1993-02-1610
CIE OKEEC
1�o you
;"
0►'I�i111,
--z"
C I T Y O F 0 Y E E C H 0 B E E
C I T Y C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G
FEBRUARY 16, 1993 — 7:00 P.M.
SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION
Paae 1 of 8
COUNCILMFMBtRS ACTION
VOTE
YES
NO
Nf
Mayor Kirk called the February 16, 1993 meeting to order at 7:00
A. Call Meeting to order on February 16,
1993 at 7:00 p.m.
p.m.
B. Invocation offered by Councilman Watford;
Invocation offered by Councilmember Dowling R. Watford, Jr;
Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Kirk.
Mayor Kirk led the Pledge of Allegiance.
C. Mayor and Council attendance:
Mayor James Kirk
Present
X
Councilmember Danny P. Entry
Present
X
Councilmember Michael G. O'Connor
Present
X
Councilmember Jerry E. Walker
Present
X
Councilman Dowling R. Watford, Jr.
Present
X
Staff attendance:
Attorney John R. Cook
Present
X
Administrator John J. Drago
Present
X
Clerk Bonnie S. Thomas
Present
X
Deputy Clerk S. Lane Gamiotea
Present
X
D. Motion to dispense with reading and
Mayor Kirk noted a correction in the February 2, 1993 minutes, page
approve the Summary of Council Action
seven, paragraph one, $550,000.00 should read $500,000.
for the Regular Meeting of February 2,
1993.
Councilmember Entry made a motion to dispense with reading and
approve the Summary of Council Action for the Regular Meeting of
February 2, 1993 as corrected; seconded by Councilmember
O'Connor.
February 16. 1993 - Reaular Meeting - Page 2 of 8
LOUNCILM6M$FRS ACTION
VOTE
yFS
Vote on motion to approve minutes:
D. Summary of Council Action continued:
KIRK
X
ENTRY
X
O'CONNOR
X
WALKER
X
WATFORD
X
MOTION CARRIED.
E. Motion to approve Warrant Registers for
Councilmember Watford made a motion to approve the Warrant
January, 1993:
Registers for January, 1993 in the amounts: General Fund two
hundred twenty-six thousand nine hundred eighty-seven dollars,
General Fund ........ $226,987.62
sixty-two cents ($226,987.62) and Public Utilities eight hundred
Public Utilities .... $872,103.31
seventy-two thousand one hundred three dollars, thirty-one cents
($872,103.31); seconded by Councilmember Walker.
KIRK
X
ENTRY
X
O'CONNOR
X
WALKER
X
WATFORD
X
MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST FOR THE ADDITION, DEFERRAL OR
WITHDRAWAL OF ITEMS ON TODAY'S AGENDA.
None.
F. NEW BUSINESS
1. Motion to appoint Mr. Michael
Councilmember Entry made a motion to appoint Mr. Michael Turbeville
Turbeville as a new Water Treatment
as a new Water Treatment Plant Operator; seconded by Councilmember
Plant Operator - City Administrator
O'Connor.
Mr. Turbeville was introduced and welcomed by Mayor and Council.
KIRK
X
ENTRY
X
O'CONNOR
X
WALKER
X
WATFORD
X
MOTION CARRIED.
1
1 7
February 16, 1993 - Reqular Meeting - Page 3 of 8
E. NEW BUSINESS
(.OUNCILMEMBERS ACTION
VOTE
YES
NO
Attorney Cook explained to Council Patrolman Eide is currently on
2. Motion to grant Jo Eide a 90 day
Administrative Leave of Absence —
light duty due to an injury while off duty. An old injury has
Police Chief (Exhibit 1).
reactivated prohibiting her to come off light duty. She is
currently under Doctors care. Chief Mobley does not have any
more light duty work for her therefore according to the handbook
we are requesting the Council approve a ninety day administrative
leave of absence. Patrolman Eide is not requesting this leave
nor is she contesting it.
Councilmember Walker asked Chief Mobley how this was going to
effect the number of patrolman he needs.
Chief Mobley explained Patrolman's leave is without pay therefore
her pay will be used to hire another patrolman while she is out.
Councilmember Watford made a motion to grant Jo Eide a ninety day
administrative leave of absence without pay as recommended by the
Police Chief; seconded by Councilmember O'Connor.
KIRK
X
ENTRY
X
O'CONNOR
X
WALKER
X
WATFORD
X
MOTION CARRIED.
3. Motion to award a $70,000.00 Force
Councilmember Watford made a motion to award a seventy thousand
Main Valve Installation Contract to
dollar ($70,000.00) Force Main Valve Installation Contract to P
P & C Construction, Inc. — City
& C Construction, Inc. for two valve installations along U.S.
Administrator (Exhibit 2).
Highway 441; seconded by Councilmember Entry.
Following brief discussion among Council and staff, vote is as
follows:
KIRK
X
ENTRY
X
O'CONNOR
X
WALKER
X
WATFORD
X
MOTION CARRIED.
February 16, 1993 - Reqular Meeting - Page 4 of 8
13
F. NEW BUSINESS
COUNCILMEMBERS ACTION
VOTE
YES
NO
4. Discuss the Comprehensive Plan
Administrator Drago began discussion by explaining to the Council
Amendment Procedures - City
in Exhibit Three is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process and
Administrator (Exhibit 3).
Application to allow citizens to petition the Council for
Comprehensive Plan amendments from a map and text standpoint.
Currently the City does not have a process and he recommends the
Council adopt this one.
Administrator Drago continued further explaining the burden of
responsibility as far as paying for the plan amendment lies
solely with the person who petitions the Council. The process
sets up a once a year six week "window" for citizens to apply to
make map or text changes. A $500.00 deposit is given to the City
when the application is completed for advertising, legal and
administrative costs. If the cost to do the amendment is less
than the $500 amount, the difference will be refunded to the
citizen or if the application is withdrawn the amount is
refunded. Should the amendment exceed the $500.00 amount then
another $500.00 deposit will have to be posted. Each amendment
will be handled separately and each will have a ledger sheet to
keep track of the costs. The Council also sits as the Local
Planning Agency which is going to require additional meetings and
workshops for the Council.
