On the agenda

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

   ↳You arrived here from a search for “25-26 Capital Improvement Program” — 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 upcoming Pasco County Legislative Delegation Meeting on November 10th, including property taxes, sovereign immunity, enterprise fund transfers, water/wastewater surcharges, local business taxes, emergency services penalties, cybersecurity funding, and opposition to House Bill 105. Four resiliency-based projects were proposed for legislative appropriation: elevated storage tank improvements, Schreiber process modification, Rio Drive drainage improvements, and Town and Country water/sewer project. Council also needed to appoint two representatives to present priorities at the delegation meeting.

   • direction:Council discussed prioritizing the Town and Country project for design funding rather than submitting all four projects equally. (none)

   📍Morningside Drive📍Rio Drive📍Town and Country📍Washington Street from Massachusetts traveling north to Port Richey🏢Science Museum🏢Southern Group👤Collin👤Councilman Butler👤Councilman Murphy👤Debbie Vance👤Robert#25-26 Capital Improvement Program#Chapter 205 Florida Statutes#Elevated Storage Tank Improvements project#House Bill 103 (local business taxes repeal)#House Bill 105 (Local Government Enforcement Actions Bill)#House Bill 145 (sovereign immunity)#Pasco County Legislative Delegation#Pasco County Legislative Delegation Meeting#Rio Drive Drainage Improvement project#Schreiber Process Modification project#Senate Bill 122 (local business taxes repeal)#Town and Country Water and Sewer Project#Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund

   ▶ Jump to 0:40 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:41] With that being said, thank you for your attendance this evening. [00:00:47] As indicated, the purpose of the legislative discussion this evening is to in large part [00:00:54] prepare for the Legislative Delegation Meeting, which will be held on Monday, November 10th [00:01:00] at the West Pasco Campus Performing Arts Center. [00:01:07] And tonight we'll talk about some legislative priorities, some policy positions, and some [00:01:14] projects that we would like to advance for consideration as legislative appropriations. [00:01:24] This session, at the conclusion of today's discussion, we would also like you to appoint [00:01:33] two representatives from the City to present the City's legislative priorities and projects [00:01:41] for which support is to be requested. [00:01:46] The current legislative session is certain to be interesting. [00:01:54] There will be several new initiatives to be introduced, and there certainly will be [00:02:03] discussion on initiatives that did not take shape last legislative session. [00:02:11] The priorities, as I indicated to you in my communication in the packet that was submitted [00:02:24] to you, dealt largely with property taxes. [00:02:30] And the reason that I thought that should be a topic that we need to prioritize is based [00:02:38] on the fact that property taxes are our largest source of revenue. [00:02:43] And there have been, already this legislative session, a number of bills that have been [00:02:50] introduced that have had various proposals that have talked about homestead exemptions [00:03:06] and different forms of homestead exemptions that could be put in place that would change [00:03:13] our property tax system and, quite frankly, would create some difficulties for local units [00:03:20] of government, particularly if an alternate funding source is not put in place that would [00:03:31] compensate local units of government for our losses of revenue and allow us to continue [00:03:38] to provide our essential services. [00:03:41] So that should continue to be advanced as a priority. [00:03:46] Sovereign immunity is another priority, and it too has been introduced already this legislative [00:03:56] session as a topic for more consideration. [00:04:02] It currently preserves negligence for tort claims at $200,000 per person and $300,000 [00:04:17] per occurrence. [00:04:20] And House Bill 145 really loosens those procedural limitations and safeguards. [00:04:31] And the current liability proposals call for a $500,000 per person and $1 million per incident [00:04:45] cap on those liability claims, which is a marked increase on those tort claims and [00:04:57] certainly does little to protect our taxpayers and puts the delivery of our public services [00:05:09] at risk if we can't keep our sovereign immunity liability caps at a reasonable amount. [00:05:21] The other item that I identified as a priority relates to enterprise fund transfers, and [00:05:33] the reason that I indicated that it was an item that we should continue to watch is because [00:05:44] we should be able to manage the revenue source and realize a reasonable rate of return on [00:05:52] the asset, and the legislature continues to put that source of revenue at risk. [00:06:03] And from the administration's perspective, it is a fair compensation to the general fund [00:06:12] for the support services that are provided to the enterprise fund. [00:06:21] The last priority that was advanced that we would like to continue to watch and advocate [00:06:33] in