BOOK 44 Page 16531 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 21, 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. REPORT RE: STATUS OF THE RINGLING CAUSEWAY BRIDGE LITIGATION = DIRECTED THE CITY ATTORNEY TO OBTAIN A REVISED ESTIMATE OF LEGAL EXPENSES FOR OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND STAFF TO PREPARE AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND AN IMPACT STUDY ON DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY FOR A BRIDGE TO LONGBOAT KEY (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0005) through #4 (0285) Mayor Dupree stated that the Commission authorized filing an administrative challenge to the decision of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to build a 65-foot-high, fixed-span replacement to the Ringling Causeway Bridge at the November 17, 1997, regular Commission meeting; that a status report on the litigation will be presented, including the administrative hearing process and the relief sought. City Attorney Taylor stated that his memorandum to the City Commission dated April 10, 1998, was prepared to clarify the status of the legal proceedings between the City and FDOT; that on November 17, 1997, the Commission authorized the initiation of an administrative challenge to FDOT's decision to construct a 65- foot-high, fixed-span bridge; that the vote also authorized pursuing a preliminary injunction in Federal court to halt construction of the proposed bridge due to inadequate environmental impact statements; that advance notice must be given of an intent to rescind the prior Commission action or the rescission requires a two-thirds Commission vote. David Levin, Attorney, Law Firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen and Ginsburg, P.A., came before the Commission and distributed copies of a revised Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing and stated that two aspects of the case will be reviewed: 1) the City's administrative challenge of the FDOT's decision to replace the existing bascule bridge with a 65-foot-high, fixed- span bridge and 2) the injunction being sought in Federal court relating to the failure of the FDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to prepare an environmental impact statement; that the impact to the Federally protected Bird Key Park was not considered. Attorney Levin stated that the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge is not appropriate for the City; that his statements will be based on eithér findings in the FDOT's files or the absence of critical information which the FDOT is required to investigate before a decision is reached. Attorney Levin displayed on the overhead projector, referred to and explained an overview of the issues contained in the Petition and issues encountered during research; and stated that the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge will have, or is likely to have, the following adverse impacts : A substantial increase in discharges of stormwater containing toxic materials including lead, cadmium, zinc, copper, oil and grease into Sarasota Bay, an Outstanding Florida Water New violations of state water quality standards for Class II, Class III and Outstanding Florida Waters Elimination of vital seagrasses Reduction in productivity of remaining seagrass Reduction in nursery habitat for recreationally and commercially valuable marine fish species Reduction in critical manatee habitat Attorney Levin stated that the 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge will be longer than the existing bridge sO vehicles will be traveling a greater distance; that increased vehicular acceleration will be required to traverse the higher grade; that stormwater treatment has not been provided so water will fall directly into Sarasota Bay; that the following are additional adverse affects of the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge: An increase in motor vehicle collisions on the bridge An increase in motor vehicle collisions at intersections beyond the bridge BOOK 44 Page 16532 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16533 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. Increased traffic congestion due to trucks' negotiating the steeper grade Elimination or substantial modification of access to Bird Key Subdivision and Bird Key Park, if the assumption is correct of a required 80-foot maximum vertical clearance at a 3 percent or 5 percent grade or a 65-foot maximum vertical clearance at a 3 percent grade - Obstruction of the view for Bird Key residences Obstruction of the view for residences on the mainland Decreased property values as a result of visual obstruction Lower property tax revenues A reduction in the aesthetic and recreational values of Bird Key Park Increased danger to vehicles, especially school buses and multi-passenger vans, due to increased wind speeds during high wind meteorological events Delays in response time by emergency medical vehicles due to increased wind speeds during high wind meteorological events Substantial impediment to many pedestrians, bicyclists and joggers with a 5 percent grade A prohibited barrier to disabled persons with a 5 percent grade Increased air pollution, fuel costs and water pollution with a 5 percent grade Bottlenecks at the four-lane eastern approach with six lanes being used during evacuation A prohibited obstruction to marine traffic within the Federal Intracoastal Waterway Vertical with clearance at a maximum of 65 feet Increased vertical and horizontal clearance outside of the main navigational channel, encouraging increased by-passing of main navigational channel by watercraft Increased watercraft speeds and accidents due to by-passing the main navigational channel Adverse affects on the safety of manatees due to watercrafts by-passing the main navigational channel and increased speeds Increased flooding and erosion at Bird Key, Bird Key Park and approach roadways within the 100-year floodplain caused by the creation of new obstructions such as fill and retaining walls Attorney Levin stated that the higher clearance outside of the main navigational channel will encourage boaters to by-pass the existing channel; that adequate depths exist outside of the channel to accommodate the traffic; that by-passing the channel is currently inhibited by the narrowness of the bridge spans and the lower bridge height; that increasing the height of the bridge and widening the span will remove the inhibition; that fill and retaining walls will increase obstructions to flood water flows; that FDOT has not investigated the impact of increased obstruction on Bird Key, Bird Key Park and the approach roadways in terms of flooding and erosion. Attorney Levin stated that the effect of the proposed bridge design on grades is available from a publication of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) entitled "A Policy of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 1990", and are as follows: Vehicle-operating Characteristics on Grades Passenger cars .nearly all passenger cars can readily negotiate grades as steep as four to five percent without appreciable loss in speed below that normally maintained on level highways Trucks - The effect of grades on truck speeds is much more pronounced that on speeds of passenger cars. trucks display up to about a five percent increase in speed on downgrades and about a seven percent or more decrease in speed on upgrades as compared to operation on the level. Attorney Levin stated that passenger vehicles outnumber trucks on the existing bridge and will on the proposed bridge; and referenced a table on traffic parameters from the FDOT dated 1993 which indicates the following: 76 trucks will negotiate the bridge per hour during peak hours. BOOK 44 Page 16534 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16535 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. Speed-distance curves for a typical heavy truck of 300 pounds of horsepower (pounds/hp) for deceleration (on percent upgrades) Attorney Levin stated that a five percent grade has been proposed by FDOT; that the AASHTO publication indicates the following effect of a five percent grade : Trucks entering the bridge at 45 mph will be reduced to 35 mph by the time the truck reaches two-thirds up the slope of a five percent grade bridge. Studies show that regardless of the average highway speed, the greater a vehicle deviates from this average speed the greater its chances of becoming involved in an accident. Attorney Levin displayed on the overhead projector a chart entitled - Involvement Rate of the Number of Four or More Axle Trucks involved in Accidents per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled"; and stated that the chart indicates the effect of a 10 mph reduction in truck speed due to the increase in grade, which is likely to result in approximately three times more accidents; that the term 'capacity' is defined as follows: the expression of the maximum hourly rate at which. vehicles can reasonably be expected to traverse a point. .of a lane or a roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. Attorney Levin continued that the existing Ringling Causeway Bridge has two 10.5-foot travel lanes east and west with no separation or shoulder; that the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge will have two 12-foot travel lanes east and west, a 10-foot breakdown lane in the middle and a total of 10 feet of open space for a bicycle lane and shoulder on the outside; that the capacity of a bridge with no Clearance zone is 15 to 20 percent lower than the capacity of a bridge with at least six feet of clearance zone between the travel lane and an obstruction such as a Jersey barrier; that the proposed bridge has a wider area to the obstruction; that FDOT's position is the wider bridge is safer; that the AASHTO publication states that vehicles will travel slower than expected due to the obstruction; that vehicles are expected to travel faster in a clear and open space; that side friction occurs due to the clear open space between travel lanes and an obstruction; that side friction is experienced when cars travel through areas with traffic-calming devices, which slow travel speed; that the proposed bridge will have a 15 to 20 percent greater capacity than the existing bridge based solely on a greater clearance between the existing roadway and the side obstruction; that the average speed on the existing bridge is 40 miles per hour (mph) ; that the anticipated average speed on the proposed bridge will be 40 mph plus 15 percent or 46 mph; that national safety statistics indicate that speed-related fatalities increase by 80 percent when speed is increased from 40 to 45 mph; that the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge is not as safe as FDOT claims; that the existing Ringling Causeway Bridge may ultimately be safer than the proposed bridge. Commissioner Patterson stated that the previous conclusion was that speed would be slower due to the steeper grade; that the indication is vehicles will travel faster due to more side space. Attorney Levin stated that the grade increase will not slow passenger vehicles; however, trucks will slow down to make the grade and cause following passenger vehicles to slow down, which may result in passenger vehicles trying to pass trucks and speed upi that some of these points are not exceptionally strong but have been overlooked by FDOT and should be considered before generalized statements are made regarding