On the agenda

1. 5Approval of Minutes▶ 10:04
2. 6Vox Pop for Items Not Listed on the Agenda or Listed on Consent Agenda▶ 10:04
3. 7

   City Council Response to Vox Pop Speakers

   discussed

   Council members responded to public comments from the Vox Pop portion, addressing the May 22nd arrest matter (deferred to City Manager report), the Adopt-a-Drain program suggestion, and CRA-related comments (deferred to the CRA meeting). Council expressed support for expanding Adopt-a-Drain into a broader neighborhood watch/community care program and noted the city's participation in the Regional Resiliency Action Plan.

   • direction:Council expressed interest in developing the Adopt-a-Drain concept into a broader neighborhood/citizens watch program and bringing it back for further discussion. (none)

   👤John👤Matt👤Patel#Adopt-a-Drain program#CRA#Five County Regional Planning Council#Main Street Reserve#May 22nd arrest matter#Regional Resiliency Action Plan

   ▶ Jump to 35:10 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Broadcast caption · reformatted for readability

   I forgot that part. Patel. Response on. The. Thank you for the comments on the Main Street Reserve and the future of that for the CRA. I'm going to reserve that commentary for the CRA, but I have noted down the suggestions that were made on the topic of the May 22nd arrest of a person in relationship to what would have possibly been some grant work, or without getting into the details, just referencing the comments that were made on six three, 2026 at 2 p.m. I did request for the city manager information on that. And then on 611, 2026, at 3 p.m. The city manager did respond and state that she would provide an update in her city manager report. I'll find that report and try to relay it out to to the people, but it's also on the public record. Now, in case anyone wants to make a public records request for that information. But I'll get I don't have it in front of me, but when I get it, I'll get the information out to you. There were a number of comments that were made, and again, many of them discussing CRA activities. So we might save that conversation until the meeting, shortly after this meeting today. And I think with respect to the adopt a drain program, just I guess we should crow about the fact that the city of new port richey, along with saint petersburg, are the only two cities in the five county regional planning council area that have adopted a resolution for the regional resiliency action plan. And in that action plan, there are a number of citizen based ideas that. This would be a good one to consider as well. I think when you look at the resiliency and the threat of floods, there are a number of projects and specifications that are laid out that can help to take the brunt of overflowing river when it occurs. And I think there's some opportunity for us to develop some incentives as well, for people to do things on their own land to help to, you know, mitigate some of the problems that occur. So good idea. Citizen involvement is good, and I think it's worth pursuing. Thank you. Matt. I think most of them have been addressed already, but I do like the, the dropped adopt a drain program or clean up your street. Maybe it could develop into like a, some kind of a city program. But I mean, I would say if you, you know, you want to take care of your street, take care of it. I don't think your neighbor is going to object if they see you going up and down the street picking up trash. So, I mean, you can just kind of do that on your own if you like. I know at times I've been driving around and saw something in the road I stopped pick it up, you know, just being a good neighbor. But maybe we can make it into some type of a, some type of a program. But I like, definitely like the idea. So I, I like the, the adopt a drain, but I think we can maybe build that into something a little bit bigger. I think we should be thinking on a larger scale. I think we should be thinking more of, you know, a citizens watch situation where, you know, you've got, you know, a [00:40:02] Neighborhood, you know, a couple of streets. You know, I think it should be more than just looking at cleaning the drain. I think it should be more of looking out for your neighbor. You know, we have a lot of elderly people, you know, in this community, they might not be able to get their trash can to the, to the road, you know, those kind of things, you know, just looking out for your neighbor, you know, you're gone for three months. You know, was somebody just keeping an eye on your house? You know, I know for me, if I'm not home, my neighbor's like, hey, I noticed you're not home. Are you gone? You know, kind of keep an eye out. So I think maybe we can build this into maybe something a little bit bigger than just cleaning drains out. I think we can look out for one another on a bigger scale. So I think that's something that we need to discuss up here. You know, along with what, you know, john had brought up with the trash and turning off water. You know, I know this has been a really big discussion over the years. So I think that needs to be maybe brought up into discussion of, you know, what we can do, how to handle people going out of town, how we handle that. And then obviously, we'll, we'll defer the CRA comments till that meeting. So thank you. I think everything that I was going to address has already been addressed. So

   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▶ 40:02
5. 9.a

   Second Reading Ordinance 2026-2380:  Amendments to Police Pension Ordinance

   approved

   Council approved on second reading Ordinance 2026-2380, amending the Police Officers' Retirement System to equalize the final average compensation benefit structure for all active officers, eliminating a bifurcated system that treated officers hired before November 8, 2017 differently. The initial cost impact of approximately $39,170 is projected to decrease to about $22,000 within 1-2 years as older officers retire.

   • motion:Motion to approve Ordinance 2026-2380 on second reading, amending the Police Pension Ordinance. (passed)5–0

   🏢West Central Florida Police Benevolent Association👤Chief Coach👤Councilman Altman👤Mr. Wetzel👤Ms. Manners#Chapter 17 Pensions and Retirement#Final Average Compensation#Ordinance 2026-2380#Section 17-51 Definitions#Section 17-51.1 Plan Freeze New Benefit Structure

   ▶ Jump to 40:02 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Broadcast caption · reformatted for readability

   I, I nothing. Second reading of ordinance number 2026 2380. This ordinance number 2026 2380. An ordinance of the city of new port richey. Amending, amending chapter 17 pensions and retirement article for police officers. Retirement system of the code of ordinances of the city of new port richey. Amending section 17-51 definitions. Amending section 17-51.1 plan freeze new benefit structure providing for severability of provision, providing for codification, repealing all ordinances and conflict herewith and providing an effective date as indicated by the city attorney. This agenda item is related to the definition of final average compensation and a plan freeze benefit structure. This is a matter which was fully introduced to you at first reading by Mr. Wetzel, who indicated rightfully that during contract negotiations with the West Central Florida Police Benevolent Association, they asked for a pension change related to final average comp. And the reason that they did so was because they had a bifurcated system in place. And those officers who were employed prior to November 8th of 2017 received a different benefit than others. And this equalizes the benefit so that an appropriate benefit structure is extended to all active employees. And they all receive their calculation based on the same formula. Mr. Wetzel, do you have additional comments to add? No, miss, that is correct. It will basically create one calculation for them instead of two. And again, this is also be very similar to what the amendment and change here is to the fire department, which we did earlier this year as well from that standpoint. And miss manners, like I said, just to in addition, you know, some of the costs here we talked about last time was about 39,170. And again, in kind of conjunction to Councilman Altman's comments about the actuaries and stuff along those lines, the impact on this here, you know, the actuaries are actually showing that, again, probably within 1 to 2 years. You know, fortunately or unfortunately for Chief Coach, and there'll be retirements from that that end as some of the officers are aging out here, but that that amount, 39,000 will be probably be reduced to about 22,000 in within about 1 to 2 years. And again, for, you know, some of the longevity of that other officers that will probably last about eight years and then kind of be well, kind of and from that standpoint. So again, there's going to be even a reduction coming with this change from the initial impact. Thank you. Miss man's. Have any public comment? Seeing no one come forward, bring it back for discussion and vote. I move for approval on second reading. I'll second. Thank you for the information and simplifying and making calculations easier and giving everyone the same path as laudable thing. Second. Okay. Thank you. All those in favor signify by I, I I. That's five nothing business items

   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. 10.a

   Recommendation of Cultural Event: The Polar Express Experience

   approved

   Council approved a Cultural Affairs Committee recommendation to provide $2,600 in funding to the Richey Suncoast Theater for the Polar Express Experience, a free family holiday event on November 27th with performances at 2 PM and 7 PM. The second performance was added due to last year's overwhelming success. The motion passed 5-0.