favor of opposing should the state legislature advance any legislature is any restrictions [00:06:44] on the imposition of extra-territorial surcharges on the imposition of water and wastewater [00:06:54] surcharges, and the legislature has not at this point introduced any specific bills, [00:07:11] but it has been a bill that was introduced last legislative session. The expectation [00:07:19] from what we're hearing from our lobbyists is that it will be introduced again this session, [00:07:25] and we would like to protect our municipal assets because we need them to be predictable [00:07:37] and reliable if we're to continue to provide the public services as we have in previous years. [00:07:50] The policy positions that we're advocating for relate to local business taxes, enhanced [00:08:03] penalties for criminal offenses against emergency services, personnel, and cybersecurity funding. [00:08:11] In respect to local business taxes, House Bill 103 and Senate Bill 122 specifically [00:08:22] call for repealing Chapter 205 of the Florida Statutes, which eliminate the ability to levy [00:08:36] through use of gross sales receipts our local business taxes, and local business taxes are [00:08:46] a significant source of revenue to the city, and we would very much like to support our [00:08:53] preserved ability to collect those local business taxes. Again, another attempt by the state [00:09:04] to usurp local authority, in at least this manager's opinion. In respect to enhanced [00:09:15] penalties for criminal offenses against emergency service personnel, we feel that it's appropriate [00:09:22] to monitor and support legislation that creates enhanced penalties for criminals against any [00:09:29] emergency service personnel that are executed in their line of duty, and based on the way [00:09:40] information technology is advanced and our rights to protect our cybersecurity and the [00:09:53] costs associated with it, we are looking for opportunities for the state to increase [00:09:59] funding in the terms of grants, to increase our opportunity to implement funding that [00:10:09] will help us secure our cybersecurity and protect all of the information technology [00:10:21] that we preserve at the local level. The final House Bill that I wanted to bring to your [00:10:32] attention was just introduced late in the month, and it is House Bill 105, and it is [00:10:42] referred to as the Local Government Enforcement Actions Bill, and it is a count that calls [00:10:53] for damages on any decision or determination made by a city official, and it includes an [00:11:03] inspection, a citation, an order, or a denial, or any form of regulatory decision that is [00:11:10] made by a city official, which can include damages to include $50,000 and attorney's [00:11:25] fees if the decision is determined to be either arbitrary or unreasonable by a court, and [00:11:35] the city would oppose the House Bill, and I think it would be a policy decision. It [00:11:49] seems excessive. The projects that the city would like to advance this year for legislative [00:12:03] consideration are resiliency-based, and the reason that they are resiliency-based is driven [00:12:15] by the fact that we have received information from our lobbyist at the Southern Group who [00:12:23] has reported to us that the state's interest in supporting projects is really focused on [00:12:34] stormwater, wastewater, and transportation infrastructure, recognizing that they want [00:12:44] to support a local government's environment and ensure community resilience, and that [00:12:51] they plan as a priority to support projects that do so. We have put together a slate of [00:13:02] four projects for your consideration, some of which you will recognize because we have [00:13:13] in the past submitted them for funding consideration, and some of which are new projects which we [00:13:21] would like to consider for the first time, but we thought we would submit four projects [00:13:29] this year. Although Councilman Butler could not be here this evening, he did call at the [00:13:36] end of the day, and he indicated that he would like a sidewalk system to be installed on [00:13:45] Washington Street from Massachusetts traveling north to New Port Richey to be included as a project [00:13:57] for legislative, for a legislative appropriation. I did indicate to him that this may not be [00:14:06] the right funding source for that project, Washington Street, and that we would look [00:14:19] at it and analyze it and determine if there might be another funding source that might [00:14:28] be better suited to support that project. And based on the fact that we are getting [00:14:35] direction to submit projects that are resiliency-based, but it sounded as though he was very interested [00:14:47] in us submitting it as a project, so I bring that to your attention so that you can consider [00:14:53] it and determine whether or not you would like us to include it as one. [00:15:00] projects that we submit this year. And with that, I have asked Robert and Collin to fully [00:15:09] introduce our four projects this evening. You can get started now. Collin. [00:15:18] Thank you, Ms. Vance. So for the projects that we have chosen to submit for the upcoming [00:15:24] legislative session, we've decided