] now therefore, I, Chopper Davis, Mayor of the City of New Port Richey, do hereby express the City of New Port Richey's appreciation to David Pryce [00:03:35] for generously volunteering his time to so many organizations within the City of New Port Richey. [00:03:42] I just have a few extra words to say about David. He also served for 10 years on the City's Community Redevelopment Advisory Board, [00:04:08] so I think that was something he was particularly proud about that he told me, and he had won many humanitarian and volunteerism awards from different organizations throughout the county, [00:04:23] and if you knew David, you knew he loved books, but even more than books, David loved clocks. He had a huge collection of clocks, [00:04:35] and for a newcomer, he's not a Pasco native, but for a non-native, he knew more history about New Port Richey and Pasco County than I did, [00:04:48] and I've been here 55 years, but I'm not a native, but that's a lot of years, so he enjoyed very much owning a sailboat. [00:04:59] He and his wife owned a sailboat for years called the Scrimshaw, and I think his clocks led to him not ever being late for a meeting that he came to, [00:05:13] whether it was Friends of the Library Historical Society, he was always on time, so having hundreds of clocks, I guess you would be, but that's how it is. [00:05:22] As to his character, I just wanted to speak to that. He's a generous, he was a generous mentor, skillful collaborator, and one of the kindest people I have ever met. [00:05:34] Although his untimely death prevents him from joining us tonight, his daughter Allison is here, and son Terry, and Allison's husband Rick, and they will accept the proclamation on his behalf. [00:05:48] Thank you. [00:06:19] 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.

6. 6

   Swearing-In of New Firefighters David Caradonna and Zachary Cook

   Fire Chief Fetch introduced two new firefighters, David Caradonna and Zachary Cook, who were sworn in by the city clerk and had their badges pinned by family members in a ceremonial welcome.

   🏢Anclote High School🏢Florida Fire Chiefs Foundation🏢Florida State Fire College🏢Land O'Lakes High School🏢New Port Richey Fire Department🏢New Port Richey Recreation and Aquatic Center🏢PHSC (Pasco-Hernando State College)🏢Plant City Fire Department🏢School of EMS👤Alexandria👤Chief Fetch👤David Caradonna👤Summer👤Zachary Cook#Badge pinning#Swearing-in ceremony

   ▶ Jump to 6:35 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:06:35] Do we have swearing in of the new firefighters? [00:06:37] We have the pleasure this evening of swearing in two new firefighters, and I'd like Chief Fetch to come forward. [00:06:49] Thank you, Mayor and Council. [00:06:53] It's a pleasure to stand before you this evening and welcome two of our newest firefighters with the traditional swear in and badge pinning ceremony, but before we do that, I'd like to say a few words about each one of them. [00:07:10] David Caradonna, to my right, is a third generation firefighter, following in his father and grandfather's footsteps, we're proud of that. [00:07:19] And he comes to us with six years' experience, most recently from Plant City Fire Department. [00:07:28] He was born and raised in Land O'Lakes, and he graduated from Land O'Lakes High School and completed fire school and his EMT school at Florida State Fire College in Ocala. [00:07:39] And he also brings with him the completion of paramedic school from the School of EMS. [00:07:46] And pinning his badge on tonight after the swearing in will be his girlfriend, Alexandria. [00:07:52] To my left, some of you may recognize a familiar face. [00:07:57] Zach Cook recently completed eight years of service with the Recreation and Aquatic Center, most recently being promoted to a supervisor there. [00:08:08] He was identified as a dedicated employee and committed to the city. [00:08:14] And due to that, in the spirit of retaining good talent and helping employees achieve success, he had the desire to transition to the fire department. [00:08:26] The city sponsored Zach towards his required education of fire and EMT school at PHSC. [00:08:34] He was also recommended through the process of applying for a scholarship, and he was awarded a scholarship through the Florida Fire Chiefs Foundation for partial funding for his support of tuition and books. [00:08:49] Zach was born and raised in Brooksville, graduated from Anclote High School, and he likes working in a team environment, so the fire department was right up your alley. [00:09:03] So, without further ado, I'd like to invite the city clerk down to administer the oath of office. [00:09:10] If you'll both raise your right hands, and then repeat after me. [00:09:26] I, and state your name. I, Zachary Cook, a citizen of the state of Florida and of the United States of America, [00:09:39] and being employed by or an officer of the city of New Port Richey, [00:09:48] and a recipient of public funds as such an employee or officer, [00:09:57] do hereby solemnly swear or affirm [00:10:02] that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the state of Florida, [00:10:12] and that I will honestly, faithfully, and impartially discharge [00:10:21] the duties of my trust as firefighter, New Port Richey Fire Department, [00:10:31] in and for said city of New Port Richey, [00:10:37] according to the law and to the best of my knowledge and ability. [00:10:45] So help me God. [00:10:48] Thank you. [00:10:57] Okay, pinning David's badge on again is his girlfriend, Alexandria. [00:11:15] Pinning Zach's badge on is his wife, Summer. [00:11:32] Congratulations. [00:11:58] Thank you. [00:12:06] Get a picture with the crew that's here. [00:12:10] Get the family down there too. [00:12:39] Thanks, guys. [00:12:44] Thanks, families. [00:12:45] All right. [00:12:46] Glad to have you. [00:12:49] Come on. [00:12:50] Yeah, come on. [00:12:54] Family's up here. [00:12:58] I was coming down. [00:13:08] Over here, okay? [00:13:12] I know, I know you can't. [00:13:30] Thank you. [00:13:40] It always amazes me that the women don't poke the guys. [00:13:45] Practice. [00:13:48] Purpose.

   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▶ 13:50
8. 8.a

   Parks and Recreation - Advisory Board Minutes - February and April 2024

   approvedon consent

   Parks and Recreation Advisory Board minutes from February and April 2024 were approved as part of the consent agenda.

   • motion:Motion to approve the consent agenda including the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board minutes from February and April 2024. (passed)

   #Parks and Recreation Advisory Board

   ▶ Jump to 17:43 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:17:43] forward, I'll bring it back to the consent agenda. Move for approval. Second. Any comment [00:17:51] if not? All those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? Public reading of ordinance 2024-2293, rezoning

   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

   Purchases/Payments for City Council Approval

   approvedon consent

   Council moved approval of the consent agenda item for purchases/payments.

   • motion:Motion to approve purchases/payments on the consent agenda. (passed)

   ▶ Jump to 17:43 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:17:43] forward, I'll bring it back to the consent agenda. Move for approval. Second. Any comment [00:17:51] if not? All those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? Public reading of ordinance 2024-2293, rezoning

   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. 9.a

    First Reading, Ordinance No. 2024-2294: Rezoning for the Cottages at Oyster Bayou

    approved

    First reading of Ordinance 2024-2294 to rezone approximately 7.57 acres at the northwest corner of Green Key Road and Manor Beach Road from PDD (RV cottage community) to PDD with amended site plan allowing 62 single-family attached and detached homes (Cottages at Oyster Bayou). Public comment raised concerns about ongoing drainage and flooding issues in the area; the developer addressed swale improvements and county coordination. Council approved the motion 5-0 on first reading.

    Ord. Ordinance No. 2024-2294

    • motion:Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance 2024-2294 rezoning the Cottages at Oyster Bayou property from PDD to PDD with amended site plan. (passed)5–0

    📍6719 Manor Beach Road📍6746 (Manor Beach area)📍northwest corner of Green Key Road and Manor Beach Road🏢Crafted Milestone, LLC👤Cheryl Orchard👤Jack Mariano👤Matthew McWilliam👤Mrs. Algier👤Pete👤Raquel Theves#Cottages at Oyster Bayou#Green Key Road improvements#Heaven's Way#Land Development Review Board (LDRB)#Ordinance No. 2024-2294#Planned Development District (PDD)#SWFWMD (Swift Mud) approved site drawings

