Call City Fort Richie City Council meeting Tuesday, January 27th, 2026. I'd like to invite Senator Leer Fields for the invocation. Remain standing for the pledge. >> God, we just come to you in the precious name of Jesus. We thank you for the wisdom that you give the city to be able
to governor uh the affairs of the city. There's stuff with the CR A board workshop minutes. We thank you for that and for the park fence and other stuff that's going to be in agendas for the meeting coming up with the water plant
and development of code replacement and also the finances and and the legal service of the contract and the fireworks that's going to be coming up. So, as we say the pledge of allegiance and God we trust, we thank you for that in Jesus name. Amen.
>> Amen. >> To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Mad cler, please.
>> Mayor John Eric Cooper >> here. >> Vice Mayor Chris Mayer >> here. Councilman Robert Hubard >> here. >> Councilwoman Lisa Burke. Let the record show that Councilwoman Burke is absent from tonight's meeting. Councilwoman Christine Sullivan >> here. >> City Attorney Nancy Meyer
>> here. >> City Manager Don King >> here. >> So Lisa reached out to me today. She's sick. Um it's viral. She's went to the doctor, whatever. So she didn't want to come in and expose anybody else. So if uh if I get a motion to excuse her absence. >> Motion to excuse. >> Second. >> Motion second. Any fur discussion? Any
public comment? See, I put a vote on favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Uh, next up we have a set of minutes. Um, need a motion to approve the January 13th, 2026 city council meeting minutes. >> Move. >> Second.
>> Motion second. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Opposed. Motion carries. Uh, next up is comments from the general public. I do have a couple signups. Uh, starting off with Nancy Britain. Welcome. Hello. >> Hi. Make sure you state your name and
address for the record. >> Yes. >> Nancy Britain, 7653 Grand Boulevard, Port Richie. And Sean Cap is with me. Go ahead. >> Uh Sean, uh SH A Cap Kap 7638 Grand Boulevard.
>> Okay. Um, we're here tonight to discuss the noise at the establishment at 7729 Grand Boulevard. Um, I I would like just for a minute once my video is ready to go here. Play this. This is in my backyard.
>> Motion. This is in my backyard trying to sit outside and have a conversation that's undoable. Okay. And you should hear it inside my house.
Um, this establishment, which I'm it's going to go unnamed because I really don't want to throw names around. Um, they're not a good neighbor at all to anybody in our community. Not to the Newport Richie residents, not to the other bars because I've spoken to some
of the other bars and tenants, my tenants not happy. Um, this music I recorded at 95 dB at my house.
Can you imagine what the decibel reading was at their restaurant line? Um, >> you say 90 95 is what you're recording. >> I recorded 95. Um, I have other videotapes. I have
videotapes uh in inside my home. Um, I sent some of you, the city manager and a couple people u here. I did send these videos to you so that you would have those. Um the the they're also not
abiding by the 10 p.m. curfew. They're playing past 10 p.m. and that was that that that uh happened on uh Saturday, January 24th. So there's no way I can sit by my pool, have anybody over on the weekends after
40 years of living here. 40 serving 10 years on the city council. I cannot even live in my home on Friday and Saturday nights. I feel like that's unfair. I feel it's unfair to Sean's family because they have significant rentals.
This is something that is going to cause a lot of of revenue loss because you can't just have one company out there ruining for everybody. we have the right to make money also and that's not going
to happen. We're going to suffer because it's not good. It's ugly. Um I did have a tenant a tenant call me. They were out in the yard and they were very frustrated and I said to them, "I will do what I can, but it's doubtful
anything will happen because I did make some calls and some of the calls um didn't make me real happy." Um that to me just you know now she'll probably go online. She'll probably tell people that you know it's not a good idea to come
here because we have a lot of noise Friday and Saturday night. There's no relief. >> There is no relief. It's like somebody explained it to me. >> Are you yielding time to to her I guess for the no three minutes? >> I'm sorry. >> Are you going to yield your time with to me? >> Yes. >> Uh yes.
>> Um somebody explained it to me. It's like having a neighbor with a dog that never shuts up and barks all night long. It's annoying and it's and it's it it's anxiety and it's just not good. Um we have the right to conduct business. We
have the right to have um you know uh to have a business also and with this happening over there with what's going on with the cities allowed there um it's out of control. It really the whole area is out of control. >> If if I may add then um time you can.
>> Oh, >> okay. >> Um, anyway, so the whole area is out of control. Our suggestion is, you know, years ago there was a big issue with another restaurant. It took Newport Richie
residents complaining to this council for something to get done. When the Port Richie residents complained, nothing was done. But as soon as Newport Richie residents started to complain, and believe me, they will, that's when something got done because I
guess we wanted to be good neighbors to the Newport Richie residents because they're hearing all this because it's going straight across the river. >> You may want to add that they're obstructing the uh this the street, Grand Boulevard, and putting cones. Yeah, there has been some obstruction because the bands one one band the other
night uh was set up in the front of the of the of the restaurant and then they put cones in the street in the traffic in in the in the street itself. So you had to go around onto oncoming traffic to get to get past it. Um
>> so they were blocking Grand Boulevard with cones. >> They had cones set up in front. Yes. >> Okay. So, you know, I mean, >> to where they made it a one-way. >> I really feel that, you know, this is not an area that should be allowed five
piece bands. This this is not this is something that you should have in a different area, not when you have all these people that are trying to live and coexist because this is just the beginning of what's going to happen. What's going to happen if the next restaurant wants to do it? So now we got six restaurants or
three restaurants or four restaurants and they're all doing bands every every Friday and Saturday night. What kind of life is that for your residents? Not to mention the the the fire station across the street. Those some of those guys are trying to have a life there. How can they have a life?
So, you know, I just want you guys to really look at the situation over there. Um it's just not working. So, >> am I allowed to add? >> You shouldn't hold back to you for 20 seconds. >> Go ahead.
>> Um, and I'm here because I'm trying to um speak on behalf of my tenants and they have they complain to me all the time and I don't know I don't know what to do. I don't know what to tell them. Um, part of our product is peaceful
living. I mean, silent. I like it because it's quiet and I understand having bands, but there's bands that are being played on that street that they do it well and they don't they're not that
loud and it's in it's because they're in an enclosure >> or an acoustic band. >> They're not out there out in the yard or on a dock or something. They're they're just they're they're quiet and there are ways that it can be done conducted to
where it is peaceful and we don't hear it. But I I I'm just speaking in behalf of my tenants because they're they're complaining and I I don't know what to do. I don't know what to say. I don't know what I don't know what to tell them because >> Well, thanks for making this first heard of it obviously. Did uh I'm assuming you guys filed a code complaint about it or
no? >> Okay, that was my other question. You know, we were told that we that that I was first told that the police didn't have any way to check decibel rating. >> We have a meter, I believe, don't we, Chief? >> Yeah.
>> Well, I would like and and I'm going to send an email to this effect. I started writing it before I came here, but I'm going to send an email um to the police to find out exactly what meter they're using, what manufacturer, what model number, because I'm buying my own. I don't care if it's $3,000. I'm buying it
because because you know if this is going to continue which I think is is a bad idea for port for Port Richie period. Um you know you had it across the way where there was more business you know and there was there was a lot
less people living. You had the park uh um over in Port Richie that was separating the residents from all the b the band stuff that was going on there. that's all gone now. Uh because it wasn't working obviously and and so you
know I mean I've watched Hooters I've watched you know be so successful and never have to play music like that. I've watched you know several restaurants in this area that have done a fine job and and are successful without doing that.
>> Yeah. is if you could I mean file a code case about it so we can get >> pardon me >> file a code enforcement case complain about the music out there if you haven't done that already. >> I have I've I've called several times. >> Okay. Well, I mean I file a case that way that they have to get out there and they can check it and they can put the
the uh uh the data in that case and they can enforce it from that. But there has to be a case out there. Now you can call in without actually putting one in. I don't know who you talk to at the city but there should be a case associated with that once you call in. >> I've I've I've also requested that. >> Okay. I want I want the documents from that.
>> Okay. Have we got cases on that, Don? No. Okay. If we get a case done up that way, we can record, you know, next time they're doing it, we can go out there and and see what the level is. Obviously, there's there's um we'll have to get too much involved in it. There is code. There's a certain amount of decibb you can have. It's measured at a certain
place. Um so, the building department can give you more specifics on that, but uh they can check that, but if they're within those parameters, there's not a whole lot you can do from the zoning perspective because they're allowed to do it. Um, I know that there are places in the city where there is residential that butts up to commercial. Um, and so
the only thing we could do is look at that from a council going forward. We'd have to possibly make changes to that. I can't dialogue with you now, but I hear your I hear a concern and we can look into it. >> Yeah. Well, I and I get what you're saying. Um, I just think it's a poor choice for that for for that area. >> Well,
>> and and the thing is is that um, you know, I'm tired. >> I am tired of being the one that has to complain. Why is it that they can't do what they're supposed to do and be good neighbors? >> I don't know if they're not. That's why I said they're not. >> Okay. Well, we >> clearly they're not. If that's how loud it is at my house,
>> you're out of line here. So, I I again, you were on council for 10 years. I think you mentioned it. These rules have been in place well past then. So, I mean, you got an opportunity to address it then. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> But, um obviously put get the case out there if we haven't already. And Don, if you can work with make sure that gets out there and we can measure, make sure
if they are outside of those parameters, we can definitely take action and we'll do that. Well, I hope so. Thank you. >> Thank you. Appreciate you. Uh, that's all the signs I have. Is there anybody else show hands like to speak? >> Okay. See none, I bring back to comments from the city manager. Pass over Mr. uh
King for his comments. >> Okay. I've got a handful of items here. Um, first one I've got involves property at uh 8648 Green Street. There's an active legal matter related to a slum and blight termination and a demolition order that is currently subject to a
court order stay uh pending appeal. Uh tonight's discussion is just for legal clarification so the council understands the city's positions and what I'm going to do is I'm going to turn it over to the attorney now to give you a little more detail. >> Um I'm not going to give much detail except pretty much what you just found
out. There um was an emergency motion filed by the um property owner. The court granted the um emergency motion to stay. The demolition is on on hold at this point. The court has directed the property owner to file a notice of appeal within 20 days of the date of the
order. Um if that happens by November, no, sorry, February 11th, I believe it was, or February, I think it was February 11th. Um then that property owner has 70 days to file his appeal. So there's a a process in place for appeal. Anyone can have that ability to do that
if they disagree with with a decision that's been made. Um, but we do have to pause the demolition at this point for the court order and we will proceed as we are allowed to do so and we'll keep you updated. >> There were two on that as well. It's >> I believe only addressing this one
location. >> Yeah, only that location is impacted right now. >> Right. Uh, next item I have is the Florida Division of EA of Emergency Emergency Management completed a community assisted visit. Um, as of right now, all
of our flood plane uh compliancees items have been resolved and the city remains eligible eligible and in good standing with the uh National Flood Insurance. So, we'll actually be uh providing our uh residents a a cost savings with their
flood insurance because we're still able to maintain that standard. Uh the water man replacement uh design project for Green Street, Petty Street, Pier Road, Brem Court, and Mount Drive will have to be put out bid again. A
section of the first bid packet needed to be reviewed by the city attorney and released for engineer design. Also, the city is awaiting the FD final agreement for this project in order for us to move on. uh Burns and McDonald the engineering firm will work with Grand
Boulevard in 19 will be presenting a proposal to the city council for preparation of the uh drainage connection permit application drainage analysis and calculations and the preparation of the grading plan as stipulated in the FDOT uh comment
letter. Uh staff will add this to the agenda uh in one of the uh February meetings either the 10th or the following. uh city's website is currently undergoing uh ADA update compliancy and formatting. Uh the migration of the uh
current website was complete on Friday uh the 23rd. Uh an update for the park master plan workshop will be held on the 3rd of February at 5:00 p.m. So that'll that'll give us a good foundation of where we are with the parks and and based on what they provide, it'll give
us a good uh starting point on what direction we really want those parks to go. So, it'll be a good platform for discussion. Older Park bathroom roof was replaced with a metal roof and so we've got a longer life and better protection from this point forward. Uh we're
working on uh the camera upgrades to improve the community meetings here. Uh the current camera cannot zoom because it lacks a USB connection. Uh, Sapphire Audio is preparing a quote for the new PTZ, which is the uh, pan tilt zoom
camera. And that one should meet our current requirements as we've discussed for zooming. That camera doesn't zoom. Is that the one you're talking about there? Well, is it that that one's not working from what I'm told. >> No, that's the main camera that for for zooming for
>> it's not compatible for >> Yeah. >> Well, that remote will zoom it in. I zoomed it in on >> Zoom. >> Zoom. >> Oh, Zoom. The Zoom application. My bad. I say I was zooming in the other day. >> Different Zoom. >> Different. Yeah. Different Zoom. >> The Zoom.
>> The Zoom application. >> Um, tomorrow I'll be speaking with the Santi Law Firm regarding possible magistrate services. I know we've been put out to bid for someone to do it. Nobody's come back. However, Santini since our last discussion when they did the bid for the
attorney position for the city attorney, they come back and said, "Hey, they'd like to speak with us and let us know what service they can provide with regards to that." Um, you and I are meeting with the Pasco County Administrator on Thursday. That should be a good engagement, get some feedback
from the county and and bring that back to the city and see what what what good things we can bring back. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council will be meeting on 9 February at 10 p.m. Just for heads up, uh the new brand signs uh
will be uh presented uh in February. The initial review looks first rate. I mean, those signs when you see them, the way they've designed them and actually have placed them against the background, they're they're spectacular. I mean, it didn't do them any justice the first time we looked at them. When you look at
them now, you're going to be like, "Wow, they really pop." Uh finally, uh reminder for the upcoming election, the qualifying period is 11 through 17 February. Please reach out to the city clerk >> if you have any questions or concerns at this time.
>> Correction 10th through the 17th. >> August 10th and 17th. Okay. That's >> Tuesday. >> Okay. It's my old numbers. So correction, that's 10th through 17 February. Tuesday to Tuesday. Other than that, that's all I have. Mayor, >> thanks, sir. All right. Next up is comments from boards and committees. Do
we have any boards committee comments? Did cse meet or anything? Um the event committee met. I think I gave you an update on that um last meeting. Um we got a meeting this Thursday to go over the um sponsorship packet to get that
stuff out for the seafood festival. So that that's forthcoming. Um the we do have you should have a email on in front of you. We did somebody reach out about joining the historic preservation board. How many vacancies we have on that?
>> One. >> Just one. So, this this will bring us to a full board if you guys are interested in making a motion to uh for Courtney Tuttle. >> I'll make a motion for Courtney Tuttle to join the uh the preservation board. >> Okay. I'll second.
>> Okay. Motion second. Any further discussion? Okay. Any public comment? Okay, seeing none, I put the vote on favor say by saying I. >> I opposed. Motion carries. Uh, welcome Courtney. Um, one thing about the historic preservation, I know I asked
this before, but we've got a meeting scheduled for them soon. >> Yes. February 12th. >> Oh, fantastic. Okay, good. Be good to get those folks engaged. Um, and that's all I think I have for board's committees. Next up is consent
agenda. Item number two, I need a motion to approve the January 27th consent agenda. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> A motion second. Any further discussion? Any public comment? That see put to the vote. All in favor say by saying I. >> I. >> I.
>> Opposed. Motion carries. Uh next up, council business. Item number three, reverse osmosis water plant design presentation by McKim Creed. I'll pass it up to Mr. King for introduction. Uh just to uh give you an introduction on the uh current uh plant that we have.
Our current water treatment plant was built in the late 80s. Um it has reached its end of its 30ear service life and will not be meeting the upcoming uh PFSA regulations without major upgrades. Uh without action, the city's at risk of losing the local local control of its
water supply. Tonight you'll see a high level overview of a proposed reverse osmosis facility by UK and Creed. Um this is a long-term solution for our water quality needs. Uh cost are shown
as based projections while the staff continues to pursue outside funding to reduce the impacts on the taxpayers. Uh this item is information and intend and intended to outline the need and the path forward. And I'll now turn it over
to the team. >> We share that on the Zoom. Is that possible? Now we council can look at it too if I Thank you. Please proceed. Welcome. >> Good evening. Um, my name is Philip Lockach. I'm a senior project manager
with Mckim McCreed and the project manager for this reverse osmosis water treatment plant. Um, tonight we're going to talk about the um the Tonight we're going to we're going to talk a little bit about the the background of the
project, the project uh funding, the we'll go through what the proposed water treatment plan is, what it's needed, what it looks like, um some other components regarding an injection well and filter backwash, and then we'll wrap up with schedule and cost. And of
course, we'll have plenty of time to answer any questions you all might have. Background on the treatment plant. Uh the plant was built in 1984. Typical service life for a treatment plant like this is the industry standard
is 30 years. So doing the math, I think that you're about 42 years right now. Um, I would say that staff are doing a fantastic job of keeping things going and, you know, and making sure your water complies with all the regulations.
That said, there's, you know, there's a lot of issues uh due to the age of the facility. Um, so motivations for the treatment plant improvements, the there's PAS regulations that were uh made into effect in 2024.
However, currently the compliance is required by 2029. The current administration and the EPA have proposed extending that out two years. Um, I don't believe that's been made final yet. I think the plan is to to
extend to 2031 sometime this spring. Also to reduce disinfection byproduct and total dissolve solids. It's just another um compliance regulatory compliance item. Uh we talked about the age and conditions of the water treatment plant
and also this plant, we'll talk more about this, but this plan is also designed to meet the future needs of the city. Project funding. The design for this project is 100% uh a grant fund through
the um FTP SRF emerging contaminants program that's associated with the PAS rules. The the design has to be completed obviously before construction funding can be secured. A little bit background on the funding. When this new
uh emerging contaminants fund program became available, the DP promised that there would also be money available for construction. Well, you know, the where we're at right now is that money's dried up and there's no current plans to or
schedule to replenish that money. There are other grant opportunities available. Um and you know due to the city's classified through the F FD state revolving fund program as a small and disadvantaged
community and what that does is that will give you higher higher ranking and scoring compared to you know larger municipalities when you're approaching grant funding. the proposed water treatment plant. Um the the location is is north of us here
and just north of the existing water treatment plant. Uh there's a nice parcel up there that that uh fits the treatment plant site very well. The you can see on the layout there's uh the blue building is that's the main operational building offices. You see
other equipment around the site. One thing I'll point out here too is the you can see the access drive around the treatment plant. That's designed to allow emergency vehicles, fire trucks, everything, you know, be able to turn and go around the entire site. Um, with
that, the next slide here, um, we have a a model to walk through the treatment plant here that we'd like to show. >> Before you do that, could you go back that one slide before that? >> Sure. >> Just out of curiosity, obviously. So, we don't own that parcel that is proposed site. Um, did you guys look at this from
perspective of is this possible we could build this on the existing site that we have or we actually have to find another site for it? >> Uh, we'd have to look into that. It's made clear to us that the city is going to purchase that parcel. >> I mean, we we're looking at purchasing
that, right? But I guess just to be fully transparent if you unable to make that >> right >> or whatever what what do you have an option to to place it in the same >> the answer is yes >> it can be done >> okay >> it would it would require a substantial
rework effort on our part and would you know extend the schedule out quite a bit but we can we can make it work if that becomes the option. >> So if if we aren't able to acquire the property we would be able to move forward on existing property. Yes, >> there could be some rework in there or whatever. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay, good enough.
>> I mean, I gotta hand it to Daryl and this is not me just blowing smoke at you. >> I put in a water filter system in my house and the water coming in the filter is still white. You know what I'm saying? I'm like, it's been there for a few days now. Before that thing would just get it'd be worse than this bottle,
you know, in a couple days. So, you're doing a great job with what you have with the old clunker that we have over there. But how are you going to put a new system where the old system is? you'd have to shut that system down, destroy it, and move on um to be able to do what he just mentioned. >> So, when we started this project, the
plan was to construct a new plant on the existing treatment plant site. So, it can be done. It it's going to require a lot more careful design and the key item is maintaining operations of the existing plant during construction.
>> We I can tell you that through the years, I've worked on sites with a lot less space than this. Okay. >> Um and it it can be done. >> Okay. Just good know back up that that's >> I was curious as if we purchased property we obviously have more room for
expansion as the demand grows then as we would on the current property. Correct. >> I I think that we can make the proposed plant meet the city's uh future demand projections.
the which are uh about 1 million gallons per day. The if if we go back to the existing treatment plant site, um you know, there's less space, but we can we can definitely design the plant to meet at the 20-year water demand projections
for the city, which is about a million gallons per day. I think you're currently around 650 or 700,000, something like that. >> Very good. >> Does that answer your question? >> Yes, sir. Okay. I got another question for you since we're all asking questions. >> Sure. >> Where's this water coming from?
>> The water is coming from groundwater wells. Um there there's a remote well site mile mile and a half south of the city that where a lot of water comes from and then there's some localized wells here also. So it it comes from the ground.
>> So this doesn't have the ability to pull ocean water. There's no >> No, sir. >> Okay. Yeah, we can do that. Yeah. Any other questions? >> No. Thank you. >> Okay. Sure. All right. We're going to
hopefully see this um walk through here. The intent here is to, you know, it's easy to talk and show pictures and layouts and stuff, but if this works, we'll get kind of a fly through of what the treatment plant will look like.
Yes, please. All right. On the left here, there's there's uh two different pumping systems in the back. The green vessels there, those are the filters that would filter the iron out before the reverse osmosis
system. We're approaching the plant here. The orange item is a generator. Green is a transformer. We're coming around to the um the entrance side of the treatment plant
here. So, um nice looking entrance, lots of windows, and we're going to come around here. We're actually going to fly into the building here in a minute. Make sure you duck. Um some uh some chemicals. Um that's
carbon dioxide tanks actually other area where chemicals would be stored. This side of the building provides overhead doors for easy access into the treatment plant. >> We see Daryl's office here in a minute.
>> Uh yeah, I think so. >> Look like Sammy. >> So those are cartridge filters similar to the filter that this gentleman mentioned over here. Those are that's the RO. That's what kind of removes the salt hardness from the water. Um,
>> now with those systems right there, >> what what's what is the total capacity that they can manage? I know it's it's capable of managing what we currently have, but with growth in the city at what level can that continue to grow with the city when the city grows?
>> Sure. The design for this plant will produce 1.5 million gallons per day, which is roughly double what the city is using right now. So, I know there's plans for growth. There's also future development plans that we've we've reviewed and met with the city. So, um
so this will provide a great deal of expansion moving into the future. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> You you mentioned removing the hardness from the water. So, this let's this export salt water then I guess it uh >> Yes. So that would eliminate all the need in the city for water software.
>> Uh I think I think we could get there. We have the ability with this type of treatment process. I'm looking at my main process engineer and he's not shaking his head no or anything. So yeah, we can we can basically kind of create a recipe and you know tell us
what you want within reason. Yeah. >> So you'll have much softer water. >> That'd be fantastic. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Cuz right now this stuff's sticking to my shower pretty heavy. >> Yeah. Yeah. I know. softener that softeners and all that salt and everything that adds >> super hard. Sure. >> Yeah.
>> Go ahead. We paused it for you. So, >> all right. Heading upstairs to the second level here. Uh there's also elevator is This building is fully ADA uh compliant. Um into a heading into a conference room area
here, I believe. So, there's the plenty of room uh for meetings here as as needed. And we're going to take a look here. The
look over the the treatment process area. And here we'll show you the operations area here in a second, too. our designs, we always put the operations, you know, room on the second level so that you don't have to guess at
what's going on. You can actually um look out over and we'll we'll see that here in just a just a second here. Um you can, you know, rather than guessing what's going on, you can literally look out. This is the operations room here. So,
you have the ability to just walk over here. Well, hopefully he won't fly out, but you can look over and see if there's any issues rather than, you know, having, you know, so, um, the filtration system, the that, uh, red item there,
box is a is a blower to help with the filtration system. Um, and back out. And our designer did a nice closing here. So anyhow, that was um any questions on the fly through?
>> That looks better than city hall. So, >> okay. All right. On to the next slide. Um if we could. Okay. The water treatment plant production capacity. We've talked about this. Um the you know designed to meet
current and future demands as as the city manager asked you know 1.5 million gallon per day capacity actually over over twice what your current production is right now. The design also includes an expansion of the the groundwater.
There's additional wells and transmission main to get the water to the treatment plant. Next slide. the water treatment plant staffing requirements. The the way that the the plant is permitted currently, it's
permitted as what's called a category 3 class C water plant for iron removal. The the groundwater around here has a lot of iron in it along with the hardness. So, the minimum requirements are six hours per day for five days
and then one vis on each weekend day. I want to just clarify something there that these are minimum requirements as set by the state with your treatment system, the condition it's in, all the challenges you face. You know, there's there's obviously more need than the
minimum requirements. Just want to say that again to how how well the the staff are operating the plant with the proposed treatment plant. it becomes a a category 2 class B for reverse osmosis
pro process. So the minimum staffing requirements jump up to 16 hours per day for 7 days per week. So that's a big jump. What's important to note is that after a year of operations, because this facility is going to have the ability to
operate automatically without anyone actually being at the treatment plant site, you have the ability to, you know, to monitor the system even from offsite. There's a request that would the city would put in after a year and because of all the automation, the potentially can
reduce down to four hours a day. So even less than what's required right now um for five days a week and then uh and then um you know and then what one on each weekend day um the so the request
goes in there's no guarantee that that you'll get this amount of reduction. It's very possible. Basically what they're looking for is a demonstration. Has have there been any issues with the treatment plan in the past year? The answer is no. So the at that point there
you would get an official reduction in in staffing requirements that determination I got a question is made by you if we've had no problems you can just reduce manpower down to a point where they're just there to to maintain it.
>> I wish I had that much power but I don't know that would be through the state >> through state and testing on their behalf. We they so these these reg the staffing requirements are through the state through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. We'll support the city. We'll help put all the
documents together, meet with them if necessary. Um but we we don't have the final say in that. That's that's that's a basically um regulation. >> The first year it's 16 hours a day. So two people eight hours a day full-time,
right? Seven days a week. So now you But you could reduce that to what? one person >> potentially. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> The um um the million I saw the mill and half. Um and you said a million. Is it a
million and a half we're going to be shooting for? I guess. >> Yes sir. >> So is that those numbers is that based on our current customer base in you say 20 years? >> Yeah. So the way the projections work is
we've looked at all the data and through the water management district their projections show in 20 years the city will be using about a million gallons per day. And through initial discussions with the city and the ability to expand
the city beyond what's even the water management district could could envision. That decision was made to design the plant for 1.5 million gallons per day. Okay. So, the reason I ask is obviously we we've got a a potential growth opportunity going on in waterfront district. So, we're have more
customers there. Um, as we talk about annexation as well that's going to take on, but a lot of those already have our water. So, that's that's that's a that's a wash. But, uh, we may take on potentially some additional water customers that aren't water customers now. So, make sure that we we don't
build something not ability to to service future growth. >> Sure. What I would say is the the demand projections um based based on the demand projections this plant will provide another half a million gallons per day of capacity. >> Okay.
>> For you know the city expanding. >> And you talked about a uh also a a 1.5 million reserve tank that's colllocated with the facility also. >> Yes sir. At the treatment plant site, there's a ground storage tank with uh
basically a full day of of capacity and that helps also make sure that the city's got ample supply for firefighting. Storm comes in, make sure the tank is, you know, completely full. Um so it it provides a lot of um you
know, storage capacity for the system. So if you if you do get to the point in the future where you're you're hitting that max capacity or whatever, what's the remedy to increase capacities more storage tanks or you have to actually do a new plant or >> the typical design is is um the storage
tank would have one day worth of treatment capacity. That's industry standard. >> Um you know there's could you could potentially look at adding storage out in the distribution system. There's a lot of municipalities that do that. Um
but I would for for this plant design that storage tank has ample capacity. >> Okay. >> Because correct me if I'm wrong but right now we turn our tank over about
three times a day. So if we have 1.5 we're turning that tank over to three to four and a half million gallons. We grew a lot. >> Yeah. That gives the ability to, you know, you would operate the plant
initially at lower water levels. It makes things easier to operate, but as flows go up, you basically operate at higher level. Storms come in, anything like that, you top top, excuse me, top it off, and you know, you have that, you know, that additional resilience.
with this this new technology and the reverse osmosis and this building design the old structure the old you said 20 30 years is the max time that it's it services and >> that's that's typical 30 years is typical life of
>> structure would probably last longer though probably wouldn't it >> the the buildings are typically a 50year design you know that that's that's just what the standards are and could It lasts longer. Yeah. Um,
>> ours is is what 12 years past it. >> But the res the reservoir and the pumps I mean the reservoir but you could just replace pumps and maintenance. This could last you say 50 years easy then. >> Yeah, it the building is at least a 50-year building. Okay. >> That's just Yeah,
>> it's a substantial structure. Um all the building will be um you know obviously code compliant and what that means it's going to allow protection for category 5 hurricane. Not not just in the entire building is is designed for that. Not
there's not just like a room you have to haul up in anywhere in that building you're protected um from that type of storm. >> How many people were hold Yeah. I I don't know. I mean,
realistically, the for for operations, you know, during a storm, you could probably easily get 30 people in there reasonably comfortable. Um, >> sounds a little fitter. >> Yeah. So, it's, you know, it's a if I,
if I lived here, once the plant's built, I would I would try to see if I can get access to the to the, you know, to the building there. >> Yeah. >> Safest place in town. Yeah. So it sounds like we run operations out of there. >> Mary, you got to get us a key now, right?