   • motion:Motion to approve $2,600 in funding for the Polar Express Experience at Richey Suncoast Theater. (passed)5–0

   📍5922 Wyoming Avenue📍6237 Grand Boulevard, New Port Richey🏢Richey Elementary🏢Richey Suncoast Theater👤Donna Jensen👤Faggart👤Susie Sachs#Cultural Affairs Committee recommendation#Polar Express Experience

   ▶ Jump to 40:02 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Broadcast caption · reformatted for readability

   Recommendation for of the culture affairs of polar express experience. Yes. This agenda item relates to a request a recommendation from the cultural affairs committee to support and experience, which will be hosted at the Richey Suncoast Theater. And [00:45:07] Miss faggart will tell us about that. Thank you, thank you, City Manager Mans. Good evening, mayor, deputy mayor and city council for your consideration. Tonight is a recommendation for $2,600 in funding to support the polar express experience, a family friendly event and holiday program proposed by the Richey Suncoast Theater. The proposal was introduced by cultural affairs committee member Susie Sachs at the committee's October 21st meeting. And as you may recall, the committee recommended funding for this event last year and its success, resulting in standing room only prompted this request for an additional funding in order to often to offer a encore performance on the same day, the cultural affairs committee loved this idea. Quite frankly, in order to offer more families an opportunity to attend this special community event, which I'll mention is free for everyone who would like to attend. They unanimously recommended council consider funding and this request in entirety. And it should be noted that miss sachs, who is also a member of the committee, recused herself from the vote due to her role as executive director of the Richey Suncoast Theater. If you approve it, the polar express experience will take place on November 27th at 2 p.m. And also at 7 p.m. There is currently funds available in the city council's budget for this year, and I'm available if you should have any questions. And also, Susie Sachs is here tonight. If you should have any questions, you have any public comment? Susie Sachs, executive director, richey, suncoast theater, 6237 Grand Boulevard, New Port Richey. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and esteemed members of the city council. On behalf of Richey Suncoast Theater, I'm here to respectfully request funding assistance for our upcoming polar express experience. On Friday, November 27th, a free community event designed to bring holiday joy, entertainment and family engagement to local children and families. Due to the overwhelming success last year, we have added a second performance so that there will be a showing at both two and 7 p.m. This festive event will provide children with an opportunity to experience the magic of a holiday season through a revered holiday film, refreshments, small gifts and a visit from santa claus. Don't tell them they're coming. Our goal is to create an inclusive and welcoming celebration that is accessible to all families, regardless of financial circumstances. This event is expected to serve approximately 650 children and their families throughout our community. In addition to providing a memorable holiday experience, the event promotes community connection and encourages family involvement in a positive recreational activity. Funding from city council would help offset the cost associated with. Excuse me, holiday decorations and event set up refreshments and treats for attendees. Take away gifts for the children, entertainment and programing expenses, event marketing and outreach. We are seeking a contribution of $2,600 to ensure that this event remains free and accessible to all participants. Richey Suncoast Theater has a long history of serving our community through educational, cultural and family oriented programing. With your support, we can continue that mission by creating a holiday event that brings smiles, strengthens community bonds, and creates lasting memories for our youngest residents. Thank you for your consideration for this request. We would welcome the opportunity for any questions you have any other public comment? If people have any questions of this lady. Yeah. Come on. Donna Jensen 5922 Wyoming Avenue. I think this is a fantastic thing to happen for our young children in new port richey. Recently I was at Richey Elementary where I attended school, and my children attended school and I, we handed out candy to the little kids. There was nothing more heartwarming than to see the smiles on faces of little children. So please support this. Thank you. I'll bring it back for discussion and vote. [00:50:06] I'll move to approve. Second, I think this is a great idea. I mean, what kid doesn't want to see santa? The second they do the event and challenging yourself to do better than last time. And clearly you have. And for adding additional opportunity for families to attend. I'm excited for it to happen, matt. Look forward to it. I'll be celebrating an old man's birthday. All those in favor signify by iii5 nothing. Request for approval. Renewal

   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. 10.b

   Request for Approval of Renewal Agreement w/The Southern Group RE: Lobbying Services

   approved

   Council approved a two-year renewal agreement with The Southern Group for state lobbying services, led by Mike Moore. The contract includes a $6,000 increase, bringing the two-year total to $92,400 ($46,200 annually), and includes two automatic two-year renewal options. Councilmembers praised the firm's effectiveness, citing legislative appropriations including $1 million toward a fire station.

   • motion:Motion to approve the two-year renewal agreement with The Southern Group for state lobbying services at $46,200/year ($92,400 total). (passed)5–0

   🏢Florida League of Cities🏢Florida Redevelopment Association🏢The Southern Group👤Bev Stevenson👤Cliff Shepherd👤Mike Bilirakis👤Mike Moore👤Murphy#Amendment Three#Fire station legislative appropriation ($1 million)#State lobbying services renewal

   ▶ Jump to 50:06 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Broadcast caption · reformatted for readability

   Of the agreement with the southern southern group. As you all are aware, The Southern Group has served the city for two years as our state lobbying service, principally led by Mike Moore. As a team manager, I. The. The agenda item is requesting that you allow us to enter into another two year contract with them for the continuation of the state lobbying services. The contract that was drafted includes two automatic two year renewal provisions as opportunities. The Southern Group is requesting a $6,000 increase this year for their fees for their lobbying services, their prior annual cost was $86,400. If you approve this item. The cost would be $92,400 for the year. In respect to our relationship with them, I. I have to say that they represented the city's interests well. They successfully advocated for funding in the form of legislative appropriations for the city, and they provided updates to us on legislative issues in a timely fashion. And with that, I'm recommending that you consider approving the contract. Do you have any public comment? Seeing no one come forward, bring it back for discussion and vote. Move for approval to maker. Yeah. I've had the opportunity to work with Mr. Moore and their group on several occasions, going to tallahassee, advocating for projects and legislation. And I can tell you it's been just a very smooth and just great experience. You know, I know the amount sounds like it's a lot of money, but for what they brought back to us and ensured and got got passed for us, that's, you know, a very minimal amount. So we definitely, you know, getting a return on investment on that. I can't remember how many products projects we got back now, but I want to say 4 or 5. The two big ones, one each year. Yeah. Okay. And but like I said, the amounts far exceed what what we pay them. So I definitely recommend them. Yeah. To Mr. Murphy's point, our Councilman Murphy's point nine $90,000 now for not one person but a team of people. In return, you get $1 million towards the fire station. That's that that's the trade off there. The this this is not these opportunities are to have a full time person in tallahassee doing the work that. Otherwise we can't do that. The staff can't do. We're here, we're local. We're trying to get the work done here. So this puts us into a good position to where we have someone full time in tallahassee and in our community, working the legislature and keeping them focused that, hey, the city issues matter too. I think this will especially be important this year and next and the year after that, as the impacts of amendment three become apparent, we're going to need someone that can support what we do here. We're going to need someone putting that ear piece up to our state senators and representatives. And the strategic advantage of this particular group is that this gentleman is of, you know, in his team, the excuse me, the team and the gentleman that represents that team is a former elected official from here. So he understands our issues uniquely. So he's in the best place possible to be able to not only negotiate on our behalf, but be able to chime in and provide additional enrichment of the policies we're trying to get passed. Yes. I think just for the record, the city does have, through its membership in the Florida League of Cities, a very active process. In fact, some of you won awards last year for your legislative sessions and days. And so having our own sort of guide, I guess, to help to connect us to the elected officials that are key to our [00:55:02] Requests is important thing. Also, we had here at one point, Cliff Shepherd, who was an attorney for the Florida Redevelopment Association, who recently retired and indicated at his conference that he was still working for the Florida Redevelopment Association. So we have some of the best, you know, connections and contacts and our our council involvement in all of the things that we're doing. I think we're well seeded to continue to be successful. And I also take this opportunity to do the first bit of congratulations to those who got reelected and elected at all levels of government. This agreement points towards our state legislature, but also, congressman Mike Bilirakis just got reelected, and the congressman has made several comments about wanting to support and help us. So that's outside of the zone of maybe the the work that we get. But we do have a lot of folks in our own midst who, who maintain those relationships. I know Bev Stevenson is one of the ones that that they call on. So with some luck, we'll get support all around and see the city continue to grow. So. But he's very helpful and I, I agree, and if I can real quick, I want to correct the record. I said 90,000. I should have said 92,000 and $400. And in that respect, the assistant city manager has has let me know that I have misspoke. And that's the total for two years of representation. The annual fee is actually $46,200. Thank you. No, I, I agree with, you know what we've all set up here. You know, last year was my first year going up for my legislative session and what I kind of speak to a little bit more, you know, since I'm the new guy here is just how we were treated there, you know, because you could, you could pick any lobbying group you want. But I think what speaks more to is, is The Southern Group is just the knowledge of the people on the hill. There is a huge advantage to us. You know, we're not sitting in a waiting room waiting. You know, we have our meeting set, we get in, we meet, you know, we have our discussions. And I think that kind of speaks more volumes to The Southern Group of what they give us in that $46,000 increment per year. I think that bodes very well to what we've brought back to the city in appropriations. So thank you. I just think The Southern Group does a great job at communicating with us and and keeping us informed. So whether we're in tallahassee, we're sitting here, they keep us informed. And that's what I appreciate the most. All those in favor signify by I, I that's five nothing. Consideration of

   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. 10.c

   Consideration of Cancelling the December 1, 2026 Regular Meeting

   approved

   Council considered cancelling the December 1, 2026 regular meeting, originally requested by Councilman Altman, due to the Thanksgiving holiday and the administrative burden of preparing an agenda during a short work week. The motion to cancel the meeting passed unanimously 5-0.

   • motion:Motion to cancel the December 1, 2026 regular City Council meeting. (passed)5–0

   👤Altman👤Jonas#December 1 2026 Regular Meeting cancellation

   ▶ Jump to 55:02 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Broadcast caption · reformatted for readability

   Canceling the December 1st, 2026 regular meeting. This agenda item is being presented at the request of Councilman Altman, and he originally presented this item during the communications portion of your agenda at your. September 15th, 2026 meeting, and it is completely at your discretion to cancel the meeting. Should it be the consensus of the council to do so? And I believe, as I recall, the reasoning for canceling the meeting was related to the Thanksgiving holiday occurring over the previous weekend. Any public comment? Seeing none will come forward. Bring it back for discussion and vote. If I can make a motion to approve taking that day off. So for the purpose of discussion and we can discuss under the motion. Second. Yeah, just the the work that's involved in putting an agenda together, getting it out, having everybody do the agenda. I've, I've never been one that has to have it a week ahead of time, but I know it's helpful for those to get it out early. So in order to get an agenda out. And have us meet, that would be the all of that work product that happens before the city takes the two days off for Thanksgiving. It's a three day work week. There's always regular work that has to be done. There's also requirements to prepare for year end. We've got a lot of january things coming up. I just think administratively, if if you don't have a requirement for it, that it's a it's an opportunity [01:00:02] For folks to get caught up and be prepared and get us a good agenda for that final one of the year. Just from my own experience, I think it's helpful to the second. Yeah, it's conscious of the employees, conscious of the process. So it makes sense to me. Unless if staff has any reason to think that it puts a burden on a future meeting, but I don't see why it would. Well, I'd like to I'd like to hear from the city manager if I mean, to me. I mean, if there's a reason that they need the time and we need to move, you know, you know, postpone that meeting or cancel that meeting. I mean, I would think, you know, if they don't have the adequate time to prepare, then yes. But if they do, you know, I'm sure there's things that we probably want to get done before the end of the year. There are and and so in response to councilman jonas's comments, it is a challenge for us to get a packet out. And in that amount of time and to prepare for a second meeting, typically in december, the agendas are a little bit lighter anyway. And so if we chose to cancel the meeting and defer the items to the second meeting of december, I don't think it would cause any any problem for us at. I'm fine with it. Hey everybody. It's another day in my birthday weekend. All those in favor signify by I I that's five nothing. First amendment to the professional services act with read speed Florida move to approve. Oh, sorry. Let me give you a chance. Well, we second. I said my motion so that public has a chance to hear the agenda item. I'll withdraw my second. Okay. You guys go with the amendment of the five year

   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.d

   First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement w/Red Speed Florida LLC

   approved

   Council approved a First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Red Speed Florida LLC to remove Flock Safety technology (ALPR features) from the city's red light and school zone speed cameras along US Highway 19, saving the city $150/month per camera, or $9,000 annually across five cameras. The cameras themselves will remain in operation; only the Flock ALPR feature is being removed.

   • motion:Motion to approve the First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Red Speed Florida LLC removing Flock Safety technology from city cameras. (passed)

   📍US Highway 19🏢Axon🏢Flock Safety🏢Red Speed Florida LLC👤Chief Coachman#ALPR (Automated License Plate Reader) technology#First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Red Speed Florida LLC#Red Light Camera Traffic Safety Program#School Zone Speed Photo Enforcement Program

   ▶ Jump to 1:00:02 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Broadcast caption · reformatted for readability

   Professional services agreement with read speed relates to both our. Red light camera traffic safety program and also the school zone speed photo enforcement program. The reason that we are bringing this before you is because we were recommending that Flock Safety technology not be employed in either system, that results would result in a savings to the city of $150 monthly per camera, which aggregates into $9,000 for the five cameras that are positioned on US Highway 19. And we're recommending that you consider approval of the amendment to the professional services agreement, and Chief Coachman will can respond to any questions that you may have related to the Flock Safety technology or the advanced license plate readers, which will not be attached to any of our cameras. Move to approve. Oh, excuse me, do we have any public comment? It's a red light on you, buddy. Get your checkbook out. I didn't understand that. So maybe you could kind of. What is that going to be lacking for you to be saving something? It sounds like a is it a reduced package to the cameras, or are you not going to get the information if a car runs a red light or something? I'm not understanding it didn't read the flock program. I'm sorry. It's basically getting rid of the flock program. Well, then we're not. We don't. We know what's going on there. Talk to the chief afterwards about the flock program. Once again, maybe I'm missing some or other people. Understand the flock is a brand name for a type of technology. One of the technologies they have is. But the cameras are staying. The cameras will be staying. They're just removing a mechanism that allows you to read the camera and put it in a system for different purposes. Okay. I was just concerned that the cameras were going, no, sir, and I'm just one feature. Okay. Bring it back for discussion and vote. I'd like to move to approve the recommendation, adding also axon technologies or any other technologies that could be used for alpr. No, that's not the intent of this. The the the alpr will still be used in the patrol cars. Correct, chief. So this is just for the read speed at this time. Right. Which is what I'm which I'm which is what this recommendation is. Let me clarify my my motion to move to [01:05:04] In the case of red light technology is of alpr from any brand. Because the way the recommendation is it says flock. There's other companies that use alpr systems. So we're bound by state law from using any alpr technology on state roadways. I'll move to approve the recommendation for alpr systems. Is that what this thing says? This is an amendment to the agreement with red speed. That's what we need a motion for. So that's that's what's before you right now. If there's some other aspect you want to address, we can certainly bring that back if that's the direction of the council. But at this point, this is just to amend the red speed agreement so that we remove the flock technology from all of those cameras that we have that they're providing. I got to see the well, I don't have a motion then. Yeah, I'll move to approve. As stated. I'll second. Do we already have a second? No, no. No I'm good, I'm good. Pete. Yeah. I'm I'm, I'm hanging in there. So in a subsequent item, you're going to have three more red light cameras. Correct. In the next agenda item, we're going to request three different three new cameras at two intersections. Under this agreement. The same. So this agreement we're impacting will then affect those three additional cameras. Okay. All those in favor signify by I, I

   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. 10.e

    Approval of Three (3) Additional Red Light Traffic Safety Program Cameras Along U.S. 19 Corridor

    approved

    Police Chief Koch presented a request to add three additional red light traffic safety cameras along the US 19 corridor: one southbound at Trouble Creek Road and two (northbound and southbound) at Main Street. The Chief presented statistics showing a 52% reduction in violations since 2011, and Council unanimously approved the expansion, which is funded in the FY 2027 Police Department budget.

    • motion:Motion to approve three additional red light traffic safety program cameras along the US 19 corridor. (passed)5–0

    📍6014 Lafayette Street📍US 19 Northbound at Main Street📍US 19 Northbound at Trouble Creek Road📍US 19 Southbound at Gulf Road📍US 19 Southbound at Main Street📍US 19 Southbound at Trouble Creek Road👤Chief Koch👤Judy Thomas#ALPR technology#FDOT US 19 safety program#FY 2027 Police Department Budget#Flock#MPO pedestrian safety grants#Red Light Traffic Safety Program

    ▶ Jump to 1:05:04 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Broadcast caption · reformatted for readability

    That's five nothing approval of three additional red light traffic safety program cameras along us 19 corridor. I'm Chief Coach and will present the agenda item. And he has prepared a powerpoint for you in that respect. Thank you. Mr. Mayor. Council members. So the request, as you know, is to get approval for three additional red light cameras for our traffic safety program on 192 will be on 19 north and southbound at main street, and one will be on trouble creek road or correction US 19 Southbound at Trouble Creek Road. I'm going to kind of do this simultaneously. I want to show a powerpoint. Also address the memo. That's a cover memo that's in your backup. Before I get to the first slide, I want to tell you that we are going to show you a traffic crash on us 19 involving a red light violation. And you know that we've talked about this in the past, the crash dynamics with intersection accidents, especially as it relates to red light violations. We talked about occupant kinematics, we vehicle side structure, all the energy transfer. So usually when these accidents occur and you're going to see this play out, it's always the person that's lawfully within the intersection that's going to come out on the losing end of that accident. So there were no fatalities in this traffic crash, which was we were very lucky on this one. There were serious injuries, but there were no fatalities. So I'll play it out. This is a bad violation. You see all that energy transfer, you see all that crash, you see all that. Basically we call it traffic reconstruction. The impact is immense in this accident. Lot of energy transfer. The driver that was lawfully within the intersection was very seriously injured in this accident, happened in may of 2026 at 9:35 p.m. And it was at 19 northbound at trouble creek road. So again, we we have these programs out there, and you're going to see some statistics through this powerpoint to promote traffic safety in addition to everything else that we do out there. So currently we have five cameras and here they are on us. 19 the agreement that you previously approved applies to these cameras. And we can buy that contract, add up to an additional ten cameras at the same price and will not have alpr technology or floc integrated into those cameras each year. Now, these stats change a little bit each year. Approximately 30 million vehicles travel on us 19 in our city. I've seen stats around 29 million to 34 million. So you get the point. There's a lot of vehicles on this roadway. The intersections are the most dangerous aspects of this roadway. In the past five years, we've had six fatal crashes, 27 serious injury crashes, 212 injury crashes on us 19 by far. Us 19 is our most dangerous highway, as is obvious city, new port richey has been [01:10:02] Utilizing red light cameras since june of 2011. Since june of 2011, we have reviewed almost 300,000 violation events and have issued 208,046 violations. City new port richey, as you know, currently has five active red light camera enforcement devices deployed, four of which are on us 19. And I want to comment strategically, a lot of these a lot of these are south on 19 on our city, but us 19 and main street, there's no coverage except for westbound traffic. So these are all going to tie in as we go through this powerpoint. So this right here, if I, if I only have one bullet point that I could present to you in this powerpoint, this would be the highlight reel right here. As your police chief, this is compelling. Since June 2011, we have been able to reduce violations by as much as 52% through awareness and compliance. So think about that 52% reduction. What is that telling us that's telling us that people now are paying attention to our intersections. They're not violating these red lights. And common sense would tell you, I could put forth an argument, we are saving lives by having these cameras. This is a compelling statistic. It's the only one I would have if I could, if I could do this powerpoint with just one bullet .2525 is another good year was our lowest year in event reviews and violations, issued with 17,860 reviews and 8264 violations issued. Again, going down these years could fluctuate, but we like to see these events going down. We want to see driver behavior being modified on our most dangerous highway. We currently only have one red light camera for southbound us 19 and three for northbound on us 19 us 19 northbound at trouble creek and US 19 Southbound at Gulf Road experienced the highest level of violations per year. Interesting. We are proposing to add three more camera enforcement devices to other locations to achieve our mission and goal. To improve red light compliance. All locations listed below are major intersections in the city, so us 19 southbound to trouble creek road. That intersection is dangerous. That intersection is highly trafficked as as many of them are on us 19 but we have no coverage going southbound at that location. And of course, I bring you to us 19 and main street. Very sadly, a couple years ago, what you saw on that video is very similar to what happened at 19 and main. Oh, this person didn't walk away. Vehicle traveling northbound ran a red light, what we call right angle crash. You would know it as a t-bone or a broadside. The young man that was in the intersection was killed. That accident played out very terribly. So main street for us is very important, both southbound and northbound. So we're asking for one additional trouble creek road or 19 southbound at trouble creek road and two on us 19, both north and southbound lanes. And that's the end of that slide. So we've talked about all these statistics. We've talked about crash dynamics. You see this play out 19 by far is our most dangerous roadway. I've worked so many of these crashes in my career. And it's absolutely heartbreaking when you have to go up to them and you see what happens when people simply don't pay attention to a red light. So what we're asking you is to approve an additional three red light cameras as presented in your cover memo and in this powerpoint. And again, this contract that you approve, we can do up to ten at that same pricing. They will not have floc or alpr technology. We are prohibited from doing that on all state roadways. So again, we're asking for that approval. We do have additional red light camera traffic safety program funds within the fy 2027 police department budget to cover this. So I'm here to answer any questions you may have. If you have any public comment. You're going to speak, please come down to the front row. I think that's why I was confused. I had read the agenda and I was I thought you were talking about the red light cameras. My, my previous my mail route was between main street and Gulf drive on us 19 before there were cameras. Now there are cameras and I can tell you there is a marked difference because people don't want to pay that fine. They don't want to get that. They don't want to get that ticket in the mail. It's it's still bad. Don't get me wrong, it's still bad. I see it all the time, but it does help. And I've argued this with friends of mine because I have a lot of people I am not popular with over this because they do not like they they. I've heard everything from invasion of privacy to everything else. I have to tell you, it it it works. It does save lives. I don't care what it costs, it's well worth it. [01:15:05] Probably one of the few things that's effective as a citizen. I tell you what, put my money to use that way. I'm happy with it. Hi, I'm Judy Thomas, 6014 Lafayette Street. I had the honor of being on council for ten years for the city. And one of the most difficult situations that we had to vote on was red, red cameras, red light cameras, and one of the most impactful conversations I ever had was, and I'm sorry, I don't remember her name, but when we were working on this, spoke to the woman who was pushing for red light cameras, and it was because her husband and her son were killed by just dashing out for groceries one day, and someone ran a red light, and those two folks did not come back home. And I know we took a lot of flack because people were saying that it was a money grab. That was the big deal. And there's no amount of money that you can put on for saving life. So I'm glad that we hung tough on this and that. I'm very happy to see us doing this with the with the red light camera, so go for it. 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 mean, we've we've talked about this before. I think the powerpoint speaks for itself. And I appreciate the chief and his staff for putting that together and giving us the statistics. So thank you. The second yeah, just to say, I started off years ago on the wrong side of this, where I thought red light cameras were a money grab. I thought that it was a way for the city to for cities, not this city. All cities to nickel and dime residents. But the data speaks for itself. And I'm I've come around to the issue predominantly because when you when you look at the violations versus the reviews, nobody's nickel and diming people. If you if if it is not a true violation, you're not being charged. If you ran the light, if you went over the line, if you're exhibiting habits that suggest that you cannot stop at an intersection, that's why you're receiving the ticket. And I'll be up front with you. I've received one in my in my life as a driver and I was in the wrong. And now when I go to that intersection, I'm extra cautious. You drive for years. We all get complacent. We have certain habits. There's certain. You know, now that we have a huge sign right there. There are certain, you know, you're more likely to be staring at the sign instead of focusing on the road. And so these are made money speaks and these are made to make us break bad habits. They work. They're effective 52% reduction. And it's, it's, I'm not going to waive the whole it saves lives argument. I'm just going to say that it like I break more at the intersection I got the ticket at. Even if it's green, I slow down just a little bit. And that's because it works. So they're an effective program. I'm glad to see that they want to expand it. I do have a couple. We did. We didn't codify through resolution or anything with a state ban. So I want to be cautious in us saying that by doing what we did with the contract, that that somehow means flock has gone away. I think that's why there was some hesitation if you saw the hesitation on my part in the first vote. We're just now for this agreement, for the agreement we just voted on prior taking it out. But that doesn't mean it can't come back in if the state turns around and does something. So it is no by by no means a ban of flock. It's by no means a codified removal. It's just with this specific company, we're not using flock and alpr technology. So I think that's an important distinction to make. But yes, expanding the program definitely worthwhile. Yeah. I just have a memory as well of some of the early. Entry of the red light cameras, which included a lot of people getting charged with a california right turn. That stopped. Now, from my understanding, we're just trying to stop them going through the red lights primarily. And then the second part was the timing of the yellow light before it turned red. That was a bit short in the earlier days, and I think you flashed it up on the screen, but I didn't stick it in my memory. But there's a number of seconds, nine seconds, nine seconds. Unacceptable. Nine seconds of yellow. No, nine seconds of red. How long is the yellow? I don't know, but they're so 4.6, 4.8. So you know, the the issue that I have tried to introduce and I know some some jurisdictions have done this is was my red light camera bill was to port richey, but it was coming down 19 with a solid traffic and a large publix or walmart truck in front of me. There's a point [01:20:07] Sometimes when you're following a large vehicle and you find yourself, you know, and then when I looked at the camera at the front of my car was just slightly over the line. So I think there are some jurisdictions or some locations across the country where if you are only eked yourself across, that's not the accident you showed me. And I'm not trying to say that they shouldn't be warned about it, but having a $200 charge when you're following behind somebody in a huge traffic zone, that's where those sort of concepts come out. And I don't know if it's possible or if it's something legislative could allow, but I think a ticket gets issued. But it seems we have to charge that $200 or 200, whatever it is, and that gets shared with the state and the the vendor was getting that share as well. And then we got what was $60 or $65, something like that out of that $200 ticket. So part of the argument is $140, leaves the city, leaves the goes somewhere else, and $60 comes back in. If someone is barely crossing the line, that's kind of a yosemite sam moment for whoever got caught thinking they could get through someone pushing them from behind. And I don't think that's where that accident occurred. You indicated it was nine seconds red on the red on that accident. Accident you showed me. So a court, you know, a half a second or the car just having its nose across to me is a bit picky. And if there was such a thing as a warning or something, that would be, hey, you cross a red light. I don't think that deserves a $200 ticket. I paid it, I'm not complaining about it, but I think there are circumstances where it's difficult to navigate with that kind of heavy traffic. If you sit on highway 19 right now, anytime between 4:00 and six, I'll guarantee you you may wait a light or two to get through. And if you're behind a big truck, you're going. If it's going, I'm just saying, I don't know of anybody that will stop to wait for the whole truck to get through, to see the red light. Just to a side note. But somebody that everybody's writing, everybody, you know, everybody's right on top of it. But in any case, I'll vote for it because of your presentation. But I would like to keep an ear out. If there's ever such a thing as the ability for us to take some, you know, some look at. Because what in port richey, it was just the very front of the bumper that had crossed that yellow line. And it was 200, if I may, for the record, they send us the event and we have trained police officers that I watch these things we're citing. Clearly they're violating the red light. The car is way behind the white ball, and that light is red. So we're very fair about it. That's great. That's good to hear. I don't think we've ever lost a case before the magistrate yet. That's good to hear. So to your point thank you. I guess we can't vouch for port richey, so we yell at them. I can give testimony if this has come up, because it wasn't a week ago. And I'm driving south down 19 and going through main street. The light turned yellow and the passengers with me are like, oh, you can make it, you can make it. And I was like, oh no. I said, I'm not getting a ticket. No way. You know? So I mean, it's just funny. We're talking about it now, but sitting on the mpo, they do the whole, the whole county. This statistics for injuries and fatalities. And as you as you know us 19 is just lit up with red. All the all the intersections us the state DOT is got a program now where they're going all the way up 19 and trying to make as safe as possible all the way up. And new port richey is doing their part, helping with that safety statistic, because it's not like it used to be in our area. I can tell you that from from what they poll. And so I know, I know it works. And, you know, I think I think one of the things that they're trying to address right now is midspan crossings, because we do have pedestrians that cross, you know, not to say they're going to go to a crosswalk, but they're there in between the lights so that they can cross safely. So I know they're focusing on that, that part of it too. So it, it's taken forever and it takes time. But, you know, there are people working on it and we're doing what we can here. And we've utilized those grants through ipm to actually promote pedestrian safety on 19 again, it's always a multi-pronged approach, but to your point, we do a lot of that work. Everybody. Yes. I just want to say that I'm a local and I avoid 19 except when I have to go to southgate because I eat [01:25:05] Food. All those in favor signify by I, I, I that's five nothing. Police department

    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.

11. 10.f

    Police Department - Division #67: Position Reclassification and Additional Personnel Authorization

    approved

    Police Chief Coachman requested reclassification of an existing Traffic Infraction Enforcement Technician (grade 105) to a Traffic Infraction Enforcement Supervisor (grade 113) and authorization of one additional Traffic Infraction Enforcement Technician (grade 105) within Division 67 (Special Traffic Enforcement), along with a corresponding budget amendment, to handle increased workload from the new school zone speed camera program and red light cameras. The Chief confirmed FLOCK/ALPR technology will not be used for these traffic safety programs. Council approved the request.

    • motion:Move to approve the Division 67 position reclassification, additional Traffic Infraction Enforcement Technician authorization, and corresponding budget amendment. (passed)

    👤Chief Coachman👤Councilman Butler#Division 67 - Special Traffic Enforcement#FLOCK / ALPR technology#Red Light Camera Program#School Zone Speed Camera Program#Traffic Infraction Enforcement Supervisor (grade 113)#Traffic Infraction Enforcement Technician (grade 105)

    ▶ Jump to 1:25:05 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Broadcast caption · reformatted for readability

    Division 67. Position. Reclassification. Additional personnel. Authorization. Chief. Coachman. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council members. So the request before you is to do the following staffing modifications within our special traffic enforcement division. We call it just division 67. And these are the folks that review all the red light violations. There's a lot of logistics behind it. So with the advent of the school program coming on board and the red light camera program, this whole division needs to be reorganized. There's no doubt about it. We need to meet all the challenges that we're going to have, especially with the school zone camera enforcement program. So when you're looking at the 85th percentile on our speed studies in a school zone with the yellow flashing light being 26 miles an hour, that's unacceptable. We're going to have a lot of driver modification that we're going to have to do. And the experience statewide shows that it's going to be a lot at first. And then we then we tamp it down 75%, which is what we want. So what we're asking for is one, a position reclassification. One reclassify the existing traffic infraction enforcement technician position, grade 105 to a traffic infraction enforcement supervisor position grade 113. This is a mid-level supervisor that's going to work with the traffic infraction officers that review all the events and make those decisions as to whether or not someone should deserve to get a red light violation or a speeding violation, a school zone. And we're asking for an additional personnel authorization for you to authorize one additional traffic infraction enforcement technician position, grade 105. There's also a corresponding budget amendment that allocates funds for these resources that we're also asking you to approve. Again, we talked about division 67. We need to ramp up this division. We're going to have a lot of incidents coming our way with the new school zone program, with the additional red light cameras. We know, we know that our first year is going to be extremely busy with the school zone cameras, and that's why we also trained in additional in-house person to help support that division. So we can kind of get a gauge on what it's going to look like, because sometimes on a project, you never really know until the rubber hits the road how bad it's going to be. But we are prepared. I believe that was the city manager's idea to have one of our staff members trained. But yes, we have another person trained that can jump in and help us out if it gets bad. So again, these these staffing modifications will establish dedicated supervisory oversight accommodation, increased administrative and operational workload. Ensure the effective administration regulatory compliance of both traffic safety programs. Implementation of these positions will occur as operationally necessary and fiscally feasible based on the expansion of camera locations and associated workloads. I know Councilman Butler like this. We will not use floc or alpr technology on any of our traffic safety programs. Those cameras will not be installed. They will not be integrated with anything operating out there. For the record, the only alpr technology that we have for officer safety purposes in our in-car cameras, and that's just with the officers doing traffic stops. So recommendations staff recommends that city council approve the following organizational and staffing modifications for division 67. Again, we talked about it in the request reclass of the existing traffic infraction enforcement technician position from grade 105 to a traffic infraction enforcement supervisor position, grade 113 authorization of one additional traffic infraction enforcement technician position grade 105 approval of the corresponding budget amendment. Provide funding for these organizational and staffing modifications and budget fiscal impact corresponding budget amendment provides funding for the proposed staffing modifications within the police department. Special traffic enforcement division 67 utilizing revenues generated by the traffic safety programs themselves. So with that, I'm here to answer any questions you may have. Have any public comment? Seeing no one come forward, bring it back for discussion and vote. Move to approve. Second, I a little bit of the conversation came up with red light, which is this idea of, you know, whenever there's tickets flying around, going around, there's this idea of money grabbing. If that were the case, the city would have just sent out their warning letters and then did the program instead. You could see that there's a, there's a request to invest in additional staff. There's the warning letters, there's the police already being present at the schools out there with their lights on, humans sitting in the cars, getting people into the habit of following the rule of slowing down, and then also non human decoy vehicles sitting there to get people in the habit of slowing down. So this is truly about for those few frequent fliers. And [01:30:05] There'll be a lot at first as you're trying to build the habit. For those who cannot understand, you need to go slow in an area that's predominantly children. This is for them. And they'll quite literally, without being hyperbolic, they'll pay the price for it and hopefully get into the habit, if I may. By law, there will be a 30 day warning period, and we are working with the school system to put out a media release. I'm working with all the principals to let everybody know that we're implementing this program, you know, and once we, you know, once we're to the point where if you're going 27, it will be 27 and a 15 with the yellow flashing light, with school crossing guard standing over the stop sign, maybe the traffic mannequin out there and you're in the middle of that school zone going 27 miles an hour. You deserve it. I don't know how else to say it, so thank you. Second. I'm good. One question though, to. No, I'm just I'm happy that we're we're getting to the next step of this and getting it implemented. You know, just like the red light cameras out on 19. You know, there was no cost to somebody's life. And now we're speaking of children, and I think it holds well. And, you know, I travel louisiana a lot and I see a lot of people that speed. And the worst part there is it's middle school. And middle schoolers don't always abide by the laws of crossing at the crosswalk. They just cross the road. So I hope that this, you know, does what we intend it to do. So thank you know, maybe they're watching their parents on main street when the city is busy at night because nobody uses the crosswalks there. I'm good. What's your question? The the in this case with the right just to be clear, I'm not trying to bring it up, but the school zone speed photo enforcement program. The state has not banned flock for that. It's just the choice that that staff is recommending not to do flock there. It's on a city roadway. It's banned on all state roadways. It's on state roadways. Right. But our school zone cameras are on city roadways. But we've chosen not to implement flock or aop technology. We're not going to do it without being forced by the state. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Just wanted to clarify that that's a choice that you guys are making. Okay. Thank you. All those in favor signify by iis5 nothing. 2026 recreational aquatic center annual [10.g) 2026 Recreation and Aquatic Center Annual Membership Sale ] Membership sale. A sale that traditionally occurs around the holiday season offering, as you've indicated, a reduction in the annual membership rate to participate as a member at the recreation and aquatic center. And Mr. Trap will present the agenda item. Thank you, miss manson. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. It's that time of the year again. Halloween just ended, so we're transitioning to the holiday season as well as our aquatic center. Annual membership sale. Staff is requesting council to review and consider approving this year's annual membership sale. I did want to provide just a little background on the sale prior to reviewing this year's sale information. As mentioned by miss manz, this sale usually occurs during the months of december and january, and over the past three years, we've averaged about 170 to 173 annual memberships sold. There has been a downward trend over the past five years, which is noted in the attachment for that data. And just a couple notes on that. The sale reduced from four weeks to two weeks the past three years, and also an increase in health care reimbursement programs, which everybody was probably familiar with, like silversneakers. There's plenty of them now. There's at least five that we accept. So those people get memberships to the facility. So they would not need to capitalize on that. And that trend really has increased over the last five years. The sales and opportunity capitalize on the holiday season, as well as the new year's healthy resolutions changes this year. As we've noted the downward trend in the last few years, we did review it this year and made a couple recommendations for your consideration this this year we're looking for to increase it to four years, which was done once in the last five years. We do anticipate that giving us more of an opportunity to capitalize on people coming to our facility during that time frame, and we're requesting approval a month earlier than we did last year. So this gives us an opportunity to market it and to really increase our efforts to make people aware of this membership, where in the past it has been a little bit closer to when we actually roll it out. So we're hopeful and anticipating that a good marketing effort will show the benefits of this sale this year. Some highlights for this year's sale. It'll run from Monday, December 14th through Monday, January 11th if approved. And we do break down the resident rate to 20% and nonresident for 10%. As mentioned in the memo, the sale was discussed with the [01:35:07] Parks and rec board on October 14th, and advisory board members voted in favor of requesting city council to consider approving this year's sale, and the anticipated revenue is factored into our revenue projections for the year, and staff is recommending approval of this year's annual membership sale. Any public comment so, you know, come forward, bring it back for discussion and vote. I'll move for approval of this year's annual membership. Second. Yes, sir. You said for years. What what are you talking about? With that? It'll be if I misspoke. It's for the membership sale around four weeks instead of two weeks that we've done for the last three years. So the reason I'm making the motion, because it's now november and a year, takes us to the end of the fiscal year. And I still remain hopeful that considering the amendment three and the discussions that the county has had for two years about its recreation services and our request, that has gone to wait until after that vote happened to to reengage with the county that we can begin to collect from a recreation fund for the service area that surrounds and extends beyond our city limits. It should be paid for by the folks that use it. And I think there's a way to distribute those costs. And if we come to some agreement, then maybe those membership fees change next year. So I'm hopeful and with nothing been to report because we delayed any further discussion until after the amendment three vote. Second, yeah, just to say another reason for that downward trend, which Mr. Trap and his staff have no control over, is that our you know, people aren't having babies. There's that, you know, it's a tough environment right now. The schools are going through the same thing with enrollment issues. They're seeing the same somewhat downward trend. So our families that are here, they can take advantage of it. But the people that are moving in, they're not they're not starting families. As soon as we'd we'd expect them to in regards to the, the health care based incentives like silversneakers. I'm curious, as we start to have those conversations around amendment three, if there's a way. Since there's an additional administrative requirement in terms of you have to have a different ipad or different software to be able to process their memberships, if there's a way for us to add some sort of fee for that that's charged to silversneakers or whatever the case may be for those members. But other than that, yeah, this is a good tradition. And I'm glad that the the city staff reports back the data so we could see who's taking advantage of the program. No, I just I want to, you know, like, I, I appreciate that we're going to extend this out because, you know, like we've all said, we kind of have a downward trend. You know, sometimes a couple weeks isn't enough. You know, sometimes when there's an event coming up, you know, we don't always act right away. We wait, you know, till the last minute. And then sometimes that date expires and we miss it and we're like, dang, I wish I would have done it sooner. So I think giving us four weeks, I think is a is a better option moving forward. But thank you. I have nothing further Christmas present. All those in favor signify by I

    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.

12. 10.h

    ↳You arrived here from a search for “R454B refrigerant requirements” — transcript expanded below

    Public Works Operations Center (PWOC) – 12.5-Ton Split System Replacement

    approved

    Council approved an appropriation of $90,237 to purchase and install a 12.5-ton split HVAC system at the Public Works Operations Center, replacing the original 2009 system identified as end-of-life. Work will be performed by Amscot under the existing HVAC maintenance contract (ITB 23-004).

    • vote:Approve appropriation not to exceed $90,237 for Amscot to replace the 12.5-ton split system at the Public Works Operations Center. (passed)5–0

    📍Public Works Operations Center🏢ABC🏢Amscot🏢KMC👤Colin👤Mueller👤Patel👤Ryan👤Vance#12.5-ton split system replacement#FY 2026-27 Capital Improvement Program#ITB 23-004#R454B refrigerant requirements

    ▶ Jump to 1:35:07 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Broadcast caption · reformatted for readability

    That's five nothing. Public Works Operations Center. The agenda item is to ask you to consider approving an appropriation in the amount of $90,237 to purchase a 12.5 ton split system. Split system for our Public Works Operations Center, and Mr. Mueller will present the agenda item. Thank you, miss vance. Good evening, council. To start, the existing hvac system has been in service since the completion of the Public Works Operations Center in 2009, and following an evaluation in 2025 by amscot, it was determined that the 12.5 ton split system and associated air handling unit were approaching the end of their useful life based on manufactured guidelines. As a result, the replacement was identified in the city's 2627 fiscal year capital improvement program, and the approved. The proposed work includes the replacing of the existing air handler unit and associated condensing unit, along with necessary piping valves and support systems to meet the new [01:40:01] R454B requirements. The project will also include the replacement of electrical breakers, the associated system one as as well as the abc provided controls, the kmc controller sensors and actuators. These improvements will provide a complete replacement of the aging system and its associated control components, and the terms and conditions is consistent with the city's existing hvac maintenance contract and amscot with amscot underneath the itb number 23-004. Funding for this project has been identified in the capital improvement program, and staff recommends approval of the amscot proposal in the amount not to exceed $90,237 at this time. I'm here for any questions, any public comment. Seeing no one come forward, bring it back for discussion. Vote approval. Second, the maker cool to the second. Good. Patel. Thank you. Thank you ryan. Thanks, colin. All those in favor signify by I I I that's five nothing. Request to purchase a wheel alignment

    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.

13. 10.i

    Request to Purchase Wheel Alignment System for Central Garage

    approved

    Council approved a proposal from Mohawk Lifts LLC in an amount not to exceed $85,857.41 to purchase a Hawkeye Elite Wheel Alignment System for the Central Garage Division, via the Sourcewell cooperative purchasing contract. The equipment will bring wheel alignment work in-house for most city vehicles (currently subbed out). Discussion included procedural debate about public comment and questions about ROI and equipment lifespan (approximately 15 years).

