MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 6, 1994, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Nora Patterson, Vice Mayor David Merrill, Commissioners Fredd Atkins and Mollie Cardamone, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: Commissioner Gene Pillot PRESIDING: Mayor Nora Patterson The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:03 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JULY, 1994 - JAMES A. WOODS, LIEUTENANT, - FIRE/RESCUE BUREAU, PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT #1 (0020) through (0137) Julius Halas, Chief of Fire-Rescue Bureau, and James Woods, Lieutenant, Fire-Rescue Bureau, Public Safety Department, came before the Commission. Fire Chief Halas stated that Lt. Woods is a 24-year veteran of the City of Sarasota's Department of Public Safety, who has served as a Fire/Arson Investigator; that Lt. Woods has assisted other line and staff personnel with life-safety problems, fire alarm system problems, and logistics during Incident Command System procedures; that, for example, during the recent plane crash emergency at the City's Marina Jack facility and the events associated with the Fourth of July Offshore Grand Prix, Lt. Woods spent hours gathering information and recording personnel and their activities, which aided in emergency scene safety as well as in documenting information for records and reports; that Lt. Woods continues to serve with excellence and pride. Mayor Patterson presented Lt. Woods with a plaque and certificate for the Employee of the Month for July 1994 in appreciation of his unique performance with the city of Sarasota and congratulated him for his outstanding efforts. Mayor Patterson requested that Mrs. Woods, who was present in the audience, stand to be recognized. 2. PRESENTATION RE: INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MUNICIPAL CLERKS FIFTH ANNUAL RECORDS MANAGEMENT AWARD FOR EXCEPTIONAL MUNICIPAL PROGRAMS PRESENTED TO THE RECORDS DIVISION OF THE CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK'S OFFICE #1 (0137) through (0193) Book 37 Page 10838 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10839 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Billy Robinson, City Auditor and Clerk, and Dan Lestz, Records Manager, Records Division, Office of the City Auditor and Clerk, came before the Commission. Mayor Patterson stated that the Office of the city Auditor and Clerk seldom gets mentioned, but always performs above and beyond the call of duty for the City; that the International Institute of Municipal Clerks (IIMC) annually presents an award for exceptional municipal records programs; that the Records Division of the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk was recently selected to receive the Fifth Annual IIMC Records Management Award for Exceptional Municipal Programs for the best Manual Records System with Computer Assistance in a City with a population of 2,501 to 100,000. Mayor Patterson, on behalf of the City Commission, presented City Auditor and Clerk Robinson and Mr. Lestz with the 1994 Fifth Annual Records Management Award's plaque and congratulated them on the outstanding accomplishment achieved. 3. PRESENTATION RE: RETIREMENT AWARD TO MOSES FOGLE, REFUSE EOUIPMENT OPERATOR, SOLID WASTE DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, WITH 28 YEARS OF SERVICE #1 (0194) through (0283) Duane Mountain, Streets, Landscape Maintenance & Solid Waste Manager, and Moses Fogle, Refuse Equipment Operator, Solid Waste Division, Public Works Department, came before the Commission. Mr. Mountain stated that Moses Fogle is retiring from the Solid Waste Division of the Department of Public Works after 28 years of service; that Mr. Fogle was hired in January 1966 as a laborer, was promoted to a trash collector and has served as a Refuse Equipment Operator since 1970; that Mr. Fogle has served in a service- oriented capacity for over 22 years during which time no complaints have been received regarding his route; that Mr. Fogle has served with excellence and pride during his 28-year employment with the City of Sarasota. Mr. Mountain thanked Mr. Fogle for his excellent service and congratulated him on his retirement. Mayor Patterson read the Retirement Award in its entirety and presented Mr. Fogle with a plaque. 4. PRESENTATION RE: RETIREMENT AWARD TO MARY L. KILTZ, SENIOR CLERK, SUPPORT SERVICES BUREAU, PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT, WITH 18 YEARS OF SERVICE #1 (0283) through (0382) Julius Halas, Chief of Fire-Rescue Bureau, and Mary Kiltz, Senior Clerk, Support Services Bureau, Public Safety Department, came before the Commission. Fire Chief Halas stated that Mary Kiltz has served in a variety of positions during her 18-year employment with the City of Sarasota; that Mrs. Kiltz became a Senior Clerk in the Fire-Rescue Department in 1970 and for many years prepared the Fire-Rescue Department's payroll and personnel records; that Mrs. Kiltz was transferred to the Fire Prevention/Inspection division in 1988 to provide clerical support; that Mrs. Kiltz's contributions to the Fire-Rescue Bureau were appreciated by both co-workers and management. Fire Chief Halas thanked Mrs. Kiltz for her excellent service and congratulated her on her retirement. Mayor Patterson read the Retirement Award in its entirety and presented Ms. Kiltz with a plaque. Mayor Patterson requested that Mr. Kiltz, who was present in the audience, stand and be recognized. 5. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY -APPROVED #1 (0383) through (0443) City Auditor. and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Remove from New Business, Item No. VIII-1, Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the License Agreement between the City of Sarasota and RISCORP Management Service, Inc., concerning parking spaces in the downtown area of Sarasota, per the request of the City Manager. B. Remove from New Business, Item No. VIII-5, Approval Re: Interlocal Agreement providing for the cooperative administration of the city and County Housing and Community Development Programs, per the request of the City Manager. C. Add to New Business, Item No. VIII-6, Approval Re: Authorize the Administration to purchase the Central Avenue property from the Community Housing Corporation for $76,639.61, per the request of the City Manager. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 1, 1994 AND MINUTES OF THE Book 37 Page 10840 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10841 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 1994 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0446) through (0475) On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the minutes of the Regular City Commission Meeting of August 1, 1994, and the minutes of the Special city Commission Meeting of August 8, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 7. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 1994 = REPORT ACCEPTED: SET PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3808 FOR PUBLIC HEARING AT THE ADMINISTRATION'S DISCRETION: SET PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94- 3816 FOR PUBLIC HEARING; SET SECTION 2 OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3806 FOR PUBLIC HEARING (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (0485) through (1420) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Ron Annis, Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning (PBLP) Agency, came before the Commission. Mr. Annis presented the following items from the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's regular meeting of August 3, 1994: A. Proposed Code Amendment, Ordinance No. 94-3808, relative to Eminent Domain Mr. Annis stated that an ordinance currently exists within the Zoning Code which exempts the City from various non-conformities created by the use of Eminent Domain, i.e., in acquiring road rights-of-way; that this proposed ordinance would provide the availability of exemption from the Zoning Code when property is transferred to governmental agencies or certain public utilities pursuant to the power of Eminent Domain or any negotiated sale in lieu of Eminent Domain; that Sarasota County has requested the City initiate the subject amendment to include any governmental agency as a result of the County's need to acquire property for the widening of Tuttle Avenue; that the PBLP had some concerns with flaws contained within the exemptions of the proposed ordinance, but felt that all governmental agencies should be operating under the same policy; that the PBLP found proposed Ordinance No. 94-3808 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommended Commission approval to set the proposed code amendment for public hearing; that the PBLP also recommended that Staff be directed to review and address this issue during the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Update. Mayor Patterson asked what particular issue Staff would be directed to address? Mr. Annis stated that the exemptions within this proposed ordinance are broad; that the PBLP had various concerns regarding safety issues, i.e., vehicles backing out onto a major corridor; that examples of this concern are evident within the County, i.e., the right-of-way acquisitions on Bee Ridge Road which reduced the parking lots of properties to a size that force vehicles to back out onto Bee Ridge Road; that individual developers are not allowed to include such non-conformities in their development plans; therefore, the PBLP felt this was something governmental agencies should not be permitted to do; that the PBLP recommended the approval of Ordinance 94-3808 to facilitate in the acquisition of land for the Tuttle Avenue County road-widening project, and to allow all governmental agencies equal footing. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to set proposed Ordinance No. 94-3808 for public hearing. Mayor Patterson stated that she is concerned with the "sweeping effect" of the drafted ordinance; that there is a distinction between rendering City properties usable when the City creates a non-conformity and allowing the same exemption to apply for other governmental bodies or public utilities; that the City, itself, can determine whether acquiring part of a property will create a non- conformity that will be harmful to the public welfare of the City and decide not to acquire that property; however, if the County renders a property nonconforming which creates, say, an unsafe parking lot, this proposed ordinance states that the property is made whole again, its nonconformities are not considered, and the City has no alternative but to buy the entirety of the property if the city deems it unsafe or a property which will inconvenience commercial or residential neighbors; that an ordinance should be drafted in a less sweeping manner to address only the land acquisitions on Tuttle Avenue. Mayor Patterson continued that this proposed ordinance would allow Florida Power and Light (FPL) to purchase 50% of a commercial property and create a traffic hazard with which the City will have to deal, i.e., vehicles being forced to back out onto a main road; that FPL would have no obligation to purchase the entirety of the property to avoid such a situation; that this proposed ordinance should not be passed as drafted; that this issue should be addressed prior to passing the ordinance. City Attorney Taylor stated that the current ordinance pertaining to Eminent Domain was developed to apply to the Fruitville Road situation and save the City money; that the impacts on the parcels were obvious to the City when the project was designed; that this proposed ordinance emanated from the County's request, and has not been developed with the same consideration of parcel by parcel impacts; that those impacts should be recognized so that an ordinance can be developed to accomplish only what needs to be accomplished on Tuttle Avenue to allow certain non-conformities to exist. Book 37 Page 10842 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10843 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the acquisitions on Fruitville Road were carefully analyzed; that the potential unsafe conditions associated with the non-conformities which were allowed under the current ordinance were reviewed and addressed; that he is not aware of any unsafe conditions created by the current ordinance; however, the Administration can review the proposed ordinance to determine if situations to which reference is being made would be created. Mayor Patterson stated that this proposed ordinance is not particular to Tuttle Avenue; that it applies Citywide and to every governmental body including public utilities; that the City should make an effort to assist the County in completing the substantially delayed Tuttle Avenue project; however, this proposed ordinance needs to be massaged prior to receiving Commission approval. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she agrees with Mayor Patterson; that the City drafted an ordinance to meet the specific needs of Fruitville Road; that an ordinance applicable to Tuttle Avenue should be drafted. Mayor Patterson asked if a study could be performed on Tuttle Avenue, and an ordinance be developed specific to Tuttle Avenue and the County? City Attorney Taylor stated that the language used in the current ordinance has been carried over into this proposed ordinance which includes a broader definition of eligible exemptions; that the Administration should be able to identify those issues of concern and those that are not by holding one meeting with appropriate department representatives to study the County's plans; that the issues which are not of concern could be incorporated into the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Atkins asked if the Commission could set the proposed ordinance for public hearing while the ordinance is being drafted? City Attorney Taylor stated that the proposed ordinance can be advertised in a manner consistent with the time necessary to accomplish the review and revision. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the proposed ordinance will be revised and be restrictive only to the Tuttle Avenue project. Mr. Annis stated that a County representative mentioned to the PBLP that similar right-of-way acquisitions may be required for Myrtle Street properties which are located within the City. Mayor Patterson stated that the ordinance should be prepared to protect the City. City Manager Sollenberger stated that ordinances will be prepared on a per-project basis. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion to set proposed Ordinance No. 94-3808 for public hearing at the discretion of the Administration. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. B. Proposed Code Amendment, Ordinance No. 94-3816, pertaining to Adult Care Homes in the RSF Zone Districts Mr. Annis stated that this proposed ordinance has two aspects: 1) the 1,200-foot separation between adult care homes with 16 or fewer residents would be eliminated for properties located in RSF Zones on Fruitville Road when the adult care home is located adjacent to another adult care home; and 2) the lot size requirement for facilities of up to 12 residents would be reduced. Mr. Annis continued that based on public input and the belief this Code Amendment would negatively affect the stability of existing residential neighborhoods, the PBLP found proposed Ordinance No. 94-3816 inconsistent with the Sarasota City Plan. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to set proposed Ordinance No. 94-3816 for public hearing. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that there is a fair amount of opposition by the neighbors on one of the two issues; and asked if the Petitioners seeking this particular ordinance have met with the neighbors to discuss what is trying to be accomplished? Ms. Robinson stated that the petitioners are not required to have a neighborhood meeting on these matters. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the petitioners are not required to have a neighborhood meeting, but it may be in their best interest to do so prior to the public hearing. Joel J. Freedman, Bishop & Associates, Petitioner representing Dan Oluich, came before the Commission and stated that Mr. Oluich, the owner of the Casa de David, has met with several neighbors regarding elimination of the 1,200-foot separation requirement; that efforts will be made to conduct a neighborhood meeting. Commissioner Cardamone asked what form of notification was used to notify the affected properties of this potential change? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that each property to which this ordinance would apply was identified; that properties within 500 feet of an identified property were noticed, which is the same notice given for rezoning issues. Book 37 Page 10844 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10845 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she is concerned that affected property owners located behind the identified properties may not have been noticed. Mr. Robinson stated that a sign posting notice of the public hearing before the Planning Board was also placed on the identified properties. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that tonight the Commission is only setting this proposed ordinance for public hearing; that the Commission is not discussing or rendering a decision on the proposed ordinance at this time. Bruce Franklin, Land Resource Strategies, Inc. Petitioner representing Andy Garcia, came before the Commission and stated that the affected neighbors will be contacted in a more formal manner; and that the portion of the ordinance pertaining to a reduction in the lot size requirement was not to be applicable Citywide; that the petition filed related to an interstate corridor with other limitations included. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion to set proposed Ordinance No. 94-3816 for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. C. Proposed Ordinance No. 94-3806 pertaining to Flood Hazard Areas Mr. Annis stated that the PBLP found Section 2 of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3806, relative to clarification of flood hazard areas for all land annexed into the City, consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommended Commission approval to set Section 2 of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3806 for public hearing; that the PBLP recommended denial of Section 1 of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3806 relative to the two-year restriction period for cumulative costs between major improvements of a structure in flood hazard areas. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation to set only Section 2 of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3806 followed the PBLP's recommendation. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to set Section 2 of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3806 for public hearing. Mayor Patterson stated that the PBLP's minutes reflect that Tampa has a one-year roll-over period. Mr. Annis stated that much research was performed by Mark Singer, City Attorney's office, pertaining to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) roll-over period regulations; that FEMA has within its enabling act the ability to limit improvements to 50% of a structure; that the City of Tampa has a one-year roll-over period; that Sarasota County modified its lifetime standard to a two-year roll-over period; that Manatee County modified its lifetime standard to language similar to what is contained in the City's ordinance with no roll-over period specified; that there is a five- year roll-over period in State maintained areas, i.e., the barrier islands of Sarasota. Mayor Patterson stated that public hearings are scheduled for 6:30 p.m. and it is now 6:35 p.m.i that the Commission will complete the PBLP Board Report and proceed to public hearings. Mayor Patterson stated that written confirmation on the FEMA regulations should be obtained by the Administration. William Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that a letter was sent to FEMA; that the reply received stated that what the City currently has is acceptable; however, it was worded in a manner which suggested that a waiting period should be included; that the response cited certain things which are not allowed; that FEMA would have responded in a more specific manner regarding the roll- over period if regulatory material was available to support their response; that he had no difficulty with the PBLP's recommendation since a strong response was not received from FEMA. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion to set Section 2 of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3806 for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. D. Request for Commission Recognition of Berta Lefkovich Mr. Annis stated that the PBLP voted unanimously to request the City Commission to write a letter of recognition to Berta Lefkovich, who has relocated from Sarasota and recently resigned from the PBLP, for her years of service dedicated to the City of Sarasota. Mayor Patterson stated that she has already sent Ms. Lefkovich a letter of appreciation; however, she will forward another letter taking note that the PBLP also wished her well and thanking her for her service. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to accept the report of the PBLP's regular meeting of August 3, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. Mr. Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and Book 37 Page 10846 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10847 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3819, ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF SARASOTA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 1994, AND ENDING ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995; SAID BUDGET TO INCLUDE THE GENERAL FUND, SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS, DEBT SERVICE FUNDS, ENTERPRISE FUNDS, INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS, THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN: PROVIDING FOR CURRENT EXPENSES AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, EACH BEING SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED HEREIN; ASSESSING AND LEVYING AD VALOREM TAXES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1994; SPECIFYING THE AD VALOREM TAX MILLS TO BE LEVIED AND ASSESSED FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN BONDED-DEBT SERVICE; SPECIFYING THE AD VALOREM TAX MILLS LEVIED AND ASSESSED FOR BONDED-DEBT SERVICE; MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE AD VALOREM TAX REVENUES COLLECTED; IDENTIFYING THE BUDGETS AND AMOUNT OF THE AD VALOREM TAX REVENUES WHICH ARE APPROPRIATED FOR THE PURPOSES ENUMERATED HEREIN; APPROPRIATING MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES AND SURPLUS REVENUES FOR THE PURPOSES STATED; INSTRUCTING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO KEEP ACCOUNTS so AS TO ASSURE THE PROPER UTILIZATION OF FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE; APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR OTHER EXPENSES AND EXPENDITURES PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A RESERVATION OF FUND BALANCE FOR ENCUMBRANCES AND THE REAPPORTIONING OF FUNDS AT THE END OF FISCAL YEAR 1994-95; PROVIDING THAT A NET SURPLUS, AFTER REAPPORTIONING OF FUNDS, SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR APPROPRIATION FOR THE ENSUING FISCAL YEAR; APPROPRIATING ALL FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR USES AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE LAW: APPROPRIATING ALL MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES NOT OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED IN THIS ORDINANCE AND SURPLUS REVENUES FROM EACH REVENUE SOURCE FOR OPERATING EXPENSES OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA UP TO AND INCLUDING THE TOTAL AMOUNTS APPROPRIATED HEREBY OR AS MAY BE SUBSEQUENTLY PROVIDED BY THE CITY COMMISSION: RESTRICTING THE USE OF DEBT SERVICE TAXES ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH APPROPRIATED INSTRUCTING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO PROCEED TO COLLECT ALL REVENUES DUE THE CITY OF SARASOTA, INCLUDING AD VALOREM TAXES LEVIED HEREBY AND INITIALLY COLLECTED BY THE TAX COLLECTOR FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA; AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO PAY OUT MONIES COLLECTED PURSUANT TO THIS ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSES STATED; REQUIRING PAYMENTS ON WARRANT OF THE CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK, COUNTERSIGNED BY THE CITY MANAGER, WHEN REOUIRED BY THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; APPROPRIATING FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES AND ANY BALANCE REMAINING AT THE END OF ANY FISCAL YEAR AS FUNDING UNDER THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (1420) through (3052) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the FY 94/95 budget is a no tax increase, no employee lay-off budget with employee salary increases provided; that the fund balance is healthy; that the conclusions reached by the Commission at its July 20, 1994, Budget workshop have been incorporated in the proposed FY 94/95 budget. Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that this is the first of two required public hearings for the adoption of the City of Sarasota budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1994, and ending September 30, 1995; that the proposed FY 94/95 budget requires no increase in the current operating millage of 5.339 mills; that the total millage required to finance the proposed FY 94/95 budget is 6.574 versus 6.585 in the current year's operating budget; that the Truth in Millage (TRIM) bill requires that the millage rate for ad valorem taxes be measured in terms. of the Rolled-back Rate; that the Rolled-back Rate is the millage rate necessary to yield the same ad valorem tax revenue generated in the 1993-94 fiscal year; that based on the Property Appraiser's preliminary certification of $2,624,218,660 Taxable Value for the City, the Rolled-back Rate would be 5.275 mills; therefore, the millage rate of 5.339 mills is 1.21% greater than the Rolled-back Rate. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the inflation rate is estimated at 2.8%; that the city's General Fund is estimated to increase by approximately 1.7%; that using constant dollars, the City's budget is actually being reduced although an increase for inflation has been incorporated in the FY 94/95 budget for salaries and other aspects. Vice Mayor Merrill continued that the issue of inflation affects the preparation of a budget and is one of the reasons why the city provides employee salary increases annually; that the public should not be focusing on the percent of individual millage rate increases; that the key point on which the public should focus is that, based on Commission decisions, the rate of increase in the General Fund next year is projected at less than the rate of inflation. Mayor Patterson stated that she was contacted by the president of a large neighborhood association whose property taxes increased substantially because of increased property assessments; that this citizen's unfavorable comments were printed in the newspaper; that she has been invited and plans to attend a meeting of this Association; that other neighborhoods have been reassessed over the past few years and had their taxes jump dramatically; that she will deliver exactly the same answer to the Association that Vice Mayor Merrill just gave; that property taxes are a small portion of the City's budget; that it is difficult to keep up with increased Book 37 Page 10848 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10849 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. healthcare costs, etc.; that millage rates would decrease by less than 2% even if the Commission let the Staff and other aspects of the budget fall behind the cost of living; that a 2% decrease in millage rate would be of little significance for citizens who will receive an unequal increase in taxes based on changed appraisal values; that certain property taxes will increase while other property taxes decrease, otherwise, the City would have much more taxable revenue with which to prepare a budget. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Robert Romelfanger, 827 42nd Street, stated that the 40% increase in property taxes he received is outrageous; that the newspaper reflects that the individuals responsible for this tax increase will receive an average 5.7% salary increase. Mr. Romelfanger presented Mayor Patterson with a highlighted section of a newspaper article. Mayor Patterson stated that the City Commission has received no raises since the creation of the City of Sarasota Charter ten years ago; that City Commissioners' names are not included in the article to which Mr. Romelfanger referred; and that several other governmental bodies are included on the property tax bills. Cal Erb, representing Suncoast Offshore Grand Prix, stated that the city's support and participation in the 1994 Suncoast Offshore Grand Prix events was appreciated; that the funding received by the City was adequate; and he hopes the City will continue to support the event. Mayor Patterson stated that similar funding has been included in the FY 94/95 budget. Dr. Sandra Adams, - representing the Child Development Center, stated that she is the Executive Director of the Child Development Center (CDC) and appreciates the City's continued support which demonstrates the Commission's concern for Sarasota's youngest and most vulnerable citizens; that continued Commission support will enable the CDC to provide prevention and early intervention services to children from birth to age five who are developmentally delayed or at risk for delay. C. Bart Cotten, representing Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Neighborhood Association, stated that he is the citizen to whom Mayor Patterson referred; that the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Neighborhood Association is not arguing about the assessed value of their property; that the assessed values are fair; that objection is being raised in regard to the notification of the increase being received without warning; that many of the members will have difficulty paying the increased taxes; that their property appraisals have increased between 30% and 40% and, consequently, taxes have doubled and tripled; that one member's tax increase was 15% of her total social security income; that these types of unexpected financial burdens are difficult to absorb. Mr. Cotten continued that he is pleased with the efforts made by the Commission to hold a line on recent budgets, but wonders why his neighborhood's taxes had to double to achieve this hold. Mr. Cotten further stated that additional time to pay the increased taxes may be requested. Mayor Patterson stated that the City Commission sympathizes with the plight of citizens such as Mr. Cotten and Mr. Romelfanger; that the Sarasota County Property Appraiser is responsible for the increased assessment values; that the decision on delayed payment arrangements should be addressed to the Sarasota County Tax Collector. Mayor Patterson continued that other than cutting the City's budget by 40% which would require firing half of the police force, the Commission's hands are tied, except to make attempts to get some fairness for City residents who are mandated by the County to pay for services which are not received. Mr. Cotten stated that John Mikos, Property Appraiser, and Barbara Ford-Coates, Tax Collector, have both been invited to attend the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Neighborhood Association meeting scheduled for September 7, 1994. Margaret Pearson, 4906 Bayshore Road, stated that she is on a $15,000 annual fixed income and is one of the residents to whom Mr. Cotten referred; that an increase of $700 in taxes annually is truly a hardship; that she does not want rising taxes to force her out of a home which she purchased to reside in for the rest of her life; that she realizes that the Commission has been cautious in preparing a budget and does not determine the amount of property taxes; however, the real estate people do listen to the Commission. Eileen Linxwiler, 337 North Shore Drive, stated that she realizes the city Commission cannot solve the problems associated with the drastic property tax increases; however, as the Newtown Estates' residents have done in the headlines, she wants to be on record as stating, "They really played sock it to us this year"; that the citizens realize it costs a certain amount of dollars to run a city; that she is speaking not only for herself, but also for residents in her neighborhood; that at the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Neighborhood Association meeting the question will be asked of the Mayor, "What does the city of Sarasota give us that people in the County do not receive?" Ms. Linxwiler continued that personal finances could be consolidated if City taxes were not required in addition to County taxes; that the property taxes which were $2,200 annually when she moved into her home are now proposed at $7,800; that this is not Book 37 Page 10850 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10851 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. the first property tax increase experienced, other increases have occurred, i.e., in 1990 when the reason for the increase was due to the properties being considered waterfront. Ms. Linxwiler further stated that the Sarasota County Property Appraiser uses various measurements to determine ad valorem taxes in the Bay Shore area; that it seems fair that properties located near commercial properties receive lower assessments than waterfront properties; however, other property assessments are based per front foot while waterfront property assessments are based per square foot; that the rate used per square foot decreases as the size of the waterfront lot increases; that another rate is used for properties that are not located on the water, but have a waterfront view. Ms. Linxwiler presented the Commission with a copy of a memorandum from the Sarasota County Property Appraiser's office which outlined the Bay Shore Area Land Valuation. Ms. Linxwiler stated that residents cannot afford these continued tax increases; that she is on a fixed income; that her pension and social security benefits have not increased; that if certain criteria is met, the State allows property owners to defer tax payment until death at which time the accumulated property taxes will be taken from the sale of the home; that she would like to know how much interest an estate is charged for this delayed payment. Ms. Linxwiler continued that the residents are working to find a solution to this problem; that the Commission should be aware that the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Neighborhood Association is not happy. Commissioner Atkins stated that he would like to receive a copy of the report on solutions once it is compiled. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she does not understand the rationale for the increase in assessed values occurring in various neighborhoods in different years; that the Commission was surprised with the decreased Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district valuations since a large section of the TIF district was improved by the Main Street Improvement project and occupancy in buildings increased. Mayor Patterson stated that the valuations are based on the income that commercial properties are able to produce; that rental costs have been reduced in the TIF district to keep the properties occupied. Mayor Patterson stated that citizens usually come before the Commission wanting something during the budget hearings; that citizens seldom come before the Commission to complain of their property taxes; that it is productive for citizens to make statements regarding the difficulty in paying this tax bill. Mayor Patterson continued that discussions are not heard at the County Commission level in regard to City citizens being heavily charged for services they do not receive; that the County Commission has District Commissioners, and the District Commissioner representing the City has never brought this issue to the County Commission. Mayor Patterson further stated that $13 million per year is received from property taxes for the City of Sarasota's budget; that the City is charged $2.5 million per year for Sheriff road patrol which is something city citizens do not receive; that City citizens' tax bill would be reduced by 20% if that $2.5 million charge was eliminated; that she has always been mystified why 50,000 City citizens do not approach the County Commission as a special interest group to state that being charged for services not received is unfair and they want it changed; that other counties in the State of Florida address that issue fairly, but Sarasota County is not one of them. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3819 by title only. Commissioner Atkins left the Commission Chambers at 7:15 p.m. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3819 on first reading. Commissioner Atkins returned to the Commission Chambers at 7:16 p.m. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that citizens who came before the Commission were focusing on their property assessments; that there is much confusion in the community regarding the rationale for the increased assessment valuations; however, the overall assessed value in the City of Sarasota only increased by 1.8%; that if assessed values in various neighborhoods of the City are increasing by 10%, 15%, 30%, 40%, other assessed values had to decrease; that the decreases may have occurred only in the commercial areas, and the residential areas obviously took a hit this year, but the City of Sarasota has adhered to a tight budget; that the budget increased by less than the projected rate of inflation which means the Commission has budgeted wiser to get the same amount of services from dollars that are worth less. Vice Mayor Merrill continued that the City has survived a recession; that City employees, Department Heads, the City Manager, and Commissioners should be thanked for getting through a recession without leaving the City in a financial bind; that reserves are solid and the Administration has been downsized to a number of City employees Book 37 Page 10852 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10853 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. necessary to perform the essential services; that he anticipates an increase in the overall assessed valuation which will enable the City to stay with inflation next year; that he is proud to stand behind the budget presented; that it continues to deliver the necessary services, and the public should accept it; that the portions of the budget which can be controlled by the Commission have remained below the rate of inflation. Commissioner Atkins stated that the FY 94/95 budget is a "bare- boned" budget; that he has struggled with the budget process over the past four or five years as the City laid-off a substantial number of employeesi that it is important for the public to understand that all of the residential homeowners in north Sarasota County had their assessments increased; that it appears the Property Appraiser completes assessments in quadrants; that there is a serious outcry concerning the percentage of tax increases associated with assessed valuations experienced in north Sarasota County; that he personally received an increased assessed valuation this year; that the process is working as best as it can. Commissioner Atkins continued that he does not feel the quality of services are as good as what was delivered last year, and are definitely not as good as what was delivered four years ago. Commissioner Atkins further stated that this is a concern with which the Commission should continue to work; that government in a democratic society is paid for by the people; that governmental bodies can only hope to be able to truly say that tax assessments are fair, and with that continue forward. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission was originally presented with a budget which contained no tax increases, lay-offs, or raises, maintained the reserve funds, and had no deficit spending; that she was pleased with that proposed budget; however, through the budget process strong support was voiced for employee salary increases which she agrees are overdue; that a part of her is not pleased with portions of this budget; however, she will vote to support it as presented tonight. Mayor Patterson stated that the 2.5% salary increase included in the budget compensates employees for the increased cost of living (COLA) i that the Commission did not initially think the City could afford to provide salary increases to employees; that the Commission supported funding a 2.5% COLA for employees when an increase in the revised estimate of revenue to the General Fund from ad valorem taxes was presented during the budget process; that she does not believe there would have been votes by the Commission to support increasing the millage to provide salary increases; that 2.5% is a minimal increase and the funding is available, therefore, she supports providing a salary increase. Mayor Patterson continued that property tax increases did not occur only in the north quadrant; that she resides in the extreme south part of the City, and her property taxes increased by 20% which she does not feel is unfair for her particular piece of property. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3817, AMENDING CHAPTER 33, TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLES, BY ADDING THERETO ARTICLE V, COMBAT AUTOMOBILE THEFT PROGRAM, WHICH SHALL PROVIDE DEFINITIONS, CREATE THE AUTOMOBILE THEFT PROGRAM, CREATE THE ENROLLMENT PROCEDURES FOR ENROLLMENT INTO SAID PROGRAM, ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR TERMINATION OF ENROLLMENT INTO SAID PROGRAM, AND DETERMINE THE LACK OF CIVIL LIABILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SAID PROGRAM; MAKING FINDINGS AS TO THE PROPRIETY FOR SAID PROGRAM; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT: PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF: ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (3058) through (3615) Gordon Jolly, Chief of Public Safety Police Services Bureau, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 94- 3817 adopts the Statewide Combat Automobile Theft (C.A.T.) Program which is authorized by Florida State Statute 316.009 (6); that the C.A.T. Program provides vehicle owners the opportunity to register their automobiles at any Sarasota County law enforcement agency or American Automobile Association (AAA) Club; that the purpose of the C.A.T. program is to discourage auto thefts; that the vehicle owners sign a hold harmless agreement which authorizes law enforcement officers of any law enforcement agency to stop C.A.T. Program vehicles without other cause at any time between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m.; that participants in the C.A.T. Program are issued a decal which must be displayed in their vehicle on the lower, left-hand portion of the rear window to notify law enforcement officers that the vehicle can be stopped; that Sarasota County has adopted this program by ordinance and administers it through the Sarasota County Sheriff's office. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. city Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3817 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3817 on first reading. Commissioner Atkins stated that giving the Police the authority to stop a vehicle and frisk the driver at any time between 1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. is absurd; that he is concerned with citizens who may not realize that posting this decal in their vehicle will give the Book 37 Page 10854 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10855 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Police the right to stop their vehicle anytime between 1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. even if the vehicle is being driven by themselves or their children. Mayor Patterson stated that the police are not given the authority to frisk the drivers of the vehicles. City Attorney Taylor stated that the purpose of the vehicle stop is to check for ownership. Commissioner Cardamone asked for the cost associated with the C.A.T. Program. Police Chief Jolly stated that there is no identifiable cost to the City of Sarasota; that administration of the C.A.T. program will be provided by the Sarasota County Sheriff's office who will provide the City of Sarasota Public Safety Department with registration forms and decals; that the completed registration forms will be returned to the Sheriff's office for entry into their records system; that a police officer's time will be the only cost to the city. Police Chief Jolly continued that the C.A.T. program is a voluntary program; that it does not entitle a police officer to frisk anyone unless the person fits the criteria for reasonable suspicion; that the purpose of the vehicle stop between 1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. is to determine ownership and whether or not an automobile is a stolen vehicle; that citizens or citizens with children who would normally be driving on the road between those hours would not enroll in the C.A.T. program. Mayor Patterson asked for clarification on what a person will receive and be required to sign to enroll in the C.A.T. program. Police Chief Jolly stated that a hold-harmless agreement will be signed; that the participants will be given a copy of the standard operating procedure which outlines the program and notifies the participant that enrolling in the C.A.T. program permits police officers to stop the enrolled vehicle between 1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. to determine if the vehicle has been stolen; that the participants will receive an instruction sheet which states that no quick movements should be made when the vehicle is stopped and hands should be kept in sight to allay the suspicions of the police officer. Commissioner Atkins stated that the public is permitting their vehicle to be pulled over anytime a decal is placed in the rear window; that any and everything that may be in those vehicles will be put at risk; that the participants will have to be careful if they are pulled over, making sure no sudden movements are made; that this is one of those incremental moves that is taking the City one step closer to a visible police state; that he doesn't believe the public understands what rights they will be giving up if they enroll in this program. Mayor Patterson stated that if Ordinance No. 94-3817 passes on first reading, the exact information which will be provided to participants upon enrollment should be included in the agenda packets for Commission review at second reading. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that data related to the C.A.T. program, i.e., the number of participants, associated problems, etc., should be obtained from the Sheriff's Department for Commission review. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (3 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3825, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1716 OAK STREET, HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS THE ELLA DULA WESTERMANN TENANT HOUSE, AS A STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-HD-12, LYBRAND) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #1 (3617) through #2 (0189) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Lorrie Muldowney, Sarasota County Historical Resources Specialist, came before the Commission. Ms. Robinson stated that proposed Ordinance No. 94-3825 designates the structure located at 1716 Oak Street, historically known as the Ella Dula Westermann Tenant House, as a structure of historic significance; that the Historic Preservation Board, at its meeting dated July 12, 1994, recommended approval of Petition 94-HD-12 (main structure only) to the City Commission; that the Sarasota County Historical Resources staff recommended approval. Ms. Muldowney displayed slides on the slide projector and explained the historical significance of the property. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3825 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3825 on first reading. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. Book 37 Page 10856 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10857 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3826, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 2846 SOUTH RIVERSIDE DRIVE, HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS THE C. E. HITCHINGS L JUDGE FOSLER RESIDENCE, AS A STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-HD- 17, ABBOTT) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #2 (0189) through (0307) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Lorrie Muldowney, Sarasota County Historical Resources Specialist, came before the Commission. Ms. Robinson stated that proposed Ordinance No. 94-3826 designates the structure located at 2846 South Riverside Drive, historically known as the C.E. Hitchings/Judge Fosler Residence, as a structure of historic significance; that the Historic Preservation Board, at its meeting dated July 12, 1994, recommended approval of Petition 94-HD-17 (main structure only) to the City Commission; that Sarasota County Historical Resources staff recommended approval. Cooper Abbott, Petitioner, came before the Commission, displayed a slide presentation, and explained the historical significance of the property. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. city Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3826 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3826 on first reading. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 12. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3827, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 451 WOODLAND DRIVE, HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS THE DR. GEORGE DAY HOUSE, AS A STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-HD-18, COTTEN) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-5) #1 (0309) through (0473) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Lorrie Muldowney, Sarasota County Historical Resources Specialist, came before the Commission. Ms. Robinson stated that proposed Ordinance No. 94-3827 designates the structure located at 451 Woodland Drive, historically known as the Dr. George Day House, as a structure of historic significance; that the Historic Preservation Board, at its meeting dated July 12, 1994, recommended approval of Petition 94-HD-18 (main structure only) to the City Commission; that the Sarasota County Historical Resources staff recommended approval. Mikki Hartig, Historic Preservationist, representing the Petitioner, came before the Commission, displayed a slide presentation and explained the historic significance of the property. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3827 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3827 on first reading. Mayor Patterson requested that city Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 13. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3828, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 76 SOUTH WASHINGTON DRIVE, AS STRUCTURES OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-HD-19, HARTIG) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-6) #2 (0473) through (0565) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Lorrie Muldowney, Sarasota County Historical Resources Specialist, came before the Commission. Ms. Robinson stated that proposed Ordinance No. 94-3828 designates the structure located at 76 South Washington Drive, as structures of historic significance; that the Historic Preservation Board, at its meeting dated July 12, 1994, recommended approval of Petition 94-HD-18 (main structure and garage) to the City Commission; that the Sarasota County Historical Resources staff recommended approval. Book 37 Page 10858 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10859 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Mikki Hartig, Petitioner, came before the Commission, displayed a slide presentation and explained the historic significance of the property. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. city Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3828 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3828 on first reading. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that it was nice to be able to vote for houses which simply wanted the historic designation without having to analyze whether or not the property owner was attempting to make the property commercial. Ms. Hartig stated that she will advise the Commission at the Historic Preservation public hearings if a property petitioning for historic designation plans to petition for a special exception; that it will not be a hidden item. 14. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEMS NOS. 1, 2, 4, 5, AND 6 - APPROVED: ITEM NO. 3 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #2 (0565) through (0764) Commissioner Cardamone requested that Item No. 3 be removed for discussion. 1. Approval Re: Five year extension for O'Leary's Lease and Concession Agreement. 2. Approval Re: Award of Contract and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract to M.L. Boyer Construction, Inc., Bradenton, Florida, (Bid #94- 125) for City-wide bridge repairs. 4. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Third Amendment to the Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFMD) for the Tuttle Avenue Reclaimed Water Transmission Line. 5. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the First Amendment to the Contract Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Wilhelm Brothers, Inc., for the Grounds and Field Maintenance for Ed Smith Stadium and Sports Complex 6. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 94-3823, amending Chapter 24, Personnel, Article II, Pensions, Division 3, Police, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Sarasota; amending Section 24-69 (b) of the Code, death in performance of duties, to delete termination of spousal benefit upon remarriage; repealing all Ordinances in conflict herewith; providing for severability of the parts hereof if declared in- valid; etc. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1,, Items 1, 2, and 4 through 6 inclusive. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 3. Approval Re: Award of Contract and authorize the Mayor and city Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract to Len Ray, Inc., Sarasota, Florida (Bid #94-128) for the American with Disabilities Act (A.D.A.) alterations for various City owned buildings. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she is concerned with the future use of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way substation and spending money on a building that is rarely used; and asked for clarification on the expenses necessary to prepare it to meet the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Act requirements. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City is required by State law to have all City buildings made handicap-accessible by January 1995; that the Public Safety Department has no plans to abandon the use of the structure for police purposes; that a portion of the substation is utilized for educational purposesi that it is the City's responsibilities to make the necessary modifications required. Commissioner Cardamone asked how long the substation has been used for educational purposes? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the building has been utilized for instructional purposes for the past six years; that the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Academy provides classes during the morning and early afternoon hours; that the North County Educational Assistance Program, conducted on a voluntary basis by Mrs. Willie Mae Sheffield, operates when those classes terminate. Commissioner Atkins stated that also a Neighborhood Association utilizes the substation for meetings. Book 37 Page 10860 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10861 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she does not have a problem with completing the work; however, she hopes the substation will be actively used for police services. Gordon Jolly, Chief of Public Safety Police Services Bureau, came before the Commission and stated that the Public Safety Department has no plans to terminate the use of the substation for police purposes; and that a commitment has been made to the North County Educational Assistance Program for continued use. Police Chief Jolly continued that a possibility of utilizing the substation for an in-school suspension program under the auspices of the North County Educational Assistance Program is being discussed with Dr. Charles Fowler, Superintendent of Sarasota County Schools; that this would help minimize the amount of juvenile delinquency that occurs when suspended students roam the streets. Mayor Patterson asked if police officers utilize the substation? Police Chief Jolly stated that is correct. Mayor Patterson stated that there is a $26,000 cost included to meet ADA requirements at the Sarasota Mobile Home Park; that providing the stage lift may be a substantial portion of the cost. Mayor Patterson asked for the cost of providing the stage lift and if it is the only way to meet the ADA requirement? Earl Stinson, Deputy Director of General Services, came before the Commission and stated that the recommended stage lift is the only way to meet the ADA requirement; that the cost for the stage lift is estimated at $7,000 to $9,000. Mr. Sollenberger stated that a similar stage lift was installed at the Municipal Auditorium. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item 3. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 15. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-741) ADOPTED; AND ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-764) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #2 (0769) through (0806) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 94R- 741 by title only and Resolution No. 94R-764 in its entirety. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-741, accepting abatement of nuisance and cost reports pertaining to the removal of accumulations of junk, rubbish, trash or other offending matter; directing the assessment of a lien against the property described in each abatement report for the amount stated therein; etc. (Title Only) Mayor Patterson left the Commission Chambers at 7:55 p.m. 