the safety of the proposed bridge; that FDOT's generalized statements regarding safety may be exaggerated; that the proposed bridge may be less safe than the existing bridge. Attorney Levin referred to a report entitled "Final Preliminary Engineering Report, February 1994", and stated that FDOT indicated a benefit of the proposed bridge will be to enhance evacuation efficiency as well as improve emergency vehicle response times; that the significance is FDOT prepared a document indicating an increased capacity for evacuations as an advantage; however, increased capacity will only occur if the number of lanes are increased; that the anticipation is four lanes plus two additional breakdown lanes totaling six lanes of traffic will move east during a hurricane evacuation event. Attorney Levin displayed on the slide projector aerials to depict road conditions anticipated during an emergency evacuation from Longboat Key; that the bridge over New Pass is designed as two lanes; that additional traffic may be possible by using the breakdown lanes; that the road narrows to two lanes when approaching Lido Key without an opportunity for additional lanes on either side of the existing lanes; that the road from Longboat Key to Coon Key is limited to four lanes with no opportunity for additional lanes from Coon Key to Bird Keyi that the roadway would expand to six lanes on the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge and back to four lanes on the eastern side when exiting; that bottlenecks would be created by funneling six lanes of traffic into four lanes; that more cars will be able to get across the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge but the reduction in lanes at the eastern end would eliminate any advantage in an evacuation; that a substantial bottleneck would also be created before reaching the proposed bridge; therefore, the value of a bridge with six lanes is very tentative during a hurricane situation. BOOK 44 Page 16536 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16537 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. Attorney Levin referred to a study conducted by FDOT entitled "] Emergency Situations", and stated that FDOT acknowledges a relationship between elevation and wind speed exists; that FDOT indicated that wind velocity at the top of a 65-foot-high, fixed- span bridge is expected to be higher than at the top of a 21-foot bascule bridge during high winds; that Dr. Robert Sheets, former Director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami, agreed that winds would be higher at the top of a 65-foot, fixed-span bridge than at the top of a 21-foot bascule bridge; that a set of wind profiles commonly used by engineers was obtained for the Anna Maria Island Bridge case; that the Anna Maria Island Bridge case included FDOT documentation relating to the Ringling Causeway Bridge; that the documentation indicated that in most wind situations, excluding those associated with hurricanes, lower winds will be encountered on lower surfaces. Attorney Levin displayed on the overhead projector a graph demonstrating the relationship between height and wind speed and stated that wind speed increases as height increases; that the wind speed will be between 40 to 62 miles per hour at the higher level; that in 1996, the Commission instructed the City Manager to ask FDOT to provide information regarding the impact of the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge on emergency vehicles; that information was provided from a January 7, 1996, winter storm; that the data showed sustained winds at 40 mph and gusts up to 62 mph at the 30-foot level; that these wind speeds were not a one-time occurrence; that winds were recorded at 53 mph with gusts up to 65 mph at the 30-foot level throughout the storm; that wind speeds were recorded at 50 mph and gusts up to 57 mph at the time school buses were anticipated to cross the bridge; that winds will be stronger on a higher, fixed-span bridge; that vehicle types most affected by higher wind speeds are school buses, emergency vehicles and private, multi-passenger vans; that a concern not investigated by FDOT is effect on emergency response times during windy periods. Attorney Levin continued that in the administrative law judge's Final Order, the following finding was presented: The four percent grade and height of the proposed bridge will make walking, jogging and biking forbidding. The record contains competent substantial evidence.. that recreational use for walking, jogging and biking will be adversely affected. Attorney Levin presented a drawing depicting the differences between a three percent grade bridge and a five percent grade bridge; and stated that the Anna Maria Island Bridge testimony heard was from people who use both the Anna Maria bridge and the Ringling Causeway Bridge; that the testimony also included information regarding how a 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge would impact people who utilize the bridge; that a similar finding indicating that a four percent grade is too great can be anticipated if the demographics of the people who use the Ringling Causeway Bridge have demographics similar to Anna Maria Island in terms of age, distribution of residents, etc.; that a grade of less than four percent is required; that the five percent grade proposed by FDOT is too great; that FDOT evaluated the impact of a three and five percent grade in 1993; that a three percent grade is considered more desirable than a five percent grade from a pedestrian's standpoint; that a five percent grade is the maximum allowable grade under AASHTO standards but would not be appropriate in an area with an older population; that a three percent grade would result in a bridge landing 300 feet west of Bird Key Drive which would create direct visual impacts to many residences; that a significant modification of the Bird Key Drive intersection would be required; that Federal law with respect to navigation rights includes the following: The privilege of navigation upon all waters which are capable of such.. is a common and paramount right. the right of navigating a public stream is paramount to the right of passage across the stream by means of a bridge. No bridge shall at any time unreasonably obstruct the free navigation of any navigable waters of the United States. Attorney Levin stated that the U.S. Coast Guard will consider that the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge may create an obstruction when considering the required permit application; that FDOT noted in an internal memorandum that the U.S. Coast Guard has a policy not to permit any new bridge which will cause delays in boat traffic; that FDOT received considerable information when investigating the impact of the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge on boat traffic; that a memorandum from a FDOT consultant noted that an 86-foot boat is expected to navigate the area of the proposed bridge; that FDOT was required to submit a bridge project questionnaire to the U.S. Coast Guard; that FDOT noted the vertical clearance requirement for the largest vessel using the waterway is approximately, 74 feet in height and presented, in the written version of the bridge project questionnaire, that the largest vessel is approximately 80 feet in height; that FDOT conducted a vessel-height survey in January, 1993, indicating vessel heights of 74.6 feet, 70.4 feet, 79.2 feet, and 67.7 feet; that all of these vessels would be obstructed by FDOT's proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge; that an 80-foot-high, fixed-span bridge would probably be constructed at a three percent grade to accommodate boat traffic as required under Federal law; that in the Recommended Order of the Anna Maria Island bridge case, the administrative law judge found that prior to the October 1993 public hearing, FDOT had selected and committed to the design of a fixed-span, high-level bridge at Anna Maria Island over other BOOK 44 Page 16538 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16539 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. alternatives; that FDOT denied the public an opportunity for effective participation as a result of the commitment; that in the administrative law judge's Final Order of the Anna Maria Island Bridge case, FDOT acknowledged the requirements of the law had not been followed; that FDOT acknowledged the hearing officer had record support from which to draw his conclusion that the pre- determination and commitment to a high-level, fixed-span bridge at Anna Maria Island violated the requirements of the law; that cancellation of the proposed project was the hearing officer's recommendation in the Anna Maria Island Bridge case; that the FDOT reluctantly accepted the hearing officer's recommendation in the Anna Maria Island Bridge case. Attorney Levin stated that FDOT entered into a contract with the design engineers in December, 1993, to proceed with designing the proposed bridge; that the contract predated by a few months the public hearing held by FDOT to receive public input on the proposed Ringling Causeway Bridge replacement by a few months; that in September 1993, the contract was entered with design consultants calling for the design of a 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge; that the contracts are not the only evidence FDOT pre- determined the height of the proposed bridge prior to the public hearing; that FDOT described the proposed structure as I. .a high- rise, non-movable structure in either of two alternate alignments. I in an April 1992 Final Report relating to traffic impact and intersection analysis; that the consultant conducting the review and design process on behalf of the State described the project as a high-level bridge replacement in a 1991 pre-scope meeting memorandum. Attorney Levin continued that the first section of the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing contains a background of the case greatly detailing the history of FDOT's planning process; that the purpose is to make the administrative law judge and the FDOT aware of the voluminous amount of information and evidence demonstrating FDOT failed to comply with the requirements of the law; that his expectation is FDOT give further consideration to its position when the evidence is presented as opposed to waiting for a trial; that the City's legal status is presented as required in any legal pleading; that allegations relating to applicable design standards are also included; that the Petition includes the standards ignored or violated by FDOT, some of which are to: design bridges to be aesthetically compatible with surrounding natural and man-made environment eliminate the discharge of stormwater runoff into the waters of the state maximize the use of existing public facilities as an alternative to new construction Attorney Levin stated that FDOT is required to comply with the State Comprehensive Plan in the project design; that FDOT has failed to protect natural resources, air quality, the existing investment and encourage effective citizen participation in the planning of the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge; that FDOT has also failed to comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan, failed to propose the bridge be in scale with the surrounding land uses, and failed to consider water quality impact; that FDOT must demonstrate the water will not be degraded and water-quality standards will not be violated; that the proposed bridge must be in the public interest; that certain standards must be met to demonstrate the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge is in the public interest, which FDOT has failed to do; that the proposed five percent grade is not appropriate for the use of pedestrians and bicyclists in the area; that FDOT has failed to analyze critically the impact of the proposed five percent grade on pedestrian use, fuel cost, motorist safety and air and water pollution; that the Petition includes allegations concerning the impact on boat traffic; that FDOT failed to consider the impact on manatees; that FDOT is lawfully required to consider all the mentioned issues; that FDOT has failed to consider the project requirements; that the Petition includes allegations that FDOT has failed to consider the impacts on floodplains and aesthetics; that the public must be given an opportunity to voice concerns prior to the time a decision is reached; that FDOT must be open with all facts sO the public is able to make an informed decision; that the evidence is FDOT was not open with the facts to the public; that the FDOT did not present all findings; that FDOT purposely did not investigate facts necessary to determine an appropriate design; that the Petition will be filed by Friday, April 24, 1998; that all of the issues will be presented to an independent administrative law judge for a determination. Commissioner Pillot stated that opinion, feelings, emotions and concerns take second place until a definitive decision has been reached to build a fixed-span bridge; that opinion will not prevail above law; that understandable differences exist in the community; that speculation, emotion or preferences will not be useful or as useful until a definitive answer regarding the bridge design has been given; that two factors exist as demonstrated by FDOT documents or excerpts from applicable Federal law regulations which lead to the belief that the bridge may not be built at the proposed 65-foot height: 1) the number of boats unable to pass under the bridge and 2) documentation showing FDOT contracted for a 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge prior to the public hearing; that prima facie evidence has demonstrated that FDOT did not provide the public an adequate opportunity to be heard before making a decision; that the hearing officer's recommendation in the Anna Maria Island Bridge case was accepted 1 based solely on the factual conclusion that. members of the public were not afforded an opportunity for effective participation. - "; that FDOT's documents show that a contract was executed months before BOOK 44 Page 16540 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16541 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. the public hearing; that bridge-building discussion should proceed if the proposed bridge may not be legitimately or legally built; that a non-adversarial, cooperative venture with the appropriate representatives of FDOT and the City should take place; that the City does not want litigation or to spend thousands of dollars on litigation; that the U.S. Coast Guard will not give a definitive answer to the feasibility of building the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge at the Ringling Causeway location absent a set of plans; and asked if definitive answers can be given the City, in cooperation with FDOT, as to whether the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge can be built prior going to litigation? Attorney Levin stated that based on personal experience, a definitive answer is not likely absent a pending application; that the common scenario is filing a Petition for Administrative Hearing and obtaining more information; that acquiring more definitive information from FDOT will facilitate a better understanding of whether the proposed bridge can be built; that an opportunity will exist to have a knowledge-based discussion between the time the Petition is filed and going to trial; that opinions have very little basis absent facts; that a more definitive answer and an informed decision can be reached as facts continue to surface; that the definitive answer will probably be different from FDOT's proposal; that no definitive answer can be given absent going through a formal process; that filing a petition does not commit City going before an administrative judge. Commissioner Pillot stated that the community is divided and emotionally concerned; and asked if the City can obtain information which will enable the community to be more calm and settled absent an administrative hearing? Attorney Levin stated that meetings have been held with FDOT officials; that FDOT files have been reviewed; that an effort has been made to obtain factual information sO decisions can be made based on presented facts; that placing people who are reluctant to volunteer information under oath and taking depositions is the only way to avoid a trial; that the reason for not presenting the bridge widening and rehabilitation alternatives to the public or the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) must be determined; that the information is not being given due to worry over job security; that subpoenas, depositions or testimony under oath may be necessary if more factual information is desired. Commissioner Pillot asked the outcome if no further action is taken? Attorney Levin stated that FDOT will build a fixed-span bridge of 65 feet or higher with a five percent grade regardless of the impact on the community, natural resources or the individual public. Mayor Dupree stated that the information was clear and demonstrated that FDOT failed to comply with the requirements of the law; and asked what the City can do regarding FDOT's failure to comply with the requirements of the law? Attorney Levin stated that David Twiddy, FDOT District One Secretary should have been provided with information from his Staff regarding FDOT's improperly concluding to replace the existing bridge with a 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge when he came before the Commission; that the FDOT District Secretary was not involved in FDOT's planning of the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge; that his opinion is the FDOT District Secretary would do the right thing if presented with evidence regarding FDOT's mis-conclusions and is not trying to protect a decision in which his participation was involved; that FDOT may change its position only if ordered to do so by an independent judge; however, FDOT is likely to consider changing positions when the Commission presents the accumulated information; that FDOT will realize the City has a strong case and hopefully seek a resolution without going through litigation; however, may require a judge's decision to change its position; that the evidence in the Ringling Causeway Bridge case is much more substantial than the evidence in the Anna Maria Island Bridge case. Mayor Dupree stated that receiving a definitive answer regarding FDOT's violations from FDOT or the U.S. Coast Guard is not possible; and asked the City's recourse if no definitive answer can be obtained? Attorney Levin stated that the only way to obtain a definitive answer without FDOT's cooperation is to go to an administrative tribunal and have an independent judge make the definitive determination. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that various committees have been at FDOT's command in examining alternatives to obtain what was supposed to be public input; that the order in which the public committees were asked to evaluate the alternatives is odd; that FDOT did not share with the public the pre-conception that a high bridge would be the ultimate outcome; that not discussing the height during the meetings determining the probable bridge location is strange; that discussing bridge height during public meetings to determine bridge location only seems logical; that the current Petition does not contain any allegations that bridge height was not mentioned during the bridge location public meetings. Attorney Levin stated that bridge location is a contentious issue; that bridge location is covered in the Federal injunction but not as thoroughly as FDOT's wrongful decision to build a 65- BOOK 44 Page 16542 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16543 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. foot-high, fixed-span bridge is covered; that the reason for not extensively covering bridge location is due to FDOT's initial determination that the project was to be a bridge replacement; that FDOT may have been constrained against relocating the bridge due to Federal requirements relating to replacement funds; that the issues have been narrowed to focus mainly on the location chosen by FDOT to simplify the case; that FDOT's failure to investigate other possible bridge locations may be included in the Federal case. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that a meeting between the Commission and FDOT concerned the chosen location prior to selection of the bridge height; that the Commission was told that an alternative bridge location would be more expensive and the City would be required to pay the difference. Attorney Levin stated that FDOT' s selection of the bridge location prior to selection of bridge height will not be ignored; that the Petition includes an assertion of failure to comply with the requirement for effective public participation; that the Petition outlines several decisions FDOT is required to make only after effective public participation; that location is one of the decisions requiring public participation. Commissioner Cardamone stated that wind speed is a great concern; that wind gusts were recorded at 71 mph on the Ringling Causeway Bridge at the 30-foot level the evening of the Kissimmee, Florida, tornado; that 71-mph wind gusts were recorded twice in a ten-minute interval. Attorney Levin stated that the Anna Maria Island Bridge case focused on the unusability of the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed- span bridge due to high winds during times of evacuation; that the evidence did not rule out the possibility; that the focus is on winds creating a hazard to vehicles during non-emergency times; that FDOT has alleged the current bridge causes a deficiency relating to emergency response time without any supporting evidence; that theoretically higher winds will be experienced on a higher bridge; that an emergency vehicle and school buses susceptible to high winds should not cross the bridge during a wind event; that the burden of proof to demonstrate that all vehicle types have been considered when designing the proposed bridge is on FDOT, which should provide competent, substantial evidence to demonstrâte that emergency vehicles, school buses and evacuation times have been properly investigated; that his findings indicate FDOT has not investigated the issue; that substantial evidence suggests FDOT would have found the higher bridge will negatively impact emergency vehicles, school buses and evacuation times had the issue been properly investigated; that FDOT should stop claiming that the purpose of the 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge is to facilitate evacuation and increase emergency response times. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a letter from the Director of Emergency Management for Sarasota County was received stating that 1 all emergency personnel leave the field when winds approach 45 mph.. : ."; that wind speed is a serious consideration. Mayor Dupree thanked Attorney Levin for an excellent presentation. The following people came before the Commission: Richard Storm, 707 South Gulf Stream Avenue (34236), representing Bridge Too High Committee, stated that the Bridge Too High Committee thanks the Commission for the courage and leadership demonstrated; that the Commission upholds the City's vision; that the City must challenge the FDOT's abuse of power; that generally, the objective should be to avoid litigation; that litigation is usually not advocated; however, the Bridge Too High Committee advocates the City challenge FDOT; that the alternatives denied the City must be discussed; that the Commission has the community's support; that all residents share the City's vision; and requested the Commission continue to oppose the FDOT. Edmond Kanwit, 4540 Bee Ridge Road (34238), stated as a transportation economist, one of his projects was to assist in designing the interstate system; that the proportion of funds on various Federal highways is a key factor in the current situation; that the proportion of Federal funds varies from 90 percent on the interstate system, 95 percent in the western states and 70 percent on regular, primary or secondary roads; that the remaining portion is supplemented by local and State funds; that Federal funds are commingled with State funds; that certain procedures must be followed; that he helped write legislation on the MPO; that the desire was to assure that adequate public opinion is sought and that smaller jurisdictions are not overridden by other jurisdictions in urban area; that accurate public opinion has not been sought; that people are not given sufficient time to speak before the Commission; that evacuation is the most important aspect of a bridge; that the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge will slow or stop evacuation; that traffic will be immovable at both sides of the bridge; that bottlenecks will block traffic; that much discontent is expressed with the small amount of time permitted to speak. Dr. L.R. Ludwig, 122 Seaqull Lane (34236), stated that the Ringling Causeway Bridge evokes a myriad of questions; that people who oppose the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge feel FDOT should solve the perplexing questions; that FDOT's efforts have not been genuine; that FDOT has failed to consult BOOK 44 Page 16544 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16545 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. the citizenry and pushed their pre-conceived plans; that one question is: What will happen to the speeded traffic as cars funnel to St. Armands Circle to the west and U.S. 41 to the east? Dr. Ludwig continued that the accelerated-bridge traffic is a great concern in view of the new condominiums and hotels planned for the area; that additional questions are: Should contingency plans be developed to try solve flooding problems at both sides of the existing bridge before proceeding to construct a $30 million bridge? What is the quickest and safest evacuation route for the islands? Dr. Ludwig stated that constructing another bridge to Longboat Key is the safest and quickest evacuation route for the barrier islands; that FDOT wants the public to believe that constructing another bridge would not pass environmental standards and is too expensive; that FDOT would not hesitate to find money to construct another bridge following a major hurricane and loss of lives; that wind speed becomes a serious factor if a 75- to 80- foot bridge is necessary to meet U.S. Coast Guard requirements; that the Commission voted unanimously to authorize the initiation of an administrative challenge to FDOT's decision and to pursue a Federal injunction; that no new evidence has been presented since making this decision; that the Commission should not change their position; that many flawed polls have been taken; and congratulated the Commission for taking a courageous stand and demonstrating strong leadership. Dr. Robert Nerthling, 11 Sunset Drive Apartment #102 (34236), stated that the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge is too high, too long and wide, horribly out-of-scale with the closest neighbors and out of character with the beautiful City and bayfront; that the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge will adversely affect on property values and the ability to recoup property owners' investment should conditions with bridge construction force relocation; that relocation was never foreseen but is now a remote possibility; that the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge will also adversely effect rèsidential sales in Golden Gate Point buildings presently in planning and developmental stages; that people planning to purchase an $800,000 condominium will not make a commitment to purchase a unit until a final determination about the bridge is made; and quoted the City's Director of Neighborhoods and Redevelopment as follows: The Administration and Commission wish to be recognized as being neighborhood-friendly and deeply receptive to specific needs, wishes and well-being of neighborhoods and citizens. Mr. Nerthling continued that the Commission should consider all of the people who will be financially condemned if the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge becomes a reality; that the actions of the Good Bridge 2000 Committee are truly abhorred; that two barges carrying a crane could extend 65 and 80 feet above water level during the July 4th festivities, positioned 110 feet apart north of the existing Ringling Causeway Bridge with stretch banners for everyone to see; that the banners would depict proposed bridge sizes; that the City or proponents of the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge may be willing to finance the demonstration. Ronald H. Yaffe, 5350 Hidden Harbor Road (34242), stated that his reason for moving to Sarasota was the beautiful, protected waters of Sarasota Bay and the small town atmosphere; that his house was purchased on Siesta Key knowing the right to navigate existed; that his boat mast cannot navigate through a 65-foot-high, fixed- span bridge; that a Federal law gives boats the right to navigate; that Big Pass and New Pass are not viable alternatives as both are almost un-navigable during the day and totally un- navigable during night; that New Pass will be dredged one more time; that New Pass is not safe at all times; that the Venice outlet is 15 to 20 miles south of Siesta Key; that almost all sailboats over 42 to 45 feet have fixed masts of 65 feet or higher; that these sailboats will not be able to navigate the protected waters; that the ability to navigate is required for safety. Donald Blivas, 143 Beach Road (34242), stated that the pending lawsuit is the most expensive in the City's history; that approximately $500,000 will be paid in legal expenses; that the State will also have to supply an attorney; that bridge delays will amount to almost $2 million per year; that bridge repairs caused by lawsuit delays will amount up to $2.1 million; that FDOT has allocated $2.1 million dollars for bridge repairs; that the administrative hearing procedures have not been described; that the judge will not rule to make the bridge a fixed-span or a bascule bridge; that the judge will rule whether FDOT did or did not violate requirements; that the judge may ask FDOT to correct violations; that the lawsuit will take years to settle; that the lawsuit will cost millions of dollars; that the effect of the lawsuit will not be to construct a drawbridge; that the outcome will be for FDOT to correct any errors; that the community is not divided; that polls have indicated over 65 percent of people prefer the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge; that opponents begged the Commission not to conduct polls. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission was not begged. BOOK 44 Page 16546 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16547 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. William Strode, 720 South Orange Avenue (34236), stated that the State's case has not been heard; that the legal petition is long and thorough; that judicially credible arguments founded on public health, safety and welfare support replacing the drawbridge with a fixed-span bridge; that the lawsuit makes aesthetics sound like the only substantial argument; that public health, safety and welfare must prevail over aesthetics; that the drawbridge segregates traffic into swarms of frustrated, angry motorists; that drivers skip the median and drive on the wrong side of the bridge to get ahead of other vehicles; that a hazardous situation has been created; that a drawbridge should not be used for distance over a fixed-span bridge; that procedural defects exist in FDOT's process but do not indicate a drawbridge is preferred; that a government entity suing another government entity is the least favorite alternative that thousands of tax dollars are at stake; that judicial funds will also be spent if the law suit is filed in court; that three separate governmental bodies will be using taxpayers' dollars for the lawsuit; that increased litigation requires increased budgets for the judicial system; that aesthetic issues should be left aside; that the focus should concentrate on public health, safety and welfare issues; that a non-adversarial settlement should be explored. Gilbert Waters, 1751 Mound Street (34239), stated that the lawsuit is the Commission with a minority of City residents against the majority of residents; that the lawsuit uses tax dollars; that a planning document from a previous workshop shows the City's determination to overturn a high, fixed-span bridge which the City calls more reliable, safer, more convenient, requiring less maintenance and costing less than a drawbridge; that several polls indicate an overwhelming majority of constituents are against the City's initiative; that a 2 to 1 majority in the City and a 3 to 1 or higher majority in Sarasota County exists in favor of the bridge selected as a result of the City's charette; that a poll commissioned by VNU Operations (United Dutch Publishing) of the City and Sarasota County was 72 to 28 in favor of the 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge; that an Argus Foundation member's poll favored the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bride by 82 percent; that the St. Armands merchant 's poll was 77 percent to 23 percent against the lawsuit; and distributed a poll with a 47 percent return rate indicating the following: Bird Key - 44 percent favor the lawsuit 56 percent not in favor of the lawsuit Sarasota County - 6 to 1 against the lawsuit 4 to 1 favored the proposed 65-foot- high, fixed-span bridge Mr. Waters continued that the Good Bridge 2000 Committee has 550 members; that the so-called victory concerning the Anna Maria Island bridge is being protested and complained by Manatee County residents; that Manatee County has an antiquated drawbridge; that the funds for a new fixed-span bridge in Manatee County have been re-allocated; that City residents will not accept an old or new drawbridge; that City documents indicate opening a drawbridge bridge at intervals will delay emergency response and vehicular traffic; that everyone hopes the City can move forward together without expensive and divisive lawsuits. Robert Roembke, 4346 Center Pointe Lane (34233), stated