Loading...
2021-01-19 Handwritten MinutesCITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA JANUARY 19, 2021, REGULAR MEETING HANDWRITTEN MINUTES BY LANE GAMIOTEA I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Watford called the regular meeting of the City Council for the City of Okeechobee to order on Tuesday, January 19, 2021, at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, located at 55 Southeast 3rd Avenue, Room 200, Okeechobee, Florida. The invocation was offered by Pastor Keathley, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member Keefe. II. ATTENDANCE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL ATTENDANCE by Clerk Gamiotea. THOSE PRESENT WERE: Mayor Dowling R. Watford, Jr. Council Member Wes Abney Council Member Clark Council Member Jarriel Council Member Keefe Watford, appreciate Abney remaining on the Council, noted at the previous meeting, just wanted to say thanks in person. Staff in attendance: City Attorney John Fumero City Clerk Lane Gamiotea Executive Assistant Robin Brock Other staff in attendance: Police Major Hagan City Administrator Marcos MontesDeOca Deputy City Clerk Bobbie Jenkins GSC Patty Burnette Finance Director Riedel III. AGENDA AND PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Mayor Watford asked whether there were any agenda items to be added, deferred, or withdrawn; There were none. B. Motion by Council Member Jar; iel, seconded by Council Member Cl' k to approve the agenda as presented. VOTE: Mayor Watford Yea, Council Members Abney Yea, Clark Yea, Jarriel Yea, Keefe Yea. Motion CARRIED. C. There were no agenda item forms or comment cards submitted for public participation for any issues not on the agenda. IV. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Council Member Keefe, seconded by Council Member Abney to approve consent agenda items A [January 5, 2021 Regular Meeting minutes], B [December 2020 Warrant Register, General Fund $657,976.99, Public Facilities Improvement Fund $16,718.82, and Capital Improvement Projects Fund $2,009.15], and C [Appoint Mrs. Michele Clanton to the General Employee Pension Fund Board of Trustees, City Resident 2 of 2, term being January 20, 2021 through December 31, 2024, replacing Nathan Pippin]. Watford, to Gary Ritter, do you want to introduce your daughter? appreciate and honor introduce daughter appointment on Pension board of trustees. Ritter younger people involved. VOTE: Mayor Watford Yea, Council Members Abney Yea, Clark Yea, Jarriel Yea, Keefe Yea. Motion CARRIED. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion by Council Member Clark, seconded by Council Member Keefe to approve a Fine Reduction Request for Code Enforcement Case No. 190917011, Manuel Pineda, property located at 1124 Southwest 8th Street, as recommended by Special Magistrate Azcona from $9,350.00 to $935.00, plus a $50.00 Administrative Fee, further recommending to allow a payment plan with half paid in January and the balance paid by February 10, 2021. L. Gamiotea Handwritten Minutes, January 19, 2021, Page 1 of 6 V NEW BUSINESS, A. CONTINUED: Fumero basic review, fine reduction request based on staff recommendation, it's from special magistrate, reason determination based on the record and recommendation. Simple fix to put screening on the fence and gates so debris would not be visible to the outside. Jose Cruz, I was selected, by my house there is other debris in yards for other houses. The fence was covered he didn't make it clear to that the gates had to be seen. More stuff down my road that never got a notice to my knowledge. DW — unfortunately we cannot consider those but you can give to staff. Relation to land owner? Cruz — husband. DW — okay with amount of reduction? Cruz — think it should be lower. DW — we can only accept or reject the offer. Think only choices we have. JF — footnote, bring back to council recommend SM have final decision. Rogers job is to hear all the information to make the ruling. Go or no go recommendation. 90% reduction or back to the full amount. SM had benefit to look through the file, talk to witnesses, etc. they do not have that luxury. Shame on us for not seeing the surrounding properties, you can provide to staff. DW — understand where we are on all this. Cruz — yes. Abney — time of fine? Aug 11 to Nov 18, 2020. 4 prior cases on this property why per day fine was as high as it was. BJ — in compliance now? Fumero & Cruz back & forth. Keefe — add dad lives down street from this house, it is beautiful on front, SW 8t" SW 12t" Ave city limits, w/o looking under hood, emphasis new code enforcement coming on board, this case as an example, necessity to be fair across the board, no special exceptions for anyone, all get the same treatment, noticed 2 doors down visible junk, SW 9t" St down the road commercial vehicle and pile of tires, told Fred, never heard if anything was done. Same for everyone's. I was at this magistrate meetings. Fred no longer with us? Bob — another 12 days. BK — apologize for feeling selected, saw with my own eye's adjacent properties, stressed to chief over code to be addressed appropriately. BJ — so long to come into compliance, not our job to rediscuss it and why we want to magistrate. WA — nothing against Mr. Cruz, when we reduce our fines by 90% do we really cover our actual costs? JF — no. we need to look at our matrix to review and reinvent this code enforcement program. Right to ask those questions. Re tool it and bring back. WA — per day and amount that can be reduced. Glad they are getting in compliance. JF — fair observation. VOTE: Mayor Watford Yea, Council Members Abney Yea, Clark Yea, Jarriel Yea, Keefe Yea. Motion CARRIED. B. Motion by Council Member Jarriel, seconded by Council Member Keefe to approve a Fine Reduction Request for Code Enforcement Case No. 190718010, Fortex Holdings, LLC, property located at 501 East North Park Street as recommended by Special Magistrate Azcona from $8,450.00 to $845.00, plus a $50.00 Administrative Fee. JF — review WA — last page of exhibit 3, read statement from owner about no notices. MC — info presented to magistrate and he would have considered all that. VOTE: Mayor Watford Yea, Council Members Abney Yea, Clark Yea, Jarriel Yea, Keefe Yea. Motion CARRIED. C. Discuss methods of voting for the City 2021 Special Election. Gamiotea, change in item, for information, no action required by City Council. SOE can make the