Loading...
1995-07-27 Special MeetingtllpE pxEEp�'p `i m J �LOA14 � ftJ CITY OF OKEECHOBEE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION A. Call Special Meeting to order on July 27, 1995 at 6:00 p.m B. Mayor and Council Attendance: Mayor James E. Kirk Councilmember Noel A. Chandler Councilmember Michael G. O'Connor Councilmember Robert Oliver Councilmember Dowling Watford Jr.,Acting Chairman/Mayor Staff Attendance: City Attorney John R. Cook City Administrator John J. Drago City Clerk Bonnie S. Thomas Deputy Clerk S. Lane Gamiotea JnY 27, 1995 - SPECIAL MEETING - PAGE 1 OF 11 Acting Chairman Dowling Watford called the meeting to order July 27, 1995 at 6:00 pm Clerk Thomas called the roll: Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Absent �2¢ X X X X x x X X &25 JULY 27 1995 SPECIAL MEETING PAGE 2 OF � v .... ..... .......... r...... n... ........ .... .... .. ..... ... ............... ... ........ r....::. r...:...:. n .. .. ...... .... r.. . . ... ...... . ... ..... ......... .. ....... ........1'i � jyj. ..............n � .......... .. ... 1. 11 n.. r. ...vv r r✓.. r.. r. m.x..,- ...... r..::. r ..... ... .......:. .........:.. :..,....-...... .. J... :....... rrh rrM........ . ........... ... v.v.•.•... v:n::•.w •nv.v:��. �::f x::rn ..fie::••:.. A.. v.n...........n.n... :...:I:?fr:+:?i•`:•`}%tt4i::;}}}}}}}}i:.v.+.}}}.i?•}:v:}: ^: ..:", ................ .. ....vw.n+....nr. .. 1.'i i .. xr r: v..nn..v}:::::.:v}::.}}}}:S:ti4 rx.:4j: ^:?l/•v. :......... r... x......... Y...............n.. .... ..... r ..:n .. .. ::.....r.vv:: r}{rn+v I .... r ....::....... ....:.:nm:::: r$;Nx.} ..... ....... ...n..n........................................... r.:w:n....mm....nw: r?4::::: n....: :•................. v:.: '.$:1< h '+ .. S.M: .4. rrnn•. ?j; x•.v:::: nrv: : �%:; F.'•:+%f vi 4ii4 N� :�yvr� {:yr+�' ../ �..:}: r�I.f .r� .r //// 4vfF..... ....::• C. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE ADOPTION Chairman Watford opened the PUBLIC HEARING for final ordinance adoption at 6:00 pm 1. a. Motion to read by title only Ordinance 679 -City Attorney (E-1) Counciimember O'Connor moved to read by title only proposed Ordinance 679• seconded by Counciimember Oliver. KIRK x CHANDLER x O'CONNOR x OLIVER x WATFORD x MOTION CARRIED, City Attorney John Cook read proposed Ordinance by title only as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FL; AMENDING j CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 10-16 TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE CATEGORIES AND FEES FOR SAME; TO RE -NUMBER OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE CATEGORIES; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ;TULY 27, 1995 - SPECIAL MEETING - PAGE 3 OF 11 P PUBLIC HEARING 1. b. Motion to adopt Ordinance 679 Attorney Cook explained that in the new Florida Statutes Chapter 205, in view of Occupational Licenses, they've set up a requirement that in the event any municipality wished to increase rates in the future, they had to set up an Equity Study Commission to study rates and make recommendations. That was done. The Finance Director and I worked on this. The Committee was set up. They studied the catagories we had. And this Ordinance 679 reflects the result of that study. This is a recommendation as to what that commission thought would be fair categories to list for the occupational licenses and fees for those licenses. We are not required to change the existing rate structure at all. This procedure is based upon the requirements of the Statute, and once we have done this, in the event the Council were to wish to increase rates in the future, we are free to do so, and you can do that tonight, if you wish, by this ordinance. Councilmember O'Connor made a motion to adopt the ordinance (679), for _public comment; seconded by Councilmember Oliver. Chairman Watford stated to the attorney that the Council should be allowed to discuss this item first and then ask for public comments. Attorney Cook concurred and advised that the Finance Department is under a deadline and must send the licenses out at a certain time each year. Chairman Watford reminded Counsel that this is the second and final reading of this Ordinance 679 as advertised, with the first reading being held at the last Council meeting. So at this point, it should be either amended, passed or defeated. Councilmember Oliver asked Attorney Cook whether there was a stipulation in the statute for the percentage of increase and a time frame. Attorney cook concurred. Chairman Watford stated that according to the memo from our Finance Director, the increase is every other year, by no more than 5%. Attorney Cook stated that it also requires a majority vote plus one for future increases. Chairman Watford asked the F.D. to tell everyone the names of the members serving on this committee and pointed out for everyone to understand that these people were volunteers. W? C. PUBLIC HEARING 1. b. Motion to Adopt Ordinance 679 (discussion cont.) c. Public Comment JULY 27, 1995 - SPECIAL MEETING - PAGE 4 OF 11 The Members of the committee are: Wanda Morgan, Marsha Montessi, Dennis Bryan, Morris Tucker and Kenneth Ray. It was pointed out that all of those committee members are local business owners. Chairman Watford asked the Council if they had any further questions before asking for public comment. Councilmember Oliver ased the Finance Director if the proposed fees compared with other Cities comparable to our size. Bob replied that we compared with three other Cities and had copies of their ordinances which were used as a guide. He stated that although not exactly similar in size, it gave us some idea as to what the other Cities were doing. Chairman Watford stated to the Council that their packets included the current fees for the categories as well as the new or proposed fees in order to do a comparison. He asked for any further comments, and Councilmember O'Connor expressed his concerns regarding.what he felt was a substantial increase in several categories. The Finance Director stated that the committee took a look at what some of the other ordinances rates were and that what they were trying to do was equalize based on the type of business concerned. Councilmember O'Connor stated that if we are trying to get business to come here, we needed to keep these fees down as low as possible, but at a level with which we can operate. However, he felt the proposed fees were too much of a jump all at once, and asked if the ordinance was passed tonight on the second reading, would the occupational license fee be what is on the proposed side. Attorney Cook stated that this was correct. Chairman Watford reiterated that we were under a time constraint because of the billing cycle, and then called for any further comments. Some discussion ensued concerning the method used for determining the increases. Chairman Watford opened the discussion for public comment asking that they approach the podium and state their name for the record. Citizen Charles Thompson of Real Estate Brokers and agents of the County and City, expressed his concerns regarding the percentage of increases as well as imposing an occupational license fee per agent. JULY 27, 1995 - SPECIAL MEETING - PAGE 5 OF 11 C. PUBLIC HEARING c. Public Comment (cont.) Chairman Watford asked the Finance Director for clarification of Citizen Thompson's interpretation. The F.D. explained that as proposed, the agency as well as each agent would be assessed the fee. Citizen Bill Osterman expressed concerns on how one business license would cost more than another business license, and had read about other cities equalized their charges resulting in each business paying the same fee. He felt this would be a fairer method. He also commented on the impact the proposed increase would have on owners of rental property and suggested the rates be re -studied. Citizen Rick Nash, owner of Frontier Properties Real Estate Brokerage, commented that he felt a measure of increase could be applied to everyone without imposing a 200% increase. Chairman Watford called for any further comment from the public. There being none, the discussion came back to Council and Staff. Attorney Cook, addressing the concerns of Citizen Thompson and Citizen Nash, commented that we should look at the intent of the ordinance and the fact that the occupational license tax should be collected against one who is able to engage in business in the city. He pointed out that a real estate sales associate is not permitted to operate except under the licensed broker. In that case, he felt the individual agents should not be charged. Further discussion between Counsel and Chairman Watford ensued concerning real estate salesmen and commissioned salesmen concluding that real estate sales people cannot operate except under a licensed broker. Chairman Watford asked the F.D. if there were any further comments, and stated that there were options to be considered. F.D. Bob Delorme stated that one option was an equalization of rates across the board for an increase of $25.00 for everyone which would cut our revenues in half, but should be considered an option. - JULY 27, 1995 SPECIAL MEETING PAGE 6 OF ...n... n .:.:::..... ..........:..... ......... ........ ... n... ...:. .. ............... :................ ..........:. ..... . ... . .. ..... ..... n....... .r.......... r........ .r ..:....................... r.... r.......... ... ..... ... .r:...... n.r. f:... . ....n r. r .. ..... ... .. .... ........ ... .n ..... . .. r-.. .... ....... . n....n.. n.:.... r.. :.. ... n...n... ......... . ... m.v.: :.... ...... . .:... ... r..,.....r.... .... .. r. ... r....:... .. ... ,r.x..,r:.. r:::::::::•; w:::::: ":;; •:::.iv:x:.}::::::.iY:}'•'•'Yi?rs:...:.i •: i:?.v.� {.ii:???h:??•i .�. Y r... ........... r. :'. .. :rx.:,}:{: ... r...................n.............. ................... � � . ' - . ::: ':h:• f.:ii' .....:. nv .. ............. .... .... rf.......-............... � .. ... .fvr. .. ti'rn... .. .. .. .. .. .. rr. ... .......: .:::::............ .. .. ...... ........... ..�::r..::..r ::.r........:..................rr.xr.......:............ ... ..... r.r..::::.:.....,f ::::.:::::.................. :x....r....:...:::.:::.. :.: �:{?.:::::r::::::..:... ..... is{r..?b:•i:C::{. ::�• rti{i :.k.} .ice{?•i; ::. ?C^Y:' :i:f.• ..:: r:r r..?}}Yii:{hi:?�: ':' �y...... Y. i 23�!<::i'... r. ....:....r..............................:.�.::::rr..:::.�::.:::::.::.:r.........r.r...: .....r...:.:.r ... .......... .... .:..r..i..............r.... .....fr...x.............. ..r..r.. ..............rr..?,rrr:...:...,-..,,rx,xrr......::..i:r.•........ ..................... ...........r::.:.:::,..v:::r. � C. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Watford stated that as this has always been a controversial subject, is it really fair to charge a small business the same as a giant firm operating at hundreds of 1. c. Public Comment (cont.) thousands of dollars per year. Councilmember Chandler asked for the number of occupational licenses we were collecting from at this time. F.D. Delorme stated the figure was about 700. Chairman Watford stated to Council that another option was to stay with the current fees, review the business code and/or adjust fees as appropriate. Councilmember O'Connor asked for clarification of prodcedures to adjust rates or leave them as they are. Chairman Watford informed the Council that if the motion is defeated, we will continue under the same rates, and asked the F.D. if it was confirmed that in two years we could increase rates by 5%. This was confirmed by the F.D., and Chairman Watford asked the Council if they wanted to ammend the current fees or vote on the ordinance as is. Discussion by the Council ensued concerning a $25.00 increase, whether to impose a minimum and/or maximum and exclusion of certain business categories. Motion to Amend Ordinance 679 Councilmember Oliver moved to amend, to accept the proposed fees with no increase being more than $25.00 and specifically delete proposed new business codes #722, 732 and 742, which were agents. Chairman Watford called for a second with no response. At that point, Chairman Watford consulted with Counsel before passing the gavel to Councilman O'Connor. After Councilman O'Connor accepted, Councilman Watford seconded the motion. Chairman O'Connor called for any further comments, whereupon a discussion ensued between Chairman O'Connor and Councilman Watford concerning the increase with a maximum of $25.00. Chairman O'Connor called for any comments from the public. Finance Secretary, Lydia Williams, commented that the Council needed to look at the professionals number 2001, and whether it was fair to charge the individuals. Attorney Cook stated that each person who holds a professional license who is capable of operating by themselves as a business should pay the fee, such as lawyers & nurses. PUBLIC HEARING 1. c. Public Comment (cont.) (Motion to amend Ordinance 679 - continued) Motion to Amend Ordinance 679 - (read) Vote on Motion Amendment Motion as Amended JULY 27,1995 - SPECIAL MEETING - PAGE 7 OF 11 Citizen Marsha Montessi stated to the Chairman that she sat on this board, and that as is, you are adding $25.00 which means that some businesses holding four or five licenses will be getting an increase of 200%. Further discussion ensued concerning business owners who require licensing under several different categories. Council obtained the Occ. license listing from the Finance Department and discussed the multiple licensing situations in detail including repair shops, pharmacies, and many others. Council determined that some rates increased while others decreased. Chairman O'Connor asked for any more comments from the public and Council, with no response. He then asked for the motion to be read. After discussion, Clerk Thomas stated we have a motion to amend to accept the proposed fees with no increase being more than $25 00; specifically delete proposed New Business Codes 722. 732 and 742 which are agents. Chairman O'Connor called for a vote on the motion amendment: IURK CHANDLER O'CONNOR OLIVER WATFORD MOTION CARRIED Chairman O'Connor passed the gavel back to Counciimember Watford. Chairman Watford then stated that we now have the motion as amended, and called for any further discussion. Counciimember Oliver called for further clarification whereupon Attorney Cook and Chariman Watford discussed the timing of possible future increases. Chairman Watford called for any other discussion on _the motion as amended. There being no further discussion. Chairman Watford called for a vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance 679 as amended. JULY 27, 1995 - SPECIAL MEETING - PAGE 8 OF;><: C. PUBLIC HEARING KIRK d. Vote on Motion as Amended CHANDLER O'CONNOR OLIVER WATFORD MOTION CARRIED 2. a. Motion to Read by title only Ordinance 681 and set Councilmember Oliver moved to read by title only. Ordinance 681. and set August August 15 for Public Hearing - City Attorney (E-2) 15 1995 fora oublic hearinq date. Chairman Watford called for a second to the motion and Counciimember O'Connor seconded the motion. Chairman Watford called for a discussion on the motion and there was none. KIRK CHANDLER O'CONNOR OLIVER WATFORD MOTION CARRIED City Attorney John Cook read proposed Ordinance by title only as follows: Ordinance No. 681, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA AMENDING THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ORDINANCE NO. 635 AS AMENDED, BY REVISING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION OF ORDINANCE AND REVISED RUTURE LAND USE MAP IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROFIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. b. Discuss application 1. Richard A. Ward Chairman Watford explained this is an amendment to the Future Land Use Map. We Discuss application 2. Big Lake Investments, Inc. will discuss the two applications: Application #1 by Richard A. Ward and Application #2 by Big Lake Investments. We will then call for public comment and take a motion to adopt the Ordinance. We received these two applications in our packet last meeting and discussed at some point the merits of each application and gave instructions for them to be presented for Ordinance. Chairman Watford called for comments from Council and Staff. X X X X X JULY 27, 1995 - SPECIAL MEETING - PAGE 9 OF E'EMNr .... .. ....................... rr....... ........ .................vur. n.................. .......r:.:..... ............... ......................... ...nn:...--v, ::: nh:: n�: x:::::nw:: n�:............... r..:. x:. /.. h..... .. r. n...n.. •i :n4.4 '{?i. }:•%F.l' 'v+,}i'r.:•i'iw?.!ii?is _j}. ;........v.....:............. ..... n. .J......