Councilmember Watford was concerned with refunding fees and
whether this was the correct way to handle it.
Mayor Kirk made it clear the City would not be generating
revenues from this deposit. The City wants the applicant to bear
the expense and this would give the Council an instrument to do
this whether it is $500 or $100 they are still going to have to
pay for this process as it goes, not after we are through with
it. They should not object to that.
Councilmember Watford questioned the amount of times the
Comprehensive plan could be amended. The proposed process states
it will be amended once a year, however, we can amend it twice a
year.
February 16. 1993 - Reqular Meetinq - Page 5 of 8
F.
VOTE
YES
NO
NEW BUSINESS
COUNCILMEMBERS ACTION
Administrator Drago responded, that is correct and the reason for
4. Comprehensive Plan Continued:
this is the time the amendments take. Council could be doing
amendments twelve months if they allow the amendments for twice
a year. He further gave a brief outline of how the process will
operate:
1. Advertisement is given to Clerk's Office giving "Notice" the
City is taking applications;
2. Citizens pick up applications and fills them out completely;
3. Citizen submits $500.00 deposit;
4. After April 2nd, applications are reviewed, indexed and
numbered;
5. City Attorney reviews them;
6. Council reviews them and chooses the ones they wish to
endorse, then the process begins for workshops, public
hearings and Department of Community Affairs review of
amendments.
Mayor Kirk and Councilmember Watford felt the Council should
allow applications be taken twice a year.
Councilmember Walker made a motion that we adopt the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedures amending it where it will
be twice a year; seconded by Councilmember Watford.
KIRK
X
ENTRY
X
O'CONNOR
X
WALKER
X
WATFORD
X
MOTION CARRIED.
1
February 16, 1993 - Regular Meeting - Page 6 of 8
F. NEW BUSINESS
c"OUNCILMEMBERS ACTION
VOTE
YES
W
Mr. Wheeler appeared before the Council addressing the issue of
5. Hear from Mr. Marvin Wheeler - Mr.
Marvin Wheeler (Exhibit 4).
garbage collection before 6:30 a.m. by L.P. Sanitation and showed
the Council a copy of the "Summary Sheet" from the franchise
agreement which lists the time the garbage collection can begin
and end in residential and commercial areas. He stated he had
been wakened on several mornings at 3:00 a.m. due to the loud
noise of the garbage trucks. He asked if anyone in the audience
had had the same thing happen to them, several citizens present
raised their hands.
Mayor Kirk instructed Administrator Drago to send a letter to
L.P. Sanitation stating Mr. Wheeler's complaint and remind them
of the time frames they are allowed to collect garbage under
their contract with the City.
6. Hear from Mr. Ronald Schmidt - Mr.
Mr. Schmidt approached the podium and addressed the Council
Ronald Schmidt (Exhibit 5).
concerning the award of the 1993 Paving Program to the current
contractor who is completing the 1992 Paving Program without
requesting bids.
Administrator Drago, Councilmember Watford and Attorney Cook
explained to Mr. Schmidt the Council awarded a $100,000 Change
Order at the January 19th Council meeting. Further explaining,
in doing so the City saved money by not having new specifications
drawn by an engineer and having bid requests sent out. The
Council did this in 1988 for the $1.3 million Paving Program.
Mr. Schmidt requested the Council send out smaller bids to allow
local businesses to bid on projects and that he would have liked
to have bid on the 1993 Paving Program.
Mayor Kirk encouraged Mr. Schmidt to continue to bid on City
projects in the future and he appreciated his comments however,
the Council has already approved the Change Order.
�1
iW
February 16, 1993 - Regular Meeting - Page 7 of 8
F. NEW BUSINESS
LOUNCILMEMBERS ACTION
VOTE
VES
NO
�UNT
7. Hear from Bion Technologies - Mr.
Mr. Norman appeared before the Council introducing himself, his
Mike Norman (Exhibit 6).
wife Becky and Jon and Jere Northrup of Bion Technologies. His
purpose for this presentation concerns the City's wastewater
treatment plant. Further stating Bion Technologies feel their
technology, which has been used on several dairies in Okeechobee
County for treating agricultural runoff, would be valuable to the
City. He then turned the presentation over to Mr. Jere Northrup.
Mr. Jere Northrup told the Council of his background and
education. He then showed a slide presentation of an existing
wastewater treatment plant, which basically uses the same type of
system they are proposing, in Amherst, New York, where he was the
supervisor for ten years. He continued by further explaining
the natural biology technology which is based on evaporation.
Mr. Jon Northrup addressed the Council explaining they estimate
a $2.6 million cost to convert the City's existing wastewater
treatment plant. Bion would finance the project up front and
construct it and would not expect return payment until the system
is up and running. In conclusion, Bion feels by the City
incorporating their technologies to the existing wastewater
treatment plant, the City would reduce capital cost and
maintenance cost by reducing the amount of transportation off
site and could save the City between $6 and $7 million from the
cost of the conventionally built wastewater treatment plant.
Jon and Jere answered many questions from the Council. Mayor
Kirk thanked them for their time further stating a lot of this
sounds good but it depends on the meeting with the Department of
Environmental Regulation on March 4, 1993 for permitting.
Administrator Drago also reminded the Council Phase II of the
wastewater treatment plant expansion has been completed. In
March the Council should be hearing a presentation from Knepper
and Willard. The Council will have to decide then whether to
continue on to Phase III or try Bion Technologies system.
