On the agenda

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

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

   Discussion Regarding Legislative Priorities for the Pasco County Legislative Delegation Meeting and Appointment of Representatives

   discussed

   Council discussed legislative priorities for the Pasco County Legislative Delegation meeting, reviewing Florida League of Cities priorities (local property taxes, sovereign immunity, enterprise fund transfers, affordable housing, EVs) and three city-specific funding requests: Town and Country Villas Water and Sewer Project ($2.8M ask), 2024 Resiliency Improvement Project ($1.13M ask), and Shriver process modification at the wastewater treatment plant ($1.9M ask). Council also discussed concerns about advanced wastewater treatment legislation (HB 1153/SB 1304) and municipal utility restrictions (HB 1277/SB 1510), and the need to appoint representatives to present at the delegation meeting.

   • direction:Council directed staff to explore expanding the Town and Country Villas ask to include adjacent city areas with septic tanks (e.g., Avery) for a potentially larger funding request. (none)

   📍Astor Drive📍Berkeley📍Carleton📍Dartmouth📍Leisure Lane📍Palmetto Roads📍US Highway 19📍Van Doren Avenue🏢Florida League of Cities🏢Pasco County🏢Trout Engineering👤Jack Mariano👤Mike Moore👤Ms. Manson👤Robert Rivera👤Senator Hooper#2013 Stormwater Master Plan Update#2024 Resiliency Improvement Project#House Bill 1153#House Bill 1277#Pasco County Legislative Delegation Meeting#Senate Bill 1304#Senate Bill 1510#Shriver process modification#Town and Country Villas Water and Sewer Project#Trouble Creek

   ▶ Jump to 0:27 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:28] The significance of this work session is twofold. First, it's an opportunity for us to talk about our legislative priorities and projects for the upcoming, for presentation at the upcoming Pasco County legislative delegation meeting. [00:00:49] Second, it is also a time upon which you will make appointment of representatives that will present at the meeting. [00:01:05] The communication that was sent to you last week contained an attachment from the Florida League of Cities which outlined a legislative platform which set forth priorities that pretty much mirrored some of the priorities that we've seen in previous years. [00:01:35] Specifically related to protection of local property taxes, sovereign immunity, and enterprise and limiting the state's ability to impose restrictions on our use of enterprise fund transfers and extra territory on surcharges for [00:02:05] utility costs. In addition, this year, as a priority, they added some priorities related to affordable housing and electric vehicles. Also, I think, very important priority positions that we should advocate for. [00:02:30] Their policy positions that they have advanced this year relate to annexation, advocating in large part for better policies that are a little more friendly for implementation at the local level, control at the local level for impact fees and business [00:03:00] tax receipts, and also for some assistance from the state for public safety employee recruitment and retention and for a statewide one water system which would establish standards on a statewide basis for water quality. [00:03:25] And those are all things that are of interest to the city, but there are more specific items which Mr. Rivera has brought to our attention that when we get in front of our legislators, we should advocate for. [00:03:53] And one of them is advanced wastewater treatment, and that's a matter that was brought up last legislative session under House Bill 1153 and Senate Bill 1304, and it narrowly failed last session. [00:04:10] And in all likelihood, we're told from our lobbyists that it likely will be reintroduced this legislative session, and the bill would require some changes at our wastewater treatment plant because of its size, because we generate a lot of wastewater. [00:04:40] The bill specifically requires reporting on facilities that have a permitted capacity greater than one million gallons per day, and we do 7.5 million gallons per day as a capacity. [00:05:00] And the reporting requirements, and help me out if I misspeak, Robert, are so detailed that it would require a greater footprint than we currently have available to us at the current site because we would need increased technology to be able to gain enough data to be able to complete the report, [00:05:27] which would necessitate a new plant at a new site, which would be a very large expense. In fact, in Robert's original communication to me, he estimated the cost between $300 million and $500 million for a replacement site. [00:05:51] So we'd like to stay very connected to any legislation in that respect. [00:05:58] Secondarily, a municipal utility, which also came along with proposed bills last legislative session, House Bill 1277 and Senate Bill 1510, which impose restrictions on the use of municipal water and other utility revenues. [00:06:25] But we're concerned about municipal water and wastewater in large part because those utility revenues are used to fund in part general revenues and services in the city. [00:06:39] And the proposed bills impose restrictions on that and also limitations on our ability to impose surcharges to extraterritorial properties. [00:06:58] So we certainly aren't interested in supporting any legislation that would do that in large part because resultantly that would cause challenges for our general fund and also it would be the cause of increase in payments for our existing customer base and more. [00:07:26] Should we interject as we go along? [00:07:30] I think that'd be great. [00:07:31] Okay. All right. Then I'll start it by saying, has this come out of the state or is this from other municipalities like maybe counties or states that are trying to promote this? [00:07:43] In large part, these are state generated, but some of them are a result of maybe some problems that have been experienced at a local level. [00:07:57] And this is a state solution to a local problem in another community that they think may be helpful if they just rolled out at the state level. [00:08:09] I'm sure there's other places that are having problems. Why are they deciding to do the whole state? Is this another example of the state taking over, wanting to take over? [00:08:25] I mean, the cities were big on local rules, so that's why I'm asking. [00:08:29] And the city should continue to advocate for local rules in general for that reason and that's a good comment. [00:08:43] Yeah, but they want to work. I mean, if there's a problem someplace, then they approach them individually and absorb them if they can't handle their own problems. [00:08:51] But put a $300 million tab on us, of course, it's got business. [00:09:02] I think that that, if I may jump in, that was introduced last year and never got anywhere. [00:09:09] I think this was something we heard about last year as well. [00:09:12] And in particular, the 25% increase in our utility charges would be at risk if they decided not to allow that. [00:09:23] Conversely, we do have the authority, and some places do it, we do not, to charge a utility tax on our water and sewer. [00:09:34] But, ironically, that tax can only be imposed on the people who live inside the city. [00:09:42] So if we lost the 25% markup, we'd have to add a 10% utility tax, and it would only be fair if it's our service area, if they would allow us to do that tax. [00:09:55] So if it becomes close to looking like it's got wheels, then the fallback position ought to be, and we might talk with our lobbyists about it, ought to be, [00:10:07] you've now not only taken away our ability to receive some of the benefit of this larger service area, [00:10:17] but now our only option, and you're restricting us, for example, to charge a utility tax that everybody pays in our service area, [00:10:25] because we don't have authority as a municipality to charge a tax outside of our service area. [00:10:31] So it's ironic. Certainly we'd be opposed to it, we wouldn't want to see it, but in the back of our pocket, you know, our... [00:10:40] I think they're looking at a couple problems around the state and not looking at the big picture. [00:10:45] Hopefully that means it won't go anywhere again. [00:10:47] Right. [00:10:51] We'll watch it, just in case it does get reintroduced. [00:10:57] And the other priorities that would be important to the city is any form of assistance that we could get for hurricane-related either response or recovery and future resiliency efforts. [00:11:17] Those are sources of funding that we would like to see additional grant opportunities provided for. [00:11:30] And again, although it is stated by the Florida League of Cities, it is very important, and I'll state it again, [00:11:42] to provide for the recruitment and retention of public safety officers and employees, [00:11:50] and also to create heightened penalties for offenses to public safety employees, because that's become a much more prevalent offense, [00:12:01] and we need to protect our employees the best we can, and it's nice that the state would help us do that. [00:12:10] With that being said, those are the priorities that we would like to advocate and watch over the coming year, [00:12:22] and Robert and I