    ▶ Jump to 18:03 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [00:18:03] of the cottages at Oyster Bayou. This is ordinance number 2024-2294, an ordinance of the City [00:18:10] of New Port Richey, Florida, providing for amendment of the Land Development Code, zoning [00:18:14] district map, providing for rezoning of approximately 7.57 acres of property, generally located [00:18:20] at the northwest corner of Green Key Road and Manor Beach Road, as shown on the map [00:18:24] attached here to Exhibit A, and legally described herein, providing for amendment of the zoning [00:18:29] district designation for said property from planned development district to planned development [00:18:34] district with amended site plan, providing for conflicts, severability, and an effective [00:18:38] date. As indicated by the City Attorney, the property is currently zoned PDD. The PDD calls [00:18:48] for RVs with a cottage community, and the proposal before you this evening is to rezone [00:18:58] to an amended PDD to allow for single family homes, both attached and detached, along with [00:19:08] some changes to the proposed site amenities on the property. And Mrs. Algier, our senior [00:19:15] planner, is prepared to present a formal outline of the proposal to you this evening. [00:19:24] Mrs. Algier, if you would. [00:19:26] Yes, thank you. This is rezoning ordinance number 2024-2294. It's called Cottages at [00:19:35] Orster Bayou. The owner is Crafted Milestone, LLC. It's 7.55 acres. The zoning is PDD with [00:19:47] a future land use of low-medium density. Currently, it's vacant with six townhomes. The request [00:19:57] is to rezone the property from PDD with a RV cottage site plan to a PDD with a single [00:20:05] family and townhome site plan. And the proposed use would be 62 single family attached and [00:20:12] detached townhomes and single family homes. Just a little history on this project. When [00:20:19] it was first zoned, the developer began work on this project and unfortunately passed away [00:20:27] before he could complete development. And so we have new developers who are here completing [00:20:34] the work and asking for this amendment. [00:20:40] The location is on Green Key Road and Manor Beach Drive. You also have Heaven's Way on [00:20:47] the western edge of the property. The future land use is low-medium density and the zoning [00:20:58] is planned development district. The existing site plan has 58 lots and the proposed site [00:21:12] plan will, I'm sorry, the existing, oh, it's jumping all over the place. Okay. Existing [00:21:27] site plan. This is the way it is constructed today and the way it is platted. At the northern [00:21:36] waterfront edge of the property, there's a proposed clubhouse and then there's also [00:21:42] some open space along this part of the waterway along with the boat ramp. In developing this, [00:21:51] the original developer had to give up a portion of Lot 1 to the county in order to widen Heaven's [00:21:58] Way, making Lot 1 difficult to build on. The proposal is to relocate the clubhouse [00:22:10] to Lots 1 and 2 and then there would be a replat to allow additional lots along the [00:22:17] water and this would still keep the density below the maximum allowed. [00:22:26] And so, as you can see from the proposed site plan, this is where the additional lots [00:22:31] would go. There would also be some additional amenities along this portion and then the [00:22:38] clubhouse would go over on the western side of the property. The development standards, [00:22:48] the first five are what is already in place and adopted in the current ordinance and these [00:22:56] all pertain to the overall site. The additional development standards would pertain to the [00:23:06] specific lots. We would establish setbacks for the lots. Lot 64 is unique in that there's [00:23:14] a storm drain, so there would be special setbacks for Lot 64. For the attached and [00:23:23] detached single family homes, if two properties are owned by the same owner, they would have [00:23:33] the option to build attached townhomes, single family homes and have a zero setback for that [00:23:40] particular property line. The maximum height would be 35 from the base floor elevation, [00:23:46] which is what we allow now for all of our other residential districts. We would establish [00:23:52] the impervious surface area to be no more than 1600 feet per lot and landscaping for [00:24:02] the lots, the owners would need to put landscaping in place before a certificate of occupancy [00:24:09] is in place. The architectural style for the homes would be coastal cottage and the homeowners [00:24:18] association would serve as the architectural review board. Samples of the architectural [00:24:26] style presented by the developers include the different coastal cottage and they've [00:24:37] also presented an illustration of what the clubhouse could look like. In looking at a [00:24:45] rezoning, we always have to see if it is consistent with a comprehensive plan and there are policies [00:24:51] and goals in the future land use element and the housing element that this rezoning is [00:24:57] consistent with. The land development review board did find, they held a quasi-judicial [00:25:05] hearing, they did find that the rezoning to the PDD with an amended site plan is consistent [00:25:12] with the comprehensive plan and the future land use element and therefore the land development [00:25:18] review board recommends approval of the rezoning request. That completes my report and the [00:25:26] owner is present to answer questions. Do we have any public comment? I do have someone [00:25:33] that signed up to speak on this item, it's Raquel Theves. Thanks for allowing me to [00:25:46] speak today. On the 16th of May, the developer for this project stated in the land development [00:25:53] review board that they would fix the non-existent drainage along the edges of their development. [00:26:00] I went by there today, I took some pictures. Yes, there was some work done on Manor Beach, [00:26:06] but absolutely nothing along Green Key, which I think is the bigger concern. And in the [00:26:12] last big rain that we had last week, that whole area flooded again. And I just feel [00:26:19] terrible for the people who live alongside there, they've been living with this stuff [00:26:23] for decades. I just do not understand why developers are not held accountable for this [00:26:30] kind of stuff, the infrastructure, that will affect everyone in that area and it's also [00:26:35] going to affect the people there. I know there are going to be citizens of New Port Richey [00:26:39] someday and they're not going to be happy either when they have to drive through that [00:26:43] stuff to get to their beautiful new homes. So I'm hoping the council will address that [00:26:48] and just hold the developer accountable. Thank you. [00:26:55] Would everybody else like to speak? [00:27:05] Hello, I live at 6719 Manor Beach Road. My name is Cheryl Orchard. I've lived there for [00:27:12] 45 years and I just want to say that I'll be glad when that project's done. It's been [00:27:19] quite a nightmare for the people there, but if they don't get it fixed in there, we've [00:27:24] already got problems with the county. We got a $2 million grant, they moved it down the [00:27:29] road and we're underwater when it rains. We've got people having to sell their houses and [00:27:35] get out of there. It is a low-lying area, but some of the problems in there are man-made [00:27:41] that's caused runoff in there from the city and the county. All we're asking, we want [00:27:46] the improvements in the neighborhood. It needs to come. We know that and we want it, but [00:27:53] we're concerned about more runoff. Now they did put swales on Manor Beach and it seemed [00:28:01] to help some. There's still an area that's still catching the corner of 6746, I think [00:28:09] it is, right next to the project that's still catching flooding water. It's a low-lying [00:28:14] area, but them streets in there were promised to us 10, 12 years ago that they'd be paved. [00:28:22] You can go down Oldsner and Green Key and the part that belongs to the city, the roads [00:28:26] are good. The county is not standing up and taking care of the problems we have in there. [00:28:32] All we're worried about is more water flooding out our places. And we're paying taxes, too, [00:28:38] and we want to see improvement. We want it to grow. It'll get some of the riff-raff out [00:28:43] of there that we're dealing with. We don't like to see 18 police cars chasing somebody [00:28:48] across the bayou that lives in the woods. We don't want to live like that. We're hostages [00:28:53] in our own homes. That's all I can say. I'm just hoping that these new builders finish [00:28:59] what they started. We were promised Green Key after that 900 truckloads of dirt was [00:29:04] brought in there. Jack Mariano told me that it would be paid when I brought it back up [00:29:09] to him. He said he never said it. Now, I'm a person of my word, and I don't like people [00:29:16] not telling people the truth. I got a phone call telling us that they were going to fix [00:29:22] our... It took 26 years to fix a flap that flooded our streets for 26 years before they [00:29:28] fixed it. And that's not good enough. It deteriorated the roads, the foundation under [00:29:34] the homes. They need to step up. We just want to improve the neighborhood. And if this guy's [00:29:40] going to do it, he's got my blessing. But the one across the street, there's more water [00:29:46] problems over there. All I'm saying is if they come in there to build, we don't need [00:29:51] any more water. We're already underwater. And until our drainage is fixed, now they [00:29:57] put it off to 27. [00:30:00] been going on for 15 years. [00:30:02] 15 years ago, we was number 13 on the list. [00:30:05] Come on, this has got to go. [00:30:07] I mean, you guys got to work together or something. [00:30:09] Thank you. [00:30:10] Appreciate it. [00:30:14] If anybody else would like to speak, seeing no one else come forward, [00:30:20] I'll bring it back to council. [00:30:23] From discussion and vote. [00:30:26] Start Pete. [00:30:27] I'll wait and see if somebody wants to make a motion. [00:30:32] Well, I have a few questions. [00:30:34] I'll ask questions first and then I'll make a motion. [00:30:37] Just to address the density, you said it's going to be low to medium [00:30:43] density in the future land plan? [00:30:47] The future land use map allows a certain amount of density and the [00:30:52] density, the maximum density for this property is 66 and they're proposing 62. [00:30:58] Okay. [00:31:00] Is that, I don't know if you could speak to this, but is that consistent? [00:31:03] Can they pull up a map here of the zoning future land use maps for the [00:31:08] county and they have residential six and a residential nine on either side. [00:31:14] It's a weird spot where there's no way to show if that's [00:31:17] consistent with that neighborhood. [00:31:19] Do you know if that's consistent with what the county's planning [00:31:21] for the east and west of it? [00:31:25] This is low medium density for the city's land use, which is 10 units per acre. [00:31:35] I just have a quick question. [00:31:37] Do we know, are there townhouses or single family homes? [00:31:41] They're single family homes. [00:31:43] Townhomes are considered single family because they're individually, [00:31:48] they're attached, so there's attached, which is a townhome, but single [00:31:53] family owned, and then detached, which is a individual single family home. [00:31:59] So, yes, ma'am. [00:32:04] Before we motion, I just want to offer an ex parte communication [00:32:08] that I had with this property. [00:32:10] I did visit the property, not with any experts or anyone who gave an opinion, [00:32:15] but I did visit the site plan, so I just want to put that on the record. [00:32:26] So I'll move to approve it. [00:32:29] Second. [00:32:31] I'll second. [00:32:34] Any other comments? [00:32:36] Under the motion, is there discussion? [00:32:38] Yeah. [00:32:39] Yeah, I think under the motion, I noted that, you know, the photograph [00:32:43] showing the existing condition, we did see the design for the additional [00:32:50] waterfront, and I know that the land is very low there, so I'm assuming that [00:32:56] any traffic of boat launching would be a kayak or something similar to that [00:33:02] when the water is high enough, but just to the comment of the drainage, when [00:33:09] you list the amount of impervious surface that would be allowed in the [00:33:14] square footage, I'd be curious also to kind of see if you're doing that as a [00:33:19] percentage of the lot size, because I think that's a pretty common way to [00:33:24] identify that, and then I also note that there's 66 units available, but going [00:33:32] for 62, I'm also, because it's in the high hazard area, I know that it's got [00:33:40] to be built with hurricane proof and wind resistant and all the things that [00:33:45] need to be done, and I think that drives up the cost of a project, but at the [00:33:54] same token, Green Key Road is access to our big property the city jointly [00:34:00] owns, or owns portion, county, the school board at the end, and it is our only [00:34:05] beach out there, so to the comments about the condition of the road and the need [00:34:10] for improvement, I'm assuming that at some point the road will have to be [00:34:15] elevated. Do we know the elevation of Green Key Road at that point, or what is [00:34:24] this, is that a factor that we're aware of? It's primarily the county's road [00:34:30] and I don't have that information. That zone though out there is probably the [00:34:36] A11, or I'm not sure what the, you'd probably have to build. Yes, they will have to [00:34:43] elevate and parking would be underneath the structure. So you've got it, the [00:34:47] housing would all be up, I saw the clubhouse and it looked like it was [00:34:50] ground floor, but if that's commercial, I guess they can, they can waterproof it [00:34:54] and they don't have to have it elevated. So you know, this is the new development [00:35:01] that's going to occur, so all those that have lived there for many years, when [00:35:04] when those houses become rebuilt, they're going to look like that probably. So I [00:35:09] think there's no, there's no other way to build out there than what's been [00:35:13] suggested. So I did notice that we're platting this, that we haven't done the [00:35:19] platting yet for the lots that are... The plat will be presented to you at the [00:35:24] second reading. The city's surveyor is completing his review. Have lots [00:35:30] been sold on those contingent on the platting or do we know? I did also have [00:35:42] some communication, someone indicated to me that there was a bid to buy lots and [00:35:47] and that they were described. I just want to make sure that whoever is involved in [00:35:53] real estate, that the city doesn't get involved in and participating in anything [00:35:57] that happens before it happens, but I'll support the motion. Well, oh yes, your [00:36:07] second. I don't really have anything else to add until the second reading. I think we have more [00:36:11] information then. I guess my other question would be, as far as the drainage, I mean the [00:36:17] required drainage for that project, I'm sure is, you know, you've done what was [00:36:21] required, but I'm not sure is there any, any, was there any look to the future [00:36:26] with the county or anything for, you know, something that they could, they could [00:36:32] help to do with, to tie into later. I'm just wondering if there's any kind of looking [00:36:37] forward on that. [00:36:40] My name's Matthew McWilliam, co-owner of Crafted Milestone, LLC. I can start with [00:36:55] the county question, if that's okay. It was a large concern of ours because the [00:37:02] county had a little bit of unfinished business with the previous developer [00:37:06] that unfortunately passed, and so they've asked us to do several spot [00:37:11] checks of elevations in that area for them to where our property approaches [00:37:17] their road, and they're, they're studying this pretty heavily. They made us do [00:37:24] updated traffic study with Mr. Razor and provide that for them. Also, they had a [00:37:31] percentage of fees to go toward the improvements of Green Key Road. [00:37:38] Unfortunately, I can't speak for the county as far as to when and how and [00:37:43] what their improvements will be. I do know that it's heavily being looked at. I [00:37:48] wish I could sit here and say when and how and what elevation that they're [00:37:53] going to do because it does need to be improved. This property was raised three [00:37:59] to four feet in our research. After our purchase, we've learned that it's been [00:38:04] raised between three and four feet in elevation to help raise it. I think it [00:38:09] jumped two flood zones, increased in improvement. Even prior to that raise of [00:38:17] the property, Green Key Road is still low, and it appears that it's been a [00:38:22] problem for a long while. A large concern that we had that was brought to our [00:38:27] attention by one of these neighbors is the swell that was not put in per [00:38:35] original site drawings that the state approved, Swift Mud. So that swell has [00:38:40] been installed since our LDRB meeting, and the state and I met today, this [00:38:46] afternoon, and they were very satisfied with that swell improvements to [00:38:51] decrease and completely alleviate water running onto Manor Beach. She has [00:38:57] legitimate concerns. I can't sit here and say that she doesn't. I can tell you [00:39:02] that as a developer, that we are willing and able and excited to contribute [00:39:09] anything that we're asked to contribute to improve this. We're doing anything [00:39:14] they asked us to do, and I can update you as it progresses. Thank you. And as far as [00:39:21] the townhomes versus single-family, unfortunately, you know, if I had my pick, [00:39:26] I'd do all single-family. Your city planning department has been one of the [00:39:33] best we've worked with. This has been complex, it being in the stage that it [00:39:38] was and where we want to take it. It was dedicated to an RV development, which is [00:39:45] not something that we're willing to hang our hats on. In this market, I think RVs [00:39:51] have peaked a little bit, and it's not something that I'm looking forward [00:39:55] to diving deep into. Lisa and her team, we've worked for months on trying [00:40:02] to keep this cohesive, to infiltrate single-family into the townhome spectrum, [00:40:07] because there is townhomes on this site, and if a person purchases two joining [00:40:16] lots, we will, and hopefully, allow them to build a townhome unit for them for [00:40:25] themselves. As far as the comment about purchase of lots, there has been a few [00:40:32] lots that have been purchased, and so to protect the city and discussions with [00:40:37] the city attorney, we did obtain power of attorney of those lots and recorded, or [00:40:43] have that information and the power of attorneys recorded on the plat. So we do [00:40:49] have protection in that spectrum, and I'm here for any other questions at all. [00:41:00] Thank you. Thank you all, and hats off to this city. Please don't take this [00:41:08] lightly. We develop in three states right now. This is our first one in [00:41:13] Florida, and one of the first things we look for is one of two things, if not [00:41:19] both, is either heavy industrial development, where a city or county, [00:41:23] mainly cities, are putting resources and infrastructure in for industrial [00:41:30] development, which naturally will grow residential development, and also we look [00:41:36] at downtowns heavily, and this downtown sold us on purchasing this property, and [00:41:43] it has continued to do so. We have unbelievable interest, and we want to [00:41:50] do this right. We want to do the right way. We want a relationship with you all, [00:41:53] and I wish my partner was here today. Unfortunately, he can't be. He's out of [00:41:58] town, but we want to get to know each and every one of you, and we thank you. [00:42:07] As all that said with the permitting and the relationship building with the city, [00:42:12] that's great, but as it relates to the zoning, I don't have, other than the [00:42:17] concerns over the non-existent drainage, I think he did a good job addressing that, [00:42:22] and perhaps between now and the second reading, we can have a more, I'm going to [00:42:29] be asking, just a heads up, I'm going to be following up on that, and whether that [00:42:34] was fulfilled to where the LDRB made an agreement that it should have been [00:42:37] fulfilled. Just looking at everything that's been presented in terms of the [00:42:42] zoning, and the use of that road, and the density, I have no reason not to move [00:42:48] forward with this. Yeah, I just, I think in Florida, it's pretty much a layman's [00:42:56] term to say that you have to maintain your own water, so you know, if it ends up [00:43:01] and land on your property, you can't dump it on your neighbors, so I think they'll [00:43:04] probably be working to control and manage their water on their property. So [00:43:10] with all those in favor, signify by aye. Aye. Those opposed? We have five nothing.