February 16. 1993 - Reqular Meetinq - Page 8 of 8
COUNCILMEMBERS ACTION
VOTE
VES
NO
NT
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Kirk:
There being no further items on the agenda, Mayor Kirk adjourned
the meeting at 8:47 p.m.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT IF ANY PERSON
SHOULD DECIDE TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE
AT THIS MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, SUCH
PERSON WILL NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING IS MADE WHICH
INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON
WHICH E APPEAL IS BASED.
z
J E. Kirk, Mayor
Attest: y'
Bon-nie S, on as, CMC, City Clerk
.A
LEI
C-1
'cLam- � �
h. MO.'�3n�
oa�&
t111
�
,i
Lc1n�1�TY1.���'! �
tun p
AA
I rn 12td I q I "
®aQ
v. 1 1 L ! ._I � � � if/ •
rol I I -I
�I I� ICI
� m
�II (A A I I V) 4-n 1 `1ti A 44 AV nmA n-Lnt
laa ol rA 1
QlQzrlod ( ma
fit
q.2.
c U
j
r 1
1�
+ f �.
Ri�uQ�
2/1c93
i i ,1 , � � i��♦
�r �I►
r
♦ �� �I► i
LQL
�o C�tnUAdL#OA
� � � ,yy� yc.�d hors .3
OAt
dicvd
V�b�u7 (`Ctv� Gj � .kB�amC� �D uri�4o
Q la �U�L
"UChurn�
�-c QPP
�aA Cb�ni3 ni�-D haaue tz� l�ev�av� 4v�
4.�
u�� gip, �,p' .0�`�� �
q�
blaz
4f
um
Cnt� a aisucisiex �
��,,UO�a. U.hun �9uXJ nab �' d n�
=14
0
0 pof
� wee � ✓�o��n �ax� c.u.e Qa.� c1�
kafufzD P& jkt 0
� U�,c fcr�- a C�,►1c� � �,C�i��� 4�a�
26 finOd 4 CM V4U O�OpWanlD /JVn*afd
tz� Lao apu c.gcD� Lj..,qa ou),t
wo-o Jt�.�, no r�G.�c_rx��J _ j &oj
pnc�c��G�,/� (!c�.�rha} �,c/��
��1JJ7L UJ� C�L � �QY.Y t.rti' T`"�� �LKJ
kAa L+ Copt 15c0
ODA �ruew bul c urt Gtnrl a d
.Om.{cud jo Wu,& brc�2 z�
cfc 4'Aro„� C wsP �tba2vcn dmne
hvl� uec. dam' �.o,..J c.ul�d �CCbi
4
VQ�gp�% l UR CtQ� �u Caw ✓n�� (dfkd �`'�'
n�ct�fcr�Elkea' Gti4 CCU bt
IqA
dc�UJO
�FiY
v"VkP Pcc�al,ad�u;ro.-
2 �c3�
vk�
6r
lN� UJQ"icPQ i.f
br'I OJrrlC�u762GiUr1 he-Ltt�lf� iy,�
h� � hcua Y2u[�" � O�vm a�bircc�� N7r
j OJO-D Or
Lwfl UJD�
Could
Ceuud
0
wcto��'✓�A:�isl Zz� ,� �
,�„ ua,,, i i�A obrt➢n,^ tip
/)-Oq PU/i
AA
n&
upu
rbf WC1uC- 7b
do
a
�CCL"-) cv,
�tnc.tv�eo�# S� �cr�o/Sud
nay, �6 t3c a�
pop&r)ncu
lcvk
a��o
Slybin-�. uUw ��..^s'•
n,.,a 1/h eifSSA 0, f1J� Jcouu)
f - �q�g cho�laed ��` cr
p hula)ie
II1
-4:bsAaL
0- Adm f-ch (Es
1
rnrj.JD tj
Bu I oto
47)
II'
A
jjR I 271AN
1
[�J/Yl y1L IQLiQ fN�'c_ /I"I
f Ywnr�a� Q[�.fiM/9
area`
&h&avlo,
mu
m
ii
00-
INI
m
0
•
0-4- ,�' 0OJ krn - hod
jk,
Ul dox
- Olt-1� . .
C4
J
III
-w
s� tt�
/0.� vin h ,
0
(r l o ' R2 btm hirruj ML
(� (dHvo f r, O,)n
al 1&)+ (4 u � --�p . -h it, Vha� - (�,o A
11
f o c�° /)U�Lf ('vG& (t8c nr0 o d
II a �hCm, f Oh(IoM
J
0- hal tl(-d t2f(y-a" /mm
Aazlo-
rndl W aor� hA i hi e -_,�2 u
(2 Lou d hgd
J
U
II ^1ZteNE� TR�F / l� <SI/�= t3
�o
�Ltn�,,� V-2.� _tom cam.. �U,, o l cb,�.�. o ^� Y�c� .
_ _,
1
e, �
�:_ .
FOAM, 6 1
76 �/�ze
7-T
81
ao ip--,Juh-no�
afrcw-k-+
all
- - i
b -T-C) -VPF-
i�
ry)
III --�I �,�-+� ,_ �
it � z- �`��
III - Z- �r�b�..er
fj CV/
L060
III _ �Jc� i c� r��-�c.��
rcz
2;�
LA&-
J
\
Lilly-)
Wol&
I L
I
• WJU
I/
SWAVORAT,,► NIB
1.111 t'Ybt,nr,-ifl _LIH-. ry ChLlaj-u�shet�/]&a--d.�Cj LA6n v\o Lo u�au 1 - wAn� 6waYLL- 'L 1 -1
/keuJ ry a--",
I I t 9-ndlV W IA
oil
�ii
TORL
-&cb
0 r--h,A
A k�k C4NJA�f Ohl W) 6:''k A
Tr -
III � � ��. �_,� _ �.R.�e
•
TGPL
SaL
57• 4.
