Loading...
2019-12-17 Handwritten MinutesDECEMBER 17, 2019, REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING HANDWRITTEN MINUTES TAKEN BY LANE GAMIOTEA CALL TO ORDER Mayor Watford called the regular session of the City Council for the City of Okeechobee to order on Tuesday, December 17, 2019, at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 55 Southeast 3rd Avenue, Room 200, Okeechobee, Florida. A. The invocation was offered by B. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Watford. II. ATTENDANCE City Clerk Lane Gamiotea called the roll: Mayor Dowling R. Watford, Jr. - Present Council Member Abney - Present Council Member Clark - Present Council Member Jarriel - Present Council Member Keefe - Present CITY STAFF: City Attorney John R. Cook - Present City Administrator MontesDeOca - Present Police Chief Peterson - Present Fire Chief Smith - Present Public Works Director Allen - Present City Clerk Gamiotea - Present Deputy City Clerk Jenkins - Present III. AGENDA AND PUBLIC COMMENTS A. There was one request to withdraw Daryl Roehm's certificate and no requests for the addition, or deferral of items. B. There were no agenda item forms or comment cards submitted for public participation for any issues not on the agenda. IV. PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS A. Mayor Watford recognized Mr. Daryl Roehm for his service on the General Employees' Pension Fund Board of Trustees with a Certificate of Appreciation that read as follows: "The City of Okeechobee, Florida recognizes the Valuable Contribution of community involvement and Hereby extends this expression of Grateful appreciation to Daryl Roehm for Faithful Service as a Dedicated Member appointed to the City of Okeechobee General Employees' Pension Trust Fund Board of Trustees December 6, 2011 to December 31, 2019." December 17, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 1 of 8 B. Mayor Watford presented City Attorney John R. Cook with a Distinguished Service Award that read as follows: "Distinguished Service Award presented to John R. Cook, Whereas, John R. Cook, Esquire, began his municipal public service career on April 1, 1988, when hired to serve as the twelfth City Attorney for the City of Okeechobee, Florida; and Whereas, his duties included legal counselor not only to the City Council, but encompassed committees and boards of which to date include: the Code Enforcement Board, the Local Planning Agency, the Planning Board, the Board of Adjustment, the Design Review Board, the Grant Project Citizen Advisory Task Force, the Land Development Regulations Citizen Advisory Committee, and the Centennial Ad Hoc Committee; and Whereas, on two occasions Attorney Cook was appointed to serve as the Interim City Administrator, from March through May 2005, and from June through October 2015; and Whereas, during his tenure he has served at the pleasure of three Mayors and sixteen Council Members, alongside two City Clerks, five City Administrators, four Police Chiefs, two Fire Chiefs, four Public Utilities Directors, and three Public Works Directors; and Whereas, the City has grown and progressed under Attorney Cook's legal counsel as is reflected in the 607 Ordinances, 397 Resolutions, six Annexation Projects, countless Agreements and Contracts of which were reviewed for legal sufficiency; he was instrumental in the formation of the Okeechobee Utility Authority, and made lasting memories during the two trips to New York City with Mayor Oakland Chapman, City Clerk Bonnie S. Thomas, and City Administrator John J. Drago to oversee the City's receipt of several Bond Issues for capital improvement projects. Now, Therefore, the City of Okeechobee, Florida, proudly recognizes his distinguished service for thirty-one years of conducting himself with integrity and civility, for his dedication to the community, and his steadfast passion for the law." John —thanks to all. All the years the fun part was dealing with staff, almost everyday working with Robin, India, Lane, Bobbie. We have a city family, sooner or later the end happens. DW — we had a nice reception this morning for John, it was a quite a roast. John — when we went to NYC, Dowling put an end to the trips when he found out it wasn't necessary for us to go there. V. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Council Member Jarriel and second by Council Member Clark; to approve the consent agenda items A and B [approve the November 12, 2019, Joint Workshop and December 3, 2019, minutes; approve the November 2019 Warrant Register in the amounts: General Fund $509,312.01, Public Facilities Improvement Fund $36,805.97, Capital Improvement Projects Fund $19,238.00, Law Enforcement Special Fund $150.00]. Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. VI. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION A. Council Member Abney moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 2019-16, which provides a uniform method for the levy, collections, and enforcement of non -ad valorem special assessments for drainage; road improvements (including but not limited to roadside ditches, swales, culverts, sidewalks, street lighting, resurfacing, canal/ditch cleaning and maintenance); fire protection services and facilities; stormwater treatment; mosquito control; and abatement of nuisances (including but not limited to costs of the abatement); seconded by Council Member Keefe. Attorney Cook read proposed Resolution No. 2019-16 by title only as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA; ADOPTING THE UNIFORM METHOD FOR THE LEVY, COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF NON -AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 197.3632, FLORIDA STATUTES FOR DRAINAGE, ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO ROADSIDE DITCHES, SWALES, CULVERTS, AND SIDEWALKS, STREET LIGHTING, STREET RESURFACING, CANAL OR DITCH CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE, FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES AND FACILITIES, STORMWATER TREATMENT, MOSQUITO CONTROL, THE ABATEMENT OF NUISANCES AS DESCRIBED IN CHAPTER 30, SECTIONS 30-31 TO 30-46, OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES AND CHAPTER 60 FLORIDA STATUTES, AT CERTAIN PROPERTIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE COST OF ABATING OF NUISANCES AS December 17, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 2 of 8 PROVIDED IN THE AFOREMENTIONED SECTIONS OF THE CITY CODE AND FLORIDA STATUTES AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME, WITHIN THE INCORPORATED AREA OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE." Adopting doesn't mean we will implement these, this is necessary to adopt by the end of the calendar year if we want to consider to adopt one throughout 2020. Public Comments — none. Wes — first year done? MDO yes, and may do each year if city council wants to. DW — Betts assured me it was only another tools in our tool box. Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. 6:14 pm CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING VII. NEW BUSINESS A. KEEFE MOTION/SECOND CLARK. Relocation of Easements for property located at 503 Southeast 5t" Street (Legal: Lots 1 through 4, CENTRAL PARK OAK, Plat Book 8, Page 59, public records of Okeechobee County, Florida). MDO - The lots are all owned by SE5, LLC who is seeking to build duplexes. However, the existing utility Easements are located in the middle of the proposed buildings. Mr. Javier Soriano, registered agent of the property owner, is requesting to abandon the existing Easements and dedicate the three as shown. Utility letters of no improvements within the existing Easement have been received. Abandon between lots 2, 3, 4, and giving easements as shown on paperwork. He has legal here on sketch. He'II bring a document back for actually approval that will be signed and then recorded in the official record. Applicant present. DW — why there? MDO — originally. Wes — zoning and land use? MDO — yes. Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. B. Council Member Jarriel moved to reject the submittal for Request for Proposal No. ADM 02-00- 10-19, City Attorney Legal Services; seconded by Council Member Keefe. Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. Review all contracts submitDO80,000.00 Nason, Yeager, Gerson, Harris & Fumero, P.A. Contract Highlights Compensation: the Firm shall perform the legal services set forth in Attachment A. To determine a reasonable and accurate legal services budget and monthly flat fee, the City will be billed on an hourly basis for a period of time not to exceed 90 days. Within this time, Attorney, based upon its actual experience in providing legal services, as well as understanding the City's needs and priorities as established by the City Council and the City Administrator, shall develop and propose a monthly flat fee for legal services. Once the monthly flat fee is established and agreed upon, thereafter, monthly billings will be submitted on the 5th day of each month. Firm will be compensated at a rate of $275.00 per hour for special legal counsel outside the Scope of Work in Attachment A. Attachment B contains monthly fee of $9,400.00 per month for legal work described in Attachment A. Attorney rate: $275.00; Certified Paralegal rate: $80.00; cost and expenses will be charged actual cost with a list being provided as Attachment 1. Duration: effective January 1, 2020. Legal services will be provided at will with the Firm providing a 30 day written notice of its intent to terminate. Scope of Work: provide legal services consistent with Charter; prepare for and attend City Council meetings and workshops, attorney/client sessions, if and when deemed necessary, in addition to participate in the preparation and review of agendas for meetings of the City Council; December 17, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 3 of 8 participate in Code Enforcement Magistrate Hearings, Planning and Zoning/Board of Adjustment and Technical Review Committee Meetings; review, and/or approve ordinances, resolutions, and contracts presented to the City Council; participate in periodic conference calls at a time to be mutually determined by the City Administrator and City Attorney to identify an discuss outstanding issues, and City priorities; provide legal advice to City Council members and participate in individual conference calls with City Council members in order to provide advice regarding upcoming City Council agenda items; meetings with City Administrator and City staff, if and when necessary; monitor and report on the progress of services handled or represented by other outside legal counsel. Swaine, Harris & Wohl, P.A. Contract Highlights Compensation: City hereby agrees to pay Attorneys, as compensation for professional time spent by attorneys, paralegals, and legal assistants performing the services, the following rates of: $195.00 per hour for services provided by Bert J. Harris, III, J. Michael Swain, Robert S. Swaine, and Thomas J. Wohl; $175.00 per hour for services provided by attorneys Jocelyn K. Skipper and Shannon L. Nash; and $85.00 per hour for paralegals and legal assistants. Travel time shall be charged at the above -listed hourly rates. The City shall pay attorneys costs which attorneys have paid or will be required to pay during their representation of City. These expenses may include, but shall not be limited to, court costs, computer research costs, deposition costs, long-distance telephone costs, reproduction costs, service of process, cost of publication, witness fees, expert witness fees, and all other expenses attorneys consider reasonably necessary for the proper representation of the City. Additionally, city shall pay attorneys for mileage for all travel at the IRS standard rate set for business use. These expenses shall not be a part of the fees herein agreed to be paid, but shall be in addition thereto. Duration: effective January 1, 2020 and end December 31, 2020, unless terminated earlier by either party. City may terminate this agreement at any time and for any reason with no advance notice to Attorneys. Attorneys may terminate this agreement for any reason by giving 60 -days written notice to City. The parties may extend this agreement for year to year. Scope of Work: serve as legal advisor to the Mayor and City Council during the conduct of City Council meetings; advise Mayor, City Council, City Officers, and City boards, committees, and personnel regarding legal matters arising in performance of their duties; attend the city council meetings and board and committee meetings as requested, including Code Enforcement Special Magistrate proceedings; prepare ordinances, resolutions, contracts, and other documents as requested; prepare for and represent the city in litigation, administrative hearings, and appeals to which the City may be a party; recommend and coordinate the engagement of special counsel when needed, as determined by the City Council; perform such other duties in accordance with City Ordinances or as may be required by the City Council. Excluded services: lobbying, addressing issues concerning employment disputes, pension plans, or union matters. AS necessary, Attorneys will assist in the coordination, engagement, and monitoring of special counsel for provision of these services. Preparation for the issuance and sale of City bonds may be performed at a separately negotiated rate. Motion by Council Member Keefe; seconded by Council Member Clark to Award a contract for City Attorney Legal Services to Nasson Yearger firm. DW — prefer Swaine Harris, represent cities that are more in our league, similar to us, more familier with our area than the other firm. Huge difference in costs. $9,000.00 per month, that's $120,000/year adding a lot to the budget. Clark isn't the budget $145,000? MDO there are other items in that budget that are not contract items. BJ — hard decision, think 1 firm has more cases and maybe more of a background than the other firm, hard to see a $3,000/month difference, believe both would do a fine job for the city. Appreciate both submitting. MC — started looking at some of the issues in the two firms especially water issues, why leaning more to the Nasson firm, spend less time working through those contracts or issues. DW - I think with the limited as a small city with what we have to deal with limited exposure limited about of legal work I agree with Jarriel its not worth the difference in the amount of money. If we were the county I would agree with Clark. For our small city think that's an awful lot amount. Allow both firms to make comments. Since motion for Nason we will let them go first. December 17, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 4 of 8 John Fumero, 31 years, have Carmon C — money is important, maybe miss understanding. When we originally proposed RFP, look at legal services contract, without having worked for you and provide you a budget would be ..... allow at least 60 days to work on an hourly bases then come back with a monthly rate. If not a lot of items then you will get a lower rate. Its based on needs and priorities that are yours. Familiarity with your issues. Coming to Okeechobee for over 30 years. Worked with ag industry most of my life. Worked on formation with the OUA, Michael Minton, very familiar ith issues. Attorney for outside clewiston community, do understand your needs. Ag is the lifeblood of any city small or large. Been the city attorney for port st lucie. Smaller cities. 15 years in government. Work with staff, understand most of the work is done before you get here. No surprises that's the golden rule. Getting the backup and being accountable. Bert Harris, practice in Lake Placid for 40 years, 30 years town attorney for LP. Handled the normal ordinances, and resolutiosn, annexation, and keep budgets down. Citys $100 less per hour. Having worked for LP no billing disputes. See the relationship is fair. Easy out clause. I don't think that will be a firm. Other members representative sebring Swaine. Wohl city fo Arcadia. We know what you do, no billing disputes. Would like to talk about whnat you need, premature to get into what meetings would be necessary (like code enforcement to keep costs down. Shared invoices from several to show we have not been fired. Lykes Brothers. BJ — the fee didn't bother me just get some information to compare the two, the 34 hours to get something to compare. Nason — my guess is would be less than 30 hours, goal to come up with a flat budget, give me 60 days andd will give you a budget you can live by, always occasions you have to go out of th ebudget amount, such as litigation would be higher. Flexibility in it. Goal is to take 60 days. Wes — monthly rate? 34 hours month basic services $4,000-$4,500/month. MDO — charter review would be separate work order outside of the scope work. And that is aseparte budget item. Vote on motion Council Members Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: Mayor Watford and Council Member Jarriel. Motion Carried. Nason — thank you hope to earn your trust as we move on. C. Discuss City Fire Services. Exhibit 4 was a memorandum generated by the City Administrator. Based upon the County Commission meeting held November 26th and subsequent City Council meeting held December 3rd, please find the required outstanding items below. It is understood the level of service requirements for the County would be to maintain and continue an ISO rating of 3 as well as the related fire protection and support services. In addition, the County would like to limit additional staff time usage as they have developed a cost associated with the request until further information can be supplied. A copy of the report presented at the County Commission meeting is attached. The outstanding items are as follows: 1 -Contract or Assessment: will the services be paid via a stand-alone fire services contract with the County, or would the cost be obtained via County's fire assessment, the same as with the unincorporated portions of the County. Clark — F.S. we cannot have the County do their own fire assessment without a voter referendum. Clark provided information as a point of interest. There are ways around a referendum. DW — not clear, if you gave up control or not give up control. Clark — last meeting think we need a person to negotiate this, don't have a person on staff to be where we are and what to do. BJ — no problem with contract, be 2-3 years. WA — okay with contract if wording to our benefit. BK — same. DW — find myself in 1987, don't support a contract, if were tying to save money that will not happen based on what has happened with other contracts with the county. It would have to be an assessment. December 17, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 5 of 8 2 -Storage: would City's firehouse be available for storage of back-up/secondary equipment for the Okeechobee County Fire Rescue? Would a cost to the County be levied and if so, what would be the associated cost? Clark — that would be part of the negotiate contract. BJ — negotiate. Wes — part of negotiation, no opposed to it at this point. BK — same. DW — see no advantage to the county storing here, County chief was clear that our storage would not be necessary. 3 -Equipment: currently limited to the fire pumper truck, ladder truck and other trucks only. Would the trucks be conveyed or sold to the County or would the City dispose of them via Govdeals? If sold to the county, at what cost? (a list of current valuations on our fixed assets is attached) Clark — paid by tax payers don't want to give it away. BJ — negotiate, if contract don't charge, if merger don't give/sell. Abney — same as other, if contract give, if merger then at what rate since city residents have paid for it. Should be part of the negotiation. BK — as a county and city tax payer wed be paying twice for the same equipment. Many city business owners but county residents paid and would be a wash in my mind, transfer the equipment. DW — city residents paid for it, Keefe good point, county residents need to pay something for it. Let them buy the equipment at a discounted rate. 4 -Timeline: state date for services; although not an item of request, a proposed timeline would need to be established to allow both County and City adequate time to prepare for the change as well as calculate pensions. Clark, Jarriel, Abney, Keefe - October 2020. DW — to many details worked out, if doing contract then it would have to be worked out by October 2020. Caution once its done it done FF gone, sell equipment, building for other uses. Not like the building department that was easy to bring back in house. It would be very very expensive to go back into the fire business. MDO - want questions answered (storage) to know what the costs would be. MDO — pension would have to come out of reserve, and use the equipment sales put some of the money back in the reserve. City residents and county residents would have to vote on receiving it. Clark — takes place over a period of two to three years, opportunity to finish out there term with the city. Time to have all our FF trained. Understand the BOCC is losing 3 paramedics as of today. Negotiate what benefits the firefighters. As noted, the employment of our firefighters and administrative staff at the Fire department would only have the opportunity to apply for the county openings; at most, 6 would be available. The county also requires paramedics to apply, of which the city only has one. No mention of additional administrative support was noted. Internally, we are working on pension, severance, etc. and other related costs once the above is calculated and determined. The City's Fire Protection and Prevention Ordinance is also attached as additional information. BJ — when talking about eqipment if we charge the county anything, city residents will pay again, I think we've answered the questions they want but until they give us a firm proposal we may or may not accept it. Now I think its up to them. MDO - that's my understanding. Reach out to consultant. That firm does true costs for the city and county, county isn't going to update their assessment study. Approximately $10,000.00. Working on that. DW — asked what the charter says. JC — recognizes. Provide some kind of fire service, contract woould provide that. Clark — theres no possibity to be able to get a knowledgable to .... do it over a period of two to three years for assessment, foresee if we migrate the two departments doing an assessment, where we get the credits, busiensses bear the brunt of the costs. Does no one else see what I am seeing on this. Need time to work on all these issues. We can still fund the fire department. December 17, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 6 of 8 DW confused don't know quite what youre asking. Asking the county to provide a service for us with the level of service we requested. They said heres what they need to provide the same level of service. Don't have the luxuary they don't have to take our service and we don't have to give it to them. I don't think we have any leverage in any since of the form to negotiate. Its more like a discussion, the assessment is the county's. That may be why they are posponing revisiting the assessment study. The city has some bigger commercial businesses. The millage is not going to to be lowereed that much if we contract the service because we're going to have to pay the county for that service. Clark — amount given. DW — but found that amount was wrong, its much higher, 846,000 and does not include Clark — why we need a consultant to know a firm number, other concern is to not have a reduction in services. DW - doesn't matter what the consultant says it matters what the County says. If they say to provide that service its we either agree to that amount or not agree. Then we either agree or not agree. BJ — we cant vote on it tonight, let them come back with a firm number. • WA — until they have a firm number, until they do a formal proposal, then we can consider it, until then just back and forth dicussion. DW — agree. MDO — contract dollar; storage use or not do they need; equipment exactly what they need and amount they would give us; date. Give them the answers. WA — special consideration for our staff if they are properly trained. MC — if this is Jan and this is where we are headed, why not have our guys start the paramedic school? DW — discussion by county hire our guys that aren't certified then have extra costs to cover shifts to get them certified. WA — local school? Accommodate? HS — not aware of any school that offers that at this time. I heard of a potential class but not confirmed. WA — do you have FF intersted? HS — yes. I have 11 employees, only 6 potential, what about my other FF's? WA — going to do what we can, I feel. MC — we don't have anyone trained with people from our fire department. WA — why we need to have them give us consideration if certified. DW — understand what Herb is saying if they are going to only hire 6 of the 11. MC — that is how many they will need with that, but openings. HS — rank and seniorty will not be considered by the county. Ask the county to be looked at, apples to apples. Fire truck with 2 people, we have 3 people, are they saying 3 of thiers equals 2 of mine. WA — okay to MDO can you add that. MDO — yes. Mike O'Connor - ask why didn't you ask with a referendum for them to vote, Keefe said consolidate you didn't ask me I would have voted it down. Need to have it as a referendum. DW — appears we don't have to have referendum if doing it by contract. Mike — you don't have to have it but why not have it. Rick Giles — possible to do financially, sent to school anyway to maek them more hiring anyway just in case. DW — yes they currently have that opportunity until now. Gary Ritter, if we did have a referendum I would vote no. Brought out pensions and other items. Have not heard anything about how this is going to same me money. Have not heard how this will save my busienss