On the agenda

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

   Pledge of Allegiance

   Pledge of Allegiance recited.

   ▶ Jump to 0:22 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 [00:00:28] and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, [00:00:33] indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [00:00:39] 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. 4

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

   approved

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

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

   ▶ Jump to 0:40 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:50] The approval of the July 16, 2024 work session [00:00:53] regular meeting minutes. [00:00:56] Move to approve. [00:00:57] Second. [00:00:58] All those in favor? [00:00:59] Aye. [00:01:00] Opposed? [00:01:02] 5-0.

   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.

4. 5.aVox Pop for Items Not Listed on the Agenda or Listed on Consent Agenda▶ 1:03
5. 6.a

   Purchases/Payments for City Council Approval

   approvedon consent

   Council approved the consent agenda item for purchases and payments requiring City Council approval.

   • vote:Approve purchases/payments for City Council approval on the consent agenda. (passed)5–0

   ▶ Jump to 9:26 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:09:26] Consent agenda, purchase payments for the city council to approve. [00:09:33] Second. [00:09:34] All those in favor, signify by aye. [00:09:36] Aye. [00:09:37] Aye. [00:09:38] Aye. [00:09:39] Those opposed, 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.

6. 7.a

   Second Reading, Ordinance No. 2024-2303: Amendments to Chapter 22, Code of Ordinances RE: Flood Damage Prevention

   approved

   Council conducted the second and final reading of Ordinance No. 2024-2303, amending Chapter 22 of the Land Development Code regarding flood damage prevention. The amendments support the city's effort to improve its Community Rating System class (currently Class 7) under the National Flood Insurance Program, including requiring manufactured homes in flood hazard areas to be elevated at least one foot above base flood elevation and requiring foundations for one/two family dwellings to be designed by registered design professionals. The ordinance passed 5-0.

   Ord. Ordinance No. 2024-2303

   • motion:Motion to approve Ordinance No. 2024-2303 on second reading, amending Chapter 22 of the Land Development Code regarding flood damage prevention. (passed)5–0

   👤Matt👤Mayor#Chapter 22 Land Development Code#Community Rating System#ELAP program#FEMA rating#Great Preserve#National Flood Insurance Program#Ordinance No. 2024-2303

   ▶ Jump to 9:40 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:09:40] Public reading of ordinances. [00:09:41] The second reading of ordinance number 2024-2303. [00:09:45] Amendments to chapter 12 code of ordinances of flooding damage protection. [00:09:50] This is ordinance number 2024-2303, an ordinance of the city of New Port Richey, [00:09:55] Florida, providing for amendment of chapter 22 of the land development code. [00:09:58] Pertaining to flood damage prevention, providing for amendment of section 2202-0-0, [00:10:03] pertaining to an updated flood insurance study, providing for amendment of section 2205-0-2, [00:10:09] pertaining to standards in flood hazard areas without base flood elevations. [00:10:14] Providing for amendment of section 2207-0-5, updating the Florida building code reference. [00:10:19] Providing for amendment of section 2209-0-4, pertaining to definitions of terms used in [00:10:24] the flood regulations. [00:10:26] Providing for amendment of section 2210-0-0, providing for building code amendments, providing [00:10:31] for amendment of section 2212-0-1 pertaining to compensatory fill. [00:10:36] Providing for amendment of section 2212-0-6, pertaining to exemptions on placement of fill [00:10:42] in flood areas. [00:10:44] Providing for amendment of section 2213-0-0, pertaining to elevation of manufactured homes [00:10:50] in flood areas. [00:10:51] Providing for amendment of subsection 5 of section 2216-0-1, pertaining to additional [00:10:58] elevation of mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems in flood areas. [00:11:03] Providing for a new section 2218-0-0, pertaining to prohibition of hazardous materials, providing [00:11:09] for severability, providing for conflicts, providing for codification, and providing [00:11:14] an effective date. [00:11:16] I would like to, Mr. Mayor, thank you for the opportunity to do so. [00:11:23] As you are all aware, this agenda item relates specifically to our National Flood Insurance [00:11:31] Program and more specifically to our community, to the community rating system of which the [00:11:38] city is interested in improving our rating. The city is currently a class 7, which provides [00:11:46] an entitlement to citizens who purchase flood insurance policies to a discount of 15%. [00:11:58] We are currently being reassessed for a designation, which is what's prompting us to make amendments [00:12:06] to Chapter 22 of our Code of Ordinances in respect to the flood damage prevention section. [00:12:17] And there are two main provisions of the ordinance that we are requesting change in. And the [00:12:28] first one relates to manufactured homes that are either installed or replaced in flood [00:12:33] hazard areas. And the new standard is that they must be elevated to at least one foot [00:12:40] above the base flood elevation. [00:12:44] The second requirement is that foundations for one or two family dwellings in flood hazard [00:12:52] areas are to be, require foundations that are designed by registered design professionals [00:13:04] Now, I'm sure you're thinking, don't we do that already? Yes we do, but it isn't memorialized [00:13:11] in any of our codes. And so we are inserting it now at this time in this ordinance. There [00:13:18] are also a number of definitions that we are changing as a part of this ordinance as indicated [00:13:26] by the city attorney in the title, the definition of market value, and also a reference to new [00:13:35] or an expansion of mobile home has been removed. We are amending mention to compensatory storage [00:13:47] and we have established a standard for elevation for electrical, plumbing, water and sewage [00:13:56] work on mobile home units. And all of that was addressed at your first reading of the [00:14:05] ordinance and the staff is recommending this evening that you conduct your second and final [00:14:12] reading of the ordinance. And I'm prepared to respond to any questions that you may have [00:14:17] related to the draft ordinance. [00:14:18] Do we have any public comment? Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to staff for discussion. [00:14:26] I'm going to move to approve on the second reading. [00:14:30] I commented on the last time it came up and I'll just say again that this is important. [00:14:40] You staff were here late after hours. They were here on the weekends. They've been looking [00:14:45] at this and a bunch of other ways that we can start chipping away at getting that rating [00:14:49] down to 5 to save almost 25% on some of these flood insurance. This is one of the many ways [00:14:57] that our city is going to [00:15:00] camp in our residence, and it serves a secondary purpose that we said that we wanted to clean up some of our ordinances, and so we're doing that, too. [00:15:07] So thank you, staff, for looking at this. [00:15:08] Yeah, I certainly support this ordinance as it's written. [00:15:15] There's a lot of work yet for us to do as a city that has such an enormous amount of floodplain within it. [00:15:22] So the purpose of this ordinance has been identified to help with our FEMA rating. [00:15:29] I would say that the goal of moving the rate to five requires understanding what it will take to move the rate to five, [00:15:42] and that includes the designation of stormwater areas and a whole bunch of things. [00:15:49] So it's a good step forward. [00:15:52] I think it would be helpful for us as a council to become more educated on just what it would take to do that. [00:16:00] Every step toward five doesn't mean we're getting closer until we know how the grades work and how the scales work. [00:16:08] One thing that is noteworthy, though, in terms of that effort that I want to slip into this discussion [00:16:13] was what I shared with you all at our work session, I believe, [00:16:17] which is that the county has acquired the 10 acres next to the Great Preserve. [00:16:22] Our 80 acre plus additional land acquired behind it must be 90, 95. [00:16:27] We're closing in on 100 acre consolidated site of wetland and natural preservation land. [00:16:35] The county purchased it through their ELAP program, and it is in an enclave. [00:16:41] And so I would suggest if we could get the county to let us annex that in [00:16:46] because adding an additional 10 acres of wetland to our list in our city limits would probably be a good help, [00:16:54] especially since with the help of them paying some $650,000, I think, for that property. [00:17:01] But the good news is the property has been protected, and it also is seriously needed [00:17:06] because of the real danger of a storm that actually hits us [00:17:12] and the effect that it can have on the meadows and points in that area of town. [00:17:16] So this is a good step. Thank you for bringing to it. I support it. [00:17:21] Matt? [00:17:22] Yeah, anything we can do to bring insurance rates down. [00:17:24] I mean, insurance is out of control all the time. [00:17:27] It seems like it never goes down, always up, right? [00:17:31] And also, it brings us up to compliance with most every other code and building code [00:17:38] being above the floodplain level. [00:17:41] So it's just, to me, it makes sense. [00:17:45] I agree. It makes sense for our residents. [00:17:48] It makes sense for us. [00:17:50] The ordinance needs to be reviewed, so that's a good thing. [00:17:53] All those in favor, signify by aye. [00:17:55] Aye. [00:17:56] Those opposed, 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.

7. 7.b

   First Reading, Ordinance No. 2024-2292: Amendments to TDR Ordinance

   approved

   Council held first reading of Ordinance No. 2024-2292, amending Chapter 20 of the Land Development Code regarding the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. The amendments clarify permitted uses on sending sites, require sending/receiving designations to be set in PDD zoning approval, eliminate the requirement for a future land use map amendment to accept land into the entitlement bank, and replace 'non-residential category' with 'appropriate category.' Motion to approve passed 5-0; this is companion to the Dominion Apartments project items.

   Ord. Ordinance No. 2024-2292

   • motion:Move approval of Ordinance No. 2024-2292 amending the TDR ordinance on first reading. (passed)5–0

   📍10 acres behind Gulf Harbors going over to Trouble Creek📍corner of Marine Parkway🏢Port Richey Leased Housing Associates👤Councilman Holland#Chapter 20 Land Development Code#City entitlement bank#Coastal High Hazard Area#Dominion Apartments Project#Ordinance No. 2024-2292#Section 20-03-00#Section 20-04-00#Section 20-05-00#Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program