_ I
Ae
Ill - - -- ,_ �P
0
0
� r..- Y - --J r
-tt
I
III
III
III
HI I
�5
0
I
in
AZUR/ MA R? AM
nTRtr1 - 9,,,,,� ,yam
hY�-:_ ,�zw�a y � ���„
--4 �- r- �`- ' C- 4�>
C1.11- f-7
1w- let,_
7t
wka,,�Lo
Luu-LAt
U/ow
QF. 0 KFyO
�:- CITY OF OKEECHOBEE
o
U.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OR14P OFFICIAL AGENDA
A. Call meeting to order on February 16, 1993, at 7.00 p.m..
B. Invocation offered by Councilmember Watford; Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Kirk
0. Mayor and Council attendance:
Mayor James E. Kirk
Councilman Danny P. Entry
Councilman Mike O'Connor
Councilman Jerry E. Walker
Councilman Dowling R. Watford, Jr.
Staff attendance:
City Attomey Cook
City Administrator Drago
City Clerk Thomas
• Deputy Clerk Gamiotea
D. Motion to dispense with reading and approve the Summary of Council Action for
the Regular Meeting of February 2, 1993.
E. Motion to approve Warrant Registers for January, 1993.
General Fund .................. $22f�987.62
Public tltllltles ..............$872,103.31
REQUEST FOR THE ADDITION, DEFERRAL OR WITHDRAWAL OF ITEMS ON TODAY'S AGENDA
-2-
F NEW BUSINESS
1. Motion to appoint Mr. Michael Turberville as a new Water Plant Operator - City Administrator
2. Motion to grant Jo Eide a 90 day administrative leave of absence - Police Chief (Exhibit 1)
3. Motion to award a $70,000.00 Force Main Valve installation contract to P & C Construction, Inc. - City
• Administrator (Exhibit 2)
4. Discuss the Comprehensive Plan Amendment procedures - City Administrator (Exhibit 3)
5. Hear from Mr. Marvin Wheeler - Mr. Marvin Wheeler (Exhibit 4)
6. Hear from Mr. Ronald Schmidt - Mr. Ronald Schmidt (Exhibit 5)
7. Hear from Bion Technologies - Mr. Mike Norman (Exhibit 6)
ADJOURNMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT IFANY PERSON SHOULD DECIDE TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADEAT THIS
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, SUCH PERSON WILL NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE
APPEAL IS BASED.
•
CITY OF
POLICE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Kirk and Council Members
THRU: John Drago,C.A.
THRU:
FROM: Larry Mobley, Chief of Police%%
DATE: 1/27/93
SUBJECT:
Administrative
Leave for Jo
Eide
On Sunday September 27th 1992, Patrolman Jo Ann Eide fell
at her residence and broke her left ankle. She immediately
went on sick and vacation leave and returned to light duty
on October 27th 1992.
Her ankle is healed at this time. However, due to a
previous accident at a previous place of employment, there
are complications affecting her neurologically that are
requiring further treatment. This is preventing her from
returning to full duty at this time. This previous injury
is being covered by a Worker's Compensation claim.
The work she is performing on light duty should be
completed by February 8th 1993. I request that on or about
that date that she be placed on Administrative Leave for a
minimum of 90 days. I would like the guidance of the City
Council on this matter and will await your input at the
next Council meeting.
LM
b:\eide.ly
Knepper& Willard. inC.
February 10, 1993
Mr. John J. Drago, City Administrator
City of Okeechobee
55 S.E. Third Ave.
Okeechobee, FL 34974
Re: Okeechobee Force Main, Valve Installations
K & W Project No. 7209.91
Dear Mr. Drago:
On February 3,1993, bids were received and read aloud for the referenced project As you are
aware, this is a re -bid of this project Earlier bid prices were higher than the funds the City had
budgeted and therefore, the contract was not awarded.
Only one bid was received on February 3, and was from P & C Cot struction, Inc. of Murdock, FL
The bid was in the amount of $70,000.00 and includes two valve installations along U.S. 441.
Since we have information from bids received previously, we have sufficient data to make a
comparison of bid prices, and it is our opinion that the bid received from P & C Construction, Inc
is reasonable. The bid price of $70,000.00 is less than the City's budget.
We have checked references on this contractor and found that he has done a significant amount of
similiar work in Florida. He is currently working for the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority. The
references with whom we checked indicate that the contractor, and the superintendent identified
for this project, are qualified and capable of doing the work
Therefore, we recommend that the City proceed with the award this contract to P & C
Construction, Inc, of Murdock, FL, in the amount of $70,000.00.
If you have any questions, or require any further information, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
K1Nrrrsrx & WILLARD, INC
Daniel S. Willard, P.E.
/kg
3030 K Rocky Point 0" West Hftboiough (813) 281-012D
3ufe 570 Phokis (813) 821.%Wi
'crnpv. Rondo 33607-5 C5 FAX (813) 281.1156
C]
PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS
Application Process
An application form for a plan amendment may be obtained from the City Administrator,
City of Okeechobee, 55 SE 3rd Avenue, Okeechobee, Florida 34974, (813) 763-3372.
Information requested on the application form must be completed by the applicant and
include the following.
1. Application Information (name, address, telephone number)
2. Text Amendment Information (rf applicable)
3. Map Amendment Information (if applicable)
4. Signature of the Applicant and Date of Application'
5. Notarized Affidavit (if owner is being represented by an agent)
Application Fee
The applicant will be responsible for the total cost of their plan amendment; including
legal fees which may be incurred by the City in defending the Plan Amendment in judicial
or administrative proceedings. The applicant will post a $500.00 dollar deposit with the
City at the time the application is given to the City. The initial deposit will be used to
offset legal, administrative and advertising cost for the plan amendment /f the total cost
of the plan amendment is less than $500.00, the difference will be refunded to the
applicant If the total cost of the plan amendment is more Chan $500.00, &e applicant
must pay the difference before any final approval is granted. The City reserves the right
to request additional deposits from the applicant to offset additional cost for (heir plan
amendment. If an applicant wishes to withdraw their plan amendment; their deposit will
be refunded less any cost incurred by the City.
Map Amendments
Future Land Use Map amendments will be accepted only for those parcels owned by the
applicant Property owners may have agents represent them by providing a notarized
affidavit Other than the property owner, only the City Council may initiate a map
amendment.
Applicants for amendments to the Future Land Use map are hereby noti ied that Future
Land Use map amendments may also require rezoning. If this is the case, the applicant
will be noted of this requirement. It is the responsibility of the applicant to initiate a
rezoning request; to provide any additional information that may be required for rezoning,
and to pay the rezoning fee. Information on the rezoning process may be obtained by
contacting the Okeechobee County Department of Planning and Development; (813) 763-
5548.
3-
Amendment Schedule
Amendments to the plan will be considered once per calendar year. The actual dates
will be publicized.
The process will consist of the following:
1. Newspaper advertisement, notifying the public of the process and of the next
application deadline.
2. Local Planning Agency (LPA) public hearing with due public notice, resulting in
recommendations to the City Council.
3. City Council public hearing, with due public notice, to be followed by a series of
workshops by the Council to discuss the merits of the amendments.
4. City Council public hearing, with due public notice, resulting in transmittal of
proposed amendments to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for
review and comment:
5. 90 day review and comment period by DCA.
6. Within 120 days of receipt of DCA comments, City Council adoption public hearing,
with due public notice; amendments adopted, adopted with changes or not
adopted.
Local Plannino Acencv
The Local Planning Agency (LPA) is a recommending body. The City Council has been
designated to serve as the LPA.
Public Notification
Plan amendment public hearings of the LPA and City Council are advertised in a
newspaper of general circulation.
LPA Public Hearina and Recommendations
The LPA will conduct an advertised public hearing on the plan amendments. Based on
public comments and technical information, the LPA will issue written recommendations
for plan amendments to the City Council.
3
ON Council
Upon receipt of the LPA recommendations, the City Council will schedule an advertised
public hearing. A series of workshops will follow. At the conclusion of the workshops,
the Council will again schedule an advertised City Council public hearing. Based on
testimony and information available to them, the City Council will transmit the proposed
amendments to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, for review and commen4
as required by State Law.
State Review and Comments
The Florida Department of Community Aft
reviews of the proposed amendments
Recommendations and Comments ReporC
government within 90 days.
Adoption Public Hearing
s (DCA) coordinates State and Regional
to the local plan. An -Objections,
(ORC Report) will be returned to local
The City Council will conduct an advertised adoption public hearing within 120 days of
receipt of the ORC Report and shall adopt the amendment; adopt the amendment with
changes or determine that it will not adopt the amendment. In making its determination
whether to adopt the plan amendment with or without changes, the City Council may
determine that the plan amendment will become effective immediately upon adoption or
upon DCA or the Governor and Cabinet finding the adopted amendment to be in
compliance. In the event that DCA or other affected persons challenge the adopted
amendment; the City Council may modify or rescind the adopted amendment through a
subsequent plan amendment
CITY OF OICEECHOBEE
APPUCATION FOR COMPREHENSNE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT
APPLICANT Amendment Numbers:
Name:
Address: Submission Numbers:
Telephone:
1) Future Land Use Map
A. Require Attachments.-
1. Map which clearly illustrates the requested amendment
2. Legal description of property.
- 3. Notarized afdavit (tf agent representing owner).
B. Nature of map amendment Applicant must describe, in detail, the
change.
1. Property located at:
2. Tax LD.#
3. Parcel size (acres)
4. Current map designation
5. Requested designation
6. Intended land use that requires change to Future Land Use Map
(check applicable item below and provide the requested information).
A. Residential
1) # of dwelling units:
2) Type of dwelling units:
B. Non -Residential
1) Type of use:
requested
category
2) Square footage building = sq. ft.
C. No Special Development Plans
7. Other explanation of request (attach additional sheets if needed)
C. Effect of the amendment on surrounding land uses (attach addkonal sheets if
needed)
NOTE: Future Land Use Map Amendments may require a re -zoning before development activity can begin. Call the
Okeechobee County Planning and Development Department at (813) 763-5548 for informadon on the rezoning process.
2) Other Adopted Maps
A. Map to be Amended
B. Change of Designation from to
C. Reason for Amendment
3) Requested effecthre date of the amendment if adopted by the City Council:
Upon Adoption Upon DCA or Governor and Cabinet finding adopted
amendment in compliance
APPUCA77ON DEADLINE
Recehred By: Office of Me City Administrator
on the day of , 19 Signature of Property Owner or Agent
CITY OF OKEECHOBEE
APPUCATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT
APPUCANT Amendment Numbers:
Name:
Address: Submission Numbers:
Telephone:
TEXT AMENDMENT
Element & Plan Page Number
Goal/Objective/Policy Number
Other (specify)
1. Existing plan wording that is proposed for change.
2. Requested plan rewording/addition/deletion (must be specific).
3. Requested effective date of the amendment if adopted by the City Council:
Upon Adoption Upon DCA or Governor and Cabinet finding adopted
amendment in compliance
4. Statement of the problem that is to be addressed by the requested amendment (documentation of
need).
5. Statement of the positive effects of this request on the community.
(Additional attachments may be provided at applicant's discretion)
APPUCATION DEADLINE -
Signature of Applicant
Date
Received By Office of the City Administrator
on the day of , 19
(STAFF SIGNATURE)
February 11, 1993
Mayor and Council
City Hall
55 Southeast 3rd Avenue
Okeechobee, Florida 34974
Dear Mayor and Council:
I would like to appear before the Council at their regularly
scheduled meeting of February 16, 1993 to discuss garbage pickup.
Sincerely,
M. E. Wheeler
TO:
THRU:
THRU:
•
CITY OF OKEECHOBEE
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and Council
LF,t:;j:: 7 -
DATE: Feb. 11, 19 9 3
SUBJECT: Street Paving
FROM: John J. Drago, City Administrator
Attached is a copy of the section of the street paving
contract that allows the City Council to add additional paving
(Article 10 - Changes in the Work).