    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.b

    First Reading, Ordinance No. 2024-2302: Creating the Flood Risk and Preparedness Public Information Committee

    approved

    Council passed first reading of Ordinance 2024-2302 establishing a Flood Risk and Preparedness Public Information Committee to help improve the city's FEMA Community Rating System score and reduce flood insurance rates. The committee will have a minimum of five members including city staff and residents, with discussion of expanding to seven members. Passed 5-0.

    Ord. Ordinance No. 2024-2302

    • motion:Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance 2024-2302 establishing the Flood Risk and Preparedness Public Information Committee. (passed)5–0

    🏢Federal Emergency Management Agency👤Butler#Article 4 of Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances#Community Rating System#Flood Risk and Preparedness Public Information Committee#Historic Preservation Board#Ordinance No. 2024-2302

    ▶ Jump to 43:16 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [00:43:16] Moving on, the first reading of Ordinance 2024-2302, catering to the Flood Risk and [00:43:23] Preparedness Public Information Committee. This is Ordinance number 2024-2302, an [00:43:30] ordinance of the City of New Port Richey, Florida, providing for amendment of [00:43:32] Article 4 of Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances pertaining to boards, [00:43:36] committees, and commissions of the City, providing for a Flood Risk and [00:43:39] Preparedness Public Information Committee, providing for duties, membership, meetings, [00:43:43] and procedures of the committee, providing for complex severability and [00:43:47] an effective date. As indicated by the City Attorney, the purpose of this agenda item is to establish a Flood Risk and [00:43:54] Preparedness Public Information Committee. As Council is already aware, the Federal [00:44:02] Emergency Management Agency has developed a community rating system [00:44:07] which affects our rates for flood insurance. In the case of the City of [00:44:14] New Port Richey, we are rated as a 7. A 7 commands for us a 15% reduction in [00:44:22] flood insurance rating. A rating, if we were fortunate enough to be a number 1, [00:44:29] would command a 45% discount in flood insurance. So the City strives to improve [00:44:39] its rating each year and one of the ways this year that we like to propose to [00:44:46] gain some points to get us a little closer to that 1 is to establish this [00:44:51] Flood Risk and Preparedness Public Information Committee. The purpose of the [00:44:56] committee would be to offer [00:45:00] advisory recommendations to you on practices for information distribution [00:45:07] regarding flood risk and emergency preparedness. The duties and functions of [00:45:15] this committee would be to conduct a minimum of two meetings per year to [00:45:20] assess our public information needs and to review and recommend a program for [00:45:27] public information, to conduct meetings from time to time and at least one time [00:45:33] per year, to review revise and recommend modifications to our program for public [00:45:39] information as necessary, to participate as a stakeholder in public information [00:45:45] events through event attendance and outreach projects, and to serve as needed [00:45:52] as an advisory committee to the council for activities necessary to improve our [00:45:59] status in community rating. The committee would consist of five members. It would [00:46:06] consist of or a minimum of five members. It would contain one staff member from [00:46:13] the city's floodplain management office and one member from our public [00:46:19] information office. The other members would consist of residents impacted by [00:46:25] floodplain insurance agents, developers or contactors, environmental [00:46:32] organization members, realtors and emergency responders, or members of [00:46:39] business organizations. The terms for of office for this committee would be two [00:46:47] years and we would have some members start with a one-year term so that we'd [00:46:54] be able to offer staggered terms. And with your permission, if you approve the [00:47:03] ordinance, we would come back before you with a recommendation for membership on [00:47:08] the committee. We have any public comment? [00:47:14] Seeing no one come forward, we'll bring it back for discussion and vote. I move to [00:47:22] approve. I'll second. Yeah, so I've seen the staff working, you know, night and day on [00:47:30] this and even after hours and on the weekends in the development department [00:47:37] trying to get this rating down. And so hats off to the staff for this. My [00:47:42] question is, when we're looking at this committee, I know there was some concern [00:47:46] raised in the past about being able to get committees to fill that it's a [00:47:52] it's a strain and I'm speaking specifically to the Historic [00:47:56] Preservation Board. Do we anticipate having a full membership for this [00:48:00] committee or is that going to be a process? A question raised by Councilman Butler, I don't [00:48:08] think we will have difficulty filling this committee. One of the difficulties [00:48:13] with filling the Historic Preservation Committee is that they are so specific [00:48:17] about who they want and the resumes of the people that are qualified to serve [00:48:23] on the committee. This is a lot more general and I think that we will be able [00:48:28] to fill the five C's, particularly in respect to the fact that they're [00:48:32] allowing us to have city staff people serve on the committee. Great. For the [00:48:37] membership, in addition to the two staff and the three citizens, it says a minimum [00:48:44] here. Is there a maximum or do those other ones kick in as alternates or is [00:48:48] it five and alternates or is it as many as the committee? As many as you designate to be appropriate. Preferably an odd number. I think it's a [00:49:00] necessary committee. I think it's a I think it's a great idea and reduce our [00:49:04] rates and get some more community involvement too, so it's all good. Yeah, no, I [00:49:09] like it. I think, you know, I said before, I think that the more people will be [00:49:13] willing to serve on this and be part of it. It's a, you know, very important, so I [00:49:19] think, I don't think we have any troubles there. Yeah, I mean, I'd like to see a [00:49:25] shoot for seven members if we can. That would give you a good five member [00:49:29] resident and if you lose one or two, you still have a good resident and [00:49:37] community expert. If you've got a realtor and a resident, someone who's been [00:49:42] through it, someone who lives in the high-hazard area, then you have the [00:49:46] interest. I'm understanding that it would, again, it could be seven, but we're [00:49:53] setting it up as five. Is that five that vote and the others do not vote? Minimum five, so we can do [00:49:59] seven, but at least that way, if we have minimum five, you can go down to five and [00:50:03] still be good. Yeah, I'm with you. Good. Yeah, I just think that it would be [00:50:11] informational for the community, what they put together for the community, so [00:50:16] it's just another avenue which we can direct and give information to the [00:50:21] community. That's a great idea. I had one more question once you're done. Is this [00:50:26] going to be done in time for the upcoming site visit or is this going to [00:50:30] be something we anticipate for the next time we're up for a rating? We'll have [00:50:36] the committee in place to earn points for this site visit. Awesome, great. All [00:50:44] those in favor signify by aye. Aye. Those opposed, five nothing. Going on to the

    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.c

    Second Reading, Ordinance No. 2024-2291: Rezoning for 12.33 Acres of Property Located at Sea Forest Drive and Green Key Road

    approved

    Council approved on second reading Ordinance 2024-2291, rezoning approximately 12.33 acres at the southeast corner of Sea Forest Drive and Green Key Road from PDD and R1 to PDD with an amended site plan for a 62-unit single-family/townhome development by MBR Townhomes. Discussion covered parking (clarified as 70 extra spaces beyond code), conservation (~75% open space), flooding mitigation, and ongoing concerns about evacuation routes requiring county coordination.

    Ord. Ordinance No. 2024-2291

    • motion:Move approval on second reading of Ordinance 2024-2291 rezoning 12.33 acres at Sea Forest Drive and Green Key Road from PDD and R1 to PDD with amended site plan. (passed)5–0

    📍Southeast corner of Sea Forest Drive and Green Key Road🏢MBR Townhomes👤Al Schaefer👤Amy Huber👤Matt#Land Development Code Zoning District Map#Ordinance 2024-2291#Parcel 0626160050037000030#Planned Development District (PDD)

    ▶ Jump to 50:50 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [00:50:51] second reading of Ordinance 2024-2291, zoning of 12.33 acres of [00:50:59] property located at Seaforest and Green Key Road. This is Ordinance number 2024-2291, [00:51:05] an ordinance of the City of New Port Richey, Florida, providing for amendment [00:51:07] of the Land Development Code Zoning District Map, providing for rezoning of [00:51:11] approximately 12.33 acres of property generally located at southeast [00:51:14] corner of Seaforest Drive and Green Key Road, having parcel [00:51:19] identification number 0626160050037000030, as shown on the map [00:51:27] attached here too, as Exhibit A, and legally described herein, providing for [00:51:31] amendment of the Zoning District designation for said property from [00:51:35] Planned Development District and Residential R1 to Planned Development [00:51:39] District PDD with amended site plan, providing for complex severability and [00:51:43] effective date. Do we have any public comment? Seeing no one come forward, we'll [00:51:50] bring it back for discussion and a vote. I'll move approval on second reading. [00:51:56] I'll second. Go ahead. Yeah, I know there was a good bit of concern, but my [00:52:06] recollection serves there's a substantial amount of open space and [00:52:11] potential for drainage and we just, I think that that project will fit in with [00:52:20] the character of the projects in the community, and so I'll, there were [00:52:25] concerns about the evacuation route, if I'm not mistaken, and the way in and out, [00:52:28] but I'm sure that we'll be able to work out a plan like we do with everyone else [00:52:38] who lives on that side of the highway. Yeah, I don't recall from from first [00:52:43] reading, I think all the other questions or issues were answered, except for I [00:52:49] think the evacuation, which I think we really need to work hard with the county [00:52:55] and try to get this resolved. We've been, I know we've been talking about it, I [00:52:58] mean, we only have a small part, but the county has a much bigger part, but I [00:53:03] think we need to really work hard and press it to try to get something done [00:53:07] over there, because it's been a long time we've been talking about this. I think one [00:53:12] of my questions is still about parking. There are only, I mean, they put seven more [00:53:16] spots for guests, but there's still only 10 guest parking spots for 62 single [00:53:23] family homes. I mean, that's not much parking. Yeah, you can address it. Hi, good [00:53:33] evening, Amy Huber on behalf of the owner MBR Townhomes. The code requires two [00:53:39] parking spaces, which we have in the garage, and then there's an additional [00:53:42] spot in each driveway, so there's 60 additional parking spaces. It's not just [00:53:47] the 10, those are 10 additional guest spots, so there's actually 70 extra spots [00:53:53] for guests, so we way exceed code. I didn't see the extra ones at the house. [00:53:58] Yeah, anything? No, just a question on the first reading and the second [00:54:06] reading. There was a bit of a gap between those two, so can you just explain that? [00:54:09] At the request of the applicant, Mr. Al Schaefer, he wanted to be certain to be [00:54:15] present this evening, and he wasn't able to be here, and so he asked that it be [00:54:21] deferred. It also took some time for the design of the plan to reflect the [00:54:28] additional spaces. Also, just to touch on what Matt was saying, it's [00:54:36] kind of funny to me that we're able to zone that section there, but then there's [00:54:40] a corner lot, I'm assuming would be county, or maybe it's just not [00:54:44] involved, where this just is a perfect example of how we have to have that [00:54:50] strong partnership with our county to be able to get a lot done and being able to [00:54:54] address some of the issues in this area. I've also previously made some of my... I [00:55:00] actually got a chance to go out to that property. Obviously, there's not much to [00:55:04] see with the current conservation, and can you just speak one more time? You [00:55:08] mentioned it before, but can you speak one more time to some of the [00:55:10] conservation elements? Because we talked about how we would be [00:55:15] rezoning, but that somehow added conservation instead of taking it away. [00:55:20] The parcel is 12 acres. Eight acres of it are already PDD. Four acres are the [00:55:26] single-family. We're asking you to convert all of it to PDD. The reason for [00:55:31] that is we are only developing on six of the acres, so half of it. When you [00:55:36] actually look at open space and lot coverage, our open space is almost 75%. [00:55:41] Lot coverage is only 25%. Building coverage is only 12%. So when you look at [00:55:47] the overall size of the... Oh, it's not up there. I'm talking like you have a map. So when you [00:55:53] look at that in its totality, that was the reason for the request. Otherwise, [00:55:58] under the R1, it's your traditional single-family where you have these huge [00:56:02] lots, which then requires us to cover everything up. So this way, we consolidate. [00:56:08] It's in a portion of the property, and we leave the rest of it open, which also [00:56:12] addresses a lot of flooding concerns that everybody had, environmental [00:56:16] sensitivities. The walking paths will connect, hopefully, eventually, one day to [00:56:21] county paths that they have proposed. So that was the thought process behind it. [00:56:25] Yep, and so those were my two concerns, was the conservation and the flooding. [00:56:29] You addressed the flooding before at the last meeting, but I still had that [00:56:33] conservation concern, so I'm glad you've reiterated that and really broke down [00:56:36] the acreage for me. That's all I have. [00:56:40] All those in favor, say bye-bye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed? We have five zip. Thank you very much. [00:56:47] When's the opening? When's the opening? Just kidding.