that drawbridges are archaic; that enough time and tax money has been spent on the bridge issue; that more motor vehicles exist today than ever before; that the health, safety and welfare of all City and County residents must come first; that the Commission's responsibility is to provide all citizens with a safe bridge; that major concerns are traffic back-ups, medical emergencies and air pollution caused by drawbridges; that high drawbridge repair and maintenance costs are never-ending; that the lawsuit against FDOT will waste considerable tax dollars; that the results of most of the surveys conducted are in favor of the proposed 65- foot, fixed-span bridge; that many long-time, prominent City residents support the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge. Pat Bulmash, 11 Sunset Drive Apartment #107 (34236), stated that her apartment directly faces Gulf Stream Avenue; that traffic problems are clearly and continuously seen from her apartment; that east-west traffic over the bridge is often completely stopped or moving at a slow crawl; that backed-up traffic on U.S. 41 and at St. Armands Circle prevents the smooth movement of vehicles; that impatient drivers often cause accidents on Gulf Stream Avenue; that powerful ammunition to combat the 65-foot- high, fixed-span bridge has been found; that the Commission asked for the ammunition and should have the courage to continue to pursue the litigation; that a government agency should not be able to pass every proposed plan simply by reason of being government; that cities smaller than Sarasota have challenged FDOT and been victorious. Lee Rothenberg, 561 Birdie Lane (34228), stated that the bridge directly and substantially affects Longboat Key; that citizens are primarily concerned with health, safety and welfare; that the population on Longboat Key is approximately 10,000 year round and 20,000 during season; that Longboat Key is a retirement community with an average age of over 65 years; that citizens understand early evacuation is the key to avoid traffic problems; that the decision made concerning the bridge affects everyone living on the barrier islands; that the people in Manatee County have been left with an old, deteriorated bridge; that the U.S. Coast Guard has identified 13 tall-masted sailboats, which should not influence a decision. BOOK 44 Page 16548 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16549 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. Albert G. Moore, 700 John Ringling Boulevard (34236), stated that an alternative bridge is not the issue; that a bridge from 10th Street to Longboat Key is a good idea; that Federal funds exist to replace one bridge; that high-level bridges can be found on the Florida Panhandle and on the east coast; that the City also could build a high-level bridge; that pursuing litigation against FDOT is not encouraged; that the bridge selected as a result of the City's charette should be accepted; that the City should request FDOT provide a comprehensive plan for improved traffic flow at U.S. 41 and Gulf Stream Avenue; that extensive residential and recreational development on the bayfront, Lido Key and Longboat Key are the causes of traffic problems; that no particular bridge is the culprit of traffic congestion; that traffic congestion is caused by rampant development; that going to a magistrate and having another public hearing will only add to delays; that the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge should be built as previously decided. Gene Hirschberg, 1100 Imperial Drive Apartment #401 (34236), stated that accidents and potential dangers have not been discussed; that many unreported boating and vehicular accidents on the Ringling Causeway Bridge have been witnessed; that bridge tenders have skipped bridge openings as heavy traffic prevented the gate lowering; that large boats are cumbersome, unmanageable and hard to steer; that the City should have a high-level, fixed- span bridge; that a narrow span of navigable water exists. Dick Fennell, 1111 North Gulf Stream Avenue (34236), stated that vehicles headed to Longboat Key cause heavy traffic; that the issue is evacuation and seasonal traffic related to Longboat Key; that people should respect each other's opinions; that the rudimentary issue is defining the problem and finding where the problem lies; that the problems have previously been identified as traffic congestion and the out-dated Ringling Causeway Bridge; that the problems are closely related and cannot be disassociated; that elegant statements from both sides of the issue have been heard; that the Commission should do the right thing, which is to do what the people ask. Duchess Tomasello. 727 John Ringling Boulevard (34236), stated that litigation is a waste of money when all polls show the majority of citizens are in favor of the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge; that people who must travel on the bridge are held captive. Fred Mintz, 770 South Palm Avenue (34236), stated that many people hope the drawbridge is replaced by a fixed-span bridge; that the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge is the wrong bridge at the wrong place at the wrong time; that the City should oppose the arbitrary action of a higher government if the City does not agree; that the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge should not be built. Ila Preti, 775 John Ringling Boulevard (34236), stated that much concern is expressed over long delays; that the Ringling Causeway Bridge will continue to deteriorate; that the City and residents can look forward to more breakdowns and more bridge closings due to repairs, which leads to more missed appointments, missed airline flights and further problems; that the proposed 65-foot- high, fixed-span bridge is the result of a beautiful design developed 60 years ago and should finally be built. Commissioner Pillot left the Chambers at 8:25 p.m. Robert Windom, 1562 South Drive (34239), stated that citizen health is a Commission responsibility; that stroke and heart attack are two leading causes of death and mainly affect people over age 55; that many City residents and visitors are in that age groupi that a person experiencing a heart attack should receive medical attention one hour after the onset of pain and three hours after the onset of stroke symptoms to prevent more serious damage; that a person may take 30 minutes before realizing a heart attack is being experienced, leaving only 30 minutes to arrive at the hospital; that a barrier island resident recently experienced stroke symptoms and was delayed at the bridge on his way to the hospital; that a common misconception is the majority of emergencies are transported by emergency vehicles and the bridge can be lowered for such vehicles; that 50 percent of people with a medical emergency are transported by a family member; that time is of the essence in saving lives and lessening the degree of disability; that many of the City's residents and visitors are vulnerable to such conditions; that a fixed-span bridge would allow people a greater opportunity to arrive at the hospital faster and lower the amount of minutes wasted on the current bridge. Commissioner Pillot returned to the Chambers at 8:29 p.m. Dr. Frederick Hauser, 1255 Gulf Stream Avenue (34236), stated that the poll taken and initiated by the Good Bridge 2000 Committee is professionally flawed; that his professional opinion is as a marketing researcher; that the poll was unethical and shameful; that the questions were loaded and biased; that voters were encouraged to favor the higher administrative power; that a category of "do not care" discards a lot of valuable information; that people should be encouraged to state a position in any kind of surveyi that the poll taken did not encourage people to answer freely and does not deserve attention; that the choices available for discussion were not included; that the poll is very flawed and lacks validity; that psychological research shows polls have a tremendous impact on public opinion and public policy; that the polls taken should be completely disregarded; that as City BOOK 44 Page 16550 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16551 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. representatives, the Commission's opinions should prevail; that the Commission should continue to challenge FDOT. The Commission recessed at 8:34 p.m. and reconvened at 8:47 p.m. Gertrude Seltzer, 1 Ben Franklin Drive (34236), stated that Longboat Key will eventually require a direct bridge; that the City will be left with a large, unnecessary bridge when a bridge is built directly to Longboat Key; that the current Ringling Causeway Bridge should be repaired until a bridge to Longboat Key is built; that fog is a great concern; that the Skyway Bridge to St. Petersburg has been closed due to fog; that fog should be considered when designing a bridge; that a decision must be made; that Longboat Key will have a direct bridge sooner if the City decides to repair the current Ringling Causeway Bridge. Samuel Kaufman, 1 Franklin Drive (34236), stated that appreciation is expressed for the City's dedication, public service and extreme patience; that having a referendum in the up- coming elections is a way to receive effective public participation; that no referendum has been conducted; that both sides of the issue should be combined; that the correct approach to solve the problem has not been clarified; that the Commission should approach FDOT in a non-adversarial approach; that the U.S. Coast Guard should be consulted for additional information. Henry Trawick, 1626 Bay View Drive (34239), stated that a file was reviewed in the City Manager's office stating that Richard Storm, Chairman of the Bridge Too High Committee, was to develop a strategy plan for community input and education; that a legal complaint was to be prepared and brought to the Commission in September 1997; that a workshop was supposed to be held later on the legal strategy; that the City Manager was to visit with Commissioners; that a question is if the City Manager had met with Commissioners or if a workshop had been held; that the City's role is to provide information, research the FDOT's new organizational structure and identify who is involved in the decision-making process; that a Commissioner previously commented the Commission had been manipulated; that his research reveals the City's ability to finance litigation against FDOT is highly questionable; that the City should make sure the involvement as a Commission is appropriate; that research is continuing; that the City will have more litigation if research leads to the Commission's wrong-doing; that the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners had to reimburse Sarasota County for illegal expenditures a few years ago in a similar case; that the legal bills should be read; that a question concerning the budget has been directed to the City Attorney and a prompt answer is expected; that one illegal expenditure is already apparent; and asked who will be prosecuted and what instructions were given outside legal counsel hired by the City to waste taxpayers' money? Heather Schoonheim, 539 Bird Key Drive (34236), stated that as a Bird Key resident, polls or telephone calls were never received; that the City's actions appear correct; that no definitive answers have been given that the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed- span bridge will solve the