money. Spent this morning with form IRC state rep, nothing here I heard that would help me make a vote. IRC consolidated saved money in the beginning but now we are paying more money. I looked at my taxes, 22%, my city taxes are roughly $800, 1/4 of that its $200. That comes out to me paying 0.55 per day. If we needed more money to keep our fire dept I would gladly pay $100 per year to keep it. Talked with Stuart council member. They kept their dept because that's what the people wanted. There are still a lot of questions to us as tax payers. How much are we going to pay the county? Noel Chandler — appreciate whole council putting heads together, send FF to school they have to work for us for 2 years. We may loose the money from our advalorem, cant asked for any better service. Think about what its going to cost 3-4 years down the road. An assessment would be better for ourselves that way we can control the amount. BJ — we're not ready to vote on this tonight, jumped to conclusions without all the answeers. Most cities our size have gone to the county running the dept to save money. The county chief has said they could probably lower the rate. December 17, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 7 of 8 Jennifer Tewksbury, economci council, agree with BJ comments, appreciate the research to see about the potential savings without losing services. Clark — I had conversation with Ritter, fire service a few years ago, city assessment was going to be in addition 464.00 per tax certifidate. Busiens coud have been $3500/year, city businesses have been the bearer for what goes on for the city and county. Analysis for many cities, most millage was was 4 mills, cut in half don't know other specifics. Its probably more expensive now that a fire assessment proposed several years ago. Businesses don't want to come in the city because the taxes are too high. Churches are also concerned if going to assessment. Keefe — its personal to 11 firefighters, cant be personal for us, it's a busienss decsion. Bottom line does it save money? Referendum on 2020 ballot? Paramedic Training for all FF's. It would mean they are marketable. Its an election year so those are tiptoeing around the issue because it's a landmine. We need to let our FF know what we're going to do. Owe FF and county this is what we are going to do. Believe we should put it on the ballot so our constivants vote on the issue, county voters too. Consultant to come in and assess, separate from the previoous study that was voted down. If we retain the fire dept we need to find another method to fund the dept. I propose a complete merger versus a contract. There's no perfect way to do this. Hard facts decisions on has to be whats better for the city as a whole. Its all about saving money. I propose we put it on the referendum ballot alleviate some of the councils concern on how to do it. BK — deadline to put on referendum. lndeferent to the contract. VIII. COUNCIL COMMENTS Abney — personnaly thank John, thank staff for they hard work. Bob — thank John 31 years a long time. Maybe you didn't see it tongith proud to be from Okeechobee, flag dedication, great parade, email with noise issue taken care of. Scholarship at SFFair okeechobee 5 seniors applied still being looked at all 5 got scholarships. Its good to be from okeechobee, trying to make it better not aggrivate anyone. Keefe —john congrats thank you merry xmas to everyone. Clark — ditto. IX. There being no further items on the agenda, Mayor Watford adjourned the meeting at 7:53 P.M. The next regular meeting is scheduled for January 7, 2020, at 6:00 P.M. Dowling R. Watford, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Lane Gamiotea, CMC, City Clerk Please take notice and be advised that when a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, he/she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. City Clerk media are for the sole purpose of backup for official records of the Clerk. December 17, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 8 of 8 CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA DECEMBER 17, 2019, REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION CALL TO ORDER Mayor Watford called the regular session of the City Council for the City of Okeechobee to order on Tuesday, December 17, 2019, at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 55 Southeast 3rd Avenue, Room 200, Okeechobee, Florida. A. The invocation was offered by _Pastor Rick Guiles of Northside Baptist church B. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Watford. II. ATTENDANCE City Clerk Lane Gamiotea called the roll. Mayor Dowling R. Watford, Jr., Council Members Wes Abney, Monica Clark, Bob Jarriel, and Bobby Keefe were present. CITY STAFF: City Administrator Marcos MontesDeOca, Police Chief Bob Peterson, Fire Chief Herb Smith, Public Works Director David Allen, and Deputy City Clerk Bobbie Jenkins were present. City Attorney John Cook was absent with consent. III. AGENDA AND PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Presentations and Proclamations Item A was withdrawn from the agenda at the request of the recipient. B. There were no agenda item forms or comment cards submitted for public participation for any issues not on the agenda. IV. PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS A. The presentation for Mr. Daryl Roehm was withdrawn from the agenda at the request of Mr. Roehm. B. Mayor Watford presented City Attorney John R. Cook with a Distinguished Service Award that read as follows: "Distinguished Service Award presented to John R. Cook, Whereas, John R. Cook, Esquire, began his municipal public service career on April 1, 1988, when hired to serve as the twelfth City Attorney for the City of Okeechobee, Florida; and Whereas, his duties included legal counselor not only to the City Council, but encompassed committees and boards of which to date include: the Code Enforcement Board, the Local Planning Agency, the Planning Board, the Board of Adjustment, the Design Review Board, the Grant Project Citizen Advisory Task Force, the Land Development Regulations Citizen Advisory Committee, and the Centennial Ad Hoc Committee; and Whereas, on two occasions Attorney Cook was appointed to serve as the Interim City Administrator, from March through May 2005, and from June through October 2015; and Whereas, during his tenure he has served at the pleasure of three Mayors and sixteen Council Members, alongside two City Clerks, five City Administrators, four Police Chiefs, two Fire Chiefs, four Public Utilities Directors, and three Public Works Directors; and Whereas, the City has grown and progressed under Attorney Cook's legal counsel as is reflected in the 607 Ordinances, 397 Resolutions, six Annexation Projects, countless Agreements and Contracts of which were reviewed for legal sufficiency; he was instrumental in the formation of the Okeechobee Utility Authority, and made lasting memories during the two trips to New York City with Mayor Oakland Chapman, City Clerk Bonnie S. Thomas, and City Administrator John J. Drago to oversee the City's receipt of several Bond Issues for capital improvement projects. Now, Therefore, the City of Okeechobee, Florida, proudly recognizes his distinguished service for thirty-one years of conducting himself with integrity and civility, for his dedication to the community, and his steadfast passion for the law." John was accompanied by his wife, Janie. Mayor -we've always said this is a city family and we honor one of our distinguished members tonight. John -thank everybody, the mayor city council the city clerks office. Like the mayor said they've worked all day today changing the locsk at city hall. The fun part was dealing with staff and department heads over the years. Almost everyday I've worked with robin, india, patty, lane, bobbie, Jackie. As the mayor said we are a city family and I hate to leave it but its time to happen. December 17, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 1 of 9 Mayor -we had a nice reception this morning for john and I didn't realize it was going to be a roast. Im surprised he showed up this morning after the comments from Mayor Kirk, Bill Veach, Brian Whitehall. John -since you've mentioned the bond issues, since we went to new York city. Dowling discovered you didn't really have to go to new York for a bond issue and it was costing the city money so that was the end to that. V. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Council Member Clark to approve the consent agenda items A and B [approve the November 12, 2019, Joint Workshop and December 3, 2019, Regular meeting minutes; approve the November 2019 Warrant Register in the amounts: General Fund $509,312.01, Public Facilities Improvement Fund $36,805.97, Capital Improvement Projects Fund $19,238.00, Law Enforcement Special Fund $150.00]. seconded by Council Member Jarriel. Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. VI. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION TIME: 6:11 A. Motion by Council Member ABney to adopt proposed Resolution No. 2019-16, which provides a uniform method for the levy, collections, and enforcement of non -ad valorem special assessments for drainage; road improvements (including but not limited to roadside ditches, swales, culverts, sidewalks, street lighting, resurfacing, canal/ditch cleaning and maintenance); fire protection services and facilities; stormwater treatment; mosquito control; and abatement of nuisances (including but not limited to costs of the abatement); seconded by Council Member Keefe. Attorney Cook read proposed Resolution No. 2019-16 by title only as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA; ADOPTING THE UNIFORM METHOD FOR THE LEVY, COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF NON -AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 197.3632, FLORIDA STATUTES FOR DRAINAGE, ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO ROADSIDE DITCHES, SWALES, CULVERTS, AND SIDEWALKS, STREET LIGHTING, STREET RESURFACING, CANAL OR DITCH CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE, FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES AND FACILITIES, STORMWATER TREATMENT, MOSQUITO CONTROL, THE ABATEMENT OF NUISANCES AS DESCRIBED IN CHAPTER 30, SECTIONS 30-31 TO 30-46, OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES AND CHAPTER 60 FLORIDA STATUTES, AT CERTAIN PROPERTIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE COST OF ABATING OF NUISANCES AS PROVIDED IN THE AFOREMENTIONED SECTIONS OF THE CITY CODE AND FLORIDA STATUTES AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME, WITHIN THE INCORPORATED AREA OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE." John -adopting this resolution doesn't mean we're going to commence these assessments but we have to have them in place before the end of the year just in case. MDo-not implementing an assessment, just have to have this done before the calendar year. Mayor Watford opened the floor for public comment; there was none. Abney -first year we've done this? MDO-yes first time which provides us with the ability to do this. Mayor -this is another tool in our toolbox. Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. MAYOR WATFORD CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:14 P.M. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Relocation of Easements for property located at 503 Southeast 5th Street (Legal: Lots 1 through 4, CENTRAL PARK OAK, Plat Book 8, Page 59, public records of Okeechobee County, Florida). Mayor -would you like to have an explan December 17, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 2 of 9 BK -motion MC -second MDO-we did process this as a right-of-way abandonment. The utility companies have no interest in the easements. I've spoke with David and we still need to have drainage. The mechanism as this is a plat adjustment. We have never done these so this is a new one to all of us. Mayor -why easements there? MDO-if you look at the plat, they were dedicated. We are getting 3 easements. The owner is here. Abney -current zoning and FLU ok? MDO-yes Mayor -I assume everything is in place MDO-abandonment and recording will be done at the same time. The Tots are all owned by SE5, LLC who is seeking to build duplexes. However, the existing utility Easements are located in the middle of the proposed buildings. Mr. Javier Soriano, registered agent of the property owner, is requesting to abandon the existing Easements and dedicate the three as shown. Utility letters of no improvements within the existing Easement have been received. Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. B. A motion was made by Council Member Jarriel to reject all bids received for Request for Proposal No. ADM 02-00-10-19, City Attorney Legal Services; seconded by Council Member Keefe. Mayor -I assume this is to approve an RFQ? M DO -correct Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: none. Motion Carried. Review all contracts submitted for Request for Qualifications No. ADM 01-00-10-19, City Attorney Legal Services. Mayor-MDO what do you suggest? MDO-we did provide copies of the contracts. Both attorney's are here. Its pretty straight forward, last contract john is to review. Mayor -this is a little bit confusing, obviously two and three are together. Open up for discussion with the Council. Both attorneys are here. If you have any particular questions. Abney-Nason, Yeager, duration of terms, effective 1/1/20 and I don't see an end date. Until terminated? MDO-as of right now, yes, we've had discussion on how we are going to start. Id prefer it be annual. Item to add per Council. Ive asked them to give us something very direct. If there are details to add, we can do that. Abney -will they be attending all meetings. MDO-yes attendance of all; the request from both firms be consistent with who attends Council meetings. Mayor -I see that one of the firms gave us a per month flat fee? MDO-they did but there has been a discussion of the first 60-90 days to leave it open to hourly. Mayor -as it stands, one gave per month, one gave hourly. BJ -you've gave them the number of meetings to attend to get that rate? Do we know who's going to attend from the Harris Firm to get the rate? Mayor -refresh my memory for the budget? MDO-$80,000 BJ -if you calculated out the 34 hours, we are talking about $3000 difference per month in firms. Mayor -does anyone want to make any more comments are BJ -make a motion to accept the contract with nason; monica 2"tl the --motion. Discussion: Mayor -like to say I certainly would prefer the Swain, Harris Firm for two reasons, they represent cities that are probably similar to us, I know they're more familiar with our area probably then the other firm. And there is a huge difference in cost. We are December 17, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 3 of 9 adding a lot to the budget. Monica — wasn't the total legal budget of $145,000. MDo-there are other items not being provided. This is a straight contract. Bob -it was a hard decision and I think one firm has more cases and maybe more of a background in a lot of areas than the other firm but I really have a hard time in the $3000 a month difference in the two and I believe both firms can do what we need them to do. I appreciate you all both submitting but its been a tough decision. Monica -when I started looking at some of the issues and the items submitted with the two firms, the water issue is the reason I'm leaning toward the firm from the coast versus the harris firm, I've looked over it very carefully and with someone with that kind of experience we'd spend less time and money. Mayor -I think with the limited as a small city with what we have to deal with and the limited amount of exposure and legal work we require, I agree with CM Jarriel, I don't think its worth the extra money. If we were the county and have more legal issues, I'd might agree with that. But I think with our small city, I think its an awful lot of money for our budget. I will leave it up to the council to hear from both firms. Yes. John Furmero, practicing law for 31 years. First 1/2 former council for SFWMD. Few things to clarify, budget. There may be some misunderstanding. When we originally proposed we put in a number but if you look at the contract, and what I suggested, and to give you a meaningful budget and without working for you, its an exercise in guess work. So I proposed that you allow me at least 60 days to work for you on an hourly basis so that I can come back to you with a real budget. If there is not a need for a lot of legal services, then your budget will be lowered. The flat fee came up as just a number. Familiarity - coming to Okeechobee for over 30 years, known gary ritter for 25 years. Worked with ag industry over 25 years. I actually worked the formation of the OUA, as the legal counsel for the SFWMD. I am the district attorney just outside of Clewiston, montura estates. I am with all do respect are familiar with the issues you face. Build an economic base, life blood of city small or large. Last comment because ive spent most of my life representing governments, I've spent 15 years in government and familiar with issues small communities faced. Most of the work is done before you get here. Making rules evolve around agenda management, dealing with the public. Bert Harris -practice law in Lake placid for 40 years. About 30 years ive been the town of attorney for lake placid. Handled ordinances, resolutions, annexations, and fight to keep our budget low. I did not submit a flat fee. One of us would be done wrong in that. We prefer hourly rates. My normal fee is $300 per hour, government is less because you don't have a collection problem with governments. The proposal we've made has an easy out clause, if you don't like us, just give me tiem to get to the county line. Mike Swain represents the City of Sebring a total of 40 years. TJ Wohl represents the City of Arcadia and we kind of know what you do. We don't have billing disputes. We'd like to talk about the servies you need. Premature to get into that, you have our billing records for the past few years. I share those numbers with you so you can primarily see that we have not been fired. I represent Lykes local contracts for 30 years. Any questions let me know. BJ -to Nason the fee didn't bother me, I was just trying to get some info so I could compare the two. I just took your flat fee and divided it by your rate to compare. Nason-my guess is probably less than 30 hours. Its really a function of what you need. My goal is to come up with a flat fee. Give me 60 days to give you a budget that I can live by and you can budget by. There will always be instances that go outside the scope of services. IN that case there is a flat fee. That's typically how I've done my local governmetns as they've wanted the flat fee. The goal is to give 60 days to get it right the first time. Abney -monthly rate for Cook. JC -as I mentioned earlier not hourly. 34 hours a month. Approximate $4000 to $4500 MDO-other items that would not be covered under either firm is charter review as we have separate funds set aside for that. NO other discussion. Nason, Yeager, Gerson, Harris & Fumero, P.A. Contract Highlights Compensation: the Firm shall perform the legal services set forth in Attachment A. To determine a reasonable and accurate legal services budget and monthly flat fee, the City will be billed on an hourly basis for a period of time not to exceed 90 days. Within this time, Attorney, based upon its actual experience in providing legal services, as well as understanding the City's needs and priorities as established by the City Council and the City Administrator, shall develop and propose a monthly flat fee for legal services. Once December 17, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 4 of 9 the monthly flat fee is established and agreed upon, thereafter, monthly billings will be submitted on the 5th day of each month. Firm will be compensated at a rate of $275.00 per hour for special legal counsel outside the Scope of Work in Attachment A. Attachment B contains monthly fee of $9,400.00 per month for legal work described in Attachment A. Attorney rate: $275.00; Certified Paralegal rate: $80.00; cost and expenses will be charged actual cost with a list being provided as Attachment 1. Duration: effective January 1, 2020. Legal services will be provided at will with the Firm providing a 30 day written notice of its intent to terminate. Scope of Work: provide legal services consistent with Charter; prepare for and attend City Council meetings and workshops, attorney/client sessions, if and when deemed necessary, in addition to participate in the preparation and review of agendas for meetings of the City Council; participate in Code Enforcement Magistrate Hearings, Planning and Zoning/Board of Adjustment and Technical Review Committee Meetings; review, and/or approve ordinances, resolutions, and contracts presented to the City Council; participate in periodic conference calls at a time to be mutually determined by the City Administrator and City Attorney to identify an discuss outstanding issues, and City priorities; provide legal advice to City Council members and participate in individual conference calls with City Council members in order to provide advice regarding upcoming City Council agenda items; meetings with City Administrator and City staff, if and when necessary; monitor and report on the progress of services handled or represented by other outside legal counsel. Swaine, Harris & Wohl, P.A. Contract Highlights Compensation: City hereby agrees to pay Attorneys, as compensation for professional time spent by attorneys, paralegals, and legal assistants performing the services, the following rates of: $195.00 per hour for services provided by Bert J. Harris, III, J. Michael Swain, Robert S. Swaine, and Thomas J. Wohl; $175.00 per hour for services provided by attorneys Jocelyn K. Skipper and Shannon L. Nash; and $85.00 per hour for paralegals and legal assistants. Travel time shall be charged at the above -listed hourly rates. The City shall pay attorneys costs which attorneys have paid or will be required to pay during their representation of City. These expenses may include, but shall not be limited to, court costs, computer research costs, deposition costs, Tong -distance telephone costs, reproduction costs, service of process, cost of publication, witness fees, expert witness fees, and all other expenses attorneys consider reasonably necessary for the proper representation of the City. Additionally, city shall pay attorneys for mileage for all travel at the IRS standard rate set for business use. These expenses shall not be a part of the fees herein agreed to be paid, but shall be in addition thereto. Duration: effective January 1, 2020 and end December 31, 2020, unless terminated earlier by either party. City may terminate this agreement at any time and for any reason with no advance notice to Attorneys. Attorneys may terminate this agreement for any reason by giving 60 -days written notice to City. The parties may extend this agreement for year to year. Scope of Work: serve as legal advisor to the Mayor and City Council during the conduct of City Council meetings; advise Mayor, City Council, City Officers, and City boards, committees, and personnel regarding legal matters arising in performance of their duties; attend the city council meetings and board and committee meetings as requested, including Code Enforcement Special Magistrate proceedings; prepare ordinances, resolutions, contracts, and other documents as requested; prepare for and represent the city in litigation, administrative hearings, and appeals to which the City may be a party; recommend and coordinate the engagement of special counsel when needed, as determined by the City Council; perform such other duties in accordance with City Ordinances or as may be required by the City Council. Excluded services: lobbying, addressing issues concerning employment disputes, pension plans, or union matters. AS necessary, Attorneys will assist in the coordination, engagement, and monitoring of special counsel for provision of these services. Preparation for the issuance and sale of City bonds may be performed at a separately negotiated rate. A motion was made by Council Member Keefe to award a contract for City Attorney Legal Services to Nason, Yeager, Gerson, Harris & Fumero, P.A; seconded by Council Member Clark. December 17, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 5 of 9 Council Members Abney, Clark, and Keefe voted: Aye. Nays: Mayor Watford, Council Member Jarriel. Motion Carried. C. Discuss City Fire Services. MDO-just to give you a prevue of the last meeting. Did follow up with County Admin, before they would spend any more staff time, we need to give these items back with answers. Last component was time. The only reason I put time in there so we can finalize for pensions with a definite date. So they're kind of unknowns but before County spends any more time, they want these answers. Exhibit 4 was a memorandum generated by the City Administrator. Based upon the County Commission meeting held November 26th and subsequent City Council meeting held December 3rd, please find the required outstanding items below. It is understood the level of service requirements for the County would be to maintain and continue an ISO rating of 3 as well as the related fire protection and support services. In addition, the County would like to limit additional staff time usage as they have developed a cost associated with the request until further information can be supplied. A copy of the report presented at the County Commission meeting is attached. The outstanding items are as follows: 1 -Contract or Assessment: will the services be paid via a stand-alone fire services contract with the County, or would the cost be obtained via County's fire assessment, the same as with the unincorporated portions of the County; 2 -Storage: would