Loading...
2020-09-21 Handwritten MinutesCITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 21, 2020, REGULAR MEETING & FINAL BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING HANDWRITTEN MINUTES BY LANE GAMIOTEA I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Watford called the regular meeting of the City -Council for�he City of Okeechobee to order on Tuesday, September 21, 2020, at (f),00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, located at 55 Southeast 3rd Avenue, Room 200, Okeechobee, Florida. Pursuant to Executive Order No._20-69 issued by Governor DeSantis on March 20, 2020, and extended by Executive Order No. 20-193 effective August 7, 2020, the meeting was conducted utilizing communications media technology (CMT) as provided by Florida Statutes 120.54(5)(b)2, by means of Zoom.com Meeting ID 2459713294. The Host computer was operated by Executive Assistant Brock. The video, audio, and digital comments were recorded and retained as a permanent record. The invocation was offered by Qoht':0. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance by rr ATTENDANCE K(C+td, 1"1.0 - Mayor Dowling R. Watford, Jr. Council Member Wes Abney Council Member Clark Council Member Jarriel Council Member Keefe City Attorney John Fumero City Administrator Marcos MontesDeOca Police Chief Bob Peterson Fire Chief Herb Smith _ PRESENT Public Works Director David Allen City Clerk Lane Gamiotea Executive Assistant Robin Brock General Services Coordinator Patty Burnette Finance Director India Riedel ABSENT VIA ZOOM? III. AGENDA AND PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Mayor Watford asked whether there were any agenda items to be added, deferred, or withdrawn. Proclamations and Presentations Item IV.A. was deferred to the October 6, 2020, meeting. O-dd- NEI B. " _Council Member moved to a prove the agenda as presented/amended; seconded by Council Member Mayorh WatfordCouncil Members Abney—L' Clark_,._ Jarriel �% , Keefe. Motion arrie /Denied. C. There were no agenda item forms or comment cards submitted for public �, _ :t ------- participation for any issues not on the agenda. b IV. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS A. The Domestic Violence Prevention Month Proclamation was deferred to the October 6, 2020, meeting. Gamiotea Handwritten Minutes, September 21, 2020, Page 1 of 6 V. CONSENT AGENDA. A motion was made by Council Member �:y1�, to approve the consent agenda items A through E [ September 3, 2020, Regular meeting and First Budget Public Hearing minutes; August 2020 Warrant Register in the amounts: General Fund $477,417.29, Public Facilities Improvement Fund $46,141.42, and Capital Improvement Projects Fund $776.59 (the complete list is incorporated within the official minute file); renewal of Property and Casualty Insurance coverages with Public Risk Management (annual premium of $332,790.00) with an effective date of October 1, 2020 (as provided in Exhibit 1); Contract for Services with Centuryl-ink for a Fiber and Enterprise Data Package (in `the amount of $1,730.00 per month, as provided in Exhibit 2); --- Award Bid No. PW -03-11-08-20 Okeechobee 2020 Sidewalk and Roadway Concrete Improvements to Vest Concrete (in he amount of $88,137.50, as provided in Exhibit 3)f seconded by Council Member %1�. Mayor yatford Council_ Members -Abne , Clark , Jarriel)L Keefe Motio arrie /Denied. VI. U MAYOR WATFORD OPENED THE FINAL BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING AT (� CJ P.M. Mayor Watford announced that the purpose of this Public Hearing is to consider thel first reading of Ordinances for the proposed Millage Ratelevy and proposed Budget _7_ for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020-21. B. Mayor Watford announced that the proposed Millage Rate levy represents 6.03 percent (6.03%) more than the roll -back rate computed pursuant to Florida Statutes M 200.065(1): C. Council Member, -moved to read proposed Ordinance No. 1216 by title only, levying a Millage Rate of 7.6018 on all real and tangible personal property for FY October 1, 2020 throh September 30, 2021 [as provided in Exhibit 4]; seconded by Council Member (J n -. Mayor Watford Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, Keefe. Moti [Carr edl,Denied. Attorney Fumero read proposed Ordinance No. 1216 by title only as follows: "AN ORDINANCE 1 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA LEVYING THE AD VALOREM' PROPERTY TAX MILLAGE RATE FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES ON ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2020 AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2021; PROVIDING THAT 7.6018 PER THOUSAND DOLLAR VALUATION SHALL NOT BE LEVIED ON HOMESTEAD PROPERTY; THAT 7.6018 VALUATION SHALL BE USED FOR GENERAL CITY PURPOSES; THAT SAID MILLAGE RATE IS 6.03 PERCENT (6.03%) MORE THAN THE ROLL -BACK RATE OF 7.1696 COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTE 200.065(1); PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE." Coun ,Member moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 1216; seconded by Member 6�e - 1_ I i ord ounGH—Members Abney Clark, Jarriel - Keefe !q_. Motio Carried Denied. y Gamiotea Handwritten Minutes, September 21, 2020, Page 2 of 6 VI. BUDGET HEARING CONT NUED. D. Council Member moved to read proposed-Urdinance No -1217-6y title only, setting the annual Budget for FY October 1, 2020 thro h eptember 30, 2021 [as provided in Exhibit 5]; seconded by Council Member . Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney V Clark, Jarriel Keefe . Motiotried enied. Attorney Fumero read proposed Ordinance No. -1217 by title only as follows: "AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AN ANNUAL BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA; FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2020, AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2021; APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE FOR THE GENERAL OPERATION OF THE SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS OF THE CITY AND OTHER FIXED OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY FOR AND DURING THE FISCAL YEAR; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE." Council Member M Q, moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 1217; seconded by Council Member .. Mayor atford _ -__Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, efe�. Motio arriec'Denied. U,e, ? � - The General Fund Budget Summary lists the beginning Fund Balance of $4,342,501.00; Estimated Revenues of $5,822,120.00 ($2,424,459.00 Ad Valorem, $3,397,661.00 Other Fees, Intergovernmental, Charges for Services, Fines, Forfeitures, Penalties, Uses of -- Money and Property, and Other Revenues; $350,000.00 Transferred -In from Public Facilities Improvement Fund; $1,362,311.00 Transferred -In from Capital Improvement Projects Fund): Total Projected Expenditures of $7,534,431.00; leaving a Fund Balance of - $4,342, 501.00. Public Facility Improvement (Transportation 301) Fund: Beginning Fund Balance of $844,807.00; Total Revenue Estimates of $1,164,028.00; Total Expenditures Projected of $900,488.00, plus $350,000.00 to be Transferred -Out to General Fund; leaving a Fund Balance of $758,347.00. Capital Improvements Projects (304) Fund: Beginning Fund Balance is $3,190,195.00; Total Revenues Estimates of $6,550.00; Total Projected Expenditures are $155,900.00, plus $1,362,311.00 transferred -out to General Fund; leaving a Fund Balance_ $1,678,534.00. Other Grants 302 Funds: Beginning Fund Balance of $260,OR ( ) g' g 40.00; Appropriation Revenue of $300,000.00; Total Projected Expenditures of $420,000.00; leaving Balance of $140,000.00. Funds Fund Appropriations Grant (307) Funds: Beginning Fund Balance of $593.00; Appropriation Funds Revenue of $209,000.00; Total Projected Expenditures of $209,000.00; leaving a Fund Balance of $593.00. / Law Enforcement Special (601) Fund: Beginning Fund Balance is $9,920.00; Total Estimated Revenues of $1,000.00; Total Projected Expenditures as $6,500.00; leaving a Fund Balance of $4,420.00. -- I���fir _ ' GoV/k. ., o A MAYOR WATFORD CLOSED THE FINAL BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING - P.M L. Gamiotea Handwritten Minutes, September 21, 2020, Page 3 of 6 Cgo lace-� VII. NEW BUSINESS A. A motion was offered by Council Member to approve a purchase adjustment in the amount of $8,617.20 to C.W. R erts Contracting, IncTor road resurfacing overages [as provided in Exhibit 6]; seconded by Council Member K. M60 - Sax,, c os� Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney Y Clark Y, Jarriely_, Keefe. Motion CgEq�h/Denied. - —8.