Loading...
2000-09-12 Workshop w/ OUACITY OF OKEECHOBEE SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 CITY/OUA JOINT WORKSHOP SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION CALL TO ORDER. II. ATTENDANCE. III. DISCUSS FIRE HYDRANTS WITHIN THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE. IV. ADJOURNMENT. PAGE 1 OF t Okeechobee Utility Authority Chair, Monica Clark called the workshop to order at 7:00 p.m. Those in attendance were: Mayor James Kirk, Council members Chandler, Markham, Oliver, and Watford. City Administrator Veach, City Attorney John Cook, Deputy Clerk Gamiotea, OUA Board Members Monica Clark, Steve Nelson, Carl Leonard, Melanie Anderson, Jack Coker, and Kim Collier. OUA Executive Director L .C. Fortner, OUA Attorney Tom Conely, OUA Finance Director Jim Paul, OUA Engineer John Hayferd. City Fire Chief Tomey, County Commissioner John Abney, County Assistant Administrator Jim Threewits and Citizen Clayton Williams. There was not official action taken atthis workshop. The purpose of the workshop was tc h ar from all p xitias regaruinc the maintenance of current fire hydrants and installation of future fire hydrants. Who is rasnnr-sible for purchasing the!r, and maintaining them. The OUA will be forwarding maps to the City Fire Department outliving areas where new wate line upgrades will be implemented within the City. OUA Chairperson adjourned the workshop at 8:30 p.m. CITY OF OKEECHOBEE AND OKEECHOBEE UTILITY AUTHORITY SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 - 7:00 PM - WORKSHOP HANDWRITTEN MINUTES MEETING CALLED TO ORDER:7:00 by Clark THOSE ATTENDING: Jim Kirk Noel Chandler Bob Oliver Lowry Markham Dowling Watford Bill Veach Lane Gamiotea John Cook Steve Nelson Carl Leonard (Alternate) Melanie Anderson (Alternate) Jack Coker Kim Collier Monica Clark Jim Paul Tom Conley John Hayferd, Keith Tomey, Clayton Williams, Jim Threewits, John Abney When they formed the utility authority the fire hydrants were not addressed in the interlocal except the maintenance agreemenct, we'd maintain those on line at that time, we want to keep open discussion between the city county, buckhead ridge on this issue, go around, have everyone Oliver - city and oua have 1 issue, county another issues, split cost with oua and city, don't know if county can make the same decision as the city clark - city put in hydrants inside limits, outside developer or county paid, 480 on line today, over 200 in city, much greater number that need to go into the county than the city oliver - part of business, bad decision in retrospec kirk - is it your boards opinion when you put in new lines you shouldn't pay clark - bylaws, developers, etc will pay for hydrants, any new lines tha tgo in will be paid for by land owner or developer and we have not made an exception of that since formed 5 years ago, county and deveoper V terrace, new building denied permiting, what they decided to do, county levied special tax to pay for hydrant all accessed to pay for hydrant, ea lot accessed, oua has only been paying for one that needed to be replaced. We are trying to do replacement lines right now, some fire hydrants are far apart, development has come in and the question is do you want fire hydrants and that's what started this whole thing, additional? Clark - additional hydrants, city rule was 1000 feet apart, maintenance agmt is nfpa standards depending on occupancy, 800 ft. Kirk - oua not going to be putting any lines down the street and no hydrants unless someone request and pays for them? Yes clark - same policy you had kirk - talking about street with houses with no developer involved your not going to put a hydrnat in? Clark - the way we've been doing it is we write letters to county, city and say we are going to upgrade the system do you want hydrants. Watford city paid for some a few years ago clark - 4 hydrants 2 years ago watford - don't know how they got paid for, don't remember council approving the payment of them. Lc - sent letter over there, adminis and fire chief letter back saying they wanted some watford - we may have approved that, admin call sometimes, don't think abou tthe whole issue when your called, unfortunate we didn't think about this many years ago, feel like when we did this my opinion was the, and fire hydrants aren't part of the water business, that's the logic here, from my stnad point i thought when we turned this over and we were out of it, city out of the utility business and i gues we assumed that everything going on now will continue except it's going to get better, and a lot of aruguement why it'd be better, never dreamed we'd pay for anything we use to pay for, the city didn't apy for those hydrants, the utlitity dept did and that's part of it, could see if your buying a new fire truck, but that hydratn and everything under that hydrant is utilities, where you break it off, oliver thought the 50 50 split appropriate and the city may be lucky to get that, yall hold the cards here, if you say your not doing there is not a lot we can do, it was turned over to the utility authoirty, agree w/ bob, 2 issues, county issue isn't as well defined and I don't know how many hydrants the city