{ .; ;. i :% C. PUBLIC HEARING 2. b. FLUM Applications 1, and 2 (Discussion cont.) Attorney Cook stated that as you sat as the Land Planning Agency, you determined that the proposed changes would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Chairman Watford stated that neither one of these applications were determined last time and neither one of these were considered to be errors to the map - the applicants have paid the necessary fees to have these land use amendments prepared for Ordinance for hearing. Chairman Watford called for further council comments, and there was none. C. Public Comment Chairman Watford called for comment from the public on the two applications to amend the land use map, and there was none. d. Motion to Adopt Ordinance 681 Chairman Watford called for a motion to adopt Ordinance 681. Councilmember O'Connor moved to approve the First Reading of Ordinance #681 as read; seconded by Councilmember Oliver. e. Vote on Motion Chairman Watford called for any further discussion on the motion; there was none. IQRK X CHANDLER X O'CONNOR X OLIVER X WATFORD X MOTION CARRIED CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Watford closed the Public Hearing Portion of the meeting. a ,JUI.Y 27, 1995 SPECIAL MEETING -PAGE 10 P :.::::.:::::;::..:.,..:;:::<.,..:-:::..;:,.,� .................................................................. ..... n......:.......• ;•:.:v: :::w ::vv...... ••.::....................:..v.....:.v :v:.,• jyy. ..r ..... n...:: •: ;........... v: h:::: n; .. . . ....... ........ ... R::::: nv.v:.w:..::... vvv:::v........ ........... ....:::. . _.. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::.......::::ry:r: .. :..:::.:::.:...................... •....... y:: vy:Y 'ii:'::• :::.i:::::'::•:'•:'.: :::::::.::::::::, D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Motion to approve a utility agreement for sewer service between the City and Kampground of America, Inc. Chairman Watford called for a motion to approve a utility agreement for sewer service between the City and Kampground of America, Inc. O'Connor moved to approve a utility agreement between the City _Councilmember and Kampground of America, Inc., and Councilmember Chandler seconded the motion. Chairman Watford called for discussion, and after the Council's discussion with the Utilities Director, Wayne Jones, Chairman Watford asked for comments from anyone in the audience representing the Okeechobee Utility Authority. Mr. Jimmy Minehan stated he was comfortable with the information so far, and that in the case of an emergency, the Okeechobee Utility Authority would maintain the lift station or operation they currently have. Chairman Watford asked for comments from anyone representing KOA, Inc. and Mr. Bob Rogers, consulting engineer and Kampground Director of KOA, commented on the capacity of the current sewer service at KOA and the mutual benefit from the proposed agreement. Chairman Watford questioned the amendments made to the standard Utility Agreement, and Attorney Cook addressed the issue by saying, the owner reserves the right to enjoy the use of the property for all purposes which do not interfere with and/or prevent the use by the City of Okeechobee. Motion to approve Utility Agreement for sewer service between the City and Kampground of America, Inc. (Rescinded and restated) After further discussion regarding specific examples and questions, Councilmember O'Connor rescinded his previous motion and moved that with the condition KOA Inc., intends to maintain the facility package plant and the license, to approve the utility agreement for sewer service between the City and Kampground of America, Inc.: Councilmember Chandler seconded the motion. JULY 27, 1995 - SPECIAL MEETING - PAGE 11 OF 11 NEW BUSINESS - (KOA/City Utility Service Agreement, continued) Vote on Motion Adjournment - Chairman Watford PLEASE TAKE NOTICE AND BE ADVISED that if a person decides to appeai any decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, he/she may need to insure that a verbatim iecord of the proceeding is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. A tape recording of this meeting is on file in the City Clerk's gffice. DowlingINatford, Cftirman ATTEST: i r' Bonnie S. Thcmas, CMC, `City Clerk Chairman Watford called for any further discussion, and there was none. KIRK CHANDLER O'CONNOR OLIVER WATFORD MOTION CARRIED There being no further items on the agenda, Chairman Watford adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m. a. l II 14. 514- C. 4 -AKV�, 114 i CARRIED)/ DENIED ORDINANCE 11679 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORDINANCE ODE OF THE CITY OF OICEECIIOBE'E', FL; AMENDING CHAPTER 10 ARTICLE I, SECTION 10-16 TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE CATEGORIES AND FEES FOR SAME; TO RE- UMBER OCCUPATIONAL -�-- LICENSE CATEGORIES; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. • ace ,i ol :.tee w • 7-a7 9s' 30 ? e ��� Z )-,-t o-- J vat ry�Y 0l./c VA &7tj A- Af a �.� l4w-,v ,6 t1 `z1, d 7l• G. � moo. r u 15�6e 7/�7�Qs A d 97 aW.-e, AZe t9Q ;.... ... $44W F &Ok ��QS� KIRK...... Sava O' CONNOR' 1� WATFORD n/a I n/a ;IEDJ / DENIED ORDINANCE 681 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OKEECH BEE, FLORIDA KIRK n/a n/a Bumm O'CONNOR /a I n/a r �iAlAl/ 1 KIRK O' CONNOR • ail Gt-- .�e �04� CITY OF OKEECHOBEE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING JULY 27, 1995 6:00 O'CLOCK P.M. A. Call meeting to order: Chairman Dowling Watford B. Mayor and Council attendance: Mayor Kirk - Absent; Dowling Watford, Chairman of this meeting, Noel ChE Mike O'Connor were all present. Staff Attendance: Attorney John Cook, Administrator Bonnie Thomas were present. Deputy Clerk Lane Gay Bob Oliver and Drago, City Clerk t was absent. C. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE ADOPTION: Motion was made by Councilmember O'Connor; seconded by Councilmember Oliver to read by title only Ordinance 679. Vote on motion: All yes. Motion carried. Attorney Cook read the title of Ordinance 679 as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORDINANCE C( OF OKEECHOBEE, FL, AMENDING CHAPTER 10, � 10-16 TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL OCCUPATIONAL CATAGORIES AND FEES FOR SAME; TO RE -NUM] LICENSE CATAGORIES; PROVIDING AN EFFECTI` Attorney Cook explained to those present that the new Flc Finance Director has attached to a memo, Chapter 205 in Licenses, they set up in the Ordinance a requirement that municiality wished to increase rates in the future, they had Study Commission", to study rates and make recommendat Bob Delorme and I worked on this. He primarily did it. T] up. They studied the catagories we had. And this Ordinanc that study. This is a recommendation as to what that comn be fair catagories to list for the occupational licenses and f The reason for this commission and ordinance was to coml Statute. We are not required to change the existing rate sti their recommendation. They did put some work into it and in it to come up with this. But this is based upon the requi: and once we have done this, in the event the Council were rates in the future, we are free to do so. What you can do first reading of this ordinance, but that's how this documen Councilmember O'Connor made a motion to adopt the public comment; seconded by Councilmember Oliver. E OF THE CITY I'ICLE I, SECTION I OCCUPATIONAL DATE. da Statutes that our ew of Occupational the event any set up an "Equity as. That was done. Committee was set reflects the result of Sion thought would s for those licenses. y with the Florida cture at all. This is lid put a lot of time :ments of the Statute o wish to increase ►night, if you wish, by came to be. (679), for Page 2 Chairman Watford stated he would like to ask the attorn handled these all differently in the past, he suggested sin will be quite a bit of discussion on it, the Council should first and then we'll ask for public comments. We may ha questions. Attorney Cook responded that he had forgotton to menti, of General Services (Finance Department ?) that sends c licenses is under a deadline. They have to send these out year, and therefore, they wanted tp get this first reading 1 could get their bills out, so in the event it was to be chan out at our normal time as we always do.. Chairman Watf Cook that this is the Second and Final reading, as advert 679 and the first reading was held at the last Council mei table it or something it will be either amended or passed , since we have we anticipate there allowed to discuss it to answer some that the Department these occupational a certain time of the find them so they i we could get the bills l informed Attorney 1, of this Ordinance ig. So if we were to defeated. Councilmember Oliver asked Attorney Cook what percentage can we raise these rates if we don't raise them tonight? Isn't there a stipulation in there of an amount of percentage and a time frame? Attorney Cook answered yes, that's in the Statute itself. Chairman Watford informed Council that according to the emo, the Statutes reads that once the requirements of the F,SC and City Cow icil Actions are complete, the City Council may raise occupational license t ixes every other year by no more than 5%. Attorney Cook asked that 5% requirt ment is in the Statute, correct? Councilmember Oliver stated that is in the Statute. Chairman Watford stated that according to the memo from our Finance Director that is every other year, by no more than 5%. Bob (FD), is that correct? Bob stated yes that is correct. Attorney Cook stated that it alsorequires a majority plus one vote. Chairman Watford - for increases? Not for tie passage of this ordinance. Attorney Cook stated thats for future increases. Chairman Watford stated we had a Committee that looked at this and Bob, we asked for members for some time and tried to get people to serve on it and I know you attended a Chamber of Commerce function and ked for some members and finally got enough for the Committee is that basically correct? Bob stated the way we ended up getting the members was by L dia got on the phone and made personal phone calls and she finally got up enou . This has been an ongoing thing, trying to get members since before I came (Prior to September 1994). Chairman Watford stated but we finally got the members, in ow could you, Bob, tell us so everyone will know, the names of the members that served on this committee? And I hope everyone understands that this was volunteers and we do Page 3 appreciate their work. We are not trying to critize them. I bb: Members of the committee were: Wanda Morgan, Marsha Montessi, Den ' Bryan, Morris Tucker and Kenneth Ray. Chairman Watford stated that several o these are local business people. Bob - They are all business owners. Chairman Watford asked Council for any particular questions before we ask for public comment? Councilmember Oliver asked the Finance, Director were these proposed fees compared with surrounding ou other counties (Cities) of this or similar size? Bob: we did look at some. We had 3 other cities that we had copies of their ordinances and we used those as a guide. They ar not necessarily similar, size but it gave us something that we could judge against tell what other cities were doing..yes. Chairman Watford stated to Council that everyone has in eir packet the current fees for the catagories, of course some of these don't corre pond because some were changed. and you have the new or proposed fees alo g with them. So you could do a comparison. He asked for any other comments d Councilmember O'Connor stated he just thinks that on some of these they ook a real heavy duty jump. When you look at bars, lounges and pubs. And you 1 k at occupancy from 200 to 300. The banks and savings and loans. They took a dollar jump. There is some substantial 50 and 75 dollar jumps in here. On fun ral homes, they went from 60 to 175 dollars. How did you derive at some of th figures? For those people that own those businesses that's a pretty good pop. Bob stated that everybody took a look at what some of the other ordinances were, and they also took a look at what the rates were and what they were trying to do was equalize that based on the type of business that it was. C. O'Connor stated he could have understood that if it was on a percentage. If you went like 20% or something like that. but when you take a 200 dollar jump banks are we doing that just because banks have a lot of money? I'm sure we a not but that's the impression that comes to mind. A 200 dollar jump for an upational license for a bank just because they are a bank is a pretty good jump believe. As it is on funeral homes and transportation and truck lines - it went om 62.50 to 125.00. Telephone and Telegraph etc. I understand these are electlical and communications but you are still taking some good jumps here and I just think that on eating and drinking places on occupancy, is that motels? New Business code 606 - current or 605 - current business code is 26 D - it went from 200 to 300 dollars. What is that (O'Connor)? Bob? Restaurants. - Okay on sea dollars, I see, Okay.... The only thing that I got to say is I t pretty good hits here just like on funeral homes. From 60 t4 Attorney Cook stated I am not suggesting this makes it rie on all licenses under 150.00, a 200% increase is permissabb just because it is permissable doesn't mean that we have to ng capacity. not nk there is some 175 dollars. I but the new Statute C. O'Connor, well do it. Page 4 Attorney Cook agreed. But was just saying that's what the 3tatutes says the limit is. O'Connor - If we are trying to want business to come here I think that we need to try to keep these fees down as low as we can but still ke ep them to where they're, where we can operate. But, it appears to me too uch of a jump all at once. On the proposed side. 7 Chairman Watford called for any other questions from cc assume that when you went through this, and I think that understand is that it was, or we were trying to equalize tb the Commission and I am sure that you used some crited basically, using the criteria was looking at what other bus: also comparing them to what other communities were chi Chairman Watford asked the City Attorney whatever we p whenever we pass it, whatever we pass will be what the ini In other words, if we pass whatever amount we put the on to do will be to raise that two years from now by 5%? At yes, this initial reclassification permits the big increases. Y minimum of 25.00, and like I said the 200% increase for h 500.00 you could raise them 100%. Once we do this reclas whether we agree or don't pass any of them, then it is eves C. O'Connor, The question that I have then is if we pass second reading, on the proposed side is what the occupal Correct. OC - Yeah. acil. He asked Bob, I Fhat we all need to rates. Its the title of to do that. Bob - Well esses were paying and s tonight is what or .ases will be based on. think we will be able -ney Cook responded can establish a nses between 150 and ication procedure, other year by 5%. tonight on the l fee will be? Atty - Chairman Watford stated, if you remember when we did t is 2 or 3 years ago, and we had quite a bit of discussion then and thought we I ad everything solved and wouldn't be revisiting this for some time. But we are. Soome of that was still kept in because that was based on square footage so the retail sales will still have that concept. C. Oliver stated that I agree that some of the proposed fee instance, take a bank going from 100 to 300, if we are sayn going to do any changes, that means that in two years we c That's not much of an increase. If it's been two years since it is two years until we do it again, that means we can raise two more years? That doesn't seem right. It seems like we Chairman Watford stated that he had a visit from one of C be in this catagory and he said his initial reaction was '"The then he checked with one of the banks on the coast to see and of course he said it was considerably more than that sc about it, all fees tend to increase over time and from the a for the city he said he probably would not attend tonight tc are pretty high. For g that we are not n go to 105 dollars? we've raised rates, and the rate by $5.00? In teed to do something... e companys that would is a big increase"I, but what they were paying he said as he thought pest of the revenue even comment on it. • • Page 5 Because he became comfortable with it after he saw. That 1,s not to say that everyone is. But I think there are some, I tend to agree that maybee we don't want to go this much, and I know we have some people in the audience that have some comments to make on some of the other items that a probably need to consider, but some increase, I would tend to agree is logic . And should be expected. I think it just depends on where you want to be there or how much you want to see increased. C.O'Connor stated if that's the case could