I had a conversation with Mr. Schmidt regarding his
concerns of bidding. I explained that the City has change ordered
paving in the past to take advantage of pricing, and not go through
a long timeframe in selecting engineers, developing plans and
specs, bidding, awarding and construction. I also explained to Mr.
Schmidt that the Council gets pressure from the public for not
paving streets fast enough and the City Council wanted to avoid
having to do paving in the middle of the rainy season.
P.O. Box 2322
ffl�AVING
ERICAN
PHALT
SERVICES, INC.
Okeechobee, Florida 34973-2322
(813) 467-8900
City of Okeechobee
February 10, 1993
55 S.E 3rd Ave.
Okeechobee, F1. 34974
Attention: Mr. James Kirk and the City council.
Gear Sir's
I am concerned about the bidding procedure on this years
road paving projects. It is my understanding that the low
bidder on last years paving projects (92) is going to be given
the contract for this years (93) paving work without it going
out for bids.
I wish to address the council on this matter as soon as
possible.
Thank YOu
Ronald L. Schmidt
,'
. 5
9.13.2. ENGINEER will not supervise. direct. con-
trol or have authonty over or _r re!:nonsible for
CONTRACTOR s means. te_nniqucs, se-
quences or procedures of construction. or the safety
precautions and programs incident thereto. or for any
failure of CONTRACTOR to comply with laws and
Regulations applicable to the furnishing or perfor-
mance of the work. ENGINEER will not be respon-
shMe for CONTRACMR's failure to perform or fur-
nish the Work in accordance with the Contract
Documents.
9.13.3. ENGINEER will not be responsible for the
acts or omissions of CONTRACTOR or of any Sub-
contractor. any Supplier. or of any other person or
organization performing or furnishing any of the Work.
9.13.4. ENGINEWs review of the final Applica-
tion for Payment and a.. .,,.flying documentation
and all maintenance and operating instructions. ached.
Was. pnrantees. bonds and certificates of inspection.
tests and approvals and Other documentation required
to be delivered by parapaph 14.12 will only be to
determine generally that their content complies with
the requirements of. and in the case of certificates of
inspections. tests and approvals that the results certi-
fied indicate compliance with. the Contract Docu-
ments.
9.135. The limitations upon authority and respon-
sI Ity set forth in this paravaph 9.13 shall also apply
to ENGINEER's Consultants. Resident A eject Rea.
tesentative and assistants.
10.4. OWNER and CONTRACTOR "I execute appro.
priate Change Orders recommended by ENGINEER (or Writ_
!en Amendments) covcnng:
10.4.1. changes in the Work which are (i) ordered by
OWNER pursuant to paragraph 10.1. (ii) required because of
acceptance of defective Work under paragraph 13.13 or
correcting defective Work under paragraph 13.14. or (i i)
agreed to by the parties;
10.4.1 changes in the Contract Price or Contract Times
which are agreed to by the parties: and
10.4.3. changes in the Contract Price or Comr;ict runs
which embody the substance of any written decision ren.
dered by ENGINEER pursuant to ,., ..,,h 9.11;
provided,that. in lieu of executing any suds Change order: an
appear may be takes► from any such deeision is
with the provisions of the Contract C .., , . and appliable
Laws and RegWkdom but during any such appeal. CON.
TRAL.'IOR shalt carry on the Week and adhere to the propels
w hedtde as provided in paragraph 6.29
10.3. V notice of any , t a, afrccft the general scope of
the Work or the ', ; . , or the Caetrrhet 0, ... . , . , (inefud.
ing. but not Iimued to. � Contract Price or Contract rum) is
tegrsired by the ' . , . i deny Hord to be given to a natty.
the giving of nay such mice will be CONTRACMR's respon-
sibifity. mad the amount of each-=ruabk Bond will be
adjusted accordir+tdy.
ARTICLE I I -.CHANGE OF CONTRACT PRICE
ARTICLE 10—CHANGES IN THE WORK
10.1. Without invalidating the Agreement and without
notice to any surety. OWNER may at any time or front time
to time. order additions. deletions or revisions in the Work.
Such addiitioM deletions or revisioas will be authorized by
a Written Amendment. a Chancre Order. or a Work Change
Directive. Upon receipt of any such document. CONTRAC-
TOR shall promptly proceed with the Work involved which
will be pedortned under the applicable conditions of the
Contract Documents (except as otherwise specifically pro-
vided).
10 2. U OWNER and CONTRACTOR are tmWile to agree
ins to the extent. irmy. of an adpoti few in the Contact Price
err an add of the Coesnaet Trmu's that should be allowed
as a malt of a Work Chmnge Meuaive. a claim may be nsade
therefor as peorided in Anick I t or Article 12.
10.3. CONTRACTOR shmq hoe be entitled to an inaesse its
the CaNUM price or an ettemion of the Contract Tunes with
R'4pea to a" lAb& . , , .. . 3 that is not negsared by the
Contract Q . .. , . as arnerhded. srodilied red suppieesented
as pro Wed in pwtaalft 33 and 3 6 except in the case oran
. , ..; as paride+d in 1sea8 0 6.23 or in the em or
w(nrt as protrided in pstacrapA I".
11.1. The Convact Price . I . , , � , , the tool
tion (subjott to authmccd aditmtsats) parable to CON-
TRAC7OR for perfa nsiett the V*vL AO duties. _. , , . i, rli-
desarnd, , , >ssigredtocruMerokesbyCONTRACMIt
shad be at CONTRAC.-IOR's exwithout change in the
Contract Price.
11.L The Caemr= Price may only be dinged by a Chteege
Order or by a Written A_ ,. , . Any claim for an adjm-
messt in the Contact Price dial be bused oa written notice
delivered by the party mmkiot the dam to the other party aid
to ENGMEER promptly (bta in no event Isla thaw thirty
days) after the start arthe , .. , ... arevutant givemt rise to the
claim arid stating the ge Ond atoms of the damn. Notice of the
ansount Of the cW= wph -, , , , ,,, i , dm slM be delivered
within sixty days after the start of such .... , .... or event
(unless ENGINEER allows adelwotwi bare for elaianaw to
subeak additioml or errors accurate dwa in atrpport of that dmim)
mud shell be amompsnied by dm*mmm's weium sialmm that
the 8011121nent claivAd cove #A 1- - n amotmts to which the
csiawet is attitled as a restA of said , .., , , .. crgva& AA
tdaient fcr itr tlheCarstwa PVrioasitsibedtteersirmed
by M04E tahatxoetdancewiyspmnl.11 ifOWNFR
and CON I tACM am" cc,, , , I awe as the a■h M
iesvoived. NoeW=farsa*stasatsdwComm him al
0
°Rtrcti
City of Okeechobee
ra :..—.. hi:� �i�eau: • C ��:: �e : �?3� • �,11./'; 03-33
February 4, 1993
Mr. Michael Norman
Bion Technologies, Inc.
Post Office Box 19
Okeechobee, Florida 34973-0019
Dear Mr. Norman:
Enclosed is a response from our Wastewater Engineer conceming your upcoming
proposal presentation to the City. Mr. Knepper will be at the February 16, 1993 Meeting
to assist the City with the technical issues of your proposal. Some of the major issues
are: The economics of your system versus a conventional system; The ability to expand
the total treatment facility; How treated effluent can be taken offsite to meet present and
future contractual obligations; and the permitting requirements from the various regulating
agencies along with its' associated costs.
We look forward to seeing you on February 16th.
Sincerely,
e5��Z�09n J. go
City Ad nistrator
JJD/res
cc: City Council
Terry Knepper, Knepper & Willard
u
Knepper&Willard, inc.
January 27, 1993
Mr. John J. Drago
City Administrator
City of Okeechobee
55 S.E. Third Avenue
Okeechobee, FL 34974-2932
RE: Bion Technologies, Inc.
"Meta System Reactor" (MSR) Process
Proposal to Upgrade the City's WWI?
Dated January 5, 1993
K & W Project No. 7206.91
Dear Mr. Drago:
6
In accordance with your letter request of January 8, 1993, I have had the opportunity of
reviewing the referenced proposal and wish to make the following comments for your
consideration.
Initially, let me say that the process apparently has been successful at two dairies in the
Okeechobee area with regard to treating dairy washwater from a milking operation and
runoff from holding pens or high -use pasture areas, as discussed in the company's
promotional literature attached to their proposal. In fact, the literature indicates that the
company hopes to extend their technology to other agricultural operations and even plans
to try to expand the process to other areas as landfills (probably leachate treatment) and
municipal wastewater. Perhaps it may prove eventually to be an economically feasible
treatment process for the County's landfill leachate or for septage treatment.
Aerobic and anaerobic lagoon systems, which have some similarity to the concept proposed,
have been used for many years for domestic wastewater treatment - more so in our
neighboring Southeastern States than in Florida. These processes use lower organic loading
rates, resulting in significantly larger areas needed to accomplish the same level of
treatment as the "conventional" activated sludge processes alluded to in the company's
proposal. Consequently, there is a tradeoff between cost of constructed tankage versus
additional land area required. As long as there are sufficient "cheap" land areas available
to accommodate such processes, they can be expected to produce good quality effluent
economically. However, improperly designed or improperly used, such systems can produce
effluents that fail to meet standards on a consistent basis.
Additionally, they are land intensive and do require maintenance, in order to keep
providing the level of service desired. This fact is supported by the proposal which advises
Hillsborough (813) 281-0120
3030 North Rodry Point Drive West Pinellas (8131821-3291
Suite 570 Pasco (813) 846-0846
Tampa. FL 33607-5905 FAX (813) 281-1156
Mr. John J. Drago
January 27, 1993
Page 2
that the total existing plant site, including the 300± acres of existing sprayfield, is restricted
to treating a maximum flow of 2 MGD under certain conditions and that every year, at
least some acreage has to be "harvested" or cleaned in order to keep the process
functioning. With the "conventional" processes we have evaluated for the City, many more
times that capacity can be treated at the site, although other areas are needed for reuse of
the reclaimed water.
Apparently, no application to municipal wastewater has been accomplished, and the City
would be the company's first, and most likely experimental, project With this thought in
mind, I offer the following more specific comments regarding the proposal for your
information and thought before considering implementation of such a process.
1. Is process, patented in 1/92, for agricultural application only or does the
patent mention other applications?
2. Since there has been no apparent application to domestic wastewater, I
would encourage the City to stay with processes that have proven themselves
elsewhere in Florida.
3. Domestic wastewater can contain pathogenic organisms and materials that
may be harmful to plant and animal life, so some evaluation of this process
with domestic wastewater would be appropriate. In addition, input from the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) and other
appropriate health/regulatory agencies should be sought before accepting the
process to see if it is acceptable to them and is permittable.
4. An allegation is made that conversion to the MSR process can be achieved
"more cost effectively" than the use of conventional technology. The
statement is not supported by any analysis in the proposal, and such a
statement undoubtedly does not consider the cost to the City of having to
acquire additional land for future expansion of the plant to serve higher
future wastewater flows.
S. Similarly, another allegation is made that the MSR process will provide
"higher quality treatment" for all water being used off site for grove irrigation.
Again, there is no supporting data to show a comparison of the expected
water quality from the MSR process when compared to the existing WWTP's
treated effluent, much less with that expected when the WWTP is expanded
using "conventional" processes.
6. The literature also refers to a "greatly simplified solids handling system" that
will generate "a dry soil end product for reuse". The process may be
Mr. John J. Drago
January 27, 1993
Page 3
mechanically simplified, but the necessity of having to clean/harvest several
acres of accumulated solids and vegetation annually sounds to be somewhat
operations intensive - at least for some period of time.