have worked on some projects that we would like to propose to you or open to any projects that you would like us to consider, [00:12:35] but the projects that we are recommending, and I wrote a bit of a description with Robert, [00:12:43] on three projects that we feel are well-suited to meet the requirements set forth by Senator Hooper, [00:12:57] who serves this year as the Appropriations Chair, and he has indicated to Mike Moore, our lobbyist, [00:13:16] that he's very interested in resiliency, he's very interested in water and sewer projects, [00:13:23] and so the projects that we're advocating for are a water and sewer project, a resiliency project, [00:13:33] and a project for the wastewater treatment plant only, and I'll introduce the first project, [00:13:42] and then I would like Robert to introduce the final two projects. [00:13:48] The first project is one of which you're well aware, and it is the Town and Country Villas Water and Sewer Project, [00:14:00] which is one that we've talked about for a number of years, [00:14:07] and the purpose of the project is to improve the resiliency of the public infrastructure in the leisure lane, [00:14:16] Van Doren Avenue, against future storms and rising sea levels and other disasters to improve water quality [00:14:27] and to reduce the public health risks that are associated with the environmental contaminants [00:14:36] that occur when you have septic tanks in place on 185 lots that are located below the base elevation, [00:14:52] and that's just the natural occurrence. [00:15:00] And our, a part of our solution is to get those septic tanks out of there [00:15:07] and to install a sewer line to service those lots. [00:15:14] Originally, when this project was contemplated, the cost associated with the establishment [00:15:23] of that sewer system was $2 million, and we were fortunate enough [00:15:30] to receive a $2 million contribution towards the project from Pasco County. [00:15:40] The costs are no longer $2 million. [00:15:44] We think they're $4 million, perhaps over $4 million. [00:15:50] By the time we are prepared to let the project for bid, and so our estimated project cost [00:16:05] associated with this request is $4.8 million, and we have asked for a $2.8 million grant [00:16:14] in the form of a legislative appropriation with a $2 million match. [00:16:18] From the county, the city, I should say, because the county will be providing that money [00:16:28] to the city, and the project, if approved for funding, [00:16:37] would be implemented next construction season. [00:16:42] I don't know if there's ever been a solution to that. [00:17:12] Your pitch is to get rid of septics, and I would ask if it's possible for you to make a bigger ask [00:17:22] and ask for $6 million or $7 million for remediation of the areas to the west of our city [00:17:35] to include that project, but also perhaps to include some of that green key, Avery, [00:17:42] some of those areas that are within the city. [00:17:45] I haven't seen the squash model estimate of economic losses or properties that have been damaged, [00:17:55] but obviously those are the properties that are going to have to be rebuilt, [00:17:58] and would be probably the most, I guess, open or most encouraged by the bum walk [00:18:10] by the Southern Restorers, so I know, I don't know the rules of the game, [00:18:19] but I know that your topic is very timely, and what you'd like to see happen from when they're [00:18:24] at $6 million to $9.5 million pretty easily add up, and I think they've got $4 or $5 million, [00:18:35] and they've got like $8 or $10 million for a road expansion, so I don't want to be sheepish [00:18:41] about solving a problem. [00:18:44] They could always cut it back, which they do sometimes, but that it's focused [00:18:49] on that one area could be the prime target, but it's the position on the west side [00:18:56] of the highway, and the story of getting rid of the septic. [00:19:01] The thing I'm concerned about is that when we got this $2 million, [00:19:08] it got approved a year or two ago, four years ago, I don't even know, [00:19:12] but it was brought up again a year ago, you know, Jack Mariano didn't want to give it to us. [00:19:19] So I'd be glad to take their money, you know, the $2 million, but are they going to really help us [00:19:26] if we do get some more money and start hitting the county areas, [00:19:29] and lead on the other side of the city area? [00:19:33] I'm not sure I follow, but you don't want to ask for more, or? [00:19:37] I just think the areas you're talking about are county areas. [00:19:41] We have a good set of properties. [00:19:43] Well, Avery, but not Green