wind, fog, traffic flow and evacuation concerns; that the * current Ringling Causeway Bridge does not seem to solve any problems; that a solution can be found; that another step forward should be taken; that the Commission has been requesting information and not receiving answers; that a non- adversarial approach has already been attempted; that litigation may be the only choice; that extreme measures may be necessary to receive long-awaited answers; that people will be able to make an informed decision when accurate information is presented; that many rumors circulate due to unknown information; that people chose to take daily risks by living in Florida, travelling daily on a small, bascule bridge and residing on a barrier island; that a risk was taken the bridge would not always open or close at a convenient time; that people accepted that small bascule bridges exist when moving to Florida; that the Ringling Causeway Bridge has been a bascule bridge for a long time; that the technology of bascule bridges has greatly improved; that the FDOT is willing to fund a bascule bridge. Ray Neff, 3924 Spyglass Hill (34238) President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of FCCI Mutual Insurance Group, stated that insurance businesses are the only forms of interstate commerce regulated by individual states; that FCCI deals with many regulators; that regulations are clear but not greatly efficient; that taxes, licenses, fees and taxpayer money are great concerns; that something is wrong with representation if every government segment must be convinced to support the same position; that one government entity using taxpayer money to challenge a position taken by another government entity given a specific responsibility is very wrong; that a challenged entity using taxpayer money to defend against the administrative challenge or court case of another government entity is not appropriate; that a private sector group funded the challenge to FDOT in the Anna Maria Island Bridge case; that a private sector group should also challenge FDOT concerning the Ringling Causeway Bridge; that taxpayer money should not be used to challenge FDOT. Carole Krohn, 132 North Washington Drive (34236), representing St. Armands Residence Association, stated that the St. Armands Residence Association consists of 250 homes and apartments and supports the City's decision to challenge the proposed 65-foot- high, fixed-span bridge, which will make traffic problems at both ends of the bridge worse; that much concern is expressed over FDOT's not going through lawfully required procedures; that citizens willingly pay taxes support FDOT; that in return, citizens expect the correct protocol be followed by FDOT; that BOOK 44 Page 16552 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16553 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. FDOT ignoring protocol is an insult to the MPO, the Commission and the public; that legal issues should not be resolved by a referendum; that people who do not cross the Ringling Causeway Bridge on a daily basis should not be passing judgment; that many people use the Ringling Causeway Bridge and many side streets in St. Armands Circle to get to Longboat Key; that 24,000 out of 31,000 vehicles crossing the Ringling Causeway Bridge drive to Longboat Key; that many St. Armands Circle residents have difficulty leaving their driveways due to Longboat Key traffic; that a bridge to Longboat Key must be reconsidered; that traffic back-ups would not be an issue if Longboat Key had a bridge; that the Commission is the legal backbone of the City; that the Commission has an ethical and moral obligation to pursue legal action. Kent Brandt, 585 Sanctuary Drive (43204), Architect, stated that the legal report presented has many flaws; that the Ringling Causeway Bridge has a 10.5-foot passage which is six inches larger than a parking space, creating a very dangerous situation; that a five percent grade is very possible; that the proponents of the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge should also be represented if opponents have a representative present; and asked if a lawyer currently represents the proponents of the proposed 65-foot high, fixed-span bridge? Commissioner Merrill stated that the lawyer representing the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge works for FDOT. Mr. Brandt stated that much of the information presented by the City's outside legal counsel is grossly exaggerated; that some information is erroneous; that a lawyer should also be present to represent the proponents of the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge. Mary Quillan, 2304 Ringling Boulevard Apartment #213 (34237), stated that an excellent legal report was presented; that more information will be obtained from FDOT during litigation; that FDOT usurped citizen's rights; that the Sarasota Herald Tribune should not have announced this meeting as a public hearing; that a lot of money is being spent at the Sarasota Herald Tribune; that spending a lot of money to get a point across is not unusual in the City; that the challenge to FDOT should be pursued; that citizen's rights should not be usurped by an agency supported by taxpayers; that a bridge to Longboat Key must 'be built; that two counties should not be impacted by Longboat Key traffic; that the Commission should request and scrutinize FDOT's repair schedules; that maintaining the bridge in a safe condition is the responsibility of FDOT; that the Ringling Causeway Bridge has not been safely maintained during the past 10 years. Larry Whalen, 11 Sunset Drive Apartment #301 (34236), stated that Sunset Towers will probably be the most negatively impacted by a high bridge; that the bridge issue is a regional issue and is very important to City residents; that FDOT should be challenged; that the Commission should represent constituents in the litigation. Marcelle Wolf, 445 McKinley Drive (34236) representing Lido Key Residents Association, stated that many Lido Key residents favor the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge; that Lido Key residents must use the bridge; that the City will spend $500,000 on litigation costs, which is financially irresponsible; that the City should develop an alternative for $500,000; that FDOT and the MPO will have to come up with another bridge proposal if litigation is pursued and the City is victorious; that the barrier islands are being held hostage by Longboat Key; that Longboat Key is not within the limits of the City or entirely within Sarasota County; that the City should explore every available option to build a bridge directly to Longboat Key. Ronald Streibich, 2503 David Boulevard (34237), stated that the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge has never really been explored yet the City is pursuing litigation; that the City should ask FDOT to help eliminate major problems on Gulf Stream Avenue and U.S. 41 and potential flooding at St. Armands Circle; that St. Armands Circle is currently four feet below sea level; that chaos will be created for residents of Sunset Towers by building the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge; that the possibility of building a bridge at 10th Street should be explored; that Longboat Key residents could pay a small amount of money to help defray cost; that more people would be able to visit Mote Marine Laboratory with another bridge; that focus should be placed on building a high bridge at a different location. Ned Parseisian, 460 North Washington Drive (34236), stated that ever-increasing traffic congestion is the main problem; that a tremendous change in traffic going to and from the barrier islands has been witnessed over the past 10 years; that 33,125 vehicles traveled to St. Armands Circle every day according to the Sarasota Traffic Count Analysis conducted in 1995/96; that 24,934 vehicles traveled from St. Armands Circle to the Longboat Key area; that 66 percent of the people will not be affected by the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge; that a considerable amount will be spent on legal fees; that replacing the Ringling Causeway Bridge will not lessen traffic congestion; that FDOT is entrusted with serving the public interest; that procedures were established to protect the public interest; however, FDOT did not follow the established procedures. Clarence Brien, 419 West Cornelius Circle (34232), stated that many ideas exist and many meetings have been held on replacing the Ringling Causeway Bridge; that FDOT has not followed BOOK 44 Page 16554 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16555 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. protocol; that legal action against FDOT will not solve traffic or current bridge problems; that Moore Haven, a city on the west side of Lake Okechobee, is currently building a high-level, fixed-span bridge; that the new high-level, fixed-span bridge is going to be Route 27, a main highway; that trucks traveling across the bridge may have to slow down; however, the bridge will not stop trucks from crossing; that other approaches should be used to solve the dispute with FDOT; that the proposed 65-foot- high, fixed-level bridge should be built to facilitate boats and emergency vehicles. Joe Hyland, 910 Boulevard of the Arts (34237), stated that the Ringling Causeway Bridge is the "bad bridge"; that the Ringling Causeway Bridge should be torn down; that the Ringling Causeway Bridge is worn out and unattractive. Mark Smith, 5562 Cape Aqua Drive (34242) representing the Gulf Coast Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), stated that the Commission is supported; that FDOT has wasted an incredible amount of public time; that the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge may not be large enough for the surrounding communities; that the Commission is encouraged to pursue litigation against FDOT; that the City will eventually have an appropriate bridge. Dick Angelotti, 228 Seaqull Lane (34236), stated that the Ringling Causeway Bridge is crossed on a daily basis; that the Commission is commended for the courage in challenging FDOT; that FDOT has lied at every stage of the proceedings for five years; that certain FDOT alternatives were never discussed with the City at the initial hearing in 1993; that FDOT's Value Engineering Team recommended a 21-foot bridge with a 35-foot width and dual bascular mechanisms; that FDOT never discussed the alternative; that FDOT lied about scale models and the impact of the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge on Bird Key and Golden Gate Point; that FDOT rejected a bridge design recommended by the City's Aesthetic Task Team due to expenses; that FDOT lacks validity and honor; that the Commission is doing the right thing by suing FDOT; that litigation costs will pale in comparison to the reduction in real estate taxes and the condemnation fees for Bird Key and Golden Gate residences; that properties will be grossly de-valued by the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge; that one resident of Bird Key has indicated a willingness to pay $500,000 of the legal fees; that many ditizens, including himself, served on committees which voted against the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge and were ignored by FDOT; that the Ringling Causeway Bridge is automatically suspended if a medical emergency exists. Sy Sherr, 1100 Ben Franklin Drive (34236), stated that the issue is the City's having a new bridge; that litigation