    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.d

    Second Reading, Ordinance No. 2024-2301: Amendment to Section 27-3 RE: Public Art

    approved

    Council held a second reading of Ordinance No. 2024-2301, amending Section 27-3(C) of the public art ordinance to allow expenditure of public art funds on private property when approved by City Council via agreement with the property owner. The change is contemplated in connection with the Tides of Time project, which would affix bronze sculptures to downtown historic buildings. The ordinance passed unanimously 5-0.

    Ord. Ordinance No. 2024-2301

    • motion:Motion to approve Ordinance No. 2024-2301 amending Section 27-3(C) regarding public art expenditures on private property. (passed)5–0

    #Ordinance No. 2024-2301#Section 27-3 public art ordinance#Tides of Time project

    ▶ Jump to 56:53 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [00:56:53] Thank you. Thank you. Okay, second reading of ordinance number 2024-2301, [00:57:08] amendment to section 27-3, public art. This is ordinance number 2024-2301, an [00:57:15] ordinance of the city of Newport Ridge, Florida, providing for amendment of [00:57:18] subsection C of section 27-3 of chapter 27 of the Code of Ordinances [00:57:23] pertaining to expenditure funds in the public art fund, providing for [00:57:26] expenditure funds on private property when approved by City Council, providing [00:57:30] for conflicts, severability, and effective date. [00:57:34] The agenda item as indicated by the City Attorney relates to section 27-3, section C of the public art [00:57:47] ordinance, specifically stating that public art should be installed in public [00:57:54] places. The proposed change is to insert a section that says, and such places [00:58:02] generally available to the public and approved by the City Council upon the [00:58:07] execution of an appropriate agreement with the private property owner. This [00:58:14] section is being proposed or contemplated in specific conjunction [00:58:21] with the Tides of Time project in which bronze sculptures would be affixed to [00:58:28] the front of many downtown historic buildings, and this is a second reading [00:58:33] for your consideration. Do you have any public comment? Seeing no one come forward, we'll [00:58:40] bring it back for approval and vote, or proposed and vote. Move to approve. Second. Comment? No further comment. [00:58:52] No, I like the, on the first reading, it's going to be a good little project and [00:58:58] looking forward to it. All those in favor? I don't have anything, it's okay. I lucked out on that one. All those in [00:59:09] favor signify by aye. Aye. Those opposed? We have five nothing. Moving on to business

    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

    Request for Extension of Stay on Order for Patriot Stogies

    discussed

    Patriot Stogies owner Nathan Pollack requested an extension of the stay of order on his non-conforming sign at 6153 Massachusetts Avenue. He challenged the validity of the original quasi-judicial hearing, citing due process concerns and selective enforcement, and asked for a new hearing, an extended stay, or a grant program. Council discussion was ongoing; the transcript cuts off before a motion was made.

    • direction:Council indicated interest in revisiting/clarifying the sign ordinance in a future discussion. (none)

    📍6153 Massachusetts Avenue📍Graham Boulevard🏢Hacienda Hotel🏢North Funeral Home🏢Patriot Stogies🏢Spoonbill's restaurant👤Catherine Starkey👤Kelly👤Nathan Pollack👤Rob Marlowe#2022 Florida State Statute Chapter 163 Section 3215#Compliance date June 18, 2025#Land Development Code Section 13-1100#Sign ordinance / pole sign vs. monument sign policy

    ▶ Jump to 59:14 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [00:59:14] items. Request for an extension of the stay of order for Patriot Yogi's. On May [00:59:19] 24th of 2024, I received a request to extend a stay order on a non-conforming [00:59:29] sign located at 6153 Massachusetts Avenue. The staff's [00:59:38] recommendation before you this evening is to extend the stay request for a [00:59:46] third period of one year, thereby approving a one-year extension [00:59:53] through a compliance date of June 18th of 2025. [01:00:00] Any public comment? [01:00:05] Nathan Pollack. [01:00:06] I'm the owner of Patriot Stowgees at 6153 Massachusetts Avenue. [01:00:09] I prepared something I just want to read to address the issue. [01:00:13] So first of all, thank you for having me here again. [01:00:16] This is the second time I've had to request an extension. [01:00:22] One of my concerns is that when the council initially voted on this appeal, it was a quasi-judicial [01:00:30] hearing and I was only notified in the middle of the hearing and those hearings are actually [01:00:38] under state statute. [01:00:39] It says that the quasi-judicial hearing, all parties must have the opportunity to respond, [01:00:44] to present evidence and argument on all issues involved which are related to the development [01:00:50] order and to conduct cross-examination and submit rebuttal evidence and during that process [01:00:55] I wasn't given that. [01:00:56] I was silenced multiple times by city council members when I asked to speak and even the [01:01:02] council asked the city's attorney a question. [01:01:07] He read a different part of the code that wasn't stated as a reason for why my sign [01:01:11] was deemed non-conforming and when I asked to speak, I was silenced. [01:01:15] I wasn't able to rebuttal his statement because there was a good rebuttal. [01:01:20] So based off of that and then additionally, I'd say during that process, the state statute, [01:01:28] if you're paying attention, the same state statute, it's 2022 Florida State Statute, [01:01:34] Chapter 163, Section 3215. [01:01:38] It says that the local government's final decision must be reduced to writing, including [01:01:44] findings of fact and conclusions of law and it is not considered rendered final or actually [01:01:53] considered rendered or final until officially date stamped by the city or county clerk. [01:01:59] And so I did a public records request on the 7th of June after reading this and I got a [01:02:05] reply on the 10th of June from the city clerk stating that no document is date stamped by [01:02:12] her that exists in the city. [01:02:16] This kind of further proves that under the state statute, I was not given an actual proper [01:02:22] quasi-judicial hearing. [01:02:26] I was not given rightful due process and now we have two new members on the council that [01:02:32] weren't on the council during that time. [01:02:35] So I actually would request that the city let me have another hearing and actually properly [01:02:41] address it. [01:02:43] Let me actually properly rebuttal evidence and ask questions and throughout the process [01:02:52] I've argued that there's never been an issue with my sign according to the existing code [01:02:56] that I've asked each of you to read separately and I would just like to draw attention to [01:03:02] the fact that the same exact sign type exists right here in the downtown zoning district [01:03:07] at the Hacienda Hotel. [01:03:11] And it just proves that there's selective enforcement because that business was only [01:03:15] opened four months after mine yet I was told that I couldn't have my sign and it's not [01:03:20] strictly prohibited in my area of the city but it is strictly prohibited in the downtown [01:03:26] area which proves the fact that there is selective enforcement. [01:03:35] So in conclusion it's my hope that the city council would allow a new and proper hearing. [01:03:39] If not, I do request that the city would extend the original stay due to the declining economy. [01:03:48] My taxes are up 21%, my trash prices have increased by 35% and then of course the lack [01:03:56] of the grant support from the city themselves. [01:04:00] And so if they're not willing to give me another stay then I guess a third option I'd [01:04:05] request and this is per the guidance from our previous mayor Rob Marlowe was that the [01:04:12] city entertain developing a grant program to cover the costs for businesses who are [01:04:15] disadvantaged by the city's desire to unnecessarily change signs. [01:04:21] So if the city needs more time I would be happy to wait and see it be discussed and [01:04:28] if the city sees any wrongdoing in that quasi-judicial process I ask that you re-evaluate it. [01:04:34] You have the means to allow me to re-appeal and I would hope that the city wouldn't choose [01:04:41] a path that requires that I exhaust unnecessary resources to ensure the process was handled [01:04:46] correctly. [01:04:49] After all we're a government for the people and by the people so we should be supporting [01:04:54] the people as the government and I've asked that numerous times and I felt like it fell [01:04:58] on deaf ears. [01:04:59] So I respectfully request you guys discuss an additional appeal. [01:05:04] Thank you for your time. [01:05:05] Do you have any other public comment? [01:05:10] If not I'll bring it back for discussion. [01:05:13] Oh I'm sorry. [01:05:15] Excuse me ma'am. [01:05:16] Excuse me ma'am. [01:05:17] Could you come up here and please address this properly? [01:05:21] I may be feisty but I'm a little slower than I used to be. [01:05:28] I have a general comment. [01:05:31] First of all if there was a hearing it should have been videotaped and apparently that could [01:05:36] not be found. [01:05:38] The other comment that I have to make is we have some businesses that are finding it very [01:05:44] difficult to sell their business and we have several that have sent information that they [01:05:52] are planning to close July 1st. [01:05:57] Also I have had businesses reach out to me in the past that they are waiting until their [01:06:04] leases run out, until they are due for renewal. [01:06:09] Excuse me ma'am we're trying to deal with this. [01:06:11] This all has to do with this. [01:06:12] It has to do with a sign. [01:06:15] It has to do with helping a business. [01:06:17] I think that we need to do as a council to get a climate more conducive to encouraging [01:06:28] businesses to stay. [01:06:31] This particular problem has gone on for two years. [01:06:35] It seems to me that the council can work with the businesses more to make it possible for [01:06:41] them to stay. [01:06:44] Many of the businesses have way too much trouble and it takes way too long to solve problems [01:06:50] like signage. [01:06:54] Any other comments by the public? [01:06:56] If not we'll bring it back for a vote and discussion. [01:07:01] I'm going to move that and I think this was, well discussion first right. [01:07:07] To be clear this is a quasi-judicial. [01:07:10] In that case, before I move to do anything, I do have a couple questions. [01:07:14] First on ex parte communications, I did have a meeting with Nathan Pollack on June 4th. [01:07:27] I took notes during that meeting and that was in relationship to the sign ordinance [01:07:30] and not the actual stay. [01:07:33] In addition to that I had a phone call on June 7th with him. [01:07:39] Again related to the sign ordinance, not the stay order. [01:07:43] That being said, I did have one question for option, excuse me, for the second option. [01:07:49] You listed declining economy, trash prices, lack of grant support and there was one other [01:07:55] thing I didn't catch it. [01:07:58] Sorry, you spoke very quick at that part. [01:08:02] So it was declining economy, trash prices, lack of grant support and I think Kelly just [01:08:14] said it was taxes and insurance I think was the other one. [01:08:22] That's the only questions I have. [01:08:24] I do want to make a motion but in case someone had a question before we make a motion and [01:08:28] then we can't ask questions. [01:08:30] I would just like for the record to recognize that in our weekly updates or our communication [01:08:38] that I saw that sign ordinance itself is something or signage is something that's listed as a [01:08:44] topic in the near future. [01:08:46] That be correct? [01:08:48] I believe I saw something on signage. [01:08:50] Was it mural or sign? [01:08:52] Am I wrong? [01:08:53] Maybe I'm reading the wrong city's paperwork. [01:09:00] To the point that's being mentioned, I think that the interpretation that could become [01:09:10] from a request a rehearing based on faulty processing in that legal fashion that it would [01:09:20] be smart if this motion which I would support that you're going to make happen if we could [01:09:26] have along the road in a timely fashion, could be even after budget season or whenever [01:09:33] it is, some clarification of how we're going to treat signage, whether it applies only [01:09:42] to the downtown, to commercial zones, to really just rehab that. [01:09:48] I was disappointed when Catherine Starkey commented that we needed to look to their [01:09:53] sign ordinance because we had the first sign ordinance to bring signs down and turned into [01:09:59] monument signs. [01:10:04] I know that because when Spoonbill's restaurant went up, there was a North Funeral Home signed [01:10:11] on the site, which was then only the best restaurant, and it was a pole sign. [01:10:17] I was an elected official at the time, and I determined to take that thing down and put [01:10:21] a small, little, tiny, small sign up to comply with the direction that the city had taken [01:10:28] it. [01:10:29] But I've got a brother who's an attorney, and he's got a pole sign over on Graham Boulevard, [01:10:35] but he's continued to be consistently in business. [01:10:38] So if we really are serious about changing signage, we could be talking about whether [01:10:43] or not we have an end date to these kinds of signs that we don't want. [01:10:48] It's hard to be tough on somebody in an area where they're all around them and not say [01:10:57] this is really what we mean, and we mean business. [01:11:00] And also to look at the details of whether or not it was ever legal, get a good, solid [01:11:07] interpretation of the argument. [01:11:09] I want to allow him to make his case. [01:11:14] I'm not so sure we need to go through the whole appeals process if we can just act, [01:11:19] you know, collegially to discuss and understand that meaning in a more complete way. [01:11:30] So that's under the motion, and now under communications, I'm going to talk about the [01:11:36] comment of shutting down and not letting talk, because we've allowed it. [01:11:40] But I really think that when we take communication, we need to take it, and then when we take [01:11:47] a motion, we should bring it to ourselves. [01:11:50] Tonight's a good example. [01:11:52] If we could have asked those questions before the motion, it would have been helpful for [01:11:55] any of us. [01:11:56] I haven't made a motion, so I did that intentionally in case you needed to ask questions. [01:12:00] So yeah, so if you want to invite somebody up, I'm thinking there was one, yeah. [01:12:04] So I'm fine. [01:12:05] So motion's not been made yet. [01:12:07] I have not made a motion. [01:12:08] Same mistake and the same issue. [01:12:10] I'm slipping. [01:12:11] I appreciate the opportunity to speak again. [01:12:14] So to your point, your code does not say that you don't allow poll signs. [01:12:18] It says that it's a policy, as in a future policy, which we spoke about a few weeks ago. [01:12:23] Is that correct? [01:12:26] There's a policy that says to eventually eliminate poll signs and move to monument signs. [01:12:33] And I asked the city's attorney, and you can verify because you won't talk to me, that [01:12:37] yes, that is not actually ordinance. [01:12:40] So it's not ordinance. [01:12:41] You're not speaking correct to the way the code's written because your code also says [01:12:45] in 13-1100, under the Land Development Code, that you can get a permit to build my type [01:12:51] of sign. [01:12:53] To which I made that point to the city attorney, and he wasn't aware of it, and then he wrote [01:12:57] it down. [01:12:58] That was in a meeting we had two weeks ago. [01:13:01] It took me two years to get a meeting with the attorney. [01:13:04] And in your, you mentioned early on, did we have a sign ordinance discussion on the [01:13:10] agenda?

