1993-04-29 Special MeetingM
CITY OF OKEECHOBEE
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION
Page 1 of 3
AGENDAIF- COUNCIL ACTION I
NO v
YES NO ABSENT
A. Call Special Meeting to order on April 29, 1993, 3:00
Mayor Kirk called the April 29, 1993 Special Meeting to order at 3:08 p.m.
p.m.
B. Mayor and Council attendance:
Clerk Thomas called the roll:
Mayor James E. Kirk
Present
X
Councilmember Danny P. Entry
Present
X
Councilmember Michael G. O'Connor
Present
X
Councilmember Jerry E. Walker
Present
X
Councilmember Dowling R. Watford, Jr.
Present
X
Staff attendance:
Attorney John R. Cook
Present
X
Administrator John R. Drago
Present
X
Clerk Bonnie S. Thomas
Present
X
Deputy Clerk Lane Gamiotea
Present
X
C. Update on Public Utilities issues s City Attorney.
Attorney Cook discussed at length with the Council two issues concerning
public utilities.
The first issue: due to misunderstandings, the Council needs to state whether
they will allow Okeechobee Beach Water Association to continue to purchase
water from the City, at a fair rate, should OBWA not have their new water
treatment plant on line before the current contract expires October 1, 1994.
A nl 29 1993- Special Meeting
-Page 2of3QTAGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER ACTION
YES
NO
ABSENT
C. Public Utilities discussion continued:
The second issue: the idea of a "Conflict Assessment Program." This would
allow an outside person to come and evaluate all sides of the issues
concerning a utility authority and see exactly where the problems are and who
is holding up the process. It would cost an estimated $3, 000.00. This cost
would be shared by the County.
Councilmember Watford made a motion that the City state it will not arbitrarily
cut off Okeechobee Beach Water Associations's water at the end of their
contract, but will negotiate a price and how long they need it to continue:
seconded by Councilmember O'Connor.
Councilmember Watford further stated the City will not price gouge either.
KIRK
X
ENTRY
X
O'CONNOR
X
WALKER
X
WATFORD
X
MOTION CARRIED.
Council expressed concerns concluding they preferred to wait to commit on
the mediator (Conflict Assessment) until after the May 6th workshop with the
County.
Mr. Jack Coker of OBWA stated they only want to accomplish their goal and
thanked the Council for confirming their intent to continue extending the water
service as necessary after the contract deadline.
Am
April 291993 - Special Meeting -Pa Page
AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER ACTION
FYES
NO
ABSENT
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Kirk:
There being no further items on the agenda, Mayor Kirk adjourned the
meeting at 4:05 p.m.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT IS 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
PROCEED IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE
UPO-NLrCH THE APPEAL IS BASED.
es E.�Kirk, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Bonnie S. Thomas, CMC, CITY CLERK
AqFft*lW* Vl-mlIT
A.
0
C•
�k,
j � cam.
CA
erAa�LO �'� MuNLd
mayor.
vx*�
�4��u, o�a�o
N-PAX Jh
-Dc
F
eoo,
-: - <.- .,��..:hsA-�.-�,.,. :..a.--„69grzvrv�.��.,..4 ,s ^��: ^- �+e�..--r tea+---T-�!^�,-.---">�°°; _°�.._,.-d°a'-4-E'.-... 'mac-;'�^-�=sv-•+.a+v-,..n-.�-g,,.s�--_-;rxR+...,. ,a .-.c.---v-,H�.n,.�
I
i
Vc•- ,!/� Gt�-2.(_ O !3 !•J Nam(.( qi�
tIA
001,
S
R dl�
G� V
P�
Z/;i.e
i
�w
���� cam-
PIL-
CIL)
k7 OL-� IG-11
t/Hi C-
�tv �r�I` t�`.� �'�jc� %� uJevk'�
Q
7:7-
a-4; - 6-z
—eke-
kc
�oi6Lc�. cam°` ` � 4`�� �
9�ar�1i dutErn ✓Y,vu,�ttaJ
/r�lycol- &w-)ej,
1(
f txy
adm�u�l �
CCawK '.r�, cr+t�
QC C�mi�
�.� Lcno . , tico%- LL) n md,- . DAotn hors
• �� ® ► ,
jab
U �� ��� A zw-U6 &w 6uss �a
�e ftr je �/y�♦
C � > Cjt CIO .
t6 hC V Q -t7D P�C*e& O-Lh- /01"LLI C .�ri►-� .
1
�.Q.pkpjj wgo accccixd cvi
war+to tv no.,-& atAL uuu
C6 *u� Attu& WU#4— ktcd-,�?-
p 14.,j�,
tocw hu--J-
W, 1'% W, X I 11 VA
Dun cd uoC,,m4d Lb-tak, again. lwm &-t)
,4j U-h.ui
bt�.
`40L0, toJ?da,�t Q,ux kco�r,�s �-,d2+-vu�c a,s� � e0� 0uC do
tw ,.P.c�O„L kh a,Q.Len�,w wQ kc dour c f Qua- 0 wa z gExn
k**#* -�s
lqy&-�j 1.�h G
bkcj-) &Y-Via *rp?aA�aj
io 44uik-, eu i,fddy
116 -tom. Pali-
�4c�
?�/
& a,&*t
�l C4 4,D hj- a -�Le� V67C
11`
and AM coch o�
I II
SI-I (�Vk �� �� *(.�, - e
W(Ld
UiAA (AY,U b-4 OLd UAAO
q-0 rncvk U� kL dv,6�t(q�
av)"
��.zatr�,aae7f = �}.05
Off• OK
y�
OF OKEECHOBEE
CI
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OR10F. OFFICIAL AGENDA
A. Call Special Meeting to order on April 29, 1993, at 3.00 p.m.
B. Mayor and Council Attendance:
Mayor James E. Kirk
Councilmember Danny P. Entry
Councilmember Michael G. O'Connor
Councilmember Jerry E. Walker
Councilmember Dowling R. Watford, Jr.
Staff Attendance:
City Attomey Cook
City Administrator Drago
City Clerk Thomas
Deputy Clerk Gamiotea
C. Update on Public
(,EAh1s IT 1)
ADJOURNMENT
Utilities issues - City Attomey
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 THE APPEAL IS BASED.
91 0KEp0
4
AA
�OgID� I City
of Okeechobee
55 S.E. Third Avenue • Okeechobee, Florida 34974-2932 • 813/763-3372
1 nil
April 29, 1993
Charles Harvey
Chairman
Okeechobee Board of 304 N.W. 2nd St. County Commissioners
Okeechobee, Florida 34972
Re: OBWA Franchise agreement
Dear Commissioner Harvey:
Please accept this letter as notice on behalf of the City
of Okeechobee of the objections of the City to the intended action
of April 29, 1993, by the Board of County Commissioners concerning
the adoption, and award, of a franchise from Okeechobee County, to
Okeechobee Beachwater Association, for the provisinwastewater service to the area as delineated in ExhibitfAwater attachand
ed
to the franchise agreement.
Let me preface this letter by referring back to what I
consider the initiation of, and continuing basis for, this
objection; that being the filing of the action by the City with the
Department of Administrative Hearings {DOAH} to
comprehensive plan submitted by the County on Aprble2tr1992. the
You will recall that our primary objections to the Count
comprehensive plan was that the plan did not address y
Policies or objectives necessary for intergovernmental coordination
and cooperation between the County and the City regarding the
future of, and provision for, utility service in the unincorporated
area of the County. In fact, the plan as submitted seemingly by-
passes any coordination with the City. The other primary objection
to the plan is the failure of the County to appropriately refer to
the one and only water and wastewater utility system, and service
area, in existence, that of course the system of the City. Due to
this omission, and specifically the plan's failure to accurately
identify the City's wastewater and potable water
area, including that portion of the Cit 's area, service
sery
extends into the unincorporated area of the Countice area which
the City has sought to provide service to on ' and uniform which
nondiscriminatory manner, the City felt it imperative tand
our interest by initiating the DOM action. our
Since September, 1992, despite our best efforts, little
Progress has been made towards negotiating a settlement of these
Page 2
concerns of the City. Our intent was, and is, as being in the best
interest of all Citizens in the County, was to arrive at a
mechanism to facilitate intergovernmental co-operation in
developing County -wide utility service, 'and avoid territorial
disputes over service areas to prevent, or limit duplicative or
competitive water and wastewater utility service areas.
Historically of course, since at least 1970, the ability of
Beachwater to provide water service to the area it serves has been
negotiated with, and permitted by, the City of Okeechobee, and as
we all know, this agreement is due to expire in October, 1994.
Despite our efforts to resolve these problems, we are now
confronted with the specter of the County of Okeechobee stepping in
and assuming control over the service area granted to Beachwater by
the City, and entering into a franchise agreement with Beachwater.
This franchise not only permits water service within the present
area in which Beachwater has its infrastructure, but permits
expansion of service, and purports to grant the right to provide
wastewater service as well throughout the area granted as well.
Thus, the City now must address the very problem we sought to
avoid by initiating the DOM action; unilateral action in the area
of utility service by the County without any intent, or attempt by
the County to co-operate with the City, and encroachment within the
service area we have claimed for many years.
While we all have endeavored to some degree to work towards a
unified utility system, each of you must understand that the City
must proceed also with an assumption that such a system may never
come to be. Therefore, the protection of the existing 201 utility
service area is a priority concern for the City of Okeechobee. If
we must continue providing utility service without joinder by the
County or other entity, and regardless of the existence of this
franchise agreement or subsequent formation of a utility authority
by the County, we cannot, and will not, permit intrusion by others
seeking to provide utility services into our service area. Everyone
is clearly aware of the City's system expansion plans on the table
at this time; the letting of the contract to construct our well
water facility to provide an additional one million g.p.d. to our
customers, and the impending design contract to double our
wastewater capacity from .6 million g.p.d to 1.2 million g.p.d.
Although the City does not yet actually have pipe in the ground
throughout our service area, we do possess the prior legal right to
serve the area. The City has also been conducting planning,
engineering, and design studies to expand our system and customer
♦ Y
t�
Page 3
base, in conjunction with the above -described plant expansions. In
summary, the City remains ready, willing and able to render
efficient and effective service to those within our service area
who seek to be served.
The objections that we raise to the franchise include that
there exist questionable grounds to support the granting of this
franchise by the County; the County is acting inconsistently with
the adopted goals, policies and objectives of the Okeechobee County
comprehensive plan by granting this franchise; and the County has
failed to obtain the consent of the City to this encroachment into
our service area, as required by Florida Statutes 180.06, which
deals with the construction of, and operation of, a competing
utility service in a previously established service area.
The adoption of this franchise ordinance at this time will not
promote the formation of a utility authority; to the contrary, it
may force the City to protect its substantive and procedural
remedies by the immediate filing of appropriate legal challenges.
While this notice may not serve to cause each of you to reconsider
this ill-advised approach to the provision of water and wastewater
service to the North shore of Lake Okeechobee, you proceed at your
peril, and to that of the Citizens of the County and City of
Okeechobee. The City must reserve the right, and so places you on
notice, to initiate any and all appropriate legal challenge to this
franchise and intrusion into our service area.
Kindest Regards,'
�"fohn R. Cook
City Attorney
City of Okeechobee
JRC/ 1 f y
cc: Jack Coker
Okeechobee Beachwater Association, Inc.
South Florida Water Management District
F