On the agenda

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

   Pledge of Allegiance

   Pledge of Allegiance.

   ▶ Jump to 0:39 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [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 September 24, 2024 Special Meeting and October 1, 2024 Regular Meeting Minutes

   approved

   Council approval of minutes from the September 24, 2024 Special Meeting and the October 1, 2024 Regular Meeting.

   • motion:Approve the September 24, 2024 Special Meeting and October 1, 2024 Regular Meeting minutes. (passed)

   #October 1, 2024 Regular Meeting Minutes#September 24, 2024 Special Meeting Minutes

   ▶ Jump to 0:45 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:45] Approval of the September 24, 2024 Special Meeting and October 1, 2024 Regular Meeting [00:00:50] Minutes.

   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. 5Vox Pop for Items Not Listed on the Agenda or Listed on Consent Agenda▶ 0:51
5. 6.a

   Purchases/Payments for City Council Approval

   approvedon consent

   Council approved the consent agenda item for purchases/payments.

   • motion:Motion to approve purchases/payments for City Council approval on the consent agenda. (passed)5–0

   ▶ Jump to 15:10 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:15:13] Move for approval. [00:15:16] Second. [00:15:18] Any comment on the second agenda, consent agenda? [00:15:22] All those in favor, signify by aye. [00:15:24] Aye. [00:15:24] 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. 2024-2286: Amendments to City Dock Ordinance

   approved

   Council held a second reading of Ordinance 2024-2286 amending the city dock ordinance (Section 5-44) to revise the city dock map by lot/block, add design standards, and originally limit docks on city-owned property to floating docks only. After public comment from resident Scott Chittum and concerns from council about restricting other dock types contrary to the original 1924 ordinance from George Sims, the motion was amended to remove the 'limited to floating docks' language. The amended ordinance passed unanimously.

   Ord. Ordinance No. 2024-2286

   • motion:Motion to approve Ordinance 2024-2286 on second reading, as amended to remove the language limiting docks to floating docks only. (passed)5–0

   📍5600 Virginia Avenue📍5708 Kentucky Avenue, Newport Richey📍Circle Boulevard📍Grand Boulevard between Massachusetts Avenue and Virginia📍Sims Park / Enchantment Park👤George Sims👤Pete👤Scott Chittum#City dock map#Development Review Committee#Ordinance 1 (1924 George Sims gift ordinance)#Ordinance 2024-2286#Section 5-44 of city code