    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

    Rejection of Sole Bid for ITB24-017 City Hall and Library Exterior Sealing Project

    The transcript segment does not discuss the rejection of the sole bid for ITB24-017 City Hall and Library Exterior Sealing Project. Instead, it contains discussion about extending a stay related to a sign ordinance for a business, with a motion proposed for a three-year stay.

    • motion:Motion to extend the stay on the sign ordinance enforcement for three years, contingent on continued ownership. (none)

    🏢Patriot Stokes, Inc.👤Councilman Allman#quasi-judicial proceeding stay#sign ordinance

    ▶ Jump to 1:13:11 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:13:11] And yes. [01:13:12] On the upcoming agenda items that is planned for the future, to be determined, is a sign [01:13:19] ordinance conversation. [01:13:20] When we look at the options, you have option one, which was extending the, or reviewing [01:13:28] the Clause of Judicial Meeting. [01:13:29] I think that's something that is more appropriate to be discussed during communications, given [01:13:35] that we are in a Clause of Judicial Proceeding, and this is about a stay. [01:13:39] So I'm not going to comment on that here. [01:13:41] But on the option two, I want to make a motion so we can have a conversation up here about [01:13:46] extending the stay, not for one year, but for three years, because that was the suggestion [01:13:52] before. [01:13:53] Giving us enough time to pursue option one and option three, and perhaps other options [01:13:59] with the business owner, given the fact that he did list the declining economy, taxes, [01:14:04] insurance, trash prices, and lack of grant support. [01:14:07] So my motion, to be clear, is to make a stay for three years. [01:14:10] Can I ask you for one modification of that? [01:14:13] Sure. [01:14:14] I would like the three years also. [01:14:15] That's, I did that the first time he came here and it didn't get accepted by counsel. [01:14:19] But I would like to have that three years as long as he maintains the ownership. [01:14:24] If he does so longer. [01:14:25] Okay. [01:14:26] So he has three years, assuming the ownership is Patriot Stokes, Inc., or whatever the proper [01:14:31] LLC is. [01:14:32] I would even like to amend that, and I would just say, why back and forth? [01:14:36] Why back and forth? [01:14:37] Let's say, hey, you can keep it as long as you own the property. [01:14:41] But until that time, then it has to change. [01:14:43] I don't think, and respectfully, in fact, you just gave me a different idea, but I don't [01:14:48] think it, the problem we run into with that is, long term, I think we have to also respect [01:14:54] the ordinance as it exists. [01:14:55] And if we don't like the ordinance, then change the ordinance. [01:14:58] Don't kick the cannon down the road. [01:15:00] way down the road, and I'm not saying that towards you, I'm just saying in general, [01:15:03] it almost seems like by doing that we're making treatment for one person instead of fixing [01:15:08] the ordinance all together. [01:15:09] That's what we've been doing this whole time is kicking the can down the road. [01:15:12] And so I think that's why instead of a three year, is there a way to do a conditional where [01:15:16] we do a stay until the workshop has been done for the sign ordinance and until a change [01:15:21] has been made to the sign ordinance? [01:15:23] Well, you can make the motion any way you want to in terms of the length of it. [01:15:28] But I do recommend that you have some finite period of time. [01:15:32] And this is something that we do plan on bringing up, trying to find a solution for his very [01:15:38] particular circumstance that would not have ramifications that go far beyond that. [01:15:44] But it also dovetails with the discussion as Councilman Allman was talking about, about [01:15:49] the whole idea of freestanding signs and how do we really want to deal with them. [01:15:54] So it may need to come back to you as part of this same application. [01:15:58] So my recommendation would be whether it's three years or a year, whatever it is, hopefully [01:16:02] we can get you that information within that time period. [01:16:06] But I wouldn't make it indefinite. [01:16:07] And I don't know that you want to make it conditional on something. [01:16:10] I think a period of time works. [01:16:12] And hopefully we could get you some information where we can try to address this citywide. [01:16:17] One of the reasons that he came, he came because both sides of his property are county. [01:16:22] And both businesses on either side have a pole side. [01:16:26] So it wasn't like he was in a unique neighborhood with a sign sticking up there. [01:16:31] So that was one of the reasons we did it in the beginning. [01:16:34] And that's why last time I proposed three years and I proposed three years again this [01:16:38] time. [01:16:39] But I mean, I also thought if he, sometimes he's mentioned to me that he might sell the [01:16:44] business. [01:16:45] Well, if he sells the business, then it comes up for a discussion again. [01:16:48] Although the business didn't open and close, it still remained open. [01:16:51] So that might not affect the sign either. [01:16:55] I would agree with the three years too. [01:16:57] And then that would give us enough time. [01:16:58] If we look at the ordinance, make changes to the ordinance, then it goes away at that [01:17:02] point anyway. [01:17:03] So I think the three years. [01:17:04] Plus, I'll be gone in two and a half. [01:17:06] So that'll be for you guys. [01:17:08] Right. [01:17:09] Right. [01:17:10] So is that your motion? [01:17:11] The motion that I want to do is the one that you also suggested, which is three years on

    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

    Fleet Maintenance/Utility Purchasing Warehouse & Storage Building Construction Project – Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)

    approved

    Council approved a Guaranteed Maximum Price of $4,698,104 with Hennessy Construction for the Fleet Maintenance/Utility Purchasing Warehouse & Storage Building Construction Project, replacing a 1973 building off Pine Hill Road. Funding is allocated across utility ($3,669,959), stormwater ($144,430), and general fund/Penny for Pasco ($1,183,715). The project includes a $300,000 contingency and is approximately 11,000 square feet.

    • motion:Motion to approve the Guaranteed Maximum Price of $4,698,104 with Hennessy Construction for the Fleet Maintenance/Utility Purchasing Warehouse & Storage Building Construction Project. (passed)5–0

    📍Pine Hill Road, just west of Congress Street🏢Hennessy Construction🏢McKim and Creed🏢Stantec🏢Williams Architect👤Matt👤Ms. Vance👤Robert Rivera#Fleet Maintenance/Utility Purchasing Warehouse & Storage Building Construction Project#Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)#Penny for Pasco#Sims Park improvement project#rec center improvement project