Key. [00:19:44] When we get out of Green Key, that's not the city. [00:19:46] Avery. [00:19:48] Yeah, Avery, yeah. [00:19:50] We jump way up from Van Buren. [00:19:54] I'm not drawing the map, but my point is if it's city, and it would be a city expansion [00:19:58] of our city sewer, and our sewer area. [00:20:00] Okay, okay, now adding that up, that makes a whole different picture. [00:20:04] Yeah, and of course we talked about Trouble Creek before at the last meeting when we had [00:20:08] to take every eight-year study job, and that had been Robert. [00:20:13] I think you were the one that told me years ago, so you can blame yourself for getting me [00:20:18] to sink my teeth into that one, but the fact that when the water comes in heavy, [00:20:23] the whole neighborhood sinks, and you know. [00:20:28] The problem is it's bigger lots, right, and they're not all there, so it's not really efficient [00:20:35] for us to spend all that money. [00:20:38] Does he need help? [00:20:40] I'll go, I'll back up now that I understand what you're saying, that those areas [00:20:44] on that west side that are adjacent to, you know, are our areas that are, you know, [00:20:49] that are our areas, but that do have, you know, septic tub, [00:20:53] but I do think maybe get a little more money than, you know, I don't know really where, [00:20:58] I don't know personally where all the lines are on the west side, but we already have. [00:21:03] And I think my question would be since they're already flooding [00:21:08] and the sewer pipes are underground, if you're going to make that community, [00:21:13] for example, to elevate, I think you said to bring it up another couple of feet, [00:21:17] then you're going to have stormwater to go with it, but you would have to design it in a way, [00:21:23] I don't know how well that works, Robert, with properties that are already existing [00:21:27] that are so low because you're going to need lift stations and a different kind of a design [00:21:33] to get it out, elevated lift stations or something. [00:21:36] Correct. [00:21:37] And there may be funds available now to make those kind of pitches in the post-disaster, [00:21:43] which I had shared that information. [00:21:47] So I'd leave it to you if you think that's a, you know, figure out what he thinks is asked. [00:21:53] If he says it's too big of an ask, then back it up and go with the project, but it's an idea. [00:21:59] All right, thank you. [00:22:03] Yeah, I mean, I think really the septic issue is a big hot topic, [00:22:12] and I know they've set aside funds for that, so I think if we throw that in there, [00:22:19] you know, make sure it's labeled as septic, that that would help a little bit anyway. [00:22:24] I get the two points, whatever you mean, and then we go where we want to go with it, [00:22:31] but the others on the table sit down the road. [00:22:39] I'm going to hold off on comments. [00:22:40] I want to hear, me personally, I want to hear the rest of the two pitches [00:22:45] and see where we prioritize them, if we can do all three. [00:22:48] And so the reason why I'm going to remain quiet is because I want to get through all three. [00:22:53] I love the suggestion. [00:22:54] I'd love to talk more about it after I hear the other two. [00:22:59] So our next project that we're proposing to you is the 2024 Resiliency Improvement Project. [00:23:05] The project itself was identified in the 2013 stormwater master plan update. [00:23:11] We've also included it in the final draft one that we're going to be presenting to you, [00:23:17] I think, January 7th. [00:23:19] And so the project includes the installation of approximately 1500 lineal feet of 36-inch [00:23:26] stormwater pipe and outfalls. [00:23:28] Those are the main elements of the system. [00:23:31] The flood control elements, or the area of the projects, is in the North River neighborhood, [00:23:40] closer to US Highway 19. [00:23:42] That would include Astor Drive, Berkeley, Carleton, Dartmouth, and Palmetto Roads. [00:23:48] The water quality element, because we're required now in any of our stormwater resiliency projects [00:23:54] that we do, we have to have a water quality element. [00:23:58] So in addition to the inlets that would also trap the solids going in from the road and [00:24:03] the yards and stuff, we would install a CDS unit, which works off a centrifugal force [00:24:09] of the stormwater velocity that would trap any of the additional elements that bypass [00:24:16] oils as well before it went into the river. [00:24:20] And so when we initially had designed the project, started designing it, just like Ms. [00:24:27] Manson said, the projects of these types