   ▶ Jump to 15:26 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:15:26] Second reading of ordinance 2024-2286, amendment to the city dock ordinance. [00:15:32] This is ordinance number 2024-2286, an ordinance of the city of New Port Richey, [00:15:36] Florida, providing for amendment of section 5-44 of the city code, [00:15:41] pertaining to docks attached to city owned property. [00:15:44] Providing for a city dock map, establishing properties eligible [00:15:48] to associate a dock attached to city property. [00:15:50] Providing for floating docks only, providing for conflicts, [00:15:53] severability, and an effective date. [00:15:57] Mayors, members of council, as indicated by the city attorney, [00:16:02] the purpose of this ordinance is related to docks [00:16:10] that are attached to city owned property. [00:16:13] In this case, it spans along Grand Boulevard between Massachusetts Avenue [00:16:20] and Virginia. [00:16:21] And the purpose of the ordinance is to amend the eligible properties [00:16:34] by description, specifically, so that the ordinance describes them [00:16:40] by lot and by block number, rather than by legal description. [00:16:48] Therefore, allowing them to be amended, if need be, in the future by resolution. [00:16:55] And this ordinance also limits docks to floating docks, [00:17:02] and they must comply with design requirements [00:17:07] as specified in the ordinance as attached to your agenda item. [00:17:15] And that is specifically outlined by design. [00:17:24] And with that, we're recommending that you consider [00:17:29] approving this item at second reading. [00:17:32] And if you have questions related to the ordinance, [00:17:35] I'm prepared to respond to any questions that you may have. [00:17:38] Do we have any public comment? [00:17:45] Good evening, Scott Chittum, 5708 Kentucky Avenue, New Port Richey. [00:17:53] And I guess you described me as number 11. [00:18:03] So prior to about 1990, it was never addressed as far as the docks [00:18:10] that were more or less granted to us by Ordinance 1 by George Sims. [00:18:16] Our neighbor had a problem. [00:18:18] He wanted to rebuild his dock. [00:18:19] The city said no. [00:18:21] We actually went and kind of hammered it out. [00:18:23] I think it was 1990. [00:18:25] I think Pete might have been on the council. [00:18:29] So in Ordinance 1, it talks about wharfers, piers, pergolas, boathouses. [00:18:36] We didn't ask for any of that. [00:18:37] We just said, hey, just don't go overboard. [00:18:39] And they didn't. [00:18:40] They said, we encourage. [00:18:41] If you look at the ordinance, it says encourage floating docks. [00:18:45] Some people, myself included, may need some type of a little pier [00:18:50] to get their dock out a little bit further if and when I ever get a bigger dock. [00:18:54] Right now, I'm kind of like on a bend. [00:18:56] And my dock is sitting on the mud when it's at low tide. [00:19:00] So I don't think we should do it quite that way. [00:19:03] So I don't understand also why the map could be amended by resolution. [00:19:08] Why would you need to amend a map that's kind of there? [00:19:12] We're identifying those. [00:19:13] How would you amend it in the future? [00:19:15] I can't think of that. [00:19:18] You've talked about the design. [00:19:21] And it should be, I mean, it says here, the sole discretion of the city. [00:19:26] Absolute and sole. [00:19:27] So by design, shape, and size. [00:19:32] So I would imagine that if I lived on a river road, it would say something [00:19:37] along the lines, I can't be within 15 feet of my neighbor. [00:19:40] It's going to be 4 foot wide, 8 by 16, something like that. [00:19:46] I don't know. [00:19:47] So who in the city is going to tell us what size dock we can have? [00:19:52] I mean, you say you spelled it out here, but you really didn't. [00:19:55] Because it says sole discretion. [00:20:00] And if you look at page 3, right above paragraph 2, it says, [00:20:05] the city shall encourage the use of floating docks and similar structures. [00:20:10] That's what we hammered out back then. [00:20:20] I just don't want to give up what was given to us in Ordinance 1. [00:20:24] And that would only apply to everything south of Massachusetts Avenue. [00:20:31] You're going to pass an ordinance, say you can have a floating dock, [00:20:33] and up at Orange Grove, you've got boat lifts. [00:20:37] I mean, you've just created a non-conforming use, it looks to me like. [00:20:40] I don't know. [00:20:41] Thank you. [00:20:48] Do you have any other public comment? [00:20:57] Yes, there it is. [00:20:58] All right, we'll bring it back for discussion and vote. [00:21:03] I'm going to move to approve. [00:21:08] Do we have a second? [00:21:14] I'll second. [00:21:16] I have a couple questions for the city staff, [00:21:18] based on some of the conversation that was just had. [00:21:20] But I'll start with that, and then go to my notes. [00:21:24] Do we have any lifts on public, private lifts on public property [00:21:29] that would be impacted by this ordinance? [00:21:32] No. [00:21:34] And this changes it to where floating docks would be the sole feature [00:21:42] that's allowed on the public? [00:21:44] That's correct. [00:21:45] OK. [00:21:47] Can you elaborate on the process that will take place? [00:21:51] Because I didn't get a chance to look at section 5.52, subsection 2E. [00:21:59] That was what was changed to the city is in sole discretion. [00:22:02] And we heard here someone raise a question about what [00:22:05] that process actually looks like. [00:22:06] Can you go into detail on what would happen? [00:22:09] Yeah, it would be a review by the city's development review committee. [00:22:13] And there are various representatives of the city staff [00:22:17] that sit on the development review committee, which [00:22:20] is led by the planning department. [00:22:26] But there would be some participation by engineering and also code [00:22:35] enforcement to make sure that there aren't any conflicts or safety [00:22:41] issues associated with what is being planned for use of the property, [00:22:49] and that there aren't any site distance issues created [00:22:54] as a result of a structure that's being proposed off of city property. [00:23:00] And is there a same appeal process as with anything? [00:23:05] Yes, there is. [00:23:09] And just to reiterate, there are no docks currently [00:23:12] on public property that would be impacted by this ordinance, [00:23:15] or any structures on public property that [00:23:18] would be impacted by this ordinance as of current. [00:23:21] OK. [00:23:22] Second? [00:23:25] I don't think I have anything else. [00:23:26] I think I've already answered. [00:23:29] So talking about like, usually, would you have to apply for a permit for it? [00:23:35] You do have to apply for a permit, yes, to establish a new [00:23:40] or to reconstruct an existing dock on city property, yes. [00:23:45] So is there no specifics about what can be there? [00:23:48] Because everyone is going to be case by case basis based on where [00:23:52] their lot is on the river? [00:23:53] Correct. [00:23:54] Like you're talking about a lot of sites and stuff like that. [00:23:58] Right. [00:24:04] Yeah, I do. [00:24:04] I have a copy of ordinance one, and I think I asked that all of you [00:24:08] could have one there. [00:24:10] I'm going to, first of all, say that that ordinance was approved on December [00:24:20] the 2nd of 1924, so nearly 100 years ago when George Sims, in this ordinance, [00:24:28] gave Sims Park, the Circle, this, and all the alleys in the area to the city. [00:24:34] So the ordinance is all encompassing of the gift of George Sims [00:24:38] to the city 100 years ago. [00:24:40] So the three parcels, one was Sims Park or Enchantment Park, [00:24:45] one was Circle Boulevard, and the third was the strip of land [00:24:49] between Virginia and Massachusetts. [00:24:53] And so I'm going to read the language of this, [00:24:56] and it says all its right title, interest, and to the strip of land [00:25:01] between on the river, along the river, and the boulevard being located [00:25:07] Massachusetts and north of Virginia. [00:25:09] Talks of lots and blocks, but it says, however, [00:25:14] to the rights of the adjoining lot owners along said boulevard [00:25:17] to have free access to the river and to bulkhead and otherwise beautify [00:25:23] said riverfront and to use the same for the construction