BOOK 38 Page 11951 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 19, 1995, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor David Merrill, Commissioners Delores Dry, Nora Patterson, and Gene Pillot, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: Vice Mayor Mollie Cardamone PRESIDING: Mayor David Merrill The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR MAY, 1995 = DAVID DYER, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS SUPERVISOR, PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT, SUPPORT SERVICES BUREAU #1 (0026) through (0134) Commander R. L. Pillifant, and David Dyer, Telecommunications System Supervisor, Support Services Bureau, Public Safety Department, came before the Commission. Commander Pillifant stated that Mr. Dyer has worked for the City of Sarasota for over five years; that Mr. Dyer continually explores ways to deliver a higher quality of service to both internal and external customers at the same or less cost than the City is currently paying; that Mr. Dyer took the initiative to receive bids for new pagers when the contract was near expiration; that the outdated pagers display only a phone number which requires a telephone call to receive messages; that many employees of the Public Safety Department now have new, state-or-the-art pagers at the same cost of the older pagers; that the new pagers display messages as well as phone numbers which eliminates making a telephone call to retrieve messages. Commander Pillifant continued that two-thirds of all patrol officers work other than normal business hours, therefore, receiving messages is critical; that Mr. Dyer installed a voice mail for all patrol officers to alleviate the problem of officers not receiving handwritten messages; that voice mail is a more efficient way to leave and retrieve messagesi that Mr. Dyer wrote a user-friendly manual enabling end users to understand the workings of this program; that Mr. Dyer explored avenues to upgrade current cellular phones without increasing the cost; that Mr. Dyer and a GTE representative agreed to trade the currently used cellular telephones for flip-type digital telephones for $1 each; that the agreement allows for batteries, normal maintenance costs and reduced air-time charges; that the result is better equipment and service at a savings of $4,000. Mayor Merrill presented Mr. Dyer with a plaque, watch and certificate as Employee of the Month for May 1995 in appreciation of his unique performance with the city of Sarasota and congratulated him for his outstanding efforts. 2. PRESENTATION RE: PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING JUNE 23, 1995, AS "KEN THOMPSON DAY" IN OBSERVANCE OF HIS EIGHTY-FIFTH BIRTHDAY #1 (0135) through (0238) Mayor Merrill stated that June 23, 1995, is being declared "Ken Thompson Day" by a special proclamation. Mr. Thompson came before the Commission. On behalf of the city Commission, Mayor Merrill read in its entirety the City of Sarasota's Proclamation. Mr. Thompson stated that he appreciates the honor and recognition; that some of the credit should go to the City Commission which on November 5, 1945, adopted the Council-Manager form of government; that this began the entire process which enabled the 46 to 50 City Commissioners to follow thereafter; that the City should celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Council-Manager form of government adoption; that a wonderful City Commission, a very able City Manager and competent staff, fully capable of handling all problems which come before the City, currently exists; that he encourages the Commission to be gentle with the City. 3. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED #1 (0239) through (0281) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Please remove under Unfinished Business, Item No. VII-2, Adoption Re: Resolution No. 95R-823, creating a Charter Review Committee B. Please remove under Unfinished Business, Item No. VII-5, Approval Re: Central Avenue Storefront Assistance Program Mayor Merrill asked if the Commission has any objections to the changes. Mayor Merrill stated that hearing no objections, the Changes to the Orders of the Day are approved by unanimous consent. BOOK 38 Page 11952 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11953 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot stated that the library issue should be removed from the agenda since a full Commission is not present; that the library issue is of such importance and that action may not occur with only four Commissioners present. On motion of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to add to the Changes of Orders of the Day the postponement of the library issue until the July 3, 1995, Commission meeting when all Commissioners will be present. Motion died for lack of a second. 4. BOARD ACTIONS : REPORT RE: HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD - REPORT RECEIVED (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (0281) through (0434) Executive Director Walter Brown, and Commissioner Dorothy Jones, Housing Authority, came before the Commission. Mr. Brown stated that the Housing Authority Board has invited five applicants to interview for the Executive Director's position; that the interviews should be completed by July 14, 1995; that salary consideration will be an area of importance in the final decision; and that a random survey of salaries for Executive Directors in similar-size authorities has been conducted. Mr. Brown stated that the Clean-up Day held on May 13, 1995, was a success; that special thanks is given to the following for their active participation: Commissioner Nora Patterson Vice Mayor Cardamone City Auditor and Clerk Robinson Mr. Brown continued that the FL 8-1 Orange Avenue Apartments are currently 80 percent occupied; that an irrigation system and sod has been installed; that a $10,000 grant application for trees has been submitted for this area; that the Housing Authority will receive a response by autumn if grant funds are awarded; that Phase I of the rehabilitation of FL 8-2, The Courts, has begun and the apartments have been vacated so that work can commence; that the abatement contractor will begin asbestos and lead removal in the first 24 apartments the week of June 26, 1995; that the FL 8-2 development will receive improvements on the same level as recently completed at the Orange Avenue complex; that the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners will hold a workshop on June 21, 1995, to receive comments from current maintenance staff, other employees and the public, concerning the idea of converting the maintenance operation to a private firm for administration; that a guest speaker from H. J. Russell & Company, who is currently administering a contract for privatized management and maintenance services for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) at Metro Dade County in Miami, Florida, will make a presentation; that all City Commissioners are invited to attend the workshop; that the Sarasota Administrative Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Task Force conducted a comprehensive review of Sarasota Housing Authority properties during March 11 through 17, 1995; that the report will be, and is, the basis for improving the exterior appearance of the Authority's properties. 5. APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 5, 1995 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0435) through (0442) Mayor Merrill asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes. Mayor Merrill stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the regular City Commission meeting of June 5, 1995, are approved by unanimous consent. 6. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, 6, AND 7 - APPROVED: ITEM NO. 4 - APPROVED; ITEM NO. 5 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (0443) through (0742) Commissioner Patterson requested that Item No. 5 be removed for discussion. Mayor Merrill requested that Item No. 4 be removed for discussion. 1. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor to sign letter pertaining to the City's response to the County Commission's proposed Headquarters Hotel/Conference Center sites and public incentives 2. Approval Re: Award of Purchase Order Contracts to the respective lowest bidders (Bid #95-67), Ocean-Aire Conditioning, Bradenton; Florida, in the amount of $11,326, Tampa Bay Trane, Tampa, Florida, in the amount of $50,902, and Mechanical Controls, Corp., Fort Myers, Florida, in the amount of. $10,856, for. the Municipal Auditorium H.V.A.C. Renovations 3. Approval Re: Rejection of bids received for Bid #95-50 concerning site, landscape and irrigation improvements to the Herald Square Park 6. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Second Amendment to the Agreement between Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFMD) and the City of Sarasota for the design and construction of the Downtown Loop Urban Reuse Expansion (P357) and a First Amendment to the Agreement between SWFMD and the City of Sarasota for the design and BOOK 38 Page 11954 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11955 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. construction of the South Loop Urban Reuse Expansion (P515) 7. Approval Re: Community Housing Corporation Loan for acquisition of property located at 1677 Sixth Street and 1649 Eighth Street On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 inclusive. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 4. Approval Re: Award of Contract and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract to Jon Swift, Inc., Sarasota, Florida, for the Central Avenue Streetscape Improvements from Fruitville Road to 10th Street Mayor Merrill stated that he has a concern regarding the amount of bonded Local Option Sales Tax (L.0.S.T.) provided for the contract for the completion of the Central Avenue streetscape improvements from Fruitville Road to 10th Street; that at the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) meeting he indicated streetscaping is not what the area requires to make it more attractive to investors; that the Central Avenue public infrastructure is not at a lower standard than other parts of the City; that the public may not feel money should be spent on streetscaping while stormwater drainage, such as the Hudson Bayou drainage, requires maintenance; that this is not a new position for him; that he previously voted against the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) improvements because of prioritization of money. Commissioner Patterson stated that this item was approved by the City Commission after receiving much public input and support; that voting against the project would be going against the majority wish of the Commission; that in terms of timing, it would seem wiser to improve the area through acquisition and improvement of some properties using a combination of private and public investment, prior to streetscaping. Commissioner Dry stated that she concurs with some of the remarks made by Commissioner Patterson; that she was not on the Commission at the time of the original vote; that many individuals and groups within the Central Avenue community advocate this project; that she has empathy for Mayor Merrill's concerns, but the Commission owes the citizens for whom this project was voted. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 4. Motion carried (3 to 1): Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, no. 5. Approval Re: Authorize the City Attorney to prepare and the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Second Amendment to the Professional Services Contract with Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. (RFP #93-19) implementing the Contamination Assessment Plan for the closed landfill underlying the Ed Smith Stadium Complex Commissioner Patterson stated that the totals included in the agenda materials do not seem to be additive; that assessing the contamination and developing a plan will cost $170,000 which seems high; and asked for clarification of funding and the total cost and for assurance that the Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., is charging a reasonable price. Douglas Taylor, Environmental Resources Manager, came before the Commission and stated that the numbers included in the agenda materials are additive; that authorization for the final response to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is requested; that much of the Ed Smith Stadium complex is built on a former dump site, which was not previously a landfill; that the funds are provided by the solid waste contingencies, an obligation any municipality would have as far as FDEP is concerned, to evaluate the extent to which the materials buried may be hazardous, in particular the contamination of the ground water; that Request for Proposals (RFP) were solicited and many consultants were interviewed; that the consultant was selected following the requirements of the Competitive Negotiations Act (CNA); that other consultants indicate the City is following a similar procedure required of other cities, i.e., a plan is developed, the plan is implemented, and a number of samples are collected; that as a result of analysis and review of the samples, FDEP has requested more work; that the expectation is this work will complete the field exercises. Commissioner Patterson asked if the other two phases are complete? Mr. Taylor stated that the other two phases are complete; that the final $38,152 will provide a response which FDEP has requested. Commissioner Patterson stated that there is no point to switch consultants at this point. Mr. Taylor stated that he agrees. Commissioner Patterson stated that the process used to select the consultant did not involve consideration of fees. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct; that none of the professional services selections are based on fees; that contracts are negotiated; that in this case, many of the fees are for laboratory work and subconsultants who are competitively sought by the BOOK 38 Page 11956 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11957 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. contractor; that the majority of the expense is for outside subconsultants who provide technical services. On motion of Commissioner Dry and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 5. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Commissioner Pillot stated that congratulations are extended to Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, for being selected the 1995 Government Engineer of the Year for the State of Florida by the Florida Professional Engineers in Government; and asked Mr. Daughters to stand for recognition. 7. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 95-818) ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 95R-821) = ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 95R-822) - ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (ORDINANCE NO. 95-3862) = ADOPTED; ITEM 5 (ORDINANCE NO. 95-3867) - ADOPTED: ITEM 6 (ORDINANCE NO. 95-3876) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (0743) through (0885) Commissioner Patterson requested that Item No. 4 be removed for discussion. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 95-818 and 95R-821, and 95R-822, and proposed Ordinance Nos. 95-3867, and 95-3876 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 95R-818, 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) 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 95R-821, supplementing Resolution No. 95R-814 adopted by the City Commission of the City of Sarasota, Florida on May 1, 1995 which Resolution authorized the issuance of not exceeding $20,000,000 water and sewer system revenue refunding Bonds, Series 1996; etc. (Title Only) 3. Approval Re: Resolution No. 95R-822, authorizing an Interlocal Agreement with Sarasota County formulating a Consortium pursuant to the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990; setting forth findings; approving the Interlocal Agreement and authorizing its execution by the Mayor; etc. (Title Only) 5. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3867, amending Chapter 24, Personnel, of the Code of the city of Sarasota (1986), Article II, General Employees' Pension Plan, Division 4, amending Section 24-96, to provide for an amended definition of "Earnings"; amending Section 24-101 to provide amended language for the purchase of credited service for separation from employment for military service; providing for severability of provisions; repealing all ordinances in conflict herewith; etc. (Title Only) 6. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3876, amending Chapter 24, Personnel, Article II, Pensions, Division 3, Police, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Sarasota; amending Section 24-61, definitions, to amend the definition of "Salary"; amending Section 24-81, credit for military service, subsection (a) military service after employment; repealing all ordinances in conflict herewith; providing for severability of the parts hereof if declared invalid; etc. (Title Only) On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda 2, Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Merrill, yes. 4. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3862, to conditionally rezone from RMF-4 Zone District to CRT Zone District; and to adopt Development Plan 95-DPR-01 to permit live/work single family homes for artists, studio/gallery commercial use on single family parcels, cafe use, hotel and commercial art gallery use on the following described property: Lots 1 thru 18, and Lot 20, Block B, Towles Subdivision, a resub of Lot 18 and 20, Block H, of Plat of Sarasota, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 29, of the Public Records of Sarasota County, Florida; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 95-CO-02 & 95-DPR-01, Russell Moore, Design Studios West for Beverly Hills Associates) Commissioner Patterson stated that her husband's law firm represents the petitioner on the Design Studios West property; therefore, she declares a conflict of interest and will abstain from voting. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3862 by title only. BOOK 38 Page 11958 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11959 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda 2, Item No. 4. Mayor Merrill requested that city Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (3 to 0) : Dry, yes; Patterson, abstained; Pillot; yes; Merrill, yes. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3865, TO CONDITIONALLY REZONE FROM RMF-3 ZONE DISTRICT TO G ZONE DISTRICT AND TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN 95-PSD-E TO PERMIT AN ADULT CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITY ON THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: LOTS 1,2,3,4,5, BLOCK E, CITY PARK SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 151, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA; SAID PROPERTY LIES BETWEEN 18TH AND 19TH STREETS AND OSPREY AVENUE; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 95-CO-01, PETITION NO. 95-PSD-E, DAN SAGAN, J.H. FLOYD SUNSHINE MANOR, INC.) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-1A) AND 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3866, TO VACATE A PORTION OF OSPREY AVENUE LYING BETWEEN 18TH AND 19TH STREETS; AND TO VACATE A PORTION OF 19TH STREET TO BEGIN AT THE WESTERLY RIGHF-OF-WAY LINE OF OSPREY AVENUE AND 19TH STREET AND EXTENDING EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 157 FEET MORE OR LESS (M.O.L.); MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 95-SV-01, DAN SAGAN, J.H. FLOYD SUNSHINE MANOR INC.) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-1B) #1 (0886) through (1304) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 95-3865 conditionally rezones the property located at 1809 and 1825 18th Street from the Residential, Multiple Family (RMF-3) Zone District, which is 13 units per acre, to Governmental (G) Zone District; that Preliminary Site and Development Plan 95-PSD-E will permit renovation and additions to the existing structures for use. as a 41-bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF) on the site; that Street Vacation Petition No. 95-SV-01 allows for vacating that portion of Osprey Avenue between 18th and 19th Streets and the portion of 19th Street which abuts the property and was filed in conjunction with the conditional rezoning petition; that the proposed conditional rezoning petition (95-CO-01), and Preliminary Site and Development Plan (95-PSD-E) is consistent with the Sarasota City Plan; that the proposed Street Vacation Petition No. 95-SV-01 is consistent with the Sarasota City Plan, subject to maintenance of the drainage ditch and receipt of necessary utilities easements being submitted to the City prior to second reading; that the petitioner proffered in a letter dated June 19, 1995, the following condition: In the event the lease between the City of Sarasota and J. H. Floyd Sunshine Manor, Inc., is terminated, or the quasi-public use upon that property ceases, the City Auditor and Clerk shall schedule this matter for consideration by the City Commission to determine whether to rezone the property to its former or another zone district classification. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance Nos. 95-3865 and 95-3866 on first reading. Dwayne Harvey, Chief Executive Officer, J. H. Floyd Sunshine Manor, Inc. and Dan Sagan, Architect for the project, came before the Commission. Mr. Harvey stated that, reiterating comments made in an earlier public hearing, J. H. Floyd Sunshine Manor, Inc., is attempting to be an ACLF to allow for individuals who are at the poverty level; that the monthly charge is $575 to $1,000 per month; that this would allow housing for individuals not typically able to afford that type of care; that the ACLF has a skilled-nursing facility and an independent-living facility on the property which is in a G zone district; that apartments were purchased adjacent to the property; that malevolent activities were known to occur at those apartments; therefore, purchasing these buildings will clean up the neighborhood while providing a quasi-public use. Mr. Sagan stated that the project includes three tri-plex buildings composed of approximately 7,500 square feet; that these buildings will be renovated along with an addition of approximately 5,000 square feet; that the character of the buildings will be residential with sloped, shingled roofs and painted stucco walls. Commissioner Patterson stated that a memorandum included in the agenda materials, dated January 6, 1995, from Dale Haas, P.E., Senior Utilities Engineer for the City of Sarasota, indicates a concern about drainage details which have not been provided. Mr. Sagan stated that he has worked with Mr. Haas on this project since September 1994; that Osprey Avenue should be used as a drainage ditch; that a sanitary sewer is next to the ditch and Mr. Haas was concerned that enough flat area was not available to move equipment onto the property; that the plans have been revised and Mr. Haas is satisfied with the revisions; that a memorandum dated after January 6, 1995, indicates these revisions. Gil Leacock, Director of Public Works, came before the Commission and stated that he believes the concern has been sàtisfied. BOOK 38 Page 11960 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11961 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Administration could verify that the concern was met prior to the second reading of this Ordinance. Mr. Sollenberger stated that satisfaction of the concern will be verified. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3865 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to approve Ordinance No. 95-3865 on first reading. Commissioner Patterson stated that this type of Ordinance is one which any Commissioner would want to support; that the City would not want to stand in the way of an agency's providing a service to the Community; however, many ACLFS throughout the City do not have G zoning; that all ACLFS could be considered as having a quasi- governmental purpose since all ACLFS accept Medicare or Medicaid funds; that this particular ACLF is special because a large portion of the land is leased directly from the City; that the city has already determined the services of this agency are needed at that location; that she can support this Ordinance since the majority of the land is City owned and is leased; that if the purpose were to change entirely, such as selling to another use or terminating the lease, she would want the G zone district reconsidered; and asked if the Ordinance includes reconsideration of the G zone district if the use of the property changes, as the response to this question may affect her vote on this Ordinance? Commissioner Pillot stated that he believes this is the intent of the Administration's recommendation. Mayor Merrill asked if the memorandum, dated June 19, 1995, from the petitioner will be incorporated into the Ordinance? Mr. Sollenberger stated that is correct. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote to approve Ordinance No. 95-3865 on first reading. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Merrill, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3866 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve Ordinance No. 95-3866 on first reading. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Merrill, yes. 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3871, AMENDING CHAPTER 28 OF THE SARASOTA CITY CODE, SALES, ARTICLE I, GARAGE SALES EXPANDING THE PROHIBITION AGAINST MORE THAN TWO GARAGE SALES IN ANY CALENDAR YEAR TO INCLUDE ALL RESIDENTIAL USES; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (1305) through (1408) Timothy Litchet, Acting Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that the existing City of Sarasota Code, Section 28-2, applies only to garage sales within residential districts; that a recent code enforcement case has demonstrated that for the provisions to be effective on a Citywide basis, the language should be revised to apply to all structures used as a residence in the City since residential structures located in commercial zone districts exist. Commissioner Dry left the Commission Chambers at 6:42 p.m. Commissioner Pillot asked if that was the only change to the Ordinance? Mr. Litchet stated that is correct. Commissioner Pillot asked if any difficulties, enforcement problems, or major public relations issues have occurred in relation to this Ordinance? Mr. Litchet stated that the enforcement of this Ordinance is going very well; that the Ordinance has been effective in the areas of the City where regulation of garage sales was required. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends approving proposed Ordinance No. 95-3871 on first reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3871 by title only. BOOK 38 Page 11962 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11963 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to pass Ordinance No. 95-3871 on first reading. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (3 to 0): Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Merrill, yes. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 95R-820, ESTABLISHING A POLICY TO REOUIRE EXECUTION OF A MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND PRE-ANNEXATION. AGREEMENT FOR PROPERTIES OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS AS A CONDITION TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE WATER AND/OR SEWER SERVICE; PROVIDING THAT THIS POLICY SHALL ALSO APPLY TO ANY PROPERTY OUTSIDE THE CITY WHICH RECEIVES MUNICIPAL SERVICES PURSUANT TO A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY AT SUCH TIME AS THE AGREEMENT SHALL EXPIRE OR TERMINATE; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #1 (1409) through (1525) City Manager Sollenberger stated this resolution is to establish a policy which requires execution of municipal services and pre- annexation agreements with properties outside the City to continue receiving water and/or sewer service; that questions regarding the provisions for cancellation of the four existing agreements by either party and the value of the waiver of annexation fee arose at the June 5, 1995, Commission meeting; that only one of the four existing municipal services agreements has a provision for the City's early termination of the utility services; that waiving the annexation fee, which is an incentive, is administered on a billable fee system; that the petitioner is required to deposit $1,400; that $992.25 of the most recent $1058.03 annexation fee was for advertising; therefore, processing several annexations at one time would reduce costs considerably, thereby easing the City's financial impact of fee waivers; that City Attorney Taylor's revisions to Resolution No. 95R-820 are as follows: 1. Additional language to Section 1 specifies that this section applies only to properties where no current municipal services agreement exists; and 2. The addition of Section 2 provides for the four properties outside the City limits currently receiving water and/or sewer services pursuant to an agreement which does not require annexation. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends adoption of proposed Resolution No. 95R-820. Commissioner Dry returned to the Commission Chambers at 6:45 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 95R-820 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to adopt Resolution No. 95R-820. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Merrill, yes. 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3869, AMENDING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO SPEED RESTRICTED AREAS IN SARASOTA BAY BY DELETING A REQUIREMENT THAT SPEED BE MEASURED IN NAUTICAL MILES PER HOUR AND REPLACING SAME WITH MILES PER HOUR; EXPANDING RESTRICTED AREAS TO INCLUDE MEASUREMENT FROM SHORELINES MAKING RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN PORTIONS OF MAIN CHANNELS WITHIN SARASOTA BAY; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY)- ADOPTED; AUTHORIZED PLACING SPEED RESTRICTION SIGNS IN NEW PASS AND AROUND BAY ISLAND SOUTH OF THE SIESTA KEY BRIDGE (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #1 (1526) through (1695) City Manager Sollenberger stated that proposed Ordinance No. 95-3869 amends the Sarasota City Code pertaining to speed restricted areas in Sarasota Bay by: 1. Deleting the requirement that speed be measured in nautical miles per hour and replaces same with miles per hour; 2. Expanding the restricted areas to include measurement from shorelines; and 3. Making the restrictions applicable to certain portions of main channels within Sarasota. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the City Commission passed this proposed Ordinance on first reading at the May 1, 1995, Commission meeting with the direction that the Administration expand the areas considered to include protection for the boats moored at the Sarasota Sailing Squadron. Commissioner Patterson asked the meaning of the markers designed as "Federal" on the map in the agenda materials. City Attorney Taylor stated that those designations on the map represent existing channel markers. Commissioner Patterson asked if those channel markers are related to speed? BOOK 38 Page 11964 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11965 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that those channel markers are not related to speed but are the red and green channel markers delineating the sides of the channel. Commissioner Patterson stated that the map depicts that a canal near her home will be posted with speed-limit signs; that this is the first she has known about this, which, in her opinion, are necessary; that the speed-limit signs are being installed because of a letter written by the Bay Island - Siesta Association, Inc., - which indicated other areas requiring speed restrictions; that the canal near her home was not listed as an area recommended for speed restrictions in the Bay Island - Siesta Association, Inc., letter; and asked for clarification as to how this canal was selected for speed-limit signs. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that a newspaper article reported the Commission had taken action on this issue; that Walter Cannon, Bay Island - Siesta Association, Inc. contacted the City Manager's Office requesting the required procedure to include the canal near Commissioner Patterson's home on the list of locations to receive speed restrictions; that the request was forwarded to the Public Safety Department and staff examined the area since a formal request was made to the City Manager's office. Commissioner Patterson asked if this is the only area the Public Safety Department found appropriate for speed signs in the Bay Island neighborhood? Mr. Schneider stated that is correct. Commissioner Patterson asked staff to contact Mr. Cannon about the findings. Mr. Schneider stated that Mr. Cannon will be contacted. Commissioner Patterson asked if a conflict of interest exists in her voting for this Ordinance? City Attorney laylor stated no. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3869 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to adopt Ordinance No. 95-3869 on second reading and to authorize posting speed restriction signs in New Pass and around Bay Island south of the Siesta Key Bridge per the Department of Public Safety, Police Services Bureau's memorandum to the City Manager, dated June 12, 1995. Mayor Merrill requested that city Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Merrill, yes. 13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: REQUEST OF GILLESPIE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION - DOG RESTRAINT AND CLEAN UP RESTRICTION = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-4) #1 (1696) through (1949) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association (GPNA) requests that the provisions of the Ordinance for Bayfront and Island Park, which requires dogs to be on leashes and requires owners to clean up after dogs, also apply at Gillespie Park. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that concerns arose at the June 5, 1995, Commission meeting regarding this issue; that currently dogs are not allowed in Gillespie Park; that if the Commission wishes to allow dogs in Gillespie Park, the City would remove the current signs posted which prohibit dogs; that new signs, similar to those at the Bayfront, indicating that pet owners may walk pets on restraint, would be installed. Commissioner Dry stated that she does not want to continue addressing the question of allowing dogs in City parks on a park- by-park basis; that currently Gillespie Park is maintained by the County and signs are posted by the County; and asked if the concurrence of the County was received regarding the removal and replacement of signs? Mr. Schneider stated that yes, concurrence was received from the County; that at the time the City and County consolidated the Parks and Recreation Departments, the City adopted an Ordinance which incorporates the County Ordinances; therefore, the City could enforce County Ordinances in City parks; that even though parks are maintained by the County, enforcement of the Ordinance is performed by the City. Commissioner Dry stated that a precedent is being established as it relates to allowing dogs in City parks; that this issue should be resolved once and for all rather than taking action on each park individually; however, she will support this Ordinance to allow dogs in Gillespie Park. Commissioner Patterson stated that the County maintains Gillespie Park and a policy within the County exists which prohibits dogs in County parks; and asked if the County was asked if the city allows dogs in Gillespie Park, will the County continue to maintain the Park? Mr. Schneider stated that the County has agreed to continue maintaining the Park since dogs are brought in even with signs BOOK 38 Page 11966 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11967 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. posted prohibiting dogs; that the problem of cleaning up after dogs already exists in the Park; that the intent of the Ordinance is that dog owners will pick up after their dogs. Commissioner Pillot asked for the Administration's recommendation. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends City Attorney Taylor be directed to prepare an Ordinance amendment to accommodate the request of the GPNA. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to approve that City Attorney Taylor prepare an Ordinance amendment to accommodate the request of the GPNA. Commissioner Patterson stated that she is a dog lover; however, one by one the Commission will be requested by pet owners to approve ordinances allowing dogs in parks with the stipulation that pet owners will be responsible and clean up after their pets; that the City will become an island in the County where people can come to walk their dogs; that she does not agree with this Ordinance. Motion carried (3 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: DOWNTOWN LIBRARY LOCATION - CONTINUED; COMMISSIONER PATTERSON GAVE NOTICE TO RESCIND RESOLUTION NO. 94R-716 AT THE JULY 3, 1995, COMMISSION MEETING (AGENDA ITEM VII-6) #1 (1950) through (2937) Mayor Merrill stated that he discussed with City Auditor and Clerk Robinson the course of action necessary in the event of possible Commission action in conflict with Resolution No. 94R-716; that the issue has been researched as it relates to Robert's Rules of Order; that the ruling of the Chairman is that the Commission would have to rescind Resolution No. 94R-716 prior to taking any action which is in conflict with the existing Resolution. Commissioner Pillot stated that the issue is of substantial relevance and importance; and asked City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to review and explain the significance of the information provided. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that on February 22, 1994, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 94R-716 encouraging the County to make the Mission Harbor site available for potential retail development and offering the City-owned Lemon Avenue parking lot as a library site conditioned upon the County's providing replacement parking and a parking structure; that the Resolution does not specify a termination date and, therefore, is still on the books and effective until removed; that a motion, a second, and a two-thirds vote is required to rescind the Resolution. Commissioner Pillot stated that a majority of the City Commission previously took action which has the effect of encouraging the use of the Mission Harbor property for purposes other than the library; and asked if the Resolution implies a continued interest by the Commission in the Five-Points Park site for the library? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Resolution No. 94R-716 specifies the City-owned Lemon Avenue parking lot, although he believes the City's offer of the Lemon Avenue parking lot was dropped from the Three-Party Agreement between RISCORP, Sarasota County and the City of Sarasota. Commissioner Pillot stated that, given the continued existence of the Resolution, the Commission cannot legitimately take a stand in opposition unless the Resolution is rescinded by three votes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that is correct. Commissioner Pillot stated that the most recent action of the County Commission by a 4 to 1 vote is to locate the library at the Mission Harbor site; that the County Administrator has requested the City's reaction to the County's decision; and asked if Resolution No. 94R-716 remains the City's reaction to the County's decision unless the Resolution is rescinded? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that is correct; however, another possibility is to amend the Resolution. Commissioner Pillot asked if amending the Resolution would have the same effect as rescinding it? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that it is possible. Commissioner Pillot stated that an amendment would still require three votes for passage. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that is correct. Commissioner Patterson asked if such a motion is made and fails, could any Commissioner announce an intention to place the question of rescinding Resolution No. 94R-716 on the agenda for the next meeting? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that is correct. Commissioner Patterson asked if the question could be placed on the agenda by either the prevailing or the non-prevailing party to the vote? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that is correct. BOOK 38 Page 11968 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11969 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson asked if the ruling of the Parliamentarian is that any positive response from the City to the County's request to use part of the Mission Harbor site for economic development would be in conflict with the existing Resolution? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that is correct, unless the Resolution is amended to state "to be used in part." Commissioner Patterson stated that, therefore, the Three-Party Agreement to place the library at Five-Points Park, for which three Commissioners voted, was also an incorrect parliamentary procedure? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that is correct. Mayor Merrill stated that this issue is being discussed because a number of people have signed up to speak; that a good chance exists that no action will be taken since only four Commissioners are present; that he entertains a motion to postpone this discussion to the July 3, 1995, Commission meeting. Commissioner Pillot stated that his intent in making a motion to change the Orders of the Day at the beginning of the meeting was to postpone the discussion until a full Commission is present; that the audience has been provided more information and may understand the reasons why the Commission may not be able to take decisive action at this time; therefore, he will move to delay the discussion. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Mayor Merrill, who passed the gavel, it was moved to delay the discussion concerning the library issue until the July 3, 1995, regular Commission meeting, when a full Commission is anticipated to be present. Commissioner Dry stated that she recognizes that Vice Mayor Cardamone, who is not present, has an intense interest in the issue; however, she believes the Commission should at least address the question of rescinding Resolution No. 94R-716 and move forward with the task of responding to the County Commission's vote to choose the Mission Harbor site for the library; that this issue has dragged on too long for the Commission to continue delaying the discussion. Commissioner Pillot stated that the intent of the motion is not to procrastinate; that he is willing to express now, as he has in the past, his position on this issue; that he predicts no action will be taken at this time, although he could be wrong as he does not know how his three colleagues will vote on a motion to rescind Resolution No. 94R-716; that he will vote against a motion to rescind Resolution No. 94R-716; that the purpose of his motion to change the Orders of the Day at the beginning of the meeting was so those in the audience who wish to speak to the issue may choose to go home; that the intent of his current motion is the same; that the audience's time, as well as the interest of the viewing audience at home, will have been misused if the people who signed up to speak do, in fact, speak and the Commission is unable to reach a resolution because the vote is 2 to 2; that he will not vote to support the County's placing the library on the Mission Harbor site, although he will no longer oppose that action; that he cannot in good conscience vote to support an action in which he does not believe, but the issue has dragged on ad infinitum; that further objection and further lack of cooperation with the Board of County Commissioners is not useful or productive; that new data and information are available suggesting that the County Commission's vote may have some relevance; that the Commission should proceed as Commissioner Dry suggested; that he suspects the motion on the table will be defeated by a 2 to 2 vote, resulting in no action being taken; that if the Resolution is not rescinded, the discussion could continue with a full Commission at the July 3, 1995, meeting. Mayor Merrill stated that 13 people have signed up to speak; that the discussion may have to be repeated at the July 3, 1995, meeting if the motion does not pass; that it may be best to wait until the next meeting when a full Commission will be present so that a majority vote can be achieved; that delaying the discussion may be more definitive and more productive. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Mayor Merrill, it was moved to call the question. Commissioner Patterson stated that the motion to call the question is not debatable. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dry, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes;. Commissioner Patterson restated the motion as to postpone the vote to rescind Resolution No. 94R-716 until the July 3, 1995, Commission meeting. Commissioner Pillot stated that the motion is to delay the discussion of the downtown library location until the July 3, 1995, Commission meeting when a full Commission would presumably be present. Commissioner Patterson stated that the effect of the motion is that the public input would also be postponed until the July 3, 1995, Commission meeting. Motion failed (2 to 2): Dry, noi Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, no. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to rescind Resolution No. 94R-716. Motion BOOK 38 Page 11970 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11971 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. failed (2 to 2): Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no; Merrill, no. Commissioner Pillot stated that the motion, against which he intended to vote, was a parliamentary procedure to demonstrate that Resolution No. 94R-716 cannot be rescinded at this meeting; therefore, any further action would be inappropriate. Commissioner Patterson stated that she is placing the motion back on the floor so that discussion may occur; that if the motion fails with a 2 to 2 vote, she will schedule the question of recision of Resolution No. 94R-716 at the July 3, 1995, Commission meeting so that a full Commission is present to consider the issue; that the public's time will have been wasted if the Commission does not consider this item since the public is here to speak; that the issue should have been on the agenda at the last Commission meeting since the Commission was asked a simple question in response to an issue, the primary concern for which has become whether or not the city will receive quality library facilities. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to rescind Resolution No. 94R-716. Commissioner Patterson asked if the public should speak before placing the motion on the table? Mayor Merrill asked City Auditor and Clerk Robinson for clarification under Robert's Rules of Order as to hearing the same motion immediately. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the motion should be to reconsider the vote; that Commissioner Patterson was not on the prevailing side and, therefore, may not move to reconsider the vote. Commissioner Patterson stated that, therefore, she cannot move to reconsider the previous vote. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that is correct. Mayor Merrill asked for clarification of a tie vote. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a tie vote is a failed vote. Commissioner Patterson asked how a failed vote can be reconsidered? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the two people voting "no", which was the prevailing vote, could make a motion to reconsider the vote. Mayor Merrill asked for the Administration's recommendation on the item. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration does not have a recommendation; that the County sent a letter inquiring as to the City's current position on the use of the Mission Harbor site; that the item was placed on the agenda for Commission discussion. Mayor Merrill stated that the location of the library is not a new issue to the public; that the Chair has typically allowed input in the past; however, under Robert's Rules of Order, no discussion is to occur without a motion on the table; that he is inclined to make such a ruling since discussion will have to occur again at the July 3, 1995, Commission meeting; that the interest of everyone is best served by waiting to continue this discussion until a full Commission is present; that unless a motion is placed on the table, he rules that the Commission must proceed with next item on the agenda. Commissioner Patterson stated that the motion to rescind Resolution No. 94R-716 was related to the agenda item; that Commission policy is to allow public input on any agenda item; that the process of public input appears to have been circumvented; and asked if the public should have spoken prior to Commissioner Pillot's motion? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the Commission's policy is to allow public input before a motion is made. Commissioner Patterson asked if the Commission acted improperly by voting prior to receiving public input? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that receiving public input before a motion is made has been the Commission's policy. Commissioner Patterson asked if allowing public input prior to making a motion is a policy or an ordinance? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that it is a policy; that she could proceed further by appealing the rule of the Mayor. Mayor Merrill stated that the official guide of the City is Robert's Rules of Order; that his ruling can be appealed and overruled by the majority of the Commission. Commissioner Pillot stated that, in order to save time, he is stating for the record that he will not vote to overrule the Mayor; that unless the Mayor votes to overrule himself, the ruling of the Mayor will not be overruled. BOOK 38 Page 11972 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11973 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson stated that she will not move to overrule the Mayor; that the Commission could proceed from deadlocked vote to deadlocked vote; that she is giving notice that she will agenda the question of recision of Resolution No. 94R-716 for the July 3, 1995, Commission meeting and expects public input will be allowed at that time. Mayor Merrill thanked the audience for coming to the meeting; and stated that the Commission should be able to make a decision at the July 3, 1995, meeting, at which time a full Commission will be present and at which time members of the audience may wish to speak. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: ROAD IMPACT FEE MITIGATION - OPPOSE SARASOTA COUNTY'S CURRENT IMPACT FEES MITIGATION PROPOSAL; ADMINISTRATION TO FORWARD A LETTER TO SARASOTA EXPRESSING CONCERNS OF THE CITY COMMISSIONERS (AGENDA ITEM VII-7) #1 (2938) through #2 (0608) Commissioner Patterson stated that she requested this item be placed on the agenda since Sarasota County has substantially changed their proposal for road impact fees mitigation from what was presented to the City Commission by City Manager Sollenberger at the June 5, 1995, meeting; that the City Commission went on record at the June 5, 1995, meeting in support of the program with a request to the County that the North Trail District be added as an eligible area for impact fee mitigation; that the City Commission should be given the opportunity to hear what the County is currently proposing for road impact fees mitigation. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, distributed copies of a map indicating the County's new proposed road impact fee designated mitigation areas; and stated that the County Commission held public hearings on May 23 and June 6, 1995, on the proposed road impact fee mitigation program; that on June 6, 1995, significant changes were made to the program by the County; that all office, commercial and industrial zoning districts were removed as proposed designated mitigation areas; that the proposed designated mitigation areas which will be considered at the June 20, 1995, County Commission meeting, consist strictly of major employment centers (MECs) and the interstate regional office parks (IROPS); that approximately 14 areas throughout the County have been designated as road impact fees mitigation areas, in addition to the City of Sarasota's tax increment financial (TIF) district, which includes the Rosemary Development District, and an equivalent designation of County MECS or IROPS in the City of Venice; that the County Commission also voted to fund the program initially with a loan from the Florida Association of Counties' Commercial Loan Program and remove any funding obligation from the County General Fund; that the road impact fees mitigation program is now structured such that all or part of the road impact fees for selected types of development in designated geographic areas may be paid by the County with non- impact fees funds if certain criteria are met and the funds are available for mitigation; that the County Ordinance establishes a formula for the total impact fee mitigation which is based on three criteria: 1) local jobs, 2) job quality, and 3) export of goods and services outside of Sarasota County; that a project can earn up to a maximum of 100 percent road impact fee mitigation by meeting standards for each of the three criteria set forth in the Ordinance; however, mitigation is not guaranteed and is available only to the amount available in the Economic Development Enhancement Fund; that no other projects will be eligible once the funds are depleted unless additional funds are provided. Dan Lobeck, representing Growth-restraint Environmental Organization (GEO), 950 South Shade Avenue (34237), came before the Commission and stated that this Ordinance impacts the future of the City of Sarasota; that he is alarmed that the City Commission has not been aware of this process; that this Ordinance replaces the impact fees normally paid by developers of projects in certain designated areas including mini warehouses, grocery-store-chain warehouses, office and medical buildings, and industrial facilities with property taxes paid by City and unincerperated-area County residents; that this Ordinance encourages building a warehouse in the Central Avenue area, but does nothing to encourage retail or residential development, which has characterized that area in the past; that the Ordinance is limited in terms of the type of development eligible, which may not be consistent with the Commission's view of the type of economic development opportunities to be encouraged in the City; that the location of the designated geographic areas targets the interstate corridor; that these developments along the interstate corridor, which are known as MECS or IROPS, would have impact fees paid by City and County taxpayers; that the designated eligible geographic area within the City of Sarasota is the TIF district, or the downtown area north as far as 10th Street, excluding the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) Way redevelopment section and the North Tamiami Trail area, both of which are designated by the City for economic development; that both the MLK Way and North Tamiami Trail areas would be at a disadvantage in terms of the market forces of economic development if this Ordinance is adopted by the County Commission; that the area around the airport in Venice and a small area in North Port are designated geographic areas which will encourage warehouse, office and industrial development in that area to the detriment of other parts of the County where that type of development has been intended; that significant industrial development will not occur downtown; that a developer with sufficient resources to build an office building will not be required to pay impact fees; that significant warehouse and industrial targeting is not available in the City under the Ordinance; that the formula established in the Ordinance is subject to question; that half the impact fees can be BOOK 38 Page 11974 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11975 