Book 36 Page 10021 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 1994 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. 1. CHANGE TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = ACCEPTED #1 (0020) through (0028) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Change to the Orders of the Day: A. Remove Presentation Re: Certificate of Appreciation to Battalion Chief Randy Stulce, Captain Dave Stershic, Firefignter/Enginer James Jarrett, Firerignter/Enginer Gary Potter, and Piratigntar/Paramadic Mark Tuttle for services performed above and beyond the call of duty on August 10, 1993, while assisting multiple agencies in the largest marine incident in Tampa Bay's history. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that this item would be placed on the next agenda. There was a consensus of the Commission to accept the Change to the Orders of the Day. 2. APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 1993 AND MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 20, 1993 - = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I-1 AND I-2) #1 (0030) through (0044) On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve the minutes of the Regular city Commission Meetings of December 6, 1993, and December 20, 1993. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 3. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD'S REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 14, 1993 PETITION 94-HD-01, PETITION 94-HD-02, PETITION 94-HD-03, PETITION 94-HD-04, PETITION 94-HD-05, PETITION 94-HD-06, PETITION 94-HD-07, PETITION 94-HD-08, AND PETITION 94-HD-09 - SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (0051) through (0085) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that the County Historic Preservation staff had reviewed the City's historic designation petitions for the first time at the Historic Preservation Board's December 14, 1993, meeting. Ms. Robinson stated that the Historic Preservation Board recommends approval by the City Commission of the following petitions: > Petition 94-HD-01 463 Sapphire Drive > Petition 94-HD-02 1707 Bahia Vista Street A Petition 94-HD-03 935 Citrus Avenue ) Petition 94-HD-04 1622 Ninth Street A Petition 94-HD-05 121 Edmondson Avenue > Petition 94-HD-06 = 908 Pomelo Avenue A Petition 94-HD-07 1735 Bahia Vista Street > Petition 94-HD-08 1882 Fifth Street Petition 94-HD-09 Intersection Camino Real & Fortuna Street Ms. Robinson stated that the Staff recommends designation of the structures. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to set Petitions 94-HD-01, 94-HD-02, 94-HD-03, 94-HD-04, 94-HD-05, 94-HD-05, 94-HD-06, 94-HD-07, 94-HD-08, and 94-HD-09 for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 4. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1- ITEM 1 - REFERRED TO THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY TO BRING BACK TERMINATION OPTION RECMMENDATIONE TO THE COMMISSION: ITEMS 2, 3, and 4 APPROVED (AGENDA ITEMS III A-1, -2, -3, and -4): #1 (0086) through (0270) Commissioner Merrill requested that Item No. 1 be removed for discussion. 2. Approval Re: Issuance of R.F.P. for technical services for Storer Cable T.V. Franchise extension Book 36 Page 10022 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10023 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. 3. Approval Re: Authorize the City Manager to execute a loan of $13,000 towards the purchase of the property at 602 North Orange Avenue; and to reduce the CDBG loan on the Fifth Street property owed by the Community Housing Corporation by a total of $12,750 4. Approval Re: Authorize the City Manager to execute an application for a grant from the Florida Department of Natural Resources pertaining to the Artificial Fishing Reef Project On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1 Items 2, 3, and 4. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 1. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor to execute proposed lease agreement between the City of Sarasota and Gulf Coast World of Science Commissioner Merrill stated that he supports leasing the property as a museum; however, the proposed lease agreement needs to contain an option for termination; that a provision, as he had advocated for the (Sarasota Ballet) lease, is necessary for the City to be able to reclaim the leased property, if so desired. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the termination option was more elaborately addressed in the (Sarasota Ballet) lease because the term of the lease was 99 years; that the proposed term of the (Gulf Coast World of Science) lease is five years; that the lease is renewable at the discretion of the City Commission provided that certain requirements are met; therefore, the Administration did not incorporate an early termination option into the lease. Commissioner Merrill stated that he is not suggesting an early termination option; that he wants an "out" available whereby even though the (Gulf Coast World of Science) meets their requirements, the City can reclaim the property if some unknown or unlikely circumstances should occur. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that clarification of an "out" is necessaryi that if "out" refers to a buy-out option, it needs to be more specific; that if "out" refers to enabling the Commission to utilize the facility for another use with no repayment to the lessee for whatever improvements have been made to the property, a lease term longer than five years is necessary; that it will be difficult for a non-profit organization to make the property viable with only a five-year assurance of tenancy. Commissioner Merrill stated that either of Vice Mayor Patterson's definitions is acceptable; and that the termination clause used for the (Sarasota Ballet lease) can be used as a reference. Commissioner Cardamone stated that it is good business sense to have a termination option available; however, she questions why the lease is being addressed at this time when the availability of the property is unknown. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that a concrete agreement is preferable while the Gulf Coast World of Science Hands on Museum strives to achieve its goal of raising $100,000. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to refer the proposed lease agreement between the City and the Gulf Coast World of Science to the City Manager and the City Attorney to return to the Commission with recommendations for (a termination option). Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot stated that regulations prohibit starting the public hearings until 6:30 p.m. There was a consensus of the Commission to take two minutes to review the memorandum distributed to the Commission at the start of the meeting by City Manager Sollenberger regarding the Bobby Jones Golf Complex Policy issue (Public Hearing Re: Bobby Jones Golf Complex, Agenda No. IV-1). Mayor Pillot repeated the action taken on the proposed lease agreement between the City of Sarasota and the Gulf Coast World of Science for the benefit of former Senator Bob Johnson, who arrived in the Commission Chambers at 6:11 p.m. There was a consensus of the Commission to proceed with Citizens' Input. 5. CITIZENS' INPUT REFERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATION THE VALET PARKING SERVICE CONCERNS AT MARINA JACK; CITY MANAGER TO REPORT BACK TO COMMISSION REGARDING LIGHTING AT SARASOTA SPORTS COMPLEX (AGENDA ITEM VI) #1 (0356) through (0828) The following citizens came before the Commission: Glen Gibbs, 420 Palm Avenue, stated that he is concerned with the valet parking service operating at Marina Jack; and asked what type of agreement is in force with the valet parking service? City Manager Sollenberger stated that there is no agreement between the City of Sarasota and the valet parking service; that the valet service is associated with Marina Jack. Book 36 Page 10024 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10025 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Gibbs stated that Lee Sullivan, (with Jack Graham, Inc.), had stated that the valet service has been operating at Marina Jack for 18 years, but that there is no written agreement between the valet parking service and Marina Jack; and that the valet parking service employees are not employed by Marina Jack. Mr. Gibbs continued that Mr. Sullivan did not know how many employees the valet parking service employed, the employees' social security numbers, or whether the employees driving vehicles on City property have valid drivers' licenses. Mr. Gibbs stated that he attempted to park in one of the public parking spots at Marina Jack on November 3rd at 7:30 p.m.; that when Mike Duroff, of the valet parking service, told him that his vehicle would be towed if he parked in the space, he called the police; that Mr. Duroff told the responding police officer that he had an exclusive contract with the city to park cars in the spaces; that the police officer believed Mr. Duroff and told him to move his vehicle or risk being towed. Mr. Gibbs further stated that he was harassed when he visited the park on his motorcycle. Mr. Gibbs stated that he has researched the valet parking service's alleged exclusive agreement with the City of Sarasota and Marina Jack; that there is no occupational license recorded with the City for Mike Duroff to operate the valet parking service at Marina Jack; that Walt Bauer, Department of Labor, has no record of the valet parking service filing a quarterly USC-1 form or doing business with Marina Jack; that Mr. Bauer has stated that the Department of Labor has had problems with valet parking services in general; that Bill Duke, Workers' Compensation Bureau, has stated that any valet parking service within the City or County must carry Workers' Compensation Insurance; that Mr. Duke has no record of the valet parking service; and that the Tampa Office of the Labor and Wage Board has no record of the valet parking service. Mr. Gibbs presented the Commission with photographs he considers to be reasonable and unreasonable parking at Marina Jack; and stated that John Lewis, Director of Public Safety, has agreed to assign someone to accompany him (Mr. Gibbs) to Marina Jack to examine the matter. There was consensus of the Commission to refer the matter to the Administration. Steve Christie, 3832 27th Parkway, stated that he is addressing the lights on the back field at the City of Sarasota Sports Complex; that he is the Assistant Principal at (Cardinal Mooney High School); that the Cardinal Mooney High School baseball team, and other area High School baseball teams, as well as Babe Ruth baseball teams have appreciated the use of the (Sarasota Sports Complex) baseball fields for many years; that neighborhood baseball is a very popular and positive sport, but more playing fields are needed; that replacing the non-operating lights on the back field of the City of Sarasota Sports Complex will create a positive influence for the youth in Sarasota. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Commission requested that the discussion of the Local Option Sales Tax (L.O.S.T.) be scheduled after the Coalition of Neighborhoods had an opportunity to be apprised of the L.0.S.T. funding and the various suggested projects for consideration; that the lighting at the Sarasota Sports Complex was mentioned without an associated recommendation in his memorandum of suggested projects Mr. Sollenberger continued that the Local Option Sales Tax discussion will be scheduled for February. Commissioner Atkins stated that if the Commission waits until February to discuss the L.O.S.T. funding, the baseball season will be almost over before the Request For Proposals (RFPs) are written; that by the time the lights are erected, it will be a new (baseball) season; that he is interested in repairing the lights; that this lighting should be addressed before approaching the Coalition of Neighborhoods; that the repair of the lights is much needed and recommits the City to the communities, the families, and the children who are most important on the Commission's current agenda. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the facility is used Countywide; that City dollars are being requested to support the recreational activities of the Countywide youth; that she requests a summation from the Administration of which groups use the Sarasota Sports Complex; that the School Board and Cardinal Mooney High should logically contribute toward the request; that it is becoming difficult for the City to financially support the recreation of the County as a whole. Mayor Pillot stated that he supports Commissioner Atkins' stand that the matter needs to be resolved quickly, but he also supports exploring Vice Mayor Patterson's comments. Mayor Pillot asked Mr. Sollenberger if this issue can be accelerated for the consideration of the Commission, and asked if there is merit in following up on the possibility of financial sharing between the users of the field? Mr. Sollenberger stated that time is necessary to review prioritization of dollar utilization; that repairing the lights is approximately a $100,000 commitment; that if the Commission is comfortable with a decision, it can be made tonight; that if the Commission wishes to view the request as competing for a portion of the approximately $1 million dollars of available L.O.S.T. funding, the Commission needs to discuss it in the context of the other projects. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration will research the availability of financial sharing; but, he is Book 36 Page 10026 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10027 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. uncertain as to how long it will take to put the lighting in place once a decision is made. Mayor Pillot requested that the City Manager report back to the Commission with all relevant information at his earliest convenience. There was consensus of the Commission to proceed with Unfinished Business Agenda Item VII-1. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH SARASOTA COUNTY PERTAINING TO RECYCLING/IMPLEMENTATION OF MANDATORY RECYCLING FOR ALL CUSTOMERS OF THE CITY'8 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES AND PRIVATE COLLECTORS = AUTHORIZED THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PROPOSED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT; INSTRUCTED THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING MANDATORY RECYCLING (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #1 (0840) through (0982) City Attorney Taylor stated that the City has been in litigation with Sarasota County for over a year pertaining to the access of the City vehicles to the Sarasota County owned and operated landfill; that in 1992 an ordinance was adopted by Sarasota County stating that no municipality could utilize the landfill without having an interlocal agreement with the County; that the purpose of the interlocal agreement was to determine what materials would and would not be allowed into the Bee Ridge Road landfill. Attorney Taylor further stated that based upon the fact that the County and the City have two different programs, and based upon a determination by the City that there are many items on the County's recycling list for which there is no viable market, and considering the cost to the City, the City decided to challenge the authority of the County to keep the City from utilizing the landfill. Attorney Taylor continued that the interlocal agreement states that as long as the City has a mandatory recycling program and pledges to meet the state mandated goals for reduction (30% recyclables by December 31, 1994), the County will allow the City to utilize the landfill; that the City will decide what they will recycle; that, in his opinion, the interlocal agreement will settle the legal action pending. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that this interlocal agreement implements the mandatory recycling program required to meet the state mandate; and that the mandatory recycling provision was discussed and recommended at the Solid Waste Workshop on October 26, 1993. Commissioner Atkins stated that the mandatory recycling program required to meet the state mandate will involve an increased cost to homeowners; and asked what that increase will be? Mr. Schneider stated that the non-negotiated proposed figure from Browning Ferris Industries of Florida (BFI) was approximately $1.21; that the fee will be lowered significantly through negotiation to be competitive with the County's charge. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends authorization of the interlocal agreement. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the proposed Interlocal Agreement (and to instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance requiring mandatory recycling by all customers of the City's solid waste collection service and customers of private collection services). Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot stated that it was now 6:30 p.m., the time for which public hearings are advertised, and 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 were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 7. PUBLIC HEARING RE: BOBBY JONES GOLF COMPLEX = DISCUSSION OF POLICY ON DISTRIBUTION OF PLAY BETWEEN DAILY FEE PLAYERS AND ANNUAL FEE PLAYERS AUTHORIZED A POLICY WHICH WOULD ALLOW ANNUAL FEE HOLDERS UNLIMITED TEE TIMES (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (1020) through #2 (1762) City Manager Sollenberger stated that he reviewed the revenues and the impacts associated with changing the policy on the tee time reservation system and read the following January 3, 1994, memorandum addressed to the Honorable Mayor and City Commission containing his conclusions and recommendation: "The policy upon which the 1993-94 budget for Bobby Jones was prepared is based on recommendations made by the National Golf Foundation in its report submitted to the City Commission in 1992. Among other things, that report recommended installing a tee time reservation system to provide equal access to the golf course to all residents of the community, which would result in increased revenues by allowing a greater number of daily Book 36 Page 10028 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10029 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. greens fee players. However, revenues were stated conservatively in the budget because both the National Golf Foundation and the automated tee time vendor advised first year net revenue would be flat, and because of the financial impact of reconstruction of the British greens. The Deputy City Manager has estimated the distribution of play portion of the automated tee time system could generate revenues as high as $100,000 to $120,000. However, only $50,000 of additional revenue is reflected in the 1993-94 budget. If the tee time restrictions are eliminated, the 1993-94 budget could absorb this $50,000 loss in revenue. This would be accomplished by deferring the funding of the greens renovation until the end of the 1993-94 fiscal year and or, possibly, partially to the 1994-95 fiscal year. Thus, I anticipate no budget impact. CONCLUSIONS: 1. It is my conclusion that while elimination of the automated tee time reservation system with distribution of play between annual fee holders and greens fee players will have an impact on actual revenues, but will have no impact on the budget. 2. Enhanced revenues from the tee time system will occur in the second year. 3. Strong fee holder customer dissatisfaction has been expressed because the current system does not allow for scheduling of large groups to golf together. The alternating reservation system would allow annual fee holder foursomes the ability to schedule tee times beyond the current limit of three consecutive times. 4. Enhancement of revenues in the second year and overcoming the expressed dissatisfaction of annual fee holders because they are not able to schedule large groups for golf could be addressed by a modified policy which has been recommended by annual fee holders. RECOMXENDATION: I recommend that the Commission authorize a modified policy which would allow annual fee holders unlimited tee times on the American course and the British course on alternating days." Eugene Loritz and Jack McGinn, Petitioners representing the annual fee holders, came before the Commission. Mr. Loritz stated that he and Mr. McGinn are two of the representatives for the 747 signed petitioners of a petition which reads as follows: We the undersigned, Bobby Jones Golf Club annual fee holders and potential fee holders, respectfully petition the Sarasota City Commission to: Rescind the discriminatory restrictive tee time regulation as pertains to the current and future Annual Fee Holders. The City of Sarasota will never tolerate discrimination of any kind, against any group, for any reason. Mr. Loritz stated that this regulation has unnecessarily stirred antagonism and recriminations at the City's golf complex; that the following four reasons were given as to why this discriminatory regulation was initiated: 1. that annual fee holders, being of devious minds, would somehow manipulate the new tee time reservation system to their own advantage; 2. that the regulation was necessary to balance and spread play at the course; 3. that the computer vendor recommended the restriction because it is being used at many courses; and 4. that there will be an impact on the budget. Mr. Loritz stated that the validity of impacting the budget by $100,000 to $120,000 if the restriction were removed is being challenged; that the rationale for the 4th reason is seriously flawed; that the assumption that for every tee time not used by an annual fee holder a higher-priced greens fee player would automatically fill that tee time and that revenue yield to the City would be that much greater is pure speculation and cannot be substantiated by facts; that Mr. Jack McGinn has used the same figures that are the basis for the current budget to illustrate a different and factual impact on the budget. Mr. McGinn presented the Commission with a report and stated that he has been a member of Bobby Jones for almost seven years; that he is before the Commission not as an expert, but as an interested player at the Bobby Jones Golf Complex (BJGC) : that his objective is to present a new view of the numbers used to create policy for the management at the BJGC; and that incorrect conclusions were reached because reports presented by the consultants and the Administration were not factual. Mr. McGinn stated that the possible predisposition of the Commission to consider BJGC members as troublemakers, freeloaders, and only interested in themselves is not a fact; that the members are interested in having a facility to be proud of and that serves the community of Sarasota; that the City-run golf course should be self-sustaining and provide reasonable golf, and not be turned into Book 36 Page 10030 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10031 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. a money machine. Mr. McGinn stated that BJGC management is responsible for the current conflict because they introduced three major changes at one time; and that the dissension extends beyond members to all golfers who regularly play at the course. Mr. McGinn stated that first, the computer was installed; second, the fees were raised three to four times the, inflation rate; and third, a group of punitive rules was introduced; that having the computer debugged and working well is being jeopardized by the second and third changes. Mr. McGinn stated that consultants are only 50% accurate and need to be viewed with a critical eye; that the validity of the consultant's report should be questioned. Mr. McGinn referred to a capacity chart of BJGC and stated that the capacity of BJGC is the critical part of the analysis and was not considered in the consultant's report; that the chart shows that there is no time during the year that the course is full; and that the cart usage has a higher percentage in the off-season than in the premium season. Mr. McGinn referred to the consultant's draft report page 39 and stated that it mentions that 38,000 rounds of golf during the premium season are played by annual passholders which could be used by daily players; that the capacity chart shows that this is not possible; that there are only two months when there is a possibility of a problem for daily players. Mr. McGinn continued that Ray Grady, Manager of BJGC, reports that members play approximately 940 times per week during high-season; that 940 times per week is 7,500 rounds for four weeks; therefore, the reported 38,000 rounds played by annual fee players during premium season is actually 7,500 rounds. Mr. McGinn further stated that the draft report on page 40 uses $4.45 for members and $16.00 for daily players to calculate revenues when a comparable number for members of $8.19 per round is recommended on page 9 of the draft report; that the erroneous calculation indicates lost revenue at $355,000 instead of $28,000 for the two-month period; that the lost revenue is based on having no annual players participating and replacing each annual fee holder with a daily fee player, which is unrealistic. Mr. McGinn referred to a status quo chart and stated that $219,000 of revenue was contributed to the general fund; that a portion of that revenue was applied to capital expenditures at BJGC and the debt service; that the greens fee was raised by 7%, the cart fees were raised by 12.5%, and the annual fee rate was raised by 5%; that the expected revenue for 1994 was $346,000 which would have been the greatest revenue received from BJGC if the policy had remained status quo. Mr. McGinn referred to page 10 of the draft report which listed "City may continue to subsidize course operation and debt" as a negative reason for continuing status quo operation; that most of the consultant's recommendations were made based on that incorrect mind-set; that the credibility of the report should be questioned; that judgments made now should be made knowing that the consultant's report was wrong. Mr. McGinn referred to revenue with new changes chart included in his presented material and stated that V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, estimated $278,000 of revenue for 1994 with the changes inclusive; that the income from