of wharver, [00:25:28] boathouses, pavilions, and pergolas under such restrictions, conditions, [00:25:34] and limitations as may be imposed by the town of New Port Richey, Florida. [00:25:39] So, you know, that, to that degree, there's only one other, [00:25:44] this entry on the next page, page three under B, it does say to cooperate [00:25:51] with the adjoining lot owners in the bulkheading, filling in, [00:25:55] and beautification of the property described in paragraph three. [00:26:00] And just to be correct about that, the city expended the money to beautify [00:26:07] that whole area with all of the improvements that were made to the [00:26:10] beautification of the river and the view of it, and there was no investment [00:26:17] that I know of that was made, but this ordinance assumed in the 1924 [00:26:23] that property owners could invest as well to beautify that area and to impose [00:26:28] restrictions, which is what you're telling us, against the construction [00:26:33] of any buildings or improvements for commercial or residential purposes [00:26:38] on that property. [00:26:39] So, no offices, no buildings, no houses, but so that the natural beauty [00:26:44] of the river drive in this part of town may be forever preserved to the public [00:26:49] and to the adjoining property owners. [00:26:51] So, to the appeal that's been made and to just ask the question, [00:26:56] because when this first came up, I did second the motion to approve it [00:27:01] on first reading, and the main, I guess, explanation was that we were codifying [00:27:09] or identifying an additional lot, like putting a map and putting [00:27:14] in some design standards, but the restriction from all of those items [00:27:20] that were listed in that original ordinance seems to cause me to fall [00:27:26] into the idea that 100 years later, and there are some old boathouses along the river, [00:27:34] which can't be built anymore, but they're cool when you drive past them to see them, [00:27:39] and there are some, certainly, needs for us on the river, for property owners [00:27:45] on the river to have, as they have done in the past, for example, [00:27:49] a lift where they could lift the boat up out of the water, out of harm's way. [00:27:54] So, I'm guessing that there could be no lifts, there could only be a floating dock, [00:27:59] and if the goal is for beautification, this is the first time [00:28:03] that we have a council have really talked about this. [00:28:05] So, you're asking us as a council to authorize you all to not allow the things [00:28:11] that are identified in this original ordinance of 100 years ago, [00:28:15] and we didn't have much discussion about the reason, and we've been given one reason [00:28:22] after a recent flood of floating docks that are sitting half in the mud, [00:28:28] which to me isn't a beautification of walking along the river. [00:28:30] So, to me, I'd rather see us work a little more in the spirit of this ordinance [00:28:36] with those handful of property owners to come up with some, you know, [00:28:42] design standards that they like, because this ordinance talked about us working together. [00:28:47] So, I don't know what caused this to be brought forward. [00:28:50] If it's one of the owners of that, but I can't support this to restrict those other areas [00:29:01] without some better effort on our part to discuss it. [00:29:08] Yeah. [00:29:20] Yeah, I'm just not sure about the language, you know, in it saying that, you know, [00:29:27] at one point it was supposed to be okay, and now they're saying it's not okay. [00:29:31] So, I mean, I'd kind of like to talk about it a little more and go through it just to be clear. [00:29:39] What kind of questions do you want? We can talk about it now. [00:29:43] Well, it's going to take longer than now. [00:29:45] I'm not asking that. [00:29:47] Just a second, please. [00:29:49] Yeah, it's going to take longer than now. [00:29:51] Are you getting some guidance from this? [00:29:54] Well, let me just start by saying the reason [00:30:00] that this was initiated relates to the fact that the property at 5600 Virginia Avenue [00:30:09] does not have any legal authority to have a dock. They do have a dock, but they have [00:30:16] no legal authority to have a dock because there may have been an error made the last [00:30:23] time there was a map or somehow they were missed, but we wanted to correct that error [00:30:32] because when you lay out the lots and you look at the properties, they certainly would [00:30:40] be deservant of one based on their placement in the lineup of properties along the river. [00:30:48] So we wanted to correct that for those property owners. And while we were making improvements [00:30:56] to the ordinance, we thought it was appropriate since we were only permitting for floating [00:31:02] docks to make the change in the ordinance to effectuate that. And since we, so we just [00:31:11] made the language just a little bit stronger to reflect that and to give us an opportunity [00:31:19] to have more discretion to protect the public's interest since it is a private dock emanating [00:31:28] from public property and we don't retain any fees. It is a privilege to have the opportunity [00:31:35] to do that. So we were just cleaning it up a little bit, but we can back off on any language [00:31:40] you seek that for us to do so. [00:31:43] Excuse me, just one second. [00:31:47] As the maker of the motion, I would like to communicate with the second and rescind or [00:31:53] perhaps amend whatever the mayor and the city attorney believes is more appropriate to rescind [00:32:00] my motion. Should I just start there or should I amend it? [00:32:06] Excuse me, not at this point, please. When I get to you, I'll let you do it, but I want [00:32:10] to talk to the attorney first. [00:32:11] Okay, thank you. [00:32:13] You wanted to talk? [00:32:14] No, I just, if the issue is the limitation on the floating docks, that's in paragraph [00:32:19] C2 of the ordinance, which appears on page two. You could eliminate that added phrase [00:32:27] limited to floating docks and that would take that out and you could revisit that at a later [00:32:32] date. So if the maker of the motion would agree to doing that, it would just be to, [00:32:38] in the ordinance under section C-2, remove the words be limited to floating docks and [00:32:45] from that section. [00:32:47] If the second is okay with that, I'd like to make that motion amendment. [00:32:53] I'm good with that. [00:32:54] And that's all that's necessary to address the, what was talked about, but the second [00:32:58] part of the strength being discretion over floating docks? [00:33:01] That's still going to be in there, but this will take out the limitation to only floating [00:33:06] docks. [00:33:07] So you'll have still discretion to allow whatever and you can come back and have a further discussion [00:33:10] on what type of design standard you'd like to have. [00:33:14] So the motion is amended by virtue of the maker and the second agreeing by removing [00:33:19] that language. [00:33:20] I do, in an effort to try to be more historical and to try to make our city cooler and more [00:33:33] in line with the original gift, I do support that we would have some design standards and [00:33:41] maybe there's some interesting ideas. [00:33:42] So this might be an opportunity to just say, if you all have any ideas of respecting the [00:33:47] hundred year old gift that Mr. Sims gave you, this would be a good time to let the staff [00:33:53] know and we could look at it. [00:33:56] Certainly included in the ordinance is the importance of keeping it as a beautiful river [00:34:01] drive and that was the purpose of my request to revisit that section. [00:34:08] So I'm happy with the motion amended. [00:34:11] Anybody else? [00:34:12] I just want to say that, you know, a hundred years, things change, you know, and I don't [00:34:19] mind addressing this, but I also think it should be fair. [00:34:22] We should have been fair to all those 22 or 23 different property owners that are taking [00:34:28] advantage of this and the city's doing that. [00:34:31] So that being important too, and I'm glad we're going to at least keep moving that and [00:34:35] let all those people get their chance to do their dock there. [00:34:39] So all those in favor signify by aye. [00:34:42] Aye. [00:34:43] Aye. [00:34:44] Those opposed? [00:34:45] We have five members. [00:34:46] Okay.