determination regarding Early Vote and we will be doing it for the Special Election. Tentatively this is what we're looking at: Feb 2, presenting the proclamation, election calendar, and draft budget. Feb 8-12, possible qualifying week. April 27, tentative election day. L. Gamiotea Handwritten Minutes, January 19, 2021, Page 2 of 6 V NEW BUSINESS CONTINUED: D. Motion by Council Member Clark, seconded by Council Member Jarriel to award Request For Qualification No. ADM 03-32-09-20 Professional Landscape Architect Services to Calvin, Giordano & Associates, Inc. MDO — small items that may not be in here, FPC first scope, any modifications will be a budget amendment. Overall general contract. WA — approve, fee schedule based on Ex C which is blank, bring scope of work at that point they give our costs. MDO — page behind it will be fees. WA — hourly rate MDO — scope, put in fees, then bring to council per scope. WA — rate not acceptable then move to number 2? MDO — no. JF — RFQ, umbrella, budget work order associated with scope, falls below threshold, $15,000, budget and work order will be before you all, specific work orders will come to you. WA — select then negotiate and then number 2. MDO — correct. DW — they cant give us a price because they don't know what we want. He has a valid question, not getting a scope or are we just approving the hourly rates? MDO — correct hourly rate, consistent overall. We have the right to terminate the general contract. DW — does is go to #2? JF — (reading) MDO — once approve overall scope is driver, grant may be higher they can use to off set the overall price. WA — cant agree go to number 2. JF — if you decline then start all over. Contract is retaining them based on their hourly rate. Could be handled differently. They are developing a budget and scope. #2 has come to closure. DW — if we don't agree with hourly rate then we go to #2? JF — yes. BJ — first step to get a budget and amount? MDO — yes. DW — assume rates are going? MDO — pretty close match mine. BJ — so they are high. MDO — consistent across the board. JF — work order and the fee, due to professional in each project authorization in Ex C. the work will be under taken on step by step. MDO — scope ???? WA — lump sum or hourly rate? MDO — based on scope and we don't know it yet. DW — hope park committee has a narrow scope. WA — or very definitive. VOTE: Mayor Watford Yea, Council Members Abney Yea, Clark Yea, Jarriel Yea, Keefe Yea. Motion CARRIED. E. Discuss COVID-19 administrative leave policy. MDO — federal policy, ended same policy but reduce time from 10 to 14 days. Just for COVID. DW — County same issue at last meeting, HR director suggested through the first quarter did it for the entire year. BJ — few months ago discussed this, police department gave us something. MDO — firsts responders addressed, minutes reflect first responders only, this is for everyone. Retroactive to Jan. 1. 2021. BJ — basically what wee agreed on before? MDO — basically MC — submit for testing before? WA — the rapid isn't accurate. MC — very concerned about that we are saying that test. MDO — or approved CDC equivalent. 5 people positive, 2 did rapid test first negative and later other was positive through regular tests. DW — one local company that also uses rapid tests. MDO — access to that test, since we're paying for that tests, and paying for days off. L. Gamiotea Handwritten Minutes, January 19, 2021, Page 3 of 6 V NEW BUSINESS, E. CONTINUED: MC — understand, why cant they give results. MDO — make sure we have access to the tests results. Hagan — TCMA offer other than rapid tests. Riedel — employees use to going there, they are in the system. If they want to pay for that themselves, we can write that in the tests. We were trying to make it as easy as possible for the employees. MC — no closes associated with employees for those tests. They bill the insurance. Validity of those tests. MDO — paying for it through insurance it will increase the liability to our insurance. Whole reason for TCMA to subsidize that costs. BJ — but if test isn't accurate, wouldn't be in favor of it. MDO — can take that out and they can present the test. Or provide testing information. Review require to submit Covid 19 test results. Peterson — same problems last time, first responders excluded last time. Make simple discussion to allow department heads deal with their departments. Past and moved on. Back go discussion. Nice and tight, rules are great. If everybody in PD gets COVID I have to shut the doors. Rapid is 60 to 70% positive. Major did major job, urgent care or health department, you didn't' even know it. Govt agencies like same policies. Send home for 7 days. Dept heads authority to deal with this, 80 hours now 7 days. Rigorous debate last meeting. WA — results positive. BP — Dept heads deem emergency situation and deviate from these policies as needed. JF — could exit ramp, not withstanding case by case by dept heads with personnel admin or Manager, this is good policy, check and balance, Dept head can deviate, little out clause, with either personnel dire or admi to get out of whack. BP — either trust us to do the job or we don't. zero problems. BJ — any problems? MDO — yes PW, not an issue, they can operate. BJ — can we add that to exclude them? JF — this is your baby. DW — we don't have to have this policy, do nothing and they take their sick leave. This is basically an additionally benefit to our employees up to 10 days. Additionally benefit because of Covid. We don't have to do this, but it will go against their leave. Dept head have Covid leave. Keefe — agreement trust department heads, typed up to COA — carry with what's.... MC — move to extend current policy till Sept 30, 2021, all employees, 10 calendar days; 2nd Jarriel. DA — 1 employee if not carried forward he doesn't have sufficient leave. Case by case basis, question WA — we have the guideline to go by and by dept on a case by case basis. Gamiotea, previous policy, test results not required. IR - TMCA not a covered item. MDO - Present card BCBS — concern with costs from TCMA other places. MC - if employee wants time off they are going to have to prove that. Keefe — want to go to UC did not pay for rapid tests. Bianca paid out of pocket. Insurance will be billed. We are not going to tell staff not to go to urgent care. Go wherever you want to go. Recommend but will not tell them not to, everyone on the same