On the agenda

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

   Pledge of Allegiance

   Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence were observed.

   ▶ Jump to 0:16 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:16] The pledge of a moment of silence. [00:00:19] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for [00:00:25] which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

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

3. 3

   Moment of Silence

   Moment of silence.

   ▶ Jump to 0:35 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:35] Thank you.

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

4. 4.a

   ↳You arrived here from a search for “50% substantial improvement rule” — transcript expanded below

   Emergency Ordinance No. 2024-2312: Definition of Substantial Improvement

   approved

   Council adopted Emergency Ordinance 2024-2312, amending the Land Development Code's definition of substantial improvement and reducing the floodplain look-back period from five years to two years to relieve property owners affected by Hurricanes Helene and Milton. A scrivener's correction was made to also change a second reference from five-year to two-year. The motion passed 5-0.

   Ord. Emergency Ordinance No. 2024-2312

   • motion:Motion to approve Emergency Ordinance 2024-2312, reducing the substantial improvement look-back period from five years to two years, with a scrivener's correction to change the second five-year reference to two-year. (passed)5–0

   📍3751 Wiregrass Road, New Brunswick, Florida, 34655📍Westport🏢FEMA👤Josh Starkey👤Ron DeSantis#50% substantial improvement rule#Emergency Ordinance 2024-2312#FEMA flood rating#Flood Damage Prevention Code#Hurricane Helene#Hurricane Milton#Land Development Review Board#Section 22.09.00, Article 2, Chapter 22 Land Development Code