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-764, appropriating $6,500 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (Forfeitures) to fund room, board, travel and tuition for Command Officers Development Course Training On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2, Items 1 and 2. Vice Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (3 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes. Mayor Patterson returned to the Commission Chambers at 7:57 p.m. 16. SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS: PRESENTATION RE: LIDO BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT - REPORT RECEIVED; REFERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATION TO REOUEST A RESOLUTION FROM THE COUNTY IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT (AGENDA ITEM V) #2 (0809) through (2245) Lonnie Ryder, Environmental Administrator, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Division of Beaches and Shores (DBS), came before the Commission and stated that he is before the Comission to answer the following questions regarding the Lido Key Beach Renourishment Project which were addressed to him in a letter from the City Administration dated April 11, 1994: 1. What could we do differently to get our Project funded during the upcoming fiscal year? Mr. Ryder stated that the only way to bring something to the Legislature is to have a very visible, well-lobbied item; that this item did not receive strong lobbying efforts from the local legislative delegation; that a better lobbying effort must be pursued by the City of Sarasota, Sarasota County, and Longboat Key; that at an earlier meeting today, the Town of Longboat Key expressed an interest in assisting with lobbying efforts for the project. Mr. Ryder continued that he was disappointed with the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association's lobbying effort with the Beach Management Program; that a meeting will be held on October 12, 1994, at which time this item will be discussed at length; that, hopefully, the Association's lobbying efforts will be more effective in the coming year. Mr. Ryder further stated that a budget has been presented to the Governor; that it is important to have this item included in the budget presented to the Legislature from the Governor; that resolutions to the Governor from the City Commission, County Commission, and the Town of Longboat Key Commission, as well as letters from interested groups on behalf of this project would be helpful in the immediate future; that the Book 37 Page 10862 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10863 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Governor will present his budget to the Legislature between September and mid-October; that a specific date for the Governor's budget submission will be forwarded to the Commission; that a strong lobbying effort to the Governor's office in an attempt to have the item included in the Governor's recommended budget is an important hurdle and one which provides visibility for the project. 2. Do we need a Federal funding assistance to assure State funding? Mr. Ryder stated that projects with Federal funds attached are funded by the Legislature; however, attaching Federal funds to a project is not the only way to get a project through the Legislature; that many totally State/Local government funded projects have been funded through the Legislature. 3. Can we take credit for the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) maintenance dredging of the New Pass as Federal funding assistance? Mr. Ryder stated that a meeting was held earlier today regarding realignment of the New Pass channel and a possible split of sand between the Town of Longboat Key and the city of Sarasota; that the realignment issue was agreed upon; however, the sand issue has not been resolved; that he attempted to tie the maintenance dredging project into the Lido Key Beach Renourishment project, but it cannot be used for a matching basis; that he believes funding for the project can be secured with an effective lobbying effort. 4. Should we pursue an offshore sand source? Mr. Ryder stated that an offshore sand source should be pursued; that the sand dredged from New Pass is a very fine sand which erodes rapidly; that the high erosion rate on Lido Key Beach can be attributed to the use of this very fine sand; that the longevity of a project would be much greater if a good quality sand was retrieved offshore for use in a true restoration project on Lido Key Beach. Mr. Ryder continued that the necessary steps will be taken to revise the application submitted to the Governor with the FDEP budget if the Commission decides to pursue an offshore sand source which would require additional funds. 5. Should we pursue alternative means of beach stabilization? The Commission is particularly interested in the stabilized base material placed as "steps" at Casey Key. Mr. Ryder stated that alternative means of beach stabilization should not be pursued for this particular project; that using a better quality sand would increase the longevity and be cost effective; that Lido Key is a recreational beach, and he does not recommend using "steps" or a soil cementation method; that cementing the beach will not be conducive to recreational pursuits; that some individuals perceive the soil cementation method as a cost effective medium between a restoration project and a seawall; however, the result is actually a cemented beach with reduced recreational benefits; that he is not sure the storm protection from soil cementation, as indicated between 400 and 500 pounds per square inch (PSI) by certain schools of thought, actually exists. Mr. Ryder continued that he does not advise alternative means of beach stabilization; that he strongly advises a restoration project for Lido Key Beach using an offshore sand source to provide a quality sand. 6. What is the availability of State funding for alternative beach stabilization projects? Mr. Ryder stated that there is no State funding available for alternative beach stabilization projects; that requests for funds to monitor other means of beach stabilization have been denied over the past few years; that he does not anticipate the Legislature funding these low-priority items next year. Commissioner Cardamone asked for a brief overview on the New Pass channel realignment discussions which were mentioned. Mr. Ryder stated that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Division of Beaches and Shores (FDEP-DBS) coastal engineers have studied and concur with the New Pass channel realignment. Mayor Patterson stated she is aware of the project which has been proposed; however, the City Commission has received no information on the New Pass realignment. Richard Spadoni, Coastal ingineer/B10l0g18t, Coastal Planning & Engineering (CPE), Inc., came before the Commission and stated that discussions have been held regarding realigning the New Pass channel to the south; that the Town of Longboat Key feels that the current position of the channel causes an erosive impact on Longboat Key; that CPE opposed the Town of Longboat Key's original proposal to allow the channel to become natural, since it would place the channel far to the south, directly against Lido Key, and create further problems on Lido Key; that another proposal presented by the Town of Longboat Key was to shift the channel to the south by 100 to 150 feet; that this directs the channel through the major portion of the shoal, but not directly against Lido Key; that CPE evaluated and modified this proposal to include a different alignment in the area of Lido Key; that CPE, as the City's consultant, felt that the proposal as modified would not impact Lido Key. Mr. Spadoni continued that there have been no firm decisions made with regard to the realignment proposal. Book 37 Page 10864 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10865 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission, displayed and explained a sketch drawing of the realignment proposal by CPE in comparison to the realignment proposed by Applied Technology Management (ATM), Town of Longboat Key's coastal engineers. Mr. Daughters stated that an appropriate Commission presentation on this item will be scheduled in the future. Commissioner Cardamone stated that each time the New Pass channel is moved to the south, the homeowners residing along the channel have experienced major seawall problems. Mr. Daughters stated that those concerns were the basis for modifying the realignment less to the south; that prior to the last dredging, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) had dredged outside to the south of the authorized channel; that this caused a concern for the private property owners along the south side of New Pass channel and resulted in the problems experienced with their seawalls. Commissioner Cardamone stated that her concern is for older homes and properties located west of the bridge. Mr. Daughters stated that the realignment would not impact that area. Mayor Patterson stated that dredging passes seems to be largely responsible for beach erosion; and asked for the long term effects of not dredging New Pass. Mr. Spadoni stated that Lido Key would experience major problems if the New Pass channel was not dredged; that the natural current of the New Pass channel is attempting to shift south and establish immediately adjacent to Lido Key, which is not good; that dredging a hole through the shoal relieves some of the erosive pressure occurring on Lido Key and funnels it through the middle portion of the shoal. Mayor Patterson stated that the Town of Longboat Key's effort to lengthen the groin to 500 feet and establish a groin or seawall at the Lands End condominium has been well publicized in the Longboat Observer; and asked for clarification of these efforts. Mr. Ryder stated that an application has been filed with the State of Florida from the Environmental Protection Agency for a 100-foot extension. Mr. Spadoni stated that the Town of Longboat Key intends to extend the groin, which is considered a jetty, to the east to relieve the serious erosion difficulties experience at the southern end of Longboat Key; that extending the existing jetty by 100 feet will create a minor build-out by trapping some of the shifting sand deposited during the restoration project. Mayor Patterson stated that she is mystified by the current dispute between Sarasota and the Town of Longboat key associated with the percentage of sand sharing from the USACE dredging; that a State Statute states that dredged sand should be deposited on the beaches south of the dredging since that is the direction the sand naturally moves; that Lido Key is south and Longboat Key is north; that Lido Key beaches will suffer if restoration sand from the dredging is placed on the Longboat Key beaches and then trapped by a jetty. Mayor Patterson continued that sand is being dredged from a shoal which is the proposed sand source for the City of Sarasota; that the City is requesting the USACE, a public resource, to deposit sand on a public beach on which no private properties are located or will receive the benefit; that the Town of Longboat Key does not intend to place the entirety of sand on a public beach; that a 50/50 sharing is not realistic. Mayor Patterson asked for the State's position on this issue. Mr. Ryder stated that the Town of Longboat Key and the City of Sarasota continue to have an agreement reflecting a 50/50 sand sharing of dredged material. Mayor Patterson stated that agreement was never signed. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the agreement was a three- party agreement with the Town of Longboat Key, Sarasota County, and the City of Sarasota; that the County, recognized as the local sponsor by USACE, was required as a signatory; that the County Administration did not feel a 50/50 sand sharing was appropriate, therefore, would not place the agreement before the Board of County Commissioners for approval. Mr. Sollenberger continued that a 1989 dredging project was scheduled, and, at that time, the County supported a 100% sand deposit on Lido Key beach; that the Town of Longboat Key approached the Congressman in office at the time for intervention, and the 1989 dredging project was postponed; that this occurred subsequent to the November 1988 tropical storm Marco during which the majority of Lido Key beach was lost and sandbagging was necessary to protect the infrastructure; that Lido Key was in desperate need for sand, and, to assure a 1990 dredging project, which actually started in late 1990 and carried forward into 1991, an agreement had to be reached with the Town of Longboat Key. Mr. Sollenberger further stated that the coastal engineers agreed that lateral movement warranted a 35/65 sand sharing; however, the Town of Longboat Key was adamant on a 50/50 sand sharing until compensation for the advantage the City had since 1972 was received; that the City agreed to those terms; however, recent data compiled by CPE reflects an 85% sand need for Sarasota; that ATM disagreed with CPE's findings and a technical dispute developed which has not been resolved. Mayor Patterson asked if the agreement was fully executed? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the agreement was not executed by the County; however, the City of Sarasota and the Town of Longboat Key reached an agreement as outlined. Book 37 Page 10866 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10867 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Ryder stated that Mayor Patterson was referring to State Statute 161.161 in that the Department of Environmental Protection is mandated to develop management plans for all modified and approved inlets around the State of Florida; that the purpose of developing inlet management plans is to determine the amount of sand which should have been bypassed past the inlet if the inlet had not been modified and to determine the best techniques available to bypass the material to the downdrift shores. Mr. Ryder continued that downdrift does not necessarily mean to the south; that sand movement occurs both to the north and the south; that a determination on the net sand going north and south must be made. Mr. Ryder further stated that two competent coastal engineering firms have sediment distributions that are in conflict; that the FDEP-DBS coastal engineers will meet with CPE and ATM representatives and the conflict will be identified and resolved at a state level. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission was told during a presentation regarding the New Pass dredging project that State dollars or USACE dredged sand could not be used to renourish non- public beaches; however, the sand from this USACE dredging would clearly be placed on non-public beach areas of Longboat Key; and asked if this is relevant? Mr. Ryder stated that the Town of Longboat Key will be required to pay for the material placed on Longboat Key shores; that the idea of an inlet is to bypass the amount of sand which should have been bypassed regardless if there is public access or not. Mayor Patterson stated that she participated in lobbying efforts for the Lido Key Beach Renourishment Project last year by contacting residents in the area to write letters to the State representatives in addition to contacting those representatives herself; that after the votes were finalized, the State representatives told her that the item would not receive their support without federal funding attached since that was the rationale used on the projects which were chosen. Mr. Ryder stated that projects were funded last year which did not have federal funds attached. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the process for receiving federal funding is lengthy, i.e., a 7 to 10 year program; that the City should seek federal funding, but it should not stand in the way of successfully lobbying for State funding. Mr. Ryder stated that he concurs. Mayor Patterson thanked Mr. Ryder for taking the time to make this presentation. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to receive the FDEP report and refer to the Administration requesting a resolution from the County in support of State funding for the Lido Key Beach Renourishment project. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 17. CITIZENS' INPUT (AGENDA ITEM VI): : #2 (2256) through (2256) There was no one signed up to speak. 18. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING FOR THE LIDO KEY BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #2 (2258) through (2325) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends approval on this item; that the $85,867 necessary to execute the study will be funded through the Tourist Development Tax; that an application can be filed for 75% State reimbursement which would reduce the City's cost to $21,000; however, there are no guarantees State reimbursement will be approved. Mr. Sollenberger continued that the study is necessary to locate an offshore sand source whether or not State reimbursement can be secured. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pâtterson, yes. 19. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: DOGS AT ISLAND PARK - AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE CONTAINING LEASH AND CLEAN-UP REQUIREMENTS AT THE BAYFRONT; DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION TO IDENTIFY, AND REQUEST THE COUNTY TO IDENTIFY, POTENTIAL PET EXERCISE AREA(S) AND TO REPORT BACK TO THE PARKS, RECREATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADVISORY BOARD: DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION TO REVISE THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENT OF THE CURRENT LEASH ORDINANCE FROM WITHIN 300 FEET TO WITHIN 100 FEET OF AN OWNER (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #2 (2325) through (3324) V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that on August 1, 1994, the City Commission adopted a nine-point action plan which included staff meeting with citizens who spoke at the Commission meeting about problems created by dogs in Island Park; that the focus of the effort was the need to clean up after the dogs and to address the adequacy of the existing leash law provisions; that the Committee consisting of two citizens who spoke at the meeting, and the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Book 37 Page 10868 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10869 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Protection Advisory Board Chairman, met with staff on August 9 and 18; that consensus on the following recommendations were reached: 1. Leash Requirements: Citywide applicability to household pets, not only dogs; defining the required restraint with its length not to exceed 26 feet, the length of the longest standard retractable leash sold commercially; include a provision for leash release during swimming; and exclude dogs used to assist sight or hearing impaired persons, kennel club events or dog shows, and dogs that race at commercial dog tracks. 