needs, understand for the county it's huge, the same people are papying for this, either out of taxes or water bill, rather water bill, have more to spread it out, i think that's the way it should be, we're already raising taxes, the city council has been deiligent with spending, had to raise last year, raise this year, realize big issue with the county, if it was just city clark - we have to look at it the whole system watford - just trying to defend city point here, how far do you need these hydrants, same issue raised in the county, how far apart clark - separate issue, can't have same whoever pays should say how far apart watford - look at area to also see how many you need, logical stand point, why do you, long speach to say what i said kirk - having been one of the poeple who went through this process, had I had any idea in my mind that we would be having a discussion on hydrants, we woulnd't be here tonight, very unfortunate, it would have been a stopper at that point, i think collier - essential to community that they see we're all inthis together wouldn't be against 5050 split, not addressed in that agmt', for th ebenefit of how this authorty will work in the future, think that's essential. Whole county and city so we're all benefiting, and that is the reason why we formed the authoirty, glad to see us sitting down at this workshop chandler - interlocal agreement does address it, what they oua assumed responsibility, all lines. Etc, obligations that of the city utilities (read from interlocal) apparantly we nevery thought about it, if you put in a new line, you put in a hydrant and show you where you put in new line put in utilities budget, even upgraded lines to hold hydrants, it was in there, no one ever saw it, that's my view, think in our code book it addresses that veach - provision in code book, read section aloud, chandler - everything in this transfer ya'll were goign to take it over, wells were never addressed either but you took those, fire hydrant if you need it. Clark - assume any current, new lines were paid for by land owners or developer, where it comes into an issue is the maintaining in the lines, there had not been a lot of maintenance where this became in issue because chandler - se 5th avenue and 18th street, clark - that was a new line chandler - no extension and utilities paid for it Ic - it was a new line, 70 east when it was widened. Chandler - your saying anything watford - there is no disagreemnt, new development developer pays, noel is saying the city did the function when a line was upgraded, from the way your decribing your treating the city as a developer or land owner clark - it's an optiion watford - if we want them we got to pay for them clark - another example is everglades blvd, you can put themin every 1000 800 feet, county put in 27 and paid for them, there were some areas that were not developed yet on that street. Nelson - agree with bob there is a problem I'm always the one that's straight forward, it is my personal opinion, oua may want to consider paying half and move on to more important issues, we are a byproduct of them, not fair for each to pay 100 percent, 50 50 split hole thing put to bed, my opinion may not reflect jack - what ever we do for the city we have to do for okee county and glades county, and we're talking about figures here that can get out there, it gets to be a little mind bolging when you look at whole system, you asked us to furnish water for the area that emcompases the area, if we take money and put in hydrants we all know where it's coming from, you'd rather see it come from our uses, I'd rather see it come from your tax payers, cannot simply do 50 50, going to fix itself, some burden in city and county put on, replaced those, to say split it it bothers me, I'd like to move on with it even though it has cos the consumer some money. Chandler - we are in a unique position because the city had the only department, jack - they gave things also chandler - the interlocal says you will take responsbility of the utilities department and if that is what they didi that is what you are suppse to do. Jack - you feel city is specailly priviledged chandler - according to agmt' yes i do Watford - henges on where water supply verses fire fighting, firefighter says got to have hydrant, got to have truck to, grand and glorius things to attrack industry don't you need hydrants, sure but if you are trying to entice someone to come in here to show them here we can give you something that the other county carl - it's not a gift, somebody pays for it, city wants to be privildeged in this, county tax payer, my taxes goes go rather than water rates, 37 cents a month and had people complaining about that, more of an increase if we're talking hydrants. Oliver - city doens't want to be priviledged just unique situation carl - how do we have 3 separate rules, olvier - do it all the same 50 50 put hydrant in split it kirk - just for upgrading lines jack - thats why i say it's goign to corrrect itself clark - no necessarily true, county under certian rules, vacant lots that will not have fire protection on that street, am I not correct, not sure we ar egoing to totally correct this, as