Loading...
1991-06-04 Regular MeetingF oKE C, o. �.y CITY OF OKEECHOBEE oRioP C I T Y C O U N C I L M E E T I N G June 4, 1991 - 7:00 P.M. gTTMMARV nF mrTNCTT. ArTTnN Par,(, 7 c4 77 Voff YES W COUNCILMEMSERS/ACiION A. Call meeting to order. Mayor Kirk called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. B. Invocation offered by Pastor Dale Tweedale Invocation offered by Pastor Dale Tweedale; Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Kirk. Mayor Kirk led the Pledge of Allegiance. C. Mayor and Council attendance: Mayor James "Jim" Kirk Present X Councilmember R.R. "Nick" Collins Present X Councilmember Danny Entry Present X Councilmember Jerry E. Walker Present X Councilman Dowling R. Watford, Jr. Present X Staff attendance: City Attorney John R. Cook Present X City Administrator John J. Drago Present X City Clerk Bonnie S. Thomas Present X City Deputy Clerk S. Lane Earnest Present X D. Motion to dispense with reading and Councilmember Entry made a motion to dispense with reading and approve the Summary of Council Action approve the Summary of Council action for the regular meeting of for the regular meeting for May 21, 1991 May 21, 1991 and the workshop of May 28, 1991; seconded by and the workshop of May 28, 1991. Councilmember Collins. KIRK X COLLINS _ X ENTRY X WALKER X WATFORD X MOTION CARRIED. Ed June 4, 1991 - ReguLan Meeting - Page 2 ob 17 REQUEST FOR THE ADDITION, DEFERRAL OR WITHDRAWAL OF ITEMS ON TODAY'S AGENDA. F. NEW BUSINESS 1. Motion appoint Mr. Charles McElheny as a new fire fighter - Fire Chief. 2. Motion to approve $28,000.00 to Reese, Macon and Associates for inspection services for Water Plant Modification Project - Interim Director Groover (Exhibit 1). COUNCILMEMBERS/ACTION IYES Administrator Drago announced item number four under new business, exhibit two was added to the agenda. Councilmember Collins made a motion to appoint Mr. Charles McElheny as a new fire fighter (assigned to the Fire Department); seconded by Councilmember Entry. KIRK X COLLINS X ENTRY X WALKER X WATFORD X MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Entry made a motion to approve $28,000.00 to Reese, Macon and Associates for inspection services for Water Plant Modification Project; seconded by Councilmember Collins. Councilmember Watford stated that this is part of a continuing contract; and asked the Administrator, do you feel that this charge is fair? Administrator Drago commented that he had reviewed the fee request with PUID Groover who worked out what she and Engineer Reese felt was necessary to do the inspection work for the plant and it was based upon her recommendation that the $28,000.00 be approved, they found it to be fair, yes. Vote on motion is as follows: KIRK X COLLINS X ENTRY X WALKER X WATFORD X T//1TT/t /T TTTTn VOTE June 4. 1991 - Reautan Mee-tina - Paae 3 o F. NEW BUSINESS 3. Discuss contract negotiations - Mayor Kirk. 4. ADDITIONAL ITEM TO THE AGENDA Motion to approve a Consent Order (Agreement) between the City and Department of Environmental Regulation - Engineer Bill Reese (Exhibit 2). COUNCILMEMBERS/ACTION Mayor Kirk introduced this matter as being for continuation of discussion on negotiations of contracts from the last meeting. (Procedures for negotiation of contracts under the provisions of the Consultants Competitive Negotiations Act). After discussion by Council and staff, motion was made by Councilmember Collins that the mayor, city administrator, and the appropriate department head and anyone from their department that they feel is necessary, to be in on the discussions or whatever, for the contract negotiations under the Consultants Competitive Negotiations Act; seconded by Councilmember Entry. Council, "any contract under the Consultants Competitive Negotiations Act." Vote on motion is as follows: KIRK COLLINS ENTRY WALKER WATFORD MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Kirk introduced item four on the agenda which is the consent order (from DER) for discussion. **For motion and second for approval of this item (4), please turn to page fourteen. VOTE YES I NO X X X X X June 4, 7997 - Requfan Mee-tinq -Page 4 o6 77 F. NEW BUSINESS 4. Continued . . . . COUNCILMBMBFRS/ACTION Administrator Drago opened the discussion by saying he asked Engineer Reese to come to the meeting so he could explain the Consent Order (Agreement). From the technical aspect of it, Engineer Reese and PUID Groover were the two lead people who negotiated the Consent Order (Agreement) with DER. The other Consent Orders (Agreement) that we have looked at in the past really were one sided. This Consent Order (Agreement) as far as I am concerned and the City's Bond Council is concerned is a fair Consent Order (Agreement) to both parties. I will let Engineer Reese come up and explain the details of it so the Council gets a full understanding of what we are committed to do and what DER is committed to do. But, before he does that, everything is predicated on the direction that the Council established about a year ago --that is to do the wells and to make the modifications to the water plant down at the lake. There is some flexibility in this Consent Order (Agreement) that if those plans were to be altered somewhere down the road that the City can go back to DER to make the necessary changes in the Consent