7. Proposal anticipates converting the existing WWTP tankage to a "bioreactor",
which is stated to result in much larger biomass and biological treatment
capacity than currently exists. Essentially, the existing tankage would be used
for treatment, with clarification accomplished in the following "solids
ecoreactoe. Unfortunately, there are no calculations to support these
statements, or provide important design criteria and expected performance
requirements through the process. For instance, what is the F/M ratio,
"- MCRT, MLSS/MLVSS, design organic loading, air/Ovl#BOD, etc. to explain
process design and provide a basis for monitoring the process to verify its
performance?
8. Proposal contemplates a 10-acre "solids ecoreactor", divided into four equal
vegetated cells of 2.5 acres each. It is here that the solids are to stabilize and
be converted to a "soil like product". The cells are to be lined, and beginning
with the fourth year of operation, one of the cells is removed from service on
an annual basis and soil/vegetation within is harvested after some period to
allow for drying. Questions raised include the following:
■ What is the expected influent/effluent water quality and
resulting sludge composition from this portion of the process?
■ What lining material is to be used? If using a geomembrane
like the existing lined ponds, it may pose a problem because of
alligators burrowing through the liner material. If that
happens, and the water quality in this "ecoreactoe is not
suitable for introduction into site groundwater then
contamination becomes a problem.
■ Again, there are no calculations to support the proposed sizing,
or provide important design criteria and expected performance
requirements through the process. These cells essentially serve
as clarifiers with conversion to sludge lagoons over a four-year
period. The literature indicates that the soil when harvested
will be 30% solids, but provides no indication of how long the
cell has to sit before it dries out to that consistency nor if some
sort of cover is needed to prevent precipitation from entering
the cell during the drying period.
Mr. John J. Draeo
January 27, 199.)
Page 4
■ There is no indication of how the cell is harvested, and the
type of equipment used will have a bearing on the life of the
liner used. In addition to this concern about maintaining the
integrity of the liner, I would be concerned with the time
needed to harvest the material once it were dry enough. This
portion of the process looks like it could be manually intensive
for the time needed to complete the harvesting and readying
the cell to again receive influent from the "bioreactoe.
9. Proposal contemplates a 300± acre "final polishing ecoreactoe, covering the
area of the existing on -site sprayfield. Various flow control structures and
- establishment of a "complex wetland vegetative system" is contemplated. It
is here that the remaining removals of BOD, nutrients and other parameters
occurs. Before entering this phase of the process, the water will be
disinfected by chlorination. It is alleged that the water will meet "tertiary
treatment standards" and will be discharged to the atmosphere via
evapotranspiration. Questions raised include the following:
■ How is future additional flow to be handled, and does this
process require in excess of 300 acres for each 1.2 MGD of
plant capacity?
■ What type of flow control structures are to be used and will
internal access be available for eventual plant
harvesting/maintenance activities that will be required to
maintain nutrient removal efficiencies? Vegetation decay and
detritus buildup will occur over time and I would anticipate
some future "harvesting" or removal of such material to
continue treatment performance.
■ What type of vegetation is to be planted? Need to be able to
show regulatory agencies the nutrient and water balances for
the process to obtain permit approvals.
■ It is stated that the process can remove 1.24 MGD by
evapotranspiration over the 300± acres with an annual average
rainfall of 54" and an evapotranspiration rate of 0.3"/day. This
equates to an evapotranspiration rate of about 110 inches/year,
which seems unrealistically high for this area. There is no
supporting data on which to base such a rate, nor is there any
indication of what has to be done during wet periods. If
Mr. John J. Drago
January 27, 1993
Page 5
storage is required, how much and where (considering the
existing storage areas serve existing purposes)?
■ There is no definition provided of "tertiary standards" and to
what parameters/constituents such a standard would apply.
Some listing of expected influent/effluent water quality should
be provided to support the treatment claims made.
10. Proposal also contemplates modifying/reconfiguring the existing perimeter
ditch and berms to "insure" that off -site surface and groundwater do not
enter the treatment system. In addition, the proposal anticipates recycling
'- the water in the perimeter ditch into the "final polishing eeoreactoe.
Questions raised include the following:
■ No specifics are provided regarding these modifications, nor
addresses the fact that the ditch is regulated under a SFWMD
surface water management permit. Has discussion been
conducted with SFWMD to get its input and obtain the
requirements necessary to permit the process?
■ Knowing that the site already has standing water in some areas
during parts of the year, and that most of the remaining area
has water within a foot of the surface at the same time, is the
proposed system expected to operate any differently? By
making the site a large wetland/shallow pond system (by
normally flooding the overall site to an elevation of 35 feet
MSL - or even higher, considering that groundwater levels on
the site have been higher historically), it will function as a
large, local recharge basin and could significantly increase
surrounding property groundwater levels.
■ The introduction of perimeter ditch water into the system can
result in a significant amount of water to be accounted for in
the water balance calculations for the site, and should be
accounted for in any supporting documentation for the process.
In summary, the proposal does not provide any actual cost data or supporting information
as documentation for the claims made for the applicability of the process to the City's
wastewater. Because of that deficiency and its suitability and regulatory acceptability has
not been demonstrated for domestic wastewater applications, I am not comfortable with
the process, nor the claims made in the proposal Additionally, the process is land
Wow
.Vft
Mr. John J. Draeo
January 27, 1993
Page 6
intensive and apparently restricts the maximum capacity of the existing 410± acre WWTP
site to about 2 MGD, leaving no room for future expansion.
Consequently, I would recommend against consideration of this process until further data
can be provided; the process has proven to work for domestic wastewater treatment
applications; and the City is comfortable with the fact that it will have to obtain significant
amounts of land to expand this process in the future when you need to increase treatment
capacity.
Should you have any questions regarding my comments, please feel free to call me at your
convenience.
Very truly yours,
KNEPPER &c WILLA,RD, INC.
Te Knepper, . , DEE
Prin ' Engineer
cc: Dave Sorensen, Chief WWTP Operator
Tampa Office File