members will be approximately $91,000 less than budgeted; that the consultant reported that the computer (system) would reduce income for the first year, and, in addition, the new rules are also creating a detrimental effect on income; that he has valued this loss at $15,000; therefore, the adjusted "new changes revenue" is $172,000 versus a status quo revenue of $346,000; that according to the chart comparison, there is no reason to have the inflationary fee increases that have forced some of the BJGC members on the low economic scale to drop their memberships. Mr. McGinn stated that the original additional $200,000 of net income that was to be realized as the result of rule changes was reduced to $100,000 by Mr. Schneider at a meeting (with the annual fee holders) last week; and that this additional net income was not reflected in the 1994 budget. Mr. McGinn stated that he is puzzled by the recommendation on draft report page 46 to maintain the total number of annual fee members at 350; that Mr. Schneider had stated at last week's meeting that it is his desire to get rid of annual fee holders; that Mr. Schneider's remark is in contrast to the consultant's report; that City Manager Sollenberger responded to him by letter as follows: You made several references to Mr. Schneider's policy towards annual fee holders, and I want you to understand that the 350 number has been set by the City Commission and that it is not an administratively determined number Mr. Schneider has and will continue to work within policy determination made by the City Commission. Mr. McGinn continued that Mr. Schneider is not working within that policy and doesn't hesitate to tell the members that. Mr. Loritz stated that if the understated objective of this regulation, contrary to the stated policy of the Commission, is to phase out annual fee holders, the ploy is working; that approximately 75 annual fee holders have not renewed; that this is a financial fact and translates into a substantial dollar impact on the current budget; that private area golf courses, in business for Book 36 Page 10032 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10033 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. profit, are actively seeking annual memberships; that they offer inducements such as preferential tee times and reduced cart fees during the off-season; that if membership is financially advantageous for smaller private clubs, why does BJGC management take an opposite position? Mr. Loritz stated that it is recommended that the regulation be rescinded for this year; and that next year, after computer statistics of the annual fee holders' impact on the budget is evaluated, the restrictions be reevaluated. Vice Mayor Patterson asked Mr. Schneider for the current number of annual fee holders? Mr. Schneider stated that there are currently 361 annual fee holders. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the increase in annual fee holders occurred since December 1, 1993? Mr. Schneider stated that Mr. Loritz is correct that there are still approximately 75 annual fee holders that have not renewed; that the total revenue from annual fee holders through December 30, 1993, is $242,000; and that Mr. McGinn may have November figures. Mayor Pillot confirmed that the 350 number of annual fee memberships was determined by the Commission. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the 350 number was reaffirmed last year, and the Commission also added the people on the waiting list to it. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing, and the following people came before the Commission: Lucille Narducci, 3917 Glen Oaks Drive, stated that she served for 20 years as a legislator and a Mayor in Bedford Heights, Ohio; that she wants to thank Commissioner Merrill and Vice Mayor Patterson for their perseverance. on this matter; that she has been a member of Bobby Jones Golf Complex (BJGC) for 13 years; that she and Mr. McGinn expressed their concerns to City Manager Sollenberger regarding the multiple number of inputs required on the computerized phone system; that Mr. Sollenberger immediately responded to the problem and implemented a single number input for group scheduling; that many of the members are retired and on Social Security and do not expect to be treated as second-class citizens; that the members do not expect BJGC to have two standards: 1) visitors and 2) citizens paying taxes. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that what Ms. Narducci had originally requested is similar to what the City Manager now recommends; that Ms. Narducci had suggested that the annual fee holders have an alternate course available to them each day which will enable unlimited tee times for large groups. Ms. Narducci agreed and stated that she presented Mr. Grady with that proposal and it was rejected; that four other proposals were placed on a ballot vote and were rejected by 95% (of the members). Ms. Narducci stated that there can be compromise between the City and the members; that Mr. McGinn has proven that the budget projections were incorrect; that allowing the annual fee members to "flip-flop" between courses for four months of the year will show how many visitors play and how many members play. City Manager Sollenberger stated that at the time of the ballot vote, Ms. Narducci's proposal was not consistent with the budget; that he assumed that the additional net income was included in the budget revenues since the budget was prepared on the principles of the recommendations from the National Golf Foundation. Mr. Sollenberger continued that since the additional net income was not included in the budget, the revenues cannot be lost; therefore, he has modified his recommendation to support Ms. Narducci's original proposal. Harold Grabb, 2874 Davis Blvd, asked if the 350 number that was referred to are single people or annual memberships? Mr. Schneider answered that it is currently a combination of both. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission voted down the 350 single member quota. Mr. Grabb stated that the computerized phone system still asks for (identification) numbers of all players when scheduling a foursome. Ray Grady, Manager of the Bobby Jones Golf Complex, came before the Commission and stated that the computerized phone system asks for either the annual fee number or the pound (#) sign; that the system requires the five-digit annual fee number of the caller or a seven- digit telephone number if the caller is a daily fee player; however, the pound sign can be used to schedule each additional player. Mr. Grabb stated that the system did not operate properly with the pound sign earlier today. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Mr. Grady will discuss the operation of the computerized phone system with Mr. Grabb subsequent to his session with the Commission; that if there is an operational problem with the computerized phone system, it will be remedied. Mr. Grabb stated that he was the Social Director of Bobby Jones Men's Association for three years and has been the President for the past two years; that the residents of Sarasota are not second- class citizens and resent being treated that wayi that the citizens support BJGC as well as any other recreational service that the City provides; that some citizens are unable to afford the rates imposed at the public golf course during prime-season; that one of the objectives of the National Golf Foundation's report is to provide high quality golf service to the greatest number of people at a reasonable cost. Mr. Grabb asked if this means that the City Book 36 Page 10034 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10035 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. has decided that BJGC is no longer considered as a recreational activity for the residents of Sarasota, but as a self-sufficient enterprise run by the City for the benefit of those who come here on vacation? Mr. Grabb continued that "for the City to hide behind the National Golf Foundation's report is like sticking your head in the sand. You cannot see or hear what the residents of Sarasota want to say." Mr. Grabb requested that the City pay off the debt that was caused by poor judgment and mismanagement during the American course renovation, make BJGC a showplace to be proud of, and to support the citizens. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she has never heard a member of this Commission refer to anyone as a first-class or a second-class citizen; that she is bothered by the attitude of the members that the Commission is in battle with the BJGC annual fee holders; that the Commission respects all people who come before the Commission and who benefit by the actions of the Commission. Commissioner Merrill asked Mr. Grabb if the policies implemented by City Staff make him feel that the members are treated like second- class citizens? Mr. Grabb replied that is correct. Bill Heiberg, 3110 Saralakes Blvd, stated that he is a greens fee holder at BJGC; and asked how a card that was issued without restrictions can have restrictions placed on it? Attorney Taylor stated that he will offer an "off-the-cuff" response to that type of question; that many legal questions are raised in regard to the fee holders purchasing something they thought was a property right; that a special group of persons hold a privilege which are actually not memberships; in addition, BJGC is a public golf course, and it may not be a proper legal process to even issue that privilege. Mr. Heiberg stated that he purchased a greens fee card with no restrictions and he wants it honored; and that he wants an answer to his question. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that BJGC has the right to establish policies; that the members have the right not to renew if they do not like the policies which have been placed in effect. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Forest Lakes Golf Course operates similarly to what the City Manager is recommending for BJGC. There was no one else signed up to speak, and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. Mayor Pillot invited Mr. Eugene Loritz and Mr. Jack McGinn back to the table for rebuttal. Mr. Loritz stated that he wanted to reiterate the petitioners' recommendation to rescind the restriction for this year, and to reevaluate a restriction next year, if the facts support a reevaluation. Mr. McGinn stated that the new restrictions were not explained to the annual fee holders at the time the annual fees were paid; that is seems that the restrictions were hidden from the annual fee holders. Mr. McGinn stated that there are 18,000 less golfers playing at BJGC than there were three years ago; that there is no reason for the changes; that the Commission was tricked by the Administration with fictitious numbers; that Mr. Grady and Mr. Schneider knew that a profit was being made, and that if they supplied the Commission with accurate numbers, the Commission would not have approved the restrictions. Mr. McGinn stated that the Forest Lakes Golf Course had 350 memberships three years ago; that the Forest Lakes Golf Course now has 110 memberships because of the restriction that were implemented. Commissioner Merrill asked how a group of eight players is scheduled? Mr. McGinn stated that a group of eight players cannot be scheduled by the computerized phone system. Commissioner Merrill asked how a specific time to play golf is scheduled? Mr. McGinn stated that it is difficult to schedule a specific time using the computerized phone system; that the computer (generated voice) asks a series of questions for the specific course, but does not have an auto-prompt for a time. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Commission does not fully understand the concerns of the public regarding BJGC; that the Commission's and Attorney Taylor's comments have been adversarial; and that some members of Administration admit that they want to get rid of the memberships. Mayor Pillot stated that he has high respect for the Administration's ethics, determination to accurately inform the Commission, and quick and full response to individually asked questions; that he will go on record as rejecting any implication or direct statement that this Commission, present or past, has been tricked by the Administration; that it has not happened; that his experience with Mr. Grady and Mr. Schneider has shown that they are men of honor and integrity. Mayor Pillot further stated that the Commission has been accused of thinking that the fee holders have "devious minds" which is pejorative; that a statement was made that the Commission has a predisposition toward fee holders followed by a litany of negative comments; that the adversarial situation does Book 36 Page 10036 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10037 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. not come from the Commission side of the table; that he is on record as rejecting the implications of misconduct by the City Administration; that they are people of integrity, professionalism, and competence; and that the Administration has his full unlimited support. Commissioner Merrill stated that he agrees that the Administration has integrity; however, he has been supplied with erroneous information by Staff; that he had received numbers this morning that he felt were fabricated; that the members have the right to feel that they have not been given a full hearing by the Administration; that there is a policy in effect that supports 350 members, but the Deputy City Manager has clearly stated that he is in favor of eliminating those members; that if a resident's lifestyle is being challenged, they have the right to feel that there is an adversarial position. Mayor Pillot stated that he did not imply that mistakes are not made; however, making a mistake is different from purposeful trickery; and that he supports Mr. Schneider's right to say that he is in favor of eliminating the memberships; however, Mr. Schneider has the responsibility to carry out the (decisions) of the Commission, which the record proves is being accomplished. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he had responded to Mr. McGinn to confirm that the Administration was adhering to the 350 number (of annual fee holders) that the Commission had established. Deputy City Manager Schneider presented the Commission with photographs of what was posted at BJGC on July 7th regarding the new tee time system; and stated that a thorough discussion was held nine days later at the FY 93/94 budget hearing which explained how the number of rounds per week was calculated; that there was a conversion from 350 units to 350 players as part of that budget process; that the conversion equated to 400+ players; that Commission action determined a cap of 350 players, not units. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to rescind the rules for FY 93/94 and reevaluate the restriction based on available data for the FY 94/95. Commissioner Merrill stated that rescinding the rules will have no impact on the budget; that the approved budget for FY 93/94 did not include any income for the change in the rules; that last year's actual revenue multiplied by the rate increase equals the projected greens fees for next year; that $960,000 in greens fees were projected if the rules were implemented; that the greens fees are currently $830,000; that information presented that the budget would lose $100,000 was in error. Commissioner Merrill further stated that Aubrey Bowers, who he has much respect for, was the first resident to bring to his attention that the revenue for the change in rules was not incorporated into the FY 93/94 budget. Commissioner Merrill stated that he does not think that the Commission is receiving an unbiased opinion; that four privately- owned, Proreaiomaly-anges, profit-making golf courses use 350 memberships to make money; however the Deputy City Manager thinks that the City will make more money with none. Commissioner Merrill stated that the goal of BJGC is not to maximize income and become a "money machine"; that BJGC serves as the recreational activity for that area of the City; that a large number of the players live in the same area; that BJGC was losing money two years ago, but is no longer losing money; that BJGC is a success and is making money; that the focus should be to make sure that BJGC helps that part of the City; that memberships should be encouraged so citizens will want to become residents in that area; that memberships should be doubled to 700 to be consistent with private, profit-making golf courses percentages; that he urges the Commissioners to view this issue without an adversarial tone; that the Administration has an adversarial tone; that he realizes by his own personal involvement that all the facts are not reaching the Commission table; and that the Commission should think of Glen Oaks and the whole City and vote in favor of rescinding the (restrictions) until next year. Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that he is emotionally upset by the comments that have just been made at the table. Mayor Pillot stated that if it is a question as to who is correct on the budget, he will go with the Finance Director before he will go with Commissioner David Merrill, not because Commissioner Merrill does not do his homework, but because Finance Director Mitchell is the expert on the budget and Commissioner Merrill is not. Mr. Mitchell stated that on page 241 of the budget book the estimated revenue for BJGC on greens fees was $780,000; that the budget was $960,000; that the $960,000 figure for the budget came from the National Golf Foundation (NGF). Commissioner Merrill stated that he agreed. Mr. Mitchell stated that the Administration raised the greens fees by 5% and that would generate approximately $50,000; that for FY 93/94 greens fees increase to $830,000; that the NGF had a figure of approximately $200,000 which was factored in for the new tee times; that the NGF numbers were overstated for the FY 92/93 budget; that the NGF disclaimed that in the first year, revenues would remain flat; therefore, in his opinion as Finance Director, $50,000 instead of $200,000 was factored into the 93/94 figure; Book 36 Page 10038 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10039 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. that a loss in revenue of $50,000 was factored out of the figure based on closing the British golf course for three months to regrass; that $780,000 plus a $50,000 rate increase is $830,000; that $830,000 plus $50,000 for tee time reservations is $880,000; that $880,000 minus $50,000 for closing the British golf course is $830,000 which is what is in the budget. Commissioner Merrill stated that there is no disagreement; that he is stating that there will be no budgetary impact. Mr. Mitchell stated that there will be a $50,000 budgetary impact; and that the City Manager has supplied a recommendation to deal with the impact. Commissioner Merrill asked why next year would be worse than last year if no changes were implemented? Mr. Mitchell answered because one of the golf courses will be Closed for three months. Commissioner Merrill asked how long the American golf course was closed this past year? The audience replied over three months. Mayor Pillot reminded the audience that the meeting is being held at the Commission table and not in the audience. Commissioner Merrill stated that Mr. Mitchell has stated that he disagrees with everything that has been said; however, there is complete agreement except Mr. Mitchell is stating that $50,000 will be lost because the golf course will be closed; that Mr. Schneider stated that figure as $41,000 this morning; that the courses were closed longer than three months last year; therefore, the closing of the course is not relevant. Mr. Mitchell stated that he is not aware that the course was closed. Mayor Pillot stated that he heard Mr. Mitchell say that the $50,000 for the computerized time was included as a gain in the budget and $50,000 was estimated as a loss for the three-month course shut down, showing no impact; however, it is documented that the $50,000 gain for the tee time was included in the FY 93/94 approved budget; that there would be a budgetary impact because the $50,000 would come out. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Commission only has a total number and no back up; that there are factoring adjustments; however, the net is the same as taking last year's number and multiplying it by the rate increase; that he is suggesting to add the rate increase to last year's (gross) and implement no changes. Mayor Pillot stated that the budget does include $50,000 from tee times. Mr. Mitchell stated that it has to be assumed that the $50,000 will be lost if the tee time is not in force. Commissioner Merrill stated that there will be no budgetary impact if last year's status quo is implemented; that Mr. Mitchell is stating that the (FY 93/94) budget will achieve $50,000 more than what this budget is projecting. Mr. Mitchell stated that he is saying more than that; that $50,000 more revenue was projected because of the reservation tee time system; that $50,000 more revenue was projected because of the rate increase; that $50,000 was subtracted because the course will be closed to perform $120,000 of regrassing. Commissioner Merrill stated he will go slower; that $783,000 was achieved last year with a golf course closed for three months; that if the rate increases are added to last year's number, which included a shut down period, the budget will be the same as what was approved; that regardless of the factoring, the budget will be exactly correct if the Commission reverses the rules that have been set into place. Commissioner Merrill asked if he was right or if he was wrong. Mr. Mitchell answered that he is wrong. Commissioner Merrill asked for an explanation of why he is wrong? Mr. Mitchell stated that he is not aware of the golf course being closed for three or four months last year. Commissioner Merrill asked for clarification from the Administration. Mayor Pillot stated that a debate between a Commissioner and the Finance Director is not very productive. Patrick Calhoon, Sports Facilities Manager, came before the Commission and stated that what Mr. Mitchell was saying was correct; however, a reduction for the number of (rounds) in FY 92/93 for daily greens fee revenue was factored in; that only nine holes were closed at a time in FY 92/93; that eighteen holes will be closed at a time in FY 93/94. Mr. Calhoon further stated that this issue can be resolved; that an estimate of expected revenue can be supplied on March 30th if the restrictions are removed; that a decision can be made at that time; that there will be no budgetary impact if a decision can be made at that time. Mr. Calhoon stated that the numbers for the BJGC start with him; that Mr. Schneider or Mr. Grady should not be chastised for the figures; that expenditures have been estimated within 1% in the past; that he has been taught to understate revenues and overstate expenditures; that he has done that for the (FY 93/94 budget) with the Finance Department's direction and input; that he was concerned with overstating the revenues by using the NGF figures of $206,000 from two years ago; that the revenue was included, but the expenditures were not elevated to offset the revenue. Commissioner Cardamone requested clarification of the rules to be suspended contained in Commissioner Merrill's motion? Book 36 Page 10040 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10041 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Merrill stated that the rules which were approved are referred to on page 50 (of the NGF Consulting Final Report) i that the rates were increased; that passholders were reduced to 350 members; that a tee time reservation system, which needs some adjustment, was installed; that private-cart usage was eliminated; that a computerized point of sale was developed; and that the City still needs to develop a long-range capital improvement program. Commissioner Merrill stated that the issue he is recommending is eliminating the tee-time restriction section of the rules for annual fee holders. Mayor Pillot asked Commissioner Merrill if his motion would be the same as the wording of the City Manager's recommendation if changed as follows: I recommend that the Commission authorize a policy (strike the word modified) which would allow annual fee holders unlimited tee times (delete the remaining sentence). Commissioner Merrill responded that was correct. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the fee at the BJGC is a bargain in comparison to the fee charged by other courses; that a family membership at Forest Lakes Golf Course costs $1,872.50 as opposed to $1,050.00 at BJGC; and that a single membership costs $1,230.50 (at Forest Lakes) as opposed to $658.65 at BJGC. Vice Mayor Patterson further stated that there has been much talk on whether there is a budgetary impact or not; that the City's budgets have always been very conservative; that there would be no reserves left now if the budgets had been exact every year; that the long-term budgetary projections for FY 97/98 reflect a negative balance in the reserves of $407,000, presupposing no tax increase; that the Commissioner who is advocating that the City never looks to BJGC as producing a revenue for the City, is the very Commissioner who will not support a tax increase under any circumstances; that it would be wrong to maximize the City's income at BJGC because every City resident owns a piece of BJGC; that the rates should always be reduced so that people will come into the City of Sarasota to play golf; however, it would be irresponsible for the City not to look at its very few resources as potential for bringing income into the City. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that she supports the City Manager's recommendation; and that BJGC is a wonderful asset and should be an asset for the citizens, but it also should be an asset for the City. Mayor Pillot stated that he supports what Vice Mayor Patterson has stated and will vote the same way. Commissioner Atkins stated that he will support the motion as it is on the floor; that there is enough confusion and smoke based on the analysis of the NGF report and what was presented by Mr. McGinn; that a review performed after the winter season will provide an opportunity to make a more informed decision. Commissioner Merrill stated that the current budget provides for a $100,000 pay down (to the BJGC debt service); that deficits are not tracked for any of the other facilities; that more community assets can be charged for accessibility; that a fee for parking could be charged at the Bayfront or at Lido Key; that the free parking downtown could not have been disallowed in December; that BJGC should not be the only community asset focused on because it is not in a certain district of the City; that the key point is to be consistent; that more money is spent in the waterfront district than is spent in the Glen Oaks area; that Vice Mayor Patterson is correct by stating that he will vote against any tax increase; however, BJGC is not going to balance the City's budget. Commissioner Cardamone stated that it is prudent to support the motion on the table; that the numbers that are presented this year need to be scrutinized; that the BJGC annual fee holders should be aware that big changes in the rules may follow next year; that she agrees with Commissioner Atkins that there is a lot of confusion and smoke, dissatisfaction, misunderstandings; and for that reason, she is willing to compromise with the one-year hiatus of the three tee times per hour. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the FY 93/94 budget responsibly included the fact that daily fee players would not be attracted immediately to supply additional revenue; that the rationing of tee times will never be put back on the table if the motion is passed and will be a step backward from something that has been programmed in to the future; that the rules may not have been implemented to facilitate play by the annual fee holders; that more input from the members should in the future be received and acted upon; however, the Commissioners who vote for this motion are making a mistake. Mayor Pillot stated that he agrees with Vice Mayor Patterson that when something of this nature is taken away, it is not regained. Commissioner Atkins requested to Call for the Question. There was a consensus of the Commission to Call for the Question. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion to authorize a policy which would allow annual fee holders unlimited tee times. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, no; Pillot, no. The Commission recessed from 8:17 p.m. until 8:32 p.m. Book 36 Page 10042 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10043 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3766, AMENDING ARTICLE VI, DISTRICTS = REGULATIONS GENERALLY, OF THE ZONING CODE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; DELETING FROM SECTION 6-28 (F) THE PROHIBITION AGAINST CONDUCTING A COMMERCIAL VENDING ACTIVITY WITHIN FIVE HUNDRED FEET OF ANY OTHER PERBON WHO HAS RECEIVED A PERMIT TO CONDUCT BUCH ACTIVITY; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) REFERRED PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO THE ADMINISTRATION (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #2 (1779) through #2 (2955) V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that this proposed Ordinance removes the requirement from the Zoning Code that vendors on City right-of-way locate no closer than 500 feet to any other vendor; that the Administration has recently encountered a situation where the distance requirement appears to have served as the basis for a vendor concluding that a particular location utilized by that vendor was an exclusive property right of the vendor which could be sold or transferred; that the solution recommended to prevent that type of situation from reoccurring is to eliminate the 500-foot distance requirement. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing, and the following people came before the Commission: Nick Trovato, representing Pineapple Hot Dogs spots on Main Street and Pineapple Avenue, stated that he has been a street vendor in Sarasota for the past five years; that he has been a member of The Downtown Association for the past two years; that at one time, there were ten operating hot dog trailers (in the City); however, he is the only hot dog vendor operating at the present time; that hot dog stands have been sold as locations in the past; and that the 500-foot permit requirement prevents vendors from being located side-by-side so the city looks nice. Mr. Trovato stated that the ordinance should state that if the vendor location is not operated for "x" amount of days, the location will revert back to the City; that the City could then permit another vendor at that location; that the vendor would be required to notify the City in order to preserve the location for leave-of-absence situations. Mr. Trovato continued that he recommends that the amendment remain as it is and another method be developed to interact the situation. Mayor Pillot asked if Mr. Trovato felt that the City Manager should have the authority to determine whether a location is preserved under certain circumstances? Mr. Trovato responded yes. Mr. Trovato stated that the potential of selling a spot can be eliminated by deeming the location dormant for 30, 60, or 90 days when a vendor ceases operation or does not renew the occupational license at a certain location. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the same form of blackmail could occur regardless; that an existing vendor can give up his location so that another vendor, who had come to the City requesting an occupational license and was refused because there was already a vendor within 500-feet, can obtain the location; that the existing vendor can stop operating and charge a price for the new vendor to have his location (after the waiting period). Mr. Trovato stated that there would be a risk to the existing vendor to cease operation with the hope that the new vendor is the first vendor to apply for the location after the waiting period. Paul Thorpe, representing The Downtown Association, stated that he is the Executive Director of The Downtown Association; that The Downtown Association does not think that eliminating the 500-foot restriction is the best way to handle this particular problem; that the 500-foot restriction prevents vendors from proliferating the street; that the City Manager has the authority to issue permits according to the Zoning Code S 6-28 D; that S 6-28 D (5) reads: "Permits shall be valid for a period of no more than one (1) year and shall expire on October 1st." Mr. Thorpe stated that the permits can be policed because they have to be renewed every year; that a restriction should be added as S 6-28 D (5) (a) that reads "the permit issued shall be personal only and not transferrable in any manner." Vice Mayor Patterson requested that when an ordinance is being changed, the original ordinance that is being changed should be included in the packet. Mr. Thorpe stated that the vendors should not be given the opportunity to sell a piece of Sarasota sidewalk. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the vendors do not have the right to sell the permitted locations; that the issue is enforcement, not the verbiage of the Zoning Code. Mr. Thorpe stated that he would volunteer to review the ordinance with the Administration and other concerned citizens to develop a more agreeable solution. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the ordinance should be referred back to the Administration for further development with input from Mr. Thorpe and Mr. Trovato. Bob Tisdale, representing Z-Dogs, stated that he is the culprit of the current situation; that as a matter of practicality, he and his wife own the hot dog carts in front of the Post Office and in front of the Sarasota Courthouse; that the businesses were purchased, and Book 36 Page 10044 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10045 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. the normal permitting process for acquiring a vendor license was followed; that the businesses were offered (for sale) the same way they were purchased; that he and his wife decided to take a few months off at the end of the summer because it was a slow time; that there is no provision (of the occupational license) that requires notification to the City when time is taken off, so the City was not notified; that he agrees with the statements made by Mr. Thorpe and Mr. Trovato. Mr. Tisdale continued that the permitting process does not allow for transferability of a permit; and that he never signed anything that transferred anything that he had to another individual. Vice Mayor Patterson asked how much was asked (for the business)? Mr. Tisdale answered $15,000 for each cart. Vice Mayor Patterson asked what the value is of the equipment being sold? Mr. Tisdale stated that the equipment value varies between $3,000 and $7,000. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that it seems like the location is being sold. Mr. Tisdale stated that the operating income from clientele at the location is considered in the sale of a business. Mr. Tisdale stated that he has responded to the notification from the City Manager in written form as to why Z-dogs was not operating; and that he volunteers to assist the Administration in developing a better solution to the issue. There was no one else signed up to speak, and the public hearing was closed. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Administration supports discussing an alternate solution with the speakers. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Mr. Schneider's statement is the City Manager's recommendation. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the proposed ordinance should include that a successful vendor, operating within the rules, should have priority on their location at renewal. Mayor Pillot stated that he supports Commissioner Cardamone's statement. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to refer the proposed Ordinance No. 94-3766 back to the Administration for further development. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3751, AMENDING ARTICLE VIII, DIVISION 12, OF THE ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO SIGN REGULATIONS IN THE COMMERCIAL, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (C-CBD) ZONE DISTRICT: AMENDING SAID SIGN REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO DIRECTORY SIGNS, IDENTIFICATION SIGNS, AND SIGNAGE ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF BUILDINGS IN THE C-CBD ZONE: MAKING FINDINGS AS TO NEED; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED, DISCUSSION CONTINUED TO SPECIAL MEETING OF JANUARY 10TH TO HAVE A GRAPHIC PRESENTATION WITH COMPARATIVE DATA (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #2 (2957) through #3 (0228) William Hewes Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that the proposed ordinance will allow major tenants to place signage on all four sides of the building, and a band of signage around the building; that the proposed ordinance will allow an exterior directory sign; and that this proposed ordinance amends the Zoning Code to allow tenants on second floors or higher in large buildings in the Commercial, Central Business District (C-CBD) Zone District to have signage. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the total signage allowed will be increased? Mr. Hewes stated that the total square footage for identifying the building will not be increased; however, the total square footage for identifying tenants will be increased; that the owner of the building will make the actual division, but no one tenant can have more than 300 square feet of signage. Commissioner Cardamone requested that graphic illustrations be presented of the maximum amount of signage that this proposed ordinance will allow. Mayor Pillot requested that the number of multi-story (greater than two) buildings which have only one street frontage be provided. City Manager Sollenberger recommended continuing the hearing; and that graphic illustrations of the application of the proposed code be provided when the hearing is reopened. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing, and the following person came before the Commission: Bruce Franklin, representing the Sarasota City Center, stated that he initiated the code amendment; that he has been working with the City Staff on this amendment for almost one year; that the Board of Adjustment has consistently approved variances for signage; that he proposes passing the proposed ordinance on first reading with the stipulation that graphic illustrations be presented by second reading; that continued delay will seriously harm his client, Sarasota City Center; that Sarasota City Center has a pending tenant lease reliant on the proposed ordinance; that an exhibit on the existing and proposed signage was presented to the Planning Board; that the Board of Adjustment and the Planning Board recommend approval of this proposed ordinance. Book 36 Page 10046 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10047 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Franklin stated that the total sign area (of the proposed ordinance) is almost identical to the currently permitted sign area; that the change of the ordinance is merely a modification of interpretation. Mr. Hewes stated that the aggregate band of signage on the second floor will be greater than is currently permitted; that he feels it is necessary to determine the aggregate increase and report back to the Commission. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that there are two workshops next week at which this ordinance can be re-presented; that having the graphic illustrations presented at a workshop will enable a second reading to be scheduled (if the ordinance passes on first reading) at the next Regular Commission Meeting on January 18th. Mr. Franklin stated that if the Commission helps expedite this issue, he is happy to accommodate any procedure requested. There was no one else signed up to speak and the public hearing was closed. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to continue discussion on proposed Ordinance No. 94-3751 to the special meeting of January 10th to provide opportunity for action on first reading when comparative graphic illustrations of total signage are presented by Mr. Hewes. Commissioner Merrill stated that data pertaining to signage increases allowable under the proposed ordinance is also requested. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3770, EXTENDING THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY COMMISSION PERTAINING TO THE SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PETITION 90-W FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE AUTOMATIC EXPIRATION OF SAID APPROVAL; PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE CONDITIONAL REZONING FROM RMF-2 ZONE DISTRICT TO COP ZONE DISTRICT, FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS MEASURED FROM THE AUTOMATIC EXPIRATION OF BITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN 90-W FOR THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THE NORTHWEST OUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST OUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 36 SOUTH, RANGE 17 EAST LESS THE SOUTH 310 FEET THEREOF, AND LESS R.O.W. FOR DESOTO ROAD (NOW KNOWN AS UNIVERSITY PARKWAY), AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN: SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE AUTOMATIC EXPIRATION OF PETITION 90-W: REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 90-CO-08, ATTORNEY FUREN) PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH STIPULATION THAT A SOLUTION FOR THE DRAINAGE PROBLEM BE PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE COMMISSION BY SECOND READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #3 (0229) through (0834) Mr. Bruce Franklin, representing the Petitioner, came before the Commission and stated that he is representing Robert S. Marquis, Trustee, who is the owner of the property known as the Royal Palm Plaza; that the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 90-3445 which conditionally rezoned the parcel located at 1040 University Parkway and approved Site and Development Plan 90-W for a proposed commercial development on the site; that subsequently, the City Commission extended the conditional rezoning and site and development plan approval until January 21, 1994; that the Petitioner is now requesting a two (2) year extension. Mr. Franklin stated that the request is consistent with Ordinance No. 93-3667 which permits the Commission to extend conditional rezonings and site development plan approvals beyond a two-year period. Mayor Pillot stated that the reasons being given for requesting the two-year extension are the health of the developer, now corrected, and the national and local financial economic conditions. Mr. Franklin stated that was correct. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing, and the following person came before the Commission: Willard Hill stated that he is the Director of Royal Palm (Villas) Owners' Association (RPOA); that Royal Palm (Villas) is a division of the original property; that the drainage system was to be completed (at the start of construction on the remaining parcel); that the RPOA is concerned that the drainage system will not be completed for an additional two years if the extension is granted; Mr. Hill continued that the ditch which transports the water across the petitioner's property is filled upi that the parking lots (at Royal Palm Villas) are flooded whenever it rains; and that the RPOA does not want to be sued for trespassing on another property to clean out the ditch, but they are concerned that the ditch be Cleared. Mr. Franklin stated that a portion of the drainage ditch is on the subject property; that his client has continually worked with the RPOA; and that Mr. Jack Thompson, one of the primary property owners, owns units in Royal Palm (Villas) and has maintained the position to be cooperative with the RPOA. Dennis Daughters, City Engineer/Director of Engineering, stated that (the completion of the drainage system) on the southern parcel was a requirement for the approval of the improvement on the Book 36 Page 10048 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10049 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. northern parcel; that until the northern parcel is improved, the drainage problem will not be resolved. City Manager Sollenberger stated that (the problem with the ditch) is currently a matter between two property owners and would not be subject to the drainage utility. Mr. Daughters stated that was correct; and that at the time the requirement was established the property was under one ownership. Vice Mayor Patterson asked the city Attorney if the Commission has the right to attach to passing the two-year extension a stipulation which requires mitigation (of the drainage problem) in the near future. Attorney Taylor stated that the property owner is under no compulsion to develop the parcel other than a period of time that is running (on a conditionally rezoning extension); i that the issue (does not concern) drainage; that the issue concerns a land use; therefore, the Commission is in a quasi-udicial capacity; that the issue is whether or not the Commission believes that the petitioner has made a case to support granting the time extension. Attorney Taylor continued that the condition may be imposed if the property owner consents to remedying the problem. Mayor Pillot asked Mr. Franklin if he would consent on the record to a stipulation that if the ordinance is passed on first reading, a solution and a reasonable time frame for resolving the drainage problem until the land can be developed will be presented to the Commission before second reading? Mr. Franklin stated that he was not previously aware of an ongoing drainage problem; that the drainage system ditch had been cleaned out two years ago; that he will assess the ditch and report back to the Commission by second reading with a proposed solution. Mr. Hill stated that the RPOA would appreciate the drainage problem being resolved. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the impact on neighboring properties needs to be considered when conditional rezonings are extended. There was no one else signed up to speak and the public hearing was closed. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3770 by title onlyo On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3770 on first reading with the stipulation that the petitioner will supply a solution to the drainage problem before second reading. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 11. SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS : REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO OBTAIN FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION THE TEMPORARILY CLOSING OF U.S. 41 IN FRONT OF THE JOHN RINGLING TOWERS FOR A SPECIAL FUND RAISING EVENT TO OCCUR ON A SATURDAY OR SUNDAY IN MAY REFERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR A REPORT BACK AT THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING ON JANUARY 18TH (AGENDA ITEM V) #3 (0842) through (1026) Deborah Dart, Executive Vice-President of the John Ringling Centre Foundation, came before the Commission and stated that the John Ringling Centre Foundation requests assistance from the City of Sarasota to obtain the temporary closing of a portion of US 41 for a special event; that the event is planned as a major communitywide fund raiser to draw attention to the rehabilitation of Sarasota's most visually commanding landmark and to Sarasota's spectacular performing arts. Ms. Dart stated that it is necessary to close US 41 to vehicular traffic between Fruitville Road and Gulfstream Avenue for 8 hours on a Saturday or Sunday during the month of May 1994 to facilitate this event; that the actual event is expected to last no more than two hours; however, preparation and clean up is anticipated to take four to six hours; that permission for the closing would be required from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT); and that the John Ringling Centre would like the City to make this request on behalf of the community. Ms. Dart stated that the closing of the road will allow this special and unique event to be a communitywide affair; that thousands of Sarasota's citizens and visitors will be able to participate by positioning the event on this roadway; that the event is scheduled to commence after dusk and is planned as a musical performance dramatically set with the east facade of the John Ringling Towers as the stage; that the performance will be recorded and televised. Ms. Dart stated that the event will require no financial assistance from the City of Sarasota; that businesses, corporations, and individuals will underwrite the event; however, any contribution that the City may wish to make to the production of the event will be cheerfully accepted and very appreciated. Ms. Dart stated that US 41 has been closed previously for parades Book 36 Page 10050 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10051 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. and other special events in Sarasota; that the John Ringling Centre Foundation requests the Commission's consideration of this road closing; and that a prompt answer is needed to complete the amount of planning that is necessary for an event of this size. City Manager Sollenberger suggested that the Commission refer the request to the Administration for a report back to the Commission at the next Regular Commission Meeting on January 18, 1994. Ms. Dart asked if the Department of Transporation will be contacted before January 18th? Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that a specific date is necessary to submit the required forms to FDOT. Ms. Dart stated that (the John Ringling Centre Foundation) will have a date decided and anything else required by the Administration for the next Regular Commission Meeting. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to refer the request for assistance to the Administration for a report back to the Commission on January 18th. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if US 41 had been Closed for parades or other events in the past? Mr. Schneider stated that it was closed between 5 p.m. and 11 p.m. for the 4th of July fireworks. Mr. Sollenberger stated that it was also closed last year for repavement. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the Motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: STATUS OF STORM DRAINAGE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BOND FUNDING FEASIBILITY AND STORM DRAINAGE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DELAYED CONSIDERATION OF USING BOND ISSUE TO FUND STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER 's WHITAKER BAYOU STUDY; DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION TO INCLUDE THE LIST OF STORMWATER DRAINAGE PROJECTS FOR DISCUSSION AND CONBIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION OF THE L.0.8.T. FUNDING (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #3 (1030) through (2789) Dennis Daughters, City Engineer/Director of Engineering, and Rick Winters, Engineering Technician V, came before the Commission. Mr. Daughters stated that there are two reports included in the Commission packet; that the recommendation on the Bond Fund Feasibility report is to delay consideration of a bond issue to fund stormwater improvements until the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) complete their study of Whitaker Bayou; that funds from the City will be needed to obtain the matching funds available from the COE. Mr. Daughters continued that the COE study of Whitaker Bayou is in the preliminary stages and encompasses the entire basin of Whitaker Bayou, the majority of which is outside of the City limits. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the Whitaker Bayou project addresses the flooding on Noble Avenue? Mr. Winters stated that the entire Leon and Noble Avenues area drains into the Whitaker Bayou. Mr. Winters stated that the tributaries will be identified by COE on the Master Plan (of the Whitaker Bayou); however, the matching funds will not be applicable for the tributaries. Mr. Daughters stated that the recommendations of the Master Plan of the Hudson Bayou Study will be brought to the Commission at a Workshop on January 27th. Mayor Pillot stated that the Commission must be concerned with two issues: correcting the problems as soon as possible and the cost to correct the problems; that a "pay as you go" is less expensive than issuing bonds. Mayor Pillot asked if there is an acceptable increased time change (by delaying the consideration) to justify the City saving dollars. Mr. Winters stated that the actual time for each capital improvement project is approximately two years; that the City prioritzes the highest capital improvement projects for each year and commits funds in the budget; that the commitment begins the time line on a particular project; that the projects will be staggered; therefore, if there are three projects committed each year, some projects will be partially complete while others are just starting and others are finishing. Mr. Winters continued that bond issue money has to be paid back over a period of time; that the same number of projects could feasibly be accomplished by using the "pay as you go" method or the bond issue; however, since the bond issue is paid off through the $300,000 available per year in stormwater funding, no funds will remain to improve other drainage system projects in other areas of the City that continue to deteriorate. Mayor Pillot asked for an estimate of the additional time necessary to complete a project by using a "pay as you go" method compared to the time necessary for completion by issuing bonds. Mr. Winters stated that a bond issue will complete "x" amount of projects in a certain amount of time; that the "pay as you go" method is ongoing; that no additional time is actually necessary. Mr. Winters stated that the preliminary projection cost for the major capital improvement projects is between $3 million and $4 million. Mr. Winters stated that the priority level of service is first put Book 36 Page 10052 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10053 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. on areas where there is structural flooding, and secondly, on streets that become impassible for emergency vehicles. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the day will come when the stormwater funding will be tied up. for ten years and there won't be $300,000 to address flooding on side streets. Mr. Winters stated that was correct. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the Commission is being asked not (to issue bonds) today, but to do it later? Mr. Winters stated that the bond issue should be addressed after the results of the studies on Hudson Bayou and Whitaker Bayou are submitted by the COE. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that a contract was awarded in May of 1991 to address minor drainage problems of Lido Key on the Boulevard of the Presidents; that the project was awarded in May of 1993 and was completed in June of 1993; that she is not encouraged with the time line associated with addressing the drainage problems within the City. Mr. Daughters stated that it takes two to three years to complete each project; that the majority of the time is spent on the permitting process. Mayor Pillot stated that there is another alternative which has not yet been discussed; that the question of issuing bonds to address the drainage problems can be placed on referendum for the voter's decision. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration hesitates to place the question before the voters because of the time factor involved to do so. Commissioner Merrill stated that this issue should be considered as part of the Local Option Sales Tax (L.0.S.T.) funding considerations. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she agrees. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the City will continue to have stormwater problems; that Sarasota has torrential rains at high tide; that a number of homes have consistently flooded for years; that the project of getting the homeowners away from living under water should be a total priority and completed first; that this project should be expedited before time is spent on permitting processes and the studies. Vice Mayor Patterson that the L.0.S.T. funding is a one-time fund; that she supports committing the L.O.S.T. funding toward a quicker drainage solution; that the $2 million L.0.S.T. dollars should be applied toward the $3 million to $4 million dollar need; however, many organizations will be disappointed. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that a bond issue presented to the voters would have to address all areas of the City, not just a specific project; and that she doesn't think that the voters would approve a bond issue at this point in time. Mr. Winters stated that the $300,000 of annual stormwater funding does not get assigned to one project; that a good example is the Leon and Noble Avenues area; that the flooding in that area was prioritized by the City as a top priority; that the County designated a percentage of that $300,000 toward the Leon and Noble Avenues area project; that the engineering toward permitting is now beginning on that project. Mr. Winters continued that another percentage of the $300,000 was designated toward the engineering to alleviate the problems at areas such as Pelican Drive; Mr. Winters further stated that the engineering would have to be completed on all projects at one time if bonds were to be issued. Mayor Pillot stated that it is unconscionable of this Commission not to do what is in its reasonable power to get the homes in the north part of Sarasota free from flooding; that the first step (towards a time-consuming process) needs to be taken. Commissioner Atkins stated that it is confusing and time consuming to get engineering and permitting accomplished to be in a position to present a bond issue; however, projects being paid for in increments (does not immediately address the problem). e Commissioner Atkins continued that he supports letting the public vote to make a decision on the bond issue; however, outside engineers will be required to develop the bond issue criteria because of the City's Engineering Department's (current workload); : that he supports having the criteria developed so that the Commission can review the criteria and make decisions on how to proceed. Mayor Pillot stated that he has confidence in the City voters passing a bond issue if they are given the information of what really exists in advance as was done in the past regarding a school board issue (which the voters passed). Mayor Pillot continued that there will always be drainage problems in the future because of the torrential rains; however, the City should at least get caught upi and that he supports hiring engineers to prepare the necessary engineering studies. Commissioner Merrill stated that he supports the delay (for consideration on the bond issue) ; that he would vote and work against a bond issue; that the purpose of the L.0.S.T. was for a situations like the stormwater drainage problem; that it is not the taxpayers fault if there is a lack of funding, it is the Commission's fault, and the Commission should be held accountable. Commissioner Merrill continued that the first step has been taken; that the studies are underway; that the Engineering Department has a plan, and the Commission should support it. Book 36 Page 10054 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10055 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone asked for an approximate cost to relieve structure flooding in the area of Noble and Leon Avenues? Mr. Winters stated that the design phase is currently being addressed in the Noble and Leon Avenues; that there is a bid process used to obtain the engineering consultant; that a consultant has been selected and the surveying engineering work has started; that a price will be placed on the project once the surveying has been completed. Mr. Daughters stated that an approximate cost can not be determined until the extent of the solution is known. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she worked very hard on the school system bond issue that passed; that it took a lot of time and effort by the Board and the parents; that there was a parent support group and a school need that was readily identified rather than flooding in a section of the City that citizens may not even know exists; and that she is interested in exploring the bond issue. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the projects on the capital improvement list which only include structure flooding of businesses and homes or the health, safety, and wealthfare of the public could be a direction that the Commission could take regarding a bond issue? Mr. Daughters stated that the 1985 bond issue included a major project at St. Armands; that the business association recommended against a larger project, and desired the smaller project which was performed (on the Boulevard of Presidents), knowing that there would be periodic flooding. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the (St. Armands' Association) was concerned that the cure would be worse than the malady; that the (St. Armands' Association) was fearful of economical survival if the streets were torn up. around their commercial establishments for an extended period of time; therefore, (St. Armands' Association) requested that the City drop the major (stormwater drainage) project; that, as a result, the City undertook smaller problems to alleviate drainage on the Circle; and that the major problem still exists. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the homes that flood are in a flood plain; that properties built in a flood plain were built on a parcel of land that flooded before the property was built; that a lot of the flooding in the City is salt water flooding, and salt water flooding can never be fully resolved. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that she will not vote for a bond issue; that she will not work to support a bond issue when the L.0.S.T. was passed for use on a project like the stormwater drainage issue and instead will be distributed toward projects that the Commission regards as more temporarily important. Mr. Winters stated that the upcoming Hudson Bayou Workshop will enlighten the Commission the approach being taken towards the ongoing drainage projects. Mayor Pillot stated that he withdraws his suggestion of bond issue by referendum because there are not five Commissioners supporting it. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she supports exploring the idea of supplying a major portion of the L.0.S.T. dollars to expedite the (priority) stormwater drainage projects. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to delay consideration of using bond issue to fund stormwater improvements until the completion of the Army Corps of Engineers' Whitaker Bayou Study and that the Administration) include the list of stormwater drainage projects for discussion and consideration by the Commission of L.0.S.T. funding. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes, Patterson, yes; Pillot, no. Mr. Daughters stated that the second report is on the status of the various storm drainage capital improvements projects; that this report would be better addressed when the discussion is held on the consideration of L.0.S.T. funding. Commissioner Atkins agreed. There was consensus of the Commission to proceed with Unfinished Business Agenda Item VII-4. 13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: STATUS OF THE MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - REPORT PRESENTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-4) #3 (2790) through (3307) Dennis Daughters, City Engineer/Director of Engineering, stated that the Main Street Project remains on schedule; that in some aspects, the project is ahead of schedule; that the project is approximately 55% complete; that the brick, concrete sidewalk, and pavement work, which was required to be finished by February 1, is 100% complete; that the landscaping will take three to four weeks to complete and will start in one week; that all of the irrigation is installed; that temporary lighting is installed; that there is no date to report on when the permanent lighting will be installed; however, the fixtures are enroute to Sarasota, and the subcontractor performing the electrical work has stated that additional manpower will be used to install the fixtures quickly when they arrive. Mr. Daughters continued that the contaminated soil reported at the former City Hall location is being resolved through the "bugs" method (bacteria that ingests contamination), ; that the "bugs" were placed into the hole (at the contaminated Book 36 Page 10056 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10057 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. location) prior to Christmas. Mr. Daughters further stated that the contractor is scheduled to start work tomorrow at the Main Street/Marina Jack entrance and at the Ringling (Boulevard) entrance. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she understood that the entire project would be completed by February 1. Mr. Daughters stated that the entire project will be completed by mid-June. Vice Mayor Patterson asked when trees will be planted? Mr. Daughters stated that there will be three times as many trees planted as preexisted; that the landscape work will begin next week; and that he will obtain a schedule for planting the trees and forward it to the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone requested that the people who have had the dirt holes the longest be the people who get the first landscaping. Mr. Daughters stated that according to the (Main Street Improvement Project) contract, the City cannot demand that the contractor work in a certain area at a certain time; however, the contractor has been very cooperative; and he will forward the request to the contractor. Commissioner Cardamone asked Mr. Daughters if he is still planning to present the Main Street/US 41 Intersection Report and schematic drawings to the Commission on January 18th? Mr. Daughter responded that was correct. Commissioner Cardamone requested that parking spaces on Main Street be restriped and/or readjusted to provide the maximum amount of parking spaces. Commissioner Cardamone continued that the loading zones need to be looked at; and that in front of Charlie's News, a section of pavement has been striped off that could accommodate two parking spaces. Mr. Daughters stated that the (Main Street Improvement Project) contract does not include restriping or readjusting the striping, except in an area where one of the (new) neck-outs eliminate a parking space; but that the Engineering Department will review the parking situation to maximize the amount of available parking. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that there are two neck-outs at Charlie's News that frame the water in heavy rains, and asked if there are plans to readdress the drainage between the neck-outs? Mr. Daughters stated that he is aware of the drainage problems (on Main Street); : that in-house changes have been made to improve the drainage; however, all of the drainage problems have not yet been resolved. There was consensus of the Commission to proceed with the next regular agenda item. 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING, AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF SARASOTA TREE ORDINANCE NO. 92-3624 - SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #3 (3307) through (0864) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends setting Ordinance No. 92-3624 for public hearing. William Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, and David Johnston, Landscape Architect, came before the Commission. Mr. Hewes stated that the last time the tree ordinance was presented to the Commission, it was requested that the amendments of the proposed ordinance be reviewed by a professional nurseryman and a landscape architect; that (Larry Rabinowitz, Horticultural Consultant, and David Johnston, Landscape Architect) have reviewed the proposed tree ordinance. Mr. Hewes stated that the list of protected trees has been revised; that the residential properties are still covered; that exotic trees are still allowed, with the exception of two species; and that native trees are still favored. Mr. Johnston stated that he and Larry Rabinowitz agreed on 75 - 80 percent of the revisions; that he recommends that the proposed ordinance be enacted; that the proposed ordinance applies to single-family, residential areas; that the mature canopy (of trees in Sarasota) is found in the residential areas of the City; that it is to the advantage, health, safety, and welfare of the community to preserve the city's grandest and oldest trees. Mr. Johnston stated that there are provisions in the proposed ordinance to relocate trees if the trees fall within the new footprint of a building; that the proposed ordinance reflects a strict view of maintaining trees in those areas that are not normal building footprint; that the trees can only be removed for an ingress or an egress, or for the safety of the building. Mr. Johnston stated that he and Mr. Rabinowitz retabulated the grand tree provision table so that it made more sense; that mitigation was provided in the proposed ordinance for the removal of trees; that the proposed ordinance calls for the protection of the existing trees; and that the proposed ordinance also makes it unlawful to radically prune a tree. Mr. Johnston continued that the proposed ordinance requires a permit be obtained for any clearing of land, whereas the existing tree ordinance requires a permit be obtained prior to construction on the land. Commissioner Merrill stated that his complaint is that there seems to be a lot of "feel good naiveness" in the proposed ordinance; Book 36 Page 10058 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10059 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. that the problem of cutting down trees in residential backyards is not existent; that the proposed ordinance allows threatened trees to be cleared off a parcel of land to construct a hotel; and that there is a provision in the proposed ordinance that allows cutting down a tree, other than a grand tree, if the tree count has been met. Mr. Hewes stated that 50% of the trees in a Forested Upland single- family or two-family district shall be retained; that 40% of the trees in a multiple-family district shall be retained; and that 25% of the trees shall be retained on land under development for commercial and industrial uses. Commissioner Merrill stated that the proposed tree ordinance is not a tough ordinance; that the developers will abuse it. Mr. Hewes stated that the proposed ordinance is better than the existing tree ordinance. Commissioner Merrill stated that the provision for removing a tree and planting another tree should be allowed on residential property and not on commercial property; that he wants to preserve the trees along the City's roadways, the trees that most business owners think hurt their property values; that this proposed ordinance does not do that. Mr. Johnston stated that the proposed ordinance protects trees in the front yard set-back; that a tree can be removed only if there is an impact on the ingress or egress to the property. Commissioner Merrill asked what if the property met the requirement of one tree per 2500 square feet on the lot? Mr. Hewes stated that the City would have a hard time (denying the permit to remove the tree). Commissioner Merrill stated that the County should take over the tree ordinance function; that the County has the trained experts and the staff to enforce the tree ordinance; that the County has had the experience; and that the County's tree ordinance works. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the County would impose a charge to take over the function; that knowing the imposed charge and reading the County's ordinance would be necessary (before she would consider offering the function to the County). Vice Mayor Patterson continued that there are two weaknesses in the City's existing tree ordinance: 1) there is no protection for extremely large oak or cedar trees from removal by commercial or single- family home owners; and 2) the current ordinance is more repressive on single-family home owners by not allowing for replacement or removal of trees even if the homeowner meets or exceeds the proposed ordinance standards; and that the proposed ordinance provides some latitude for removing trees in residential areas. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she has had at least a dozen calls from concerned citizens in her district disturbed about single- family homeowners removing trees. Vice Mayor Patterson referred to page 6 of the proposed ordinance and stated that she is concerned with the following sentence: If the removal of an unprotected tree reduces the number of trees on the lot below the required number, a Protected Tree shall be planted in its place. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that one of Mr. Rabinowitz's noted disturbances with the proposed ordinance is that a homeowner who has a small 10,000 square foot lot with four trees and wants to replace a citrus tree with a different tree cannot do so under this proposed ordinance; that the homeowner cannot replace the citrus tree with another citrus tree; that the homeowner has to replace it with a tree from the protected list; that Mr. Rabinowitz's concern is valid because the City's protected tree list is arbitrarily chosen; that Mr. Rabinowitz's suggests that the concern can be addressed by adding a sentence similar to "or of the same family or similar growth type." Vice Mayor Patterson stated that that portion of the proposed ordinance should be revised; that she has waited a long time for a proposed tree ordinance and although the ordinance is not great, it is not bad. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she lives in a neighborhood that treasures trees; that she has concerns with the enforcement of the tree ordinance; that her dismay is that the tree gets cut down before the complaint comes to the City and the tree is already gone; that harsh measures should be taken against violators. Commissioner Cardamone asked what kind of penalties are placed on violators? Mr. Hewes stated that the violator is required to plant another tree. Mr. Johnston stated that the proposed ordinance provides for replacement of a like size or caliper. Commissioner Merrill stated that this proposed ordinance only protects grand trees in someone's back yard; that he agrees with Mr. Rabinowitz that if a homeowner is worried about hurricanes and has a big, old tree in the back yard, the homeowner should have the right to make the decision to remove it; that the proposed tree ordinance is difficult to understand; and that he does not think the proposed ordinance is an improvement. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Mayor Pillot (who passed the gavel to Commissioner Atkins), it was moved to approve set Ordinance No. 92-3624 for public hearing. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that it should be considered that the Book 36 Page 10060 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10061 01/03/94 6:00 P.M. existing ordinance will still exist if the proposed ordinance is not approved; that the existing ordinance has substantially tighter restrictions on single-family homeowners in permitting the replacement of trees and provides less latitude than what is being advocated at the table; and that if there is not support for setting this proposed ordinance for public hearing, a counterproposal should be developed for consideration which will be less strict than the existing ordinance. Mayor Pillot stated that he agrees with Vice Mayor Patterson's points; that because violations will occur is no reason not to have an ordinance or a law unless you are also willing to remove every stop sign and traffic signal; that he has total respect for Mr. Johnston and the others who have developed this proposed ordinance; that he believes the proposed ordinance is an improvement over the existing ordinance; and that the public deserves the opportunity to express their comments on (the proposed tree ordinance) at a public hearing. Commissioner Merrill requested that the existing ordinance be included in the packet for comparison to the proposed ordinance at the public hearing. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she includes in her motion that the sentence on page 6 be revisited to give more latitude. The seconder of the motion agreed. Commissioner Atkins called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no, Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Commissioner Atkins passed the gavel back to Mayor Pillot. 15. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA - REQUESTED CITY ATTORNEY AND THE ADMINISTRATION TO DEVELOP A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROCESS AND PRESENT IT TO THE COMMISSION WITHIN 30 DAYS (AGENDA ITEM X) #4 (0847) through (0922) COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: A. stated that she still requests that some effort be applied to changing the (phrase) special exception to special permit. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to request the City Attorney and the Administration to present a proposal to the Commission within 30 days to change the name of the special exception process to an alternative name. B. stated that five years ago the City of Sarasota marked most the oaks trees on Bahia Vista Street from Osprey Avenue and Tamiami Trail for removal with a blue "x" because they were diseased; that those trees are still standing. 16. OTHER MATTERS (ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) #4 (0924) through (0987) City Manager Sollenberger stated that he will be meeting with the County Administrator, the County Fire Chief, Director of Public Safety John Lewis, and Fire Chief Julius Halas in the near future to revisit the issue of consolidation between the City and County Fire Departments. 17. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (0990) The Regular Sarasota City Commission Meeting of January 4, 1994, adjourned at 11:06 p.m. TA GENE PILLOT, MAYOR ATTEST: & 9 0 Bille Robinson BILLY E. ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK Book 36 Page 10062 01/03/94 6:00 P.M.