BOOK 45 Page 17437 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 5, 1998, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Jerome Dupree, Vice Mayor Nora Patterson, Commissioners Mollie Cardamone, David Merrill, and Gene Pillot, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Jerome Dupree The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(a) of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:02 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR SEPTEMBER 1998, AL G. ARCHAMBAULT, CLERK- CASHIER, UTILITIES BILLING OFFICE, PUBLIC WORKS /UTILITIES DEPARTMENT #1 (0051) through (0240) City Manager Sollenberger requested that William Hallisey, Director of Public Works and Al Archambault, Clerk-Cashier, Utilities Billing Office, join him before the Commission. Mr. Hallisey stated that Mr. Archambault has been promoted twice within his two years of employment with the Cityi that Mr. Archambault is a conscientious, hardworking, knowledgeable employee whose enthusiastic attitude and superb customer service skills set an example for all City employees to follow; that customers and business owners specifically request assistance from Mr. Archambault in resolving issues; that Mr. Archambault assists in achieving the City's goal of being a City of urban amenities with small town living and feeling. Mr. Hallisey thanked Mr. Archambault for a job well done. Mayor Dupree presented Mr. Archambault with a City-logo watch, a plaque, and a certificate as the September 1998 Employee of the Month in appreciation of his unique pertormance with the City of Sarasota; and congratulated him for his outstanding efforts. Mr. Archambault recognized his wife, Christine, son, Nathan, and Adele, daughter, who were present in the audience; and thanked the Administration for making the Employee of the Month award available to employees, William Campbell, title, for nominating him, and his fellow office employees for their daily assistance. 2. PRESENTATION RE: PROCLAMATION DECLARING OCTOBER 1998 AS HUNGER AWARENESS MONTH #1 (0240) through (0310) Mayor Dupree requested that Amy Goetz, Executive Director, All Faiths Food Bank, join him before the Commission. Ms. Goetz stated that many activities and opportunities for people to participate in food drives and to learn more about issues concerning those in need are planned for the month of October, which is being cited as the first "Hunger Awareness Month" in Sarasota County; that the Commission and the public are invited to attend the "World Hunger Day" open house being held at the All Faiths Food Bank, 717 Cattleman Road, on Friday, October 16, 1998. Mayor Dupree read in its entirety the City of Sarasota Proclamation declaring October 1998 as "Hunger Awareness Month, 11 a month of special importance worthy of recognition by the citizens of the City of Sarasota. 3. PRESENTATION RE: PROCLAMATION DECLARING OCTOBER 20, 1998, AS TALK PEOPLE UP DAY #1 (0310) through (0479) Mayor Dupree requested that Attorney and Mrs. Leon Campbell join him before the Commission. Mayor Dupree read in its entirety the City of Sarasota Proclamation declaring October 20, 1998, as "Talk People Up Day, II a day of special importance worthy of recognition by the citizens of the City of Sarasota. Attorney Campbell stated that the purpose of "Talk People Up Day" is to instill principles into children through community involvement and interaction and to encourage children to believe in each other by emphasizing positive actions; that community leaders, teachers, principals, business leaders, etc., are encouraged to find something nice to say about each other and to avoid criticizing others or gossiping on October 20, 1998. Mrs. Campbell recognized Reverend Wallace Murray, Dr. Marvin Hendon, Assistant Principal, and Charles Martin, Teacher, representing; Westcoast School for Human Development, who were present in the audience. Mrs. Campbell stated that teachers at Emma E. Elementary School, where she is currently employed, have embraced the concept and intend to spread the message "Talk People Up, Tear No Man Down. II BOOK 45 Page 17438 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17439 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES RE: SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 1998, AND REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1998 APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I-1,-2) #1 (0500) through (0560) On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve the minutes of the special City Commission meeting of August 3, 1998. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the minutes of the regular City Commission meeting of September 21, 1998. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. 5. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY - APPROVED #1 (0560) through (0604) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Add under Unfinished Business, Item No. VII-4, Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 98R-1127, authorizing the submission of amended Local Housing Assistance Plans for the Sarasota State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program (SHIP); setting forth findings; authorizing its execution by the Mayor; etc., per the request of Donald Hadsell, Director of Housing and Community Development B. Add under Unfinished Business, Item No. VII-5, Approval Re: Proposed scoring system for the selection of low-income housing tax credit projects, per the request of Donald Hadsell, Director of Housing and Community Development On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0) : Cardamone, yesi Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. 6. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 - RECEIVED: AFFIRMED PBLP APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION PETITION NO. 98-SE-12; SET ORDINANCE NO. 98-4037 FOR PUBLIC HEARING (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (0604) through (0719) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Lou Ann Palmer Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), came before the Commission. Ms. Palmer presented the following items from the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's regular meeting of September 2, 1998: A. Petition No. 98-SE-12 Ms. Palmer stated that Petition No. 98-SE-12 is a special exception request to permit a 900 square-foot real estate office on the second floor of an existing building at 436 St. Armands Circle, located in the Commercial, Tourist (CT) Zone District; that the PBLP found Petition No. 98-SE-12 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommends Commission affirmation of the PBLP resolution approving the special exception request. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to affirm PBLP approval of Petition No. 98-SE-12. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. B. Ordinance No. 98-4073 Non-Conforming Adult Uses Ms. Palmer stated that proposed Ordinance No. 98-4073 deletes and replaces the provision for grandfathering of nonconforming Adult Use establishments as to location only with a two-year amortization period as set forth in Ordinance No. 97-4015; that the PBLP found proposed Ordinance No. 98-4073 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommends Commission approval. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends setting proposed Ordinance No. 98-4037 for two public hearings, as required. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to set proposed Ordinance No. 98-4037 for two public hearings, as required. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to receive the report of the PBLP's meeting of September 2, 1998. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. BOOK 45 Page 17440 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17441 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. 7. BOARD ACTIONS : REPORT RE: FIREFIGHTERSI PENSION BOARD OF TRUSTEES - SET PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 98-4080 FOR PUBLIC HEARING (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #1 (0719) through (3127) David Stershic, Chairman, Brad Armstrong, Actuary, Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company, Robert Sugarman, Law Firm of Sugarman & Susskind, representing the Firefighters' Pension Board of Trustees; and Julius Halas, Deputy Chief, Sarasota County Fire Department, acting as liaison for Sarasota County Government, came before the Commission. Battalion Chief Stershic stated that proposed Ordinance No. 98-4080 amends the Firefighters Pension Plan to provide consistency with revisions of Chapter 175, Florida Statutes, and contains administrative items as follows: Assigns the secretary additional record keeping duties. Requires an independent evaluation of the pertormance of the money managers at least every three years Allows investment in insured credit union accounts Allows investment of up to 10 percent of assets in foreign securities Removes all rating restrictions for equities. Allows the Board to use the City's advisers within certain conditions. Battalion Chief Stershic distributed to the Commission copies of an Actuarial Cost Estimate dated September 24, 1998, from Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company, certifying the effect of the changes in proposed Ordinance No. 98-4080 on contributions and obligations is de minimus. Vice Mayor Patterson asked for clarification on removal of the rating restriction for equities. Attorney Sugarman stated that Chapter 175, Florida Statutes, previously required both stocks and bonds be rated in one of the three highest rating categories by a national rating service; that amendments passed by the 1998 Legislature made the rating requirement applicable only to bonds not stocks, thereby providing for investment in mid-cap and small-cap stocks, which generally are not rated because the companies are too small to afford a rating service. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to set proposed Ordinance No. 98-4080 for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): : Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. Battalion Chief Stershic stated that as a result of City/County Fire Department consolidation, the City of Sarasota Firefighters' Pension Plan became a closed plan; that firefighters hired subsequent to the consolidation are County employees and participate in the Florida Retirement System (FRS). Battalion Chief Stershic continued that two issues prompted the proposed changes to Chapter 24, Division 2, Sarasota City Code, concerning the Firefighters Pension Plan: 1) the fully funded status of the Plan jeopardizes continued receipt from the State of Florida of Chapter 175 revenues returned based on a percentage of the fire insurance fees assessed to City property owners and 2) the attrition of duplicate management positions and other senior Fire Department personnel, as expected by the County following consolidation, has not occurred; that meetings between the Board of Trustees, representatives of Sarasota County, and the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Local 2546 resulted in a proposal which will preserve Chapter 175 revenues, enhance the Plan for the firetighters, and reduce the County's contribution. Battalion Chief Stershic referred to the following changes set forth in proposed Ordinance No. 98-4074 as outlined in the Agenda material: Guarantees a minimum pension under certain conditions Increases "line of duty" disability multiplier to 3.3 percent Increases the normal retirement multiplier from 3 percent to 3.3 percent. Assigns multipliers for retirement at ages 44 to 49 with 25 years of service, respectively, as follows: 3.0, 3.05, 3.10, 3.15, 3.20 and 3.25 percent. Assigns multipliers for retirement at ages 50 to 55 or older with at least 10 but less than 25 years of service, respectively, as follows: 3.0, 3.06, 3.12, 3.18, 3.24 and 3.3 percent, respectively. Fixes cost of living adjustment (COLA) at 3.5 percent annually Continues survivor pension upon remarriage of spouse or dependent parent Defines "available funds" and provides for distribution of same Deletes the 8 percent minimum contribution for the employer BOOK 45 Page 17442 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17443 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. Battalion Chief Stershic stated that the IAFF supports proposed Ordinance 98-4074; that a waiver of collective bargaining on benefits has been forwarded directly to Sarasota County. Battalion Chief Stershic continued that the City has the responsibility of ensuring actuarial soundness of the Plan; however, in accordance with the Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Services, the County is responsible for making any employer contributions. Deputy Chief Halas stated that the County is concerned not only with enhancing attrition but also with the potential loss of revenue sharing; that the Plan receives approximately $350,000 of Chapter 175 revenues annually; that although the employer contribution has decreased from 13 percent to 9 percent and is projected to decrease again next year, a County contribution of approximately $500,000 is estimated based on the current Plan; that proposed Ordinance No. 98-4074 provides the potential to maintain $350,000 in State revenue, affords the opportunity for the employer contribution to decrease to zero percent in two years, and promotes attrition by retaining the 8 percent employee contribution and by changing the basis for the COLA from a Consumer Price Index, which has averaged 2 percent or less, to a fixed 3.5 percent upon retirement; that a Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP), which has been instituted by the FRS and is available to County-hired firefighters, could encourage continued employment; therefore, has not been proposed for incorporation into the Firefighters' Pension Plan. Deputy Chief Halas continued that James Ley, County Administrator, and David Bullock, Deputy County Administrator, support the benefit changes proposed in Ordinance Nos. 98-4074 and 98-4080; that the Interlocal Agreement requires prior approval of the County before changes are made to the Firefighters'! Pension Plan; that the proposed changes to the Plan will be explained at individual meetings scheduled with the County Commissioners and a resolution of support presented for approval on the October 13, 1998, County Commission meeting agenda. Commissioner Pillot asked if the City Commission has any problems with respect to collective bargaining law? City Attorney Taylor stated no. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that as a closed fund, a last benefit will be paid at some point, e.g., 50 years in the future; and asked if the remaining fund reserves will be shared between the State, City, and County? Attorney Sugarman stated yes; that termination benefits under Chapter 175, Florida Statutes, provide for allocated distribution of the fund reserves to the contributors after the last benefit is paid or guaranteed to the last surviving beneficiary; that annuities are often purchased and administration of benefits transferred to an insurance company when the number of participants reduces to a handful. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends setting proposed Ordinance No. 98-4074 for public hearing provided that 1) evidence of County Commission approval for the proposed changes is received prior to the public hearing and 2) a provision is incorporated which will protect the City's financial interests in the unlikely event the consolidation of Fire services is dissolved. City Manager Sollenberger continued that County Administrator Ley supports and plans to recommend approval of the proposed pension plan changes to the County Commission; that the Board of Trustees raised questions and has requested that his written recommendation be clarified; that a cap of 8 percent on the employer contribution is not being recommended; that he is recommending the City's financial interests be protected, in the unlikely event the consolidation of Fire services is dissolved, by incorporating a clause stating that the enhanced benefits provided by proposed Ordinance No. 98-4074 will be scaled back accordingly if, because of the enhancement, a City contribution in excess of 8 percent were required. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to set proposed Ordinance No. 98-4074 for public hearing once the conditions outlined by City Manager Sollenberger are met. Commissioner Pillot requested comment from Battalion Chief Stershic regarding the Administration's recommendation. Battalion Chief Stershic stated that the concern was that a defined contribution versus a defined benefit plan was being recommended; that the Administration's recommendation as clarified by City Manager Sollenberger is acceptable; that comment from representatives of IAFF, Local 2546, may be appropriate. Mayor Dupree requested comment from the IAFF representatives. Neal Elliott, Business Agent, and Anthony Dogoda, President, IAFF, Local 2546, came before the Commission. Mr. Elliott stated that in the event the City/County consolidation of Fire services is dissolved, several issues concerning the pension plan may arise; that the union will have at least one year to negotiate the terms of firefighters' returning BOOK 45 Page 17444 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17445 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. to employment with the City; however, the City Manager Sollenberger's clarification that an 8 percent cap on the employer's contribution is not being recommended or established is acceptable. Commissioner Pillot requested confirmation that IAFF, Local 2546, has waived collective bargaining on the proposed changes in proposed Ordinance No. 98-4074. Mr. Elliott stated that is correct. Deputy Chief Halas stated that a copy of the waiver of collective bargaining the County received from IAFF, Local 2546, was provided to City Manager Sollenberger earlier today. Deputy Chief Halas continued that a termination agreement was incorporated into the Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Services; and referred to the following set forth in Article 12 of the Interlocal Agreement: 12.6 In the event of termination or expiration of this Agreement, COUNTY and CITY shall cooperate in good faith in order to effectuate a smooth and harmonious transition from COUNTY to a City operated or contracted Fire and/or Emergency Medical Service and to maintain during such period of transition the same high quality of Fire and Emergency Medical protection otherwise afforded to the residents of CITY pursuant to the terms hereof. 12.8.6 The parties agree that upon termination of the agreement, the CITY will voluntarily recognize IAFF Local 2546, if at the time of termination of the agreement, employees being employed by the CITY are represented by said union, providing that the union demonstrates at least a 66-2/3 percent showing of interest. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4074 will provide a substantial benefit to the County by reducing the County's contribution to zero, promoting desired attrition, and enhancing employee pension benefits; that the City, who has been the prime contributor to the Plan, receives no actual benefit; that the proposed ordinance will be supported as the County and firefighters who assisted the City in achieving an equitable consolidation of services is deserving of the City's cooperation; however, future requests for enhanced benefits are likely if excess funds accumulate again; that the City will be losing its long-term legacy of funding eligible for receipt at the time the last benefit is paid while retaining only a long- term obligation to fund post-retirement insurance benefits for Plan participants; that, hopefully, in the future, the Commission and Administration's institutional memory will prompt a request for something back for the City. Commissioner Pillot agreed. Mr. Elliott stated that the City's substantial contribution to the Plan is recognized; that a four percent contribution, equivalent to $1,450 per firefighter, is forwarded to the City annually to help offset the post-retirement insurance cost; that the collective bargaining agreement put forth for ratification by IAFP-represented firefighters includes a provision by which the City would receive an additional two percent contribution for a total of six percent equivalent to approximately $2,200 per firefighter, beginning October 1, 1999. Deputy Chief Halas stated that IAFF members will vote to ratify the proposed collective bargaining agreement on Wednesday, October 7, 1998; that the agreement, if ratified by the IAFF members, will be placed on the October 13, 1998, agenda for County Commission ratification; that County Administrator Ley has affirmed his recommendation in favor of the proposed collective bargaining agreement. Commissioner Pillot stated that proposed Ordinance No. 98-4074 allows the City Commission to remain fiscally responsible while recognizing the quality service firefighters in the Sarasota Firefighters' Pension Plan have and continue to provide to all people of Sarasota County. Commissioner Cardamone stated that accelerated attrition expected following the City/County consolidation of Fire services did not occur; and asked the basis on which accelerated attrition is expected following adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4074? Deputy Chief Halas stated that six duplicative management positions were identified and earmarked for attrition following consolidation; that only one retirement occurred; that currently the Plan provides for full or normal retirement only at age 50 with 25 years of service; that several senior officers have over 25 years of service but have not attained the age of 50; that a favorable response to the proposed enhanced benefits was received at a pre-retirement seminar held recently by the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk; that several of the 40 firefighters who attended the meeting commented that rapid attrition was probable; that an employee contribution of 8 percent will continue; that firefighters who meet the proposed retirement criteria will essentially become volunteers if employment is continued; that based on the proposed benefit enhancements, eligible firefighters will, upon retirement, receive funds comparable to their current net pay. BOOK 45 Page 17446 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17447 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. Mayor Dupree called for a vote on the motion to set proposed Ordinance No. 98-4074 for public hearing once evidence of County support has been received and a clause to protect the City's financial interests in the event the Fire consolidation dissolves has been incorporated. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yesi Dupree, yes. 8. PRESENTATION RE: FIRST FOUR AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA STATE CONSTITUTION PROPOSED BY THE FLORIDA STATE LEGISLATURE - ADMINISTRATION. TO RESEARCH THE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOME NOT EXCEEDING $20,000 #1 (2167) through (3190) Mayor Dupree welcomed Representative Shirley Brown, District 69, Florida House of Representatives. Representative Brown came before the Commission and distributed a document entitled "Constitutional Amendments Proposed by the Florida Legislature" and stated that four amendments have been placed on the November 1998 general election ballot by the State Legislature: Amendment #1: Ad Valorem Exemption and Assessment of Historic Properties Representative Brown stated that Amendment #1 will allow cities and counties to authorize by ordinance the assessment of historic property based solely on the property's character and use rather than the current highest and best use valuation; that Amendment #1 will apply only to those jurisdictions adopting the assessment methodology by ordinance; that the State Legislature would have to specify the requirements for eligibility; that some downtown areas have numerous historic buildings; that tax relief is made available during the period of restoration of the historic building; however after restoration, the historic buildings are taxed at the commercial value, forcing many tenants to leave; that often not-for-profit organizations such as chambers of commerce and arts councils take over historic properties but cannot afford the taxes at the full commercial value; that some historic property owners found the taxes excessive and asked for relief; that a State legislative act must be enacted and a local ordinance adopted to implement Amendment #1, if passed. Representative Brown continued that Amendment #1 also allows counties to pass an ordinance to grant an ad valorem tax exemption to owners of historic properties without a requirement the owner be engaged in rehabilitation or renovation of the historic property; that the exemption would be a benefit to areas such as the City of Sarasota which are concerned about preservation of historic properties; that local jurisdictions can weigh the positive and negative aspects of the provision of the amendment. Amendment #2 Death Penalty Representative Brown stated that Amendment #2 would place the death penalty as a form of punishment in the State Constitution, making a challenge of the death penalty as unconstitutional more difficult; that a provision of Amendment #2 provides the death sentence will remain in effect even if the original method of execution is declared unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment; that an alternative form of execution can be effectuated; that currently death sentences are commuted if the method of execution is found unconstitutional. Amendment #3 Additional Homestead Exemption Representative Brown stated that the effect of Amendment #3 on the City should be carefully considered; that feedback from the City Commission would be appreciated after Staff has reviewed the proposal; that Amendment #3 has the potential of affecting the City Commission as well as City and County taxpayers; that Amendment #3 allows the State Legislature to enact legislation enabling cities and counties to provide for an additional homestead exemption not to exceed $25,000 to persons who are 65 or older whose household income does not exceed $20,000; that the State Legislature must pass enabling legislation defining household income and provide for the periodic adjustment of the income limitations for changes in the cost of living; therefore, the State Legislature could review and revise the enabling legislation annually; that cities and counties did not provide much response to Amendment #3; however, considerable opposition was received from schools and from independent taxing districts which have little opportunity to raise revenue; that schools are almost totally dependent on property taxes; therefore, Amendment #3 was revised so as not to apply to school taxes or independent taxing districts; that income has not been defined in Amendment #3; that many people over 65 have assets which are not considered income; that: the Office of Economic and Demographic Research estimates the provision will result in the removal of approximately $300 million in property value from the tax roll in Sarasota County, including the cities therein, or approximately $1 million in revenues to the cities and county; that cities would be required to cut the budget or raise other taxes to make up the deficit; that understanding the effect of Amendment #3 on the citizens of Sarasota is important and would provide a better ability to advise voters when requested. BOOK 45 Page 17448 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17449 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. Amendment #4 Recording of Instruments Representative Brown stated that Amendment #4 is non-controversial and will allow the County to designate a branch office for recording of instruments. Representative Brown distributed a booklet to the Commission containing the exact text of Amendments #1 through #4 and the ballot language which will be before the voters; and stated that the booklet also contains the amendments proposed by the Constitutional Revision Commission; that additional booklets are available from the Office of the Supervisor of Elections. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that Amendment #3 provides for an additional substantial tax exemption for persons 65 or older with a specific income when a 30 year old with the same income and potentially several children in the household may have more of a need; and asked the rationale of the State Legislature in adopting Amendment #3. Representative Brown stated that the ability to successfully challenge Amendment #3 if passed and incorporated into the State Constitution is not known; that the appearance is a resort to age discrimination; that the sponsors who filed the bill believed something extra was necessary for citizens 65 or older who have given sO much of their lives to the community; that the State Legislature explored many avenues to return money to the citizens in the 1998 election yeari that a person 65 or older is two to three times more likely to vote than a person who is 30 and has no assets, which may have been a consideration; that the response may be too honest. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the response is probably accurate. Commissioner Cardamone stated that an impact will be felt only by cities and counties enacting the exemption; that a person can have considerable assets and still have an income of less than $20,000; that some assets do not produce income; that Amendment #1 may also have a considerable impact on cities; that the City of Sarasota may not have numerous historic properties in commercial areas; however, the City of Tallahassee does have a considerable number of historic properties in commercial areas; that the property taxes in Tallahassee are not very high; that more information is necessary concerning the effect of Amendment #1 on the City of Sarasota and other cities of comparable size; that the property taxes in the City of Sarasota are not significant enough to drive tenants away from historic buildings. Mayor Dupree asked if Commission action is necessary at this time? Representative Brown stated noi however, each Commissioner will personally vote on the Amendments; that advice and counsel may be sought by the public from the Commissioners; that understanding the local impact would be advantageous; that jurisdictions choosing to take advantage of Amendment #1 may do so by adopting a local ordinance; that the local discretion in drafting an enabling ordinance is not yet determined; that such details would be developed in the next legislative session beginning in December 1998 if the Amendments are passed by the voters; that the Commission should remain in contact with the legislative delegation to provide input regarding the development of enabling legislation. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Amendments #1 and #3 allow the cities and/or counties to enact the exemptions; that the exemptions will not be implemented without Commission action; that any study on the impact on the City would be undertaken if the City decides to take advantage of the opportunity provided by the State Legislature. Commissioner Cardamone continued that as a retailer, she participated in and supported the tax-free week given to the public recently by the State Legislature; however, the City and the County enacted the Local Option Sales T'ax (L.O.S.T.) also called the Penny Sales Tax; that the L.O.S.T. was the City's and the County's penny enacted by the City's and the County's voters as a result of a major organization effort and referendum; that the State Legislature gave the penny. awayi that carrying the message to the State Legislature would be appreciated. Representative Brown stated that the message will be conveyed; that the Commission would have wanted to help parents with the tax-free week prior to the commencement of school; that obtaining demographic information from the City as to the number of households with an income not exceeding $20,000 would be appreciated and would help determine the impact of Amendment #3. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the information will be researched. Representative Brown stated that an invitation is extended to Commissioner Cardamone to attend a breakfast sponsored by the Retailers for Responsible Government (RRG) which will be held in Sarasota in October 1998; that the Speaker-Designate of the State House of Representatives, John Thrasher, will be presented with the RRG'S Retailer of the Year Award. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the invitation is gratefully accepted. BOOK 45 Page 17450 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17451 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. 9. BOARD ACTIONS: : REPORT RE: POLICE OFFICERS' PENSION BOARD OF TRUSTEES - POSTPONED ACTION ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE NOS. 98-4087 AND 98-4088 PENDING A REPORT BACK TO THE COMMISSION (AGENDA ITEM II-3) #1 (3160) through #2 (2130) John Schultz, Chairman of Police Officers' Pension Board of Trustees, and Brad Armstrong, Actuary, Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company came before the Commission. David Grant, Detective, Sarasota Police Department, displayed various documents on the overhead projector during the presentation. Detective Schultz stated that proposed Ordinance No. 98-4087 amends the Police Officers' Pension Plan to provide consistency with revisions to Florida Statutes and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Code, and other changes as follows: Amends the definition of "member" to comply with the definition established by the State of Florida, Division of Retirement, Municipal Police Officers and Firefighters Pension Office Amends the section on exemption from execution, nonassignabillty Clarifies vested rights with 10 years of service Amends the sections on maximum pension and distribution of benefits and the section on commencement of benefits to comply with changes in the tax code Deletes the section on "Claims Procedures' - and adds a statement that the Board shall establish administrative rules instead Prohibits disability benefits for disabilities resulting from pre-existing conditions Allows the Fund to invest up to 10 percent of assets in foreign securities and removes the rating restrictions Amends the section on "Cost of Living Adjustments" (COLA) to provide a fixed-rate COLA of 3.5 percent for members that retire after October 21, 1998. Members that retired prior to October 1, 1998, will have a one-time, irrevocable option to select the fixed-rate COLA or retain the current COLA based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) Detective Schultz stated that the existing restriction on foreign investments requires stocks to be eliminated from the portfolio when a foreign company buys out an American company, e.g., when Tropicana was purchased by Seagrams, a Canadian company. Detective Schultz referred to various charts and graphs listing foreign company names and world capitalization investment percentages to explain the limitations created by excluding investment in foreign securities. Detective Schultz stated that an American company has been rated among the top five performing companies only once between 1987 and 1997; that none of the 10 largest real estate companies are located in the United States; that 9 of the 10 largest insurance and chemical companies are not located in the United States. Detective Schultz continued that proposed Ordinance No. 98-4088 provides the following benefit changes: Adds a Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) Changes normal retirement eligibility from age 50 with 25 years of service or age 55 with 10 years of service to 25 years of service, regardless of age, or age 50 with 10 years of service Detective Schultz stated that Sarasota Police Department has had difficulty attracting qualified candidates to fill police officer vacancies; that many law enforcement agencies participate in the Florida Retirement System (FRS) which provides for benefits after 25 years of service with no age requirement and does not require an 8 percent employee contribution; that a career in law enforcement is not a job but a lifestyle; that police officers, either on duty or off duty, are required by law to take action when a situation requiring law enforcement arises within the City; that the number of assaults on law enforcement personnel increases annually; that the proposed changes will allow the City to remain competitive in the Florida job market and attract the most qualified young and veteran officers. Detective Schultz referred to a letter dated June 17, 1998, from Patricia Shoemaker, Retirement Administrator, Division of Retirement, State of Florida, and a letter dated July 19, 1998, from Merrill Lynch Consulting Services to explain the financial status of the Police Officers' Pension Fund. Detective Schultz stated that $635,548 in Chapter 185 revenues were received from the State for 1997; that the Fund has earned an average annual return of 16.2 percent over the six-year period ending March 31, 1998, ranks in the top 10 percent in comparison to other public pension funds, and earned returns exceeding the 13.8 percent median public fund, resulting in additional earnings of approximately $8 million; that the Fund's average annual BOOK 45 Page 17452 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17453 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. return for the three years ending March 31, 1998, was 23.6 percent, before expenses, resulting in earnings of approximately $31 million more than would have been produced by simply earning the assumed rate of 8 percent; that the City's contribution rate which had been as high as 15 to 16 percent was reduced to 8 percent in 1997; that the Board of Trustees is prudent in administering the Fund and reserves excess funds to compensate for downturns in the market; that although market conditions have been poor over the last six months, in excess of $20 million remains in the Fund. Detective Schultz briefly referred to retirement criteria of Statewide and local law enforcement agencies as data supporting a revision in the normal retirement to 25 years of service, regardless of age. Detective Schultz stated that the FRS and numerous other cities have instituted DROP plans, which provide the opportunity for employees, once eligible, to file for retirement benefits while continuing to work; that the employee can continue working from one day to five years without making the mandatory 8 percent employee contribution; that the employer contribution also stops; however, the pension benefits continue to accumulate for a maximum of five years. Commissioner Pillot asked the role performed by Mr. Armstrong? Mr. Armstrong stated that as the actuarial for the Police Officers' Pension Fund, he prepares the annual evaluation report which provide the City with the required employer contribution rate for the coming year, reviews activities resulting in gains and losses in the Fund, summarizes Fund activities for prior years, provides the funded status for the Plan on an ongoing basis, and analyzes the impact proposed changes to the Plan may have on City contribution requirements. Commissioner Pillot asked if a waiver on collective bargaining has been provided by the Police Benevolent Association (PBA) ? Detective Schultz stated yes. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the president of the PBA provided verbal consent of a waiver on collective bargaining and indicated a document would be forwarded to the Administration; that the waiver should be received prior to the public hearing on proposed Ordinance Nos. 98-4087 and 98-4088. City Manager Sollenberger continued that the competitiveness of the Sarasota Police Officers' Pension Plan with the FRS as well as the long-term financial position of the City were considered in developing the Administration's recommendation; that the Plan currently provides a COLA based on the CPI up to a maximum of 4 percent; that the FRS provides a fixed COLA of 3 percent; that proposed Ordinance No. 98-4087 as currently drafted includes a 3.5 percent fixed rate; that the Administration recommends a 3 percent minimum COLA, for consistency with the FRS, and a 4 percent maximum COLA based on the CPI. City Manager Sollenberger further stated that the Administration recommends setting proposed Ordinance No. 98-4088 for public hearing provided that the City's financial interests are protected by incorporating a clause requiring the enhanced benefits provided by proposed Ordinance No. 98-4088 be scaled back accordingly if, because of the enhancement, a City contribution in excess of 8 percent were required. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the average COLA provided to Plan participants since 1975 was initially reported at 2.87 percent; that more accurate data indicates the COLA averaged 3.45 percent, which makes more sense based on the indication the enhanced benefit could be provided at no cost; that a COLA below 3 percent has been provided only seven times in the past 23 years; that the Administration's proposal for a 3 percent minimum and 4 percent maximum COLA may cause an increase in the City's contribution whereas a 3.5 percent fixed COLA would not. Mr. Armstrong, stated that the costs are being projected for an open groupi that a participant could enter the Plan at age 21, live 50 years, and leave a beneficiary collecting benefits for 25 years; therefore, the projections are based on a 75 year duration; that the low inflation experienced over the past few years will probably continue over the next couple of years; that a 3.5 percent assumption is the best approximation of long-term expectation given that the current maximum is 4 percent; that the impacts could not be qualified without analysis, however, the Administration's proposal would have a bias towards being more expensive based on experience; that double-digit inflation occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s; that a COLA average of 4 percent to 5 percent based on CPI is likely over the next 50 years. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Administration's proposal may cause a greater expense and would require annual calculation of the COLA; that a 3.5 percent fixed COLA would exceed that of the FRS but represents the average the City has been paying and would pay in the long term. Vice Mayor Patterson continued that the Administration's recommendation is supported; however, incorporating a clause requiring the enhanced benefits be scaled back accordingly if, because of the enhancement, a City contribution in excess of 8 percent were required may be difficult to implement. BOOK 45 Page 17454 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17455 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. Detective Schultz stated that an option exists to utilize $8 million of surplus to fund the enhanced benefit, leaving approximately $12 million in excess funds. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that irrespective of the mechanism, the enhanced benefit could result in an increased expense to the City; that, for example, if $8 million is specifically reserved to fund the benefit and the remaining $12 million of excess funds dwindles to $4 million, the contribution by the City, which has a responsibility to make the Fund actuarial sound, will increase to supplement the loss; that Commission support to fund the proposed retirement eligibility benefit should be a conscious decision. Commissioner Merrill stated that proposing enhanced benefits sO the City can remain competitive in attracting and retaining qualified police personnel is more appropriate than proposing benefits because excess funds have been generated during a good market; that market conditions are predicted to change; that a mechanism to limit the City's financial exposure should be developed. Commissioner Merrill continued that the Federal government calculates a COLA annually for social security recipients; that establishing a calculation methodology and adjusting a base number annually is not difficult; that the actuary performs a calculation on assumptions annually to project anticipated Fund returns, including risk-free rates of return, etc. Mr. Armstrong stated that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes the indexes used to calculate assumptions. Commissioner Merrill asked if the existing COLA based on the CPI up to a maximum of 4 percent was in effect when double-digit inflation was experienced? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated yes; that a one-time adjustment of 10 percent was provided late in the 1980s as compensation for the loss in purchasing power retirees experienced in earlier years. Commissioner Merrill stated that, in reality, COLA percentages set forth by ordinance can always be changed; that, philosophically, determining and implementing a COLA annually makes more sense; and asked the basis for requesting a change to increase the COLA percentage at a time when economic indicators and market expectations support a continuation of low inflation over the next two years? Mr. Armstrong stated that 3.5 percent is used as a long-term assumption. Commissioner Merrill stated that a 3.5 percent fixed COLA would deviate from the philosophy of and disagree with the purpose for providing a COLA, which is to maintain an even level of purchasing power; and asked why the Commission should support a COLA which would provide for an increase twice the real rate of inflation over the next two years? Mr. Armstrong stated that future petitions from retired Plan participants for one-time benefit increases could be postponed or avoided; that the 3.5 fixed rate is used as a basis to meet long-term expectations of CPI; however, the actual rate of inflation may be higher; that participants will lose purchasing power over their retired lives. Commissioner Merrill stated that long-term, the actual cost of living cannot be escaped; that one-time adjustments will be necessary if a fixed rate is too low; that eliminating the 4 percent maximum and calculating the annual increase based on the actual COLA or fixing the rate and raising the maximum to 5 percent may. be more appropriate; that worldwide market conditions indicate the potential for a recession; that changing the Plan to increase the COLA at a time when inflation may only be 1.5 percent would be financially irresponsible in the short term. Mr. Armstrong stated that the City's exposure would be greater if a COLA is directly equated to the CPI published by the Federal government; that all impact statements and annual evaluation reports are reviewed by the Division of Retirement; that the State actuary reviewing the change would likely require an assumption in excess of 3.5 percent, which would increase the current funding requirements for the Plan; that the Fund would sustain gains and receive a credit during years the COLA is lower than 3.5 percent; however, a cost increase would be reflected in the impact statement the year the change is implemented because of the long-term implications; that the Division of Retirement, as issued in statements, will not approve changes that do not treat generations fairly; that taxpayers of today would be benefiting at the expense of taxpayers in an environment where high COLA increases would be granted if the funding assumption of 3.5 percent is not adjusted; that the assumption for investment returns is 4.5 percent after inflation; that directly equating the inflation assumption to the CPI would result in equivalent assumptions for COLA and investment returns, thus increasing liability in the evaluation report. Discussion continued between Commissioner Merrill and Mr. Armstrong regarding the philosophy of a COLA, calculation of actuarial assumptions for inflation and investment returns, and the merits and disadvantages of incorporating a 3.5 percent fixed COLA into the Plan. BOOK 45 Page 17456 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17457 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. Mayor Dupree asked the rationale for the Administration's proposal recommending a 3 percent minimum up to a 4 percent maximum COLA based on the CPI? City Manager Sollenberger stated that developing his recommendation was difficult; that he struggled with the concerns being voiced by Commissioner Merrill; that although low inflation is expected to continue, the FRS, the largest provider of pension benefits to law enforcement personnel, provides a 3 percent fixed rate COLA; therefore, a 3 percent minimum was recommended to provide comparability with the FRS. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that changing the normal retirement to 25 years of service with no age requirement is of greater concern than providing a 3.5 percent fixed COLA; and asked if the cost estimated at 3.88 percent of police officers payroll as indicated in the Actuarial Cost Estimate dated September 1, 1998, will apply if $8 million of surplus is specifically reserved to fund the benefit? Mr. Armstrong stated that the $8 million requirement to fund the benefit was an estimate not reflected in the most recent evaluation report; that a one-time adjustment would be necessary to establish the reserve of $8 million, which would assume the effect of the 3.88 percent increase. Detective Schultz stated that, essentially, there may be no real difference between assessing a 3.88 percent contribution each year and reserving a lump sum to pay for the benefit. Mr. Armstrong stated that the long-term expectation for the City's contribution rate is 16.59 percent based on the current benefit provisions; that, currently, the employer's required actuarial contribution rate is 1.61 percent. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the City is required to contribute a minimum of 8 percent; therefore, the City would not actually be affected until the impacts of the enhanced benefit cause the City's contribution to exceed 8 percent. Mr. Armstrong stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the Administration's recommendation to scale back the benefit once the City's contribution rate exceeds 8 percent is feasible? Mr. Armstrong stated that existing benefits would also be disrupted if the Administration's recommendation is implemented; that minimum requirements under Chapter 185, Florida Statutes, could also be affected; that the Administration's recommendation was not provided for review prior to this meeting. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission may want to table the discussion. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he realizes the Administration's recommendation has caused some confusion; and recommended that the Board of Trustees review his recommendation and report back as to whether the intent can be accomplished and, if sO, how. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Commission has a responsibility to fund the existing benefits; that the difficulty of incorporating language into the ordinance is not understood; that the language could simply state: 1) the City will fund its obligation and 2) the City will fund the proposed enhanced benefits provided that, in the event the enhanced benefit will cause the City's contribution to exceed 8 percent, the benefit will be scaled back to prevent the City's contribution from exceeding 8 percent; that the issue can be resolved using common sense and simple arithmetic. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the General Employees' Pension Board of Trustees took excess funds realized during years when an 8 percent City contribution was received but a lower contribution required and established a reserve fund specifically to fund future benefits; that the reserve fund is sufficient to fund a proposed benefit; however, a provision has been included whereby the increase will automatically reduce if the benefit causes the City's contribution to exceed 8 percent; that the logic used by the General Employees Pension Board should be reviewed. Mr. Armstrong stated that he is also the actuary for the General Employees Pension Plan, which has lower benefits; that the City's contribution rate for the Police Officers' Pension Plan has been 8 percent or less only twice in the past 12 years; that the surplus has developed through extraordinary investment returns that may never be matched; that credits received in prior years will expire. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to postpone Commission discussion pending presentation of a more understandable ordinance developed by the Police Officers' Pension Board of Trustees and appropriate City personnel. Commissioner Merrill requested that a comparative analysis be performed and presented showing the difference in impact to employees of: 1) a 3.5 percent fixed COLA and 2) a COLA directly equated to the CPI with a 5 percent maximum; that the philosophy of a COLA is to provide a monetary adjustment to assist in maintaining purchase power not just to provide an increase annually; that the inflation rate is expected to remain lower than 3 percent for several years; that providing for a COLA BOOK 45 Page 17458 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17459 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. directly equated to the CPI with a higher percent maximum seems more appropriate than the City's contributing unrecoverable excess funds to the Plan. Mayor Dupree asked the effect of the motion on proposed Ordinance Nos. 98-4087 and 98-4088? City Attorney Taylor stated that the proposed ordinances will be reviewed and perhaps revised; that a report back to the Commission would be delayed pending discussion between the Board of Trustees and the Administration. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the ordinances were proposed to bring the City to a competitive level with the FRS; that a compromise should be considered if the Administration's proposal makes funding the benefit impossible. Commissioner Merrill stated that, initially, he was told the enhanced benefits would not increase the City's contribution; that Mr. Armstrong indicated this evening that the City's contribution is expected to exceed 8 percent and potentially increase to 16 percent in future years without any benefit enhancements; that the effect of benefits on remaining competitive in the job market should be carefully reviewed; that enhancing benefits to attract and retain qualified officers could be supported more easily than enhancing benefits to distribute excess funds gained during a good market. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she does not oppose the enhanced benefits but requires additional information to make an informative decision. Mayor Dupree stated that a vast amount of information and comparative pension data of surrounding cities and Statewide law enforcement agencies has been provided; that the task assigned is not clearly understood. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration will meet with the Board of Trustees, review the issues raised, and report back with a more concise, factual overview of the impacts to the City. Mayor Dupree called for a vote on the motion to postpone Commission discussion pending presentation of a more understandable ordinance developed by the Police Officers' Pension Board of Trustees and appropriate City personnel. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): : Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. 10. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION BOARD OF TRUSTEES INCORPORATED LANGUAGE PROPOSED BY THE ATTORNEY FOR THE GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION PLAN INTO PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 98-4086 AND SET PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 98-4086 FOR PUBLIC HEARING (AGENDA ITEM II-4) #2 (2132) through (2425) Michael Taylor, Chairman, Lou Ann Palmer, Trustee, Douglas Taylor, Trustee, General Employees' Pension Board of Trustees, came before the Commission. Chairman Taylor stated that proposed Ordinance No. 98-4086 provides for a benefit improvement to increase the pension multiplier for General Employees from 2.0 to 2.25 percent of gross earnings for future years of service beginning October 1, 1997; that no additional funding from the City is required to fund the benefit; that a provision automatically reduces the benefit improvement if the benefit improvement causes the City's contribution to the General Employees pension plan to increase above 8 percent; that funding for this benefit improvement came from a minimum contribution reserve fund established by the General Employees' Pension Board of Trustees in 1994; that the reserve is funded by the difference between the City 8 percent minimum contribution and the actuarially required contribution; that any concern other funding sources may be used to perpetuate the benefit improvement should be alleviated by the following language from an October 2, 1998, letter from Scott Christiansen, Attorney for the General Employees' Pension Plan, to the City Manager: The Board shall not fund the minimum contribution reserve from any other source. Chairman Taylor stated that the language reaffirms the intent of the General Employees' Pension Board of Trustees; that a waiver has not been received from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local #173, for proposed Ordinance No. 98-4086; however, a waiver was received for an earlier proposed ordinance for the same benefit improvement; therefore, obtaining a waiver is not anticipated as a concern; that the General Employees' Pension Board of Trustees respectfully, requests setting proposed Ordinance No. 98-4086 for public hearing including the language proposed by the Attorney for the General Employees' Pension Plan. Commissioner Pillot stated that the benefit improvement proposed appears relatively simple. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to: 1) incorporate the language proposed by the Attorney for the General Employees' Pension Plan into proposed Ordinance No. 98-4086 and 2) set proposed Ordinance No. 98-4086 for public hearing; that the language provides BOOK 45 Page 17460 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17461 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. additional assurance the City will not be required to increase the contribution to the General Employees' pension plan above 8 percent to fund the benefit improvement. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation with the stipulation that the City Attorney and Staff are satisfied that all requirements of collective bargaining have been met. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. The Commission recessed at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened at 8:48 p.m. 11. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NO. 1 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #2 (2425) through (2500) 1. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Bishop and Associates, Inc., Sarasota, Florida, in the amount of $39,662.00, for the Siesta Drive Drainage Improvement Project. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 1. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. Vice Mayor Patterson returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:50 p.m. 12. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM NO. 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 98R-1126) = ADOPTED; ITEM NO. 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 98R-1128) = ADOPTED: ITEM NO. 3 (ORDINANCE 98-4091) ADOPTED; 1 ITEM NO. 4 (ORDINANCE NO. 98-4092) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM NO. III-B) #2 (2500) through (2579) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 98R-1128 in its entirety, proposed Resolution No. 98-R-1126, proposed Ordinance No. 98-4091 and proposed Ordinance No. 98-4092 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 98R-1126, accepting abatement of nuisance and cost reports pertaining to the removal of accumulations of junk, rubbish, trash or other offending matter; directing the assessment of a lien against the property described in each abatement report for the amount stated therein; etc. (Title Only) 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 98R-1128, appropriating $40,000 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund Forfeitures) to fund one year's rent, alarm and phone service for an off-site location used by the Police Vice/Narcotics Section, etc. 3. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4091, providing for the designation of the structure located at 1675 Oak Street historically known as the Jerome K. Martin House as a structure of historic significance pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Sarasota; more particularly described herein; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 98-HD-04, Petitioner Robin L. Schmidt, owner). 4. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 98-4092, providing for the designation of the structure located at 1330 Main Street historically known as the American National Bank as a structure of historical significance pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Sarasota; more particularly described herein; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 98-HD-05, Petitioner Mikki Hartig, representing the Foley Holding Corp., Jay Foley, President). On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1 through 4, inclusive. Mayor Dupree requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Dupree requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 13. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 98R-1112, APPROVING A PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD TO BE KNOWN AS LINCOLN PARK CIRCLE TO CONNECT A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS LINCOLN PARK TO OSPREY AVENUE; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS: PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS DIRECTING THAT THIS RESOLUTION BE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY; ETC. BOOK 45 Page 17462 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17463 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITIONER WILLIAM E. MADDOX, AS PRESIDENT OF MADDOX & ASSOCIATES) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #2 (2579) through (3352) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Resolution No. 98R-1112 approves construction of a private access road known as Lincoln Park Circle to provide access from the Lincoln Park subdivision to Osprey Avenue; that Commission approval is required in accordance with Zoning Code Section 6-14 (a); that Staff reviewed the proposal and, having no specific criteria for building a private access road, compared the design plans with the standards set forth in the Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM) for a public road. Mr. Daughters referred to a site plan and pavement plan displayed on the overhead projector to explain the proposed location of Lincoln Park Circle and the size and shape of the private road cul-de-sac. Mr. Daughters stated that Lincoln Park Circle is proposed to the west and directly opposite of where Lincoln Drive intersects with Osprey Avenue; that providing a cul-de-sac with a turning radius large enough to accommodate emergency and solid waste vehicles was a critical design factor; that the proposed private access road meets the standards set forth in the EDCM. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the proposal includes redesigning the entrance to Lincoln Drive on the east side of Osprey Avenue? Mr. Daughters stated no. Charles D. Bailey, Law Firm of Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz & Getzen, and William Maddox, President, Maddox and Associates, Inc., and Principal Architect, representing Lincoln Park Group, came before the Commission. Attorney Bailey stated that Lincoln Park is an eight-lot subdivision planned on the west side of Osprey Avenue south of Hudson Bayou; and referred to the following criteria for Commission review as outlined in a memorandum dated September 22, 1998, from Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's Office: 1) whether the proposed private access road will adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood or serve to promote further residential use within the area of Osprey Avenue 2) whether the proposed private access road will provide safe and convenient access for servicing by police vehicles, utilities, fire apparatus and solid waste vehicles, among others Attorney Bailey stated that representatives on the Development Review Committee (DRC) have reviewed and signed off as to compliance of the development plan with the two criteria cited; that, in addition, required utilities easements have been provided. Mr. Maddox referred to and explained a board display showing the conceptual site plan for Lincoln Park subdivision. Mr. Maddox stated that neo-traditional neighborhoods are popular; that the eight homes proposed in the Lincoln Park subdivision are designed as early 20th Century urban estate homes; that a private access road would allow flexibility in designing and maintaining a compatible streetscape; that the access road is loop-shaped and contains a large "park" space in the center; that the park would be maintained by the homeowner's association; that an effort was made to align the southerly curb of Lincoln Drive with the southerly curb of Lincoln Park Circle; however, Lincoln Drive is wide at the entrance to Osprey Avenue; that off-site improvements which are not part of the Lincoln Park Group proposal but could be pursued by the City include: 1) narrowing the opening to Lincoln Drive and 2) constructing a median on Lincoln Drive opposite Lincoln Park Circle. Mr. Maddox referred to a board display showing a typical house design for the Lincoln Park subdivision; and stated that houses will have large front porches, garages hidden from view, and be constructed of materials consistent with the neo-traditional style; that community landscaping will include mature plant material and trees; that large oak trees will be planted along the perimeter of the street and brick paving installed at the entrance and at various other locations within the development. Commissioner Pillot requested confirmation that the criteria referenced by Mr. Daughters and in the memorandum from Ms. Schenk have been met. City Manager Sollenberger, after being sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson, stated yes; that the proposal submitted to the DRC meets the criteria outlined. Commissioner Cardamone declared ex parte communications stating that the site plan was viewed and comments from the developer heard when the proposal was presented to the neighborhood association. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the pending variance petition before the Board of Adjustment affects Commission action on proposed Resolution No. 98R-1112? BOOK 45 Page 17464 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17465 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. Attorney Bailey stated that the variance petition relates to a community dock not associated with construction of a private access road. Mayor Dupree opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Dupree closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 98R-1112 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 98R-1112. Mayor Dupree requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yesi Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Lincoln Park Subdivision will be a nice addition to the City. Commissioner Cardamone agreed; and stated that an enthusiastic response was received from surrounding residents who attended and viewed the site plan during the neighborhood presentation; that the community dock concept is intriguing and would be preferred to nine individual docks; that speeding traffic on Lincoln Drive was raised as a concern by the adjacent neighborhood; that the Administration should pursue the suggestions put forth by the petitioner and return to the Commission with a proposal for street improvements to Lincoln Drive which could be coordinated with the construction of Lincoln Park Circle. 14. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 98-4057, AMENDING CHAPTER 11, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE II, PERTAINING TO THE ADOPTION OF STANDARD BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODES; ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE STANDARD BUILDING CODE, 1997 EDITION, THE STANDARD MECHANICAL CODE, 1997 EDITION, THE STANDARD GAS CODE, 1997 EDITION, THE STANDARD PLUMBING CODE, 1994 EDITION AND THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1996 EDITION; ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY OF SARASOTA AMENDMENTS TO EACH OF THE AFOREMENTIONED STANDARD CODES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID OR UNENFORCEABLEI PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS ETC. (TITLE ONLY) REVISED TO EXCLUDE REDUCING MINOR REPAIR ALLOWANCE TO $500; PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #2 (3357) through #3 (0243) City Manager Sollenberger stated that Ordinance No. 98-4057 is proposed to provide consistency with changes in the Florida Statutes and among standard building codes within Sarasota County. Beverly Spangler, Supervisor of Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated a $500 minor repair allowance has been included in the local amendments. Mayor Dupree opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Dupree closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 98-4057 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 98-4057 on first reading. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 98-4057 on first reading. Commissioner Merrill asked for clarification of the change to the minor repair allowance. Ms. Spangler stated that the $1,000 minor repair allowance is being reduced to $500 for consistency with the County's local amendments; that the allowance does not apply to heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), plumbing, electrical, or the structure. Commissioner Merrill stated that the City currently provides for $1,000 in minor repairs without a permit; that minor repairs could easily exceed $500; and asked if exemptions for work such as installing ceiling fans, plumbing fixtures or house painting have been included? Ms. Spangler stated no; that the $500 allowance would apply to the referenced items; that any HVAC, electrical, plumbing or structural work would require a permit. Commissioner Merrill stated that citizens commonly install ceiling fans or paint their homes, the cost of which could easily exceed $1,000; that citizens who are performing the work without a permit are technically breaking the law; that reducing the City's minor repair allowance is not supported; that consistency could also be achieved if the County provides for a $1,000 minor repair allowance. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to amend the motion by revising proposed BOOK 45 Page 17466 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17467 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. Ordinance No. 98-4057 to exclude reducing the minor repair allowance from $1,000 to $500. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 98-4057 on first reading; that retaining the $1,000 minor repair allowance is supported; that the City does not want to discourage homeowners from making minor repairs. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the County's efforts to have standardized building codes are appreciated; however, there may be instances where the City's codes make more sense; and asked if other changes should be brought to the attention of the Commission? V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that the various County municipalities normally adopt local amendments to the State standard building codes; that the County's concept was to eliminate the local amendments to provide consistency Countywide. City Attorney Taylor stated that each of the codes, whether building or mechanical, has local amendments which are kept on file with the City Auditor and Clerk; that a listing of local amendments could be provided to the Commission. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the changes should be outlined for the Commission. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the public hearing could be continued to the October 19, 1998, regular Commission meeting and a report provided by David Waugh, Building Official, who attended the meetings with other municipalities and the County regarding the code revisions. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the report could be provided prior to second reading. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the inconsistency of building codes Countywide was raised by the Builders Association and discussed during a Commission meeting approximately two years ago; that the discussion may have been prompted by differences between stricter building codes in the City versus the County codes or by changes in insurance policies with respect to hurricanes; that relaxing strong City standards to conform with County codes may be a mistake; that a Staff report should be provided. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson restated the motion to amend as to revise proposed Ordinance No. 98-4057 to exclude reducing the minor repair allowance from $1,000 to $500. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes. City Clerk and Auditor Robinson restated the main motion as to pass proposed Ordinance No. 98-4057 on first reading, as amended. Mayor Dupree requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes. 15. SCHEDULED PRESENTATION RE: TRANSIT GREENWAYS - REFERRED TO ADMINISTRATION FOR REPORT BACK ON FEASIBILITY FOR SARASOTA (AGENDA ITEM V-1) #3 (0246) through (0890) City Manager Sollenberger stated that Thomas Gustafson, an attorney and former legislator with experience in writing transportation codes, recently gave a presentation on transit greenways to the Sarasota County Council of Governments. Mayor Dupree stated that he gave Attorney Gustafson a brief tour of local City streets and properties earlier today. Thomas Gustafson, Attorney, 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440, Ft. Lauderdale (33308), came before the Commission and distributed hard copies of a Transit Greenways Executive Summary which included renderings of transit greenways. Attorney Gustafson stated that representatives from the cities of Venice and North Port have expressed interest in pursuing a conceptual planning effort for transit greenwaysi that Sarasota's participation is desired, in part, because of the opportunity to acquire the rail corridor that connects Sarasota and Venice; that a meeting is scheduled with Venice officials on October 13, 1998. Attorney Gustafson continued that mastery of the law of transportation pertaining to transit greenways has been attained over the past two years while working on projects with government and private sector entities; that understanding the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21), which is the reauthorization of Intermodal urface-Tranepertation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), and guidelines by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as to planning emphasis areas and strategic plans is important; that, essentially, the amount of funding received depends on how well a transit greenway is conceptualized. Attorney Gustafson further stated that most people want to travel from one place to another by vehicle; however, traffic calming is an issue often discussed; that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is funded to reduce congestion; therefore, securing funding from FDOT for traffic calming, which induces BOOK 45 Page 17468 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17469 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. congestion, is difficult; that FDOT receives $4 billion annually, determines which projects will be funded, and develops a five-year work plan; that according to the Florida Statutes the FDOT is responsible for reducing traffic congestion by road building, by traffic improvements, and by transit; that pedestrian or bicycle movement is not specifically referenced; however, transit could refer to pedestrian vehicles or rolling sidewalks; that requests for transit greenways prompt a greater response than requests for sidewalks or bicycle paths as the term "transit" legally fits into the FDOT's defined plan for appropriation of funds. Attorney Gustafson referred to various photographs showing transit vehicles which operate on sidewalks; and stated that a proposal developed for Marathon, Florida, in Monroe County, applies golf cart technology to one-half scale rail; that the proposed vehicles are six to seven feet in height with DC-electric engines; that no specialized equipment is necessary and workers can install approximately one mile of track per month; that Sarasota has several streets 40 to 50 feet in width; that an inventory of road widths, swales, sidewalks, grassy areas between the sidewalk and curb, and grassy areas between the right-of-way line and the sidewalk would likely show the availability of land necessary to accommodate a transit greenway. Attorney Gustafson continued that transit greenways operate on the theory that pedestrians can step on a platform 8 to 16 inches above ground, ride on the transit vehicle for a few blocks or a mile, then step off the platform, thus enabling people to "walk" greater distances without repeatedly driving and parking a vehicle and to be transported quickly between a wide range of activities; that transit greenways are meant for use in local community centers. Attorney Gustafson reterred to various letters; and stated that transit greenways are endorsed by the Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council, the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida, and the Greenway Coordinating Council of the Department of Community Affairs; that the FDOT recognizes transit greenways as a good strategy to implement the guidelines of the Federal government. Attorney Gustafson continued that development of transit greenways is being pursued in his capacity as an attorney; however, many other professionals are involved in the process, e.g.: architects, town planners, habitat specialists, landscape architects, and those who understand the movement of people and can perform traffic analysis independent of the movement of vehicles; that in addition to the cities of Venice and North Port, Tallahassee and Clay County have shown an interest in pursing transit greenway proposals; that the benefits and funding possibilities of transit greenways should be explored for Sarasota; that without alternatives, cities are left only with the choices of building more undesired roads or paying gas taxes and receiving no benefits because the product being offered is unwanted; that structurally, a transit greenway is 90 percent road building and 5 to 10 percent rolling stock; that legally, a transit greenway is 100 percent transit and, therefore, eligible for road funding. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to refer the item to the Administration for a report back as to whether or not transit greenways have merit in the City of Sarasota, and if sO, in general terms, what way. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that FDOT is required to allocate a specific amount of total funding received to each metropolitan planning organization district; and asked if funding in addition to the normal allotment for districts is available for transit greenways? Attorney Gustafson stated that FDOT's funding philosophy is to fund road construction projects until the specified amount of funding is depleted; that additional funding can more easily be obtained by requesting funds to construct a transportation system for urban centers where roads cannot be built than by waiting for the FDOT to determine how to build the roads; that funding is often received whether or not a request is made; that a request for funding will often yield more funding than requested; that, for example, TEA-21 includes $20 million of discretionary funds under a line item entitled, Transportation, Community, and System Preservation; that entities nationwide requesting funding by the established deadline, November 9, 1998, will compete to receive a maximum of $500,000 annually for up to five years; that the FDOT's discretion in funding is realized when a popular project is presented and a mechanism to achieve the project has to be determined; that no funds had been appropriated when Interstate 595 in the Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, area was first conceptualized; however, the project received $1.5 billion over a 10-year period; that no funds were available when the Tri-County Commuter Rail System in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties was first conceptualized; however, the project received $350 million in funding within three years; that funding opportunities are usually available within the following 3 to 5 years if a new method of movement which fulfills the FDOT's statutory obligation is proposed. Mayor Dupree asked if examples of walkable space were viewed when the City was toured? Attorney Gustafson stated yes; that the wide sidewalk on Main Street adjacent to the entrance to the Hollywood 20 Theatre extends for approximately 50 feet and then narrowsi that a transit greenway could be developed on Main Street if walkable BOOK 45 Page 17470 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17471 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. space were increased; that the Florida Transit Authority (FTA) would support a redesign from angle parking, requiring 15 feet, to parallel parking, requiring only 8 feet, as a parking replacement strategy to fund a transit greenway; that areas in the vicinity of Selby Five Points Park and the Sarasota City Center, also have potential; that Lemon Avenue, which is 58 feet in width with only two traffic lanes, has a substantial amount of underutilized space; that the key is to devise a strategy whereby underutilized space is used to create a continuous transit corridor for walking, bicycling, and riding the smallest piece of transit available; that transit greenways allow citizens to park vehicles at a starting point and utilize a transit system to move through and around the community, thereby reducing the number of short-travel vehicular trips and allowing the roads to tacilitate through traffic. Attorney Gustafson continued that a videotape, entitled "Back from the Brink, distributed by the American Architectural Foundation, which explains the concept of walkable communities will be left for Commission viewing. City and Auditor and Clerk Robinson restated the motion as to refer the item to the Administration for a report back as to whether or not transit greenways have merit in the City of Sarasota, and if SO, in general terms, what way. Mayor Dupree called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. 16. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS - REFERRED THE ISSUE OF PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION: DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION. TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF A DAYLIGHT PLANE ORDINANCE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE WORK CURRENTLY BEING PERFORMED ON THE LDRS (AGENDA ITEM VI) #3 (0908) through (1806) The following people came before the Commission: Linda Holland, 617 Gillespie Avenue (34236) and Sandra Vaughn, 2135 4th Street (34237). Ms. Vaughn submitted for Commission viewing photographs with vehicles parked on grassy areas in various areas in the Cityi and quoted Section 33-112, Sarasota City Code, concerning stopping, standing or parking between curb and property in business or industrial districts as follows: No person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle in the portion of any street between a nonmountable curb and the property line behind such a curb in any business or industrial district. Ms. Vaughn stated that a change in Section 33-112, Sarasota City. Code, is requested; that residential districts should be added to the districts regulated by the provision; that the term "nonmountable curb" should be changed to "pavement"; that people are parking on the right-of-way in the grassy areas along residential streets; that the problem is Citywide. Ms. Holland distributed to the Commission copies of Section 33-112, Sarasota City Code, with suggested revisions; and stated that parking is a problem throughout the City, presenting a significant detriment to revitalizing neighborhoods; that the suggested revisions address the problem and would improve the neighborhoods. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the request is to amend the Sarasota City Code to provide equal application to areas in the City with or without curbs. Ms. Vaughn stated that is correct; that additionally, the suggestion is to add residential districts to the currently regulated business and industrial districts. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to refer the issue of parking in residential districts to the Administration for a recommendation to the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the motion is supported; that for example, six vehicles were parked on the lawn of a house in a residential district for an entire Saturday afternoon last year during football season; that people were sitting on the vehicles watching a television on the hood of one vehicle; that such activity would not be desired as a next door neighbor; that the revision could be incorporated in the current revision to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). Commissioner Pillot stated that the motion is supported; however, consideration should be given to persons picking up or dropping off passengers. Mayor Dupree called for a vote on the motion to refer the issue of parking in residential districts to the Administration for a recommendation to the Commission. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. John Browning, 1376 Harbor Drive, (34239), representing the Coalition of City Neighborhoods Association (CCNA) stated that at BOOK 45 Page 17472 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17473 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. the October 3, 1998, CCNA meeting, the subject of oversized houses in traditional City neighborhoods was discussed; that various daylight plane ordinances in effect or proposed for cities on Florida's west coast were examined; that the CCNA unanimously agreed the City should consider similar action to ensure compatibility of new single-family homes within established neighborhoods; that the City faces the possibility of losing the opportunity to preserve the City's important small- town character; that the City's current single-family housing stock and traditional lot coverage practices provide ample visibility between homes, an excellent tree canopy and greenspace ratio, waterfront access, air circulation and flood mitigation; that a trend is occurring cowards larger homes on smaller lots with an increased coverage of impermeable surface beyond the structural footprint; that this trend should be controlled as has been accomplished in other municipalities before the City's most highly valued characteristics are permanently damaged; that the current and planned LDRs do not adequately address the concern; therefore, the CCNA strongly recommends the City prepare a Citywide daylight plane ordinance to ensure compatibility of new single-family homes in established City neighborhoods and in new developments to maintain the City's small town lifestyle character and ambiance. Mr. Browning distributed a list of recommended elements for a daylight plane ordinance modeled on the City of Sanibel's existing ordinance providing as follows: 1. A total height limitation with exceptions for chimneys, dormers, etc., on future single-family homes of 35 feet above predevelopment grade. 2. A daylight plane limit of 45 degrees from front, side and rear setback lines measured 20 feet above predevelopment grade. 3. Impermeable suriace limit of 50 percent for single- family properties. 4. A screening regulation from noise and view for all mechanical equipment such as air conditioning units and pool equipment when elevated above predevelopment grade. 5. A Citywide limit on new or altered structures from interrupting the rhythm of existing structures in established neighborhoods or are inharmonious with the general atmosphere or character of established neighborhoods or the City as a whole. 6. A grandfather Clause on existing homes not in compliance with the above but no rebuild clause. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to direct the Administration to review the requirement for a daylight plane ordinance in conjunction with the current revision of the LDRs. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the subject has been discussed by the Commission at length in the past; however, no specific action has ever been taken. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the anticipation was for some consideration of daylight plane regulations in the proposed LDRs which will be presented shortly for adoption; that one Commission discussion concerned the potential for greater-than-mormal setbacks for large lots; that the CCNA's recommendations are stringent; that for example, the elevation regulations of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is 18 feet in some areas; therefore, CCNA's recommendations would limit construction to a one-story house; nevertheless, the proposed LDRs do not address the issue at all; that the first public hearing on the proposed is LDRS is at the October 6, 1998, special Commission meeting, which creates a concern with the motion on the floor. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a second public hearing is also scheduled; that the intent of the motion is to address daylight plane regulations in conjunction with the work being performed on the LDRs. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the first public hearing on the LDRs could be postponed if desired; that a new regulation cannot be incorporated in the proposed LDRS between the first and second public hearing; that alternatively, daylight plane regulations could be examined as rapidly as possible. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the intent of the motion is to examine daylight plane regulations as rapidly as possible. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City is at the end of a process with the proposed LDRS which may not include every issue desired by the Commission; that a realistic deadline will not be met if major pieces of legislation are added; that the public hearing on the proposed LDRs has been noticed; that all the legal requirements have been met; that starting over will result in delaying Commission action until 1999. Mayor Dupree stated that significant delays are not desired. Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that a public hearing on Phase I of the proposed LDRS is scheduled for October 6, 1998; that a workshop concerning height limitations, stormwater attenuation, and impervious surfaces is scheduled before the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) in November 1998. BOOK 45 Page 17474 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17475 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if setbacks in the Residential, Single-Family (RSF) -1 Zone District will be addressed? Ms. Robinson stated yesi that all issues relating to larger houses on smaller lots including setbacks will be considered. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that large houses on large lots are also a concern; that for example, a house can be 8 feet from the lot line with overhanging eaves and the air conditioning and pool equipment in the setback area; that the current setback is not very great on a 100-foot-wide lot which could be as large as 20,000 square feet. Ms. Robinson stated that all relevant issues will be addressed; that several PBLP workshops in addition to a public hearing before the PBLP may be required to resolve the issues; that recommendations will be presented prior to Phase II of the proposed LDRs. Commissioner Merrill stated that restrictions such as proposed by the CCNA have not generally been supported in the past; however, the restrictions are now necessary; that some areas of the City such as Bird Key have an artificial environment; that some areas such as Harbor Acres have complete seawalls; however, most disturbing is the area north of Whittaker-Gateway Park when viewed from the water; that large houses are changing the area's attractive natural look with the surrounding tree canopy which comes to the water's edge; that the area is assuming the look of Miami, Florida; that a resolution to the problem is not known; that considering a setback limitation or other methods of preserving the green view from the water for the public's enjoyment of the scenic view; that a line of concrete, brick and stucco in the area is not desired. Commissioner Pillot stated that a review and discussion of issues involved in daylight plane considerations is supported; however, some of the CCNA's recommendations cause concern; that Recommendation #1 appears to discriminate between property in a FEMA flood zone and property not in a FEMA flood zone; that Recommendation #5 imposes a limitation on structures - from interrupting the rhythm of existing structures" or are "inharmonious with the general atmosphere or character"; that the language is relative; that reasonable people may differ in opinions; that CCNA's recommendations could lower market property values; that people are paying large sums for lots in certain areas of the City; that people will not pay the large sums if the type of home desired cannot be built; that the understanding is CCNA's recommendation is not presented as final. Mr. Browning stated that is correct; that Recommendation #5 is taken verbatim from the Sanibel ordinance and was deemed desirable enough for consideration; that the limitation has been challenged in court; that Sanibel prevailed; that cities have a right to limit the building of a structure which is out of character with the surrounding neighborhood; that the FEMA elevation regulations could be considered in Recommendation #1; that an allowance for the full amount of the FEMA elevation regulations should not be given; that allowing FEMA elevation regulations to dictate will also result in the loss of a neighborhoods' character. Commissioner Pillot stated that agreement is generally given to Mr. Browning's positions; however, objective measurements are generally preferred; that the language of "rhythm of existing structures" is not defined; that people will disagree over the definition; that an ordinance with such undefined language will not be supported. Commissioner Merrill stated that the term "compatibility" could be used. Mr. Browning stated the term compatibility" is acceptable. Mayor Dupree stated that Recommendation #4 pertaining to all mechanical equipment causes concern; that two examples were provided; that additional clarification would be appreciated. Mr. Browning stated that Recommendation #4 is based on a regulation adopted by Longboat Key, Florida, which prohibits, for example, a house being built on stilts 13 feet above the pre-grade level with platforms extending into the setback and on which the pool and air conditioning mechanical equipment is placed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the noise from the equipment would be heard by the neighbors, not the residents. Mr. Browning stated that is correct; that the noise would be very offensive; that adopting CCNA's recommendations may temporarily lower property values; however, the effect would be transitory as only so much waterfront property exists. Commissioner Pillot agreed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the intent of the motion is not to consider the proposed recommendations at the public hearing at the October 6, 1998, special Commission meeting; that nothing will be done to slow the process of adopting the proposed LDRs; that more work on the LDRs is necessary; that consideration by the PBLP in November 1998 is acceptable. Mayor Dupree requested that the City Auditor and Clerk restate the motion. BOOK 45 Page 17476 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17477 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson restated the motion as to direct the Administration to consider the issue of a daylight plane ordinance in conjunction with the work currently being performed on the LDRs. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the intent of the motion is to give consideration during Phase II of the LDRs? Commissioner Cardamone stated yes; that the issue will be discussed at the November 1998 PBLP workshop. Mayor Dupree called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. 17. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: RELOCATION OF THE SIESTA KEY FISH MARKET TO CENTENNIAL PARK AND ACTION ON THE SETTLEMENT LETTER FROM DAVID D. DAVIS, ESQUIRE - APPROVED ADMINISTRATIONIS REÇOMMENDATION TO: 1) REJECT THE SETTLEMENT OFFER AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO COMMUNICATE THE INFORMATION TO THE APPROPRIATE PARTIES AND 2) GIVE NO FURTHER CONSIDERATION TO THE USE OF CITY PROPERTY OR FUNDS FOR THE RELOCATION OF THE SIESTA KEY FISH MARKET (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #3 (1806) through (3679) City Manager Sollenberger stated that reports on the following two issues concerning the Siesta Key Fish Market will be presented: 1. Relocation of the Siesta Key Fish Market to Centennial Park 2. Offer of Settlement via letter from the attorney representing the owner of the Siesta Key Fish Market Gregory Horwedel, Director of Neighborhoods and Redevelopment, came before the Commission, displayed on the overhead projector transparency pictures of the Siesta Key Fish Market; and stated that Staff met with the owner of the Siesta Key Fish Market, Brooke "Guy" Asbury, concerning the feasibility of relocating the building from Garden Lane on Siesta Key to Centennial Park; that Mr. Asbury has little funds to invest in such a relocation project and does not anticipate participating financially; that Petition No. 93-HDD-02 for designation of an historic district for the area surrounding the Siesta Key Fish Market was originally submitted in June 1992; that the Commission passed proposed Ordinance No. 93-3743 incorporating Petition No. 93-HDD-02 on first reading at the December 6, 1993, regular Commission meeting; however, the petitioner did not respond for a second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 93-3743; therefore, the petition was subsequently withdrawn; that the Siesta Key Fish Market is not designated as an historic structure nor is the area designated as an historic district; therefore, the building would be required to comply with the regulations of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) upon relocation to a flood plane such as Centennial Park. Mr. Horwedel stated that Staff evaluated the possibility of relocation to Centennial Park; that the evaluation was confined to the park's northwest corner due to parking conditions; that the capacity of the parking lot capacity is often exceeded; that introduction of a new use into Centennial Park could cause additional parking problems for boat trailers and result in circulation and capacity issues; that the FEMA elevation regulation in the park's northwest corner is 17 feet; that moving the building intact would be prohibitively expensive; that in fact, the building may not survive a move intact due to the poor condition; that an alternative is to build a new replica structure in another location, incorporating portions of the existing building; that construction costs for a new structure could range from $150,000 to $250,000, assuming the new structure is approximately the same size as the existing building; that the high cost is due to the requirement to comply with FEMA elevation regulations and installation of water and sewer lines. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City is in litigation with the owner of the Siesta Key Fish Market concerning the Commission's decision to amortize the commercial use in the residential neighborhood as part of the year-long process involving non-conforming uses; that the owner's attorney, David Davis, has submitted a settlement offer in a September 18, 1998, letter to the City Attorney's Office; that the settlement proposal is for the City to: 1. Remove the historic fish market buildings from the present site at the City's expense, with a lease back and initial rent concessions to an alternative location where the owner can resume operation of the fish market 2. Rezone or grant a zoning variance of the fish market's present site to allow development as four separate residential lots City Attorney Taylor stated that the matter is in litigation; therefore, public discussion represents a concerni however, the Commission has an open-meeting policy on public presentations; that a presentation will likely be made; that the Commission is requested to consider that discussions could affect the litigation; and referred to his September 30, 1998, memorandum to the Commission indicating concerns regarding the settlement proposal as follows: BOOK 45 Page 17478 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17479 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. 1. No compromise is sought by Mr. Asbury, only concessions beyond the scope of the litigation. 2. The Commission cannot contract to grant a rezoning. 3. The Commission has no authority to grant a variance from the terms of the Zoning Code. 4. No facts have been developed in the litigation to date supporting a conclusion that a compromise is in the best interest of the citizens of the City. The following people came before the Commission: Heidi Anderson, 3360 Higel Avenue (34242), 30-year resident of the City and 11-year homeowner on Higel Avenue on Siesta Key, stated that two children have been raised over the last 13 years in the area of the Siesta Key Fish Market; that the suggested negative aspects of the fish market have never been felt; that as a business historian, the continuation of the fish market as representative of the fishing industry in southwest Florida is very important; that the site is unique; that the community has not preserved a number of local historic structures; that continuing the culture and history represented by the Siesta Key Fish Market is desired; that a question is how a value can be placed on an historic location which cannot be replaced. David Davis, David A. Davis, P.A., 2033 Main Street (34237), representing Brooke "Guy" Asbury, owner of the Siesta Key Fish Market, stated that he entered the year-old litigation with the City only three weeks ago; that as an 18-year trial attorney, the first step is to attempt resolution prior to litigation; that the case was already in litigation; that the first objective was to resolve the matter; that the City Attorney's Office was contacted with a suggestion for mediation, which is a valuable and economical tool; that the City Attorney's Office advised mediation would probably not be approved; however, a formal settlement offer could be made which is contained in his September 18, 1998, letter; that the settlement offer is two-pronged: 1) relocation of the fish market to preserve the historic value and 2) a rezoning or granting of a zoning variance. Mr. Davis stated that the first prong of the settlement offer is based on the City's suggestion of relocation as an alternative to losing the fish market as an historical site; that the second prong is an effort to compromise by offering to withdraw the efforts to preserve the commercial use through the use of the State statute under which the litigation is proceeding; that the right to pursue a court remedy would be abandoned in exchange for allowing increased density, which will increase the value of the property and allow the ability to make a profit on the investment; that the current ability to develop the property as two lots will result in a loss of money, which does not make sense to most people; that the compromise is appropriate; that an offer had been made to City Staff to withdraw the demand for the City to relocate the fish market at its expense; that the former Helmsman Marina site was proposed as a more feasible and economical place for the fish market; that the owner of the fish market would be in a position to participate financially in the relocation if the City approved development of the current site into four residential lots; that mediation is preferred. William Morales, 5158 Sandy Beach (34242) 5-year resident of the area and 3-year homeowner on Siesta Key, stated that the Siesta Key Fish Market is a key part of the charm of Siesta Key; that upon moving to Sarasota, Siesta Key was the only place he wished to establish a residence; that the owner of the Siesta Key Fish Market has been known for a number of years; that the fish net ban brought the business from a position of profit to loss; that the owner has nobly tried to accomplish a positive outcome to save the Siesta Key Fish Market; that the Commission is requested to consider the positive efforts. Peter Lange, 333 Edmondson Avenue (34242), 9-year resident of the City and 5-year resident of Siesta Key, stated that his home is approximately two blocks from the Siesta Key Fish Market; that Siesta Key is one of the few areas where fishing villages and the fishing industry continue from the early history of the City; that the landscape of palm trees on the north end of Siesta Key is being replaced by metal, aluminum and large houses; that allowing the disappearance of the small cultural island in the area of the Siesta Key Fish Market representing Florida's heritage should be carefully considered. Burr Jennings, 5047 Windward Avenue (34242), 2-year resident of Siesta Key, stated that relocation from an historic community in Connecticut was due to overdevelopment and the absence of consciousness of the direction of the community; that the ambiance of Siesta Key is enjoyed; that the Siesta Key Fish Market was patronized; that the fish market had problems; however, a community should rally to the benefit of solving the problems and supporting the owner; that the community and the local government should help a business owner who is placed in the position of not being able to operate; that his residence upon initial relocation was on Higel Avenue; that the reason for moving was the busy nature of the street; that motorcycles traveled the street at two o'clock in the mornings waking the children, which is a function of the activity at Siesta Key Village; that people complaining about the Siesta Key Fish Market will soon be complaining about Siesta Key Village; that a question is what other businesses will be affected, which should be considered. Bart Leereveld, 1447 Tangier Way (34236) 10-year City resident having moved from Holland and part-owner of a hotel and five BOOK 45 Page 17480 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17481 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. restaurants, stated that markets are a part of life in Holland; that similar markets were only found in two places in the City: the Farmers' Market and the Siesta Key Fish Market; that people are treated on a first-name, personal basis and can receive personal service and good food; that business necessity required working with a franchise of a large corporation approximately