to go with the elevated storage tank improvements. [00:15:30] And you'll recognize this one as a previous submittal. And just to highlight some of the [00:15:35] bullet points here for the elevated storage tank, what that does on our elevated storage [00:15:40] tank there, it's a installation of two new high-service pumps that will help turn over [00:15:47] the water. That allows us to maintain the quality of that water, reduce the degradation [00:15:52] of it, and ensure that we're not going through a high level of water loss in that, because [00:15:58] as of right now, we have to drain the tank and then refill it. And as you can imagine, [00:16:02] that leads to a significant amount of water loss in the amount of 4 million gallons per [00:16:06] year coming out of that tank, so we can maintain the quality of that water. That water, the [00:16:12] elevated storage tank helps us maintain that quality of water, the volume of water, and [00:16:18] that pressure throughout the system should we ever need to utilize it. And so the operation [00:16:23] of those high-service pumps would reduce our total water loss and maintain that water quality [00:16:28] throughout the system. The estimated cost of this project is $1,350,000. We've requested [00:16:37] $910,000 through legislative funding with a local match of $440,000, and that would [00:16:45] be from our Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund. Does anybody have any questions on that one? [00:16:53] The other project that we've, one of the other projects we've requested is the Schreiber [00:16:57] Process Modification. That's at our wastewater treatment facility, and again, that's one [00:17:02] that you might recognize. We submitted that one last year as well. That is for the oxidation [00:17:08] basin conversion, which has been identified in our 25-26 Capital Improvement Program. [00:17:17] And what that would do is we have a Schreiber tank out there that is a high-maintenance [00:17:23] item. It's a large 1.5 million gallon tank that helps clarify and oxidize the wastewater [00:17:31] as it comes into the treatment facility. What we currently have out there right now is oxidation [00:17:37] ditches for those that are in line, and so what we would do is convert this to a large [00:17:42] 1.5 million gallon oxidation ditch that better aligns with our treatment process and reduces [00:17:48] the total maintenance over time. So instead of having a two-process system, you reduce [00:17:52] it down to one, a one process in that one particular tank. You would still maintain [00:17:58] that nitrogen reduction and the total reduction of nutrients in that system without having [00:18:04] all that maintenance that comes along with the dual process. So the total estimate on [00:18:11] that project is 7.6 million for that that we received from our consultant. What we've [00:18:17] requested through the legislative session is 3.8 million, and as you're aware, the local [00:18:23] match on that would be 1.9 from the City of New Port Richey, and then of course Pasco [00:18:27] County, 1.9 from the county, and then it would be 1.9 as well from the City of New Port Richey. [00:18:35] So the next project that we have is the Rio Drive drainage improvement project that you're [00:18:41] familiar with. The area that it's in is in the West Grand neighborhood. The project itself [00:18:50] has been identified in your current master plan as well as your vulnerability study. [00:18:56] The master plan calls it out because of the repetitive street and structure flooding. [00:19:00] Your vulnerability study calls it out as a low-lying topography area in its proximity [00:19:06] to the river. The estimated cost is 2.25 million. We're proposing the requested funding source [00:19:15] to be 1,125,000, so we're looking at 50%. Your elements that we have in this project [00:19:23] are typical for a stormwater project. Basically, two different elements are flood control elements, [00:19:32] which includes your pipes, your inlets, those types of structures, and then your water quality [00:19:39] element would be what we would call a baffle box, or what we use as CDS units that would [00:19:45] trap your debris that's inside your stormwater system prior to discharging out into the river. [00:19:52] The final project that we're proposing, and you all are familiar with as well, we have [00:19:58] submitted for it in the past. It's the Town and Country Water and Sewer Project. There [00:20:02] are a couple more elements to this project other than the water and sewer, and I'll get [00:20:07] to that in a minute. Your project location is west of 19, south of the Southgate Shopping [00:20:13] Center. It is the area that the city a few years ago took an annex from the county. [00:20:20] Is it north of Southgate? North of Southgate, yes. Sorry about that. [00:20:28] As it stands now, there's currently a 185-lot subdivision that we're looking at. The project [00:20:35] elements obviously would be taking and replacing the galvanized potable water system that's [00:20:40] located there. We would be taking and abandoning the septic systems that are there and taking [00:20:48] the installation of sewer lines as well as some small package stations. The current condition [00:20:56] of the septic tanks, it's not very