Order (Agreement). Engineer Reese began first by giving the Council a progress report on the wells that were advertised for bid about three weeks ago. Nine bids were received today and we expect to have them back to you in two weeks with a recommendation of award. We go again to South Florida a week from today. The staff has approved the permit application. We have receivea verbal okay from DER on the well site. So we are moving fo ard. The Consent Order (Agreement). We have spent off and on six to eight months on this thing. You will recall the previous Consent Order (Agreement) that was out we did not feel was appropriate. Our feeling at that point was there is a time and a place were a Consent Order (Agreement) can work for the city, there's a time and a place were it does not work for the city. We felt the initial one did not work for the city. DER feels in a very big way that they want some consent language of some kind with the city. The latest version they came out with, before we started the latest rounds of negotiation here about three months ago, we also were not comfortable with. In our opinion basically it did not have much in it for the city. VOTE YES 1 NO June 4, 1991 - Requtan Meetinp - Pape 5 oA 17 F. NEW BUSINESS COUNCILMEMBERS/ACTION V(7fE YES M) ABM 4. Continued . . . After intense negotiations of the latest document we feel the main feature is that it is tied to an agreement on their part to allow an increase in the current plant capacity from 2.88 to 3.2 million gallons a day. This upgrading basically does not involve anything substantive that was not contemplated in the program I outlined to you about six or eight months ago, to simply improve the efficiency of the plant. There are some items external to the bid documents. Normal maintenance -type items have been discussed at some point over the last year or so. Things that were contemplated and for the most part I think budgeted for this year anyway. The emphasis will be to get those things done prior to completion of the contract to expand it to 3.2, so it could all come together at the same time. One of the fair features of the Consent Order (Agreement), that �- we spent a lot of time on concerning the extra capacity, you did �. not need to wait until the expansion is complete to start making connections. That is a very big plus for this document for the city. The way it basically works is you get 25% of that volume when the Consent Order (Agreement) is executed and a contract is signed to start the water plant work. You get an additional 25% when the pilot study on the ground water wells is successfully completed. The pilot study is part of the well drilling contract that should be on its way to you in a couple of weeks, so that again is three or four months down the road to bring that to completion. You get an additional 25% when the 3.2 upgrading is complete and the last 25% with your 50% completion of the ground water project. Another significant item in here I am sure everybody remembers the confusion that went on over the additional 70,000 gallons volume that was given to the city previously. The confusion was over how to calculate the 70,000 gallons allocation. The way this works is the new capacity that we are talking about only applies to extensions to the system that would normally require a DER permit and not for fill-ins on existing water lines. If for some reason the flow does go over 3.2 million gpd at the plant that is not associated with a water main break or something unusual, DER has the ability to prevent any further connections to the system. F. 4. NEW BUSINESS Continued . COUNCILMEMBERS/ACTION The third primary feature of it is the correcting some low chlorine residual are in the midst of the master plan problems and will recommend solutions problems. The city has low flows in si residual lowers. DER agreed to allow and develop a time -table to get rid table we have come up with will be ad City will be committed to problems in the system. We which has identified the to the chlorine residual 3me areas and the chlorine us to come up with a plan 3f the problem; the time - opted as approved by DER. The fourth item obviously does commit the city to proceed with the ground water facility. There are penalties in here for lack of performance. There are still opportunities to have some pitfalls in this thing, including developing language for the permit for the 3.2 upgrade. We have a draft permit for the 3.2 expansion, and they are talking about adding various things into that. This program solves your water supply problem immediately and this interim solution (the upgrade) is long enough to carry you through the program being completed. That is not withstanding somebody comes in here wanting to put in an 800 lot development. I think its a good program. I want to caution you on a couple of things: DER worked very, very closely with us on this. They turned this permit out in twenty-nine days from the time we submitted it. So they have worked hard, they feel like they are making a commitment here. Part of the reason they are doing that is that the whole emphasis of this thing is based on time. Construction needs to occur during the off-season. So the whole thing is keyed to time and I have to say that they did hold their end up in the timing. The down