MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 1997, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Gene Pillot, Vice Mayor Jerome Dupree, Commissioners Mollie Cardamone, David Merrill, and Nora Patterson (arrived at 9:12 p.m.), city Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Gene Pillot The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(a) 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, JULY 1997, DOLORES (DOLLY) I. GAMBLE, FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST, ACCOUNTING AND PAYROLL DEPARTMENT #1 (0067) through (0255) City Manager Sollenberger requested that Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, David Flatt, Accounting and Payroll Manager, and Delores Gamble, Financial Accounting Specialist, come before the Commission. Mr. Mitchell stated that Ms. Gamble has been an employee of the Finance Department for two years; that Ms. Gamble is responsible for paying the City's vendors in a timely manner and for other essential accounting operations required to maintain high standards in government and financial reporting; that Ms. Gamble developed a schedule utilizing the City's financial management system to settle the City's obligations thirty days from date of invoice; that the procedure has greatly reduced vendor phone inquiries, has provided a stable relationship between vendors and the City, and has streamlined the flow of paperwork in the department; that controlling the cash flow has helped earn more interest for the City; that Ms. Gamble's ability to pay vendors accurately and on a timely basis assists in meeting the City's goal to be a financial responsible government providing high quality services; that Ms. Gamble is also very active in her church, working with the youth in music and other events; that Ms. Gamble truly serves the City with "Excellence and Pride." Mr. Flatt stated that the Finance Department is proud of the City's selection of Ms. Gamble as Employee of the Month for July; that the Finance Department processes 32,000 invoices annually resulting in 21,000 payments totalling approximately $45 million; that Ms. Gamble ensures proper documentation and signature approvals are included with the invoices and serves as the last BOOK 42 Page 15024 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15025 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. check point prior to issuance of payment; that her great personality, positive attitude, and conscientious work ethic is appreciated. Mayor Pillot presented Ms. Gamble with a City-logo watch, a plaque, and a certificate as the July 1997 Employee of the Month in appreciation of her unique performance with the City of Sarasota; and congratulated her for her outstanding efforts. Mr. Mitchell recognized Ms. Gamble's husband and two daughters who were present in the audience. 2. PRESENTATION RE: CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION TO THE DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION FOR THE 4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION AND FIREWORKS #1 (0255) through (0360) Mayor Pillot requested that Paul Thorpe, Executive Director, and Christine Jennings, President, Downtown Association of Sarasota join him before the Commission. Mayor Pillot read in its entirety a Certificate of Appreciation extending congratulations to the Downtown Association for their commitment and vision of the 4th of July celebration and fireworks display, recognizing its social and economic importance to the Downtown, the entire City of Sarasota, and the surrounding communities. Ms. Jennings stated that the Downtown Association is privileged to work with the City in sponsoring the 4th of July celebration and fireworks display; that the Commission's decision to increase funding for the event next year is appreciated. Mr. Thorpe stated that the support, efforts and assistance from the City and the people of the community in raising the $35,000 to $45,000 necessary for the fireworks display and in making the 4th of July event possible is appreciated. Mayor Pillot stated that the Commission has increased the annual City contribution of $5,000 to $10,000 in the proposed FY 97/98 budget; that the budget is scheduled for adoption in September; that significant changes to budget allocations are not anticipated. 3. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED #1 (0360) through (0415) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Remove under Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. III A-1, Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Temporary Parking Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Water Club II Development, Inc., for temporary parking of construction workers of Water Club II at Ken Thompson Park for a period of two years in return for construction of an improved parking area at the Park, per the request of Michael Connolly, City Attorney's Office B. Add under Scheduled Presentations, Item No. V-3, Presentation Re: Status of the John Ringling Towers and feasibility of project presented by Fred Starling, Vice President, John Ringling Centre Foundation, per the request of Commissioner Merrill C. Postpone Unfinished Business, Item No. VII-1, Presentation Re: Request for Action by C. Robert Buford concerning John Ringling Towers, per the request of Commissioner Patterson City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Commissioner Patterson has been detained at the airport in Atlanta, Georgia, after missing a connection flight to Sarasota; that she anticipates arriving at the meeting by 9:15 p.m. and requested that consideration on Unfinished Business, Item No. VII-1 be delayed until that time. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES RE: MINUTES OF THE EMERGENCY MEETING OF THE SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION ON JULY 10, 1997, REGULAR MEETING OF THE SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION ON JULY 21, 1997, AND SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 24, 1997 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I-1, -2, -3) #1 (0426) through (0436) Mayor Pillot asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the Sarasota City Commission emergency meeting of July 10, 1997, regular meeting of July 21, 1997, and special meeting of July 24, 1997, are approved by unanimous consent. 5. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 2, 1997 - SUMMARILY DENIED PETITION NO. 97-SV-02; DIRECTED STAFF TO STUDY ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC USES FOR THE RIGHF-OF-WAY IN THE 4800 BLOCK OF NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL; POSTPONED ACTION ON PETITION NO. 97-SV-02 UNTIL THE SEPTEMBER 2, 1997, MEETING; ADMINISTRATION TO SCHEDULE JOINT WORKSHOP WITH PBLP TO DISCUSS QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEDURES RECEIVED REPORT (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (0436) through (0942) BOOK 42 Page 15026 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15027 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Lou Ann Palmer, Member of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), came before the Commission. Ms. Palmer presented the following items from the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's regular meeting of July 2, 1997: - Petition No. 97-SV-02 Ms. Palmer stated that Petition No. 97-SV-02 is a request for vacation of a right-of-way located in the 4800 block of North Tamiami Trail; that the parcel is bounded by the Imperial Motel to the north, the Royal Flamingo Motel to the south, North Tamiami Trail to the east, and Sarasota Avenue to the west; that the PBLP found the right-of-way to be of benefit to the public and recommends denial of the street vacation to the Commission; that a problem with drug dealing and prostitution has been identified at the subject location; that the Commission is requested to allow Staff to review various alternatives for public use of the right-of-way to resolve the problems in the area. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends approval of the PBLP's action. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to summarily deny Petition No. 97-SV-02, which is not viewed as in the best interest of the City. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved to direct the Administration to study alternative public uses for the right-of-way located in the 4800 block of North Tamiami Trail. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes. Petition No. 97-SE-05 Ms. Palmer stated that Petition No. 97-SE-05 is a request by Tropical Partners, Inc., which operates Tommy Bahama, to expand an existing Special Exception (83-SE-08), which permits outdoor dining on the ground floor (175 square feet/12 seats) adjacent to South Washington Drive, to permit a total of approximately 1,090 square feet/34 seats for outdoor dining on the parcel located at 300 John Ringling Boulevard; that the parcel is located on St. Armands Circle in the Commercial Tourist (CT) Zone District; that the PBLP found Petition No. 97-SE-05 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan but denied the special exception request; that the PBLP was concerned about the adverse impact to adjacent residential property and incompatibility of the use due to noise and traffic intrusion into the neighborhood. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission may affirm, reverse, or modify the PBLP's action or set the special exception petition for public hearing before the Commission; that a public hearing has been held by the PBLP; therefore, a public hearing before the Commission is not necessaryi that based on the quasi- judicial nature of the request, scheduling a public hearing is recommended if the Commission reverses or modifies the PBLP action. Ms. Robinson stated that the petitioner has filed a variance regarding the masonry wall required for the outdoor dining and an administrative appeal to determine whether the wall must also be constructed on the second floor; that the items are pending and scheduled for hearing before the Board of Adjustment on August 27, 1997; that the Commission may wish to continue final action on Petition No. 97-SE-05 until the pending issues have been addressed. City Attorney Taylor stated that a decision regarding the variance on the masonry wall would be essential to implementation of the special exception by the petitioner; that postponing final action on Petition No. 97-SE-05 until the September 2, 1997, regular City Commission meeting is an alternative available. Commissioner Cardamone asked the effect of taking no action pending the outcome of the Board of Adjustment hearing. Ms. Palmer stated that the petition would be denied automatically 45 days following action by the PBLP if the Commission takes no action. City Attorney Taylor stated that taking no action is not recommended; that continuing the matter until the September 2, 1997, meeting would provide the Commission an opportunity to review the results of the variance process. On motion of Vice Mayor Dupree and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to postpone final action on Petition No. 97-SE-05 until the September 2, 1997, regular City Commission meeting. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she has concerns with postponing action; and asked for clarification of the effect the Board of Adjustment's finding will have on future Commission decisions. City Attorney Taylor stated that a variance pertaining to the 6.5-foot masonry wall at the ground floor and second level of the subject building is necessary for the petitioner to make use of the requested special exception; that the 6.5-foot masonry wall BOOK 42 Page 15028 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15029 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. would not be required if the variance is granted and the Commission subsequently approves the special exception; however, the variance is of no use unless the special exception is approved by the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the variance would not affect the Commission's ability to affirm the PBLP action at the September 2, 1997, meeting. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion to postpone action on Petition No. 97-SV-02 until the September 2, 1997, meeting. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes. - Planning Board Rules of Procedure Ms. Palmer stated that the Planning Board Rules of Procedure are currently being reviewed; that the PBLP directed Staff to continue working on minor changes and to revise the rules of procedure to reflect current practices; however, the PBLP has concerns regarding consistency issues and requests a joint workshop with the City Commission to obtain guidance and input before formalizing the quasi-judicial procedural rules for public hearings; that participation by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson and the City Attorney's Office at the workshop is essential. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends scheduling the workshop prior to discussion on quasi- judicial guidelines during Phase I of the Land Development Regulations (LDRS) Update; that the PBLP is scheduled to review Phase I of the LDRs in October 1997. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved to schedule a joint workshop of the city Commission and the PBLP to discuss quasi-judicial procedures. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved to receive the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency report of the July 2, 1997, meeting. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes. 6. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD'S REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 8, 1997 - SET PETITION NO. 97-HD-1 FOR PUBLIC HEARING; RECEIVED REPORT WITH COMMENDATION (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #1 (0942) through (1229) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Daniel Delahaye, Chairman of the Historic Preservation Board, came before the Commission. Mr. Delahaye updated the Commission regarding actions taken at the following Historic Preservation Board meetings: January 14, 1997 Mr. Delahaye stated that at the January 14, 1997, Historic Preservation Board meeting annual elections were held; that he was elected as Chairman; that Norman Sharitt, a local architect, was elected as Vice Chairman; that a motion was passed allowing for a provisional certificate of appropriateness which provides for Board review of conceptual or more final construction plans, subject to City and County Staff review during permit application process, before a building permit is issued; that one certificate of appropriateness and one provisional certificate of appropriateness were approved; that two provisional certificate of appropriateness were continued; that a motion to set aside $1,000 in the Planning Department budget for continuing education of Board members passed unanimously; that a motion was also passed to send the Chairman to Tallahassee for Preservation Day as a representative for the City. Mr. Delahaye continued that while attending Preservation Day, he had the opportunity to meet with Legislators and other preservation professionals in an attempt to effect preservation legislation beneficial to the State and City; that Sandra Mortham, Secretary of State, Division of Historical Resources, was thanked for past support with City projects and was presented a print of the Municipal Auditorium for which the City received State grant funding toward renovations; that Secretary Mortham explained a project which targets Pinellas and Sarasota Counties in cultural heritage tourism promotions. February 11, 1997 Mr. Delahaye stated that one certificate of appropriateness was approved; that one provisional certificate of appropriateness was continued; that a 45-day stay of demolition of a garage structure listed on the Florida site map as a dependency of a major structure file was waived; that the following motions regarding the John Ringling Towers were passed: to express strong support by the Historic Preservation Board for preservation of the locally designated and nationally registered John Ringling Towers and Bickel House and to authorize the Chairman to report the motion to the Commission; and to request attendance by the Director of Planning and Development at a future Board meeting to discuss the JRT/Bickel House project; and BOOK 42 Page 15030 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15031 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. to authorize the Chairman to make a brief presentation to the Sarasota County Historical Commission seeking support for the JRT/Bickel House project. April 8, 1997 Mr. Delahaye stated that three certificates of appropriateness were approved; that the annual Board report was reviewed and changes recommended; that proposed changes to Division 8 of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) were reviewed. Mr. Delahaye presented the following items from the Historic Preservation Board's regular meeting of July 8, 1997: Certificates of Appropriateness Mr. Delahaye stated that one certificate of appropriateness was approved; that three provisional certificates of appropriateness were approved; that one provisional certificate of appropriateness, which is the subject of litigation, was stayed pending advice from the City Attorney's Office Meeting schedule Mr. Delahaye stated that the Board unanimously approved holding meetings every other month based on the problems quarterly meetings have been causing applicants and members. Commissioner Cardamone requested input from the Administration. Ms. Robinson stated that the Historic Preservation Board has met on demand for review of certificates of appropriateness; that the Board is reviewing the Historic Preservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan Update and sections of the Land Development Regulations (LDRS) Update; that Staff attendance at the meetings will be easier with the Commission's approval to expand the permanent Staff of the Planning Department in FY 97/98. Historic Home Ownership Assistance Act Mr. Delahaye stated that the Commission is requested to support the Historic Home Ownership Assistance Act; that Planning Staff has drafted a letter in support of this measure co-sponsored by Senator Bob Graham, which essentially provides Federal tax incentives and tax relief for residential structures similar to those currently provided for income-producing properties. Petition No. 97-HD-01 507 Jackson Drive Mr. Delahaye stated that the Historic Preservation Board approved the historic designation for Petition No. 97-HD-01 based on the following criteria contained in Section 15-14 (1) of the Zoning Code as reviewed by the Sarasota County Department of Historical Resources: (a) Exemplifies or reflect the broad cultural, political, economic or social history of the City of Sarasota, Sarasota County, the State of Florida, or the United States of America. (d) Embodies the distinctive visible characteristics of an architectural style or period, or a method of construction. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends setting 97-HD-01 for public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Dupree; it was moved to set Petition No. 97-HD-01 for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Vice Mayor Dupree and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to receive the board report of the July 8, 1997, Historic Preservation Board meeting with commendation. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes. 7. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: SOUTH SARASOTA STUDY TASK FORCE CONCERNING THE TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT - ACCEPTED THE RESULTS OF THE PHASE I STUDY; AUTHORIZED THE TASK FORCE TO PROCEED WITH PHASE II (AGENDA ITEM II-3) #1 (1229) through (1760) Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, and Robert Patten, Chairman, South Sarasota Traffic Study Task Force, came before the Commission. Mr. Patten stated that Phase I of the South Sarasota Traffic Calming project was completed in December 1996; that traffic studies have been performed to determine the effectiveness of the implemented measures; that the South Sarasota Study Task Force met on June 11, 1997, and reviewed the results of the traffic studies performed by the Engineering Department; that the implemented measures have been successful; that a reduction in speed between 20 percent and 25 percent and an average reduction in volume of 12 percent has been experienced; that the Task: Force has had excellent support from the Engineering Department Staff, who have been responsive and helpful; that the Commission's support and implementation of past recommendations have been appreciated; that the Task Force is ready to proceed with evaluating Phase II measuresi; that modifications are anticipated based on the results of Phase I; that as four petitions on streets between Webber Street and Siesta Drive have been filed BOOK 42 Page 15032 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15033 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. requesting participation in the process, the study area has been expanded to Siesta Drive; that individuals representing the four streets have been invited to participate on the Task Force; that the Task Force plans to present recommendations on Phase II to the Commission in November 1997; that authorization to proceed with Phase II is requested. Mayor Pillot asked if authorization is requested to proceed with the study and not the implementation of Phase II measures. Mr. Patten stated that is correct; that the purpose of implementing a phased project was to receive input, review the results and monitor the effects on streets which have not received traffic calming measures before proceeding with subsequent phases; that further reduction of the volume and speed of vehicles on streets targeted in Phase II is the goal. Mr. Patten displayed on the overhead projector a chart depicting the results of Phase I, South Sarasota Traffic Abatement Study, including Post Abatement Counts and Comparison of Pre-Abatement and Post-Abatement Speeds and Volumes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the completion of Tuttle Avenue may have contributed to the significant reduction on Arlington Street from Laurent Place to U.S. 41; that the striping on Bahia Vista Street at the corner of U.S. 41 significantly changed the volume of westbound traffic on Bahia Vista Street. Mr. Patten stated that a combination of various techniques has produced impressive results, e.g., providing two left-turn lanes for vehicles traveling south on Orange Avenue to access U.S. 41, and eliminating left-turns from Mcclellan Parkway onto Osprey Avenue; that the traffic calming measures have made the neighborhood more friendly. Commissioner Cardamone stated that an additional task force has been established to address traffic calming in the Southeast Sarasota neighborhoods; that a task force should be established to address concerns in Granada neighborhood. Commissioner Merrill stated that a 23 percent increase in volume was experienced on Prospect Street from Osprey Avenue to Lasula Court; that Prospect Street continues through from Orange Avenue to U.S. 41 and may be used as an alternative route to Bahia Vista Street; that the impacts on Prospect Street, on Lincoln Drive between Osprey and Yale Avenues, which experienced a 26 percent increase in volume, and on Hyde Park Street from Yamaw Drive to Osprey Avenue, which experienced a 32 percent increase in volume, should be monitored closely and addressed in Phase II; that Hillview Street between Osprey and Orange Avenues also experienced a 6 percent increase in volume. Mr. Patten stated that the traffic study was performed after the semi-diverters on Prospect Street were replaced with speed humps; that Prospect Street will be evaluated during Phase II. Mr. Mohammed stated that two speed humps planned in Phase II should address the concerns raised regarding Prospect Street; that installation of the speed humps was delayed pending completion of the water reuse project. Mr. Mohammed continued that traffic calming has historically been addressed on a street by street basis; that he is pleased with the results of the area-wide traffic calming in South Sarasota; that the Task Force has done an excellent job. Commissioner Cardamone asked the status of the funds proffered by the Walgreens development located at Bahia Vista Street and South Tamiami Trail for traffic abatement measures? Mr. Mohammed stated that Walgreens has reiterated a commitment to forward funds to the City; that the funds received will be used toward the beautification of the temporary diverters in the Avondale neighborhood. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a portion of the funds should be used on Prospect Street, which could experience a greater impact once the remainder of the property adjacent to Walgreens is developed. Mayor Pillot stated that a reduction in speed can be achieved everywhere without offsetting gains; however, traffic reduction cannot be achieved everywhere without offsetting gains unless fewer people utilize automobiles; and asked where the traffic has been diverted? Mr. Mohammed stated that the amount of traffic in Sarasota has : increased by approximately 2.5 to 3 percent; that the majority of traffic on the east/west streets is cut through traffic attempting to travel north or south; that much of the traffic has been diverted to U.S. 41, as a result of the improved coordination of traffic lights and the completion of the resurfacing project, and to Tuttle Avenue, with the completion of the road widening project. Commissioner Merrill stated that reprogramming the southbound, left-turn traffic light at the intersection of Hillview Street and U.S. 41 would further improve traffic flow; that the signal directs traffic whether or not a vehicle is in the left-turn lane. Mr. Mohammed stated that the left-turn signal is purposely programmed to direct traffic regardless of vehicle presence to BOOK 42 Page 15034 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15035 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. improve coordination in one direction; that the issue can be explained in greater detail at Commissioner Merrill's leisure. I City Manager Sollenberger stated that the efforts of the Task Force and the Engineering Department have been successful; that the efforts on Orange Avenue have been complemented by a high level of traffic enforcement by the Police Department; that the Administration recommends acceptance of the results of the Phase I study and authorization for the Task Force to proceed with Phase II. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to accept the results of the Phase I study and to authorize the Task Force to proceed with Phase II. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes. 8. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NO. 1 - REMOVED; ITEM NOS. 2,3,5,6, AND 9 - APPROVED; ITEM NO. 4 - APPROVED; ITEM NO. 7 - APPROVED; ITEM NO. 8 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (1781) through (2365) #1 (2680) through (2760) Mayor Pillot stated that Item No. 1 was removed under Changes to the Orders of the Day; and asked if the Commission wished to remove any other items for discussion. Vice Mayor Dupree removed Item No. 4; Commissioner Cardamone removed Item No. 7; and Commissioner Merrill removed Item No. 8. 2. Approval Re: Amendment to the Lease between the City of Sarasota and Web Service Company to provide washers and dryers for the Laundromat at the Sarasota Mobile Home Park extending the term of the agreement by one year and four months through August 1999 and indicating the concessionaire will pay $2,000 towards the repair of the roof of the Laundromat building 3. Approval Re: Award a purchase order contract to Marvin's Garden & Landscape Service, Inc., Sarasota, Florida, (Bid #97-53) in the amount of $30,852.38 to furnish and install various types of trees on an annual basis for the Bobby Jones Golf Complex 5. Approval Re: Ratification of Memorandum of Understanding dated July 25, 1997, between the City of Sarasota and the Southwest Florida Police Benevolent Association, Inc. (SWFPBA) to implement a 4 percent increase to the Base Rate of Pay effective retroactive to October 2, 1996; and terms and conditions of the 11- 1/2 hour shift schedule associated with the District Policing Plan. This Memorandum of Understanding modifies the collective bargaining agreement between the City of Sarasota and the SWFPBA dated October 1, 1994 through September 30, 1997 for permanent full-time Lieutenants 6. Approval Re: Ratification of Memorandum of Understanding dated July 25, 1997, between the City of Sarasota and the Southwest Florida Police Benevolent Association, Inc. (SWFPBA) to implement a 4 percent increase to the Base Rate of Pay effective retroactive to October 2, 1996; and terms and conditions of the 11- 1/2 hour shift schedule associated with the District Policing Plan. This Memorandum of Understanding modifies the collective bargaining agreement between the City of Sarasota and the SWFBA dated October 1, 1994 through September 30, 1997 for permanent full-time and part-time Police Officers (1st and 2nd Class) and Sergeants, also permanent full-time Dispatchers, Sr. Dispatchers, Communication Supervisors, Community Service Aide Supervisors and Community Service Aides, also permanent full-time Criminalist I, II and III 9. Approval Re: 1997 Action Plan 1997 Community Development Block Grant and HOME Partnership Program On motion of Vice Mayor Dupree and second of Commissioner Cardamone I it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Items 2, 3, 5, 6, and 9. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes. 4. Approval Re: Award of contract and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract with Madsen/Barr-Allwaste, Inc., Longwood, Florida, (Bid #97-73) in the amount of $1,098,477.40 for the sewer rehabilitation of the Southwest Collection System, Phase I Vice Mayor Dupree requested clarification of the rehabilitation of the Southwest Collection System. William Hallisey, Acting Director of Public Works, came before the Commission and stated that the project, which was approved as part of the 1995 bond issue, focuses on rehabilitating collection lines located in the southwest areas of the City; that some of the projects extend to Fruitville Road; that the intent is to eliminate sources of infiltration into the collection system; that 95 percent of the funding will be expended on internal rehabilitation of existing pipe and manholes using state-of-the- art slip lining; that the pipes will be cleaned and a new, thin liner of fiberglass-type material installed; that the original capacity of the pipe will be maintained; that excavation of roadway will be minimal; that the project is necessary to maintain the level of collection necessary to meet the City's BOOK 42 Page 15036 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15037 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. needs for the next 30 to 50 years, depending on location, and to comply with regulatory requirements. On motion of Vice Mayor Dupree and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 4. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes. 7. Approval Re: Award of contract and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract with Jon F. Swift, Inc., Sarasota, Florida (Bid #97-67) for streetscape improvements to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way Commissioner Cardamone stated that Item No. 7 was pulled to afford two residents an opportunity to address the issue. Carolyn Mason and Jetson Grimes, representing Greater Newtown Redevelopment Corporation, came before the Commission. Ms. Mason stated that the Newtown Redevelopment Corporation encourages inclusion of language in the contract with Jon F. Swift, Inc., to require the use of local labor, specifically from the Newtown community, for completion of the streetscape improvements to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Way. Ms. Mason submitted to the Mayor the business card of Pauline Hodges, Project Challenge, an employment group based in the Newtown community. Ms. Mason stated that meetings have been held with Duane Mountain, Streets, Landscape Maintenance & Solid Waste Manager, and David Johnston, Landscape Architect, David W. Johnston Associates, to discuss the issue; that neighborhoods not only buy into a project but also take more ownership and pride in a project when local labor is utilized; that additionally, incidents of vandalism are greatly diminished. Mr. Grimes stated that many times neighborhoods do not reap economic benefits of a project developed in a community; that some of the economic benefits from the Dr. MLK Way Streetscape project could be retained in the community by employing African- Americans from Newtown to perform a portion of the labor. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Ms. Hodges previously addressed the Commission regarding Project Challenge; that the potential exists of obtaining skilled as well as unskilled labor for the project; that the statement regarding a sense of ownership derived from participating in the development of the project is valid. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that the request is supported; that general contractors should be encouraged to hire local labor from the neighborhoods in which any City project is being developed. Commissioner Merrill stated that hiring from within the community is good practice; that the City already encourages the hiring of minorities; that the availability of good construction labor is limited at this time; that the contractor will probably be looking for good workers from the community. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the issue will be discussed and the contractor encouraged to accommodate as much local labor as possible. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Dupree - it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 7. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes. 8. Approval Re: Funding and installation of a fence for the Steigervaldt-Jockey Fountain" Project Commissioner Merrill stated that some of the dirt areas surrounding the children's fountain slope into the pool area; and asked if the $22,000 recommended for the installation of a 3- foot-high decorative aluminum fence will also be used to prevent the dirt from accessing the pool area during heavy rains? David Johnston, Landscape Architect, David W. Johnston Associates, came before the Commission and stated that problems with silt deposits and settlement after heavy rains have been identified; that the intent is to have City Staff perform minor grading and resodding work when the fence is installed. Commissioner Merrill stated that a City utility truck is continuously viewed on site; and asked if the City is staffing the children's fountain? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the employee has been on- site to address problems brought to the City's attention; that the practice will be discontinued once the fence is erected. Mr. Johnston stated that the employee has been on-site to address issues raised by the Sarasota County Health Department regarding the number of children and the lack of control from intrusion; that the fence will assist in preventing small children from wandering away from the immediate fountain area and prevent dogs from entering the fountain. Commissioner Merrill stated that the children's fountain is tremendously successful; that in excess of 75 people were viewed enjoying the facility at 8 p.m. on a Saturday evening; that as many as 50 people have been viewed on weeknights. BOOK 42 Page 15038 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15039 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. Mr. Johnston stated that 20 to 30 people can be viewed daily at 9:30 a.m. waiting for the facility to open; that 75 to 120 people are viewed utilizing the facility during daytime hours. Commissioner Merrill stated that the popularity of the children's fountain is another reason to maintain flexible parking at the Bayfront; that families are picnicking and enjoying the facility daily. Mr. Johnston stated that the interior fenced area will include a large, shaded, lawn area for picnicking. Commissioner Merrill stated that the benches installed in the vicinity of the dolphin fountain are continuously filled by people watching the sun set; that future consideration should be given to increasing the number of park benches in the area. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the City has plans to install picnic benches or tables in the vicinity of the children's fountain? Mr. Johnston stated that vinyl-coated tables, as used at Whitaker-Gateway Park, have been ordered. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 8. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a note was just received from Mrs. Rollin Beech offering a donation of $5,000 for new benches around Island Park in memory of Dr. Rollin Beach. Mayor Pillot requested that Mrs. Beech stand and be recognized for her generosity to the community. Commissioner Cardamone continued that Dr. Beech appeared before the Commission in the past regarding neighborhood issues and was one of the founding members of the Coalition of City Neighborhoods Association; that the donation is an admirable gesture. Mayor Pillot stated that the benches will honor the memory of Dr. Beech; however, the memory of Dr. Beech honors the City of Sarasota. 9. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 97R-99) ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 97R-995) - ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 97R-996 - ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (RESOLUTION NO. 97R-997) ADOPTED; ITEM 5 (RESOLUTION NO. 97R-998) - ADOPTED; ITEM 6 (RESOLUTION NO. 97-4004) - ADOPTED; AND ITEM 7 (ORDINANCE NO. 97-4011) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (2365) through (2680) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 97R-995, 97R-997, and 97R-998 in their entirety and proposed Resolution Nos. 97R-992, 97R-996 and Ordinance Nos. 97-4004, 97-4011 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 97R-992, accepting reports of abatement of nuisances, and costs incurred, pertaining to the demolition of buildings or structures in accordance with the Standard Unsafe Building Abatement Code as adopted by the City; directing the assessment of liens against the real property upon which such costs were incurred; providing for the a recording of said assessments in the City's "Assessment Book for Local Improvements" and in the Official Records of the Clerk of Circuit Court in and for Sarasota County; providing for the accumulation of interest on said liens; etc. (Title Only) - Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement Manager Litchet 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 97R-995, appropriating $22,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of the L.0.S.T. Fund to provide funds to purchase and install a wrought aluminum fence around the steigervaldt-Jockey Fountain at Island Park; etc. Finance Director Mitchell 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 97R-996, accepting reports of abatement of nuisances, and costs incurred, pertaining to the demolition of buildings or structures in accordance with the Standard Unsafe Building Abatement Code as adopted by the City; directing the assessment of liens against the real property upon which such costs were incurred; providing for the recording of said assessments in the City's "Assessment Book for Local Improvements" and in the Official Records of the Clerk of Circuit Court in and for Sarasota County; providing for the accumulation of interest on said liens; etc. (Title Only) Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement Manager Litchet 4. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 97R-997, appropriating. $222,447.66 from the unappropriated fund balance of the General Fund to provide funds to pay attorney fees for litigation of the Chamberlain School Case, etc. - City Manager Sollenberger 5. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 97R-998, appropriating $350,000 from the interest earnings of BOOK 42 Page 15040 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15041 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. the 1991 Water and Sewer System Revenue Bonds to fund the relocation and construction of utility improvements on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way; etc. Acting Public Works Director Hallisey 6. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 97-4004, pertaining to gambling boats; creating Section 21-92, Sarasota City Code, prohibiting the boarding of passengers upon, and the docking or mooring of, gambling boats within the City limits of the city of Sarasota; setting forth findings; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of the parts hereof if declared invalid; etc. (Title Only) City Attorney Taylor 7. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 97-4011, amending Chapter 19 of the Sarasota City Code, Licenses, by adjusting the occupational license fee for engaging or managing businesses, professions or occupations within the City; providing for the severability of the parts hereof if declared invalid; providing for repealing of ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Items 1 through 7, inclusive. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 10. SECOND PUBLIC HEARING RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 97-3995, AMENDING THE MARINE PARK ZONE; CREATING SECTION 8-197 (C), ZONING CODE, TO PROHIBIT THE BOARDING OF PASSENGERS UPON, AND THE DOCKING OR MOORING OF, GAMBLING BOATS IN THE MARINE PARK ZONE DISTRICT; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (2762) through (2832) Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's Office, that in accordance with Section 166.041, Florida Statutes, this is the second of two required public hearings on proposed Ordinance No. 97-3995, which will prohibit gambling boats from boarding passengers and from docking or mooring within the Marine Park (MP) Zone District in the City limits except to take on fuel or to address an on-board emergency; that on June 18, 1997, the PBLP found proposed Ordinance No. 97-3995 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommended adoption to the Commission; that on July 21, 1997 the City Commission passed the proposed ordinance on first reading. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak, and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 97-3995 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 97-3995. On motion of Vice Mayor Dupree and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 97-3995 on second reading. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): : Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 97-4013, AMENDING CHAPTER 11, SARASOTA CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS MODIFYING THE FEE PAYABLE FOR THE FAILURE OF A PERSON TO APPEAR WITHIN A SPECIFIED TIME AFTER AN ALARM ACTIVATION TO DEACTIVATE A SECURITY ALARM SYSTEM; STATING FINDINGS OF FACT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT:; ETC. (TITLE 5 ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (2832) through (3276) John Lewis, Chief of Police, Sarasota Police Department, came before the Commission and stated that the existing Alarm Ordinance, enacted to reduce the number of false alarms summoning police and fire response, includes a requirement for an alarm permit holder or designated keyholder to respond to an alarm activation within 30 minutes to deactivate a malfunctioning alarm system and to provide lawful access to the premises for proper investigation; that failure to respond within the specified time results in the imposition of a fee; that the provision has been aggressively enforced since the ordinance was enacted; that numerous residential - and business accounts have expressed displeasure over the amount of the fee; that research of similar ordinances in other jurisdictions has been conducted; that based on the results of the research, lowering the City's fee from $75 to $25 is recommended. BOOK 42 Page 15042 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15043 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing and the following person came before the Commission: Kerry Kirschner, former Mayor and City Commissioner, 1590 Gulf View Drive (34236), stated that he has experienced difficulties with a malfunctioning alarm system which had been installed prior to the purchase of his home; that the recommendation to reduce the fee to $25 is supported; that the permit holder enters into a partnership with the Police Department and names two or three designated key holders who can provide access to the property; that imposition of a fee for failure to respond is understood; however, an alarm system can malfunction while residents and keyholders are both away on vacation. Mr. Kirschner referred to a letter dated May 16, 1997, from Captain E.J. Whitehead, through John P. Lewis, Chief of Police, to David R. Sollenberger, City Manager, which references implied consent and a concern with liability resulting from unlawful entry into a home; and stated that permit holders may be willing to sign a release authorizing implicit consent to enter and secure the premises upon noticeable breaking and entering. Mr. Kirschner submitted for the record a Sarasota Police Department Alarm Cause and Corrective Action Form; and stated that failure to submit an affidavit of service/repair within 21 days following an alarm malfunction results in a fine up to $500; that the information required includes the cause of the alarm, which many times cannot be determined; that the Alarm Ordinance seems a bit severe. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 97-4013 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 97-4013 on first reading. On motion of Vice Mayor Dupree and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 97-4013 on first reading. Commissioner Merrill asked the number of citations for failure to respond and the number of $500 fines issued over the past year? Chief Lewis stated that the number of failure to responds is considerable; that relatively few $500 fines have been issued; that the statistics will be forwarded to the Commission. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes. 12. SCHEDULED PRESENTATION RE: REOUEST FOR WAIVER OF THE 30- DAY MINIMUM BETWEEN THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REPORT OF ACTIONS TO THE CITY COMMISSION RELATIVE TO PETITION NOS. 97-SE-08 AND 97-SE-09 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM V-1) #1 (3276) through (3596) Michael Furen, Attorney, Law Firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, P.A., representing The Sembler Company, came before the Commission in lieu of James T. Farr, AICP, Vice President, Planning, George F. Young, Inc., and stated that Mr. & Farr was called away unexpectedly; that The Sembler Company is the developer agent for Eckerds Drug Stores throughout the State of Florida; that the Board of Adjustment recently approved a variance for parking essential to the construction of a new Eckerds on the northwest corner of Myrtle Street and North Tamiami Trail; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) public hearing for approval of two special exception petitions in conjunction with the project was originally anticipated in July; that staff vacations, etc., delayed receipt of the transportation report required which in turn has delayed the construction schedule by one month; that the PBLP public hearing is set for September 3, 1997; that Section 3-13 of the Zoning Code requires a minimum of thirty days between PBLP action and a report to the City Commission; that in consideration of the 30 days already lost, existing lease arrangements pertaining to the Eckerds located across the street, financial commitment expiration and contract closing dates, and the development schedule, waiver of the 30-day requirement is requested to enable the PBLP to report to the Commission on September 15, 1997. City Manager Sollenberger stated the Commission is required to make a finding the waiver is necessary to prevent an inequitable or unjust hardship from occurring in the event the waiver is not granted. Attorney Furen stated that the project will be a catalyst for development; that letters of general support in favor of the proposal have been received from Gateway 2000 and the North Trail Association; that failure to expedite the process will cause an inequitable result not only for his client but also for the City and the redevelopment potential on North Tamiami Trail. Mayor Pillot asked for comment from the City Attorney. City Attorney Taylor stated that sufficient facts exist; however, the decision is a prerogative of the Commission. BOOK 42 Page 15044 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15045 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Merrill asked for the Administration's recommendation. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends granting the request for a waiver. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Dupree, it was moved to waive the 30-day minimum requirement between PBLP action and report to the Commission on Petition Nos. 97-SE-08 and 97-SE-09. Commissioner Merrill stated that the motion was made in support of the Administration's recommendation and the City Manager's finding in favor of waiving the requirement; however, approval of such requests should not become a routine practice. Mayor Pillot stated that the issue was discussed in some detail with the City Manager and the Director of Planning and Development; that he concurs with Commissioner Merrill's comments. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes. 13. SCHEDULED PRESENTATION RE: REPORT ON PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF LEGAL POSITION CONCERNING RINGLING CAUSEWAY BRIDGE - ADMINISTRATION TO INVITE FDOT TO MEET WITH THE COMMISSION (AGENDA ITEM V-2) #1 (3612) through (2525) City Attorney Taylor introduced David Levin, Attorney, Law Firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, P.A., hired by the City as special legal counsel advising on the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) selection of the Ringling Causeway Bridge Replacement. Attorney Levin stated that he has been visiting FDOT offices between Tallahassee and Fort Myers seeking public records on the history of the FDOT process pertaining to the Ringling Causeway Bridge Replacement project; that his endeavors have resulted in the accumulation of approximately six banker boxes filled with documents; that although FDOT represents all pertinent documents have been forwarded, based on his experience, he believes only 50 percent of the relative documents have been accumulated. Commissioner Cardamone stated that presenters under Scheduled Presentations are traditionally limited to seven minutes; that Attorney Levin was hired by the City and is providing a status report; that the time limit should be waived. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing no objections, the time limit for the presentation is waived. Attorney Levin distributed handouts and gave a presentation on the overhead projector referring to numerous case law excerpts and copies of documents and reporting on his research and findings to date. Attorney Levin stated that the power vested in the FDOT with respect to the planning and construction of bridges and roads is not absolute; that the FDOT is required to: 1) comply with relevant statutes, both State and Federal, 2) conduct public hearings, and 3) give ample consideration to public comment and local conditions; that as a fundamental, well-established principle of law, navigation rights of commerce and recreational boats are paramount to the rights of the motor-vehicle public traveling across U.S. waters; that Federal law specifically mandates that no bridge shall at any time unreasonably obstruct the free navigation of any navigable waters of the United States and that the U.S. Coast Guard must take consideration of the reasonable needs of navigation before approving a bridge permit which may cause obstruction to navigation. Attorney Levin referred to a letter dated April 2, 1991, from J. W. Winslow, Chief, Bridge Section, Aids to Navigation Branch, Seventh Coast Guard District by direction of the District Commander, to C.O. Morgan, P.E., Project Development and Environmental Engineer, FDOT, Bartow, advising the following: A Coast Guard permit would be required for the bridge replacement project. The established guide clearances for the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) should be considered when planning the project. Guidance clearances for bridges across the GIWW require a vertical clearance of 65 feet above mean high water for a fixed bridge and 21 feet above mean high water for a bascule drawbridge. Waterway users should be consulted early in the design process to determine if the reasonable needs of navigation might require greater clearances and to reduce the likelihood of a bridge permit being delayed for navigational considerations. Attorney Levin stated that guideline clearances are not regulatory or "fixed in stone" but are provided for planning purposes; that the Coast Guard advised the FDOT that before committing resources to a design a thorough study should be performed to ascertain the needs of navigation in the Sarasota BOOK 42 Page 15046 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15047 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. area to determine if a bridge higher than 65 feet would be required. Attorney Levin referred to FDOT Project Development and Environmental Study Progress Report Number 9, dated October 1992, prepared by Greiner, Inc., referencing the need to conduct a survey of vessel traffic along the GIWW to determine vessel heights. Attorney Levin referred to a Greiner, Inc., memorandum dated February 4, 1993, from Dick Combs, Mark Jennings to Nancy Bright P.E., Project Manager, which referenced the following results of the vessel survey conducted over a 19 day period from January 7 through January 25, 1993, by bridge tenders who had been instructed in the use of a clinometer and recorded the date, time of day, vessel type, and clinometer measurements of boats observed passing through the existing bridge: TABLE 1 Vessel Height Number of Vessels Percent of Total <25' 32 8.8 25-35' 42 11.5 35-45' 90 24.7 45-55' 133 36.5 55-65' 54 14.8 >65' 13 3.6 TABLE 2 Mid-Level Percent Reduction Bridge Height in Openings 25' 8.8 35' 20.3 45' 45.1 55' 81.6 Attorney Levin stated that the recorded measurements collected by the bridge tenders were mathematically converted into elevations by Greiner staff; that the results indicate 13 vessels observed during the survey period would not have been able to pass beneath a 65-foot, fixed-span bridge, thereby obstructing the free right of navigation; that the survey also indicates a 35-foot, mid- level bascule bridge would have reduced the total number of bridge openings by 20.3 percent. Commissioner Merrill stated that fear of clearance under a 45- foot-high bridge by the operator of a vessel with a 44-foot mast was raised as an issue previously; that a 65-foot bridge actually could have obstructed the travel of 67 (54 + 13) vessels; and asked if the masts on the 13 vessels were greater than 65 feet?. Attorney Levin stated that the data used to interpret the bridge tenders recorded measurements is not in the FDOT files; that obtaining information regarding the actual heights of the vessels, specifically the 13 vessels with mast heights greater than 65 feet, would be helpful. Attorney Levin referred to a series of documents prepared by Greiner, Inc., in July 1992, which listed total monthly passages by boat type for the years 1987 through March 1992 and reflected a higher number for boat passages in April or May versus January each year, with sailboat totals as follows: January April May 1987 581 1107 1281 1988 636 701 1347 1989 909 440 1046 1990 628 1037 1245 1991 667 1317 1015 1992 629 Attorney Levin stated that January, the month in which the FDOT study was conducted, primarily represented the fewest number of boats passing through the Ringling Bridge; that the total number of passages in January on average is approximately 50 percent lower than in April or May; that FDOT would not have taken the survey in January if accurate results of the number of boats potentially obstructed by a 65-foot fixed bridge were desired; that the January survey indicates the travel of 13 vessels with heights greater than 65 feet would be obstructed; that the actual number of boats which would be obstructed annually is unknown since FDOT has not conducted subsequent surveys; that this issue was raised in the Anna Maria bridge case; and referred to the following finding of the judge in the Recommended Order, Save Anna Maria, Inc. VS. Department of Transportation: A variety of sailboats using this portion of the Intracoastal Waterway have masts that require a vertical clearance greater than 65 feet Sailboats with masts as high as 80 feet have passed through the opened drawbridge. Attorney Levin stated that based on surveys conducted locally, FDOT data reflects that boats in the area with masts higher than 75 and 80 feet exist and could reasonably be expected to pass through the Ringling Bridge. Attorney Levin referred to a verbatim transcript of an article published in the September 4, 1991, Wednesday, City Edition of the St. Petersburg Times regarding the proposal for the Clearwater Pass Bridge, the Coast Guard's advisement that FDOT's BOOK 42 Page 15048 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15049 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. plan for a 65-foot fixed span bridge would not be permitted without a three-year environmental impact study, and Coast Guard officials' desire for a fixed span height of at least 75-feet to allow the usual boat traffic to pass unobstructed and consistent with State law. Attorney Levin cited the following from the article: The Coast Guard has said a 65-foot bridge is not high enough because 20 to 30 boats a year would have masts too tall to go under the bridge Attorney Levin stated that the Coast Guard would not approve a 65-foot fixed span on Clearwater Pass based on the obstruction of 20 boats a year; that FDOT data reflects 13 boats in one month would be obstructed from passage with a 65-foot bridge across Sarasota Bay; that FDOT was aware of the problem; and referred to the handwritten notation "I hope this is correct!" written in the side margin next to the following in a transmittal memo dated April 29, 1993, from Ann Venables to Ray Porter, Design: As discussed, the limits of the 65-foot fixed span bridge will be used to describe the project limits for design since this option represents the worst case scenario. Attorney Levin referred to a Greiner, Inc., file memorandum dated February 22, 1993, from Mark Jennings regarding a meeting with FDOT staff to identify certain issues requiring address prior to the public workshop for the Ringling Bridge, which stated the following: FDOT expressed some concern that a 65-foot tall fixed span may not be adequate because the vessel height survey indicated that 13 vessels measured would not be able to pass under a 65-foot bridge. We may want to contact the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to determine if analysis. of a taller fixed bridge height is necessary. We will want to establish the touchdown points for a 75-foot bridge prior to contacting the USCG. Attorney Levin stated that contact with the Coast Guard last week revealed that FDOT did not communicate with the Coast Guard to determine whether a taller bridge would be necessaryi that no records exist of FDOT's preparing an analysis as to where a 75- foot bridge would touch down. Attorney Levin continued that Coast Guard regulations require consideration of future needs; that based on evidence in the Anna Maria case as well as the FDOT's files reflecting that, because of the affluence, this area of Florida has a higher than average size boat traversing the waters, even a 75-foot high bridge may not be sufficient to allow for the clearance of boats reasonably expected to pass through the Ringling Bridge; that the Coast Guard, who viewed 75 feet as an appropriate height over Clearwater Pass, most likely would require a bridge with a minimum clearance of 80 feet over Sarasota Bay. Attorney Levin referred to and explained an aerial view scaled from FDOT design documents showing the touchdown points and ramps of the existing Ringling Bridge and a potential 80-foot fixed span bridge which had touch down points extending beyond the intersections at Bird Key Drive to the west and Sunset Drive to the east. Attorney Levin stated that obviously, the FDOT has not considered either an 80-foot or 75-foot bridge; however, the reasonable needs of navigation in the area would dictate consideration of a clearance height of at least 85 feet if a fixed span bridge were to be constructed over Sarasota Bay. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the FDOT has approached the Coast Guard for permit approval of the 65-foot bridge? Attorney Levin stated that the FDOT has neither approached the Coast Guard for permitting nor discussed the issue of height with the Coast Guard. Attorney Levin continued that the City requested he investigate the impacts of Section 4 (f) of the Federal Transportation Act, which basically prohibits the use of public park land for a transportation project unless there is no other feasible or prudent alternative to the use of the park land; that an 85-foot or 75-foot fixed span bridge would clearly impact Bird Key Park; that the proposed 65-foot bridge also impacts a portion of Bird Key Park; that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the regulation plainly prohibits the use of park land for transportation projects except in the most unusual of circumstances; that the regulations describe the term "use" to include "constructive use of land", taking into effect the proximity of a project to the resource protected by Section 4 (f), thus the regulations apply not only when a bridge physically takes a portion of the park but also if the bridge is close enough to the park that the amenities or features which make the park unique are taken away; that, for example, the proximity of a transportation facility which substantially detracts from the particular setting of a park, as at Bird Key Park, is considered a prohibited taking under the regulations; that the FDOT, which maintains the proposed 65-foot bridge will be 8 feet over Bird Key Park and thus would not constitute a use prohibited by Section 4(f), has not considered the applicability of constructive use which is clearly included in the regulations. Attorney Levin further stated that Section 339.155(6) (b), Florida Statutes, is particularly applicable to the FDOT in the planning process; and referred to the following from the statute: BOOK 42 Page 15050 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15051 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. The department (FDOT) shall hold one or more hearings prior to the selection of the facility to be provided Such public hearings shall be conducted so as to provide effective participation by interested persons. The various factors involved in the decision or decisions and any alternative proposals shall be clearly presented so that the persons attending the hearing may present their views relating to the decision or decisions which will be made. Attorney Levin stated that in the Anna Maria bridge case, the judge made the finding that the evidence presented demonstrated that prior to the October 1993 public hearing, FDOT had internally selected and committed to the design of a fixed-span, high-level bridge over such alternatives as a low-, mid-, or high-level bascule and that FDOT's commitment to the design of the proposed bridge prior to the public hearing denied the public the opportunity of effective participation; that the judge made a further finding that FDOT by denying effective participation, violated Section 339.155(6) (b) Florida Statutes, and as a result FDOT's design decision was arbitrary, illegal, and thus, an abuse of discretion. Attorney Levin continued that the FDOT began the planning process for the Ringling Bridge in January 1992; that the Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation Report submitted to FDOT in July 1992 by Greiner, Inc., referenced various alternatives evaluated and recommended Alternatives E1, E2, F1, F2, R, and the No-Build Alternative be carried forward in the planning process for additional, more detailed studies; that Alternative R proposed complete rehabilitation of the existing structure and construction of a two-lane bridge immediately adjacent to the rehabilitated structure, at the same height, to accommodate the lane widths and shoulders necessary to meet current FDOT design standards; that somewhere between the July 1992 report and an April 1, 1993, memorandum, Alternative R was deleted from consideration. Attorney Levin further stated that the planning process includes review and independent analysis of preliminary recommendations and bridge designs by a value engineering team comprised of in- house and independent engineers; and referred to a Value Engineering Summary dated May 24-28, 1993, prepared by Ventry Engineering in association with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., FDOT's consultant, in which two Value Engineering Alternatives had been added for review: Alternative 7R to rehabilitate and widen the existing structure on the north side and Alternative 8 to construct a vertical curve bridge; that the advantages listed for Alternative 7R included the following: No 4 (f) impacts at Bird Key Most aesthetically pleasing to residents Could meet all current engineering standards Commissioner Merrill asked if Alternative 7R proposed construction of a parallel bridge to the north of the existing bridge, similar to the project completed on the Gandy Bridge in Tampa? Attorney Levin stated yes; that Alternative 7R, resulting in a possible savings of $15.3 million compared to FDOT's recommended alternative, was the Value Engineering Team's number one recommendation; that a fixed-span bridge positioned to the south of the existing bridge curving slightly to the west to minimize environmental and aesthetic constraints was the number two recommendation. MF Attorney Levin continued that a Greiner, Inc., record of * conversation dated May, 27, 1993, indicates Bill Ventry, the n leader of the Value Engineering Team, informed Murray McDonough, of Greiner, Inc., that FDOT had two jobs under design where new bascule bridge structures were being constructed immediately adjacent to existing structures to create a widened cross-section with the leaves of the two bridges operating independently but with only a one-inch gap separating the decks. Attorney Levin referred to a document dated June 30, 1993, from Bryan Williams, FDOT, to Kevin Doyle, Mike Finch, Nancy Bright, and Ann Venables, in response to the Value Engineering Summary, which stated the following: Mr. Morgan is directing that we proceed with the project study with an emphasis on developing a consensus for the fixed-span alternative. He also advised that we will not be incorporating either of the Value Engineering recommendations into the ongoing study. Are each of you (especially Nancy & Ann) sufficiently comfortable with your understanding of "our" position to proceed with the project? Do you have what you need to be ready for the next Task Force meeting on July 8th? Holler if we need to get together and talk! Attorney Levin stated that Mr. Morgan was one of the lead FDOT official overseeing the replacement of the Ringling Bridge; that Mr. Williams was the subordinate of Mr. Morgan in charge of the design team. Attorney Levin referred to an undated report on a Rehabilitation Alternative and 35-Foot Bascule Alternative which included an impact evaluation matrix comparing various alignment alternatives and the following information regarding structure design, BOOK 42 Page 15052 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15053 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. reduction in bridge openings compared to the existing bridge, and the number of residences visually impacted: Alt. E2 Alt. E3 35' Alt. Rehab. Alt Design Bascule Fixed Span Bascule Bascule 45 feet 65-feet 35 feet 21 feet Reduction 45 percent 100 percent 20 percent None Residences 3 5 None None Attorney Levin stated that the Rehabilitation Alternative and 35- Foot Bascule Alternative report is undated but shows the alternatives were given consideration by FDOT at some point; however, the alternatives were not carried forward or reflected in any of the major documents submitted for public dissemination. Attorney Levin referred to the following excerpts from the public notice issued by the FDOT in October 1993 advertising a public hearing for the Ringling Causeway Bridge Replacement Study on November 4, 1993: Public Hearing Date Set Your input will be considered in the selection of a preferred alternative for the project, including bridge height and conceptual design. We are particularly interested in your comments regarding the type and height of the replacement bridge. Study Overview Alternatives along the north and south sides of the existing bridge and a no-build alternative were studied in detail with respect to engineering factors and environmental impacts. The north side alternatives (E1, E2, E3) and the no-build alternative were determined to be the most reasonable and feasible. The optimum height for a replacement bridge has yet to be determined. Drawbridge designs providing vertical clearances of 21 and 45 feet above the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and a fixed-span design of 65 feet above the waterway are being considered. Attorney Levin stated that in November 1993, the Sarasota-Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) voted to replace the existing bridge with a 65-foot, high-level, fixed-span bridge. Attorney Levin referred to a letter dated September 29, 1993, from William Lovell, District Professional, Services Administrator, FDOT, to Robert C. Sprecher, P.E., Kunde, Sprecher & Associates, Inc., referencing a Consultant Agreement dated September 24 and authorization to proceed with work on the project beginning September 29, 1993. Attorney Levin referred to the Consultant Agreement between the FDOT and Kunde, Sprecher, & Associates, Inc., which had been approved by the FDOT legal department on August 23, 1993, executed on September 24, 1993, and included the following information on pages A-21 and A-22, dated July 27, 1993: List of Structures and Basic Data: Structure: New bridge, high level crossing; replacement parallel. Parameters: Minimum vertical clearance at main channel shall not be less than 65 feet above mean high water elevation. Attorney Levin stated that the public hearing was held on November 4, the MPO decision was made on November 22, but the contractor was authorized to proceed with the design of a 65-foot fixed-span bridge on September 29, 1993. Attorney Levin continued that the Anna Maria bridge case had two components: an environmental challenge of the permits being sought and a challenge of the planning process that denied effective participation in the ultimate decision to build a bridge; that Save Anna Maria, Inc., established that the FDOT had predetermined the type of bridge construction and "cooked up" all the information necessary to support their decision, disregarding any information unfavorable to their position; that the evidence discovered thus far pertaining to the planning process for the Ringling Bridge reflects the same posture by FDOT; that, more importantly, based on the data currently available regarding vessel usage and heights, his professional opinion is that the 65-foot fixed span bridge cannot be built; that if any bridge is built, it will have to be higher; that a higher bridge will adversely impact Bird Key Park and access to Bird Key, will require a great deal more investment in terms of right-of-way acquisition, and will have greater environmental impacts; that a host of issues have not been investigated by FDOT; that the design work on a 65-foot bridge is at least 65 percent complete; that the FDOT has expended millions of dollars on a course of action knowing for some time the project was in trouble for permitting by the Coast Guard and failing to consider alternatives to a 65-foot bridge. Mayor Pillot stated that the Consultant Agreement dated September 24, 1993, authorized the design of a 65-foot fixed span bridge; that a public hearing for citizens to provide input on the design was held approximately six weeks later, on November 4, 1993; that the action is appalling. BOOK 42 Page 15054 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15055 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. Attorney Levin stated that the information presented merely scratches the surface; that a number of additional issues are still under review; that many other examples of instances in which the FDOT has violated both Federal and State law with respect to the design of the Ringling Bridge have been identified. Attorney Levin continued that three legal remedies or avenues of attack are available to the City: 1) administrative procedure, 2) civil litigation in State court, and 3) litigation in Federal court; that the Anna Maria bridge case was strictly an administrative challenge; that a final order on the environmental case was received from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP); that the recommended order from the administrative judge who heard the planning process component of the case was submitted to the FDOT for consideration; that under State law, the Secretary of the agency is required to consider, accept, and/or reject with modifications the recommended order of the judge; that the case was tried two years ago; that the FDOT has yet to respond to the recommended order; therefore, the administrative procedure is not viewed as a viable option for the City to achieve an appropriate bridge; that he is currently preparing a recommendation as to whether pursuing civil action or Federal action would be more appropriate; that this case should not go to court; that, hopefully, as the City Commission, the MPO, and other public officials become aware of the actions taken by the FDOT, the FDOT will be compelled to come back and build the Sarasota community the appropriate bridge versus going to court; however, he is prepared to move forward with gathering additional evidence that would ultimately result in a court ordering the FDOT to build the proper bridge. City Attorney Taylor stated that a basis for taking legal action in the matter exists; and requested that Attorney Levin comment on the potential expense to the City. Attorney Levin stated that the Anna Maria bridge case cost the citizens of Anna Maria Island approximately $200,000; that the funds were raised through bake sales and other fundraising events, with much of his legal service performed pro bono; that to date, he has expended almost two months on the City's behalf; that pursuant to City Attorney Taylor's request, a cost projection through October 1, 1997, has been prepared estimating a cost of $75,000 for continued services; that the cost is high initially as facts supporting a strong case are gathered before a lawsuit is filed; that difficulty has resulted in ascertaining certain documents; therefore, an aggressive discovery process whereby appropriate people are brought in under subpoena to produce or testify from memory regarding documentation or facts is anticipated once the lawsuit has been filed; that the gathering and discovery processes performed initially are labor intensive; that the trial is less labor intensive; that a cost to the City similar to that for the Anna Maria bridge case is likely; that the cost could be less if FDOT attempts to settle the issue and avoid litigation; that Ben Watts, Secretary of Transportation, FDOT, has resigned; that a new Secretary may take a fresh look at the issue and attempt to do what is right for the City and Sarasota County. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the millions of dollars the FDOT has invested in design and engineering for the wrong bridge was paid by taxpayers; that pointed questions to Nancy Bright of Greiner, Inc., at a previous Commission meeting were not answered in an assuring manner; that Attorney Levin's research substantiates the gut feeling the Commission has had over the years that the project was not proceeding accordingly; and asked if the potential exists to recover costs expended by the City - toward the bridge study, specifically, the cost of a charette and for staffing of citizens groups which met for two years reviewing designs, locations, heights, etc.? Attorney Levin stated that the potential for cost recovery has not been reviewed to date; however, all options, including recovery of attorney's fees, will be reviewed before the lawsuit is filed and an attempt made to obtain cost recovery for the City in addition to achieving the right bridge decision. Mayor Pillot stated that the entire report is astonishing; that he is especially taken by the September 1993 contract and actions which occurred subsequently; and asked if he is overreacting by thinking the FDOT was dishonest? Attorney Levin stated that his experience in the Anna Maria bridge case was an eye opener; that high-ranking State officials, who were entrusted with expending tax dollars to build and repair the public's bridges, appeared to have little regard for the opinions or input received from any one outside the FDOT; that documentation discovered clearly showed the FDOT had directed the consultants to change facts scientists had ascertained for a more favorable reflection on the FDOT position; that as the behavior was not viewed as commonplace, he felt lucky uncovering the information, and as a result, was successful in litigating the case for Save Anna Maria, Inc. Attorney Levin continued that the consultants for the Ringling Bridge project appeared to have performed a more thorough job than the consultants for the Anna Maria bridge project; that documentation shows greater consideration was given to manatee protection, seagrass protection and other environmental issues; however, as the City's case was researched, he began to see the same tendencies and mindset of the FDOT to disregard outside input; that the information presented to the Commission has been limited; however, the premise is Clear that the FDOT had decided BOOK 42 Page 15056 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15057 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. what size and type of bridge would be built at the initiation of the process; that the Federal funds available for the Ringling Bridge come from the Federal Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Fund; that rehabilitation and replacement projects should be given equal consideration; that the State comprehensive plan encourages utilization of existing infrastructure to the greatest extent possible; that from the start, the FDOT called the Ringling Bridge project a "replacement" project, which indicated no intention of giving consideration to rehabilitation. Commissioner Merrill stated that he and Commissioner Patterson are the City's representatives on the MPO; that the process has been frustrating for those who have argued to the MPO and raised relevant issues to the FDOT which seemed not to be heard; that he finally understands why; that the Mayor is bothered by the Consultant Agreement; that he takes issue with the memorandum dated June 1993 asking if the consultants are sufficiently comfortable with "our" position. Commissioner Cardamone stated that since 1993, FDOT officials have told the Commission the City's desires will be honored; however, when a proposal is put forth, the FDOT continuously says "oh, but you can't do that." Attorney Levin stated that in the Anna Maria bridge case, the judge asked former FDOT District One Secretary David May what would be done if the environmental impacts were found to be too great to allow construction of the proposed bridge; that Mr. May had responded the DEP Secretary would be lobbied to build the bridge; that the FDOT viewed the proposed bridge as the best bridge for Anna Maria, had invested substantial funds in the project, and were not going to change their position; that the attitude of FDOT has to change. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that he is concerned with the information indicating a 65-foot bridge may not be high enough to accommodate the boats traversing Sarasota Bay. Attorney Levin stated that as a result the Coast Guard probably will not issue a permit for the proposed bridge; that a bridge cannot be built without a Coast Guard permit; that the FDOT faced the same problem with the Clearwater Pass bridge one year prior to initiating the planning process for the Ringling Bridge. Commissioner Cardamone stated that FDOT should adhere to the City's wishes; however, the FDOT has not been responsive to the City Commission or the community which supports the City's position; that previous meetings between the Commission and FDOT officials have not been productive. Mayor Pillot requested comment by the City Manager. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Attorney Levin's report is a tremendous expose of how the City and the people of the State of Florida have been deceived by the FDOT; that proceeding with the legal challenge is warranted to achieve the results desired; that the Administration is prepared to bring back an appropriation in the amount of $75,000 to fund the estimated budgetary costs for continued legal services on this matter through the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996; that an additional appropriation will be necessary for FY 97/98; that the City's General Fund balance is totally adequate to support the costs necessary to complete the endeavor. City Attorney Taylor agreed; and asked if Attorney Levin is still in the fact finding stage? Attorney Levin stated that additional documentation is necessary for some of the issues he wants to include in the complaint; therefore, attempts will be made to obtain additional documents from the FDOT through the Public Records Law; that he should be in a position to file the complaint in approximately 30 days; that a second presentation will be made requesting Commission authorization for him to proceed before the complaint is filed. Commissioner Merrill stated that the City should invite David Twiddy, District One Secretary, to meet and discuss the issue with the Commission before a complaint is actually filed; that Attorney Levin could repeat a portion of his presentation at that meeting. Attorney Levin stated that FDOT files indicate the City Commission's actions are monitored closely; that the FDOT will be well aware of what has occurred tonight. Mayor Pillot asked if the Commission has any objections to inviting Mr. Twiddy to a meeting? Vice Mayor Dupree asked Attorney Levin if, based on past experience, meeting with Mr. Twiddy would make any difference? Attorney Levin stated that, hopefully, FDOT officials outside the immediate process for the Ringling Bridge will review past activities and recognize the case can be resolved without going to court; that the funds required to prosecute the case could initiate the design effort on the bridge that ought to be built; that meeting with the FDOT may facilitate a solution short of litigation. Mayor Pillot asked if the City Attorney views meeting with the FDOT as possibly positive but not negative for the City? City Attorney Taylor stated that is correct. BOOK 42 Page 15058 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15059 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot asked when the meeting should be scheduled? Attorney Levin stated that he should have sufficient evidence and be in a position to support the major issues in the case within 20 to 30 days. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing no objections, an invitation to meet with the City Commission will be extended to the FDOT at the discretion of the Administration. Attorney Levin stated that a request for a meeting should be accommodated if the FDOT approaches the City. Commissioner Cardamone stated that scheduling a meeting with the FDOT is supported since personnel in two of the high-ranking positions has changed; that David Twiddy has replaced David May as the District One Secretary; that Ben Watts resigned; therefore, a new Transportation Secretary will be appointed; that the new officials, who did not have roles in the process on the Ringling Bridge, may be surprised by Attorney Levin's findings and may be willing to rectify the situation immediately. Mayor Pillot requested that Attorney Levin's report be made available to interested parties. The Commission recessed at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m. Mayor Pillot stated that under the Changes to the Orders of the Day, the Commission approved postponing the Unfinished Business item pertaining to the John Ringling Towers (JRT); that hearing no objections, the status report on the John Ringling Towers, which was added to Scheduled Presentations will also be delayed until Commissioner Patterson arrives. 14. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS #2 (2700) through (2878) The following person came before the Commission: Jonathan Hubbell, 1901 North Brink Avenue (34234), representing Island Park Dog Owners Association, stated that 1,500 signatures on a petition requesting the use of Bayfront and Island Park by dog owners was submitted three years ago; that the Commission agreed to allow the activity and indicated an ordinance would be established which imposed a pooper-scooper" law and reduced the distance from dog to owner from 300 feet to 100 feet; however, the ordinance enacted requires all dogs be on a leash not exceeding 26 feet in length except when swimming; that his dog is taken to the Park daily and needs to run; that no designated dog exercise areas exist in Sarasota; that most dog owners frequent Bayfront and Island Park. Mr. Hubbell requested consideration of establishing a designated dog exercise area in the City of Sarasota, preferably at Island Park. Mayor Pillot stated that the Administration will follow up on the issue. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: ORDINANCE NO. 97-3994 RELATING TO NOISE = DIRECTED CITY ATTORNEY TAYLOR TO BRING BACK AT THE AUGUST 18, 1997, REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING AN ORDINANCE WHICH ADJUSTS THE HOURS APPROPRIATELY TO ADDRESS THE LEGAL ISSUE IDENTIFIED WITH "MIDNIGHT" AND RE-NOTICE THE CURRENT ORDINANCES PROPERLY; REFERRED ISSUES RAISED TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR A REPORT BACK WITH REÇOMMENDATIONE (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #2 (2878) through #3 (1742) Mark Singer, City Attorney's Office, and Ian Caddie, Civil Engineer, a sound expert hired by the City as a consultant, came before the Commission. Attorney Singer stated that subsequent to the enactment of the noise ordinances, the Commission requested that Mr. Caddie take additional sound level measurements in the Downtown area and report his findings to the Commission; that Commissioner Patterson had also questioned whether the sound measuring equipment was properly calibrated and appropriate for the task; that the equipment before being ordered was reviewed and determined appropriate by Mr. Caddie. Mr. Caddie stated that on June 28, 1997, he reviewed with police officers the use and calibration of the sound measuring equipment and took sound measurements with the trained officers which verified the measurements taken over the two week period between June 13 and June 28, 1997; that the measurements recorded were substantially the same as the results from the two field studies conducted previously; that a detailed report was forwarded to the Commission. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that the report verifies the sound measuring equipment used was properly calibrated; therefore, the decisions made by police officers were appropriate. Mr. Caddie stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Dupree asked Mr. Caddie to comment regarding the installation of sound baffles to lower the level of sound emitted from a structure or changing the direction in which bands face to mitigate the impacts on surrounding neighbors. BOOK 42 Page 15060 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15061 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. Mr. Caddie stated that the first report submitted to the Commission referenced various methods of sound attenuation to reduce sound levels. Attorney Singer stated that a legal challenge to the ordinance has been made questioning not only the enactment of the ordinance but also the scope; that the Administration plans bring back proposed revisions to the noise ordinance to alleviate concerns raised in the litigation and to further clarify the term midnight as 12:01 a.m. or 11:59 p.m. in reference to the time amplified music must cease in the C-CBD Zone District to make application of the ordinance easier; that direction from the Commission on the following is requested to assist in preparation of a revised ordinance: 1. Should a change in the decibel level be considered? 2. Should the prohibition against outdoor amplified music be limited to live music only? Commissioner Cardamone asked the difference between live music and outdoor amplified music? Attorney Singer stated that live music would be instrumentation by a band as opposed to pre-recorded or taped music. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing no objections, the Commission will hear from citizens signed up to speak before providing direction to the Administration. The following people came before the Commission: Chris Yent, 2272 Main Street, stated that the newspaper indicated police officers measured decibel (dB) levels above the ordinance limit with no music playing; that he was led to believe the American democratic system is based on majority rule; that approximately 7,000 signatures on a petition opposing the noise ordinance was submitted to the Commission; that a handful of people expressed support for the ordinance during the public hearings; however, information regarding the actual number of people who expressed support for the noise ordinance has not been released; that the ordinance was a mistake; that a referendum designed to repeal the ordinance should be pursued since 7,000 signatures to a petition were submitted and only 2,000 signatures are necessary to initiate a public referendum. Mr. Yent continued that he wonders if a citation would be issued for readings measured in excess of 70 dB at the door of the West Coast Symphony or if the City is exercising selective enforcement. Ken Shelin, 117 North Washington Drive (34236), stated that he is not pleased with the restaurateurs on St. Armands Circle, the ineffective noise abatement task force, the silly pseudo- scientific survey conducted by the Police Department on June 8, 1997, or the cavalier police response to a resident's complaint on August 3, 1997, regarding noise emanating from a restaurant on St. Armands Circle, which also awakened him; that residents of St. Armands Key are not being treated with the same respect as Downtown residents; that a plea for Commission assistance was previously made; that a noise abatement task force has been formed; that commitments from the Columbia and Cha Cha Coconuts restaurants to take actions to alleviate the noise problems have been received; however, the noise levels have persisted and possibly have gotten worse with the activity occurring at Tommy Bahama's Tropical Cafe; that the failure of the City Commission to take effective action to protect residents of St. Armands from obnoxious noise is questioned; and requested that the Commission & include regulations for the Commercial Tourist (CT) Zone District E when the ordinance regulating noise in the C-CBD Zone District is revised. Commissioner Patterson arrived at 9:12 p.m. Dr. Keith Stockwell, 117 North Washington Drive (34236), requested that the Commission revise the existing noise ordinance to include St. Armands Key as well as the Downtown area; that all residential areas in the City adjoining concentrated, commercial developments should be treated equally; that he has participated on the St. Armands Noise Abatement Task Force since May; that a task force made up entirely of lay people is not effective in defining measures to control noise; that a task force needs experts in the field being investigated; that although members on the St. Armands Noise Abatement Task Force have good intentions, expertise in reducing noise levels is lacking. Dr. Stockwell continued that the data provided to the Commission in Mr. Caddie's report indicates the dB levels measured at Downtown locations on June 13, 14, 20, 21, and 28 were primarily under 70 dB; that 8 of the 15 sound measurements taken at Cha Cha Coconuts on June 8, 1997, exceeded 84 dB; that the dB level at 9:40 p.m. was 89.6, which is significantly higher than the measurements recorded in the Downtown. Dr. Stockwell further stated that loud noise from restaurants and clubs should not be allowed to continue to invade residential areas; that St. Armands Key should be included in the revised noise ordinance; that all citizens of the City deserve equal benefit and protection from ordinances enacted by the Commission; that to date, the residents of St. Armands are not being treated equally and look to the Commission to remedy the situation. Mayor Pillot asked when the Administration is planning to bring back a revised ordinance? BOOK 42 Page 15062 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15063 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. Attorney Singer stated that the revisions could be brought back to the Commission early next month if review of the proposed changes is desired before a revised ordinance is presented to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP). Regina Tebrugge, Attorney, 2337 Ixora Avenue (34234), representing Save Downtown Outdoor Music, Inc., stated that she is scheduled to meet with various local musicians regarding an additional lawsuit challenging the City's existing noise ordinance; that the over restrictive regulation of dB levels is affecting the livelihood of musicians; that Mr. Caddie has indicated additional sound measurements taken in June 1997 were substantially the same as those taken by the Police Department and those measured previously by Mr. Caddie; that Gary Drouin, President, Save Downtown Outdoor Music, Inc., also took sound measurements which were substantially the same as those taken by the Police Department and Mr. Caddie; that the data indicates outdoor music Downtown does not raise the ambient noise level; that Mr. Caddie's initial report referenced ambient noise levels Downtown at 72 dB to 76 dB without any music playing; that the existing ordinance which imposes a 70 dB maximum sound level in the C-CBD Zone District does nothing to decrease the ambient noise levels; that no one is deriving a benefit from the noise ordinance which is causing great harm to many; that the Lemon Coast Grille has filed a lawsuit against the City; that another lawsuit is being filed by the musicians negatively impacted the ordinance; that the Commission should avoid wasting by additional police and legal resources, taxpayer dollars, and the public's time by enacting a moratorium on enforcement of the noise ordinance until the new data is reviewed and a reasonable, feasible dB level is determined. Philip Dasher, President, Marina Suites Association, Inc., 926 Boulevard of the Arts, stated that several requests have been made to establish a separate enforcement zone for the Quay that the data produced in two reports by Mr. Caddie supports Basin; the request; that the proximity of the Sarasota Quay to Marina Suites as well as the water between the two properties does not allow sound to dissipate; that the existing noise ordinances have significantly reduced the sound levels in the Basin area; however, refinement to the location at which measurements are taken should be considered as the property line is located in the water 85 feet across the Basin; that a sound level equivalent to 70 dB could be established based on an extrapolation of the readings taken from the property line; that, for example, the dB level would be increased if measured at the edge of the Quay property and decreased if measured at the edge of the Marina Suites property; that problems experienced at the Basin differ greatly from those experienced Downtown; that problems with noise have been in the Basin area for eight years; that the noise ordinances ongoing have finally provided relief; that the maximum sound levels established should not be increased at Sarasota Quay. Sid Johnston, 335 North Washington Drive (34236-1314). representing St. Armands Residents Association, stated that he is an eight-year resident of St. Armands who serves on the Board of Governors for the St. Armands Residents Association and participates on the St. Armands Noise Abatement Task Force; that residents are very concerned about the level of noise on St. Armands; that the commercia/residential mix on St. Armands is similar to that in the Downtown; that the noise ordinance should not apply only to Downtown; and requested that applicability to St. Armands be included when the noise ordinance is revised. Mayor Pillot stated that no one else has signed up to speak; and requested that Attorney Singer and Mr. Caddie come forward. Attorney Singer stated that the existing ordinance will be revised; that the first issue the Commission should consider is whether the 70 dB level currently in the ordinance is satisfactory or if a change in the dB level should be addressed when a revised ordinance is drafted. Commissioner Merrill asked if the sound emanating from a television through an open window at a residence and the music playing on outside speakers at the Hollywood 20 Cobb Theatre are considered outdoor amplified music? Attorney Singer stated yes. Commissioner Merrill stated that residents in Bayfront condominiums enjoy opening windows and sliding glass doors at certain times of the year; that the problems experienced with noise in the Downtown stemmed from live music; that the outdoor amplified music restriction should be eliminated; that increasing the maximum sound level to 75 dB in the Downtown area could be supported; that based on the inverse square law, an increase of 5 dB would not significantly increase the sound heard at the condominiums; that water causes a refraction of sound; that establishing separate standards for land areas and water areas is supported; that establishing standards for water areas would allow the standards to apply in areas other than just the Quay Basin; that applying the noise ordinance to St. Armands should be considered. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that he agrees with Commissioner Merrill; however, further difficulties with noise emanating from "boom boxes" could be experienced if only live music is regulated; that a cooperative effort between the experts, businesses, and City Staff is necessary to resolve the noise issues; that increasing the maximum dB level is not the only solution which should be considered; that business owners have an obligation and should attempt to control sound levels by using methods of sound attenuation. BOOK 42 Page 15064 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15065 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone requested the Administration to explain why the existing noise ordinances have not been applied to St. Armands. Attorney Singer stated that the existing noise ordinances were developed in response to complaints from residents in the Downtown area; that resolving noise issues is complicated; that the intent was to achieve an entorceable ordinance applicable only to the C-CBD Zone District before applying the regulations Citywide; that the circumstances on St. Armands Circle and in the Downtown are different; that neither the zoning or the proximity of the residential neighborhoods to the businesses is the same; that the St. Armands Noise Abatement Task Force was established to identify specific issues. Commissioner Cardamone stated that problems with noise did not exist on St. Armands or Downtown two years ago. Attorney Singer stated that the problems are a product of the continued development of both commercial areas. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the prohibition against any sound which annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of a reasonable person of normal sensibilities could be enforced by the police to relieve the difficulties residents are experiencing on St. Armands. Attorney Singer stated yes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that residents from St. Armands and members of the task force have referenced a continuing problem with noise; that enforcing an existing standard would be easier than drafting new regulations; and requested a response be forwarded to the Commission by the City Manager as to why the reasonable noise standard has not been enforced on St. Armands. Commissioner Patterson stated that the purpose of developing a noise ordinance applicable only to the most intensely developed area of the City and not Citywide has been raised as an issue previously; that the dB levels for less intense areas should be at least as low as those established Downtown; that based on the reports referencing ambient noise levels greater than 70 dB, she had suggested the ordinance be enforced as if the maximum dB level were 74 dB; and asked for comment by Mr. Caddie. Mr. Caddie stated that the preliminary report issued in October 1996 which recommended a maximum sound level of 70 dB covered various areas with different circumstances; that the field studies included measurements taken at the Sarasota Quay, where the sources of sound and the residences are closer in proximity, and in the C-CBD Zone District; that a maximum sound level of 70 dB was recommended on the basis of the total study; that a more recent study focusing only on sound levels in the Downtown indicates the ambient noise level exceeded 70 dB on several occasions. Mr. Caddie referred to his report dated July 1, 1997, which included the following field measurements taken at the Lemon Coast Grille: Date Time dB Reading Comments 06/14/97 2014 71.8 no band/stereo 06/20/97 2100 71.7 band on break Commissioner Patterson stated that the June 20, 1997, reference does not specify if pre-recorded music was being played as often occurs when the band is on break. Commissioner Patterson asked for Mr. Caddie's recommendation based on the more detailed studies of sound levels in the Downtown? Mr. Caddie stated that different sound levels could be applied to noise sensitive areas; that the maximum sound levels could be based on unique sets of circumstances, e.g., one level could be applied for the C-CBD Zone District and another level at the Sarasota Quay. Commissioner Patterson stated that the existing ordinance prohibits outdoor amplified music within 200 feet of a residence; therefore, outdoor amplified music would not be allowed at Sarasota Quay, regardless. Mr. Caddie stated that recent studies indicate businesses in the C-CBD Zone District operate at a higher noise level than at Sarasota Quay; that establishing a noise sensitive area at the Quay could be considered to address the differences in the two areas. Commissioner Patterson asked the dB level recommended for the C-CBD Zone District if a noise sensitive area is established? Mr. Caddie stated that a calculation would have to be performed to determine a recommendation; however a maximum sound level of 75 dB in the Downtown should provide for residents to remain relatively undisturbed. Commissioner Patterson referred to a memorandum from City Attorney Taylor which referenced pending litigation and a request made of the Police Department to refrain from enforcing the section of the ordinance pertaining to hours for amplified music. City Attorney Taylor stated that although the City prevailed on the question of the entry of a temporary injunction, the lawsuit BOOK 42 Page 15066 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15067 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. challenging the validity of the City's noise ordinance will continue to be active; that indications were gained from the court regarding certain issues; that the noise ordinances were processed as amendments to the Sarasota City Code; that one indication was a legal argument challenging the applicability of an ordinance regulating a specific zone district not processed as a change to the Zoning Code could prevail; therefore, Ordinance No. 97-3994, applying to amplified music in the C-CBD Zone District, will be reprocessed; that the logic and fairness of allowing amplified music in a completely enclosed structure as long as the dB reading taken at the curb does not exceed 70 dB but prohibiting the playing of amplified music, even if measured at 40 dB, after midnight at a location which is not completely enclosed was questioned; that the information gained in court indicates the City has a potential problem with the provision; that in realizing the issue was being brought to the Commission and rather than subjecting the City to any liability he, as chief prosecutor for the City under the Charter, requested the Police Department not enforce the provision pending discussion and potential action by the Commission tonight. Commissioner Patterson asked if the Police Department has stopped enforcing the hour provisions of the ordinance? Russell Pillifant, Deputy Chief of Police, came before the Commission and stated that at the direction of the City Attorney, the Police Department stopped enforcing the hours of operation pertaining to amplified music; that the standards for reasonable noise and sound levels in the C-CBD Zone District are being enforced; that police officers have been instructed to enforce the reasonable noise standard in all areas of the City where the dB standard is not applicable; that a citation is to be issued if the police officer determines a violation; that complainants are to be provided an affidavit to forward to the City Attorney if the police officer determines the noise is reasonable or no noise is heard upon responsei that the reference to activities occurring on St. Armands violates the enforcement principles set forth; that the issue will be reviewed. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Commission adopts the ordinances which are enacted; that lawsuits challenging the City's ordinances occur regularly; that the City Attorney's Office should not be directing the Police Department to stop enforcement of an ordinance while litigation is pending without first bringing the issue to the attention of the Commission or processing the request through the City Manager. Commissioner Patterson continued that Section 20-5(1) was recommended by the City Attorney's Office as the easiest to enforce, clearest, and most logical portion of the noise ordinance; therefore, ceasing enforcement of the provision before receiving thé judge's ruling on the issue seems strange. City Attorney Taylor stated that the noise ordinance has been under internal and external attack; that adjustments in the ordinance are required; that certain revisions should be drafted and brought back to the Commission as soon as possible; that the provision could be enforced if so desired by the Commission. Commissioner Patterson asked how the litigation is affected if, in the interim, enforcement is suspended or revisions are made to the portion of ordinance being challenged? City Attorney Taylor stated that citations were being issued on an ongoing basis as the litigation progressed; that the legal challenge includes a suit for damages alleging the particular provision. in the ordinance is unconstitutional; that based on the information gained in a hearing with a judge, who did not rule on the unconstitutional issue, he exercised his judgment and determined that stopping enforcement pending a decision as to whether the provision would be redrafted was in the best interest of the City from a potential liability standpoint; that, if the provision is not redrafted, then the City will have to take its chances in litigation. Commissioner Patterson asked if the portion of the ordinance requiring immediate redrafting pertains to the hours? City Attorney Taylor stated that only in the sense that, a problem exists in the standard as written in terms of 12 midnight based on judicial precedent specially defining the term; that the term does not work in the practical sense anticipated; that secondly, the issue of enacting the provisions of the ordinance specific to the C-CBD Zone District as a Zoning Code amendment can easily be remedied when the midnight standard is revised to 11:59 p.m. or 12:01 a.m. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that ordinances are enacted by the City Commission; that changes to enforcement of ordinances should be authorized by the Commission; that a precedent should not be set whereby the - City Attorney exercises a prerogative to change enforcement of an ordinance any time a lawsuit is brought against the City. Commissioner Patterson stated that is her concern. Mayor Pillot stated that establishing regulations in the ordinance specific to different parts of the City is supported; that the water at the Quay creates a circumstance different than in other parts of the City; that differences exist in Downtown compared to St. Armands; that criteria should be established based on specific circumstances and the ordinance applied Citywide; that an Administration's recommendation should be brought back before the Commission considers a change in maximum sound levels; that a moratorium on entorcement of the ordinance BOOK 42 Page 15068 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15069 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. is not supported absent compelling reasonsi that City Attorney Taylor has always acted in the best interest of the City by advising the Commission and in attempting to protect the public from unnecessary expense and other liabilities; that the advise given regarding the enforcement of the ordinance was sound as always; however, he agrees with Commissioner Patterson and Vice Mayor Dupree that changes in enforcement of an ordinance should be changed through procedures requiring Commission authorization; that he respects the intelligence, dedication, and good judgment of police officers, but has concern with the subjectivity inherent in the reasonable noise standard; that two police officers often make different judgments. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Zoning Code amendment process should be initiated with regulations specific to the Downtown, St. Armands, and Sarasota Quay, the areas where problems with noise have been identified; that consensus of the Commission should be reached before the Administration proceeds in making Ordinance No. 97-3994 applicable Citywide. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to: 1) direct the City Attorney Taylor to bring back at the August 18, 1997, regular Commission meeting an ordinance which adjusts the hours appropriately to address the legal issue identified with "midnight" and re-notice the current ordinances properly 2) refer to the Administration for a report back as soon as possible with recommendations on the following issues: a. changes to the maximum permissible sound level b. live music versus amplified music C. a noise sensitive area for Sarasota Quay d. provisions for noise abatement at St. Armands e. two decibel levels: one for earlier hours and a more restrictive one for later hours Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 16. SCHEDULED PRESENTATION RE: STATUS OF THE JOHN RINGLING TOWERS AND FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT = NO ACTION (AGENDA ITEM V-3) #3 (1742) through (3269) Fred Starling, Vice President, Bobbi Hicks and Jay Berman, Board of Directors, representing the John Ringling Centre (JRC) Foundation, came before the Commission. Mr. Starling stated that under Unfinished Business Item VII-1, C. Robert Buford will request the Commission to issue a demolition order for the John Ringling Towers (JRT) i that the currently seated Commission released the John Ringling Centre Foundation (JRC) from a demolition order in April 1996; that the demolition order had been one of the major issues preventing the Foundation from moving forward with a project to rehabilitate the JRT; that a feasibility study was performed and presented to the Commission; that the development partners, who appeared before the Commission in April 1996 are present tonight to reaffirm their commitment to the project; that following the release from the demolition order, final plans for the JRT project were initiated; that architectural plans were developed, franchise agreements with the Crowne Plaza Hotels and Resorts were finalized, and financing was sought; that an - "unclouded" title, clear of any liens or encumbrances, was required to obtain financing; however, Mr. Buford had laid claims on the title regarding ownership of the property; that the JRC was forced to file a lawsuit for quiet title and against Mr. Buford for interference with the JRT project; that the case is currently being litigated in Federal court; that the issue is and should not be viewed as the JRT versus the Ritz Carlton; that the JRC Foundation should be allowed to develop the JRT site based on City development and zoning regulations; that Mr. Buford should have the right to develop the eight acres adjacent to the JRT under the same conditions; that additional property should be purchased or the proposed plans changed if eight acres is not sufficient land on which to develop the proposed Ritz Carlton Hotel. Mr. Starling continued that relying on the 1996 release of demolition order, the JRC Foundation and development partners have invested substantial time and money into the proposed rehabilitation project; that nothing has changed with the exception of the delay caused by the "clouded" title; that Commission involvement in complex legal issues currently under litigation in Federal Court is not appropriate; that the issues should be settled through a ruling of the court or a negotiated settlement between the JRC Foundation and Mr. Buford. Ms. Hicks stated that over the past several years, many of the City's historic buildings have been destroyed; that once destroyed, historic buildings do not return; that Commission support for preserving and transforming the JRT into a viable, taxpaying hotel is requested; that community support for the JRT is received continuously through letters of interest, telephone calls, and donations; that the citizens' heritage and a new development can function together; that two hotels can be developed and operate cordially on the 11-acre site. Mr. Berman stated that the JRC Foundation, as a group of businessmen, natives, and community citizens, feel the JRT should be restored; that no options will remain if the JRT is BOOK 42 Page 15070 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15071 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. demolished; that the project supported by the Commission in the past should be allowed to go forward; that a clear title will allow the JRC Foundation and development partners to move forward in initiating the plans presented in 1996; that the project would have been completed by now if a "clouded" title was not encountered. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Fee Simple Deed to the JRC Foundation was reviewed after the Commission had voted in favor of releasing the demolition order; that the clouds on the title appear to be inherent in the deed, which clearly states no liens can be placed on the property without the consent of First Sunset Development, Inc., whose rights and obligations were assumed by Mr. Buford; that the deed refers to the demolition agreement, rehabilitation deadlines, and a reversion to First Sunset Development, Inc., if the City determines rehabilitation deadlines have not been met; that the inability for the JRC Foundation to place a lien on the property without the consent of Mr. Buford is viewed as a serious issue which could prevent the rehabilitation project from proceeding; and asked how a suit to quiet title would remove the stipulation in the deed? Mr. Starling stated that the legal issues are too complicated for him to explain; that based on information received in 1996 from lenders and title companies, the JRC Foundation understood that a clear title could be achieved by removing the demolition order, a title policy issued, and thus financing obtained; however, after approval of release from the demolition order was received from the Commission, Mr. Buford, following his settlement with First Sunset Development, Inc., laid claim to the ownership of the JRT property that, as a result, the JRC Foundation could not obtain clear title; that the JRC Foundation may or may not prevail in the litigation; however, success in the challenge is anticipated; that the decision on the legal issues should rest with the courts. Commissioner Patterson stated that success in the challenge may prevent Mr. Buford from forcing the City to demolish the JRT; however, the result may be a building which remains in its current state because the JRC Foundation would be faced with the impossible task of attempting to achieve financing on a building whose deed specifically states liens cannot be placed on the property. Mr. Starling stated that he is not in position to speak to the legal issues; that an attorney from Tampa, who is experienced in the type of litigation undertaken, has advised a clear title can be achieved if the JRC Foundation prevails in court; that the project can go forward if clear title is achieved. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City is not putting forth a position in the litigation; that the case has not developed sufficiently to allow for an opinion from the City Attorney's Office regarding the JRC Foundation's theory. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a status report regarding future plans and available funds was anticipated versus a plea from the JRC Foundation to allow ongoing litigation to continue. Mr. Starling stated that the development partners are planning to address the status of the project from a feasibility standpoint under Unfinished Business, Item VII-1; that the status of the project has remained unchanged since April 1996, with a commitment from the Board of Directors of the JRC Foundation and from the development partners to rehabilitate and restore the JRT as a first-class hotel. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the status report should have included an update on funds available and a response to the JRC Foundation's failure to pay 1996 property taxes on the property. Commissioner Cardamone referred to a letter dated July 24, 1996, from William Merrill, Attorney, representing the JRC Foundation, indicating the first two floors and the exterior of the building have been restored; and asked for the specific work performed? Mr. Starling stated that Attorney Merrill should speak to the letter; that the JRC Foundation was in the process of rehabilitating the exterior and first two floors of the building; that the process of rehabilitation is ongoing. Mr. Starling continued that a commitment of funds sufficient to pay the taxes is available; that the Board of Directors made a conscious decision not to pay the property taxes pending disposition of the litigation as Mr. Buford would be responsible for the property taxes if ownership of the property is reverted. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that he was not serving on the Commission in 1994; therefore, video tapes of the meetings pertaining to the JRT in 1994 and in April 1996 were reviewed; that he has many questions; and asked if the estimate of demolition cost had been submitted within the 10-day period, if the JRC Foundation met the $3 million fundraising goal as required, what renovations have been performed on the first two floors and exterior of the building to date, and what are the associated costs? Mr. Starling stated that the City Manager should be able to answer Vice Mayor Dupree's questions regarding actions taken and requests made of the JRC Foundation by the Commission; that the schedule of funds presented to the Commission as meeting the fundraising goal. were approved; that approximately $400,000 in cash and in-kind services has been expended to date on renovations performed to waterproof and stabilize further BOOK 42 Page 15072 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15073 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. deterioration of the building and for architectural and engineering plans. Vice Mayor Dupree asked the amount received to date from the major gift donors referenced when the schedule of funds was presented to the Commission in 1994? Mr. Starling stated that the majority of pledges from major gift donors remain but have been withheld pending disposition of the litigation. Mr. Berman stated that one major donation and receipt of grants have been delayed because of the legal issues pending. Vice Mayor Dupree asked if the donations have been used to pay salaries to any members of the JRC Foundation? Mr. Starling stated that executive directors and secretaries have been paid either salaries or hourly wages; however, to his knowledge, no Board member has received any salary from the donations. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that the Commission, by voting to remove the demolition order, thought the proposed Crowne Plaza development would proceed and an historical landmark made into something of which Sarasota could be proud; however, over one year has passed without that occurring. Mr. Berman stated that the JRC Foundation shares the same feeling. Mr. Starling stated that the Commission can still feel good about the involvement by the development partners, who remain confident the project is feasible and are present in the audience to demonstrate a willingness to continue with the proposed Crowne Plaza development once the title is cleared. Vice Mayor Dupree asked if achieving a clear title is feasible? Mr. Starling stated yes. Commissioner Merrill asked if First Sunset Development, Inc., was still involved with the property when the Commission released the demolition order? Mr. Starling stated yes. Commissioner Merrill stated throughout the process, the JRC Foundation had a good working relationship with First Sunset Development, Inc., who at the time was the owner of the adjacent property; therefore, future problems with the deed or the adjacent property owner had not been anticipated when removal of the demolition order was requested and the proposed development presented to the Commission by the JRC Foundation in April 1996? Mr. Starling stated that is correct; that the JRC Foundation had a cooperative working relationship with First Sunset Development, Inc., who deeded the 3-acre JRT property and donated $250,000 to the JRC Foundation; that several joint easement agreements were entered into which would allow for development of the 11-acre site together; that the JRC Foundation had no reason to anticipate future adverse dealings with the adjacent property owner; however, ownership was transferred as a result of settlement of a lawsuit filed by Mr. Buford against First Development, Inc., for enforcement of a contract for purchase of the rear portion of the JRT site; that the terms of the settlement agreement are confidential; therefore, specifics regarding how title was passed are unknown. Commissioner Merrill stated that the change in the working relationship between the JRC Foundation and the adjacent property owner over the past year has negatively affected progress on the JRT renovation project. Mr. Starling stated that is correct; that, unfortunately, the two parties are in court. Commissioner Patterson asked why First Sunset Development, Inc., which still had control of the property and which has been referenced as a cooperative partner, did not sign the release of demolition order or the Security Agreement approved by the Commission to exchange consideration of a future lien on the property for the funds held in. escrow for potential demolition of the building? Mr. Starling stated that First Sunset Development, Inc., was defending a lawsuit filed by Mr. Buford and was not in a position to sign the documents. Commissioner Patterson stated that First Sunset Development, Inc., was in the same litigation at the time agreements were modified to reduce the amount of restoration the JRC Foundation was required to perform; that First Sunset Development, Inc., appeared to be working with the JRC Foundation throughout the process but failed to sign two critical agreements which could have protected the Foundation from the situation that has occurred. Mr. Starling stated that he was not privy to the litigation between Mr. Buford and First Sunset Development, Inc.; therefore, cannot comment on the change in First Sunset's position. Mayor Pillot stated that he and other Commissioners witnessed the ceremony held at which First Sunset Development, Inc., handed the Fee Simple Deed and a monetary donation to the President of the JRC Foundation; that documents exist expressing continued support BOOK 42 Page 15074 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. - BOOK 42 Page 15075 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. from the Vernona Partners and from Crowne Plaza Hotels and Resorts referencing the feasibility of restoring the JRT for use as part of a luxury hotel development; that the Commission determined the JRC Foundation had met the $3 million fundraising goal based on the data presented; that the schedule of funds presented included an anonymous pledge for $800,000 from a major gift donor; that the attorney representing the gift donor recently reaffirmed the monetary commitment; that activity on the JRT site has remained dormant pending the outcome of litigation; that the City will benefit from the development of a modern hotel adjacent to a beautifully, restored historic hotel if the JRC Foundation prevails in litigation; that the issue will be closed from the standpoint of the JRC Foundation if the court challenge is not successful; and asked if his statements have fairly summarized the status of the issue? Mr. Starling stated yes. 17. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: PRESENTATION RE: REOUEST FOR ACTION BY C. ROBERT BUFORD CONCERNING JOHN RINGLING TOWERS - ACKNOWLEDGED THE JOHN RINGLING CENTRE FOUNDATION HAS NOT MET THE COMMITMENT TO REHABILITATE THE FIRST TWO FLOORS AND EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING AS COMMITTED TO IN THE THREE-PARTY AGREEMENT (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #3 (3298) through #6 (0268) City Manager Sollenberger requested that C. Robert Buford come before the Commission to make his presentation and requests. C. Robert Buford and Gary Davis, Attorney, came before the Commission and distributed notebooks containing copies of the Three-Party Agreement, Security Agreement, Fee Simple Deeds from First Sunset Development, Inc., to the John Ringling Centre Foundation, Inc., and Deeds and documents pertaining to C. Robert Buford, including the Assignment of Contracts, Assignment of Easements and Deed Restrictions, Release of the Reverter, and Judge Merryday's Summary Judgment. Mr. Buford stated that the information provided should address some of the issues raised by Commissioners; that the subject is not a property rights issue but a contract issue. Mr. Buford continued that he is a taxpayer in the City of Sarasota and is speaking not to individual Commissioners but to the governing body referred to as the Sarasota City Commission; that the Commission is requested to honor written commitments the governing body agreed upon in the Three-Party Agreement dated July 28, 1993, negotiated between the City of Sarasota, the John Ringling Centre Foundation, Inc., and First Sunset Development, Inc.; that he has assumed the rights, interests, and obligations of First Sunset Development, Inc., as verified by the Special Warranty Deed and Assignment of Contracts. Mr. Buford cited the following question and answer from page 4 of the Business Plan prepared by the JRC Foundation dated February 1994: Isn't the property for sale as this time? Yes, but that has always been the plan all along. First Sunset Development has never intended to develop the track. And the property is currently listed with Michael Saunders and Company. Any buyer must assume all the responsibilities of the property owner as outlined in the legal agreement with the Foundation and the Three-Party Agreement with the City and the Foundation. Accordingly, the sale of the property is of no consequences to the Foundation's project. Mr. Buford stated that he should not be required to look upon the situation any differently than the JRC Foundation did in 1994; that the Foundation expected the purchaser to assume all the responsibilities set forth in the agreements; that as the purchaser, he is requesting the same from the Commission and the Foundation; that the Three-Party Agreement states the Foundation had 18 months after acquiring title to the property to rehabilitate the exterior facade and the first two floors of the John Ringling Towers (JRT); that the City was to determine whether the Foundation had met the requirements by July 19, 1996, and if the requirements had not been met to issue written notice to the Foundation stating the Foundation had failed to rehabilitate the JRT in accordance with the Agreement; that if the rehabilitation had not occurred by July 19, 1996, the Foundation was committed to commence demolition within sixty days of the written notice received from the City Manager. Mr. Buford continued that on Monday, September 23, 1996, a court order was obtained to inspect and take photographs of the exterior and first two floors of the JRT; that copies of the photographs are included in the notebooks distributed. Mr. Buford displayed on the slide projector aerial, interior, and exterior photographs taken on July 26 and September 23, 1996, which depicted various deterioration on the first two floors and exterior facade, including the following: water intrusion and destruction of interior framing of the Elephant Lounge, fire damage to wall and ceiling surfaces at the north entrance, uncatalogued and broken trim materials, deterioration of the elevator cab and surrounding detail, roof leaks and associated damage, open windows, loss of roofing at the front entry, spalling from water damage and rust of steel pan system, missing roof downspouts and leaders. Mr. Buford stated that Susan Tate, Preservation Architect, who has been a faculty member at the University of Florida College of Architecture since 1972 was included in the group of designated BOOK 42 Page 15076 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15077 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. individuals which inspected the JRT building; that Professor Tate is a member of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) who has had national committee assignments for historic resources and interiors; that the following comments are included in the evaluation performed according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstruction Historic Buildings: Building Exterior: Masonry Recent coating partially applied Coating applied over rusticated brick detail Cracks not repaired prior to application of coating Deteriorated stucco not repaired prior to application of coating Building Exterior: Roofs Tile roofing removed and protective membranes disintegrated Roof leaks damaging stucco after application of coating Roofing lost and structure exposed membrane destroyed and roof drain not functional Building Exterior: Windows Sash missing and causing extensive damage to decorative interior features Building Interior: Spaces, Features, and Finishes Water intrusion at entry to Elephant Lounge Destruction of interior framing of Elephant Lounge Water intrusion into Main Lobby Water damage to painted wood members Mr. Buford stated that based on Professor Tate's opinion that the exterior facade and first two floors of the JRT had not been rehabilitated according to the United States Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation as well as the conditions depicted in the Slides displayed, he is requesting the Commission to fulfill the requirements of the governmental body as agreed when the Three-Party Agreement and amendments were executed by the City, the JRC Foundation, Inc., and First Sunset Development, Inc.; that the lack of fulfillment of the terms of the Three-Party Agreement have caused him great delay and damages associated with an inability to proceed with plans for the property; that 1996 taxes in the amount of $77,360 were paid on the eight acres undisputedly in his ownership. Mr. Buford continued that past positions of the City and the JRC Foundation are not understood; that the Fee Simple Deeds to the JRC Foundation are conditional deeds; that independent of his right of reverter, the JRC Foundation cannot convey any interest in the property; that the Foundation's proposal cannot go forward without his prior approval; that his consent can be withheld for any transfers except to a governmental agency or a not-for-profit organization qualified as tax exempt under Section 501(c) (3); that he has the right of review and approval of any architectural plans for the rehabilitation of the exterior of the two historic structures; that any usage of the subject property must be compatible with the usage of the remaining eight acres; that review of paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of the Fee Simple Deed to the Foundation should leave the Commission with no questions regarding the future use of the JRT property; that in addition to non compliance with paragraphs 4, 5, and 6, the Foundation has breached the conditional deeds by failing to pay 1996 property taxes and permitting a tax lien to encumber the title of the property. Mr. Buford further stated that inspection of the building beyond the first two floors was not permitted on September 23, 1996; that the damage identified on the first two floors indicates further damage exists on the higher floors; that the group was advised the Bickel House was infested with fleas; therefore, the Bickel House was not inspected; that the lack of maintenance of the buildings on the subject property is not only a violation of the Agreements set forth but also a violation of the building codes of the City of Sarasota constituting a safety and health hazard; therefore, the Commission is respectfully requested to honor the City's obligations under paragraph 5 of the Three-Party Agreement and direct the City Manager to send written notice specifying the JRC Foundation has failed to rehabilitate the exterior facade and the first two floors of the JRT; that the City is also requested to enforce the building codes. The following people came before the Commission: Dr. Arland Christ-Janer, President Emeritus, Ringling School of Art and Design, 4372 Camino Madera (34238), and General Rolland Heiser, 4104 Los Palmos Way (34238) representing Gateway 2000, came before the Commission. General Heiser stated that the mission of Gateway 2000, founded in 1987, was to work effectively with public and private entities to encourage economic development and enhance the quality of life for residents north of Main Street; that although the Gateway 2000 Executive Committee supports the concept of a Ritz-Carlton Hotel on the John Ringling Towers (JRT) property, he and Dr. Christ-Janer are presenting a personal viewpoint. Dr. Christ-Janer stated that during the past 10 years, many improvements have resulted from the public/private collaboration BOOK 42 Page 15078 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15079 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. between the City and Gateway 2000; that a new residents' hall, fine arts building, natural science building, and marine biology research center at the University of South Florida (USF)/New College, the renovations of the Asolo Theater and the Ca'd'Zan, the proposed development of a new Eckerds Drug Store, and nine new residence halls at the Ringling School of Art and Design have either been completed or are under design; that the Sarasota Bay Club, including a 250-unit, independent-living facility and a 50-room, assisted-living facility, is underway; that Whitaker Gateway Park is being developed as a community recreational facility; that the Wynnton Group, Inc. the firm selected by the Community Redevelopment Agency to develop the Mission Harbor property will develop The Renaissance, a residential, mixed-use development project expected to revitalize North Sarasota; that the Hyatt Hotel is adding 160 rooms and doubling their conference facilities to 30,000 square feet. General Heiser stated that the proposed Ritz-Carlton Hotel's 21,000-square-foot conference facility and the Hyatt Hotel's new 0,000-square-root facility will attract national conferences; that tourism will be improved and tax revenues increased; that development of a Ritz-Carlton Hotel on the JRT property will positively impact the community; that appreciation should be expressed to C. Robert Buford, representing an owner interest in the John Ringling Towers (JRT) property, for supporting the venture. Dr. Christ-Janer stated that a Ritz-Carlton Hotel will serve the City's interests, be consistent with the goals and objectives of Gateway 2000, and increase employment and training opportunities; that the Commission is urged to support Mr. Buford's plan to bring a Ritz-Carlton Hotel to Sarasota. Norton Rock, 847 Vernona Drive (34234) representing Friends of "Seagate, Inc.", deferred from speaking. Chris Yent, 2272 Main Street (34236), stated that many people in the audience are wearing "Ritz-Carlton Hotel" stickers; and asked how many members of the audience expect a financial gain? Mayor Pillot stated that Mr. Yent is at the table to address the Commission and not to take a poll. Mr. Yent stated that his family has lived in the City since the 1920s; that the City's record regarding historic preservation is dismal; that many photographs of historic structures which no longer exist are displayed on the walls of the Commission Chambers; that the beautiful Acacias Mansion, the Mira Mar Hotel, which hosted numerous luminaries including Marilyn Monroe, the old City Hall, an architectural masterpiece, and the Main Street Train Station have been demolished; that a section of U.S. 41 is called Mound Street due to the fact that the grounds below the Embassy House condominium were the final resting place of a number of Native Americans; that developers were given permission to desecrate and demolish the entire huge Indian mound, an important landmark in the heart of Downtown; that historic structures such as the Vinoy Hotel in St. Petersburg and the St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco, California, districts in cities such as St. Augustine, Key West, New Orleans, Louisiana, and regions such as New England, the old West, and Europe are revered and preserved; that a great deal of hard work and money has been expended to save the JRT; that any consideration of demolishing the historic landmark seems inconceivable; that the vast majority of voters in the City revere their past; that Mr. Buford can expect a serious public backlash if the JRT is demolished; that a well-organized boycott of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel as well as a large number of daily pickets can be expected. Kafi Benz, P.O. Box 1669, Tallevast (34270), Founder, Friends of "Seagate", stated that she led the effort to save Seagate, a building listed on the National Register of Historic Places in the Sarasota area; that many people originally considered Seagate beyond redemption; that the history of the battle to save Seagate is similar to the one being waged to save the JRT; that Seagate is a jewel. Ms. Benz continued that the JRT is a unique architectural structure; that no other architectural example of the use of mission construction to allow lighting into a building exists in the Southeast; that a Ritz-Carlton Hotel developed on the property behind the JRT would be magnificent; that an August 1997 letter from David Ferro, Administrator, Architectural Preservation Services, Bureau of Historic Preservation, Florida Department of State, states that the JRC Foundation has met the level of rehabilitation expected by the State. Ms. Benz further stated that the issue should be resolved in the courts where a lawsuit is pending rather than at the Commission table; that the Commission will be legally liable for any decision running counter to the court's judgment; that the City should rely upon the judgment of the State's preservation architects regarding the status of the JRT. Bob Carr, 545 Sanctuary Drive (34228), stated that in 1937, his father was hired by John Ringling North to reopen the John Ringling Hotel; that from 1939 until 1957, his family lived in the hotel during the winter months; that after World War II, circus acts and the Moto Room were introduced and the property became known as the JRT; that no serious architects have ever declared the JRT architecturally significant; that maintenance of the badly constructed hotel was a nightmare; that subsequent to World War II, the cabaret business improved the hotel's cash flow; however, the hotel never paid for the floor shows presented BOOK 42 Page 15080 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15081 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. on Wednesday and Saturday nights; that the artificial cash flow kept the hotel in business for a long time. Mr. Carr continued that educational, cultural, and charitable foundations in the City are generously supported by the local community; that the will to save the JRT does not exist despite the readily available resourcesi; that funding for maintenance of the JRT will be solicited from the City every year in the future if a maintenance endowment is not established; that saving the JRT is not feasible; that a client of his spent over $500,000 trying to bring the JRT back to life; that one of the owners, Francoise Gardinier, was an extremely wealthy entrepreneur with virtually unlimited resources who would have restored the building if doing so were feasible. Commissioner Patterson left the Commission Chambers at 11:15 p.m. Glenda Mock, 1701 North Tamiami Trail (34234) Executive Director, North Trail Association, and member of Gateway 2000, stated that Mr. Buford has expertise, capital, and tremendous stamina; that the City should help Mr. Buford's efforts to build a Ritz-Carlton Hotel which will assist the Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport and provide jobs for residents of the North Tamiami Trail neighborhoods. Commissioner Patterson returned to the Commission Chambers at 11:17 p.m. Margi Baskerville Nanney, 2104 53rd Avenue East, Bradenton (34203), representing the JRC Foundation, stated that engineering studies included in the 1990 Rypkema Report and the feasibility study performed when the JRC Foundation was formed, clearly indicated the JRT's sound construction; that the photographs displayed by Mr. Buford pointed at specific problems of detail; that the doors of the JRT would be open and the City's tax base augmented by a National Register historic hotel if not for the pending litigation; that the preservation of the JRT has been ignored by a wealthy community which prides itself on the Ringling heritage and the arts; that the effort to save the JRT has generated argument and misunderstanding for years. Ms. Nanney continued that the JRC Foundation's mission is to save a piece of history for future generations; that the Commission provided flexibility in the past to ensure the success of a preservation project of this stature; that the JRC Foundation met the fund-raising deadline to raise $3 million; that the proposal to develop the John Ringling Crowne Plaza Hotel received the Commission's unanimous support; that greed and the selfish interests of a gentleman from out-of-town are preventing the Commission from keeping their commitment; that Mr. Buford and his partners have held the rehabilitation of the JRT hostage for too long; that the Commission is considering a vote to demolish a structurally sound building. Ms. Nanney further stated that the Commission has no alternative but to maintain the unanimous commitment; that demolition is not an option; that the JRC Foundation needs to resolve the legal battle; that the Commission's vote to proceed with Vernona Partners' viable plan to develop the historic property should be upheld; that Mr. Buford has produced no commitment in writing from the Ritz-Carlton Hotel; that both the John Ringling Crowne Plaza and the Ritz-Carlton Hotel could co-exist in the City; that the Commission is requested not to allow an out-of-towner with no ties to the community to impact a decision which will forever change the City. Ms. Nanney stated further that for the past four years, she has spoken in public, conducted tours, swept floors, and pulled weeds; that her commitment to saving the JRT is unwavering and steadfast; that the character of the Commission will be reflected in the memories left behind; that a renovated JRT would be open as the John Ringling Crowne Plaza today if not for the selfish interests of an out-of-town group; that the City should take the necessary action to save one of the only remaining pieces of historic Sarasota as a testament of the City's past for future generations. Lynn Robbins, 1022 Tocobaga Lane (34236), stated that she owns the building across the street from the JRT; that most of the City's current residents, including Commissioner Merrill, were originally out-of-towners; that many developments which are a source of pride in the City have been built by out-of-towners; that none of the developers who have considered remodeling and saving the JRT have found the project economically feasible; that the preservation of the building has not been supported by the community which could have donated funds when the three-party agreement was drafted. Ms. Robbins continued that the JRT sits empty with raccoons and rats for tenants despite the efforts of the JRC Foundation to raise the necessary funds to save the structure; that the community has not supported the JRC Foundation; that the Commission should honor the three-party agreement signed by all five Commissioners; that the JRT has not been rehabilitated according to the July 19, 1996, deadline; that the JRC Foundation has continually requested the Commission to modify agreements for which the deadlines have not been met; that the Commission knows the JRC Foundation failed to meet the July 19, 1996, deadline for rehabilitation. Ms. Robbins further stated that the JRC Foundation claims that Mr. Buford interfered with their fund-raising efforts; however, the fund-raising deadline was December 31, 1994; that Mr. Buford did not sign the contract to purchase the property from First BOOK 42 Page 15082 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15083 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. Sunset Development, Inc., until the end of December 1994; that the three-party agreement stated the JRC Foundation had to raise $3 million out which $2 million was cash or unencumbered receivables; that the largest pledge of $800,000 has numerous conditions; that one State grant is for sidewalk installation; that the other State grant will not be awarded with the reverter clause on the deed; that the JRC Foundation has not paid property taxes and has only $9,000 in their bank account. Ms. Robbins stated further that Mr. Buford should be applauded for the time, effort, and money expended in trying to make a dream a reality; that the City has the opportunity for a Ritz-Carlton Hotel on the North Tamiami Trail, a development for which most cities just dream; that no viable project can be built until the JRT is removed; that she voted for each of the Commissioners who are now requested to vote to demolish the JRT and make way for the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. William Henry, Ph.D., President, Reliable Group, Inc.i and Project Manager of the John Ringling Crowne Plaza Team, 100 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa (33602) Lindsay Roach, President, Equifirst Companies, 630 Colonial Park Drive, Roswell, Georgia (30075) Richard Ferrell, President, Forbes Hamilton Management, Inc., 825 South Osprey Avenue (34236), and Marvin Slovacek, Vice President and General Manager, Westfalia Real Estate Services, 13925 58th Street North, Clearwater (34620), representing Vernona Partners, the team assembled to develop the proposed John Ringling Crowne Plaza. Mr. Henry stated that the Vernona Partners are present to reaffirm the team's support and commitment to the JRC Foundation and the John Ringling Crowne Plaza project; that the attorneys representing the Vernona Partners disagree with Mr. Buford's attorneys; that a team of experts in real estate, finance, and development have been assembled with the financial wherewithal and ability to deliver a first-class project; that Mr. Roach will address the feasibility of rehabilitating the JRT; that the joint venture project will work as the Vernona Partners are not required to purchase the property; that Mr. Ferrell, the operational partner, will address the development concepts and improved market conditions; that a new member of the team, Westfalia Real Estate Services, is the real-estate affiliate of Melita Corporation, a $1.5 billion conglomerate based in Germany; that Mr. Slovacek, who is currently developing projects in the United States (U.S.) worth $50 million, will address Westfalia Real Estate Services' financial record and capability. Mr. Henry stated that Vernona Partners has been expending funds to produce plans and structure a marketing scheme; that although the pending legal matters have obstructed the progress of the project, the team stands ready, willing, and able to begin development; that on April 30, 1996, the Commission made a commitment to the Vernona Partners by removing the demolition order; that the team trusts the Commission's commitment and is willing to expend the time and money necessary to bring the development project to fruition. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to extend the meeting past 11:30 to complete Unfinished Business, Item No. VII-3, Presentation Re: Request for Action by C. Robert Buford concerning John Ringling Towers. Motion carried (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Dupree, yes; Pillot, yes. Mr. Roach stated that Equifirst Companies is a member of the Vernona Partners' team assembled to restore the JRT; that restoration and operation of the JRT as a 100-room, boutique hotel is a good investment; that the restoration of a significant historic structure is an added benefit but not the motivating factor; that the team has analyzed and performed the due diligence studies; that the room-night generators, current room rates, and cost of restoration have been analyzed and determined economically feasible to provide the return necessary to raise the capital to restore the structure; that the project has been hindered by the legal problems surrounding title; that the JRC Foundation does not have clear title necessary to obtain title insurance without which the capital will not be lent; that the team has been prevented from raising the necessary capital. Mr. Roach continued that the markets for the 100-room, boutique John Ringling Crowne Plaza Hotel and a 400-room Ritz-Carlton Hotel differ and are non-competitive in nature; that no reason exists why the two must be mutually exclusive; that issues such as restrictions on alienation and public policy will be addressed in the Federal court. Mr. Ferrell read a letter from Clyde Harris, Regional Vice President of Development, Crowne Plaza Hotels and Resorts, stating that the Crown Plaza Hotels and Resorts is committed to the renovation of the JRT; that for over two and a half years, the Vernona Partners has been involved in all aspects of the proposed development and firmly believe the team is capable of developing the JRT into a quality hotel; that the demolition of the JRT would be a travesty; that buildings of the quality and historical presence of the JRT should be preserved for future generations; that the Crowne Plaza Hotels and Resorts is committed to the JRC Foundation. Mr. Ferrell stated that the Commission's unanimous approval of the development proposal in April 1996 is appreciated; that the viability and feasibility of developing a 100-suite, boutique hotel on the JRT property was analyzed as if the building did not exist; that the John Ringling Crowne Plaza project was determined viable from a development standpoint; that structural engineers and architects agree that the JRT is in good structural condition; that BOOK 42 Page 15084 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15085 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. a dilapidated building sitting in the middle of a beautiful city should be removed if no viable alternative exists; however, the John Ringling Crowne Plaza is a viable project; that every hotel operated by Crowne Plaza Hotels and Resorts has a repairs-and- maintenance budget; that five percent of the gross room sales are devoted to repairs and maintenance for the life of the hotel operation; that the John Ringling Crowne Plaza was viable in April 1996 and is even more economically viable now; that the John Ringling Crowne Plaza and a Ritz-Carlton Hotel can co-exist on the same site. Mr. Slovacek stated that he is here to address the preservation of an historic site and development of a financially sound investment; that Westfalia Real Estate Services joined the Vernona Partners to save a precious and historic structure and simultaneously earn a good return on the investment. Mr. Slovacek continued that Westfalia Real Estate Services is the real-estate affiliate of the Melita Corporation, a $1.5 billion worldwide corporation in the consumer goods business privately held and based in Germany; that Westfalia is a successful, well-funded, experienced development company; that Westfalia's real estate developments in Florida alone, a combination of hotel, retail, industrial, and office developments, approach the $100-million level; that development projects completed year-to-date in 1997 are in the $35 million range; that Westfalia believes in the John Ringling Crowne Plaza project and is delighted to add their financial and development capabilities to the partnership. Mr. Slovacek further stated that Westfalia Real Estate Services, involved in the project on the basis of viability, is prepared to move forward as quickly as the legal stumbling block hindering the efforts of the partnership can be removed; that the JRC Foundation is supported. Al Pierce, 101 South Gulf Stream Avenue (34336), stated that during the 20 years he has lived at Dolphin Tower, the JRT has been the most disagreeable sight on the skyline; that no amount of restoration or modification can make the JRT beautiful; that the JRT is not historical because Webster's Dictionary defines "historic" as famous in history; that the JRT, less than 100 years old, has been an empty, discarded building for much of that time; that Mr. Buford has the financial capability to develop a Ritz-Carlton Hotel; that an eyesore will be eliminated, a vital part of the City restored, and a problem troubling past and present Commissions for many years resolved; that the JRT is an embarrassment to the Commission, a blot on the City, and a source of disagreement among citizens; that thè Commission should seize the opportunity, express appreciation to the members of the JRC Foundation, and enable development of a new Ritz-Carlton Hotel. Beatrice Warfield, 2987 Bay Street (34237), was no longer in the Commission Chambers. Christine Bruno, 320 Barlow Avenue (34232), stated that preservation is the main issue; that the City campaigns for the recycling of aluminum cans but proposes to throw away an entire building; that historic preservation should be supported in the City's aesthetic plan; that the JRT should not be added to the list of historic entities