--- Discussion of Okeechobee Utility Authority mandatory hookup resolution. —'�— Res 20-05, 20-06? MW i 0ctA Ozto hW Can &flew ovm - fJ nof- a (•�R' �iuJ� 10 -r hr�ft,2_ b-I.t� moo cam- �1rg load-- lqo nn.,-. • Ilk 0 L. Gamiotea Handwritten Minutes, September 21, 2020, Page 4 of ■ PA C 06(c U* C. -f) CC tVj &W al, _ 0 to (1� r � �P4-4A)- cuc cto auao 6c�A. W,4w IN /Pi Cl • .t 1. 1►► � � � 1�. I 1 �� is ± .. � ■ � b /,r„ � � � � l� '_L. • 1. _ ��) �� • ia__ . IM 0 b -LL - VIIA- U --w gos P9 v.ri MOIL) Ua dog reeq.�, cw- cMke,� �- ha.��- aLe U'�,oe�x�, q VA&,JV 1A cWL,) _ nr, (o lam, r1.o WSW U L� (% . I Mue—low, G [go -Foamy 5 c?�� VII. NEW BUSI-NE-SS -CONTINUED-- C. Review applications for the Citizens Charter Review Advisory Committee(CCRAC) and consider -appointments provided in Exhibit 7). 90 +o pg 5 4 Ar dloCttzaiviu�, - Vow—ovt vi efiambow Suzanne 136weil, tesiddritA property owner V(Z[ IZOOM Noel A. Chandler, resident &_property owner Steve Dobbs, property owner Jamie Gamiote-a.,- resident -&-property owner V Jeremy R. LaRue, property owner ve Sandy Perry; -property -owner Cary Pigman, resident & property owner v,' Gary Ritter, resident & property owner v" Myranda Whirls, resident & property owner Hoot Worley, property -dw—ner/ A mot'on was made by Council Member e:4—; seconded by Council Member --.Aa-appoint JA-R-A-uUyu IkA-.,o Lar'f-�ko-6 as re lar members, -apd - I as -an alte- rna-te Pie� to the CCRAC, Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney Car Jarriel Keefe. M o t i o r�7a—r-r PA /Denied. D. Update on Fire Services Interlocal Agreement with Okeechobee County (as provided in Exhibit 8). Aram wam J-4- VnL3St S +-_b 4 X.L, no's a.+ 6��Dj b-zd- 6jA4-&j'0 hy& 40- rdht-OYA - f I V ZLot' - W, UUW - ejong& yrs caAAs -e ��p �AjkllLdp I0 4-0 L. Garniotea Handwritten Minutes, September 21, 2020, Page 5 of 6 e) Co UIL W- , CO nf LA ULW(l •149 Nil! God, n� *L 0 0 how +-93 halld-& tl MA QUA-& it ffitv e 7 (nu *ud PUALUL. --�L 5 aa s haLa don e- �-lu 3A"IQ Wk/ 10 8,00f -C -cd �a tv d �-- Lp U II du� La "JA— awa il�_ %t4-- 644 U t4 r M�D � cCeec�_L/'_ _ccs -e" a��q� nL�u Alk- n.� Ovoti.":e, lt3ua rid a-ppry-� JO W16lu,ny� Sam Y�i�� rte'- JW- /vss'i i I it +iJ And, P4, ykah� QhoctL , SeLrxk ►o+ u�Ts Eanq-r' PacXoa�-�-G� PtA��on� �fnD �h1Mnl_pn�- • 6caa� IOe�rs. c�, #kwl0 rte_ �ac�- . L���,���.�qC cn•� OQ C) L , irini J I i �� %Ci- /xio, rlwi-md C, "Vt&Cn 01 121 1e /x ilymn ./kW, AM i � �% a s. ► r _ . s :L .,. • � • / 'moi ao � I 52LL-- t"-oje geuenc p2 -,r QCY M ap 7 ' oM/ I�� uJ�lG 1 �.� ,-.�► Ute- Vg C' -r eco wha f6AL5 s ca ►� no. O W , wfl l "I " Cies hx*ff v C -M 1�eu� f3cusc,�ss Cor&Lvu i Conhnw - pq 590 . j q,UA,r, nC4 ups w-&-� . �ae A 6 DO?16L. Ad/rci f--kq 4D taut � an -- koo �(n 0 C a- ka+- f- - T -18 d. �,� - .v� �: o_ p co Cl o ug ---alll. NEW BUSINESS CONTINED. E. Council Member [6 PV moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 2020-14 extending the local health state of emergency due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) to November 3, 2020 [as provided in Exhibit 9]; seconded by Council Member1 Attorney Fumero read proposed Resolution No. 2020-14 by title only as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA EXTENDING THE PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY DUE TO CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19) THROUGH 0R1, 2020; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE." 5 Mayor atford Y Council Members Abney 1' ,-CIar-k- ,-- Jarriell Keefe. Moti n -Carrie Denied. Ti 2 m F, Fid g0 i -o - Q cc- Cp r d C6 GUVI-'r et• p p�-��' VIII. COUNCIL COMMENTS WN . c� PA 51t 10att q_�4_9FP AQ0 r 0 Vt Pwc( 4 F1 0-� UA, pakk- P-Drn M dk-& mm �roV�- dank u,Nr1, Uha.� �vU- 6m� p+v.Qr�. IX. There being no further items on the agenda, Mayor Watford adjourned the meeting at :aC P.M. The next regular meeting is scheduled for October 6, 2020, at 6:00 P.M. L. Gamiotea Handwritten Minutes, September 21, 2020, Page 6 of 6 I* �- 7-Hry� Add °_y 4 - A't) ` / -7- ---- -----'-' A-1-Nt W7 (SkMA,-UPULsib do CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 21, 2020, REGULAR MEETING & FINAL BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING HANDWRITTEN MINUTES BY BOBBIE JENKINS I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Watford called the regular meeting of the City Council for the City of Okeechobee to order on Tuesday, September 21, 2020, at _6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, located at 55 Southeast 3rd Avenue, Room 200, Okeechobee, Florida. Pursuant to Executive Order No. 20-69 issued by Governor DeSantis on March 20, 2020, and extended by Executive Order No. 20-193 effective August 7, 2020, the meeting was conducted utilizing communications media technology (CMT) as provided by Florida Statutes 120.54(5)(b)2, by means of Zoom.com Meeting ID 2459713294. The Host computer was operated by Executive Assistant Brock. The video, audio, and digital comments were recorded and retained as a permanent record. The invocation was offered by BJ , followed by the Pledge of Allegiance by MC II. ATTENDANCE Mayor Dowling R. Watford, Jr. Council Member Wes Abney Council Member Clark Council Member Jarriel Council Member Keefe City Attorney John Fumero City Administrator Marcos MontesDeOca Police Chief Bob Peterson Fire Chief Herb Smith Public Works Director David Allen Deputy City Clerk Bobbie Jenkins Executive Assistant Robin Brock General Services Coordinator Patty Burnette Finance Director India Riedel PRESENT ABSENT _x _x_ x x x x VIA ZOOM? III. AGENDA AND PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Mayor Watford asked whether there were any agenda items to be added, deferred, or withdrawn; Proclamations and Presentations Item IV.A. was deferred to the October 6, 2020, meeting, New Business Item VII.F. was added. B. Council Member _bj moved to approve the agenda as amended; seconded by Council Member bk . VOTE: Ayes -Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe. Nays - none. Motion Carried. C. There were no agenda item forms or comment cards submitted for public participation for any issues not on the agenda. IV. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS A. The Domestic Violence Prevention Month Proclamation was deferred to the October 6, 2020, meeting. V. CONSENT AGENDA A motion was made by Council Member _BK to approve the consent agenda items A through E [September 3, 2020, Regular meeting and First Budget Public Hearing minutes; August 2020 Warrant Register in the amounts: General Fund $477,417.29, Public Facilities Improvement Fund $46,141.42, and Capital Improvement Projects Fund $776.59 (the complete list is incorporated within the official minute file); renewal of Property and Casualty Insurance coverages with Public Risk Management (annual premium of $332,790.00) with an effective date of October 1, 2020 (as provided in Exhibit 1); Contract for Services with CenturyLink for a Fiber and Enterprise Data Package (in the amount of $1,730.00 per month, as provided in B. Jenkins Handwritten Minutes, September 21, 2020, Page 1 of 13 Exhibit 2); Award Bid No. PW -03-11-08-20 Okeechobee 2020 Sidewalk and Roadway Concrete Improvements to Vest Concrete (in the amount of $88,137.50, as provided in Exhibit 3)]; seconded by Council Member _MC_ VOTE: Ayes -Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe. Nays - none. Motion Carried. VI. MAYOR WATFORD OPENED THE FINAL BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING AT _6:05 P.M. A. Mayor Watford announced that the purpose of this Public Hearing is to consider the first reading of Ordinances for the proposed Millage Rate levy and proposed Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020-21. B. Mayor Watford announced that the proposed Millage Rate levy represents 6.03 percent (6.03%) more than the roll -back rate computed pursuant to Florida Statutes 200.065(1). C. Council Member _MC_moved to read proposed Ordinance No. 1216 by title only, levying a Millage Rate of 7.6018 on all real and tangible personal property for FY October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021 [as provided in Exhibit 4]; seconded by Council Member _WA_ VOTE: Ayes -Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe. Nays - none. Motion Carried. Attorney Fumero read proposed Ordinance No. 1216 by title only as follows: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA LEVYING THE AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX MILLAGE RATE FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES ON ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2020 AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2021; PROVIDING THAT 7.6018 PER THOUSAND DOLLAR VALUATION SHALL NOT BE LEVIED ON HOMESTEAD PROPERTY; THAT 7.6018 VALUATION SHALL BE USED FOR GENERAL CITY PURPOSES; THAT SAID MILLAGE RATE IS 6.03 PERCENT (6.03%) MORE THAN THE ROLL -BACK RATE OF 7.1696 COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTE 200.065(1); PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE." Council Member _MC_ moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 1216; seconded by Council Member BJ Mayor Watford opened the floor for public comments; there were none. Council discussion: none VOTE: Ayes -Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe. Nays - none. Motion Carried. D. Council Member _WA moved to read proposed Ordinance No. 1217 by title only, setting the annual Budget for FY October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021 [as provided in Exhibit 5]; seconded by Council Member _BJ_ VOTE: Ayes -Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe. Nays - none. Motion Carried. Attorney Fumero read proposed Ordinance No. 1217 by title only as follows: "AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AN ANNUAL BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA; FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2020, AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30,2021; APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE FOR THE GENERAL OPERATION OF THE SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS OF THE CITY AND OTHER FIXED OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY FOR AND DURING THE FISCAL YEAR; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE." Council Member _MC moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 1217; seconded by Council Member BK B. Jenkins Handwritten Minutes, September 21, 2020, Page 2 of 13 The General Fund Budget Summary lists the beginning Fund Balance of $4,342,501.00; Estimated Revenues of $5,822,120.00 ($2,424,459.00 Ad Valorem, $3,397,661.00 Other Fees, Intergovernmental, Charges for Services, Fines, Forfeitures, Penalties, Uses of Money and Property, and Other Revenues; $350,000.00 Transferred -In from Public Facilities Improvement Fund; $1,362,311.00 Transferred -In from Capital Improvement Projects Fund). Total Projected Expenditures of $7,534,431.00; leaving a Fund Balance of $4,342,501.00. Public Facility Improvement (Transportation 301) Fund: Beginning Fund Balance of $844,807.00; Total Revenue Estimates of $1,164,028.00; Total Expenditures Projected of $900,488.00, plus $350,000.00 to be Transferred -Out to General Fund; leaving a Fund Balance of $758,347.00. Capital Improvements Projects (304) Fund: Beginning Fund Balance is $3,190,195.00; Total Revenues Estimates of $6,550.00; Total Projected Expenditures are $155,900.00, plus $1,362,311.00 transferred -out to General Fund; leaving a Fund Balance $1,678,534.00. Other Grants (302) Funds: Beginning Fund Balance of $260,000.00; Appropriation Funds Revenue of $300,000.00; Total Projected Expenditures of $420,000.00; leaving a Fund Balance of $140,000.00. Appropriations Grant (307) Funds: Beginning Fund Balance of $593.00; Appropriation Funds Revenue of $209,000.00; Total Projected Expenditures of $209,000.00; leaving a Fund Balance of $593.00. Law Enforcement Special (601) Fund: Beginning Fund Balance is $9,920.00; Total Estimated Revenues of $1,000.00; Total Projected Expenditures as $6,500.00; leaving a Fund Balance of $4,420.00. Mayor Watford opened the floor for public comments; there were none. Chief Peterson mainly talking to the record, divide last year budget by this years budget, 10% year to year, things aren't always what they seem, transferred 5 FT employees from FD to PD, executive salary line item shows that I've got a $45k raise, which is my buyout, I wouldn't take a raise like that, take that into consideration over 300k, our increase from year to year is 0.7%, so that's extremely reasonable. Another thing not reflected that our budget we are charged the full cost of 3 SRO's, what doesn't show there is the reimbursement from County and OCA, which is reflected in general revenue. We've also had about $20k in fines that CE has taken in. So all of that doesn't reflect on our budget, although the $3mil is accurate but it is with explanation. This is public record, but I wanted to explain. Council Discussion: none VOTE: Ayes -Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe. Nays - none. Motion Carried. MAYOR WATFORD CLOSED THE FINAL BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:12 P.M VII. NEW BUSINESS A. A motion was offered by Council Member _BJ to approve a purchase adjustment in the amount of $8,617.20 to C.W. Roberts Contracting, Inc. for road resurfacing overages [as provided in Exhibit 6]; seconded by Council Member MC MDO this is under the same contracting rate, basically took into incorporation, turnouts combined totals of overages and tons. DW -any questions? WA -what was the overage for MDO-turnout is basically when you go from one road to the next, the tonnage was off on each road. BJ -so that's basically because they're not level. DA -the estimate is an average of 1" VOTE: Ayes -Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe. Nays - none. Motion Carried. B. Jenkins Handwritten Minutes, September 21, 2020, Page 3 of 13 B. Discussion of Okeechobee Utility Authority mandatory hookup resolution. Res 20-05, 20-06? MD00come to our attention, looking through budget, haven't seen a lot of projects with the City, brief discussion with Hayford, leading into building infrastructure and have customers pay for it. Consensus from Council, to consider requiring mandatory connection fees. OUA has changed the way they collect, payment plans, looking critical into their budget, more projects in the city