page with that. VOTE: Mayor Watford Yea, Council Members Abney Yea, Clark Yea, Jarriel Yea, Keefe Yea. Motion CARRIED. F. Discuss Police Services Coordinator position. BP — reviewed request. MDO — bring up, set precedence set salary and positions mid -year, 2 of the 3 that didn't get increase. Timing would be at budget year. don't disagree timing is bad. I understand predicament. No one here disagree doesn't deserve this pay. Already exists in 2 other positions. No one said it was unreasonable. Other employees taken care of I understand. Opportunity to fix a problem that no one where isn't due it. We have others to fix then we need to fix them as well. Fix things as you can, don't just put off. Budget amendment I wouldn't be asking, fits within our existing budget. L. Gamiotea Handwritten Minutes, January 19, 2021, Page 4 of 6 V NEW BUSINESS, F. CONTINUED: BJ — position not a person. BP — position we're talking about, ultimately going to her. It's not the person, no matter who put there, it's the responsivity that position does, similar to others. BJ — outside and hired same pay? BP — yes but at step 1. Position who filled it. Records clerk has to come from dispatch in order to cover the job. Then advertise the entry level dispatcher position. Compared to others. BJ — if approve not an increase in budget it's a reduction. BP — budget will be lower for who dept, person who left was here Retro Jan 4 when she moved in that position. MC — duties of that position middle of the year discuss with salary, hiring someone for position for change of duties, why not address. Motion by Council Member Jarriel, seconded by Council Member Clark to approve increasing the salary of the Police Services Coordinator to $49,588.00 while maintaining the current step. DW — tough decision when dealing with employees' salaries. Everyone believes their employees think there's are the ones who deserves the raises, everyone knows what the other one makes. Don't want to handle these during the year, valid argument during the year when bringing them on. Discussed and hoped for compromise and that's not here. Little easier to swallow half now and half at budget. Taught call to make. Hope not setting a president, dept head doing more than their job I would certainly be considered and be ready to discuss with council and hope everyone understandings this is a change due to a retirement and correct the wrong. BK — the job description hasn't changed. Human aside, position hirer rate than subordinate, don't care about comparing to another department. Why now? Is there a negative impact beside human being? Wait till budget time? BP — fair to do it then, why not now? Correct it now. The position calls for that pay, why not kcik the can down the road. BK — identified this issue previously, want to address it because of the retirement. BP — the retiring position dint' meet that job description. Lets tidy it up. Make it equal to permit time to do it. Not fair to the person in the position. If it deserves it today why wait. MDO — I have 2 that deserves it now. BP — he just said other positions. BK — ask Finance Director, can you give impact this years budget and going forward IR — all human, budgetary dollars, all salaries need to look at, for this position and during budget time. this position was 1 of 3, at least $2500 in base pay. Is it budgeted? I budget based on that position for that department. Every year there are attritions, people additionally monies paid out of someone else, not anticipated their leaving, those dollars allocated. That same lime item has 30 other people in that. Someone goes out on sick leave, they ask for donated leave, those dollars come off that line item. BJ — salary for that position, less than what that person. BK — impacts to next year's budget? Think it would because of salary increases with steps. IR — as you increase salary, the step increases, and then additionally if cola. WA — agree with IR variables for any employee, theoratic its decrease in this budget year if everything goes exactly as planned, wouldn't use that as a deciding factor. MDO — a lot of variables and don't have that built in as we have in years past. MC — less than $1000 or $600 per month till the budget starts over. $1,400.00. $2000 till budget hit. MDO about $3600. VOTE: Mayor Watford Yea, Council Members Abney Yea, Clark Yea, Jarriel Yea, Keefe Yea. Motion CARRIED. Ericka — introduced as new Records Clerk. G. Discuss voting selection procedures for Flagler Park Advisory Committee and other upcoming boards. MC — been involved a few times voting for advisory committees and want there to be and I was confused when we talked about the Flagler park committee to determine who would be the alternate and regular members. Like a point system on these when voting on full board, 9 poitns on down, no question who is assigned whre, concise to see who served. L. Gamiotea Handwritten Minutes, January 19, 2021, Page 5 of 6 V NEW BUSINESS, G. CONTINUED: Guess alphabetical, don't want to go back on that, great board. Want set way to vote for that sytem. Excel spread sheet easy to do. Each member put in scores, that's a recommendation. DW — use that procedure for there. Attorney drafts resolutions and set it in there. BJ — interested in doing, Wes seat, tied and want a run off. MC - Direct staff to come up with a matrix. DW — matrix come up with ongoing boards Resolution? MC — no, staff direction is fine. CONCENSUS: Staff come back with matrix. H. Consider Electric Scooter usage in the City of Okeechobee by request of Bird Electric Scooters. MDO — MOU by Bird, looked at other ordinances Orlando, Miami Dade, want to respond interested or not and on record. BJ step over them on side walks. MC — complete liability issue, don't have infrastructure for it. Consensus that we are not interested at this time. MC — when we get our infrastructure. Keefe — I like riding scooters like to toos this to the FPC all beautiful design. Enjoy seeing them and we always beg to ride them, concensus of the council. BP — don't know how they're doing to because of F.S. Consider a request to Governor DeSantis to fill the heartland vacancy on the South Florida Water Management District Board. DW — abseurd DeSantis took as long as he did to make that previous appointment, and didn't extend his term. Appointed Ben Keefe - motion letter drafted to fille the vacancy on the SFWMD board, 2nd by Abney. BJ — appoint someone from our area. WA — ask BOCC to join us. MD — will bring up at mtg with Luis. BJ — add for someone from our area. VOTE: Mayor Watford Yea, Council Members Abney Yea, Clark Yea, Jarriel Yea, Keefe Yea. Motion CARRIED. VI. CITY ATTORNEY UPDATE Code enforcement program, recruitment done, training, power point, retooling, today admin clerk and I met with Fire Union to convey what the city has put on the table. Number of questions more directed to pension and county, shared all information we have, reiterated city council decisions made end of last year. Charter review had 2nd meeting, picking up speed, looking at modern city charters in FL, cc'ing city council on my emails to the committee. Big ticket items, what form of government they will be recommending, strong mayor, manager or hybrid, shared forms of government, and pros and cons of each. Creating ??? like to see, citizen bill of rights they liked. Process moving along. VII. COUNCIL COMMENTS WA — none. BJ — budget enough for clock? Sign about WaWa. Attended Code mtg, g3et money back get vested, nothing and cited number of years, not good for neighbors, look forward to do damage. BK — none. MC — wish Mayor happy birthday. DW same to you, happy birthday song sang. Vill. Mayor Watford adjourned the meeting at 8:06 P.M. L. Gamiotea Handwritten Minutes, January 19, 2021, Page 6 of 6 CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA JANUARY 19, 2021, REGULAR MEETING 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, January 19, 2021, at_6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, located at 55 Southeast 3rd Avenue, Room 200, Okeechobee, Florida. The invocation was offered by _Pastor Chad Keathley with the Okeechobee Church of God , followed by the Pledge of Allegiance by _cm Keefe II. ATTENDANCE Mayor Dowling R. Watford, Jr. Council Member Wes Abney Council Member Clark Council Member Jarriel Council Member Keefe PRESENT ABSENT _X_ _X_ _X_ _X_ X City Attorney John Fumero _X_ City Administrator Marcos MontesDeOca _X City Clerk Lane Gamiotea _X Deputy City Clerk Bobbie Jenkins _X_ Executive Assistant Robin Brock X III. AGENDA AND PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Mayor Watford asked whether there were any agenda items to be added, deferred, or withdrawn; none B. Motion by Council Member _BJ_, seconded by Council Member _MC_ to approve the agenda as presented. VOTE: Ayes -Mayor Watford, Council Members Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe. Nays -none. Council Member Abney was absent. Motion Carried. C. There were none agenda item forms or comment cards submitted for public participation for any issues not on the agenda. IV. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Council Member _BK_, seconded by Council Member _WA_ to approve consent agenda items A [January 5, 2021 Regular Meeting minutes], B [December 2020 Warrant Register, General Fund $657,976.99, Public Facilities Improvement Fund $16,718.82, and Capital Improvement Projects Fund $2,009.151, and C [Appoint Mrs. Michele Clanton to the General Employee Pension Fund Board of Trustees, City Resident 2 of 2, term being January 20, 2021 through December 31, 2024, replacing Nathan Pippin]. Gary Ritter introduced his daughter Michele for the General Pension Fund Board of Trustees. Council thanked Michele. GR-extremely important to get the young folks in politics VOTE: Ayes -Mayor Watford, Council Members Abney, Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe. Nays - none. Motion Carried. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion by Council Member _MC_, seconded by Council Member _BK_ to approve a Fine Reduction Request for Code Enforcement Case No. 190917011, Manuel Pineda, property located at 1124 Southwest 81" Street, as recommended by Special Magistrate Azcona from $9,350.00 to $935.00, plus a $50.00 Administrative Fee, further recommending to allow a payment plan with half paid in January and the balance paid by February 10, 2021. B. Jenkins Handwritten Minutes, January 19, 2021, Page 1 of 9 Discussion: JF basic facts of the case. Mr. Cruz is going to be addressing the Council. So this is a fine reduction request based on the staff recommendation. This went to the magistrate who listens to the staff recommendation, reviews the file, and makes a recommendation. Fines accrued from aug to dec 2020. Repeated violations on property on or off for a few years. Property owner is involved in the AC repair business. Simple fix is to put some sort of screening on the fence so that things wouldn't be visible from the street. Unless you have any questions on the facts. Jose Cruz-1 think it was selective, right by my house is a lot of trash that has old cars, old trailers, he has to go on the side street just to see my stuff. We take apart the old units and recycle. That was the trash he was talking about. I have pictures of what is beside my house. There's more stuff down my road that you can see that has never received a notice. DW-unfortunately we can't consider that tonight. You certainly can give those pictures to staff and if you'd like to make a complaint they can look at it. You are speaking for this property? JC-yes DW-you were at the magistrate hearing. JC-yes but I can't speak to Fred without him getting angry Dw-Youre ok with the fine? JC-no I think it should be lower. DW-all we can do is accept it or reject it. If we reject it, it goes back to the original amount. What we have is either $985 or the $9350. You have to make an argument before the Magistrate JC-1 missed that meeting DW-You had the opportunity at the magistrate hearing JC-you can also dismiss this. DW-only choices we have attorney JF-one thing to put as a foot note. Recommending Special Magistrate have final order authority in the future. We have a special magistrate. His job is to review the file, talk to the property owner, the staff, look at the pictures. For them to overturn, they have to look at the file. Its either accept recommendation or reject the recommendation. So they don't have free reign to legally deny what the magistrate has ruled. He has had the benefit of seeing the evidence. I have looked into this and I will tell you that if there are other people with other violations. Shame on us, if what you're saying is true, then we have to send code enforcement to look at other properties. It was visible from a public road or right of way. JC-1 just want things to