it go back to the committee and have them re-evaluate this? So we don't have to vote on it tonight? Because if you vote on it tonight that means you are either going to have to vote on the proposed fee or sit here tonight and break the fees down. C. Watford, We'd have to amend the fees, that is correct. I think we are under a, although we don't ever like to be this way, we are under a time constraint again. Because of the billing cycle. C.O'Connor, the other thing too is I hate to be put in the sition to where its like, because on the coast it's one thing and that's not co m aring apples to apples. C. Watford stated that's a question most people ask how uch would it be ... we are always asked, you know. O'Connor yes but we know a fees over there are much higher because of land values. C. Watford called for further comment and C. Chandler as ed how you (Bob and /of Committee), how you arrived at your amount of money on these fees per license? Like for Contractor, bulk plant or whatever? H 'd you come up with $25 for one and $50 for another? Atty Cook answered - th is a good question. I didn't do this. C. Chandler asked anybody in the audience o answer - committee or staff ...C. Watford stated $25? Chandler stated just for in tance, under upholster shop its $25 and a water treatment service it's $30. What i iakes, it $30? $5 more? Or is it the amount of money they make during a year or a size of the property or the amount of business they do during a year? You've got a wrecker service for $30 and an amusement park for $187. I am sure that wrecker service does more business than an amusement park does as far as making money. I don't know how they come up with the fee itself. C. Watford, there has to be some criteria and I would ass considered this. You know occupational licenses ever sin( have always been a controversial subject. And I am sure s audience will probably comment on that tonight. They 'll for that"? Why do I have to do that? Of Course, that's a g something that has been a revenue source for the city and the city and there are certain reasons we need this. C. Chandler, I understand there is a reason but I couldn't differences. ie that the committee I have been up here ie members of the y "Well, what do I get d question. But it is a revenue source for out why these Page 6 C. Watford, just the regulatory reasons like if anybody could just come here and go in business, you need some regulation, whether we like it or not. C. Chandler - right ..... C. Watford, several of these things you would wonder why the fee is the way it is and obviously there are reasons for all of them. me of them this is just my opinion, and I don't mean this to be official city policy, but some of them, I think you would want a higher fee because they're going be more expensive to regulate. And more expensive for you to provide services f 3r. Whether that is a valid reason I wouldn't know but sometimes it could be a factor wherein those type businesses .... some of these we don't even have. (C. andler - right.), but I guess we need to have some fee in case we do. I guess.7 Atty Cook - There are a couple of areas that the city does address and I am sure that Lydia puts a lot of time into these things, is that we have to check each applicant for ficticious name requirements, Re the Fla. Statutes; check insurance requirements; also Zoning. So some work does go on these things. So it is not like there's not. C. Watford and some businesses have to have fire inspection before they can get a license. C. Watford called for any other con ments from Council? Or amendments anybody wants to offer before we continu on with the public comments? None. C. Watford opened the discussion for public comment askiiig that as is our procedure please come to the podium and state your name for the record so the Clerk will have a record of your comment. So anybody that would like to comment may at this time. Charles Thompson of Real Estate Brokers and agents of the County, City. One of you made a comment a few minutes ago about a 200% inc ease. I think that if you look at real estate brokerage it was a 200% increase. ich I personally think and from the comments I have had from other brokers thr oughout the area this is rediculous. The comment was just made by someone here at the fire marshal had to go around and check the premise and etc,. I questiJ how do you do this with an insurance agent? If I read that correctly you are gto start charging the agent $25 because he has a license to sell real estate.ere never was a charge for an agent to have an occupational license. They are free agents. so to speak. Contractural agents. I have about 8 or 9 of them. I supply the building, rent, buy, or lease the building for them to work out of. So they don't have the fire marshal come in to check their person. Thompson ... We have from 80 to 100 of those people. and marketing 80 to 100 of them know 100 other people. Thai people are disatisfied with the 200% jump on the brokera agents as having to be charged. $25 isn't anything, a $50 ji much I would hope to make that in the next sale, but it's and I don't understand how you can come up with chargir occupational license. That's my opinion. And that of 80 of I recall some of my 8,000 voters. These 80 :, they're disatisfied as np on mine is not that st the simple 200% an agent an ,r people in the Page 7 County and City. C. Watford - I gather that from what you are saying, you ow obviously there is going to be some occupational fee, for any business. But or your business, you would rather see like for your firm or your agencey, purch ing the licensing whatever that fee is whether it is $25 or $50, and not each agent? Is that right? Thompson - I don't understand how you can charge an ago license fee. That is an individual person. They are not a bi someone. If you want to do that, go back to the banks tha who are deep pockets, most of them are owned by a large not an individual, so a 200% jump on that is not nearly so on me. As an individual person. Brokerage should pay..bul person or agent. My firm or ERA now pays $25 per year f understand what I am reading in the paper, you are also g, people that work for me pay $25. a year for an occupation going to jump by 200%. This figure that came from the gr< I have nothing against the group, but how can you charge i people that work there? It doesn't seem reasonable. at an occupational sineess. They work for we were talking about lumber of people and nuch as a $200 jump not the individual ,r an occupa. lic. If I ing to ask that the ten 1 license. My OL is Lip that set this up, and ie brokerage and the C. Watford asked Bob to answer for Council, is that interpretation probably correct? The Agency would purchase a $75 fee. Is that co ect? under #721? Bob - yes -Watford -and then each agent that sells through that?..... Bob - Yes each agent, according to this format here. ..Watford, then that is correct? ... Bob - yes. Bill Osterman ... In looking these over I have trouble seeing how one business license should cost more than another business license. In Retail Sales you're charging by the square footage. The more a person has (sq ft.), the more AV taxes they are paying. You're shooting yourself in the foot. This is a surcharge. Because we all have to buy County license also. In my case its 5 times the amount of the County license. You say Radio stays the same but newspapers go up? How - one more lucrative than another? That's what's happened I read where another city equalized their charges and each business paid the same fee. Throughout the entity. I feel that is a fairer way to do. This is a revenue so rce for you, and in the case of a new business what Mr. Cook said is true, you dohave certain permitting and inspections that you are required to do that are costly. I can't see how you can say one man should pay ... taking the extreme $500, and somebody else pays $25 and they are all out there trying to make a living. Osterman... Also if you own rental property, with these kind of surcharges, it's going to be very difficult. If someone wanting to set up a business has a choice, he can go 10 blocks down the street into the county and save all this money. I think it's going to be hard on the landlord. Cost of infrastructure is going up. All know fees are going up because we are maxed out on out AV tax s. But you the city do get a $330,000 windfall from the local option (sales tax), co ected by the county Page 8 and they approved today. So maybe these could be restud�ed. I can see some real hardships in here. Rick Nash ... owner of Frontier Propertys Real Estate Brokerage and we have 9 people including me. The way I see the increase is it works out to over a 1000% increase in revenue to the city in my business over the $25 per year that we are paying now. I would pass that cost on to my employees but that would cause a hardship. Some are in their 70's. This gives them some lime income but I'd probably lose those people. They already pay to keep theii licenses and continuing education and the RE business isn't a profitable business r them anyway. There doesn't seem to be any consistency in the application of th changes. I commented to one of you, it seemed like someone had gone through here and decided what businesses they wanted and didn't want. How applied? A easure of increase could be applied to everybody. The increase from $25 to $ 5 isn't going to put us out of business, but the principal of a 200% increase does em a bit harsh. C. Watford called for any more comment from the public. There being none the discussion came back to Council and Staff. Attorney Cook commented that perhaps one way to look a t the charges that Rick and Charles were talking about is that the intent of the orc ' ance and the collection of the occupational license tax is that it is collecl ed against someone who is able to engage in business in the city. I don't, and c 3rrect me if I am wrong, but if there is a sales, real estate sales associate is not permitted to operate a business except under the licensed broker. Is that correct? ..(Yes sir it is). So these people would not be able to conduct business in the city, unless they were working for somebody like these fellows. So you might want to consider that as a reason not to charge those people if that is what your inte t is. C. Watford stated there are a lot of other businesses that have sales people that basically work on commission also; is there a difference in those people and a real estate salesman? A RE salesman probably has more extensive licensing to go through? Attorney Cook informed that for instance in your line of work (Car Sales), when you have someone that is selling automobiles gybe in theory that person could go out and get their own lot and go into bush ess and sell cars. Whether they work for a big dealer or are on their own. Bi t, RE sales associates cannot work selling RE period, unless they work under a bi oker. C. Watford asked Finance Director Bob Delorme if he had any more comments? Since you have heard the public comments? Also, I have notices from your memo that we do have some options, it's not just a take it or leave it. Bob stated that one thing that was mentioned was the equa ' ation of rates across the board to make it across the board $25.00. Which is the most we would be able to raise them anyhow. You could make everybody $25.00 a ross the board. Page 9 Bob further stated this would probably cut our revenues is an option you have also, if you do that. C. Watford stated that I was thinking how the county does different catagories, is that right? ...(yes)..most cities that different catagories. This has always been a controversial this idea of one rate came up and ..there is a flip side to that maybe employs one or two people does a little bit of comment is well was it fair for somebody like a giant nati4 hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, is it the same or same fee that I do and I only do $10,000 worth of busines to this argument. I don't know which one is right. But thei argument. It may or may not be fair for everybody to pay C. Chandler asked Bob how many Occ. Lic. are we in the city? Bob..I think it is about 700. Attorney Cook stated to Bob that if the Council wanted yc numbers again would it be a hardship to postpone the mai September 1st? Bob..I believe we have to have them out c available for sale according to Statute. Attorney Cook furtl we did these, we amended them in mid year though didn't year? half on that. But that this, I think they have am aware of have abject. A few years ago iat... the small store lusiness so their ial firm who does ur for them to pay the So there is two sides are two sides to the xactly the same. from now? For fees to look at these ig of the bills until the first of August r asked, the last time e? For the following C. Watford ..as I understand it according to state statute, whatever fee we adopt here is the one that any future increases will be based upon. So if we said the fees are going to be $100, tonight to go into effect this year, all we can do is two years from not go up to $105. Attorney Cook stated that is true but ....C. Watford interje d, or, we could amend it down. Att. Cook stated that we amended it in 19 2. The Council had not looked at Occ Lic since 1982, I think, several years ap . C. Watford stated to Council that the only other option tha with the current fees; we can go with the business code ana and adjust any fees that you feel need to be adjusted. C. W assume that the committee that met came up with these fe4 that these are their recommendations, I guess. Although we recommendation. Bob stated that was their recommendatio each line item by line item. C. O'Connor... asked why are we getting this Occ Lic ordina Attorney Cook responded that it was ready and we tried in the Utility Authority business we were unable to have it pla agenda. ...O'Connor, Lydia said we had to have it in by 1, there? we have is to stay we can go through itford asked Bob, I and have concurred realize it's just a . By going through just now, this late? e, but because of on an earlier ist? It's got to be Page 10 Lydia..the FS states that we have to have the statements i sale. C. Watford stated that is one of the reasons we had meeting. O'Connor..I understand that but I dont know wl [led by August 1. On have a special Thompson..I still haven't got clarification to, and I am sorry I haven't. On the legalities or code or whatever it is we are working with thi tt gives the city the legal right to charge an individual person who has a license to c o business issued by the state of Florida, an occ. lic.? Where in the state statute or code does it give the right to do this? That's, I am going to be asked that ques on, I need an answer. Attorney Cook stated we went through that the last time vie did this Charles and you are right there is some restrictions to this. For instance on individuals that are already licensed by the state such as insurance agents. We went through it last time we did those fees and there is a way to do it. I just don't have that information here with me . .... Charles - but right now there is no fee on my agents. Attorney Cook responded that ...no, but in the past we have charged Insurance agents and they are licensed by the state like real estate agents. So are barbers by the same authority, and so am I as an attorney. B. Osterman - May I ask one more question? You said if we went to an equalized rate of $25.00 it would cut the revenue in half. Under these proposed fees, what is it doing for revenue base? Bob - it will probably raise it $ 0,000....Osterman..from what to what? What is it now? ... Bob ...we generate about 34 or $35,000. a year. ....Osterman, so you are talking about 20%? Are we doing it because we need the money? Is that why we are doing this? If it is I suggest we take the 20% and raise everybodys licence 20%. Let's do it that way. C. Watford An trying to answer your question, I don't th' anything has changed. Two years ago when we went through this the Fin. Dir. at at time told us that whatever we did would have very little affect on the entire budget. So I don't think it is a matter of (in my opinion) necessarily an incre in revenue as such. Because obviously we could raise taxes and get an increase in revenue also. Although that would be a lot more distasteful. But we basi y have done this because of the state statute. To try to (although we haven't gotten there obviously), to try to equalize the rate, so that we can at least if we want to increase them, if we didn't go through this, if we wanted to increase them in the future we couldn't. We have been in that box before. And 1hat is not a bid deal in my opinion. One way or another. But at least it gives you that option. I tend to agree that we need to look at these fees and maybe we want to increase some and maybe we don't/ C. Watford -Bob, does that basically hold true that that will have a, obviously it will have at least $10,000 affect on the total budget ... Of course we haven't gone through the budget hearings yet. But I think we will see that that will probably have little affect ... and I don't thing we will have to lay off somebody because we Page 11 didn't do this or we didn't do that. Osterman..I am afraid 200% increase. C. Watford..I can appreciate that too. don't know with a C. O'Connor ... on item one here it says the Council may a fit to adjust no rates. Or only implement select license rates? If we wanted to d it to where we did not adjust any rates and leave them like they are, what is the rocedure? For doing that now with the motion that we are under that we are g about this on. How, do we need some amendments? C. Watford, if the motion is defeated, we will continue uni ler the same rates and Bob, so we need these new catagories, or does that really after? Bob ... No. we don't need them ... C. Watford only if we go with this pro sal we will need the new catagories. Bob ... or only if you like that better that wl tat was in the ordinance already. C. Watford -if this motion is defeated ... O'Connor..then we stay like we are. C. Watford to Bob ... have we met the requirement then of a equity study then in two years from now from whatever they are now we could ' crease them by 5%? Bob..yes. like C. Oliver pointed out .... Bob..that's correct.... 