can stop any bridge from being built such as Anna Maria Island did; that the City must have a functional bridge; that many people are at odds over what type of bridge should be built; that the Commission has never declared what kind of bridge is desired; that drawbridges are archaic; that his question is what kind of bridge does the Commission want; that another question is what will be won if the City is victorious in the lawsuit. Albert Conyers, 777 South Palm Avenue (34236), referenced a letter written by the U.S. Coast Guard and received by the Permits Department on October 3, 1997 and quoted as follows: In April, 1991, we advised FDOT that a Coast Guard Bridge Permit would be required for the proposed bridge replacement project. We also indicated that the Guide Clearances for new bridges over the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway were 65 feet above mean high water vertical and 90 feet horizontal. .These Clearances represent design clearances that would normally receive favorable consideration during the bridge permitting process. Commissioner Cardamone asked when the U.S. Coast Guard reported to FDOT a bridge height of 65 feet would be required? Mr. Conyers stated that his assumption was FDOT was given the guidelines in 1991; that the record is fairly clear regarding bridge height; that a Florida Highway Administration (FHWA) study predicts 11.6 percent higher winds at 65 feet and 9.6 percent higher winds on a mid-level bridge; that bridge relocation has been discussed; that a mid-level bascule bridge costs more than a high-level, fixed-span bridge; that the repair and continued use of the Ringling Causeway Bridge will cost as much as the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge; that the problem with the Ringling Causeway Bridge is the traffic lanes are 10.5 feet wide; that the present minimum width is 12 feet; that the Ringling Causeway Bridge is a traffic hazard. Vice Mayor Patterson left the Chambers at 9:49 p.m. and returned at 9:51 p.m. Wolf Weinhold, 2560 Fruitville Road P.O. Box 49163 (34230) stated that Commissioner and former Mayor Pillot was his educator in high school; that, according to Charles de Gaul, the secrets of political leadership are: 1) recognize the inevitable, 2) expedite its occurrence, 3) stay in with the outs, and 4) don't get caught between a dog and a lamp post; that two wrongs do not make a right; that FDOT has not exercised good bureaucratic judgment; that the Commission should pursue litigation; that the Commission has not exercised great leadership, has not focused on the inevitable, and has not expedited the inevitable's occurrencei that according to 23 CFR Chapter 1, Subpart H, Navigational Clearance for Bridges, Section 650.803: BOOK 44 Page 16556 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16557 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. It is the policy of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to: a) provide reasonable clearances or to provide clearances which meet the reasonable needs of navigation to provide for cost-effective highway operations and b) provide for fixed-span bridges wherever practicable. Mr. Weinhold continued that Federal money is being spent; that the City will inevitably have a fixed-span bridge; that the only questions will be bridge height and location; that the bridge would be between 85 to 90 feet high if built today; that bridges get larger and longer as technology moves forward; that the Commission should think about what is best for the City; that the Commission is encouraged to move forward with litigation. Ernest Dornbush, 5270 Heron Way (34231), stated that the decision regarding the Ringling Causeway Bridge is significant; that every possible problem has been presented; that Manhattan Island has 16 entrances and exits; that a great quality of life exists in Sarasota; that sufficient accesses do not exist between the mainland and barrier islands; that both sides of the problem should be accommodated; that another bridge will have to be added once the Ritz Carlton Hotel replaces the John Ringling Towers (JRT); that the public would be more comfortable knowing the Commission's short-term and long-term goals; that a bridge should be placed further north going directly to Longboat Key. Gary Maier, 201 Seaqull Lane (34236), stated that 250 signatures of Lido Key residents opposing the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed- span bridge were presented at a previous Commission meeting; that most residents of Seagull Lane, the street most affected by the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge, were not asked to participate in the Good Bridge 2000 Committee poll; that the Commission is urged to continue litigation; and distributed to the Commission postcards sent out by the Bridge Too High Committee and returned by citizens supporting the Commission's action to pursue litigation. Tollyn Twitchell, 1445 Flower (34239), stated that FDOT manipulates facts and information; that the proposed 65-foot- high, fixed-span bridge makes sense as the bridge will last for 50 years; however, the Ringling Causeway Bridge is in a bad location; that the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge will best funnel traffic from one congested area to another; that the MPO sponsored a charette for a mid-bridge on Longboat Key; that FDOT does not plan in the City's best interest; that the Commission is encouraged to pursue litigation against FDOT, which will allow time to re-evaluate other possible bridge locations; that bridges should be built to move traffic effectively; that bridges do not land effectively if built at the north and south ends of a barrier island; that the City must have time to plan a bridge effectively; that the building of the proposed 65-foot- high, fixed-span bridge should be stopped; that the City should take four or five years to solve the bridge and traffic problem; that the Ringling Causeway Bridge can be repaired by FDOT for another 5 or 10 years; that the problem is an engineering, planning and political problem. Julia Googins, 174 Whittier Drive (34236), stated that litigation against FDOT is encouraged; that not pursuing litigation indicates to FDOT that being dishonest and secretive is acceptable; that the disgrace is FDOT's causing litigation; that FDOT must take some corrective action; that the public looks up to government as experts; that the legal report was well done; that another investigation must be conducted to tell the public why Longboat Key does not have a bridge; that traffic must be spread out; that traffic congestion cannot be alleviated by replacing the Ringling Causeway Bridge; that the 1990 census recorded a population of 18,000 on Longboat Key during high season; that the total population in the City and Sarasota County eight years ago was 250,000; that having only three bridges while the population keeps increasing is wrong. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the Good Bridge 2000 Committee incorrectly advertised the City spent $500,000 on legal fees; that the Sarasota Herald Tribune incorrectly printed the City has spent $110,000 and another $275,000 has been allocated; that the Commission was told by the City Attorney to anticipate spending $200,000 to $300,000; that the City has spent $110,000 and allocated a total of $275,000; that making the decision to spend $275,000 was not easyi that the Commission voted to repair the existing Ringling Causeway Bridge in 1994; that a certain height and grade was specified to the MPO if FDOT insisted on replacing the Ringling Causeway Bridge; that the Commission does not have the authority or funds to build a bridge to Longboat Key. Commissioner Cardamone stated that public speakers who chastise the Commission should stay through the entire meeting to listen to the Commissioners' comments; that many speakers leave after taking advantage of an opportunity to speak and scold and reprimand the Commission; that speakers miss many striking comments and corrections when leaving early; that no one has been closer to the Ringling Causeway Bridge Replacement issue for the last five years than the Commission; that the Commission must listen to many speakers' criticism and disapproval; that the Commission has very difficult decisions to make and is trying to decide what is best for the community; that the U.S. Coast Guard does not always permit bridges of 65 feet in height and required a bridge in Clearwater, Florida, be built over 65 feet due to a small number of boats with masts taller that 65 feet; that a survey of boats was previously conducted in the area; that 13 boats would not be able to navigate under the proposed 65-foot- high, fixed-span bridge as the masts were over 65 feet; that the District Secretary for FDOT indicated the U.S. Coast Guard would not permit a bridge which did not accommodate the navigation of BOOK 44 Page 16558 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16559 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. the 13 boats with masts taller than 65 feet and the bridge could possibly be 85 feet to accommodate all boats; that people satisfied with a 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge may not desire an 85-foot-high, fixed-span bridge; that the waterway is approximately 2000 feet from Golden Gate Point to Bird Key; that the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge does not fit into the location as the proposed bridge is 3031 feet-long; that the Commission desires to repair the Ringling Causeway Bridge; that the population on the barrier islands has greatly increased. Commissioner Cardamone continued that A Transportation Analysis for an Additional Bridge to Longboat Key prepared by the Sarasota/Manatee County MPO in April 1991 states that IT studies as early as 1969 have shown a need for additional capacity across Sarasota Bay to the beaches.. "; that the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge does not provide additional capacity; that Longboat Key released a report in 1969 titled A Toll Bridge from Longboat Key to the Mainland-Urgently Needed and Feasible; that the study recommended construction of a new bridge near the Sarasota/Manatee County line; that FDOT released a report titled Feasibility Study-Longboat Key Bridges and Approaches in December 1973; that the report concludes ". the most attractive alternative was the mid-key location due to its proximity to I-75 and the Sarasota/Bradenton airport"; that a traffic model was created for the year 2010 indicating that peak season traffic volumes on the Ringling Causeway Bridge, the Cortez Bridge and the Anna Maria Island Bridge are estimated at 82,600 trips; that the model shows an average of 45,200 trips will cross the Ringling Causeway Bridge, 20,000 trips will cross the Cortez Bridge and 16,000 trips will cross the Anna Maria Island Bridge; that perhaps the Commission should conclude to repair the Ringling Causeway Bridge and seriously concentrate on building a bridge which will solve Longboat Key traffic problems; that traffic concurrency problems prevent the City from economically redeveloping the downtown area; that the City is being held hostage by traffic to and from Longboat Key. Commissioner Merrill agreed that the City is being held hostage and stated that the City is being forced to make road improvements harmful to the bayfront's ambiance, value and enjoyment; that building the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge will deny future downtown