>> Yeah. >> Funny. Just I know you. All right. >> Okay. Um, next slide. Deep injection oil. So the the reverse osmosis treatment process creates a byproduct and it's really it's a
concentrated brine stream. Got the salt in it and hardness in it. And what we're what we're proposing and recommending and what is typical throughout the state is a deep injection well. Deep injection
well that that brine stream is pumped over and sent down in into the well. There's um there's design requirements and permitting required for that well. What I want to mention here is the why the well is located where it is. You can
see it's located um obviously west of of 19, the northwest of the Walmart over there. There's two main reasons why it's located where it is. Number one is that injection well, you want to have that pretty far away from your your
production wells. If that if that injection well were right next to one of your production wells, inject the water down, it has a tendency to have a negative impact on the water and the well right next to it. So that's that's reason number one. Number two is as you
go further west and and closer to the inter coastal over here, it the well becomes a lot more cost effective. You don't have to drill down quite as deep to get to the area you need to get into. The requirement is you have to get to a
zone that has 10,000 parts 10,000 parts per million of what's called total dissolved solids. For reference, the you know the uh the Gulf has probably around 33 maybe 34,000 parts per million.
>> Is is there any effect on the Gulf from what we're pumping in the ground right here? >> No sir, >> there's not. >> No sir. Yeah. the there's m groundwater modeling that's required to basically prove that there would be no negative impact from for this location
>> and if there's anybody around there who has a well could that affect them? >> No. No. It's another requirement to obtain the permit is to prove that it will not have any negative impact on local wells or any anything. >> Is there a reason it's taken that that
route to get to that as opposed to the back side of Walmart? Well, we've been, you know, we've been we've been trying to figure out a way to potentially get an easement through there. There were discussions about potentially contacting
the state park and seeing if we could either locate the well on that property or at least use the southern part as an easement. Um, and I, you know, that that really hasn't didn't go anywhere. Um, so
that I think I think that this is a uh safe route plan. I think the other through to the other way. It's not it wouldn't just be an easement from the park. There's other property owners to the south here. There's a lot of storm water impacts and the mitigation that
would be required for the environmental impacts. Um, I I think could result in significant delays on the project. >> Do do you bore under 19 to do this? >> Yes, sir. And do you put a 6 inch line or what? How big is that line that carries the >> It's actually going to be an 8 inch
line. >> Oh, wow. Okay. >> And that and the requirement is that that's the inside pipe. The requirement is there's also a casing pipe that would be probably 16 or 20 inch diameter. That's a requirement for the FDOT to,
you know, basically have have a pipe in there right away. So this route obviously follows our storm drain going out to the Gulf, right, Darl? That >> Yeah. So >> Darl, >> so behind Walmart right there on that
green patch, we have our storm line. I'm trying to but that transmission line um wouldn't be close to that storm box. I think it would be more close to if we were to put a road through there. It'd be more underneath the road than anything. Mhm. >> So,
but going through there wouldn't be that deep. The deepest part would be um going under 19 right there because DOT specs is 10 times the diameter of the pipe in inches the depth. >> Um but that's otherwise it'd be 4 feet.
I just know there's a drain ditch all along through there which it run parallel to that I guess. Is that >> Yeah, it would run parallel. So where Richie and Wilson would go through there and then um it would be pretty much under the hiking bike on that side of
the downhole post. Do do we have easement >> there for that or we have the same problem with the the north side of Walmart? >> I would think we'd have to get >> So I think we have easement through there because wasn't that supposed to be
dedicated as a road at one time? It's it's planted as a as a road. >> We have space there, but that was supposed to be drive extension. >> No, I'm talking about the along the back side of um >> Walmart, >> the on the uh the west side, not the one
that goes down Parallels Bay, but the one that's going down Parallel and Green and um Old Post. >> The one the line that runs >> the old post. Yeah. >> Running north. >> Yeah, that's that looks like right along that bike path we're talking about. Yeah, we have even because we have our
force man that goes through there. So, okay. It'll have to it'll have to be within six feet of that force man. >> Yeah, >> you guys are >> I think one of the things we >> we would look at is pretty much center on the road and do it with a drill. >> Yeah,
>> that will have minimal impact on the on the neighbors there. >> Yeah, we were going to try and keep it on the the hike and bike side there. I mean, I'm looking at this map like the rest of us, and I'm like, it sure looks like we got double the traction to not just go around back of Walmart, cut
straight down straight across the back of Bay there. And there's got to be easements in there somewhere. >> So, we actually did speak about that, but I think it's the easements right through through a VA where that pond is. >> Yeah. Um would be we would have to bring
in a bunch of filter and the repairs for it for us would be >> just come along the side of that pond on the back side of >> Vay overflow pond. Yeah, >> that's the problem. >> I would I would assume that's the
problem because all that is all wetlands back there. >> So, it's probably cost effective to do it the way you've got it on here. We're saying >> yeah, because you would have to bring in filter and everything like that to even remotely try and go through there. Then obviously we'd have to get an easement through there. We already have easements
down that road. So I mean >> what's the cost difference >> go straight across there versus come down to here and then come all the way back up there and around >> part part of it is um feasibility to even obtain a permit. Um there's there
would be a a significant wetland impacts with the with the management districts. If if if there's a trench that even has been wet at some point in the last 5 years, I'm I'm being a little facicious, they consider that a wetland. So the
wetland impacts require pretty extensive permitting. And for any wetland impacts there there's a requirement to either pay for those impacts or and or create the same amount of wetland somewhere
else. Actually they require let's say you damage or you know you you have a negative impact on an acre of wetlands there's a positive return. So it's like you have to provide at least 10% or maybe 20% more. So this is just your
ability as the engineer, your your tribe stay away from those kind of things. >> Yeah, I I think I think that there's risk that this could not be permitted or okay >> if it if it can be permitted I would estimate it might take up to two years
probably best case >> just based on our experience. >> Okay. >> Sometimes you got to take a little while >> trying to understand as well. Yeah, >> I think we did had we had spoke about that to go that way, but >> yeah, >> it just wasn't feasible. >> Any other questions on that? All the
questions make sense and we've we've tried to come up with a >> weried in 10 different places. >> Yeah, we great presentation. >> The um there's another uh treatment byproduct. It's called the filter backwash. Water goes through the filters
and it filters out iron and other particles. When that filter gets plugged up with all those particles, you back back the flow through it and that water comes out and it's kind of like a like a dirty water. You describe it kind of a low volume. And what we're recommending
is that water be transferred to the sanitary sewer system, which is there's a manhole right right next to the project site. And ultimately that water would um go to the Newport Richie wastewater system.
>> Something we would obviously have to pay for or whatever it is. >> Yeah, we we have the cost calculated and as far as the operational cost. It's almost insignificant.
I think the cost is um 30 30,000 a year something. I'm not saying that's not not not anything, but you're um yeah, $35,000 a year. You'll we'll see in a minute here. The annual ON&M costs are
1.2 million. So, uh the other options are to construct a kind of a backwash treatment system at the plant. I have experience with those and they're difficult to operate. And the and the
part the part is the idea is that you would recover that water and then treat it again. One of the main issues is it's impossible to completely purify that water again. And what happens is when that water goes back to the treatment process, it has a negative impact on the
treatment process. So based on our experience and what we've seen that we this is our recommendation. >> What happens to that I mean what happens to that water when you send it over to Newport Richie? What do they do with it? >> It would go to the wastewater plant. We've had we have discussions. We have a
contact there. We've provided them with the um with the anticipated water quality data and I think they're they're fine with the concept. >> So, they've trained. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> The operation cost us plus staff though,
correct? >> I'm I'm sorry. >> Would be plus staff or that includes staff. >> $35,000. what it cost to dump the water in the drain. >> Yeah, basically that's that's the cost annual cost to for this filter backwash. >> Okay.
>> Water. >> Now, I did ask when they when they discussed this and you and you're going to remember this real quick is um with that water, is there a reusable function instead of dumping it down the drain, using it as a non-pottable source for
watering or providing some kind of non-pottable water resource to the community? But from what I understand, all the chemicals that are going to be in it would make it detrimental to being able to do that. And that's why the sewer seems to be, you know, our go-to
solution for this because I personally, if we could get it to a point where it was reusable, non-pottable, if we had golf courses or whatever out here, you know, places that we could water our parks, I would use that. But it it just doesn't fit that category. So that's one of the things I did ask to
see if we could, you know, repurpose it, you know, for additional use because why get rid of it if there's a possibility to repurpose it, but there is no reuse. >> Also too, with uh or you Omar might be answer with if we have to do that
backash, we're actually going to with the hours of the staffing actually go up since we do have to sit there longer to backwash. >> Yeah. I yeah I think I think the answer to >> from the 16 and we go to minimize it down to the five hours right you would have to I would assume be there longer
yeah backash >> definitely we would recommend would change >> definitely recommend have have staff there while the filters are backwashing >> just want to clarify that >> too so >> yeah that's a potential minimum requirement doesn't mean that city won't won't need more
>> no no we're we always need more >> yeah so that help yeah okay cool um all All right. Uh, last slide here. Project schedule and cost. The the loan the grant agreement
requires the um design and the final invoice to be submitted by August 15th of this year. Um, the estimated construction time is two years. The construction cost estimate is $47
million. That includes a 30% contingency at this level. As we get further into the design, we'll have a lot more detail and confidence on the cost estimate and that contingency will reduce as we get
further towards the final design. Estimated annual operational cost is 1.2 million. Um, and the the um we have the two bullets on here. the the what what we did is we we
actually Omar and I looked at some uh detail this afternoon. The annualized cost is approximately six $6 per thousand gallons. Um that you know that that that's the you know that's the capital cost and the
O&M cost you know factored in with discount and escalation factors equates to about $6 per thousand gallons. >> What is it now? uh what our rates are >> uh the $6 per 100 gallons. What is it
now versus >> So what we what we charge um per thousand from 0 to 4,000 gallons is 364. So >> that's what we currently charge $364 >> up to 4,000 gallons and the 4,000 8,000
we charge 9005. >> So it's going to cost us $6, >> right? It's going to cost the cost of water >> substantial >> um the estimated annual operation cost
of 1.2 million. What is it currently? >> This this is the projected 1.2 million. What is it currently? >> Let me let me just add something with the $6 per day. And I I emphasized this while we were just in discussions of this. This is at the that that that amount is the city pretty much paying
for everything for this plant construction. So that number is not is is saying that that's the cost of the plant, that's the cost of staff, that's the cost of everything upfront. So don't consider that number as as a definitive
number because we want to look into um possible grants, possible um assistance to get this plant built by by putting this number there. And I I' I've explained to our engineers that this, you know, this is not a hard number. This is pretty much an estimate. That's
if the city foot the entire bill and that's what the cost would be for us to recuperate the not only the plant being built, but to staff and run it. So, just to give you an idea, >> that's a 30-year bill. >> So, that's not our water going up is what you're saying.
>> Staff. >> Also, our water rates go up every every year, but I don't know what they're going to be. plus two years. Plus, that doesn't account for our water rate increases per year. Um, right now it's it's it's set at 3% 4% uh 3% for water
and 4% sewer. That covers inflation costs including chemicals, um, you know, equipment and whatnot, repairs, uh, replacement of parts, uh, throughout, you know, throughout each year that goes on. So, that's what I'm saying. That's not all being accounted for on these on
these on these estimates. So I just want council to be aware of that. >> Has anybody done any projections on what what a walk bill would be like how much it would increase? >> It's kind of hard to to project the bill because once again we got to we got to
look into several factors. Um what it's going to be in two to three years from now when this plant is fully operational, how much the city is actually paid out. Um, I mean, we can do a projected bill uh if the city did a 100% of the upfront costs, but once
again, you know, I I personally did not expect the city to to do a $50 million bill. So, you know, that's even even in a bond, that's going to be a a long-term large amount of money each year and it's going to take a very long time to
recuperate. So the thing is that we have to look at there's several things to look at do before doing a projected build because you you do a projected bill then you know that's what the customer thing is going to expect but there's so many different factors to consider. Like I said it's just I I
wouldn't I wouldn't want to do that before when when it comes time for us to start considering when we're ready to build and we're not getting we understand we're not going to get the funds from anywhere else. That's when I would start doing projection costs because then we have to look into several different things. Uh we'd have
to look at and say, okay, let's say we forgot all, you know, we forgot about building this plant and we started buying water 100% from both Pasco County and and Nicari. Then we have to go ahead and factor those costs in and then, you know, do a bill projection based on that versus doing doing this plant build. But
I wouldn't do that yet because once again we we can look into state funding. We can look into grants. Um you know FD currently doesn't you know doesn't have funds available for construction but that's that changes year to year all the
time. So um and once this design is complete this will be a shovel ready project that we can go ahead and take this to the state for appropriation. We can get anywhere. We can get half of it. We can get threequarters of it. I mean, you know, chance we can get it all because of the necessity for this. This
is a necessity project. This is not like, you know, we want to build a new park or we want this is this is like a a necessity for the city for future growth, for future um future obligations to FD um and swift mud. So, we have we have to
look into those things. So that's why I don't I I kind of want to focus on the design of this project as opposed to looking at projected cost because I we will definitely cross that road and we'll definitely have to have those conversations at a later time. It's just
that it's kind of early to do to do that because I don't I would like to see what we have what the city can attain years from, you know, years from now or next year or the year after as we bring this project to the state or as we start, you know, once we're completed with this
design to see what we can get. >> I think it's safe to say based on this analysis that worst case scenario, we pay for it all. It's we're going to be charging at least $68 per thousand gallon, right? That's worst case scenario. That's worst case scenario. So that's what I'm saying. And then you can
look at that as worst case scenario because I mean we're about we're about four 475 per thousand gallons right now. Um you know we're going to be jumping up to six just to recuperate costs. But like I said there's so many different factors to consider. I I just I didn't
really want to I didn't want to bother c not bother council but kind of like overwhelm you with what costs are going to be because right now we're getting a design done and it's paid by FD which is no cost to us when we go out to construction. That's going to be when we
need to really sit down and make some hard decisions. It's just brought up the property property that we're we're we're looking to acquire. We have focused this build for the past several months on that property. I mean this is this was pretty much that property is adjacent to
the water plant. Um it will do zero impact to the current operations of both public works and utilities. So buying that property was optimal to do this build. If you know and I understand you posing that question but I also want council to consider that if we build the
plant this new plant on site then we're losing a lot of operations current you know that we would have that we have right now. So that's something to look at and consider. Um because we're we're almost ready to do an offer on that particular piece of property. So and
then and then Phil if you can correct me we also projected of having wells also placed on that property not just plant itself. >> That's correct. >> That's this is not just about plant but it's about future but sinking future wells on that same piece of property. So it's not just the plant that we're
considering. >> So what are we going to do with the current property once we build this new property? Well, the thing is we could do several things with the current property. >> Well, just give me a quick synopsis. >> Off top my head, fire department's looking to build build a new firehouse and then it would be really nice if you had your police department, city hall,
fire department and water plant there. Now, that's something not I'm not dropping that as a hard thing because we'd have to correspond with them as far as response times, location, is it optimal? Um, I mean that this particular area is in a 500 year flood plane for
all of us. So in in order for you know for anything to happen we're in like the safest area on Ridge Road. So that's something to consider. You can you can use that property for an abundance of things. We can there at one time we were considering doing um uh doing an
emergency shelter which is why we have such a large generator here at city hall where the impact yard is right now. We were considering building a large shelter um for citizens for everyone. Um that project was put on hold after city hall was built. So that's something to consider. Okay.
>> So there's several options that we can do with that property. >> I was wondering there is some cities do co-ops with their utilities whether it's through bonds or sometimes they ask the assistant if you want to participate into this you can pay a higher amount or percentage to uh like if you want to buy
the property it be like financed or could be purchased through a bond. There's a citizen do that. um with or with Luchi River Electric. I used to be a co-op with them and I still get checks from them even though I'm not on with Luchi River Electric. So, we could do the same thing where citizens that want
to participate. In other words, once that's achieved like over 20 years, it's uh matured, they have a locked in water rate, for instance. That's they would never get an increase on their bills, but people that did participate may get an increase on their bills. That's
another thing you could do as far as financing that property. >> Thank you, S. >> And thank you, sir. Great presentation. >> Yep. Any other questions? Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Uh, any public comment?
Okay. So moving on to item number four, first reading of ordinance number 26-742 amending section 10-318 article 3 chapter 109 of the land of Elvin code to repeal more restrictive requirements pass it to expire for reading. >> Thank you. Ordinance number 26-742, an ordinance of the city of Port Richie,
Florida, amending section 109-318, article 3, division 1, chapter 109 of the land development code to repeal more restrictive requirements adopted by city council of Port Richie prior to the passage of Senate Bill 180, providing for severability, providing for codification, and providing for an effective date.
>> Okay, Miss Green, anything? >> Um, she covered uh my notes. Thank you. So I open up to motion or discussion. >> Well, I make a movement to approve the first reading of ordinance number 26-742
amending section 10-318 article 3, chapter 109 of the land development code to repeal more restrictive requirements. >> Second. >> Okay. Motion second. Any further discussion? Any public comment? Seeing none, I put to a vote on favor
signify by saying I. >> Comments. I found that >> Nancy. >> Yes. >> In layman's terms. Lame's terms. Tell me what this is. >> Senate Bill 180 happened because you guys made some more um restrictive
requirements like a 3- foot above um >> true board. Senate that happened before Senate Bill 180 came out. Senate Bill 180 came out and it's retroactive. Says lowered it. Yep. Can't do that. You can't make for a certain time frame. You cannot make things. >> So we're back with that. >> So all we've done is go back to what we
had before. Gotcha. Thank you. That's on you there. Thank you. >> Was there any more changes to that? Just for public knowledge, the freeboard change as >> Well, yeah, there was. Let me see. There was there was some information about replace mechanical plumbing and electrical
systems shall be anchored in place that shall be elevated to or above the required elevation. Um that has been taken out also. I think that's it. Okay. Any further discussion? >> Discussion, sir. >> Okay. Any public comment? Seeing none, I
put to a vote. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Oppose. Motion carries. Next up, item number five, first reading of ordinance number 26-743, amending chapter 109, article 3, division 5 of the city of Port Richie Land Development Code to remove language allowing the use of temporary shelters pursuant to section
163.035, 03 35 Florida statutes and amending chapter 12 article 3 section 12-47 to add language allowing the use of temporary shelters pursuant to section 1635 Florida statutes. I'll pass it miss for reading >> if you want to read those last three words
>> and providing for an effective date >> serability oh sorry uh providing for serability providing codification and providing for an effective date. You read it. Um, so I I will explain this one u a little bit. When working with the last ordinance you just um voted on
with FD, no FDM, um they we had you guys had um added this language in chapter 109. Um we brought to our attention that wasn't really the correct place for it. So all this is is moving that language from chapter 109 to chapter 12. It's not
changing it. It's still allowed. It's actually in a better place. Um so that's all this is for. That's just kind of a housekeeping matter. >> Okay, I'll open up to a motion or discussion. >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. Any first
discussion? Any public comment? See none to vote. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed? Motion carries. Next up, item number six, first quarter financial report. I pass it to Mr. King for reduction. Uh tonight's report provides a snapshot of the city's financial
position for the first quarter FY uh 2526 covering October through December. Overall, the city remains financially stable on track. Uh general fund revenues are approximately 32% of the annual budget consistent with uh normal uh seasonal trends and expenditures
within the projected levels. Utility revenues remain stable and the uh the CRA and penny perasco activity is minimal this quarter as expected uh with capital spending planned later this year. Uh this report's intended to give
council an early look at trends and and confirm that we are starting the fiscal year in a solid position. I will now turn it over to the finance manager. Let the record show that Councilman Hubard Council Chambers. Adam Thompson 633 Ridge Road. I have a
some flat slides here. I'll go through them pretty quick. Everybody says I talk fast, so if I talk too fast, slow me down. A lot of these have uh some graphs in it. The graphs aren't for really to read. It's just really to show you just where we are versus the numbers. So that's it. I mean really just to show
you we've uh kind of our cash flow is a little bit better than our expenditures right at this moment. So um so first quarter is uh ended uh started October 1st ended December 31st. Um this uh report reflects year-to- date
activity through December 2025 and it comes covers the general fund and major operating funds. Um the first one is just our revenues. Um as you can see taxes are our biggest uh revenue. We receive all those mostly before the end of the um before the end
of December. So that's what's in blue there. So our taxes, license and permits are next. Intergovernmental and charges for services stuff. You see we really haven't uh really kicked in uh um in that aspect of it. But right now taxes is what's carrying the general fund. Um, and then we had some miscellaneous uh
income that came in, some more FEMA dollars that came in from previous storms and stuff like that. That's really kind of what's carrying us right at this moment. >> Let's record show that customer returned. >> I apologize. Thank you. >> Next. Can I do that or you you doing you
good? Um, just a revenue summary for quarter one. Uh, total revenues uh year to date is about 3.85 million. Um your major sources again are your ad valerum taxes, your sales and your uh fuel tax, your license and permits and utility franchise fees. Those are really what's
uh covering us. The rest of of uh of it is still trying to catch up with us, but we are in a solid financial footing in the general fund. Um the next slide, expenditure summary. Our total expenditures for the year so far is 1.17 million in the general fund. Uh what's
leading the cost on that is personnel cost. Um it's our primary expenditure category. It's a huge category for us and uh operating costs are trending within our budgeted uh expectations right now. So uh which means we're making more than we're spending right at the moment which is good. There will be
just a second to remove this latch so they can have their stuff back. >> I say I'm tell a joke, but it probably wouldn't be appropriate. excited. >> Go ahead. I like jokes. Uh so this is a just a graph of our
general fund revenue uh budget versus actual. So our budget is in blue and our actual year-to- date is in red. Uh so it shows that we're we haven't caught as much, but we're only three months into it. So and you have to realize too that most of your revenue and stuff that comes in in October is really from the
previous year. So everything shifts backwards. So, we're actually in a very good footing for where we're at right now. So, we're in good shape. Um, if you go to the next slide, this one is the general fund expenditures versus versus our budget. As you can see, the red is a lot smaller than what we budgeted. So,
again, our spending is is uh is being uh um in line where we need it to be right at this moment. Uh, department level spending. Um, as you can see, these are your department levels. building uh in the general fund, building finance, administration, public works, fire and police. And of course, fire and police
are your big catalyst for uh expenditures. They're 24 hours, 7 day a week thing. They're always, you know, they're your biggest expense. So, this is not uh out of normal for where we should be, and it's always going to trend this way um every every uh quarter. Um next is our department
spending highlights. Again, public safety and fire uh represents the largest share of quarter 1 spending. uh personnel costs dominate the department. Department departmental expenditures um administrative and support departments are tracking within budget. So every everywhere is tracking within budget. We're doing good. But you know again
those uh just our operating cost I mean your your biggest expense in any business is your personnel cost. So and then this is just kind of where we're at with the uh budget versus actual. So as you can see we're still way way below our budgeted amount of
money. So we're we're trending very good with the highest ex highest uh um expenditures which is police and fire. So we're again looking pretty good so far in the first quarter. Some key highlights uh again general fund revenues at 30% of annual budget
which is good for 3 months in. Uh utility fund is is again stable collections seasonal trends are expected. We did uh we did go through October, I'm sorry, November, December without any shut offs. And we we did shut offs um at uh this month. Um we actually, you know,
our fines and fees went pretty high. We had 18 pages of turnoff. So we actually collected a pretty good amount of uh fines and and penalties and stuff like that. But um so the water department is is trending pretty well. CRA and penny for Pasco is minimal quarter 1 spending.
Um capital activity we're expecting to go later into the year. I will mention while we're here on the uh CRA, that was, you know, we did get our budget or our audit back. The CRA was one of the smacks we got on our budget because um I think we collected and off the top of my
head about $1.6 million. We spent about $480,000 and most of that probably about 90% of that was salaries. So, we did get smacked. So, we'll have to answer to the state on that which may offer a uh or uh make us do a an audit of it. So, we
really need to keep track on that. Some council key takeaways. Um, just your general fund revenues at approximately 30% of annual budget. That's great. Expenditures remain conservative at roughly 13% of the annual budget, which is great. Your public safety accounts for the majority of department spending.
Um, that's normal. No immediate budgetary concerns identified in quarter 1. And uh we'll just continue monitoring revenue trends and expenditure pacing which is uh even in the uh second quarter is already trending very well. Our next steps are uh just continue monitoring revenue trends. Um we're
going to evaluate expenditure pacing by departments um and then prepare mid-year financial forecast uh for the uh quarter two. Um and then this is just your um this just demonstrates our strong cash flow position. Um revenue and expenditures
again your revenues collected is 30 32%. Your expenditure spent is 13%. >> Slide behind. >> Oh sorry. And uh >> too fast Adam >> I apologize. I'm sorry. And our our positive timing gap is 19%. So we we're we're trending 19% to the positive when
it comes to revenue versus expenditure. So so we're good. Our cash flow we have cash um which is good for us. And then our spending again is is is uh where it needs to be. So the next uh next is just a department little spending uh comparison. So the police
year-to- date spending is about 335,000. So that's 29% of the general fund. Fire is at 169 525 which is about 15% of the general fund. Public work trails at five. Uh administration at 3%, building at 3%, finance at 2% and all the others
at 43%. So we're we're trending very well in department uh things. And you know, since we really started enacting these POS and stuff, I think that's really helping us with the uh uh with this. >> Um >> got a question. >> Yes. >> Are those numbers average industrywide?
>> So uh for the first I I think these are actually kind of better than industrywide. So if you uh I was looking um at uh um >> larger larger areas. >> Well, New Newport Richie and and Dade City, I was uh kind of going through their stuff. I mean, you know, usually at the beginning of the year people
spend money because, you know, it's like, oh, we got a brand new year. We've been very conservative and I think that's really going to help us. We do actually, you know, the the police I know for a fact and and Daryl, they they spend their larger things at the end of the year. Okay. >> So, and then that way, you know, because right now, at the beginning of the year,
you don't get as much money in. So, we're really just borrowing money to pay for those things if we buy police cars or or trucks or whatever. So, right now, we're trending. This is this is good. I mean, I I know we need equipment and we people, we need cameras and all that stuff. I'm just wondering where do we
trend as far as >> the average? Is there is there a way to find out what the average is? >> Yeah, I mean, uh, I can I mean, what we're trending as far as Dade City and and Newport Richie and stuff, we're trending way below cost and stuff, what they're trending right now. So, but we're smaller, too. Again, I think with
what we have and where we're at with such a tight budget, we we're in a we're in a good position right now, a good net position on, you know, just having the cash. Usually, you're kind of cashstrapped at this point sometimes, you know, especially with our spending and uh stuff like that. So, I we're in a good position. I would
>> Have you ever heard of a software called Fathom H? >> I think you mentioned it one time. >> Would you just look into it? Tell me what your thoughts are just I'm not trying to people what to do. It's a it's a software that we use on a national level for the dealers association and it
it brings that stuff down where we're not just looking at color glossy pictures. It actually has numbers and graphs all and the average person can just look at and say, "Yep, we're going the right way." And all that stuff. So, this is awesome, Adam. >> Um I just think there might be a little bit more tightening up we can do to
present to council so we're all feeling comfortable. Hey, we didn't walk in $300,000 out somewhere we didn't we weren't looking at, you know. Um, >> well, I mean, y'all know I'm a I'm a doomsday guy. You know, I'm always we have no money. So, but you know, I'm I'm sitting here at the beginning of this
year saying, you know, hey, we're we're in a we're in a good footing right now, three months in. So, um, >> if you already pulled the data for date city and Newport Rich. >> Well, that was me just looking at their >> say if you if you threw that on a graph just lines or however many cities you have on there kind of show where we're
at compared to those that show. Don, thank you for D took some notes and I'm not I don't want to tell you your staff what to do. I'm just saying if you look at that, you're going to see some free free demonstration everything which is really cool. Um I don't know what the cost is so I don't want to you know throw that out there. I really don't
know but we use it we're a small association but on a large national scale. >> Okay. >> Now if y'all want me to try to in these next uh quarterly things add in some cities that are roughly our size. I mean I I don't know that I would compare ourselves to Newport Richie. They they're a lot larger. Um, so like maybe
find some other cities that are kind of in our our range and our, you know, and I can kind of show >> I think it's necessary, Adam. I just wanted to know where, you know, I mean, I'm just telling you where I I get sometimes I get people come at me like, "Oh, we're spend all this money." And I'm like, "Well, hold on a minute. What are we doing compared to other cities?"
You know, I like to I'd like to be and hearing you say that we're actually on the tighten up. Then I can go back at them and I can say, "No, we're actually tighter or less than the other cities." You know, I just want that knowledge to be able to respond to constituents out there. Uh yeah, I can try to get some information and bring it back. And and I agree. I I think we need to be letting
people know. I mean, a lot of times they sit here and they listen to us spend $500,000 on this and $600,000 on that. It's it's a lot of money to to someone that lives paycheck to paycheck. So like to sit up here and say, "Hey, we are looking at ways to cut costs and we are cutting costs and we're not just sitting here, you know, working the overtime because we have to or because we can and
stuff like that." So I I think that's a that's a positive for us. So yeah, we're we're in a we're in good shape. And also if if there's something in these that you guys want to see more of, let me know that because I mean I just I try to just give a broad we have, you know, four major funds here. So trying to give a broad generalization of what's going
on. You know, obviously our general fund is it's the titus and it's it's the biggest pot of people. So you know, if you guys want something else, I mean, please I mean I email Don or email myself and say, "Hey, I'd like to see this. I'd like to see that." And I can I can create that. I just looking at it, I
I know what I would want to see. So, I just try to do that and I try to do it as quick and as as expediently as possible. But also, if you guys want to see something else, I'm more than happy to to supply that for you. >> Yeah. And if you email Adam CC >> Yeah. And then I'll I'll put that in
there. >> Um, so on to the next slide. This is the Community Redevelopment Agency. Um, primary revenues are tiff and transfers on our interest earnings and and stuff like so we're we're we've done all that. So that that'll go into your next
quarter. Um so revenues collected right now year to date is about 29,000 and that's just interest we've collected from uh October, November, and December. Um so January is when we got our check from the county and then we moved our our portion over. So you'll see that in the next quarter. Um our expenditures
year to date are about 27,000. Um and our grant program and capital initiative drives the CRA activity right now. I I think I heard him say the other day that in our um in our community redevelop or our community grant or I'm sorry, not the commercial one, but the residential grant. I think we only had like $20,000
left or something. So, it's really pushing. So, it may be something we want to look at maybe moving some money over from the community. I I don't know, but we may be out of money before the year's end. So, which is good. It's getting the word out and we're we're using this money to, you know, the way it should be. The next slide is the uh penny for
Pasco fund. Um so again this is just a voter approved sales tax. Um revenue collected so year to date is 143,000 which is 19% of our budget. Expenditures are about 6,000 which is really low. You'll see again next year we you know the the boat was on there and a couple
other expenditures. We paid uh $218,000 for the um first payment on the fire truck. So all that's going to be coming into there. So I think right at this moment when I looked at it was closer to 300,000 for uh at the end of this month. So, but right now as of the end of uh December, we're at 6,000. Uh and then
again, just major capital spending anticipated later in the year. So, with our CIP plans and stuff like that, next slide. Utility fund uh enterprise fund supporting water and sewer operations of we've collected year to date about 805,000. Uh we have spent 1.14 million.
Um and the season building trends expected to strengthen later in the year. Um so, we are actually uh the collected amount is is off. So, we've actually collected more than the than what we spent. There was an issue with Black Mountain. So, in the month of December when they did billing, it came
out as zero. So, we had to fix that. So, once they fixed it and the bills got corrected, um it took us a little longer to get that up in the uh up in the uh So, we're we're about 400 almost $500,000 better than this $85,000, but that's what was on the books when I made this thing. So, so again, we're
trending. >> Our revenue exceeds expenditures. >> Our revenue exceeds extend. Yes. And then our storm water fund um is monthly stormwater utility fees. We've collected 90,000. Uh we've had very little uh expenditures this month, mostly salaries. Um and then just again
the CIP and major expenditures are expected later in the year. So that's that's about it. If anybody's got any questions, >> this just a point to make. If if we have an error like that that you mentioned, you you probably want to put that in the slide so that people look back on that,
you know, they don't have the if they're not watching, they don't get that context, right? So that's just goes out to the public or whatever that somebody looks at say, hey, you know, we're we're not doing very good in the water department. So if we >> Well, that's why I So I I that was just corrected the other uh probably I want
to say Friday. So >> Oh, this is already >> This is already put out there. Yeah. So as of as of this being put out to the count uh to the uh citizens of you guys, that was our actual numbers. >> Can we correct that number for modify the slide?
>> Yeah, I I'll modify the slide. I'll not >> Oh yeah, just put notes in there or something. anything this >> next time we'll just provide you a handout of the adjustment that goes to the PowerPoint. So if there's an adjustment that doesn't get out soon enough to you, we'll just have the adjusted slide for your view and just
say disregard the slide in front of you. Here's the actual so that you guys actually have the so >> with this I'm just thinking more long line when if the public goes back a month from now looks at the dinner packet they're going to see ask a question if it just be good to annotate it >> and then store it appropriately.
>> Yeah. So when you're and you're when you're audited as well with our the way our system is, it's going to show you that that those funds didn't come in until January really because that's when we moved them over into our auditing or our accounting system. So if you went and looked at it as of December 31st, still it only shows the 85,000. So even
though uh it was more. So that's why I kind of left it like that. But if y'all want I can I can do that. That's why I'm here. >> So any questions on that? Again, we're in good shape. So um no worries for me. All right. Um I do again we did have the
audit. If anybody has any questions on the audit um uh I can uh answer that. Yes. >> First I want to say thank you. That was a nice presentation. Um and and and a vast improvement of what
I've seen in the past. Uh but um how are we doing on the audit? What's the good news? We've got everything in. >> Yeah. So everything >> everything is in. Um there was uh so I dissected it, put in the AFR for the state of Florida and and sent it to to
the state. Of course, they reconcile it out through with our uh thing. Uh there was two um um uh issues on there which we corrected today and sent it back over. Um didn't get anything back. It hasn't been certified yet, but we didn't get any response back from uh from um um
uh the state. So as far as I and I sent I sent it out everybody that had had to have it. So even JAC I I was in contact with JAC I think we talked about four times today. So um as soon as it gets um certified our AFR gets certified then they'll right now we're kind of in a
standstill. They're holding our our uh revenue funds right now. So once they do that once we get it certified they'll send our revenue funds back out to us. So >> awesome. >> Um but as far as the uh audit itself, which you you'll get a copy of once it they're going to send us a packet of it,
but it it came out very well. Uh there was no surprises there. So we were we're in a good financial footing um for for that year. So our um we didn't make as much money as we'd like, but we we were still kind of in the black, so it was all good. So you guys will be have a chance to read that and I have it. I can email it to you if you want um so you
can look at it. But uh other than that, we we were in pretty good shape. The only thing that was really kind of hurting us is, you know, our OPED liabilities. um we didn't have any cash shortfalls, but our oped our our retirement pieces of it. It's it's just a it's a big piece that we we um save
for and and that's kind of uh citywide or county or statewide I should say. Every city's having a hard time keeping up with the inflation and stuff like that with the uh pension funds and stuff like that. So, we are uh um we're fine. It just it it that's what took a lot a big hit for us was those things and
adjusting for for the inflation and stuff like that with it. So, but all that's in in a thing and I do I will put some notes together for you guys so you can kind of because it's I think 160 pages I think. So, I'll put some notes together and you guys can flip through there and kind of look at it and kind of gauge from the notes and where to look at and stuff like that to find those
numbers. >> Where do those pension funds get invested? >> You don't go to the state level or who does >> No. So, we we keep some we keep a liability bank for it here because we're we're we keep our portion of it. So, we're required to do that but the FRS who does most of it we uh they invest
it. So, and I believe from my understanding you can go on there and invest it however you want. So, if you go if you do your online thing and you want it um to invest it in in uh anything. Yeah. So, or Tesla. Yeah. If you want to invest it in Tesla, you can. I guess I mean there's I think there's a
a whole bunch of different things you can do with it. So, it's your money. I think they let you do however you want. >> It's like a plan. They got funds. You can >> Yeah. >> $40 of my money. >> Yeah. Invest it wisely. >> All right. Are we all good? >> Hey, Adam. Thank you. Great job. >> Thanks, Adam.
>> Okay. Any public comment? >> All right. So, moving along to item number seven, approval of legal services contract with Traniel LLP. I passed Mr. K for induction. Uh the only thing I have on that uh mayor is uh getting the final uh documentation and signing so
that we can get it uh executed and finalized. And I believe uh I don't know if Nancy, do you have a copy of the finalized version? >> It's in your packet. >> Yeah. Okay. So, we just need, you know, signature on that. Complete that and we'll be complete with that that that event.
>> We need a motion to approval. >> Absolutely. >> I uh I want to say >> I'm so glad you're here and I make a motion that we uh approve the contract uh with TR diagn uh for three years. And
that's my motion. Okay. Second, >> second. Okay. Motion second. Any further discussion? Any public comment? Seeing none to put a vote. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I oppose. Motion carries unanimously. >> Thank you. I appreciate it. I'm glad to be here.
>> Yeah. And a little raise in there for you. Make sure you >> a little celebrate with a margarita. >> That's right. >> Next up is item number eight, purchase request, fireworks display for June 28, 2026. I'll pass it to Mr. King for introduction. >> Yes. That's one of those things that we
want to finalize and get signed now um so that we can uh start preparing for that event and I believe it's in the packet for signature. So I I think we need a vote. >> Was uh was fireworks strategically placed after the contract approval for TR? >> Yes. Okay. Appears that way.
>> I just want to note that this will be the same vendor that we you know we're selecting that did our centennial. um they are providing the uh best price for uh the best show. Um I've conferred with the fire department. They um they rated this company that we're working with as
one of the best companies that they've ever uh worked with for any show we've done in a very long time. Um very professional, very well done. Um I've included a memo from um from the fire department uh that explains all that. Um, and we recommend going with Pyro
Productions for the 20th show in June. >> Okay. There was on that thing, they had a $14,000 large barge fee, which we won't be using because they're going to be shooting off the land again, right? >> Yes. So, so total is 215. >> Yes. Because we were we I've been
talking to several vendors about doing a barge based show. That was I've spoke with with a fire chief and and captain about that. We were trying to do that, but that obviously their barge was going to be um quite a bit of money. Um we can still do the landbased show and still
stay within the radius of safety. Uh we may bring the line just a little bit back from the pavilion during the show. Um and of course it all depends on the weather, wind, stuff like that. But um like I said, per their setup uh the the company setup, we're looking to have no
issues just like we did in May. And that was one of my big concerns is the safety factor with it being a ground base and everybody's covered the the bases with me and said, "Hey, we're in compliance and we should we we'll be safe with a ground show."
>> Okay. Is there a motion? >> Are they Well, a little question. We've talked about contracted them. Are they Are they comfortable yet, but maybe do a contract with us? >> I They are. Yes. >> Okay. They were worried about distribution and stuff.
>> They are, but um I'd have to confer to the with the city manager and city attorney about moving forward on that because of the amount of money that it is if we want to get locked into a contract with that. Um you know, and how much that would be each year. So um this is kind of why I wanted to present it
with council with getting other quotes, you know, just just per our purchase policy. Um, I can I can still look into that, but I I probably would want to confer with them and seeing how we can do that with it being, you know, so much money. Um, and and locking in like a two
or five year contract. I I just like I said, there's there's some gray area when it comes, you know, per the amount of money at the show. >> I don't know if we could like lock in price or percentage every year. We didn't have to repeat this every year as all that. That's I mean, that's with Don's guidance. You 10 years is a better
way. There are benefits to that, but there's also benefits for negotiating each year. >> Yeah, >> I I agree 100%. What about, you know, future councils and we're like looking at a bad budget and we're like, hold on. Exactly. >> Yeah. That's something that you don't want to be locked into. >> On our TV, you know,
>> which is the conversations I want to have with yourself and and we've all talked about these points before and that that's kind of why I wanted to present it like this. It's kind of on the more safer side to just do our due diligence, you know, to the public, you know, and to council that we've we've
looked at other companies and we'll do this. Okay. Is there a motion? >> Motion to approve the firework display for the 62826 Independence Day celebration
pyro productions for $21,500. >> I'll second that. specify to allow the city manager and city attorney to sign the contract. >> And to allow the city manager and city attorney to sign the contract. >> Thank you.
>> Second. >> Okay. Got a motion to second. Any further discussion? Any public comment? Seeing none put to vote on favor signify by saying >> I opposed. Motion carries. Next up, old business number nine, discussion of old business. Is there any old business to
discuss? A question about the uh any luck with the speed humps and a paper company that helped with that. The speed signs are ordered and the humps um are staked out on
uh Grand Boulevard right now and Isabelle from Ajax is sending over a contractor. She was supposed to do it this week, but it may be next week where she's gonna send it out to get the contractor over. >> I was wondering what Daryl don't tell.
>> I was wondering with with the guidance if we could look into what that company did get a bit on paving treadway and returning it to a two-lane road like it was nine years ago like everybody wants and chief's recommendations on that. Any
suggestions from him, please? I totally agree. >> There you go. Life safety issue. >> Um, one thing with that, >> okay, >> I don't want to throw a wrench in anything, but if they're planning on building that those complex or they're
going to tear that road up, bringing all their trucks in there. >> Question. If they do bring all their trucks up through that area, they responsible for for re uh lining that entire road. >> Correct. As long as it's in the
agreement. >> Okay. >> When when do you suspect that to start get tore up though? >> Uh as soon as they start bringing heavy trucks up there. Look what it did to Old Post when they did a VA bay. >> Okay. >> And I think >> but I do agree to widen that road. Yes.
>> Yeah. And I I think their projection is in two years to have the have the have that compound complete if if I remember correctly on the last um meeting we had with them. >> But I do agree with chief and follow that should be widened but helping just
be mindful of the construction going in there. >> Yeah. What's what's the ask? Are you you making a motion to to pave the road >> and return it to a two-lane road like it was for several reasons? Um well obviously we need probably need engineering on that road to talk about
wid and all that and we also have a paving budget for the year that we've >> not used yet. I don't think 300,000 will be put in for >> I have to look at what our paving budget is right now. And on on top of that obviously we do have uh pending construction activity is going to
happen. So I agree we need to do something with the road 100%. But um you know >> we may be able to exploit the company that's doing the construction to build the road for us >> possibly. >> Yeah. >> But the last thing >> I don't like to use that word but >> Yeah. Well, the last thing you want to
do is is go throw a new road down and then get to even somebody's going to pay for it doesn't make any sense to do. That's >> Well, what I'll do is I'll have a conversation with them to see, you know, what their overall intent is and and and project goals are and then from there
we'll address it. I mean, we'll come back to you. >> Okay. >> Are we able to assess it >> earlier and just fix some spots on it at least? I mean, definitely need to do that. I mean, >> I mean, we can only expand what's in the rideway. >> I'm not talking about expanding. I'm
talking about potholes or I mean, >> we can repair what needs. >> Yeah. I mean, needs to be in good working order best it can. >> You're talking about the little outshaped thing. >> No. Treadway going down between pirate bar and gildogs. And there's opt there's if if I'm correct there's because I've
done it in the past there's options to not completely redo the road but resurfacing cost effects of resurfacing that we can do that will get us through that period of time before it gets destroyed. >> Yeah, you can put millings uh some good millings down. Um, when you put that
down and roll it, it almost just like I did on Weber Lane, it almost molds itself to like a normal road. >> And we can stripe it and remove the oneway sign and without paving it. It's just the traffic flow and using the boat ramp and and >> well, you've got those uh barricades
along there that that forced a walkway too that we could take out to, right? >> Get some widening out of it. Yeah, that's because now the restaurant in there. So, >> I mean, I think >> I think we need to be cautious how much we're rebuilding down there, but it's all going to get torn up anyway. Just my
opinion. >> You know, we talked about with Frank down there about just patching the potholes right now, making it look a little better than it does now. >> Um, and that's all I think we're expecting you to do. >> Yeah. I I wouldn't I wouldn't look to
red to do the road as far as widening it because like you you know like you said you get into engineering you have to worry about drainage things like that start coming into scope. We might need three lanes by the time it's done. Make a turning lane and you know, who knows what's going to >> if you make it a two-lane >> and then you don't know with the
development and everything, what their needs are going to be traffic studies where their interest is going to be. >> But what we can do is that we can probably find the edges of the road, remove the, you know, the uh delineators that were >> plastic, >> the plastic things from the roadway, remove them, see um edge out the road,
see how far that the road, the existing road actually has. Um see if we can stripe it at least so it it can go both ways. take down the signage, you know, start doing things like that before start spending two lane road. >> Yeah, we could definitely probably open it back up for two lane. I think we
could probably find that and and bring it back even. >> Yeah, that'd be fine. >> Just make it a two-lane road without engineering. >> It was a two-lane road. They >> It doesn't matter what it was. I mean, there's >> But let us come back to you with some good options and then cost effective.
>> I want to keep it cheap. We can keep it cheap, but I just want to give you some options on on because I don't I don't plan on >> redoing it, but we can do we can we can at least get it back to a a a
more identifiable structure. >> If you go to go all the way around, >> it's safe. >> Yeah. >> It all comes down to measurement really. you know, if we find the edge of the roads and we have we have what is required to on on, you know, to have two lanes and you have the width on both
sides, then it should be a problem. And no, you won't have to do engineering as long as you're not the only time you're going to have to get into engineering is when you're going to actually change the width of the road by construction and then that's that's when if you know you're having a further, you know, more more runoff and everything like that. But that actually may happen anyway with
with the with the development. So, but for now they're going to curve. >> Yeah. So, but why do you work now like that? If you're going to change it anyway. So, the city manager is correct. We can just start looking into options. We'll confer
with uh public works and you know and see what we can do right in the immediate right now that doesn't involve engineering. Right. And and like I said, safe, cost-effective two-lane road that that people can use without any significant issues.
>> I don't even think it has to come back to us. I think you just have to >> You let me run with it. I'll run with it. >> I'm letting you run with it. I'll deliver it. Daryl, >> between you and Daryl, fantastic. >> We can't get it done. We can't get it done anyway. Daryl will get it done for sure. >> I trust Darl. >> Yeah. And so And so while you're looking
at that, I've mentioned this before. Or if we can do something with the Walmart exit, which is I don't know why that's the way it is. I don't know who's responsible for that. Who put those barricades that are now down? No left turn, but you turn left at Waw Wa just that's just
>> stupid down there. So >> is that turn left anyway? >> I think Walmart turn left anyway. >> Well, yeah, they do it anyway. I mean, >> then we pull every give, >> right? And but you can do it in Waw Wa and it's it's much less safe there. So >> that's a a private property area. And
when I looked at it, there's also the concrete little meeting that somebody built there to help people turn right. So that would have to be changed and I don't know if they would have to have an engineering study with the >> that humps that the the pilings were on is concrete. I thought there was just a
rubber plastic >> a little bit of a concrete elevated thing that >> it is but I think it's just unbolt it and take it out of there. >> Yeah, we can remove that and the owners are okay with it. I don't have a problem with it. Like I say, that was done way before Wawwa was there. I think it was done in the beginning.
>> My estimate there is that it was probably a parking lot requirement for Walmart to get up to a certain amount of, you know, consumers going out of their park. I know they didn't shopping centers like that. >> That was well after the Walmart was already there. So,
>> it actually creates more of a hindrance because it does make those people dump those people back into >> Well, you don't have a you don't have a turn lane. If you took all that out there, you can actually stack a couple cars in there waiting to turn. It was created after Walmart was built. They repaved their parking lot. I want to say about
>> five to eight years ago, maybe eight years ago. >> Yeah. >> And they repaved the whole parking lot. They put new striping in. That that >> way they made that designated turn was part of that repainting project. That was all on Walmart. I think they were getting they were getting complaints
about traffic going either going the way it was. >> People going blocking them out too. It was backing up to McDonald's and when Long John Silvers was there which is now Charlie's and the other thing it would back up there. So now I think when they
did that it was easier to have them back it up back on the other street along where the fence line is there to get out as a safer alternative. >> And when all the delineators were in place everyone was following it but ever since everyone has been >> about two weeks I think they all
right for going left there. I don't I I don't know if any of my guys are. I tell you, my guys are more concerned with the speeders and the crazy drivers on 19 and the other roadways and somebody making a left turn out there. But if you did it in front of one of my guys, I'm sure they would stop you. I >> mean, that is that is a highly utilized
uh business in the city and that intersection is a pain in the neck and it's nobody does what they're supposed to do anyway. >> Uh I I think we we need to fix that. So, it's it's >> I don't even know if it's our is it our ballet wag. It's Walmart's partner.
>> Yeah, it's it's it's partner and see >> how we can influence that. It's just a it's just a mess. At at the very least, it's a mess over there. >> One more explain to end up with turn. >> We We need a turn lane. I think you I think you should have a turn lane there
because right now what happens is is people supposed to go right. They wait there to turn left and you can't. You got all that stuff in the middle >> and get out. >> It's just >> That's a Waw Wa factor, too, though. >> What's the Waw Wa factor? >> You got that exit for Waw Wa. They have to turn right. You can't turn left when
you come out of Wawa, which is right next to the Walmart. >> That's a legal left turn when you come out of Walmart. >> That's That's the whole thing. It's illegal to turn right or turn left out of Walmart, but if you move closer to the 19 Waw Wa, you could legally turn left. It's the dumbest thing ever.
If anything, there should be a no left turn or at Wawwa because you're right there to light. >> Wawa is not a problem. You have one driver in, two drivers in, everybody's good, everybody gets through. >> Yeah. But I'm saying it's legal there, but not on back where it's actually safer. >> And and I tell you, most of the time
it's it's not a problem 90% of the time. The only time is is it's a problem is when traffic stacks up the light. >> Y >> and people get out there and block the lane because they can't get over. And that's they need to be pulled over and and say, "Hey, don't block traffic." You know, don't worry about people turn left
when there's no traffic. >> How far do you want to go with us? >> As far as I need to. It's been a pain in my neck for 10 years there. So, >> I think we got a pig that started tomorrow. >> I think we should get him a chauffeur and just relieve him of his stress. >> I'll drive.
>> Put him out of his misery. Yeah. >> All right. Anyway, just trying to help Walmart out because it's like I said, it's a it's a there's a lot of traffic goes in and out of there and it's silly. >> Didn't they increase our access to their parking lot recently? >> Increase their access. Well, no. So, they I will share that. So, the the um
the chamber is allowed to have their their community market event there every month, which is great. Yeah. So, they're they're good partners. They they they help out a lot with all things in the city. They're a good partner. So, anything else? business.
Okay. Uh moving on to comments from mayor and city council. Let's start with uh Councilwoman S. >> Okay. I have um Nancy had sent out um the ordinance 26740 for the sign
language. And after reviewing that, um we're we're going to vote on that on 113. Well, no, >> the next meeting. Yeah. >> Next. Yeah, it's not actually 113. I guess it would be >> second Tuesday. We were doing >> Yeah, second Tuesday. Um, but now after having that meeting last Friday, the
waterfront meeting, I'm concerned about removing the signage language from the waterfront. Uh, we there was the special language for >> for WD. >> Yeah, for the WOD. And if we are going to do form based codes or even look into
that, if we remove the um the special language from the waterfront district for the um at this point, I just think that I'm sorry, I'm just messing this all up, but once signs are installed under loose citywide codes, the city cannot later require them to be removed
or changed when it adjusts adjusts to form based codes. So, I'm just concerned that we're making a mistake, that we're jumping the gun, and that we should delay that part. >> The second part about the WOD, >> right? I think we should leave that in place until we've reviewed all of our
formbbased codes because if we take it out now and then signs go up that don't later match uh what we do with formbbased codes, if we do formbbased codes, which I think we should, um then we're going to have a problem with signage over there. And with formbbased
codes, um, coordinated sign standards are that's that's like a a detail in in form based codes. >> So all the rest can understand it. >> So all the rest of us can understand it. Me and the other 300 people that are
going to listen to this in the future. >> Are you just saying you want us to reserve the right to make the signs at the waterfront overlay district to be a certain style? And if we don't do that right now, they're not going to match and we can't make them change it. Is that what you're saying? >> No, not necessarily. I'm saying leave
that code alone or or go on with our review. We we had stopped reviewing it when we went to the waterfront. We just said so maybe continue on and make that a part of our review for base codes if we are going to move forward. >> Again, I want you to use if you would for me just don't want you to dumb it
down to like fifth grade. Okay? >> I want to understand it at a fifth grade level so everybody listening can understand. What do you want to do to the sign code that's there now? And what date you want us to vote on? >> I want us to continue our review of it and make it part of our formbbased. >> So you don't want us to finish our job
on the sign thing and leave that open? >> No, I want to eliminate the waterfront removal. We we removed the waterfront language in this ordinance and we were making it citywide code for signs. So it didn't matter where you were located.
All signage was the same, you know, all signs. >> So that >> so I I want to leave it alone and then I want to continue a review of it like >> Right. So let me ask you this. So that that puts the WOD that very small area
>> outside of the the scope. But everywhere else talk about the same thing. you still have those issues everywhere outside the WOD based on the code we're putting in. >> Well, for form based codes, I've done some research on form based codes.
>> That applies more than just Yes. But if we are if we're specifically going to start form-based codes in the waterfront district, which it looks like we need to before developers come in there and start doing things that we don't want them to do because we're kind of already in a predicament where we have a
developer and we have not set a standard for how we want things to look, signage to be, things like that. So if we if we don't start a form-based code review now and get that in place it including our signage then we run the risk of somebody
coming in a developer coming in and doing something that would kind of blow what the city has in mind. And this is our one opportunity as council to kind of decide what our waterfront is going to look like. We can design the we can we can design design the roads if we
want um you know the roundabout things like that. We we could come up with all of that if we start our formbbased code review and we don't want to remove signage from special restrictions on signage from
that right now because if we do then we could be stuck with something for decades that won't be part of our future vision when we get into this form based. >> Well, what about the other parts of the city like let's say Grand Boulevard, >> right? We can we can do the signage in
the city. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. I mean, I I don't I don't really know who to answer your question. Um, if we plan on doing form-based codes throughout the entire city, I don't know that what we did with our review is
quite what we are looking for. I think we could maybe put that on hold and think about that, have another workshop and think about it again. I would be compl. >> Yeah. So we can do the signs and lay it
out for the city. When you do a form based zoning district, you have that district and you just do the signs at that time for just that district. It wouldn't affect anything else in the city. And if say you want to do Main Street on Grand form based that for then you could have signs for that district.
>> The same argument. Let's just hypothetically we approve the signing code we went through, >> right? We leave WOD alone. Um, somebody on Grand Boulevard puts a sign up and we want to go in and we do form based codes there. We want a different look or whatever.
>> Same property have WOD. Now, another another thing is >> a big issue that we have is digital signage that catches us trying to and they've been waiting on this ordinance change. And so if you was to uh leave what we have in there, all the stuff we
just changed would not apply to them and they would still not be able to fix their sign. >> We could do whatever is necessary if we all agree on it. Like I said, we continue our review and if there is something specific that they want, we can make sure that that happens for them and get that into the reading um that
that's planned for next month. But I just think we're we are jumping the gun by eliminating all the language in the waterfront and making it citywide because >> right now the the hot spot is the waterfront and if we don't protect the
sign language now, if we don't capture it for what it is now, somebody could come in and do something that, you know, is really kind of far out. And it's really a coordinated effort. Signage, roads, um the build, the look of the buildings and everything. So, we might
really be making a a big mistake. And but I would like to say before everybody, you know, you know, h has an opinion on this that you actually watch some of the videos on formbbased code because once you see
that there's like tons of them on YouTube. I spent a lot of time on that this week. That's when I really started to realize we might be making a huge mistake and and we could actually do the city a great service by adopting formbbased codes in at least the waterfront and then systematically go
through the city on a case-byase basis of different areas and what we see for them because it's not necessarily that you want it all the same throughout the entire city. You could compartmentalize it. You could say, >> but it's just we're we're running a risk
by doing this right now. >> Orlando has 20 districts, right? >> Yeah, I do. Yeah. I I I think I'm I'm applauding you for spending hours on YouTube and all the stuff you did for that. So, I think it's in our best interest, you know, because what we're trying to do is we're trying to free up
some of these businesses to do things they need to do and spend some money and fix their signs and all that stuff. What we don't want to do is tell them to come on in and bring your money. And by the way, those 1970 codes, you were in there, use those, you know, and it's like catches for instance with a digital sign. They should be allowed to put up a
digital sign. You know, something nice and flashy that says, "Hey, we got lobster here and all kinds of stuff." Um, I'm not against what you're saying, but I think I need more information. So, I think we should probably do a workshop. >> That's what I'm saying. >> Yeah. Workshop that we can come together as a council and and look at we invite
to look that shows, hey, these are the But what I don't want to do is just snap all of a sudden wipe out what we all spent all this time doing on the city. >> No, I don't I don't either. This is specifically for the waterfront. We are about to vote next month on whether or
not we remove that specific waterfront language from our code. And that's what I'm talking about. That we stopped our review short of doing that because we said, "Well, why have any special language for the waterfront?" It's not about restricting them. It's about um
making it a uniform looking area. So it's I don't want to make it difficult on them. I don't want to >> It makes it easier. >> Yeah, it actually does make it easier. And if and if everybody would just dedicate a little bit of time to rewatching some of these videos because I really before last week had no idea
what formbbased code was. So >> where did you get the idea to go check out formbbased code? um because we talked about it in the meeting Friday and code, you know, code is my that it triggers something legally in my mind that that's something I need to to look
at. Um and I did and that's when I realized, wow, you know, we might be making a huge mistake and I really think it it will make it so much easier on the waterfront businesses. As I reviewed it, I thought of the gentleman that came here from catches and said that he did
want to see some uniformity and he did want to move forward with some of these things. And I thought, wow, he he is in support of what I'm watching here in these videos. I can already tell by what he said when he came here that he was in support of that and he's like one of the major players over there in the
waterfront district. >> The guy is probably for saving about >> talking about catches. >> Catches. >> Oh, yeah. Yes, those Hooters and Franken. >> Yeah, those are the ones that wait on. >> So, I think I I just think we ought to
um be cautious here. Everybody, if maybe between now and the next meeting, if we could all watch a few videos on formbbased code, kind of get an idea of what that means because it's not it's not scary. It actually unifies areas to
where they don't have major decisions to make. they can come to an area and say or or look at the code and go I want to be in this area because of this. It's not restrictive. It's engaging. >> Yeah.