11 Watford So we can either amend this or do you want to go through and amend or vote on the ordinance as it is? C. Oliver ... What about accepting the proposed fees with the limit of no more than a $25.00 increase for any license and excluding the individt al fee on the individual agents? I don't think a $25.00 fee, most of these fees, prop 3sed fees are not I don't think, way out of line. And a $25.00 increase, no more than a $25.00 increase other than the proposed fees. Some of them go fr m $25.00 to $30.00. So if we limit it to a $25.00 increase and excluded the agents, I don't think it would be a hardship on anyone. C. Watford ... how about the new catagories? Are there any thers? The retail sales changed somewhat; but I don't think ..As I glanced through there is one more catagory ... 513... personally I have no problem with that one We will leave that one the way it is. There are some new ones... Abstract & Ti e...Business Management and Consultants is new ... Bob does that sound like a viable way .... In other words C. Oliver if I understand what you are saying, or example: #101 increased from $25.00 to $30.00 so that would just stay $30. ? #201 increased from $50.00 to $75.00 so what you are proposing is that wo ld stay $75.00, Bob? Correct ... C. Watford, #202 increased $20.00 so it would sta $20.00—and get on down to ...Oliver - the first one that would change on that age would be ..Transportation: Rail, Bus and Truck - ..C. Watford, so what you are proposing then would be to just add $25.00? Oliver - Correct. C. Watford, I was just trying to clarify that, so anything that increased less than $25.00 would be at the new proposed rate? Oliver - Correct. Watford ... and anything that is more than $25.00 would go back to a $25.09 increase? Right. Page 12 C. Watford to Bob Delorme, FD., do you see any proble state there are a few other things the Council needs to lc the recreational facilities. -you've got - amusement machi leave those the same or adjust those also ... O'Connor..the - right ... C. Watford asked is that, I don't see a number hi current fee and a proposed fee, so basically that fee only correct because the Parlor itself went from $50.00 to $75. machine stayed the same according to what we have in fr right..I am looking at the one below it, the Auto vending from $2.50 to $5.00... Atty Cook and per bed charges on 14 Watford..under C. Olivers suggestion that is under $25.00 wants to put a maximum or not. C. Watford to C. Oliver, do you want to propose an ame discuss that? Oliver..do we need to vote on this motion f if we are going to change it we would need a motion to discuss that amendment. Vote on the amendment. Then amended. It is a little confusing but I think technically th You would need to make a motion to amend the motion maximum of $25.00 1 would assume to cover what you w� C. Oliver..to accept the proposed fees with a maximum Individuals. with that? Bob D. at on here too like s, etc..you may want to ,r machine? (903)..Bob : but you have got a ,nt up $25.00. Is that and additional t of us. Bob..that's achine (904)..went ging.... C. ..I don't know if he ment? So we can I C. Watford..I think end then we would to on the ordinance as is what we need to do. increase fees by a to do and ... C. Watford, that would be Real Estate, (Item 722 for RE gent), ...how about the mortgage broker? and investment firms? (Item 742 and 73 )?....Atty. I don't know I assume those people have the same descriptions as far as being able to operate a business under a license locally. C. Oliver..well ...Atty I think to leave those three, #722, # 32, and #742 ...then the agents under the license brokers would not be responsible for any fees ... Oliver, should we delete all agents then? All licensed agents? Atty - those three catagories... C. Watford..we have a motion to amend ..we have a motion to amend ..do we have a second? C. Watford cleared with Attorney Gook and stated he to Councilman O'Connor, for a moment please?..O'G Councilmember Watford seconded the motion ... Then to Chairman O'Connor, that I think that is probably a I like to pass the gavel accepted..and then as :ilman Watford stated compromise on this. • • Page 13 ...I think all the other increases are fairly minor and I don't know we may want to, if the Attorney says it is acceptable, open it back up for aiiy further public comments on the amendment and I think that is probably a good compromise. C. O'Connor asked Council if anybody else had any other comments ... C. Chandler asked is it going to be as amended?..C. Watford stated that if the amendment passes then we have to vote on the entire motion. Which then would be after we amend it. Chandler ... in this ordinance? Yes .... O'Connor..i will change what C. Oliver talked about. That is the only portion that is going to change. ...Right.... C. Watford stated I assume under the motion anything thl t is new would be at the new fee then? Correct (Atty) .... O'Connor anything th t is new, yes. C. Watford, and we do have the authority or we could if it w 1,re necessary ...next year we can't increase the fees but next year if we saw on that was too high we could amend the ordinance and lower that one. O'Connor next year or the year after next? ... Atty..you can adjust them downward anytime you want to. O'Oconnor, okay you could decrease it anytime.... C. Watford, we have a maximum of $25.00. Chandler..so if I am going to increase no more than $25.00 on the current fees? That right? in every catagory ... Oliver..no fee would raise more than $25.00-from the current fee other than the ones that are proposed -The proposed fees would stand as they are. 4othing would be raised more than $25.00 under my motion. C. Watford so i a other words like #905 Bowling alley -that was $62.50..we don't have a Bowl ng alley but if we did that $62.50 it could not go to $100.00.... because that is mole than $25.00... so it could only go to $87.50 ... Correct. C. Watford to Chairman O'Connor, to ask if anyone in the audiance had anything to say or compromise? C.O'Connor asked if anyone in the udiance had any comments? Finance Secretary Lydia Williams stated If you are going t< you also need to look under the professionals number 2001 the doctors, the attorneys, everybody pays $25.00 each right fair to not correct that the same, and one law firm only pa} instead of the two. C. O'Connor said that's a good point. C. Watford who are they? O I see. Lydia.... everyone who h now has to pay 25.00 per year ... Attorney Cook stated the di about, Lydia, was that each person who holds a profession capable of operating by themselves as a business should pa; or nurse, they don't have to work in a firm. They can open any time they want to. Where a real estate agents can't do take away the agents, .this is for your nurses, now. It wouldn't seem the one fee now Ids the same license ference we talked license who is the fee. Any lawyer p their own business Page 14... Okay, so if you have a nursing facility, (Lydia talking), like this, and they have 10 nurses are you going to cha they are state licensed? C. Watford, we charge they 25.00 now, is that correct? Y Atty Cook, the motion as it sits, they would go up to $50, $50.00 ...not the $75.00. Lydia - right. C. Watford stated 1 the difference, Attorney Cook stated that is what I sugges but each one of those persons are now buying a license? Lydia - right. and it was also supposed to be that way for everyone who holds a state license according to our ordin who holds a professional license are supposed to be payin year. C. Watford, but apparantly they aren't. Lydia --it's r well. M. Montessi stated to the Chairman that she sat on this t you are doing it now adding $25.00 some of the businesse or five licenses ... so that is going to be way over 200% inci to each license, and we have to have four different license solve your problem. O'Connor - how many licenses do yoi shop? MM..we have to have three ... Oconnor and that cou changes..right. Cause I have two. Watford ... okay won't th automatically go up..ie... it dont go up automatically $25.0( commission put an increase on it. I don't know what catat them did increase at some point. ?Watford.... but wouldn't an increase? No ... Watford Could we look at your licenses' would yours come under, Marcia? (Oconnor) .... MM sales, ...O'Connor do you have to have one for retail sales, auto what Dowling (Watford) would have to have. CW - we ha Dealer also... C. Watford. -vehicle repair..they didn't have one of those t service. It was just a 25.00 straight retail sales. Okay.. and have had? MM there are other stores that it is going to hi thinking of the gun shops that are in the city ... cau7se they different licenses...two for sure but three possibly on Occ. the federal side. C. Watford to Lydia - do you have a list of Occ Lic that's they pay? Delorme - attached to the memo. DW I mean i name ... Lydia I do its in my office I will go get it. C. Watford thats ok. Lydia I'll go. CW stated that he tb at an example it would help us a lot. etc .... Our business of $50.00 to the proposed fee $150.00. e Ready Nurse or things them $50.00 each? If I. From $25.00 to t you are saying that is d. C. Watford stated it example nurses, etc? ie realtors. Lydia - ice says that each one $25.00 already per : being policed very )ard and that if the way hold as many as four .ase. If you add $25.00 that is not going to have at the radiator i go up as EPA t way ..it don't .only if the study cries ..MM most of ,ou have had more of woul you mind? What ►ervice, retail sales, epair, the same as e to have a Auto ore? yes - repair tat else would we .O'Connor I was just ve to have three ,. I know they do on and how much lly, by business if council could look from the current fee Page 15.. CW with what the council is proposing it would only go u have to have $75. plus we will have to have the repair sei go along with that. OConnor so you are at $150.00 there. a $100 anyway. - With Franks business (Attorney Cook), 1 if no license is going up no more than $25.00 the maximu year. CW - I think his will only be less than that under th p to $75.00. So we will vice I would assume. to CW Ok but we were at ie has three licenses and n will be $75.00 per s new proposal. CW - We could look at the example ....for all dealers, does that cover everything or do you still have to A can't remember what we have to do..I just remember we pay it. For example ... the business I work for Automobile Dealership, I assume we have to have Retail Sales, Auto Dealer, ... C. O'Connor recognized Citizen Andrea Nelson who aske what catagory do drugstores fall under? Has several licenses .... C. O'Connor - I am sure that one of them would definitely be retail sales. ..and C. Watford... Lydia has the list ... and can tell us ... Lydia ... I'm trying to scim through here real fast and find one that posts several .... the drugst re - they have retail sales (Major), then vending machines, Pharmacist, ... C. Watford to Lydia, give us what those are (fees) ... and then go through and look up w iat they will be - Lydia, the square footage=10984, (it's $.02 per sq. ft.), 7.50 for the vending machine and $25.00 for the state license. Their license per year is $ 42.34, that's this year's (95)... CW so if I read this correctly they will be under retail sales, as their primary business. Under the new proposal ---Lydia, $200.00. that is going to be hard to figure out if you're not going over the $25.00 increase... Atty Cook, what is the sq. ftg. of the store? LJ... 4,242 = $715.00...CW if we go with the new proposal ..then the vending machines? yes -they ar at $7.50.... CW... if we went from ...that is an increase ... from $2.50 each to $5.00 each..so we must have had three of them ... fifteen and the state license ... is that a Irofessional license? yes..So that would go from this proposal then up to $50.00. right... yes... So she would (A. Nelson) actually pay $140.00... now, right?? ..adc ed correct? no..it will come down $2.44... hers wil go down ... Yours will go down, i Wgela ... Great„ I guess I can leave....!!! That is the first time that ever happened... Osterman..increase as the drugstore expands sq ft? Yes.... r increase RS or Vending machines increased amount ... any of those things uld cause an increase... Just trying to compare -what it is right now ... C.O' at Christmas time don't you all have another nnor..cause Andrea in pharmacist co Andrea..No... I thought you did ... Andrea we just have a relief a there? pharmacist ... O'C what would the reliefe do ... that would't affect it ?? Atty.Cook-according Ord. now every pharmacist should have a license. Andrea to the but care of ..he does have a license..CW but he needs a City isn't that taken pational License ... O'Connor it would come under the Occ Lic woul 't it?? Andrea right but, doesn't the place he works for ie he works for a parti ar company that • .I Page 16 sends out the pharmacists throughout the state. Wouldn't they have to take care of that? O'Connor not according to the way the ordinance is. Andrea ... I pay them..0 W..we haven't been enforcing this apparently. -O'Connor that was the problem on the Code Board..this came back to haunt us all the time ... but Lydia the way that the Ord reads right now if she had another pharmacist working there he has to or you have to come get a license for him, is what she is trying to say ... the way that .... Andrea they send me a different person each time, I have to leave ... Lydia, according to the Ord. right now, one who holds a professional license must pay $25.00 per year ...and we have to have a copy of that license (state) on file .... Andrea so in other words if I have someone different each week one day a week, I have to pay the City of Okeechobee $ .00M.. each day.... Absolutely not ... CWatford well you haven't been do g it so far so C. O'Connor..I am just saying that is the way it reads righ now... something like that could possibly be adjusted, in a new ordinance but th way the Ord reads right now, many people have been in violation and the ci has been in as much violation for not enforcing it. Andrea, well is the city goin to enforce it or, make a new ord. O'Connor..YOU ARE ON THE CODE BO !!!...Andrea ..I guess we can't go anywhere now ... every day during the week..is 1hat what we are saying here? Each time somebody comes to work we have to pay $25.00?..... Atty Cook there is an exception, I don't have it in front of me, but if ther is a person or permanent business located in or issued in another Count) and pays a license tax there is a way they can come here and not pay a tax..but I don't have that with me here.... Andrea..well the thing of it is this thing ..each particular p iannacist that we get, they come from a corporation..Health Care Consultants.., a ad that along with Florida ... and I would imagine that they would have all the things taken care of...Osterman.