good. There's environmental concerns as far as how well [00:21:02] they operate now. That would be one of the main elements that the legislature would be [00:21:08] looking at today is the resiliency as far as the environment and where we're at, what [00:21:13] can we do to correct those items. The other thing that we would add to the project [00:21:21] would be some stormwater elements. There are some ditches and culverts there. Those would [00:21:25] more than likely be improved in a type of fashion to where the incoming tide, we can't [00:21:32] stop that from coming in, but when the storm systems are over with, we can get that water [00:21:37] out as fast as it can go. There would be some stormwater elements. There would be street [00:21:42] improvements because if we're going to tear the road up to be able to install underground [00:21:46] facilities, we'd be able to make those types of improvements. The project estimate that [00:21:51] we're looking at is $4.8 million. We are requesting funding in the amount of $2 million. If you [00:21:58] do recall in our interlocal agreement during our annexation, the agreement with the county, [00:22:04] we received $2 million additional. Those are the four projects that we would be proposing. [00:22:13] You're getting two from the county and we're asking for two. It's a $4 million project, [00:22:20] so we're not putting anything in? $4.8 million. A little bit. Mr. Mayor, if I could, I'm going [00:22:32] to do you the benefit of telling you I have to be out here in about 10 minutes, which [00:22:37] means... You've got 10 minutes. It means you've got 10 minutes. It means I would like [00:22:42] to, if I could, give you my comments and I want to listen to everybody else as best as [00:22:46] I can. I'm sorry to cut it short, but I have another commitment. The first thing I want [00:22:52] to say is to the projects that are listed there, I'm curious about the Rio Drive project. [00:23:01] You say it's been in the works, but it's a low area and it floods when the hurricanes [00:23:09] come in. This can't be identified as something that's going to raise the houses within the [00:23:14] community, which are flooding. So when you say that there are flooding, you're talking [00:23:18] about the stormwater coming in being the cause of the floods in the houses. There's two things [00:23:24] happening. The existing storm system out there stops a couple blocks to the east, [00:23:31] and so you have sheet flow from that point all the way down. So you've got those flood [00:23:39] waters that will flood the streets and then the sheet flow will get into homes, garages, [00:23:44] those types of things. So no, we're not talking about raising homes. We're talking about getting [00:23:50] a storm system in there to be able to get that water and channel it. [00:23:53] Well, my point is, there was so much trepidation about the sidewalks on that road, and there's [00:23:58] so much discussion about the drainage. To me, the town and country project, we've taken [00:24:05] it on. It's got a sewer issue. It's got potential development, potential for the city. I would [00:24:17] rather see us go forward with design, because so much is always said about having projects [00:24:22] design-ready. I would rather just put in design money and not ask for four projects. I appreciate [00:24:29] that you're trying to solve it. You don't agree? [00:24:34] I agree with you, and we're trying to work that way. We have 200 in there now to start [00:24:42] design work, so we're just trying to jump in front to where we can secure funding while [00:24:48] we're designing. [00:24:49] Yeah, my preference would be to really push on the other one. I don't know how the rest [00:24:53] of you all feel, but if you design it, you know what it is. That neighborhood is very [00:24:57] active. They're going to want to see what you're planning to do, and I think that you've [00:25:02] got plenty of time to put in for that after you figure it out, but I'm concerned that [00:25:10] folks are going to think it's going to solve a problem, and it's not going to solve on [00:25:13] low-lying homes, because when the storm comes in, it isn't just a sheet storm. [00:25:20] I think the quicker we develop that area, the quicker the people will build homes in [00:25:26] there. They're not going to build into it, so we're building our tax base if we take [00:25:31] care of the infrastructure. [00:25:33] So you agree with me then, kind of? [00:25:35] Yeah. Prioritize. I say prioritize. [00:25:38] Yeah, thank you. And as to the others, it's been a couple of us who've thought, if you [00:25:44] can get all that money for that elevated tank, you can surely paint a nice, big New Port Richey sign on it. We've talked about that for years, and then we got the little small [00:25:55] font New Port Richey, affordable. So keep that in mind, because I know it was brought [00:26:06] up by Councilman Murphy, and I had also agreed about that some time ago. You're not going [00:26:12] to get a grant to paint the water tower, but once you get all that to fix it up, it should [00:26:18] be nice to highlight it. [00:26:20] Another comment. With all of the things you said, Debbie, about the legislative thing, [00:26:26] I'm in agreement with all the positions that relate to