   ▶ Jump to 17:58 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:17:58] Moving on to the first read of ordinance 2024-2292, amendment to the TDR ordinance. [00:18:06] This is ordinance number 2024-2292, an ordinance of the city of Newport Ridge, Florida, [00:18:10] providing for amendment of section 20-03-00, [00:18:14] chapter 20 of the land development code, [00:18:16] pertaining to permitted uses in the transfer of development rights program, [00:18:21] providing for amendment of section 20-04-00, [00:18:24] of chapter 20 of the land development code, [00:18:26] pertaining to plan development districts in the transfer of development rights program, [00:18:31] providing for amendment of section 20-05-00, [00:18:34] of chapter 20 of the land development code, [00:18:36] pertaining to transfers of development rights, [00:18:39] providing for severability, providing for conflicts, [00:18:41] providing for codification, [00:18:43] and providing an effective date. [00:18:47] The city's transfer of development rights program [00:18:51] is a voluntary program [00:18:52] that exists within the coastal high hazard area of the city. [00:18:57] And the program, in large part, [00:19:02] allows the seller of development rights [00:19:07] to reduce the amount of density on their property. [00:19:11] And the seller of development rights still owns the property, [00:19:18] but they are prevented from being, [00:19:21] prevented from further developing the property [00:19:24] through use of a restrictive covenant on the property. [00:19:29] The purpose of the revisions being proposed to chapter 20 [00:19:35] of the land development code this evening [00:19:39] are, first, to clarify the potential land uses of sending sites. [00:19:45] Second, to advance the requirement that the designation of property [00:19:51] as either a sending or receiving site [00:19:54] shall be set forth in the PDD zoning approval [00:19:58] and shall constitute a modification to an existing PDD approval. [00:20:03] Third, to eliminate the requirement [00:20:06] that a future land use map amendment [00:20:09] is required to accept land into the city entitlement bank. [00:20:14] And lastly, to add four other appropriate category [00:20:23] on a sending site in lieu of a non-residential area. [00:20:26] And that's noted under the transfer of development rights [00:20:32] to 0.05.00 subsection two future land use map. [00:20:40] The word appropriate is inserted in front of non-residential category, [00:20:44] which is slated out. [00:20:49] And the, I'm prepared to respond to questions [00:20:55] that you may have related to this ordinance. [00:20:59] I do have to say that it is companion to the next two agenda items, [00:21:06] which all relate to the Dominion Apartments Project. [00:21:15] Do we have any public comment? [00:21:17] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back for discussion and vote. [00:21:20] What's up, guys? [00:21:27] Does anybody want to say anything? [00:21:32] I'll move approval for purpose of discussion. [00:21:34] Do we have a second? [00:21:36] Second. [00:21:38] Go ahead. [00:21:40] Okay, so the, just for a little more, I guess, [00:21:47] public information for my own edification. [00:21:50] The transfer of density rights, which is a term [00:21:53] that everyone might not be familiar with, [00:21:56] as I understand it, relates to the density rights [00:22:00] of property in the coastal high hazard area. [00:22:03] Would that be correct statement? [00:22:05] And the coastal high hazard area is different [00:22:08] from the FEMA flood maps or the floodplains. [00:22:11] It's specifically the word coastal, I think, [00:22:15] is critical in understanding what we're talking about, [00:22:17] if I'm not mistaken. [00:22:19] So we're basically talking about land that is [00:22:22] on the west side of Highway 19 that's dedicated. [00:22:26] I don't know how much land we have that's not on the west side [00:22:29] of 19, if any, that's on the coastal high hazard area. [00:22:32] So I think it would be helpful to make sure [00:22:35] that we have a good recognition of what it is that we are doing. [00:22:41] And as I understand it, I'd like maybe the attorney to correct me [00:22:45] if I'm wrong, because I want [00:22:45] to make sure I have a good understanding of this, [00:22:48] that we are basically saying that where there are properties [00:22:53] that have density rights already that that land holds, [00:22:59] that we can allow that property [00:23:04] to transfer those development rights into a fund [00:23:11] that the city holds through purchase or contribution [00:23:15] or however we get to get them that can be used [00:23:20] for perhaps some maybe denser, maybe more vertical [00:23:25] and stronger growth and development within that area [00:23:29] that might appropriately be able to survive the risks [00:23:35] of flood and damage. [00:23:36] So we're not just moving rights [00:23:40] within the coastal high hazard area, but I do recall also [00:23:44] that our provision allows for a little more flexibility [00:23:47] than it initially had. [00:23:49] So it would be helpful for me if we could get a little bit [00:23:52] of a just recap, especially since there was some hesitation [00:23:56] on us to make sure we have a clear understanding of that. [00:23:59] Now, it sounded like the requested amendments [00:24:04] to the ordinance specifically relate to some [00:24:07] of the legal procedures involved in how this happens. [00:24:11] So if it's all right with the second, I would like to see [00:24:15] if we could get a little bit of just description beyond [00:24:19] into the legalities of what I've said [00:24:22] and what we're asking to be done. [00:24:25] Yes, I'm fine with that. [00:24:27] So this program dates back some time. [00:24:30] I don't remember exactly when it was started, [00:24:32] but when it was first started, it was a program [00:24:35] that really only pertained to city-owned properties. [00:24:39] And so we made some modifications to the program [00:24:42] in an ordinance that was approved [00:24:44] by this council last year that opened it [00:24:46] up to private properties. [00:24:48] And the original format was to essentially, [00:24:53] and the whole idea behind this is that you go [00:24:56] into the coastal high hazard area and you try [00:24:58] to limit development there where there's going to be issues [00:25:01] with flooding and potential evacuations [00:25:04] and those types of things. [00:25:05] And instead of having that development there, [00:25:07] it's moved outside the coastal high hazard area. [00:25:11] So those can be receiving sites outside the area [00:25:14] that get these credits from these properties [00:25:16] within the area. [00:25:18] A lot of times what you have is you have open space [00:25:21] or conservation areas. [00:25:23] Those are the areas that are kept undeveloped [00:25:26] during the credit process in the coastal high hazard area. [00:25:32] And then those owners are giving up the right [00:25:35] to develop that property. [00:25:36] And so they're given something in return [00:25:38] and that is they're given some consideration [00:25:41] for these credits, the credits go in the bank [00:25:43] and they get used elsewhere. [00:25:44] This change is now dealing with the situation [00:25:49] where you're not completely stopping development [00:25:53] in an area or a portion of the site, [00:25:55] but you're lowering the overall development [00:25:57] which still meets the goals of reducing density [00:26:00] in the coastal high hazard area. [00:26:02] And so our ordinances were not set up [00:26:05] and our land use plan has to be amended as well [00:26:08] to accommodate these changes. [00:26:10] And so that's what this is going to do. [00:26:12] It's going to allow you to basically [00:26:14] take a cap off the density, [00:26:17] restrict that property into perpetuity [00:26:19] through a covenant running with the land [00:26:21] that'll never be developed to that density. [00:26:23] And then that density goes in the bank [00:26:25] and then the city can sell that to a developer [00:26:28] outside the coastal high hazard area that can use them. [00:26:31] So that's really what this does. [00:26:32] This is more of a cleanup to make that process [00:26:35] more friendly to not the total inability [00:26:40] to develop anything on the site, [00:26:42] but to reduce the density and the population [00:26:45] that will be added to that site. [00:26:48] If the second will allow, I'll just follow up [00:26:50] and then I'll be done, but I appreciate the clarification. [00:26:55] I do have one sort of nuance to what you've said, [00:26:59] which is that the goal was to move it [00:27:04] from the high hazard area out of it. [00:27:07] That is a goal, but when we modified this, [00:27:11] we allowed for that transfer [00:27:13] outside of that high hazard area. [00:27:15] But I do not believe that we're restricting [00:27:18] other development that's appropriate [00:27:21] in the high hazard area. [00:27:22] So as example, the big hotel at the corner of Marine Parkway [00:27:28] I'm guessing is in the high hazard area. [00:27:31] And I think that when we acquired the 10 acres [00:27:35] that were behind Gulf Harbors going over to Trouble Creek, [00:27:38] the concept was that that density that existed there [00:27:41] could be used to be applied to a commercial property [00:27:44] that didn't have any density. [00:27:46] So my caveat would be, and I know that the governor [00:27:50] has spoken about the desire to find ways [00:27:53] for us to hold on to our properties [00:27:58] and use them to the extent that he's even suggested [00:28:01] structures that could be in the Gulf of Mexico. [00:28:06] So I don't think that the idea [00:28:10] that we would do normal construction in those areas [00:28:13] would be the goal and I would agree to move it out. [00:28:17] But I do think that as technology and building permits [00:28:21] and structural engineering is able [00:28:26] and to develop in an elevated way or whatever, [00:28:28] that we haven't shut the door to transfers [00:28:32] that could occur if very expensive construction techniques [00:28:36] or otherwise was suggested. [00:28:37] So am I wrong or it's not exclusively has to move out [00:28:42] of the area unless that's something that's changed [00:28:45] that I'm not aware of. [00:28:47] The idea is to try to move that development out, [00:28:49] but it is a voluntary program. [00:28:51] So it's not, this is not mandated on a property owner. [00:28:54] They come forward and they say we wanna voluntarily [00:28:58] restrict our development and then we want these credits. [00:29:00] It goes into a bank that we have as a city. [00:29:04] So my question is, once again, [00:29:06] the restrictions to the city on its ability [00:29:09] to parlay those development rights out [00:29:13] to the right project wherever it might be. [00:29:16] And I'm not sure that I recall ever restricting [00:29:19] the usage to be forced out of that area. [00:29:24] And I can verify that, and I think you're right. [00:29:27] I think that we don't restrict it that way. [00:29:30] It's really up to the council and that's why [00:29:32] it's all those come back to you to make those decisions. [00:29:35] And then you use, like you said, [00:29:36] there might be technologies that say, wait a minute, [00:29:39] this can be used within the coastal high hazard area. [00:29:41] But I'll double check that for second reading [00:29:43] and make sure I have an answer for that if it's different. [00:29:45] That satisfies me, thank you. [00:29:47] I did, yeah, and I guess that was kind of my question too, [00:29:51] is we're taking these CDRs from a property [00:29:54] and then we're kind of, I don't know, you know. [00:30:00] Keeping us from doing anything with the land other than what it was previously set for as far as density. [00:30:09] Is that kind of tying our hands or is it, you know, is there any way we come back to that? [00:30:16] If like we were saying with structural and, you know, those kind of things, where it would be okay in the future? [00:30:24] Well, as I said, the beauty of the program is for the sending sites, it's completely voluntary. [00:30:31] And then secondarily, this council has to approve any sending site requests and any receiving site requests. [00:30:39] So you have total control. [00:30:40] Everything will come back to you, and then you'll be able to look at all the issues. [00:30:44] And I will check to make sure that it doesn't restrict transfers within the coastal high hazard area, [00:30:51] even though that's not really the purpose behind it. [00:30:53] But as Councilman Holland said, you know, there may be some technological advances or techniques, [00:30:59] and we wouldn't want to foreclose that. [00:31:01] I think that's your main point. [00:31:02] Yeah. [00:31:06] I definitely would agree with that, too. [00:31:08] And as long as we can clarify that, I think I'm good with it, too. [00:31:12] My turn? [00:31:14] All right. [00:31:15] For the elimination of the future land use map amendment, what is the change that's happening there? [00:31:23] So right now, if we approve something with TDR, we also have to get it amended with the future land use map? [00:31:30] Or what's the consequence of eliminating that? [00:31:33] Well, currently the land use plan provides for receiving sites only. [00:31:38] It doesn't really apply for sending sites. [00:31:42] And that's what the amendments we need to make to the land use plan are, [00:31:45] because the sending sites up to this point have all been city properties. [00:31:49] So the land use plan will restrict the sending sites and the receiving sites based on these transfer development rights. [00:32:00] And what we're going to probably do, and that's going to be something that's going to come before you in the future, [00:32:05] is create a land use category for these sending sites, [00:32:09] just so that we have an internal mechanism to know when a site has been restricted. [00:32:14] There's going to be a covenant running with the land that will be legally enforceable, [00:32:18] but just to have a mechanism internally say this is, we'll probably call it something like transfer of development rights, [00:32:24] or something like that, a subcategory or maybe a land use category in and of itself, [00:32:30] so that we know that that site has been restricted in some way, [00:32:34] and so development on that site is forever restricted to whatever the number of credits were that they got. [00:32:41] So when we approved some council meetings ago to direct staff to enter an agreement with the property by Marine Parkway, [00:32:52] and those transfer rights are intended to be gifted to the city if an agreement is made, [00:32:58] was that impacted by this agreement, or was that okay with the current language? [00:33:03] Yeah, that was okay with what we have. [00:33:05] This is just addressing an issue that's created by new development that wants to simply restrict its sending site density [00:33:14] without completely restricting the use of it. [00:33:17] Okay. [00:33:18] So that's why these changes are made. [00:33:20] Like, for instance, one of the requirements was it had to be in a non-residential category. [00:33:24] We've taken that out, just whatever appropriate category, [00:33:27] and again, that will be up to this council when those applications come forward. [00:33:31] And do we know what's the current credits in the entitlement bank? [00:33:35] I don't know. [00:33:37] The current entitlement is? [00:33:38] How many credits are in the bank now? [00:33:40] No, we do not know what the total is at this time. [00:33:43] I can't report to you on that, but I can at a future date. [00:33:48] Okay. [00:33:49] All the questions asked. [00:33:51] All those in favor, signify by aye. [00:33:53] Aye. [00:33:55] Those opposed, 5-0. [00:33:57] Okay, moving on to transfer of development rights density credits agreement with New Port Richey Leased Housing Associates.

   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.

8. 8.a

   Transfer of Development Rights Density Credit Agreement w/Port Richey Leased Housing Associates III, LLLP

   discussed

   Council considered authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Density Credit Agreement with New Port Richey Leased Housing Associates III, LLLP for the Ankara Gulf Harbors / Dominion Apartments project — a 388-unit low-to-moderate income senior apartment complex at the NE corner of Marine Parkway and Seaforest Drive. The developer would convey 279 density credits (appraised at $24,146,900); 23.2 credits (~$2,011,674.78) would offset waived city permit/impact fees and 255.8 credits (~$22,135,225.22) would be a charitable donation. The agreement is contingent on the city updating its comprehensive plan, with a fallback fee-waiver agreement as the next agenda item.

   • motion:Motion to approve the Transfer of Development Rights Density Credit Agreement with New Port Richey Leased Housing Associates, with authorization for the City Manager to make non-substantial modifications subject to the City Attorney's review. (none)

   📍Northeast corner of Marine Parkway and Seaforest Drive🏢Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)🏢Dominion Apartments🏢Pasco County🏢Port Richey Leased Housing Associates III, LLLP👤Kelly👤Pete👤Peter Altman#$2,011,674.78 estimated waived city fees#$22,135,225.22 charitable contribution#$3 million Pasco County contribution#$80,679,730 estimated construction value#$86,548 per unit appraisal (May 25, 2023)#279 density credits donation#388-unit senior apartment complex#Ankara Gulf Harbors project#Appraised value $24,146,900#Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment#Development Fee Agreement (fallback / Plan B)#Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Density Credit Agreement

   ▶ Jump to 34:10 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:34:10] The request before you this evening is to authorize the city manager [00:34:14] to enter into a transfer of development rights density credit agreement [00:34:19] with New Port Richey Leased Housing Associates in respect to the Ankara Gulf Harbors project, [00:34:27] and that is what we commonly refer to as the Dominion Apartments Project. [00:34:33] It is to be constructed on a 27.7-acre parcel of property located at the northeast corner of Marine Parkway and Seaforest Drive. [00:34:44] It is proposed to be a 388-unit apartment complex which will house low- to moderate-income seniors, [00:35:00] and it has a maximum density on the property of 667 units. [00:35:11] So therefore, there is a balance of 279 units on the property which they would like to donate to the city's bank, in short. [00:35:30] Our ordinance relating to the donation of units sets forth a method by which to establish a value whereby you use an appraised value. [00:35:49] The property was appraised to determine an appraised value, and the appraised value was $86,548 per unit, [00:36:03] which calculates out to an appraised value of $24,146,900, and that appraisal was conducted on May 25th of 2023. [00:36:20] Dominion, as you are aware, at some point in the establishment of their financing as a result of the escalation of construction costs, [00:36:40] came up with a sizable funding gap, and the county joined them as a partner and committed to a $3 million contribution to the project. [00:36:57] And they asked the city to make a contribution to the project by way of waiving permit fees, impact fees, and other development fees associated with the project, [00:37:14] which calculated out to an estimated amount of $2,011,674.78. [00:37:29] The project's estimated value in construction is $80,679,730, for your reference. [00:37:47] The way this development rights density credit agreement has been structured is that the calculation for the development rights is used as a basis for the agreement, [00:38:10] and the owner of the property would convey to the city its $279 density credits, and the density credits in the amount of $23.2 would be used to abate the city fees. [00:38:30] That would leave a remaining balance of $255.8 to be donated in the form of a charitable contribution in the sum of $22,135,225.22 to the city on behalf of the New Port Richey Leased Housing Associates. [00:39:00] The agreement that we have presented to you this evening does just that. [00:39:07] It establishes the structure of an agreement that would provide for the city to waive the fees associated with the construction and inspection costs associated with the project, [00:39:30] to accept development credits in the amount of $279, I'm sorry, $255.8 density credits, [00:39:46] and to accept a charitable donation from the LLLP in the amount of $22,135,225.22. [00:40:04] The staff is recommending that you authorize the city, authorize me to enter into a transfer of development rights density credit agreement with New Port Richey Leased Housing Associates. [00:40:17] Related to this arrangement, I have to tell you that this arrangement is based on a contingency that the city updates its comprehensive plan in advance of the onset of construction. [00:40:41] Because we have to have it updated in order to effectuate the transfer of the development rights. [00:40:51] So the next item on your agenda is our fallback position. [00:40:59] Should we not be able to update the master plan in enough time to beat them out of the gate? [00:41:13] And I'll explain that to you in detail as we get into the next agenda item of how we would pay the fees if not being able to just waive them and take them out of the density credits. [00:41:31] Any public comment at this point? [00:41:35] Seeing no one come forward, we'll bring it back for... [00:41:38] Mr. Mayor, if I could add something to the agenda as well. [00:41:42] These agreements have been some, there's been some discussion between the developers and us with regard to the terms of the agreements. [00:41:52] Some of which we've agreed to and some of which we haven't and we're still negotiating the final terms. [00:41:59] So I would ask for, if you move to approve this particular agenda item and the one next, that you authorize the city manager to execute those documents with modifications as necessary to reach an agreement with the developer on the terms of it. [00:42:14] It would be modifications that don't change the overall numbers or the important elements, but maybe some language changes that we're still working on. [00:42:23] So I'd ask for you to include that in your motion. [00:42:25] And we would fully present those to you at your second reading. [00:42:29] All right, go ahead and bring it back for discussion and vote. [00:42:33] Mr. Mayor, I don't know if it would be appropriate, but it would be helpful for me to have the full description of the second item as well since they seem to be complementary. [00:42:45] They're linked. [00:42:48] I did. [00:42:50] I wouldn't mind if we had the full discussion and then we can take the votes one at a time if that's all right with you all. [00:42:56] I think that's a great suggestion, Councilman Allman. [00:42:58] So if you'll allow me to just jump into the development fee agreement with New Port Richey Leased Housing Associates. [00:43:08] This is the agreement that was developed in respect to the contingency plan. [00:43:22] And it's an amendment. [00:43:24] It is contingent upon an amendment not being made to the city's comprehensive land use plan. [00:43:32] And so in order to address that circumstance, that it is not finalized in a manner to provide for the density credits as contemplated in the density credit agreement, [00:43:48] the city attorney and I and some other members of the staff have come up with two options to address the permitting development impact fees that would be due on the project. [00:44:11] The first is a waiver of the city fees in their entirety. [00:44:15] We are not taking on additional staff to do any work related to the inspections that will ensue on the project over the course of the construction period. [00:44:32] So we could simply waive the fees. [00:44:34] The second option would be we could ask the developer to apply to the CRA for a grant to be considered by the Community Redevelopment Agency to enter into a development agreement to compensate for a portion of the cost. [00:45:00] fees, or all of the fees, at which time the CRA could determine what they think [00:45:08] is appropriate, and if they determine that it's appropriate to waive all of [00:45:16] the fees, then we're golden. And we could establish a schedule by which that would [00:45:23] be paid back to the city. If they determined that it's appropriate to pay [00:45:30] only a portion of the fees, then we would need to determine how the remainder of [00:45:37] the fees were to be paid, whether it be by the city or by the developer. [00:45:45] We have options. Okay, so in order to get this ball rolling, I'm going to... And I'm [00:45:56] sorry that the applicant isn't here this evening. They had some COVID and some [00:46:00] flight problems, and so they weren't able to be in attendance this evening. Thank [00:46:05] you. I'm going to make a motion to approve the transfer of density rights [00:46:10] credit agreement for purposes of discussion. [00:46:13] Is that with the proviso that the city manager can make amendments to it as [00:46:19] necessary to complete the agreement with the developer? Let's amend it to that [00:46:25] once we learn how it goes. If I can have a second. I'll second. So the first [00:46:35] question I have is that this is a transfer that is described as being [00:46:42] contingent on a couple of things which need to go through public hearings, such [00:46:46] as an ordinance and a second reading, and a promise to try to do something that we [00:46:51] have to allow for public comment and we cannot guarantee. So I'm understanding [00:46:56] the sort of caveats that you have, but I would like to know if this contribution [00:47:05] contemplated in this transfer still occurs if, in fact, you move to Part B. [00:47:13] And so is this a non-revocable commitment to do this, where Part B would [00:47:19] come in as a belt-and-suspenders type of a program? Because if it goes in Part B [00:47:26] to the CRA and the CRA is being asked to contribute dollars or to reimburse the [00:47:34] general fund, it would be nice to know that those density credits would rest in [00:47:40] ownership in the CRA as some kind of compensation for its efforts. So in other [00:47:45] words, the CRA, we were already told, could purchase some credits or did [00:47:50] purchase credits and now we're told we're going to sell them back to the [00:47:54] city so the city can, or however that was going to work. [00:47:59] Is that a question that you are following me on? Yeah, so this [00:48:06] initial agreement cannot be fully closed and exercised on unless, as you said, you [00:48:13] conduct those public hearings, amend the land-use plan, and quite frankly the [00:48:17] second reading of that ordinance that we just read goes through. So those [00:48:21] things have to happen, otherwise this agreement does nothing. And so in order [00:48:26] for the developer to move forward with their project and close on it, they want [00:48:30] some assurance that at least they will not have to pay that two million dollars [00:48:34] in city fees, and that's what the second agreement does. It says that they won't [00:48:39] have to pay them, they're going to be waived, but we're going to try to find [00:48:43] another way and it offers an opportunity for the CRA to be involved. The CRA is [00:48:46] not a party to the agreement or committed to do anything, so the normal [00:48:51] process will go through the CRA, and as the city manager said, if the CRA [00:48:55] wishes to grant some, give some grant money to pay these fees, then the terms [00:49:01] of that agreement can be worked out between the city and the CRA, and [00:49:05] obviously you'll approve both ends of that agreement in your two different [00:49:09] capacities. But you are making the commitment in the second item that [00:49:15] this developer will not have to pay that two million dollars. It's just a [00:49:18] question of where do we find the money to cover it, whether it's through waivers [00:49:22] or whether it's through CRA funds or other sources. It'll be up to the city [00:49:27] to do something because we will be committing that they won't have to pay [00:49:30] those, and that's the cornerstone, as I understand it, of their development, that [00:49:34] they need those credits in order to make the numbers work to proceed on the [00:49:38] project, and we can't guarantee them that in this density credit agreement until [00:49:43] those public hearings are conducted and those other modifications are made. I hope [00:49:49] that clarifies it. Well, it kind of does, but when you say we're committed with [00:49:54] the second one and that we're going to authorize you all to complete this term [00:49:58] without us coming back and seeing it, and apparently time is of the essence or [00:50:02] you wouldn't be asking us to do this in advance of all these other things, then [00:50:05] my request would be on business, that if we can't put a provision that we're [00:50:14] going to receive those density credits in, then I don't think we should be [00:50:19] taking the risk that if we don't get the first one that we don't get the density [00:50:24] credits. Either the city or the CRA should be able to acquire those density [00:50:29] credits. In other words, rather than a donation, they're talking about making a [00:50:34] donation to us, but they're asking with their hands out for us to help them, and [00:50:39] I don't want to lose the charitable intent if it's there, if you [00:50:47] understand. Is there any question on their donation? Well, they will have to, if we [00:50:53] make the changes to the land use plan, they will have to close on this density [00:50:57] credit agreement, and you will get those credits. This will obligate them to that, [00:51:01] but we can't obligate ourselves to make those land use changes. Those have to be [00:51:05] through the public hearing process. So for whatever reason, those are forestalled [00:51:10] in any way, then that's when the second agreement kicks in. The second agreement [00:51:15] will have no effect if we complete the density credit agreement by making the [00:51:19] land use modifications. Well, it doesn't answer my question then, which is, can we [00:51:25] have a provision in that agreement that they will act in good faith to continue [00:51:35] to do that? I don't like promising to do something that requires a public hearing [00:51:41] that we have to keep an open mind on, with the idea that we're going to lose a [00:51:46] substantial amount of credits that you've already negotiated. And I don't [00:51:51] understand why they would hold back if their project is the project they want to [00:51:54] do. They ought to be willing to contribute those. If we're going to give [00:51:58] them suspenders to say, if that doesn't work, we have another thing, then why [00:52:03] can't we put some, is it not possible to create some provision that they are [00:52:09] making that contribution for the difference? They want a deduction for tax [00:52:15] purposes. Why would they not get it in the other hand, if in fact we had to, you [00:52:23] know, find a way to quantify as you calculated in the first hand? In any case, [00:52:30] I've said enough. I've made my point. I'll leave it to you all to figure it out. [00:52:37] Is there any question that they're going to make the donation? [00:52:43] The only question is, right now we're not set up to take this donation. So even if [00:52:48] they wanted to take it, because of our land use plan, it's not authorized. The [00:52:53] land use plan is very restrictive. So if you don't make those land use amendments, [00:52:56] this means nothing. You can't do anything. So there's no way to get them [00:53:00] to commit to pay something that there would be no policy in effect to do. But [00:53:06] if we do make those land use plan amendments, then they are committed by [00:53:11] this agreement to make that, and they want to make that, because right now the [00:53:15] risk that they're taking is that they're not going to get that charitable [00:53:17] contribution. And it's a pretty substantial one, and I'm sure it has a [00:53:21] lot to do with their bottom line in their development. So if they're [00:53:26] committed to wanting to go forward, and if we make those land use plan amendments, [00:53:29] they are committed by this agreement to go forward. We have to do our end of it, correct? [00:53:36] Thank you. Yeah, I was concerned about the same thing about the plan B. [00:53:44] Kind of stipulate something in there, but I guess it doesn't work unless we do [00:53:51] the first part anyway, so. Okay, no, I'm good. And I would just ask if you could [00:54:00] amend the motion to include that language about the city manager having [00:54:03] some authority to modify the agreement. I'll be happy to amend the motion to [00:54:09] incorporate language that gives the manager, subject to the attorney's review, [00:54:14] the opportunity to modify it in a non-substantial way. She's going to report back to us [00:54:22] for a second reading on those changes? Well, there's no second reading on this one. [00:54:26] Okay, I am hesitant based on the conversation. You clarified a lot of points with the questions you asked, so I appreciate that, Peter Altman, but I [00:54:56] still am hesitant if we've strayed and perhaps I should have done a better job going a little [00:55:01] bit further back on when we first established the TDR program and how it's being used or how [00:55:08] we're going to amend certain plans to make it be used in that what is the, you know, [00:55:16] we keep receiving credits as charitable donations. What is the demand or viability of those credits [00:55:24] for reuse beyond just transferring them through the CRA? Are we generating any income from the [00:55:33] TDR credits? They could be used on people, let's say, in the density at the old hospital area. [00:55:39] Right. If we wanted to put more place there, they could come to us and they could buy the [00:55:42] the credits from us and that would allow them to do it as long as we approved it. [00:55:47] And so has there been a basis for a purchase of these credits in the past? [00:55:51] I don't know. I don't remember. [00:55:56] Other than the CRA? [00:55:59] Well, did they use them at [00:56:05] the hotel and condos? What are they calling it? [00:56:08] Because I see a little bit of a confusion, so let me clarify if it's helpful. [00:56:15] It seems like we are establishing that there is a demand for transferring these credits away from [00:56:19] the coast inland, but that demand is slightly lost as we get inland and then the CRA is becoming [00:56:28] the main provider for purchasing these credits or rather the general fund through a transfer [00:56:33] through purchasing of these TDRs. Unless, correct me if I'm wrong, [00:56:36] is there a history of the TDRs being purchased, the credits being purchased by private? [00:56:41] Because I'm trying to get an actual, I see the appraised amount, I see that the TDRs are said [00:56:45] to have a value to them, but if it's still within house, then my mind goes to, [00:56:52] there's a bottom line and I get it, but I just cannot justify going back to the public and saying, [00:56:56] well, we didn't waive fees, they paid for them, but was what they bought or what was gifted worth [00:57:05] anything to us in long term? Because we have a fiduciary responsibility to [00:57:12] what our current budget is now and so the TDR agreement, we can have a larger conversation [00:57:18] in a minute about the other two, but I am hesitant to go forward with the TDR one. [00:57:23] So that's just going to justify where I vote unless there's some clarification on [00:57:26] the back end of how these TDRs are used. [00:57:30] We're not asking for the CRA to hold these TDRs. [00:57:35] We're asking for the city to continue to hold the TDRs. [00:57:39] Microphone. [00:57:43] Let me get a little closer to you. [00:57:46] And the city will continue to hold TDRs and you could continue to, [00:58:00] I'm sorry, I get distracted when people are yelling from the audience. [00:58:04] And Mayor, to be clear, she doesn't have to adjust it over there. [00:58:08] They have a volume system over here and I've seen the staff move it up twice now. [00:58:11] So they are working on adjusting it. [00:58:15] That's it. [00:58:16] It's fine. [00:58:17] We heard you, ma'am. [00:58:18] May I try to chime in on the discussion? [00:58:21] I know you're asking the city manager. [00:58:22] I cut you off. [00:58:23] I cut you off. [00:58:24] And the other element to this is it is a deal that's a little bit more uncommon. [00:58:34] It's more structured than what we usually do for economic development purposes, [00:58:39] but that's what this really is. [00:58:41] It's an economic development deal. [00:58:44] We're trying to incentivize an $80 million project to come to the city [00:58:51] and to provide the type of housing that doesn't currently exist within our housing options. [00:59:02] They offer great amenities. [00:59:06] It is workforce housing. [00:59:08] So you don't have to sell it as we're giving them a discount or anything else. [00:59:16] It's just a good economic practice for us to work with partner developers [00:59:22] in bringing something to the community that fits a community need. [00:59:27] It is sort of how I see it. [00:59:29] And I don't doubt the merits of the project whatsoever. [00:59:32] In fact, nowhere in my conversation did I mention the merits of the project. [00:59:36] I spoke specifically to whether the TDR is a viable one of the many incentives that are [00:59:44] being offered, especially given that the county is offering incentives too. [00:59:48] And I think you sort of answered that and provided an answer. [00:59:53] My position remains unchanged on using the TDRs for that type of incentive. [01:00:00] So that's just where I stand. [01:00:01] So with the appraised, there was an appraised value of the TDRs, right? [01:00:05] We had an appraised, it was an appraised value, and the appraised value of the units [01:00:08] that we would receive comes to over $4 million. [01:00:11] And the, what they're asking for, for us to, in the fees that we would waive, [01:00:17] that comes to a value of about $2 million, is that right? [01:00:20] Yes. [01:00:20] Okay, so it basically. [01:00:22] But that's sitting in the bank, and I asked, are these TDRs being used? [01:00:26] Are they generating money? [01:00:27] If not, those values, to me, respectfully, just don't make much sense in terms of future use. [01:00:34] I'm thinking, we may benefit from the project and the project's merits, but if someone were [01:00:40] to ask, well, what was the value of trading in TDRs for that, do you use TDRs? [01:00:46] Does that $4 million make sense, if not, if it's being bought by private use, for private use? [01:00:53] Also, the cost to us isn't anything in paper, either. [01:01:00] We're just utilizing employees that we already have. [01:01:03] Just like you said, we're not picking up any extra employees. [01:01:06] Employees are still doing the job that they're doing. [01:01:08] We're going to end up with $4 million, even though, on paper, for tax purposes, [01:01:12] they're going to be able to write off $2 million. [01:01:14] And we're waiving fees. [01:01:15] Excuse me. [01:01:16] So we're still waiving fees, but that's $2 million. [01:01:19] So it's not costing us anything to get that. [01:01:21] They're going to save the $2 million in taxes, and we're going to end up with $4 million. [01:01:26] And just the increased value of properties around here, and the cost of housing, [01:01:31] whether we sell them today or tomorrow, or a year from now, two years from now, [01:01:36] the price will probably be up in the value of them from today. [01:01:39] That's my thoughts. [01:01:40] That's a great point, man. [01:01:41] So I'm glad that the staff provided some other options for which we can look into waiving fees. [01:01:46] But unless Pete, you had something to add, I know where I stand. [01:01:52] Well, excuse me. [01:01:55] I'm running the show here. [01:01:56] But he was trying to get in earlier. [01:01:58] I know. [01:01:58] I still run the show. [01:01:59] OK. [01:01:59] Kelly. [01:02:00] No, I said what I wanted. [01:02:01] I was just asking about the appraised value, because I wanted to make sure that we, [01:02:05] everybody understood that the appraised value was twice what the value of what we were getting. [01:02:11] Actually, the appraised value is $24 million. [01:02:13] So there's $22. [01:02:14] Oh, $24 million. [01:02:15] $22 would be the charitable contribution, and $2 million would be the fees. [01:02:19] Got it. [01:02:21] Yeah, I mean, it's a business deal. [01:02:22] It's been presented. [01:02:24] We've heard it. [01:02:25] I'm assuming that this will be property that will be on the tax roll. [01:02:30] And so consequently, for a city that's been needing to grow population-wise, [01:02:40] it only grew by 14 people. [01:02:42] There are, within our existing residents, a lot of folks who don't want to see the density. [01:02:47] But by having it, my point to you would be, if we control the density, [01:02:52] at least there would be a public forum when someone wanted to come in and increase the density [01:02:58] on their property to determine whether it benefits the city or not. [01:03:01] So density is always a big discussion in redevelopment. [01:03:04] It's the whole missing middle conversation. [01:03:07] And we've all heard it. [01:03:09] So the reason that I'll vote for it is because the city will be the owner of those density rights. [01:03:16] Now, to your point, the value may go to nothing if we changed our comprehensive plan [01:03:21] and increased our density throughout the downtown. [01:03:25] Because moving things from high-hazard area into places where we have control of the density, [01:03:31] you are correct, I think. [01:03:32] If we changed and decided we were going to have a different kind of a land code, [01:03:37] and we were going to increase our height restrictions and allow for more density [01:03:40] and do that through the comprehensive plan, then I think you are correct. [01:03:44] Those values would not be there anymore. [01:03:47] So that's just a, I don't disagree with you, but I think it's six to one, [01:03:52] half a dozen to the other for us, how we decide to go forward. [01:03:57] Anything else? [01:03:59] So those TDR, those credits, are we able to use them anyhow, [01:04:04] other than just a cash value? [01:04:07] They're like incentives and that kind of thing? [01:04:09] Yeah. [01:04:11] So we could use those from our CRA as incentives for projects and things that we need in the city? [01:04:18] Yeah. [01:04:21] And Matt, if I may, I have an add-on to that. [01:04:22] That was my question earlier when I, maybe if I can clarify, [01:04:26] have we incentivized by giving credits in land? [01:04:30] Getting ready to, yeah. [01:04:33] And to your point, Pete, if we change the density downtown for vertical growth, [01:04:38] that in turn is going to bring us more tax money, [01:04:41] and whether those TDRs go down in value doesn't really make any difference. [01:04:44] Doesn't matter. [01:04:45] Yeah. [01:04:45] That six and one, half dozen. [01:04:47] Anything else? [01:04:49] Okay, we're going to just do the transfer of development rights, density, credits, A. [01:04:54] All those in favor, signify by aye. [01:04:56] Aye. [01:04:57] Aye. [01:04:58] And then those against?