   ▶ Jump to 0:36 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:36] Emergency ordinance to provide definition of substance, yeah, substances improvement, [00:00:50] whatever. [00:00:51] Substantial. [00:00:52] Substantial. [00:00:53] Thank you. [00:00:54] Improvement. [00:00:55] This is emergency ordinance 2024-2312, an emergency ordinance of the City of New Port Richey, Florida, providing for amendment of section 22.09.00 of article 2 of chapter [00:01:06] 22 of the land development code, pertaining to definitions of terms in the flood damage [00:01:11] prevention code. [00:01:13] Providing for amendment of the definition of substantial improvement, providing for [00:01:16] reduction of the review period for substantial improvements from five years to two years, [00:01:22] providing for a further review of the provisions hereof as a non-emergency ordinance, providing [00:01:27] for conflict, severability, and an effective date. [00:01:30] Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. [00:01:35] This agenda item is being presented this evening as a result of the fact that we have many [00:01:44] property owners in the city, the owners of residential property that have suffered losses [00:01:54] as a result of both Hurricane Milton and Hurricane Helene, and who fall into a clash of what [00:02:07] is referred to as substantial improvement for floodplain management purposes. [00:02:19] And when that occurs, there is a look-back period in accordance with our local ordinance [00:02:26] of a five-year period of time, which takes into account a cumulative cost which is of [00:02:41] improvements to the building or structure, and would not allow for additional improvements [00:02:49] that exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure. [00:02:56] What we're finding, though, is that the substantial improvement provision in our Land Development [00:03:06] Review Board is creating an inordinate burden to our property owners who have already suffered [00:03:13] loss as a result of the hurricanes, and under an emergency ordinance, I'm asking you to [00:03:22] consider reducing the look-back period from five years to two years. [00:03:30] I've conducted a study of 24 other communities in the area to take a look at what their roll-back [00:03:39] period is, and the majority of them are operating under a two-year rolling period. [00:03:49] Some of them operate under a one-year rolling period. [00:03:53] I think a two-year period is appropriate for our community, and based on some of the damages [00:04:04] that we've experienced and some of the improvements that people have implemented in their household [00:04:11] structures, I think this will address the problems that we're seeing in the building [00:04:18] department and people will be able to go forward with the improvements that they need [00:04:23] to make to get back into their households, and it will be a big help to them without [00:04:32] reducing our FEMA rating or creating further unnecessary hardships to the properties that [00:04:42] aren't repetitive loss properties. [00:04:47] The reason we're bringing this to you as an emergency ordinance is in part due to the [00:04:56] fact that we think it needs to be effectuated immediately, and our normal process would [00:05:06] call for going through the Land Development Review Board and then bringing their recommendation [00:05:13] forward to you, and that would be a multi-month period of time. [00:05:21] We though will be required to do that going forward in the future, so for now we're asking [00:05:30] you to adopt an emergency ordinance which would effectuate the two-year rollback period. [00:05:38] We though will come back with a permanent ordinance, and I will at that time be recommending [00:05:50] that we maintain, as a city, a two-year period for the look-back time, and we'll be recommending [00:06:04] that to the Land Development Review Board, and then their recommendation will be forwarded [00:06:09] to you. [00:06:11] All of the work that is accomplished in between the time that, if you see fit, this ordinance [00:06:20] is effectuated, and the time that the other ordinance, whatever it is, takes place will [00:06:30] hold. [00:06:31] And if you have any questions, the city attorney or I are prepared to respond to them. [00:06:37] Do you have any public comment? [00:06:46] Honorable Mayor, Council Members, Department Heads, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, [00:06:51] I applaud you for acting so fast on this. [00:06:53] I'm definitely in favor of this ordinance. [00:06:56] Going from five years to two years is going to be very, very beneficial. [00:06:59] There's still, I feel questions all the time being the insurance industry. [00:07:03] I spoke to a lady today who lives in New Port Richey who was told she's going to be over [00:07:07] the 50% rule. [00:07:08] She didn't know where to turn. [00:07:10] So I urge you to, as a city, in my opinion FEMA should be reaching out to you guys, but [00:07:14] I just don't see that happening. [00:07:16] As a city, we need to engage with a liaison, a representative from FEMA that we can have [00:07:24] our residents be able to