2. Clean-up Requirements: Require pet owners or custodian to immediately remove the fecal matter deposited by his/her animal and carry necessary equipment to do so. 3. Establish designated exercise areas: Request both City and County to provide an area where pets could run unrestricted; Mr. Schneider continued that the Administration recommendation is as follows: 1. Authorize preparation of an ordinance that will contain provisions on leash requirements, clean-up requirements, Citywide applicability, and the inclusion of household pets, not just dogs; and 2. Direct the Administration to request that the County identify potential pet exercise area(s), City to do the same, and report back to the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Board. Anthony Albano, representing the Essex House, came before the Commission and stated that Island Park does not have an area large enough to accommodate a pet exercise area; that he does not support allowing dogs at Island Park; that ample area to walk dogs exists along U.S. 41 from the Bayfront to Mound Street; that Island Park should be for people; that another condominium is being built in that area which will house approximately 100 additional families who will utilize the park. Mr. Albano continued that efforts of pet owners cleaning up. after their pets has not improved substantially; that droppings are still observed on the sidewalks and throughout the park; that the leash law is not being upheld; that dogs still run around loose while their owners converse; that no enforcement of the laws has been observed; that the only police presence observed has been in the early morning hours to eject homeless people present; that dogs are brought to the park during the evening hours. Mr. Albano further stated that Gillespie Park, which is a County-maintained park, is larger than Island Park and would be a more suitable site to allow dogs to run unleashed. Mr. Albano stated that the homeless issue is the major problem at Island Park; that increased homeless activity is occurring on Gulfstream Avenue; that the Dolphin Tower condominium experienced several instances in which a homeless person tried to gain access to the building. Mr. Schneider stated that animals would be allowed on the Bayfront and Island Park, but leashes would be required; that no free running animals would be allowed; that the pet exercise area would not be located at the Bayfront or at Island Park; that an area would need to be identified for a pet exercise area to be established in the City; that the Committee discussed and rejected Island Park as a potential pet exercise area. Mr. Schneider continued that County rules of no dogs allowed prevail at all County-maintained parks located within the City; that this ordinance would apply to city-maintained parks, i.e., the Bayfront and Island Park. Mayor Patterson stated that Island Park, Ken Thompson Park, and the strip at Bird Key Park are the only City parks where dogs are allowed; that the City may be promising something that cannot be delivered; that citizens using County parks in which dogs are currently not allowed may oppose having a section of those parks designated as pet exercise areas. Commissioner Atkins stated that he is concerned with the decisions the County may make on this issue regarding the County-maintained parks within the City; that there are two parks within District 1 where free-running dogs would not be welcomed. Mr. Schneider stated that it can expressed to the County that the City desires no changes to the existing rules pertaining to animals at County-maintained parks located in the City, if that is the wish of the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a park which is minimally used should be identified for use as a pet exercise area; that such a park may not exist within the City, but may exist in the Countyi that the request seems reasonable and should be explored. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation. Commissioner Cardamone stated that her neighborhood has an abundance of cats running loose; that she cannot wait to see those cats on a leash. Mayor Patterson stated that requiring cats to be on a leash is not practical and should be clarified; that she is not supporting that in the motion. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that this proposed ordinance was drafted by dog owners; that discussion should be held with the cat owners if the Commission's intent is to enforce the leash law for cats; Book 37 Page 10870 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10871 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. that a problem exists in a particular park and his intent was to address that problem; that the proposed ordinance should focus on dogs. Commissioner Atkins stated that he accepts that focus. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she has a problem with that focus. Mayor Patterson stated that she will vote for this ordinance if that is the will of the Commission; however, she wonders if residents residing on quiet streets who walk down that street with their dogs under control should be forced to leash their dogs; that an ordinance specific to Island Park would be preferable; that a Citywide leash law would be difficult to enforce. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the City currently has a leash law; that she does not expect to have a police officer on every corner attempting to find an offender; that her intent of enforcing the leash law was being able to step out on her sidewalk and state, "The city has a leash law, and I would prefer you have your dog on a leash while you are walking in my neighborhood." Commissioner Cardamone continued that dogs running loose in some of the City neighborhoods are as much of a problem as the dogs running loose in Island Park; that children who play in neighborhoods are at a higher risk from dogs running loose than the affected park users. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Commission should not pass an ordinance that will affect those communities which have not voiced a problem with dogs running loose, or pass an ordinance with an intent that it not be enforced. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Mayor Patterson (who passed the gavel to Commissioner Cardamone), it was moved to amend the proposed ordinance to apply only to the Bayfront area. Amendment carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. Commissioner Cardamone called for a vote on the main motion as amended to approve the Administration's recommendation applicable only to the Bayfront area. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the public should voice their opinions regarding unleashed dogs; that the general public may not understand that the current leash law pertains not to leashing a dog, but to having a dog in control which is defined as being within 300 feet of its owner. Mayor Patterson stated that 300 feet is excessive. On motion of Mayor Patterson (who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Merrill) and second of Vice Mayor Merrill (who passed the gavel to Commissioner Cardamone), it was moved to revise the current leash ordinance from within 300 feet to within 100 feet. Mayor Patterson stated that 300 feet is a lengthy distance to control of a dog; that 100 feet was chosen arbitrarily; that aside from the Island Park situation, she feels the distance should be reduced to address some of Commissioner Cardamone's issues. Commissioner Cardamone called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried (3 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 20. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS - AUTHORIZED STAFF TO ADVERTISE AS MODIFIED AND PROCEED WITH THE SCREENING PROCESS (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #2 (3340) through (3441) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that a draft of the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the comprehensive review of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) was prepared on August 25, 1994; that meetings were held with each of the City Commissioners to discuss the draft; that the RFP was revised to include the nine concerns of the Commission; that the changes were forwarded to the Commission by memorandum and are included in the Agenda packets. Ms. Robinson continued that the Administration's recommendation is to authorize staff to advertise the RFP and proceed with the screening process; that three firms will be selected by a screening committee for on-site interviews with the City Commission, if the staff is authorized to proceed. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve the request to advertise the RFP with modifications as listed in the September 6, 1994, memorandum and proceed with the screening process. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 21. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 94R-762, APPROPRIATING $5,421 FROM THE UNRESERVED GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCE TO PAY THE COSTS OF REPAIRS MADE BY BRIAN BISHOP IN FEBRUARY 1994 AS A SUBCONTRACTOR TO HLS COMPANIES, THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR FOR THE MAIN STREET BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-4) #2 (3444) through (3525) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 94R- 762 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 94R-762. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed Book 37 Page 10872 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10873 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (3 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, no. 22. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: MUNICIPAL SIDEWALK PROJECTS, PHASE I - AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATION TO PROCEED WITH THE DESIGN-BUILD SIDEWALK PROJECTS, EXCLUDING SHORELAND AND SPRING CREEK DRIVES; REFERRED MIDWEST PARKWAY, /DAVIS BOULEVARD PUMP STATION SAFETY ISSUE TO THE ADMINISTRATION (AGENDA ITEM VII-5) #2 (3526) through (1478) Alexandrea Hay, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that a procedure has been proposed for providing sidewalks; that sidewalks have been categorized into three categories: 1) primary sidewalks-to-schools projects which are the main segments to provide routes to schools or bus stops, 2) secondary sidwalks-to-schools projects which are on residential streets with eight or more children, and 3) new sidewalk projects which include any other sidewalk requested by a neighborhood with eight children or less on the street; that surveys were sent to the residents of the following segments where sidewalks are proposed: Royal Palm Avenue Primary Davis Boulevard Primary Midwest Parkway Primary 7th Street Primary Hyde Park Street Primary Shade Avenue Primary Shoreland Drive Secondary Spring Creek Drive Secondary Golden Sands Drive Secondary Ms. Hay continued that the results of the survey are included in the Commission's agenda packet, however, several more responses were received subsequent to inclusion; that 8 additional negative responses were received from residents of Spring Creek Drive, which revises the total negative responses to 22; that one additional positive response was received from a Hyde Park Street resident; that based on the responses received, the Administration recommends eliminating Spring Creek Drive and Shoreland Drive from the sidewalk construction program. The following individuals came before the Commission: Mary Gore, 286 Midwest Parkway, stated that her property is located on the corner of Midwest Parkway and Davis Boulevard where a bus stop was originally designated; that this location intersects with a pump station and electrical box on which the children would climb and play; therefore, she worked with the school to have the bus stop relocated; that locating the sidewalk at this location will bring back the bus stop and put the children at the pump station and in danger. Mayor Patterson stated that placing the sidewalk at that location would not necessitate its also being a bus stop. Ms. Gore stated that she works for Sarasota District Schools and is a school bus driver; that the bus stop will be designated where the sidewalk is placed so children will not have to cross the street; that the bus stop was finally moved, but if a sidewalk is installed at this location, the bus stop will be brought back to where it was previously; that there is no reason for the children to be at the corner of Midwest Parkway and Davis Boulevard. Mr. Gore continued that Bearded Oaks subdivision is located on the opposite side of Midwest Parkway; that the children coming from Bearded Oaks will have to cross Midwest Parkway to get to sidewalk intersection if it is placed on that corner; that currently the bus stop was relocated to the southeast corner of a lot where there is plenty of room and nothing on which the children can get hurt; that the children will be right back at the pump station which has an 8-foot drop into the sewer if the sidewalk is constructed where planned; that the children used to break the locks and open the door on top of that pump station; that this is a dangerous situation. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if the location for the sidewalk has been designated? Ms. Hay stated that the location has been tentatively designated; that once approval is received for the specific sidewalk segments, meetings will be held with the contractor to review the location of utilities, trees, etc., to determine the exact location for sidewalk placement. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the County currently requires erection of a fence when a new lift station is built for exactly the reasons being discussed; that the City should erect a fence at this location for safety purposes since it is a public lift station on a public right-of-way. Mayor Patterson stated that the fence could be landscaped so the area is more attractive. Ms. Gore stated that 2.5 feet of her property is already infringed upon by the lift station; that there is no room at this location for a sidewalk. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the City has not decided on which side of the street the sidewalk will be placed; that the lift station and Ms. Gore's property lines would influence the decision. Commissioner Atkins stated that the data in the survey reflects 11 positive to 8 negative responsesi that there is enough negative response to indicate that a sidewalk may not be desired at this location. Book 37 Page 10874 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10875 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson stated that this segment is part of the Sidewalks- to-Schools project; that the need for the safety of children in certain heavily travelled areas overrides the concern of homeowners for shrubs, etc. Commissioner Atkins asked to what school these children are travelling? Ms. Gore stated the children are going to Fruitville Elementary School by bus; that there are four bus stops in the area: 1) at the corner of Davis Boulevard and Cornelius Circle, 2) off Buckeye Circle, 3) at Midwest Parkway and Davis Boulevard which also serves the Bearded Oaks subdivision, and 4) at Greenway Drive and Midwest Parkway; that there are very few children who live on Midwest Parkwayi that the children live on the circles off of Midwest Parkway. Mayor Patterson stated that the input is valuable and the issue should be referred to the Administration. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the survey indicates the response from residents on Midwest Parkway is 8 negative responses out of a total of 12 residents who responded, so there were 4 positive responses. Ms. Hay stated that the column of the Survey Results entitled "Total responses received" was the actual number of responses; that the letter sent to residents stated that no response would be considered a positive responsei that "Positive responses or did not respond" is the next category on the Survey Results; that the actual number of positive responses received is the difference between the "Total responses received" and the negative responses. Vice Mayor Merrill asked for the total positive responses for the Royal Palm Avenue location. Ms. Hay stated that there are 5 positive responses and 3 negative responses; that the 5 positive responses are included in the 13 responses listed under the category "Positive response did not respond. 1 Mayor Patterson stated that the category should read "Positive response or did not respond." Robin Harrington, 1700 Spring Creek Drive, stated that he finds it ironic that this meeting started with the budget and yet he received in the mail a "survey" stating the City has approved $8 million to be spent on sidewalks; that the survey stated "If the survey is not returned, it will be assumed that you will be in favor of these sidewalks"; that if apathy is a positive statement, he would like to run for Mayor and ask for the votes of the people who did not respond; that the survey was ludicrous; that he went door to door in his neighborhood and, of the eight people who did not respond, eight of them did not support the sidewalks; that he wants to know as a taxpayer why such an assumption would be made in such a situation; that he understands the safety factor for children, but there has not been any survey of children walking on Spring Creek Drive; that there has been no traffic survey since the installation of the speed humps; that he thanks Ms. Hay and Asim Mohammed, Assistant city Engineer, for their assistance; however, if the master plan is set out in the same way this survey was set out, he questions the entire master plan. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she is concerned with the people who were gone for the summer, had misdelivered mail, etc. Mayor Patterson stated that she assumes the City is targeting areas first where school children walk to school or a bus stop; that a desirability for the construction of sidewalks for safety purposes had already been determined by staff; that the method used to survey those areas with an identified need was to determine if the neighborhood objected to construction of these sidewalks. Mayor Patterson asked if this approach was taken for all locations or just Sidewalks to School projects? Ms. Hay stated that the project was broken down into 1) a Sidewalks to Schools project sidewalk, or 2) a new sidewalk; that Sidewalks to School projects are sidewalks in areas with higher children density and will be given preference; that all neighborhoods were surveyed whether in an area designated for a sidewalk to School or a new sidewalk; that a few Sidewalk to School projects were eliminated. Ms. Hay continued that the Commission had made a statement that all Sidewalks to Schools projects should be constructed since there is a safety issue concerning children getting to school; therefore, all sidewalks listed as Sidewalks to Schools were reviewed to determine whether the sidewalk should be a Primary or Secondary sidewalk; that Secondary sidewalks are desired sidewalks to a bus stop or school but are not located on a busy street or main thoroughfare; that "new" sidewalks not included in the above categories would be constructed only if the neighborhood desires the sidewalk. Mayor Patterson asked if the particular method of counting a "nonresponse" as a positive or nonobjective response was applicable to Sidewalks to School projects? Ms. Hay stated that counting a nonresponse as a positive response was done in this particular instance and, based on the input received, the Administration recommends removing the line from future surveys and taking into account only positive and negative responses, thereby not counting absent votes. Commissioner Merrill stated that there is general apathy and, if the Commission waited for someone to ask for things, nothing would Book 37 Page 10876 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10877 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. ever get done; that the completed sidewalk projects, once completed, were well received; that the initial response from the residents will invariable be "no" to something for which they have not asked; that he attended a traffic abatement meeting for one of the streets on which the survey reflects a number of "no" responses; that the question, "Why don't we have sidewalks?" was asked by many residents present at that particular meeting. Vice Mayor Merrill continued that sidewalks are an amenity that residents appreciate after they are built; that sidewalks rank high as a desired item in neighborhood surveys; that a strong consensus against sidewalks in a neighborhood should be considered, but it is fair to include on a survey, "If you do not respond, we will assume you mean yes"; that, overall, this mechanism works. Mayor Patterson stated that the results presented to the Commission can be added up in various ways; however, there is a distinction between a real positive and a nonresponse; that the project is a multi-year project and not something just conceived; that the project came out of a conviction on the part of the Commission that instead of doing grandiose projects, the City should address some of the neighborhood needs which have been strongly voiced; that the data on school children came from the school system rather than age