have just escalated in cost from what we thought. [00:24:34] You are aware that our stormwater utility rates have not increased over several years. [00:24:40] We are still trying to maintain those rates at their standard right now. [00:24:44] And so a lot of our money that we collect, we've been utilizing for the stormwater utility [00:24:50] operational fees and our capital projects that we have performed. [00:24:54] We've always looked for grants to try to supplement those costs. [00:25:00] The alternative to the grants that we would use in this case are typically cooperative [00:25:06] funding, which is about 50%. [00:25:08] And so our thought process is because of the escalation of cost that we would have a better [00:25:14] chance doing the resiliency, additional cost with the legislature because of the input [00:25:22] that they've given us with the type of projects that they want to see submitted this year. [00:25:28] The estimated cost of this project is $1,530,000 and if it was approved, the city would be [00:25:37] prepared to provide $400,000 of those funds. [00:25:41] So we would be asking for $1,130,000 from the legislature. [00:25:48] And that's the dollar amount that the city is committed to is already in the capital [00:25:52] improvement program. [00:25:53] I don't know if anybody has any questions. [00:25:55] Is it already designed or has it? [00:25:58] We're in design. [00:25:59] I found out that the Florida League of Cities, that shovel ready is a big deal. [00:26:05] It is, but right now we're close to 60%, so any kind of information that they would [00:26:11] request or anything like that, we'd be able to supply to them. [00:26:14] I think that was one of the reasons the fire station went so easily because we were already [00:26:22] doing it. [00:26:23] I think it's because there's a well written grant. [00:26:26] I think it's because there's a well written grant. [00:26:32] All of the above. [00:26:40] So our next proposed project that we have is the Shriver process modification. [00:26:47] The existing Shriver tank that we have, it was constructed in the 1980s. [00:26:53] It definitely has served its useful life with the additional types of treatment requirements [00:26:59] that we have. [00:27:01] We feel like if we can do some modifications to this structure that it would benefit us [00:27:07] greatly as far as the treatment and the type of treatment that the plant currently was [00:27:13] designed for to try to keep it a little bit simple. [00:27:18] You have an outside exterior barrier and then you have another basin inside of that. [00:27:24] We want to take and be able to modify that. [00:27:27] And so the capacity that is detrimental to us if we can't, if we're not able to take [00:27:38] and get this online so that it can operate 100% again, it reduces our capacity about [00:27:43] 1.5 million gallons a day, which we're capable of performing. [00:27:50] But at some point in time, we really have to make this a priority to be able to get [00:27:56] this thing operating at 100% like it should. [00:28:00] We've already talked about how the legislature has wanted to take and go to improved treatment. [00:28:08] And so even if they don't reach that goal for all the plants in Florida, to expect the [00:28:15] EPA to come down with more strenuous parameters that we have to follow would be very likely. [00:28:21] I think it's more difficult each year as we go. [00:28:24] So to get this structure up and running, I would say is the priority of the utility [00:28:32] where we're at right now. [00:28:33] The estimated cost that we have is 25%. [00:28:43] And so that would mean that the city would be responsible for $1,900,000. [00:28:53] And I think we're looking at $6 million. [00:29:06] I apologize. [00:29:07] I wrote a third for the county and the state. [00:29:14] Correct. [00:29:16] I'm sorry, here it is. [00:29:17] The total cost of the project estimate, which was presented to you from Trout Engineering, [00:29:22] our consultant, was $7.6 million. [00:29:26] And so you're correct. [00:29:28] We would be responsible. [00:29:30] We're proposing the $1.9 million. [00:29:32] And then, of course, the county comes in with our interlocal agreement. [00:29:36] It's approximately 50%. [00:29:37] So we'd be looking at about $1 million each. [00:29:41] And we have reached out to the county. [00:29:43] We have talked with them. [00:29:44] I've talked with the director. [00:29:46] Several conversations about where we're at with this. [00:29:50] He's fully on board and agrees that it's one of those things that you have to do. [00:29:57] It was constructed in 19- [00:30:00] in the 1980s, so we're at that point [00:30:02] where