turn to, to get some of their questions answered. [00:07:28] She just said, Jeff, she's one of my insureds, I have no money to elevate my home. [00:07:32] What am I supposed to do? [00:07:33] There's supposed to be grant money out there from FEMA. [00:07:35] They don't want these repetitive lost homes on the ground floor living in. [00:07:38] You know, they don't want to keep paying out on them. [00:07:40] So I agree with them. [00:07:42] We need to elevate these homes, the repetitive lost homes, like my mom's, for instance. [00:07:47] But there has to be grant money involved. [00:07:49] You didn't hit the start button, but okay. [00:07:51] During the no-name storm, my parents' next-door neighbor elevated their home. [00:07:55] He was a UPS driver, worked hard, made a good living, but he wasn't rich. [00:07:58] But FEMA stepped in and gave him grant money, let him refinance his home loan at a lower [00:08:02] interest rate at a greater amount to help him elevate the home and move back in, so [00:08:07] now he's off the ground level and there's no repetitive losses. [00:08:11] Another question needs to be answered if we do find a liaison or a contact that we can [00:08:17] work with as a city with FEMA is, are we required to include maintenance items in these values? [00:08:24] New roofs and new windows, in my opinion, are maintenance items. [00:08:27] I don't see those as improvements to your home, yet right now we're including them. [00:08:32] I don't know if that's a FEMA requirement or something we're doing as a city, but I [00:08:36] think that's a question that really, really, really needs to be answered moving forward. [00:08:40] These folks need help. [00:08:41] Like, a buddy of mine lives on the river. [00:08:44] Just another friend of ours elevates homes. [00:08:46] He takes the entire home slab footprint, elevates it up, puts it on pilings, pours the slab [00:08:52] underneath and encloses his garage. [00:08:53] So my one friend asked our other friend for a quote to do that. [00:08:57] It was $450,000. [00:08:58] Well, he's got a mortgage on his home already. [00:09:01] He can't afford just a pump 450 in his home to elevate it. [00:09:04] So there has to be assistance, federal assistance from FEMA out there. [00:09:07] We just need to figure out how to resource them and how to get our residents in touch [00:09:12] with reps from FEMA for assistance in matters like this. [00:09:16] So once again, I applaud you. [00:09:17] I hope you do pass this ordinance going from five years. [00:09:20] I personally think it should be one, but two's a great start compared to five. [00:09:24] Thanks for your time. [00:09:25] Oh, did I say my name and address? [00:09:28] Josh Starkey, 3751 Wiregrass Road, New Brunswick, Florida, 34655. [00:09:34] My apologies. [00:09:35] No one knows who you are. [00:09:37] Would anybody else like to speak? [00:09:40] Seeing no one else come forward, we'll bring it back for a discussion and vote. [00:09:43] Move to approve. [00:09:44] I'll second. [00:09:45] For the maker. [00:09:46] So, yeah, so part of it is that they, in order to get their homes back to tearing out [00:09:55] drywall, getting rid of the mold, that's not included in the 50%, correct? [00:09:58] All of that, tearing it down to make it safe, is not included, correct? [00:10:07] Yes and no. [00:10:09] There are labor costs associated with the removal of the drywall, even if you do it [00:10:15] yourself. [00:10:16] FEMA will include that in your numbers. [00:10:25] There are, just so you know, there are exemptions from substantial improvement in our definition [00:10:35] of substantial improvement in our land development review, in our code, and when we bring back [00:10:45] before you this matter, we will be making some additional recommendations to you for [00:10:54] things to be exempted, and that will be something that you'll be giving some consideration to. [00:11:04] Second. [00:11:07] Technical question first. [00:11:08] Section one of the amendment that's being amended, or the ordinance that's being amended, [00:11:13] the sentence that comes after the strikethrough one, it also says five-year period. [00:11:19] Is there a difference between those two five-year periods? [00:11:22] They got to change that too. [00:11:24] The first one's strikethroughed and then the second one is not, so I didn't know if they [00:11:27] were referring to different types of periods. [00:11:29] Yes, thank you. [00:11:30] That's a good catch, yes. [00:11:32] That should be two years as well. [00:11:34] Thank you. [00:11:35] So that will, for purposes of the record, we'll cross out five-year there and put two-year [00:11:39] underlined in front of that in the second reference in the definition. [00:11:43] Yes, that's what I marked up here too. [00:11:49] My other question is related to the two-year period compared to the one-year period. [00:11:53] Neither would it change the rating qualification, or would the one-year change how we're rated [00:12:03] with the flood? [00:12:04] What was that, excuse me, let me just broaden that up. [00:12:07] What is the rationale behind two-year instead of one? [00:12:10] Is it the study? [00:12:11] It would have to do with our rating, and we would lose additional points on our overall [00:12:17] rating if we went to a one. [00:12:21] Are we losing points with the current reduction to two? [00:12:26] I'm sorry? [00:12:27] Are we losing points with the reduction to two? [00:12:29] We will. [00:12:32] And then, is there any way you can forward that over in your Friday report, the study [00:12:36] that you did for the... [00:12:39] It's right here and I can... [00:12:40] I'm just curious to see what it was. [00:12:43] My other question was with the intergovernmental, it was brought up by the public comment with [00:12:51] the intergovernmental for FEMA, did you get a chance to, or did FEMA reach out? [00:12:57] They said they were going to reach out last week during the town hall they did over at [00:13:03] the county library. [00:13:04] They said the gentleman for intergovernmental affairs for FEMA said he was reaching out [00:13:09] to all the cities. [00:13:10] Has he been in contact with the city? [00:13:11] I have received an email communication, but I have not spoke to him directly at this point. [00:13:17] Okay, because it's my understanding that the FEMA help being provided at the library is [00:13:21] technical assistance, which is great, especially for those that struggle with the use of the [00:13:25] computer, which is the most accessible way of doing it. [00:13:29] But it's definitely... [00:13:30] Some people do go with very specific questions that even the FEMA helpline is not equipped [00:13:36] to answer because it's city focused. [00:13:38] So there is definitely a gap in information there where FEMA is kicking it back to the [00:13:42] city, and the city is kicking it back to FEMA, and we don't know how to address those questions. [00:13:46] So I don't know if that's something that can come up in the meeting with the intergovernmental [00:13:50] affairs gentleman, whose name I can't remember, but... [00:13:53] I'll make sure that it does. [00:13:54] Okay. [00:13:55] Thank you for bringing it up. [00:13:56] And on that, I know the county town hall, they had mentioned a state grant for a very [00:14:05] small amount related to lifting homes. [00:14:09] I'm pretty sure that was recorded, so I'll try to find that snippet and send it over [00:14:11] to you. [00:14:12] But someone from the state mentioned that there is a... [00:14:14] I think it comes like a very small percentage. [00:14:17] Like on the home, you said it would be like 30,000, which I guess helps, but it's not [00:14:23] a lot. [00:14:24] But just to be able to stack some grants up, if we can start looking into those to pass [00:14:27] along to residents. [00:14:30] That's all I have. [00:14:31] Yeah. [00:14:32] Yeah, just kind of talking about the elevation of the homes. [00:14:39] I mean, obviously, there's some programs out there, some federal programs and stuff, but [00:14:44] the amount of money needed to get all these homes is just the magnitude of it. [00:14:50] It's just... [00:14:51] We're really going to have to invest and really just dump... [00:15:00] A lot of money in order to try to get these people help. [00:15:02] My neighbor is one of them. [00:15:04] He fell into that where his house couldn't be repaired [00:15:07] because it was under 50%, it was more than 50%. [00:15:10] And he applied to that program and lucky enough, he got it. [00:15:14] So instead of raising his house, [00:15:16] they're knocking his house down and build him a new house. [00:15:19] And he's got to pay an additional 25 or 30% [00:15:22] on top of what his mortgage is now to pay for it. [00:15:25] But I mean, he got a huge, huge deal. [00:15:29] I told him he won the lotto for getting that kind of help. [00:15:32] But, you know, and there's, you know, [00:15:35] a couple other people I know that it's happened to, [00:15:37] but the amount, I mean, you go out to Westport, [00:15:40] just in New Port Richey, and every single one of those houses [00:15:43] out there flooded, and there's one house [00:15:46] that was raised out there 12 feet. [00:15:48] And it looks funny among all the other houses. [00:15:52] But when you look around and see all these other houses [00:15:54] that have to be raised, I mean, the amount of money is just, [00:15:57] I mean, unbelievable what it's going to cost to do it. [00:16:00] So it's really going to take some dedication from our, [00:16:02] you know, our federal people and state people [00:16:05] to really invest the monies to do it. [00:16:08] And this is going to be a huge, huge undertaking. [00:16:13] And, yeah. [00:16:16] Pete. [00:16:18] Yeah, let's go back to section two again, [00:16:20] if I can get back to the motion on the floor, [00:16:24] which you struck out the second five-year period to put two, [00:16:30] but the, I'm just curious that it's saying subsequent [00:16:39] to May of 1993, which is, you know, 21 years ago. [00:16:45] So is there any reason for us to be reflecting on two years back [00:16:50] from 24, which goes to 22, and still reciting that this is effective [00:16:56] on something that was happening between 93 and 22? [00:16:59] Or is that just a repeat of the language in the code? [00:17:03] Yeah, that's