censuses of households; and that the funding for these sidewalks comes from gas tax dollars which cannot be used to pay for Police Officers, etc. Mr. Harrington stated that he has worked with the Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) Department in the Carter Administration on mental health/mental retardation planning; that he has completed many surveys and a great deal of work assessing community needs; that a "no" response is a no response, a "yes" response is a yes response, and an apathetic response is an apathetic response; that it is not appropriate in any. survey technique he has ever studied or worked on to assume that people who do not say something, want something; that he has always found the squeaky wheel gets the grease, not the silent wheel. Mr. Harrington continued that the community is satisfied with the way things are and no traffic problems have been cited on Spring Creek Drive since the installation of the speed humps; that he assumes the sidewalk master plan was completed prior to the installation of the speed humps; that the statistics should be validated prior to pouring cement. Mayor Patterson stated that she believes there is a consensus of the Commission not to put sidewalks on Spring Creek and Shoreland Drives. Robert Levy, 1391 6th Street, asked if TIF money is being used for this purpose? Mayor Patterson stated that TIF money is not being used for sidewalks; that TIF money is used only in the TIF district by law; that the TIF district is being subsidized by the General Fund this year. Mr. Levy stated that the bums and criminals have too much freedom as it is so the City should not provide sidewalks in the TIF district. Bruce Franklin, 1705 Spring Creek Drive, stated that he received a notice and wrote a note to Ms. Hay asking why the question is even being asked; that sometimes the City can get too democratic; that the sidewalk program was initiated four years ago; that this Commission discussed it extensively, developed a policy, directed staff to plan for it, proposed an implementation program, and identified the funding; that discussing whether the public did or did not respond to a survey is not appropriate; that a question of leadership is being raised; that the Commission should follow through on a committed program on which there is generally broad support; that Vice Mayor Merrill's point is well taken that citizens who do not support the idea now, may support it once the sidewalks are installed and other conveniences, i.e., more efficient street cleaning and better directed, more efficient storm drainage, are noticed. Mr. Franklin continued that a cutoff date was included on the survey; that after the cutoff date, if he were someone who opposed the program on a particular street and saw a staff report with a recommendation indicating that there were more "yeahs" than "nays" on his street, he could have obtained the mailing list, gone to the residents and said all kinds of things to motivate them to send in a different response after the fact; that tonight Ms. Hay told the Commission about new responses from Spring Creek Drive, and all of a sudden, the recommendation was changed; that Spring Creek Drive certainly qualifies as a Sidewalk to Schools street in the City; that the city owns the right-of-way and does not have to ask the residents for anything; that the analysis of the increase of children on this street clearly documents the need for sidewalks; that it is not always necessary to find consensus on all items when there is a broader public purpose and policy; that there was not 100 percent consensus when residents on his street convened for speed humps; however, he cannot image that one person would show up today and say the speed humps on Shoreland, Old Oak and Spring Creek Drives have not been tremendously effective; that this Commission took the responsibility to implement the program and it was a success. Mr. Franklin further stated the Engineering Department has not yet determined on which side of the street the sidewalks will be placed which may be part of the problem some people have; that he is happy to give up 200 square feet of lawn to have the benefit of sidewalks; that the City has made an investment in the process, in the staff time, in the implementation of speed humps, etc.; that he has an investment, along with other people on his street, called "kids" who use the street all day long going to school and other Book 37 Page 10878 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10879 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. activities; that, not withstanding the fact that now, after the fact, the results have evidently changed, he urges the Commission to abide by the commitment previously made and move forward with the sidewalks on Spring Creek Drive. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to authorize the Administration to proceed with all the design-build sidewalks projects. Commissioner Cardamone asked for the cutoff date on the survey responses and how late the other responses from Spring Creek Drive were received? Ms. Hay stated that the cutoff date was July 17, 1994, however, some telephone calls - were received close to the deadline from people who were out of town, and those responses were included in the summary of survey results; that the deadline was not strictly enforced because some people were out of town; that eight additional negative responses from Spring Creek Drive residents were received last week. Mayor Patterson asked how many actual responses and positive responses were received as of today from Spring Creek Drive residents? Ms. Hay stated that she received 22 negative responses, 5 positive responses, and 4 nonresponses. Mayor Patterson stated that there are at most 9 positive responses and 22 negative responsesi; that issues which involve the safety of children going to school should not be determined by a popularity vote; however, City Manager Sollenberger has indicated that there are no longer many cars travelling on Shoreland and Spring Creek Drives, which is the reason she is inclined to listen to a popularity vote on this particular issue. Ms. Hay stated that it is her understanding that the traffic has been reduced; however, actual traffic counts before and after the installation of the speed humps are not available. Commissioner Atkins asked if it can be determined from which side of the street the positive and negative responses were received? Ms. Hay displayed a chart indicating the location of the positive and negative responses and stated that one positive response was received at the end of the street, two on the north side, and two on the south side of the street. Mayor Patterson stated that most people who live on either side of the street are saying "no"; that there are other paths with sidewalks which the children can travel to get to school if they do not live on the street. Mr. Mike Drews, 1708 Shoreland Drive, came before the Commission and stated that Shoreland Drive was being eliminated from consideration according to the material he had seen earlier. Mayor Patterson stated that is true but is not true in the motion on the table. Mr. Drews stated that he has lived on Shoreland Drive for five years and his wife and two children have walked to Southside School for those five years; that what was once a problem with the traffic has been completely abated by the speed humps which were extremely beneficial for the residents; that there is no necessity for sidewalks for sidewalks on Shoreland Drive; that the residents responding "no" to the survey include those families with children who either walk to Southside School or go to bus stops for Pine View and other schools; that the residents feel the sidewalks are not necessary and will only create a problem. Mr. Drews stated that the neighborhood appreciates the speed humps which were installed. Mayor Patterson restated the motion as to proceed with the sidewalk project including every street on the list. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to amend the motion to 1) exclude Shoreland Drive from the project list as recommended by the Administration, 2) refer Midwest Parkway and Davis Boulevard to the Administration, thereby excluding it from the motion, and 3) request staff to talk Spring Creek Drive residents to determine the sense of that street, thus excluding it also from the motion. Motion died for lack of a second. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Mayor Patterson (who passed the gavel to Commissioner Cardamone), it was moved to amend the motion to delete Shoreland and Spring Creek Drives from the sidewalk project list. On motion of Mayor Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to amend the motion to refer to the Administration the safety issue of the lift station on the corner of Midwest Parkway and Davis Boulevard. Commissioner Cardamone called for a vote on the second amendment to the motion to request staff to review the safety considerations of the lift station without addressing the sidewalk issue. Amendment carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Cardamone, yes. Commissioner Cardamone called for a vote on the first amendment to the motion to exempt Shoreland and Spring Creek Drives from the Book 37 Page 10880 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10881 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. sidewalk program. Motion carried (3 to 1): Atkins, no; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Cardamone, yes. Commissioner Cardamone called for the vote on the main motion as amended to accept the recommendations of the Administration for the sidewalk program with the amendments approved by the Commission. Motion carried (3 to 1): Atkins, no; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Cardamone, yes. Commissioner Atkins stated that Commission support is encouraged to request that the Administration to discuss with the County addressing a Sidewalks to Schools project from the city to the County parts of Myrtle Street and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way to Tuttle Avenue which is the path to Emma E. Booker High School; that City children travel the described route on foot, bicycle, and skates; that it is getting rougher and rougher. Mayor Patterson stated that she supports that position. Mayor Patterson continued that having no sidewalk next to the Boys' and Girls' Club on Fruitville Avenue is a safety hazard; that children walk along the edge of the road, next to the fence. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the situation will be reviewed. 23. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: STATUS OF MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - NEGOTIATED SETTELMENT TO BE FORWARDED TO THE COMMISSION PRIOR TO THE ADMINISTRATION SIGNING OFF ON THE COMPLETED SECTION OF THE PROJECT (AGENDA ITEM VII-6) #3 (1478) through (2147) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the contractor is actively working on the plaza area between Gulfstream Avenue and U.S. 41; that much of the brick work has been completed; that the planters and the bases for the benches have been placed; that the portion of Main Street between Gulfstream and Orange Avenues is essentially complete and a semi-final inspection was done last week; that the inspection went well resulting in a minimal punchlist of corrections; that many of the corrections were completed on Friday, September 2, 1994; that the remaining corrections are scheduled for completion today; that the City will perform a final inspection of that particular area tomorrow, and, if the work is acceptable, the City will begin the process to accept that portion of work. Mr. Daughters continued that the remaining work of the plaza area is scheduled for completion by September 26, 1994; that he does not believe this deadline can be met. Mr. Daughters further stated that the City has negotiated with the contractor a reasonable cost to make configuration changes to the Bayfront/U.S. 41 entrance area, specifically, relocating the north esplanade parking lot driveway westerly towards Marina Jack; that the contractor has anticipated a completion date at the end of September or the first week in October, if authorization to begin the work in that area is received this week as anticipated. Mayor Patterson stated that much of the criticism that the City received from the newspapers and the public may have been attributed to the confusing brick work at the archway of the Bayfront entrance; that it is difficult to distinguish between the pedestrian walkway and the roadway; that moving the roadway may not fully address the problem if the archway area is left opened; that she understood the patterning of the brick work would be changed so the pedestrian walkway could be distinguished from the roadway. Mr. Daughters stated that the brick work will be changed; that the plan for the brick work can be presented to the Commissioners individually during the week, or a presentation can be made at the next Commission meeting. City Manager stated that a civic celebration date for dedication of the Main Street Improvement project is being planned with the assistance of the Downtown Association for November 1994; that an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant was received to complete this project; that the Administration plans to invite members of the EPA to witness the appreciation of this economically stimulating project so that future EPA grants may be obtainable. Mr. Sollenberger continued that he forwarded photographs and a letter, explaining the progress made with the redevelopment of downtown, to Phillip Morris, an editor for Southern Living Magazine, who had attended the initial meeting presentation of the redevelopment plan in 1987; that an article in Southern Living Magazine featuring Sarasota is planned for this winter. Commissioner Atkins stated that he admires and appreciates the efforts regarding Main Street made by the present and previous Commissions; however, he is concerned that Main Street has been revitalized not only at the expense of the Central Avenue corridor, but also at the expense of the economically disadvantaged community in the City of Sarasota; that the EDA grant was obtained based on commitments and obligations to hire and retain unemployed or underemployed citizens on the project; that he can sing the praises of the project's completion; however, he cannot glorify it since the jobs which were promised to citizens were not delivered; that the EDA grant was approved based on poverty and economically deprived people; that the contractor, nor the bonding company upheld that commitment; that a memorial should be placed in honor of the citizens who should have but did not receive jobs. Mayor Patterson stated that Mr. Daughters stated that the City is getting ready to sign-off on a portion of the Main Street Improvement Project; and asked if the City will be reimbursed for the Special Appropriation approved to pay Brian Bishop for unpaid subcontracting work? Book 37 Page 10882 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10883 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Daughters stated that Frontier Insurance Company has indicated that reimbursement will be made to the City for the funds paid to Brian Bishop. Mayor Patterson asked if the Administration plans to waive the late performance fees specified in the contract. Mr. Daughters stated that the late performance fees will not be waived; however, the cost of the additional work on the west side of U.S. 41 may offset the fees due. Mayor Patterson requested that the Commission be informed as to the settlement arrangement before it is made. Mr. Daughters stated this would have to be done immediately, if the work is to be completed by the end of September or first week in October as tentatively scheduled. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the work up to the west side of U.S. 41 should be completed as contracted; that a separate contract could be prepared for the redesign of the driveway into the Bayfront; that the City should not forfeit the opportunity to recover penalties due for the delay of the project. Mr. Daughters stated that Commissioner Cardamone's suggestion was researched as an alternative solution; however, the bid process would be necessary and the work on the west side of U.S. 41 could not be accomplished by the end of 1994; that additional grant funding may be jeopardized if the additional work is completed separately. Mayor Patterson asked for the scheduled date of completion. Mr. Daughters stated that the project is scheduled for completion on October 15, 1994, which includes the work scheduled on the west side of U.S. 41. Mayor Patterson stated that she does not understand why the settlement would not come before the Commission for approval; that she will honor the Administration's time constraints if they exist, however, she is concerned with being able to address to the city Manager any concerns regarding the settlement prior to it being signed. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that typically the Staff are tougher negotiators than the Commission; that the Commission should not get involved with the settlement issue which could become political; that he would prefer the settlement issue be handled by the Administration. 