what the legislation is going to [00:26:30] do, but I did want to say that in the effort that I have put forth and that you've shared [00:26:35] with me on the city's financial long-term plan, it really would be affected by a loss [00:26:42] of property taxes. Because even though we have only our base, if the amount that we [00:26:49] can charge on a per value base somehow drops down, I'm not sure the effect that it would [00:26:58] have. But the positive thing is, whatever they do is not going to go into effect until [00:27:05] next year, and so what we really need is some strong financial analysis in preparing ourselves. [00:27:11] A few years back, there was a presentation for a non-ad valorem, which wouldn't be based [00:27:19] on exemptions or homesteads or anything on the value of property. So the big hit is the [00:27:27] value of property has gotten so high that people are seeing their taxes high, and people [00:27:31] who now have $500,000, $600,000 homes and paying $10,000 or more are being hit. So it [00:27:38] seems their relief has gone to the ad valorem, but there is an option, and it was suggested [00:27:43] one time by one of our consultants who did our water consulting, that we consider a fire [00:27:52] non-ad valorem assessment that would charge everybody a certain amount for the services [00:27:59] they're going to get. So if we're going to lose the revenue in one place, there are other [00:28:03] places we can get the revenue back. If we lost the revenue from, God forbid, from our [00:28:09] utilities surtax, which is a 25% increase on those outside the city, then our only option [00:28:17] would be to put in what we don't have on it right now, which is a legally allowable utility [00:28:25] tax of 10%, but you can only tax the people inside the city for that 10%. So I would only [00:28:31] say talking to the Southern Group, if there is evidence that that's moving forward, that [00:28:37] there should be a counter allowance for us to charge that 10% to the people outside the [00:28:45] city limits, because it's unfair to have a service area and be stripped away from getting [00:28:50] any benefit from the people outside, and then having to tax our own residents more [00:28:55] because they're not inside our city limits than we can the ones outside that are in our [00:29:00] same business. So we'd be flip-flopping if we had to replace that revenue with a legally [00:29:07] allowable revenue of 10% on all our water bills. That all being said, final comment [00:29:15] from me is these requests are good. I don't want to forget that we already have a resilience [00:29:21] grant, that we have deadlines on some of those things, and we've got to move forward to [00:29:28] use what's been given. In the city of Dade City, they've had, I think, $15 million to [00:29:36] do the Morningside Drive extension for many years, and the legislatures are getting tired [00:29:42] of trying to say, we're giving you the money and you're not using it, so we're not going [00:29:45] to give it to you anymore. They've been working hard to secure real estate, which is always [00:29:50] a difficulty in our city. We now have the real estate, so we're in the catbird seat [00:29:56] to move those things forward. [00:30:00] In talking to you, Debbie, you have a plan to get some marketing and to try to get some [00:30:05] of our real estate holdings developed, and so I'm happy that we'll be talking about that [00:30:12] soon. [00:30:13] But finally, the $585 million that the county got from the hurricane, that's money that's [00:30:20] coming, and that's money that's allocated to us communities that are in the low-income [00:30:26] and immediate range as well. [00:30:28] So as important as this is to get our legislative items together, I would ask that we make sure [00:30:36] if those applications come in January, that we're observing what those are, and a lot [00:30:42] of that money could be used, some of it maybe, for some of these projects we're looking for [00:30:46] already, in particular some of the people coming before us. [00:30:52] And just to advise you, you all were very helpful in allowing for, you know, some fundraising [00:30:59] for the Science Museum project, but of the $580 million, $53 million can be used for [00:31:06] economic development and jobs creation and attracting tourism and all of those items [00:31:14] that are listed in there. [00:31:15] So that entity is planning on putting in an application, which it's allowed to do, to [00:31:21] get money to bring it in, so that could become a reality, because you could sell a whole [00:31:25] lot of cookies and all you're going to do is be able to handle, you know, we've got [00:31:29] to have some legitimate facility if it's going to be any kind of a draw, and so it's kind [00:31:39] of been a commitment of the folks that are involved that they're going to go full blast [00:31:47] to do something that works, not just try to open up a lemonade stand discovery center. [00:31:55] So hopefully we'll be able to get you all more information about that project, which [00:32:03] will also help the science and all that instruction. [00:32:06] And I took the whole daggum time that I said, and I don't care what you guys have to say, [00:32:12] I'm sorry, but that's my input. [00:32:14] I