-they should have a city license...Andrea I ai i sure they must.... C. Oliver..the thing about it is we are not changing ..that l along ... CW & CO..we just haven't been enforcing it. C OB what I am getting at is if it was $25.00 and it has been the we look at the business where I am employed? You have i paid our fee, don't tell me we didn't. Just don't say it if N tell you what you've got ... Dealers License, 50.00, Auto Deg $75.00 under the new proposal ... it was 50.00... Retail Sales, fee, CW - not a primary business, ? ight... LJ..then you have service license, that will go to 50.00 under the new propos his motion says if it is less than 25.00 it will go to 50.00... hi automatically went to 25,00, is that correct, is that your me The Maximum would be 25.00... so if it is less that 25.00 in increases only 20.00..CW... so it stands at 20.00... it doesn't 25.00..so it will still be 50.00.... So we were paying, I can't a s been in effect all er I understand but :...C.Watford .. Could at there? surely we > didn't... Lydia, I can er, and that will go to vhich is just the 25.00 a 30.00 repair shop !...will be 55.00... CW didn't say it ier wordsthat up automatically to that good, I wish I Page 17 I wish I had my calculator ... $105.00... so we will be paying 150.00... is that basically correct? ... B/Osterman What about your vending machine.?? CW..that's not ours!!! Get Gator Davis for that if you can catch him ... CW I just wanted some concrete examples..to look at obviously... again I think this is proba ly a good compromise here ..we give a little increase ..and I tend to agree with everyone else that that was probably a little too much (as proposed by the comm ttee)... but I think everybody can live with with that ... and I tend to agree witi or about the agents„ I don't have any problem with deleting those ... so the reales to firm then instead of 25.00, will pay 50.00 now I assume? ... So.. C. O'Connor, is there anymore comment from the public? back up here then...What I'd like to hear the motion... read... I'd like to hear what it said ... We have a motion to increase fees to a maximum of 25.00 and excluding individual fees for agents, or licensed individuals ... C. Oliver, stated I think whgat I said was .."To acce t the Prop2sed fees with no mom with ahh no Increase bean more than 25.00 " The proposed fees in some cases are only a 5 00 jump -so accept the proposed fees with no more than a 25.00 increase ... Atty kthen you need to _-_AV--.. ,_.. - - - - - C O'Connor..and what about the part that Lydia brough u 3 about, John, about the nurses and what have you??? Atty Cook ..as I said, I ji ist said that throughout the course of the conversation, that perhaps It was equitat le, but, if a person has a professional license that permits them to open up their c wn business, without working under somebody elses license, then they ought to go ahead and pay... C Watford..that has been in effect, It is in effect now so, i like all the rest of it, they will just get a little increase... C.O'Connor..25.00..bum ..0 Watford ... 25.00 increase ... C. Oliver, the proposed fee on the profesional li nse went from 25.00 to 75.00..so now it will only go to 50.00... if we set a 25.00 ump...C. O'Connor.. C. Watford. -so we need to vote on the amendment then? Atty Cook..Mike needs to call for a vote on the amendment then pass the gavel back to you..(C., Watford).. C. O'Connor called for vote on motion amendment: all in Jkvor for the amendment that C. Oliver made which Bonnie just read..as revoiced by C. Oliver ... does everybody understand what we are voting on? Clerk Thomas stated it is on the tape for varification in the minutes ... Vote on amendment ..all yes..none opposed... Motion carried... C. Watford..so I've got the gavel back? - C'OConnor, you have got it back. ... C. Watford, boy, this is exciting!11 Okay, now we have the motion as amended, is there any other discussion on the motion as amended?? ... C. Oliver - I do haver one thing to say, if some of these things are out of line we reduce the fees, as was pointed out to us, we couldn't go up before, but if theo things become an • Page 18 issue, we could go down later?...at any time?..J. Cook..thi lt is correct ... C> Watford, I would caution you though, when you say anyti ne, I would sure hope we didn't do it until next year ... before the licenses go on a again ... C. Oliver, that is what I had in mind .... C. Watford, yeah, okay... I'd ope we wouldn't comenan back next month and say ..it causes havoc with the fidepartment obviously... C. Watford any other discussion on the motion as amend �d?...C. Watford called fnr a vnta nn *6a mi.�i.... .... . . ._ _- carried.... C. Oliver - I make a motion to read by title only, Ordinance 681, and set August 15, 1995, fora Public hearing date....C_ watfnrd un.v tio.,e i.e.....i —2— _ _ . Carried... ATTORNEY COOK READ TITLE... COUNCIL DISCUSSION: C. Watford explained, as you know cur agenda is a little bit different on this item because this is an amendment to the land use map ... We will discuss the two applications then call for public Comment ... then take a n lotion to adopt the Ord. ...If you will recall, gentlemen, we received these in our packet l t meeting and discussed at some point the merits of each application and instructed them to be presented for Ordinance... and called for comments.. Atty Cook stated that as you you sat as Land Planning Agency, aj id determined that the proposed changes would be consistent with the comprehensive ph , and now it is here before you, for first reading, and you will essentially go through the same process, and determine as the City Council whether these applications .....C> I Vatford..neither one of these applications were determined last time ..neither one of thes were considerd to be what we would consider errors to the map. So the applicants, have paid the necessary fees to have these land use amendments prepared for Ordinance.. for hearing so ... does anyone have anymore comments? ...we discussed this at some length whatever we were called then ... does anyone have any comments? ... If not we will ask if there are any comments from the public on these two applications ...to amend the land use map ... FLUM?... if not..and I hear none..It's back up hear ... do I hem r a motion to adopt Oedinance 68L.this is the First Reading so we need a motion to i 1pprove the First Reading .... C. O'Connor stated - SO MOVED ... MCMiI t cFrn►r .% nv ayes - MOTION CARRIED.... • Pane 19 MEETING... ITEM D. NEW BUSINESS: C. Watford stated the only item we have under new business is Utility Agreement for wastewater service between the City and Kampgrounds of Ame ca, Inc. and called for a motion on this item. C. O'Connor made a motion to approve it. C. Watford called fo a second to the motionX. Chandler seconded the motion C. Watford opened th item up for discussion: C. OConnor asked the UD Wayne Jones '"This is the same one that when KOA was gonna put it in before but it was under, when it was going under the other lift station it was going under, being put in over there by the motel? and then that ...So all we are doing is just coming up the street on the other side? ... Wayne Jones stated that is correct. O'Connor - Okay, and everything else would be the same just lik it was before? as far as capacity? WJ that is correct.... C. Watford stated Wayne, I had asked you a couple of questions understand it we do have the capacity but at some time it may .., their current flows and based on our highest peak day last year v current capacity..WJ, the KOA group has agreed to maintain the: their existing plant, if we should for some reason or other we ha( operation, it could be done. And it will be maintained in operatic Watford -would we do that as the city or do they do that? As KC be the OUA Group at that time..just on a short term as needed 1 never occur ...0 Watford but that is workable? WJ Yes sir it is w Rogers the engineer, myself and Chairman Jack Coker of the OL Friday, and we are ...C. Watford asked, we have that agreement? not in writing but I am sure that they would be more than happy writing.CW..Okay, and you did mention Mr. Coker, who is the Cl so they are aware of this agreement? and I guess comfortable wit he other day, as I VJ - no sir, based on would not exceed our operational permit on to put it back into ial condition. C. ►? WJ I think it would Isis. Hopefully that will rkable and we, Mr. k discussed this last n hand or ... WJ it is :) provide us that in urman, of the OUA, it? WJ, they are aware of it. To say they are comfortable with it that might be stretching the issue a little bit. I think the point is they are uncomfortable with, maybe, having to expand the treatment plant immediately, which but that was a known fact whether it be the Utility Authority or the City. We would have to be looking at at expansion very very soon... CW..is anybody from the OUA here? to comment on this? I mean specifically... Mr. Minehan is always here ... to comment on this, anybody? ... J. Minehan, no the information we've got so far we are comfortable with it wut we just mentioned in there in case of an emergency the OUA would maintain that left station or operationthey've got now ... I wouldn't worry about it. CW..Mr. Coker was aware of that? WJ Y s sir, that was • Page 20 mentioned at yesterday's meeting. And that was brought out in a discussion with Mr. LaMariana and Mr. Coker at that time ... J.Minehan I must have missed that ... Maybe I wasn't there ... Ha ... WJ But it was discussed ... CW Okay, so they are aware of that? ... WJ Yes sir the majority of the OUA was aware of it .... CW and toy ur knowledge they didn't particularly object to that? WJ that made them a lot more comfortable with it.... CW is someone here representing KOA? WJ Yes sir, Bob Roge the consulting engineer and the Kampground Director is here ... CW would you 'nd commenting on that? ... Mr. Rogers...? My name is Bob Rogers, I am a consulting engineer from Ocala, Florida. We were called last Wednesday by Mr. Coker. We are sorta unique, and what I mean when I am saying that, we at KOA, because we do have a waste water treatment plant that's got an operating permit right now ... A lot of new facilities do not have that option ... And what he asked for was, is there some way we can make sure we got some protection and KOA did agree that we would petition the State and when we come "o -line", we won't totally close down our plant ... we will retain the land of the sewer plant operating position so that the OUA will have a place to kick off flow in the case that eir flow gets to a position that they can't do that .... You can't do that with anybody else, nor can anybody else come into our plant. But we do have 80,000 gpd capacity that we could help in those cases when we do have peak flow ... and KOA has agreed to that.. The only thing that we want to do is get out of the sewer business ... so the OUA will be aymg a sewer fee just like anybody else in the city ... and then we are going to lease the and or have some kind of working relationship with the OUA, that basically the all the p operty and the facilities that is on KOA Kampground is on for use for the OUA to use... C. O'Connor. -like a mutual aid deal ... if they needed it they could use it. Rogers..that's right .... DW..I would assume then at some time, if the capacity eitpanded then you KOA would be able to dismantle... Rogers, we sure hope so .... CW, thank you sir... CW to Attorney Cook - Mr. Attorney I noticed there are quite a few amendments made to what is basically our standard Utility Agreement?? ... I assume y u have looked at those? Those are acceptable and some places it just marks out th word developer,??KOA ...Atty Cook, most of the changes are minor, 11 vould point out, I know you like these. -interpretations but ... the easement section is crossed out and the easements are prepared ...typically you will recall that when we grant easements, or have easements for access to install utility service, all of our easements state that if the owner somehow obstructs that easement then we are free to go in there ind dismantle it ... and that's the owner's problem and he has to pay for it .... these easemc nts say that the owner reserves the right to enjoy the use of the property for all purposes which do not interfere with and prevent the use of the City of Okeechobee. So legally tha would be interpreted as they are permitted to interfere with our use as long as it doesn't PREVENT our use. That may be a small point but that is the difference in the easeme It that we don't use... I frankly don't see any problem unless I suppose somebody could i ristall a concrete slab and a carport over a utility line, but ... • Page 21 Rogers - that is what we were talking about, we would like to b over It -and as long as we don't interfere with the use of that li use it and landscape it ..whatever...Atty Cook,.. Yeah, Our eases as well ... our easements say that if for some reason we have to d service this line the owner is responsible for replacing it..not th that but that is the difference in the two easements... Rogers, mi be done, there is only one section that will be actually out of D that's across the land that is owned by Mr. Norman Hale. -Mr. I easement allowing us to get out from under that sidewalk, once granted the City of Okeechobee the right to go across their pro] Southerly somebody else will have to pay to tear up the sidewal remaining construction is under DOT R-O-W and under the sid are going to put it back in condition based upon our permit we able to put a driveway e we'd like to be able to ents always permit that up the driveway, to city ...this doesn't say it of the work that will )T right-of-way, and ale has granted us an we get, in turn KOA erty so if it ever extends . But most of the walk. So basically we re receiving from DOT. CW..so you say that is no particular problem then? ... Atty Cook, i io I don't see it as a major obstacle, no. Just these different easements that what we in ormally use. CW..but it does give us easements ... CW..any other questions or comments? f not I assume it is on record that they have agreed for emergency use of their plant for overflow or whatever so that would be acceptable then? Atty Cook..Wayne do you anticipate a side agreement with KOA on that? or what? Wayne Jones, UD, advised that it is a matter of public record at this point ...unless you as the Attorney feels it is necessary to have a side agreement, but it has been acknowledged that it is a matter of public record ... C. O'Connor ell it is going to transfer in October anyway... Atty Cook ... you could approve the Utility agreement with the pro so that *****It is conditioned on KOA's acknowledgement and agreement to maintain that package plant and the license, that sort of thing ... W. Jones, until such time as 0 a Utility Authority expands their plant ..Atty - right... C. Watford..okay gentlemen if we want to do that we would need amendment to the motion that it is conditional on receiving a ..or subject to ... Mr. R.ers I see you are wishing to make a comment. -Mr. Rogers stated, my concern Is, if get a motion tonight, we are fixing to build a forcemain, and if we got a conditi ned agreement, where does that put me? ... What I'd like to do and really what, we have worked with Mr. Coker before and we are going to work something, but I didn't feel like I needed to bind the City of Okeechobee for approximately a month or two months ... so that Is why we didn't come up with some agreement...There Is a lot of factors that need I D be worked out ..concerning the lease, concerning who is going to be responsible for operation and various other things. Rogers..to whether DEP even lets us do that..see, the operation pe It needs to be shifted over to the person that is going to be responsible... for it. N t the land owner Page 22 Rogers ... so that Is why I didn't want to be setting on a situation which we'd like to go into construction with.. being in an "iffy" Attorney Cook..*****Make the motion then (that to not condition but): Upon the representation of KOA, that they intend to maintain the facility, then you will approve the agreement... Rogers, we have no problem with that. Rogers.. feel we have an opportunity to help the OUA in a situation until they expand their plant and KOA is perfectly willing to do that... C. (YConnor, well I need to withdraw my motion then ... CW, yes Chandler withdrew his second. CW mo and sec has been withdn motion..CW we now need a new motion of the agreement ..C.O' motion that we subject to, what the City Attorney just said on th be so described as that as what's in the minutes .... C. Chandler s C. Watford, okay I have a motion and a second to approve the L wastewater service between the City and Kampgrounds of Amery mind ...with, was It ..with the understanding ...Attorney Cook, wit KOA that they intend to maintain the facility package plant and Is not a condition of the motion but, with that knowledge, the Cl agreement.. C. Watford -Is that somewhat understandable, Madam Clerk? have it on the tape..C. Watford, okay -does everybody up here Jones and KOA's Representatives? They understand?... C. O'Connor ...I call the question ... C. Watford okay..we have a no further discussion, so all those in favor of the motion say. Aye... Opposed... none... Motion Carried. C. Watford stated that Is the last Item on the Agenda, so this Adjourned at 7:40 p.m. - started at 6:00 p.m. BST ad start over..C. m so we need a new onnor, I make a thing for KOA that it ended the motion... lity Agreement for Inc., ...and would you the representation of ye license ..then the, it will then approve the Thomas, Yes, I ,and it? And Mr. )n and a second, with All voted Is adjourned-. w O U �4 d ad ci N W m E U o, ,e T a to y Oa O C m 3 cd` t l O` c°$ c c �.0 1)04C o cE¢ 0 yc4,�0� 0j�.