24. NEW BUSINESS: REQUEST RE: REPORT FROM ADMINISTRATION ON THE CITY'S CURRENT PLAN FOR IMPROVING THE CENTRAL AVENUE CORRIDOR REGULAR REPORT TO BE PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #3 (1930) through (3254) City Manager Sollenberger stated that John Lewis, Director of the Public Safety, has been assigned to coordinate the City's activities and maximize the City's resources within the Central Avenue corridor which is located between Fruitville Road and Tenth Street and U.S. 41 and Orange Avenue; that William Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement has been directed to undertake a comprehensive code enforcement effort through the area; that Gordon Jolly, Chief of Public Safety Police Services Bureau, is progressing with plans to open a volunter-operated Police substation in the area; that rocks and weeds are being removed from the former Central Gardens property which was acquired by the City and demolished; that the lot is being graded and seeded and it will be maintained until development occurs in the area. Mr. Sollenberger continued that a center-street patch is currently in place; that complete repaving is not part of the project as currently bid, and, if the repaving project were to be bid separately, the bid price would be far higher than the cost associated with including the project into the Citywide repaving program; therefore, the street will be repaved from curb to curb in the spring through a Citywide street repaving project. Director Lewis and Police Chief Jolly came before the Commission. Director Lewis stated that two meetings will be held each week; that the first meeting is held during the day with the neighborhood individuals and affected departmental Staff; that this provides an opportunity on a weekly basis to pinpoint areas of concern requiring immediate attention; that the first meeting was held last week and the second meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 7, 1994; that a weekly report will be provided to the city Manager beginning on Monday, September 12, 1994; that the meetings will be beneficial for the citizens and the Staff; that concerns will be identified immediately and the neighborhood individuals will be made aware of the legal processes which must be followed before the City can take action; that the second part of the plan is to meet weekly in the evening at the Public Safety Building to discuss long-range plans and to work with the citizens and the Planning Department on a small area plan to identify items and prevent the immediate problems from reoccurring. Police Chief Jolly stated that six weeks ago he met with representatives of the Central Avenue neighborhood who had made a request to open a substation at 645 Central Avenue in a building owned by Joe Penix; that during those discussions an agreement was reached that the neighborhood association would recruit volunteers to provide staffing for the substation 20 hours per week; that although other cities have successfully opened volunteer substations, this is a new concept for the City; that the Administration felt this would be an opportune location to pilot Book 37 Page 10884 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10885 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. the concept; that volunteers prepared and willing to staff the substation 20 hours per week have been recruited; that background investigations, i.e., a basic clearance, on the volunteers is being performed; that a training program provided by the Public Safety Department which will prepare the volunteers to provide information, take information, and have a basic understanding of laws will get underway shortly; that furniture for the substation has been donated by several business people; that the City will be responsible for the electric bill, installation and monthly charges of a telephone line, and minimal office supplies; that the anticipated opening date of the substation is October 13, 1994; that the substation will provide a place for the Police Officers to receive information from the volunteer staff, make telephone calls, and talk to people. Police Chief Jolly continued that there have also been discussions held with J. Mack Reid, Executive Director, Boys and Girls Club, and Steve Harvey, Sarasota Technical Institute Director, regarding a joint venture to take place in the building; that the building is an extremely large complex which can house a number of different operations; that the Boys and Girls Club is interested in expanding the services it provides by opening another satellite branch at this location; that the city is attempting to find funding for the first year; that Mr. Harvey proposed that Sarasota Technical Institute provide vocational training program in this location; that the Boys and Girls Club tends to lose children at about age 14 and constructive programs such as the ones proposed by Mr. Harvey to which the children can be funneled would be ideal; that the Sarasota Technical Institute has approved the proposal and may have some funding available; that this is an on-going project which should come to fruition within the next few months; that he is very optimistic about the overall opportunity the City has to serve this neighborhood. Commissioner Atkins stated that the motivating factor in Joe Penix's donation of the building was to provide training and educational activities for the children in the Central Avenue neighborhood; that he hopes the Public Safety Department can be the catalyst to create such an environment; that the Boys and Girls Club/Sarasota County Technical Institute proposal is a worthwhile project which could bring the programs necessary to remedy some of the problems in the Central Avenue area. Mayor Patterson thanked the Administration for their work and the report and stated that the Commission should be kept apprised of the progress in the Central Avenue area; that she is enthusiastic about the Boys and Girls Club operating a program in that area. Commissioner Cardamone requested that a regular update, similar to the reports received on the Main Street Improvement Project, be received on the Central Avenue Corridor improvements; that the public would be well served with the knowledge of the positive responses and activities in the area. Mayor Patterson stated that the public often inquires about the Central Avenue Corridor and the Commission wants to give the Administration the encouragement and support necessary for this area; that regular reports should be presented to the Commission every couple of months. Police Chief Jolly stated that the Commission will be kept fully informed of the progress. Mr. Sollenberger stated that copies of the weekly reports provided by Director Lewis will be forwarded to the Commission. Robert Levy, 1391 6th Street, came before the Commission and stated that the Boys and Girls Club is a worthwhile organization; that hopefully, the substation will reduce crime in the neighborhood; however, this major question has not been addressed, "When will this part of town, the North Central Corridor, that has been a part of the redevelopment zone of the downtown core, ever come to fruition?" Mr. Levy continued that Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, developed and presented a small area plan for the Central Avenue Corridor on August 25, 1994; that all the time spent on the graphics, figures, and poetic phrasing will not encourage developers to develop in the Central Avenue Corridor; that individuals with the knowledge and experience necessary to develop this area were not invited to attend the numerous meetings and workshops held by the City planners in an effort to obtain input; that artists and articulate, intelligent people were invited to the meetingi however, these people know nothing about budgets and development projects; that these individuals spoke about beautiful surroundings which should be brought to the area; that he also would like to see beautiful surroundings; however, that will not bring developers to the area. Mr. Levy further stated that the City needs to develop a program to meet with developers to determine what is necessary to encourage developers to build in the Central Avenue Corridor. Mayor Patterson asked for the final presentation date of the small area plan. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the final presentation is scheduled for October 10, 1994, as a joint workshop with the City Commission and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that Mr. Levy is correcti that street trees and sidewalks are not going to turn that area around; that a variety of improvements are necessary; that Mr. Levy has fought all the negatives, and is the biggest redevelopment person in the Central Avenue neighborhood who regularly tells the Commission what all the problems are; that the Commission pacifies him by initiating new road projects or including $300,000 for Central Book 37 Page 10886 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10887 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Avenue in the budget; that the City should be asking developers, "Why aren't you looking at this area. Why are you building out at the expressway and not building at Central Avenue?" Commissioner Atkins stated that Mr. Levy invested in that core when the City first started talking about redevelopment of Central Avenue; that Mr. Levy's valid points in reference to the short-term goals necessary for a long-term plan should be considered; that he is expecting a small area plan to not only incorporate new streets, etc., but also to include zoning, encouragement, cooperation with the Public Safety, and the City's vision of that area. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she has great expectation of the small area plan; however, the Commission needs to take a pro-active stance to gather the data necessary to find people who will make an investment in the Central Avenue Corridor. Mayor Patterson stated that Mr. Levy certainly has hit on the real crux of the problem and why the Commission has taken so long to make a commitment; that medians, sidewalks, etc., will not be enough; that the Commission is looking for the answers necessary to turn this area around which is why a consultant with an economist was chosen to prepare the downtown plan; that the Commission expects to hear exactly what Mr. Levy is stating as the need; that the Commission does want to make an investment in this area; however, the dollars are limited and it should mean something when that investment is made; that the frustration with the delay is understandable; that the Commission will further discuss the issue in October when the small area plan is presented. Mr. Levy stated that the Central Avenue Corridor properties currently generate little tax revenue for the City; however, the taxes will increase by five to seven-fold if the area is redeveloped. 25. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: REQUEST OF COMMISSION FOR ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AT THE JOINT CITY CORXISSION/HOUBING AUTHORITY BOARD MEETING SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 - ITEMS ON CRIME CONTROL /TENANT CONTROL, BUDGET SHORTAGES, AND TENANT ASSOCIATIONS TO BE INCLUDED ON THE AGENDA (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) #3 (3252) through #4 (0318) Mayor Patterson stated that she and City Auditor and Clerk Robinson met with Betty Clemons, Housing Authority Board Chairman, in an effort to determine an agenda of what is to be accomplished at the joint workshop between the Housing Authority Board and the City Commission. Mayor Patterson continued that she used her prerogative as Mayor to delay the workshop until the four new Housing Authority Board members had an opportunity to attend a couple of Housing Authority Board meetings. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson distributed a copy of the items discussed for inclusion on the agenda. Mayor Patterson stated that the Housing Authority Board members were asked for input, but no items have been received. Mayor Patterson requested Commission input for items of discussion at the joint workshop. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he would like an explanation for the many problems associated with public housing; that the arrest records often reflect the addresses of Janie Poe and Cohen Way; that he would like to know what the Housing Authority plans to do to control its tenants so that public housing is not known as a hotbed for crime. Vice Mayor Merrill continued that the Housing Authority Board's goals should be presented; that the Chairman has expressed that people should improve their financial status and move out of public housing; that the plan or program which will be used to accomplish this should be discussed; that the methods used to track the success of their programs, i.e., Section 8, should be discussed; that the purpose of the Section 8 program is to disperse throughout the community, not to disperse in concentrations throughout the community; that he is concerned with the old apartment projects in District 3 that are being changed into Section 8 public housing projects; that the Commission could focus back on the problems which affect the City if the Housing Authority Board provides guidance on what their programs entail and how they are monitored and tracked. Vice Mayor Merrill further stated that problems with the maintenance of the Housing Authority buildings have been experienced; that the reason for the financial problems associated with repairing the buildings when necessary should be discussed; that the Housing Authority may want to request lobbying efforts from the City of Sarasota for additional funding in their budget. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Vice Mayor Merrill's points are well taken; that she attended a Housing Authority Board meeting in which a one-hour meeting was scheduled to discuss goals; that the Housing Authority Board may not fully understand the goal-setting process and Vice Mayor Merrill's comments may provide them with the depth necessary for goal setting. Commissioner Cardamone continued that the by-laws under which the Housing Authority operates and revision of those by-laws should be discussed; that the current by laws are not adequately addressing the function of the Housing Authority. Mayor Patterson stated that the Housing Authority Board consists of seven volunteer members, four of whom have served less than six months; that after serving for less than six months, could any of the Commissioners have answered the question, "How are you planning to control crime in the City?" Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the question was asked when he was running for office. Book 37 Page 10888 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10889 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Atkins stated that the Housing Authority Board will have an answer, the tenants are just evicted; that the provision of immediate eviction is included in their rules which is how the substation was acquired and developed. Mayor Patterson stated that a Report by the City Attorney on the relationship between the Hosing Authority and the City Commission has been agendaed for the purpose of developing long-term communication; that the Commission should express their concerns to the Housing Authority Board at the joint workshop, keeping in mind that there are four new members on the Board who may not have had time to develop plans to deal with the items mentioned; therefore, the Commission should actually be requesting that these types of plans be developed. Mayor Patterson continued that Discussion of future direction and types of public housing in the City of Sarasota was agendaed to discuss the Section 8 program and other types of public housing in the City of Sarasota. Mayor Patterson further stated that items regarding crime control/control of tenants and budget shortages will be agendaed; that the Housing Authority should present the by laws to the Commission; that this item can be discussed under goal setting if it is not presented by the Housing Authority Board. Commissioner Atkins stated that the major segment and most important part of this scenario are the tenants who are presently living in the public housing and on Section 8; that the tenants should be asked for comment on how to best facilitate them out of their poverty-stricken situations; that the Housing Authority will have run-a-way Boards and Directors until the something is done to address the tenants concerns. Mayor Patterson stated that this joint workshop has been scheduled for discussion between the two boards; that a separate meeting will be necessary if input from the tenants is desired; that she agrees that addressing tenants concerns is one of the responsibilities of the Housing Authority Board. Commissioner Atkins stated that the Housing Authority Board comes up short on that responsibility; that the mechanisms available for tenant participation should be discussed. Commissioner Atkins continued that according to the federal criteria for the Public Housing Authority and its advisory Board, associations, continuous workshops and education should be established for the tenants; that the tenants are the people who are suffering from this Board's lack of responsibility. Mayor Patterson stated that Commissioner Atkins should provide the Housing Authority with some guidance as to how to accomplish the goals just mentioned. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the items suggested by Vice Mayor Merrill, i.e, crime, Section 8, maintenance programs, etc., should be discussed for inclusion in the Housing Authority Board's goal setting process; that tenant relationships and the tenant management situation needs to be discussed; that there are not strong tenant associations within each of those buildings which is an important part of the whole public housing program. Mayor Patterson asked if Commissioner Cardamone is stating that as part of their goal setting, the Housing Authority should develop stronger tenant associations to allow for more input and to act as a liaison between the Board and the tenants? Commissioner Cardamone stated that this should be included as part of the Commission's recommendation for Housing Authority goals and discussions. Mayor Patterson stated that she will attempt to incorporate Commissioner Cardamone's suggestion. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the tenant relationship with the federal government is a difficult area to discuss; that the tenants are not paying for anything extra; therefore the relationship is different than that between the management and tenants of a privately-owned apartment complex; that to a degree the tenants are not the Housing Authority Board's clients; that the Housing Authority is providing a public service; that the goal is to wean the tenants off of benefits and subsidized housing which is received. Vice Mayor Merrill continued that tenants formed a group a few years ago who strongly requested Cable TV; that, subsequently, Cable TV was installed; that this is not the direction public housing should be headed; that public housing should remain at a certain standard which should not be exceeded; that there will always be discord between the way, tenants living in public housing at a subsidized rate would like to live and what the taxpayers can afford to pay for at public housing projects. Commissioner Cardamone stated that relationships, like a neighborhood association, could address the crime and maintenance problems in the public housing; that the association could be an organization of people who express the problems and the solutions to the Board on particular situations occurring in the public housing project. Mayor Patterson stated that additional agenda items can be forwarded to her or City Auditor and Clerk Robinson for inclusion on the agenda. 26. NEW BUSINESS: PRESENTATION RE: INVESTMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES OF CITY FUNDS - REPORT ACCEPTED; ANNUAL REPORT TO BE MADE BY THE PENSION BOARDS = (AGENDA ITEM VIII-4) #4 (0375) through (0537) Book 37 Page 10890 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10891 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to accept the Finance Director's report of Investment Policies, Procedures & Results. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the information in the report is good; that the City is following safe investment practices and policies as evidenced by the report; that the Finance Director is very conservative in his investment practices, and the Commission has a great deal of respect for his abilities. Commissioner Atkins stated that the Finance Director should be complimented on his success. Mayor Patterson stated that the Police, Fire, and General Employee pension funds are managed by boards whose members are the beneficiaries of the funds; that the Police and Fire pension funds operate on the assumption of 8 percent annual earnings; that in the last year or two an effort was made to raise that assumption to 9 percent generating more funds and more in stated reservesi; that the Finance Director makes safe investments which produce 4 to 5 percent annually; that the pension fund boards set their investment policies within certain guidelines and make more aggressive investments with funds that are backed by the City; that the City is responsible for making a bad investment of the pension boards good since the City guarantees those funds; that the 8 percent investment earnings assumption has been valid thus far; however, not long before she and Vice Mayor Merrill became Commissioners, a $400,000 investment went bad; that the investment advisor had apparently given bad advice or misadvice as to the safety of an investment, but the investment advisor was solvent, and, therefore, paid the $400,000 to the City; that the $400,000 would have been lost if the pension fund had not had an investment advisor who was solvent. Mayor Patterson continued that pension fund reports regarding the rate of investment, the rate of return, the types of investments, and the guidelines followed should be received by the Commission annually since the City guarantees those funds' solvency; that, previously, a Commissioner would sit on the pension boards as a member; however, this is no longer done. city Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the Commission adopts the investment guidelines of the pension funds in the form of an ordinance; that a condensed version of the annual actuarial reports received by the City each January could be forwarded to the Commission; and that each board could be scheduled to give a report. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson continued that the referenced investment was a bond that went bad and occurred in the mid 1980s; that the pension funds must carry insurance, therefore, the City is protected. Commissioner Atkins requested that a copies of the January 1994 actuarial reports be sent to the Commission. City Auditor and Clerk stated that a condensed version of the last actuarial reports will be forwarded. Mayor Patterson restated the motion as to receive the report of the Finance Director. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 27. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO PURCHASE THE CENTRAL AVENUE PROPERTY FROM THE COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION FOR $76,639.61 APPROVED WITH THE STIPULATION OF A FUTURE LIEN ON THE TIF FUND FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASE PRICE AND SALE PRICE (AGENDA ITEM VIII- 6) #4 (0537) through (1001) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration requests authorization to purchase eight lots from the Community Housing Corporation (CHC) for $76,639.61; that the lots are Lots 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 17, Block 28, located on Fifth and Sixth Streets between Central and Lemon Avenues; that the CHC purchased the property in conjunction with its plan for Cohen Way which was contingent upon receipt of a Hope I grant for conversion of the Cohen Way Project Apartments to home ownership; that the Housing Authority rejected the grant application; that the CHC had purchased the property with a loan and anticipated liquidating the loan through the sale of the properties upon development, but the funding mechanism was lost when the grant was rejected; that the CHC has invested $76,639.61 into the project, and the properties have been offered to the city at that cost. Mr. Sollenberger continued that the Administration recommends approval of this purchase; that no particular use for the property is planned at this time; however, City acquisition would provide a land banking opportunity to help address the Commission's goal to revitalize and redevelop the Central Avenue Corridor Neighborhood. Mr. Sollenberger further stated that utilizing the Local Option, Sales Tax (L.O.S.T.) received in excess of the projected FY 93/94 estimates to purchase the requested Police vehicles, which are currently funded in the General Fund budget, would make the funding necessary for this property purchase available in the General Fund budget. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Mayor Patterson (who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Merrill), it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation to purchase the property. Mayor Patterson stated that the CHC works well for the City in areas the City cannot do as well as a private not-for-profit organization; that the CHC clearly moved too early on this particular project, and the City should be the land bank for the Book 37 Page 10892 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10893 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. CHC in this instance; that she anticipates the purchase will be well used. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the purchase of this property is consistent with her earlier statements regarding the Commission taking a pro-active stance to seek development of the Central Avenue area; that this purchase provides the City with a block of property to use as an attraction to developers; that along with other land the City owns, this property places the City in a good position for investment in that area; that the property should be used as a catalyst for development. Commissioner Atkins stated that he supports the motion although he is not certain exactly what is occurring in this instance. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that approximately $20,000 of the $76,639 purchase price is "soft cost", i.e., interest, site-planning analysis, surveying, lot mowing, etc.; that the $20,000 amount will represent a charitable donation to the CHC unless the City plans to develop the same project planned by the CHC; that the Commission back-up material indicates the CHC paid approximately $55,000 for the subject properties and there is no indication of an increased value in the property; however, the City is being asked to use $76,639 from the General Fund to purchase the propertyi that those General Fund dollars could be used to fund additional Police Officers or Firefighters. Vice Mayor Merrill continued that L.O.S.T. dollars were voted by the public for infrastructure improvements, i.e., roads, sidewalks, etc., not land speculation; that $20,000 or 40 percent of the purchase price will not benefit the City unless the property is used to develop the same project planned by the CHC; that Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) monies should be used if the City plans on developing this property; that he cannot support spending General Fund dollars on a speculative real estate investment for possible future development; however, he could support the purchase if TIF or CDBG dollars were used; that TIF and CDBG dollars are not associated with the General Fund, therefore, could not be used to pay for additional Police Officers or Firefighters. Vice Mayor Merrill further stated that the City made it through a recession without any significant increase in taxes; however, he is worried that the City may become a spendthrift once its immediate financial problems are solved; that this proposal requires spending $76,639 of property tax money on something which does not have a clear benefit to the City's citizens today. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the State law previously did not allow L.O.S.T. funds to be used for Police vehicle purchases, but has been amended to allow that use; that funds will be moved around in order to accomplish this purchase lawfully since L.O.S.T. funds may not be used to purchase land unless a public facility is associated with the purchase. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if future Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds could be set aside to reimburse the General Fund for this investment? Mr. Sollenberger stated that TIF money could be used; that the Commission could establish a policy whereby the difference between the amount paid for the property and the amount received in conjunction with the sale for redevelopment of the property would be reimbursed to the City from TIF funds; therefore, all the money would be recovered from a combination of items, i.e., proceeds from the sale and the use of TIF monies; that the problem with CDBG monies is that this issue is a land-banking issue and the City does not know how the property will be used; that the CHC's plan crumbled when the Housing Authority rejected the Hope 1 grant; that land uses will be determined as redevelopment of the Central Avenue Corridor occurs, and the City will then be able to dispose of the property; that CDBG monies cannot be used for nonspecific plans. Mr. Sollenberger continued that CDBG money, in the absence of specific uses, will be difficult to obtain; that L.O.S.T. funding will not be available to purchase property; that other options will have to be considered if the City wishes to become involved in land acquisition to assist in the redevelopment of the Central Avenue Corridor; that options are being explored by the Administration and will be presented to the Commission in the future. Mayor Patterson stated that $400,000 has been put aside from L.O.S.T. dollars to make an investment in the TIF district; that no other funding is available to purchase these properties since there is no excess TIF moneyi that there may be substantial funding available in the TIF fund in five to ten years from now and an accumulating total of the non-TIF dollars spent in the TIF District should be kept; that plans for TIF proceeds have been projected through the year 2015 and a future Commission may need the latitude of the accumulated repayment funds for use in other areas of the City. On motion of Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to amend the motion to handle the purchase as a future lien on TIF funds for the difference between the ultimate sale price of the property and the current purchase price, meaning the day the City sells the property, the shortfall will be a lien against the TIF funds. Vice Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the amendment to the motion to handle the purchase price as a future lien on TIF dollars for the difference between the ultimate sale price and today's purchase price. Amendment carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Merrill, yes. Vice Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the main motion as amended to approve the purchase of the property. Motion carried unanimously Book 37 Page 10894 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10895 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Merrill, yes. 28. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: CITY COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ON THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL - COMMISSIONER ATKINS REAPPOINTED AS THE CITY'S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL; CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON TO DETERMINE IF COMMISSIONER PILLOT WILL SERVE ON THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION BOARD (AGENDA ITEM IX) #4 (1001) through (1293) Mayor Patterson stated that past Mayors have asked Commissioners to serve on the various commissions and boards; that currently two Commissioners wish to serve on the same board; and that she has learned it is not the Mayor's decision; that the Commission will have to vote if there is to be a change in current representation on the various boards. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that another Commissioner may want to serve on a board of which he is a member; that his request was not made to upset anyone. Commissioner Cardamone that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson was requested to research which Commissioners served on the various board and on which boards alternates were allowed; that, due to this, she found out that the Economic Development Board (EDB) has no procedure for alternates, and the votes she made while serving as an alternate have been illegal; that, as a result, the EDB budget on which she had voted is currently being delayed; that, therefore, Commissioner Atkins should be requested to give full- time service to the EDB or withdraw. Mayor Patterson stated the following the three issues: 1. Commissioner Atkins is the designated City member on the EDB, however, Commissioner Cardamone has been attending the meetings as an alternate, but alternates cannot vote; therefore, a resolution is necessary. 2. She and Vice Mayor Merrill have been serving on the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Board; that Vice Mayor Merrill has expressed interest in not serving on the MPO Board Mayor Patterson stated that anyone serving on the MPO Board must make a commitment to attend Board meetings; that an alternate should be appointed although the MPO's attorney made the determination that an alternate member cannot vote unless it is necessary to establish a quorum; that a substantial amount of money is dispersed through the MPO; that the City currently has two of the sixteen total votes on the MPO; that it would be foolish to reduce the City's number of votes from two to one. 3. Commissioner Atkins has served on the Tourist Development Council (TDC) for some time; that he would like to continue in that seat; that Vice Mayor Merrill has also expressed an interest in the TDC seat. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he withdraws his interest in the TDC seat. Mayor Patterson asked if Commissioner Atkins wishes to continue in the TDC seat? Commissioner Atkins stated yes. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to appoint Commissioner Atkins as the City's representative to the Tourist Development Council. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson asked if Vice Mayor Merrill wishes to resign from the MPO Board? Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he would resign if someone else wishes to serve. Mayor Patterson asked if Vice Mayor Merrill would wish to resign from the MPO Board if Commissioner Pillot had an interest in serving? Vice Mayor Merrill stated yes; that he would welcome Commissioner Pillot's serving on the MPO Board. Mayor Patterson requested that city Auditor and Clerk Robinson determine Commissioner Pillot's interest in serving on the MPO Board or as an alternate. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that he contact Commissioner Pillot. Commissioner Atkins asked if Vice Mayor Merrill would be interested in serving on the EDB if Commissioner Pillot assumes the City's seat on the MPO? Vice Mayor Merrill stated that Commissioner Cardamone is seeking the EDB seat. Mayor Patterson asked if Commissioner Atkins can attend the EDB meetings if he continues his appointment on the EDB Board? Commissioner Atkins stated yes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she has enjoyed the EDB meetings she has attended; that representation from the business community and the kind of representation she has tried to bring to the EDB Board is good for the City. Mayor Patterson stated that Vice Mayor Merrill has not missed a meeting of the MPO; that attendance is necessary at the MPO and an alternate cannot vote. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he will continue on the MPO until someone else is appointed. Book 37 Page 10896 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10897 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson stated that she is currently the President of the ManaSota League of Cities; that it is her second year, and she assumes a new President will be elected shortly; that she plans to continue in her seat for a period of time, but should not remain on the ManaSota League of Cities or on the Statewide Board of the Florida League of Cities forever; that the seat will be available in the future if someone develops an interest; however, anyone who serves on that board must be available to lobby in Tallahassee and attend meetings, etc. 29. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA - CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE STATUS REPORT ON BOAT MOORINGS IN SARASOTA BAY; ADMINISTRATION TO INVESTIGATE MOWING OF CITY PROPERTY (AGENDA ITEM X): #4 (1297) through (1524) VICE MAYOR MERRILL: A. stated that City Commission minutes should be approved by unanimous consent in the future in order to save the motion and secondary time. COMMISSIONER ATKINS: A. stated that Project Black Cinema is a film organization emanating from the Florida State Video and Performing Arts Program at the Asolo Center for the Performing Arts; that the video and movie part of the project may be returning to Tallahassee; that the Administration should lobby to keep it here. Mayor Patterson stated that she saw the video and movie portion of the project on two occasions and considered it an excellent and entertaining program; that she agreed with Commissioner Atkins that something should be done to keep the program here. Commissioner Atkins stated that Project Black Cinema wanted to do a "drumming" for the Third Anniversary Film Festival with about 10 - 15 people marching from Fredd Atkins Park to Osprey Avenue along Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way; that the Project Black Cinema members should be made aware of the process as to street blocks, police and all other requirements for such a march; that the Project Black Cinema group should be given a clear explanation as to what is required by the Administration. COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: A. stated that she received a copy of City Manager Sollenberger's letter to Mr. G. N. Ivey, District Construction Engineer for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), regarding signalization of traffic lights, and asked if Mr. Ivey would be attending the meeting on September 19, 1994. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he received a letter from Mr. Ivey today (September 6, 1994) stating he would attend the meeting on September 19, 1994. B. stated that, in light of the opening celebration of Main Street through to the Bayfront, the Administration should find out the status of the boat moorings in Sarasota Bay; that it appears there are about twice the number of boats moored closer to the mainland than there were six to eight months ago; that there are problems with dumping and live-aboards. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Administration was looking to the State for guidelines and assistance. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he would check the status of this matter. MAYOR PATTERSON: A. stated that property owned by the City, particularly Augustine Quarters, is not being properly mowed; that the Administration should investigate this matter. B. stated that, in Chicago, banners are placed along the main roads telling of special events occurring in the city; that a similar program could be utilized in Sarasota. Commissioner Atkins stated that there had been previous discussion on such a program for Main Street but no decision was reached. 30. OTHER MATTERS /ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS APPROVED ADMINISTRATION'S RECOMMENDATION TO FUND SETTLEMENT OFFER OF $20,000 (AGENDA ITEM XI): #4 (1525) through (1645) CITY MANAGER SOLLENBERGER: A. stated that Project Black Cinema has submitted a request to use the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) at no charge; that, if Project Black Cinema can anticipate future dates, the Administration's grant person could assist them with raising the funds to enable their use of the VWPAH in future years. Commissioner Atkins stated that members of the Project Black Cinema were present at the meeting tonight and are currently discussing the use of the VWPAH with members of the Administration. Book 37 Page 10898 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. Book 37 Page 10899 09/06/94 6:00 P.M. CITY ATTORNEY TAYLOR: A. stated that a mediation has recently occurred on a vehicle collision suit involving a City vehicle; that there is no question regarding the City's liability since a City vehicle rear-ended a vehicle being driven by a 30-year-old woman causing permanent injury to the joint where her jaw and skull attach, as well as a cervical spine injury for which she will need medical attention for the rest of her life; that during recent mediation on this case, the injured party offered to settle for $20,000, which was considered by the mediation team to be extremely reasonable; that, for this reason, he feels it would be in the City's best interest to quickly accept this offer; that Commission approval is necessary for acceptance of this offer. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he has reviewed this claim and recommends settlement as outlined by City Attorney Taylor. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to accept the Administration's recommendation to fund the settlement offer of $20,000. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes: Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 31. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (1646) There being no further business, Mayor Patterson adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. SLTA ae Lowsem NORA PATTERSON, MAYOR ATTEST: llu E Raben a 7 BILLY E7 ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK