Loading...
1982-12-15 Special Meeting3225 82 -41 AGENDA ITEM #XVII - ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:40 P.M. Edward W. Douglas, D.C. Chairman /Mayor City of Okeechobee ATTEST: Bonnie S. omas, CMC City Clerk City of Okeechobee THERE IS A TAPE OF THIS MEETING IN ITS ENTIRETY ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. SPECIAL MEETING WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1982 The City Council of the City of Okeechobee, Florida, met in special session at 7:30 P.M., Wednesday, December 15, 1982, in the City Council Chambers at 55 Southeast Third Avenue, Okeechobee, Florida. Vice Chairman Donald Burk called the meeting to order with the following Councilmen present: Donald Burk, Vice Chairman Dowling Watford, Jr. Oakland Chapman James H. Knight Chairman /Mayor Edward W. Douglas arrived a few minutes into the meeting. Others present were: Bonnie S. Thomas, City Clerk Richard C. Fellows, City Administrator David M. Conlon, City Attorney L.C. Fortner, Jr., Director of Public Works L. Keith Tomey, Fire Chief Larry Mobley, Police Chief Oscar Thomas, Councilman elect Janice M. Mann, Deputy Clerk AGENDA ITEM #I - CITY HALL EXPANSION Vice Chairman Burk explained to those present the special meeting was called by Mayor Douglas for the purpose of reconsidering the alternatives agreed on at the last regular meeting for the expansion of City Hall. Vice Chairman Burk opened the floor for discussion on the building expansion alternatives. Councilman Watford reaffirmed his position that the two -story addition over the Fire Station was the best alternative. Reasons being 1) cost per square foot much lower, 2) most square footage for the money, and 3) less disruptive while construction takes place. 3226 82 -48 Council discussed the alternatives and arrangements with input from Clerk Thomas, Chief Mobely and Chief Tomey. Councilman Watford noted the cost of alternate #7 would be Sixty -Five Thousand Five Hundred Thirty -Three Dollars ($65,533.00) unfinished or Seventy -Five Thousand Five Hundred Thirty -Three Dollars ($75,533.00) finished. Fire Chief Tomey advised that according to Florida Power & Light Company, once two buildings are joined that had two separate meters, you have to condense down to one meter and one electrical source. Therefore, joining the Fire Station to City Hall may require extensive rewiring which could be costly. Council discussed the matter. Motion was made by Councilman Chapman to go with alternate #8, finish off the first floor only, second story left as shell. Motion died for lack of second. Councilman Burk agreed with the suggested alternate of Councilman Watford, finished for Seventy -Five Thousand Five Hundred Thirty -Three Dollars ($75,533.00), but no more. Chief Mobley stated any problems with the departments being split could be worked out. Councilman Watford moved to accept alternates #4 and #7, the three (3) bays, finished for Seventy -Five Thousand Five Hundred Thirty -Three Dollars ($75,533.00), seconded by Councilman Burk. Councilmen Watford and Burk voted yes. Councilmen Chapman and Knight voted no. Chairman Douglas called for further discussion before voting, noting this alternative would be limiting the utilization of space by all the departments. The addition would be primarily for the Police Department and Fire Department only. Council discussed the matter further and Administrator Fellows detailed how the original plans for a small addition has escalated into the City Hall renovation project. Citizen Andy Rubin felt the Council should study the options further, either do the entire project or do nothing at all. After careful consideration, Chairman Douglas voted no on the motion to accept alternates #4 and #7. Motion denied by a three (3) to two (2) vote. Councilman Chapman moved to table the issue until the first regular meeting in January, seconded by Councilman Knight. Motion carried. Councilman Watford moved to rescind the action at the last meeting (December 7th) to build a one -story addition connecting the two structures, seconded by Councilman Chapman. Motion carried. AGENDA ITEM #II - OTHER MATTERS Councilman Knight expressed concern regarding the action taken authorizing the expenditure of Two Hundred Eleven Thousand Dollars ($211,000.00) for Broome, VanOstran and Associates in relation to the Farmers Home Administration sewage project. Knight 3227 82 -51 felt with that large a sum of money involved, it should have been put out for bids. Administrator Fellows advised, "on a project of this nature it is to the City's advantage to deal with an engineering firm close by (preferably a local firm)." Fellows further noted, "we are not required under the Statutes, when we have a 'continuing contract' with a consulting engineer, to go out for competitive bids on projects of this nature, because the contract covers that. Under the 'Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act' you are not required to bid a project such as this if you have a continuing contract." Council discussed briefly the ramifications of putting it out for