if they could get mandatory connections. DW what's the state statute for connections MDO-600' but not a lot of teeth in that statute from their standpoint, but if we do the mandatory hookup. WA -so there's no control for an existing home to hook to that. My understanding if the septic failed, they had to. If sewer is available they have to. DW -if a line is 600' from their home and then they'd have to connect. So if its 700' away, and they had to redo the septic, they can still have the septic redone. MC -so if a homeowner has to hookup within 600' WA -very costly for a homeowner to do this. MDO-if they ran a line in front of homes along a roadway in the future, we want to propose more infill in the city. IF we don' enforce mandatory connection. MC -i think we could go 100', which would be more affordable. MDO-that's up to the council. In the past there was no payment plan, now they have one. Just want to try to work with oua on this. WA_still confused, oua has no authority to require that they rely on local government to do that. DW -I think Gary Ritter wanted to address the council on the OUA issue. Gary Ritter -impressed, you all have computers. Um you know we've had a lot of rain lately, lakes up to 15.1ft 1 can tell you when that happens the water table in this area gets really high and we're dependent upon SFWMD for the upmps to go on and it takes a while for it to go down. I'm here representing my two daughters who have failed septic tanks. One of my daughters live across the street from me. I'm on sewer and she has a septic tank. She has one of the older homes that was built in there when the roads were dirt. The road came up and the new houses went in. her septic and drain field overflows into their showers. They can't flush toilets, do laundry, take showers. My other daughter down the street has the same issues but not quite extensive as the other. I know there are people that we've talked to on SW 5th ave that are more than interested in getting on OUA. My daughter can't live in that house because there's no way to flush toilets or take showers. So I don't know what we would have to do , I've got like I say hookup, my neighbors do. There's a lift station right at my house and I would think that there's infrastructure there to get people on. At this point both of them are questioning paying $7500 or connect to oua. Other issues are drainage on the front of that street. Some swales can be cleaned out, outside of that, I think it would behoove us, if you have failing septic tanks in the city, the ground water becomes surface water, and then runs into Lake O. This is SW 5th and SW 19th. DW -could we just ask the administrator to get with OUA to see if there's a solution to this problem separate then what we are discussing right now. WA-OUA is looking for City to come up with a solution or mechanism for sewer mandatory tie-in. MDO-not so much as OUA asking for it, but I didn't see any city related projects in their budget. If we want projects in the city, we should look at the other side. WA -new construction is taken care, you're talking more of existing properties MDO-yes MC -initially the oua board had no mechanism for customers to pay for hookups. Very expensive for homeowners to connect. Behoove us for some type of action for mandatory hookups, especially now with the drainage problems. The health department is getting involved, they have the authority to close your business down if you have problems and not hooked to sewer. DW -got a call from a citizen who bought a commercial building and found out after he bought it was on a septic. I can't believe hat. MC -I'm on septic. I couldn't afford it at the time of my remodel. I think we need to give OUA some direction. We haven't seen the infill, we're part of the OUA board, we need to discuss and adopt and give direction to OUA. See more projects in the City limits. WA -typical connection fee now for a single family? $3500 plus the line and abandonment of the existing septic. Mack Worley -they were talking about reassure island. It was going to be about $12k per lot. If they don't hook up they'd place a lien on the lot. Be careful how you tread on this. B. Jenkins Handwritten Minutes, September 21, 2020, Page 4 of 13 WA_my thought would be, once the system failed, if the connection is available and more than the........ once it fails, then it should be done. MC_the health dept is, they considered it at the state level, tanks had to be inspected every 5 years. I don't know if it was adopted. Cary Pigman-I just wanted to volunteer one thing, additional funding at the state level, one of the first questions is what are local governments doing for incentivized hookups. How do you balance this? That's going to be one of the questions asked to establish a waiting in project funding. BK -I was going to ask what kind of incentives do we offer for this. Nobody wants to mandate a citizen to do anything. But how can we be helpful with this. These are things we need to consider, we have a responsibility to everyone that is affected by. DW -so do we........ Noel Chandler -my yard is under water. The issue about the 600', 1 think 7t" avenue is the only one they can't get to because the ditch is too deep. The projects were low because the revenue was low, before if the septic tank failed you were required. IF you have a septic system in the SW section, you're done. DW -consensus of the Council that we want the administrator to work on this issue, YES, we would like to work with OUA, and please mention what we discussed. BJ -when the ground becomes saturated, it doesn't matter. Can we work on the drainage to get the water out quicker? MDO-I will give credit to public works because all day they've been going around looking for stop ups. C. Review applications for the Citizens Charter Review Advisory Committee (CCRAC) and consider appointments (as provided in Exhibit 7). Suzanne Bowen, resident & property owner (will be attending via Zoom) Noel A. Chandler, resident & property owner (present) Steve Dobbs, property owner (present) Jamie Gamiotea, resident & property owner (present) Jeremy R. LaRue, property owner (present) Sandy Perry, property owner Cary Pigman, resident & property owner (will be attending in person) Gary Ritter, resident & property owner (present) Myranda Whirls, resident & property owner Hoot Worley, property owner (president) DW -you have the names and applications with the exhibit. Ok we have a little dilemma in how, it's a nice problem to have when there are more people than what we need. We talked about each Council Member nominate one person, and BK -were there any applications that were submitted that didn't make this list. LG -yes there were 3 that didn't meet the required criteria. BK -those were verified? LG -yes and discussed with those individuals as well MC -i thought the other discussion was not to have any employee of the City as part of this board. The only reason that I said that is we only have one employee. Anybody else remember that WA -I don't remember, but can it be a legal conflict? JF no DW -each Council Member follow procedure and appoint one, and then we all make a list of the top 3, top 2 would be regular BK -suggestion -I certainly appreciate and applaud the people that were listed here. In essence the intent of having the best diverse team, I would like to allow all of these that have made the list, whether it be a 7 regular, 10 alt, but applaud all and allowing them all to serve and not turning anyone away. Inevitable not all will be at every meeting. We only meet twice a month and some of us are available via zoom or sick. WA -so you're saying 10 now, 7 member & 3 alternates. DW -then you have to determine who's going to be the alternates. WA -who shows up BK -do we have to have alternates? JF -you can create ex-oficio members that listen and don't vote, it's all within your discretion. DW -what's everybody's opinion, make everyone a member. BK -they appoint Chair wo doesn't vote. DW -motion by BK to select all 10, revise our Resolution; 2nd by Council Member BJ. MC -quorum is 6, Chair is non-voting. B. Jenkins Handwritten Minutes, September 21, 2020, Page 5 of 13 DW -does this make sense? JF -the only thing that I'm going to say about the Chair, who leads this effort, I would hate to not allow that person not to vote. This is a very big commitment. DW -so the Chair will vote. I know we have several people in the audience for this matter. If you would like to make a comment, the floor is open. We certainly appreciate everyone's interest in this. We really appreciate everyone stepping up and I'm thankful for the number and caliber of the applicants. BJ -if we're taking all 10 is the only issue I would have is the attorney to address, the number of meetings missed, I wouldn't want them to be able to come in and vote. I think there should be a policy. JF -there is a policy. DW -1 know that at least one of our applicants is on zoom tonight. Thank you all for applying and be willing to serve. A motion was made by Council Member _BK_ to appoint all applicants as Regular members, of the CCRAC, terms being seconded by Council Member BJ VOTE: Ayes -Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe. Nays - none. Motion Carried. D. Update on Fire Services Interlocal Agreement with Okeechobee County (as provided in Exhibit 8). At July 21, 2020, meeting the City Council directed the City Attorney to negotiate with the County to develop a proposed Interlocal Agreement for Fire Services (the Agreement). Since that time we have had several conference calls with the Okeechobee County Attorney to discuss specific terms and conditions. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a draft agreement which I believe reflects terms and conditions that are generally acceptable to Okeechobee County (the County). As you know, neither the County Attorney, nor the City Attorney, have the authority to agree to any specific terms or conditions. Key provisions of the Agreement include: • In exchange for the County's provision of the fire services set forth in the Agreement, the City shall pay to County, no later than January 15th each year, an amount equal to the sum of the aggregate assessment of amounts for all properties lying within the City boundaries, as calculated underutilizing the County's then current fire rescue assessment fee structure. FEE • The County adopts a published fee schedule setting forth the cost of various services provided by the County. The City agrees that the current County fee schedule and any additional fee schedules adopted by the County pursuant to the Fire Prevention Code shall be adopted by the City, and become effective for Fire Services provided by the County within the City. CITY AGREES TO ADOPT THESE, REMITTED TO THE COUNTY • The Agreement provides for a 5 year term which may be extended agreement of the parties. • The County will offer positions to listed employees at the rates of pay and rank as would be shown on the exhibit attached to the Agreement. • Employees may elect to transfer their pension to the Florida Retirement System offered by the County or may choose to stay with the City Pension Fund. The details of this option and the process is subject to review by City pension attorney. • All City employees hired by the County are subject to the Collective Bargaining Agreement for the Okeechobee County Fire Department. • The City will transfer ownership of listed vehicles and other equipment to the County at no cost to the County. • All or part of City employee annual leave and medical leave may be transferred to the County upon receipt of payment from the City equal to the value of the transferred annual and medical leave up to the maximum allowable hours under the County CBA or paid out • The City will provide the County with exclusive access to the City Fire Station. However, the County will not this facility as a station for responding to service calls. Upon commencement of services, the County will pay the utility bills. Two years, strictly for storage purposes. • The County will provide quarterly written reports containing information about fire services as specified in the Agreement. B. Jenkins Handwritten Minutes, September 21, 2020, Page 6 of 13 To assist in understanding the comparative compensation between the County and the City, the County prepared the spreadsheet attached hereto as Exhibit 2, which among other things, identifies projected compensation at the County over a three-year period of time. Marcos is scheduling a meeting with the County Administrator to discuss and agree upon the underlying findings and analysis codified in the spreadsheet, and ensure there is an "apples to apples" comparison. The numbers in the spreadsheet are estimates, and are subject to change, based on final decisions regarding the specific individuals who actually apply for, and obtain, positions with the County. The structure of the Agreement contemplates that when the parties are ready to execute it, the County will have determined which employees it will hire. That step has not yet occurred. Please note that there are seven open positions at the County Fire Department, which are comprised of six paramedic positions and one inspector position. Our goal is to present this matter to City Council at the September 21, 2020 meeting. In the meantime, Marcos and I are available to schedule one-on-one briefings with City MDO-have info for Council, done fact finding, got with County, met with you all individually. Talked about each item and each one of the employees as well. Here's the agreement we have, here's the items we have for our employees, from here there's only a couple of figures to generate, we're not at the final steps, but we're close. JF -so I received a lot of questions about what is occurring tonight and I think the best way to characterize this is the final direction of negotiations. Depending on the direction, bring back finalized agreement or not. DO a quick overview of the proposed ILA, since it hasn't been really discussed in public. I'd like to walk through the color coded spreadsheet. This spreadsheet as I understand it is the latest and greatest of the agreement between the administrators as to the accuracy of the numbers. There's three color codes, grey, gold, and pink. I'm going to go thru each of those colors. GREY: 7 POSITIONS IN THE GREY, 3 WILL EXPERIENCE A NET LOSS WITH THE TRANSER. There's a couple of options to make employees whole. By law the City is limited in the amount of money that can be paid to an employee upon separation. Passed 9 years ago, and so that FS provision limits one-time payment no more than 20 weeks of the individual's annual compensation. That's positions 5, 7, 11. For each of those positions, if the Council were to agree to make a 20 week lump sum payment to these 3 individuals, that would cover the difference in compensation for about 3.5 year period of time, not taking the present value into consideration. There were also questions raised about what the city could do for the length of the agreement. Can they city through the county payroll system compensate those 3 individuals on an annual basis. I discussed that today with the County attorney, they could not with the current CBA, as there would be similar employees being compensated differently. It would be still be considered compensation even if