City's firehouse be available for storage of back-up/secondary equipment for the Okeechobee County Fire Rescue? Would a cost to the County be levied and if so, what would be the associated cost?; 3 -Equipment: currently limited to the fire pumper truck, ladder truck and other trucks only. Would the trucks be conveyed or sold to the County or would the City dispose of them via Govdeals? If sold to the county, at what cost? (a list of current valuations on our fixed assets is attached); 4 -Timeline: state date for services; although not an item of request, a proposed timeline would need to be established to allow both County and City adequate time to prepare for the change as well as calculate pensions. As noted, the employment of our firefighters and administrative staff at the Fire department would only have the opportunity to apply for the county openings; at most, 6 would be available. The county also requires paramedics to apply, of which the city only has one. No mention of additional administrative support was noted. Internally, we are working on pension, severance, etc. and other related costs once the above is calculated and determined. The City's Fire Protection and Prevention Ordinance is also attached as additional information. MC -Contract or assessment: information received in boxes regarding state statute. JC -I came across that as just a point of interest. I've seen ways around this but its going to take further research. Mayor -wasn't very clear, if you gave up control it required referendum. Contract is not giving up control. MC -i think we need some kind of person that could negotiate this and I don't think we have anyone on staff at this poiont to make an assessment of where we are and what its going to cost. So at this point sounds like we'd need to do a contract. Second, storage think that's part of negotiations. Would we store the equipment, we may need to use our fire house, equipment I think the city taxpayers paid for that equipment and I don't think we give them the equipment; and time line I'd like to be done by October 1st of next year. MDO-the reason they want those answers it would be a cost increase on their side. MC -it still may be a cost increase for renting the storage BJ -I don't have a problem with contract. Id like to see it be 2 to 3 years. October 1 would be the time. I really don't' want us to store the equipment but that's negotiable. I agree with CM Clark, the City already paid for the equipment and we should give them the equipment they want, but if we go on contract then the city would have to pay again. I wouldn't be in favor of charging them, only giving them what they need. And if we can't come up with an agreement between now and October 1, then we don't need to do it. Abney -not opposed to Contract as long as its structured right. Storage is part of the negotiation as im not opposed to letting them rent. Time line October 1 of next year. Eqipment the city taxpayers have already paid for this equipment the county has not. Im assuming the County would use this for county services as well. I don't know how that would work. The percentage of residents have paid, some haven't. That would be part of the contract negotiation. Definitely not opposed to contract. After further thought and discussion don't see aproblem as long as its structured property. December 17, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 6 of 9 BK -agree on 1, 2, and 3 but I would venture to say that as a County and City taxpayer, we'd be paying twice for the equipment. A lot of city business owners live in the county would be paying twice. It's a wash in my mind, just transfer the equipment. Time line I think I agree. Id like to say decisions need to be made so FF's here at the City can start training ASAP so there's a known what to expect so there is no longer a kicking this can down the road. I do have a question though regarding the AGO. I also read that if this went to a vote as a City but County would also have to vote on this. That option, we are kind of moving into the perfect time of the season as there is an election next year. A lot of people will turn out for presidential election instead of special election. Abney -staffing 6 people would be needed. I would think the County should give special consideration to our employees for those that aren't in the event they can be trained. MDO-County do not want to hire any other than paramedic due to staffing issues. They have to have paramedics on the ambulance and ALS. Abney -understand there is a school that is starting that they are looking for people to attend. Mayor -I understand it takes a year for paramedic school so October 1 wouldn't work. MC -i think this should take over 2 or 3 years to give employees time to complete there tenure and to get trained. This could be part of the negotiations. I also understand that the County is losing 3 paramedics as of today and they were lost to highlands county. Im hoping that even if we have a decision made by October 1. Whatever benefits the firefighters is what im for. Mayor -no surprise but this reminds me of 1987. There is no way that I would go with a Contract. We have no control over that contract. If we are trying to save money, then contract would not benefit the taxpayers. I don't think that you could ever expect that contract to decrease. As far as storage, I can see no advantage for the County using our department. County Fire Chief says it makes no sense to store here as its too far away. They would need to add on to what they have. Eqipment-I agree the city taxpayers paid for that. CM Keefe has a good point as city taxpayers would be paying for it twice. I still feel the county residences should pay something for it as they'll be using it. I would think that if they were going to buy our equipment, it would be at a discounted rate. I don't think this could be done by October 1, 2020. Too many details to work out. Contract be done by then. I would caution you that once its done, its onde. We wouldn't have any FF's left, sell the equipment, etc. Not like building department when contracted with the county as it is very easy to cancel the contract and to bring it back in house. This is going to be very very expensive to go back into the Fire business. MDO you have the answers to those questions. MDO-just to be clear the Pensions will have to come out of our reserves. Even if we sell the equipment, we still have to replenish. The pension fund doesn't handle the pension cots, those would come out of reserves. MC -when we talk about contract, are we not contracting services to the COUNTY? Mayor -the County would be contracting for us. MDo-October 1, 2020 they would begin services. BJ -when we were talking about the equipment again, if we charge the county anything, the city residents are going to pay agina, but until they give us a firm proposal, I don't know what else we can do. They may give us a proposal that we wont' accept, then we're back to square one. I think its now up to them for the next step. MDO-I did reach out with County Admin for third party, that firm does do what the true cost would be to the City and County. It would fall back on the contract we have with the third party. I did get additional information from Chief Smith from Martin County. I do not think they are going to do a reevaluation this year on the Fire assessment. Mayor -what does the charter say? JC -the charter does not mandate fire services, it recognizes the department. Mayor -well if we do a contract then we'll still be providing some type of services. MC -so theres no possibility of us being able to again I just feel like we had someone whos knowledgeable to subcontract our department to the County over a period of two to three years and reevaluate. Ive been very concerned with the businesses bearing the brunt of the assessment. Do we not see or does anyone else not feel that we can negotiate these things. I feel like this is not a do or die. We can fund the fire department, but I have a concern that we can save money each year. Mayor -don't quite understand what youre asking. Negotiation in this case may be a little harsh. We are asking the county to provide a service at a certain level. If I were in their shoes, and I would say ok, the County Fire Chief gave us the information and it's a pretty fixed costs. I don't think this is a thing we could really negotiate. They don't have to take the service and we don't have to give it to them. They are not going to do it with any extra December 17, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 7 of 9 expense to them. I don't think we have any leverage to negotiate. AS far as the assessment goes and that's the