   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. 8.a

   Resolution No. 2025-01: Establishing a City Dock Map

   approved

   Council adopted Resolution 2025-01 establishing a city dock map as a companion to Ordinance 2024-304, replacing the prior lot-and-block descriptions for private docks attached to city-owned properties. Public comment sought clarification on the use of a map versus legal descriptions, and staff confirmed no changes to the map are expected.

   Ord. Resolution No. 2025-01

   • motion:Motion to approve Resolution 2025-01 adopting the city dock map. (passed)

   📍5708 Kentucky Avenue, New Port Richey👤Scott Chittum#GIS legend layer#Massachusetts Avenue#Orange Grove Estates#Ordinance 2024-304#Resolution 2025-01#Section 5-44 of the Code of Ordinances

   ▶ Jump to 34:47 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:34:47] Resolution 2025, establishment of the city dock map. [00:34:51] This is resolution number 2025-01, a resolution of the city council of the city of New Port Richey, Florida, adopting and approving a city dock map attached here to pursuant [00:35:00] to section 5-44 of the code of ordinances as provided herein. [00:35:07] This resolution is just requesting as a companion item to the second reading of ordinance 2024-304 [00:35:20] for you to effectuate the eligible properties via the dock map instead of the lot and block [00:35:31] numbers that we used to rely on as a means to describe the private docks attached to [00:35:40] city-owned properties. [00:35:41] Do you have any public comment? [00:35:47] Scott Chittum, 5708 Kentucky Avenue, New Port Richey. [00:35:56] So to that, I just have to ask for some more clarification. [00:36:01] What's the difference in using a legal description versus the map? [00:36:06] And the reason given here is so it could be amended by resolution in the future. [00:36:11] So do we think that that map is going to change? [00:36:13] I don't know if I'm not thinking correctly or what we're looking at. [00:36:19] And I still feel that there may be some things afforded to south of Massachusetts Avenue [00:36:28] that is included in Ordinance 1, because I don't think Orange Grove Estates was included [00:36:32] in Ordinance 1. [00:36:34] And just to point out, there is a lift there. [00:36:39] We don't, if you'll allow me, Mr. Mayor, we're not expecting that there will be any [00:36:43] changes. [00:36:44] No, it's just a point of order that if for any reason in the future there was, it would [00:36:51] be a simpler process. [00:36:53] But no, we're not, our expectation is that there will not be. [00:36:59] All right. [00:37:00] Thank you. [00:37:01] Any other public comment? [00:37:04] Seeing no one else come forward, we'll bring it back for discussion and vote. [00:37:09] I'll move to approve. [00:37:10] Second. [00:37:11] I apologize to the Mayor and the City Council that I'm going to bring up a technical question. [00:37:15] I want to thank the City Manager for answering one of my technical questions. [00:37:19] I snuck in a second one there, I don't know if you saw it at the end. [00:37:23] It was the three and the four that's by Orange Grove. [00:37:29] I wasn't sure what that was in reference to, because the three and the four at the [00:37:34] south end is accounted for with properties already. [00:37:39] So is that saying that those properties all the way up on Orange Grove North are for those [00:37:44] two docks south? [00:37:46] Do you see what I'm referring to? [00:37:49] I don't know, so I'm sorry. [00:37:52] Orange Grove Street, there's a three and a four boxed in, and there's nothing else on [00:37:56] the map similar to it, so I was trying to figure out what those emblems were referring [00:37:59] to. [00:38:00] He's talking about to the right. [00:38:06] I don't think that has anything to do with those. [00:38:08] No. [00:38:09] Those, yeah, those don't have anything to do with this. [00:38:12] That just happened to be in the map. [00:38:13] Yeah, because there's a three and four down below that matches the list. [00:38:16] Correct, so that three and four that is consistent with every other label, that's the properties. [00:38:24] The three and four north by Orange Grove have nothing to do with the properties. [00:38:28] Oh, thank you. [00:38:29] Okay, I just figured that was the case. [00:38:30] It's like the gentleman said, it's probably the lot number, the flock number. [00:38:35] And to the point of the raising, other than the amendment, any foreseeable future amendments [00:38:41] in easing that process, I'd love to see this added as a layer to our legend in our GIS

   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.b

   ↳You arrived here from a search for “Mr. Rivera” — transcript expanded below

   2024 Water and Wastewater Revenue Sufficiency Analysis and Rate Design Study

   discussed

   Stantec Consulting presented the 2024 Water and Wastewater Revenue Sufficiency Analysis and Rate Design Study, concluding that the currently adopted 4% annual rate increases through 2028 are sufficient to sustain the utility's operating and capital needs. Council discussed concerns about the Gulf Harbors bulk service loss, the interlocal agreement with Pasco County regarding rates charged to county residents, and potential expansion of the greywater/reclaimed water system. No formal vote was recorded in this excerpt.

   • direction:Council directed staff/legal to review the interlocal agreement with Pasco County regarding rate compliance and to explore alternatives such as capping sewer charges and revisiting greywater system expansion strategy. (none)

   🏢Gulf Harbors🏢Pasco County🏢Stantec Consulting👤Danica Katz👤Kelly👤Robert Rivera👤Watts#10-year financial management plan#2023 ordinance establishing 4% water/sewer/reclaimed rate increases through 2028#2024 Water and Wastewater Revenue Sufficiency Analysis and Rate Design Study#Cost of Service Analysis#Greywater/reclaimed water system expansion#Interlocal agreement with Pasco County

   ▶ Jump to 38:47 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:38:47] system as something that could be navigated for the sake of transparency and just being [00:38:51] able to interact with it more. [00:38:53] And so for the reasons of transparency and just making things more user-friendly, I [00:38:57] see the benefit in having a map illustration and not a 1924 legal description. [00:39:05] Time is up, man. [00:39:06] No, I'm just kidding. [00:39:07] I started choosing this for you guys, now I didn't tell you. [00:39:10] That's all I have. [00:39:11] Second. [00:39:12] I'm good. [00:39:13] Kelly? [00:39:14] I don't have anything else to add. [00:39:15] No, sir. [00:39:17] All those in favor signify by aye, aye, it's five, nothing. [00:39:27] Moving on to the 2024, Water and Waste Water Revenues Significance Analyst and Rate Design [00:39:40] Study. [00:39:41] Next we have Stantec Consulting who Mr. Rivera has been working with for some time on this [00:39:48] study and I'll allow him to introduce the study and then the Stantec staff that he's [00:39:54] been working with. [00:39:56] Mr. Mayor, may I interrupt just for a brief second to say that I see folks in the audience [00:40:02] who ask questions and when we finish our meeting we have communication so for those of you [00:40:06] who can stay to listen to that, we'll be able to respond to some of the comments at [00:40:12] that time. [00:40:13] I just don't want them to feel their comments would not be taken. [00:40:18] Thank you. [00:40:19] Pardon me for interrupting. [00:40:20] Robert? [00:40:21] Yeah, this item for your consideration for approval is the adoption of the 2024 Water [00:40:30] and Waste Water Revenue Sufficiency Analysis. [00:40:33] These types of studies typically happen every three to five years. [00:40:38] The studies identify the financial stability of the utility. [00:40:43] On a side note, as you are aware, the city and the county have an interlocal agreement [00:40:49] when it comes to operations of the utility as well as service areas and partial ownership [00:40:56] of our wastewater treatment plant and so we just wanted to let you know that the county [00:41:03] also uses Stantec for their revenue sufficiency analysis which uses the same data implementation [00:41:11] as well as the same methodology and with that I'll turn it over to Danica Katz. [00:41:17] She's with Stantec and what took the lead in this study. [00:41:21] Thanks, Robert. [00:41:22] Good evening everyone. [00:41:24] Good evening, council, city manager, city attorney, and everyone else present here today. [00:41:29] So for today's presentation, like Robert said, we're going to go ahead and walk through our [00:41:34] results and findings from the Water and Sewer Revenue Sufficiency and Cost of Service Analysis. [00:41:40] We're going to step through all of our inputs, assumptions, and then land on those results. [00:41:48] So as a brief agenda for today, we're going to go through the project background and scope [00:41:53] that Stantec was hired to do. [00:41:55] We're going to review the financial management plan over the 10-year projection period. [00:42:00] We are also going to take a moment to look at a benchmarking survey and some typical [00:42:05] utilities within the surrounding areas and how you compare to them. [00:42:09] We're also going to review the cost of service results and then we're going to brief our [00:42:15] conclusions and recommendations from the study. [00:42:22] So as a background and scope, the city currently has an ordinance in place that was adopted [00:42:27] in 2023 that established water, sewer, and reclaimed water rates of 4% across the board [00:42:36] through 2028. [00:42:38] And so Stantec was retained in fiscal year 2024 to update the financial management plan [00:42:44] with current and available data provided by city staff and through various meetings with [00:42:49] city staff to make sure our assumptions were correct and as accurate as we could get to [00:42:54] confirm if the 4% was sufficient for the financial conditions, both operating and capital components, [00:43:01] and if that ordinance would be sufficient for the remaining projection period. [00:43:07] We also, as part of this study, did a cost of service review that looked at the cost [00:43:12] to serve water, sewer, and reclaimed services compared to what you're currently collecting [00:43:18] today, just to ensure that there's no significant subsidies between different services. [00:43:27] As a high level, our revenue sufficiency analysis, the fundamental objective is to ensure that [00:43:32] your utility is sustainable throughout both the near-term as well as the long-term period. [00:43:39] And so what you can see on the screen is a couple of the key elements that we go through [00:43:42] as we conduct these studies. [00:43:46] The first being the operating expenses, so we look at all of your budgets, we work with [00:43:50] city staff to make sure that we have the most current available data. [00:43:55] We also look at your capital improvement plan, so a five-year capital plan of all upcoming [00:44:00] renewal and replacement projects, as well as any significant expansion type projects. [00:44:05] We also look at debt service, so any existing or outstanding debt that the city has. [00:44:12] And as we go through this RSA process, or revenue sufficiency process, we start by putting [00:44:17] a couple of key inputs into the model. [00:44:20] And so some of those, like I mentioned, are the budget, the capital component, as well [00:44:25] as assumptions for economic growth, any policy-specific considerations for the city. [00:44:34] We also talk through and review with city staff, once we have a preliminary model, all [00:44:39] of our assumptions that we've made, as far as escalation factors, specifically on all [00:44:45] of your operating costs, as well as our borrowing terms, and then capital funding and execution [00:44:53] type inputs. [00:44:55] And ultimately what that produces is a 10-year forecast that will... [00:45:00] determine whether or not the 4% rate increases that are within your [00:45:04] ordinance are sufficient to cover all of these operating and capital needs. Okay, I [00:45:11] just want to highlight a couple of the key funding needs or key items from the [00:45:16] financial model output. So we have your operating expenses or your reoccurring [00:45:21] costs to maintain the utility, and so those are about $10.4 million in [00:45:26] 2025, and that includes both personnel services as well as operating fixed and [00:45:32] variable costs. And throughout the projection period for fiscal year [00:45:38] 2024 through 2034, those are increasing at about three and a half percent year [00:45:45] over year as kind of a composite average of those operating expenses. For the [00:45:52] capital component, we look at a five and ten year capital plan. And so what you [00:45:57] can see there, the $44 million for 2024 through 2029, that is the capital that [00:46:04] was provided by the city as far as all the renewal replacement type projects, [00:46:09] equipment, and so forth. We discuss with city staff execution factors and we [00:46:16] incorporate all that into our study and make sure that we are as accurate as we [00:46:20] can be with the amount of spending that will occur. And then we also take into [00:46:25] account maintaining a minimum reserve target of six months, and this helps with [00:46:32] borrowing capacity, maintaining a cash balance or reserves in case of any [00:46:37] emergency funding needs, or anything along those lines. [00:46:43] Okay, so what you can see here is a summary output of all of the inputs and [00:46:50] assumptions that I've discussed so far. And I just want to highlight a couple of [00:46:54] key things. I know there's a lot on these slides, but the most important things are [00:46:59] you can see up at the top left corner, you have very strong debt service [00:47:03] coverage ratios, and even more pronounced in those outer years because some of [00:47:09] your existing debt service drops off. You're meeting and maintaining that six [00:47:14] month reserve target or balance in that top left graph. Very sustainable cash [00:47:21] flows throughout the projection period, and a very small amount of borrowing [00:47:26] required in 2029. This is the same graph that you saw or table that you saw on [00:47:36] the previous slide, just looking more at that short-term period through 2029 in [00:47:42] alignment with your ordinance of the four percents through 2028. So you can [00:47:47] see that you're meeting that six month reserve target, sustainable cash flows, [00:47:51] and a very strong debt service coverage ratio. [00:47:58] Okay, what we have here is a local benchmarking survey for a typical [00:48:04] residential water and sewer bill. And so what you can see here is the City of [00:48:10] New Port Richey, the inside city customers for the current, which is in [00:48:14] orange, and then the fiscal year 2025, which would be a four percent increase [00:48:19] on top of that for both water and sewer. You can see that you're right in the [00:48:24] middle of the