    ▶ Jump to 1:17:13 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:17:16] the condition that ownership does not change at the property. [01:17:18] Do you have a second for that? [01:17:21] I don't. [01:17:23] Well, she got a second, but I don't like the condition. [01:17:26] If he sells it, the next guy is going to be automatically. [01:17:28] Well, I'm going to say he's going to have trouble selling it if we put the condition. [01:17:32] So let's just give him the time until, you know. [01:17:36] I mean, I don't know. [01:17:37] I don't, I don't, I don't necessarily think he's going to have trouble selling it because [01:17:40] he's got to change the sign. [01:17:41] I don't, I don't necessarily think that. [01:17:42] I mean, I've talked to other contractors and people. [01:17:45] It's a second. [01:17:46] If it is, let's run it. [01:17:49] That's my apologies. [01:17:50] If we are, I don't know who added in the ownership thing. [01:17:53] If we're talking about the property and what's best for the city, it shouldn't regard, it [01:17:56] shouldn't matter who is in ownership. [01:17:58] So the motion I'm going to make is three years. [01:18:00] The one I was going to make, three years. [01:18:02] I'll second. [01:18:03] Any other comment? [01:18:05] All those in favor? [01:18:06] Well, I have plenty of other comment. [01:18:08] That was just on that part there. [01:18:10] We were just getting a motion on the table. [01:18:12] There's still a lot that he brought up that I would like to touch on, if you don't mind. [01:18:15] Well, this, we're just dealing with keeping the sign. [01:18:17] Right. [01:18:19] We have a lot of comments that could come in communication versus just whether we're [01:18:24] going to do a sign or not. [01:18:26] Sign extension. [01:18:27] Fair point. [01:18:28] That's fine. [01:18:29] I'll bring it up during communications. [01:18:30] All those in favor signify by aye. [01:18:31] Aye. [01:18:32] Aye. [01:18:33] Those opposed? [01:18:34] We have five nothing. [01:18:35] Moving on. [01:18:36] Recognition of sole bid for ITB 24-017 City Hall and Library exterior ceiling project. [01:18:46] Yes. [01:18:48] The request before you this evening is to reject a sole bid that the city received on [01:18:53] an invitation to bid for some exterior ceiling on the City Hall and Library, a project that [01:19:01] was put together by Mr. Rivera. [01:19:05] Mr. Rivera will more fully introduce the agenda item. [01:19:08] Thank you, Ms. Vance. [01:19:09] There was one competitive bid that was opened up. [01:19:13] That was in the amount of right around $84,000. [01:19:17] The bid amount was $34,375 more than what we had budgeted in your CIP document. [01:19:26] We met with the contractor that did bid on the project. [01:19:31] You are familiar with the contract signature construction. [01:19:34] They've done a lot of projects with the city. [01:19:36] They just currently finished the Meadows Dog Park. [01:19:40] In those discussions, there were some topics that came up that the contractor felt like [01:19:47] he had to make assumptions. [01:19:50] That leaves that project wide open, even though it was a lump sum project or bid, it kind [01:19:58] of left a lot of onus on that contractor to do some interpretations. [01:20:03] What we'd like to do is we would respectfully request that you reject the bid, let staff [01:20:09] go back and get some specifications associated with the different types of potential repairs [01:20:17] that are there, not just the ceiling. [01:20:20] Then we would ask that we would be able to use a portion of that. [01:20:24] You have $50,000 in your CIP. [01:20:26] Right now, you haven't used any. [01:20:29] We'd request that we would be able to get with a structural engineer to take and identify [01:20:36] and edit the ITB, put it out to bid, bring it to you again in the proposed draft CIP [01:20:43] for approval and then move forward that way. [01:20:46] So if you do, it's not the budget impact of the project itself would just be an additional [01:20:55] maybe another $10,000, between $10,000 and $15,000 as far as the additional work that we would do. [01:21:03] All right, do we have any public comment? [01:21:06] Seeing no one come forward, we'll bring it back for public discussion and vote. [01:21:12] I've got a little history from when I worked here on the last time that the roofs were [01:21:18] done, back in the day when we had the canopy between the building and the building and [01:21:27] collection department and then also the library. [01:21:32] I know that the architect at the time who had looked at it to bid was very concerned [01:21:38] about these flat roofs and the ability to make sure that the weight of the roof was [01:21:44] not overburdened and had suggested some pretty costly outfalls. [01:21:53] He conveyed his disappointment to me that the staff's internal engineering said that [01:22:00] that was too expensive and it wasn't needed. [01:22:02] So, because we have all these hard storms and because we have so much water and now [01:22:10] we have equipment up on the library as well as that, I would like to make sure that we [01:22:16] take another look to make sure that someone calculates this. [01:22:22] I'm not sure where the outfalls are, if they're big enough to allow the water to [01:22:26] come off in these big rains, but I'm just passing along that there were some concerns. [01:22:31] So, when you're looking at the roof, if you could just check the engineering on the way [01:22:37] in which the roof is designed, if there are design improvements that can help to get water [01:22:41] off of that roof quicker. [01:22:45] We can most certainly take a look at that. [01:22:47] This is dealing with the exterior walls. [01:22:51] Ceilings, just sealing the walls. [01:22:53] I wondered why you have an exterior ceiling. [01:23:01] So, everything's fine up on the roof. [01:23:06] Now I'm up to two again, so, oh well. [01:23:11] I'm going to move to approve. [01:23:15] I don't have any comment. [01:23:17] No, I'm good too. [01:23:20] Anything else? [01:23:22] Half an hour on this one. [01:23:25] He's going to scale down the side of the building now and wants to make sure it's solid. [01:23:29] Because he used the roof as, never mind. [01:23:31] Any, all those in favor, signify by aye. [01:23:33] Aye. [01:23:34] Those opposed? [01:23:35] We have five nothing. [01:23:36] Moving on. [01:23:37] Fleet Maintenance Utility Purchase Warehouse and Storage Building Construction Project. [01:23:43] Guaranteed maximum price. [01:23:45] This project is one that has been worked on since April 30th of 2019 when we were working [01:23:58] with an architect on a very traditional design build project. [01:24:06] And the result of a structural assessment was that we needed to come up with plans and [01:24:15] specifications for a purchasing warehouse. [01:24:19] Since that time, we did change project delivery methods and we've gone with a construction [01:24:26] manager on a guaranteed maximum price basis for the project. [01:24:34] And tonight, we are asking you to award the project in the amount of $4,698,104. [01:24:46] Mr. Rivera and his team have worked very hard to bring the project in at that number and [01:24:53] I'd like him to present the agenda item. [01:24:55] Thank you, Ms. Manns. [01:24:58] So as she has just stated, this is for the guaranteed maximum price and there are several [01:25:03] different ways that you can do projects. [01:25:05] In this case, this type of project, basically the construction management company is telling [01:25:13] you that if you approve, and in this case, the approximate 4.6, that that's the guaranteed [01:25:20] maximum that you would be looking at. [01:25:22] I just want to note that the 4.6 includes a $300,000 contingency. [01:25:31] So your original building is located off of Pine Hill Road, just west of Congress Street. [01:25:37] It was constructed in 1973. [01:25:40] It's the oldest building or structure that we have. [01:25:45] Metal building, operational activities that we have currently are the fleet garage, the [01:25:53] utility warehouse, there is police seizure vehicles, auction vehicles. [01:26:00] We have sandbag operations as well as our compost program that we have and then material [01:26:08] storage from the utilities. [01:26:10] And so you can take a look at the photos, some of the photos that we have here. [01:26:14] You can see the existing conditions. [01:26:16] This is on the fleet side. [01:26:20] We've got the front of the building that has a lot of the offices that have been converted [01:26:27] to storage area with our inventory, employee break rooms that are shared with shelves that [01:26:33] have additional materials, those types of things. [01:26:37] There's our existing site where we have storage of road materials, water and sewer [01:26:44] repair materials, and then we have our large pipe and fire hydrants, water meters, all [01:26:51] of those large pieces of materials that right now we have no storage inside for. [01:26:58] And so to give you kind of a little bit of a history because this project has gone on [01:27:03] so long, as Ms. Vance said, we did start the structural analysis in 2019. [01:27:09] We had brought on board the engineering firm McKim and Creed. [01:27:14] They did the structural review and looked at it from the standpoint of, okay, do we [01:27:21] want to rehab this building, bring it up to current codes, or is the building so old, [01:27:28] is the cost too inflated to where you would be better off replacing the building and constructing [01:27:35] a new one? [01:27:36] The recommendation memorandum that was sent to the city and submitted to city council [01:27:42] then was to take and replace the existing structure. [01:27:47] In 2020, as Ms. Vance also stated, we did go to a conventional style type of design [01:27:53] and build that was with Williams Architect. [01:27:58] We ended up taking and having a building that was designed at approximately 15,000 square [01:28:08] feet, square structure, brought it to you. [01:28:12] We went ahead and sent the ITB out, and in 2022, we rejected the bids. [01:28:18] We started off with a project estimate of around $3.2 million. [01:28:24] We did have four people come in at bids, but if you recall, this was at the time where [01:28:31] we had COVID, we had the material shortages, inflated prices up and down. [01:28:38] Those bids came in at approximate 5.1 up to 5.3. [01:28:45] During that design, we did try to react to the market, and when the prices of heavy steel [01:28:53] were escalated, we went to light steel. [01:28:56] Then we went from light steel, the lead times, the costs were just totally overflated. [01:29:04] We agreed that, you know what, let's go back, let's talk to some of these construction management [01:29:10] companies that we have relationships with and see what kind of feedback they're getting [01:29:16] as far as their subcontractors and the pricing that they're getting, lead times. [01:29:23] As we were talking with them, it became evident that that was really the route that we should go. [01:29:28] We presented to you the ITB for construction management style type of design and construction. [01:29:36] It was approved in 2023. [01:29:39] Later that year, we went ahead and we started our valued engineering. [01:29:43] The design intent of the building during that value engineering remained the same as far [01:29:49] as the intent of the design. [01:29:51] Major elements that were altered would include the roof grade, the roof elevation. [01:30:00] came down a little bit with that. [01:30:03] We did some extensive site redesign [01:30:07] that brought down the cost, [01:30:08] and then we started looking at materials. [01:30:11] So while we ended up with a little bit smaller building, [01:30:15] the original building was 10,000 square feet. [01:30:17] We were up to as much as 15, [01:30:20] and then we were able to get it right around 11,000 [01:30:24] square feet to be able to operate out of it. [01:30:28] The good thing about the valued engineering [01:30:30] and us going back was the material shortages [01:30:35] on a lot of things had corrected itself. [01:30:38] The fluctuation of the cost had started to stabilize. [01:30:43] While it didn't come down to pre-pandemic, [01:30:45] it did level out. [01:30:47] So the end result was we were able to construct, [01:30:50] go from a total steel frame building prefab [01:30:54] to a CMU or construction block [01:30:58] for the front portion warehouse [01:31:01] where during our storm events and stuff, [01:31:04] we would be able to house the employees [01:31:06] that work out of that building, [01:31:08] and we would be able to design that portion of the building [01:31:10] up to a Cat III, [01:31:12] and then the back portion that was the work area [01:31:17] ended up being the metal fab portion of it. [01:31:22] So after all that was said and done, [01:31:24] we went ahead and gave Hennessy Construction, [01:31:27] and we have done business with them. [01:31:29] You all are familiar with them. [01:31:30] They did Sims Park's improvement project. [01:31:34] They also did the rec center improvement project. [01:31:38] So we felt very comfortable with them [01:31:40] and what they were giving back to us [01:31:44] and the design team as well. [01:31:46] So we ended up letting it out to their subs, [01:31:49] giving them approval. [01:31:50] They came back with the 4.698-104 that you see now, [01:31:56] and I would say that we're at a point here in this project [01:32:00] that it's not going to get any cost, [01:32:05] that the cost is not going to go down. [01:32:07] You're stuck with what you have. [01:32:09] It's a 1973 building. [01:32:12] The services and the activities that the personnel [01:32:16] and that building provide to the residents [01:32:19] are key to the city's success, [01:32:22] and so I think we're at a point [01:32:24] where we have to move forward with this project. [01:32:29] So then when we look at funding, how are we going to pay this? [01:32:32] We have several different activities out of that building [01:32:35] that we've talked about. [01:32:38] The water and sewer, the utility, [01:32:42] operates the largest chunk out of it. [01:32:45] We reached out to Stantec. [01:32:47] Stantec also is a consulting firm [01:32:50] that does a lot of the city's cost allocation studies, [01:32:56] the general fund or utility sufficiency analysis, [01:33:01] those types of analysis, and Pasco County uses them. [01:33:05] A lot of the local governments that are around here [01:33:08] really use them. They have a very good reputation. [01:33:11] We met with them, talked with them, [01:33:14] and they said, you know, we can do a full-blown study [01:33:18] on this thing, or we can go ahead [01:33:21] and provide you with the methodology [01:33:23] that's the most appropriate [01:33:25] and that we recommend to all of our clients. [01:33:28] So when we look at the square footage, we take half. [01:33:32] You have half for the enterprise, which is the garage. [01:33:34] You take the other half, [01:33:36] which is the utility with the warehouse. [01:33:39] So then after you've got those two numbers, [01:33:42] which in this case ends up being almost half, [01:33:45] we end up and take and we went through the work order system [01:33:48] the last three years to figure out, [01:33:51] okay, what departments are using the garage [01:33:56] and using those services with that? [01:34:00] And so with that methodology, [01:34:02] each department that you have within the city [01:34:05] was assigned a cost based on that. [01:34:08] And it was added to the utility portion [01:34:13] because they were stuck with the portion of the building itself. [01:34:17] And so these are the fund sources [01:34:20] that were called out, the dollar amounts [01:34:22] for each one of your departments that we have here. [01:34:26] So the utility end up having a responsibility [01:34:30] of $3,669,959. [01:34:35] The storm water utility, $144,430. [01:34:41] And then of course, all of your general fund departments [01:34:45] all combined were assigned $1,183,715. [01:34:52] And it is proposed that penny for Pasco tax dollars [01:34:56] would accommodate that dollar amount. [01:35:00] A portion of. [01:35:02] Portion. Yeah. [01:35:06] And so with that, we are recommending [01:35:07] that you do approve this [01:35:10] and we would be available for any questions. [01:35:15] We have any public comment? [01:35:19] Seeing no one come forward, [01:35:20] we'll bring it back for discussion and vote. [01:35:23] I can't imagine any questions [01:35:24] after that thorough description of your need. [01:35:27] And so if there aren't any, I'm happy to make a motion. [01:35:31] I'll second it. [01:35:33] Motion to approve. [01:35:35] Any more comments? [01:35:36] No. [01:35:37] Just checking. [01:35:38] Can you believe it? [01:35:39] Yeah, I know. [01:35:41] Matt. [01:35:42] Good job on that, Robert. [01:35:44] I mean, you know, those first numbers came back [01:35:46] and knew they'd probably be higher, but not that high. [01:35:49] You know, so it's kind of a shocker. [01:35:51] So appreciate all the hard work you did to get that number down. [01:35:53] And yeah, I'm with you. [01:35:54] I don't think it's going to be, you know, [01:35:56] going down any time soon. [01:35:58] So we better jump on it. [01:36:01] Yeah, I remember sitting on that side [01:36:02] when council was wrestling with this with staff [01:36:04] and a lot of questions that came up. [01:36:06] I was actually surprised there wasn't more comment [01:36:08] given the history with this project. [01:36:11] I just did have one question. [01:36:14] The penny for PASCO is split up. [01:36:16] Do we know what percentage is coming [01:36:18] from penny PASCO versus general fund? [01:36:21] But it's going to be general fund and penny for PASCO. [01:36:24] It's joined together. [01:36:25] Okay, thanks. [01:36:26] I just want to say, since you brought it up, [01:36:32] we had a lot of staff working to try to finish Sims Park, [01:36:35] which was cost to the city versus them doing it, [01:36:39] the company you mentioned. [01:36:40] And then I think there was a lot of foo-foo at the rec center [01:36:44] because they knew how much money was available to them. [01:36:47] So I just want to really keep a close eye on the numbers, [01:36:50] you know, and the dollars. [01:36:51] And I want you to come back at the end and say, [01:36:53] we need another couple hundred thousand [01:36:55] or whatever the number is. [01:36:56] And if we can come on lower than that, I would like to see [01:36:59] that because I think they tried us twice now, in my opinion, [01:37:04] one. [01:37:05] So all those in favor, signify by aye. [01:37:09] Aye. [01:37:10] Those opposed. [01:37:11] So we have five nothing. [01:37:13] Okay, now the resolution of 2024-08,

    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

    Resolution No. 2024-08: Amendments to CDBG Housing Assistance Plan

    approved

    Council adopted Resolution 2024-08 amending the city's CDBG Housing Assistance Plan. Key changes prohibit city employees, councilmembers, Citizens Advisory Task Force members and their families from program eligibility (they can apply through the county instead), and require homeowners insurance as a condition to receive funding assistance, with a waiver available for significant financial hardship. Other amendments address relocation allowances and operational procedures.

