On the agenda

1. 5Approval of Minutes▶ 0:16
2. 6Vox Pop for Items Not Listed on the Agenda or Listed on Consent Agenda▶ 0:16
3. 7

   City Council Response to Vox Pop Speakers

   discussed

   Council members responded to public comments from the vox pop period, addressing concerns about the Peace Hall budget item, backflow valves, sewer/sewage issues in the Tropic Shores area, and the beautification grant program. Council indicated they would follow up with staff, noted support for annexing the Tropic Shores enclave into the city, and clarified that budgeted amounts are subject to competitive bidding.

   • direction:Council will send follow-up questions to the City Manager regarding issues raised during public comment and defer to staff on the beautification grant program. (none)

   📍Tropic Shores👤Daisy👤Murphy👤Peter👤Thomas#Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)#Peace Hall budget item#Tropic Shores annexation#backflow valves#beautification grant program#budget season

   ▶ Jump to 10:04 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Broadcast caption · reformatted for readability

   Right. I'm sorry, I forgot that. But I would like to speak just to say I know Mr. Murphy. Councilman murphy raised questions about that budget item for peace hall and looking forward to hearing what staff reports back on the backflow valves issue. I have two questions I'm going to send over to the city manager, and I'll make sure to carbon copy the the person who spoke tonight on that. And I have noted down miss thomas's comment and the beautification grant program. I'll defer to city staff on that. Anyone else like to speak? Yeah, I'll just toss in to say that some of the comments that were made to the city council were really directed towards the same of us, but in our role in the community redevelopment agency. And certainly this is the budget season and the budget time and the opportunity for those issues to be heard. So we set this time aside just so that we could be at least polite and respond, but not to go into great detail. But I did hear all that has been mentioned and a if something is designed and it's. And the city approves it, or the CRA approves it, it will have to go out for bid. So. We don't do no bid contracts. I mean, so whatever's designed and whatever's come up with that kind of a cost estimate, certainly we'll we'll see that approving a budget or setting aside money in the budget doesn't mean that's what we're going to spend. And beyond that, with respect to the sewer, the sewage, I've just repeatedly convinced that that area right around Tropic Shores that is outside the city limits, deserves and needs to be inside the city limits. And we we've got an enclave there that we need to bring into the city so [00:15:02] That everyone can enjoy the benefits of our city. Right? I mean, obviously, you know, we just heard this information, you know, in reference to, you know, what daisy brought up. So obviously it's fresh. So, you know, we're going to do our research on that. And I do kind of like the idea. So I'd like to pursue that. And, and obviously, I did question the peace hall quote, the initial quote. I know there's an extensive amount of work that needs to be done there, but we'll look into that a little bit further. And then obviously, you know, we need to do something with Tropic Shores. But as you know, peter was saying, you know, part of that area is city, part is county. So we need to kind of work on getting that resolved. And if those black valves, you know, can help, you know, let's see what we can do on that. But, you know, if the county is not going to get involved, it's going to be kind of hard because if their portion of that area is, you know, flooding the city part out, you know, it's kind of hurting us twofold. But that's definitely needs something to be discussed. Further. I don't think I can add anything that hasn't

   Original caption was ALL CAPS; this page lowercases and capitalizes sentence starts. Names from the meeting’s entity index are restored. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

4. 8Consent Agenda▶ 15:02
5. 9.a

   First Reading, Ordinance No. 2026-2370: Lease Agreement between the City of New Port Richey and the West Pasco Free Senior Health Clinic, Inc.

   approved

   Council held first reading of Ordinance 2026-2370 authorizing a two-year lease (with a one-year extension option) at no cost to the West Pasco Free Senior Health Clinic for the property at 6640 Van Buren Street (formerly the Claude Pepper Senior Center). Multiple doctors and community members spoke in support; one speaker raised concerns about the 15-day default notice, vague material breach language, and broad indemnification, but the motion passed on first reading without changes, with the option to revisit at second reading.

   • motion:Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance No. 2026-2370 authorizing a two-year lease (with one-year extension option) at no rent to the West Pasco Free Senior Health Clinic for 6640 Van Buren Street. (passed)

   📍11302 Lakeview Drive, New Port Richey📍18137 Branch Road, Hudson, Florida📍5703 Tennessee📍6235 Florida Avenue📍6640 Van Buren Street📍8712 Cessna Drive, New Port Richey🏢BayCare🏢CARES🏢Florida Association of Free Clinics🏢Moffitt🏢New Port Richey Police Department🏢New Port Richey Rec Center🏢Pasco County Health Department🏢West Pasco Free Senior Health Clinic, Inc.👤Bill Acree👤City Attorney Driscoll👤City Manager Manns👤Councilman Altman👤Daisy Thomas👤Elizabeth Lowe👤George Romagnoli👤Gisela👤Mark Yacht👤Mayor Davis👤Vanessa Dazio#CDBG (Community Development Block Grant)#Claude Pepper Senior Center#LIFT unit#Ordinance No. 2026-2370#Section 10 (usage clause)#Section 14 (indemnification clause)

   ▶ Jump to 15:02 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Broadcast caption · reformatted for readability

   First reading of ordinance number 2026 2370. The lease agreement between the city and new port richey and west Pasco. Free health senior health care clinic. This ordinance number 2026 2370. An ordinance of the city of new port richey, Florida, providing for the lease of city property. Providing for the lease of the property, generally located at 6640 Van Buren Street, providing authorization to the city manager to execute all documents in accordance herewith and providing for an effective date. Mr. Mayor, members of council, as you know, for some time now, the city staff has been working with the west Pasco free senior health clinic related to their occupancy of six six, four zero van buren street, which is formerly known or most commonly known as the claude pepper senior health center, which they have occupied for some time now. Following the cares center. And in large part, our conversation has dealt with some information that they needed to provide about their organization and some insurance requirements that they would need to comply with in order to enter into a lease relationship with the city. At this point, they have complied fully and we are satisfied with all of their submittals, and we're prepared to recommend to you this evening that we enter into a two year lease with them, since they're a fairly new organization and offer a one year extension on that lease. And the they will be operating a clinic at that location that provides care to uninsured and low income individuals. They'll provide primary, primary care and physical exams as part of their work and monitor more severe diseases through retired doctors in large part, and volunteers as well of, of, of doctors that are currently in practice. And we have attached to your agenda item a copy of the an ordinance and the lease and their certificate of liability insurance. And with that, we're pleased to recommend the lease agreement to you. Any public comment? Mayor Davis? I do have some people that have signed up to speak for this item. The first one I have signed up to speak is doctor Elizabeth Lowe. Hello, name and address, doctor Elizabeth Lowe, lowe, and address is 8712 Cessna Drive, New Port Richey, and I speak in favor of getting a continuing lease for the free senior health clinic. I'm a board certified family practitioner, retired u.s. Air force, and as [00:20:09] A point of interest, I saw 239 patients at our clinic in 2005, and I estimated the value of that $100 per returning patient and 225 for new patients would have been $29,000 for 2025. And I'm only one of many doctors that use that clinic and provide services there. We do primary care for the uninsured. We provide medicines or prescriptions, we interpret lab, we make diagnostic studies and interpret those. We treat diseases and injuries. Our main diseases are diabetes, high cholesterol, copd and hypertension. We prevent emergency room visits, complication and early death. Who helps us? We're part of a network of many people, donors and helpers. The state of Florida. Pace. The malpractice. The Florida Association of Free Clinics gives us money. Baycare gives us money. Moffitt accepts our cancer patients. We have private donors, and the city of new port richey has been extending our use of the claude pepper senior center, and we're asking for that to continue. Cares cares was our parent group and they had not been solvent, so we separated the medical clinic from their business. And we want to continue to provide primary care in our present location. So the summary is we're helping a lot of people. We fill a vital community need. We need continued support from the city. And we request that continuation of our lease. Thank you. Thank you for your service. Thank you. Who else? The next person I have signed up to speak is doctor Vanessa Dazio. Should have indicated the city is not charging any lease payment for their use of our facility. Thank you. Hello everybody, and thank you for the opportunity to say something to you. We are. I'm a volunteer at the clinic. Is this better? Okay. Vanessa. Doctor. Vanessa. I'm. I'm an occupational therapist doctor of ot, and I live at 11302 lakeview drive in new port richey. And my phone number is (727) 642-7500. I've been a volunteer at the clinic for over ten years now, and it's been absolutely a delight with the doctors that I work with as an occupational therapist, a little different than a medical doctor. I've kind of gotten to hear about the functional lives of the patients that we see. And I get to see how how they're functioning out in our community through the help of so many people. And I want to thank you all, too, because you have given us the, the, the clinic, the space where we can see the patients that we do see who have simply not had their needs met for a lot of different reasons. Those people may have been may be homeless, they may have been people that work or laborers, manual laborers that work for many, many years and didn't have benefits. And we get to see them. I see them as a therapist to really help prevent help, to prevent a loss of function at home, and to support their abilities in the community. So what I really want to say is, you know, I know there was a consideration about not continuing the lease for us. It's vital we fill a vital need in a vital gap in this community. And as a volunteer, I'm honored to do it. It's thrilling for me. I never thought I'd see such a perspective as an occupational therapist in primary care. It's very unique, but I hope that you all will continue to support this concept for us, and we will continue to take care of the building the best that we can. Our patients are comfortable in it, and it's an easy access for them to come into. So I hope you'll continue to support us and thank you. Next person I signed up to speak is doctor Mark Yacht. [00:25:01] Well, council members, Mr. Mayor, it's nice to see you. And of course everyone in attendance. It's good to see some old friends. Name and address for the record, please. I'm sorry. Your name and address for the record. Okay. Mark Yacht, md, mph. I was the past health officer for the Pasco County Health Department. I live at 18137 Branch Road, Hudson, Florida. I've been there for many years. My tenure started in 1987. I retired in 2007. I helped establish that free clinic with the cares organization. Bill Acree, peter with no Bill Acree. He's long since retired. New port richey has honored with its own commitment. This facility. The doctors are licensed. Whoever there is there in a professional manner is licensed, and we treat an interesting population, usually 50 to 65. They can be retired with medical problems without any insurance. They don't qualify for medicaid. And those of you that don't understand that qualification can understand it. And we pick up that 50 to 65. And surprisingly enough, there are also people 65 and older that for any one of a number of different reasons may not have medicare. So the primary rule there is 50 and over and no insurance. There are no charges in this clinic. None. And we've been operating since 1993. Okay. The center has provided these services free for the elderly for three plus decades. There's something to understand about that care. It's not just primary care, it's referral to specialists that volunteer. It's hospitals that help us. It's laboratories that do our laboratories. There are a lot of ancillary services that help us provide, because if you know anything about doctors, primary care is the beginning, not the end. Okay, so new port richey can be proud of the years of caring services to this unique population that just doesn't quite make it to medicare. It is my hope that these free health services provided by Florida licensed doctors and nurses and other professionals will continue without interruption. I still maintain my license. I'm still licensed in the state of Florida, fully licensed, and remain on the volunteer list for telemed. So they call me on the phone yacht, can you handle this? And I say, sure, why not? Okay. No problem. Okay. Anyway, we want to continue there. It would be most difficult to relocate. We really don't want to do that. Gisela gets a very minimal salary and you guys, I think, know all that. And so with that, if you have any questions. Thank you. Questions. Thank you. Okay. The final person I have signed up to speak is Daisy Thomas. Daisy. Daisy Thomas 5703, tennessee. On March 3rd, I spoke publicly about the west Pasco free, free senior health clinic facing eviction from the claude pepper senior center. I am grateful to City Manager Manns for moving quickly to secure a lease. This matters as this clinic provides free care to uninsured and low income seniors in our community. I also want to thank City Attorney Driscoll for his work on this draft. I have reviewed the ordinance and lease, and I want to flag three specific concerns. First, the 15 day default notice is operationally risky for a health clinic. 30 to 60 days is standard in commercial leases. And as mentioned in march, seniors receiving ongoing care need continuity. A two week window to cure any default or understand what counts as one is simply too tight of a turnaround. Second, in section ten, a usage is very vague. It uses vague language defaults in the performance of the terms. So what constitutes a material breach versus a technical violation? This creates uncertainty for the clinic and discretionary power for the city. I'd recommend defining material defaults explicitly. Third, in section 14 indemnification clause. It's extremely broad. The clinic indemnifies the city even for the city's own negligence. That's disproportionate for a partner providing free community health care services. These are absolutely not deal breakers. The 501 c requirement is absolutely appropriate. The zero rent arrangement is 100% generous, but the lease should protect the clinic's ability to operate reliably. I recommend the council ask staff to clarify the default language and extend the notice period before the second reading. [00:30:02] Thank you. That's all I had signed up to speak for. Anyone else would like to speak. Evening council and mayor George Romagnoli, 6235 Florida Avenue. As someone who is now getting older and wanting to keep old things, I was the cdbg manager for this county for 20 years. This was a cdbg project way back when. The cdbg requirements have long since expired, but you. Keeping it as an eligible project to help the low and moderate income people of Pasco County. New port richey is a great credit to you and I just appreciate that and hopefully we can keep this for many, many years to come. Thank you. Anybody else like to speak? Seeing no one else come forward, bring it back for discussion and vote. I'll move to approve. Second. No, I, I think this is a great thing. You know, I, I've had some conversations with some of the doctors in reference to this. And I think it was a great thing. It was definitely something, you know, the city wanted to continue, you know, going forward and providing that because we do have a lot of seniors who can't afford health, you know, coverage. So I just want to commend all the doctors that came in tonight spoke in front of us. We do really appreciate your service and thank you. And we'll continue this as long as we can. Good. Second. Yes, Mr. Mayor, thank you to doctor lowe and doctor d and doctor for for for coming out and speaking. And miss thomas and some others in the audience that have spoken out publicly in support of keeping the senior center going. In my mind when I worked at the New Port Richey Rec Center, which is right across the street from the building, we would have people come in who mistakenly thought that we were the, the, the facility. And, you know, over time, some of, you know, I didn't know what it was. The employees at the rec center didn't know what it was. And we asked, and there is no one who came into the rec center to speak of the facility that didn't have glowing reviews, that didn't say what a service it was. When we talk about the cost of insurance right now, I could not imagine being 55, 60 years old and so close to the finish line when it comes to being able to qualify for the things, to be able to care for my health, but not being there, breaking, you know, breaking your back at 55, being out of a job and not knowing what to do next. And it reminds me of our New Port Richey Police Department and the work being done there with the lift unit in the baycare social services that are being provided to help some of our residents who also are in a unique situation. And so it's without a doubt that this is a necessary service. And if our city can play a small part in providing the space for our doctors to do that work at no charge, I think it's worth continuing to do so. I'm glad that the public was able to bring this. I know it was on the works behind the scenes for some time, but thanks to the public bringing this, this forth through various channels, I think that kind of helped get things moving. And for the doctors that came out to advocate publicly, thank you for that as well. I know that contributed to the success here and to our city manager and staff for working on this agreement and making sure we could find an adequate solution for for everyone concerned. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Mayor, I'm very happy to see the clinic continue. It's been over 30 years since the doctor came into my office and wanted to volunteer, and fortunately, there was a space that opened up for him, and he did serve in his retirement to to do good things. So first of all, gratitude to those of you who have retired and could be on the beach somewhere, but instead still devoted to your life's mission. And it's heartening to hear that. As to the calling it the claude pepper senior center, I just want to remind everybody that it was a full blown senior center intended. Then it turned into a daycare center for the alzheimer's folks for a good number of years. And nothing more important to me than also taking care of the caregivers, not just this, just the sick. And so I would like very much to, to learn, first of all, is this an exclusive lease to this entity of the entirety of the building? It is, yes. And so is the entirety of the building being used for the purpose of [00:35:06] The health clinic, because it's not a senior center. If it's a health care facility. And I'm not complaining, but I'm hoping that we fully, you know, employ the benefits that this facility was intended to, to, to be used for. And if that back major large room is still intact and not being used, it would be a shame for us to be leasing this out without trying to also recommend, and I would encourage the entity that's got full lease to look for a subtenant or someone that can help to provide those kind of services if it's possible. So congratulations on getting the space and being able to continue to do your important work. My request is that you look at the entirety of that space and determine in your new nonprofit, if you can find other partners that will partner with you to provide even more services, not just to the ill, but to those who may have someone who needs just a break. And to be able to serve some seniors and carry the torch of a senior center in some capacity, even if it's just a couple of days a week or some kind of event that brings people together. I was recently at the senior center in dade city, where they had a breakfast and invited the city council to go, and they all helped to serve and provided the breakfast for that group for their weekly bingo meeting and activity. And so I'm not suggesting that, but it does cause me to realize that there are a lot of folks that, that need the mental health of being able to communicate with each other. And so food for thought, now that you've got what you've got to keep it moving, I'd like to come and visit and talk to you and see what, if any, other opportunities are there without interfering with the important work that you do. And as to the point made of adjustments to the to make, make it more liberal least, I guess in terms of its time of termination, I would leave that to the city manager and would hope that the maker. And the second, if there were any changes that were felt to be needed, could could allow them to accommodate those changes and allow the city manager to come to him. Yeah. I mean, the request for me just to not say you got 15 days, but 30 or whatever they were, we didn't respond to it. But if the attorney and the city manager felt, I don't know how you all would feel, allowing some modifications to it, I'd be fine with it. Related to that. Yeah. To what was brought the 15 day. Yeah. I don't know how that works in a motion, but the motion was made to approve it. We can have the second reading, you know investigate the changes. Yeah. The provisions in the lease are very standard. These are the types of provisions we use in all of our leases. And we generally don't employ these types of remedies unless something has gotten pretty bad. So I mean I think you have there's some good faith that's involved. And in this particular case, when this was first brought up, I expressed some concern about some of the activities in this facility that weren't really in line with our policies with regard to limiting liability and exposure. And to their credit, the folks here have done a great job of addressing all of those legal concerns. So I'm I'm very comfortable with you moving forward in its current form. As far as the notice provisions, the indemnity provisions, those are all the same types of provisions we use. I think the city manager demonstrated really good faith with this particular tenant when we were operating really without much of a lease at all. So I think it's covered in this. But if you want to somehow loosen some of these, there is a 15 day notice requirement that's to protect the city in case there's something very urgent. And so that needs some something needs to be addressed. But we also employ good faith business practices when we enforce these. And I can tell you, in the ten years I've been here, we haven't had to kick anybody out on a 15 day notice in any of our leases. But you can, in direct answer to your question, Councilman Altman, it would require an amendment of the motion, or you could address it on second reading if you'd like. I think you've explained you've explained it to me. I'm fine to leave it the way that it is. Yeah. No point. I mean, the motion doesn't want to change it the second. All right. I just I just want to say that this is an organization that doesn't get a lot of publicity in the town. And but the services that it provide are just phenomenal. [00:40:04] And I just think it's an important key to the city to have such facility in the town, because these people don't know where to go, don't have the money. And I think I just have to give credit to everybody that volunteers there or works there. Just a big, huge thank you. So all those in favor signify by I, I that's for nothing. Moving on. The first

   Original caption was ALL CAPS; this page lowercases and capitalizes sentence starts. Names from the meeting’s entity index are restored. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

6. 9.b

   First Reading, Ordinance No. 2026-2360: Sale of Surplus Property

   approved

   Council held first reading of Ordinance 2026-2360 authorizing the sale of three surplus city-owned lots along Edgewater Drive and Garden Drive in the Edgewater Gardens subdivision. The two western lots will be combined to meet minimum width requirements, and the properties will be conveyed to a developer to construct two coastal cottage units, contingent on CRA approval of a redevelopment grant agreement. Council approved the first reading, with Councilman Altman raising concerns about the developer's residential construction experience.

   • motion:Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance 2026-2360 authorizing sale of surplus city property. (passed)

   📍Edgewater Drive and Garden Drive👤Altman👤Christopher Garcia👤Mr. Gammon#CRA Commercial Real Estate Redevelopment Grant Agreement#Coastal Cottage units#Edgewater Gardens subdivision#Ordinance 2026-2360

   ▶ Jump to 40:04 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Broadcast caption · reformatted for readability

   Reading of ordinance 2026 2360 sale of surplus property. This is ordinance number 2026 2360. An ordinance of the city of new port richey, Florida, providing for the sale of surplus city property. Providing for the sale of three properties located generally along Edgewater Drive and Garden Drive and legally described in exhibit a, attached hereto providing for conditions. Providing authorization to the city manager to execute all documents in accordance herewith and providing for an effective date. And Mr. Mayor, I'd like to point out that there is a handout that this is a revision from what was in the agenda packet, just so you know, and the city manager, I'm sure will address all of that. The city manager will address all of that. And as you're aware, we do acquire forfeited property and we do acquire property through foreclosure. And and that is the case with these lots this evening. And Mr. Gammon has come up with a plan for the redevelopment of these properties, and I'm going to allow him to present the agenda item. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council, later tonight in the CRA board meeting, the board will consider a commercial real estate redevelopment grant agreement for the city owned lots in edgewater gardens subdivision. As part of the agreement, these lots will be granted to the developer to construct two coastal cottage cottage units, as the city charter requires adoption of an ordinance prior to conveyance of city properties. We are here obviously requesting tonight the council's approval of the first reading of the ordinance. Real brief. This is the lots in edgewater garden. That's a subdivision in the northwest quadrant of the city up there on that number one, this is it more detailed. Those are the three lots. We own the two on the on the left hand side will be combined into one because they don't meet the minimum width requirements of our our four zoning. So we'll have two to build to sell to the developer. Again, I appreciate your consideration and request of approval of this first reading. Any public comment. Seeing no one come forward, bring it back for discussion. To vote. I'll move to approve. I have a second. Second to the maker. No, I just like to see some of these lots move along, and I'm excited to see the design in the new coastal cottages. So let's get the ball rolling a second. Just to say that this is west of us 19, correct? That we are being sensitive. I happen, you know, obviously we followed this case through the process, but being sensitive of those properties under some sort of foreclosure status or whatever the case may be early on, and having council be aware of those when necessary. In this case, obviously, the future coastal cottage, I mean, that's actually addressing the flood problem and providing mitigations for that. But just being sensitive of some of these, you know, maybe providing a little bit of a background in terms of the properties and not the properties themselves, but the, the timeline of what these properties went to, to get to this point in time and where we plan on taking them to understand the necessity behind the repeated damage, the, you know, people, renters moving in or people moving in and facing, you know, facing a repeated in and out, in and out issue and this permanently addressing that. So when someone moves in, they have stability and aren't being caught in the system of rotating, being pushed out of their home. But in this case, you know, just the word foreclosure came up in this case, the surplus, I have no comments on that. Abandoned properties for some time. Yeah. Would ask when I look over the request for proposal response, I'm not seeing any any evidence of residential construction. So my curiosity is whether or not these are, you know, first time in the residential home building business for this [00:45:06] Company that would that be correct? No, it's they're not it's not their first time they have others, but we'll talk about it at a board meeting. We'll get much more detail into that rfp. Well, you're asking us today to give the lots up. So I'm not going to wait to hear. And could you tell a little bit about them? Sure. No construction is here. If you'd like to talk to Christopher Garcia. He's here to talk about his company if you want. But they have done a lot of different things since about 15 years experience doing, as you say, there is some commercial projects, but they've done some residential projects as well. I speak to them just to hear confirmation of that. And the reason that I ask is because I hired an architect to design my home, which is elevated and was a super home. I had a loan and I've lost my save our homes because the bank would not serve him because he didn't have evidence of residential construction. So if we're going to sell these lots and they're going to be given away so that we can get people in them, I'm sure the CRA is the place to talk about the economic strategy, but I'd like to know that if these are going to be pre-sold, for example, I mean, if I'm a builder, I'd like to know I've got a buyer to buy the house. And if we have a time frame or anything for that, I'm sure that'll be part of the deal. I think it's important to know that the person is a residential contractor or has those has those credentials point. How's that being? What would you like Mr. Garcia to come up, please? Come on, invite him to come up. Yeah. Mr. Garcia is in the office, and he might not be coming to the CRA meeting, so might not be here yet. All right, well, I'm not going to hold this thing up for that, but that was the reason for my commentary. Thank you. If I could just interject, and I think Councilman Altman's comments are appropriate, but I do want to point out for you that this is contingent upon the CRA approval of the development agreement. So that will cover the issue. Thank you. All those in favor signify by I, I that's for nothing. First reading of ordinance 2026 2348 amendment

   Original caption was ALL CAPS; this page lowercases and capitalizes sentence starts. Names from the meeting’s entity index are restored. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

7. 9.c

   ↳You arrived here from a search for “6446 River Road” — transcript expanded below

   First Reading, Ordinance No. 2026-2348: Amending Chapter 7 of the Land Development Code RE: Accessory Dwelling Units

   discussed

   First reading of Ordinance No. 2026-2348 amending Chapter 7 of the Land Development Code to allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Staff proposed limiting ADUs to the downtown core (~200 homes), but the Land Development Review Board recommended expanding citywide (~4,400 homes) and increasing maximum size to 75% or 800 sq ft, whichever is less. Multiple citizens spoke in support with suggestions on parking, garbage service, impact fees, and building orientation; item was brought for discussion at first reading.

   • direction:Council held first reading and discussion of ADU ordinance with citizen input on parking, garbage, impact fees, and citywide vs. downtown scope. (none)

   📍2104 Beach Trail📍5988 Central Avenue📍6235 Florida Avenue📍6446 River Road📍6820 River Road📍Corner of Jackson and Main🏢Development Review Committee (DRC)🏢J.D. Parker🏢Land Development Review Board🏢Pasco County👤Councilman Butler👤Dawn House👤Donald Cagle👤Frank Starkey👤George Romagnoli👤Marlo Jones👤Mike Peters👤Mr. Driscoll👤Mr. Hall👤Ms. Manns#Chapter 24 (utilities code reference)#Chapter 7 Land Development Code#Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element#Florida Building Code#Ordinance No. 2026-2348#Residential Rental Program#Section 12.09.00#Section 2.01.00 Definitions

   ▶ Jump to 45:06 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Broadcast caption · reformatted for readability

   To chapter seven of the land development code. Code. Accessory dwelling units. This is ordinance number 2026 2348. An ordinance of the city of new port richey, Florida, providing for amendment of chapter seven of the land development code pertaining to accessory uses. Providing for a new section 12.09.00 pertaining to accessory dwelling units on lots used for single family dwellings in the downtown and downtown. Core land use districts. Providing for construction standards. Providing for amendment of section 2.01.00. Definitions to add a definition for accessory dwelling unit. Providing for severability, providing for conflict, providing for codification, and providing an effective date. Mr. Mayor, members of the city council. This is an ordinance which has been of interest to you for some time now, and many others. And Mr. Hall will present the agenda item. He presented the agenda item to the Land Development Review Board, who made several changes to the ordinance and in the. In his presentation, he will review the changes that the Land Development Review Board made to the ordinance and. And it is reflected in its current form this evening. And we welcome your comments as well as we introduce the ordinance to you this evening, Mr. Hall. Thank you, miss manns. This is ldc amendment ordinance number 2026 2348. Accessory dwelling units. It has been some time coming and I expect some significant discussion, and we welcome all input on this item. Bear with me as I'll go and explain to us what they are, what it's about, and then we'll go into the specific ordinance and how we're presenting it and then changes that the l, d, r, b had put forth to us. What is an adu? I have two definitions here. One of them is from the a, b, c of a d use. It says an adu is a small house or apartment that is located on the same lot as a single family home and is an independent, self-contained living space with its own kitchen, bathroom and sleeping areas. I'm not going to read all the slides verbatim, but these first couple are important that I read them for the record. The next one is [00:50:01] From some of our favorites, chatgpt, where I asked exactly what this is and it said it is a smaller, independent residential unit located on the same lot as a primary home. An adu contains its own sleeping area, bathroom, kitchen and separate living space. Because it has complete living facilities, it is considered a separate dwelling unit even though it shares a property with the main house. So with an adu, there is a life cycle of this and the life cycle changes and rotates over time. You might. An individual might build an adu for an elderly family member to live there, so you can take care of them and then be on your property. You could have a caregiver that lives in there for when you have children. It could also be for when that child gets a little bit older and lives out on its own to spreading their wings. When a child perhaps comes back during college time that lives there. When the when the the your children move away. You could keep the the building, the house, the separate house as a guest quarters from friends coming in. And it could ultimately go into a short or long term rental unit. It has been my experience though. Keep in mind that when it does go through this life cycle and bounces back between these. However, there may be. Usually when it goes into a short or long term rental unit, it stays there for quite some time. It's not often that it goes from a rental unit back into these other areas, but it does happen on occasion. It's very flexible living arrangements and they do evolve over time. Now, Pasco County in april of 2025 did adopt an adu ordinance. They use a broader definition of what adu is, but I wanted to bring forward that in the 15 months or 16 months that it has been in operation, they have approved three adus that would meet our definition. They do have about ten more applications that are still in review, but in the 15 months they have approved three. So tonight we're looking at amending chapter seven, specifically adding some new sections and adding a definition. I'll go into these in more detail later. This is supported by the comprehensive plan. The city shall continue to allow a variety of residential densities and housing types through the future land use map and the land development code. So it is supported this. These proposed revisions. Now specifics. General standards for adu. You. In your packet you have two ordinances, one that was presented by staff and the second that was presented or revised by the land. The Land Development Review Board. When you see the strikeout or the line, that would be the changes that the ldr b did on the staff presented ordinance. So as originally written, it was allowed to use were allowed as accessory in single family dwellings in the downtown or downtown. Future land use map category, and I'll show you where that is. The the density would be exempt from the comp plan, and the adu may not be separately owned from the single family dwelling. It shall have a separate postal address on a street, not the alley. And that's for health safety issues. And 911. And it shall register with the city's residential rental program if it in fact becomes a rental. If it's not a rental, it wouldn't have to go through that. This is the downtown core that we presently have in the staff's recommendation. We said the downtown core, which is includes approximately 200 single family homes in those areas. So the adus would be allowed in those single family dwelling or single family homes. The staff was very cautious and limited this to this area, because there are multiple unintended consequences that we just don't know that could happen. That could be an outcome of adus. Our current our current future land use element policy says that we want to have our existing residential areas shall be protected from the encroachment of incompatible activities. And likewise, other land use areas shall be protected from the encroachment of incompatible residential activities. So we wanted to maintain that. So we limited it in our presentation. Now keep in mind that the ldr be revised that and said we'd [00:55:01] Like it citywide. So this is what would happen with citywide in single family homes. We have approximately 4400 single family homes in the city. Presently, approximately 65% of those homes are homesteaded and 32% of them are residential rentals licensed with us. So that shows that there's some that aren't homesteaded, that people live in, but those give you rough numbers. So we went from 200 to 4000, and that could have the adus. Now again, now to get deeper and exactly what we're proposing in this, we started with the first section where we showed what, what we presented or what we recommended, and now we're going to the, the guts of it on utility side of the adus, they must be connected to city water and sewer. They may not have a separate meter from the single family dwelling unit. They may be required to upsize utility connections if it's determined during the. The plans that we review that they need to upsize the. The utilities. That just makes sense. The owner shall pay impact fees to the city an owner shall obtain separate solid waste pickup service specifically for the adu, and no adu would be allowed. Where there's an accessory apartment that is already approved or constructed. Our code already allows accessory apartments. An is a separate structure from the original building, from the single family dwelling, an accessory structure which has already been allowed in our code is basically an apartment that's attached or part of your house that's a separate entry and whatnot for that, that has the bathroom, kitchen, living facilities. So if you already have that, you can have an adu. Additional design standards. The adu shall comply with applicable zoning standards, setbacks, things of that sort. They shall be detached from the single family dwelling. They shall be located to the rear of the single family. They won't be in front of the home or the front building line of the home. They shall be subordinate to the single family dwelling in terms of mass, size and height. And they shall have similar architecture, character and style of the original home, and the size shall meet the minimum building code standards. And the original presentation said 50% of the principal single family dwelling size and the lbw said we want to have it allowed to be larger. So it went to 75% in the original area. The downtown area, the average home size was 1200ft■!s, so the maximum size would be 600 square foot for the adus. Now they've been adjusted to be larger than that. About 900ft■!s is the maximum size for the adus. If it was changed to this additional ones, the primary entrance shall not be oriented toward adjacent residential properties. In other words, the doorway coming in and out wouldn't be facing your neighbor's house. It would be towards the rear of the house or the rear of the property, or internal to the lot, or facing the actual single family dwelling. If you have an exterior staircase or balcony, it shall not be oriented to the adjacent property. Again, to try to minimize the impact on an adu on the surrounding properties. If you are going to have a garage conversion, a detached garage, because again, if you were going to do with an attached garage, that's an accessory apartment. So that's a different one. So a garage conversion shall have the garage door removed. You can't keep it and shall be permanent on the adu shall have a permanent fixed foundation. It's a home. It's going to have a permanent fixed foundation and mobile homes, rvs, shipping containers, sheds aren't adus and can't be presented or want to request it for one. A couple more slides. Bear with me. Off street parking for adus. Parking shall comply with the following standards. If an a single family home would be exempt from parking. If you have a single family home on your lot so you're creating one after you already have your single family home, the site can't accommodate the parking because of some environmental conditions. You have a stream through your property. You have a giant heritage tree, something that doesn't allow you to have that, and you have on street parking on the street your house is on. Then you may be exempt from additional [01:00:06] Parking. Now, if you will have to have additional one additional space for your adu. If there no. An adjacent parking on street and a new home, you're building a new home and your adu. You're going to build a parking spot for that adu and you can't convert an existing structure. No conversion of existing structure is allowed if it is necessary to meet required parking. So in other words, if you have a garage that you're using that garage as required parking for your structure, for your house as it is, you can't deduct that and say, well, then I don't have parking for my house anymore. Every lot is required to have two parking spaces. So you would maintain that two parking spaces. And we added an adu definition because we didn't have one in the ordinance. Pretty basic adu ordinance. So the council shall consider the need for this change and whether it's consistent for the for the comp plan it's bringing forth because you requested it. So it meets a and I, as I stated, it does meet b already. So we have it before you this evening. Drc saw it in may. Recommended approval. El drb saw it in june and approved it with some minor recommendations or some revisions to it. And tonight it's before you. On the first reading. I know it was long winded. It is in depth, but I'm here to answer any questions you may have. We have any public comment. Working. Dawn House 2104 Beach Trail. There you go. With the sketch. Now I only have one on main street that it has the the opportunity to do in this. I live on the beach three times a week. There's yoga on the beach, sounds pretty sexy and all that other stuff right till the wind comes up and you're getting sandblasted. It's kind of funny. It doesn't always come out the way you think it's going to happen. I think this is a quagmire that you're that it's going to take the wisdom of everybody combined to get this right. And in my neighborhood on, on cactus, I think the city a few years ago tried to get a no parking in the front yard ordinance going, and you had to park on the driveway and all that other stuff. Yeah, okay. Whatever. There's people that there's no front yard and they've got six trailers parked there with everything. I think that when you're dealing with something like this, where parking is going to be a if if somebody's got a really nice house and they're trying to do it right, yeah, it's going to work out. If somebody's just trying to make a couple extra bucks and they don't care about the parking, they don't care about anything, I think it's going to be more trouble than it's actually going to help. I can see that the one that I have on main street could work pretty easily, but and I would care. And it's got off street parking. It's got everything. I mean, it's, it's perfect. It's right there on the Corner of Jackson and Main and it's, it's, it's, it could work very good with an adu. And I look at the others over the other 17 houses in Jasmine Heights. I know it's not in there unless y'all do the whole city. I start looking at what's going to happen with the parking. Because if you've got if you had a house that's 900ft■!s more, there's going to be at least two people living in that. And it's probably going to mean two more cars. Where the hell are you going to park them? I think the parking is the one thing that's probably going to kill this thing and turn what looks like a very sexy, good idea on the surface, the wind's going to blow and everybody's going to get sandblasted. I think it's really, as you pursue this, please take extra time to just consider the parking, especially. Thank you. Good evening. Donald cattle, 6820 River Road, newport. Richie, speaking in behalf of the lbr, I would like to say that we had amended that primarily because we felt that if it was limited to the core only, that it was really restricting people that [01:05:01] Would be able to do it. And as you heard, the county only has a few that have applied for it to start with. If we did the whole city, it would not make that much more of a difference than if we did the core. So that's why we had changed that to the city rather than the core. The other thing is that was pointed out is that 75% or 800ft■!s, whichever one is less. So it could not be 900ft■!s. It would have to be 800ft■!s or lesser amount. So I just wanted to give you clarification why the lbr did did what they did. Thank you. Anybody else like to speak? George Romagnoli 6235 Florida Avenue. Again, I appreciate this. And and I'd like to say you had the magic because when I was playing director, I tried to get this through and it didn't quite pass the irb. So I congratulate you on that. It was a good idea to expand it to the whole city, because we have a lot of a lot of our city has good sized lots that can have this. And I think a lot more people that will do it. And I appreciate the the changes that the planning director made. And, and he and I actually had some emails and changed some other things, but they're looking at this thing again. There are a couple other little changes I would recommend to this on general standards when we talk about. And this was discussed at the ldrb was the utilities about the size of the the lines. And I think we just referenced chapter 24, I believe is the chapter in the code of ordinances that deal with utilities instead of just say the city may require. I think we specifically say where the city requires in chapter 24 might be a good change to put on to the ordinance. The one thing about alleys, you know, probably half the city has alleys. I don't think alleys really matter one way or the other. It's the rear of the building. It's the rear of the building. Who really cares if it's used for access? That's fine. One of the questions, of course, is what is an improved alley? We have alleys that are totally paved. We have alleys that are gravel alleys, alleys that are gravel and grass. Like my alley is, you know, so it's all over the place. We have alleys that are jungles too, right? So I don't know if we really care about alleys. The other thing is the orientation of the building. You know, we all face somebody else's house. What is so bad about it? An adu facing the front of somebody else's house? I don't think that's really a big deal. I don't think the orientation where the primary entrance, you know, if and actually if you build this, I think the code requires an exit and an entrance. You can't just have one door in a house. So I think that'll, that'll cure itself anyway. So I would recommend that part be taken out. And you know, and it's true really, we really don't want mobile homes, recreational vehicles and that kind of stuff, places to use. But it may just be easier to say the buildings have to meet the Florida building code. And that kind of like eliminates all that stuff because mobile homes don't meet the building code and that would meet that. But I would really encourage you to do this. You know, as my fellow derby member said, I mean, putting this through the entire city, I think is a smart thing to do. The downtown is way too restrictive. I understood the the staff's position on that, you know, wanting to make sure and of course, we do take it out of the downtown. Mr. Driscoll, you have to change the title, take out that downtown part in the title of the ordinance. So I hope you approve this and approve it for second reading. Thank you. Anybody else like to speak? Frank Starkey, 5988 Central Avenue. I want to just say I'm really, really excited that this day has come. I've been advocating adus in newport richey for a decade now, the better part of a decade. Thank you, Mr. Hall, for getting this to the starting line or the the opening bell or whatever this reading is. I support the I was at the el drb meeting, and I support the changes that they recommended. And I appreciate don clarifying what those were about. The only. This is not a deal breaker, but the only thing that still kind of sticks with me is the requirement that it have that the adu have a separate garbage. I really like the, the slide that dale showed of the five different ways that it can be used and that it rotates among those of those, there's only only one of those where it's if it's a rental, where it even makes sense to have a separate. We could possibly make sense to have a separate service and to require somebody to go to j. D parker I don't know, I've lost I've lost the the thread on how y'all are billing for residential garbage anymore, but to have to go set [01:10:01] Up a separate account for something that may be your mother in law living in it may be your boomerang kids coming back from college. It may just be a rec room for a period of time. You know, we've I had one in longleaf and we didn't have it rented some time, some way. Sometimes we did and it just doesn't. And also because of the limitation on the size and the square footage of 800ft■!s. But, you know, it's basically going to be not much more than a one bedroom apartment. The two things to that one is it doesn't it's not so much more garbage collection. It might be another can on the on the sidewalk, but it doesn't really need to be another account. Also related to the size and impact fees. I know the city doesn't really have much in the way of impact fees. Currently, the county has voracious impact fees, and their fees for single family houses are much higher than they are for apartments. And I would recommend that mobile that not mobile, that adus be be charged impact fees at the rate of an apartment because they're the size of the size of an apartment. Their houses are not limited in square footage, and often they're going to be especially newer houses are going to be in the 1800 to 2500 square foot range. Most of the time. These are limited to being much smaller than that, and they're really going to not be that many, not that much demand on on utilities, infrastructure, services, all of those kinds of things. So thank you very much. And go team. Thanks. Mike Peters six four, four six river road mayor, council, first of all, I want to take just a quick moment to thank you for your approval for my position on the Land Development Review Board and the kind of things you had to say. I really appreciate it. I think the work that board does is important, and I don't take lightly decisions we make and how it can have impact to individual applicants as well as the neighbors, those applicants, as well as the city as a whole. So I take it very seriously, even the time I spent on council, I would. More times than not attend the meeting to get some background information. Council made one vote. I regretted early on and that. So I learned to be well educated on that. Regarding this particular ordinance and. And doctor cagle did an excellent job in portraying our recommendations. And I would again support it. It's real. In reality, as we look at this, we don't think this is going to create any type of tsunami in in development. It's going to be slow, in my opinion, because it's not going to be necessarily inexpensive to build these kind of structures again. And so that's going to make things move slow. And I think if we do see that some problems get developed, there will be times that we can tweak this before, you know, we have, you know, 45, 150 of them built, right? We'll see really early on if we need to make some adjustments. So I think it's time to get this in place. And we and I, and I appreciate, Mr. Hall, you carrying the water on this and preparing your team, preparing as much as you did. Because we there's rumor that maybe this state will come in with their own qualifications and their own laws on this, but we can't wait for that. We need to go ahead and put in place what we think is going to be best for our city. And I would encourage you to consider this ordinance. Anybody else like to speak? Good evening, council. Marlow jones. I'd just like to say I'd like to thank Councilman Butler for leading the charge and educating the community on this and keeping us abreast on this ordinance. I would also ask the council to pass this. I think this is a long time coming. We need this. I remember speaking with you, Mr. Mayor, some years back, and we were going back and forth with the different things the city could do to move forward. So I'm glad to see that this is starting to get legs, and I'd like to see it pass. I do agree with Mr. Starkey with the the impact fees as well as, you know, why would we if we have an adu on the property, why would we want to make them sign up for separate trash? That seems a little bit egregious to me. So hopefully we can redetermine some of that language. Thank you to the city staff who's been working very hard on this. I know you guys are working hard to get it done, [01:15:04] And I'd like to see it go full circle. Thank you. Anybody else like to speak? Seeing no one else come forward, we'll bring it back for discussion about. Yeah, a couple things, Mr. Mayor. The first one is I have to agree with Mr. Starkey on the have a discussion about let's have a vote. We're going to have even go anywhere with this. Does anybody recommend it? Well, we we can have questions and discussion before a motion. Can I excuse me, can I get a motion first. Otherwise we might not be going anywhere with this right now. Well I'll make a motion to I could interrupt before you do that. I just wanted to give you some clarification on what you're voting on. So there are two versions of the ordinance. The ordinance that you that is being read into the record is the one that was approved by drb. And so if you just make a motion to approve, that's the one you're approving and you can make any changes in that motion if you like. If you want to approve the staff version, I would appreciate if you would make that clear in your motion. And the title is incorrect because it specifies downtown only. And we will fix that for second reading. If you approve the lwb version, move to make a move to approve the ldr version of this ordinance. First reading. Okay, so that puts me ahead of you. Now, sir, you'll have a chance. I do have a few things I want to say, and they are specific to the fact that our city has a lot of older properties, and we also have all of these alleys, and it had been mentioned before. We have odd shaped lots. So when I see the restrictive language of the drb with respect to looking sideways to the neighbor, or in my case particularly, there are a lot of properties that have garages that are forward of the house frontage. Some of those garages may be non-conforming, and there are many properties in the city that have very deep lots with houses very deep in them. So if we wanted to make affordable housing and make it work, we should have at least a condition or and I would like on second reading to see if it's possible that we could have some kind of opportunity for the appropriate variances to these. You know, you can't have an adu in the front. We have all the houses on the river where it gets deep, and it's outside of the flood zone. Where only the front is available. We. Anything has to meet the the front setback requirement, which I think is 25ft, if I'm not mistaken. Is it 25ft in most residentials or 3025ft? So if, if you could put something that's 25ft that meets the criteria and you don't need an extra parking space, why would you require somebody to park in the front and walk into the backyard of your house, if it's convenient, looks good and appropriate. So if you're if you're designing a subdivision and all the lots are of equal width and frontage and back, and you're trying to look like, you know, a subdivision, but we're not a subdivision. And. You go down river road, north river road, there's house. There's. Determined. I wanted to try to do something on that space garage in place, plumbing in place, the chance to have something that's reasonable, that doesn't look off the track. It just it rubs me the wrong way when we're not trying to accommodate the purpose, which is affordable housing, but trying to adhere to some straight standards, as [01:20:03] Mentioned by Mr. House. I mean, we have so many rules that we can't contain the residents with all the cars from parking on it when we try. But I'd like to see at least an out to go in front of the drb or somebody else to say, hey, this is a different situation. Look at look at the lot. And with respect to looking sideways, I'd like to see maybe some language that could say or some kind of a shield or fencing or barrier or something that could that could address the concern that you raised, which is valid, but maybe a buffer of some sort or a hedge or whatever, would mean that you wouldn't have to be worried about the neighbor anyway. That's mine. Sorry to steal your thunder there, councilman, but I'm done. Okay, I'll start there on the you know, as this is written, there's nothing preventing the. Is, you know, a home, a residential developer, a homeowner from coming before drb coming before council in request of a variance for a reason, stated by Councilman Altman. I'm assuming that process still can take place without needing to add language. And so that being said, I like Councilman Altman's spirited point there that, you know, tonight we're considering cottage surplus or excuse me, surplus property for cottages in ways that our city can provide for the micro developer, the the home owner who's lived here for a very long time, who wants to increase the value of their home, who wants to provide a little bit of mobility for their home. I like Mr. Hall's slide. When it came to the life cycle of an adu. I think that captures it well. And I know of residents right now who are living in tents in their backyard who are, you know, we we throw around the word non-conforming people who are actually not in the health standards that they should be in, who are living in unsafe structures, who if we had a homeowner that could be supported along in the process of being provided some sort of stable housing, that this be some sort of option. I also know of a 33 year old roofer who has lived here his whole life, who is an alumni of Gulf high school, who has an aging father who he'd like to move him closer to home. But he has a family and said the main primary residence. And so having this as an option where he knows it's a long term investment, where he can have his father live with him and then, you know, over time, move into that part of the life cycle where maybe his kid lives there while they're coming back from college for a few years and then perhaps rents it out and make some income to be able to pay for mortgage. This, this aims us in that direction. This empowers our residents to do that to Mr. Peters and doctor cable and Mr. Starkey and Mr. Romagnoli and those that supported this to the lab, and through ten plus years of advocacy. I think this is a good