the current language. [00:17:04] That's something we can certainly look at, you know, [00:17:08] when we look at the permanent solution. [00:17:10] But, yeah, that's just a continuation. [00:17:13] The changes that are requested here would allow the city [00:17:16] to allow these properties to remain. [00:17:19] I understand it's just informative of what's happening now, [00:17:24] and it looks to a date that really is irrelevant. [00:17:28] But as I understand it, this is being produced for the purpose [00:17:34] of recognizing the emergency situation of many of our homeowners in the city [00:17:40] that they're under, that they're liable to effectively lose their ability [00:17:44] to live in their homes, and need to have emergency relief, [00:17:50] and that we're changing from five to two in terms of the look back. [00:17:57] Looking forward, if we have another storm in three years from now, [00:18:03] is this telling me that those improvements would not be calculated [00:18:06] in three years from now from a storm where we're continuing [00:18:11] to experience high damages? [00:18:16] So ultimately, as you say, there's a permanent solution we've got [00:18:19] to be looking for. [00:18:21] I'm going to vote for it, but I just want to make sure [00:18:24] that we're thinking realistically, because it's not just insurance [00:18:30] and the evidence produced by Mr. Starkey at the last meeting [00:18:34] that showed a cost which would be over $10,000 a year [00:18:39] for flood insurance if it were not for some kind of a limit [00:18:43] on how much it could be increased every year. [00:18:45] So there was a cap on annual increases in the policy we looked at. [00:18:49] But $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 [00:18:53] for annual flood insurance is also not sustainable. [00:18:58] And the insurance which is, you know, relates to our compliance [00:19:08] with FEMA rules, hopefully what we're doing is [00:19:15] within the bounds of what is expected. [00:19:19] So when we talk about look-out, look-back rules, [00:19:21] there must have been a reason why we looked back five years before. [00:19:26] Has anyone talked about the logic behind the five-year look-back today [00:19:32] or how our city may have come to that? [00:19:36] 14, that's going to be one of my questions. [00:19:38] Was it just the rating we would get insurance-wise [00:19:43] that way you looked at that, do you remember? [00:19:45] It wasn't the principal driver. [00:19:48] It was the fact from what I could read from back then that there were [00:19:57] so many repetitive lost properties and we needed to do something [00:20:01] to motivate those property owners to rebuild to the correct elevations. [00:20:08] It was maybe more of a preparing for today. [00:20:15] But we never expected there'd be two hurricanes, you know, in two months [00:20:20] and it would end up creating a hardship for people [00:20:23] that don't have elevation issues. [00:20:27] Well, the second hurricane really wasn't a flood issue for us [00:20:30] so that was one hurricane for the purpose of flooding, [00:20:33] another one for a different damage but it... [00:20:38] And last year, too, though. [00:20:40] Yeah, right. [00:20:41] Well, there is one other comment that was made that is related to this [00:20:46] which was the 50% rule as we're looking at how much you look back [00:20:50] and looking at the 50% rule. [00:20:52] It was mentioned the values that the county put on it by increasing it [00:20:57] up to the full fair value looking at an 85%, you know, value on the ad valorem taxes. [00:21:06] Has that policy been also one? [00:21:10] Because that also helps to bridge the gap if we do accept the property tax values, [00:21:19] if the county's accepting them as being equal to 85% of the market value of a home. [00:21:25] I know that was raised and I supported that so I don't know that that's... [00:21:32] It's not encompassed in this ordinance but it's an issue that I think did not get answered [00:21:37] but that I would push if we're trying to help people to be able to get them to fix their homes, [00:21:43] then we ought to be looking at whether or not we can comply with the step up of the value based [00:21:51] on the appraisal's general concept that they value things at 85%. [00:21:56] And we accept the county's methodology. [00:21:59] We also allow people to submit an appraisal in lieu of relying on the county's appraisal. [00:22:07] Thank you. [00:22:07] So that's been solved, I guess, if that was raised. [00:22:11] I'm understanding. [00:22:12] Thank you. [00:22:14] All those in favor signify by aye. [00:22:16] Aye. [00:22:17] Those opposed, that's 5-0. [00:22:20] Now we'll go to the business item resolution 2025-06, [00:22:25] extending the local state of emergency for Hurricane Milton. [00:22:33] This is resolution number 2025-06, resolution by the city council of the city of New Port Richey, [00:22:39] Florida, declaring and extending a local state of emergency due to the impacts associated [00:22:44] with Hurricane Milton which moved across the state of Florida and declaring an effective date. [00:22:50] Purpose of the agenda item is to declare the local state of emergency, [00:22:56] to declare, to extend through October 28th of 2024. [00:23:02] The original state of emergency was put in place under Governor Ron DeSantis' executive order [00:23:11] number 24214 on October 4th, 2024. [00:23:19] He declared a state of emergency across several counties, including Pasco County, [00:23:26] in advance of Hurricane Milton. [00:23:28] The city council, on October 7th, conducted a special meeting at which time you declared a local [00:23:35] state of emergency, and that local state of emergency went into effect on October 8th [00:23:41] for a seven-day period of time. [00:23:44] It was extended through a special meeting on October 14th, and it was, there was a second [00:23:58] extension on it pursuant to the provisions of section 252.38385 of the Florida statutes. [00:24:10] At this time, we're asking for another extension, which is in accordance with a resolution [00:24:18] attached to your agenda item, which, if you approve, is for a seven-day period of time [00:24:24] beginning on Tuesday, October 22nd, 2024, and it will remain in effect until Monday, [00:24:32] October 28th, 2024. [00:24:37] The resolution is consistent with the resolutions that have been passed throughout this season [00:24:47] related to Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton, allowing the city to perform duties [00:24:56] as necessary, waiving procedures and formalities attached to public works, entering contracts [00:25:05] and obligations, employment of permanent and temporary workers, and the rental of equipment, [00:25:12] appropriation and expenditure of funds, and acquisition of materials and supplies necessary [00:25:21] to carry out the best interests of the city. [00:25:25] We're recommending that you consider approving the resolution 2025-06. [00:25:30] Do we have any public comment? [00:25:36] Seeing no one come forward, bring it back for discussion and vote. [00:25:39] Move to approve. [00:25:40] I'll second. [00:25:41] I don't have anything to add. [00:25:42] Which one do you want to fight over? [00:25:43] What's that? [00:25:44] Which one do you want to fight over the second? [00:25:45] I don't want to fight. [00:25:46] Do you have anything to add? [00:25:47] Yeah, I was going to say, there's still so much stuff out there that, I mean, it's going [00:25:58] to take so much time to get through this. [00:26:02] Last year when we had it, I mean, we still had some stuff out there, but this time it's [00:26:06] even worse. [00:26:07] So, I mean, it's just, when you're driving around and you're looking, you see stuff everywhere, [00:26:11] and it's going to take so much time to get us back to where we were. [00:26:14] I hope we don't have a storm for the next, you know, five years, because it's going to [00:26:18] take that long. [00:26:19] Can I add one more thing? [00:26:20] I just want to say that, you know, we really need to help teach our residents to separate [00:26:26] the debris, right, the regular trash from the construction debris, from the landscape [00:26:33] debris, because they're throwing it all together. [00:26:36] And I watch those poor guys struggle so much trying to pick stuff up when it's all merged [00:26:40] together. [00:26:41] I mean, it's really difficult for them to do that. [00:26:44] And you end up with a mess in your street if you're not going to be careful and separate [00:26:47] that stuff. [00:26:48] So we really need to, I think, if you get asked that question, try to help our residents [00:26:53] understand that it has to be separated in order for it to be picked up. [00:26:56] Yeah, and maybe we should get that on our website. [00:27:00] We have it on the website. [00:27:01] If you can't share it and send it out to anybody, you can think of it. [00:27:05] It's been a big struggle. [00:27:06] That's been a big part of the struggle. [00:27:08] And to your point, I know it's on the website and the Facebook page. [00:27:11] And I want to say, correct me if I'm wrong, but when I received my 50% paperwork, it was [00:27:17] in there. [00:27:18] There was a flyer that code enforcement, when they were doing their assessments, they were [00:27:21] passing that out. [00:27:23] And it was, we did it wrong. [00:27:24] And when I saw that, I said, OK, let's, fortunately, I still had people there helping me so we [00:27:28] could get it done. [00:27:29] I don't know if that went out to everyone that was affected or just those in the 50% [00:27:34] who received the notice about the power. [00:27:36] But I did have a question related to the debris as well, which I know is one of our more pressing [00:27:42] issues. [00:27:43] Two questions. [00:27:44] One, was there any rebound with any new contractor to take the place of the one that wasn't fulfilling [00:27:49] their obligations? [00:27:50] Did we anticipate being able to pick up debris before that? [00:27:55] I think it's 90 days to be able to reimburse that 100%? [00:28:00] We did pick up an additional contractor. [00:28:03] And yes, we will certainly make 90 days for all pick up. [00:28:09] Great. [00:28:10] And then the... [00:28:11] More than once. [00:28:12] Oh, several shifts? [00:28:13] Oh, yeah. [00:28:14] OK. [00:28:15] And then the other question was, I might have misspoke the other night, or whatever our [00:28:18] last meeting was, when I was posing a question to Public Works about the debris map. [00:28:24] I was referring to the construction and the materials from the house. [00:28:30] And I started circulating this map that I was under the impression was the construction [00:28:36] one, but apparently that was only for yard debris, like palm fronds and so forth. [00:28:41] And so do we have a map? [00:28:42] Because the comment made by Robert Rivera with Public Works was that he would be updating [00:28:48] it with the date and the section they're in. [00:28:51] And so I found that map on the website, thinking that was an answer to my construction question, [00:28:56] because the question was about construction debris materials, and it turns out that that [00:29:00] was for yard debris. [00:29:01] So do we have that same formula, methodology, and place a map like that with dates on it? [00:29:07] Because residents, they want to know when, or at least where things are at. [00:29:11] I think that helps ease some anxiety. [00:29:14] And so I don't know if that map can be made for construction materials as well. [00:29:18] Yeah, we are updating our map on picking up construction materials. [00:29:23] Collin, can you respond? [00:29:24] He goes right here. [00:29:25] That might not even be turned on. [00:29:26] Oh, yeah. [00:29:27] He's a Public Works guy. [00:29:28] He's got it. [00:29:29] Oh, yeah. [00:29:30] Yeah, so what we're doing right now is we're compiling a list on our maps of where our [00:29:42] crews are heading at this time and what kind of progress we've made. [00:29:48] So what I can do tomorrow is I can get with our team and make sure we get that over to [00:29:51] Ms. Manns. [00:29:53] And just because I know it adds another step, but it's a lot more helpful when you can tell [00:29:57] a resident, hey, we're here. [00:30:00] and we'll be here next, versus the map that's currently up for construction [00:30:06] where you just don't, you can't really tell what the next section is going to [00:30:09] be or what timing the next section will be. That's all I have for for today. [00:30:17] Since all the eagle eyes caught the last issue with the five years and the three, [00:30:23] I have a an issue with the the denomination of the time frames of the [00:30:33] emergency. When you say that it's done at 12 a.m. on the last day, the last minute [00:30:41] of that day is 1159. 12 a.m. is the beginning of the next day. So if you're [00:30:47] going to put a date on there, the last date you can't, the time you can put is [00:30:51] 1159. That's according to artificial intelligence, which I'm leaning on more [00:30:57] and more all the time. All those in favor signify by aye. Aye. Those opposed five nothing. [00:31:08] Communication start with you Matt. Since we just schooled the city attorney, can [00:31:16] you school me on why that resolution is 2025? Is it because we're in a new [00:31:21] fiscal year? I'm sure that's a typo. 2024 it should be. As a 2025 marker. Okay. I [00:31:29] was just curious. Briefly, I know there was some activity over the weekend. It [00:31:36] was good to see people out looking at antique cars, a big line at the theater, [00:31:41] life coming back into the restaurants and the business community. I would say [00:31:47] that I was aware of the concert on Friday, and I know that with everybody [00:31:53] being pressed on hurricanes, I'm not meaning this as a criticism, but a number [00:31:58] of people looked up, including me, and found our city's recreation website [00:32:03] advertising August and September events, but not showing this event on the city [00:32:09] website anywhere, nor could I find it on Facebook or when I just was questioning [00:32:15] about that event. So there, I don't know how good the crowd was. I hope it was a [00:32:20] good one. Terrible. But I think that the the public was not aware of that event [00:32:26] at large. So it's, you know, it's tough to keep those things up, but I'm sure it was [00:32:39] good. I'm sorry I missed it. You told me about it. And just a comment related to [00:32:47] that, and I know how exciting things are going to be starting up with Friday and [00:32:52] the hundred-year anniversary, all the work everybody's done. So I know there's [00:32:58] there's a lot of anticipation for that, including myself. So hopefully our [00:33:03] weather will be good and everyone will come and celebrate the beginning of [00:33:07] another hundred years, because this one went out with a hundredth anniversary at [00:33:18] Tampa Bay Water today, and they asked me if I was there a hundred years ago. I [00:33:23] told them yes. Move for adjournment.

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

5. 6Communications▶ 31:00
6. 7Adjournment▶ 33:10
7. 5.a

   Resolution No. 2025-06: Extending Local State of Emergency for Hurricane Milton

   Consider a resolution extending the local state of emergency related to Hurricane Milton.

   Ord. Resolution No. 2025-06

   #Hurricane Milton#Local State of Emergency