would say that whoever wants to present, you two are with the county, and I think that [00:32:22] the project of the sidewalks that Patel brought up is more county and New Port Richey than it [00:32:28] is city. [00:32:29] There's not much city property along the waterfront. [00:32:32] That's correct. [00:32:33] And so that would be a good opportunity for a joint project with Penny for Pasco between [00:32:39] New Port Richey County and us, or something else, because I can't see us asking for the [00:32:45] precious revenue we can get. [00:32:47] Also, if it's not going to go all the way up, it's no sense in us putting it to a dead [00:32:52] end. [00:32:53] It needs to be a coordinated project, and we've got people that handle that. [00:32:59] I apologize, because I do want to hear what you all have to say. [00:33:04] Thank you for letting me go on. [00:33:05] Does the southern group represent the county? [00:33:07] I'm sorry. [00:33:08] Does the southern group represent the county? [00:33:10] I don't know whether they serve the county or not. [00:33:17] I'm sorry. [00:33:18] I don't. [00:33:19] I don't know. [00:33:20] I'm sorry. [00:33:46] I don't know. [00:33:48] There's a conflict there. [00:33:50] That's what happened. [00:33:51] We were at an event last night that he emceeded, and it was for Lisa Jaeger. [00:33:57] I'm sorry. [00:33:58] I don't. [00:33:59] I'm not aware. [00:34:01] I know. [00:34:02] I know. [00:34:03] I was there. [00:34:04] I know where it was. [00:34:05] It just said he emceeded, but it was lisa Jaeger, and I just wondered if the southern [00:34:09] group represented or he just happens to be a friend because he was on County Commissioner [00:34:14] Mike Moore. [00:34:15] Yeah. [00:34:17] I'd like us to find that out. [00:34:20] Okay. [00:34:21] The southern group represents the county. [00:34:24] All right. [00:34:25] I can certainly ask the question. [00:34:28] Yeah. [00:34:29] Just because, I don't know, sometimes there might be a little bit of a conflict here and [00:34:33] there with, you know, you're talking about projects and working with the county, and [00:34:37] he's talking about this $500 million, and, you know, you got him, you got, you know, [00:34:43] the southern group representing us in different places. [00:34:45] I just want to know where all the chips fall. [00:34:49] Okay. [00:34:54] I don't quite understand. [00:34:56] I mean, it's been coming on for a while. [00:35:00] Just another little sidebar here from, this has been coming on the county. [00:35:05] I mean, the state's almost putting through legislation to curb, cut the cities, hamper [00:35:16] the cities, close the cities down. [00:35:19] Sometimes I think it's just, you know, what is their gig? [00:35:23] I mean, they're going to get the money. [00:35:26] Why are they trying to, instead of work with us, why are they trying to fight us? [00:35:34] That exemption thing, it just seems like they almost want the cities to go away. [00:35:38] But they have proposed some legislation that impacts our local authority without question. [00:35:45] I'm just hopeful that as the legislative session goes on, that they will propose some legislation [00:35:52] that restores or at least will propose some funding sources that will substitute for some [00:36:06] of the funding sources that may go away. [00:36:09] Well, and I, you know, I think we have an entity that we need to totally support is [00:36:17] Florida League of Cities. [00:36:19] Because they're putting out information, the same type of information you just gave us. [00:36:23] They're putting that out. [00:36:24] They're just starting to. [00:36:26] Right. [00:36:27] So, you know, if we're going to do it ourselves towards them, we also need to do it through [00:36:31] Florida League of Cities and let them know that, you know, we're 100% behind them too. [00:36:36] Right. [00:36:37] And we are trying to stay connected to them. [00:36:41] They too want to provide service reductions or increase local tax burdens. [00:36:47] So they have the same agenda we do. [00:36:50] Yeah, okay. [00:36:51] I'm just, you know, instead of us going down the same path, we'll go down with a bulldozer [00:36:55] instead of just a bunch of, you know, Volkswagen's. [00:36:58] Right. [00:36:59] Coming down the same street. [00:37:00] I think we'll bulldoze it down with the Florida League of Cities. [00:37:05] That's 411 units, technically. [00:37:08] I don't know how active all of them are. [00:37:11] Yes. [00:37:20] In this Rio Drive thing, I mean, I'll just talk from here. [00:37:23] Is this Rio Drive thing, do we need to acquire property for any of this? [00:37:27] We do. [00:37:28] Yes. [00:37:29] Go ahead. [00:37:30] We're proposing a drainage easement that's about 25. [00:37:33] On the west side of Rio? [00:37:35] Yes, sir. [00:37:38] That guy did offer a piece of property to us. [00:37:41] And we've been working with him, and so far everything is moving along like it should. [00:37:47] We just are waiting on a little bit more information. [00:37:50] To acquire front property so it's not cheap. [00:37:52] Correct. [00:37:59] I think we are pretty much on the same page as far as the legislation that we're trying [00:38:04] to pass as far as what's good and what's bad. [00:38:07] I think our biggest question is