start. But I also want to point out that this is just a start. The the feds, the congress just passed the 21st century road housing bill, which does provide $1 billion innovation fund for pre designs. And that brings me to my first point, which was I was going to bring up as a as a question of clarification, but I'll bring it up here. There is a section in this agreement that calls for architectural design that is consistent with the primary dwelling resident. I'm trying to get you a number. It is 12.09.03 d. On that point, I would I would ask as we look at. I think it was Mr. Peters who characterized it and he characterized it well, that these are still going to be expensive. These aren't tiny homes. These are this is an expensive endeavor still for a an owner of a primary dwelling residence. The the way that is written with the architectural character being same as the home. If the if the feds were to come out with their own standard affordable designs and we wanted to go after some of that money, would we have to then revise some of this ordinance to to meet those standards? If if what we see in the catalog doesn't meet those requirements, or is that something we could put in now where city staff has the ability to make a determination [01:25:03] Outside of what is said here? Because what's said here is it needs to meet certain architectural standards that are consistent. The city staff would make the determination so, so the city staff could present to us work with the property owner. So as we as we look to that federal housing bill and whether it fits the needs of the city and going after some of that billion dollars in innovation funding, how how does, you know, prohibiting our owners from, you know, having what walk me through this. You have a $300,000 home and you're trying to build an adu on it. What are these architectural standards? What needs to be met that's similar to the structure? What does that look like? Some of the same design features like as the house. Can you go into detail on design features, a similar roof or windows? And so my question is that's that this all takes place in the permitting department. Right? So how do we as a council have oversight to be able to advocate and promote for what would arguably, the fed doesn't know what type of roofs we're building here in new port richey to make sure that doesn't become a future barrier. You could have some form of an appeal process. They got code. They got to go by. Right. But my point is, though, that that leaves a lot of leeway for city staff to be able to determine what does or does not meet the standards. How how can we as a city council, if we choose later to legislatively want to pursue, pursue some taught terms of money at the federal level? How can we prevent some part of the code from preventing that? I don't know that you want to necessarily be the board. Maybe you want to have a board, and maybe the board of appeal would be the Land Development Review Board, perhaps. And they could serve as an appeal board to decisions made by the the drc. Or if we do see if we do see some sort of that obviously, this is tentative. The designs aren't out. But if we do see some sort of menu or catalog that would likely come out of the state of Florida that we wanted to adopt here as a city, then we could have the ldr be turn around and allow those to be standard, bring it to us. It would stop at the drb or it would end up well, it could, but I think one of the questions you raised early on was, you know, could we change this ordinance or would we need to when we may, if if another agency sets some standards and this conflicts with those standards, you'd probably rather change your ordinance if you want to make it available. But those architectural standards are meant to be very general and they're not very strictly applied. It's just like the city manager said, if you're going to have if you have a tile roof, let's put a tile roof on the extension. If you have gabled roof or hip roof, let's do the same type of construction on the extension that the development department doesn't get into, determining what color the paint is going to be, or any of that kind of stuff. That's up to the owner. But just in the same architectural vein, if you will, you know, if it's, I don't know, all the styles, dale can tell you what those are, but if it's victorian, for instance, let's make the the addition victorian as well. So there's no need to say comma or those standards approved by council. If we have a standardized. This is your standard. You're approving this standard which says there is no standard other than those developed by the city attorney or, excuse me, the city planning department. No, it's it's it's saying that you're going to build it in a similar architectural style to what's already there. It's just so somebody doesn't just put a box in the back of the house and has a flat roof, let's say a very commercial looking roof that just would look out of character in the neighborhood. Let's make it look like the house. And believe me, we we are very liberal. With the application of those rules, we have to be. Because you couldn't stop somebody from doing something because you didn't like it. For instance, they can't decide that if it matches the style of the home, it's going to be acceptable. And a lot of our homes are in the exact same style. So they're all going to be it's all most anything is going to be within that style. I would think, okay, my other point was on the thank you on the garbage portion, I had a question, two questions. The first one is they're connecting to the water utility. They're connecting to the same meter with us, putting the water and trash together. How how will this it would still be separate meters. Just saying wouldn't be separate meters. It would be one connected meter, two separate [01:30:02] Accounts though as is possible it would be one account. So then how does that if you want two separate trashes but one water and we're saying trash and water have to be on the same. How would that impact the same bill? They're not on the same. We're having side water and solid waste or on the same. That's another agenda item for your decision later tonight. What we're saying is that we would like to charge an impact fee for water and sewer, and we would like to bill independently each residential structure in the city for solid waste. Trash service, a trash bill. It is a trash bill. Yes. So they pay two solid two curbside solid waste fees, one for the principal residents and one for the detached accessory dwelling. That's what that's what this version of the ordinance says. I, I have problems with that. I'm just going to say straightforward. I'm a single guy. I live in 1000ft■!s. I'm lucky to fill one trash can a week. So and if you're going to have your grandkids sitting back there, your kids sitting back there and your case is a 33 year old, he ends up moving from the front house to the back house because he ages. You got to take their garbage. Yeah, you're taking the garbage anyhow. So I don't see that going along. I don't agree with that one. Yeah, I'm with you, Mr. Mayor. So what's the staff is there a rationale behind that or is there are we good to change? What are the impacts that we're making to you? And I have to ask the city attorney whether or not a deviation from that would violate a provision of our solid waste ordinance. I don't think it would be a problem to eliminate that subparagraph I on section 120902, if you wanted to on second reading, we can do that. The subparagraph I as though the garbage being separate, it could be its own completely. Okay, I I'm in favor of that. I don't know if you want to give that direction to them now. I'll change that. I'll amend my motion to remove that. Okay. I'll second. Good with that to get it out. Now, anything else? Second. Thank you. Anything else? The 75%. I just to highlight the 75% square, excuse me, 70% of the single family home and the and the changing it to the whole city that definitely originated with the lbw and some advocacy from those that went to that meeting and, and spoke to city staff. And so thank you for that. I agree with it. The parking. I just have a little bit more on that. The. And this is my final point. So if I if if a adu gets built in the backyard, the requirement is another parking spot. Yes. And the exceptions to that are there are no exceptions to it unless there's already enough parking on the property, then they wouldn't have to, to create one. They just have to be able to document that enough exists on the property to accommodate. This is only for new construction though, correct? Not a house that's already there. So if you already have a house there, they don't have to go build a second more pavement, correct? Yeah. So what it provides is that for a new construction, you have to provide one parking space. And you also have to provide one. If there's no parking on adjacent streets available, you know, there's no permitted parking. It doesn't mean there has to be spaces available, but there has to be adjacent off street parking, on street parking available for for existing. Correct. Okay. So as long as there's parking on adjacent street available, they don't have to build an extra space or unless it's new construction, right? So I just want to say, you know, thank you to dale and his staff for putting this together. I'm glad we're hashing this out. You know, we have a few little issues, you know, thank you to the ldrb for, you know, their their input. And I just want to kind of agree with what we've all said. You know, I think anybody who's going to spend the money to do an adu is going to want it to match their house. So if I was to do it, I would do the same type of roof, same type of siding, same type of windows, etcetera, etcetera, you know, but I do agree. We definitely need to get rid of that trash. But my bigger concern is the impact fees. So I kind of want to know what are those numbers? Because to me, when your house was built, you paid an impact fee. We're just adding a separate structure. So I think we need to determine what that number is going to be, [01:35:05] Or percentage, or how we're going to come up with that impact fee to build one of these dwellings. Because as we've all said, they're not going to be cheap. I think you raise a good point. And the the impact fees for the city cover water and sewer, and you are going to access water and sewer, even though you're pulling from the primary structure, the fees for the city, for a single family home are just over $3,000 for a combined water and sewer. There are also school board fees that are impact fees. Those are ordinance based, and those are just over $10,000 per structure. Their ordinance, though, does provide an opportunity to waive those fees or to reduce those fees. And that's a question that I think warrants asking. Based on the fact that these are adus and accessory to a principal dwelling. And I, I do think that the city should receive a fee for impact, but way reduced. And maybe it should be a if you want to consider it, a percentage of our base fee for a single family. And you should consider what would be appropriate. Why don't you work on some of that yourself with your staff and get back to us on the second? I could do that because you've got more, you know, you've got the context sitting down in front of you and then the school board portion as well. Let me work on that too, if you don't mind. Oh, okay. Thank you to that would be something that is written into this ordinance. It's not something that can that's something that would happen outside of the ordinance, outside the ordinance. Okay. So this just establishes that. And then we set the we can change question. Okay. But I'd make a recommendation to you on the impact fee for our ordinance. That's right. No that's it. I do have one. Oh go ahead. You're you're up. Go ahead. No, just quickly on the one meter for the accessory dwelling and the life cycle you presented. That last life cycle is a rental. If you find yourself with a rental and on your meter and the renter. I guess if you're the owner of the house, you're the one on the meter, not the renter. So you're, you're, you're forced us to pay that water bill and you get to monitor it. So I just talked myself out of that argument. Okay. Thank you. Let me just let me just respond to that. So normally when you have those type of units, you include the electric and the water in your rent. And I know frank would agree with me because when he had his in longleaf, I believe he did his like that as well. So I think it'd be easier to control. Well, I'm going to have to have one little debate with frank. He said it was a decade. I think it was over five years we've been working on this, but I'm really glad that what pre-covid. Okay, okay. Pre-covid, that's six years. Okay. So so anyhow, I know we've been it's been around for a long time. I think the parking thing. I just want to bring up one thing. I think we have a code enforcement problem here. I think some of the places that people are renting now are parking in their yards. And, you know, it's out of control anyhow. And we passed an ordinance to stop it. But I don't think the code enforcement people are enforcing it. So it was brought up about the trucks and all this stuff. Yeah, it's going on, but we're not enforcing it. So it's a lot on us, not on not on the owner of the property. But but that but that being said, I just think that this thing is, is I've lived in in mother in law places in my life. And, and I think a lot has to do with the size of the property. If you look over a lot of the properties east of Gulf high school, they don't have enough backyard or even side yard to put that place in. So to expand this from downtown where we do see it because of the alleyways, we get over to those areas like that south south of south of, you know, I don't know the river. You're not going to have a lot of lots where you're going to be able to build anything. There's just a they built, they, they sized the lots to build a house. There's not going to be a room over there. So to extend it to the whole town, that's fine with me. I don't have any problems with that. But I think this is a you know, there's, you know, we brought up examples have been brought up here. They're all going to be discussed with the building department. They're [01:40:01] All going to be, you know, mulled over. And, you know, we can always make minor changes down the road, but all those in favor signify by I, I, I that's for nothing. Resolution number

   Original caption was ALL CAPS; this page lowercases and capitalizes sentence starts. Names from the meeting’s entity index are restored. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

8. 9.d

   Second Reading, Ordinance No. 2026-2350: Amendments to Utility Ordinance

   approved

   Council held the second reading of Ordinance No. 2026-2350, amending Chapter 24 of the city code to move utility accounts to a property-owner-only structure, set rates by resolution, eliminate deposit interest, and provide a one-year transition. After public comment from a landlord opposing the change, council approved the ordinance.

   • motion:Motion to approve the second reading of Ordinance No. 2026-2350 amending the utility ordinance. (passed)

   📍2104 Bistro🏢JD Parker🏢Waste Pro👤Crystal👤Mr. Williamson👤Peter👤Peter Altman#Chapter 24, Article 2 of the New Port Richey Code of Ordinances#Chapter 83 Landlord Tenant Act#Hurricane Helene#Hurricane Milton#Non-interest-bearing security deposits#Ordinance No. 2026-2350#Property-owner-only utility accounts

   ▶ Jump to 1:40:01 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Broadcast caption · reformatted for readability

   2020 607. You got one more ordinance. Second reading of ordinance 2026 2350 amendment to utility ordinance. This is ordinance number 2026 2350. An ordinance of the city of new port richey, Florida, providing for amendment of article two of chapter 24 of the new port richey code of ordinances pertaining to utility deposits, rates and charges providing for property owner only accounts. Providing for the setting of rates by resolution. Providing for elimination of deposit interest. Providing for transition for accounts. Providing for enforcement, providing for conflicts, severability and an effective date. This ordinance is before you this evening for a second and final reading and the changes to the utility service ordinance will be presented to you by Mr. Williamson, who's been working very closely with miss don and I. The amendments to the ordinance, which in large part. Well, I'll let you tell them. You go ahead. All right. Sure. Would you you pull up the presentation. Thanks, sir. Thank you. Pull your mic in. Can everybody hear me? There you go. Yeah, you got it. It's all yours. So thank you, miss mayor. Council, as miss man said, crystal and I have been working on this. Prepared this powerpoint for you for the second reading tonight. The content of the powerpoint is the same as it was in our meeting last month, where we presented this to you for the first time. I'm not going to go through it in as much detail as we did before, but you know, our service area for our utility extends well beyond our city limits, sizable utility with, you know, we're right around 11,700 connections, about 6040 inside the city to outside the city. And around 17,000 customers made up water and sewer, with primarily 94% of those customers being water customers. When we're looking at the customer mix of owner versus non-owner, you're right around 14,000 versus right around 2900 would be non-owner. So roughly 64%, though, of your uncollected revenue comes from 17% of your customer base. These are the primary changes that you would want to focus on. The same thing that we brought to you last month, moving to an owner owner only account structure that your rates and fees, deposits, those are all going to be set by resolution. We have an accompanying item agenda item following this that will take up the resolution, and then the treatment of security deposits would be done via non-interest-bearing accounts. I think we have roughly 8344 deposits that your city manages on an annual basis. I think 352 of those collected $10 or more in the last year. So moving those to a non-interest bearing, which matches what you've got with your other municipalities in the area, we would have a year transition period to get from where we are today to transition to an owner only, and it would provide consistent policy treatment for your utilities as well. So staff recommendation is approval of the second reading of ordinance 2026 2350, and crystal and I are available for any questions you may have. And we did provide a very ample time frame for implementation so that we can make sure to disseminate the information well in advance to the property owners so that they're well aware of what's going to occur and will also have our software in place so that everyone can read and understand the metrics of water use from their home and sat, what do you call them? The guards in place so they know what the alerts are when they're using high water? You got it, I got it, thank you. Yeah. Movie public comment. On [01:45:05] House 2104 Bistro. This is what I came for. I've talked to peter on this a couple of times, and city manager. I can't get over the fact that the only reason or the main reason you're doing this is because of delinquencies and, and the figures that you brought up bear it out. I mean, it's a renters don't pay, they leave and don't pay. But that's a, that's a deposit issue. And as a landlord, I, you know, it's, it's like I'm providing water and legally, if I water to a tenant, I cannot turn it off legally. The federal government prohibits me turning off the water if it's included in the lease. And this is your I'm, this is I'm supposed to provide water to them because water is in my name. I don't know how this water gets turned off. If there. Do they get the water bill or do I get the water bill? Both. Right. That's what I've been told. Okay, so if the water bill doesn't get paid by him, if I don't pay it, I'm breaking the law because I have to. If once I give somebody water as a landlord, it's in the lease. It's I can't turn the water off if if it's included in a lease. And this is something that's really troubled me this entire time. You know, y'all have gotten in the last three years, y'all have gotten really good about turning water off. And if these guys are delinquent, that's I think you're probably going to get covered by the deposit. Y'all are getting so quick at turning it off as a, as you know, I'm kind of a different landlord. I'm in the neighborhood every day. I see what's going on. So I know when people move out and stuff like that. And I could see how this might, I guess we could stretch it to a landlord that was out of state. They might have more. It might help them give what's going on. But I'm still. The whole thing is that scares me. They don't. Does the tenant, when they move in, do they come in and sign up for water? None is contemplated. I'm sorry. That's all right. You've asked a lot of questions. And Mr. Mayor, if you want us to respond, okay. Apparently we're both prepared to stages. I think a lot of this is well, this is the second reading of an ordinance. And this is the thing about how do how do we get to the point where I'm not legally responsible for giving them water? Because if do they sign up or do or how does it work? We, we you will receive the bill we've built into the system, the capacity so that you can both receive the bill. You also will have the ability to read the bill and to have access to the software so that you know how much water is being used at all of your properties. And our suggestion to you is to take a good security deposit on your properties. And if you entrust your tenant because they're a good tenant with the responsibility of paying a bill, make sure that they do, or you'll have to take other action. But y'all have the legal right to turn the water off hold of us, right? We can turn it off. Is that correct? May I answer, as a person who does water bills, excuse me. First question, I just tell you, water. If the bill isn't paid, there'll be subject to shut off. That's correct. And that and and if you're a landlord and you don't pay your water bill, you do have a problem with your tenant because you have not provided a service that they're entitled to get. So you could have problems. He has 17 properties or whatever number. So he has one that's not paying. We even though we turn it off, we turned off that one property. We don't turn off all 17. No, you just turn it off per I understand, I understand that, but but but if y'all turn it off and then if the if the if the water is in my name and y'all turn it off and I'm legally have to turn it back on if it's part of the lease. And that's just, that's just the way the law reads and it's y'all have, y'all have the ability. And I don't see what's really wrong with the system right now, except that y'all got really lackadaisical on collecting bills. And that's the problem. You know, if y'all, if y'all in the last year, I'm [01:50:01] I know how fast y'all cut off water bills because I mean, cut off water because I've had mine shut off a couple of times. So, you know, I can tell you y'all are really quick. And so it's gotten so much better than it was five years ago. People would go five, six, seven months without paying a water bill. And, and y'all, it just, it just added up. But y'all have the ability to end it. And as a landlord, I don't I don't have the ability to do it. I'm having, I would actually have to evict them over the water bill. That's right. But can't that can't he approach us and say, turn the water off at one, two, three alpha because he's the landlord, can't intentionally turn off tenants water that violates chapter 83, the landlord tenant act. So he just has to pay the bill. If if mister mayor don't pay the bill. Mr. Mayor, may I ask a question of our attorney? Because you're hired to give us advice and you're giving advice to him. So I'm asking you to give us advice. We can. We will turn it off. If you want to advise him as to how he's in trouble, that's not really helping us to pass this ordinance. If if he wants advice, he's got to go to his attorney to get advice. So I'm not following the idea. If water doesn't get paid, we turn it off. And guess what? If we don't put it in your name, we can't put a lien on that. So basically the risk is being attached back to us. What you're going to get is the ability to monitor that customer and find out how many times we have to, and not for you, because you're on top of things. How many people out of town that we that don't even know that that the house is empty, this is going to be a benefit to folks to be able to understand the water, use, spin it any way you like, but y'all collect the $200 deposit for water right now. And the average water bill for my tenants is about 60 to $75 a month. That's three months that y'all have to turn the water off, and y'all are turning them off really quickly. So if they if the water's not paid after one month and y'all turn the water off, there's no problem if they leave and say, well, I don't have the money, you've got a $200 deposit, you've got the system now that's perfect. All you have to do is work it. And if you don't have if you don't have an extra person, hire them, you know, raise the water bills, raise the water bill and put an extra person out there with a thing to turn it on and off, because you've got the perfect system right now. You're just taking your responsibility and trying to shove it off on landlords, because y'all were not diligent about this 4 or 5 years ago this year. I mean, I know how much faster y'all, how much more diligent y'all have gotten. I don't know what the numbers are, but I've seen it. Okay, we got it. Okay. The record, we have uncollectible debt every year in our water system, and we don't think it's fair to pass along higher water rates to the people that do pay their bill every month, because we can't chase people that leave the city without forwarding addresses. Right. And that's why we really are recommending strongly to the council that they consider changing the model and putting all of the accounts in the name of the property owner and making them responsible for water bills. In the past year, I was I was one of the first ones that came here and said franchise, the power, the, the garbage and put it on the tax bill. I thought that I remember that point of order. Right. You got your idea. Well, no, no, no, we've got your idea. We've got your opinion. You know, you're gonna you want to battle back and forth. No, no, she just made a point that needed to be addressed. But we'll figure it out. We'll go later. Thank you. So I don't know where we are. This public comment. Anybody else? Public comment. Seeing no one else come forward, bring it back for discussion about I'll move to approve. Second, no I think this is a great idea. You know, I appreciate the discussion. But you know, as we all stated, you know, we don't want to push these costs off onto people who pay their bill, you know, as a as an owner of a rental, you need to be aware of what your tenants are doing. And I think this is going to hold people who are not involved accountable, and they're going to make sure these water bills are paid. And now we have a way to collect any bad debt. So I think it's a great idea. Second, we've had hurricane. Those who. Suffered problems during hurricane helene and milton come before us asking for advice, and we let them do their three minutes and stare at them with a blank [01:55:04] Stare. We've had a resident who's here tonight and who continues to come here. Give her three minutes asking for help on a backflow issue, and we stare at them with our blank stares. And I'm glad that we gave. I'm. I'm very shocked that. We then entertained a almost 12 minute conversation with someone. On how he can potentially violate federal law and deprive tenants of their right to services if they're in a lease agreement with them in any in any case, on the ordinance, I've had conversations with our city manager, and while I vehemently disagree with the with the steps we've taken when it comes to trash, and I can't even it's not JD Parker anymore, I can't even I don't even know who it is. I got a letter from Waste Pro, but whoever the case, whoever's running JD Parker now, whoever bought them. I. I'm. I've been so against that. However, I do think this city does water right in terms of water quality, in terms of providing a service. And we heard here tonight that water were quick to turn it off. But we're also quick to provide water and to address issues. When we have a street that has a, an issue in their piping, and we have to get out there and get water back on. I know river road was just without water the other day, and they got out there and did what they needed to do. And we do provide an exceptional service when it comes to water. And so to the city manager's point that there are a lot of residents who pay on time every month, who sometimes pay in advance, six months in advance, who should not see their bill go up, because there are some people in the city that want to see us become a collections agency, which we are not. We provide water. Apparently. Now we're getting in the trash business, which is a mistake. We provide certain services. But in the case of water, I do think this is the right step to be able to streamline things. Yeah. I, you know, I sounded curt because I think we have to recognize we turn water off on our own residents who live here, who own their homes, who don't pay their water. There was a third of them who had their water turned off because they forgot it or didn't do it, and then they have to cure it. So why should we treat anyone else the other than our own laws? Which is why I'm addressing the attorney to say we have our rules. You have a year. You have attorneys that can write new leases, that can put provisions in there, that can accelerate the rent, the lease, whatever. So I think what we're saying is we want to protect our water supply, and we want to protect the revenue stream. And so there are other benefits that are going to be offered. I can't wait for you to deploy the software that lets residents, landlords and others know when water doesn't move through a faucet for a week, then you might know the renter is gone and you can get it rented out quicker. You know, the bottom line is we have improvements to make, and thank you for telling us how good we've been getting, but everyone does. And I think we're getting more skills. So I'm excited that this is not just just for the purpose of collecting. It's for the purpose of making sure everyone is fully informed. And we work as a partner to make sure that every that the thing moves smoothly. So I'm very excited for the ordinance. And I think it's there are other cities that do this. And I think we're out front in terms of trying to protect ourselves. It does mean more work for us, though, because we have to record liens and do all the other things when the time comes to, to make it work. But I'm for it. Thank you. I just think that we're making our landlords become informed and paying attention instead of slumlords. All those in favor signify by. That's for

