Book 35 Page 9429 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 7, 1993 AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Gene Pillot, Vice Mayor Nora Patterson, Commissioners Fredd Atkins, Mollie Cardamone, and David Merrill, 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, 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 to the Flag. 1. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = - APPROVED #1 (0000) through (0146) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Please remove the Special Presentation for GTE Mobilnet community service. B. Please remove Unfinished Business Item Nos. VII-1, -2, and -3 regarding the Agreement between the City, First Sunset Development, Inc. and the John Ringling Centre Foundation, Inc.; Request for extension of permits for the John Ringling Towers and Ringling Commons Project; and second reading of Ordinance No. 93-3694; and requested that this matter be placed on the agenda of the first Commission meeting in July 1993. C. Add to Unfinished Business Item No. VII-6, Report from the Mayor regarding the sign at Ken Thompson Park. D. Please remove New Business Item No. VIII-5, Approval Re: Accept the verbal presentation on bid results for the 6th Street Canal Lagoon Restoration Project. Mayor Pillot requested the following Change to the Orders of the Day: E. Please move New Business, Item Nos. VIII-3, and -4 regarding discussion of Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall to be considered immediately following the Board Actions and immediately preceding the Consent Agendas. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. The City Commission recessed at 6:05 p.m. into the Regular Session of the Community Redevelopment Agency. The Community Redevelopment Agency adjourned and reconvened as the Regular City Commission meeting at 6:09 p.m. 2. APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 17, 1993; MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 24, 1993 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEMS I-1, AND -2) #1 (0146) through (0158) On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve the minutes of the May 17, 1993 and the May 24, 1993 meetings of the City Commission. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 3. BOARD ACTIONS PARTIAL REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S SPECIAL MEETING OF APRIL 21, 1993 AND REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 5, 1993 INCENTIVES FOR POLICE OFFICERS LIVING OUTSIDE THE CITY - PROGRAM EXPANDED TO THE ENTIRE CITY LIMITS SUBJECT TO BUDGET DELIBERATIONS, : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3708 BOARD REPORT ACCEPTED; PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3667 - SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING; PLANNING BOARD REPORT = RECEIVED (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (0158) through (0400) Jane Robinson, Planning and Development Director, and Berta Lefkovich, Planning Board/Local Planning Agency Chairman, came to the Commission table. Ms. Lefkovich presented the following items from the Planning Board's Special Meeting of April 21, 1993 and Regular Meeting of May 5, 1993: A. Incentives for police officers living outside the City Ms. Lefkovich stated that the Planning Board recommends expanding the program offering low interest loans to City police officers, throughout the entire City limits rather than limiting it to one specific area. Mr. Sollenberger stated that administration supports the programmatic change as recommended by the Planning Board; that, due to the lack of success in Gillespie Park, the general funds designated were returned to the general fund for next year's Book 35 Page 9430 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9431 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. budget; that budgetarily the dollars are not available for this program; that the recommendation may be approved subject to funding arrived at during the budgetary decisions. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve the Planning Board's recommendation to expand the program throughout the City limits, subject to budget deliberations. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. B. Proposed Ordinance No. 93-3708 - North Trail "NT" City initiated rezonings Ms. Lefkovich stated that the Planning Board finds proposed Ordinance No. 93-3708 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommends adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 92-3562 with the following stipulations: 1. that concurrency be reviewed at the time of issuance of a building permit or development plan review; 2. that property owners who become eligible be rezoned at no charge; 3. that the "NT" zone district be amended to require unified development; and 4. that only those properties eligible and owners consenting to the rezoning be rezoned at this time. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to accept the Planning Board's report regarding proposed Ordinance No. 93-3708. Motion carried (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. C. Proposed Ordinance No. 93-3667 - Code Amendment to extend time limits for site and development plans and conditional rezonings Ms. Lefkovich stated that the Planning Board recommends adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 93-3667 with the following modification: To permit one two-year extension for Preliminary Site and Development Plans, and development plans upon approval by the City Manager; and also stated that the Planning Board finds proposed Ordinance No. 93-3667. consistent with the Sarasota City Plan. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if this will have any affect on building permits already granted by the City and/or renewed by the City. City Attorney Taylor stated that the answer is no; that this would apply prospectively; that prior to setting this matter for public hearing a clause may be added to clarify that this applies to those site and development plans that are submitted on or after the effective date of the ordinance. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to set proposed Ordinance No. 93-3667 for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to accept the report of the Planning Board. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 4. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD'S SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 4, 1993 PETITION 93-HD-11 (2445 ALAMEDA AVENUE) SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING; PETITION 93-HD-12 (5030 BAY SHORE ROAD) SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING; PETITION 93-HD-13 (5050 BAY SHORE ROAD) SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING; (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #1 (0400) through (0460) Jane Robinson, Planning and Development Director, and Mr. Bill Merrill, Historic Preservation Board Chairman, came to the Commission table. A. Petition 93-HD-11 at 2445 Alameda Avenue B. Petition 93-HD-12 at 5030 Bay Shore Road C. Petition 93-HD-13 at 5050 Bay Shore Road Mr. Merrill stated that the Historic Preservation Board recommends three petitions for approval by the City Commission as listed; that Petition 93-HD-11 is a wooden structure that needs some improvement but is a very good architectural example of an historic structure in the Indian Rocks Beach area; that the other two petitions are exemplary examples located in the Ringling Museum area. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to set Petitions 93-HD-11, -12, and 13 for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 5. NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION RE: REQUEST FOR SARASOTA COUNTY TO TAKE OVER VAN WEZEL (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) AND Book 35 Page 9432 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9433 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION RE: ARCKITECTURAL/ENGINEERING STUDY FOR VAN WEZEL PERFORMING ARTS HALL - - CITY MANAGER DIRECTED TO SEEK SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR AN ARCHITECTURAL STUDY AND REPORT BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSION IN THIRTY DAYS (JULY 6, 1993) (AGENDA ITEM VIII-4) #1 (0460) through (1535) Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Van Wezel Advisory Committee met this afternoon and are now ready to report to the Commission. Mrs. Annamae Sandegren, Chairman of the Van Wezel Foundation, Mr. John Wilkes, Executive Director of the Van Wezel, and Mr. George Dietz, representing the Chairman of the Van Wezel Advisory Committee, came to the Commission table. Mayor Pillot thanked the Van Wezel Foundation for $35,000 of funding for the Long-Range Strategic Plan for the Van Wezel that resulted in a savings to the taxpayers. Mr. Dietz stated that the Van Wezel Advisory Committee has delineated their position in a letter to the Commission; that they are requesting the Commission to postpone or defer further action or discussion relative to the County's involvement or management in financial arrangements pertaining to the Van Wezel until the Advisory Committee has had an opportunity to completely review the Long-Range Strategic Plan filed by Victoria Hardy of AMS Planning and Research; that the Advisory Committee also asks the Commission to move forward as promptly as possible with the appointment of an engineering or architectural firm to commence feasibility studies for modification/modernization of the Hall. Mrs. Sandegren stated that the Van Wezel Foundation feels that time is not of the essence; that there is plenty of time to research this matter and the Foundation would like the opportunity to research the entire Plan regarding costs and feasibility; that all of the recommendations would return to the City Commission; that this is not a small matter to consider; and urged the Commission to allow the Foundation time to research this matter. Commissioner Atkins stated that he feels that the engineering study and the feasibility of the County taking over the management of the Van Wezel go hand in hand; that the cost of the Van Wezel should be spread equitably among all those that use it. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he concurs with the recommendation of the Van Wezel Advisory Committee; that the costs of modernizing the Van Wezel to maintain competitiveness with other area performing arts halls need to be identified; that funding improvements cannot be borne by the ticket payer; that a funding source is required to provide the capital needed to modernize the Van Wezel; that statistics show five of every six tickets are sold to persons residing outside of the city; that a broader funding base is needed to absorb the costs of the improvements; that he recommends reviewing the issue of budgeting the architectural/engineering study in the upcoming budget discussions in July; that the cost estimate is approximately $55,000 to $85,000 for the work; that the Foundation may wish to make a contribution. Mr. Sollenberger stated further that there should be a discussion and possibly a task force established, with County participation, once the costs are determined. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that an engineering study is needed for the Van Wezel; that perhaps the report that has been given should be presented to the County for. an indication of their interest in participation; that this does not imply that the County should take over the Van Wezel. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she supports the idea of moving slowly and looking at creative ways to finance the studyi that she has received requests from citizens to move slowly, particularly the Coalition of Neighborhoods; that she accepts the recommendation of the City Manager and would request that he look for some funding methods. Ms. Sandegren stated that the Van Wezel Foundation has formed a committee that is prepared to research all pertinent matters; that the Commission will receive a terrific amount of cooperation from the Foundation and the City itself; that she would like for the Committee to at least have a chance to see what they can do. Commissioner Merrill stated that he agrees that funding of the study is needed, but it is unrealistic for City taxpayers to be expected to come up with $75,000 to fund a study when there has been no commitment on the part of the County; that perhaps the study could be approved subject to funding sources. Commissioner Atkins stated that he believes a study should be undertaken; that the County should be included on the front end of the study in order that its validity may be endorsed by the County. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he wished to clarify his recommendation; that he is not recommending that the City's general fund be utilized for any portion of the study; that he also does not imply that the Van Wezel should be transferred to the County for management and operation; that the City has provided 23 years of unparalleled standards of excellence in management and program presentation; that he feels Commissioner Atkins' suggestion of inviting the County to participate early in the process is an excellent suggestion; that, however, this matter does need to move ahead. Book 35 Page 9434 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9435 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot stated, in summary, that the recommended action would be for: 1. the Commission to express its support and desire for an architectural study to be conducted at the earliest proper time; 2. that the City Manager be authorized to contact the County Administrator now to invite their participation in the preparation and funding of the study; 3. that this be done with input from the Van Wezel Advisory Committee and the Van Wezel Foundation; and 4. that no other action with respect to Van Wezel be taken. Mr. Harvey Rothenberg, Vice Chairman of the Van Wezel Foundation came to the table and stated that the Van Wezel Foundation can possibly help in sharing the burden of the costs; that to postpone this action too long would be very bad; that time is of the essence for the architectural study. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to direct the City Manager to seek sources of funding for an architectural study and report back to the City Commission in 30 days (July 6, 1993). Commissioner Atkins stated that he hopes it is implicit that the County should be involved in this funding process. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if Commissioner Merrill had in mind in the motion that one of the steps to be taken by the City Manager would be to contact the County to determine their willingness to share the burden of the cost of the study and a clarification for both the County Commission and administration as to its necessity. Commissioner Merrill stated he was purposefully nonspecific in order to leave the possibility of funding sources open. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 6. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEMS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, AND 9 APPROVED; ADDITIONAL BACK-UP MATERIAL TO BE PROVIDED TO COMMISSION REGARDING ELECTRONIC EMS SYSTEM; ITEM 4 = - REFERRED TO CITY MANAGER AND TO BE RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION IN JUNE OR JULY (AGENDA ITEMS III-A-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, -7, -8, AND -9) #1 (1535) through (3620) Vice Mayor Patterson requested that Item Nos. 4 and 9 be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Mayor Pillot stated that he intended to pull Item No. 4 also, at the request of a citizen. 1. Approval Re: City Commission Goals for 1993-1994 fashioned by the Commission in workshop on Friday, April 16, 1993 2. Approval Re: Authorize Administration to send a letter to a grant funding private foundation that, in the event funds are given to the City of Sarasota for North Trail Medians, the City will provide proper maintenance 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Special Permit to Mark and Michelle Engel for use of City owned property abutting the Engel's property located at 3741 Davis Boulevard 5. Approval Re: Authorize Administration to terminate the Relocation Agreement with FP&L and the Storefront Renovation Agreement with the Downtown Association which are associated with the 1500 Block (Alley North of Main Street) Powerline Undergrounding and Storeback Mural Project 6. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a construction contract for the Laurel Park/Traffic Abatement Medians (Orange Avenue Medians only) in an amount not to exceed $38,000 with Frederick Derr, Inc. 7. Approval Re: Authorize Administration to negotiate contracts with Johnson Peterson Architects and George Palermo Architects, Inc., for the renovations and interior remodeling of various city owned buildings, as needed, on an alternating basis; and authorize Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute same 8. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and city Auditor and Clerk to execute Amendment #1 to the contract with James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc. to include the design of R.O. concentrate degassifiers to meet the FDER (Florida Department of Environmental Regulation) permit requirements under the water treatment plant's Temporary Operating Permit On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Book 35 Page 9436 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9437 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 4. Approval Re: Authorize Administration to separate the North Tamiami Trail Beautification Project into three separate phases and construct a third of the project each year for the next three years starting at the North end of U.S. 41 and working south to 10th Street; and authorize the Engineering Department to start the bidding process for the first third of the project Mr. Sollenberger stated that Oak trees were originally specified for the North U.S. 41 medians; that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) objected due to their size; that, subsequently, landscape architect, Mr. Joe Cooley, recommended the use of the East Palatka Holly which are not presently available due to market demands; that Mr. Cooley recommended that the Savannah Holly be used which was concurred with by Mr. David Johnston, City Landscape Architect; that the administration had previously recommended that the landscaping proceed from north to south and, subsequent to comments, it is being suggested that the order be reversed insofar as the south area closer to 10th Street is the area in greatest need of revitalization; that the administration would be willing to revise its recommendation to accommodate this reversal of landscaping order to proceed from south to north. Mr. Bud Reasoner, registered landscape architect, came to the Commission table and stated that the warmest area of Florida touches the southern tip of Sarasota County; that he is not implying that the American, East Palatka, or Savannah Hollies are not desirable trees; that he personally feels that the City should consider the formal or informal approach and the fashion which they need to be maintained; that Florida is natural and informal with showy flowering trees; that he would envision an informal approach with an assortment of trees done in a very simple fashion; and stated that he feels it would be a mistake not to use flowering trees in this area. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the loss of the grant has nothing to do with the selection of trees; that the plans were revised subject to FDOT requirements; that perhaps a re-evaluation should be made and a report made to the Commission; that the City staff was invited to submit a grant to FDOT and the amount of the grant was larger than that which was ordinarily given which was the reason for its rejection even though City staff was advised by an FDOT worker to submit a larger sized grant; that this now needs to be expanded over several years for which the Engineering Department has devised a schedule; that there is a pending grant with another foundation; that it would be well to move ahead with the project and at least complete one third portions to show continuous progress rather than waiting for a large grant to arrive; that moving ahead will show progress in the area. Commissioner Merrill stated that he recommends selecting trees that have a little more show such as flowering trees. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he would like to return to the Commission in a few weeks with a recommendation after the Planning and Engineering Departments have obtained suggestions from Mr. Reasoner and the City landscape architect; that time is of the essence in order that the project may be bid and the work completed prior to the beginning of the new season; that this will allow an opportunity to give full consideration to Mr. Reasoner's suggestions; that this could be returned to the Commission at the next Commission meeting or the first meeting in July. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she will support looking at flowering trees in a casual or carefree garden style. -On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to refer this matter to the City Manager who should confer with Mr. Reasoner and to return to the City Commission at the July 6th or June 21st Commission meeting. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 9. Approval Re: Authorize Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract with Lancet Technology, Inc. to establish an electronic emergency medical services (EMS) incident data management system including related software, hardware and coordinating services Vice Mayor Patterson stated that this is a request for $260,000 and the size of the matching grant, the purpose of the services, the amount of city dollar expenditures, and the funding source is vague. Fire/Rescue Chief Julius Halas and Fire Battalion Chief Al Light came to the Commission table. Chief Halas stated that the grant is a State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services matching 50/50 grant; that the funds are on hand from the State and are earning interest; that the City's portion ($125,000) has already been funded. Chief Halas continued that the Florida Administrative Code requires, effective October 1, 1993, that electronic reporting be provided on all patient information as well as the trauma registry requirements to track the quality assurance of patient care in the State; that, in conjunction with the pre-existing data this will provide the field element, like a hand held computer, that will Book 35 Page 9438 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9439 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. retrieve all of the data rather than the information being manually recorded on paper; that the present computers at the fire station will be interfaced with Sarasota Memorial Hospital; that this is a state-of-che-art system as opposed to the minimum; that other area users are adopting the City's request for proposal very similarly. Vice Mayor Patterson asked what the price differential is between a state-of-the-art system and what would meet State requirements. Battalion Chief Al Light stated that it is felt that the state-of- the-art system will actually save the City money in that without it the information would be calculated by hand and the actual copy would have to be sent to Tallahassee; that the Fire Department hopes to do this through the sending of an electronic tape or through telephone lines; that the savings is in working smarter rather than having to hire people. Chief Halas stated that this electronic data will also be helpful for the Information Services and Finance Departments; that seven personnel have worked a number of months developing the request for proposal (RFP) based on the State requirement to provide this information. Finance Director Gibson Mitchell came to the Commission table and stated that his recollection is that the funds were earmarked in last year's budget and carried over into the present fiscal year and they are general fund dollars. Chief Halas stated that Battalion Chief Jim Frazier, the chairperson of the committee, can answer the more specific questions regarding the study. City Manager Sollenberger asked if there is urgency in the decision on this matter. Battalion Chief Light stated that the deadline is October 1, 1993; that they could wait two weeks if necessary but it is not desirable. On motion of (Mayor Pillot passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Patterson) Mayor Pillot it was moved to approve the administrations" recommendation. Motion failed for lack of second. Vice Mayor Patterson returned the gavel to Mayor Pillot. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that some written back-up regarding the decision making process in this matter is needed. Chief Halas stated that other alternatives were ruled out based on cost efficiency and performance in the field. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve the administration's recommendation to award the contract to Lancet Technology, Inc; to authorize the City Attorney's office to prepare an agreement; and to authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the agreement. Commissioner Merrill stated that he hopes that the information requested will be provided to the Commission but he is willing to go forward based on Chief Halas' recommendation. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Merrill, yes; Patterson, no; 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 the 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; that he will time the speakers and advise them when they have 1 minute remaining. Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing Process.Mr. Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 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 be sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 7. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3708, REZONING CERTAIN PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY WITH FRONTAGE ON THE MAJOR ARTERIAL KNOWN AS NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL (U.S. 41) THAT HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED AS ELIGIBLE FOR REZONING TO THE NORTH TRAIL ZONE DISTRICT (NT) BY THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN: SAID REAL PROPERTY ABUTS U.S. 41 FROM 10TH STREET NORTHERLY TO THE NORTH CITY LIMITS LINE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (3620) through #2 (0435) Mr. Mike Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came to the Commission table and stated that this rezoning will encompass 122 of the 212 properties that have been placed into an impact management area under the future land use designation for the North Trail zone district; that the other 90 parcels not being rezoned are the result of either the objection of the property Book 35 Page 9440 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9441 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. owner or the lack of qualification under the current language of the zone district which specifically requires "frontage" on the North Trail; that it was not the intent of staff to necessarily disallow those parcels to be rezoned; that staff will propose a code amendment to allow for some of those properties to be included in the rezoning and to be developed in a unified manner. Mr. Taylor continued that this proposal does not impose rezoning on a property owner who does not wish to have it; that it is recommended that there be no charge in the future when additional rezonings are returned to the Commission. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. Mr. Douglas W. Minturn, 1045 Cocoanut Avenue, #106, representing Sarasota's future, came to the Commission table and stated that he was interested in this meeting tonight; that he has watched Sarasota develop over the years and he is not terribly impressed with the way it has developed; that different variables have not been taken into consideration such as the lack of water; that he has seen dry summers and real low water levels; that it doesn't appear that anyone is taking any planning into consideration during development; that the more people there are on a piece of property, the more water that is used and it cannot be refurbished, it goes up in price, and is more difficult to find; that he hopes Sarasota will take more of a constructive attitude toward pre-construction from the aspect of development; that there is lack of foresight on what is happening to the area and he cannot believe that the City would consider developing further without first thinking in terms of what water is needed because it is very serious at this time. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the purpose of the North Trail rezoning is to primarily allow properties that have been inhibited from making investments, to make investments to upgrade the zoning that was designed to get rid of many of the existing uses; that this will allow for many of the existing businesses to make modifications if they can modernize and move away from the deterioration and dilapidation of depressed values; that the City has pushed water conservation; that water consumption has been on the decline and that landscaped medians discussed this evening will be irrigated through reuse water rather than through potable water; that a reuse transmission line is also being considered; that the City's track record on promoting water conservation has been successful and that the use of reuse water for irrigation will contribute to the cause addressed by Mr. Minturn. There was no one to speak and the public hearing was closed. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3708 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 93-3708 on first reading. Commissioner Merrill stated that he is concerned about the clause pertaining to additional rezonings at no charge; that this means less general fund money for City operations; that this is a significant portion of the City; that everyone would like to have their property rezoned at no charge; that this is very valuable land. Mr. Taylor stated that it is the intent to provide an incentive to the people in this area; that the amount of the cost to rezone the additional properties as a group is the same as one rezoning; that this is the same for the cost of preparing the ordinance; and that it is difficult to divvy up the several hundred dollar cost to the multiple number of property owners in one group, as a practical matter. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the next rezoning would be done one time as a massive group and individuals after that would have to bear the costs themselves. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3710, PERTAINING TO THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (SHIP): SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; ACKNOWLEDGING THAT SARASOTA COUNTY HAS ESTABLISHED A LOCAL HOUSING PARTNERSHIP WITH MANY ENTITIES, THE CITY OF SARASOTA BEING ONE PARTICIPANT ACKNOWLEDGING THAT FUNDS REQUIRED TO BE PLACED IN THE LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE TRUST FUND CREATED BY SARASOTA COUNTY WILL BE soO DEPOSITED BY THE CITY; DECLARING THAT THE CITY OF SARASOTA WILL PARTICIPATE IN THE LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ESTABLISHED BY SARASOTA COUNTY; CONFIRMING THAT SARASOTA COUNTY IS THE ENTITY DESIGNATED AS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM; AFFIRMING THAT THE CITY OF SARASOTA WILL PARTICIPATE IN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED BY SARASOTA COUNTY; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #2 (0435) through (0620) Mr. Don Hadsell, Director of Community Development, came to the Commission table and stated that this ordinance will permit the City to jointly apply with Sarasota County for the State of Florida Housing Initiatives Program (SHIP); that he previously recommended and the Commission concurred that the City receive these funds in Book 35 Page 9442 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9443 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. a joint application with Sarasota County which provides an opportunity for additional funding and a reduction in administrative costs; that this ordinance is required in order to receive the SHIP funds this year. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. Ms. Mary Ouillin, 407 Cocoanut Avenue, came to the Commission table and stated that in the Sarasota Housing Partnership of this program, on page 4, she recommends that the representatives for the partnership include the Coalition of City Neighborhoods; that they would be better informed on activities in their neighborhoods. Mr. Hadsell stated that it is not the County nor the City's intent to limit the size of the partnership; that he has no problem recommending to the County that the Neighborhood Coalition be placed into the plan. Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3710 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 93-3710 on first reading. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 9. PRESENTATION RE: STATUS OF REMOVAL OF U.S. 41 FROM THE BAYFRONT - PRESENTATION RECEIVED (AGENDA ITEM V-1) #2 (0620) through (1525) Mr. Mike Guy, Executive Director of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) came to the Commission table and stated that in the summer of 1992 the MPO was informally requested by the City of Sarasota to look into the possibility of removing the U.S. highway designation and State road designation from U.S. 41 along the Sarasota Bayfront; that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) was approached and discussions took place regarding this proposal; that FDOT was very receptive to the idea and laid down a set of rules to work under, such as equally matching any trade off of the U.S. highway and state road miles on the Bayfront with an equal number of miles to the system somewhere else. Mr. Guy continued that the discussions centered around the possibility of using Fruitville Road, from U.S. 41 to U.S. 301, as the trade off; that there are concerns about the two 90 degree turns that would be required; that if U.S. 41 can be made as straight as possible through Sarasota and Manatee Counties it would help eliminate confusion to motorists; that the FDOT favored the idea of stopping U.S. 41 in Palmetto; that the existing U.S. 41 was proposed to be referred to as Business U.S. 41; and that all of this would take the U.S. highway designation off the Bayfront. Mr. Guy stated that the MPO voted unanimously in support of this proposal being submitted to FDOT; that in December of 1992, the City Commission passed a resolution supporting the removal of the U.S. highway and state road designation along the Sarasota Bayfront; that all looked fine until last month; that a third map was received as FDOT's alternate proposal; that it is similar to the MPO proposal with the exception of their desire to pull U.S. 19 all the way down to Cortez Road in Bradenton and completely take any U.S. highway off what is currently U.S. 41 and just call it State Road 45; that all U.S. highways are state roads and therefore U.S. 41 is State Road 45. Mr. Guy stated further that whenever any number of miles are eliminated, in spite of flexible funding under the current transportation act, an effort should be made to keep an equal number. of miles on the State road system; that the FDOT has indicated they are willing to withdraw their alternate proposal and consider the original proposal. Mr. Guy stated further that the City of Bradenton, Manatee County and city of Palmetto are concerned about this and asked how they were pulled into this matter with such a change in Manatee County; that the FDOT has responded that they are not willing to consider the Sarasota Bayfront as a single