>> The the concept is is spot on. I'll see >> I didn't watch it one. I watched like many though. So >> well for code the concept it's it's we I think we need to look at areas for that 100%. Um, I guess what we're what we're
the crossroads we're at is we've got stuff that's trying to happen and for we just, you know, we can't just have a workshop drop form based codes in in in a in a month. That's a that's a that's a significant zoning effort that we have to go through these go through planning and zoning. I mean, you're talking about
months >> of work. I agree. >> So, I mean, you're talking months of work. And so we've got stuff happening right now. The people and so in reality um the restaurants and stuff that already in the waterfront overlay district already have their signs. They're just trying to you know they're
not going to really be paving the way with new stuff. They're just going to do what what they have fix what they have or whatever that new signs new development coming in. We still have a say in that process on how that gets worked. So I think we have the ability to kind of steer that conversation
>> without that. But again, if you if you just if you pick up and say, "Okay, we're going to we're going to adopt the sign code. We're going to leave the waterfront overlay district alone," you're causing significant problems for the waterfront overlay district who've been complain about that for >> Well, there are other avenues to get what we need done though. We don't have
to. When I say we're about to remove it entirely in in whole everything of the waterfront district, we're about to wipe it out and it's going to be citywide code. >> No, no, no. just just the the only portion that is changing at WOD based on what we're going to talk about the next
meeting is the sign code specifically nothing else just the sign portion of that will fall back to the the overall city sign codes which when we went through that we I went through it with the mindset that you know >> this was something that we we didn't feel that we needed to restrict based on
a certain area um >> I did I did as well >> right now my mind is changing as after that meeting that we had and after my review of formbbased codes, my mind is changing on that maybe that's not the best idea and maybe it doesn't even
serve the people the business owners at the waterfront. But I think that there's other avenues to get exactly what you need done. We can provide the existing revise the existing code as it reads now to en encompass what they're asking for over there with their digital signage
without removing the waterfront district. Yeah, we could we could take that section or whatever to modify that specifically for the waterfront just to apply that. >> Absolutely. Yeah. Without any delays. I would think that we could just >> Yeah. >> move to make that revision
>> and then keep everything else as it is to protect that area until we get through our review process. And then if we still decide we want to remove it, make it, you know, standardized code throughout the entire city for signage,
we can do that later, but we don't rush to do it just to get this one thing done. >> We still get this this done for the for the business owners over there. But we protect the rest of the code until we've had a chance to review it because I guarantee you if you look into the into
this um formbbased code video, you know, everything that's available out there, you'll see that this is something we don't want to ignore. And we're if we do ignore it and we don't look into doing this for for our waterfront district, we could have something pretty sloppy. And
this is standardized throughout all of Florida and other states as well. and we could miss a big opportunity to make something really nice here. >> You're speaking specifically about sign code >> because it's coming up next month and we're about to remove the specific sign
code language for the waterfront district. >> Right. I understand. >> And so I want to push that right now. >> But just the sign code, we haven't got we haven't got a permit yet for anything down there. We could always go back in and after we get educated and go through whatever we have to do to figure out
formbbased sign codes, we can go back in change anytime we want to. >> The water the waterfront sign code already has restrictions in it about and I call them restrictions, but it always already has language about a fish fishing village theme. Um, >> I understand we just removed all that
and and and and we're, you know, we can always change it back. we all come to a workshop and go to planning and zoning and all that stuff. We can always change it back and and and change it some other way, but we already voted to take this the other way. >> If if I could. So, if you could help me, Nancy, I believe
we're talking about section H signage in WOD. >> There's there's five items. Okay. So, here's here's what um what is different about signage. I think it we got time. We can go through it. Um number one, only one wall sign shall be permitted on
the front facade of the building. The wall sign should not protect project outward from the wall to which it is attached more than six inches. Now obviously our other sign code has its own parameters. So there's there's an additional restriction on on that specific one. Two, the area of the sign board should not exceed 25 square ft nor
shall it exceed 10 ft in height. Pole supports for signing should be as decorative as possible composed of materials consistent with the design of the principal structure and have a landscaping base at the foot of the pole a minimum of 5t wide and 5 ft deep with an area of not less than 25 square f feet. So there's another section that
that is specific to WOD. Number three, one secondary wall mount sign not exceeding 25 square feet in area shall be permitted on any side entrance open to the public. Number four, sign made of natural wood material, painted wood or synthetic material with a natural wood appearance. no banners, plywood,
wallboard, product board shall be used for signage. And I can tell you that didn't even apply to any of the signs down there right now, but that's in there. And so any new sign would have to be made of natural wood material and and all that. Uh number five, neon electric message board, variable lighting system, and other eliminated signs shall be
prohibited except where a variance has been granted. Such a variance shall require special permit from the building department, which shall be subject to approval of variance board of adjustment subject to the city's standards of various section. So there's not a whole lot of restrictions anyway leaving that in there, >> right? >> And and nothing in there of any value in
keeping in my opinion. Um so I think all you do in the meantime is is convolute the WOD with these few little things that really doesn't serve the purpose of what you're trying to get to which I agree with. I think we should look at form based code. Um,
>> you could also build on your code on your waterfront code >> if I need to overhaul it to be honest with you. I agree. >> Absolutely. And I'm saying we do need a review of it, but to to eliminate it right now. I just I think it's premature. >> We're not eliminating it. It's it all we're doing is we're taking these five
things which which you agree number five needs to go anyway. So, we're really just taking these other four things which is talking about square footage and a couple of things out of there to align that with the other sign code which I don't see that's any of any detriment. simplifies the sign code for the people that are down there right now. >> Excuse me. >> It simplifies the sign code for the
people that are down there right now. Nobody's going to wooden signs and all these other things. That's just tying their hands. >> Yeah. Well, listen to this. I mean, >> we haven't reviewed what we even want it to look like down there yet. And somebody did at some point in this city. So, >> we can like
>> we can review it, right? >> Zoning did that. I don't know who did it, but somebody did it at some point to to say that how they wanted that to be. We're just coming in and we're saying no, that's not what we want it to be anymore. But we're not reserving
anything for our future review, which we we didn't really do. We just >> would you not agree that we want to come up with a theme for the whole waterfront down there? So, this is one we'll do. We'll incorporate all this into one thing. Right now, I don't think we're prepared to tie anybody's hands on anything because we really don't even know what we want down. So, if I could
again, we're we're way in the trenches here. So, point taken. Um, and it >> Yes, I'm adding. >> Yeah, I do because what I'm requesting is it is a full review. So, it's not that it stays like this. It does through
next month how it reads now, but I wanted to go through and make a review of it to where we could start putting in there what we want for that area. >> So, is is there So, are you so you want to remove it from the agenda? Um, yes. Basically, and I want to and I want to
um workshop to where we would decide what the new code, it would still be a waterfront specific code, but what that would encompass. And in the meantime, we could do, you know, what we need to do for the >> Well, the the the item in hand, the most important thing is it's it's set for
agenda. Okay. And so, and so if I get a motion from you, you want to specifically remove the WOD portion. >> Yes. >> Okay. It has a separate ordinance. >> It does. >> I know we're going to get the individual though.
>> Let's deal with that. Second. So, let's see how this pans out. So, I got a motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Motion to second. Any further discussion? Any public comment? See that? Put a roll call vote. Ashley.
>> Councilman Sullivan. What is your vote? I >> Councilman Hubard, what is your vote? >> I vice mayor. Mayor, your vote. >> Nay. >> May I approve by your vote? >> Nay. Okay. The most does not carry. Um,
so my suggestion would be during that conversation and we'll always have another council woman here as well. Um, we we address the sign code we went forward with and um, if again if there's any tweaks I I it should be pretty much we accept or not at that point. um
>> hoping send it early. >> So, u we should we've we've kind of beat that horse to death. Um the second part of that when we get to WOD, then we can make a decision. We can have a discussion again with everybody here and see what we want to do and then if if we want to address um uh modifying that to
leave it in place, but add the electric sign codes or whatever, we'd have the discussion and we can have that vote as well. Can can I just just have a a suggestion and hope from city manager and legal when it come to that agenda then that's all. >> Sure. >> Yeah, we always have that. Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Thanks. >> Good idea, Christine. >> Anything else? >> I don't be disappointed. >> It's fine. It's fine. I just wanted to bring it to your attention because as I watched those videos, that's the first thing that popped into my mind is I don't know if we want to watch now. I'm going to go watch them, too.
>> And I agree with everybody here, too. right away. You can both you guys are all right, too. I mean, I it's I I get it. >> And I'm not trying to restrict businesses. I just want to make sure that we have a a thorough review of that area and what we want because we only
have this one opportunity to create what we want. And if >> that's what I learned the other day we were here is we really as a council need to come together >> and we need to decide what do we want it to look like down there, right? you know, and we need to we need to quantify that and qualify that and give the the
developers here's what we want it to look like. So when they engineer and design it >> Yeah. they they design it like we want to and we don't >> and the good thing is we do have some time. >> Yes. So um please don't think I was against you on that one. I really wasn't. >> I'm not I'm not worried about that.
>> I love the creativity you bring to the table and if you want to watch five hours of the videos on YouTube, we're all gonna we're we're gonna believe what you saw. I just kind of I want to get that done and get it over. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Okay. We all agree, but we can't vote alike, isn't it? >> Right. >> And and just for information for the
council, that's something that we are looking at, you know, >> regardless >> regardless. And so I should be presenting you something here near future that gives you the concept for your >> that's what I >> adjustment and then, you know, maybe
that'll help with the signage type based on what you see and what you like. And would that go to planning and zoning first before it came to council? It would >> they would basically work all that out and we would get it after that. >> It's a significant effort to introduce that. So >> let them do all the work once you approve it.
>> I know. Yeah. >> That's what we're here for. >> Do you have anything else? >> No, that was it. >> Council Hard. >> I'm good. Thanks. >> Vice Mayor. Mayor, >> um are you going to talk about the uh Tallahassee trip?
>> Okay. I'd love to. I um so uh the mayor and I went to Tallahassee and we went up there with our ask for to re do the firet truck uh money and also to uh get a new vac truck because one's not enough when you're doing as much as Daryl's doing. We need another one of those for
sure and also to get the uh approval for the money for the golf cart crossnet grand and 19 boulevard redesign >> and I'm going to tell you right now there wasn't a person we sat down with from Mr. Jagger to Ed Hoover that weren't like, "Yeah, we like all that." You know, we're and everybody was on
board with it. It was about the right ask and consider. We're going to ask for all we're going to ask for for a water treatment plant next year. You know, I was thinking we were this is pretty good for this year. So, thank you, mayor, and that was a it was a great time to go there. Anybody who gets has an opportunity to go in the future, Christine, it is a great trip and you
get to meet some real cool people and they get to see us. And they said something that really hit home to me and and this is a an absolute hand clap to everybody involved here in the city right now. They said, "Man, we really got a city with some people that know what they're doing now." And that meant a lot to me. So, that goes all the way
down to the chief and uh both chiefs on the fire department, Daryl, you know, all the people that work for us, our new city manager, our mayor, who I think is probably, and I'm going to tell him like it is, and I mean this, probably the best mayor we've ever had here. Um, he works harder than anybody I know. Works harder than me for sure. I don't want his job. I'm gonna tell you that right
now. This dude works harder than anybody. So, thank you for that. And, uh, hats hats off to the rest of you guys. >> Good job. What were the items again? >> The fire truck. We have to renew it because it's not going to be delivered till 27. So, we have to be renewed this year and next year. >> Yeah. And if it's if one thing we need
to really try to do is get that company to get it quicker so we don't have to reappropriate a second year. Um it's it's it's a unfortunate process we have to go through. Be nice. We're going to reappropriate this year. Hopefully that goes through, but we want to close that out before we have to do that again. >> Well, then we can ask for some other
money, you know, instead of asking for the same money over and over again. Unfortunately, I think the stipulations to it is that the truck actually has to be here. >> Yeah. >> Keys in hand. >> Keys in hand. >> Yep. Functioning. >> So then, yeah. And functioning before we can receive those funds. >> But I think we're only a month or two
off of making a deadline. So if we can >> Yeah. Let them know that this is a real pain in the butt. >> Where I was going with that is hats off to us as a city. We are going places and they recognize it and they see it and it's exciting. It really is. >> And they're willing to help >> and they're they're they want to help.
They just want to make sure when they pour money into us, it's going to the right places, which means we got to spend it. We can't be given all this money and not be spending on projects we have. So anyway, >> so I know you're taking notes. So the Grand Boulevard >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Uhhuh. And the um vacuum truck,
>> the crossing. >> Yeah. >> The vacuum truck. >> The back truck. The big It looks like a trash truck that's got a hose comes out of the front. They suck stuff out of the ditches with it. >> Okay. Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, it's like 650,000 I think was our ask for the factor and
then uh 250 for the Grant Boulevard. >> 650 and 250. >> Yeah. >> Good job, Grace. >> So, another >> 350 and 250. >> We have a match. So, it's 300,000 for a grand. Our match is 50,000. >> But we didn't hear any negativity from
anybody anywhere. It was like, hey, you guys are going places, you know, >> and the VA the Vector truck is 750,000. Our match is 100,000. So, we're asking for 650 from state money. >> Not like being under pressure. We're to keep it up now, I guess. Right. >> Yeah. I mean, I got to tell you, next
year we should all go. We should all go up there because if all of us show up there, I mean, you know, Dom was there, he knows. It means a lot to those people when you go up there. It does. >> You know, when you're face to face with them and you're taking pictures with them and you're shaking hands, you're in their office and, you know, they get personal with, they remember your name,
you know, all kinds of stuff. >> Especially that we're going to be looking forward. So, that's a great idea. I think everybody >> if we're at 47 million every one of us going to be there >> with empty water bottles >> with empty water bottles. The encouragement is let's all next year and
go up there, you know, >> yeah. Okay. >> Take them out to dinner. >> Kind of crept up on me this year. I've had >> right at the holidays and I just came back from Tennessee and >> next year if I wanted to go this year, but
>> I'd love for all of us to be able to walk in the office up there. All six or eight of us, you know. >> Me, too. Come on. Let's go. >> Anything else? >> No, that's it. I'm I'm good. >> Okay. Um I do have a couple things. Um just follow on that. Obviously the
lobbying visit was a success. Like I said, I I feel really good that uh u we may not we may not get anything, but uh I think based on the feedback we got that it's going to get in the budget and just if it gets across to the governor's desk, we should get something. So um
like I said, they were they were very um supportive of our of our needs. Um the other thing I wanted to mention, two other things. Uh, one, we need to put a workshop together on the incentive package that was put together to go through that. Um,
um, myself and Don met with uh, the development group uh, on Friday >> and they kind of showed what they were were looking at potentially doing now that they've kind of reassessed things. I think they're still they want to see what's what what's available from an incentive perspective from the city. So,
if we can set up something to go through that uh in detail and try to get something in place. Um, again, we we can we can deal with these guys separately. Um, but it'd be nice to have a policy in place that kind of goes across the
board. Um, so what what's your all schedule like because timing is kind of the essence on >> what dates you looking at? Um, we could possibly I would say if we could do something
first week in February like either the >> I'm completely wiped out the first week. >> That's right. You're going to be gone. >> The second week of February. >> February the first week. >> What about the second Thursday like the 12th? >> There's a workshop on the third. Math is on the bed. >> What about the 12th?