   Original caption was ALL CAPS; this page lowercases and capitalizes sentence starts. Names from the meeting’s entity index are restored. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

9. 10.a

   Resolution No. 2026-07: Amendments to Utility Fee Schedule

   approved

   Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-07, which moves the utility service security deposits, rates, and fees for water, sewer, and reclaimed water from the utility ordinance into a resolution format. Rates themselves are unchanged; the change is procedural to align future rate adjustments with the budget process. A peer benchmarking rate study is underway and future adjustments will come back to Council.

   • motion:Motion to approve Resolution No. 2026-07 amending the utility fee schedule. (passed)

   👤Chris👤Ms. Dawn#Peer benchmarking rate study#Resolution No. 2026-07#Utility Fee Schedule#Water, sewer, and reclaimed water rates

   ▶ Jump to 1:55:04 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Broadcast caption · reformatted for readability

   Nothing. Resolution number 2020 607 amendment to utilities fee service. This is resolution number 2020 607, a resolution of the city council of the city of new port richey, Florida, establishing utility service security deposits for water, sewer and reclaimed water services, establishing rates and fees for water, sewer and reclaimed water services. Providing for implementation and providing for an effective date. Thank you for the introduction, Mr. City attorney. The agenda item before you is, as indicated, a resolution related to the utility fee schedule. This is in a different format than you've [02:00:05] Seen in the past. Typically, we present the utility fee schedule as part of an ordinance, and we've we're deviating from that format in large part. So in future years, we can present it to you along with the fee schedule. When we present the budget. And that'll make it a little bit more. Easy. It'll make it easier to present to you. And in the event that we do need to make changes to it, and miss don is prepared to present the agenda item to you this evening. Good evening. Council. Microphone. Can you hear me? It's the same. It's the same. Powerpoint. If you want to start it. I'll run the clicker for you, chris. Okay. So resolution 2020 607 utility rate passed the utility rate fee schedule amends these rates from the utility ordinance to resolution. You'll see here we have two points rates and fees set by resolution. The specific deposit amounts, the rate, schedule and fees are removed from the ordinance and established by the resolution. This allows the city to adjust those rates administratively with a two reading ordinance process while maintaining full council oversight. It also brings the rate adjustment into alignment with our fiscal budget process. The resolution includes all rates and fees included in the proposed resolution, and they're unchanged from our current utility ordinance. The block titling convention is changed to tier. So we removed the word block and again change that to tier. Future modifications to the city rate and fee schedule are not provided in the utility ordinance, and will be based on the rate study results which are currently being reviewed at this time. An initial peer benching benchmarking rate study was completed for water, sewer and stormwater revenues, and indicated adjustments will be brought to council for consideration at a future meeting. Staff recommends moving forward with the resolution 2020 607 and if you have any questions, we're prepared to answer any public comment. Seeing no board, bring it back for discussion and vote. If anybody wants to speak. You've been moved. Move to approve. You've been doing it a lot down there, so thank you. I'll. Second, I would like to defer to our the gentleman up here who does these every day, but looking over, I guess the only substantial change was the actual the formatting of it, how we're formatting it now, is that going to be every year now we're doing resolutions and tying it into the budget. Utility fee schedule. I don't have any comments on earmarking. Any comments. I didn't highlight anything. I'm good. I'm just anxious to hear that the Florida statutes that I understood required two ordinances and two readings that that that there is a change in that. Or how did we determine that a resolution was going to meet this statutory requirement for utility rates? A resolution should meet the requirements for a for utility rates schedule. Yes. Should doesn't sound like it does. It does. Yes. That's good to know. I will agree at this point. And then I'm going to look and understand why procedures are different. How we were able to to do it. I mean, I was just looking up some Florida statutes on, on the garbage rates and realizing that it was water and sewer that are specifically called out with respect to their ordinance requirements. I can certainly comment on that, and I can provide you that information that'd be helpful for purposes of this. This these are the rates that are already in effect by the ordinance. So there's nothing has changed here. Yeah. Good. So when we do have to do notifications and have to do specific procedures when we change those rates. So those will continue to be done. So the commentary we don't use ordinances. Maybe not for this. [02:05:01] A moot point right. For this particular one this resolution. Thank you. That helps. I'm good. Thank you. All those in favor signify by I, I that's for nothing. Do you want to do

   Original caption was ALL CAPS; this page lowercases and capitalizes sentence starts. Names from the meeting’s entity index are restored. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

10. 11Communications▶ 2:05:01
11. 1Call to Order – Roll Call