classified differently. Approximately $24k per year, one time lump sum is $64k. That's the Greys. There are 3 golds, 2, 4, 8. At the last county commission meeting, there was a discussion that the county would offer a temporary position to individuals who have not yet obtained Paramedic certification. This would be a holding spot to allow those to obtain certification, two years only, at the end of two years no certification, let go. Premise the city would be 100% responsible for those individuals in this holding position. MDO can give numbers, they're significant. Three pinks, positions not previously identified, now reflected on this spreadsheet. Again these 3 individuals can be offered a 20 week lump sum payment, there's also been some discussion, MDO had an idea, that if Council decides to move forward with this, we're talking about a multi- million dollar equipment. The City would need at least one person to oversee this for one of the pinks to undertake this job and the transition with the County. One of the pinks is a secretarial position, if you go forward, recommend to offer secretary the 20 week lump sum payment. Talked to county today, limit to the number of positions the county would consider for the 2 year holding period, additional positions funded by the city, didn't see a problem, but it would be the salary and 30-40% multiplier for fringe benefits, county didn't think it to be a problem. Questions asked about whether the County would consider supporting some accommodations in September 2021 when the CBA would open. I asked the County attorney and his position was that it would not be appropriate for staff to commit to anything dealing with a future. DW -two year holding based on three people $175k WA -on the gold, the 3 positions, two year to take the paramedic school, who would pay MDO-County MC -if they go to school and not pass, they pay the County back? Yes and its about $18k Bi -what are we trying to do tonight, I don't understand. Are we just discussing this or give opinions on suggestions? Get back and have an individual meeting before it comes back. JF -the primary outstanding issue, if moving forward, how would Council address what I just spoke about. Anyone transferring to the County that is not a paramedic will be paid as an EMT. The 3 golds, you can add positions if you wanted to fund it. BJ -so you're trying to get our input on these figures B. Jenkins Handwritten Minutes, September 21, 2020, Page 7 of 13 JF -in terms of the ILA, we are at the final juncture if you want to go forward, and if you go forward, compensation. BJ -go back to the first conversation with the county. We spend taxpayer's money to offer all the people to be able to go and become a paramedic at the city's expense. Only 7 did it. Ugh, the last thing the city come up with, now we'll take 7 paramedics, and that's all we have is 7. At the time we offered it to all employees, that was the time to accept it if they wanted to do it. I'm not in favor of doing it, paying the expense for paramedic school, and for the city to pay for two years and not knowing the outcome. We're not in the position to spend the taxpayer's money that way. I think the agreement is fine. I could vote on it tonight. I don't mind doing the payouts. When we just did our budget, we had to use $1.3m in reserves to balance the budget. BK -to JF; the exhibits listed (A,B,C) those are not created yet? JF -correct BK -what info is needed, or decisions made by us, to facilitate the creation. JF -just to be clear, Ex A exists in the County sphere, just their hiring pre -reqs, EX B is an election form adopted, its out there we haven't pulled it and made part of it (pension fund), Ex C, I don't know if this has ever been done, is creating an audit of all of the vehicles and equipment that are being transferred. MDO-Engine 6, 9, and the ladder. No inspector vehicle. BK -JF Ex A is within the County's realm of addition, that's not something we are influencing? JF -correct BK -Ex b is for the employees, Ex c is list of vehicles to be transferred. Is there anything else that needs our influence for the creation of the exhibits. JF -generally correct, using the city fire station put a limit on using it as a storage. DW -two years, county pays utilities. BK -is there anything else within this ILA that requires Council's input or guidance to solidify this document? JF -the only material issues that require direction are the compensatory issues. BK -so if I understand correctly, the ILA is finished with the exhibits being added, because in my thought process, the compensation is not part of the ILA, so this is truly what we are going to do for the employees. I would just like to put forth that staff has done a wonderful job in having this ILA developed, I think in the very near future, that the Exhibits can be added, and then we will have a complete ILA. I think the Council have already vocalized our intent to take care of our employees, and we can reaffirm that intent again, but we can continue to finalize and make perfect if you will the best case scenario, the compensatory spreadsheet. I'm looking at the ILA and it's ready to vote on. Suggest that we move forward with the key issue at hand, which is ILA, and staff can continue to work on compensatory issues. DW -I think we need to give direction to staff. He's stated his opinion on the three employees not to pay salary, agreeable to the 20 weeks. JF -interject, two things very quickly. But this agreement doesn't encompass if you're going to fund the temp positions, so that would need to change. Also the payments, may need to be changed from one time to quarterly payments. MDO-effective date is April 1, and I don't know if the class of paramedics will be done. I don't want to push this. WA -I'd like to say that these 3 positions all along were part of the discussion to be the attrition employees. We have talked about this several times, and there was an agreeance. I still need to know what the total number is going to be. It needs to be all on paper, we still don't know the final to the penny what its going to be for this agreement. Do we know that, I don't think we do. DW -so you are in favor of paying those 3 employees. WA -1 am in favor of the JF -historic attrition rates that it is very likely that the positions would be available for those 3, but if that's if they obtained paramedic certification. WA—if those 3 positions, if they have no interest at all in being paramedics, then that tells the tale If they have no intention, we can only go by what the county requirements are. BK -Chief Smith, does the FD have a consensus, number by number, we just have numbers, does your staff have the information they need to make an informed decision HS -no BK -what information do you need. HS -a little bit complicated, they all would like to go over if they can. They're losing at some point, but you guys are trying to make it right. Some guys just want severance. Give them a few options, not just go to the county or you don't have a job. BK -I think we are all in the dark. We're waiting on information to make a decision, and you all are waiting for information to make a decision. HS -my Dept has not been provided the information. I've talked to individuals, we all have different ideas and thoughts, but these guys need to be sat down with numbers and options. B. Jenkins Handwritten Minutes, September 21, 2020, Page 8 of 13 BK -behoove us and Chief to have the information for his staff to finish their decision making process and then we can finish our decision making process. 