which projects do we want to advance? [00:38:14] Do we want to do four or just do two? [00:38:18] If you're going to figure that out. [00:38:20] The reason I tend to leave all four there is because the value of them all. [00:38:25] If we push the ones where we get the most money, they might fall through, but they might [00:38:30] pick us up on a cheaper one. [00:38:32] Right. [00:38:33] So that's the only reason that I say push them all. [00:38:36] Is it four, right? [00:38:38] Well, can we prioritize them? [00:38:41] I don't know. [00:38:42] It doesn't matter. [00:38:43] You just send them in and that's that. [00:38:44] We just send them in to the state and the house. [00:38:49] If we do, we will have support in both the house and also, or at least we've heard from [00:39:11] Representative Yeager and Senator Hooper that they'd be willing to support our projects [00:39:18] if we advance them and you have to have a senator or a representative to advance your [00:39:26] projects. [00:39:27] Hooper's definitely the guy because he's in the financial end of the Senate. [00:39:30] And they both stated that they would advance our projects. [00:39:34] You know, the projects that you gave me to give to Gus or any one, I don't have them [00:39:39] memorized, so are any of the ones we gave Gus the ones that we've got here? [00:39:43] Yes. [00:39:44] Well, take a note here. [00:39:46] He's got them now, but get a hold of Karen because she's the one that's actually handles [00:39:50] it. [00:39:51] And I got her number if you need it. [00:39:52] I have Karen Mayer's number. [00:39:54] Okay. [00:39:55] But she's the one that's kind of in their office does that kind of work, grant type [00:40:02] of work or whatever. [00:40:03] Right. [00:40:06] I don't know. [00:40:07] I mean, I don't have any other ones off the top of my head that pop out. [00:40:12] But I mean, these are all ones that I would support anyways, infrastructure and getting [00:40:17] that completed. [00:40:18] So these are all easier to get through because it is infrastructure versus, you know, painting [00:40:25] a building or always, you know, painting a water tower. [00:40:28] Well, yeah. [00:40:30] And there are a number of other projects we could advance. [00:40:33] It's just with the coaching that we've received, you know, some, you know, as much as I'd like [00:40:39] to ask, you know, for a park improvement or a new fire truck, it doesn't sound like they're [00:40:47] going to carry much weight, particularly when, you know, we are told as part of the legislative [00:40:57] action relating to whatever Homestead exemption bill may be passed that they're looking at [00:41:12] the legislative appropriation budget as a potential funding source to balance that with [00:41:22] that they're going to have less funding to give away. [00:41:25] They're going to be pretty disciplined in how they give this money out. [00:41:32] I'm going to give them what they're asking for rather than what I'd like to ask for. [00:41:37] It seems when they start doing this Homestead exemption that, you know, we have a lot of [00:41:42] homes that are 1960s, 1970s homes and they don't have the value that some of these other [00:41:49] communities do. [00:41:52] Increasing the Homestead exemption. [00:41:55] They might not have the value, but we have 62% Homestead. [00:41:59] So we're a high percentage. [00:42:03] We're a high percentage. [00:42:05] Most are probably in the 85, 90% in most communities. [00:42:13] Right. [00:42:17] Rarity in the amount of landlords at that level. [00:42:21] Right. [00:42:22] Right. [00:42:23] 47% left. [00:42:24] Right. [00:42:25] And they were just, well, talking about the septic tanks and septic systems. [00:42:31] There was just an article in the paper about Wickiwatchee River and how they said it's [00:42:36] declined and they're surprised by the testing they did and a lot of it they're saying from [00:42:42] the, you know, nitrogen and the septic tanks all along there. [00:42:46] Oh, really? [00:42:47] Yeah. [00:42:48] So that was in a paper recently. [00:42:52] Yeah. [00:42:53] Good. [00:43:00] So the town and country, what kind of costs are going to come along with hooking up to [00:43:08] a sewer? [00:43:11] If we're going to get rid of the septic, so the residents that are there currently, [00:43:17] what's going to be their cost to switch over? [00:43:21] Well, the way we're proposing it, they wouldn't be assessed anything. [00:43:26] It would be 100% funded by the different funding sources that we presented. [00:43:30] Right. [00:43:31] Because I think doing all that infrastructure would make it just much more enticing to people [00:43:36] to get in there. [00:43:38] Right. [00:43:39] So I kind of agree with Peter and that kind of, to me, is like priority. [00:43:44] I mean, I understand the Rio Drive situation. [00:43:47] Now, with the amount of property we need to take, is it going to cause that homeowner [00:43:54] to lose that parcel altogether or? [00:43:57] It wouldn't. [00:43:58] And we've had several meetings with them. [00:44:01] We've actually done some assessment of the area. [00:44:04] We've gotten with the engineer and have gotten the numbers as far as what we need [00:44:09] to be able to put an outfall pipe down there. [00:44:12] And it looks like