    • motion:Motion to approve the proposal from Mohawk Lifts LLC not to exceed $85,857.41 for the Hawkeye Elite Wheel Alignment System for the Central Garage. (passed)

    🏢Mohawk Lifts LLC🏢Sourcewell👤Barrett👤Debbie👤Hall👤Mueller👤Peter👤Tim👤Webb#Amendment 3#FY 2026-27 Capital Equipment and Improvement Plan#Hawkeye Elite Wheel Alignment System#Sourcewell Bid Award #121223-MRL

    ▶ Jump to 1:40:01 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Broadcast caption · reformatted for readability

    System for the central garage Mr. Mueller yes, ma'am. So tonight before you is council is being asked to review and approve a proposal from Mohawk Lifts LLC in an amount not to exceed $85,857.41 for the purchase of the hawkeye elite wheel alignment system for the city's central garage division. The proposal provides pricing through the current sourcewell cooperative purchasing contract, and that's bid award number 121223 dash mike romeo lima. The equipment will allow the central garage staff to measure and adjust vehicle steering and suspension angles to meet the manufacturer's specifications and nail that proper wheel alignment as it is essential to following steering or suspension repairs, and is also important part of vehicle routine maintenance. As I'm sure you all know, purchasing the equipment through the source wall provides access to established contract pricing and supports the city's efforts to maintain its vehicles while managing fleet cost and the purchases budgeted again under the 2627 fiscal year capital equipment and improvement plan for the central garage division. The staff recommends approval of the proposal at this time, and I'm here to answer any questions. You may have any public comment. Oh, we have a system in place now, or is this something that's being subbed out, done out of house? We currently sub that out at this time and this will service. It will handle like the police fleet, all the all the city vehicles. That is correct up to the big trucks. It won't. I mean, I'm sure it it wouldn't be doing any of our heavy equipment. That would be a completely separate item, but it'll do everything up to our fire vehicles. Any kind of life expectancy of this system. With newer technology coming along, you know, is it going to be outdated in a, you know. Where do you want us to respond to those questions or I think you should get with him at another time. This isn't really time for this. You know, to bring up the whole subject. We have a packet. We have a packet that you're available to get if you'd like and find out more about asking valid questions. I know, but I'm just saying there's a, there's a way to go about that. We've already discussed this. We have the packet and you, you sit there and get the idea and then you come up and ask a question, you know. Mr. Mr. Barrett, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, the this excuse me sir, the agenda item. The resident is entitled to three minutes speaking time. So what I think should take place, Mr. Hall or Mr. Webb, is if if you don't mind just getting the questions out, all of them on the public record, and then we can relay them to staff versus the q and a, but to say he can't ask questions and that he should be privately with the department head, I don't think that's appropriate. Tim, how far should we go into this? Well, questions are supposed to be directed towards the chair, and then the chair directs any response. So the idea back and forth between a staff member is definitely prohibited by our rules. So you can certainly he can certainly raise questions, but he raises them to you and then you direct how they get responded. Okay then. So what I say best you get get in touch with him, answer your question or put the record, put him on the say them during your three minutes, which you're entitled to. I didn't need much time. That's all right. Okay. Well all those in. Well, we'll bring it back. Was there another person? Yeah. Come on up, please. This is in [01:45:02] The packet, so it should be easy for you to answer. What is the roi on this investment? Debbie. Do we know what that is? I wouldn't have that on hand. I don't know that, but I could certainly state that any amount of money that we would spend on this piece of equipment, I can't anticipate any dramatic changes over the next ten years or beyond that, but I could certainly say that we would get substantial use out of this. As you know, anytime we've done a tire replacement or any sort of work on a vehicle suspension or within the wheel alignment system in and of itself, you have to send that out as, as we all know, with our own vehicles. So that would provide substantial amount over the course of, you know, whether it be 5 or 10 years or however long we can utilize that equipment. All right. I didn't hear an answer to the roi return on investment seems a simple thing that should be in any. I didn't have that information. She said she didn't have that information. They don't have it. They don't they don't have it. I don't care what the roi is. Excuse me, ma'am, we have your opinion. Thank you. So bring it back for discussion and vote yes. I'll move to approve second. So I'm going to speak a little towards the machine. Since I grew up in a repair shop my whole life. So this is just one other component that's necessary for the work that we're doing there. And really is there. There's really no roi because you don't know when you're going to need it. So it's just it's one of these things to me, I look at it as more of convenience of getting our fleet back up and running. So instead of us sending this vehicle out to an outside source several days, the vehicle's down. We can do it in-house, you know, speeds the process up. My biggest question is, do we have someone who is trained on the machine, or if we have to train them, is that part of the cost? The training would be provided within. There's like a packet that comes along with it and a video course log that actually helps our employees learn the equipment better. Thank you a second. Yeah, a few things. The first one is, first off, thank you for bringing this agenda item up and looking for ways to bring some of what the city does in-house in, in, in what should be eventually a cost saving element or cost saving function. I do think as we consider the impacts of amendment three, it is going to become necessary, as was brought up during what was a partial, distorted public comment, that the process is not being followed properly, but the the point raised was excellent, which is that as a council up here, but especially just in general, as we start seeing these capital projects come before us that have been budgeted, it's budgeted for that are now in front of us with a number. And we understand there is an ultimate investment with a return, having some way of projecting some sort of return on investment is going to be necessary as we're deciding what needs cut or what fees need to be extended. But just the basic premise of aligning vehicles and the lifespan like this, this alignment system, the the wheel alignment system, do you happen to know the lifespan on that equipment itself? I looked at some of the manufacturer guidelines within the mohawk service site, and they were looking at 15 years as their typical. And then the warranty covers up to ten. And this would. This would serve more than just one type of vehicle. This could serve our, you know, some of our fleet, most of our fleet. That is correct. So in my mind, without doing, you know, on every issue, I don't think we can do a so-called forensic audit or get down to the to the nitty gritty and run a study on an $85,000 item. But just based on what you're describing now, it's going to serve our vehicles, our vehicles. It's not a specialized piece of equipment. It's going to last for 15 years. So overall, this to me seems like a budget worthy decision where we come out ahead, it brings something in-house. So thank you for following the budget that the city council proposed and for putting this on the item for consideration, Mr. Mayor, the but the point of starting to look at some of these items and giving them value is well noted and needs to be something we keep an eye on. Mr. Mr. Mayor, you you had a resident up here and you told that resident to meet with the department head privately and that this is not the time to discuss the agenda item. I just want to be clear that this is exactly the time to discuss the agenda item, because we're [01:50:03] Voting on it. And then two, that if if you know, I appreciate the questions and I like hearing them. And so if a resident can have their three minutes to get their questions out, where that went wrong is allowing that resident to speak with our staff directly and wait for a reply to his question, versus let him get his questions out so that we can then give staff a chance to respond, or we can ask the staff internally. But there might have been more questions there, and I don't know them now, because you have directed that resident incorrectly to curb the public process and meet with him privately. So if you could not discourage our residents from using their three minutes, no problem sir, no problem sir, as long as they don't expect an answer. Who else hasn't spoke yet? Peter? Peter? Yeah. Just since accounting is my thing and roi is an accounting term return on investment, I would just make a suggestion that we look at two things. One, which is in our charter and our ordinances, which do require in a capital improvement plan, that there's also some language about the ongoing costs of operation and maintenance of things. We haven't really done that. There's lots of things anybody can look at to say, these are things we could do to improve, but we do have an ordinance that tells us to look at those things. And if I was to give a simple response, it might be that in the future, as we do these things, if we say we've been sending it out, then we have x number of vehicles and the average service to every six months, and the cost of that x number of vehicles would be $50 to the vendor. And so we are spending x number of dollars a year. And so if we spend this money now, but then it gets complicated because then we have staff, but they're already on board. So I heard what you're saying. You have the people there, they can do it. There's enough. So basically the argument I'm making for you back to us is that a little bit of detail that's being requested would probably be useful for us as well. If we have 100 vehicles, if 50 vehicles, the cost is quite expensive. And so you can really indicate that, you know, that investment is going to last us for x number of years and it should return in spades how much savings we can get. So it's more detail. We generally don't ask for a whole lot of things. You put stuff in, it's in the budget. That would be something could be in the budget capital improvement plan. And we don't have to go through 20 minutes of discussion because it'll already be in the plan. So I think looking at our ordinance to you. I think and the other point just to make in terms of protocol up here, is that everything we do is to also to be directed to you, to suggest to the staff what they should do. So we're all city council members. None of us has one ounce more authority than the other. It takes three of us to do anything. And but the the mayor, to his point, is the ceremonial head of the meeting of the city and. And he directs the meeting. So I'm not faulting you, Mr. Mayor, for attempting to try to, you know, direct it. And to that point, Mr. Webb was wrong to turn and speak directly to them. And so I think we've got it all figured out here. So we'll be fine going forward. And I appreciate the chance to address it. Yeah, I can just just from personal experience, it's definitely a cost savings. We have a mechanic at our shop that he's not there full time, but when he is there and we can get one of our vehicles in there, get it fixed and get it back out on the road. It's a significant cost savings because if we have a truck down for a day, I mean, that could literally be thousands of dollars that we're behind for that day just on vehicle repair. So, I mean, from my experience, it's definitely anything you can do in-house get done right away because, you know, you sub it out or go somewhere else. And it may be days where you get it back. So I'm all for it. I also just want to say that we didn't even bring up the idea of, you might be driving that vehicle a lot longer, so you might eat up more of the tires. And so you're going to end up maybe five, ten, 15% more cost of tires. So anyhow, all those in favor signify by I. That's fine. Another request for approval of the fdep grant

    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.

14. 10.j

    Request for Approval of FDEP Grant Agreement 27RCP11 RE: Rio Drive Stormwater Improvements

    approved

    Council approved a $1,125,000 FDEP grant agreement (27RCP11) for Rio Drive stormwater improvements, including new stormwater inlets at Rio Drive/Wyoming Avenue and Lafayette Street, replacement of over 1,200 feet of stormwater piping, outfall improvements, and installation of a baffle box. No local match is required; work is scheduled between July 1, 2026 and June 30, 2029 on a reimbursement basis.

    • motion:Move approval of the $1,125,000 FDEP grant agreement 27RCP11 for Rio Drive stormwater improvements. (passed)

    📍Lafayette Street📍Rio Drive📍Rio Drive and Wyoming Avenue📍Tennessee🏢Florida Department of Environmental Protection🏢The Southern Group👤Colin👤Ishmael👤Jonas👤Manson👤Matt#FDEP Grant Agreement 27RCP11#FY 2026-27 Capital Improvement Program#Rio Drive Stormwater Improvements#Stormwater Utility Fund

    ▶ Jump to 1:50:03 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Broadcast caption · reformatted for readability

    Agreement. 27rcp11. The project relates to reo drive, some stormwater improvements and I'm sure all of you will recall that last year we submitted this project for a legislative [01:55:05] Appropriation. We did work with The Southern Group. Ultimately, this project was awarded through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the amount of $1,125,000. And Mr. Ishmael is prepared to tell you a little bit about the project. Thank you, miss manson. As stated, this agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection is for a grant award that we worked very closely with The Southern Group to obtain. This grant agreement provides the 1,125,000 in state funding, with no local matching funds required for the project along Rio Drive. That includes the installation of stormwater inlets at the intersections of Rio Drive and Wyoming Avenue, as well as along Lafayette Street and replacement of more than 1200ft of stormwater piping, improvements to an outfall and additional drainage inlets, along with the installation of a baffle box for the improvement of the stormwater quality as it falls out into the river. This agreement covers the work schedule between July 1st, 2026 and June 30th, 2029. We'll have the project done long before then. Funding will be provided on a reimbursement basis, subject to the city's completion of the project. Requirements and submission of the necessary documentation. The grant funding is identified and allocated in the city's fiscal year 2627 capital improvement program under the stormwater utility fund, and staff recommends approval of the grant agreement at this time, and I'm here for any questions you may have. Any public comment? Seeing no one come forward, bring back for discussion and vote. Move approval of that 1 million plus grant. I'll second the maker. No news. Good for the river. Good for the folks on the street. Good job. Just one question. Is there a house that we're going to be demolishing in order to accomplish this? Or how are we going to get our outfall to the river? So we have an existing easement, an existing outfall that comes down tennessee. There is a small portion of property, and I've already had a discussion. I don't want to give away too much on it now, but I've had a discussion with the homeowner. It's a it's a small amount for a sliver of that is landlocked and inaccessible because our easements right there as well. Okay. Thank you. Colin. Matt. Yeah, no, that's that's awesome news and desperately needed. So glad. Thank you. No thank you sir. Good question, Mr. Jonas. Thank you. Always. All those in favor signify by I I that's

    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.

15. 10.k

    Resolution No. 2027-01: Authorization for the City Manager to Update Corebridge Financial, Inc., fka/Valic 401(a) Plan

    approved

    Council adopted Resolution 2027-01 authorizing the City Manager to replace the outdated Valic/Corebridge Financial 401(a) defined contribution retirement plan with a new, updated plan. The change affects three remaining employees, brings the city into IRS compliance, and releases accumulated forfeiture funds back to the city to fund future contributions.

    • motion:Motion to approve Resolution 2027-01 authorizing the City Manager to update the Corebridge Financial 401(a) plan. (passed)

    🏢Corebridge Financial, Inc.🏢Florida Retirement System (FRS)🏢Valic👤Jill👤Mr. Wetzel👤Ms. Manns👤Terry Kearns#401(a) Retirement Plan#Florida Retirement System (FRS)#IRS compliance#Resolution No. 2027-01#forfeiture account funds

    ▶ Jump to 1:55:05 in the video

    ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

    Broadcast caption · reformatted for readability

    Five nothing. Resolution number 2020 701. Authorization for city manager. Update. Korn bridge financial, inc. This is resolution number 2020 701, a resolution of the city council of the city of new port richey, Florida, providing for replacement of a general employees retirement plan, providing for a new and updated 401. A retirement plan to replace an outdated one. A retirement plan providing authority to the city manager to execute all documents and take such actions deemed necessary to fully implement this resolution. Providing for the repeal of all resolutions in conflict herewith and providing for an effective date. More specifically, this agenda item has to do with the city's defined contribution plan, which is administered by corbridge financial, and the recommendation is to implement a new 401 a retirement plan replacing the 400, a retirement plan with corbridge and Mr. Wetzel's, good to talk to you a little bit about why that's necessary. Thank you, miss manson. Again. Good evening, mayor and city council. This this issue really goes back over 20 years. As miss man said that back in 2000, prior to 2006, there was a defined contribution plan that the city contributed to for employees at that point in time. And 2026. Just a little bit of history here. In 2026, the city moved to the Florida retirement system. Frs at that time, the employees had a choice either to remain in the defined contribution plan with valic, which is now corbridge, or transition over to frs to the Florida retirement system. At that time. And again, again, the majority of employees moved over to frs. Okay. The stipulation was if you did not move over to frs, you could not join frs down the road. So at that time, there were 11 employees that chose to remain in the defined contribution plan with valic. Today, there are only three employees remaining in this plan. Okay, so with regard to that, there's three three employees that remain in there that the city does make a contribution to [02:00:04] Them into that retirement plan for them. But again, what what we found here again, I will say this to miss manns. She directed the hr leadership team, miss Terry Kearns and myself, when we came here to really look at things in hr and stuff that needed to be changed and improved or whatever. And this is one of those items that, again, through research, we found that that the plan was not being managed by corbridge or valic or providing that information back to the city from the standpoint of this plan. So again, what has happened over time there was forfeited forfeiture of money. And again, that forfeiture of money comes from employees that were not vested in the plan or may not have been eligible for the plan at that point in time that that amount of money has grown over a over these 20 plus years that that these funds have been been in this account that, again, I'll say a little bit, but unbeknownst to to a lot of folks here, because again, corbridge or valic did not provide a lot of guidance or oversight to this plan from that end. So at that time, the city had 12 months back then, in 2006, had 12 months to direct how those forfeiture account account funds were to be distributed or handled. That never occurred. So again, this plan has become very outdated and stuff along those lines. So we now need to move to to a new plan. Like I said, there's only three employees in there from that standpoint. And again, I'll say this to some degree to release that forfeiture money back to the city. Now, the city will use that money to, again, to make the contributions to those three employees that will go into this new plan from that standpoint. But it needs to to the plan needs to change. The outdated plan needs to end. We need to move to new plan, to a new plan to establish different parameters and setups from that end. And it also I'll say this, it will also put us in a position that we are in compliance with the IRS. And again, also to do with these for forfeited funds. Again, the majority of that forfeited funds, you know, those forfeited funds will come back to the city. And again, I said, we'll pay for, you know, the funding to those three employees that are still in there. And again, I will tell you again, to use that whole amount of the forfeiture money, we'll take in excess of ten plus years to, again, just to fund those three employees from that end. But again, the forfeiture money will free up some some money back to the city. Any public comment? Seeing no one come forward, bring it back for discussion and vote. Move for approval. Second. Oh, I heard it. We. We should do it a second. Sounds good. I'm good. Jill. Yeah. I think this is a. At least I won't put a number on it, but this is one of many items that director wetzel has brought to us on behalf of the city or through the city manager related to housekeeping, cleaning things up, getting things back on track, making sure the the shelves aren't getting dusty, so to speak, and so to say you hit the ground running would be true because you've been here for a bit now, but you just consistently finding ways to bring things up to where they need to be. So thank you sir. All those in favor signify by I, I have nothing communications. So there is a neighborhood cleanup

    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.

16. 11Communications▶ 2:00:04
17. 1Call to Order – Roll Call