On the agenda

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

   Pledge of Allegiance

   The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

   ▶ Jump to 0:24 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:24] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America [00:00:31] and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, [00:00:36] indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

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

3. 4.a

   Board Re-Appointments: Kelly Smallwood, Frank Starkey and Bob Langford, Historic Preservation Board

   approved

   Council considered reappointment of Kelly Smallwood, Frank Starkey, and Bob Langford to the Historic Preservation Board for three-year terms ending August 1, 2027. Concerns were raised about whether all three would meet state certification standards for the board to be designated as a Certified Local Government. Council approved advancing Starkey and Langford as full members and moved Smallwood to an alternate seat.

   • motion:Move to reappoint Frank Starkey and Bob Langford as full members of the Historic Preservation Board and appoint Kelly Smallwood as an alternate. (passed)

   👤Bob Langford👤Councilman Butler👤Frank Starkey👤Kelly Smallwood#Certified Local Government designation#Historic Preservation Board#three-year term through August 1, 2027

   ▶ Jump to 0:42 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:42] Thank you. [00:00:43] First, we have business items, board reappointments [00:00:53] for Kelly Smallwood, Jeff Starkey, and Bob Lankford [00:00:57] on the historic preservation board. [00:01:00] These are new ones, right? [00:01:01] No, actually, these are previous ones. [00:01:03] And as a correction, it's Frank Starkey, not Jeff Starkey. [00:01:06] Oh, my mistake. [00:01:07] I didn't even know I made it. [00:01:09] And the term of office is for a three-year period of time. [00:01:14] I have one question first. [00:01:17] Aren't we reactivating this historical preservation board? [00:01:24] Our yes. [00:01:25] OK. [00:01:25] So these people were on it before? [00:01:27] They were, yes. [00:01:28] OK. [00:01:29] Go ahead, then. [00:01:30] I still have a question after that. [00:01:31] OK. [00:01:32] And if you see fit to approve them for a seat on board [00:01:42] for a three-year term, their term of office [00:01:44] would span through August 1st of 2027. [00:01:48] OK, I have a question here because I [00:01:50] did a little research on this. [00:01:52] And there's state certifications and requirements [00:01:56] by the state to get certifications and stuff. [00:01:59] Is that correct? [00:02:00] That is correct. [00:02:01] OK, now do these people qualify to be on the board as far [00:02:05] as us getting our certificate, for lack of a better term? [00:02:15] I'm certain that two of them. [00:02:22] Well, I noticed that next week we've got three more, right? [00:02:28] We actually have more than that. [00:02:30] OK, three or four next week, yeah. [00:02:32] OK, can we take these three and put them into next week [00:02:36] and you do some research on to make sure [00:02:37] that they all qualify to be on the board? [00:02:39] It helps us with the certification. [00:02:50] All right, there are two. [00:02:55] I want to make a distinction. [00:02:57] They're qualified to be on the board? [00:02:59] Yes. [00:03:01] Will they, or do they bear the qualifications necessary [00:03:11] when the city advances an application to the state [00:03:16] to be certified as a local, or having the local power [00:03:23] to designate? [00:03:25] Do these people all have qualifications [00:03:29] that are going to be of interest to the state? [00:03:33] No, they don't. [00:03:35] OK, then that's why I would, I mean these people, [00:03:37] I mean it's great that they're volunteering, [00:03:39] but I want us to be winners at the end. [00:03:43] So I'm asking if we could just table this [00:03:47] and you could check on this and the ones for next week. [00:03:50] Can I ask a question related to that, [00:03:52] since we're talking about qualifications? [00:03:55] Sure. [00:03:55] Is that OK with you? [00:03:56] All right. [00:03:57] So who determines the qualifications for the state? [00:04:02] So we're making a determination on whether they're qualified, [00:04:04] but it's the state who makes that determination. [00:04:08] Because I was in the- [00:04:09] For us to get certification, for us to get certification, [00:04:11] they have to be qualified by the state. [00:04:12] Right, right. [00:04:13] So what I'm getting at is tonight, [00:04:15] we are approving members to join a board. [00:04:18] And then eventually, the board is going