�oo 43 � O .y •y 'Q O � a cd N 2 Z w 0 °°— z f u ORDINANCE #679 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF OREECHOBEE, FL; AMENDING CHAPTER 10 ARTICLE I, SECTION 10-16 TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE CATEGORIES AND FEES FOR SAME; TO RE -NUMBER OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE CATEGORIES; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNC L OF THE CITY OF OREECHOBEE, FLORIDA AS FOLLOWS: Section I: Chapter 10, Article I, Section 10-11 Ordinances of the City of Okeechobee is hereby follows: CHAPTER 10 ARTICLE I SECTION 10-16 LICENSE SCHEDULE The following enumeration of license taxes the city by the persons engaging in occupations, trades, business, and pursuits named. The licen an annual tax, except as otherwise stated. 100 101 LAWN/YARD/LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION 200 CONTRACTORS: 201 CONTRACTOR 202 SUBCONTRACTOR 300 MANUFACTURING 301 MANUFACTURERS 302 CEMENT BULK PLANTS 400 UTILITY SERVICES 401 RADIO/TV STATIONS 402 SEPTIC TANK SERVICIE 403 TRANSPORTATION: RAIL, BUS & TRUCK UTILITIES: 404 ELECTRIC 405 TELEPHONE 406 TELEGRAPH 407 REFUSE OR TRASH REMOVE CO 408 CABLEVISION Of the Code of ended to read as Shall be paid to professions, ae tax is to be $30.00 $75.00 $50.00 $75.00 $75.00 $65.00 $50.00 $125.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 500 RE &T. AJD WHOLE SALE 9�LES 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 600 MANUFACTURED HOME SALE RETAIL SALES - NOT AS PRIMARY BUSINESS RETAIL SALES - PRIMARY BUSINESS: 1 - 4,999 GROSS SQ FT 5000 - 10,000 GROSS SQ FT 10,001 - 50,000 GROSS SQ FT OVER 50,000 SQ FT DEALERS, NEW AND USED (AUTO, BOAT, ETC.) GASOLINE DEALERS, LIQUID PETROLEUM, ETC. GAS PLANTS (BULK) BAKERIES AUCTION SALES FLORISTS ADULT BOOIVVIDEO ENTERTAINMENT 601 BARS/LOUNGES/PUBS FOOD SERVICES: 602 1-25 OCCUPANCY 603 26-149 OCCUPANCY 604 150-249 OCCUPANCY 605 >250 OCCUPANCY 606 FAST FOOD SERVICE 607 DELICATESSEN/SNACK BAR 700 701 BAN KS/SAVING&LOAN S/CR UNION 702 FINANCE COMPANIES 710 INSURANCE: 711 EACH COMPANY WRITING 712 EACH AGENT/FIRM 720 REAL ESTATE: 721 REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE A722 AGENT/BROKER, EACH 730 MORTGAGE BROKER: 731 BROKERAGE x 732 SALES BROKER, EACH 740 INVESTMENT FIRMS: 741 BROKERAGE x 742 AGENTS, EACH 703 ABSTRACT/TITLE COMPANY 704 BUSINESS/MGT CONSULTING $75.00 $25.00 $75.00 $100.00 $150.00 $500.00 $150.00 $100.00 $100.00 $75.00 $150.00 $75.00 $500.00 $375.00 $30.00 $75.00 $175.00 $300.00 $225.00 $50.00 $300.00 $150.00 $75.00 $25.00 $75.00 $25.00 $75.00 $25.00 $75.00 $25.00 $75.00 $50.00 0 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 314 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 SRRVZCES ADVERTISING ANSWERING SERVICE CAR WASH CATERING BUSINESS CLEANING/MAINT/JANITOR SERVICES COLLECTION AGENCY COURT REPORTING SERV DETECTIVE AGENCY DRY CLEANERS EMPLOYMENT AGENCY EXPRESS/SHIPPING COMPANY FUNERAL HOME HEALTH SPAS/EXERCISE JOB PRINTING LAUNDRIES/LAUNDROMATS LOCKSMITH PEST CONTROL SERVICE PHOTOGRAPHY STUDIO REPAIR SERVICE - MISC TANNING BEDS/BOOTHS EACH TRAVEL AGENCY PLUS EACH AGENT UPHOLSTERY SHOP WATER TREATMENT SERVICE WRECKER SERVICE VEHICLE REPAIR SERVICE MACHINE SHOP AMUSEMENT PARK AMUSEMENT PARLOR PER MACHINE ADDITIONAL AUTO VENDING MACH -EACH BOWLING ALLEY GOLF COURSE-9 HOLE SECOND 9 HOLES SEPARATE DRIVING RANGE SHOWS/CIRCUS/CARNIVAL-DAILY SKATING RINK THEATER (1ST SCREEN) EACH ADD SCREEN POOL TABLES (EACH) $75.00 $30.00 $30.00 $35.00 $30.00 $35.00 $50.00 $50.00 $75.00 $35.00 $35.00 $175.00 $50.00 $50.00 $35.00 $35.00 $50.00 $50.00 $35.00 $20.00 $75.00 $25.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $200.00 $75.00 $5.00 $5.00 $100.00 $150.00 $75.00 $75.00 $160.00 $100.00 $100.00 $50.00 $20.00 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1009 1010 2000 RENTALS AUTOMOBILE /TRUCFVTRAILER APARTMENT, MULTIPLE ONE STORY DWELLING, TOWNHOUSE & CONDOMENIUMS PLUS PER UNIT CHARGE EQUIPMENT RENTAL PUBLIC LODGING PLUS PER BED CHARGE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY PER UNIT RENTED WAREHOUSES MOBILE HOME PARKS PER SPACE (ADDITIONAL) CLOTHES RENTAL VIDEO RENTAL PROF'E S S I ONAL 2001 EACH PERSON HOLDING A PROFESSION LICENSE 2002 HOSPITAL/NURSING HOME 2003 MEDICAL/DENTAL FACILITY 2004 BARBER/BEAUTY SHOPS 3000 NON -CLASSIFIED 3001 AUCTIONEERS 3002 CHILD CARE CENTERS 3003 DANCE HALL 3004 FORTUNE TELLER/PALMIST. 3005 NEWS COMPANIES 3006 PAWNBROKERS 3007 STUDIOS, DANCE/KARATE 4000 ANY OTHER BUSINESS NOT LISTED ABOVE This ordinance sliall become effective ijimediate adoption. Introduced on first reading and set for public lie day of , 1995. JAMES E. KI ATTEST: BONNIE S. THOMAS, CMC CITY CLERK $50.00 $75.00 $3.00 $50.00 $25.00 $1.00 $25.00 $30.00 $25.00 $2.00 $25.00 $50.00 $75.00 $90.00 $75.00 $75.00 $75.00 $75.00 $75.00 $500.00 $150.00 $200.00 $50.00 $50.00 upon its ing on this MAYOR Passed and adopted p on second reading and pub lic hearing this day of , 1995. JAMES E. KIRK, MAYOR ATTEST: BONNIE S. THOMAS, CMC CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: JOHN R. COOK CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF OKEECHOB4E M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: July 14, 1995 THRU: SUBJECT: Occupational License Ordinance THRU: John J. Drago, City Administrator Q. FROM: Robert M. Delorme, Finance Director9ml Pursuant to Florida Statute, Chapter 205.0535, an Equity Study Commission was formed of five local business owners. Meetings were conducted to determine rates which were considered equitable. The rates contained in the first reading of Ordinance #679 were agreed to by all members. The Commission members went through each line item to identify increases /decreases. The review of this City's Occupational License Tax rates 'ncluded an examination and comparison of the rate structure in place at three other municipalities. At the first reading of Ordinance #679, I was asked to provide a list which shows the current rates and the proposed rates. That schedule is attached to this Memo for your review prior to the Public Hearin on July 27, 1995. Several provisions of FS 205.0535 are provided for your information: 1 - The Equity Study Commission rates are only, recommendations. The Council may see fit to adjust no rates or only implement select license rates. There is no requirement that these recommendations be adopted; that is the exclusive decision of the City Council. 2 - A minimum License Tax of $25 is permitted as part of this Study. 3 - Once the requirements of the Equity Council Actions are complete, the City may only Taxes every other year by no more than 5 percent. Stu Commission and City rai a Occupational License I recommend that the following actions be adopted: 1 - The Occupational License categories and Ordinance #679 be adopted. These categories are very other cities. 2 - That the proposed fees be reviewed careful] to be inequitable be appropriately adjusted. 3 - That a minimum license tax of $25 be adopt Also attached is a copy of FS 205.0535 and the curre City Code for your information. If you have Occupational License Tax, please do not hesitate to structure presented in similar to that used by and only those deemed nt Section 10-16 of the any questions on the contact me. CITY OF OKEECHOBEE OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FEE COMPARISON NEW CURRENT CURRENT PROPOSED BUSINESS BUSINESS FEES FEES CODE CODE 100 AGRICULTURE AND F RESTRY 101 37 LAWN/YARD/LANDSCAPE $25.00 $30.00 200 15 CONTRACTORS: 201 15A CONTRACTOR 202 15B SUBCONTRACTOR 300 301 302 400 401 402 403 405 406 407 408 409 500 501 39 MANUFACTURERS 11 CEMENT BULK PLANTS 47 RADIO/TV STATIONS 52 SEPTIC TANK SERVICE 55 TRANSPORTATION: RAIL, BUS $ TRUCK 56 UTILITIES: ELECTRIC TELEPHONE TELEGRAPH REFUSE OR TRASH REMOVE CO CABLEVISION 41 MANUFACTURED HOME SALE $50.00 $30.00 $60.00 $62.50 $65.00 $25.00 $62.50 $112.50 $62.50 $62.50 $75.00 $100.00 $75.00 $75.00- $50.00 _ $75.00 $75.00 $65.00 $50.00 $125.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $160.00 $75.00 CITY OF OKEECHOBEE OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FEE COMPARISON NEW CURRENT BUSINESS BUSINESS CODE CODE 51 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 700 701 702 710 711 18 29 30 6 4 25 RETAIL SALES (PLUS .02 PER SQUARE FOOT NTE $300 RETAIL SALES - NOT AS PRIMARY BUSINESS RETAIL SALES - PRIMARY BUSINESS 1 - 4,999 GROSS SQ FT 5000 - 10,000 GROSS SQ FT 10,001 - 50,000 GROSS SQ FT OVER 50,000 SQ FT DEALERS, NEW AND USED (AUTOS, BOATS, ETC) GASOLINE DEALERS, LIQUID PETROLEUM & OTHERS GAS PLANTS (BULK) BAKERIES AUCTION SALES FLORISTS ADULT BOOKNIDEO ENTERTAINMENT 8 BARS/LOUNGES/PUBS FOOD SERVICES: 26A 1-25 OCCUPANCY 26B 26-149 OCCUPANCY 26C 150-249 OCCUPANCY 26D >250 OCCUPANCY 24 FAST FOOD SERVICE 19 DELICATESSEN/SNACK BAR 7 BANKS/SAVING&LOANS/CR UNION FINANCE COMPANIES 34 INSURANCE: 34A EACH COMPANY WRITING CURRENT PROPOSED FEES FEES $25.00 $50.00 $37.50 $62.50 $25.00 $150.00 $25.00 $275.00 $25.00 $75.00 $160.00 $200.00 $200.00 $25.00 $100.00 $25.00 $0.00 $25.00 $75.00 $100.00 $150.00 $500.00 $150.00 $100.00 $100.00 $75.00 $150.00 $75.00 $500.00 $375.00 $30.00 $75.00 $175.00 $300.00 $225.00 $50.00 $300.00 $150.00 $75.00 CITY OF OKEECHOBEE OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FEE COMPARISON NEW CURRENT BUSINESS BUSINESS CODE CODE 712 34B 720 721 722 730 731 732 740 741 742 703 704 800 801 1 802 2 803 9 804 10 805 13 806 14 807 16 808 20 809 21 810 22 811 23 812 28 813 32 814 35 815 36 816 38 817 44 818 819 50 820 54 821 EACH AGENT/FIRM REAL ESTATE: REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE AGENT/BROKER, EACH MORTGAGE BROKER: BROKERAGE SALES BROKER, EACH INVESTMENT FIRMS: BROKERAGE AGENTS, EACH ABSTRACT/TITLE COMPANY BUSINESS/MGT CONSULTING SERVICES ADVERTISING ANSWERING SERVICE CAR WASH CATERING BUSINESS CLEAN I NG/MAINT/JANITOR SERVICES COLLECTION AGENCY COURT REPORTING SERV DETECTIVE AGENCY DRY CLEANERS EMPLOYMENT AGENCY EXPRESS/SHIPPING COMPANY FUNERAL HOME HEALTH SPAS/EXERCISE JOB PRINTING LAUNDRIES/LAUNDROMATS LOCKSMITH PEST CONTROL SERVICE PHOTOGRAPHY STUDIO REPAIR SERVICE - MISC TANNING BEDS/BOOTHS EACH TRAVEL AGENCY CURRENT PROPOSED FEES FEES $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $50.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $60.00 $35.00 $25.00 $12.50 $12.50 $35.00 $30.00 $10.00 $25.00 $75.00 $25.00 $75.00 $25.00 $75.00 $25.00 $75.00 $50.00 $75.00 $30.00 $30.00 $35.00 $30.00 $35.00 $50.00 $50.00 $75.00 $35.00 $35.00 $175.00 $50.00 $50.00 $35.00 $35.00 $50.00 $50.00 $35.00 $20.00 $75.00 • • • it CITY OF OKEECHOBEE OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FEE COMPARISON NEW CURRENT BUSINESS BUSINESS CODE CODE 822 823 57 824 59 825 60 826 827 900 PLUS EACH AGENT UPHOLSTERY SHOP WATER TREATMENT SERVICE WRECKER SERVICE VEHICLE REPAIR SERVICE MACHINE SHOP 901 48 AMUSEMENT PARK 902 AMUSEMENT PARLOR 903 PER MACHINE ADDITIONAL 904 AUTO VENDING MACH -EACH 905 BOWLING ALLEY 906 GOLF COURSE-9 HOLE 907 SECOND 9 HOLES 908 SEPARATE DRIVING RANGE 909 SHOWS/CIRCUS/CARNIVAL-DAILY 910 SKATING RINK 911 THEATER (1ST SCREEN) 912 EACH ADD SCREEN 913 POOL TABLES (EACH) 1000 RENTALS 1001 AUTOMOBILE /TRUCK/TRAILER 1002 3 APARTMENT, MULTIPLE ONE STORY DWELLING, TOWN- HOUSE & CONDOMENIUMS PLUS PER UNIT CHARGE 1003 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 1004 45 PUBLIC LODGING PLUS PER BED CHARGE 1005 COMMERCIAL PROPERTY: PER UNIT RENTED CURRENT PROPOSED FEES FEES $25.00 $30.00 $30.00 $187.50 $50.00 $5.00 $2.50 $62.50 $50.00 $25.00 $25.00 $75.00 $100.00 $75.00 $50.00 $20.00 $25.00 $1.00 $25.00 $1.00 $25.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $200.00 $75.00 $5.00 $5.00 $100.00 $150.00 $75.00 $75.00 $150.00 $100.00 $100.00 $50.00 $20.00 $50.00 $75.00 $3.00 $50.00 $25.00 $1.00 $25.00 r CITY OF OKEECHOBEE OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FEE COMPARISON NEW CURRENT BUSINESS BUSINESS CODE CODE 1006 58 1007 40 1009 1010 2000 WAREHOUSES MOBILE HOME PARKS PER SPACE (ADDITIONAL) CLOTHES RENTAL VIDEO RENTAL 2001 46 EACH PERSON HOLDING A 2002 PROFESSIONAL LICENSE 2003 33 HOSPITAUNURSING HOME 2004 MEDICAUDENTAL FACILITY 2005 BARBER/BEAUTY SHOPS 3000 How- 3001 5 AUCTIONEERS 3002 12 CHILD CARE CENTERS 3003 17 DANCE HALL 3004 27 FORTUNE TELLER/PALMIST 3005 42 NEWS COMPANIES 3006 43 PAWNBROKERS 3007 53 STUDIOS, DANCE/KARATE 4000 1017 ANY OTHER BUSINESS NOT LISTED ABOVE CURRENT PROPOSED FEES FEES $25.00 $12.50 $25.00 $31.50 $75.00 $25.00 $50.00 $250.00 $125.00 $187.50 $25.00 $25.00 $30.00 $25.00 $2.00 $25.00 $50.00 $75.00 $90.00 $75.00 $75.00 $75.00 $75.00 $75.00 $500.00 $150.00 $200.00 $50.00 $50.00 205.0535 Reclassification and rate structure revi- sions.— (1) By October 1, 1995, any municipality or county may, by ordinance, reclassify businesses, professions, and occupations and may establish new rate structures, if the conditions specified in subsections (2) and (3) are met. A person who is engaged in the business of provid- ing local exchange telephone service or a pay telephone service in a municipality or in the unincorporated area of a county and who pays the occupational license tax under the category designated for telephone companies or a pay telephone service provider certified pursuant to s. 364.3375 is deemed to have but one place of business or business location in each municipality or unincorpo- rated area of a county. (2) Before adopting a reclassification and revision ordinance, the municipality or county must establish an equity study commission and appoint its members. Each member of the study commission must be a repre- sentative of the business community within the local government's jurisdiction. Each equity study commis- sion shall recommend to the appropriate local govern- ment a classification system and rate structure for local occupational license taxes. (3)(a) After the reclassification and rate structure revisions have been transmitted to and considered by the appropriate local governing body, it may adopt by majority vote a new occupational license tax ordinance. Except that a minimum license tax of up to $25 is permit- ted, the reclassification shall not increase the occupa- tional license tax by more than the following: for licenses costing $150 or less, 200 percent; for licenses costing more than $150 but not more than $500, 100 percent; for licenses costing more than $500 but not more than $2,500, 75 percent; for licenses costing more than $2,500 but not more than $10,000, 50 percent; -and for licenses costing more than $10,000, 10 percent; how- ever, in no case may any license be increased more than $5,000. (b) The total annual revenue generated by the new rate structure for the fiscal year following the fiscal year during which the rate structure is adopted may not exceed: 1. For municipalities, the sum of the revenue base and 10 percent of that revenue base. The revenue base is the sum of the occupational license tax revenue gen- erated by licenses issued for the most recently com- pleted local fiscal year or the amount of revenue that would have been generated from the authorized increases under s. 205.043(1)(b), whichever is greater, plus any revenue received from the county under s. 205.033(4). 2. For counties, the sum of the revenue base, 10 percent of that revenue base, and the amount of reve- nue distributed by the county to the municipalities under s. 205.033(4) during the most recently completed local fiscal year. The revenue base is the occupational license tax revenue generated by licenses issued for the most recently completed local fiscal year or the amount of rev- enue that would have been generated from the author- ized increases under s. 205.033(1)(b), whichever is greater, but may not include any revenues distributed to municipalities under s. 205.033(4). ►L LICENSE TAXES F.S. 1993 (c) n adc ition to the revenue increases authorized by pan tgrapi(b), revenue increases attributed to the increas as in he number of licenses issued are author- ized. (4) kfter he conditions specified in subsections (2) and (3) are rr t, municipalities and counties may, every other year th reafter, increase by ordinance the rates of localoccupat onal license taxes by up to 5 percent. The increasa, hov fever, may not be enacted by less than a majority plus one vote of the governing body. (5) qo lic nse shall be issued unless the federal employ ar ide itification number or social security num- ber is c btain d from the person to be licensed. Hlsrory. s.8, cil.93-180. 