   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

   Development Fee Agreement w/Port Richey Leased Housing Associates III, LLLP

   approved

   Council approved a development fee agreement with New Port Richey Leased Housing Associates III, LLLP, subject to minor changes upon review by the city attorney. The public hearing portion was opened with no speakers. The motion passed 4-1.

   • motion:Approve the development fee agreement with New Port Richey Leased Housing Associates III, LLLP, subject to minor changes with review by the city attorney. (passed)4–1

   🏢Port Richey Leased Housing Associates III, LLLP

   ▶ Jump to 1:04:59 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [01:05:01] Aye. [01:05:02] Okay, we just have a four to one. [01:05:04] And then part B, development fee agreement with New Port Richey Leasing and Housing Authority. [01:05:10] All those in favor, signify. [01:05:11] Mr. Mayor, before you take a motion on that one, I don't believe that that's been open to the public. [01:05:15] So if you want to open it up, we'll open it up. [01:05:18] Okay, does anybody in public have any comment? [01:05:24] Seeing no one come forward, we'll come back. [01:05:26] I'll make the motion to approve subject to minor changes with the review of the attorney. [01:05:36] I'll second. [01:05:37] Moved by the city manager. [01:05:39] Yeah. [01:05:39] Thank you. [01:05:40] All those in favor, signify by aye. [01:05:42] Aye. [01:05:43] Those opposed? [01:05:44] Aye. [01:05:45] Four to one. [01:05:46] Okay, request donation of artificial turf to the Runway Animal Rescue.

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

10. 8.c

    Request for Donation of Artificial Turf by The Runaways Animal Rescue

    approved

    Council approved a request to donate artificial turf to The Runaways Animal Rescue. No members of the public spoke on the item.

    • motion:Motion to provide the requested donation of artificial turf to The Runaways Animal Rescue. (passed)

    🏢The Runaways Animal Rescue

    ▶ Jump to 1:05:55 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:05:57] If there's no public explanation, can I just go ahead with a motion? [01:06:07] I read the memo. [01:06:08] If there's no public comment, Mr. Mayor. [01:06:10] You should open it up to the public. [01:06:12] Comment on it? [01:06:14] Seeing no one come forward, we'll bring it back for discussion about. [01:06:17] I would like to move forward to provide the requested donation. [01:06:22] And I'll second. [01:06:22] Any comments? [01:06:24] No. [01:06:25] Just a question. [01:06:26] By the public, it's great. [01:06:27] And the memos are provided online if you wanted the specific explanation. [01:06:32] Second. [01:06:33] Yeah, I second. [01:06:34] I'm all good. [01:06:35] I think that we need to get it there. [01:06:38] No, I'm good. [01:06:40] Nope. [01:06:41] Yeah, I didn't mean to cut you off. [01:06:43] I'm sorry about that. [01:06:44] No. [01:06:45] All those in favor, signify by aye. [01:06:47] Aye. [01:06:47] Those opposed? [01:06:49] Okay, moving on to board appointments of Margaret Coswell at the Environmental Committee.

    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. 8.d

    Board Appointment: Margaret Carswell, Environmental Committee

    approved

    Council appointed Margaret Carswell, a recent Citizens Academy graduate, to the Environmental Committee for a two-year term running through August 6, 2026. The motion passed unanimously 5-0. After the appointment, one member seat and two alternate positions remain open on the committee.

    • motion:Motion to approve the appointment of Margaret Carswell to the Environmental Committee for a two-year term ending August 6, 2026. (passed)5–0

    👤Margaret Carswell#Citizens Academy#Environmental Committee

    ▶ Jump to 1:06:54 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:06:54] Yeah, she is in attendance and a recent graduate of our Citizens Academy. [01:07:01] And she has met the requirements to serve on our Environmental Committee. [01:07:06] The terms of office of which are for two years, if you see fit. [01:07:12] To appoint Ms. Coswell, her appointment would span through August 6th of 2026. [01:07:20] And with her appointment, we would have one member seat available and [01:07:25] two alternate member positions open on the committee. [01:07:29] Any public comment? [01:07:31] Would you like to come down and say hello? [01:07:36] We kind of figured out who you were. [01:07:37] I just want to say, for the record, that I've been asking the Citizens Academy classes to get involved. [01:07:48] And I think you're probably the first one. [01:07:50] I think we've had four classes. [01:07:52] Is that right? [01:07:54] Well, I feel delighted then. [01:07:57] I loved the Citizens Academy. [01:08:01] I think it's a great introduction to our city. [01:08:04] And I'm just so happy to be serving in this way. [01:08:10] It just so fits my life and my life experiences. [01:08:16] Well, thank you. [01:08:16] Thank you all so very much. [01:08:19] There are a couple of you that I still haven't met with personally, and I look forward to doing that soon. [01:08:24] But I take environment in the very broadest sense. [01:08:29] For me, it's more than just celebrating food or whatever. [01:08:35] And I'm excited at the possibilities that I can see happening. [01:08:41] I've shared that with several of you already. [01:08:44] And I thank you very much for accepting my application. [01:08:53] Thank you. [01:08:54] Does anybody have any questions? [01:08:57] We're done? [01:08:58] Yep. [01:08:59] So I guess, any other comment from the citizens, public? [01:09:05] Not bring it back for a vote? [01:09:08] I'll move to approve. [01:09:09] Second. [01:09:10] Yeah, we've had a chance to speak at length. [01:09:13] And I think this is a perfect example, as the mayor was saying, of our Citizens Academy being used to bring someone in that has an interest in the city. [01:09:22] And I had spoken to you at this volunteer appreciation dinner and had asked you which of the committees you were eyeing. [01:09:32] And I'm glad you ended up landing on the Environmental Committee. [01:09:34] And I cannot say that you – I can say that you definitely live by what is best for our environment and for our world. [01:09:43] And I look forward to the contributions you'll bring to the Environment Committee, really. [01:09:47] And we haven't had a chance to sit and talk one-on-one, but hopefully we will very soon. [01:09:52] But I look forward to having you on our Environmental Committee. [01:09:55] And our Citizens Academy is doing exactly what we wanted it to do by bringing people like you here to our committees. [01:10:00] So thank you. [01:10:02] Thank you all so much. [01:10:03] I did as well. [01:10:04] I think you've got a lot of experience. [01:10:06] I've been fortunate to hear your story. [01:10:08] And we welcome you and look forward to your participation. [01:10:13] I was looking at your application. [01:10:15] You definitely seem well-suited for this. [01:10:18] So congratulations on that. [01:10:19] And thanks for taking us on. [01:10:22] Thanks for being involved. [01:10:24] I'll second that. [01:10:25] Thanks for being involved, getting involved. [01:10:28] And you came here with a smile, which is kind of – we don't get a lot of smiles up here. [01:10:32] I'm just kidding. [01:10:33] Just leave with a smile. [01:10:35] This is what I like to do. [01:10:37] So I'm just so glad that this opportunity is there. [01:10:39] All those in favor, signify by aye. [01:10:42] Those opposed? [01:10:43] We have five nothing. [01:10:45] Thank you. [01:10:45] Thank you. [01:10:46] Thank you. [01:10:47] Board of appointments of Bonnie Martin, Betha Stephenson-McRae, and whatever. [01:11:01] Beth.

    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. 8.e

    Board Appointments: Bonnie Martin, Beva Stevenson Karay and John Kane, Historic Preservation Board

    approved

    Council appointed Bonnie Martin and Beva Stevenson Karay as full members of the Historic Preservation Board for three-year terms expiring August 6, 2027, and John Kane as an alternate member. Kelly Smallwood and John Kane were noted to be moved to alternate positions on the updated list.

    • motion:Move to approve appointment of Bonnie Martin and Beva Stevenson Karay as full members and John Kane as alternate to the Historic Preservation Board. (passed)5–0

    👤Beva Stevenson Karay👤Bonnie Martin👤John Kane👤Kelly Smallwood#Historic Preservation Board

    ▶ Jump to 1:11:02 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:11:02] Betha. [01:11:04] John Cain, and for the historical preservation. [01:11:07] We are recommending Bonnie Martin and Betha Stephenson-Cara as full members [01:11:19] to the Historic Preservation Board. [01:11:23] And we are for three years. [01:11:27] And their renewals would be up on August 6, 2027, when we are recommending Mr. [01:11:39] Cain as an alternate member of the group. [01:11:44] And they're all very well qualified. [01:11:50] And we are hopeful that they're as excited to serve on the committee [01:11:57] as we are to have them serve. [01:12:01] Do you have any public comment? [01:12:03] Seeing no one come forward, we'll bring it back for discussion and vote. [01:12:09] Move to approve. [01:12:10] Second. [01:12:12] Just, I know this was uploaded since prior to our last conversation. [01:12:16] So on our updated list, it would say Kelly Smallwood and John [01:12:20] Cain moved down to alternates? [01:12:24] OK, because right now they still have them on the main member. [01:12:27] Right. [01:12:28] OK. [01:12:29] That's the only question I have. [01:12:30] I'm glad we're continuing to move forward with the Historic Preservation Board [01:12:33] and that so many people are stepping up to join it. [01:12:35] Second. [01:12:37] Yeah, I know these people. [01:12:42] Personally, I've spoken with them for, geez, a long time. [01:12:49] And I think they're going to be an asset to the board and be great. [01:12:52] Thank you. [01:12:53] Excited to have them. [01:12:54] They're all very talented. [01:12:56] And I think that they'll do a really good job. [01:13:01] I agree. [01:13:04] Bonnie, you want to come up and talk to us? [01:13:06] She's like, nope. [01:13:08] Bev? [01:13:10] Just, hey, you know, I have heard of Margaret since she came up. [01:13:15] So I feel I should have for you. [01:13:18] All right, all those in favor, signify by aye. [01:13:20] Aye. [01:13:21] Those opposed? [01:13:22] So I have five nothing. [01:13:23] Request for funding of the Culture Affairs Committee, the Florida Humanities

    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. 8.f

    ↳You arrived here from a search for “City Centennial” — transcript expanded below

    Request for Funding for Cultural Affairs Committee Re: Florida Humanities Cultural Speaker Series

    approved

    Council approved a Cultural Affairs Committee recommendation to provide $2,000 in funding for a cultural speaker series featuring Florida Humanities Speakers Bureau scholars (David Morton, Chris Call, and Elliot Kleinberg), tied to the city's centennial. The funding covers speaker fees, per diem, and marketing, with in-kind support from the city library and Hacienda Hotel. Council also discussed wanting committee presentations to clarify that committees recommend, rather than own, city funds.