    Ord. Resolution No. 2024-08

    • motion:Motion to approve Resolution 2024-08 amending the CDBG Housing Assistance Plan. (passed)5–0

    🏢Amber Lending Partners🏢Citizens Advisory Task Force🏢Florida Department of Economic Opportunity🏢Guardian Services👤Dale Hall👤Debbie Manns👤George Romanoli👤Kelly👤Matt Murphy#CDBG Housing Assistance Plan#CRA funds#Federal Fiscal Year 2019#HAP program#Resolution No. 2024-08#Small Cities Community Development Block Grant#Subsection 13C / 8C (insurance waiver)#Subsection 4C (eligibility exclusions)

    ▶ Jump to 1:37:16 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:37:16] amendment to the CBDG housing assistance plan. [01:37:21] This is resolution number 2024-08, [01:37:23] a resolution authorizing the adoption [01:37:25] of a housing assistance plan in conjunction with the submission [01:37:28] of an application for a small city's community development [01:37:30] block grant in the housing rehabilitation category [01:37:33] to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity [01:37:36] for federal fiscal year 2019. [01:37:42] City's housing assistance plan was originally adopted by you [01:37:48] on September 15th of 2020. [01:37:52] Since that time, there have been changes [01:37:54] made to the housing assistance program, which [01:37:57] have subsequently been approved by the Department [01:38:02] of Economic Opportunity, which is also [01:38:05] known as Florida Commerce. [01:38:08] For those that may not be aware, the city's community [01:38:12] development block grant program is [01:38:15] one in which housing assistance is provided [01:38:22] to members of the community that are low or of moderate income [01:38:28] that are in need of housing assistance [01:38:34] to principally provide assistance [01:38:38] with code-related deficiencies. [01:38:42] It's done so on a forgivable loan basis, [01:38:45] and they can receive up to $80,000 [01:38:49] worth of deferred payment over a 10-year period of time, [01:39:00] types of loan assistance, I'm sorry. [01:39:05] And in some cases, if they are to receive the maximum, which [01:39:10] is $80,000, they could also receive replacement home [01:39:16] criteria and moving expenses and a replacement home allowance [01:39:22] and temporary relocation allowances. [01:39:28] And the types of changes that have been made in the program [01:39:36] really are intended to reduce the appearance of impropriety [01:39:43] and to protect, through our fiduciary responsibilities, [01:39:51] the funding that the city receives [01:39:54] for the administration of the program. [01:39:56] And we receive about $750,000 for the program. [01:40:03] And that can very easily be spent or very quickly [01:40:11] be spent on the program. [01:40:15] The first change that most significant change that [01:40:24] is made in the program is outlined [01:40:27] in 4C of Exhibit A, which is attached to your agenda item. [01:40:36] And it, in short, prohibits city employees, members of city [01:40:42] council, and their families, members of the City of Sins [01:40:46] Advisory Task Force and their families [01:40:49] from eligibility from participating in the program. [01:40:54] And this is intended to not give [01:40:58] any members of this class any special advantages [01:41:03] and also to reduce an appearance of impropriety, [01:41:06] whether one exists or not. [01:41:11] And what happens in the case of if any of these people [01:41:17] from this class would want to take advantage of such [01:41:20] a program and be eligible to take advantage [01:41:23] of such a program is they would be [01:41:26] able to apply to the county's program [01:41:30] rather than to the city's program, which [01:41:33] is an option that they could take advantage of. [01:41:37] And that is an arrangement that I [01:41:41] have been able to put in place with the county's administrator [01:41:48] for the program because they apparently [01:41:51] have more money than they're able to spend. [01:41:53] So they said they could use the help [01:41:55] and they would accept our additional applicants. [01:42:02] The second most significant change [01:42:04] that I've proposed to the program [01:42:08] relates to homeowners insurance. [01:42:10] In the case of the program, the HAP program [01:42:20] originally stated that homeowners insurance was [01:42:24] a requirement at the time that the improvements had [01:42:30] been made to the home. [01:42:34] From my perspective and from any lender's perspective, [01:42:40] it makes more sense that you have [01:42:43] to have homeowners insurance as a condition [01:42:47] to receive funding assistance. [01:42:50] And in order to protect the very needy [01:43:00] from being discounted as a result of this requirement, [01:43:10] we have written into the program that if you do [01:43:13] have a significant financial hardship as a result [01:43:19] of this requirement, that you can ask for a waiver [01:43:23] and that waiver will not be unreasonably withheld. [01:43:27] And that language is included in 13C of the exhibit. [01:43:35] There are also changes, as you can note, [01:43:40] in the exhibit that have to do, and they're largely [01:43:45] on page 10 of 20, with the relocation allowances that [01:43:53] are provided in the program. [01:43:57] And if they are to rebuild a home for you [01:44:02] under the replacement home criteria, [01:44:05] there are specific language that talks about the payment that [01:44:10] will be made and the estimated square footage and all [01:44:15] of the relocation allowances. [01:44:18] And in page 14 of 20, they spell out, [01:44:22] or we spell out, all of the operational procedures [01:44:25] of the program so that they're in writing. [01:44:28] And when the applicants for the program enter the program, [01:44:35] they know what they are, and they can always [01:44:38] refer back to them, and there's no surprises along the way. [01:44:43] And with those changes, I'm recommending [01:44:48] that you consider passing a resolution in support [01:44:52] of the amendments to the housing assistance plan. [01:44:55] With that being done, the next [01:45:00] step in the process will be for us to bring forward to you a list of property [01:45:09] owners in the city that will be eligible for program participation for you to [01:45:16] approve after having been approved by our Citizens Advisory Task Force. [01:45:23] Public comment? I can respond to any of your questions. I do have one person signed up [01:45:29] to speak for this item. It was George Romanoli. I'm going to respectfully [01:45:38] disagree with the city manager. Respectfully. The first time George. True. [01:45:42] I rehabilitated and lent over 250 million dollars in affordable housing [01:45:48] monies both with the county and with my present job at Amber Lending Partners [01:45:52] including a thousand homes, single-family homes. I sent you all a [01:45:55] letter because I didn't expect to be here tonight, but I am. Two things. First [01:46:00] off, HUD does not require insurance. It's not a requirement under HUD CDBG at all. [01:46:05] Now I looked at the Florida Administrative Code and I'm no expert at [01:46:10] that and maybe Ms. Mance can respond, but I couldn't find anything that DEO [01:46:14] requires insurance either. The other thing is is that you can't think as a [01:46:20] lender because basically the 17-18 houses that we'll be doing through the [01:46:27] city would never get a bank loan. You're not going to do any of these houses and [01:46:31] we'll get a bank loan. You'd have too much damage, too much to the decrepit status, [01:46:37] or people that don't qualify for loans. So you can't use the standard as a [01:46:41] lender. You have to look as a government that's helping low and moderate [01:46:46] income people get their houses repaired. The other issue is for a house that [01:46:53] currently cannot get insurance, gets repaired and does need insurance, no [01:46:59] insurance company is going to take payments monthly or quarterly. They're [01:47:03] going to want the whole lot up front. So you're asking a low and moderate income [01:47:07] person to put up maybe $2,000, $3,000, and that's hard for somebody on a fixed [01:47:12] income right away. They ain't able to do it. Now I know it's very good that you [01:47:18] have that additional step of allowing an administrative discretion to let someone [01:47:23] go in there, but I would take away the administrative discretion. Because the [01:47:27] other thing, the loans out through New Port Richey, you're not going to get [01:47:31] any of this money back if this house is sold. It's going to go to the state [01:47:34] of Florida. And frankly, who cares about the state of Florida? We've been dealing [01:47:37] with this for five years because of all the ring-and-roll the state's put us [01:47:41] through, through all the problems we've had. I wouldn't give anything back to the [01:47:45] state of Florida. I wouldn't care. If you really want to do this, if you care about [01:47:50] insurance, especially for people that are low-income, you're going to be, again, [01:47:54] people on fixed incomes, people that are getting minimum Social Security, are the [01:47:57] people that are going to get assistance. Use your CRA money. That is an eligible [01:48:02] expense under CRA to pay that insurance to get them over that hump. But I would [01:48:08] really disagree with you passing this resolution and putting this requirement [01:48:11] in there that they have to have insurance at the application period or [01:48:15] at the beginning of construction. Because most of them will not be able to get [01:48:19] that at all. You're going to have to do a waiver on every single person that you assist. [01:48:23] So please vote against this resolution. Thank you. [01:48:29] Can I just ask a question on that? You said there was an application for a [01:48:35] waiver on that. Okay, thank you. Anybody else like to speak, please? [01:48:53] I was one of the houses that needed repair because of hurricane damage. And [01:49:00] because of hurricane damage and the fact that I had paid off my mortgage, as long [01:49:05] as I had a mortgage, I had insurance because I paid PITI. Once I paid off my [01:49:10] mortgage, that left me without insurance. And because of the hurricane damage, I [01:49:16] could not get insurance. There is absolutely no requirement under the CDBG [01:49:22] grant to require insurance. That was only Debbie Mann's amendment to that grant. [01:49:30] It held up the grant to over 11 homes. Under that grant, they were required to [01:49:36] have a full 11 in order to get the $750,000. And when Debbie Mann did that, it held [01:49:45] everything up. There is no, I was assured by, and I can give you names, by the [01:49:52] administration of the CDBG grant that Debbie Mann's, the city manager, and only [01:49:57] Debbie Mann's, wanted that requirement for insurance. We had seven houses under [01:50:03] those 11 that did not have insurance that needed the CDBG grant so that the [01:50:09] insurance companies would insure them. But unfortunately, the bottom line was I [01:50:15] was an applicant. And Debbie Mann will do anything in her power to hurt me and [01:50:21] every one of you know it, especially you Matt Murphy, because you did go to bat [01:50:25] for me. [01:50:25] Excuse me, excuse me, could you stay on topic please? [01:50:29] You are using my time, I reclaim my time. [01:50:32] You can, but you are not going to sit here and degrade us either. [01:50:35] Okay, I am sorry, but you are using up my time, so attach 25 seconds to that. [01:50:42] I am applying for this again, but the other thing that happened is that [01:50:48] application that I applied to the original CDBG grant went into a stamped [01:50:54] envelope and was put in the lockbox in Dale Hall's, who is now gone, partly [01:51:02] because of this situation, in that lockbox. I watched him do it, he grabbed [01:51:09] the key off the desk, unlocked the lockbox. Later, all of my financial [01:51:15] information, every ATM, everything, add that 25 seconds, was in those documents, [01:51:24] including all my tax information. Since that information was robbed out of [01:51:31] the lockbox that is in this building, I have been hacked into since January [01:51:37] four times. Just this week, I had to get yet another card and my account [01:51:45] had to be closed, all because of that missing documentation. I will be [01:51:51] applying again. This time, all of those documents are going to go to the [01:51:55] Attorney General's office. [01:52:00] Anybody else like to make a comment? If not, bring it back to public. [01:52:08] Bring it back for discussion and vote. [01:52:12] I'm going to move to approve. [01:52:15] Second. [01:52:16] Okay, so a few questions here. A question popped up about the CDBG funds [01:52:22] and then using the CRA. Using these funds here does not preclude us from [01:52:27] using CRA funds for home rehab, correct? [01:52:30] Using CRA funds as well, yes. [01:52:33] Okay, so the CRA can still be, if counsel wishes, or if it's already in [01:52:36] the, okay, perfect. The other thing, this waiver, is this a waiver until [01:52:43] the time of completion of, is this a permanent waiver or at some point [01:52:48] they need to have insurance? [01:52:50] Permanent waiver. [01:52:51] It's a waiver outright. So we're in the middle of a housing crisis [01:52:54] across the nation and I have been very critical of this staff when it [01:53:00] comes to the home rehabilitation programs that we have to offer. I've [01:53:04] been consistent on that message since 2018 and probably before that when [01:53:08] I was in middle school. I'm a homeowner. I don't have insurance on my [01:53:12] house because I can't afford it. The people across the street from me, [01:53:15] they were quite literally lived here for 15 years and they were priced [01:53:19] out of their home due to insurance. They couldn't afford it and they [01:53:23] had a mortgage. This could not come at a better time. I was very [01:53:28] frustrated with the city that they were not pursuing this quicker and [01:53:32] as we could see, it was underneath the consideration by the DEO. It's [01:53:36] here now. And this is a major step in the right direction. And as a [01:53:40] homeowner who doesn't have insurance on my property, I should be all in [01:53:44] favor of having an outright waiver, but I, excuse me, an outright no [01:53:48] insurance requirement. But regardless if the state requires it, HUD [01:53:52] requires it, or our city requires it, we realize we also have a [01:53:56] fiduciary responsibility to the task force to make sure that we have [01:53:59] it. The fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer is to realize if you [01:54:03] want a waiver because you don't have insurance and we can't ensure that [01:54:07] the investment that the city is making into a property is fulfilled, [01:54:11] then the public should be able to know what risks we have. And so I [01:54:15] think a waiver is an excellent compromise and that we're still [01:54:19] offering the open door for anyone to take part in this program, but at [01:54:23] the same time, we're making it known publicly where our assets lie. [01:54:26] Now, I do have one more question on the waivers, and that is you had [01:54:30] mentioned prior to the city manager that there is a list. And whether [01:54:34] that's an informal list or you had mentioned someone was at the top of [01:54:38] that list. So you clearly have some sort of list. We're introducing a [01:54:42] new element here. Does that wipe that list and give everyone a fair [01:54:46] shot to be put on this program to apply? [01:54:50] I want to make sure I understand your question. [01:54:53] The list is maintained by a third party, which is Guardian Services, [01:54:57] who's the administrator of the program. [01:55:01] Understood. Because in the past, maybe it was just said off the cuff, [01:55:05] but you had mentioned that someone who spoke at Vox Pop was at the top [01:55:09] of the list for this program. [01:55:13] Right. And if no information has changed? [01:55:17] And that is my question, is we're introducing a new element here, so [01:55:20] people who previously might have been told they could not apply because [01:55:24] they didn't have insurance, how do they get use of these funds? [01:55:28] How do they apply? [01:55:32] Apply for the waiver. [01:55:36] Because I'm reading the strike language here, the prior language says [01:55:40] that insurance is required. It is now saying that there's a waiver. [01:55:44] It would have said it's required at the time of completion of the [01:55:47] program. Now it says... [01:55:51] So me, for example, I'm not going to be able to afford insurance, let's just [01:55:55] say, in five years. So I wouldn't even apply for this program under the [01:55:59] prior agreement. So for people who could now apply for this because of [01:56:03] the waiver requirement, how are we making sure they have access to this [01:56:07] program? [01:56:11] Well, when we advertise for interested parties to participate in the [01:56:14] program, we'll say that one of the requirements is that you have [01:56:18] homeowners insurance at the time of application, but that a waiver is [01:56:22] one of the mechanisms you can employ if it creates some type of [01:56:26] hardship for you. [01:56:30] So can new people apply for this program? [01:56:34] They can. [01:56:38] Okay, good to know. [01:56:41] I agree with all of that. And I do think that because we have [01:56:45] fiduciary responsibility of these monies, right? So I put a new roof on [01:56:49] your house and you spend $20,000 and a hurricane hits it next week. [01:56:53] Now you're out, you don't have a roof, you don't have insurance, and [01:56:57] you're back to not having a roof, and we just spent $20,000 and we have [01:57:01] nothing to show for it. So that's why I think the insurance thing is a [01:57:05] good idea, but I do like having the waivers. And just a note to say is [01:57:08] that you have to come to City Council for approval. [01:57:12] That's the accountability. [01:57:16] Yeah, that's the accountability. You've got to have three out of the [01:57:20] five vote that in. So I do think that coming to City Council, we'll be [01:57:24] able to see all of those that do apply for waivers and request them. [01:57:28] But I think that we can't just give it to anybody with no insurance. [01:57:32] I think that that's a smarter way to do it. [01:57:35] I moved to approved and Kelly seconded it. [01:57:39] So sure. I think that bringing something with a person who is hard [01:57:43] up for money and has an economic problem, I just want to make sure [01:57:47] that we are sensitive to the information and the way in which it's [01:57:51] presented to us. So I don't think that as a council member I need to [01:57:55] scrutinize. I think the real question is the assurance that we have [01:57:58] that it is a subjective waiver. It's not an objective waiver. [01:58:02] That it's based on if you qualify under these terms, you get it. [01:58:06] And I'm happy to get the recognition that that's the case and make [01:58:10] the approval here. So I don't think that I'm intended to [01:58:14] scrutinize any of that. [01:58:18] But I do think that it is a subjective waiver. [01:58:22] It's not an objective waiver. [01:58:25] I don't think that I'm intended to scrutinize anybody's personal [01:58:29] income or status in life other than if it's required to come from us. [01:58:33] I don't know that there's much extra effort on our part other than [01:58:37] just trusting that it's been done that way. [01:58:41] The other thing, you know, if there's construction that's happening [01:58:45] to a house and there is a, you know, [01:58:49] a waiver given so that no insurance is done because someone can't [01:58:52] afford it, it doesn't remove the, let's say, [01:58:56] the incentive of the city to be sure that it is insured [01:59:00] and that even if it's construction insurance, [01:59:04] I know building my own house, I'd have a separate policy [01:59:08] that would ensure that, you know, the job would be paid [01:59:12] and the contractor would be paid. [01:59:16] If something happened in the midst of that and there wasn't an [01:59:19] insurance policy, you'd be stuck with a half put on roof [01:59:23] in the middle of a hurricane over, nobody has insurance, [01:59:27] and then we're going to suffer that cost. [01:59:31] So I think it would be a wise investment on the city's part [01:59:35] to make sure that we protect the investments in the property [01:59:39] that we seek to improve in the city through the grant [01:59:43] in some fashion, even if it's just protecting our investment, [01:59:46] can we get a new roof, can we get some kind of insurance [01:59:50] that the job will be completed and finished, [01:59:54] and that's a different kind of insurance, I think, [01:59:58] than homeowner's insurance. [02:00:00] I think that would be a wise part of our own use of public funds. [02:00:09] If I could just jump in, Mr. Mayor, I want to make sure that it's clear that the waiver [02:00:14] requests are not coming back to the City Council unless you require them. [02:00:19] And quite frankly, I would recommend that you not entertain those types of hearings [02:00:23] publicly for people's privacy concerns. [02:00:27] So it is up to the City Manager to grant the waivers. [02:00:29] You certainly can, you know, see what waivers are being granted and you can take over that [02:00:35] process if you feel it's necessary. [02:00:36] But this does not require that, so I just want to make that clear. [02:00:39] If I may ask a question. [02:00:45] Is that the without reasonably withheld by the City language that allows the City Manager [02:00:49] to do that? [02:00:50] Yeah, so the language is in subsection 8C. [02:00:54] And it just provides that the City will grant the waiver. [02:00:56] It doesn't say anything about the City Council doing it. [02:00:59] So I just want to make sure that that's clear. [02:01:03] When a waiver is made, is that public record? [02:01:06] Yes, all of these items are public record with very limited exceptions on what is released. [02:01:12] So all of this information, social security numbers, account numbers, essentially is about [02:01:18] it for what's protected. [02:01:20] Thank you for clarifying that because I wasn't the impression it can be City Council, but [02:01:23] it can still be the waivers. [02:01:25] So we know who has access to them can still be requested by anyone? [02:01:29] Yes. [02:01:30] Okay. [02:01:31] Yes. [02:01:32] Yeah, no, I'm glad we have the waiver because the first thing I thought of was, you know, [02:01:38] we run across this all the time is people's insurance run out, they have to get something [02:01:42] fixed or their insurance won't renew them. [02:01:46] And sometimes they'll grant a grace period, you know, until you get it fixed. [02:01:49] But a lot of times, you know, years have gone by. [02:01:51] So yeah, I can see a lot of people out there that need need work on their house and just [02:01:56] can't get insurance ahead of time, there's no way. [02:01:59] So I think it has to be in there. [02:02:01] Right, I don't really have anything really to offer, except the first word in everybody's [02:02:07] mind is insurance. [02:02:08] So all those in favor signify by aye. [02:02:12] Aye. [02:02:13] Those opposed. [02:02:14] So we have five nothing.

    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

    ↳You arrived here from a search for “Great Explorations Children's Museum” — transcript expanded below

    Parks and Recreation - Hometown Extravaganza Alcoholic Beverage Special Event Permit Request (Walk-On Item)

    approved

    Council approved a request from the New Port Richey Main Street Organization to sell beer and wine during the Hometown Extravaganza firework celebration on Saturday, June 29, 2024 from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The event will also serve as the city's centennial celebration kickoff. Following the vote, Megan Blanchard from the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council was introduced to the council.

    • motion:Approve the New Port Richey Main Street Organization's request to sell beer and wine at the Hometown Extravaganza on June 29, 2024 from 5–9 p.m. (passed)

    📍Peace Hall🏢Great Explorations Children's Museum🏢New Port Richey Main Street Organization🏢Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council👤Megan Blanchard👤Peter Altman#Centennial Celebration Kickoff#Fourth of July Celebration#Hometown Extravaganza

    ▶ Jump to 2:02:15 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [02:02:16] We have a walk on item is what they call it, I believe. [02:02:20] And it's from the Parks and Recreation, Hometown Extravagance Alcoholic Beverage Special Event [02:02:26] Permit Request. [02:02:28] Yes, we do. [02:02:30] We have a request that has been submitted by the New Port Richey Main Street Organization [02:02:39] to sell beer and wine in conjunction with the city's annual firework celebration on [02:02:47] Saturday, June 29 2024 between the hours of five o'clock p.m. and nine o'clock p.m. [02:02:59] This year, the name of the Fourth of July celebration is the Hometown Extravaganza. [02:03:06] It is it will include an expanded fireworks display, premier musical entertainment, some [02:03:14] contests and prizes and bounce houses for the kids, as well as a showing of the Great [02:03:22] Explorations Children's Museum Plantarium Show, which will be located in Peace Hall. [02:03:29] The entertainment starts at four o'clock. [02:03:32] And it additionally will serve as the city's centennial celebration kickoff. [02:03:38] Do we have any public? [02:03:41] We're recommending that you consider approval of their request to sell alcoholic beverages. [02:03:48] Do we have any public comment? [02:03:51] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back for discussion and vote. [02:03:55] Move approval. [02:03:56] Second. [02:03:58] Anything? [02:04:00] Looking forward to it. [02:04:02] Nope, didn't make it to it. [02:04:04] Red, white and blue. [02:04:06] Main streets, you know, picking out, you know, different, you know, modes of dress. [02:04:11] Everybody wear red and white and blue. [02:04:13] Okay. [02:04:14] All those in favor signify by aye. [02:04:16] Aye. [02:04:17] Those opposed. [02:04:18] You want to start out, Pete? [02:04:20] I would because I'd love to introduce someone that we have in the audience here from the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. [02:04:26] We have Megan Mariah Blanchard. [02:04:30] I probably got that part wrong. [02:04:33] There's an A in Mariah there, so you got me stumped for the third time today. [02:04:39] She is a coastal ecologist and is involved in the resiliency coalition and does planning and research, [02:04:47] and she's part of the beehive of staff, and she has been appointed to the city of New Port Richey. [02:04:56] I wonder, Mr. Mayor, since she sat through this whole meeting, if you could give her maybe, [02:05:01] and I could put her on the spot and ask her if she could come and introduce herself to us. [02:05:06] Glad to. [02:05:07] Could you? [02:05:08] Yeah. [02:05:09] Since she found her way here. [02:05:10] Yeah. [02:05:11] She might have to pull the mic down a little. [02:05:14] Thanks. [02:05:15] Can you hear me? [02:05:16] Hey. [02:05:17] Thanks for the introduction, Peter Altman. [02:05:19] I've met a couple of you. [02:05:21] Good to see you again. [02:05:23] Like Pete said, I'm Megan Blanchard, a coastal ecologist, [02:05:26] and part of TPRPC's mission right now is to make ourselves aware of the issues facing our cities, [02:05:32] and so my relationship with Councilman Altman is one where I can gather information about what sort of issues [02:05:40] you all are talking about here on the agenda, and we come back to TPRPC and we talk about this, [02:05:44] so we see a couple places are talking about housing assistance and tree ordinances and things, [02:05:50] so then I can connect different people with that information, and so nobody has to reinvent the wheel. [02:05:56] So I hope to be a resource to everyone, and I would like to meet their city manager at some point just to say hi, [02:06:04] and thanks for the opportunity to come up and speak, and I can take any questions if you like.

    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. 11Communications▶ 2:06:08
20. 12Adjournment