we really have utilized it to its maximum capacity [00:30:06] and whether we talk down the road as far as relocation [00:30:10] of the plan or this or that, that doesn't really matter. [00:30:13] It's like having bald tires on a car and we say, well, [00:30:16] I'm going to drive it another two years. [00:30:17] Well, we need to do it, we need to take care of it now. [00:30:20] So even if we were to move down the road, say for relocation [00:30:26] and I'm not saying that we would recommend it [00:30:28] or we wouldn't recommend it, all I'm telling you is that's a [00:30:32] long-term goal, so a goal, so we're not going to take [00:30:37] and invest this money and then five years from now have [00:30:40] to take and relocate. [00:30:41] It's going to take a lot longer than that. [00:30:43] So this is what we would call an immediate need [00:30:46] and the city definitely would get their useful life [00:30:50] out of the structure prior to relocation. [00:30:56] Questions? [00:30:58] So I guess out of these three, [00:31:06] this one here seems to be a very important one, so would you rate [00:31:12] that one as like probably the most important one? [00:31:16] From a utility standpoint, I would say absolutely 100 percent [00:31:20] but I also know that we have an interlocal agreement [00:31:23] with Pasco County on the town and country and we've committed [00:31:26] to certain things as well, so I don't, I think that when we look [00:31:31] at the two different types of projects, [00:31:32] I don't think one is going to hinder the other [00:31:35] whether it gets turned down. [00:31:37] I think if one of them gets turned down, it's going [00:31:39] to get turned down on their own merit. [00:31:42] And this third one, it's not shovel ready. [00:31:46] No, it's not. [00:31:49] But one good thing about this project though is the design [00:31:56] elements would not take as long as say a standard major utility [00:32:01] project that you would be doing [00:32:03] because the consultant already has a lot of that stuff together [00:32:08] so we're piecing it together rather quickly. [00:32:13] So it's a little bit different. [00:32:14] We're modifying the structure. [00:32:17] We're not building, you know, like town and country, [00:32:21] a whole small town utility system, a development. [00:32:25] So for the town and country, that's the project [00:32:30] that Habitat was involved with originally. [00:32:33] Talking back to Councilman Altman's point, Mr. Mayor, [00:32:37] of the request for perhaps an increase on the funds, [00:32:43] I was thinking maybe a separate list of requests to the state [00:32:48] to try to entice, is there an angle of enticing Habitat [00:32:52] to come back? [00:32:52] Is there a need for them to come back? [00:32:54] Anything else that needs to go over there [00:32:55] where say they would want to, [00:32:59] if we were requesting an additional, [00:33:02] I think you suggested four million, to say, well, [00:33:07] if you sign on to this and make it a partnership [00:33:10] to make it more desirable from the state, [00:33:13] is that something that could be approached? [00:33:15] Habitat for Humanity is not interested in coming back. [00:33:19] I have had several conversations with them [00:33:23] about if they are interested in selling property [00:33:26] that they currently own within the subdivision. [00:33:31] There is interest, though, and a big incentive to other developers [00:33:38] that would like to come in and finish off the subdivision work [00:33:42] that Habitat started, and part of the incentive is [00:33:48] that the grant is capitalizing the installation [00:33:57] of the sanitary sewer, which is a large infrastructure cost [00:34:02] that a developer wouldn't have to handle [00:34:06] through their construction budget. [00:34:09] So they've got some incentive to do a project there, [00:34:13] should it be of interest, and we have heard [00:34:15] from several developers that are interested. [00:34:18] Okay, I like the idea of trying to raise the dollar amount [00:34:24] of the request and see what that looks like. [00:34:29] I don't know if it's necessarily six million, [00:34:30] but if you could find, if I can ask, what did you mean [00:34:36] by that increase, and what was that representing? [00:34:41] Well, the territorial situation, the houses [00:34:48] that have been damaged that can't be rebuilt without raising them, [00:34:53] to the degree that some [00:34:56] of these areas don't have sanitary sewer, and we've talked [00:35:01] about our transfer of density rights and whether [00:35:03] or not we really want development on that side [00:35:06] of the highway, because ultimately