five years ago; that franchise operations are the only avenue today, which is very sad and which is the reason for supporting the Siesta Key Fish Market; that the Commission is requested to support the fish market in helping to find a suitable alternative location to continue the business; that for the City to turn into a city like Orlando, Florida, with only large corporations and large signs would be sad and is not a desired direction. Thomas Nay, 111 Sunset Drive, Nokomis, Florida (34275), business owner on Siesta Key and adiacent property owner to the Siesta Key Fish Market, stated that two previous Commission meetings at which the Siesta Key Fish Market was discussed have been attended; that for the record, considerable sworn testimony has been heard which is known as inaccurate; that the current owner of the Siesta Key Fish Market has been required to assume the negativity created by the previous owner; that considerable hatred existed toward the previous owner; that the neighbors were intimidated by the previous owner and were required to live with the situation; that a resident across the street from the fish market had a man die from bullet wounds in the front yard; that the situation was out of control; that the current owner bought and totally changed the complexion of the property; however, the neighbors were anxious to eliminate the problem; that 20 code violations were issued in one year which is unreasonable; that the last Commission meeting attended became a character assignation of Mr. Asbury rather than a discussion of the Siesta Key Fish Market; that the fish market was in existence before anyone in the Commission Chambers; that property rights run with the property regardless of owner; that property rights are acquired when property is purchased; that the four lots proposed for development on the fish market site are listed for sale but cannot be sold; that the Asbury family worked diligently in an effort to create a viable business; that the neighbors have made the current owner into a villain; that Mr. Asbury is a good man of high integrity known as the result of numerous business dealings over the past 10 years; that representations were made that live bands were constantly at the fish market; however, live bands were engaged only three times, two of which were for church functions; that a number of sworn statements have painted an ugly picture which is not fair or right. Craig Holliday, 1715 Hyde Park Street (34239), Chairman of the Historic Preservation Board, stated that he is not representing the Historic Preservation Board as a position has not been taken on the issue; that the Siesta Key Fish Market is not an historically designated property or district; that as a life-long resident of Siesta Key, the Siesta Key Fish Market has been seen to flourish, then suffer difficulty, and then begin to improve; that Mr. Asbury is his uncle; that much has changed on Siesta Key; that a law was passed to eliminate undesirable activities; that the fish market is attempting to become a good business entity for the area and to preserve some of old Sarasota; that processes have been put in place to move the fish market out of the current site; that the building is very old; that moving the building will be almost impossible and will result in the loss of the historic significance; that the area is one of the few areas of Siesta Key which should be evaluated; that the effort is to reach out to the Commission for assistance; that the Siesta Key Fish Market may be antiquated but is worthy of consideration as part of Siesta Key's history. Paul Thorpe, 157 Garden Lane (34242), 30-year resident of Siesta Key, stated that the neighbors are being negatively characterized for something which is not their responsibility; that the Commission passed on first reading a proposed ordinance to designate the property as historic; that the owner turned down the historic designation; that the neighbors do not object to designating the Siesta Key Fish Market as an historic building or district, if such action can still be taken, allowing the historic operations to continue but not a restaurant serving alcohol beverages; that the issue keeps coming back to the Commission; that the record shows that historic designation was not pursued by the owner, which is the reason for the current situation; that the record should be clear the neighbors do not object to moving the building or to continuing the previous operations. Valerie Henry, 4023 Bell Avenue (34251), stated that the concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in Sarasota and the rest of the United Stated is believed; that an individual should at least be allowed to continue business in another area if one's pursuit of happiness, i.e., a family heirloom, is taken; that some negotiation could result in the owner's continuing in business while the City achieves its objective; that the result would be a place where City residents can buy fresh fish; that few places preserve the nostalgic business of a fish market in the City; that a few neighbors indicating the fish market cannot continue business is ludicrous; that a happy medium between the parties should be mediated. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is not to pursue relocation of the Siesta Key Fish Market based on investigation determining relocation is not financially feasible. City Attorney Taylor stated that the non-conformance of the Siesta Key Fish Market is the result of a 1974 change in the Zoning Code which changed the legal use of the property; that the BOOK 45 Page 17482 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17483 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. property has been given the opportunity to amortize out for more than 20 years; that the change in the property's legal use has been confirmed by recent Commission action; that by law, the business is unlawful at the current location; that the Commission cannot grant a variance; that no basis to settle the issue is seen at this time; therefore, the recommendation is to communicate with the attorney representing the owner of the Siesta Key Fish Market that the settlement offer is rejected. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved for the Commission to: 1) reject the settlement offer and authorize the City Attorney to communicate the intormation to the appropriate parties and 2) give no further consideration to the use of City property or funds for the relocation of the Siesta Key Fish Market. Motion carried (3 to 2): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. 18. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: CONCURRENCE WITH THE SELECTION BY THE COUNTY OF THE FORMER HOUSE OF GOLF SITE AS THE SITE FOR THE SCAT INTERMODAL TRANSFER CENTER - ACCEPTED THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION TO: 1) CONCUR WITH THE SELECTION BY THE COUNTY OF THE HOUSE OF GOLF SITE FOR THE SCAT INTERMODAL TRANSFER CENTER AND 2) DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO STUDY AND RECOMMEND PEDESTRIAN- FRIENDLY CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS FOR FRUITVILLE ROAD AND LEMON AVENUE FOR USE BY SCAT RIDERS (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #4 (0000) through (1516) City Manager Sollenberger stated that selection of a site for the Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) Intermodal Transier Center was discussed at the October 17, 1997, Commission workshop; that the site then favored by the County was the site on City-owned property at Lemon Avenue; that the City Commission was concerned about the encumbrance on the future potential for development of the property, which is situated between Lemon and Central Avenues and between First and Second Streets, and with the loss of parking spaces; that at one time, the assumption was a transaction with the County would result in parking space replacement funded through the purchase price for the property; that the County advised only the appraised value of the property of approximately $200,000 to $300,000 could be paid, which is not adequate to cover the replacement cost of the approximately 65 parking spaces. City Manager Sollenberger continued that at the November 10, 1997, joint City/County Commission meeting, the instruction by both the City Commission and the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners to the respective administrators was to evaluate and present possibilities for the location of the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center; that the City and the County jointly engaged the services of LDR International, Inc., to conduct an evaluation of possible sites and prepare a recommendation; that the top-rated site was the former House of Golf site at the northeast corner of Fruitville Road and Lemon Avenue; that the recommendation to select the former, House of Golf site was presented to and approved by the County Commission at the September 22, 1998, County Commission meeting; that in a September 23, 1998, letter to Mayor Dupree, County Commission Chairman David Mills requested the City's concurrence with the selection so the County may begin negotiations for acquisition of the site and construction of the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center; that the County budgeted for a jitney service in the downtown area for fiscal year (FY) 1998/99, which will include service to the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center; that the Administration's recommendation is for the City Commission to: 1) concur with the selection by the County of the House of Golf site for the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center and 2) direct City Staff to study and recommend pedestrian-friendly crossing improvements for Fruitville Road and Lemon Avenue for use by SCAT riders. The following people came before the Commission: Paul Thorpe, 1818 Main Street (34236), Executive Director, and Charles Kuykendall, 1130 Hampton Road (34236), past President. the Downtown Association of Sarasota. Mr. Thorpe distributed letters of support for locating the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center at the Lemon Avenue site from the Friends of the Selby Public Library, Inc., the Sarasota Opera Association, Inc., and the Bayfront Condominium Association, Inc. Mr. Kuykendall stated that a lengthy planning charette was conducted as part of the 1997 annual SEMCOM Seminar/Conference sponsored by the Downtown Association of Sarasota; that the Lemon Avenue site was selected as a gateway into Downtown and was, therefore, recommended as the location for the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center; that the Board of Directors of the Downtown Association of Sarasota has met on several occasions and elected to prefer the Lemon Avenue site; that the Downtown Association of Sarasota has received letters of support for the Lemon Avenue site from the City Parking Committee, the Zenith Corporation, the Alley Cat Cafe, the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association, the North Trail Merchants Association in addition to the organizations already mentioned; that the City Commission is requested to meet with the organizations to obtain ideas as to a preferred site for the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center. Mr. Thorpe displayed on the overhead projector and explained the reasons for opposing the former House of Golf site and for selecting the Lemon Avenue site including: BOOK 45 Page 17484 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17485 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. Reasons for opposing the former House of Golf site: - A major property is taken off the tax rolls. - Crossing Fruitville Road is unsafe for SCAT riders. The proposed location is one of the highest crime and drug areas in the City. No parking is available on site. The site has poor accessibility to the Selby Public Library and the Theater District. Crossing Fruitville Road is a problem for the handicapped. Most of the 3500 SCAT bus users do not wish to cross a major arterial interstate connector. No benefits accrue to the City. Fruitville Road is a commuter barrier. - Bus access and egress will impact the flow of traffic on Fruitville Road. The proposed site does not fit into the Traffic Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) on mobility. Reasons for supporting the Lemon Avenue site: The location is preferred by SCAT. - The location is preferred by present riders. The location is convenient to the Theater District. - The location supports the existing bus route network. - The location supports downtown businesses and employees. The location is within convenient walking distance to the Selby Public Library for seniors and the handicapped. The location was recommended in the Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team (R/UDAT) study. Over 3500 riders per day use and like the present site. The location can be compatible with any other future development to the west of the site. The opportunity will be provided to build a much needed parking garage on part of the site with spaces for 175 to 225 vehicles. The site dimensions are 250 by 250 feet, which are the requirements cited in the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center Study prepared by LDR International, Inc. The site complies with the TCEA on mobility. A recent survey of over 500 property owners and 1750 businesses show over 50 percent favor the Lemon Avenue site. The consultant never met with the City Parking Committee, the Downtown Association of Sarasota or SEMCOM study groups for input. Mr. Thorpe distributed a conceptual plan for the Lemon Avenue site; and stated that most citizens of Sarasota do not desire locating the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center at the former House of Golf site; that the following improvements could be realized by developing the site: Seven storefronts could be developed on Lemon Avenue across the street from the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center, The brick sidewalk could be widened and connected to the Lemon Avenue Mall, continuing the area's continuity, Parking could be developed on ground level with two stories of parking above, and The SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center could be developed on the west portion of the site. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the former House of Golf site was protested before the County Commission? Mr. Thorpe stated yes; that the information provided the City Committee was also provided to the County Commission; however, a personal appearance was not made before the County Commission; that neither the Downtown Association of Sarasota, the SEMCOM group nor the City Parking Committee were contacted by LDR International, Inc. Nathalie McCulloch, 378 Golden Gate Point (34236), President of the Friends of the Selby Public Library, Inc., stated that the new Selby Public Library in the heart of Downtown is thrilling; that the new library was as busy in August 1998 as the old one was in January 1998, indicative of the high volume of use expected; that many patrons drive; however, many patrons take the SCAT bus; that one of the benefits of the downtown site was the proximity of the current SCAT transfer location; that crossing Fruitville Road is dangerous and causes concerni that the benefit of a jitney service is dependent upon the frequency; that the aquarium which will soon be installed in the library will attract even more people. Ms. McCulloch continued that Deane Allen, Executive Director of the Sarasota Opera Association, Inc., is the recipient of the top award at the awards ceremony of the Sarasota Arts Council currently in progress and, therefore, could not be in attendance but is supportive of the Lemon Avenue site; that the City has indicated a desire in keeping the Sarasota Opera House busy as often as possible; that many attendees arrive by SCAT bus. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the selection of the former House of Golf site was protested to the County Commission? Ms. McCulloch stated that she was in attendance when the site selection was discussed by the County Commission and did not speak but should have; that the County Commissioners are aware of her connection with the library. BOOK 45 Page 17486 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17487 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the awkwardness is the County made the decision; that no City residents expressed concerns to the County Commission; that the status of the decision is a concern. Linda Holland, 617 Gillespie Avenue (34236) and James McIntosh: 1850 Fifth Street (34236) Members of the Executive Board of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association (GPNA). Mr. McIntosh stated that the many other organizations supporting the Lemon Avenue site are joined by the GPNA; that the points made in the presentation of the Downtown Association of Sarasota are supported. Ms. Holland distributed and read into the record a letter dated October 5, 1998, from the President of the GPNA outlining reasons for the GPNA'S support for selection of the Lemon Avenue site and opposition to the selection of the former House of Golf site. Mr. McIntosh stated that the GPNA respectrully suggests as an alternative the Commission support the Lemon Avenue site as a location for the SCAT Intermodal Transier Center, a retail center, a market for shopping and associated parking. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the selection of the former House of Golf site was protested to the County Commission? Ms. Holland stated no. Tim Clarke, 400 Sarasota Ouay (34236), President of Clarke Advertising, stated that he is building the first first-class office building on the north side of Fruitville Road; that during the site purchase negotiations in October 1997, two facts were revealed: 1) the County had no plans to move the SCAT transier location and 2) the City's high priority was to develop the north side of Fruitville Road; that developing a commercial district north of Fruitville Road seemed a positive statement for the City; that reading in the newspaper the advanced plan to locate the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center at the former House of Golf site without notification to the neighbors was disturbing; that his property is adjacent to the proposed site, separated only by the Alley Cat Cafe; that the hope is the Commission will not allow the selection of the former House of Golf site; that the present location on Lemon Avenue is acceptable; that the former House of Golf site is not consistent with the City's priorities. Sam Schackow, 2355 McClellan Parkway (34239), stated that the alternative presented by the Downtown Association of Sarasota addresses safety and convenience to downtown and is supported; that the City-owned Lemon Avenue site could create a good income stream for the City if utilized by the County; that the former House of Golf site is privately owned and would continue on the tax rolls if not utilized for the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center; that the Commission is requested to consider the best alternative. John Harshman, 2540 Cardinal Place (34239), owner of Harshman & Company, Inc. and also representing the Wynnton Group, Inc. developers of the Renaissance of Sarasota and owners of the former Southeast Bank site, stated that the Wynnton Group, Inc., is interested in assuring a positive outcome with the development of the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center; that several good sites have been identified; that relocation of the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center to the former House of Golf site is not opposed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the City is accustomed to receiving input regarding a particular project from all interested and concerned parties; and asked if various organizations were contacted by the County for involvement in the planning process. Jerry Gray, Planning Director for Sarasota County, came before the Commission and stated that the agreement between the City and County concerning the site selection process was that LDR International, Inc., the consultant jointly hired by the City and County, would meet with representatives of the Downtown Association of Sarasota, the City Parking Committee, SEMCOM leaders, and leaders of City and County governments; that the consultant indicated the meetings occurred; that selection of a site for the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center was a discussion item on the agenda for a regular Tuesday County Commission meeting; that generally, discussion items are for discussion between County Commissioners; however, the County Commission invites individuals expressing an interest in speaking to an item; that no one expressed an interest in speaking to the item. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Downtown Association of Sarasota and representatives of the City Parking Committee and SEMCOM indicated no official representatives spoke to the groups or individual representatives concerning site selection. Mr. Gray stated that Cy Paumier, a representative of LDR International, Inc., related discussions were held; that Jay Goodwill, Transit Director for Sarasota County, has been involved with the Downtown Association of Sarasota and the City Parking Committee and kept the City Parking Committee advised of the study's process. Commissioner Cardamone stated that site selection was discussed with Mr. Paumier; that the former House of Golf site was enthusiastically received; however, the outpouring from people who are not supportive of the site is surprising; that the current discussion is disturbing; that the former House of Golf site is acceptable and will assure the SCAT buses are not on BOOK 45 Page 17488 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17489 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. neighborhood streets; that the City-owned property can be turned over to private enterprise and placed on the tax rolls; however, the fact that important representatives of City organizations have not had a part in the process causes unhappiness; that appropriate action is not known. Commissioner Pillot stated that input from interested and concerned groups and individuals is important; however, no one addressed the County Commission, which is surprising; that the County Commission is the governmental entity which operates SCAT; that requesting the City Commission assist in reversing the County Commission's decision causes concern. Commissioner Merrill asked if the City Commission's approval is required for the County to proceed? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the County Commission's request for City Commission review is a courtesyi that the County would require the City's approval to locate the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center at the Lemon Avenue site as the property is City owned; however, the former House of Golf site is private property; that the County can proceed without consulting the City. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission has discussed site selection on numerous occasions; that the Commission did not reach consensus on the Lemon Avenue site; that no strong positions were taken; that SEMCOM's desire to build a parking garage at the Lemon Avenue site was discussed by the Commission; that the County never offered substantial dollars for the Lemon Avenue site to enable the City to build a parking garage; that a parking garage will cost $8,000 to $10,000 per parking space; that the suggested parking garage will cost $1.75 to $2 million; that the County's suggested offer for the Lemon Avenue site was an appraised value of approximately $200,000, leaving the City the burden of having to build two parking garages; that the County Commission was being responsive to the City's concerns; that locating the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center at the Lemon Avenue site would have been cheaper and easier for the County; that the response of respected citizens causes concerni however, the County Commission was attempting to accommodate the City; that respect for the people who spoke in opposition causes pause for thought; that the former House of Golf site is two short blocks from the Lemon Avenue site; that a traffic light exists on both sides of the Fruitville Road intersection; that the City will work cooperatively with the County to provide a pedestrian-friendly crossing; that major cities cross people across streets as broad as Fruitville Road; that the regret is the Alley Cat Cafe is her favorite restaurant. Commissioner Pillot stated that site selection is not within the scope of the City Commission's authority; however, the County Commission has requested the City Commission provide a response as a courtesy. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to accept the City Manager's recommendation to: 1) concur with the selection by the County of the House of Golf site for the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center and 2) direct Administration to study and recommend pedestrian-friendly crossing improvements for Fruitville Road and Lemon Avenue for use by SCAT riders. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the members of the public who have passionately addressed the City Commission could be requested to address the County Commission. Commissioner Pillot stated that the suggestion is excellent. On motion of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to amend the motion to provide that the City Commission will concur with any reversal of the County Commission's decision as to site selection resulting from input from members of the public. Motion to amend died for lack of a second. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the parking at Lemon Avenue should be replaced by the County if the parking is lost due to the siting of the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center; that the City does not have $2 million to replace the parking; that the City should not again be at the financial disadvantage of housing a County facility, which City residents and business owners understand. Commissioner Pillot stated that the motion to amend did not receive and should not have received support; that the conviction is the County Commission will not reverse the decision; that the County Commission can reverse the decision without the City Commission's concurrence; that anyone who spoke to the City Commission has the right to appear before the County Commission. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the County Commission was responding to the perception of the wishes of the City Commission; that the City could have sold the County the land at Lemon Avenue for $200,000 to $250,000; that an offer of $2 million would have been gladly accepted; that the funds could have been put to good use; that replacing 65 parking spaces at Lemon Avenue does not pay for the value of the land; that the value of the land is what can be built on the land; that locating the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center at the House of Golf site preserves the City-owned parking lots on both sides of Lemon Avenue; that the Lemon Avenue site is the most valuable piece of land owned by the City for the future and cannot be duplicated; that the City will be pleased in the future for land-banking the BOOK 45 Page 17490 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17491 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. property in tact; that a different attitude may prevail if money were made available to build something of significance now; however, the option was never offered. Commissioner Merrill stated that the issue of parking has been discussed by the City Commission on numerous occasions; that preserving the parking was the reason support was offered to move the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center across Fruitville Road; that the County was not willing to spend the money to build a parking garage which had been encouraged by some parties; that building a parking garage in return for the SCAT Intermodal Transier Center is not the County's plan; that the City Commission cannot vote for a plan which has not been presented; that locating the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center at the Lemon Avenue site would result in the loss of parking spaces; that the City would have to find money in the future to replace the parking spaces; that the proposal is to move the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center two blocks and retain the parking at Lemon Avenue; that the proposal is probably the best although not ideal. Vice Mayor Patterson agreed. Mayor Dupree stated that the land at Lemon Avenue is valuable and of considerably more value than the House of Golf site; that the downtown area is interested in expanding north; therefore, consideration should be given to the property between First and Second Streets which will change dramatically in the future. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the County has negotiated a contract on the House of Golf site? Mr. Gray stated that the County Commission was waiting for a decision by the City; that the County will begin negotiations with the property owner if the City concurs with the site selection; that the County has not yet acquired the property. Vice Mayor Patterson asked the assessed value of the property? Mr. Gray stated that the assessed value is not known; that appraisals on the property will be required as part of the negotiation process. Vice Mayor Patterson referred to the minutes of the October 7, 1997, City Commission workshop concerning the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center indicating funding of $2.85 million has been obtained from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and asked if the funding is still available. Mr. Gray stated that SCAT has obtained a grant for $2.85 million for the purchase, design and construction of a SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center. Mayor Dupree requested that the City Auditor and Clerk restate the motion. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson restated the motion as to accept the City Manager's recommendation to: 1) concur with the selection by the County of the House of Golf site for the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center and 2) direct Administration to study and recommend pedestrian-friendly crossing improvements for Fruitville Road and Lemon Avenue for use by SCAT riders. Mayor Dupree called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. Commissioner Pillot stated that residents have been waiting for five hours to address specific Agenda Items. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to extend the meeting beyond the regular 11:30 p.m. Commission meeting deadline to complete the Agenda Items under Unfinished Business, New Business and Board Appointments. Motion carried (4 to 1) : Cardamone, yesi Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. 19. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: DISPOSITION OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY (LAUREL PARK, RFP #98-72H), LOCATED AT 1865 LAUREL STREET - AUTHORIZED THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PURCHASE AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $151,000 FOR THE SALE OF CITY- OWNED PROPERTY AT 1865 LAUREL STREET TO LAUREL PARK VENTURES (LPV), SUBJECT TO STIPULATED CONDITIONS (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #4 (1516) through (1752) Gregory Horwedel, Director of Neighborhoods and Redevelopment, came before the Commission and stated that sealed proposals in response to Request for Proposal (RFP) 98-72H were received until 4:30 p.m., August 14, 1998; that the RFP offered the City-owned parcel at 1865 Laurel Street for sale and development; that the parcel of approximately, 21,000 square feet is in a Residential, Multiple-Family, Revitalization (RMF-R) Zone District; that the site has one single-family house which is in fair to poor condition and is appraised at $141,000; that the RFP stipulated the parcel be redeveloped with construction of no more than four single-family homes. Mr. Horwedel continued that one response was received; that the respondent, Laurel Park Ventures (LPV), proposes to renovate the existing structure and build three additional homes of the craftsman bungalow and Mediterranean revival design anticipated to sell for $225,000 to $170,000; that the respondent proposes to pay the City $151,000, or $10,000 over the appraised value, for BOOK 45 Page 17492 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17493 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. the site; that Staff's recommendation is to approve commencement of negotiations to enter into a purchase agreement with LPV subject to the following stipulated conditions: 1. Requirement for approval by the RFP Review Team for any major changes in the architectural design submitted, 2. Requirement for LPV to post all bonds as stipulated in the RFP to ensure completion of the project, 3. Agreement by LPV to apply for a building permit for the new structures within one year of signing the purchase agreement, 4. Agreement by LPV to substantially complete the construction of the new homes within EwO years of signing the purchase agreement, and 5. Agreement by LPV to a pro-rata recapture provision if the new buildings cannot built as proposed. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the proposal is to pay the City cash? Mr. Horwedel stated yes, according to his understanding. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the answer is important; that the City should not be involved in a joint-venture arrangement; and asked if a real estate fee is involved. Mr. Horwedel stated no. Commissioner Pillot quoted from the Agenda Request form as follows : The proposed project has been reviewed by the Review Team and discussed at the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association. The proposed project has received general support from those who have seen the plans. Mr. Horwedel stated that members of the Review Team and the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association, Inc. (LPNA), are present to affirm support, if desired. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to authorize the Mayor to sign a purchase agreement in the amount of $151, 000 for the sale of City-owned property at 1865 Laurel Street to Laurel Park Ventures, subject to the stipulated conditions. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that a September 17, 1998, letter from the LPNA requests the Review Team review any changes; and asked if the request is incorporated in the motion? Mr. Horwedel stated yes, in the stipulated conditions. Commissioner Cardamone asked the anticipated selling price of the homes? Mr. Horwedel stated that the units fronting on Laurel Street are anticipated to sell for approximately $225,000; that the units fronting on Hawkins Court are anticipated to sell for approximately $170,000. Commissioner Pillot stated for the record that the transaction is an arms-length, cash transaction. Mr. Horwedel stated that is correct. Mayor Dupree called for a vote on the motion to authorize the Mayor to sign a purchase agreement in the amount of $151,000 for the sale of City-owned property at 1865 Laurel Street to LPV, subject to the following conditions: 1) requirement for approval by the RFP Review Team for any major changes in the architectural design submitted, 2) requirement for LPV to post all bonds as stipulated in the RFP to ensure completion of the project, 3) agreement by LPV to apply for a building permit for the new structures within one year of signing the purchase agreement, 4) agreement by LPV to substantially complete the construction of the new homes within two years of signing the purchase agreement, and 5) agreement by LPV to a pro-rata recapture provision if the new buildings cannot built as proposed. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the record should reflect the City finally made a profit on a purchase. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City previously made a profit on the sale for approximately $180,000 of a piece of property on Central Avenue and Seventh Street in which the City had $80,000 to $90,000 invested; that the City paid approximately $65,000 for the property and paid $20,000 to $25,000 to raze the buildings. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the City is taking positive steps. Commissioner Pillot stated that two Agenda Items were added under Unfinished Business by Changes to the Orders of the Day; however, Agenda Item VIII-1 under New Business may not consume a considerable amount of time and a member of the public has been waiting to speak to the issue; and requested the Commission's concurrence to consider Agenda Item VIII-1 at this time. Vice Mayor Patterson concurred. BOOK 45 Page 17494 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17495 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that five people have been waiting to speak to another Agenda Item; however, she will yield out of respect for the wishes of other Commissioners. Mayor Dupree stated that Agenda Item VIII-1 will be considered at this time. 20. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: PROPOSED SALE OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRUITVILLE ROAD AND COCOANUT AVENUE TO MR. BRUCE BALK'S INVESTMENT GROUP FOR THE APPRAISED VALUE OF $133,500 FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSES = APPROVED TO SELL THE CITY - OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRUITVILLE ROAD AND COCOANUT AVENUE TO THE INVESTMENT GROUP REPRESENTED BY MR. BALK FOR THE APPRAISED VALUE OF $133,500, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN ENUMERATED CONDITIONS (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #4 (1752) through (2200) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the proposal is to sell City-owned property located on the northwest corner of Fruitville Road and Cocoanut Avenue to an investment group represented by Bruce Balk, AIA, the Balk Company, Inc., for the appraised value of $133,500; that the proposed sale is a negotiated sale consistent with City policy; that reasons for presenting the proposal to the Commission are: 1) the proposed purchase price is the appraised value and 2) the proposed development will be comprised of townhouses, bringing more residential units into the downtown area; that the proposed development is extremely positive and of the same high quality as the Library Mews development at Second Street and Cocoanut Avenue. Commissioner Pillot asked the Administration's recommendation. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends sale of the City-owned property located on the northwest corner of Fruitville Road and Cocoanut Avenue to the investment group represented by Mr. Balk for the appraised value of $133,500, provided the following conditions are incorporated in a purchase agreement: 1. City approval of the final architectural and landscaping design for the project 2. Filing of a building permit within one year with one additional year to substantially complete construction of the project 3. City option to recapture the property in the event of a default On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation. Vice Mayor Patterson referred to the Contract for Sale of Real Estate and asked for clarification of the applicability to the sale of the property. Bruce Balk, AIA, the Balk Company, Inc., came before the Commission and stated that the copy of the Contract for Sale of Real Estate is for the adjoining land and was included to demonstrate that the investment group has already contracted for the purchase; that contracts are also anticipated on other property abutting and running contiguously to the City-owned parcel. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the proposal is for a cash purchase? Mr. Balk stated yes; that the development will be referred to as Theatre Mews; that no bank is involved in the development. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if a real estate commission is involved. Mr. Balk stated no. Commissioner Cardamone asked why the real estate transaction must be closed on October 6, 1998? Mr. Balk stated that closing on the property is not scheduled for October 6, 1998; that if approved, a contract will be signed on October 6, 1998, and a check for $133,500 will be produced for placement in escrow until closing on the property; that the Commission will have an opportunity to review the real estate contract at the October 19, 1998, regular Commission meeting. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the project is positive; however, the question is the reason for haste. City Attorney Taylor stated that a quick transaction of the sale of real estate is not the normal method of operation; that the details of the contract must be finalized; that the contract will be returned to the Commission for final approval. Mr. Balk stated that $133,500 will be delivered to the City Attorney's Office on October 6, 1998, for placement in escrow for release at the time of closing on the property; that the City has been provided: 1) the right to review and approve the design and landscape plan and 2) an agreement to commence construction within one year; that no bank is involved in the project. Vice Mayor Patterson asked the anticipated closing date? BOOK 45 Page 17496 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17497 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. Gregory Horwedel, Director of Neighborhoods and Redevelopment, came before the Commission and stated that the anticipated closing date is March 1, 1999. Mr. Balk referred to a brochure of the Library Mews development to demonstrate the quality and standards to which he and the investment group adhere; and stated that the delay prior to closing presents the opportunity to consider the Theatre Mews development; that Theatre Mews will not be identical to Library Mews but will be of the same standards and quality; that some Library Mews units sell for $280,000 to $340,000; that the units in Theatre Mews will sell for approximately $180,000 to $220,000; that the effort is to reach a cross-section of the market; that one desire is to extend the downtown to the north side of Fruitville Road; that the Commission may wish to direct Staff to consider lessening the speed limit on Fruitville Road from U.S. 301 to 41 due to the activities occurring on the north side of Fruitville Road, including the siting of the Sarasota County Transit Authority (SCAT) Intermodal Transier Center; that Fruitville Road should become more pedestriam-friendly, which would help the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Center if located at the former House of Golf site, the Theatre Mews development, the Sarasota Opera House, the Selby Public Library, and the restaurants and other businesses on Main Street; that no bank is involved; therefore, the project will begin development as soon as ground is broken. Mayor Dupree called for a vote on the motion to sell the City-owned property located on the northwest corner of Fruitville Road and Cocoanut Avenue to the investment group represented by Mr. Balk for the appraised value of $133,500, provided the following conditions are incorporated in a purchase agreement: 1) City approval of the final architectural and landscaping design for the project, 2) filing of a building permit within one year with one additional year to substantially complete construction of the project, and 3) City option to recapture the property in the event of a default. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. Commissioner Merrill left the Commission meeting at 11:32 p.m. 21. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 98R-1127, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF AMENDED LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLANS FOR THE SARASOTA STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) PROGRAM; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AUTHORIZING ITS EXECUTION BY THE MAYOR: ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-4) #4 (2200) through (2355) Donald Hadsell, Director of Housing and Community Development, came before the Commission and stated that at the September 21, 1998, regular City Commission meeting, the Commission requested information on the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) program, specifically staffing requirements for the SHIP Program, the number of individuals required to implement the Impact Fee Program, and the selection criteria and scoring system for the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program; that the selection criteria and scoring system will be discussed under Agenda Item VII-5. Mr. Hadsell stated that the proposed work plan of the Office of Housing and Community Development requires 20 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) positions as presented in the fiscal year (FY) 98/99 budget; that one-half of one FTE position is required to implement the Impact Fee Program; that impact fee mitigation is available to qualified low or very low income applicants; that proposed Resolution 98R-1127 incorporates amendments to implement the work plan of the Office of Housing and Community Development. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to adopt Resolution No. 98R-1127 amending the SHIP Program. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 98R-1127 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to adopt Resolution No. 98R-1127 amending the SHIP Program Mayor Dupree requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes; Cardamone, yes. 22. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: PROPOSED SCORING SYSTEM THAT WOULD BE USED FOR THE SELECTION OF LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROJECT - APPROVED INCLUDING THE LOCAL COMPONENT AND CITY VETO POWER (AGENDA ITEM VII-5) #4 (2355) through (3891) Donald Hadsell, Director of Housing and Community Development, came before the Commission and stated that at the September 21, 1998, regular City Commission meeting, the Commission requested a review of the scoring system for the selection of low-income housing tax credit projects; that the low-income tax credit program is a Federal program allocated by the State; that the opportunity became available for firms to apply for the low-income tax credit program during the current application cycle which is through January 7, 1999; that the BOOK 45 Page 17498 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17499 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. Commission specifically requested that the scoring system not penalize projects located in the City or incorporating aesthetic improvements; that Staff recommends utilizing the State housing tax credit application selection criteria; that all applications are rated and approved by the State; that the State's selection criteria has been refined over the past 15 years and is an objective scoring system, rewarding applicants who establish programs for tenants and provide certain specified amenities; that the communities successful in receiving low-income tax credits have mirrored the State's selection criteria to the extent possible; that the application form including the scoring system and selection criteria for the low-income tax credit program was distributed recently to two interested developers who requested changes to the selection criteria, none of which will adversely affect the State's selection criteria; that following are proposed changes to the State's selection criteria: 1. Ownership and development review approval - The State's selection criteria provides points if the applicant has title to the property and has also obtained site and development approval from the City. The developers have indicated sufficient time is available to obtain site and development approval between the award of points by the Office of Housing and Community Development and submission to the State. Therefore, the proposed change is that title and site and development approval be in progress and obtained by December 31, 1998. Staff supports this change. 2. Local government approval = The proposal is that the appropriate governmental entity, i.e., the City, approve the proposed development. Local governments, i.e., the City, should agree proposed developments must be consistent with the government's Comprehensive Plan, local zoning and is appropriate for the neighborhood in terms of design, scale and density. Approval could be obtained from the City Manager or the City Commission, depending on the wishes of the City Commission. Staff recommends this change to assure the Office of Housing and Community Development does not approve financing for any development which is not supported by the City. 3. Neighborhood rating A developer proposed a neighborhood rating criterion, upon which 10 to 25 percent of the scoring would be based. Staff recommends no more than 25 points be awarded if the Commission elects to adopt a neighborhood rating criterion so the State's selection criteria is not changed. Staff also recommends a five-member review committee comprised of the Director of Housing and Community Development, a member of City and County Staffs designated by the appropriate administrator, two architects and land planners, one each appointed by the City Manager and the County Administrator. Mr. Hadsell stated that developers would be required to meet publicly with the neighborhood association for the neighborhood in which the development is proposed; that a public meeting with all businesses and residences within one quarter mile would be conducted if no neighborhood association is established in the neighborhood; that the neighborhood association and residents could provide input but would not have veto poweri that developers would also be required to state in the application any impact of the development on the neighborhood and include any public comment; that the neighborhood criterion could be rated as follows: Maximum Factor 10 points Aesthetic and design appeal of the development 10 points Compatibility with the neighborhood 5 points Provision of services to the neighborhood Mr. Hadsell further stated that 25 points could be deducted from any development application which has a substantial negative impact on roads, schools, utilities, or drainage; that Staff's concern is any neighborhood criterion changes the rating which will be provided by the State. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if the Commission or the review committee would make the final decision? Mr. Hadsell stated that the review committee would make the determination on the neighborhood criterion; however, the Commission or the City Manager would have final approval. Commissioner Cardamone asked if establishment of a neighborhood criterion is recommended? Mr. Hadsell stated that the rating is suggested as a methodology if the Commission decides to adopt a neighborhood criterion. Commissioner Cardamone asked if adoption of a neighborhood criterion has an affect on City versus County projects? Mr. Hadsell stated no. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission has indicated a desire that low-income housing be shared more equally with the County. Mr. Hadsell stated that the Commission's previous direction was to assure the scoring system does not penalize eligible housing developments in the City. BOOK 45 Page 17500 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17501 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. The following people came before the Commission: Cathy Layton, 1800 Second Street (34236), stated that Staff's recommendation is supported; that the establishment of a neighborhood criterion is supported; that the expressed concern is a project which is well accepted in the neighborhood would not be approved by the State and, thus, funding would not be obtained for a project in the City; that the State's scoring system has a total of 613 points; that the recommendation is to add another 25 points; that the extra 25 points could help eliminate ties among highly qualified developers; that the extra 25 points allows the enhancement of the quantitative considerations required by the State with qualitative considerations desired by the community; that the concept is similar to the State's award of 30 points if a developer has engaged the services of a qualified certified public accountant (CPA) and an attorney who has performed work on tax credit projects; that the neighborhood criterion is worthy of 25 points; that the Commission is requested to endorse the establishment of a neighborhood criterion with a rating system as suggested by Staff. Bowen Arnold, 1520 Royal Palm Boulevard, Ft. Myers, Florida (33919), deferred to the comments by Ms. Layton. Brenda Patten, 720 South Orange Avenue (34236) law firm of Kirk- Pinkerton, representing the Carlisle Group stated that her previous understanding was Staff's recommendation would be to adopt the State's selection criteria, which is supported; that the possibility of the State's selecting any project in the City of Sarasota, the County of Sarasota, or other cities in the County of Sarasota is jeopardized to the extent the City deviates from the State's selection criteria; that the City will support a project based upon the City's review; that projects sent to the State for review will only be evaluated on the basis of the State's selection criteria; that the City may choose a project which is highly rated using the local criteria but which scores lower using the State's selection criteria; that the selection process is very competitive at the State level; that the communities experiencing the greatest success have evaluated projects using the State's selection criteria; that Staff was asked if the City should deviate from the State's criteria; that the response was the decision would be deferred to the Commission; that Staff's initial comments should be heeded; that the possibility of selecting any project from the City of Sarasota, Sarasota County or its other municipalities is jeopardized to the extent the adopted selection criteria deviates from the State's selection criteria; that neighborhood input is strongly supported; however, in this instance, objective criteria should be used in the evaluation process; that the State has been using the selection criteria for approximately 19 years; that neighborhood issues may tend to favor projects in areas where neighborhoods are strongly organized with a high level of representation and not to favor projects in areas where neighborhoods are not as strongly organized or non-existent; that the recommendation is to adopt the State's selection criteria. Rick Miller, 12446 McGregor Woods, Ft. Myers, Florida (33902) stated that several tax credit financed projects have been developed throughout Florida; that two issues are presented: 1. The statement was made that most successful developments have been based on local selection criteria which mirrors the State's selection criteria. Mr. Miller stated that the exception rather than the rule is the establishment of local selection criteria which mirrors the State's selection criteria; that most municipalities and counties in which he has worked have made local determinations for allocating State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP), HOME Partnership Investment Act (HOME), or Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, allowing local input on where, how and when affordable housing is built; that the City can take advantage of the opportunity to develop a local selection criteria at this time; that neighborhood groups should provide input as to location, the type of development and the developer. 2. Most well versed developers will score all the points on the State's selection criteria. Mr. Miller stated that the establishment of local selection allows differentiation based on neighborhood input; that the State application process should be utilized; that local neighborhood input should be used in the event of a tie, allowing neighborhood groups to determine the location and developer. Commissioner Cardamone asked if Staff concurs with the comments by Attorney Patten? Mr. Hadsell stated that the purest method is to follow the State's selection criteria, which has been presented to the Commission; that a rating has been recommended if the Commission desires a local selection criteria; that the recommended rating has as de minimus an effect as possible; that the recommended rating will factor into a close score but will not allow a project which would otherwise not be funded to receive local support. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the areas where affordable, tax credit projects, which are multi-family units, will likely be built have strong neighborhood associations? Mr. Hadsell stated that two projects have been discussed; that one is in an area with a strong neighborhood association and one BOOK 45 Page 17502 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17503 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. is in an area where the extent of neighborhood representation is not known; that an alternative for neighborhoods which do not have neighborhood associations is incorporated in the proposal. Commissioner Cardamone stated that following the State's selection criteria is supported if the desire is for projects to come to Sarasota County. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if neighborhood approval could be combined with compatibility and scale in the neighborhood criterion? Mr. Hadsell stated that the recommendation is to award up to 10 points for aesthetic and design appeal of the development and 10 points for compatibility with the neighborhood; that neighborhood approval is not part of the process; that a methodology has been developed to provide for neighborhood input to the Commission and the review committee. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the review committee would be reviewing issues of compatibility, scale, etc. Mr. Hadsell stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the City and any other close community would desire such projects be evaluated in accordance with the proposed factors; that not having a project would be better than having a project to which no criteria as to compatibility and scale has been applied; that a project which qualifies on the basis of the proposed factors would be gladly accepted; that no loss will be suffered if a project does not gain approval at the State level; that at least an effort would have been made to obtain a positive project; that the concept of bringing in a project due solely to the developer's qualifications is unappealing; that sending all such projects out of the City is not supported as some areas in the City could benefit; that all the issues could be addressed and better housing offered City residents. Commissioner Pillot agreed; and stated that a project which will not score well on the State's selection criteria will not gain enough points through the proposed local selection criteria to affect significantly the local scoring; that local selection criteria could establish a differentiation among projects scoring high enough on the State's selection criteria for acceptance; that Staff's proposed neighborhood criterion provides the best option. Mr. Hadsell stated that Staff's recommendation is to use the State's selection criteria; however, some indication was received that a local selection criteria is desired; therefore, Staff's proposal will establish a workable scoring system without jeopardizing the possibility of gaining State funding. Mayor Dupree asked if the State's selection criteria provides equity inside and outside the City of Sarasota? Mr. Hadsell yes; that the State's selection criteria is completely objective. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the failure to obtain a project which is not compatible with the neighborhood represents no concerni that a project which scores high on the State's selection criteria but is not compatible with the neighborhood is not desired; that weighting the State's selection criteria very high and the local selection criteria very low could mean approval of a project which is not desired. Mr. Hadsell stated that Staff made three recommendations, one of which provides the jurisdiction the ability to veto any project; that the City can decide a project should not be considered. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to approve the scoring system for the Tax Credit Program including the local component and City veto poweri that chasing money without being sensitive to how well the money will be used is wrong; that bad projects are the result of merely pursuing the funding without regard to local concerns; that compatibility must be considered. Commissioner Pillot asked if the speakers are in agreement with the Administration's recommendation? Ms. bayton, Mr. Arnold and Mr. Miller returned to the Commission table and stated yes. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the proposed scoring system for the selection of low-income housing tax credit projects must be forwarded to the State prior to the October 19, 1998, regular Commission meeting; that a final determination is required. Mr. Hadsell stated that is correct; that the County Commission has requested review of the scoring system as the City previously requested review. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that an open issue is the determination of veto authority. Mr. Hadsell stated that the Staff's recommendation is the determination of veto authority is a local decision; that the Commission can decide when appropriate. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve the proposed scoring system BOOK 45 Page 17504 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 45 Page 17505 10/05/98 6:00 P.M. for the Tax Credit Program including the local component and City veto power. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. 23. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: PARKS, RECREATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADVISORY BOARD = APPOINTED DANIEL WALTON (AGENDA ITEM IX) #4 (3740) through (3850) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that an appointment to the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Advisory Board was on the Agenda of the September 21, 1998, regular Commission meeting; that only four Commissioners were present; that the vote resulted in a two-to-two tie; therefore, the appointment was placed on this Agenda. Commissioner Cardamone nominated Jane Carrigan and stated that Ms. Carrigan is very interested, has proven her value with all the active work done for the benefit of the City, and would look forward to. serving on the Board. Commissioner Pillot nominated Daniel Walton and stated that Dr. Walton has considerable credentials in the field of forestry, plant physiology as well as having been a faculty member in the discipline at Syracuse University; that not totally supporting Ms. Carrigan is very difficult. Commissioner Cardamone asked if Dr. Walton is personally known. Commissioner Pillot stated no. Mayor Dupree called for a vote on the nominations. Jane Carrigan received one vote: Cardamone, yes. Daniel Walton received three votes: Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. Mayor Dupree announced the appointment of Daniel Walton to the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that not supporting Jane Carrigan was difficult; however, one desire has been to get more people with knowledge of plants working on City projects. Commissioner Pillot stated that adding another member and appointing Jane Carrigan to the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board would be supported. Vice Mayor Patterson agreed. Commissioner Cardamone asked if a vacancy will be developing in the near future? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the expiration dates of existing terms of Board members will be investigated. Mayor Dupree stated that a strong vote of thanks should be extended to Bart Cotten for his service on the Board. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a letter of appreciation will be written for the Mayor's signature. 24. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (3850) There being no further business, Mayor Dupree adjourned the regular meeting of October 5, 1998, at 12:17 p.m. roe hvb phie BEROME DUPREE, MAYOR ATTEST: e - Cl & Rebenson BILLY CROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK BOOK 45 Page 17506 10/05/98 6:00 P.M.