such as the Lido Casino, the Main Street Train Station, and the Ringling Brothers Circus which are forever lost; that the JRT, once lost, cannot be recreated. Ms. Bruno continued that the Commission is requested to support the JRC Foundation and should not be defeated by the cost of renovation or rendered ineffective by the litigation process; that one stage of renovation should be completed and the subsequent tasks addressed one by one; that the JRT will live on as a source of regret and embarrassment if its existence is reduced to photographs in a library book; that the City should add the JRT to the list of victories such as Ca'd'Zan, the Ringling Museum, and the Sarasota Opera House. Martin Treu, 613 Bayport Way, Longboat Key (34228), stated that the City's Vision Plan declares the city's sense of place is maintained by the restoration of historic structures and founded on an historical background and image as a distinctive, cultural arts community; that the physical beauty and quality of architectural design in the City provides a sense of place unmatched anywhere in Florida and perhaps the world; that historic buildings and public art bring life to streets and parks. Mr. Treu continued that demolishing the JRT is incompatible with the City's Vision Plan throughout which phrases such as "sense of place, 1 "unique character," and "key historic structures, I are repeated; that Florida Trend Magazine has reported tourism is losing market share because Florida is doing so little to preserve historical assets; that only one JRT exists; however, other sites for a Ritz-Carlton Hotel are available in the City; that both hotels could be developed on the same property. Mr. Treu further stated that the Commission is urged not to focus on how long the JRT has stood empty but how close the building is to being restored; that an admirable job has been accomplished considering the JRT has not enjoyed the public/private partnership that other projects with this level of community-wide importance enjoy elsewhere; that the Commission is urged not to vote to demolish and to allow the court to decide the issue. Chris Gallagher, 1723 Cheyenne Street (34231), member of the Board of the Sarasota Alliance for Historic Preservation, stated that the Sarasota Alliance for Historic Preservation continues to enthusiastically support the restoration of the JRT. BOOK 42 Page 15086 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15087 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. Robert Town, 149 Cocoanut Avenue (34236) and Pat Ball, 513 Central Avenue (34236). Mr. Town stated that he is an architect with the ADP Group; that the Commission is requested to take no action regarding demolition of the JRT, designed by Dwight Baum, the architect for the Sarasota County Courthouse and the Ca'd'Zan; that the JRT was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1987; that demolishing the building would be a tremendous loss; that the Commission is requested to allow the JRC Foundation to resolve the legal issues and, with the Vernona Partners, restore the building into a boutique hotel. Mr. Ball stated that he represents Ball Construction, Inc. and Dooley & Mack Constructors, Inc.; that the two companies have formed a joint venture partnership under contract with the JRC Foundation to perform restoration and preservation work; that the JRC Foundation has spent $300,000 on preservation including removal of asbestos from the building; that the windows were about to be ordered just before the Vernona Partners became interested in developing the propertyi that the window order was stopped when it became apparent that the windows in the John Ringling Crowne Plaza would be redesigned and relocated; that subsequently, the litigation with Mr. Buford began; that the restoration of the JRT is viable and will proceed if the lawsuit is settled; that many people were skeptical regarding the renovation of the former African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME) at 513 Central Avenue; that the project required eight years to complete; however, everyone is proud of the result; that renovation of the JRT could result in a similar achievement. Wilson Stiles, 770 South Palm Avenue (34236) representing the JRC Foundation, stated that he owns a residence and business in Downtown and has a Masters Degree in Architecture with a specialty in historic preservation; that the commitment of the Vernona Partners to restoration of the JRT has been confirmed; that a protracted process in historical preservation is not uncommon; that renovation of the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., the Mission Inn in Riverside, California, and the Vinoy Hotel in St. Petersburg, required an extensive time to complete; that the State grant for preservation and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) funds were frozen due to the demolition clause, unprecedented anywhere else in the U.S. Mr. Stiles continued that the Tate report, referenced by Mr. Buford to justify demolition, is based on shallow observations and poor, arbitrary, and unfounded conclusions; that the collective expertise of the JRC Foundation and the consultant hired by the JRC Foundation exceed Ms. Tate's qualifications; that the consultants would never have allowed renovations not in compliance with the Secretary of Interior's standards to be performed; that award- winning architects whose works have been published throughout the nation sit on the Board of the JRC as well as the former Assistant Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places; that a letter from David Ferro, Administrator, Architectural Preservation Services, Bureau of Historic Preservation, State of Florida, indicates the renovations-to-date have been consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation and refutes the entire Tate report. Mr. Stiles further stated that the Vernona Partners have confirmed the viability of the project and continue to support the JRC Foundation; that a letter from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, an organization chartered by Congress in 1966, advises the Commission to question whether it is better to remember or to save the JRT. Philip Dasher, 926 Boulevard of the Arts (34236).President. Marina Suites Association, Inc., stated that the residents of 888 Boulevard of the Arts agree with the concept of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel; that the proposal by Crowne Plaza Hotels and Resorts to gut the entire building, construct an atrium, and substantially change the exterior facade is inconsistent with historical preservation; that the JRC Foundation has a long history of missed deadlines; that 33.6 percent of the funds collected by the JRC Foundation were paid in salaries in 1994, 14.8 percent in 1995, and 68.9 percent in 1996; that the total represents approximately 26 percent of all monies collected; that the lack of volunteers indicates a lack of community support for the restoration of the JRT; that the 1,383 contributors constitute less than 2 percent of the City's population and less than one quarter of one percent of the population of Sarasota County; that the residents of surrounding condominiums are concerned regarding the details of a final plan; however, everyone supports the concept of a Ritz-Carlton Hotel. Christine Jennings, 988 Boulevard of the Arts #510 (34236) President, and Paul Thorpe, 47 South Palm Avenue #212 (34236) Executive Director of the Downtown Association of Sarasota. Ms. Jennings stated that she used to be involved in commercial real-estate lending; that although financing a loan for a hotel is not normally an easy process, the financing of a Ritz-Carlton Hotel can be easily facilitated due to the value of a five-star hotel; that the Commission is encouraged to research the feasibility of financing the proposed John Ringling Crowne Plaza; that real estate valuation is based on location; that few people want to stay in rooms overlooking a major highway; that the Vernona Partners proposes to gut the entire interior; that only the exterior of the historical structure will remain. Ms. Jennings continued that Mr. Buford's background has been researched; that the Downtown Association of Sarasota spoke to the President of a Kansas bank who confirmed his statements in a letter; that Mr. Buford, well-known and well-respected, has been a BOOK 42 Page 15088 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15089 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. bank director for 25 years, a position requiring an extensive background check by regulators; that the bank president has stated Mr. Buford is financially capable of fulfilling any commitments he makes and that he adheres to commitments once made. Mr. Thorpe stated that the Vernona Partners have declared the JRT can be restored for $8 million; that on May 8, 1982, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune quoted a local architect who estimated the rehabilitation costs at $10 million; that costs have inflated considerably over the past 15 years; that a previous speaker exhorted the Commission to keep their previous commitment; that the JRC Foundation committed to renovating the first two floors by July 1996; that the work has not been completed and sufficient funds not raised. Mr. Thorpe continued that the Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) grant was allocated to install sidewalks around the building; that the grant from the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, is still in escrow in Tallahassee; that the JRT's current financial statement reveals a cash balance of $9,000; that the Commission has done everything possible to cooperate with the JRT including release from the demolition agreementi; that the JRC Foundation lacks the funds to complete the project; that appreciation should be expressed to the JRC Foundation; however, the current economic climate in the City is unbelievable; that a proposal to develop Mission Harbor has been selected and the new Selby Library at Five Points is under construction; that the City should enable development of a Ritz-Carlton Hotel and make the City the place to visit. John Dickson, 445 South Palm Avenue #1 (34236), stated that the JRT should be preserved to give the youth of tomorrow an historic past to appreciate; that tourists are attracted to the City due to the existing diversity of American culture; that photographs of buildings lost to demolition line the walls of the Commission Chambers; that accommodations available in the over 250 existing hotels, motels, and resorts are sufficient for the market; that the JRT is a unique asset and part of the community's special history; that the Commission's top priority is development and implementation of a strategy for neighborhood preservation and revitalization; that strong communities will be the empires which survive as the next millennium approaches; that he supports restoration of the JRT. Jim Naiman, 6000 Airport Circle (34243), representing the Sarasota- Bradenton International Airport, was no longer in the Commission Chambers. Kathy Wingate, 3185 Regatta Circle (34231), stated that she supports the rehabilitation and preservation of an historical and cultural treasure; that despite concerns expressed by the Downtown Association of Sarasota regarding financing, the Vernona Partners have presented a financial commitment; that Commissioner Patterson referenced the cloud on the title; that issues of title being addressed in Federal Court do not belong at the small Commission table of the city of Sarasota; that title issues should be released to the Federal Court which will determine an appropriate judgment; that the Commission will determine if an historical treasure will be demolished or our cultural history preserved; that the efforts of the Vernona Partners and the JRC Foundation are applauded; that the community is encouraged to support the rehabilitation and oppose the demolition of the JRT. Carolyn Heath Hausmann, 1044 North Tamiami Trail (34236) President, North Trail Association, stated that her family has been in business on North Tamiami Trail for over 40 years; that in the past, she worked for the Art Institute of Chicago, sat on two boards interested in historic preservation, served as development director and later President of the Manassas Historical Museum in Virginia, worked closely with the National Register of Historic Homes under the guidance of the Department of the Interior, and with the National Endowment for the Humanities to restore historic buildings; that in the late 1980s and early 1990s, she worked on national historic building projects with Ms. Tate, the consultant whose report was presented by Mr. Buford; that Ms. Tate is qualified in the intricacies of restoration standards set forth by the Department of the Interior. Ms. Hausman continued that sound preservation decisions are made on a practical rather than emotional level; that the Sherman House in Chicago, Illinois, was demolished; however, the Chicago Theater was saved; that the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) room was delicately reconstructed at the Art Institute of Chicago but trading continues on the floor of the new, computerized CBOT; that colonial traces in Virginia have been replaced by superhighways but a Civil War battlefield was saved; that the City should preserve what is good and practical while building a sound economic future for the city; that she supports enabling the development of a Ritz-Carlton Hotel; that John Ringling, an out-of-town developer, was an innovator who would have voted for progressi that comments of a previous speaker regarding the reasons the windows have not been replaced are inconsistent with the standards set by the Secretary of Interior; that comparing the Willard Hotel to the Vinoy Hotel is analogous to comparing John Kennedy to Dan Quayle. Clo Ann Garrison, 800 Ben Franklin Drive (34236), stated that Sarasota is the greatest City in the world; that the JRT should not be allowed to disappear and should instead be a gateway to the Ritz-Carlton Hotel; that old buildings in Europe are converted to offices or restaurants; that her family, seven-generation Floridians, used to own the Flagler Hotel in Key West which was converted into the gorgeous Marriott Casa Marina; that the Commission is requested not to demolish the JRT. BOOK 42 Page 15090 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15091 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. Ellen Maloff, 2020 Grafton Street (34231), was no longer in the Commission Chambers. Fred Starling, 214 Little Pond Lane (34342), representing the JRC Foundation, stated that the renovation of the JRT is feasible; that Vernona Partners, with vast experience in developing real estate throughout the world, have confirmed the project's viability; that the JRC Foundation wishes to propose a solution to the litigation; that Mr. Buford is requested to settle the lawsuit and release any claims on the Towers; that the JRC, with clear title, will expend one year to organize the final development plan, franchise agreements, and construction loans, and proceed with the project; that the property will be deeded to Mr. Buford if the JRC Foundation does not succeed by the end of one year. Mayor Pillot asked if mediation next month is scheduled? Mr. Starling stated yes; that the mediation is scheduled in Tampa with a Federally appointed mediator. Daniel Delahaye, 935 North Beneva Road, Suite 609-C (34232), stated that the historical architectural integrity of the Bickel House and JRT should be addressed; that he is an architectural historian and historical architect meeting the qualifications of the Secretary of Interior; that properties designated by the National Register of Historic Places must meet at least one of the criteria of eligibility: 1) association with a pattern of events significant to the history of the area, 2) association with the lives of significant individuals such as internationally known architect Dwight Baum, and 3) providing information important to history; that properties must also have the integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association; that a building must meet at least three of the seven forms of integrity; that National Register nominations, once accepted by the Keeper of the Register, are the basis for all future historical evaluations. Mr. Delahaye continued that his professional judgment, based on the original National Register nominations of the JRT and the Bickel House, is that the buildings have retained a respectable degree of historic architectural integrity; that the integrity is further justified by the State's willingness to allocate funds for renovation; that the State would not commit funds to a property whose historic architectural integrity has been lost or which does not comply with the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation. Mary Quillin, 2304 Ringling Boulevard #213 (34237), stated that the City was introduced to Mr. Buford during a presentation regarding hotels and conference centers; that Mr. Buford said he wanted to cooperate with all parties; that both the Ritz-Carlton and the John Ringling Crowne Plaza would provide wonderful amenities for the City. Ms. Quillin continued that three sides to a story exist during a conflict: the two different sides presented by each party and what really happened; that disposition of the ownership of the JRT is now in court; that a Commission decision at this time would be inappropriate; that development of both projects in the City should be encouraged; however, the decision-making should be left to the court Norton Rock, 847 Virginia Drive (34234), representing the Friends of "Seagate", stated that he owns the 1927 Albert Roehr estate; that ten years ago, the estate resembled the current condition of the JRT; however, deteriorating buildings can be quickly improved; that many people stop in front of his house to enjoy the history; that preserving history is important for the youth of the community who may not be able to afford a drink at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel but will be able to enter the renovated JRT and investigate the architecture; that the renovated building would breathe some love and provide a memory for the future. There was no one else signed up to speak. Mayor Pillot recognized Sarasota County Commissioner Ray Pilon who was present in the audience. Mayor Pillot asked for direction from the Administration. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Mr. Buford has made a request of the Commission to direct the City Manager to forward a letter to the JRC Foundation noticing their failure to meet the requirements for restoration of the JRT in accordance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation; that the City Attorney has stated the Commission's decision on the issue is discretionary; that the Commission should discuss and come to a conclusion regarding the request. Commissioner Patterson stated that forwarding a letter to the JRC Foundation will require a finding by the Commission as to whether the JRC Foundation has restored the JRT in accordance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, which is a major document; that the City Attorney and the City Manager chose to reference the document in creating the Three-Party Agreement; therefore, requesting a recommendation from the Administration seems appropriate. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Commission desired a restored JRT; that the Three-Party Agreement called for the building to be restored in accordance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation versus standards of a lesser quality; that the issue of whether the building has been restored is not a point for argument; that the photographs BOOK 42 Page 15092 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15093 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. displayed provide conclusive evidence interior work on the first two floors has not been completed; that the condition of the exterior of the JRT is visible to any passerby; that, in his opinion, the restoration has not been completed, let alone in accordance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards. Commissioner Cardamone asked for comment regarding the evaluation prepared by Professor Tate as referenced by Mr. Buford. City Attorney Taylor stated that the report labeled John Ringling Building, El Vernona Hotel, Sarasota, Florida: Report of September 23, 1996, Evaluation as prepared by Susan Tate, AIA, Preservation Architect, was received previously by the City and can be made part of the record; and cited the following from the summary on page 64: Based on the above evaluation, it is my opinion that, as of September 23, 1996, the exterior, facade and first two floors of the John Ringling Building/El Vernona (John Ringling Tower) had not been rehabilitated according to the United States Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation. Commissioner Patterson stated that voluntary demolition by the JRC Foundation is not viewed as feasible; that according to the figures quoted in the newspaper, the JRC Foundation does not have sufficient funds to comply with a demolition order potentially issued from the City; and asked if the potential of the City's funding the demolition at a future date is also a discretionary decision of the Commission? City Attorney Taylor stated that the City does have options at each stage of the process; that action taken by the Commission may lead to further maneuvering in the lawsuit currently pending between the JRC Foundation and Mr. Buford; that the Commission could make subsequent decisions if discretion is exercised and the results desired are not achieved. Commissioner Patterson stated. that the City previously had $250,000 reserved in escrow for the demolition of the JRT and Bickel House; that the City voluntarily released the funds for consideration from the JRC Foundation of a Security Agreement which placed a lien on the three acres of property to secure repayment to the City of any future funds expended in the demolition of the historic structures; that the Security Agreement, which was not signed by First Sunset Development, Inc., is in direct conflict with the Fee Simple Deed which specifies the Foundation cannot lien the property; that she is not convinced the Bickel House should be demolished if the Commission determines the JRT should be demolished; and questioned the extent of the Commission's discretion? City Attorney Taylor stated that the positions of Mr. Buford and the JRC Foundation regarding the Bickel House are unknown; that the mediation process in the pending litigation, which is scheduled to commence again in approximately three weeks, is a forum at which the issues raised by Commissioner Patterson could be discussed with all parties involved; that a finding as to whether the rehabilitation was performed within the time specified and as set forth in the Three-Party Agreement could be the only action taken by the Commission tonight; that directing the City Manager to forward notice could be withheld pending discussions at mediation. Mayor Pillot stated that mediation is scheduled for next month; that the pending lawsuit is scheduled in Federal Court for December 1997; that voting to issue a demolition order is a much more definitive and nonreversible action than awaiting the outcome of the litigation; that the Court will rule either in favor Mr. Buford or in favor of the JRC Foundation if the mediation is not successful; that ample evidence has been provided that either party can carry out the developments proposed; that four representatives of Crowne Plaza Hotels and Resorts have definitively stated the development of the John Ringling Crowne Plaza is economically feasible and the two historic aspect is a fringe benefit; that the Crowne Plaza and Ritz Carlton are both reputable hotels; that the Commission should not interfere with the potential for successful mediation next month or the ultimate decision of a Federal Court; that the legal process underway is anticipated to conclude in the next four months; that the Commission should allow the legal process to conclude and respectrully proceed in cooperation with and in support of any decision resulting from successful mediation or a Federal Court decision. Commissioner Patterson stated that she has questions for Mr. Buford. Mr. Buford and Attorney Davis came forward. Commissioner Patterson asked the following questions of Mr. Buford: 1. What specifically is being requested from the Commission? 2. What is his position regarding restoration of the Bickel House? 