county assessment. I agree with you as if this goes thru, that's why theyre postponing, because the City has some large commercial businesses. The businesses won't be assessed as it's a contract. The figure provided is not quite accurate. There have been more additions to the presentations. We won't be able to lower the millage rate because we are still payting for the contract. That's just personnel costs, but there still inspection fees, vehicles, space, and it didn't include certain equipment. So that figure that they've given us is going to be more than that. MC-that's why we need a consultant so we know exactly what the costs are going to be. Its still a savings. Mayor-it doesn't matter what the consultant says, it matters what the County says. We are negotitating with the County. If the County says its going to cost $850,000 we either agree or disagree. It doesn't matter what the consultant says. BJ-but now we've given them the directions they've asked for. We need to give them this then they need to come up with the next step. I don't think we should worry about the things that might happen. Abney-until they tell us a firm number, which I don't think they have, but something to present to us, but until then this is a back and forth discussions. MDO-I'm taking these four items with the consensus back to the county. Give us contract dollar, storage cost to use or not use, equipment can you give us a credit if not a wash, that would be basically a year one credit, then give them October 1, 2019 as a date. Abney-also consideration for our staff if they are qualified and properly trained. MDO-I understand but not heard. MC-if there is a class that starts in January, why can't we consider having our guys trained as paramedics. MDO-we also can't have four guys sign up for school because then we'll have to pay double and triple overtime. Mayor-the county said that as well Abney-would this school accommodate scheduling. Herb-there is no class confirmed at this time that would be willing to work around our shifts and call volume. This company that does the training they'd have to accept that. Abney-3 more people they can make a class. Do you have the staff that could do that? Herb-I have 11 employees and we are only talking about 6 employees. What about the other 5? ARE YOU GOING TO DO SOMEHTING FOR THEM MC-they can't fill those slots Mayor-if I were in a FF's position, they need 6, if all 11 got trained, their only going to hire 6. Am I going to invest my time in this class and not guaranteed anything out of it. MC-i would hope the County would hire Herb-our rank and seniority will not even be considered by the County. I have an issue about that. I think you should speak to them about that. Our Engine provides 3 FF's county provides 2. Are they saying 2 of their FF's equal 3 of mine. You need to discuss that as well. Abney-can you discuss that as well? Mike O'Connor-I just like to ask one question. Why don't you put this on a referendum to vote on this. We did that 2o years ago and voted it down. Can anybody up here say lets have a referendum vote? Mayor-the idea has been discussed and it appears we don't have to. Mike-what about your constituents' thoughts? Rick Giles-one of the things that should be done regardless, everyone of these FF's should be sent to school so they could be more marketable. Mayor-they currently do have that opportunity. They haven't seen the need until now. Gary Ritter 1950SW 5th Ave, ill start out by saying if there was a referendum I would vote no. With that said, ive listened to this discussion and you all have brought out the nitty gritty facts, but im coming to you as a resident and I havent' heard anything about how this is going to save me money. If I had a business I haven't heard anything about how my business would save money. I hate to use generalities, but you haven't given me anhthing that would help me make a vote. In Indian river county we consolidated, the first few years, it saved us money but now we are all paying more money. Ive looked at my taxes, if I take a 1/4 of my taxes that I pay, it comes out to $200 per year to fund the fire department from me. I think its important for us to have our own fire department. Ive talked to a Council member in stuart, they've decided to keep their own fire department because that's what the people wanted. Bottom line, there are a lot of things to answer. What does it mean to us as taxpayers. You haven't given us anything to go on. December 17, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 8 of 9 Noel Chandler 1007SW 6th ave -appreciate council putting heads together. If you send a FF to school, he has two years to pay it back. If we fire him does he have to pay us. Somewhere along the line the City is going to pay somewhere. IN the beginning its nice, they've done a great service. But you better think about what its going to cost 3 or 4 years down the road. Why don't we do the assessment ourselves and keep our people. BJ -the whole issue we've looked at to try to save the city taxpayers money. If you listen to the discussion tonight, we're not ready to vote on it because we don't have the answers. Well I've looked at it and the majority have gone to the county and they've cut their tax rates in half. If we have the savings, we could cut our millage rate in half. Nobody wants to give us the opportunity to find out. When we met with the county, we told them we want the services now. The County fire Chief said our ISO rating would decrease. Jennifer tweksbury OEDC-agree with Council Member Jarriel, not a great discussion to have but MC -comment to Gary, when we started this whole process, one of the things I did is look at the fire assessment we did a few years ago. Increase home and business tax. When we were doing the analysis, most of their millage rates were at 4 mills but we are at 8 mills. Im concerned with adding the assessment because I don't want my taxes to go up because my business valuation hasn't gone up in 10 years. BK-Theres a lot going on with this. Its personal to 11 FF's. It cant be personal on this side of the dias. For us it's a business decision. If this is an avenue that would save the city money then we should do it. Referendum, pay for training to make them marketable. Election year next year so those involved in that are tiptoing around the issues. We owe it to the FF's so they can make decisions on what to do with their career and families. Why not put it on the ballot so the City residents can vote? Talk about consultant which is separate than the Fire Assessment. The council voted against implementing the Fire assessment. We need to find an additional way to pay for the services if we keep the fire department. I would like to propose a complete turnover/merger. There is no perfect way to do this and make everyone happy. What needs to be made a decision on, whats best for the city as a whole, implementing an assessment or turn it over to the County. Propose we put the referendum on the 2020 ballot as it's a presidential year, as well as to alleviate some of the councils concern, as the right way to do it, I'll compromise. Id like to beat the deadlines for putting anything on the ballot. Does it mean we have to do it? Its just an option. Bottom line, our ff's need to know which way we are going. Mayor -if we can save money with this contract, then move forward. If we're not going to save money, then we'll keep. Now that we have answered the questions, the county needs to come back with a figure. I kind of agree with you as this may be something that needs to be a referendum. If they come back with a two million dollar figure, im not going to vote for that. Deadline to put it on the ballot with a cost involved. BK -clarify if it's a complete merger, referendum. Short of an answer from the county, I would suggest we beat the deadline. Mayor -You did say you agreed with contract? The MDO has his marching orders. I don't know how long its going to take. VIII. COUNCIL COMMENTS Abney -first off, personally thank John for his 31 years. Also want to thank staff for all of their hard work and tell everyone Merry Christmas. Jarriel-thanked John. I want to say that im proud to be from the City of Okeechobee. Flag dedication and parade. The lady that runs the scholarship for the So FL Fair. The last 4 they've talked to are from Okeechobee. The 5 seniors to get scholarships were from okee. Keefe -john congrats, Merry Christmas Monica-diddo IX. There being no further items on the agenda, Mayor Watford adjourned the meeting at 7:53 P.M. The next regular meeting is scheduled for January 7, 2020, at 6:00 P.M. December 17, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 9 of 9