you can have all [00:35:10] of the stormwater system you want, but when the Gulf [00:35:13] of Mexico comes up to a certain level, it's going to flood. [00:35:16] So even in the North River Road drainage, [00:35:19] that can solve 80% of the problems, but if our river goes [00:35:24] up high and all our water is going into it, that's the idea [00:35:28] of having attenuation ponds, and so to me, [00:35:33] we've just got the final, I think, I don't know [00:35:37] if it's been printed, but the final version [00:35:38] of the vulnerability study that opened this [00:35:41] up for grant opportunities, [00:35:44] and so what we're being asked today is to have, you know, [00:35:49] this extra request for a non-competitive allocation [00:35:54] of funds, and so it doesn't stop us from wanting [00:35:59] to do whatever we want to do. [00:36:00] So from my standpoint, if you titled the project not [00:36:06] to create new development, but to solve a problem, [00:36:10] and indicated as your first project that project, [00:36:13] you could identify a few other areas, and identify how many [00:36:16] of those properties are unbuildable, and the need [00:36:20] for us to be able to make sure that anything on that side [00:36:23] of the Gulf is not going to have a set effect that goes [00:36:26] back into that area, you know, and that's my point. [00:36:31] Those areas are shot, and those houses are shot, [00:36:34] and you've got developers interested in that, [00:36:36] then we ought to be planning all of the areas [00:36:38] where we've also lost real estate value to say, [00:36:42] are we going to get it back, or are we going to move it, [00:36:45] or what's it going to look like? [00:36:46] If those areas already have to be built up like that, [00:36:49] they shouldn't have separate things. [00:36:51] If they already have a history that they have to be rebuilt, [00:36:54] because they received so much damage, [00:36:56] then there shouldn't be a separate complex for sure. [00:36:58] I mean, we haven't had to do anything. [00:37:02] I like the idea, but I don't think we can get it [00:37:05] to Tallahassee by March. [00:37:08] Yeah, and if that's the case, it goes next year, or it goes on. [00:37:12] But I think from our standpoint, when you talked [00:37:14] about shovel-ready, that's what they always say, Chopper, [00:37:17] and so to me, this is our chance to say, [00:37:21] this is where we would like to go. [00:37:22] So if you just want to put that first one in, [00:37:25] but you can't just do it one time, and then wait, [00:37:28] and then not have a plan ready, or get it into our budget [00:37:31] for the following year. [00:37:33] And we may not, you know, we may find a governor that doesn't, [00:37:36] you know, how many cities got denied things [00:37:39] at the last minute, and what are they going to do? [00:37:41] Are they going to look at other projects? [00:37:44] Because we need to do that, so I just want to find a way to put it. [00:37:48] If I may? [00:37:49] Yeah. [00:37:49] I think the solution that may be available to you all, [00:37:53] and it can tie together with the FEMA and the elevation [00:37:57] of the lift stations, we have the, our sewer system [00:38:03] on the west side of 19, it is robust. [00:38:07] Around the Avery Road, where you're talking about, [00:38:09] we've got it in there. [00:38:10] The problem that we have is the lift stations were underwater. [00:38:15] And so if we could come up with a project, say next year, [00:38:19] that called for the elevation of those lift stations, [00:38:22] and then included Trouble Creek Road, [00:38:25] where there is no sewer system, [00:38:28] because that's really the only area that we're looking at. [00:38:30] There might be a few small spots, but all in all, [00:38:34] we've got a system over there. [00:38:36] And so if we combine the elevation of our lift stations, [00:38:42] and then the need for septic conversions, that might tie [00:38:46] into a more neatly packaged project that they could look at. [00:38:52] Well, I think that the elevation of the lift stations is something [00:38:55] that the resiliency director for Pinellas County said, [00:38:59] there is immediate funding through FEMA in this aftermath for that. [00:39:05] And those areas that are in the city, [00:39:08] especially if they ultimately deny us to get the increased costs [00:39:13] from the ones outside in our service area, I'm not so sure, [00:39:16] because Trouble Creek is not in the city out there. [00:39:19] I'm not even so sure, you know. [00:39:23] Well, we service water to the homes that we're talking about. [00:39:27] That would be on the north side. [00:39:29] Yeah, but we charge