20 week lump sum or go over and pay benefits for two years. HS -it is unique, different tenure. Some have more to lose than others. This isn't generalize, it should be employee specific. BK -can we ask them tonight? HS -not appropriate. DW -we have done a lot of work on this, you have to realize this is the first time we've done something like this. Everyday something new comes up. I think we have almost everything we need here to make decisions, what we need to determine here is, they know what they're going to make if they go over. We need to decide if we are going to offer the 20 weeks to everyone or if we want to offer it to those for some reason who could not go over. So give everyone the choice of 20 weeks, or just go to the County. Once we make the decision, then the employees can decide what to do. Some may get an increase, some will take a hit. So do we want to offer everybody the 20 weeks, or just to those that are going to take a pay decrease, are those who are not eligible to move over, or just pay EMT's to go over. We need to make this soon. BK -motion to make to approve a 20 week lump sum to those members that will be in a net loss for salaries if they transfer (#5, #7, #11); seconded by BJ. MC -i feel every employee should be entitled to a separation package. I don't think we should single out. DW -even if they go over. MC -yes, they should get the severance package. I don't think you can single out. JF -4 of the 13 results in a net gain in compensation. MC -do we have it spelled out for separation at all. So max is 20? BK -are they applying with preference or being hired. MDO-they have the option to apply BK -there will be 13 employees separating from service with the City, so then what MC was stating, they all deserve a separation package. MC -so if you're tenured with more than 10 years, they would be entitled to a higher amount. BJ -if you amend your motion I will withdraw my second. WA—so every employee going over will get the severance package. Josh Borgstrom-Union President, I feel like you council members, as well as County Commissioners, forgetting key piece, impact bargaining have not be considered. You have to go to each employee. Each employee has to understand their options. The fact that some Council Members are saying you don't care if they went to paramedic school, that's wrong. We have guys back there who have been doing this 30 years. Every employee has an independent reason on why, and it is your responsibility to find out why. MC -just for clarification, those 3 employees cannot be hired by the County because they're not in paramedic school. The County put that restriction on. DW -but we are looking at a compromise. MC -go in as EMT, go to school, Josh Borgstrom-anyone thought about the fact that some in school may not pass, so now what you're doing is putting the cart before the horse. WA -so you recommend putting this on hold until school. SO what do you recommend? Josh -this should be squashed. You can't make these decisions until you know who is going to pass the school. WA -so put it on hold Josh -yes, until school is finished and they have the certs. BJ -you're speaking for the union here. I think this is a perfect agreement here, and there's two different issues here, don't take me out of context. The first meeting we had on this, the county would not hire if they weren't paramedics. Then we came back and spent taxpayer's money we offered payment for school. 7 of them decided that's what they were going to do. Now there's 3 that maybe want to go to school. Who's going to pay the city back for the two years' salary. I think its more than fair what was offered tonight. Josh -so you think its more than fair to ask someone who's put their life on the line for the city. #5 is going to take a $28k pay cut. BJ -I don't think you should even be in this discussion Josh -I don't think you should be either. Wes Williamson -Representing the ECOK. I just want to commend yall, its been a tough decision. I've also been made cognoscente of the FF" s and what they've been thru. They need to know what the options. ECOK is in favor of the ILA. Thank you for your suggestion MC, Thank you for looking out for the employees. Wish we didn't have the 20 week maximum. Tremendous responsibility in my opinion in taking on that task. BK -appropriate to amend my motion?/ B. Jenkins Handwritten Minutes, September 21, 2020, Page 9 of 13 DW -not yet, discussion. Lalo Rodriguez -thank you for offering 20 weeks, appreciate that. BJ you're going back to the first time we talked about this, your option was to lock the doors and have the county take it over. BJ -he don't need to be negative. Lalo-timeframe, CM Clark said that 7/21 meeting hold off until 9/30/21 when the union opens the CBA, they can bargain us, the city won't have to come out of pocket. By that time you will know a true factual number of paramedics going over. At this point in time, if the county takes us over at $43k, I make $50k, after one year, am I getting the 5% on the $43k or the $50k. WE don't even know what the fire assessment study is going to be until December or January because they're backed up due to COVID. What are you going to do with the extra money. Same millage rate, %600k in savings, so you're telling me the millage is going to drop from 7.6 to 5.6. Are we going to drop the millage, but people are asking this. We are losing a public safety, we are paying the same millage, but you're going to beautify the city. Are we really going to save the taxpayers money. The community wants to know this. Are we going to drop the millage rate down, or is the city going to put it in the pocket and do whatever they want with it. WA -if we held off to the CBA, you feel the City Fire has better opportunity of negotiating pay. Lalo-yes it's their job to negotiate for us to go over, we don't have to apply. Hopefully in April I will be a paramedic. We are losing people to the coast, that's why they're opening it up, so we can keep our local people. WA -are you speaking on behalf of yourself or all the employees? Lalo-all of us WA_so if we hold off until you find out if you pass and wait until the CBA opens up. MC—isn't true that we don't have to wait for the opening of the CBA? Josh -you can do an MOU MC -but you understand that the County told us no Josh -yes, but we haven't sent any letters for impact bargaining either. MC -why would the County accept, the county doesn't have to take our FF's Josh -they don't have to but the Union would not stand for that WA -do you think we should hold off Josh -at least until you know who's going to be paramedics. MC -the only situation is the salary the paramedics. But if we don't have a FD, there's no other option for them. So if we're going to offer them;, you know what I'm saying, the county decided that they had to be paramedics Josh -because of staffing MC -then they changed protocol that they have to have all paramedics, every one of our guys know that they have to be paramedics. There's no difference in waiting on the opening of the CBA. We're going to take a hit the first year. We're not going to drop the millage yet because we can't balance the budget. DW -the problem is we can't make them whole because we can only give them 20 weeks. WA -if we wait a year, we've already budgeted, if they open up the CBA, they'll get paid more for a longer period of time. Mack Worley -I'm a City taxpayer, I appreciate what the FF"s do and have done, but I have to say, you've got $600 to $700k savings each year to do whatever you want with. You've negotiated with the County, you've come up with a good agreement. MC what you're suggesting is very fair, in every community and business terminates positions and offers severance packages. WA -are we not listening to the FF's. DW -we have a motion on