to, [00:04:20] the city will apply for the state certification. [00:04:24] So we're saying during that certification process, [00:04:27] there is a chance that some of these will be deemed. [00:04:31] So I had a conversation with staff asking this question, [00:04:35] and quite a list of applications were presented. [00:04:39] And I was told that we don't know what the state will decide. [00:04:43] So now we're saying that they are not qualified. [00:04:49] I heard you say no. [00:04:50] Because I was previously told, you [00:04:53] can't know because it's the state who [00:04:54] makes that determination. [00:04:56] There's qualifications. [00:04:58] They set out areas or categories of what people should be in. [00:05:02] And these applications do not checkmark those categories. [00:05:05] We don't know that. [00:05:06] That's what I'm asking. [00:05:08] All right, let me try to clarify. [00:05:11] When Councilman Butler and I had the discussion, [00:05:16] I hadn't received any applications. [00:05:19] So it would have been difficult for me [00:05:21] to predict whether or not anyone was qualified [00:05:26] at that time. [00:05:28] And the state does outline in real general terms [00:05:34] the types of education or experience [00:05:38] that are of interest to them in respect to the membership [00:05:46] of the committee. [00:05:48] Now, with that being said, they do, in a very loose way, [00:05:54] allow you to make up a balance of the board [00:06:02] with certain individuals when there isn't availability [00:06:09] within the community to fill all of the seats [00:06:13] with all of the professional designations [00:06:16] that they'd like to see. [00:06:18] It is a big board. [00:06:19] It's an 11-member board. [00:06:23] Two seats of which are alternates. [00:06:26] So they might not even be seated on the board necessarily [00:06:31] because it's a nine-member voting board, which [00:06:38] is why I was comfortable tonight advancing [00:06:41] one member that doesn't necessarily [00:06:44] have the architectural history that Frank Starkey certainly [00:06:49] has. [00:06:52] That we can advance in the resume [00:06:55] that we'll submit along with his application to the state. [00:07:00] Or the experience and history that certainly Bob Langford [00:07:09] has that I'll submit in his resume to the state. [00:07:17] But I'm less confident that I'll be [00:07:21] able to build a strong case for Kelly Smallwood. [00:07:24] But she's served on it before, and she was a good member. [00:07:28] And to be clear, when we talk about that clause in there, [00:07:31] it says that those with an interest in history, [00:07:35] architecture, can make up the balance of the board. [00:07:38] That is the language that's used. [00:07:40] So as long as we have professional, [00:07:43] those who check off the boxes, professional interest [00:07:48] in history and architecture, the rest of the board [00:07:51] can be made up with the balance of those that have an interest. [00:07:54] Or like you said, I've previously served on the board, [00:07:57] and that justifies their interest [00:07:58] without jeopardizing any state certification. [00:08:01] That's your opinion. [00:08:03] That is a question. [00:08:04] That is a question I'm asking. [00:08:07] They're really asking for people with a demonstrated experience, [00:08:10] which is why they ask for resumes of our members [00:08:16] so that they can determine what experience our membership has [00:08:23] in the subject area. [00:08:24] So if I can address you, you have in the past [00:08:28] said that you trust staff to analyze and make [00:08:34] recommendations. [00:08:35] I didn't know. [00:08:35] I didn't say that. [00:08:37] You haven't said that? [00:08:38] I've accepted people that they've recommended, [00:08:40] but I didn't ever say that. [00:08:41] You said that you don't trust staff to do their job? [00:08:43] No, I didn't say that either. [00:08:46] That's different than what's been brought up [00:08:48] in prior meetings. [00:08:49] But my point is, is there any reason [00:08:54] to doubt state certification with the three applications [00:08:58] tonight and three applications tomorrow? [00:09:01] Or I mean August? [00:09:02] To you, I have confidence with the three [00:09:07] that we're advancing tonight that we're [00:09:09] on the way to building a board. [00:09:11] And I read the applications too, and I [00:09:13] got a similar impression. [00:09:15] But my concern is that the only person on there [00:09:18] with professional experience will end up [00:09:20] being Frank Starkey. [00:09:21] So that's a concern. [00:09:22] I'm not looking at particular individuals for your reference. [00:09:26] I'm looking at them as a group. [00:09:28] And I'm looking at our certification with the state. [00:09:31] Those names don't make any difference to me. [00:09:33] Maybe staff can correct me. [00:09:35] I didn't get any indication that they're doubtful [00:09:37] or that this would hurt state certification. [00:09:42] She did say that she could make one an alternate, or two [00:09:45] an alternate. [00:09:45] So if you have questions about one, then what about, [00:09:50] I can't do it because I'm the mayor, [00:09:52] but can we certify or appoint the two as an alternate? [00:10:02] But that means you guys have to do that, not me. [00:10:04] I will make, if that's OK, Mayor, I'll make a motion to. [00:10:09] Before you do that, you want to open it up to the public? [00:10:12] Yeah. [00:10:13] Do we have any comments from the public? [00:10:18] Seeing no one come forward, we'll [00:10:20] come back for approval and a vote. [00:10:27] I want to make sure that I articulated this clearly. [00:10:33] There are two different standards. [00:10:36] And the standard in our ordinance [00:10:39] does state that members should preferably have knowledge. [00:10:44] And they can be on the board if they preferably have knowledge. [00:10:48] That doesn't mean that we can advance those members [00:10:55] as the members that will provide the state [00:11:03] with the security of allowing us to be certified [00:11:07] as a designated unit of government [00:11:10] to certify historic properties. [00:11:12] That's a different standard. [00:11:14] But that's what I'm worried about. [00:11:15] All of a sudden, we have to come back in six months [00:11:17] and take people off and put people on. [00:11:20] Understood. [00:11:20] So what's the criteria for that? [00:11:21] Is it the same 11, or is there a little bit more elevated? [00:11:25] They want to demonstrate it. [00:11:26] I mean, is it for the full 11 of the board? [00:11:31] What's the number? [00:11:33] Nine. [00:11:34] That's why I said that. [00:11:35] So the alternates. [00:11:37] Right. [00:11:38] So I motion to move, if the concern is with Kelly Smallwood, [00:11:42] I motion to move her to alternate [00:11:44] and continue to advance the two other appointments. [00:11:48] That's my motion. [00:11:48] Do you have a second? [00:11:52] I'll second. [00:11:53] All those in favor, signify. [00:11:54] Are there any more comments before we move on? [00:11:58] Just to reiterate what you're saying, I don't want to. [00:12:03] I know that we gave you a 90-day deadline to get this done. [00:12:07] We've discussed that as a council. [00:12:09] If in the long term, it's going to jeopardize [00:12:13] state certification, that defeats the purpose. [00:12:15] And so I want to be abundantly clear. [00:12:16] I'm assuming, and we had a conversation at length [00:12:18] about this, where I've made it aware to you [00:12:21] that there was multiple applications in waiting. [00:12:23] I stressed, and I'm stressing now again now publicly, [00:12:27] that I'm assuming, and from what I've [00:12:29] read, that these are qualified applicants for state [00:12:31] certification, and that in your experience, [00:12:33] you agree with that assessment. [00:12:35] So going forward, do we need to? [00:12:40] I'm going to continue to make that assumption, [00:12:42] but now I'm a little concerned why Kelly and Smallwood made [00:12:44] it to a reappointment, if now we have concerns over her being [00:12:48] able to be state certified. [00:12:49] I think the answer, she said that. [00:12:51] As far as the city, it's fine. [00:12:53] It's the state that we're concerned about. [00:12:55] Right. [00:12:57] But she's on here. [00:13:00] I don't know. [00:13:01] Do you have a comment? [00:13:02] Do you have more comment? [00:13:03] So going forward, can we anticipate [00:13:05] that we're going to try to appoint people [00:13:06] that will reach state certification, [00:13:09] since that is the ultimate goal? [00:13:11] Since that is the ultimate goal, yes. [00:13:13] Which is why you only have three on the agenda tonight. [00:13:17] And I'm fine with the three, advancing the three. [00:13:20] We have to make sure that the rest fit the criteria. [00:13:24] That's all. [00:13:25] We just have to make sure of that. [00:13:26] That's all. [00:13:27] But I'm fine with these three advancing these three. [00:13:29] Wait, maybe one isn't all. [00:13:30] That's fine. [00:13:31] But I'm mindful, and with all due respect, [00:13:34] you've asked me to advance applications to you [00:13:38] as fast as I get them. [00:13:39] And so I am. [00:13:40] OK. [00:13:41] All right. [00:13:42] All right, all those in favor, say aye. [00:13:44] Aye.

   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.b

   Resolution No. 2024-13: Establish Tentative Millage for TRIM

   approved

   Council adopted Resolution 2024-13 establishing a tentative millage rate of 8.400 mils (the current rate) for inclusion on the Pasco County TRIM notice. Staff noted state revenues are coming in below last year, making a reduction difficult, but the rate can be lowered (not raised) before final budget adoption. The first public hearing on the tentative budget and millage was announced for September 10th at 6:00 p.m.

   Ord. Resolution No. 2024-13

   • motion:Approve Resolution 2024-13 establishing a tentative millage rate of 8.400 mils for the Pasco County TRIM notice. (passed)4–0

   #8.400 mils tentative millage rate#Pasco County TRIM notice#Resolution 2024-13#September 10 first public hearing on tentative budget

   ▶ Jump to 13:45 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:13:45] Those opposed, so it's 4-0. [00:13:49] All right, going on to resolution 2024-13, [00:13:54] establishing a tentative millage rate for trim. [00:13:59] This is resolution number 2024-13, [00:14:01] a resolution of the city council of the city of New Port Richey, Florida, establishing the tentative millage [00:14:05] rate for inclusion on the Pasco County trim notice. [00:14:14] The recommendation this year from the staff [00:14:21] is to set the trim notice at 8.400 mils [00:14:30] for use in the truth in millage notices. [00:14:33] That is our current millage rate. [00:14:37] And it is based on the fact that the resolution establishes [00:14:48] our maximum millage rate. [00:14:51] I know that the direction from council [00:14:55] has been that you would like us. [00:15:00] at the time we present our final budget to you to be able to reduce the millage rate [00:15:06] as we have been able to in previous years. I have to report to you, though, that of the [00:15:16] state revenues that have been reported to us thus far, all of them have been reported [00:15:23] to us at less than last year's numbers. It will be a very difficult year to do that. [00:15:31] We will continue to work to do so, and we are allowed under the law to reduce the millage [00:15:42] rate. We cannot increase the millage rate once we establish it this evening, but we [00:15:53] do have the flexibility under our budget review to reduce it if we are able to do so, and [00:16:02] we will all be working to make sure that we are able to if it is within a possibility [00:16:10] to do so. The first public hearing on the tentative budget and the millage rate will [00:16:18] be on September 10th through 24th at 6 o'clock p.m., and it, of course, will not conflict [00:16:27] with the school board or the county that evening. [00:16:31] Do we have any public comment? Seeing no one conform, we will bring it back for a vote [00:16:38] for approval. [00:16:39] Second. [00:16:40] Comments? [00:16:41] No. [00:16:42] All those in favor, signify by aye. [00:16:47] Aye. [00:16:48] Those opposed, 4-0.

   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. 4.c

   Resolution No. 2024-09: Declaring a Local State of Emergency RE: Invest 97L

   approved

   Council adopted Resolution 2024-09 declaring a local state of emergency in anticipation of impacts from Invest 97L, effective 12:00 a.m. August 2 for a seven-day period with possible seven-day extensions, waiving procurement and contracting formalities. The motion included authorization for the city clerk to insert the date and order number of the governor's corresponding state of emergency order.

   Ord. Resolution No. 2024-09

   • motion:Motion to approve Resolution 2024-09 declaring a local state of emergency due to Invest 97L, with authority granted to the city clerk to include the date and order number of the governor's state of emergency order. (passed)4–0

   👤Mayor#Governor's state of emergency order#Invest 97L#National Weather Service advisory#Resolution 2024-09

   ▶ Jump to 16:49 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:16:49] Okay, moving on to Resolution 20-2409, Declaration of Local State of Emergency. [00:16:57] This is Resolution number 20-2409, resolution by the City Council of the City of New Port Richey, Florida, declaring a local state of emergency due to the impacts associated [00:17:07] with InVEST 97-L, which is anticipated to move across the state of Florida, and declaring [00:17:13] an effective date. [00:17:14] The National Weather Service, as I'm sure most of you are already aware, has issued [00:17:21] an advisory related to InVEST 97-L, and it is expected to hit the Gulf of Mexico this [00:17:34] weekend, where it is due to develop in a precautionary measure. [00:17:43] We are asking you today to issue a local state of emergency so that we're prepared for any [00:17:50] impacts to our area that may occur as a result of the strengthening system, and the state [00:18:01] of emergency is to be effectuated as of 12 o'clock a.m. on August 2nd, it is to run for [00:18:17] a seven-day period of time, and to be extended as necessary for an additional seven-day increments [00:18:27] as appropriate, and it covers the waiving of all procedures, and formalities that are [00:18:41] involved with entering into contracts, largely, and the employ of workers and rental equipment, [00:18:50] and things like that that might be necessary for the city to effectuate in order to provide [00:18:58] service to our residents and members of our business community. [00:19:04] Do we have any public comment? [00:19:08] Seeing none, bring it back for discussion and vote. [00:19:11] Mr. Mayor, if I could just insert one comment. [00:19:14] If you would, in the motion to approve, would you also grant the city clerk the authority [00:19:19] to include the date and order number of the governor's order declaring the state of emergency? [00:19:27] I'll move to approve with that language. [00:19:30] I'll second. [00:19:31] No comment. [00:19:34] Good. [00:19:35] Everybody got connections? [00:19:37] Get it out in the Gulf. [00:19:40] All right, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. [00:19:42] Aye. [00:19:43] Those opposed? [00:19:44] Four nothing. [00:19:46] Moving on to communications.

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

6. 5Communications▶ 19:47
7. 3

   Moment of Silence

   Moment of silence.
8. 6Adjournment