    • motion:Motion to approve $2,000 funding for the Cultural Affairs Committee's Florida Humanities Cultural Speaker Series. (passed)5–0

    🏢Cultural Affairs Committee🏢Florida Humanities🏢Hacienda Hotel🏢New Port Richey Public Library👤Chris Call👤David Morton👤Elliot Kleinberg#City Centennial#Cultural Speaker Series#Florida Humanities Grant#Florida Humanities Speakers Bureau#Hollywood of the East

    ▶ Jump to 1:13:26 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:13:27] Culture Speaker Series. [01:13:34] Representing the agenda item. [01:13:36] Thank you. [01:13:38] Good evening, city council and city administration. [01:13:42] The request before you is to approve a recommendation [01:13:46] from the Cultural Affairs Committee to provide funding support in the amount [01:13:50] of $2,000 for the purpose of a cultural speaker series featuring [01:13:57] engaging scholars and experts from the Florida Humanities Speakers Bureau. [01:14:03] As you know, Cultural Affairs Committee supports [01:14:06] enriching opportunities that promote a community-wide understanding [01:14:10] and appreciation of cultural activities, fine arts, and historical events. [01:14:17] With these goals in mind, the Cultural Affairs Committee [01:14:21] reviewed the Florida Humanities Organization's speakers directory, [01:14:26] and in particularly, the scholars and experts [01:14:30] who make presentations about significant topics related to Florida [01:14:35] and our specific region. [01:14:37] Over the course of several meetings this spring, [01:14:40] the Cultural Affairs Committee discussed the possibility [01:14:44] of creating a speaker series composed of these scholars [01:14:48] that would tie into the city's centennial festivities [01:14:53] by the way of presentations that spotlighted the importance of storytelling, [01:14:58] both [01:15:00] orally, musically, through written words and through film. [01:15:05] Basically, some of the same subject areas [01:15:08] that helped make NPR become recognized [01:15:11] as the Hollywood of the East many years ago. [01:15:14] A group of cultural affairs committee members [01:15:18] considered the presentation topics [01:15:20] and interviewed the various speakers [01:15:23] that they were interested in having participate. [01:15:28] Those included David Morton, Chris Call, [01:15:32] and journalist and author Elliot Kleinberg. [01:15:37] Then at its June the 26th meeting, [01:15:41] the cultural affairs committee unanimously voted [01:15:45] to recommend that city council support their speaker series [01:15:50] with $2,000 in funding. [01:15:53] And this would cover the speaker's fees per diem [01:15:57] and some marketing. [01:15:58] The library and the Hacienda Hotel [01:16:00] have also provided in-kind support. [01:16:05] The members of the cultural affairs committee, [01:16:08] unfortunately, are not in attendance tonight. [01:16:11] We had several people very ill and they could not attend, [01:16:16] but hopefully they're listening at home [01:16:18] and I'm available if you have any questions. [01:16:22] Do you have any public comment? [01:16:25] Seeing no one come forward, [01:16:27] we'll bring it back for discussion and vote. [01:16:29] I move to approve. [01:16:31] Second. [01:16:32] Two quick questions if you don't mind. [01:16:35] When it says library provided in-kind, [01:16:37] is that the Friends of the Library or the city library? [01:16:40] The city library. [01:16:41] City library. [01:16:42] And then the did apply for the Florida Humanities Grant, [01:16:47] did they end up receiving that? [01:16:49] No, unfortunately, they did not receive it this time, [01:16:52] but that has not hampered them [01:16:56] in wanting to reapply in the future. [01:16:58] And remind me, when I went to that meeting [01:17:01] a couple months back, [01:17:02] was that before our grant writer came on [01:17:05] or after they came on? [01:17:07] It was before. [01:17:07] Okay, so with the grant writer, [01:17:09] hopefully we can get it next time. [01:17:10] And other than that, I'm excited to see this lineup [01:17:13] and that's all I have. [01:17:14] Thank you. [01:17:17] I think this would be really great [01:17:19] for having speakers. [01:17:22] You always learn something new, at least I do anyways, [01:17:26] speaking to people that that's their genre, [01:17:28] that's their expertise, [01:17:30] and something they're passionate about. [01:17:32] And it's always great information [01:17:34] to see what things are going on, [01:17:36] and so I look forward to it. [01:17:40] I'm 100% behind the initiative and the plan, [01:17:43] but I do have to say that I feel like a broken record [01:17:48] when it comes to talking about the way in which we, [01:17:53] let's see, entitle our committees to ownership. [01:17:59] This is not their things, this is the city's. [01:18:03] They are a committee, [01:18:04] and they recommend to us to present this. [01:18:07] So if I was to look at the agenda, [01:18:10] I would ask that you would consider saying something, [01:18:13] request from the Cultural Affairs Committee [01:18:17] for funding this event. [01:18:20] I know it sounds like I'm picking, [01:18:22] but I think it's very important to all of our committees [01:18:24] that they know that they are providing us [01:18:27] with recommendations and it's not their money. [01:18:30] So they're not putting it on, the city is putting it on. [01:18:35] We're grateful, forever grateful for them. [01:18:37] I think it's a great idea and I'm all for it. [01:18:40] But I would like, [01:18:41] because we're always up here talking about [01:18:44] conforming with our charter and the way in which we operate, [01:18:48] I would like for us to make sure that our committees [01:18:50] know that they're recommending bodies to us [01:18:53] and not think that this is their money [01:18:56] that's in the budget for them to decide how to spend, [01:18:58] because obviously they have come here [01:19:00] to ask us for approval. [01:19:01] So if we could just try to consider that [01:19:06] in their presentation, it would be helpful to me. [01:19:10] We have a group that just gave us $50,000 today. [01:19:13] They raised it on their own. [01:19:14] They're producing that and they're donating it to the city [01:19:17] so the city can have this great bus. [01:19:21] All of our committees are very valuable [01:19:25] and they're potential council members [01:19:26] and they can get up here at any time that they want. [01:19:31] But I've spoken, yeah. [01:19:33] I agree, I agree with what you said too. [01:19:36] But I do think that they did go out [01:19:38] and get some of the other in-kind sponsors [01:19:40] and I think that that's fabulous [01:19:41] that they worked on other angles. [01:19:42] And these speakers, I've looked into the speakers [01:19:44] and they're all very good [01:19:45] and so I'm excited to have them here too. [01:19:47] So I would definitely agree with that. [01:19:49] I don't want this to be seen as a criticism [01:19:52] of the group at all, just in a nuance of the way [01:19:55] in which we work through the city manager, [01:20:00] you all work through her to us [01:20:02] and from a protocol standpoint, [01:20:04] I think it's important to keep that progression. [01:20:08] Thank you. [01:20:09] If I may, so I see here, it says, [01:20:18] I see one active verb which is the, [01:20:20] they applied for the humanities grant. [01:20:23] Everything else says they recommended [01:20:25] the city council support, approved the recommendation [01:20:29] to the city council. [01:20:31] So which specific, I have seen in the past [01:20:33] and I've actually slipped a couple times verbally [01:20:35] where I've called the culture affairs fund, [01:20:38] culture affairs is budget, [01:20:39] but where specifically in here are we, [01:20:41] is the culture affairs committee taking ownership? [01:20:45] I think it was the verbal discussion [01:20:49] that said their event. [01:20:51] And that's all I'm saying is that. [01:20:53] I think he's talking too about the way it's listed [01:20:55] on our agenda. [01:20:57] It's, you know, it says request for funding [01:20:59] for the cultural affairs committee. [01:21:00] He wants it to say request by the cultural affairs committee [01:21:03] from the city. [01:21:04] Funding of the Florida humanities. [01:21:06] It's a simple, small thing. [01:21:08] Don't, I'm sure it's gonna be a mountain now [01:21:10] out of this small hill, but what the heck. [01:21:13] Not from you. [01:21:14] Personal reasons to figure it out. [01:21:17] Thank you. [01:21:17] All those in favor signify by aye. [01:21:19] Aye. [01:21:20] Opposed, five nothing. [01:21:21] Resolution number 2024-12, designation of open spaces.

    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. 8.g

    Resolution No. 2024-12: Designation of Open Spaces

    approved

    Council adopted Resolution 2024-12 designating 184.57 acres of city-owned property (detention ponds, park space, etc.) as open space to increase credits under the National Flood Insurance Program's Community Rating System, and adopting the floodplain species assessment plan and natural functions report supporting bald eagle and tricolored heron habitat conservation.

    Ord. Resolution No. 2024-12

    • motion:Move approval of Resolution 2024-12 designating 184.57 acres as open space and adopting the floodplain species assessment plan and natural functions report. (passed)

    📍Area directly north of Orange Lake / west of North Bay Hospital📍Pine Hill Cemetery🏢North Bay Hospital👤Unknown councilmember👤Unknown councilmember#Bald eagle conservation#Community Rating System#Comprehensive Plan#Floodplain Species Assessment Plan and Natural Functions Report#National Flood Insurance Program#Resolution No. 2024-12#Tricolored heron conservation

    ▶ Jump to 1:21:24 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:21:27] This is resolution number 2024-12, [01:21:29] a resolution of the city council [01:21:31] of the city of New Port Richey, Florida, [01:21:33] designating the public properties described herein [01:21:35] and shown on the attached map as open space [01:21:38] and providing an effective date. [01:21:42] This agenda item is related [01:21:45] to the national flood insurance program [01:21:48] and specifically our community rating system. [01:21:51] And the purpose of it is twofold. [01:21:54] First, to designate properties as open space [01:21:58] to increase credits in the rating system. [01:22:01] Secondly, to adopt the floodplain species assessment plan [01:22:06] and natural functions report. [01:22:10] As part of designating open spaces, [01:22:13] we are asking you to designate 184.57 acres as open space [01:22:22] in large part. [01:22:24] We are asking you to designate properties [01:22:27] such as detention ponds, park space, [01:22:31] and other city-owned property [01:22:34] that has not been designated in the past. [01:22:37] The designation is not a forever thing. [01:22:41] We can, if there are reasons in the future [01:22:45] to change the designations, we can do so. [01:22:48] But for now, we can claim credit to those areas [01:22:51] that are not gonna be used for active development, [01:22:54] so we'd like to do so. [01:22:57] In relationship to the floodplain species [01:23:02] and assessment plan and natural functions report, [01:23:06] it is attached to your agenda item. [01:23:09] And it does put forward, [01:23:12] it advances recommendations regarding conservation [01:23:18] and restoration of habitat to support both the bald eagle [01:23:24] and the tricolored heron. [01:23:26] And it affirms all of our goals and objectives [01:23:31] that we set forward in our comprehensive plan [01:23:35] related to the conservation [01:23:37] and the protection of natural resources. [01:23:41] With that, I can respond to any questions [01:23:43] that you have related to the agenda item. [01:23:45] We have any public comment? [01:23:48] Seeing no one come forward, [01:23:49] bring it back for discussion and vote. [01:23:52] I'll move approval. [01:23:57] I think I've used my time up already tonight, [01:24:00] but don't forget that other 10 acres [01:24:02] that the county just bought. [01:24:04] Good plan. [01:24:06] We're not using them, [01:24:07] let's designate it as open space and take the credit. [01:24:13] No, I'm good. [01:24:14] Just a quick one. [01:24:16] Did Pine Hill Cemetery not make the cutoff? [01:24:18] Was that not considered usable for like, [01:24:22] do birds not land on that or anything? [01:24:28] They're open space. [01:24:29] It's not really considered open space. [01:24:31] And then what's the one above, [01:24:33] directly north of Orange Lake? [01:24:36] What's that little green spot there? [01:24:38] Just out of curiosity. [01:24:43] It's right across from North Bay Hospital, [01:24:44] or it looks like it's west of North Bay Hospital. [01:24:48] Retention pond? [01:24:49] Okay, perfect, thank you. [01:24:51] All those in favor, signify by aye. [01:24:53] Aye. [01:24:54] Opposed? [01:24:55] Aye's are nothing. [01:24:57] Addendum to the law enforcement mutual aid agreement

    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. 8.h

    Addendum to the Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Agreement w/City of Tarpon Springs

    approved

    Council approved an addendum to the existing law enforcement Mutual Aid Agreement with the City of Tarpon Springs, strengthening language in Section 4 (voluntary investigations and extraterritorial power) in response to a Sixth DCA court opinion, and updating liability amounts in Section 7 to $200K per person/$300K per occurrence. Public commenters opposed the action, urging council to wait for a Florida Supreme Court ruling. Council moved to approve.

    • motion:Move to approve the addendum to the Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Agreement with the City of Tarpon Springs. (passed)

    📍12131 Lacey Drive📍7336 Ashmore🏢Faith in Florida🏢New Port Richey Police Department🏢Tarpon Springs Police Department👤Butler👤Chief Cochin👤David Wallace👤Debbie Manns👤Driscoll👤Kimberly Cox👤Marlo Jones#Fifth DCA ruling#Florida Mutual Aid Act#MAA expiration January 31, 2025#Mutual Aid Agreement (MAA)#Section 4 - voluntary investigations and extraterritorial power#Section 7 - liability amounts#Sixth DCA court opinion#Torres decision

    ▶ Jump to 1:24:59 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:24:59] with the city of Tarpon Springs. [01:25:01] This is a proactive move by Chief Cochin, [01:25:05] and he'll present the agenda item to you. [01:25:07] Thank you, Ms. Manns. [01:25:08] Mayor, council members. [01:25:09] The request before the council is to approve [01:25:11] the addendum to the city's existing [01:25:13] law enforcement mutual aid agreement, [01:25:15] otherwise known as an MAA, with the city of Tarpon Springs. [01:25:18] So for this agenda item and the next one, [01:25:20] you're gonna hear a lot about REPL, [01:25:22] which was a sixth DCA court opinion. [01:25:25] And kind of the way the Florida courts work, [01:25:26] there are 67 counties, [01:25:28] so you have a county court for every county. [01:25:30] Then you have circuit courts. [01:25:31] There are 20 circuits in this state. [01:25:33] I'm going up levels. [01:25:34] And then you have your district courts of appeal. [01:25:37] There are six of them. [01:25:37] We're in the second. [01:25:38] And then you have the Florida Supreme Court. [01:25:40] So this court basically ruled that an officer [01:25:42] has no jurisdiction or authority to take police action [01:25:46] or collect evidence outside their jurisdiction, [01:25:48] even when a crime occurred within their jurisdiction, [01:25:51] absent mutual aid agreement. [01:25:53] So essentially what we're doing here [01:25:55] is we're strengthening the language in two sections. [01:25:58] In section four, which is now termed [01:26:01] voluntary investigations and extraterritorial power. [01:26:05] So this really strengthens the language [01:26:08] to provide that these cooperating agencies [01:26:10] can do investigations in each other's jurisdictions [01:26:13] for crimes that were committed in their jurisdictions. [01:26:16] There's also another addendum to section seven, [01:26:18] which would just simply updating liability amounts, [01:26:20] 200K per person, 300K per occurrence. [01:26:24] And we're well in line with that. [01:26:26] So we're asking you tonight to approve this addendum [01:26:29] to the Tarpon Springs Agreement. [01:26:31] They've already approved it. [01:26:33] This MAA expires January 31st, 2025. [01:26:36] So we'll be coming back to you, [01:26:37] November, December timeframe, [01:26:39] to do a five-year agreement with them. [01:26:41] But at this point, we're asking you [01:26:42] to approve these addendums, [01:26:43] which will strengthen our ability [01:26:46] and their ability to conduct investigations [01:26:48] in each other's jurisdictions. [01:26:50] There is no budget impact. [01:26:51] I'm available for any questions if you have any. [01:26:54] Any public comment? [01:27:03] David Wallace, 12131 Lacey Drive. [01:27:06] Yeah, is there any language in there [01:27:07] that requires them to notify either agency [01:27:11] that's operating within the other agency [01:27:13] in the language of the mutual aid agreement? [01:27:16] Yes, there is. [01:27:29] It's been a while. [01:27:30] Kimberly Cox, 7336 Ashmore. [01:27:34] My first meeting with Mr. Butler here. [01:27:36] Very proud of you. [01:27:40] I have a lot to say, [01:27:41] but three minutes just doesn't really give me a lot of time. [01:27:45] This is a lot to understand. [01:27:47] It's a Florida Supreme Court case [01:27:49] that has to do with the rights of search and seizure [01:27:52] and breathalyzers and being within your jurisdiction. [01:27:56] And jurisdictions are there to create a safe place for, [01:28:00] or, you know, to protect its citizens. [01:28:03] And I'm boiling it all down [01:28:06] because I want to make sure that I get this point across [01:28:09] that the Florida Supreme Court [01:28:11] should be making this decision, [01:28:14] not the Dias of the city of New Port Richey, Florida. [01:28:18] I think there are a lot of things [01:28:19] that you all should have, you know, places to say, [01:28:23] but to rush into this agreement [01:28:25] and to strengthen this agreement [01:28:28] between a city that is 17 miles away from here [01:28:32] and also where the police chief [01:28:34] used to be police chief there, [01:28:36] it all seems very messy. [01:28:38] Why are we trying to get this in [01:28:40] before the court case happens? [01:28:42] When the court case is going to set the laws, [01:28:46] why not just wait for that? [01:28:48] Do any of you have a full understanding of what this means? [01:28:52] Because if you don't, you should not have an opinion on it. [01:28:56] I mean, let's be fair, right? [01:28:58] This is not in your wheelhouse. [01:29:02] Let me just, I kind of went off script here. [01:29:04] So, [01:29:09] it just feels like overreach, plain and simple. [01:29:11] It feels like that, you know, [01:29:13] it sets a standard that jurisdiction doesn't matter [01:29:16] when it does matter. [01:29:18] And honestly, the entire thing is just trash [01:29:22] because just because other police departments [01:29:24] in the Tampa Bay area are banding together [01:29:26] to stand behind this and get these in [01:29:29] before the 11th hour and this ruling is made, [01:29:32] does not mean that New Port Richey Police Department [01:29:34] needs to do so. [01:29:36] Don't sign off on this. [01:29:38] Let the Florida Supreme Court do their job. [01:29:40] And furthermore, Driscoll shouldn't have anything [01:29:43] to do with this when he himself tried to use [01:29:46] his position of power to get out of a DUI [01:29:50] in Pinellas County. [01:29:52] Nothing to do with this. [01:29:52] It absolutely has something to do with it. [01:29:54] It actually has something to do with it. [01:29:56] So, I'll- [01:29:57] You're not going to attack somebody else? [01:29:58] I'm not attacking anybody. [01:30:00] I'm telling you the truth. I'm telling you that in that county, this gentleman tried [01:30:06] to get out of a DUI. It is not fine, sir. Because then he got reappointed in that position. [01:30:14] And you all used your power to be allowing that to happen. And now I'm telling you that [01:30:18] this is not in your wheelhouse. The right of search and seizure and your protection [01:30:22] of citizens is your job as mayor. You should protect your citizens, not giving more freedom [01:30:28] for the police to do whatever they want. Don't tell me to settle down or to calm down [01:30:33] or any of that like you tell these other folks, because it's not going to happen. I'm telling [01:30:37] you that you're not in a place or a position as much as you'd like to think you are on [01:30:42] your high horse to make this decision. Anybody else like to speak? Testing, testing. [01:31:05] I'd like to speak. Marlo Jones, Faith in Florida organizer here in Pasco. I'd like [01:31:11] to try to get more of an understanding as to why, just like my colleague said, this [01:31:17] case is being heard before the Florida Supreme Court. Most of you, from what I understand, [01:31:22] have not been to law school, even the chief of police. Why is it that we're changing the [01:31:28] language of this agreement? And why is it that we have this agreement in the first place? [01:31:32] Now we have an agreement with Pasco County that's understandable. We have agreements [01:31:36] with other municipalities. But that's where he used to be the chief of police. If he wants [01:31:41] to continue to do stuff for Tarpon Springs and represent Tarpon Springs, maybe he should [01:31:46] go back and be the chief of police of Tarpon Springs. I'm not sure. But I think that language, [01:31:52] I think the whole thing, you all should table it until you get more understanding of what's [01:31:57] going on. Because like my colleague said, this is in the Supreme Court. So when the [01:32:02] Supreme Court rules that it's unconstitutional, you can't just hop in one jurisdiction and [01:32:07] hop in another. You can't do that. I understand there's protocol and things like that. But [01:32:12] what are we going to do when we have policing agencies taking advantage of this? We've already [01:32:19] had issues with multiple policing agencies in this community. What are we going to do? [01:32:25] What are you guys going to do when the liability is coming on you because of what you're inviting? [01:32:31] Who's going to be in charge of oversight of this? What else are we going to do with [01:32:34] the city of Tarpon Springs? We're the city of New Port Richey. We have enough police [01:32:38] officers, last time I checked, to police our streets and do all these things. So why are [01:32:44] we constantly doing everything that Tarpon Springs does? I don't understand it. Even [01:32:49] our police cars look like Tarpon Springs. I'm confused. This is the city of New Port Richey. So I'm asking you all, as our elected officials, to actually think about this. I [01:33:02] understand most of you are going to vote how you are already going to vote because you [01:33:04] guys have already probably talked about this. But at the end of the day, is this for real? [01:33:10] You all know this case is being heard. I know you guys have talked about this. Why are you [01:33:14] rushing to do this? And then the police chief alluded that he would be coming back before [01:33:19] you for a five-year agreement. I don't know, but it sounds a little authoritarian, a little [01:33:25] dictatorish to me, a little Maduro. I mean, are we living in those times where we're just [01:33:30] going to start making these agreements? Who's drafting this? Is the city attorney drafting [01:33:35] this in the middle of the night and you all get it on Tuesday morning and vote on it? [01:33:39] Have you all looked up the court in the Supreme Court? Have you looked on the cases to see [01:33:43] what's going on? So you're going to get ready to pass something that's going to most likely [01:33:48] be overturned. Here in America, we have rights. We have constitutional rights to protect us. [01:33:54] I would like to all remind you, maybe you should go and read the Constitution when it [01:33:58] comes to search and seizure. So I ask, do a little bit more research before you make [01:34:05] your decision. Anybody else like to speak? Seeing no one else come forward, we'll bring [01:34:13] it back for discussion and vote. [01:34:19] Move to approve. [01:34:20] Do I have a second? [01:34:21] I'll second. [01:34:22] All right, I have a few questions, if I may, City Manager, to the Chief of Police. First [01:34:30] one is, I see Pasco County's up next, so there's two agreements being made tonight. I'm assuming [01:34:36] additional city, or excuse me, my mistake, take that back. Are other cities being considered [01:34:44] for this addendum, or is it just Tarpon Springs at this point? [01:34:47] Right now, it's just Tarpon. We already have a five-year agreement with them. And remember, [01:34:50] they come up here for all of our big events as we go down there and help them. The Florida [01:34:55] Mutual Aid Act obviously allows us to do this. It's smart business practice. Nothing is unconstitutional [01:35:02] about this whatsoever. And we don't even know if the Florida Supreme Court's going to hear [01:35:05] it. The second DCA has not heard it. The fifth DCA actually ruled in favor of these, [01:35:10] so it's working its way through the court system. So this is a best business practice, [01:35:15] without a doubt. [01:35:17] You said the, so the fifth DCA, I thought they did hear the Torres decision. [01:35:25] Yeah, they ruled opposite of the Sixth Circuit. [01:35:29] So now they both ruled, and now the Florida Supreme Court needs to make a decision. [01:35:33] We don't know if they're going to win it. [01:35:34] If they'll even... [01:35:35] Okay. What is the consequence of this if it's, if for some reason the Florida Supreme Court [01:35:42] rules that we just go back and re-identify this, or what's the next step? [01:35:45] Everybody throughout the whole state will have to go back if the Florida Supreme Court [01:35:48] wants to change anything. That's a big if. [01:35:54] The way I see it is that this is opening the door for two cities and hopefully additional [01:36:01] cities to be able to investigate in other jurisdictions. That is a strength for the [01:36:07] public because it gives us the opportunity to be able to conduct those investigations [01:36:12] and work with other municipalities. When we talk about these jurisdictions, I know they [01:36:15] have their purpose, but at the same time, if you cross over and start a crime somewhere [01:36:21] else or ending a crime somewhere else, there needs to be that partnership. [01:36:24] When the Florida Supreme Court ends up making their decision, if they make one, I'm looking [01:36:32] forward to seeing this revisited, but at this current time, the decision hasn't been made [01:36:36] in the Florida Supreme Court, so this is canon to me. I think it's good to open the doors [01:36:40] because that leads to more cooperation and hopefully more public safety, which hopefully [01:36:44] leads to more public accountability and opportunities for our police departments to interact with [01:36:48] one another. [01:36:49] I couldn't agree with you more. [01:36:51] That's just about what I was going to say. The cooperation and being able to work together [01:36:55] I think is important. I've seen our city work with Tarpon Springs, with New Port Richey, with [01:37:01] Pasco County, and sometimes it's necessary. I think that it has to be in place in order [01:37:06] to protect our citizens. [01:37:09] Working together makes us stronger and safer. [01:37:14] I just want to address some of the comments that were made. And to say, first of all, [01:37:23] I am not up to speed with what's been going on. I haven't had any dialogue with anybody [01:37:28] in the city about this issue that has come before us. It's come before us through the [01:37:33] normal process, through the city manager from the police department, and put before us based [01:37:38] on the role that we have placed in her to be our manager and to give us advice as to [01:37:45] the best way to operate the city. [01:37:47] With that all being said, I do want to say something else because I think the introduction [01:37:53] by the chief talked about our judicial system and the circuits and the way in which the [01:37:58] courts go and the way we divide up our, let's say, enforcement mechanism through the courts.

    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. 8.i

    Amended and Restated Pasco County Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Agreement

    approved

    Council approved the Amended and Restated Pasco County Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Agreement, which expires June 30, 2029, strengthens Section 7 on extraterritorial powers, and adds free prisoner transport to the county jail by the Sheriff. Chief Cochran presented; public comment raised concerns about police overreach and racial profiling, while council members emphasized accountability and the necessity of mutual aid for events like Chasco and Bike Fest.

    • motion:Approve the Amended and Restated Pasco County Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Agreement. (passed)5–0

    👤Chief Cochran👤Matt👤Mr. Altman👤Mr. Romero👤Ms. Vance👤Pete#Amended and Restated Pasco County Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Agreement#Bike Fest#Chasco#Christmas parade#REPL decision#Section 7 extraterritorial powers

    ▶ Jump to 1:37:59 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:38:10] And the Pasco-Pinellas circuit, I experienced personally in the last few months of my wife's [01:38:20] life at 3 o'clock in the morning as I'm up trying to be a caregiver, having the house [01:38:30] surrounded by New Port Richey police. And they were trying to help the circuit court [01:38:42] to enter the house in order to find someone who they thought had a warrant that lived [01:38:49] in my house, which happened to be my grandson, who had some legal problems. There was no [01:38:54] active warrant or it was not something that I would have considered to be worthy of having [01:39:02] the police come and disturb my wife in the last few months of her life or someone who [01:39:08] did not live there and for whom there was no reason for them to believe that he would [01:39:13] be there. So there are incidents of overreach and there are incidents of breach of trust [01:39:21] that we have in our law enforcement and I've experienced it. I've also experienced it in [01:39:26] another way in our city years before where a granddaughter was taking care of her father [01:39:32] and had brought to the house to caregiver for this man a day, a round-the-clock nurse [01:39:43] or a round-the-clock caregiver. That caregiver had disturbed the peace by having a drunken [01:39:49] episode with a broken-up boyfriend and caused this father to have to be told that he had [01:39:58] to leave because of the commotion that was handled. I attended that discussion where [01:40:08] our city police department came and threatened to bring me in because I insisted that the [01:40:16] woman had no right to come back in the house and we put her stuff out on the street. And [01:40:22] there was some kind of interpretation of the law and so I've seen it exist. I'm not [01:40:28] saying that it is systemic in our city, but I recognize and understand those of you who [01:40:33] have had incidents, your sensitivity to the way in which we deal with our police and the [01:40:40] way we deal with our citizens. I believe that our chief has a handle on how the city should [01:40:47] operate and I depend on our city manager to make sure that he operates professionally [01:40:53] and appropriately. So there is potential fear in incidents where there are folks and family [01:41:00] members perhaps and I think they should be handled sensitively. So I'm just saying this [01:41:05] as a shout out to say I believe, chief, I support this, but I do want to recognize that [01:41:12] there is no arrogance in the way in which we should be treating anybody and I hope and [01:41:19] believe that it's not happening. But it does happen. So I'll support the motion. [01:41:28] I just want to say that in my years in the town, I've seen a lot of drug dealers come [01:41:35] up from Tarpon Springs and I think we would have been to our advantage if we had had that [01:41:39] mutual aid program with Tarpon and they might have helped us narrow it down and be able [01:41:45] to control the situation a lot faster than it did. So I'm definitely in favor of this. [01:41:52] All those in favor signify by aye. Aye. Those opposed? We have five nothing. Amendment and [01:41:58] restarted Pasco County law enforcement mutual aid agreement. Chief Cochran will present [01:42:03] this agenda item as well. Thank you Ms. Vance. Mayor, council members, so this is the agreement [01:42:10] we're asking you to the council approve the amended and restated Pasco County law enforcement [01:42:15] mutual aid agreement which expires June 30th, 2029. The difference between the previous [01:42:20] one and this one is they're doing a whole new one for five years with strengthening [01:42:25] section 7 which we talk about extraterritorial powers by municipalities. There's also another [01:42:31] change to this one which is a big benefit to us. Sheriff is offering us free transport [01:42:36] services to the county jail which is a big benefit to us. We have about a 45 minute drive [01:42:40] out there to and from. So this is a big benefit. It's all outlined in the mutual aid agreement. [01:42:47] Again this is based on the REPL decision. So we talk about the language we're enhancing [01:42:53] section 7. We're getting prisoner transport at no cost to the city. And again just like [01:42:59] the previous one we're asking you to approve amendments to this mutual aid agreement which [01:43:04] is a restated mutual aid agreement for all the law enforcement agencies and the sheriff [01:43:09] in Pasco County. And as you know we can't do a lot of these events without the other [01:43:14] police departments, without the sheriff's office when we talk about Chasco, when we [01:43:18] talk about Bike Fest, when we talk about our Christmas parade. And I as your chief don't [01:43:23] want someone that committed a violent crime in another city in our city and we were powerless [01:43:28] to do something about it. That's a public safety issue first and foremost. So we're [01:43:32] asking you to approve the amendments to this new mutual aid agreement and there is no budget [01:43:37] impact and I'll be happy to answer any questions if you have any. [01:43:41] Do we have any public comment? [01:43:55] So before we had these mutual agreements in place and we would have other municipalities [01:44:00] or law enforcement officers come and help us out at Chasco and stuff, what were we doing [01:44:06] then? [01:44:08] I will have the police chief get back to you. You can meet with him at another time. [01:44:13] Perfectly fine. So I just want to get this straight. So this is pretty much for Pasco [01:44:19] County Sheriff's Office or is this for another municipality? [01:44:22] Pasco County. [01:44:23] Just for Pasco County Sheriff's Office? Okay. So it's the same thing as what you just voted [01:44:27] on practically for Tarpon Springs? [01:44:29] Pasco. [01:44:30] Okay. And that's fine. I mean Pasco Sheriff's Office, this is the county so I can understand [01:44:35] that, just not understanding the other part. But to what you were saying Mr. Altman, none [01:44:41] of us have fears. Some of us have actually lived through things. I don't think any of [01:44:47] you on the dais have ever been pulled over because of the color of your skin. I don't [01:44:52] think any of you have ever been followed or anything like that because of the color of [01:44:57] your skin or a particular interest. [01:45:00] I don't think any of you have ever dealt with some of the things that people of color go [01:45:05] through. [01:45:07] I understand that you all have been in the community for a long time. [01:45:10] My family's been here for 105 years. [01:45:14] When I tell you we know systemic racism, we know systemic racism. [01:45:18] And I'm not saying, let me make this clear, I believe in our police. [01:45:21] I understand that they have a job to do. [01:45:23] They want to keep us safe. [01:45:25] We want that. [01:45:26] We just don't want overreach. [01:45:28] We know sometimes in this community, there's a problem with accountability. [01:45:33] I can tell you that firsthand. [01:45:35] And we know you all are very busy, and you're not going to be monitoring everything he's [01:45:39] got going on or your city manager. [01:45:42] But we do need to have some conversations when situations do arise. [01:45:46] And I hope if something does arise, that all of you up there will be ready to answer our [01:45:52] phone calls and speak with us. [01:45:54] Because I can assure you, once this little agreement goes in with Tarpon Springs, I have [01:45:59] a feeling that there will be more black and brown people that you will be locking up. [01:46:05] That's all I have to say. [01:46:06] Would anybody else like to speak? [01:46:11] Seeing no one else come forward, we'll bring it back for discussion and vote. [01:46:15] Do you approve? [01:46:16] Second. [01:46:17] Go ahead. [01:46:18] If I could just make one comment. [01:46:23] This is an agreement with the sheriff and all the other cities in the county. [01:46:27] I just want to make sure that's clear. [01:46:30] And that was my question. [01:46:31] I was kind of asking with the first one, but I figured I'd keep it for this one. [01:46:35] We are doing essentially the same agreement, except for adding a couple new additions with [01:46:40] this agreement here. [01:46:43] This agreement includes the county as well as all the cities in the county. [01:46:50] All municipalities in the county. [01:46:52] Okay. [01:46:53] Just a comment was raised about accountability. [01:46:56] My mind goes to, and this is not a swipe at anyone at our police department, at the chief [01:47:02] or at the city manager, I'm not relying on any of them to tell me whether or not our [01:47:07] police department is forming. [01:47:09] I rely on the data that's presented, which we're working hard to get. [01:47:12] I've been told several times that it's very difficult to produce, but staff is still working [01:47:17] diligently to produce it, and I'm staying on that. [01:47:20] And the other measurement is this. [01:47:23] Agreements that come before the public that everyone has a chance to comment on, and then [01:47:28] we put them into effect so we can go back to the public and say, these are the agreements [01:47:31] that are in place. [01:47:32] And the way I understand it is that this does not make any changes to any civil rights. [01:47:36] All it does is expand the zone in which the police are already operating with their standard [01:47:41] operation procedures. [01:47:42] So we're not expanding police powers. [01:47:45] We're just locating them throughout the county, allowing that partnership with Tarpon Springs, [01:47:51] with what has already been granted until the Florida Supreme Court comes to a decision [01:47:55] otherwise. [01:47:57] That's the way I see it. [01:47:58] And if the Florida Supreme Court rules in a certain way, then there will probably be [01:48:01] a conversation with staff that comes back before us that we will have to, again, decide. [01:48:06] But the way I see it, this is called accountability. [01:48:09] We're making the agreement. [01:48:10] We're putting it on paper. [01:48:11] That way, if something does happen, we can go back to this agreement and other ones and [01:48:15] go, what did we do wrong? [01:48:16] What did we not follow to the T? [01:48:18] And how can we do better next time? [01:48:20] So I'm glad we're doing this agreement. [01:48:21] I'm glad it's coming before the public for consideration. [01:48:25] And there have been times that we've needed help from other law enforcement agencies, [01:48:30] and there's going to continue to be those times. [01:48:32] And without this kind of an agreement, there's no guarantee we're going to get that help. [01:48:35] I mean, I think that we have to have this kind of agreement. [01:48:38] And I agree with monitoring it for the overreach and those things. [01:48:42] But I do think that it's the right thing to do, and I think that we needed to amend it [01:48:45] so that we have that assistance. [01:48:47] Matt? [01:48:48] Again, like I said before, you know, together it makes us safer and stronger. [01:48:55] I've said plenty. [01:48:58] All those in favor, signify by saying aye. [01:49:01] Aye. [01:49:02] Aye. [01:49:03] Aye. [01:49:04] Aye. [01:49:05] Aye. [01:49:06] Aye. [01:49:07] Aye. [01:49:08] Thank you. [01:49:09] We will now have the Sanitary Sewer Lining Project close out. [01:49:11] This agenda item is a final pay request, along with a deductive change order, and Mr. Romero [01:49:18] will present the item. [01:49:20] Thank you, Ms. Vance. [01:49:21] Counsel, the final pay request is in an amount not to exceed $192,345. [01:49:29] The deductive change order is in the amount of $79,607. [01:49:34] This is from Granite Inliner. [01:49:37] This is for the Sanitary Sewer Gravity Main Rehabilitation Project. [01:49:41] It's an annual program that we have that you all are very familiar with. [01:49:45] Crews identified during the year where we have sanitary sewer lines that are in need [01:49:52] of repair. [01:49:53] Some of them are proactive, some of them are reactive. [01:49:56] Proactive would be under the category where we would go before we do a road project to [01:50:01] take a look at those sanitary sewer lines that are located under those proposed roads, [01:50:07] or we would do it by reactive measures where we would have a malfunction within the roadway [01:50:13] itself or blockage in the pipe, and crews would identify it that way. [01:50:18] The lining activities this year occurred in the North River, the Heights, Oak Hill Heights, [01:50:24] Edgewater Gardens neighborhoods, and along the U.S. Highway 19 corridor. [01:50:29] We did do additional lining work on one stormwater pipe that was in the North River neighborhood. [01:50:37] The funding and the projects are in your current CIP program. [01:50:41] Funding is identified for this project through your water and sewer utility revenue accounts, [01:50:47] and then the stormwater utility operating contractual services line item, and with that [01:50:53] staff would recommend that you do approve the final pay request as well as the deductive [01:50:57] change order. [01:50:58] Do we have any public comment? [01:51:03] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back for discussion and vote. [01:51:07] Move to approve. [01:51:09] Second. [01:51:10] That's not lines that we want to have broken, so we need to make sure that they're fixed. [01:51:15] Pete? [01:51:16] No, I'm good. [01:51:17] Thank you, Patel. [01:51:18] Is the budget working the way it's supposed to? [01:51:19] Thank you very much. [01:51:20] Matt? [01:51:21] I'm good. [01:51:22] All those in favor, signify by saying aye. [01:51:23] Aye. [01:51:24] Aye. [01:51:25] Aye. [01:51:26] Aye. [01:51:27] Thank you. [01:51:28] We have a motion and a second. [01:51:29] Moving on to ITB 24-021 Little Road Water System Interconnect Project Bid Award.

    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. 8.j

    2024 Sanitary Sewer Lining Project Close Out

    approved

    Council approved the low bid of $995,868.50 and awarded the contract to QRC Incorporated for upgrades to the city's potable water interconnect with Pasco County at Little Road and Massachusetts Avenue. Four bids were received and reviewed by the engineer of record, who recommended QRC. The project is part of the CIP and is budgeted.

    • motion:Approve the low bid of $995,868.50 and award the contract to QRC Incorporated for the potable water interconnect upgrades. (passed)5–0

    📍Little Road and Massachusetts Avenue🏢Pasco County🏢QRC Incorporated👤Rivera👤Vance#2024 Sanitary Sewer Lining Project Close Out#CIP (Capital Improvement Program)#Potable water interconnect upgrade

    ▶ Jump to 1:51:31 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:51:38] Mr. Rivera, if you could take this one as well. [01:51:41] Thank you, Ms. Vance. [01:51:42] Council, this is a two-fold request. [01:51:45] The first request is for you to consider approving the low bid amount of $995,868.50, and the [01:51:55] second request is to award the contract to QRC Incorporated. [01:52:00] As the mayor said, the purpose is for the upgrades to the city's potable water interconnect [01:52:06] with Pasco County. [01:52:07] It's located at Little Road in Massachusetts Avenue. [01:52:11] The existing interconnect system that we have with Pasco is a redundancy, just in case the [01:52:17] city's treatment plant was to have a major failure and would not be able to supply the [01:52:23] potable water to the residents or have enough pressure to be able to supply it. [01:52:29] We did open four bids. [01:52:31] The four, we did have the low bid that I had just called out, the amount, and a high bid [01:52:37] of $1,109,916, so all of them are within that range. [01:52:45] The engineer of record did review the bid submissions as well as the references of the [01:52:51] contractor. [01:52:52] He recommended that the city does approve this. [01:52:56] He also says that the, he believes that the company, QRC, does meet the requirements of [01:53:03] the contract and is very familiar with this type of work. [01:53:07] We've got a lot of 24-inch pipe and apparatuses that need to be removed and replaced. [01:53:14] This is a big job that is really important, and it's part of the program that we started [01:53:20] a few years ago where we're taking and upgrading our interconnects throughout the town so that [01:53:25] we can be prepared just in case we do have a problem. [01:53:29] So with that, we would ask that you do approve it. [01:53:32] It is in your CIP, the current CIP program, and money is budgeted. [01:53:36] Do we have any public comment? [01:53:40] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back for public, for a comment and vote. [01:53:45] Vote for approval. [01:53:46] I'll second. [01:53:47] Again, it was in the CIP, it was planned, it was well-described, no questions. [01:53:55] All those in favor, signify by aye. [01:54:01] Aye. [01:54:02] Those opposed, 5-0. [01:54:03] Interlocal agreement with Pasco County for the annexation of the enclave and transfer [01:54:10] of public roads jurisdiction in the town and country villa area. [01:54:18] Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of council. [01:54:21] This is an agreement that has been before you in the past. [01:54:24] I'm actually bringing it back before you for a second time based on the fact that the county [01:54:30] made an adjustment to it when it was in their hands for approval. [01:54:40] The change that they made is that they inserted a sentence that calls for the zoning of the [01:54:53] property to prohibit mobile homes. [01:54:57] Now, you'll recall from our discussions that we have established an R4 zoning district [01:55:08] and that is for coastal cottages and it is our intent that once this property is annexed [01:55:15] into the city that we plan to designate it for R4 development. [01:55:21] So that provision does not really apply to the property and we do not intend to zone [01:55:29] the district in any way in conformance with that sentence that they included in the agreement

    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. 8.k

    ITB24-021 Little Road Water System Interconnect Project Bid Award

    approved

    Council discussed the Little Road Water System Interconnect Project bid award agenda item, though the transcript primarily covers two interlocal agreements with Pasco County: one annexing property and amending CRA boundaries effective October 1, 2024, and a second neighborhood improvements agreement for the Town and Country Villa area defining the city's $1,538,990.50 project contribution and cooperation on grant funding for sanitary sewer infrastructure (with $2 million county contribution). Both agreements were approved.

    • motion:Approve interlocal agreement with Pasco County affirming annexation effective October 1, 2024 and amendment of CRA boundaries. (passed)5–0
    • motion:Authorize endorsement of interlocal agreement with Pasco County for neighborhood improvements in the Town and Country Villa area, including city contribution of $1,538,990.50 and cooperation on grant funding. (passed)

    📍Town and Country Villa area🏢Pasco County👤Pete#CRA boundary amendment#ITB24-021 Little Road Water System Interconnect Project#Interlocal Agreement with Pasco County#Sanitary sewer grant application#Town and Country Villa neighborhood improvements

    ▶ Jump to 1:55:32 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:55:40] and we have brought that matter to their attention. [01:55:45] The agreement then in large part affirms that the property will be annexed into the city [01:55:52] as of the effective date which will be October 1st of 2024 and acknowledges that the boundaries [01:56:00] of the CRA will be amended to incorporate the area and the project area map is attached [01:56:11] to the agenda item for your reference if you need to look at it and the legal description [01:56:18] is attached as well. [01:56:21] Do we have any public comment? [01:56:23] Seeing no one wake up, bring it back to discussion and vote. [01:56:31] I'll move approval for purpose of discussion. [01:56:35] Second. [01:56:36] Second. [01:56:37] Go ahead, Pete. [01:56:39] Just a couple of things. [01:56:40] One related to the zoning, the guarantee of the zoning, it gets always interesting [01:56:50] for the city to commit to do or not to do something but to your answer I'm not worried [01:56:56] about it and so I'm fine with it. [01:57:01] Asking us to make those kind of commitments seems a bit odd but the second part of it [01:57:07] is that the interlocal agreement requires the CRA to be annexed into the CRA. [01:57:18] I'm curious as to our body as a city council to be able to make that commitment so I'm [01:57:25] assuming that this agreement will have to go to the CRA or am I wrong? [01:57:29] It certainly will. [01:57:31] We'll have to establish the necessity to do so and go through the whole process but [01:57:38] more than anything this is affirming the county's acknowledgement that we intend to do so and [01:57:44] their commitment to not have any adversity to us doing so. [01:57:57] And just for the record as a non-chartered county they don't have any say but it's nice [01:58:01] to let them think they do I guess so I'm okay with that. [01:58:09] Yeah I'm good with the two, I know it's kind of throwing that in there, it doesn't really [01:58:16] make much difference to us in the matter so no reason not to go forward. [01:58:21] I don't want to have anything to say. [01:58:25] No comment. [01:58:26] Project moving, that's my gig. [01:58:29] All those in favor signify by aye. [01:58:32] Aye. [01:58:33] Those opposed five nothing. [01:58:36] Interlocal agreement with Pasco County for the neighborhood improvement in the town and [01:58:40] country villa area. [01:58:41] Oh that's what we just did, excuse me. [01:58:43] No that's okay, they're doing that one, okay I'm sorry. [01:58:50] To fully introduce the agenda item, this too contained a couple of changes when it came [01:58:57] back to us from the county and the first one is in section four where it defines the city's [01:59:05] project contribution in some terms that weren't previously outlined and they aren't adverse [01:59:22] to the city, it's just how the city will spend the $1,538,990.50 that we agreed to dedicate [01:59:34] to the project for various infrastructure improvements. [01:59:38] The second provision was that the city would cooperate in securing grant funds to support [01:59:45] the installation of the sanitary sewer infrastructure that the county is contributing $2 million [01:59:56] towards. [02:00:00] We have already submitted a grant application, [02:00:02] so that language is fine with us. [02:00:07] With those two changes we're recommending, [02:00:10] that you authorize us to endorse the agreements [02:00:15] and thereby enter into the interlocal agreement [02:00:18] with the county for the neighborhood improvements. [02:00:23] We have any public comment? [02:00:25] Seeing no one come forward, [02:00:26] bring it back for discussion and vote. [02:00:28] Move to approve. [02:00:30] Second. [02:00:33] Second. [02:00:34] Mayor, to your point, moving this project forward, [02:00:37] this is one of the many residentials that need to get done, [02:00:40] and so I'm glad we're putting some focus on this, [02:00:42] and I know it's been a long time coming [02:00:44] and a lot of turns, but 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.

19. 8.l

    Interlocal Agreement with Pasco County for the Annexation of an Enclave and the Transfer of Public Roads Jurisdiction in the Town and Country Villas Area

    approved

    Council discussed the interlocal agreement with Pasco County for annexation of the Town and Country Villas enclave, including funding sources for over $1 million in committed improvements (road repair, sidewalks, street lights, neighborhood park, sanitary sewer connections) drawn from general fund, grants, and possible impact fee credits. The agreement requires the city to initiate improvements within two years, with a possible two-year extension. Council approved the agreement 5-0.

    • vote:Approve the interlocal agreement with Pasco County for annexation of the Town and Country Villas enclave and transfer of public roads jurisdiction. (passed)5–0

    📍Town and Country Villas Area👤Pete#CRA (Community Redevelopment Area)#Town and Country Villas annexation

    ▶ Jump to 2:00:45 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [02:00:47] Everybody that leaves that area sees it and cries. [02:00:50] Goes through it. [02:00:51] Pete? [02:00:52] I'd just like to know the intention for the funding source [02:00:56] for the million plus of improvements [02:00:58] that we're committed to. [02:01:02] The funding sources are various. [02:01:06] Because the improvements span different funding categories, [02:01:12] there's road repair, there's sidewalk, [02:01:15] there's street light improvements, [02:01:18] there is a neighborhood park, [02:01:20] which we hope to obtain grant funds for, [02:01:23] so there's a good number of, [02:01:25] and there's some impact fee credits [02:01:27] that we hope to be able to assign for connections [02:01:33] to the sanitary sewer, [02:01:35] which we'll bring back before you for consideration. [02:01:40] But from the general fund? [02:01:43] Some will be from the general fund, yes. [02:01:49] And some will be grant funds, [02:01:51] others will be from, well, the road project. [02:01:57] Yeah, I'm just cautious that in the CRA world [02:02:01] with all the projects that we have out there, [02:02:02] that if this becomes in the CRA, [02:02:05] it has a lot of potential for increasing value in the future, [02:02:11] and so whatever comes before that entity, [02:02:15] I guess we can discuss, [02:02:16] but because it hasn't happened yet, can't be committed, [02:02:21] and so we have to be prepared to make sure [02:02:24] that we fulfill our end of the bargain. [02:02:27] And the timeframe for us to accomplish this, [02:02:29] is that set out in the agreement? [02:02:32] It is set out in the agreement, [02:02:35] and we have two years after the execution of the agreement [02:02:42] to start to initiate the improvements, [02:02:45] but we can ask the county for an extension [02:02:47] if one needs to be asked for. [02:02:50] Thank you. [02:02:53] That's all. [02:02:55] And that's just for an extension? [02:02:59] Oh, I thought she already, okay. [02:03:01] Is that, you said they can extend it, [02:03:03] but only up to an additional two years, [02:03:06] or they can go beyond that? [02:03:10] No, they can't extend it beyond that, [02:03:15] oh, for an additional two years, you're right. [02:03:17] So four years total, okay. [02:03:20] Well, good. [02:03:21] All those in favor, signify by aye. [02:03:23] Aye. [02:03:25] Those opposed, five nothing. [02:03:28] Re-approve the resolution of 2024-13, [02:03:31] establishing tentative millage rate for trim. [02:03:36] Resolution 2024-13, a resolution of the city council [02:03:39] of the city of New Port Richey, Florida, [02:03:41] establishing the tentative millage rate [02:03:42] for inclusion on the Pasco County trim notice. [02:03:47] The resolution will establish a tentative millage rate [02:03:51] and a date time and place for the first public hearing [02:03:54] on the levy of the proposed fiscal year [02:03:57] 24-25 operating budget for the purpose [02:04:01] of public notification under the Florida trim statutes. [02:04:06] Staff is recommending that we set the tentative [02:04:09] millage rate at 8.400, [02:04:14] and that matches the city's current millage rate. [02:04:18] I'm recommending, and it's still our intention [02:04:22] to include a lower millage rate [02:04:26] as part of the preliminary fiscal year [02:04:28] 24-25 operating budget. [02:04:33] However, setting the millage rate at 8.400 [02:04:39] is a conservative approach [02:04:40] and will allow us some flexibility [02:04:43] as we hone in a little further, [02:04:47] work through our final budget reviews [02:04:49] and receive our final revenue figures from the state. [02:04:54] The first public hearing on the tentative budget [02:04:57] and millage rate has been rescheduled [02:05:00] for Thursday, September 12th, 2024 [02:05:04] at six o'clock p.m. in the city council chambers [02:05:08] so that it will not conflict with school board [02:05:10] and county public hearing dates. [02:05:13] Please plan to be in attendance. [02:05:16] Do we have any public comment? [02:05:20] Seeing no one come forward, [02:05:21] bring it back for vote discussion. [02:05:25] I'd make a motion to reapprove the resolution 2024-13 [02:05:31] establishing the millage for the trim [02:05:33] at the rate of 8.400 [02:05:38] with the public hearing to be held [02:05:40] on September 12th, 2024 at six p.m. here in city hall. [02:05:45] Second. [02:05:47] To the maker? [02:05:48] No, sir. [02:05:49] Second. [02:05:49] Good. [02:05:51] Looking forward to the public hearing. [02:05:52] All those in favor signify by aye. [02:05:54] Aye. [02:05:55] Those opposed?

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

20. 8.m

    Interlocal Agreement with Pasco County for the Neighborhood Improvements in the Town and Country Villas Area

    discussed

    Council members discussed the city's response to a recent tropical storm, noting no structures sustained water damage, residents helping with cleanup, use of the parking garage for storm passes, and activation of the emergency operations center. Councilmember Matt also mentioned an upcoming MPO board meeting.

    🏢Duke Energy👤Matt👤Rivera#Emergency Operations Center#MPO board meeting#Parking garage storm passes#Tropical storm response

    ▶ Jump to 2:05:56 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [02:05:59] Start with you, Matt. [02:06:02] Okay, I do have the MPO board meeting on Thursday [02:06:08] so I'll get back to everybody [02:06:10] if there's anything significant to do with our city. [02:06:14] And then I know we obviously had the hurricane [02:06:19] or tropical storm come through this weekend. [02:06:22] Seems like we were well prepared [02:06:24] and I know there was some power outages [02:06:27] but it doesn't seem like there was a lot of power outages [02:06:29] at least for the city, which is good. [02:06:33] Hopefully some of the work that Duke Energy has done [02:06:36] going underground and new poles and lines [02:06:40] potentially can help with that. [02:06:43] So maybe that's part of it, hopefully. [02:06:48] But I don't have any kind of gauge [02:06:51] of any kind of flooding as far as in homes [02:06:55] and if the staff or anybody knows [02:06:57] of any that were reported that we know of, [02:07:00] anybody that got actually flooded out or? [02:07:02] We did not have any structures [02:07:05] that sustained any water damage. [02:07:08] That's awesome then. [02:07:09] We fared pretty well then. [02:07:12] That's all I have. [02:07:14] Yeah, I think we fared pretty well in the storm [02:07:16] and I did see lots of neighbors helping neighbors [02:07:19] pick up all the cleanup afterwards [02:07:21] and so that's always a good thing to see. [02:07:23] If everybody can help one another. [02:07:25] I got a message from actually a client of mine [02:07:27] who lives downtown and she had one of her neighbor's trees [02:07:31] fell into her yard so we kind of went over [02:07:33] and helped her cut it up and get it out of the way [02:07:35] so that now Mr. Rivera can send somebody over to pick it up. [02:07:41] And that was the big thing [02:07:42] is everybody wants to know about [02:07:44] getting some of that stuff picked up [02:07:45] and I sent them copies of the message from the city [02:07:48] that we will be coming around picking it up [02:07:50] and get that scheduled so hopefully that goes really well [02:07:54] and I think everything else went well. [02:07:58] On the topic of the tropical storm, [02:08:01] I was at the development department the other day, [02:08:04] just happened to be there [02:08:04] and I saw some people picking up some passes [02:08:06] for the parking garage [02:08:07] so it was great to see that being used [02:08:09] and also had a chance to drive by [02:08:12] the emergency operations center [02:08:15] and saw that there was someone from police and fire [02:08:18] and the public works there [02:08:19] and so that was also great to see that [02:08:21] that was taking place to make sure that we were ready [02:08:23] for any potential issues that might occur

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

21. 8.n

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

    discussed

    Although the agenda item was listed as re-approval of Resolution 2024-13 establishing tentative millage for TRIM, the transcript captured a different discussion: Councilman Altman raised the issue of the city's prohibition on screen porches and proposed directing staff to prepare an agenda item to revise the code. After discussion, council reached consensus to place it on the next agenda for formal discussion and possible referral to the LDRB.

    Ord. Resolution No. 2024-13

    • consensus:Consensus to place a discussion item on the next agenda regarding initiating a code amendment to allow screen porches, with referral through the LDRB. (passed)

    👤Altman👤Pete#LDRB (Land Development Regulations Board)#Resolution No. 2024-13#TRIM tentative millage#screen porch code amendment

    ▶ Jump to 2:08:27 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [02:08:27] and I think even with a storm like this [02:08:29] where there may not have been a lot of damage, [02:08:31] we're still improving and so it's good we got one of these [02:08:35] to see where we're at with things [02:08:36] and see how we can keep growing stronger. [02:08:41] Did Pete, did you have something on the storm [02:08:42] because I do have a separate topic [02:08:43] but I'm going to jump to that. [02:08:45] I do have a motion here [02:08:47] and the reason why I presented it to you [02:08:49] on a written piece of paper [02:08:50] is because there's a little bit to it [02:08:52] and so what it basically does [02:08:55] is when I was knocking on some doors in our community, [02:08:59] this came up quite a few times [02:09:01] about this screen porch issue [02:09:03] where people are told by the development department [02:09:06] that they can't have screen porches [02:09:08] and I read into it some [02:09:10] and the theory is I guess there is a basis [02:09:14] where if you have a screen on your porch, [02:09:16] you're less likely to interact with the community [02:09:19] that surrounds you but I think whoever wrote that [02:09:21] at Harvard or Yale forgot that there are mosquitoes [02:09:24] in Florida and so you're more likely [02:09:26] to not sit on your porch for that reason [02:09:28] because you cannot screen it [02:09:30] and interact with the community. [02:09:32] That's the only basis I could find. [02:09:33] I also did speak with staff [02:09:35] and unless there's been a change, [02:09:36] I was not given any other just, [02:09:39] in fact, that justification didn't even come up [02:09:41] so we didn't know exactly why it was put in there [02:09:44] unless there's been a change [02:09:46] and so I would like to make the motion, [02:09:49] I'm just going to read it, [02:09:50] to direct the city manager and the city attorney [02:09:52] to prepare an agenda item [02:09:54] with an attached memorandum [02:09:55] and necessary legal instruments [02:09:57] by the end of September [02:09:58] for council to consider revising the code [02:10:01] to allow for screen porches. [02:10:03] So that's the motion in full [02:10:06] and this is just to get it on the agenda [02:10:08] so that we can have two readings to discuss it [02:10:10] and whether it's something we want to consider. [02:10:15] I'd like to suggest that we shouldn't need a motion [02:10:18] to be able to tell the city manager [02:10:21] to put it on the agenda [02:10:22] and opening up a motion means it's a business item [02:10:27] when we take action on it. [02:10:28] So I'm with you. [02:10:29] I would like to have this discussion [02:10:32] and put it on the agenda formally for discussion. [02:10:35] You're liking to make a motion [02:10:37] to direct them to do this, I think. [02:10:42] What we really need is an agenda item [02:10:46] to direct them to do that. [02:10:47] So I would ask if we could put this on the next agenda [02:10:50] as an agenda item to discuss that formally [02:10:55] so that it has an opportunity for the public [02:10:57] to also weigh in. [02:10:58] Right, and I figured a motion was necessary [02:11:00] just in case there's someone up here [02:11:01] so staff can gauge the direction of council [02:11:05] because it has come up in the past [02:11:07] where a council member or two, [02:11:08] or perhaps even the mayor, [02:11:10] and I'm speaking generally, I'm not saying you have, [02:11:12] I'm saying it has come up where maybe [02:11:15] there's this idea that someone up here [02:11:17] is pushing an agenda [02:11:19] and it's not the agenda of the council as a whole. [02:11:21] So I figured a motion, a second, and a vote [02:11:23] allows us to see where the council stands [02:11:26] on directing staff. [02:11:27] So staff has a clear delineation [02:11:29] on whether they have the three people they need [02:11:31] to put this on the agenda. [02:11:32] So no one person is hijacking the agenda [02:11:35] by making a suggestion. [02:11:39] I'm gonna ask the attorney on what's our approach here. [02:11:41] So if there's a consensus to move forward [02:11:43] as Councilman Altman stated, [02:11:45] we can put this on as a discussion item [02:11:48] for you to direct us to initiate the process [02:11:51] to prepare this amendment [02:11:53] which would have to go to the LDRB [02:11:55] and then come back to you. [02:11:56] So that can be set up as an agenda item [02:11:59] if there's a consensus of three of you to do that. [02:12:01] When's the LDRB meeting? [02:12:04] Or Thursday, I've got Raymond. [02:12:06] In which case I would take away [02:12:07] the September language, of course. [02:12:09] All right then, let's, yeah. [02:12:10] But if we can get it on the next LDRB. [02:12:12] Yeah, we'll go along with that. [02:12:14] Put it on there, yeah? [02:12:16] Just so we're clear, the consensus is to discuss [02:12:20] whether you want us to move forward [02:12:21] with an agenda item, an ordinance [02:12:23] that would go through the process. [02:12:24] No, no, because that would mean a workshop. [02:12:28] No, not necessarily. [02:12:29] Okay. [02:12:30] Put it on the next meeting so we can vote on it [02:12:32] because we can't vote on something [02:12:34] that's not on the agenda. [02:12:35] Well, it's got to go back to vote to make the change [02:12:36] and we can discuss it when it comes before us.

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

22. 9Communications▶ 2:12:38
23. 10Adjournment▶ 2:31:25
24. 3

    Moment of Silence

    Moment of Silence.