be fair. Not be selective. JF-do you understand what the fix is. JC-yes sir I do. DW-who is Jose Cruz JC-that's me DW-it looks like you were at the meeting. JC-the case was continued. DW-anything else. You understand where we are. JC-yes DW-up here for discussion. WA -when did this start JF-august to December of 2020 so the CE officer assessed $100 per day fine, for 93 days. WA -the owners were made aware of this. JF-the magistrate asks whether the property owner has received proper notification. Repeat offender WA -how many inspections were done on this case JF-looks like 3, the prior issues 2016, 2018, 2019 which is why the per day fine was as high as it was. NOV/NOH sent certified return receipt. BJ-so it's in compliance now. JC-the wood fence and the screen is on the two gates. It was always contained. He had only come 3 times BK-I would just like to add I know Mr. Cruz and my father lives down his street. I go by his house very regularly and he lives right at the corner of SW 8t" and SW 12t" Ave so certainly going down the ROW, without looking under the hood, I would like to emphasize to the new code enforcement personnel for this case as an example, I stress the necessity to be fair across the board. There are no special exceptions for anyone. Everybody gets the same treatment. When Mr. Cruz approached me about this issue previously I went by again, I've noticed for a very long time 2 doors down, visible collection of junk and abandoned vehicles. Busines right down the road on SW 9t" St with junk and a pile of tires. We have to be fair across the board. Obviously magistrate hearings I went to his. I wanted to hear staff's side. Fred is no longer with us? RP-12 more days B. Jenkins Handwritten Minutes, January 19, 2021, Page 2 of 9 BK-it could have been handled better. None the less, I apologize for how you feel and I understand it and I saw it with my own eyes. I stress to the Chief that it needs to be assessed fairly and accordingly. BJ-understand where you're coming from. We have it set up and they have the code to enforce when something takes something so long to come into compliance. It's not our job to rehash it. That's why we have a magistrate. WA -when we reduce these to 10% are we truly recovering our cost? JF-the short answer, no. We have to look at the penalty matrix and reconfigure it. We've brought in new CE Staff and they are in the process of being trained. Part of reinventing the department is retool the penalty matrix. WA -maybe the per day penalty changes and also the 90% reduction. In general it seems to be too much. I'm glad properties are coming into compliance. JF-fair observation. DW-other discussion? None VOTE: Ayes -Mayor Watford, Council Members Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe. Nays -none. Council Member Abney was absent. Motion Carried. B. Motion by Council Member _BJ , seconded by Council Member _BK to approve a Fine Reduction Request for Code Enforcement Case No. 190718010, Fortex Holdings, LLC, property located at 501 East North Park Street. as recommended by Special Magistrate Azcona from $8,450.00 to $845.00, plus a $50.00 Administrative Fee. Discussion: JF-there was evidence present that the building has be cleaned and currently in compliance. Recommended fine reduction WA -this is the abandoned gas station next to Wendy's JF-yes sir Dw-any questions or discussion from council. BJ-why is Mr. Cruz on the same exhibit? DW-these were the minutes of the hearing. WA -last page of exhibit 3, never received noticed...... MC -that information would have been presented to the Magistrate. have signed for the letter. DW-anyone hear for the property owner. JF-obviously one person's position DW-other questions Dn painted, property by the special magistrate. I would hope he would VOTE: Ayes -Mayor Watford, Council Members Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe. Nays -none. Council Member Abney was absent. Motion Carried. C. Discuss methods of voting for the City 2021 Special Election. DW-there will be no exhibit for this as it is not needed. LG-first gave the information to the administrator's office, we were under the impression that we would have to bring to the Council to vote on early vote, since that time we have found a FS that the SOE makes the call. NO early vote. WE have met several times, we are looking at every cost saving measure we can find. So this won't cost the city votes so much. Tentative calendar: 2/2 Election Proclamation call the election; 2/8-12 qualifying week. Election 4/27. Precinct has not been completely booked (ROC) we still have to confirm. Staff were not in the office today. Just a few more irons to straighten out. SOE Arnold has hit the ground running and she's excited to get the election. WA —only one city precinct LG-vote by mail, absentee, and election day. WA- no early vote, how is that cost saving. LG-that has to be ironed out still. Need to have it done before the summer months. It is difficult when you're dealing with vendors, state, etc. BK-when would ballots be mailed out? LG-that info will be provided at the next meeting. Everything counts backwards from election day. BJ-can we do a drop box at city hall LG-used to use FD bay as precinct. B. Jenkins Handwritten Minutes, January 19, 2021, Page 3 of 9 D. Motion by Council Member _MC , seconded by Council Member _BJ_ to award Request For Qualification No. ADM 03-32-09-20 Professional Landscape Architect Services to Calvin, Giordano & Associates, Inc. Discussion: MDO same contract in the RFQ that went out. Rate sheet, no scope of services yet, adopt a master contract. Assuming a couple small items here, but I'm kind of going to focus with the FPDRAC to come up with the first scope. Anything done this year will be a modification with the budget. Depends on the scope developed later. Tammy is here if there are any questions. WA -if we approve this, fee schedule is based on Ex. C. we have to brin gup the scope of work, at that point they give us a cost. MDO-will be based on scope recommended by committee and a fee will be develop9ed and brought back to council. Rate wise pretty consistent. WA_if that rate is not acceptable, we move to number 2 JF-this is an RFQ. This is an umbrella, when they move forward they develop a scope there will be a budget and quote for each scope. The budget and workorder will be brought to the CC, you've already selected the firm. You will get the specific work orders. WA -negotiations go wrong we go to number 2. DW-they can't give us a price because they don't know what we want yet. So I think he has a valid question since we're not getting a scope here, or are we approving the hourly rates. MDO-the exhibit is the hourly rate sheet. Then say we get a scope and we can't get a scope. DW-would we go to number 2 if we can't negotiate. MDO-I've done these several times, the scope development is what the driver is. It really comes down to the final scope. WA_if the two parties can't agree, it is my understanding that we can go to #2 JF-no, you have to go through the whole process. You've selected them already, as understand it, the budget and scope of work will be brought back and negotiated, the city can decline. Now this contract is selecting them to move forward with scope of services. DW-if we don't agree with the hourly rates, then do we go to #2 J F-yes BJ-first step to get it back to us with a figure after info from committee DW-CCNA is very complicated. Ask MDO, being engineer, I assume these rates are the going rate. MDO- I will further say they are close to mine. Consistent with the industry JF_city shall compensate for work order and the fee due to professional is set forth in each project authorization and shall be in accordance with exhibit c. the work will be undertaken step by step under project authorization. WA -so are we expecting a lump sum or an estimated hourly rate. DW-hope the FPDRAC has a very narrow scope MDO-depends on the scope. VOTE: Ayes -Mayor Watford, Council Members Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe. Nays -none. Council Member Abney was absent. Motion Carried. E. Discuss COVID-19 administrative leave policy. MDO-the big change was policy ran thru federal government and FMLA expired 12/31/20. Policy brings into compliance and reduces time from 14 days to 10 days. Just for COVID, consent to test, copy of test provided, covered all basis so there wouldn't be questions in the future. DW-county suggesting through the first quarter and the BOCC did it for the entire year to Dec. 31, 2021. MDO-we can change the sunset date. DW-we could re -authorize it if necessary BJ-remember a few months ago we discussed this, but I thought the PD gave us something. MDO-first responders, minutes reflected that. General employees would not have access to it. For all city employees. This is retroactive to January 1. We had a couple of questions and wanted to be cleared to everyone. BJ-same as what was before MDO-basically the same except the days changed from 14 to 10. MC -did we specifically say that the rapid test is not very accurate. I'm very concerned that we specifically say that's the test they have to take. WA -are they saying more false negatives or positive MC -false negatives. MDO-we can change the language B. Jenkins Handwritten Minutes, January 19, 2021, Page 4 of 9 MC -concerned 5 people positive, 2 negative at urgent care in the morning and tested positive at the health dept that afternoon. I am concerned to say that it's the test we are requiring. If you have been exposed you can take the CVS test. DW-I'm familiar with one company that uses urgent care rapid tests. MC -I'm just telling you what the health dept is telling me. How can someone test negative in the morning and then take another in the same afternoon and be positive. MDO-one of the concerns is that we need to have access to the test, HIPPA violation. MC-1 would think that if they want the time off, they can provide the results to us. Do we not bill it through BCBS MDO-no. We just want to be sure that we have access to the results. MC -if we don't have a copy of the test, how would we give them leave without a positive result IR-TCMA is our medical provider through contract. IT could be that if they want to pay for it themselves, we were just trying to absorb the costs through an automatic billing system, easy access back to the dept head and personnel administrator. MC -there is no cost for COVID testing. Just letting you know that the employee does not have to pay for the test. I'm concerned with the validity of the test. MDO-only concern is with hitting the insurance, it increases our costs of insurance rates. BJ-but if the tests aren't accurate I don't know what good the tests are. I wouldn't be in favor of it. MDO-we can take that out, just say they must provide results period. Add Item D and renumber the others, and say provide testing information. DW-they are required to submit COVID-19 test results. It's their choice of testing facility. BP -the problem with this, is this is how the last conversation started. Come up with first responders who were exempt under federal law. Then the conversation got in depth like this. Let's just have a discussion and let the department heads deal with their employees. We're back to almost the discussion here. Rules are great but what happens in my dept I can't shut the doors, if everybody gets COVID I have to shut the door according to this. You're right the rapid test is not as accurate as it should be. We have had 9 positive results in the police dept. we've handled it, Major did a phenomenal job. They come back to work, put in the leave rep9ort. That's my problem with these things, I understand everyone likes rules and regulations. If dispatch gets COVID they're going to be working with gas masks but this policy doesn't allow me to do this. This gives us the ability to cover our departments as we see fit. There is no way that I can do this without violating this policy. It's not cheap MDO-they may isolate up to 10 days, it takes the question of between the motion and minutes and gives the Dept Head the authority. RP -rigorous debate on this LG-just to clarify, this follows the same exact policy that was already in effect that ended 12/31/20. The additions were clarifications that Dept Heads were presenting. This is answering all questions. RP -read out of policy about negative results LG-this is CDC guidelines that we are currently following. RP -I'm not, this is just asking to be violated. If we get a run of cases, I'm not joking they will be coming to work with masks. WA -page 2 of 2, 1 understand. RP -we need to be excluded from this or Dept Heads can deviate from these rules. WA -how do you work with that officer who has positive results RP -so far they have all been home. County Fire Rescue had 14 days. Send them to the Urgent Care for testing. WA -so your following this JF_theres no rule that applies to everyone equally. We could have an exit ramp here, notwithstanding anything herein case by case in cooperation with personnel administrator or administrator. Just so it doesn't get out of wack RP -you either trust us or not BJ-has any other departments have issues MDO-yes these questions have come up with other depts. Keep check and balance there, BJ-can we put a clause there that we're excluded JF-of course, you can exclude the PD DW-we don't have to have this policy. We could do nothing, and then if the employee is out with COVID they would have to take their sick leave. An additional benefit we are providing to our employees because of COVID. I think everyone needs to understand that. Then its going to go against their sick leave MC -offer up to 10 days with COVID testing. B. Jenkins Handwritten Minutes, January 19, 2021, Page 5 of 9 LG-the federal law expired 12/31/2020. The council enacted for first responders only. You made the first responders get the same benefit as other staff due to federal government issued. As of Jan 1 no one is covered. MDO-which now if we didn't do something, everyone would not be able to get this and we would have to charge it to sick. WE didn't want to get into this discussion. There was enough question for me in the minutes. MC -can we continue the existing policy for 10 days for all employees. LG-this was to answer the questions that we've been dealing with. BJ-is that a motion MC -no BK-who's answered the questions, LG-Dept Head would utilize the current Florida CDC guideline answered by MDO, LG, or IR BK-if Dept Heads have a question, who answers that question for the Dept Head. LG-whomever they ask. BK-administrator has to clarify our intent. I'm in agreement, I still trust our dept heads. If this wasn't typed up for CYA for federal requirements. Motion by Council Member _MC , seconded by Council Member _BJ_ to extend current policy until September 30, 2021 for 10 calendar days for all employees. DW-other dept heads work for you DA-I do have one employee affected IR-case by case basis WA -good guideline but should be based on case by case DW-dept heads may have to make a tough decision LG-the previous policy did not require an employee to provide test results or the city to pay for it. BP -we require test results IR-TCMA is not a covered item. DW-so do we want to include that if we go to urgent care MC -there are other places in Okeechobee that do not charge. Only place that charges is urgent care. If an employee wants paid time off they are going to provide you with proof. BK-statement for clarification for employees. If they want to go to urgent care and get rapid test. Employees covered under the BCBS insurance do not pay. Staff know go wherever you want to go. DA-make a recommendation VOTE: Ayes -Mayor Watford, Council Members Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe. Nays -none. Council Member Abney was absent. Motion Carried. F. Discuss Police Services Coordinator position. RP -you have this in your packet, discussed this one on one already. We have an opportunity to make right between the pay and job description of the police services coordinator and records clerk. Job description has not changed, the problem was we could not fix the pay until the police services coordinator retired. Jeanna has the requirements of the job. DW-we have the request in front of us. MDO-the only thing I wanted to bring up is one, this does set a precedent, change salary mid- year and step plans, and again nothing against others, two of the three that did not get the requested raise. I know what she does, I don't disagree, but timing is a bad thing. RP -I don't think that I've talked to anyone here that doesn't agree that the positions pay is unreasonable. The only argument that I've heard is that the others deserve more. Have the opportunity to fix a problem here, the salary is due the position. The argument of lets wait until later is the exact opposite. You fix things as you can. You don't let her go 8 or 9 months underpaid. This fits within our existing budget. BJ-this is not a person, this is a position pay. RP -it's the position but we have a person in that position. The responsibility of that position warrants a salary equivalent to similar positions in the city. BJ-if this position is open, you say this is what the position should pay. RP-Jeanna has been here 19 years. Records Clerk has to be dispatched certified, and the services coordinator has that responsibility and records clerk responsibility. If we did hire an outsider they would come in at 38500 step 1. You look at the other positions. Why would we not fix it when we have an opportunity to do so. I understand but we still have to do the right thing. BJ-if we approve this, it will be a reduction in budget B. Jenkins Handwritten Minutes, January 19, 2021, Page 6 of 9 BP -the budget will be lower than what we've already approved. BJ-when would this take effect BP -January 4th MC-MDO my clarification is that if we are hiring positions and we make changes to the duties of that position and its in the middle of the year, do we not ever discuss where we are on salary. We're talking about hiring someone for a position and the change of duties. MDO-I don't know if we've had this scenario come up. MC -these were existing employees right? MDO-its just timing. LG-the only time I can think of is with the finance director position. The budgetary items the existing administrator duties were given and the job description and title changed but not the salary until the next budget. WA -so they didn't get the new pay until the next budget year. IR-yes that happened. LG-there was also that the administrative secretary to administration, the job title did not change but the duties did, but that position had to take on handling grants, budget year position changed and salary increased. RP -the reason this came up now, the records clerk and the police services coordinator make the same pay. We have a supervisor that makes the same as a subordinate. LG-promotion and generally when there is a promotion we try to keep it around $3000 increase. There was FF who had been here quite a while and were promoted to Lieutenant which set a precedent. Motion by Council Member _BJ , seconded by Council Member _MC to approve/deny increasing the salary of the Police Services Coordinator to $49,588.00 while maintaining the current step. DW-these are tough decisions to make. When you have different employees, every supervisor or dept head thinks they're employees work harder than everyone else's. Its always very difficult and delicate discussion to have. I know that normally we wouldn't do these kinds of things mid -year. The chief has a good argument that the budget isn't increasing, I would say that's a valid argument. I had discussed this with the Chief and kind of hoped we come up with a compromise on the amount. A little easier to swallow Y/2 and Y2 but that's my comments. I hope as the MDO says, if I were a DEPT Head and had an employee who was doing more than their job id be concerned and want to discuss that with Council too. BK-just because it was brought up. The job description has not changed, human being aside, position in front of you, obviously higher pay warranted. But why now? And is there a negative impact beside the human being. Is there a negative impact in this job position then waiting to budget time. BP -the position clearly to me calls for that pay why can't we do it now, we have the opportunity. You've identified the issue previously but this is the time because of the retirement. MDO-1 have two that deserve it now, and a year ago. BP -I understand. BK-IR here from you. Can you give the Council impact on this years budget and 2021-22 budget. IR-we are all human and we are discussing budgetary dollars. All salaries need to be looked at. Specifically for this position and during budget time. This was one of the 3 that requested a pay increase that was denied. Those dollars in that budget are allocated specifically for that position, but those dollars are going to cover different variables. BJ-this will cause a decrease IR-but that same line item has 30 other people in that line item and those dollars that are set are going to have to pay for the leave when they leave. Donated leave, those dollars come out of the same line item. BJ-just talking about one person BK-impacts to next years budget. I don't know. IR-as you increase someones salary it doesn't decrease the next year. So you won't see a decrease next year. WA_i agree with the variables and circumstances that happen throughout the year. Theoretically if everything else stays the same but something always happens. I wouldn't use that as a deciding factor MDO-the typical fluff we removed from the budget. Those little extra items add up. I just want the council to be aware. There are a lot of variables. We don't have the fluff built in anymore. MC -if we're talking about less than $3600 B. Jenkins Handwritten Minutes, January 19, 2021, Page 7 of 9 VOTE: Ayes -Mayor Watford, Council Members Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe. Nays -none. Council Member Abney was absent. Motion Carried. Introduced Ericka Smith G. Discuss voting selection procedures for Flagler Park Advisory Committee and other upcoming boards. MC-1 added to agenda. I've been involved two or three times when we have been voting on advisory committees. I would like there to be, I was confused when we were talking about the FPDRAC, using some type of point system. Just personally I'd like there to be a point system. Rank these members 9 to 1, 9 is highest. So there is no question on who is on the board. Always a clear precise determination. Not rehash but I would like there to be a set way for us to vote and use that system. I would also like to utilize an excel spreadsheet automatic formulated. DW-certainly have that procedure, recommend we wait until we set up another board. WA -think she wants to do it for all boards. DW-make a motion? MC -staff come up with a matrix to present at next meeting. DW-revisit the FPDRAC MC -no use it as an example. H. Consider Electric Scooter usage in the City of Okeechobee by request of Bird Electric Scooters. MDO-I was approached who actually asked for a MOU with the City to provide electric scooters. Not comfortable with bringing an MOU wanted the council's consensus. I just wanted to ask you so that I can respond yes or no. DW-council what's the pleasure. Not a good idea personally. BJ-I don't want to see them here MC -liability issue, don't have infrastructure for it. Lawsuit waiting to happen. MDO-liability concerns but still need to WA -two major roads in the middle of town. MC -as soon as sidewalks are fixed, come back with a proposal. CONSENSUS -no BK-I like riding scooters. FPDRAC, infrastructure, dangers of 441/70 BP-FS says motorized vehicle is illegal on sidewalks I. Consider a request to Governor DeSantis to fill the heartland vacancy on the South Florida Water Management District Board. DW-think its absurd that it took the governor so long to make the appointment and he did not reappoint. So we are without representation again. Either do a Resolution or letter. The attorney could tell us which form to use. WA -didn't we discuss this BK-motion letter be drafted requesting fill heartland vacancy, signed by mayor 2"d WA BJ-appoint someone from our area. WA -ask the county to join us. MDO to bring up with meeting tomorrow with Louis. BJ-add wording to appoint someone from our area. VOTE: Ayes -Mayor Watford, Council Members Clark, Jarriel, and Keefe. Nays -none. Council Member Abney was absent. Motion Carried. VI. CITY UPDATE Working on training new code enforcement employees. Retooling the program. The MDO, Myself and Clerk convey to the Fire Union what the City is putting on the table. More questions directed to pension board and county. Shared with them all the information we've had. Reiterated decisions council made last year. CCRAC moving along, picking up speed, share a lot of information with them, looking at modern city charters. BCC council members in correspondence. Big ticket items: what form of government, strong mayor, strong manager, hybrid, shared info on different forms of government. Developing a model charter, adding a citizens bill of rights, great committee VII. COUNCIL COMMENTS WA -none B. Jenkins Handwritten Minutes, January 19, 2021, Page 8 of 9 BJ-excited to see wawa sign coming soon. We should be able to get our money back for code enforcement. With our new guys and the magistrate, look forward to do some damage in the city that we'll see a difference. Bk-none MC -happy birthday this week. VIII. The meeting was adjourned at 806 P.M. B. Jenkins Handwritten Minutes, January 19, 2021, Page 9 of 9