1205. 1536 Distribution of county revenues. —A county that stablishes a new rate structure under s. 205.05 5 she 1 retain all occupational license tax reve- nues cc Ilecte I from businesses, professions, or occupa- tions ose Maces of business are located within the unincoi porat portions of the county. Any occupational license tax r enues collected by a county that estab- lishes a new to structure under s. 205.0535 from busi- nesses prof ssions, or occupations whose places of business are ocated within a municipality, exclusive of the co is of ollection, must be apportioned between the un' corp rated area of the county and the incorpo- rated nicip lities located therein by a ratio derived by dividin their respective populations by the population of the unty, As used in this section, the term 'popula- tion" m ans t e latest official state estimate of popula- tion ce 'fied nder s. 186.901. The revenues so appor- tioned all b a sent to the governing authority of each municil ality, According to its ratio, and to the governing authoril y of th 1 county, according to the ratio of the unin- corporated area, within 15 days after the month of receipt. Hlslory. s.9. ch 93-180. +HOW n/Ct" QWWW 1. 1994. 205. 537 Vending and amusement machines. — The bu iness premises where a coin -operated or token- operat vending machine that dispenses products, merch dise, or services or where an amusement or game nachi a is operated must assure that any require J mun,ipal or county occupational license for the machin a, is sf cured. The term wending machine" does not incl ide c n-operated telephone sets owned by per- sons who a e in the business of providing local exchan a teli phone service and who pay the occupa- tional li ense under the category designated for tele- phone ompa ies in the municipality or county or a pay teleph ne service provider certified pursuant to s. 364.33 . Th license tax for vending and amusement machi s mu t be assessed based on the highest num- ber of achi es located on the business premises on any si le da during the previous licensing year or, in the cas of ri bw businesses, be based on an estimate for the curre nt year. Replacement of one vending machine with another machine during a licensing year does not aff ec t the tax assessment for that year, unless the rep acement machine belongs to an occupational license tax ct ssification that requires a higher tax rate. For the first Vear in which a municipality or county 1464 t— N N w G�V C4 N cq � 'd) W •.�' a 44 � U3bo x0,a,�•pc3�q p �i 0�08�� Vw U 00 0 0 00 0 0 O O to O LO M GV kO ' U o of�r " a • W o o o � r0-1 •�-1 r�-1 os eo a 4) W o 0 0 0 0 0 N a o 0 0 0 N 10 Nla • N O M CO la �...,. . • to r4 d O O O Co O Cl O O O O O O O O 9 O 9 O V[ O O 9 O O CN -4-4 N .�� tOD rN-i tt- N w M N 4 r-4 r1 O O t�7 pq R : 0 E SO Pw 44 SBA. q bn p U o•��8abo8. bo S o a 60 O•., at o P4 p w 6 x 0 w p''.� o as v 40 , I 8 8 ,8 ,� . as a U AO p m � � d oo b �U)i a a. a �w w o o G e F-I CO Q1 O e-1 N M d� to CD co cM m cM c+M : : d� : d� : •d' O O O O O O O O O O O O O d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lq Lq q o Iq .� 0 La O O O O t- N N Co Lf) r-1 ,q N N N Cwo o N Co co to 1-4COCM Z" oW H C6 `) Hx� aE o� a v/i �w �a� vi ww A w O En on- w O z �w . w a� p0 q�� Z xn ZwAP o W co rno `n O a3 o, o 0 u O j o 0 W` v O G�+ f4 r-4 er r- w U3 U' ►4 r`Y U' p, 2 Oka to O O CV N N Cd z 0. M 10 a 0 w 0 U 0 z 0 a� 0 �O a w 43 ca w A q go� � bo xo01 boo •s! " �-EI� a Oil 0 a Z9 PL4P4P63L,0 U U U A of ,d d -d ai w bb d -4 ---;A q o 0 0 In N ul .p '� a � U3 4-3 a W bo V o o eA p •a 8 pq U o� d A d 4 4 9 A 1 .1 ca cd N $ a a INS c� 0 b 00 � .4 �aa�w�ar�ra R) .n U w b0.t7 •,.i Ul 0) mi y o O O O O d o ►n o u3 t; o 000 uO b N N W 4-3H a �o� .� o s3 N w 4,2 y `4 r' eo x CD a a U3 E 4 E-+ ti o0 tl� er lf� roi-1 1Q w 1UD w O N O O b •s • d q Yq paa o c 0 o p, w E4 E-F rG O O O Co 0 00 0 o to to to to tV N t- 2 z a ko to bo d o,F 49 403 �. 4,1 °�$� 0 5i 44 F+ P p N w .•�� 49.8 a o ' d 3 IS9 m • • E-� ORDINANCE 681 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FL AMENDING THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE COMPREH PLAN, ORDINANCE NO. 635 AS AMENDED, BYREVISII FUTURE LAND USE MAP; PROVIDING FOR INCLU& ORDINANCE AND REVISED FUTURE LAND USE MAP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFF DATE. WHEREAS the City Council of the City of Okeechobee for orderly growth and development; and WHEREAS the Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Administrative Code provide for amendment to adopted Compt WHEREAS the City has received and reviewed certain applica, to the Future Land Use element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, being reviewed by the City's Land Planning Agency who determin to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and appropriate to within the City; BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of follows: Section 1. SHORT TITLE THE f OF THE the need to plan 9J5, Florida Plans; and is foramendments f said applications such applications � future land uses 1, Florida as THIS ORDINANCE shall be known as the "City of Okeechobee Comprehensive Plan Small Scale Development Activities Amendment, Cycle 1, 19958, and shall be effective within the City limits of the City of Okeechobee, Florida. Section 2. AUTHORITY This City of Okeechobee Comprehensive Plan Small Scale Development Activities Amendment, Cycle 1, 1995, is adopted pursuant to the provisions f Chapter 163, Part 11, Florida Statutes. Section 3. 1. The following described lands are hereby redesigned for purposes of the Future Land Use Map of the City of Okeechobee Comprehensive Plan: a. Application No. 95-C1-001, from Single Family to h Lots 1-12, Inclusive, Block 71, City of Okeechobee, to plat thereof at Plat Book 5, Page 5, Public Okeechobee County, Florida. b. Application No. 95-CI-002, from Single Family to Commercia, Lots 1-5, Block 27, NORTHWEST ADDITION TO OKEECHOBEE, Township 37 South, Range 35 East, according to plat thereof at Plat Book 1, Page 25, Public Records, Okeechobee County, Florida. Section 4. INCLU5101 ur utru► Uc fu"u n&KNOE-1+11 .%PER&. -- ----- MAP IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN It is the intention of the City Council of the City of Okeecho ee, Florida and it is hereby provided, that the provision of the Ordinance, and the revisi ns to the future land use map more particularly described as "Future Land Use: 2000 ity of Okeechobee, March 19, 1991, as amended December 6, 1994", which is inc rporated herein by reference, shall become and made a part of the City of Okeechobee omprehensive Plan (City of Okeechobee Ordinance No. 635, as amended). Section 5. SEVERABILITY If any provision or portion of this ordinance is declared by an court of competent jurisdiction to be void, unconstitutional, or unenforceable, then all i emaining provisions and portion of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect Section G. EFFECTIVE DATE The effective date for the enactment of this ordinance No. E that the State Land Planning Agency Issues its notice of Intent to t amendment in compliance in accordance with section 163.3 Administration Commission issues a final order finding the adc compliance in accordance with Section 163.3184(10), Florida Stat 1995. THIS ORDINANCE shall be set for final public hearing on INTRODUCED for the first reading and set for final public July, 1995. JAMES E. ATTEST' BONNIE THOMAS, CMC, City Clerk 31 shall be the date id the adopted plan 84(9); or until the )ted amendment In 15th day of August, this 27th day of CITY OF OKEECHOBEE AND OKEECHOBEE KOA UTILITY AGREEMENT for SEWER SERVICE Section TABLE OF CONTENTS I Preamble 2 Definitions 3 Capacity Allocation 4 Agreement to Serve 5 Fees 6 Payment of Fees :7 8 E)n Site histaHatIVII10 Off -Site Installations 3 6 Procedures for Construction of Installations i-A Voluntary Annexation 8 Mortgage Liens 8 +5-1 City's Exclusive Right to Utility Facili es; -16 Exclusive Right to Provide Service 4/6/95 0 4/6/95 Service Rates Appfication for Servil High Strength Waste Pretreatment Water Conservation Inspection Relocation of Utility Facilities Notices Cost and Attorneys' Fees Interpretation Assignment Strict Compliance Liability Time of the Essence Entire Agreement Incorporation by Re: Binding Effect Governing Law Effective Date Counterparts U9 AM` 90 LTMITY AGREEMENT for SEWER SERVICE THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this Day i 199_, by and between City of Okeechobee, a political subdivision of ti hereinafter referred to as City' and } hereinafter referred to as " E) ' ," a flf,.•i:::rrf.:.;•rr{•ii,:Si WHEREAS Develape #owns land located in Okeechobee described in Exhibit "A", and shown on the Survey in Exhibit "B", attac "Property"), ; and State of Florida, County, Florida as hereto (the WHEREAS, BeveloperM has requested that the City provide sewer service for the Property; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to provide sewer service to the Property and thereafter to operate the utility facilities so that ;M. receive sewer service from City in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises, and agreements herein contained and assumed, and the Sewer City hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Preamble. The foregoing statements are true and correc 2. Definitions. The following definitions of terms used in 1 unless the context indicates a different meaning: mutual undertakings Heveloner M and is Agreement shall apply 1 a) "Application" -- A request in writing on #zequesting parsawit to the Devel sewer services. b) "Connection Fees" -- A fee or charge paid by a Developethkpplicmit for the purpose of obtaining sewer fees will be utilized for the operation and maintenance of the sewer for related services to the property. c) "Consumer Installation" -- All facilities side of the point of delivery (e.g. curb stop, lateral connections.) d) provided by City from Agreement specific the City Utility Department vice capacity. Connection election system and to pay on the consumer's -- The sum of money and/or the value of property required as a prerequisite to service to the Property. e) "DER" --The Florida Department successor agency. f) "Development Phase" -- A subdivision or construction of utility facilities on Property. g) IIERCII -- A factor used to convert a given the equivalent number of residential connections. h) "Facilities" -- See Utility Facilities. n " " -- Gallons per day. j) "Installation" -- See Utility Facilities. Regulation, or its ion phase of the daily flow (ADF) to 2 . � • III k "Consumer's Point of Deliver' -- Unless of point where the sewer service is connected to 1) "Developer's Point of Deliver" -- The point 3 •<at• enters the Devefop, ' roperty or the point of connection of installation to the City's system pursuant to Section 8. ise specified herein, the �� � ��)r is f:::� •� yf✓ ne V }..set vice the sewer service VerLs C2 off -site m) "Property„ -- The land described in Exhibit " " attached hereto. n) "Service" or "Utility Service" -- The readiness and ability of the City to furnish and maintain sewer service to the point of delivery. o) "Service Rates" or "Facilities" or " 1 " -- Utility facilities means and includes all equipment, fixtures, pumps, lines, mains, manholes, lift stations, pumping stations, laterals, service connections, and appurtenances together with all real property, easements and rights -of -way necessary to provide sewer service to the Property whether located on -site or off -site. The words "Utility Facilities," "Sewer Facilities," `Facilities," or "Installations" shall be interchangeable unless otherwise indicated by the context. 3. Cal2acityAfflocation. The parties agree that the capaci needed to provide service to the Property is gallons per day for sewage collection. Capacity allocation is subject to the Florida Departme t of Environmental Regulation (Section 402.021, Florida Statues, and FAC 17-4.07 and 7-4.15) and approval of applicable permits for the property. Should the Florida Department of Environmental Regulations refuse to issue applicable permit(s) s solely because capacity is not av ' able ,.�v.... PP � P () Y P tY � � � :. may request City to rescind the allocation of capacity. 3 Developer M agrees that the gallonage calculation to determine capacity is for the purpose of allocating capacity for the Property and not for purp ses of any other calculations. 4. Agreement to Serve. Developer `i`,agrees to commence construction within 6 `'�' months from the date of acceptance by the city, and agrees t complete construction and MI .:., obtain all necessary permits, certificate of occupwicies and other lice sing requirements within _ ?i�: ;:.fib£C•i%"?l;'.2�;f:�5:,•'•`••iy,%'•,#•••'�:'!v,.':%�:?<g;•'•:8%;:�4:f:#7't�;'r;;;.'<tf�•'•%'%'<fi/'.f�;:�a;%�';• Z . Failure to meet this time frame will not obligate the city to refund any portion of fees paid, nor shall city pay any interest on the fees paid. This city reserves the right to recapture capacity allocations for failu a of the -Bev eloper W to meet the time frame conditions. Upon the completion of construction of sewer facilities by Bevveioper U11, satisfactory inspections, the issuance of the final letter of acceptance by City, and subject to the other terms of this Agreement, City agrees to permit connection oft ie sewer facilities installed by the Bev eloper to the central facilities of City and to provide tit fity fiMservice in accordance with the terms and intent of this Agreement. Such connections shall at all times be in accordance with rules, regulations and orders of the applicable governmental authorities. City agrees that once Developer in or others has connected consumer ""; ' installation to City's central facilities, City will continuously provide sewer service to the Property subject to continued compliance by Beveloper 1? nTt nsamer with all applicable City requirements for such service, excepting unavoidable disruption of service due to repairs, maintenance, etc. 5. Em. In addition to the Contribution in Aid of Cons ruction (CIAC) where applicable, Developer;` hereby agrees to pay to City all applicable Fees in accordance with the schedule from time to time in effect. Payment of the Fees will not excuse Developer from payment of any other charges uniformly made including meter ees. City shall not be obligated to refund any portion of Fees paid, nor shall City pay any ' terest on the Fees paid. Should the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation refuse to issue the 4 applicable permit(s) solely because capacity is not available, refunds of the fees will be made by City within thirty (30) days from such written notification from DER of its denial. Such requests to City for refunds must be accompanied by a written request from capacity allocations be rescinded. Developer :r.,;,> shall be obligated to pay Fees in the Developer IN s required to pay the Fees, or any initial portion of sewer service shall be entitled to offset any bill rendered by City paid. Developer W shall not be entitled to offset Fees paid or p City. 6. Payment of Fees. Developer W will be required to sewer capacity is allocated in accordance with Exhibit "C: attached h4 a r. • •rr r N r r+. r+.u.+ r< r .. by�s>w tea, will result in terminati the recapture of capacity allocation. and fees are subject to change from time to time by the city council, charged shall not be construed as a contract over the life of the p that the in effect at the time No user or consumer such service against Fees against any claims of pay the fees at the time Failure to pay the fees of this Agreement and Rates the initial rates and fees 5 J* Off -site Installation. Deleted except fb. the fbflowi — DeveloperffiMhall install all of the off -site i accordance with the plans, specifications and other pertinent OMER M -M M- W.R.