them 25% more. [00:39:30] So if I'm taking money to do projects, I would be going [00:39:33] to the city projects where I'm sure I'm going to get my money. [00:39:37] I don't know, but they're two different projects. [00:39:41] So to me, the elevated ones might be right for a more quicker turnaround to go [00:39:47] after that FEMA money, at which point that kind of brings me back to saying, [00:39:52] just put the project in that you recommended until we know more [00:39:56] about what other sources of funding we could get to prioritize [00:40:01] that sewer plant and not expand that task in case they've got a number [00:40:10] in their hand on what they want to do. [00:40:12] I like the idea, but I think we need to develop it more. [00:40:15] Yeah, that's what I agree. [00:40:19] I'm in favor of the three projects. [00:40:23] Yeah, and in the order we read them, too. [00:40:26] We introduce them right at the close of it and go that way. [00:40:32] I can go along with that. [00:40:37] My only question would be, like, for the county and country, is there a way [00:40:45] to incorporate the, you know, so we have some lift stations and elevators [00:40:49] for that project, they could add in there just for the looks of it, yeah. [00:40:56] Demonstrate, make it safe. [00:41:00] And that'd be good down the road when we want to do it. [00:41:02] Right. [00:41:03] Down the road, say, we started it, now it's got a design. [00:41:06] Yeah. [00:41:06] In the right place. [00:41:08] Yeah. [00:41:10] Yeah, that's in there, too. [00:41:12] Mm-hmm. [00:41:15] So are you happy with it? [00:41:20] The appointment? [00:41:21] The appointment is, yeah. [00:41:24] Who else is going? [00:41:26] Oh. [00:41:28] I planned on going. [00:41:29] Usually with the man in the first place, but. [00:41:31] Yeah. [00:41:33] Who else wants to go? [00:41:35] Have you gone? [00:41:36] I'll be there. [00:41:39] That would be a point. [00:41:40] You, I would suggest that you put it on the agenda if it has to be appointed. [00:41:45] Otherwise, you can just, you can always name it yourself. [00:41:51] It's good with me. [00:41:52] I don't know if I can, can I commit? [00:41:54] Well, you could appoint a committee. [00:41:56] Appointment. [00:41:56] Yeah, you could. [00:41:57] There is. [00:41:57] You could be a one, yeah. [00:41:58] Yeah, right. [00:42:00] Maybe if you guys want to look into it and see if you want to go. [00:42:03] You're not dancing today, are you? [00:42:05] I mean, I might go. [00:42:06] I don't know if I'm going to speak at the end. [00:42:14] We got you, pal. [00:42:16] I'm a legend. [00:42:26] How about, I've agreed with the mayor to decide who wants to speak. [00:42:31] I will be there at some point in time for either FLC or the school. [00:42:37] So I don't mind going up twice if that's what it takes, so. [00:42:40] And when is the date on? [00:42:55] January 7th is the date. [00:43:01] Quick. [00:43:02] Yeah, it comes around kind of quickly. [00:43:05] And we don't know what time specifically she would be called on to speak. [00:43:17] And I did not indicate in my memo what time the meeting starts. [00:43:23] Judy, do you remember? [00:43:26] We'll be speaking at 10 o'clock. [00:43:29] 10. [00:43:31] 12. [00:43:32] 10 to 1. [00:43:33] Yeah. [00:43:34] We'll be talking about that. [00:43:38] Are we going up to 6? [00:43:41] I'm sorry? [00:43:41] Where's the meeting? [00:43:42] It is at the Performing Arts Center on Ridge Road, the west end. [00:43:47] It's in my work session. [00:43:48] I'll tell you that, right? [00:43:53] I do have a request with backing up to what you talked about earlier. [00:43:58] If we could get just a brief analysis, it wouldn't take much, I'm sure, [00:44:03] but we have the figures for the amount of billings that we have for city residents [00:44:10] and the amount of billings we have for non-city residents, out of the city service area. [00:44:16] It's a simple 25% calculation if we know how much our billing was. [00:44:21] Back that down by a fifth or whatever it takes to say this would be the revenue [00:44:28] that we would lose if that happened. [00:44:30] If you're up there speaking to somebody and that number is a million or two million, [00:44:34] I believe all the help we can get to a coastal city, and now you're checking. [00:44:42] That bill would remove X million from us. [00:44:45] I don't think it takes much to just look at your utility billing, your date of annual audit. [00:44:51] Well, that's a good suggestion. [00:44:53] Thank you. [00:45:00] No. [00:45:01] Any other comments? [00:45:02] Save them for later? [00:45:03] We're good.

   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. 3Adjournment