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. eliminated and, therefore, paid by the property taxpayers of Sarasota County if products are exported, which is not important to the public interest; that only the average wage must be met in order to qualify for elimination of half the impact fees; that only average jobs are required, not better jobs; that $400,000 of the first $1 million the County is appropriating for this project will provide impact fee mitigation for Vinyl Tech and the balance will provide impact fee mitigation for three mini-warehouse projects, for which the site and development plans have already been submitted to the County; that the Vinyl Tech building is already complete, and Vinyl Tech representatives are waiting to receive their Certificate of Occupancy (CO) next month which is when impact fees must be paid in the County; that this Ordinance is terrible from the standpoint of the taxpayer who will be asked to pay for developments which have already occurred or will soon occur with or without this Ordinance; that the Ordinance creates a disadvantage for areas of the City requiring redevelopment; that the County will sooner rather than later be requesting the City contribute taxpayer funds to this mitigation program; that the County will not continue to provide revenues from unincorporated taxes to fund this program; that this Ordinance is one of the worst to ever come before the Board of County Commissioners, from the perspective of everyone in the County and more particularly from the perspective of City residents; that the City Commission should scrutinize the Ordinance if the Commission is going to take a leadership role in economic development in the City; that the County should be asked to delay making a decision on this Ordinance; and that the City should send the County a negative recommendation on adoption of this Ordinance. Commissioner Pillot stated that he does not understand the Ordinance as well as Mr. Lobeck; that Mr. Lobeck has made points which will be of influence; and asked if the benefit of impact fee mitigation is greater outside the Sarasota City corporate limits than inside the corporate limits? Mr. Schneider stated that he believes so. Commissioner Pillot stated that Mr. Lobeck has made a very valid point since the answer to the question posed is "yes"; that substantial mitigation occurring outside rather than inside the City's corporate limits does not have as positive an influence on constructive and desirable development inside the City limits as outside; that as Mr. Lobeck indicated, fees must be paid from another source if impact fees are not paid; that City residents are County taxpayers; that his conclusion is the City Commission would do the City a disservice by supporting the Ordinance if: 1) City residents' taxes paid to the County are used to lower impact fees outside the corporation limits, and 2) the impact fee mitigation is more beneficial outside than inside the City limits; therefore, he agrees with Mr. Lobeck and will not support the Ordinance. Commissioner Patterson stated that Mr. Schneider invited her to attend a briefing session with County staff concerning the road impact fees mitigation program; that the County will borrow $1 million this year and possibly next, and the borrowing would be progressive annually; that the interest on the loan will be paid back from occupational license taxes collected Countywide, including from City residents; that every person desiring to start a business, but who is not eligible for impact fee mitigation, contributes to occupational license taxes and will, thus, contribute towards someone else's tax abatement; that additional ad valorem taxes generated by new office or industrial parks will be used to pay back the loan principle; that Countywide revenues will be used to pay back the loan principle; that a deficit created by the City's TIF district is made up by the City and County in much the same wayi that the County is proposing to use Countywide revenues both to defray the interest and to pay back the principle on the loan; that the City is being placed at an enormous disadvantage since the only industrial area in the City, where an industrial park could be built instead of the current open-air gravel pit, is north of 10th Street and is not eligible for impact fee mitigation; that only a few office projects would be eligible within the City's TIF district; that people less able to pay, or at least the middle class who pays the bulk of the property taxes and the owners of the "mom and pop" stores who contribute occupational license taxes, will be contributing to mitigate impact fees for people who can well afford to pay the fees; that the impact fee mitigation program is not even remotely tailored to the needs of the City; that if a new office building is built in the City and the developers are eligible for mitigation of impact fees, the mitigation will come from the TIF district; that the TIF district will provide the impact fees mitigation if a mini TIF district is created to pay back the loan principle; that the TIF district currently does not have any money; that the County has created an Ordinance which is not good for the City; that the County has an unlimited ability to create more office and industrial parks while the City is limited to the TIF district; that she is very concerned and the Commission should voice its concerns regarding this issue to the County. Commissioner Dry asked if the area of development available to the City is limited to the two sections indicated on the map? Mr. Schneider stated that the two sections indicated on the map are the only areas at the current time which qualify for impact fee mitigation; that the program includes a provision providing for consideration of future redevelopment areas by the County Commission; however, what action may be taken in the future by the County Commission is not known. BOOK 38 Page 11976 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11977 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot asked if the potential cost to City residents, whether from TIF funds or direct ad valorem taxes, is greater than the potential advantages? Mr. Lobeck stated that the presumption advanced by the advocates of this Ordinance is that additional development induced by this impact fees mitigation program will provide sufficient ad valorem tax revenues to fund the program; that this presumption assumes no warehouse, grocery store warehouse, industrial or office development would occur in the absence of the impact fee mitigation program; that 90 percent of the warehouse development in 1994 was done by Winn Dixie; that Winn Dixie warehouses will exi'st in Sarasota County to serve Winn Dixie grocery stores whether the impact fee mitigation program is in place or not; that Bob Richardson, a well-respected realtor and developer in Sarasota County, was quoted in the newspaper as stating that no developers have avoided Sarasota County because of impact fees; that developers build in Sarasota County even with impact fees; that it cannot be presumed that all future warehouse, office and industrial development will not happen in the absence of this Ordinance. Commissioner Pillot asked Commissioner Patterson to comment on the fact that the potential costs of the program seem to outweigh the advantages to the City. Commissioner Patterson stated that the potential cost to the City does outweigh the advantages; that the potential advantage to the City would be the value-added jobs generated which is difficult to measurei that consideration should also be given to the fact that the City has special needs and people with substantially lower incomes than the County when the three criteria listed in the Ordinance are evaluated; that the needs of lower income people must be considered before taking money from everyone in the City to help economic growth in the County. Commissioner Patterson stated that her original thought was to have the Administration forward a letter to the Board of County Commissioners reflecting the City Commission's concerns; that the County Commissioners will discuss this issue on June 20, 1995, and, therefore, a letter cannot be composed and delivered in time for the meeting. City Manager Sollenberger stated that a letter can be composed for the June 20, 1995, County Commission meeting. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to oppose the current road impact fee mitigation proposal which will be considered at the June 20, 1995, Board of County Commission meeting, and to direct the Administration to forward a letter to the County reflecting the concerns expressed by City Commission. Mayor Merrill stated that the program is well intended; that Mr. Lobeck brought up the law of unintended consequences; that another issue is that many large land masses in the County are not communities but are mixed uses; that these areas are used for industrial parks, business parks or commercial areas; that the City's downtown area is comprised of restaurants, retail, housing and offices; that the practical effect of the program is to make land less attractive for housing, retail, and restaurants, and more attractive for mini warehouses and other uses which are not sought in mixed communities; that areas on School Avenue, for example, could benefit from more retail; that the Ordinance may provide more mini warehouses instead of retail on Shade Avenue; that different impact fee advantages direct growth to certain uses rather than to the full gamut of uses a community needs; that the Ordinance will have a negative effect on making a more liveable downtown, although this was not the intent of the Ordinance; that another motion could direct the City Manager to develop an impact fee mitigation proposal closer to the desires of the City Commission; that he believes the Ordinance will pass at the County Commission meeting, although the City could develop a proposal more sensitive to the City's needs which the County Commission may be willing to address. Commissioner Patterson stated that she agrees with Mayor Merrill that the City will presumably not stop the Ordinance from being passed at the June 20, 1995, County Commission meeting; that the letter could indicate the City is concerned and would like the opportunity to develop a counterproposal more tailored to the city's requirements; that another motion is not necessary as all the concerns expressed by the Commission were to be included in the correspondence to the County. Commissioner Pillot stated that it is always more responsible to offer alternatives and a willingness to work with the County rather than simply responding "no" to a proposal. Mayor Merrill restated the motion as to oppose the County's current road impact fee mitigation proposal and to direct the City Manager to forward a letter to the County expressing the concerns raised by the Commission. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. The Commission recessed from 7:47 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. 16. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PROPOSED SECOND AMENDMENT TO THREE-PARTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA, FIRST SUNSET DEVELOPMENT, INC. AND JOHN RINGLING CENTRE FOUNDATION: INC. FOR THE JOHN RINGLING TOWERS = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #2 (0609) through (1298) BOOK 38 Page 11978 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11979 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the proposed agreement has been drafted by the city Attorney, after consultation with the attorneys representing the other parties involved; that the attorneys have prepared one document for consideration by the City Commission; that the State of Florida has indicated it will not enter into the grant agreement providing $478,000 in assistance to the John Ringling Foundation, Inc., if the demolition agreement and the reverter clause to First Sunset Development, Inc., continue in their present form; that the deadline is June 30, 1995, after which the State funds allocated will revert to the State's General Fund and will no longer be available to the project. City Attorney Taylor stated that the concern of the State is the reverter and the demolition agreement; that the reverter is a property reverter to First Sunset Development, Inc.; that the State has indicated that grant funds will not be released with the reverter and demolition agreements in effect; that an amendment to the Three-Party Agreement between the City, the Foundation and First Sunset Development, Inc., has been drafted; that the amendment provides that the State will escrow this grant money before the end of the month; that a contract for the rehabilitation of the entire exterior will be entered into by the Foundation before the end of the month; that the rehabilitation of the entire exterior of the structure will occur by February 28, 1996; that a contract for the rehabilitation of 7,000 square feet on the first floor will be also in place by February 28, 1996; that if these obligations are accomplished, the amendment provides that the City shall release funds held in escrow to secure demolition by March 31, 1996, canceling the demolition agreement; that the State will then pay out the grant funds held in escrow to the Foundation, and First Sunset Development, Inc., will then release the deed restrictions; that input was received from Commissioner Patterson during the course of developing the amendment; that Commissioner Patterson indicated a concern with the non-secured position of the City after March 31, 1996, which would be the termination date of the current demolition agreement. City Attorney Taylor continued that he worked with the Foundation to obtain additional security for the City; that the Commission has not seen this document previously since it was just completed today; that the document proposes that the City immediately receive a priority lien, which is a statutory mortgage, against the property; that a priority lien is similar to an agreement for future advances, such as an equity line of credit; that the City would receive a priority lien the day the amendment is recorded; therefore, the City would have a secured position in the event it became necessary for the City to accomplish the demolition of the John Ringling Towers (JRT) for whatever reason; that the security agreement also provides upon its recording that the City will repay the Foundation the sums of money the City currently holds in escrow; that he believes First Sunset Development, Inc., will agree to the security agreement; that the State's attorney had a concern about the security agreement as reference is made to a demolition; that the State's attorney intimated that he could convince his superiors that nothing ominous toward the State exists in the security agreement if it became necessary to get the project done. Commissioner Pillot asked if the property lien has a termination date if the security agreement is executed and the property lien put on record? City Attorney Taylor stated that the property lien would terminate at the time a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is issued for the first and second floors of the building which would come after the rehabilitation of the entire exterior and the 7,000 square feet as called for under the second amendment. Commissioner Pillot asked if the relevant dates in the second amendment are February 28 and March 31, 1996? City Attorney Taylor stated that the lien is in effect on the date of recording; that the lien would cover the period from March 31, 1996, until renovations are complete. Commissioner Pillot stated that the proposed completion date is February 28, 1996, and the proposed release date is no later than March 31, 1996; and asked if the security agreement begins on April 1, 1996, and continues from that time? City Attorney Taylor stated that the property lien will continue to cover the City in a secured position after those dates. Commissioner Patterson stated that under the proposed security agreement, the Foundation will receive $250,000 which is in the letter of credit; that the security agreement takes the place of the letter of credit and, therefore, becomes effective immediately. Commissioner Pillot stated that the language of the Second Amendment is not being deleted, but rather supplemented by this security agreement. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Second Amendment would be changed only to the extent that under the security agreement, the $250,000 would be returned immediately with the recording of the property lien, rather than on March 31, 1996, as contemplated by the Second Amendment. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the security agreement prepared by City Attorney Taylor is entirely workable; that the security agreement provides additional security beyond that which was contained in the Second Amendment to the Three-Party Agreement. BOOK 38 Page 11980 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11981 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Foundation is supportive of the Second Amendment to the Three-Party Agreement; and asked if the Foundation is supportive of the security agreement? City Attorney Taylor stated that the Foundation, through their legal council, has indicated agreement with the security agreement. George Dietz, Attorney for First Sunset Development, Inc. and William Merrill, Attorney for the John Ringling Centre (JRC) Foundation, came before the Commission. Attorney Dietz stated that a copy of the draft of the Second Amendment was sent to Susan Hanson, representing First Sunset Development, Inc.; that Ms. Hanson approved the first draft but has since proposed some minor modifications; that Ms. Hanson is out of town, but after speaking with Attorney Merrill and Donald Smally, President, John Ringling Centre Foundation, Inc., he is certain the minor details will be resolved; that the details do not impact the City of Sarasota; that with this one minor caveat, First Sunset Development, Inc., is in full accord with the document. Commissioner Pillot asked if this includes the security agreement? Attorney Dietz stated that is correct; that the First Sunset Development, Inc., has no objection to the security agreement; that the security agreement is strictly between the JRC Foundation and the City. Attorney Merrill stated that the JRC Foundation is in accord with the Second Amendment and the security agreement; that minor changes, requested on June 15, 1996, were submitted but not included in the Second Amendment; that these minor changes do not affect the security agreement; that some changes are typographical errors and others are date changes so the date sequence makes sense; that currently some of the dates refer back to the same dates and do not allow time for notification; that once the construction ends on February 28, 1996, the JRC Foundation will have 10 days to collect documentation and notify the various parties; that the City and First Sunset Development, Inc., will have 10 days to release the JRC Foundation so the State can release the escrow funds; that the agreement has a reference to 7,000 square feet of retail space; that the JRC Foundation has plans for 7,000 square feet, but the retail portion may be only 4,000 square feet; that 3,000 square feet may be comprised of historic rooms, a lobby, etc.; that this change in the agreement could be delegated by the Commission to staff if approval is given by First Sunset Development, Inc. Commissioner Patterson stated that the change in the agreement is agreeable to her; that she has a concern about a clause in the escrow agreement between the JRC Foundation and the State which is referenced in the Second Amendment to the Three-Party Agreement; that the State has asked the JRC Foundation to guarantee or receive the City's agreement that no further demolition ordinance or requirement will be enacted; that a demolition will not occur in the sense of the old demolition agreement; that any building which becomes unsafe according to State Statute would have to be demolished; and that the City cannot waive and does not intend to waive that power. Attorney Merrill stated that he agrees with Commissioner Patterson; that City Attorney Taylor, Attorney Dietz and he spoke with Frank Stockton, Senior Attorney, Florida Department of State, about the clause in the escrow agreement with the State; that Attorney Stockton seems to be amenable to make a change to the escrow agreement; that the clause in the escrow agreement concerning demolition encroaches upon the City's natural police powers; that the JRC Foundation is attempting to convince Attorney Stockton to delete the requirement for a guarantee that demolition will not occur; that this change is the last one to be made and it is anticipated to be resolved in the next day or two. Commissioner Patterson stated that if the Second Amendment and the security agreement passes, the issue of demolition should be resolved at City Attorney Taylor's discretion. Attorney Merrill stated that he would appreciate that. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to approve the modification of the Three-Party Agreement and to approve the Second Amendment with the addition of the security agreement as presented with the understanding that the language concerns and other issues discussed will be delegated to City Attorney Taylor and the Administration to resolve. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 17. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF $42,700 WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY DEPOSITED FOR ASBESTOS REMOVAL FROM THE JOHN RINGLING TOWERS - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #2 (1299) through (1353) Mayor Merrill stated that authorization to release monies for asbestos removal is requested. Commissioner Pillot stated that since the Administration has recommended the asbestos removal, he moves approval. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to approve the release of $42,700 which was previously deposited for asbestos removal from the John Ringling Towers. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. BOOK 38 Page 11982 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11983 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. Mayor Merrill stated that the Commissioners appreciate the work of the Foundation and First Sunset Development, Inc. 18. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: LOCATION AND DESIGN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUNTAIN ON ISLAND PARK BY MARINA JACK, INC. - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) #2 (1354) through (1752) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the modified lease agreement, as approved by Marina Jack, Inc.'s, attorney, in January 1995, provides that the tenant shall construct a fountain near the tip of Island Park with location and design subject to approval of the City Commission; that six years ago Mr. Jack Graham, Jack Graham, Inc., offered to construct a fountain on Island Park commemorating the 20th Anniversary of his operation of the Marina Jack facilities; that a formal proposal was developed after considerable research, planning and study; that the goal is to have an operational fountain before the end of October 1995; that the bronze-sculptured dolphins are scheduled for installation by the end of 1995; that Marina Jack, Inc., personnel will maintain the fountain while the City supplies the reuse water and electricity for the pump; that a motion to approve the fountain design would be appropriate if the proposal meets the satisfaction of the Commission. Mr. Sollenberger further stated that the exact location of the fountain should be addressed; that placing the fountain at the tip of the point at Island Park would preclude placing a walking path around the fountain as the walkway would end in front of the fountain on the land side. Commissioner Patterson stated that Attorney Strickland is her husband's partner and both Attorney Strickland and her husband's law firm represents Marina Jack, Inc.; therefore, she declares a conflict of interest and will abstain from voting. Attorney Strickland, representing Marina Jack, Inc., came before the Commission and stated that the fountain should not be built unless people can walk around it; that sidewalk placement will be taken into consideration when choosing the site for the fountain; that building the fountain is simply fulfilling their responsibilities per the lease agreement between the City and Marina Jack, Inc. Commissioner Patterson stated that for the last several years the judging of the Boat Parade of Lights has taken place at the tip of Island Park where the proposed fountain will stand; that if only a narrow strip of sidewalk is available to walk on, people cannot stand at the point of Island Park, which is the most advantageous viewing point; and asked if the fountain could be placed further back from the point? Attorney Strickland stated that Marina Jack, Inc., will certainly provide adequate space for pedestrians; that both Marina Jack, Inc., and the City want an attractive fountain; and that Marina Jack, Inc., will attempt to alleviate concerns by taking competing interests into consideration. Commissioner Pillot asked if the language in the lease referencing the City's responsibilities meets with the approval of the Administration? Mr. Sollenberger stated yes. Commissioner Pillot stated that the letter from Lee Sullivan, Jack Graham, Inc., dated June 8, 1995, indicates the project will be completed entirely by local people which is an important point; that having viewed the excellent presentation, and having an understanding about the modification of location, he finds the renderings of the fountain and sculptures to be extremely beautiful and appropriate for the location; that the major cost is privately borne; that the fountain is one of the best examples of public/private cooperation the City has seen in a while. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to approve the design. Mr. Sollenberger stated that as a point of clarification, it is assumed that the motion includes that the fountain will allow for sidewalk installation around the entire fountain. Commissioner Pillot stated that Attorney Strickland already indicated that would not be a problem; that it is important, however, to have that understood in the motion. Attorney Strickland stated that Marina Jack's, Inc., is paying sales tax on the fountain; that the fountain will cost $200,000 and the sales tax is $14,000; that he has discussed with City Attorney Taylor the possibility of using the City sales tax number for the sales tax. Mayor Merrill asked if using the City sales tax number is feasible? City Attorney Taylor stated that the City, under the circumstances with the contract with Marina Jack, Inc., could exercise its rights to utilize its sales tax number in making the purchase if that is acceptable to the Commission; that there conceivably could be a problem with bidding requirements, however, this project is not a standard item bought off a shelf but rather developed privately; that he has not spoken with Robert Gerkin, Director of General Services, about the possibility, but he believes the City should have the ability to make the acquisition as part of the lease with Marina Jack, Inc. BOOK 38 Page 11984 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11985 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. There was a consensus of the Commission to use the City sales number if feasible. Commissioner Pillot stated that the City sales number should be used only if it is legal and ethical and does not interfere with bidding. Mayor Merrill stated that he indicated, after perusing Mr. Sullivan's drawings several years ago, that he would love to see the plans come true; that he supports building the fountain; that he has a concern in that the City has an Advisory Board which should make this decision; that perhaps the issue of location should be addressed by the Public Art Committee; and asked if a timing issue exists in reference to the building of the fountain? Attorney Strickland stated that Marina Jack, Inc., would like to move forward; that an October 1995 deadline exits. Mayor Merrill stated that as a courtesy, the Administration could inform the Public Art Committee of this decision; that if anything glaring was brought forth by the Committee, a change would be requested. Commissioner Pillot stated that a letter of appreciation should be sent to Mr. Graham and Mr. Sullivan on behalf of the Mayor and the Commission. Mayor Merrill stated that there was consensus of the Commission that a letter of appreciation be sent. Mayor Merrill restated the motion as it was moved and seconded to approve the design. Motion carried unanimously (3 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, abstained; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 19. BOARD APPOINTMENT RE: CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE - APPOINTMENTS MADE (AGENDA ITEM IX-1) #2 (1753) through (1805) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that each City Commissioner has two appointments to the Charter Review Committee. Commissioner Pillot stated that he is pleased and very proud that he has received an acceptance from George Dietz and Lou Ann Palmer. Commissioner Patterson stated that she is equally pleased at the acceptance of her two appointments who are John Browning and Bart Cotten. Commissioner Dry stated that James C. Brown and Bruce E. Franklin accepted her appointments. Mayor Merrill stated that he appoints John Dumbaugh and Devin Rutkowski. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Vice Mayor Cardamone provided a memorandum indicating the appointment of Karen Matteson and Virginia Haley. 20. BOARD APPOINTMENT RE: CIVIL SERVICE/SENERAL PERSONNEL BOARD - REAPPOINTED RICHARD NOBLE AND MATTHEW PETERS (AGENDA ITEM IX-2) AND 21. BOARD APPOINTMENT RE: FIRE PROTECTION/PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REAPPOINTED DONALD MCCORMICK AND WAYNE STUTZMAN (AGENDA ITEM IX-3) AND 22. BOARD APPOINTMENT RE: GENERAL EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES - REAPPOINTED LOU ANN PALMER (AGENDA ITEM IX-4) #2 (1806) through (1848) Mayor Merrill asked City Auditor and Clerk Robinson if any members are not eligible for reappointment? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that all members are eligible for reappointment; that also, no other applications were received. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to approve the reappointment of the Civil Service/Ceneral Personnel Board, the Fire Protection/Public Safety Advisory Committee and the General Employees Pension Fund Board of Trustees. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 23. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #2 (1849) There being no further business, Mayor Merrill adjourned the regular meeting of June 19, 1995, at 8:35 p.m. DAVID MERRILL, MAYOR 71 ATTEST: BicuE Rebenson BILLY EROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK BOOK 38 Page 11986 06/19/95 6:00 P.M. FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME--FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Patterson, Nora Sarasota City Commission MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON 707 Freeling Drive WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: X CITY COUNTY OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY COUNTY NAME OF POLTICALSUBDIVSION: Sarasota Sarasota City of Sarasota DATE ON W'HICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: X: ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE June 19, 1995 WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipai, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from. voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form should be provided mmediately to the other members of the agency. The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. CI FORMI XB 10-86 PAGET IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. Yous should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, Nora Patterson hereby disclose that on June 19 19. 95 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) X inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of by whom I am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: Conditional Rezoning Ordinance No. 95-3862 was brought before the City Commission for adoption at second reading. My husband, as an attorney, represented the Petitioner when the petition was brought before the City's Board of Adjustment. Hona 7 & a Date Fited Glaybs Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES $112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. CE FORM RR 0-86 PAGF 2 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME--FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Patterson, Nora Sarasota City Commission MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON 707 Freeling Drive WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: XCrTy COUNTY 17 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: Sarasota Sarasota City of Sarasota DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: June 19, 1995 % ELECTIVE : APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal fother than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. CE FORM XB 10-86 PAGFT IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. You should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, Nora Patterson hereby disclose that on June 19 19. 95 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) X inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of by whom I am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: An issue regarding Tocation and design for construction of a Fountain on Island Park by Marina Jack, Inc., was brought before the City Commission. My husband's law firm represents Marina Jack, Inc. Glar/95 ess Lora Tls Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES $112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. CE FORM 8B 10-86 PAGF 2