side of the whole thing and they asked me to be sure to express it, they want the City to understand that they have done some rather extraordinary things to get to this point, both the Consent Order (Agreement) and permit, and they will be upset if it does not move forward. We recommend that you execute this or authorize execution of it pending receipt of the formal permit for the uprating, I do not want to see you commit to something without the permit. We have requested of PUID Groover that we bid this thing on the 28th of June for the expansion. VOTE UMILME =B&fIN F. NEW BUSINESS 4. Continued . . . . COUNCILMEMBERS/ACTION Administrator Drago interjected two other points: One is you may want to go over who develops the time -table for the construction work for both the plant and the thing (permission to go ahead with the CDBG). Engineer Reese continued that, initially we went through a lot of directions on this thing and initially they wanted to set a number of dates. We were fairly uncomfortable with setting those dates. Particularly to some extent where we are depending on their motion. There are two significant dates that are set: One is that 195 days from issuance of the formal permit the work at the existing plant will be substantially complete; The other condition is by April 1st of next year work will commence on the ground water project. Administrator Drago stated the other thing is them granting us permission to go forward with the Community Development Block Grant. Engineer Reese continued, we wanted to be sure that since a DER permit is necessary, that these lines were not counted in our allotment, since it is basically replacing lines. We met with them and told them we just basically wanted their tacit acknowledgment of that and agreement that it would not be counted in that fashion, and they did agree to do that. Councilmember Walker asked Engineer Reese, if everything goes according to the schedules and the dates that they set here, if we can meet them, in about seven to eight months we would have the 3.2 million gallons? Engineer Reese answered yes, within seven to eight months you will be done with the 3.2 which will give you 75% of it and you get the last 25% when the ground water is 50% done. Councilmember Walker stated, then somewhere around 280,000 gallons extra. VOTE YES 1 NO r.3 - Paoe 8 oA 17 F. 4. NEW BUSINESS Continued . COUNM MEMBERS/ACTION Councilmember Collins asked talking about 80,000 gallons Consent Order (Agreement) is You get another 80,000 when get another 80,000 when water completed, then you get the 50% completed? None of the against this allotment? I permit? if you break the 25% down you are right? And you get 80,000 when the signed and the contract is signed. the pilot study is completed, you plant at the lake is substantially other 25% when the ground water is infill connections will be counted t will just be things you have to Engineer Reese continued, that is correct (to all three questions). To put that into perspective, you normally have been adding I think, two hundred units a year, you and Beach (Water) together I guess, based on the flows that they are talking about assigning, if it was all single family connections in a year you would use up about 105,000 gallons capacity. We are figuring at this point in less than two years we should have the ground water plant on line and you have got up to 320,000 gallons available to you, it should work. Councilmember Watford asked do we have to pay them $1,000? Administrator Drago, yes, I tried (to lower it). Councilmember Watford asked about the chlorine residual, I noticed we have to continue to monitor it. Have we been doing that weekly? (PUID replied, yes) So we continue to monitor that. We have to notify them and then within seventy-five days of the execution of the Consent Order (Agreement) we have to have recommendations for solving that problem? That is what you were talking about the master plan you feel will be done by then? (Engineer Reese replied, yes) And however we do that, which I guess takes engineers, we are going to have to hire you or someone else to come up with some kind of plan. The master plan itself, will it have a solution to this? (Engineer Reese replied, we will put that in the master plan). So that will hopefully alleviate our chlorine problems that everybody is complaining about. Administrator Drago commented that the key element there is we get to make the recommendation on how to solve the problems to DER and the time -table that goes along with it. YES VOTE Juno 4_ 1991 - Rontjfnh Mootinn - Pnno 9 nl 17 F. NEW BUSINESS COUNCILMEMSERS/ACTION VOTE YES NO ABSEM 4. Continued . . . Councilmember Watford stated, I do not quite follow. If they are not going to include the infill as part of that allocation we will still be bound by what our maximum flow is or will we not be bound by our maximum flow? I do not quite follow the distinction, we can only pump so much water anyway, with our permit, right? Engineer Reese explained that the problem is tracking of the infill was complicated at best. There was some misinterpretations of average day vs. max day. We did not want to get into pulling a permit for each connection. The time alone to write them a letter that someone wants to turn service on, you have to get their okay, so that part bothered us. What the basic agreement was that your average usage in town is under the national average for a typical single family dwelling. Normally you figure 350 gallons per connection per day in a single family dwelling, I have forgotten the exact numbers here but its around 300 or a little less. Your peak factor (that is the ratio average to max day) at the water plant has been averaged under 1.5. What we agreed to was let us set the allocation based on 350, higher than you have, set the peak factor at 1.5 (higher than you experience) in exchange for that we only apply this to new connections and the infill does not count. Your question is, if you go over the 3.2 million gpd, yes, there would be no more connections. Councilmember Watford stated, that is the point I was trying to make, just cause we do not count them, they still count? (Engineer Reese replied, right, flow is still flow) I do see that when the monthly flow exceeds 85% we will implement water conservation measures as set forth in the water conservation plan. I do not recall, do we have a water conservation plan? 4, 1991 - Recu 4 Mee-tino - Paoe 10 of 17 F. 4. NEW BUSINESS Continued . . . . COUNCILMEMBERS/ACTION Engineer Reese continued that there was a condition of the previous negotiation which said you would adopt a water conservation plan. We developed a nine or ten point document that is very brief. We turned it in to DER and said, at that time for our requirement, this is what we propgte, please review it. If you have comments on it let us know ' After we receive your comments we will incorporate them if appropriate and recommend them for formal adoption. They never responded, so what will happen with this thing is if this is executed we will remind them that they have that and ask them for their comments again. They said they had looked at it and basically it was okay. It basically said you will adopt the South Florida guidelines, nothing drastic. Councilmember Watford commented that the fine situation in paragraph thirty, we will call it, $200 a day if you do not do certain paragraphs and $400 a day if you do not comply with other certain paragraphs (Engineer Reese replied, that is correct). I guess we feel like we can meet all these so we may not incur those fines? Engineer Reese continued that the two time frames that are established there do not allow a lot of latitude. It is basically going to say the program is going to pick up and move forward as fast as it can reasonably move forward. I would point out, there is a provision in here if in the event there are delays beyond your control, the burden of proof upon you the city, then there is the option to go in and modify the time frames accordingly. We have done that with them in the past. Usually they are very acceptable to that as long as your first request is not right off the bat. Councilmember Watford stated that what concerns him is our well situation. Are we now locked in to that with no escape, if we see that this for some reason or another is not going to work, if it is not going to be the best way to go are we now locked into that? VOTE VES )1) June 4. 1991 - Reautan Mee-tina - Paae 11 of 17 F. NEW BUSINESS COUNCILMEM$ERS/ACTION VOTE YES NO ASgNI 4. Continued . . . Engineer Reese replied, you are locked into it to the point where if there is something beyond your control that causes a delay or some circumstance that says it is not something you can do any more, with the burden of proof being on you, no you are not, but there is the burden of proof on the city that there is some just reason why that cannot move forward either physical, political or otherwise. Councilmember Watford added, for example, let us say we drilled four wells and we determine we cannot get enough water then obviously that would be beyond our control, or if there was to much salt, or other problems, but if we just decide we would be better off to go surface water then you are saying if we just decide that on our own we may have problems justifying that? Engineer Reese answered that, I am saying that you would have to have some reason that you could convince them of that. I do not know what that would take, but yes, there would have to be some justification. Councilmember Watford asked, I noticed our cover memo it said V that John Cook is reviewing this now, since he is our attorney, does he have any questions? Attorney Cook advised that, I only got a chance to review this one (Consent Agreement) very briefly, I got it late yesterday, I have reviewed each Consent Order (Agreement) thoroughly since 1988, and the provisions in this one are pretty consistent with the prior Consent Order (Agreement), except for the changes Engineer Reese was able to get, which I think he has done a real good job for the city's interest. The city needs to consider, what Councilman Watford brought up, once you sign it you are saying you can do these things and if we cannot do it then we are going to have problems so, it pretty much depends on the engineers opinion that these time frames are feasible to get accomplished because if we cannot accomplish them DER could put some heavy penalties on us. Councilmember Collins added, on the other side of the coin, if we do not sign it we are in a lot of trouble too, so they got us by both ears. F. NEW BUSINESS 4. Continued . . . . e-� COUNCILMEMBERS/ACTION Attorney Cook advised that there is no question the city will have to enter into a Consent Order (Agreement). Its a matter of one that is most palatable to the city and based on prior Consent Orders (Agreement) that I have seen, prior to Engineer Reese working on this one, this seems to be the most palatable one we have seen so far. Mayor Kirk commented, but, it would not be impossible for us if we started with the wells and it did not work to get with them and move in an entirely different direction? Engineer Reese replied, no, I do not think it would be, as long as there is proof. Councilmember Watford asked if for some reason Beach Water decided to pull out and not be a customer any more and we had that capacity back, are we still tied to going ahead with the ground water, wells? Engineer Reese answered that they are going to ask a couple of questions, I am not prepared to comment what they would say exactly, but they are going to ask what you are going to do between now and '94 when their contract runs out. I think you could probably make a case if you say I am not going to have these additional customers in '94 therefore I do not think I need a 2 million gpd plant. But I think it would be tough to make a case to say three years from now they are not going to be here so I am not going to do anything for the next three years. Councilmember Watford asked, but would that not slow down our time -table here? Engineer Reese replied, I doubt it. Administrator Drago commented that, one other thing, back to that Community Development Block Grant. If the Council goes ahead and approves this Consent Order (Agreement) contingent upon getting the formal permit, PUID Groover is going to send out advertising for the engineers to do the Community Development Block Grant engineering for the water lines and when the proposals are received they will be reviewed by Bobby Birts and his maintenance crew for recommendation for PUID Groover." VOTE YES 1 NO June 4, 1991 - Reau&A Meetina - Paae 13 N 17 VOTE YES W ABSENI F. NEW BUSINESS COUNCILMEMBERS/ACTION 4. Continued . . . Mayor Kirk interjected that, I think the one thing we have got to consider is we are making a commitment to proceed with the wells; and I think that is the direction we had already started in. If we are going to continue in that direction, that is fine, then I think that we should move and move now. Councilmember Collins commented, I think considering that we do not have water and we stand to get 80,000 gallons soon and another 80,000 gallons within about three months and another 80,000 gallons a few more months down the road and we have got people here now wanting to build and cannot get an allocation, personally this is the best Consent Order (Agreement) that we have had, that is per John Drago, per John Cook, per Bill Reese, and per Bill Zvara. And if we have got a chance to get our people some water, I think we would be foolish to turn it down. Because there is another side to that, if we do not sign the Consent Order (Agreement) we are in deep trouble too. Mayor Kirk stated, I feel like we committed ourselves to the wells some time ago anyway. To at least see if that is going to C1 work, bearing that in mind, the only thing I see in this agreement based on explanation is the time -table and I am going to have to trust you (Reese) for that, that you have set times that we can live with because if you did not and we started paying penalties we would be upset to say the least. Engineer Reese commented that, I understand your concern. I want you to understand the negotiation process is that we started off with time frames that we knew were safe. Part of getting this 3.2 uprate now and getting released to connect people before it is even done, is connected to our ability to show this can be done before peak season is over with, so the existing plant work can be done but its going to be tight. To have made it longer they would have said okay fine make it ilonger, but you are not going to get to use it until you get it J done. So it is a tight time frame. I would also point out that to the extent it is controlled by construction contracts, we will stipulate completion date requirements in there. And we will be sure, very sure we have them pay the penalties if it is not done. June 4, 1991 - Reaufax Mee-tina - Paae 14 of 17 C2 C"1 F. NEW BUSINESS 4. G. 2. Continued . . . . COUNCIL REPORTS AND/OR REQUESTS: Councilmember Collins: Councilmember Entry: COUNCILMEMBERS/ACTION Councilmember Collins made a motion to authorize the Mayor to sign the Consent Order (Agreement) contingent upon receiving a formal permit for the modification work for the water treatment plant; seconded by Councilmember Entry. KIRK COLLINS ENTRY WALKER WATFORD MOTION CARRIED. a) Councilmember Collins asked Engineer Reese if he had time to run the flow test for the master plan? When can we expect that master plan to be finished? Engineer Reese answered the flow test had been done and that he had come across some additional problems but it should be done within a month. b) Councilmember Collins asked for the status of the lift stations at the Junior High School. Administrator Drago answered they were still waiting for the School Board to purchase the pumps for the lift station. a) Councilmember Entry asked the status on the remedial work. Interim Director Groover explained, "a letter has been written to DER by Knepper and Willard requesting the permission for the authorization to put the Southeast section on line, were just waiting for their response. DER will be in town Thursday for the open house at the wastewater treatment and were hoping to lean on them a little bit. The Southwest section I am not real sure about. As far as I know all the pipe is in the ground. I believe there is some testing going on in the Northwest section". YES X X X X X VOTE T„tin A 1001 DnnnPnh AAnD-t;on _ Dnnn 19 n6 17 G. COUNCIL REPORTS AND/OR REQUESTS: COUNCILMEMBERS/ACTION VOTE YES M) �c NI 3. Councilmember Watford: a) Councilmember Watford brought up the subject of taking down the yellow ribbons in the downtown areas which were placed there in commemoration of our military forces, asking when would be an appropriate time for their removal. Council decided to wait until after July 4th to take the yellow ribbons down. b) Councilmember Watford expressed his appreciation to the Public Utilities department and the Public Works department for having to put in work over the holiday (Memorial Day). c) Councilmember Watford stated he understood the County Commission had rejected our proposal for the interlocal agreement. Mayor Kirk explained, "myself, the City Administrator, Chairman of the Commissioners Harvey and the County Administrator (Milita) met and talked for several hours. Disagreed on a lot of things as we talked, but as the meeting progressed we did e� come up with an interlocal agreement. It was not a lengthy document and it was not real strong because of some of the things that were said in the meeting between the four of us that I will not get into at this time. What bothers me is that this thing was typed and sent to them as all four of us had agreed, it was not just authored by the City but co-authored by the City and County. As we departed from that meeting, shaking hands, one of my last comments to them was simply I hope that in the future when the City and County's got a problem that we can sit down like this, talk about it face to face and solve the problem. The document was typed, I am convinced it was typed just as the four of us agreed, was sent to them, they brought it up in their meeting after having held it for about two weeks and not calling us to tell us there was any kind of a problem with it. They brought it up in their meeting an said, here is a document, do not vote for it. Personally I would not have done that to my own Council I would not have sat through a meeting, come up with a document like that, present it to you people and say here it is we have worked it out, now do not vote for it. If I would have had a problem with it I would have taken it back and said hey, we do not have anything here yet, lets talk it over. June 4, 1997 - Reau&n Meetina - Paae 16 of 17 G. COUNCIL REQUESTS AND/OR REPORTS: 3. Continued . . . . 4. Attorney Cook: COUNCILMBMBERS/ACTION That did not happen and I am very disappointed. I did read the comment of their attorney and for his benefit I would like him to know that the people he was criticizing was his own employers because they did help us write that. We did not dream this up. I feel like we are still willing to sit down and talk with them and try to work out an interlocal. I am very disappointed that they did not call us back instead of hitting the paper with all this and bringing it up in their meeting if they did not want to try and pass it. I think we put the ball in their court and they fumbled it." Following further discussion the Council agreed they were open to a counter proposal from the County and that in the future all meetings between the City and County should be taped. d) Councilmember Watford asked if the beautification ordinance was going to be discussed? Councilmember Collins suggested a workshop be held on June 18, 1991, Tuesday, at 5:30 P.M. to discuss the beautification ordinance; Council agreed. a) Attorney Cook advised the Council he had received a letter from the insurance company on the suit of Bechler vs. the City from when he was helped down the stairs in one of meetings and says he was injured. "The attorney sent me a copy of the letter she had sent his attorney saying enclosed please find a check for $9,000.00 in complete settlement of the case. As we all know, all settlements of this nature have to be approved by the City Council. I recommend the Council ratify this." Councilmember Collins made a motion to approve the settlement, per our insurance carrier, for Bechler, for $9,000.00; seconded by Councilmember Walker. KIRK COLLINS ENTRY WALKER WATFORD MOTION CARRIED. YES VOTE June 4, 1991 - Requ.Lan Mee-tinq - Page 17 oA 17 COUNCILMEMBERS/ACTION VOTE YES NO AS-9EM ADJOURNMENT Mayor Kirk: Mayor Kirk adjourned the meeting at 9:00 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT IF ANY PERSON SHOULD DECIDE TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE AT THIS MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, SUCH PERSON WILL NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS BASED. A COPY OF THE RECORDING CAN BE OBTAINED IN THE CITY CLE OFFICE. esE. Kirk, Mayor �1J Attept: Bonnie S. Thomas, City Clerk, CMC _i