what they're proposing to do is to expand their property, [00:44:18] raise the house, and then construct a large garage. [00:44:22] So when we've been talking with them, we've been working it out to say, [00:44:26] okay, can both of us get what we want, work together, and then everybody will be happy. [00:44:31] Right. [00:44:32] Okay. [00:44:33] Because, I mean, I've seen it over there, so I know what it does. [00:44:36] It just flows down and into people's garages. [00:44:39] So, and I understand what Peter's saying, is obviously you can stop that, [00:44:43] but if the river overflows and flows in the other direction, that's a whole other story. [00:44:48] But we have heavy rains. [00:44:50] We want to try to contain that water the best we can. [00:44:53] Right. [00:44:56] How much does a backflow valve actually cost? [00:45:00] They gave cost estimates. No, not the installation, just the cost of the [00:45:09] product. Like an RPZ for a water service line for that backflow prevention [00:45:16] device? For the home, for their home. Oh, you're talking about the Tropic Shores [00:45:22] area? Mm-hmm. I can't tell you offhand. I don't recall what they provided. I think they were looking at a couple thousand dollars. [00:45:34] But that was the... That was for the valve and the labor. I want to know what the [00:45:39] product itself costs. That would sell. I mean, I got that number, but you know, it's probably half. [00:45:46] I don't know, 300 bucks. It's a lot of labor. People are asking for that because of the [00:45:56] flood situation. So if we provide them the product, not necessarily the labor to put [00:46:01] it in, then hey, we've stepped up to the plate to some level. You did, but you're [00:46:09] also causing them to have additional increase of charges for maintenance. And [00:46:15] you're looking at, depending on what goes down that system, they could be [00:46:22] having to, if they're not able to do it themselves, they could have those things [00:46:26] maintained as frequently as every three months. But annually for sure, six months [00:46:32] to a year for sure. Maintained? Maintained, because it's just, it's a gravity type of [00:46:38] thing. And so you've got to, you've got to get in there and take and clean it. [00:46:43] Make sure that that flapper valve is operating correctly. That expenditure would differ per the [00:46:49] plumber, but you would be looking at kind of a general service call that would go [00:46:53] out and jet the lines and clean that out. So whatever that would cost would be what [00:46:56] the, kind of your monthly or quarterly expense would be on an item like that. [00:47:02] I'd still like to know what the price of the unit itself is. We can get that. [00:47:08] Remember, a couple thousand dollars, it's, you know, I'm very labor-intensive, but [00:47:15] what's the product actually cost? [00:47:23] I just move forward with the things that you do and, you know, to your point, I wish we [00:47:31] could prioritize, but I'm just, you know, you might only want to give us two million or three [00:47:39] million and not twelve million. They don't allow us to prioritize the [00:47:44] projects. No, that's what I'm saying. Right. Yeah, I'm not for that vote, you know, because we did that and they might pick one out. Right. [00:47:55] Right. Best thing is just make sure we have all those key words in there they're [00:47:59] looking for. That's all. Yeah. Well, we have a pretty good wordsmith on staff. [00:48:12] Good. I'm good. So, those two are fine. They already left. Am I understanding that you would like us to [00:48:23] submit all four projects for funding consideration? Okay. Then the last thing [00:48:36] on the agenda is I need an assignment of two legislative representatives to [00:48:46] represent at the legislative delegation meeting. It is Monday, November 10th, and I [00:49:02] can't tell you the specific time because we don't know what time during the day [00:49:07] the city would be assigned to make a presentation at the West Pasco campus [00:49:21] Performing Arts Center. At River Ridge High School. I'm available. Yeah, I'd be glad to go. [00:49:33] Does anyone have any objections? You guys want to do it? [00:49:42] Yeah, we'll go. I think Mayor and... We went and sat in the back for an hour or two. [00:49:50] Is that where we went? That was a county building, right? I think it's Pasco [00:49:55] Hernando State College. It changes. Yeah, because I think last time we were in the [00:50:02] county building. I'll be your backup. It does change. You're right. Just in case you get a [00:50:09] red card. I came prepared. I saw it. [00:50:14] You brought a crew today. I want to say anything out there? They're in attendance in [00:50:23] case we have any questions. That's Debbie's backup. My posse. In case there are any other [00:50:34] legislative items that you'd care to discuss. [00:50:39] Tires aren't pretty. We've got enough, yeah. Realistically funding. And we'll just [00:50:54] continue to follow the Florida League of Cities as they continue to advance their [00:50:59] legislative priorities and keep you advised. And tell them that we're [00:51:04] supporting them too. And we will, absolutely. And keep you advised when

   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▶ 51:10