bids. Chairman Douglas brought up for discussion the need to set a policy for the Certificates of Deposit (CD) bidding process. Clerk Thomas explained that Harbor Federal (outside the City limits but within the County) has always been on the City's bid proposal list. (Formerly First of Fort Pierce). Mrs. Valerie Lewis, representative of Harbor Federal, was present and noted that Harbor Federal offers services to City residents and employes City residents. Mrs. Lewis felt all would benefit if Harbor Federal is allowed to continue being a part of the bidding process. Council discussed the bid proposal process. Clerk Thomas asked, "are you saying that if we go outside the City limits then we will have to go to other places too ?" Councilman Watford answered, "if that's the reason for going outside the City limits because of a higher yield, maybe there is a difference between just going outside the City limits and going outside the County, or outside the state." Councilman Chapman commented, "you should stay in the County." Administrator Fellows noted, "the last bid I had on the State, Mr. Mayor, was about 10.58 %, daily basis compounded. And we discussed that at a previous meeting." Councilman Burk inquired, "when we're talking about bids, are we talking about bids or proposals ?" Clerk Thomas stated, "proposals." Councilman Burk continued, "I don't have any problem with this County concept, keeping it within the County, honoring any institution in the county. But to go any further than that as far as the bids are concerned, I'm not terribly interested in the bid idea, the proposal idea gives you some room to negotiate. That has been the pattern of the past and it's been very successful. It has also enabled us to take advantage of the best rates that we can get. It gives a one on one opportunity to the Finance Director to do those negotiations and I just think it's working out fine. And the only change, if a change is necessary, I would want to include institutions County wide. But other than that I wouldn't want to go any further that. The bid concept doesn't interest me at all. The proposal concept does." TI 1 3228 Councilman Watford questioned, "is that being fair then to our institutions inside the City limits? For example if an institution outside the City limits were to get the funds. If it was the same rate and we gave it to the institution outside the City limits, don't you think the institution inside the City limits would be very upset." Councilman Burk answered, "that's why it is a good idea to leave it open for negotiation with the people that have to face this issue day by day. It would seem logical since we have followed that concept of awarding it on the basis of what's best for the City over -all. A part of a percentage point probably in the judgement of those officers wouldn't warrant going outside the City limits, but they do have that flexibility. I think it's terrific to have it like that, yet we don't exclude people who are on the County level from making proposals. And if it were in the City's best interest to go that route we do have that option. I don't think we ought to box ourselves in and not at least have the option open to us." Councilman Chapman added, "I agree with Mr. Burk on that proposal. And I would also like to say that, I'm sure that a lot of the City residents borrow money and use the facilities. As long as it stays in the County, negotiable, don't have any problem with the County. It just makes the other people sharpen their pencils the next time." Councilman Knight commented, "I don't have any problem with just leaving it as it is, same procedure. If they bid high enough to make it worthwhile to do business with them as compared to inside the City, just leave it up to their discretion." Councilman Watford asked if a percentage should be set. Administrator Fellows advised, "that is kind of difficult to do. We have to be real flexible in this regard. There are so many accounts, so many different ways of doing it (7 day, money market, 30 day, 90 day), we have to be completely flexible. I think that we should have the right to play one against the other and get the best deal we can for the City." Councilman Watford asked, "if we call one institution, though should we call them all ?" Clerk Thomas stated, "definitely." Administrator Fellows added, "and if we are going to have Harbor submit proposals, we will negotiate with them to." Clerk Thomas asked, "the opinion then is to include Harbor Federal in my proposal process." Chairman Douglas stated, "yes ". Council concurred. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the special meeting adjourned at 9:10 P.M. ATTEST: 9onnie S. Thomas, CMC City Clerk City of Okeechobee Edward W. Douglas, D.C. Chairman /Mayor City of Okeehcobee THERE IS A TAPE OF THIS MEETING IN ITS ENTIRETY ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF OKEECHOBEE COUNCIL CHAMBERS SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1982 7:30 P.M. I. Further discussion relative to proposed plans for expansion of City Hall. II. Any other matters III. Adjournment