long as you have people doing in fill, so it's developer not necessarily land owner kirk - theory upgrade line this year and you need 10 hydrants, 10 years from now same line needs to be upgraded need another 10 hydrants, city pay again, clark - as people build then now require hydrants when they get their permits so that problem should be corrected it's only existing jack - does not oua replace hydrants that we already had, that obligation we assumed, kirk - only upgrade clarke - only thing wrong is developer coming kirk - only lines tha tare existing lines chandler - 30 years ago houses far apart, when utility upgraded line the utility paid for them within the city, we started putting in lines and we should have put more in, your still doing the same thing, upgrading line Ic - obligating interesting your taking tha tpoint, bonds we took over, chandler - read it as whole obligation clark - when we took it over how would we know what rules apply chandler - city only one who had dept and rules clark - chandler - that wasn't the issues, if there is an upgrade in the city your should do as they did collier - no focus on past 30 years, but on future 30 yrs. Kirk - if you ar echarging residents now when you put in line, why not do it? Clark - that's is one way, done that in county, they use it special assessment, that is another option. Jack - when you open up, 50 lots, people build, you should get with your neighbor and pay for the hydrants kirk - that's an alterante we need to look at, may be only one we might all agree to clark - same agreement with whole system jack - have to be understanding, leaves a little bit of bad taste, fire hydrants, not park, quality of water, take that and put that in one little place and that's what we get, your tax structure is our rate structure dowling - everybody pays water not everybody pays taxes jack - but they get fire protection kirk - got any place the we might be able to go on carl - no doubt about it clark - one of the questions i asked was how many people coming to council that they don't have a fire hydrant in front of my street, none in 30 years carl - jims' point is well taken, workable item and whether the city or who does it, seems to make collier - willing to levy assessment? Kirk - rather not collier - tom - based on a special benefit, watford, don'g have to agree to it just do it tom - basically yes, like a street paving watford - only one time and the people asked for it clark - we can't tell these people they have to put a hydrant on their street jack - we inherited 408 sewer customers hook up, maybe times are changing, houses today ar ewilling to hook up, we're not 25,000 homes anymore, we're bbulidng 150,000 homes, hydrants cost, insurance will drop, estute people see this. Watford - do we have an idea how many hydrants? Tom - problem is need and water supply may not meet jack - can't on 4 inch line clark - replacing lines now they are chandler - 10 or 20 year plan clark - wish list based on revenues Ic - have drawing here that shows some of those, forced to DOT four laned, roads have to keep the money available clark - what do we have on the books now Ic - this is an older map, 441 N to cemetery road new water line, 70 West from RR to replacing new lines, upgrades extend to 98, N 6th Street, could put hydrants on them, some on them now NE section getting right and tying in, behind Usave on 4th Street east, 7th avenue no hydrants in area, 9th avenue, okee estates, start puting in hydrants, shorting lines, one at old fin in buckhead ridge clark - put in perspective, none in oak park watford - theory is none anyway unless you upgrade that line, nothing said about oak park clark - accept new standard and then put in new area, have to had same street, kirk - only fair way carl - only choice here clark - who is going to determine where they go fire departments jack - good to see both parts, good understanding, why it's not a matter of just not doing it but be fair to everybody watford - any other tool? Pumper trucks clark - my dad and brother, clewiston, pumper truck have out before hooked up to hydrant nelson - example you can use, have to use alternates, extermely lucky this year and last, drive into those communities where they couldn't use hydrants during a fire, tremendous expenditure for a hugh tanker clark - county uses that now they don't have hydrant, most county hydrants ar ein the commercial areas only, veach - i live in the county i wish they were john - even if one is not required at this time, consider a t or plug so they could put one in later clark - every 800 ftt? John - wherever, let that be part of your planning process, matter of what is ecquiliable, and get the most out of it, when you have line extension thos who are going to benefit should bear the cost. Keith - no where in city more than 2000 ft dowling - we don't' need any then keith if they give us a map like this I could help them with planning. Keith some areas, majority are less clark - fire dept gets a rating jack - good point, city doesn't have as mcuh as a problem watford - if we only need 5 hydrants then lets pay for it and get it over with jack - clark - 3 years 6 hydrants, and replaced some