redevelopment; that replacing the Ringling Causeway Bridge will increase traffic; that business owners on St. Armands Circle want the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge as more business is expected; that downtown does not have the traffic capacity to accommodate the Ritz Carlton Hotel, the expansion of the Hyatt Hotel of Sarasota and the Renaissance of Sarasota project without causing harm in certain neighborhoods; that Longboat Key traffic must be removed from the Gulf Stream Avenue and U.S. 41 intersection if the City desires downtown redevelopment; that ideas are influenced by circumstances; that environmental issues regarding Longboat Key can be overcome and mitigated; that the City is attractive due to the ambiance created; that retirement homes, tourism and construction continue as the City's largest industries; that building the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge will deny the overall community; that building a high-level, fixed-span bridge across Sarasota Bay to Longboat Key is supported; that a new route to Longboat Key must be found to protect economic growth in the downtown area and to retain the City's ambiance; that the Commission can urge. the idea building a bridge to Longboat Key. Commissioner Pillot expressed appreciation and respect to the people who spoke; and stated that Mayor Dupree is thanked and commended for handling superbly a very important situation; that asking the Commission what is desired is very legitimate; that a previous speaker, Tollyn Twitchell, stated the Commission should "buy time"; that an FDOT study was referenced by a speaker indicating the Ringling Causeway Bridge can be repaired and made a safe and functional bridge for another 20 years; that the alternative for FDOT to repair the Ringling Causeway Bridge is no longer an option; that an agreement with FDOT is desired; that the City's outside legal counsel indicated an agreement with FDOT is unlikely without litigation; that a 65-foot-or-higher bridge will be built if the City takes no action; that the potential for a bridge to Longboat Key is lost if the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge is built; that an administrative hearing will be pursued to stop the proposed bridge replacement project if FDOT does not cooperate; that alternative locations can be researched; that the Ringling Causeway Bridge will be repaired if the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge is stopped; that the Commission can "buy time to take the strongest action possible if the Ringling Causeway Bridge is repaired; that the Commission does not have the authority to build a bridge or decide the location; that the Commission can try to pursue building a bridge to Longboat Key with the MPO, Longboat Key officials and other interested parties; that action should be pursued against FDOT if cooperation is not possible; that the Ringling Causeway Bridge should be renovated for functional uses, safety and convenience as long as necessary to build an additional bridge in the appropriate location. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that this meeting has made the public aware of the Commission's struggles; that the Commission has had the opportunity to receive valuable public input; that people were under the impression a critical vote would be taken; that concern is expressed over attorney's fees; that the City will be looking for additional funds if $275,000 is spent within the next few months; that the Commission does not have the benefit of a public referendum in favor of challenging FDOT through litigation; that the Anna Maria Island Bridge litigation was financed by a private groupi that representation for the lawsuit was partly pro bono; that the Commission is in agreement as to BOOK 44 Page 16560 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16561 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. the proper and necessary action; that no itemization or directional plan has been given the City; that regular itemization of legal costs and a directional guide as any private client would be given is requested. Mayor Dupree agreed and stated that an itemization of legal expenses is desired; that gratitude is expressed to the people who spoke and encouraged the Commission to pursue legal action; and asked if an itemization of legal expenses is possible? City Attorney Taylor stated that an itemization of legal expenses and a directional guide is appropriate; that the City desires to maintain control of costs so no unexpected expenditures occur; that an itemized estimate based on current knowledge can be prepared for Commission review. Attorney Levin stated that an estimate will be prepared for Commission review; that similar cases are rare in environmental law; that bridge challenges are rare; that an estimate can be given based on past case experiences; that the figures previously quoted are good estimates; that a blank check is never assumed; that the Commission is entitled to a level of comfort as to the ultimate expectation. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that a report including more than price estimates is desired; that outside legal counsel has experience with challenging a bridge; that clients are informed when estimates are expected to exceed the original quoted amount; that the Good Bridge 2000 Committee printed excerpts written by the City Attorney to the City Manager stating the City had exceeded the allocated amount for legal fees; that the Commission should be made aware of all new information in the litigation. City Attorney Taylor stated that printing the excerpts in the newspaper was unfortunate; that the excerpts were portrayed inaccurately; that the initial authorization given by the Commission was based upon the fiscal year; that the legal fees given the City were for September, October and half of November in 1997; that $200,000 was ultimately appropriated to prepare the lawsuit; that a bill was received with considerable amount of time which did not fit with the authorization given; that the City received a bill for 2.5 months after the end of the fiscal year so the fiscal year-end figures were not all inclusive. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the people against the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge are not in the majority; that a vote was cast for a low-level bridge before campaigning; that the people on Lido Key and St. Armands Circle are not in agreement; that a suggestion was made to put bridge choices on a ballot sO the Commission could later demonstrate public support; that the people who oppose the proposed 65-foot-high, fixed-span bridge should campaign for the desired bridge to evoke public support; that continuing lawsuit against FDOT is supported; that people who support the Commission's decision to continue litigation should help explain why the Commission should be supported; that the City will never receive the necessary funds to build a bridge to Longboat Key if citizens do not support the Commission. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to direct the City Attorney to obtain a revised estimate of legal expenses for outside counsel and Staff to prepare an engineering analysis and an impact study on downtown traffic concurrency for a bridge to Longboat Key. Commissioner Pillot asked if notice is a concern? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated no; that the meeting was noticed for a status report on the Ringling Causeway Bridge litigation and any other matters which may come before the Commission. Commission Pillot stated that the motion is an excellent one; that agreement is expressed with the discussion of legal fees; that either the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing or the Federal injunction can be filed; that filing one legal action is economically viable; that reports on legal fees will be very useful; that his full confidence is all legal work prepared and subsequent billing has been prepared with highest concern for financial economy as well as highest professional ethics. Attorney Levin stated that part of the strategy is to complete the preparation of the motion for a Federal injunction; that the Federal injunction will be used as an additional mechanism to influence FDOT to cooperate; that the administrative proceeding against FDOT will be filed by April 24, 1998; that the Federal injunction will be kept in reserve and may not be required; that FDOT will realize the City's commitment to stop the proposed 65- foot-high, fixed-span bridge if a Federal injunction has been prepared; that forcing the City to file a Federal injunction is not in FDOT's best interest as a Federal injunction will delay an ultimate solution. Commissioner Pillot and Commissioner Cardamone expressed agreement with the legal strategy. Mayor Dupree called for a vote on the restate the motion to direct the City Attorney to obtain a revised estimate of legal expenses for outside counsel and Staff to prepare an engineering analysis and an impact study on downtown traffic concurrency for a bridge to Longboat Key. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Dupree, yes. BOOK 44 Page 16562 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. BOOK 44 Page 16563 04/21/98 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot stated that affirmation has been' given to continue litigation; that filing the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing and continuing the preparation of request for a Federal injunction has been authorized; that request for a Federal injunction will not be filed unless necessary; that the motion authorizes thorough and frequent reports to the Commission a Staff analysis on downtown traffic concurrency; and asked if the summary of the meeting's events is correct? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that filing for a Federal injunction has been previously authorized; that legal fees should not be spent on preparing the motion for a Federal injunction until the outcome of the administrative hearing is known. Commissioner Pillot stated that his interpretation was consensus existed to immediately file the Petition for Administrative Hearing and continue preparation of the motion for a Federal injunction as an additional weapon. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that continuing preparation of motion for a Federal injunction is not necessary at this point. Commissioner Pillot stated that the question is if consensus was reached to continue preparation of motion for a Federal injunction. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that her consensus to continue preparation of the motion for a Federal injunction was not given. Attorney Levin stated that research for the motion for a Federal injunction is complete; that preparation of the Federal pleading is almost completed; that the Federal pleading will be completed but not filed; that the Federal pleading is anticipated to enhance FDOT's cooperation. Vice Mayor Patterson asked if a major further investment will be required to complete the motion for a Federal injunction? Attorney Levin stated no. 2. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM VI) #4 (0000) through (0288) There being no further business, Mayor Dupree adjourned the special meeting of April 21, 1998 at 10:50 p.m. bAne Clphi LEROME DUPREE a MAYOR SOTA ATTEST 6 13cl / Re en 8d BILLY E.CROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK BOOK 44 Page 16564 04/21/98 6:00 P.M.