the floor to offer 20 weeks to the 3 that were going to take a pay decrease. BK withdrew his motion BK -made a motion to approve severances for the 13 employees for 20 weeks; seconded by BJ DW -so you want 20 weeks for those 3 and some other severance package for the others. BK -I'm not an HR person, with our intent of trying to make whole the net loss of the 3 in the g rey. MC -direct staff to come up with a severance package based on years of service. Just give direction instead of saying 20 weeks across the board. One year employees shouldn't make the same as 30 year employees. WA -I don't think we should rush. I've learned something new tonight. We could potentially save money. MC -i think the FF"s should know. WA -I'm good with that but we should look at Plan B too. B. Jenkins Handwritten Minutes, September 21, 2020, Page 10 of 13 BK withdrew his motion MC -motion to direct staff to come up with a severance package based on years of service with a maximum of 20 weeks for those who have a net loss for transfer; seconded by BJ Wes -years of service is already built in. JF -one more issue, we also talked about retaining at least one position to oversee the transition. DW -that can be done separate. VOTE: Ayes -Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe. Nays - none. Motion Carried. DW -do we want to have further discussion on other items, approve ILA as presented, or postpone. WA -I can't approve not knowing what the costs are, and postpone until what the CBA. DW -do we need a decision on the 3 holding categories. MC -gold and pink could be up to 5 MDO-now that you've set out separation payment wise, acceptable to talk to employees to find out a hard number. WA_they would want to know what the packages are but we have to approve it. JF -for those positions, that would be a separate exhibit to the ILA. DW -but don't the employees need to k now that. JF -just be a small change to the ILA BJ -I thought the motion you made was for everybody's severance. DW -we are now talking about funding salary for those not certified as a Paramedic for two years. You said they've had the opportunity. BJ -but if we're giving a severance package, that should be the end of it. DW -we need to decide if we want to cover salaries for those who go over as EMT's. BJ says no. WA -attrition MC -if they understand they have two years, and pay the County back. BK -if they don't pass, who pays the City back? DW -no one, BK -we don't recoup that money. I'm not in favor of it. Consensus three in favor of funding the EMT's going to the County as of right now. MC -make a motion that we offer a FT position to one of the FF" s to do the transition for the one year after the agreement; seconded by WA. BK -who would make that decision. DW-MDO VOTE: Ayes -Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, and Keefe. Nays -BJ. Motion Carried. BJ -motion to approve ILA; seconded by BK. MDO-with modifications of payments, and effective date of April 1st? DW -we do need to determine an effective date, and quarterly payments in lieu of annual. JF -two year limit BJ -leave effective date April 1, 2021. MC -i think it was the Attorney's recommendation to finalize this agreement at the next meeting. WA -I cannot support it without knowing the severances. BJ -what needs to be updated MC -he just went through what he needed to discuss with the County attorney. JF -Section 5; list of employees to wish to obtain employment with the County. Someone needs to talk to each staff individually to determine who is on this list. With that information we can create Ex A. You have the option to an agreement with substantial conformance and there are few options to iron out. BJ -1 think that we approve the agreement VOTE: Ayes- Council Members Jarriel and Keefe. Nays -Mayor, MC, WA. Motion Carried. BK -should we put a timeline on this. MDO-1 assure you this is a hot topic. B. Jenkins Handwritten Minutes, September 21, 2020, Page 11 of 13 BK -but the Chief has not been provided the info. DW -anticipate to be on the next agenda. BK -hearing what we discussed, is there any information that is a need to know to be able to answer the administrator's questions when he comes over. HS -1 don't believe so, as a taxpayer there is no assessment. I was just wondering when that is going to happen. BK -how does that impact your personnel's decision HS -it doesn't, just asking as a taxpayer. WA -next agenda item regarding this to have a discussion of what Josh and Lalo told me tonight, to see what that could possibly do. Reasons to postpone. DW -I think we can cover that as part of the discussion as the ILA. We make sure we have that discussion. E. Council Member _WA_ moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 2020-14 extending the local health state of emergency due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) to November 3, 2020 [as provided in Exhibit 9]; seconded by Council Member MC Attorney Fumero read proposed Resolution No. 2020-14 by title only as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA EXTENDING THE PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY DUE TO CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19) THROUGH OCTOBE 4, November 3, 2020; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE." VOTE: Ayes -Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe. Nays - none. Motion Carried. F. ITEM ADDED TO AGENDA. Discuss Animal Control Services (Exhibit 10). Administrator MontesDeOca explained that the memorandum of understanding (MOU) for animal control services with Okeechobee County and Sheriff, will sunset on September 30, 2020. A proposed MOU has been adopted by the County with the Sheriffs Office, and for animal control services to be provided to our citizens, a similar agreement will also require to be adopted. As discussed with the County Administrator, our existing agreement will expire. Subsequently, the new MOU, if adopted, will be directly with the Sheriffs Office. The County cannot extend this service to City residents at no cost, as this is to be paid via non -ad valorem funds. This service will only be provided if an MOU is adopted. MDO asked for direction; updated MOU at first meeting in October or allow the current MOU to sunset. MDO-want to talk to sheriff about a few items of concern. Approximately $80k per year. We just want to make sure to get this going, if the Council wants to. This is not a requirement by the state. Just the County would have it. DW -consensus to continue with the Sheriff? BK -other options JF -do nothing, establish a City animal control officer, RFP, contract with sheriff. BK -any other entities interested WA -not really MC just curious how many animals are they picking up in the City for $80k WA -do we get a report every month? MDO-yes DW -have that figure for us, email numbers, consensus to negotiate and look into other areas as well. VIII. COUNCIL COMMENTS WA -none BJ -none BK -update on the RFP for Landscape Services provided by MDO MC -like to find out if we're going to move forward for board solicitations for City Park. MDO-Discussion with Clerk under the purview of the PB/BOA/DRB but have workshops. BK -I don't think this should be tasked to the PB. We need a separate entity. MDO-kind of difficult to get people to volunteer. Again, get a RFQ pretty quick. DW -next agenda item, Park Committee MC -thank you for the prayers for my brother. B. Jenkins Handwritten Minutes, September 21, 2020, Page 12 of 13 IX. There being no further items on the agenda, Mayor Watford adjourned the meeting at 824 P.M. The next regular meeting is scheduled for October 6, 2020, at 6:00 P.M. B. Jenkins Handwritten Minutes, September 21, 2020, Page 13 of 13