item and wish for the MPO to review the entire U.S. highway and State Road numbering system in the proposal; that a series of public hearings are planned; that the MPO has directed him to bring this matter to the entities most affected by this proposal and seek their input. City Manager Sollenberger stated he believes that the City would wish to continue to support the original proposal to the MPO. Mr. Guy continued that a joint meeting of the Cities of Palmetto and Bradenton, and Manatee County will be held to discuss this matter; that there are several options such as submitting a Sarasota Bayfront proposal which would be denied by FDOT and put the Sarasota Bayfront back at the beginning again; that he feels that the original proposal satisfies the need to simplify the State road and U.S. highway numbering system in Sarasota and Manatee County; that he prefers moving forward with the original proposal to the FDOT as has been done and move to public hearing with that proposal to seek public input before the MPO makes a final decision on their recommendation to FDOT. Mr. Johnny Nugent, representing Normandy Inn, came to the Commission table and stated that he thinks of the possible downsides such as what happened in Bradenton years ago when U.S. 41 was rerouted and the row of motels became less desirable, and what Book 35 Page 9444 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9445 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. happened to the former bridge at the take off point at Golden Gate Point; that it is valuable property now but there was a metamorphosis that was not particularly good when the new bridge was built north of the old bridge. Mr. Nugent stated that when these changes are made there is much harm done to the property owners; that the only gain on the Bayfront if it does not have a U.S. highway is that the speed limit can be lowered from 40 to 35 miles per hour; that the downside is if this pushes the widening of South Washington Boulevard into six lanes and it intrudes into an existing neighborhood sO. the tourists will not follow the Bayfront, then he thinks it is not good. Mr. Nugent also stated that people often ask him where U.S. 41 is and what is the Tamiami Trail; that while it is still U.S. 41 there should at least be a sign up that gives both names. City Manager Sollenberger stated that this is a continued course of action over the past year or so to remove U.S. 41 from the Bayfront; that the appropriate course of action would be to follow the original proposal as outlined by Mr. Guy. Mayor Pillot stated that by taking no further action this becomes the continued position of the Commission. Mr. Jack Gurney, 33 S. Gulfstream Avenue, representing himself, came to the Commission table and stated that he has promoted the removal of U.S. 41 from the Bayfront; that U.S. 41 severed the City from the Bayfront; that the efforts are now necessary to reunite the City with the Bayfront; that the original discussions that took place regarding this included representatives from Manatee County and the City of Bradenton and the original proposal caused no disturbances at that time; that the Bayfront should be a scenic drive; that there are good reasons for the City to own all of that land to put the City in control of its destiny and not have to go through State agencies regarding issues in the area; that he hopes the Commission will re-endorse this; and that the representatives of Manatee County and the Cities of Bradenton and Palmetto endorsed the original proposal. Ms. Bonnie Wagoner, 1714 Devonshire Lane, came to the Commission table and stated that long before RUDAT (Regional Urban Design Assistance Team) the Downtown Association was active in trying to revive downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods; that one of the great things that evolved was the question of what to do about the Bayfront; that what has been done about the Bayfront has been done; that one good hurricane will take care of it; that one of the things that came out of the numerous workshops that she attended was how to get down to the Bayfront as a pedestrian. Ms. Wagoner stated that the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods need to be reconnected to the Bayfront through access; that this has been going on since the late 1970s; that the consensus of the workshops at the time was that the citizens need access to the Bayfront; that there was discussion of making 10th Street a bypass for U.S. 41; that the people of this community deserve to have their Bayfront back. Mayor Pillot asked City Auditor and Clerk Robinson if no action is taken by the Commission, would the previous action stand which would be the submitting of chart number two. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that would be correct. 10. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 93R-642), ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 93R-656), ITEM 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 93R-658). AND ITEM 4 (ORDINANCE NO. 93-3700) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEMS III-B-1, -2, -3, AND -4) #2 (1525) through (1625) 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 93R-642, pertaining to the Sarasota Police Department Extra-Duty Employment Program; setting forth findings of fact; approving the administration of such program by the Sarasota Police Department; etc. (Title Only) 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 93R-656, 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) 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 93R-658, supporting the Florida League of Cities' Policy Committee on finance and taxation undertaking a comprehensive review of "Double Taxation"; etc. (Title Only) 4. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 93-3700, amending the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act; stating various findings of fact concerning the preparation and adoption of the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; adopting by reference three amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Book 35 Page 9446 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9447 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. designated: 93-PA-06, 93-PA-07, and 93-PA-08, as more particularly described herein; etc. (Title Only) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 93R-642, 93R-656, 93R-658, and proposed Ordinance No. 93-3700 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Consent Agenda No. 2. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 11. CITIZENS' INPUT - THE DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION GIVEN PERMISSION TO ASK FOR VOLUNTARY DONATIONS FOR THE FIREWORKS CELEBRATION ON JULY 4TH; CITY ATTORNEY TO RESPOND TO MS. BONNIE WAGONER'S REOUEST FOR AN ENGINEERING REPORT (AGENDA ITEM VI) #2 (1625) through (2275) Ms. Marie Spurrier, 2115 Phillippi Street, representing herself, came to the Commission table and stated that due to a recent storm there is a big chunk missing from the Tony Saprito pier; that this time of year there are children out of school who need a place to fish; that there are fewer and fewer places for people to fish and there are many people that need this pier for fishing such as kids, older people and tourists; that the road is a disaster too; that she heard it is going to take six to eight months to study this and she is wondering what is causing the delay. Mr. Sollenberger stated that an engineering firm has been hired that will report back to the City Commission at the next meeting with a concept for the pier; that a reimbursement is coming from FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) for the necessary repairs. Mr. Paul Thorpe, 47 S. Palm Avenue, representing the Downtown Association, came to the Commission table and stated that the Downtown Association is sponsoring the fireworks celebration on the Bayfront this year; that the Commission's support of this program is appreciated and the Downtown Association is moving forward and receiving substantial funds to make it an outstanding event; that the fireworks will be fired from a barge located in the Bay; that they would like permission to ask for voluntary donations for the fireworks from those persons coming to the island to watch them. Mr. Sollenberger stated that administration recommends authorization of the request for voluntary donations. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the request of Mr. Thorpe for the Downtown Association to seek voluntary donations to defray the cost of the fireworks on the 4th of July. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mr. Thorpe continued that on June 23, 24, and 25th the Downtown Association is hosting the Florida Redevelopment Association and the Florida Main Street Association; that the conference will take place at the Hyatt of Sarasota; that every city in the State of Florida will be represented; that it is hoped that the Mayor will open the ceremonies; that they are proud to be hosting such an event. Ms. Catherine LaBrie, 1024 S. Rhodes Avenue, came to the Commission table and stated that she has had the feeling lately of who is running our government; that she addresses that to all of the Commission; that there has been some disturbing news in the paperi that she is concerned about the kinds of things that are going on in the government; that she is also concerned about the kinds of grants that are written; that a lot more responsibility should be taken and preparation for knowing what the grants are being written for before they are written, instead of writing a grant and rushing it through and making a decision later as to how that grant can be used. Ms. LaBrie stated that her other concern regards the Fifty Year Vision Plan; that she has a Master Plan for Tomorrow that was written in 1986; that many of the things discussed in the Fifty Year Vision Plan were done in 1986 immediately after the RUDAT study; that she would like for the Commission to collectively review the 1986 plan and see what has been accomplished and determine if the City is on track; that she does not see many people here who were present when this was written; that the study does state that the Redevelopment Agency helped write it; that she doesn't think that Design Studios West is needed to write the Fifty Year Vision Plan because the Master Plan for Tomorrow is a very good plan. Ms. Bonnie Wagoner, 1714 Devonshire Lane, representing herself, came to the Commission table and stated that she has a letter from Richard Taylor, City Attorney, dated September 9, 1992, stating that results from the Ardaman and Associates' evaluation were being prepared and that his office would meet with City staff to finalize the evaluation; that she would like to know what happened to the Ardaman report and why she cannot obtain a copy of it; that it was ordered by the Commission, as requested by the City Attorney; that her permission was granted since it was done on her property; that it was paid for with City money; that she understands it should become part of the public record; that engineers speak in precise terms and she would like to have a copy of this report; and that this is the fifth or sixth request that she has made for it. Book 35 Page 9448 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9449 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that he is not familiar with exactly what report Ms. Wagoner is referring to; that if a report was received it is public record unless it was prepared in anticipation of imminent legal proceedings; that he will be happy to respond to this if the report exists in writing as opposed to a verbal report, and it is not needed due to the imminence of legal proceedings that this claimant may bring against the City; that if his office does not supply Ms. Wagoner with the report, in accordance with the public records act of the State of Florida, he will respond in writing with the basis for that denial. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he concurs with City Attorney Taylor. 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS APPROVAL RE: REOUEST CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO DELETE THE COLOR UNIFORMITY REQUIREMENT FOR NEWSRACKS - APPROVED WITH STAFF TO RE-EXAMINE AND ENSURE CORRECTLY WRITTEN HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS (AGENDA ITEM VII-4) #2 (2275) through (3635) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Federal District Court in Miami has stricken down color requirements for newsracks such as those contained in the recently adopted City of Sarasota ordinance which goes into effect the first of July; that the color requirement goes into effect in December; that the recommendation is to amend the ordinance to drop the color requirements in accordance with the Federal District Court; that his request is that the City Attorney be authorized to prepare an appropriate amendment to bring back to the Commission. Mayor Pillot asked if this is an item over which the Commission has no authority. Mr. Sollenberger stated that was correct. Mr. Herbert Ouinn, 5113 Estates Circle, and Mr. John Browning, 1376 Harbor Drive, representing the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Board, came to the Commission table. Mr. Browning stated that since the newsrack ordinance passed in January, with the delayed implementation date of July 1993, there has continued to be a proliferation of additional boxes throughout the City; that it is almost as if those in the media are saying that they have no intention to comply or are counting on additional concessions; that there has been little or no attempt by those representing the media since this ordinance was passed to sit down with the City to work out more acceptable terms; that an invitation was specifically made in January and there are no takers; that he implores the Commission to enforce this ordinance and not allow it to be weakened any further; that making changes such as those proposed is predetermining the ultimate outcome; that the ordinance carries a severability clause that if one element is found invalid it does not effect the validity of the remaining and why not leave it as is until the outcome of the court is certain. Mr. Browning continued that the Commission should not expect the media to be self policing; that this has been tried by others for nearly twenty years to no avail; that the media has no interest to do so and they have no central organization that can successfully force appliance of any agreement; that other municipalities have required uniformity and made it stick; that this City can too if there is the political resolve to do so; and that the citizens will applaud the Commission's efforts. Mr. Quinn stated that the County is considering developing a similar newsrack ordinance; that the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Board suggests that the Commission make no changes to the City ordinance at this time until after a County ordinance becomes law; that there is no urgency to make changes at this time. Mayor Pillot asked City Attorney Taylor if his advice is to delete color references from this City ordinance in compliance with the Federal decision in the southern district of the State of Florida. City Attorney Taylor stated that was correct. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she recalls discussions by newspaper representatives that some of the boxes were of a size that could not comply by just a few inches; that she expected some input regarding that; that if there is a consensus to do something about the color of newsracks in this ordinance, it appears that a problem is being built into the ordinance if the inches are off; that the County ordinance has four or five inches difference in their development of the ordinance. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that many of the boxes contain straight advertising and need some regulation; that some boxes are placed in a manner that people cannot open their car doors; that she does not wish to expend City dollars to determine whether a newspaper box can be orange or brown. Attorney Taylor stated that the regulations that become effective July 1, 1993 will set standards for locations and prohibit the impeding of traffic or pedestrians; that this is only the appeal of one element of the ordinance. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve the administration's recommendation to direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance to delete the color uniformity requirement for newsracks. Book 35 Page 9450 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9451 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to amend the motion to ask City staff to measure the height of the news racks to ensure that the ordinance height requirements are properly stated. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the main motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she does not intend for the inches to be changed at all if it is the opinion of the staff that this is not necessary. Mayor Pillot stated that drawing the line on exceptions to rules is difficult and arguments can be made at length; that this negative vote was only because he does not agree with the amendment. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she is in favor of a height ceiling and she is not speaking of allowing flexibility in the ordinance, but a re-examination of the inches chosen to ensure that they encompass the majority of the boxes. Mayor Pillot stated that he misunderstood the amendment; that he appreciates the clarification; and he would have voted differently. There was a consensus of the Commission to move to New Business Item No. 2. 13. NEW BUSINESS = DISCUSSION RE: BAYFRONT/MAIN STREET EXTENSION PROJECT GRANT PROJECT TO PROCEED - CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE METHOD FOR MAXIMIZING PUBLIC INPUT (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #2 (3635) through #3 (2825) Commissioner Merrill stated that he placed this matter on the agenda because there seems to be little enthusiasm for the project; that it is dangerous for the Commission to proceed with a project that does not have strong community support; that a lack of commitment by the citizens undermines the Commission's future projects; that there seems to be lack of support for the project due to the fast track that the plan was placed in order to meet the schedule; that all of this tended to inhibit discussion at the Commission table regarding the plan; that the Commission has appeared to not be listening to the public which runs counter to the objectives of the Commission. Commissioner Merrill continued that he is proposing that the Commission listen to the public again to ensure that the public understands and can support it; that he would rather get the project right or kill it and take the penalties of the contract; that he would like to convince the public that it is a good project and has much merit; that it will create an environment similar to that of St. Armands as far as landscaping. Commissioner Merrill stated further that he does not like the diamond brick pattern and that the sidewalks should be made Cleaner and less cluttered; that the project should reflect the casual and simple character of Sarasota; that the criticisms of the project are unwarranted regarding the creation of jobs because there are not enough dollars involved to create the 80 jobs that were being promoted; that returning the grant money will not pay down the deficit because the money is already allocated; that he does not believe that Washington will take this money away because it was not spent fast enough; that there are excellent Senators and Representatives that will help argue to keep it; that he does not see a thirty day delay as jeopardizing this project; that it is difficult to know what is being built; that opening this matter up to a public hearing will add to the credibility of the City and assist in making downtown better; and that he encourages the Commission to move forward with a public hearing as soon as possible. Mayor Pillot stated that he has not heard any concerns raised with respect to the project except possibly some of the aesthetics between Gulfstream Avenue and U.S. 41; that he objects to mermaids or fish spouting fountains; that there is some concern for the use of colors of bricks with respect to safety in the area where both pedestrian and vehicular traffic cross paths; that the landscaping proposed in the area should be xeriscaped, environmentally proper and carefully monitored upon installation; and that concerns over a personnel problem has given some extra strength to concerns raised by people and this should not be the case; that such matters are being properly handled by the City Manager with due process and personnel procedures. Mayor Pillot continued that if the project moves forward the Commission should be told what may be legally and sensibly modified without incurring expense to the City; that the items subject to modification should be delineated and used as the proper subjects for further public hearings. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he feels that it is a good project and should move forward; that there was an opportunity for public comment; that this idea goes back as far as RUDAT as far as connecting downtown to the Bayfront; that this was reiterated in the Redevelopment Plan and identified as a top priority for funding; that no local funding was available to complete the streetscape and the connection to U.S. 41 so a grant was obtained from the EDA (Economic Development Administration) for this purpose; that the national government promotes certain national objectives by granting dollars to carry out those objectives; that Book 35 Page 9452 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9453 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. this is cemented in the form of a contract; that the objectives here are job creation, short and long term; that the long term component will be the additional jobs created within the downtown area as a spin off from the economic improvement as a result of the infrastructure introduced into the downtown area. Mr. Sollenberger continued that a bid has been awarded to a contractor and has certain deadlines for the project; that any changes contemplated by the Commission should be cognizant of the contract; that there are a number of changes that can be made that will not create a problem; that the proposed artwork can take some other form and is a simple matter of artwork design, a period for public comment, and follow up by the Public Art Committee; that the diamond pattern of the walkway was provided by the planner as a transition from the Bayfront, but other development can be used as a pattern and it is not a major problem and it can be adjusted; that the water feature can be eliminated altogether; that the project is designed with an alternate to delete the water feature in the event the bids came in too high; that changing the water feature would be a major expense since the bidder made an error and is providing both water features for a total of $88,000. Mr. Sollenberger stated further that time is of the essence and recommended that the Commission move forward at the next meeting with public comment on any types of modifications under consideration; that staff proposes contacting the contractor regarding present time tolerances and any possible delays in the construction schedule due to changes which could cost money; that all changes must be approved by the EDA; that any changes as discussed such as the walkway, the artwork, or deleting the water features would probably be approved by the EDA, but major changes could be unacceptable. Mr. Sollenberger also stated that the administration recommendation is that the Commission should take public comment and make decisions regarding modifications at the next Commission meeting; that in the interim