pact, right at the average compared to some of these local and [00:48:28] surrounding utilities. And that is based on a 4,000 gallon per month bill for a [00:48:36] typical customer. Additionally, as part of our study, we went through a cost [00:48:48] allocation review. And the fundamental objective of this is to look at, because [00:48:54] you operate as one enterprise, it's to understand what costs are associated [00:49:00] with each service, and is that comparable to what you are collecting through your [00:49:05] rate revenues. And so that's what the cost of service does. And as you can see [00:49:09] here on this graph, the water is slightly subsidizing the sewer and reclaimed [00:49:15] service, although the sewer is very closely aligned to the rate revenue, [00:49:20] which is really good to see. The other thing that I want to highlight too, is [00:49:26] when you look at sewer with reclaimed water service included in it, which can [00:49:33] be a typical or a very standard practice to include reclaimed service as a part [00:49:39] of the sewer service, because it's considered a benefit to the affluent [00:49:43] disposal. You can see that water is subsidizing sewer in this situation when [00:49:49] you look at them together. And so with all of that being said, and all of our [00:49:58] study inputs and assumptions and discussions with city staff, our [00:50:03] conclusion is that the current adopted ordinance that's in place for the four [00:50:07] percent across the board is sufficient to sustain the utility and to cover the [00:50:12] operating and capital requirements. And so we recommend continuing that [00:50:17] ordinance and those four percents. We also recommend continuing to perform [00:50:22] annual revenue sufficiency analysis or periodic revenue sufficiency analysis to [00:50:28] ensure that we're capturing updated growth, economic conditions, updated [00:50:33] budget, any type of, you know, component that could affect the sustainability of [00:50:39] the utility or the rates. And then to look at the cost of service component [00:50:45] and potentially look at a formal rate study to make any adjustments to the [00:50:50] rate structure if needed. So I'm going to go ahead and open it up for questions. I [00:50:55] appreciate all of your time. [00:51:00] My first question is related to the bulk service revenue that the city had [00:51:06] enjoyed before, just recently within the past year or so. That bulk service was [00:51:12] all sewer service, and we have a bulk water agreement, but I don't think we [00:51:19] sell much bulk water. That was with the Gulf Harbors revenue. I couldn't tell [00:51:30] from the looks of your graphs how you've factored in all of that, but it was, I [00:51:37] believe, your firm who also represented Pasco County as well as New Port Richey [00:51:41] when the decision was made here for us to basically walk away from that [00:51:47] potential retail revenue. At the time, the study indicated that in the long term [00:51:52] that the city would have been smart to hold on to it, would have given us [00:51:56] long-term revenue, but in the short term there were a lot of expenses with that [00:52:00] Gulf Harbor system that were maybe seen to be insurmountable or difficult for [00:52:07] the city to face, and so the decision was made by the City Council to not [00:52:15] compete for the area within our own service area. Then after that, we modified [00:52:21] the percentage of the facility, of the sewer facility, that we own to now be in [00:52:27] 51 percent from what was 60 percent. So all of those are some pretty big changes [00:52:37] that occurred in the last year or two. Was there anything that you've learned [00:52:43] from that in terms of what the result of that is to our revenue? I noticed that [00:52:50] we're at the end of the projected good six months revenue at the end of [00:52:57] your term, and we're well above now, so it looks as if you're plotting [00:53:03] for us to be at the anticipated healthy rate, which would represent a [00:53:10] drain on our reserves to some degree. Correct, yeah. The use of reserves or fund [00:53:18] balance is being used to pay for capital projects, and so what that's doing is [00:53:21] it's minimizing the amount of debt service needed in those upfront years, [00:53:25] and so that's why you kind of see that draw down, because it's paying for those [00:53:29] capital-related projects and pushing that borrowing out until 2029, which you [00:53:34] saw on the graph. And then as far as the bulk, city staff provided us budgets for [00:53:41] both expenses and revenue, so any bulk revenue that's coming in would be [00:53:45] incorporated in these results and study that you see here. And Robert, [00:53:51] anything else you want to add? A follow-up to that is our service [00:53:56] agreement with the county had a provision, and I don't know if we've ever [00:53:59] amended it, that we should not be charging the county residents any more [00:54:04] than they're paying to Pasco County, and the outside rate is considerably higher, [00:54:09] and so I'm concerned. I mean, we can quietly pretend that we are not [00:54:14] violating that, but I think it's time for us to speak back to the county and make [00:54:18] sure that they understand what our rates are, because the last thing we need is to [00:54:22] be told by the county that we're not in compliance with that agreement. Also, with [00:54:29] respect to the greywater, there's been a lot of effort for many years to try to [00:54:34] expand the greywater system throughout the city to provide for irrigation, which [00:54:41] again would affect and lower the retail water use, but a former [00:54:48] council member who was here earlier was really arguing against that, if any of [00:54:52] you all remember, against the high cost of having an irrigation separate meter. [00:55:02] And so the irrigation being the use of sewer and the combination of the sewer [00:55:11] and the greywater system, I think is a smart way to show it, because it is [00:55:17] associated with that, but I think we need a lot more understanding and discussion [00:55:23] about the capital improvements that may be in line for the expansion of our [00:55:27] greywater system. It doesn't bring us any revenue, it's all cost, it's all capital [00:55:32] cost, and we have an agreement with the county now for them to take all of our [00:55:35] greywater. When you build a brand new community, you can put greywater in it, [00:55:40] because everybody has an irrigation line. Irrigating our city's general population [00:55:45] where there aren't sprinkler systems, and people going to irrigation to avoid and [00:55:52] lower the cost of their sewer, would cause me to ask that the next time you [00:55:57] come back, that if we could look at another concept, which is having a cap on [00:56:02] sewer charges, and in some cases, having those irrigation meters isn't even [00:56:07] necessary if you just cap sewer at 10,000 gallons a month or something like that. [00:56:11] So I'm hoping that we can get some advice as well from a consulting standpoint [00:56:16] of the best practices. We've been lucky to have, you know, top-notch people [00:56:21] operating our system for a long time, and we're very efficient with it. [00:56:26] Unfortunately, because the county has grown their system through community [00:56:30] development districts, which invest all that money into their infrastructure and [00:56:35] then donate it to the county, and they get to use it, we don't get the benefit. [00:56:40] We've paid for a number of water systems and sewer systems to expand our [00:56:44] service area, and that's caused our costs to go up as we serve people in those [00:56:49] outside service areas. So I think I would feel real comfortable if we would be [00:56:55] able to revisit that service area. I know that they've got what they needed [00:57:00] from us, and I would just like for legal or somebody to look at our legal [00:57:05] obligations under that agreement. I don't want to have us working in a [00:57:10] situation where we don't come back and say, you know what, you've got Gulf [00:57:15] Harbors, you took our bulk away from us, you've got gray water, you can handle all [00:57:22] of that, we don't need to be investing a lot of money in that. If you want our [00:57:26] rates to stay low, we're using the same consultant, you know, help us to be in [00:57:32] line and continue to function, you know, fully operational with our strategy. I [00:57:39] think it's my comments, that's more than enough. I see Watts looking over here, so [00:57:44] did I break a record? Yeah, maybe, almost. Thank you. I was going to comment on the [00:57:53] safety part, but you basically answered that question. I don't have anything, so I [00:57:59] appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you very much, appreciate your time. And keep an eye on us. [00:58:09] Yes, of course. And I did notice that you wanted to, you did that plug [00:58:14] that you want to come back. Absolutely, annually, that's why I threw in the annual there. [00:58:22] Okay, request for an extension of the police accreditation managed service