-MIRMIT W-1. ammil -I I construction of all an -site -and off -site installations as defined in shall be in accordance with the following requirements: a) Permits. Developer" shall submit i to City for signature prior to submission of permit application to DI make application to City;"* for Underground Utility Perr, permits such as Right -of -Way Use Permits or D.O.T. Permits upon from DER. b) Plans and Specifications. Developer sets of all plans and specifications (Plans) for the installation to be C registered professional engineer. The Plans shall be prepared in lacc Ordinance and policies including the Land Development code, Man Design, construction and Maintenance for Water and Wastewater I City -owned utilities � Developet WIR" shall obtain approval having jurisdiction including the Department of Environmental keg and City, if applicable, and submit to City one (1) copy of any cons construction shall commence until the City and appropriate reg4lat such Plans in writing and the City has received copies of the coostr commences prior to all such approvals, City shall have no responsil installations and City may elect to terminate this Agreement or Zvi Developer has obtained all required approvals. Should Be 51 ; at its sole expense and in approved by per §." agrees that fF ions �7 JLV....,diyely, )le DER permit applications .. Developer f shall s and any other applicable ceipt of an approved permit M furnish City with three (3) istructed prepared by a dance with applicable City I of Minimum Standards For Omconnection to 'the Plans from all agencies Ltions, Okeechobee County, ,ction permits. No agencies have approved on permits. If construction V to accept any of the d service until such time as 0 Completion. Upon completion of constructi engineer of record shall submit a signed certificate of completion cei construction of the installation is complete, that the installation has I accordance with all permits, approved Plans, and applicable requirer constructed, it will function for the purpose for which it was degignt ffij) As Builts and Other Plans. At least seven inspection, Beyelope. 4�or his engineer shall also provide City Developer's an ing to City that the L constructed in is of law, and as ) days prior to final I one (1) set of ammonia fi mylars of the "as -built" surveys prepared by the engineer of record showing the location of al} installations as constructed. Developer#-, 6'.*..k wiH ptavide %—,iL'.y wiffi two (2) set. of appiv Voluntary Annexation. Develop agrees that h ... ..s property becomes contiguous to the City's boundary, as such of the State of Florida, then this agreement, together with the applica exhibits, shall be considered as application for voluntary annexation c property into the corporate limits of the City of Okeechobee. The tej run with the land-1- and subsequent pat chasez s of iots oi tzrhts sW alsi fbit Y olantary aintexation as In ovided herein. I I' 110.41111 NO MEN � I - the event Deveiopez's erm is defined in the laws on for service and all Developer's MM real as of this Agreement shall 8 + 5 7<'' iv . Developer J and City agree that all sevvet facHiti sewer facilities accepted by eity in M.""Ou -M, f comiectivit with ptovidhT service to the -0119 11. 1.1. ON, Property shall at all times 0.1 M ...... . . . . . . . I.. ::::, ..................... ........ .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... remain in the sole and exclusive ownership of City K X.. Any person or entity owning any part of the Property or any residence, building or unit constructed or located thereon, shall not have any right, title, claim or interest to such facilities for any purpose, including the furnishing of sewer services to others located within or beyond the limits of the Property. 16- Exclusive Right to Provide Service. Developer -A business of providing Ovate, or sewer services to the Property. E City the sole and exclusive right to provide sewer services to the: thereon. Service Rates. The rates to be charged by City to th S Ofo r sewer service on the Property shall be those rates charged N ......... pursuant to service rates from time to time in effect as defined herei withhold or disconnect service at any time the service rates are riot days after the same are billed. Be veloliez ot constIL hereby agrees to save and hold harmless City for any loss or damagi of this right. The service to the Property shall be subject to such o- time imposed on City with respect to the operations of its orate. and limited by such regulations, the amounts of utility deposits, billing pr damage to City's Property and rate changes shall be exclusively Iwith of City. shall not engage in the per I= hereby grants -rty and to the occupants City to its other customers City reserves the right to id on a current basis within die case nts M-0 resulting from the exercise regulations from time to systems, and except as tices and times, liability for the discretion and control 0 Strength Waste. agrees that waste or sewage to be treated by City from the Property will consist of domestic wastewater, and further agrees that it will not allow anabnormal strength sewage to flow to the Utility Facilities. Y 8t 8 ty opet Will grants to City the right to sample sewage from the Property to verify .r'. compliance with this paragraph. Beve}oper ;t will pay the cost o sampling and laboratory testing. z� Pretreatment. Developer agrees that City has the health, safety and welfare of the public and not to burden City's expenses attributable to Bev eioper , his Usuccessors or a$sigr that all sewage or wastewater from Property shall conform to City's introduction into City's collection system and Developer �rth, City's sole option require pretreatment or special features such as gr conformity. Developer M shall be responsible for all costs a9soci i�- Water Conservations. �> agrees to measures in development [ of the Property. n�ection. City may, at its option and without npti utility facilities at all times whether before or after completion of same by the City. City, by inspecting or not inspecting to any extent responsibility for construction or installation of developet`s � u way be deemed to waive any rights available to City for defaults on t or to consent to any defects, omissions or failures in the design, twin obligations to protect stomers with extraordinary Developer agrees andards prior to agrees that City may at se traps to insure such .d herewith. >v water conservation inspect Developer's am and acceptance of shall not assume facilities and shall in no part of Developer , and installation of 10 Developerlrf .... . utility facilities. I . X . . . . . . ... 1 Relocation of Utility Facilities. Any relocation of Bev eloperl-s convenience or necessity shall be done at Be provided such relocation can be accomplished without adverse in facilities or other consumers. i *12-5-. Notices. Any payment or notice required or permitte writing and be deemed properly made (a) when hand delivered to the designated, or (b) upon actual receipt when deposited in the United i addressed as set forth herein, or at such other address as shall have b notice to the other party delivered in accordance herewith: City: Director of Public Utilities 55 S.E. 3 rd Avenue Okeechobee, Florida 34974 PIMA MQ'A-10 Is L -3 0§26: Cost and Attorneys F=. In the event City or I�m i enforce this Agreement by court proceedings or otherwise, then the entitled to recover from the other party all costs incurred, together, fees. Intelpretation. Developer X7-.and City agree that conditions contained herein are to be read in concert, each with the; r facilities required for ces expense on any other part of the hereunder shall be in official hereinafter ,s mail, postage prepaid, specified by written rings an action to party shall be reasonable attorneys' words, terms and -, and that a provision 11 contained under one heading may be considered to be equally interpretation of this Agreement. �8- Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned prior written consent of City, which shall not be unreasonably with no successor or assign expressly assumes Developers execution of this Agreement. Capacity allocated hereunder may not other property whether or not owned by Developer ON. 39- Strict Compliance. Failure to insist upon strict covenants, or conditions in this Agreement shall not be deemed' a under another int he Developer without the provided Developer's ions hereunder by be sold or assigned to any of any of the terms, thereof, nor shall nay waiver of any right hereunder at any one time be deemed a waiver of such right at any other time. for '' the owner, the Liability. I, rrrgsel..::,...nn.:� f , and assigns agree to hold harmless and indemnify the City of employees and agents from any and all claims, damages, causes, of arise out of or in relation to the Florida Department of Environmer applicable permits to provide sewer service to the property. respects. Time of the Essence. Time is hereby made of the 1 :` ll 1 ell ! •��• •� W the entire agreement of the parties and expressly supersedes all negc or representations whether verbal or written, and may not be amend except by a writing executed by both parties hereto in a manner' equ of this Agreement; provided however, that documents for the irmple including all permits, engineering design and construction contracts, the utility facilities as and when approved and filed with City's Depe A, and our successors the City Council, its or other liabilities that Regulation denial of of this Agreement in all Agreement constitutes previous agreements in any way whatsoever in dignity to the execution of this Agreement, and specifications for of Public Utilities are 12 incorporated herein by reference. +- Binding Effect. This Agreement shall insure to the benefit of and be binding upon the heirs, successors, personal representatives and assigns of the parties hereto and shall constitute a covenant running with the Property. s3 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed Florida and the Ordinances, Resolutions and policies of City not pr hereto stipulate that venue shall vest solely in Okeechobee County, shall any dispute be submitted to binding arbitration. r3r Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective parties hereto. :_ 3fr. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in which if properly executed by both parties shall be considered an c the laws of the State of )ited thereby. The parties 6da, and that in no event proper execution by both counterparts each of IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused t •s Agreement with the named exhibits attached to be executed on the day and year first above written. x�,cxsx-�:x By: _ Title: Attest: 13 WITNESSES: ATTEST: By: _ Title: _ Attest: CITY OF OKEE, OKEECHOBEE, By: Date: As authorized for their meeting. ..(Seal) by the City Council in , 199, regular 14 0 . i List of Exhibits to Utility Agreement for Sewer Service Between the City of Okeechobee, Florida and Exhibit NA= Section "A" Legal Description of Property Preamble "B" Survey of Property Preamble "C" Schedule of Rates, Fees and Charges 6 15 BGLI'K 317 PACE 796- , ron EXHIBIT -.-,LEGAL DESCRIPTION 5 A parcel of land In Ilia Southeast 1/4 of Section '3 3 lying East of Connors Highway (U.S. 441) and the West 1/2 of Section 34, Township 37 South, Range 36 East, Okeechobee County, Florida and being more particularly described as follows: Commence at Ilia Souilleast corner of Section 33; Illelico, North 0'04'02' East, along the East line of Section 33. a distance of 770.41 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence South 89'49*56" West, a distance of 38.99 lost: thence North 0'10*04" West 7. a distance of 910 foot; thence South 89'49'5116 " West, a distance of 300 feet to the East right-of-way line of Conners Highway (U.S. 441): thence North 0*10*04" Wes; " along said right-of-way line a distance of 100 loot; thence North Q9*49'56East, F distance of 300 feet; iflonce North 0'10'04w West a distance of 856.07 lost to lira North line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 3; thence North 89'16'26" East a distance of 46.65 feel to the East 1/4 corner of said Section 33; thence NO101, 89*17'56East, along the South 11110 Of 1110 Northwest 1/4 of Section 34 a distance of 313.35 feet; thence North0* 10'04" West, a dis ance of 655.14 feet; thence North 89*17'29" East a distance of 1,039.68 feet: thence Soull 1 0215 West a distance of 655.30 Joel to Ilia Southeast corner of the Southwest 1/4 of Ilia Northwest 1/4 of sold Section 34, thence North 89*17'56" East along Ilia South flne of Ilia No.tlh- west 1/4 a distance of 1350.65 feet 10 Ilia Soulfleast corner of the Northwest 114 X. of Section 34: thence South 0'10'26" East a distance of 1,319.62 tool: thence Soull, 89*19'25" West a distance of 675.85 Igo . 1; IllgricR South 0*00'04" East a distance of. 153.86 feet; thence South 64'46'33" West, a distance of 1,375.27 feet: 111911ce South 89'49'12" West a distance of 106.20 fast; Ilionco Noilli 0*01'33" East a dis- lance of 170.28 feet; thence South 69'49'56*' West a distance of 675.78 feet to 1116 Point of Beginning. T14E ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL I being as described and represented on Ilia', certain Survey of W. L. Williams,, n.L.S., Fla Re istry No. 1272, dated August 16, g 1976. - 27/90 Y -12- , • • .. tit ' � `;" .' , i• �'', ' ii r .,t a .4�0.:('..4•: ;' .,. M�ifg4H/M/IMM�M�M�M��'NMfMwrtM�fMI� OP y 317 PACE 797 FXCEPT a 15 tool wide strip along it a North boundary of the West 1/ LESS AND of Northeast 1/4 of Southwest 1/4 of Secllon 3 , Township 37 South. Flange 35 ;.;,East, Okeechobee County, Florida. :. LESS AND E„XQEEI that portion of Parcel 1 Which Iles within 50 feet Easterly of the :... . following described Centerline of Survey; commence at the Northeast corner of ,., `'' +!•`. Section 4, Township 38 South, Range 35 East, Okeechobee County, Florida: thence ' t ` `• South 00'07' 12" West, along the East line of said Section 4 a distance of 518.83 .:feet to a point In the cen.teriine of Conners I llghw y; thence South 63'56'40" West, ;` along said Centerline, a distance of 1.17.63 loot to the POINT OF BEGINNING; said . ,. . point also being tile beginning of a curve con ve Northerly; thence Westerly, Northwesterly and Northerly along said curve; having a radius of 193.18 feet through a central angle of 115'53'16 , an arc distancce f 390.74 toot to the end of stiid curve; thence North 00*10*04" West a distance of 8.290.64 lest to a point In the •Y� �i4,; North line of the South 112 of Section 28, Township 37 South, Range 35 East, said �.';:::: ,.:.:,�a�,,;•: point also being the END of said described line. LESS and excepting {heretrorn the •.:.., �,,- �• `existing right-of-way of PARROTT AVENUE as shown on the Department ot•Trans- i'(? 1'.y.";.: porlation Right-ol-Way Maintenance Map as recorded in State Road Map Book 3 at •: page 36, of the Public Records 'of Okeechobee C vunty, Florida. "AND more particularly described In the Second Corrected Final Judgment In favor •••,:;; •;,:,, of the Division of Administration, Slate of Florida Department of Transportation .. dated October 22, 1981 and recorded In Official Records Book 245 at Page 288, Public Records of Okeechobee County, Florida. FSS AND EXQFPT TiJAT: A parcel of land lying in Section 34, Township 37 S uttt, flange 35 East, Okeechobee County, Florida. Being more particularly described as follows: commence at the West 1/4 corner of said Section 34, bear North 8 ' 15'53" East along the South line of the Northwest 114 for a distance of 313.39 feet or the Point of Beginning; thence conllnuo North 89' 15'53" East along said South line of the Northwest 1/4 to 111E Southeast corner of the West 1/2 of the Norlhwe t 1/4 a distance of 1,037.55 feel thence bear North 00'00'26" West, along the East tine of said West 1/2 of 111E :•.:.c �� Northwest 1/4 to the Northeast corner of the South 112 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 a distance of 655.17 lest; thence ear South 89' 15'35" West alone • ''r' `'''' the North line o1 the South 1/2 of tics Southwest 1 4 of.the Northwest 1/4 a distance ,:•�u� >` ' '' of 1,039.55 leek -thence bear South 00' 10'56" East, to the intersection with 11v South lino of the Northwest 114, a distance of 655.17 feet to the Point of Beginning yl t - •�'MOD t9/27/90 EXHIBIT "C" Rates, Fees and Charges Developer agrees to pay the City of Okeec obee the following Fees to induce the City to reserve the follawi g plant capacities for Developer's proposed connections within the "Property". Developer understands that plant capacities are only reserved upon payment of Charges by Developer to City. The fe s set forth in the attached rate resolution are the fees in effect. as of the date of this Agreement and are subject to changes in accordance with the terms thereof. Wastewater Connection Fees Based On A 3" Meter $ 956.25 6" Tap Fee 18,000.00 System Capactiy Fee 2,343.75 Deposit $ 21,300.00 Total �8-2z� js 4''�' o City of Okeechobee 55 S.E. Third Avenue * Okeechobee, Florida 34974-2932 • 13/763-3372 VXPO j(36 M&ATI&M DATE: TO: COMPANY: FAX NUMBER.• FROM: COMPANY. - NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS PAGE: COMMENTS: 9 oe u �LNOTICM- individual�- The information contained in this facsimile message is confidential information intended onl for the use the or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient; you am hereby no* rd that airy dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited If you haw received this communication in " error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal S . Thank you.