3. What would be his intention regarding the cost of demolition if mediation fails and all litigation comes to a halt? Mr. Buford stated that compliance with the conditions of the Three-Party Agreement and amendments negotiated between the City, First Sunset Development, Inc., and the JRC Foundation, Inc., is requested. BOOK 42 Page 15094 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15095 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson stated that the conditions are vague; that the terms "shall" and "will" are not referenced in the Three- Party Agreement. Mr. Buford stated that reading the conditions in conjunction with the deeds leaves little doubt as to the requirements. Mr. Buford continued that the Bickel House has more history or as much history as the JRT and more economic viability; that he would assume the cost and restore the Bickel House if an agreement could be worked out. Mr. Buford further stated that 11.27 acres of property were purchased from First Sunset Development, Inc.; that the purchase price included reimbursement of the $250,000 placed in escrow with the City for potential future demolition of the historic structures; that the City, in good faith, transferred those funds to the JRC Foundation; that the Foundation accepted the funds in good faith; that based on the photographs displayed, the funds obviously were not expended to renovate the JRT; that the funds were not expended to pay taxes on the subject property; that he assumes the $250,000 is reserved; that Attorney Merrill, in arbitration, accused him of attempting to bribe the City by offering to pay up to $300,000 for demolition in his original letter forwarded to the City; that a bribe was not intended; that he would be happy to sit down with the City and the Foundation to discuss a solution so the cost of demolition is not a burden on the City if the Foundation does not have the funds available. Commissioner Cardamone asked the relationship between Mr. Buford and First Sunset Development, Inc., on November 30, 1994, for example, had an offer on the property been made or was making an offer on the property being considered? Mr. Buford stated that the property was viewed in early November 1994; that the offer to purchase made to First Sunset Development, Inc., in November was refused; that the need for a big tax deduction was identified in early December 1994; that the conditions and commitments First Sunset Development, Inc., had made to the JRC Foundation and to the City were known; that the objective was to purchase the entire track and give the property committed to by First Sunset Development, Inc., to the Foundation with the restrictions for restoration inherent; that the property could not revert to him or the tax deduction would not apply; therefore, the offer was structured with the property reverting to the City or to another agency for development as a park if the JRC Foundation failed to meet the conditions of the agreement; that the offer was forwarded to First Sunset Development, Inc., on Wednesday, December 14, 1994; that First Sunset Development, Inc., countered the offer on Thursday, December 15; that he accepted the purchase terms on Friday, December 16 and wired funds; that the City Commission meeting was held on Monday, December 19; that the closing was scheduled for Tuesday, December 20, 1994, but First Sunset Development, Inc., started to back out of the deal; that the day following Christmas, Attorney Davis forwarded a letter demanding specific performance; that he proceeded as indicated and has assumed the rights, interests, and obligations of First Sunset Development, Inc.; that he did not sue the Foundation; that the Foundation sued him; that he did bring the City into the litigation because of the Three-Party Agreement. Commissioner Cardamone stated that for tax purposes, Mr. Buford offered the JRC Foundation approximately three acres of property, the JRT building, and the Karl Bickel House; that the offer was not accepted. Mr. Buford stated that is correct. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission has taken actions over the past four and one-half years to make the JRT project viable; that votes cast by the Commission have been in support of or at the request of the Foundation; that some of the votes were difficult as questions had been raised regarding various issues, for example, whether certain funds in the schedule of funds presented toward the fundraising goal should have been included; that unfavorable comments regarding the Commission's decisions have been received from the public; that she is curious why the JRC Foundation refused Mr. Buford's offer as the project could have proceeded and potentially have been completed by now. Commissioner Cardamone continued that part of the problem was with First Sunset Development, Inc.; that the Commission sat through a lengthy meeting on November 7, 1994, at which time the JRC Foundation requested special consideration of a legal document negotiated between First Sunset Development, Inc., and the JRC Foundation regarding the fundraising goal; that the document, which the Commission ultimately approved, was presented at the last minute without an opportunity for review by the City Manager or City Attorney in advance; and asked why First Sunset Development, Inc., did not participate in other agreements approved by the City for the Foundation, e.g., the release of the demolition order? City Attorney Taylor stated that the issue came to the City as a request by the JRC Foundation; that the circumstances and time constraints at the time are not recalled; that special considerations requested of the Commission by the JRC Foundation were characterized as absolutely essential to the Foundation's achieving grant funding from the State; that the Release, Discharge, and Termination document pertaining to the obligations of the Foundation to demolish the historic structures was prepared by the Foundation and forwarded to the City for signature; that First Sunset Development, Inc., was not a participant in the process or in attendance at the April 1996 meeting as he recalls; that executing legal documents prepared by the legal counsel for the Foundation, which had made a request and received Commission approval, were not questioned; that a problem created by the BOOK 42 Page 15096 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15097 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. execution of the documents was identified subsequently; that a recent ruling by the Court invalidated the Release executed by the City, which had been drafted and tendered by the attorneys on behalf of the Foundation. Mr. Buford stated that a letter will be forwarded which references refusal by First Sunset Development, Inc., to release their right of reverter. Commissioner Cardamone stated that in the past the Commission has approved conditional rezonings for specific projects supported by the surrounding neighborhood only to have the property put up for sale after the rezoning has been achieved; and asked if Mr. Buford will commit to proceed with the project proposed for the JRT site if the Commission honors the request put forth, finding that the JRC Foundation did not meet its obligations for rehabilitation of the first two floors and facade of the JRT by July 19, 1996, and supporting demolition of the historic structure? Mr. Buford stated that the rezoning, easements, etc., of the property were not requested but inherited as part of the transfer of ownership; that a request for additional zoning changes is not intended; that plans for a viable project have been developed; however, two and one-half years may pass before the pending litigation is resolved; that the economic conditions are currently favorable for hotel development; that the intent is to move forward with the project proposed; however, the economic conditions could change if the pending suit is heard, appealed, reheard, and re- appealed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she accepts Mr. Buford's statement as a commitment that the proposed project will be developed if feasible. Mr. Buford stated that is correct. Mayor Pillot stated that questions pertaining to action by the JRC Foundation should be directed to representatives of the Foundation; and requested that Attorney Merrill and Mr. Starling come forward to answer questions. Mayor Pillot requested comment regarding the question asked by Commissioner Cardamone regarding the offer made by Mr. Buford which was turned down by the JRC Foundation. Attorney Merrill stated that Mr. Buford never offered the property free and clear to the JRC Foundation; that the only offer received was in recent weeks and required multiple millions of dollars; that the offer was withdrawn shortly after being made. Mr. Starling stated that Mr. Buford indicated the property was offered to the JRC Foundation in December 1994 when the property was under contract with First Sunset Development, Inc.; that he has been involved with the Foundation for four years and did not know of Mr. Buford until long after December 1994; that the subject of a contract for purchase of the property was raised during a meeting at which the Foundation and George Dietz, Attorney, and Susan Hanson, Vice President, representing First Sunset Development, Inc., appeared before the Commission; that Attorney Dietz and Ms. Hanson had stated a contract did not exist; that to his knowledge, the Foundation was not presented an offer by Mr. Buford in December 1994. Attorney Merrill stated that to his knowledge, the JRC Foundation was not subsequently presented an offer. Mayor Pillot asked if it is likely the offer would have been made and rejected without the knowledge of the JRC Foundation's attorney? Attorney Merrill stated no. Commissioner Cardamone stated that conflicting information has been presented; and asked City Attorney Taylor for comment. City Attorney Taylor stated that the matter is in litigation; that the case has not proceeded far enough to have developed many of the facts the Commission is questioning; that the Commission's taking action on Mr. Buford's request will change the complexion of the litigation; that the strategies of the two parties on issues before the Court may change dramatically in terms of tomorrow versus today; that the Commission can take action on Mr. Buford's request; however, the Commission is not in a position to resolve conflicts in the facts presented. Mayor Pillot stated that this example of disagreement between two honorable parties supports his suggestion to allow the Court to continue action on the litigation without interference from the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone asked for comment regarding why First Sunset Development, Inc., was not asked to be a signatory to the Release, Discharge, and Termination signed by the City at the request of the JRC Foundation? Attorney Merrill stated that his file of correspondence on the matter is voluminous; that the JRC Foundation produced and forwarded 16,000 documents to Mr. Buford; that a response to the JRC Foundation's discovery request has not been received; that the litigation is in the preliminary stages although certain filing deadlines are approaching. Attorney Merrill continued that he and Mr. Starling spoke with Ms. Hanson on a continual basis; that discussions were held with Attorney Dietz as well; that First Sunset Development, Inc., was requested to participate as a signatory on the Release, Discharge, and Termination; that correspondence is available BOOK 42 Page 15098 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15099 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. documenting a response from First Sunset Development, Inc., that because of pending litigation with Mr. Buford their attorneys had advised against granting the Foundation's request to release the reverter clause. Commissioner Patterson asked if Attorney Merrill is familiar with the terms of the Fee Simple Deed under which the JRC Foundation accepted title. Attorney Merrill stated yes. Commissioner Patterson stated that she assumes the terms in the deed were known at the time the Security Agreement requested by the City for the consideration of releasing the $250,000 in escrow was prepared by Attorney Merrill; and asked if any effort was put forth to have First Sunset Development, Inc., as a signatory to the Security Agreement or to make the Security Agreement comply with the terms of the deed? Attorney Merrill stated that the information requested pertains to an issue in the JRC Foundation's litigation strategy and cannot be disclosed; however, he views the Security Agreement as valid. Commissioner Patterson cited the following from the Fee Simple Deed dated January 19, 1995, from First Sunset Development, Inc., to the JRC Foundation, Inc.: 5. Grantee shall not have the right to sell, transfer, convey, lease or otherwise grant an interest in the aforesaid property without the prior written approval of Grantor. Commissioner Patterson stated that the deed language implies a lien cannot be placed on the property. Attorney Merrill stated that the issues raised are currently being litigated; that he believes the Security Agreement is valid despite the provisions in the deed; that all parties understood the security would be an issue if the property reverted; however, in his opinion, the restrictions cited did not prevent the Security Agreement from being validly executed by the Foundation. Commissioner Patterson asked if the potential effect of the provisions in the deed on the Security Agreement were discussed with the City Attorney when the verbiage for the document was negotiated? Attorney Merrill stated that a great deal of time was not spent negotiating the Security Agreementi; that he met with Commissioner Patterson more than with any other City officials regarding the issue; that other than the additional paragraphs added to the document at the request of Commissioner Patterson, the document was modeled after a form security agreement typically used in Sarasota. Commissioner Patterson stated that she had no knowledge of the terms in the deed at the time the Security Agreement was discussed with Attorney Merrill; that much of her unease with continuing to support the efforts of the JRC Foundation came after the terms of the deed were discovered. Attorney Merrill stated that there was no intention by him or by the JRC Foundation to keep the information from the Commission; that the Foundation worked in good faith with everything disclosed; that he stands by the Security Agreement as a valid document but would prefer not to discuss the issue any further as litigation is pending. City Attorney Taylor stated that the deeds did not exist when the Three-Party Agreement was drafted and executed in 1993; that the deeds which seem important today perhaps should have been viewed as more important in the past; however, the deeds were negotiated in January 1995 between First Sunset Development, Inc., and the JRC Foundation, not the City of Sarasota; that although review and comment by the City on the provisions being drafted was never requested, the City has. been subject to the consequences of the language in the deeds. Commissioner Patterson asked if the deeds affect the Security Agreement? City Attorney Taylor stated yes in that the City is in the middle of an argument in Court over the effect of the deeds; however, more importance is being placed on the amount of leverage the deeds possess than should be. Mayor Pillot asked if the Security Agreement is an issue on which the Court is expected to act? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that the matter is being litigated in Court; therefore, the most he could support would be that the JRC Foundation failed to meet the 18-month deadline for restoration of the exterior facade and the first two floors of the JRT. Mayor Pillot stated that Commission consideration of the following request was put forth in a letter to City Manager Sollenberger dated July 22, 1997, and reiterated by Mr. Buford tonight: : that the City comply with its obligations under the July 28, 1993, Agreement (Three-Party Agreement), and direct that the City Manger send a written notice to the JRC Foundation, Inc., that it demolish the "historic structures" as the Foundation has failed to rehabilitate BOOK 42 Page 15100 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15101 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. the exterior facade and first two floors of the JRT in accordance with said paragraph No. 5; and that a determination by the City Commission be made concerning this request by C. Robert Buford. Mayor Pillot stated that he has been correctly quoted in the newspaper and has not changed his position in opposition to issuing a demolition order for the two historic structures; that a similar position by Commissioner Merrill was quoted in the newspaperi that Vice Mayor Dupree just stated a demolition order will not be supported; therefore, a motion in response to Mr. Buford's request would be appropriate at this time. Commissioner Cardamone requested that Mr. Buford come back to the table to answer additional questions. Commissioner Cardamone asked to whom Mr. Buford made the offer to give the property committed to by First Sunset Development, Inc., to the JRC Foundation? Mr. Buford stated that following the December 19, 1994, regular City Commission meeting, Ms. Hanson was quoted in the newspaper as stating a contract did not exist; that Ms. Hanson has been proved wrong; that the following afternoon a conference call was held with Ms. Hanson and Attorney George Dietz to discuss if any reasons existed which would prevent the closing from occurring before year's end so the property could be given to the Foundation; that First Sunset Development, Inc., indicated he had not seen all the agreements and stated a signed release would be necessary to forward the additional agreements to him; that the release was signed but the additional documents were never received; that, subsequently, Kevin Daves, Architect, was instructed to contact Donald Smally, President, JRC Foundation. Mr. Buford requested that Mr. Daves be allowed to come forward to explain what occurred when the JRC Foundation was contacted. Mayor Pillot stated that the request for Mr. Davis to come forward is denied; that the Chairman will deny further requests for individuals to come before the Commission; that a motion will be requested upon completion of Mr. Buford's response. Mr. Buford stated that Mr. Smally was contacted in an attempt to schedule a meeting to negotiate an agreement which would give the JRC Foundation the property under the conditions described earlier; that Mr. Smally called back stating the Foundation was not interested. Commissioner Patterson stated that clarification of her intent and a question of the City Attorney is necessary before a motion can be made; that the goal of various Commissioners, including herself, who have been seated on the Commissions since 1991 has been to facilitate restoration of the JRT; that agreements were drafted to facilitate rehabilitation of the JRT and Bickel House and to protect the City in the event demolition was required; that the agreements were structured with the intent that at some point, if rehabilitation efforts were not successful, the historic structures would be demolished; that the chances of a developable project emerging from litigation in the foreseeable future is not likely; that the Commission struggles to get positive development which will improve the City's tax base; that the current economic conditions favor development; that the outcome of the pending litigation is obviously not known; however, the potential exists the historic structures would still be demolished following a court decision; that the economic conditions could change in the interim; that the worse situation for the City would be if after two years of litigation a prime piece of property goes undeveloped; that she wants to facilitate development of the property. Commissioner Merrill stated that Robert's Rules of Order requires a motion on the table for discussion; that a point of order is raised. Mayor Pillot stated that the Chairman requires a motion be placed on the table for discussion to continue. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to overrule the Chairman's decision. Motion failed (2 to 3): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, no; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to find that the JRT has not been rehabilitated to the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation in accordance with the Three-Party Agreement. Commissioner Patterson stated that her intent is to move the process forward as rapidly as possible to facilitate a project beneficial to the remaining acreage on the site, with the City ending up whole financially and retaining the prerogative of choosing either not to demolish any of the historic structures or to force a discussion on the Bickel House; and asked for comment by the City Attorney. City Attorney Taylor stated that Mark Singer, City Attorney's Office, is handling the City's position in the litigation and should respond. Attorney Singer came before the Commission and stated that the motion as set forth finds the property has not been rehabilitated as required under the Third-Party agreement but does not direct the City Manager to forward a letter to the JRC Foundation BOOK 42 Page 15102 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15103 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. ordering demolition; that the value of the motion is questioned; that directing the City Manager to send a letter ordering demolition but to delay forwarding the letter to the Foundation pending the outcome of the mediation would provide the City with the strongest possible position during mediation; that absent the authorization for the City Manager to send a letter, the motion would not have much effect on the polarized positions of the parties in the mediation process. Commissioner Patterson, as maker of the motion, with no objection from the Commission, amended the motion to include authorization for the City Manager to forward a letter of demolition to the JRC Foundation at the conclusion of the mediation specifying the City does not want to include the Bickel House. Mayor Pillot restated that motion as to find that the JRT has not been rehabilitated to the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation in accordance with the Three-Party Agreement and to authorize the City Manager to forward a letter of demolition to the JRC Foundation at the conclusion of the mediation specifying that the Bickel House not be included in the demolition. Commissioner Merrill stated that the matter is in Court; that the time is 1:35 a.m.; that the Commission should conclude this item of business. On motion of Mayor Pillot (who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Dupree) and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to call the question on the motion as restated. Motion failed (3 to 2): Cardamone, no; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the motion failed for lack of a two-thirds vote. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Attorney Singer's comments were not clear; that a motion by the Commission acknowledging failure by the JRC Foundation to meet their commitment to restore the exterior facade and the first two floors of the JRT is viewed as important and a logical finding. Attorney Singer stated that his point was that the mere finding of what appears to be obvious by the record may not make any difference if the goal of the Commission is to accomplish a moving forward in the process. Commissioner Cardamone stated that placing the Commission's finding on the record is viewed as very important, specifically, when a letter dated July 24, 1996, from Attorney Merrill to City Manager Sollenberger states the following: Dear David and Dick, The Foundation has not failed to comply with the provisions of paragraph 5 of that certain agreement between the City of Sarasota, First Sunset Development, Inc., and the Foundation. First, the Foundation has rehabilitated the exterior facade and the first two floors of the John Ringling Towers in accordance with the U.S. Secretary of Interior's Standard for Rehabilitation as of July 19, 1996. While the rehab of the JRT continues, such rehabilitation to date has made the structure safe, secure, and waterproof. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission would be remiss if a statement is not placed on the record, regardless of the pending litigation. Vice Mayor Dupree stated that making a finding as to the JRC Foundation's compliance with the Three-Party Agreement and directing the City Manager to forward a letter of demolition to the Foundation would be viewed as a Commission responsibility if the matter were not pending in Court; that the City is also defending a suit in the litigation; that the matter should be resolved in Court. Mayor Pillot stated that Vice Mayor Dupree has reaffirmed his position; that the Commission should proceed in taking a vote on the motion. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to substitute the motion to acknowledge the JRC Foundation has not met the commitment to rehabilitate the first two floors and exterior of the building as committed to in the Three-Party Agreement. Commissioner Patterson stated that an opinion was expressed that the finding set forth in the motion would not be particularly helpful; and asked if the action would be damaging to the financial interests of the City? Attorney Singer stated no. Mayor Pillot called for a vote to accept the substitute motion. Motion carried (3 to 2): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no. Mayor Pillot cited the following from a letter dated August 1, 1997, addressed to the Mayor and signed by David Ferro, Administrator, Architectural Preservation Services, Bureau of Historic Preservation, Department of State, Division of Historical Resources: The planning and rehabilitation work undertaken by the Foundation has been assisted by State Preservation Grant BOOK 42 Page 15104 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. BOOK 42 Page 15105 08/04/97 6:00 P.M. Funding administered by the office. The plans developed for the project have been determined by this office to be consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Rehabilitation work completed to date (cleaning and securing the building, structural stabilization, and drying in) has been carried out in accordance with these approved plans. Mayor Pillot stated that copies of the letter were provided to the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she spoke earlier today with Mr. Ferro, who indicated the JRT building had been inspected approximately one year ago; that she explained the commitment by the JRC Foundation, questioned the cleaning and drying in of the building, referred to the open roof areas of the JRT which can be viewed from One Sarasota Tower, and requested a re-inspection; that she is not sure Mr. Ferro understood all the issues when the letter was drafted. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the main motion as substituted to acknowledge the John Ringling Centre Foundation has not met the commitment to rehabilitate the first two floors and exterior of the building as committed to in the Three-Party Agreement. Motion carried (3 to 2): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no. 18. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #6 (0270) There being no further business, Mayor Pillot adjourned the regular meeting of August 4, 1997, at 1:48 a.m. CRLK GENE PILLOT, MAYOR ATTES' > 3 ber BILLY ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK * 9.0