   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.c

   Request for Extension for the Police Accreditation Managed Services/Independent Contractor Agreement

   approved

   Council approved a 12-month extension of the Managed Services/Independent Contractor Agreement with consultant Frank Ruggiero for police accreditation consulting services, effective November 1, 2024. Chief Cochin explained the consultant has been instrumental in guiding the department toward CFA accreditation by December 1, 2025, with the department about halfway through complying with 233 standards.

   • motion:Approve a 12-month extension of the Managed Services/Independent Contractor Agreement with consultant Frank Ruggiero for police accreditation consulting services, effective November 1, 2024. (passed)5–0

   🏢Commission for Florida Law Enforcement Accreditation🏢Tarpon Springs Police Department👤Chief Cochin👤Frank Ruggiero👤Ms. Manns#CFA accreditation#FY25 Police Department Budget Division 61#MSICA (Managed Services/Independent Contractor Agreement)#November 1, 2023 original agreement

   ▶ Jump to 58:25 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:58:30] No, no, it's just... I'm expecting them to adopt it. Adopt it? Yeah, okay. [00:58:39] Can we open up to the public? Okay. Seeing no one come forward, come back for the vote. [00:58:48] Adopt the report. Second. All those in favor signify by aye. Aye. Those opposed by nothing. [00:58:54] Request for extension of the police accreditation managed service [00:58:59] independent contractor agreement. About a year ago, we entered into a contract with [00:59:07] a consultant to assist the police department in their effort to become an [00:59:12] accredited agency. The purpose of this agenda item is to extend that agreement [00:59:18] for a one-year period of time, and Chief Cochin will further introduce the agenda [00:59:22] item. Thank you, Chief. Thank you, Ms. Manns. Mayor, council members, the request for [00:59:27] the council is to approve 12-month extension of the November 1st, 2023 [00:59:31] managed services independent contractor agreement, otherwise known as MSICA. [00:59:36] Effective November 1st, 2024, the same terms and conditions for the police [00:59:41] accreditation consulting services. As you might remember, on 11723, the council [00:59:47] approved the existing 12-month MSICA with consultant Frank Ruggiero, effective [00:59:52] November 1st, 2023, by these services. Prior to approving that contract, we did [00:59:58] go out [01:00:00] to an RFP process. We selected probably one of the most highest qualified consultants [01:00:05] in the state. I know this from prior experience with this consultant. He's highly regarded [01:00:11] by the Commission for Florida Accreditation. He is literally their go-to guy when they [01:00:16] have problem agencies throughout the state of Florida. So we have a gold standard here [01:00:22] assisting us. We currently have an agreement with the Commission for Florida Law Enforcement [01:00:28] Accreditation to meet the requirements of CFA accreditation by December 1st, 2025. And [01:00:34] our accreditation consultant has been instrumental in guiding us through this process. So it [01:00:40] is essential that we continue this contract for another 12 months so we can fulfill our [01:00:44] goal of becoming an accredited agency through the CFA. And this is not an easy process and [01:00:50] we're probably about halfway through it. We've made a lot of great gold standard changes [01:00:55] to the police department and that process continues. And you know my philosophy, there's [01:00:59] never a finish line to being better and you always want to better yourself, but our first [01:01:04] step is to get accredited. We have to comply with about 233 tough standards. And then once [01:01:11] you become accredited, you have to prove that you live and buy them. So the goal to be an [01:01:16] accredited agency is you have to change the culture. Everybody has to live by that culture. [01:01:22] It's not just about throwing out policies. There are so many different areas in the police [01:01:25] department that accreditation deals with, from property and evidence to booking to our [01:01:30] arrest procedures to our pursuits, to all these different areas. So these are all gold [01:01:35] standard standards that we are complying with and will be coming into compliance with. [01:01:44] The background of the consultant, again, he really is a gold standard consultant. He's [01:01:48] been doing this for 10 years. He's currently the Chief Deputy of the Tarpon Springs Police [01:01:53] Department. I personally worked with him for a decade in keeping an accredited agency in [01:01:58] Tarpon. We've done three successful re-accreditations and we never had any issues with them. So [01:02:05] he's just a great member to have on board to help guide our staff, train our staff and [01:02:09] get us through this process. So the recommendation is to approve the MSICA for a 12-month extension [01:02:15] with Consultant Frank Ruggiero for continued police accreditation services. Our budget, [01:02:20] our FY25 budget has this money funded in Division 61 of the Police Department budget. So with [01:02:28] that I'll be glad to answer any questions that you may have. [01:02:31] Do you have any public comment? Seeing no one come forward, we'll bring you back for [01:02:36] a discussion and vote. I'll move approval. [01:02:41] Second. [01:02:42] Baker. [01:02:43] Opposed? [01:02:44] Approved. [01:02:45] Thanks for the hard work on this. [01:02:46] Thank you, Chief. [01:02:47] You have nothing to add? Good job. [01:02:50] I just want to, it says an extension, but I think the Police Department is way ahead [01:02:54] of the game when it comes to this and providing, I think the Chief hit it when he said gold [01:03:00] standards. You see where when we are already in compliance with some of these accreditations [01:03:03] how they benefit our community. And I can only imagine when we come into compliance [01:03:08] with some of the other standards, the benefits we'll see for our community and that we have [01:03:12] been able to secure someone as talented as the gentleman listed here who's recommended [01:03:18] throughout the state. So I appreciate the Police Department working diligently on this [01:03:21] and continuing to stay on it. It was one of the first things that the Chief proposed doing [01:03:25] and he stayed steadfast with his team doing it. So thank you. [01:03:28] Thank you. [01:03:29] And thank you to the City Manager too. [01:03:31] It's like another eye keeping an eye on us and we appreciate that very much. All those [01:03:39] in favor signify by aye. [01:03:40] Aye. [01:03:41] Those opposed, we have five nothing. Approval and revised memorandum of understanding with

   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.d

    Approval of Revised Memorandum of Understanding with the Pasco County Sheriff's Office RE: Operation Stonegarden

    approved

    Council approved a revised Memorandum of Understanding with the Pasco County Sheriff's Office for Operation Stonegarden, a Homeland Security grant supporting drug interdiction operations. Changes included an updated grant number (R0461 to R0545), extended invoice submission window (10 to 45 business days), and other administrative revisions.

    • motion:Approve the revised Operation Stonegarden Memorandum of Understanding with the Pasco County Sheriff's Office. (passed)

    🏢New Port Richey Police Department🏢Pasco County Sheriff's Office👤Chief👤Ms. Manns#Grant R0461#Grant R0545#Homeland Security grant#OPSG Border Security Grant#Operation Stonegarden

    ▶ Jump to 1:03:43 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

    [01:03:48] the Pasco County Police Office and Operations Stone Garden. [01:03:56] Is related to Homeland Security and the purpose of having it on your agenda this evening is [01:04:03] to afford the Chief an opportunity to make a couple of revisions in it based on some [01:04:09] changes that the Pasco County Sheriff has originated. So we'll let the Chief introduce [01:04:16] those changes to you. [01:04:17] Thank you Ms. Manns. Honorable Mayor, Council Members, sorry to have to bring this before [01:04:22] you again but there were some changes to the MOU and this is a federal grant so we want [01:04:26] to be above board with everything we do. So the request of the City Council is to approve [01:04:31] the revised Operations Stone Garden Memorandum of Understanding between the Pasco County [01:04:35] Sheriff's Office and the New Port Richey Police Department to our department to see [01:04:39] cost reimbursements for police operations under Homeland Security grant that the Sheriff's [01:04:43] Office administers. As I explained last time, this grant allows us mostly to do drug interdiction [01:04:50] on the water and on the land with Pasco County and they reimburse us for everything from [01:04:54] our overtime to our fuel to the use of our vehicles. So what has changed since the last [01:05:00] one you approved and they're somewhat substantive but not crazy. So the changes are first the [01:05:06] grant number change, that's probably important. So the grant number changed from R0461 to [01:05:12] R0545. Section 3E, Terms and Procedures of Operations Stone Garden was changed to add [01:05:18] the grant number R0545. Section G was added to Section 3 and states the following, all [01:05:24] parties agree that any allocations and use of funds under the OPSG border security grant [01:05:30] shall be in accordance with the guidelines of the grant. I think that's pretty straightforward. [01:05:34] Section 5.3, Fiscal, the language has changed to require us to send Pasco County Sheriff's [01:05:39] Office Stone Garden reimbursement invoices within 45 business days of an operation as [01:05:44] opposed to within 10 business days on the previous grant you approved. And Section 5, [01:05:50] Fiscal, the revised MOU added Section 4 with language that this allows grant reimbursement [01:05:55] if we do not send reimbursement invoices within 45 days of an operation. I guarantee [01:06:00] you that we will. Section 5C was changed, 3 was changed requiring to provide Sheriff's [01:06:08] Office with a designated contact person which we will as soon as you approve this. Section [01:06:15] 7K was highlighted as a change however the language still allows all parties to terminate [01:06:20] their participation in the MOU by providing 30 days written notice to all the parties. [01:06:26] By signing this revised MOU again our agency is bringing more resources to bear into our [01:06:31] fight against illegal drugs coming into the Tampa Bay area. Our city attorney reviewed [01:06:36] the revised MOU and approved it as the form and the recommendation is to approve Operation [01:06:41] Stone Garden revised memorandum of understanding with the Pasco Sheriff's Office and there [01:06:45] is no budget impact. Available for any questions if you have them. [01:06:48] Do we have any public comment? Seeing no one come forward we'll bring it back for discussion. [01:06:55] Anything we can do to fight the illegal drugs coming into our area? I mean this is all good [01:07:03] it allows for more funding for that so it's all good. [01:07:06] I made my comments clear the first time. [01:07:09] I'm fine. [01:07:12] Teamwork, that's what it's about, teamwork. All those in favor signify by aye. Aye.

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

11. 9Communications▶ 1:07:17
12. 3

    Moment of Silence

    Moment of silence.
13. 10Adjournment