>> I do the 12th. >> The 12th. There isn't a meeting until 6. Historical has a meeting on the 12th. >> That's a six. We can do it before that if you want. >> Yeah. >> Let me look. >> Yeah, I I can do that. I've got the
Mfield meeting at 10:00, but we'll be done by noon. Of course, it's on the other side of town, but I should be good for three >> at work. Your schedule. >> Okay. 3:00 on the 12th. >> 12. 3:00. Yes, sir. >> What are we doing? >> Uh workshop for incentives. So,
obviously everybody has that package that Daryl will put together if you can kind of read up on that, make some notes on. So, hopefully we can get through that pretty quickly. >> And I also got a copy It needs to be distured out. Same I believe it's the same one. >> Yeah, maybe send it back out and
>> was there was that >> prior to you coming on board was developed? >> Yeah, Derek's here. He's actually wanted you did this not to put you on the spot, Derek, but you uh because this will be a CRA workshop. Just wanted to make sure you knew that this is a CRA.
>> This is a CRA program. Yes, >> correct. >> Thank you. And do you um do you put that initial package together right that we had? >> Yes. And the workshop seems to be the next step for that. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I'll show that away. >> Thank you. >> Kind of just giving some
>> options. Were you just out there in your car monitor us? Make sure we were staying in line. Is it >> office? Wow. >> Wow. >> Impressed. After hours you go security love how you d your multitasking know your money's worth all those in place
>> any chance you can do some like weekend code enforcement or anything for us that's >> okay so we got that set that's good u and the last thing I have so I've heard I've heard this complaint for a while um
and I'd like for us to take a look at this and consider it um and we probably need some more information but I do have our water rates. Um the and I've mentioned this before, but since you're new on board, I wanted to kind of run by you. So, our irrigation, just for
council's knowledge, so we have we have folks that have irrigation meters and they have the regular water meters. Irrigation meters um there's no sewer charge associated with those irrigation meters. Um and also has different rate structure. For example, um the
residential tier uh 0 to 4,000 like I mentioned before is $3.64 per thousand gallons. 4,0001 gallons to 8,000 gets charged at $95 per thousand. And then once you get above 8,000 gallons uh to 12,000, it's $11.78.
And on top of that, you have the sewer charges associated with that, which I won't go into. Um that's the city. Uh the county is a little bit higher than that on all of them. Uh just just to give you one example. So the 0 to4 is $364. Um the county charges $455.
and then goes from there. Now our our uh irrigation zero to and this it depends on your line. Um the meter size at 3/4 in 0 to 12,000 gallons is starting build at 1178
which is basically the third tier of the your regular water usage. And so obviously for people that are watering their grass and that they are getting charged a lot higher rate um uh starting off. So basically what this we don't
charge 1178 on the on the other water side until 8,000 gallons have been used but we're starting off the building that and then once you get above 12,000 which then at 12,000 to 20,000 is 1532 on that 3/4 inch meter it goes 1532.
So irrigation is very expensive. The idea behind irrigation meter is again that water >> sewer, >> right? The water's not going sewer, but yet we're we're really charging a higher rate for usage which discourage us. And for people that actually keep their their lawns nice, >> their plans,
>> they're it's really tasking on them and and and specifically some of the uh people that own other properties, other lots that they're trying to keep nice or whatever without houses and stuff on them that they're watering, they get really significant high bills. Um I don't know if this the county. Yeah. So
the county for comparison and they're they're kind of tiered the same way. So on that 3/4 meter to 012 we're 1178. They're at 1473 per thousand. So it's not that we're doing anything necessarily different from anybody else. But there is some
complaints uh about how high those water bills get from some folks. So I don't know if there's any appetite to look at that. Why? Why is it that way? >> I if if is >> I would guess I'd let you take it. My
guess is is that we want to discourage using water just to pump into your grass and all that you want to do. But I think that that's why it's higher. So if if you're doing it's going to cost. >> Several years ago, the city had comparable rates to potable. And remember, this is this is potable
treated water that people are using to irrigate. Many years ago, we tried to get reclaimed system through through the city of Port Richie by tying in with Newport Richie and the council at the time dismissed it. Um I I was a big advocate for reclaimed water for irrigation. It would have dropped the
rates down significantly. Um I think I think the the reclaimed rate is what at the time was $3 $3 and change per thousand. Um, regardless of that, it is a discouragement and it it's aimed to
conserve water. Um, we were taking a bath many, you know, years ago before we started this rate structure. Um, as far as people irrigating, we had we had people in Harbor Point, Sand Pebble, um, you know, most of the associations that the trailer park associations, they were
irrigating hundreds of thousands of gallons a month um, for no reason. if they would have just followed specific um water conservation irrigation type practices and we released that information at the
time we we pushed that out but this is why Pasco County does this currently right now we're under a very tight water restriction I just released some information on that um this is we're um we're at a type we're at type two right now which is very high as far as water
restrictions down to one day a week for watering um only because that you know Swit Run and FD released reports last year stating that this year was going to be very very high as far as very low rainfall and we'd had to tighten the
belt and conserve but these rates are set like this to you know people we don't mind people irrigating but the thing is is that you know this is this is potable treated water that they're using to just basically go into their grass. So um we this rate this rate
system was done we've had uh we did a rates rate study across the board. We analyzed other entities and this is why we're not as high as others but you know marginally the same. Um when it comes to irrigation
>> they can they put a well an irrigation well. I know a lot of people have wells their own well pump is for their mic. Um, it is okay. Sorry. I just leaning forward. I just, you know, it I want to bring it up. Um, in my mind, uh,
and I I get the reason we do it. Um, and if I just take the 0 to4,000, we're charging $3.64 per thousand gallons. In my mind, our cost to treat is less than that or at the very at the very best, it's the same as that, right? Otherwise, we'd be
selling water at a loss. So we get our highest demand of water between 11:00 at night and 3:00 in the morning due to what? Irrigation. >> So it actually costs more to run for for
us to treat irrigation than it is domestic house water. Um cuz when you take a shower using 3 to four gallons a minute, you're on irrigation, you're 23 gallons a minute >> cuz you have five 10 heads on
>> right >> a zone. So your pumps are working harder. Uh your your wells are working harder, you're burning more electricity, your all those factors come into play of producing irrigation water because the demand is obviously higher and we turn
over a lot more. So, >> okay. So, there's a there's a cost difference and I I appreciate that for sure. >> Um, do we and I I would I would love to know um what our average irrigation user
uses from a gallon perspective. I don't know if you probably don't have that off the top of your head, but >> I know when the what is the ones on Washington, the Cody Town Homes or whatever whatever that one is on Washington, I think their bill is
at like $7,000 a month. They were using close to 13,000 gallons a day just in irrigation alone. So it's it just all depends on if everybody's um their their rains orbits
their irrigation things are programmed if they run them every day our usage is going to be higher if they're on if we have strict water restrictions where they have to use them as per the water restriction is because I think we just go off of Pasco County Pasco County's water restrictions
um we follow there. So, uh, we just at night we always pump the most water. We It's some days some nights it's hard for us to keep up. So, >> even when as opposed during the middle of the day, >> plus you got to factor in if any of those properties have broken sprinkler
heads. I mean, large property, the possible that sprinkler head or one or two being broken into that entire irrigation system. Now, that's just water just running >> running constantly that you know >> get a trend for that if you need. >> Yeah. And I and I guess I guess the
question would be if we were to look at lowering that rate or restructuring so it is different. Would that drive different behavior or would we still have the same water usage? I don't think you have people watering more just because the rate changes a dollar per
thousand or something. You know what I'm saying? Um obviously if it gets significant it work out people might I don't know. One thing you could do is on irrigation, you could maybe lower the first tier maybe, but then raise the second tier.
>> So like you want to be reasonable. Okay. But if you're going to be ridiculous, I'm sorry. >> Yeah. And and that's kind of what I'm thinking is if we can look at let's get some more data, take a look at this and see if there's something we can do to, you know, we want to encourage people to well, we we don't want to encourage you
to waste water. Okay. Um we want to and and another question on that. when we have our like we're in there now limited do we shut our irrigation system off or we just people on our system just not to do it I guess right >> we we don't
>> when they say only water once a week >> do we enforce it at night we have nobody going around at night forcing it >> writing tickets or >> so it's on their honor system anyway >> it's kind of you know you're you're it's on the honor system I mean we're not going to have police go and you know knock on doors in the middle of the night saying
>> hey I saw you were yesterday you're water again today I mean unless Chief, you want to want to start that up? >> And water conservation program. We can talk about that. >> And when it's raining, there's probably a sprinkling, too. Chris, >> I'm, you know, in our neighborhood in Harbor Point, many people have gone to
artificial grass. And I'm I pay $400 a month to water my lawn in Harbor Point. I've decided it's gone. I'm getting rid of it. I'm going to go with artificial grass. And I'm going to cut the thing off at the at the the the one that I paid to put in the water irrigation
thing that I've been paying for because at 400 bucks a month, I don't really need grass. I let the dog go to the bathroom on the artificial grass. Go out there and pick it up. >> Right. >> You don't need to mow it either. >> You don't have to mow it either. I cut him off, too. Poor guy. >> S, you had mentioned that years ago uh
you had brought before council a proposal about reclaimed water at a rate of $3 per 10,000. What was that proposal and is that something you said have any record of? >> Uh yeah, I can go back and find the records. I mean um Pasco County was
going to work with FT to run a transmission line from Newport Richie and it was part of a grant that we were we were trying to get. So um I think it was I think forgive me because I this was many years ago. Um I think it was
5050 but regardless it was to run a transmission line from Newport Richie into Port Richie and start providing reclaimed water through you know for for obviously like Waterfront Park and then run it all the way towards uh Harbor Isles in that area. Um that was the
first phase. Second phase was going to be on the Washington side of of uh the city but council voted it down and that grant came and went and gone. But >> do you have any idea why they voted it down? >> They
people just weren't they didn't have the information about reclaimed water. They felt that, you know, that it was basically sewer treated water and they didn't want anything to do with it and it just, you know, there was a couple of citizens that voted against, you know, you know, commented against it. And like
I said, I this Tom O'Neal was a city manager at the time. He was very familiar with this system. you know, when he worked in Newport, he actually helped build the reclaimed system at the time for Newport. Reclaimed water is treated more is actually treated more than than potable
water. Um, you know, Daryl's Daryl's very familiar with reclaimed systems um from his previous previous job. Um, and I was a big advocate of it. It would have saved the city a lot a lot of money. And then, you know, you know, I believe I don't I'm not a fan of using
potable water for for irrigation. I understand that people want to irrigate and I see, you know, the need for it. I I, you know, I hose my own yard. But the thing is is that, you know, you're using potable water where, you know, it's especially now that we're in such a tight a tight time and um as far as
conservation um and water restrictions, you know, I always look for different avenues. We can we can find out um actually Pam Lynch was involved in that as well um years ago when she worked for Pasco County. Um, we can try and explore that again, but it's going to cost way
more than than that was do ours. >> Our service lines for the irrigation meters. >> Do are they separate lines or are they just Y off and it's another meter? >> They're supposed to be separate lines for your own dedicated line.
>> What are they? is >> the ones we've been putting in. Um, if the whip is already not there cuz where Chris lives, they ran up one line with a Y when they built when they subdivided that plied it all out for utilities. Um,
when we get the new ones where we run them, they get their own dedicated line because you're paying for a dedicated irrigation line, not a line tapped off a domestic meter. So >> percentage wise you could even guess in the city the irrigation meters are
they 50% dedicated or >> uh probably less than that we would have more we have more some that are people haven't touched in 13 people turn them off they're locked off as paid for them >> they're locked off
>> so if we were transition to something we there's significant infrastructure involved to do so >> correct >> yeah because obviously another thing Even outside of reclaimed water, you talk about storm water uh management, stuff like that, you have those pond, you could actually water your grass from those type and actually get rid of that
water and help. >> So, I think there's something we could look at. Obviously, >> the the only thing is too um about people putting in private wells is prime example, you have the guy at Broadway in
Washington and the person at um Channel and um Island over there. We have a lot of iron >> destroys everything, >> right? You see >> Yeah. So, just keep that in mind. >> Yeah. Those walls pull straight iron out of the ground, don't they?
>> It's just going to Yeah. Everything's orange, including landscaping. It's >> You can tell who has wealth and who doesn't. So, just by looking at their yard. >> Yes, I'm Chrissy. >> It looks like there might still be some um grants available
for connecting to uh reclaimed water facilities. So, we can just look into that. >> Yeah. In the in the meantime, is there any appetite to look at rate structure at all?
I mean, I actually thought I was saving money getting a irrigation thing, but it sounds to me like I'm actually spending more. If you add the sewer and the water to your and compare it to what the $11 I can give you answer. So, the sewer rate
from 0 to 8,000 is $718. If you add $780 to $364, well, let's let's just use 4,000. So that'd be uh 10 >> 80 something like that. The uh the irrigation is 1178. So it's actually
more expensive for the first 4,000 gallons. You're better off use potable water and pay sudon. >> But but after 4,000 it doesn't get that. >> No, after 4,000 you're at 9 plus 7. So you actually are saving Al said if you got a broken >> So that that right there that that
example right there shows that we need to restructure as rates because it should actually be cheaper for you to irrigate your first 4,000 gallons than so that would there's a there's an adjustment right there that would be easy to make to at
least make that the same. But I I think we should just look at that. >> I don't know how much more it takes to how much water does it take to water hon. Well, that's that's the thing is that there's there's a lot of education out there. You'd be surprised how much water it really takes. It doesn't take as much as people think. And the thing
is is that before we impose these rates, >> they were so low people just watered as long as they >> care until they get, you know, a big bill. >> They people in a lot of people's minds, they figure, well, if I water every day, the grass will always stay green. That's not true because you develop you develop
fungus, you develop mold in the grass, it kills the grass and then you know people just will keep watering thinking that it's dying. There's a lot of education out there provided by Swift Mud. We've posted information, you know, we try and get it out there to people um in and
there's there's a lot of and then there's Florida friendly type of processes. People are switching to artificial turf. people are switching to, you know, the higher type of grass, Florida friendly plants, things like that which require very little irrigation at all. So, there's a lot of
those things to consider. Um, we can always bring the rate ordinance, you know, want to look at it, you know, at a at a future meeting or a workshop, that's fine. But you know once again you know this you finance director can speak on this is that you know it's right now
we you know we have a utility fund and uh you know we're talking about money for infrastructure things like that moving forward you know is that something we want to cut. So I mean there's there's some conversations as well for the public's
edification. Adam gave a thumbs down on that. So with a pouty face. Um um I it again I just want to bring it up. Is do you guys have any appetite to move forward to kind of help out some of these folks that are with the high water bills? Um
>> they need to use less water. >> Yeah. And and and I I would say that u at least looking at maybe a 0 to 4,000 to make that and that helps your everyday person as well. I I'd make a motion we change it to 0 to 4,000 at the regular. We can't
do that now. I just it talk about it. If you go that any >> if wants to talk there if they got some suggestions for the >> and staff look brings back something we can kind of maybe potentially. Okay. >> Well, if we can we will >> a second.
>> No, we just by consensus. So >> thanks. Thanks. There' be some happy folks there. That's all I have. So that look for a motion. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second Christine. All right. All in favor
signify by saying I. I mean take five. Go back to Adam and