the staff can inventory those items that could be easily accomplished in the present schedules. Vice Mayor Patterson asked for clarification regarding the artwork and the water features; the possibility of deleting them; and the imprudence of doing so. Mr. Sollenberger continued that the water feature and the art total $88,000 which would be deducted if it was decided against and the pool area could then be paved over; that there is an advantage of an error on the contractor's bid and the same type of value could not be achieved for another type of water feature, plus the costs of a redesign. Mr. Jean-Pierre Knaggs, 620 Corwood Drive, representing himself, came to the Commission table and stated that he is a downtown business owner and has resided in Sarasota for approximately 20 years; that he is asking the Commission to go ahead with the plans for the redevelopment of Main Street; that he has seen downtown go from the seedy run-down and boarded up area to the wonderfully alive place that it is now; that there are now restaurants where there were defunct gas stations, bakeries, dry cleaners and banks; that there was a whole block of deserted shops and run down buildings where now stands a beautiful green park used for festival and opera activities. Mr. Knaggs continued that all of these changes have taken place with the help of the Commission and positive City employees; that, there has been some harsh criticism by the newspaper and some very cruel personal attacks on certain individuals; that the Commission is elected to run the City and should not be run by a newspaper in New York that doesn't even deposit its revenue in banks within this City; that all of the residents of Sarasota have much to gain from the revitalization of downtown; that to cancel this project for fear of criticism would be a giant step backwards; that he urges the Commission to take a very positive stand on this matter which has been reviewed many times and should now be completed. Mr. Adam Segreti, 1429 Main Street, representing Santa Fe Trails Gallery, came to the Commission table and stated that he supports the Main Street program and is a long time resident of Sarasota; that he recalls when U.S. 41 was routed around the downtown area which effectively created an island of the downtown section; that that was the beginning of the downfall of the downtown area; that re-routing U.S. 41 would be a mistake and Main Street needs to be tied down where it is. Mr. Segreti stated further that his previous career dealt exclusively with government funds and they will retrieve funds in terms with contract stipulations; that he has experienced non- performance Clauses and there is a large line of people who would like to have the money; that he also recommends that the Commission not get trapped in the paralysis of analysis; that there is a plan that has been approved and reviewed; that the downtown area has been in on the ground floor of the plan development and they have approved them; that there are a few things that he does not like, but he does like the project and he will live with them. Ms. Peg Cavanaugh, 3219 Dawson Street, representing herself, came to the Commission table and stated that she does not feel this is a fast track; that this has been discussed for ten years; that she is concerned for the Commission which has taken a lot of bashing; that she hopes the Commission reviewed the results of the public survey taken during the dedication of the Bayfront; that there were people from many places writing wonderful comments on the Bayfront; Book 35 Page 9454 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9455 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. that she asks the Commission to please hang in there; that there are people complaining that have no idea that the money is coming from federal funds. Mr. Bill Jacobs, 1572 Main Street, representing Nature's Way Cafe, came to the Commission table and stated that he and his partner in Nature's Way Cafe, which opened approximately 6 months ago, saw the projections for downtown and are asking the Commission to stick with the Main Street project; that they feel the Commission has done a great job so far and they would like to be a part of it. Mr. David Venafro, 1468 Main Street, representing Monterey Delia and Pub, came to the Commission and stated that he has resided in Sarasota since 1972; that he and his brother opened a business six weeks ago on Main Street in which they have placed all of their life savings with the projected Main Street project in mind; that he knows of five employees that are on Main Street now because of this project; that the spitting fish have been a part of history longer than the statue of David and they are both legitimate. Ms. Marcia Wood, 902 Drakeswood Court, representing herself, came to the Commission table and stated that she is a local real estate broker and is not representing the Downtown Association; that she deals in commercial real estate; that this City, State, and Nation have been through a tough three years of economic turmoil; that downtown has come from numerous vacancies to full occupancy and tenants and owners who are remodeling their buildings with confidence in the future; that she has tenants and buyers all of the time who refuse to look at anything other than downtown property; that the City has been known for its enthusiasm for redevelopment; that the momentum of the courageous visionaries who sit on the Commission is ongoing; that she asks the Commission to continue to meet the challenge to make Sarasota the best that it can be by running the City for the benefit of all by taking a stand for what it believes to be right; that the Main Street extension program is expected and anticipated to be delivered as promised and on time. Ms. Paulene Soublis, 1592 Main Street, representing El Greco Cafe, came to the Commission table and stated that four years ago her family opened a business on the corner of Main Street and Orange Avenue; that at that time people thought they were crazy to invest in downtown Sarasota; that they came from Philadelphia to Sarasota with a great deal of their own vision; that they have continually expanded and invested a substantial amount; that they would hate to see this project delayed any longer; that they have attended numerous meetings with presentations; that the project should progress immediately even though everyone does not agree on everything; that there should possibly be modifications but they are not enough to delay this project any longer; that this will go through another season and it is difficult to have construction in front of their doors during the height of season but they are willing to take that gamble; and asked that the Commission move forward with this project which has the full support of the Downtown Association. Mr. Charles S. Groover, 2812 Regatta Drive, came to the Commission table and stated that he has worked downtown for 25 years; that for over 15 years his office was located on Main Street; that 25 years ago the downtown looked shabby with abandoned store fronts; that there has been a real renaissance downtown; that this has been a partnership between the City and investors; that this has been good for the community and there are few empty storefronts now and it is hard to find a parking place in front of a restaurant; and that the extension of Main Street is a very integral part of the downtown progress and he hopes the Commission will continue to support this project. Ms. Linda Holland, 617 Gillespie Avenue, came to the Commission table and stated that she is a member of the Downtown Association and actively supports their activities; that she moved here approximately ten years ago and the downtown area is much more vibrant now than it was then; that she was also a member of the Redevelopment Team Advisory Board for several years; that input was needed by the neighborhoods regarding downtown activities; that the revitalization of downtown and the neighborhoods are a real important part that must be brought together; that she sees this as a real positive completion of the Redevelopment Board's goals; that she hopes that with a strong and vibrant downtown there can be concentration on strengthening the neighborhoods which the City has a good start on and is headed in the right direction; that she supports completion of the Main Street program and then concentration on the neighborhoods. Ms. Diane M. Walia, 1400 Main Street, #210, representing Kress Plaza, came to the Commission table and stated that she and her husband recently purchased the Kress Plaza in downtown Sarasota; that they were impressed with the City's commitment to its downtown and they invested their money, time and effort into the project; that new storefronts and businesses have been brought downtown; that she has received interest for the new storefronts downtown; that these were existing businesses on U.S. 41, at St. Armands, and new businesses that see what is going on downtown; that she sees this as a vote of confidence; and she urges the Commission to proceed with this project. Mr. Bob Ardren, 1243 Second Street, representing himself, came to the Commission table and stated that he is a long term resident of downtown Sarasota; that he has seen commercial activity increase and crime decrease; that there has been a commitment by the Commission and by business people to the downtown area; that there is a social contract here that the Commission is obligated to Book 35 Page 9456 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9457 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. fulfill and he hopes that the Commission will press forward with the program without delay. Mr. Jack Gurney, 33 S. Gulfstream Avenue, representing himself, came to the Commission table and stated that this matter was probably placed on the agenda because of the Herald Tribune; that the Herald Tribune was not elected to represent this City and he wishes that the Commission would move forward with the project tonight; that this has been going on for many years; that the aesthetics will not be agreed upon by everyone; that Ralph Twitchell's designs for the Lido Casino probably would not survive the present scrutiny; that he does not understand what is driving the Herald Tribune at this point; that some of the stories are unnecessarily harsh; that residents have been expecting this project; that he would not risk flirting too much with the federal government funds; that this project is needed. Mr. Sergio Hurtado, 1375 Main Street, representing On Stage Guadalajaro, came to the Commission table and stated that his family has resided in Sarasota for approximately 30 years; that they have placed their life savings into the downtown; that one of the reasons was due to this master plan; that they have continued to acquire and upgrade the properties adjoining theirs; that they would like to see the project completed; that he asks that the Commission provide a critical path schedule during the duration of this project sO that they can plan accordingly; that he thanks the Commission for the beautification of downtown Sarasota and he hopes the project will move forward. Mayor Pillot asked if the work schedule could be mailed to each of the businesses downtown once it has been committed on paper. Mr. Jay Craycraft, 1355 Main Street, representing Coley's, came to the Commission table and stated that he moved to Sarasota in 1986; that the City of Cincinnati went through similar circumstances with their waterfront area which made national news regarding their flying pigs; that the result is now that there are a million people per year at their waterfront park which is linked together with the sports complex; that the use of this park quadrupled and brought a lot to the area when it was opened up to the downtown area; that he does not understand all of the hesitation and debate that will not make a difference in two years; that the end result will be the access to the Bayfront Park which will help everyone out. On motion of Commissioner Merrill it was moved to place a public hearing on this matter on the agenda of the next Commission meeting. Motion died for lack of a second. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that there was substantial opportunity for the public input; that she would like to see that the fish are done with some artistic integrity, which are probably the most visual and controversial and the least expensive; that she would prefer a process designed for the Public Art Committee (PAC) to have more input rather than reviewing one final design to approve or disapprovei; and stated that perhaps the City Manager can suggest some embellishment of the PAC and the public's opportunity to discuss this permanent element. Commissioner Atkins stated that he feels that this phase of the development of the City should be completed and then the Commission should move forward to other matters. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to proceed with the project and request the City Manager to engineer a responsible method of maximizing input from the public and the PAC on the art objects. Commissioner Cardamone stated that there is a public perception about the decorations; that she is concerned about the effect that fountains signify to the world that water is free, which it is not; that the fish include bubbly fountains and a large amount of water; that their design is costing more than $12,000; that she feels that the City does need to become reconnected with the Bayfront. Commissioner Merrill stated that a fountain is a part of any park; that water has some magic to it and it will be sorely missed in that middle area between Gulfstream and U.S. 41; that regardless of the art objects, the fountain features are very appropriate. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS REPORT RE: STATUS OF THE "50 YEAR VISION PLAN" - REPORT RECEIVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-5) #3 (2825) through #4 (0360) Vice Mayor Patterson left the chambers at 10:10 p.m. City Manager Sollenberger stated that a national magazine has noted the new vitality of the downtown area; that this was a result of the RUDAT (Regional Urban Design Assistance Team) exercise that led to the redevelopment plan which focused on the downtown core; that he would like to see a Vision Plan that leads to the same degree of success between 10th and Mound Streets, and the Bayfront and U.S. 301; that he believes that this is what the City is about with the Vision Plan process that has been embarked upon. Mr. Sollenberger continued that the State of Florida is encouraging vision planning; that the legislature has adopted enabling legislation to permit vision planning as part of the comprehensive Book 35 Page 9458 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9459 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. planning process; that the objective is the development of a vision, goals to achieve that vision, strategies to carry out those goals and a concrete plan to accomplish the vision; that a real critical factor in this is the economic component and the consultant to prepare the economic component of the plan; that the staff expressed the Commission's dissatisfaction with the economic component with the consultants; that the economic component was recently received and the base data is now being pulled together; that the Vision Plan is extremely important because it relates to the downtown area and the surrounding neighborhoods. Vice Mayor Patterson returned to the Commission chambers at 10:13 p.m. Mrs. Sherry Carter, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Department, and Mr. Joel Friedman, of Design Studios West, came to the Commission table. Commissioner Atkins left the Commission chambers at 10:15 p.m. Mrs. Carter stated that Design Studios West (DSW) has created a very good foundation of base data in a form that can be conveyed to task members; that this is very important because there were conclusions being made that were based on faulty information and assumptions, and feedback was needed for those participating in City policies, zoning codes, etc; that additional research has also been conducted on ideas that have been brought forward during the public input process. Mrs. Carter stated further that the final format has been determined on the document that the City will receive which has been outlined; that this outlines the process and is basically the document that will result, plus graphics; that efforts have been made to distill the public input into the strategies; that DSW was asked to take all of the public input and to ensure its documentation; that if there is any disagreement with the assumptions being made, then that input information will be available. Commissioner Atkins returned to the Commission chambers at 10:17 p.m. Mr. Freedman stated that vision planning is a very new process and there are no standards or rules; that the public input portion got ahead of the game and there was a starting over on the economic analysis portion that has now been completed; that every public statement has been documented and distilled onto large charts and in a data base which provides a good basis for validation of their conclusions; that the City will now have a computer data base to build upon where building and land use information may be used and manipulated with updates of the plan; that the City will receive those disks of information. Mr. Freedman continued that the community had some misconceptions of the City; that this led to the outline of the document which provides sections for community perception and then the data base; that there are approval processes in the document and information on what can happen in the downtown; that part of the document will be a guidebook and a complete summary of the processes. Mr. Freedman stated that goals and objectives having a true implementation plan are a major portion of the contract; that the Commissioners should have a checklist of how to base their monetary decisions in addition to the Comprehensive Plan and other documents; that there are some real benefits for doing RUDAT'S or 20/20 foresight processes that take three days; that the City would then not have to worry about the library moving three times; that there is a tough balance that must be provided; that this has taken longer than expected; that they would like to finish the process but prefer to wait until next fall. Commissioner Merrill asked Mr. Freedman how the Commission can address the issue of getting people to feel that this plan is something that they should get involved with and that it does not favor certain people. Mr. Freedman stated that he has a lot of faith in staff and in the Commission that if they believe that DSW has not heard the community they will have the chance to let DSW know about it; that he is very upset that more people do not come out for this; that it is difficult when just prior to a public meeting there is a newspaper article stating that planning is a waste of time; that there are many things that have happened that have hurt DSW but that should not sway them from moving forward; that he is willing to attend neighborhood meetings; that he feels pretty good about the cross section of input. Mr. Sollenberger stated that no action is required of the Commission; that this report has been provided for the Commission's information and administration plans to proceed as outlined. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS RE: SIGNAGE AT KEN THOMPSON PARK - CITY MANAGER AUTHORIZED TO EXPEND UP TO $10,000 AND WORK WITH ARCHITECT TO DESIGN A SIGN AT ENTRANCE, AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR MOUNTING THE PLAQUE INSIDE THE PARK, AND RETURN TO THE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL (VII-6) #4 (0360) through (1055) Mayor Pillot stated that this matter was added in the Change to the Orders of the Day; that the Commission authorized him to make contacts regarding the availability of private funds; that the Book 35 Page 9460 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9461 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. result has been the opinion that this is a legitimate City project to be funded by the City with consideration for the budget; that there were some oral pledges for some dollars but the general feeling was that the amount of money necessary is not available now; that it was proposed that the Commission authorize a partial project at this time keeping the potential alive for future private or public funding; that there was mixed opinion whether to place a wall or an overhead arched entrance sign now; that the estimate on the overhead arched entrance sign was $25,000 to $30,000; that the estimate on the wall was approximately $12,000; that if the Commission authorizes any decision at this time it appears that it should decide on the wall at the original suitable location and mount the plaque at an appropriate location; that the Commission should keep alive the potential for an entry type of designation when and if funds become available; that everyone with whom he spoke indicated support for it but indicated that private funding in 1993 would not be sufficient; that his conclusion is that the Commission should approve the wall and provide whatever portion of the needed funds as the Commission is willing to authorize based on the City Manager's recommendation. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the initial estimation of expenditures for the project was approximately $10,000; that this funding is available; that he recommends that the Commission authorize proceeding with the placement of the wall at the location across from the Mote Marine Mammal Facility being developed, for a construction cost of $10,000. Commissioner Merrill stated that if the park is to honor Mr. Thompson and it is wished that the park include the whole island, then it is critical that the wall, which demarcates the limits of the park, not be placed halfway down the road. Commissioner Atkins stated that he agrees with Commissioner Merrill; that the park has had an identity problem; that if the entrance is not designated it will create more confusion; that he cannot see how the phases can be continued if the first phase is not the entrance. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she would prefer to invest the dollars in a sign at the entry and return it to the drawing board to try again; that she is not willing to expend the sum of money involved for double signage; that she would prefer a solution that is within budget that would designate the entirety of the park. Commissioner Merrill stated that the national parks have signs in a dark brown color which is dignified and distinctive; that a double faced sign of this sort could state "Ken Thompson Park"; that it could be placed at the entrance near the Mote Marine sign; that this could be done for approximately $1,500 with very nice letters and a dark brown color; that a large sign is not necessary; that something simpler and more imaginative should be considered rather than a large sign. Mrs. Patricia Green and Mr. David Green, 1201 Center Place, came to the Commission table. Mrs. Green stated that they live in the neighborhood of Ken Thompson Park and Lido Shores; that there are 18 signs presently located between Bowden Circle and the humpback bridge on the bay side, excluding the gulf side; that the whole view is one sign after another; that her concern is for the Commission to focus on what is being done with the signs; that in view of this there should be a focus on where this sign will go; that it should have dignityi that she is opposed to an arched entrance sign which is not appropriate in that setting and would remove the dignified feeling of honoring Mr. Thompson; that she wonders if that many signs are necessary and who authorized them to go up one after the other. Mr. Green stated that he is a member of the Keep Sarasota Beautiful groupi that the 18 signs disturb the view of the bay from the bridge to Bowden Circle; that their objection is that one more thing at the entrance to the park disturbs the beauty of the park; that Sarasota is signing itself out of sight; that something for Ken Thompson should be placed where motorists can slow down or get out of their car and look at it. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Commission's discussion seems to indicate that they would like to have a sign at the entry that identifies it as Ken Thompson Park, and have some place at an appropriate location within the park that the plaque can be affixed to; that he has suggested a budget of $10,000; that perhaps these three ingredients could be used and a request made for a recommendation from Mr. Whelan. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she does not feel constrained to spend $10,000; that Commissioner Merrill's suggestion could come in substantially under that amount. On motion of (Mayor Pillot passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Patterson) Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to authorize the City Manager to expend up to $10,000 and work with the architect to design a sign at the entrance along the lines described by Commissioner Merrill at an appropriate location for an adequate mounting for the plaque to be located at a site deemed suitable inside the park. Vice Mayor Patterson asked Mayor Pillot if his motion implies that it will return to the Commission for approval. Mayor Pillot stated that was correct. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Book 35 Page 9462 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9463 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. 16. NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION RE: REQUEST FOR AN AUDIT OF THE STOREFRONT PROGRAM = NO ACTION (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #4 (1055) through (1395) Commissioner Merrill stated that he would like to ensure that any clouds are removed from the Storefront Program; that there have been requests to ensure that the money was spent according to policies; that he would like to know from City Auditor and Clerk Robinson what would be involved in auditing the Storefront Program. Mr. Robinson stated that if the Commission desires an audit of the Storefront Program it would take approximately one month to do it; that the audit program is flexible. Commissioner Merrill stated that the issue for bringing this matter up was to Close the door on it; that if there is not a lot of public concern about it then perhaps the door is already closed. Mr. Adam Segreti, 1429 Main Street, representing Santa Fe Trails Gallery, came to the Commission table and stated that he submitted an application to add an awning to his storefront; that the work has been done, the forms have been completed; that he has expended his money for the contract, and he is waiting for his reimbursement from the City; that he called the City this morning regarding how this might affect obtainment of the check; that he is wondering if the audit will delay his check; and that the electronic answering machine at the City is nerve wracking. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the audit will have nothing to do with the processing of the check; that the current problem is that the employee processing those matters is not here; that there is a need to get caught up and get these checks processed; that Deputy City Manager Peter Schneider will take care of this matter. Ms. Mary Quillin, 407 Cocoanut Avenue, came to the Commission table and stated that she began investigating the Storefront Program since it was funded through the TIF (Tax Incremental Financing) dollars, and since statements by the administration that 12 storefronts in the downtown north area had been funded; that she has not been able to find the 12 businesses and started asking who it could be; that she has asked a lot of questions from several departments and then brought her concern to Commissioner Merrill; that she feels that the Program is in a mess and that an audit would be prudent of the City, since these are TIF dollars; that this program was audited in 1989 and a number of good comments came out of the audit regarding its administration; that perhaps the Storefront Program will come out of mothballs again and can be used; that this program should be put back into order so that there are proper parameters to work with it; that this is needed to be reviewed; that if past procedures have not been prudent then this will save dollars in the future; that there were some items from the first audit that helped the program later on. Commissioner Merrill stated that he cannot justify requesting an audit due to the amount of time that it would take per city Auditor and Clerk Robinson; that this matter can be reviewed if it comes up again. 17. BOARD APPOINTMENTS APPOINTMENT RE: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MR. JOHN B. BROWNING (AGENDA ITEM IX-1) #4 (1395) through (1485) Mr. John B. Browning was appointed to the Board of Adjustment, to the seat previously held by Mr. Edwin H. Smith. 18. BOARD APPOINTMENTS APPOINTMENT RE: CIVIL SERVICE/GENERAL PERSONNEL BOARD = REVEREND DESI L. ECHOLES, CLINTON JONES AND JAMES W. SMITH REAPPOINTED (AGENDA ITEM IX-2) #4 (1485) through (1505) City Auditor and Clerk stated that there were no applications and all are eligible and have expressed interest in reappointment. Reverend Desi L. Echoles, Mr. Clinton Jones and Mr. James W. Smith were reappointed to the Civil Service/General Personnel Board. 19. BOARD APPOINTMENTS - APPOINTMENT RE: FIRE PROTECTION/PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MR. CORY SCHOTT REAPPOINTED - MR. DONALD MCCORMICK AND MR. WILLIAM DITZEL APPOINTED (AGENDA ITEM IX-3) #4 (1505) through (1590) Mr. Cory Schott was reappointed. Mr. Donald McCormick and Mr. William Ditzel were appointed to seats previously held by Mr. Roy McBean and Mr. Lawrence Thomason. 20. BOARD APPOINTMENTS APPOINTMENT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MS. EULA BACON APPOINTED AND MS. BERTA LEFKOVICH REAPPOINTED (AGENDA ITEM IX-4) #4 (1590) through (1820) Ms. Berta Lefkovich was reappointed and Ms. Eula Bacon was appointed to the seat previously held by V. Shannon Snyder. 21. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA = (AGENDA ITEM X) #4 (1820) through (2305) Book 35 Page 9464 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9465 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. VICE MAYOR PATTERSON: A. stated that there was a recent news article regarding the City's budgetary process which requested the Fire Department to cut 5% of their budgets which would necessitate laying off 14 firemen; that last year 10% of the budget was requested of staff; that as each department approached the Commission, their department head made pleas for reinstating that 10% into the budget; that she would like this year's budget to come not just with the department head to justify it but also with the City Manager's recommendation; that it is not possible that every department could equally stand to be cut because they are all a different case in point; that she would like more to go on than the department head's recommendation. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Commissioners were given a definitive recommendation last year; that he recommended the specific number of employees to be eliminated and the Commission restored some; that there was no equivocation on his part and he did not leave this with the department heads; that he made a recommendation as to which employees would be eliminated; that he will do the same again if he is in the position of recommending the elimination of jobs; that he has not made that decision at this stage; that he is not going to ask the department heads to take it upon themselves to present his budget to the Commission; that those decisions are his when the budget is formulated. Mr. Sollenberger continued that he was criticized last year for notifying employees in advance of possible job eliminations; that he felt that those with jobs on the line should be notified so that they may contemplate financial commitments; that he did make solid recommendations on the jobs eliminated last year and he will do it again this year. COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: A. stated that she is curious regarding the status of the Fire Department and their request of a Pension Cost of Living increase for everyone and the Commission sending them back to re-review the matter. city Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that this matter is dead and neither the Fire or Police Pension Boards are pursuing it at this time. COMMISSIONER ATKINS: A. requested an update on the upcoming Juneteenth celebration. Deputy city Manager Schneider stated that there was a meeting today with Sister Jennifer X and all of the related City departments were represented; that the proof of insurance is in; that he feels optimistic that everything is coming together. COMMISSIONER MERRILL: A. asked City Manager Sollenberger if he felt that the Commission is overloading his office by directing that all complaints be directed to his office rather than to the department heads. Mr. Sollenberger stated that it has been a burden from time to time; that he is looking to restructure his office to redistribute some of the clerical work in order for Jean Berkey and Carolyn Hereford to work with him and Mr. Schneider in tracking matters down; that he feels that the process should be continued but it is subject to some refinement along those lines. B. stated that he wonders if anything can be done at the administration level to alleviate the misunderstanding on the part of neighboring counties regarding the state of matters within the City; that the employee problem is unfortunate; that it would be nice if the Commission could place some special emphasis to overcommunicate" in order to reverse some of the news articles that are damaging; and asked if any press events could be staged. Mr. Sollenberger stated that several years ago he had recommended setting up a public information office, similar to the one the County has, to provide a marketing tool for the City by providing information on City programs and developing some feedback; that there have been a number of cutbacks throughout the City; that there. are a number of stresses throughout this organization; that the City is good at turning out products but is not good at marketing products and because of the cutbacks it is very difficult to have the capacity to do the marketing; that there are many outstanding accomplishments by the City; that he will have to give this matter more thought. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the ideal marketing people are the planning personnel working on the projects; that Deborah Gestner was operating as a marketing person for City projects; that the Commission is not going to be praised for everything that they do in the press; that there is no way they can agree 100% with the editorial staff nor with each other; that the Commission will be criticized and just have to move on. Book 35 Page 9466 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9467 06/07/93 6:00 P.M. MAYOR PILLOT: A. stated that he regreted to read the report regarding the closing of King Academy and asked what effect that that might have. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the closing is for the adult education component for those persons seeking their GED; that this is not the King Academy alternative high school. 22. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) None. 23. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (1820) through (2305) The Regular City Commission Meeting of June 7, 1993 was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. a Dllo GENE FILLOT, MAYOR ATTEST: 3illy E Raben 00x BILLY EROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK