BOOK 40 Page 13427 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 15, 1996, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Mollie Cardamone, Vice Mayor Gene Pillot, Commissioners Jerome Dupree, David Merrill, and Nora Patterson, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Mollie Cardamone The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH, JUNE 1996, JOAN D. AUXIER, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT #1 (0033) through (0170) City Manager Sollenberger requested that Russell Pillifant, Commander, Support Services Bureau, Public Safety Department, and Joan Auxier, Administrative Assistant, Public Safety Department, come before the Commission. Commander Pillifant stated that each department has an employee who is virtually indispensable; that Ms. Auxier, a twenty-eight year employee with the Sarasota Police Department, is an Administrative Assistant in charge of fiscal control; that Ms. Auxier did an exemplary job of merging the independent budgets of both the Police and Fire Departments into one budget under the auspices of the Department of Public Safety four years ago; that the task of disassembling the budget one year ago for the transfer of the Fire Department to the County government was accomplished with equal efficiency; that Ms. Auxier prepares and oversees the budgets to ensure prevention of overspending; that Ms. Auxier performs tirelessly under an intensive, multi-task workload; that Ms. Auxier, whose efforts, commitment, and work ethics have earned the respect of members of the Police and Finance Departments serves the city with excellence and pride. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Ms. Auxier's contributions in preparing Police and Fire Department budgets are respected and appreciated by the Administration. Mayor Cardamone presented Ms. Auxier with a City-logo watch, a plaque, and a certificate as the June 1996 Employee of the Month in appreciation of her unique performance with the City of Sarasota; and congratulated her for her outstanding efforts. 2. PRESENTATION RE: RESOLUTION NO. 96R-896, RECOGNIZING THE TELECOMXUNICATORE AND DISPATCHERS WHO TRANSFERRED TO SARASOTA COUNTY AFTER HAVING SERVED THE CITY ADMIRABLY AND WITH PRIDE; ETC. - ADOPTED #1 (0171) through (0336) Mayor Cardamone read in its entirety proposed Resolution No. 96R-896, recognizing the Telecommunicators and Dispatchers who transferred to Sarasota County, on July 1, 1996; and which explained the consolidation of the City of Sarasota Police Communication Center with the County's 9-1-1 Center effective July 1, 1996; and the skills and dedication of professional Telecommunicators and Dispatchers, who consistently provided essential services for over 75,000 calls per year to protect the citizens of Sarasota. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to adopt Resolution No. 96R-896. Mayor Cardamone 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. City Manager requested that Peter Robins, Consolidated Communications Center Operations Manager, Sarasota County Fire Department, come before the Commission. County Chief Robins read the following, list of Telecommunicators and Dispatchers named to whom a Certificate of Appreciation will be presented: Sharon Arnold, Nadine Boulanger, Lynda Bourque, William Briggs, Karen Coglianese, Carolyn Doyle, Peg Hartong, Christine Hay, Rick Holgate, Juanita Laidig, Sue Lefever, Eileen Ozsvath, Carolyn Palazzola, Mark Reilly, Joyce Robbins, Robin Robinson, Crystal Sutton, Jan Swain, Debra Thompson, Dawn Underhill, Charleen Waiters, Jan Ward, and Wyatt Weber. Chief Robins requested that Nadine Boulanger, Joyce Robbins, and Lieutenant Dario Valente, Consolidated Communications Center Manager, who were present in the audience, come before the Commission to receive their certificates. City Manager Sollenberger presented certificates to Ms. Boulanger, Ms. Robbins, and Lieutenant Valente and expressed thanks for the excellent service provided to City residents over the years. BOOK 40 Page 13428 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13429 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. 3. PRESENTATION RE: FLAG OF TEL MOND, ISRAEL, A PARTNERSHIP SISTER CITY #1 (0337) through (0415) Mayor Cardamone requested that Hope Byrnes, Chairman, Sarasota sister Cities Association; Linda Rosenbluth, Liaison to Tel Mond; and Tel Mor, an exchange student from Tel Mond, come before the Commission. Ms. Tel Mor, representing the Mayor of Tel Mond, presented the flags of Israel and Tel Mond to the Mayor and citizens of Sarasota; and stated that best wishes and an invitation to visit Israel are extended to the Mayor; that employment has been found as a children's counselor at the Jewish Community Center during her stay; that the hospitality of the citizens of Sarasota has been appreciated. Ms. Rosenblum stated that an exchange trip to Tel Mond is scheduled for May 1997; and that the Mayor of Tel Mond looks forward to visiting Sarasota personally, in the future. Ms. Burns stated that the Sarasota Sister Cities Association is a source of pride; that the participation by the city of Tel Mond, Israel, in the organization is a distinction. 4. PRESENTATION RE: OF PLAQUES FROM COCA-COLA AND THE ATLANTA OLYMPIC TORCH COMMITTEE #1 (0418) through (0468) Mayor Cardamone read in their entirety three plaques which were presented to the City of Sarasota from Coca-Cola, Inc., and the Atlanta Olympic Torch Committee; and stated that the plaques were presented to the City at the July 4, 1996, ceremony at the Bayfront on Island Park; that the bronze plaque, featuring the Olympic torch symbol is a replica of the plaque to be placed at the Bayfront in the vicinity of where the torch ceremony occurred; that the plaques should be prominently displayed at City Hall. 5. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY - APPROVED #1 (0470) through (0534) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Add to Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. III A-6, Approval Re: Award of contract to Jon F. Swift, Inc. (Bid #96-86), in the amount of $105,239 for the completion of the South Sarasota Traffic Abatement Project. B. Remove Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No. III B-2, Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution 96R-901, appropriating $39,876 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fundto purchase protective equipment of police officers, per the request of Gordon Jolly, Chief of Police Services Bureau, Public Safety Department. C. Remove New Business, Item No. VIII-1, Discussion Re: Sarasota County's proposal to provide sewer service south of the City Limits, piecemeal, per the request of Commissioner Patterson. D. Remove Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. III A-4, and place under Unfinished Business, Item No. VII-2, Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute an agreement for professional services with Figg Engineering Group as the Facilitator/Cor/Coordinator for the aesthetic design of the Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Commissioner Patterson stated that the removal of Item No. VIII-1, came at the request of the City Manager who suggested that the item would be more appropriately addressed at the Commission budget workshop meeting when the Water/Sewer Department budget is discussed. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 1, 1996 = APPROVED #1 (0536) through (0539) Mayor Cardamone asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes. Mayor Cardamone stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the regular City Commission meeting of July 1, 1996, are approved by unanimous consent. 7. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2,3, 5, AND 6 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (0540) through (0813) Mayor Cardamone asked for any items the Commission wished to remove for discussion. Commissioner Patterson removed Item No. 2; Commissioner Dupree removed Item No. 3; Vice Mayor Pillot removed Item No. 6. BOOK 40 Page 13430 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13431 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. 1. Approval Re: Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) to Comcast Cable for renewal of the cable television franchise 5. Approval Re: Set for public hearing proposed Ordinance No. 96-3956, concerning the extension of posted "35 mile per hour" speed limit to include that section of Bradenton Road, from Myrtle north to University Parkway On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Items 1 and 5. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 2. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor to sign a three-year COPS MORE Grant #96-CM-WX-0420 providing first-year funding of $68,411 for a Crime Analyst Commissioner Patterson requested clarification of the estimated cost figures and additional information regarding the COPS MORE Grant. Gordon Jolly, Chief of the Police Services Bureau, Public Safety Department, stated that the COPS MORE Grant is a Federal Grant awarded to law enforcement agencies; that the grant received by the City will fund a Crime Analyst position; that a crime analyst will provide the City with the human and technological capability of assessing crime patterns quickly which will enable development of strategy to prevent expansion of criminal activity; that the total first-year cost of a criminal analyst is $68,411; that the City's contribution equals $17,103, broken down into approximately $11,000 in required matching funds and approximately $6,000 to cover personal services which are not eligible under the grant; that the City will match approximately $14,000 per year, including personal services; that training costs, estimated at $4,000, are responsible for the higher first-year figures. Mayor Cardamone asked if the COPS MORE Grant is part of President Clinton's program to place more police officers on the street? Chief Jolly stated yes; that the grant is part of the President's crime bill initiative, investing funding for more police on the street and additional technology. On motion of Commissioner Dupree and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 2. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 3. Approval Re: Award of contract and authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract with Central Florida Contractors, Inc. (Bid #96-94), in the amount of $90,150, to construct approximately 9,800 linear feet of concrete golf cart paths at Bobby Jones Golf Complex (Hoy Lake Course) Commissioner Dupree stated that Consent Agenda No. 1, Item 3, references $90,150 to construct 9,800 linear feet of concrete golf cart paths at Bobby Jones Golf Complex; and asked if the $9.20 cost per linear. foot is considered a standard? V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission; and stated that Staff prepares bid specifications for a specified width; that the cost per linear foot is determined by the bids received from contractors; that significantly higher estimates were submitted for the project in a previous year; that comparing the cost to a standard is difficult as the price per linear foot is determined by the bidding process. Commissioner Dupree asked if the price is favorable? Mr. Schneider stated that although prices submitted two years ago were lower, the Administration is comfortable with the price. Commissioner Dupree asked if the bid by Central Florida Contractors, Inc., was the lowest received by the City? Mr. Schneider stated yes. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 3. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 6. Approval Re: Award of contract to Jon F. Swift, Inc. (Bid #96-86), in the amount of $105,239 for the completion of the South Sarasota Traffic Abatement Project Vice Mayor Pillot stated that although much of the Sarasota Traffic Abatement Project was deemed beneficial when the project was originally presented to the Commission, a no vote was cast as certain sections of the plan were insupportable; that Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 6 was pulled to enable him to vote against the item again. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 6. Motion carried (4 to 1): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no; Cardamone, yes. 8. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 96R-899) - ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 96R-901) = REMOVED; ITEM 3 BOOK 40 Page 13432 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13433 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. (RESOLUTION NO. 96R-902) - ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (RESOLUTION NO. 96R-903) - ADOPTED; ITEM 5 (RESOLUTION NO. 96R-904) - ADOPTED; ITEM 6 (RESOLUTION NO. 96R-905) - ADOPTED; ITEM 7 (RESOLUTION NO. 96R-906); ITEM 8 (ORDINANCE NO. 96-3943) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (0815) through (1079) Mayor Cardamone stated that Item 2 was removed under Changes to the Order of the Day. Commissioner Dupree requested that Item No. 7 be removed for discussion. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 96R-902, 96R-903, 96R-904, 96R-905, 96R-906 in their entirety and proposed Resolution No. 96R-899 and Ordinance No. 96-3943 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 96R-899, authorizing the execution of a Transportation Enhancement Project Maintenance Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation on behalf of the City of Sarasota; regarding landscaping maintenance of the Southside Village Streetscape Project; etc. (Title Only) 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 96R-902, appropriating $39,592 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (forfeitures) to fund the matching portion of the Financial Investigations Grant; etc. 4. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 96R-903, appropriating $23,023 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (torteitures) to fund the matching portion of the Crime Analysis Grant; etc. 5. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 96R-904, appropriating $3,700 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (forfeitures) to purchase a replacement canine and construct a canine kennel; etc. 6. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 96R-905, appropriating $22,000 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (forfeitures) to purchase three computerized suspect composite systems; etc. 8. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 96-3943, to historically designate two structures situated on the following described property: Lots 9, and 10, subdivision of Lots 10 and 12, Block G, a part of the subdivision of the Osprey Subdivision in Laurel Park, as recorded in Plat Book A; Page 65, of the Public Records of Sarasota County, Florida; said property known as "The Moses L. Tomlinson House" with a street address of 636 S. Osprey Avenue, Sarasota, Florida; more particularly described herein; etc. (Title Only) (Petition Nos. 96-HD-01 & 96-SE-02, Stephen Rees, Attorney representing petitioners, Barbara Best and William Baumgartner for the Moses L. Tomlinson Property) On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 7. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 96R-906, appropriating $4,000 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (Forfeitures) to install a security system, voice, and data cabling in the Gillespie Park Substation; etc. Commissioner Dupree requested clarification regarding the security system, voice, and data cabling proposed for the Gillespie Park Substation. Gordon Jolly, Chief of the Police Services Bureau, Public Safety Department, came before the Commission and stated that funding separate from the bid for construction of the Gillespie Park Substation is requested to achieve a better price for the security system; that new technology advances, to be funded through the Capital Improvements Project within two to three years, will include installation of computers to allow communication between substations and patrol cars; that installing the security, voice, and data cabling systems prior to completion of the building will enable the wiring to be installed inside the walls rather than outside, resulting in a cleaner, less expensive installation. Commissioner Dupree asked if similar systems will be installed in existing City resource substations? Chief Jolly stated that one substation has an existing security system; that installation of security systems in the other substations is anticipated; however, installing wiring conduit on exterior walls will be required on existing structures. Commissioner Dupree asked if exterior wiring is more expensive than the interior wiring proposed for the Gillespie Park Substation? Chief Jolly stated yes. BOOK 40 Page 13434 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13435 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 96R-906 in its entirety. On motion of Commissioner Dupree and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No. 7. Mayor Cardamone 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. Mayor Cardamone 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. 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 96-3937, TO CONDITIONALLY REZONE SAID SITE FROM CN ZONE DISTRICT TO MCI ZONE DISTRICT; AND TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN 96-PSD-H TO PERMIT THE OPERATION (BY THE YMCA) OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSING FOR HOMELESS YOUTH ON THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY: SUBJECT SITE LIES ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FIRST STREET AND N. SCHOOL AVENUE WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 2195 FIRST STREET; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY)_(PETITION NOS. 96-CO-05 & 96-PSD-H, PETITIONER MORGAN BENTLEY, REPRESENTING THE SARASOTA FAMILY YMCA) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (1080) through (1807) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director, Planning and Development Department, came before the Commission, displayed on the overhead projector a site plan of the property at 2195 First Street; and stated that the petitioner is requesting the property be rezoned from the existing Commercial, Neighborhood (CN) Zone District to a Medical, Charitable, Institutional (MCI) Zone District; that a site plan is required for a conditional rezoning; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), at its meeting of July 12, 1996, found proposed Ordinance 96-3937 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and the Tree Protection Ordinance and recommends Commission approval. Morgan Bentley, Attorney, Law Firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, & Ginsburg; and Carl Weinrich, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), YMCA, came before the Commission. Attorney Bentley stated that the property requested for rezoning is surrounded by the following uses: 1) Stottlemyer & Shoemaker Lumber Company on Fruitville Road, 2) a Commercial, Central Business District (C-CBD) Zone District directly to the south, 3) a CN Zone District to the southeast, 4) a Multiple-Family Residential (RMF) Zone District to the west, and 5) either a Commercial, Intensive (CI) or Commercial, General (CG) Zone District to the north; that rezoning the property from CN to MCI is compatible with surrounding uses; that this site was the subject of a prior petition by Ms. Butler, the former owner of the property, who vacated the property to the sole ownership of the YMCA. Attorney Bentley continued that the structure will remain essentially the same, with a different use; that some existing asphalt will be removed from the surface of the property to expedite drainage; that Staff traffic reports reveal the new use will result in a net decrease, from six to two, in the number of trips generatéd. Mr. Weinrich stated that the structure will be used as a group home for boys or girls, fluctuating between the two, according to demand; that the youths are either homeless, abandoned, abused, have committed minor offenses, or are lock-outs; that a lock-out is a child who has been locked out of the house by family for reasons ranging from drug abuse to incorrigibility; that most youths can be placed in foster or relative care. Mr. Weinrich continued that the facility will be a residential environment and will offer training for abandoned youths, ages 10 to 15, in the areas of personal growth, social development, and responsible behavior; that the shelter may occasionally be used as a sanctuary for pregnant girls; that the majority of the youths remain at the shelter for three to six months; however a few of the youths, requiring a permanent therapeutic home equipped for treating mental problems, could remain longer. Commissioner Dupree asked the policy for youths who refuse to obey house rules? Mr. Weinrich stated that most of the youths entering the shelters have been poorly treated or abandoned; that the YMCA will not bring a youth into the shelter unless a discharge plan, implemented for unmanageable youths, has been devised; that formulating an alternative plan in advance to move youths with insurmountable problems to another facility ensures that no one is ever put out onto the street; that the YMCA has yet to go to court on a CINS/FENS (Children in Need of Services/Families in Need of Services) petition, a legal action taken against an ungovernable child; that the YMCA usually finds family members willing to provide a home for the youth, accompanied by proper training. Commissioner Patterson stated that a stipulation to the rezoning requires the presence of at least one staff person on duty 24 hours BOOK 40 Page 13436 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13437 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. per day; and asked the maximum number of youths who could be served by the shelter at any one time? Mr. Weinrich stated that the number of youths varies depending on specific needs; that Staff supervision for youths in therapeutic foster care would be provided on a one to four ratio; a ratio of one to eight could exist for youths under a juvenile justice contract; that regular foster care youths are supervised on a one to six ratio; that ratios are governed by contracts between the YMCA and various agencies, such as Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). Commissioner Patterson asked the maximum capacity of the house? Mr. Weinrich stated that the house could be licensed for a maximum of 12 residents; that the YMCA will probably supervise no more than 8 residents; however, some overflow may result if two or three children from one family are rescued from an abusive situation. Commissioner Merrill asked if the residents would originate from Sarasota or other counties? Mr. Weinrich stated that first priority is given to children from Sarasota and DeSoto Counties, with an occasional resident originating from Manatee County. Commissioner Merrill asked the differences between the proposed facility and the existing YMCA shelter? Mr. Weinrich stated that the existing shelter provides short-term care for runaway, ungovernable, abandoned, or abused children brought in by HRS, or the Sheriff's or Police Departments; that the existing shelter's purpose is family reunification; that the average length of stay for the majority of youths at the existing shelter is approximately seven days. Commissioner Merrill stated that the YMCA will be operating two facilities, the runaway shelter and the proposed youth shelter; and asked the total number of children who could be expected to occupy both residences at any one time? Mr. Weinrich stated that the existing runaway shelter processed over 500 youths last year, averaging between 12 to 14 children at a time; that the youth shelter proposed at 2195 First Street will average eight youths at a time; that facilities and staff will be shared between the existing and proposed facilities; that the youths will be in school or working, and kept productive at all times. Attorney Bentley stated that Staff and the PBLP both found the petition to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson entered the following documents into the record: City of Sarasota Zoning Code Sarasota City Code City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan (Sarasota City Plan) Engineering Design Criteria Manual Standard Building Code, (1991 edition) with Appendices A, D, F, H, J, and M, and the City of Sarasota Local Amendments Planning Board/Local Planning Agency minutes and packet of June 12, 1996. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 96-3937 by titlé only. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 96-3937 on first reading. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Mayor's Prayer breakfast, held during her term as Mayor, at which Mr. Weinrich participated, was attended by a young woman who had been served by a YMCA Youth Assistance Program; that the young woman made an indelible impression by relating the positive effects the YMCA Youth Assistance Program had on her life; that the YMCA is making great strides in helping youth. Mayor Cardamone stated that the YMCA contributes greatly to the community; and expressed gratitude for the programs provided. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 96-3937 on first reading. Commissioner Merrill stated that the YMCA's efforts are respected by the citizens; that providing care for youths from the immediate community is a necessary obligation; that YMCA programs are well-managed and expertly operated; that MCI zoning is appropriate to the vicinity on Fruitville Road and not objectionable to the surrounding, neighbors; however, the site planned for the youth shelter is in an economically depressed area, surrounded by vacant buildings; that problems could result in the future if a large concentration of social services locate into the Lime and East Avenue neighborhoods. BOOK 40 Page 13438 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13439 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. Mr. Weinrich stated that the YMCA purchased several of the vacant properties in the area; that renovation and beautification are planned for the properties. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes. 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 96-3940, TO REZONE A PARCEL OF CITY OWNED REAL PROPERTY FROM RMF-3 ZONE DISTRICT TO G (GOVERNMENT) ZONE DISTRICT, SAID PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS THE EAST 35 FEET OF LOT 8 AND THE WEST 32 FEET OF LOT 10, BLOCK A, LA LINDA TERRACE SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 85 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA; SAID PARCEL HAS A STREET ADDRESS OF 2034 WALDEMERE STREET; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 96-RE-07, PETITIONER, CITY OF SARASOTA) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (1808) through (1993) Michael Taylor, Deputy Director, Planning and Development Department, came before the Commission, displayed on the overhead projector, a site plan of the property at 2034 Waldemere Street; and stated that the City acquired the property, featuring a single-family house, in March 1996; that rezoning the site to a Governmental Use (G) Zone District is requested; that a site plan will be brought back before the Commission for approval if the rezoning occurs; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), at its meeting of July 12, 1996, found proposed Ordinance 96-3937 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommends Commission approval. Mayor Cardamone asked the City's intentions regarding the single-family dwelling which currently exists on the property? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City will dispose of the house either through demolition or, if found to be cost-effective, relocation to another site. Mayor Cardamone asked if the City would incur the costs of relocation or would the structure be sold? City Manager Sollenberger stated that housemoving can be expensive and imprudent for structures of low quality; that details regarding the potential of relocating the structure will be forwarded to the Commission. Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 96-3940 on first reading City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 96-3940 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 96-3940 on first reading. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 11. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 96-3955, PERTAINING TO THE EXPIRATION OF FINAL SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS OR DEVELOPMENT PLANS PROCESSED AS PART OF A CONDITIONAL REZONING; PROVIDING FOR A STAY OF THE EXPIRATION OF FINAL SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS OR DEVELOPMENT PLANS THAT ARE PART OF A CONDITIONAL REZONING; IMPLEMENTING THE STAY FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE TO THE DATE OF FINAL ADOPTION BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE IV, SEC. 4-10, AND ARTICLE V, SEC. 5-15, ZONING CODE, AS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE ZONING CODE; PROVIDING FOR A STAY OF THE REQUIREMENT TO REZONE PROPERTY TO ITS FORMER ZONE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION WHEN THE FINAL SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESSED WITH A CONDITIONAL REZONING WOULD EXPIRE AFTER SEPTEMBER 1, 1995; IMPLEMENTING THE STAY UNTIL SUCH TIME AS SAID CODE SECTIONS ARE AMENDED AS PART OF THE COMPREKENSIVE UPDATE OF THE ZONING CODE; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AS TO NEED FOR AND PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY SUCH A STAY; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #1 (1994) through (2227) City Attorney Taylor stated that approval of proposed Ordinance No. 96-3955 is requested to address site plans initially approved for development with a conditional rezoning which have expired under the terms of existing provisions in the Zoning Code; that developing an updated method to manage expired site plans is being addressed as part of the Land Development Regulation (LDRs) Update; that in the interim, the proposed ordinance will implement a stay of the requirement to rezone property to its former zone district classification when the site plan processed with a conditional rezoning expires; that the intent is to automatically apply the stay to any site plan expired after September 1, 1995; that revising Section 3 of the ordinance as follows will clarify the intent: BOOK 40 Page 13440 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13441 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. The City Commission hereby declares a stay of the requirement to rezone property to its former zone district classification when the final site and development plan or development plan processed with a conditional rezoning has expired or will expire after September 1, 1995, until such time as the City Commission adopts an ordinance amending Sections 4-10 and 5-15, Zoning Code, as part of the comprehensive update of the Zoning Code. Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. The following person came before the Commission: Michael Furen, Attorney, Law Firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, & Ginsburg, representing the owners of the Royal Palm Plaza Project, 1040 University Parkway, stated that approval of the Administration's recommendation is requested as the issue of expired site plans will be addressed during the Land Development Regulations (LDRS) update. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Cardamone Closed the public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 96-3955 on first reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 96-3955 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Dupree and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance 96-3955 on first reading. Mayor Cardamone 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. 12. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 96-3948, AMENDING CHAPTER 24, PERSONNEL ARTICLE II, PENSIONS, DIVISION 3, POLICE, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA: AMENDING SECTION 24-69, DISABILITY AND DEATH, TO PROVIDE FOR AN ADDITIONAL PRESUMPTION FOR IN-LINE OF DUTY DISABILITY BENEFITS; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #1 (2230) through (2329) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson, as ecretary/Preasurer of the Police Officers' Pension Board, stated that last year the State legislature passed a law mandating that disability of Police or Fire Officers due to hepatitis, tuberculosis, or meningococcal meningitis be presumed to have occurred in the line of duty unless the contrary is shown by competent evidence; that the Actuarial Impact Statement and Actuarial Cost Estimate report that no significant change is predicted in the number of Police disabilities claimed; therefore, the effect of the proposed amendment on contributions and obligations is minimal; that the Commission voted nine months earlier to change the Fire Pensions Ordinance to comply with the new law and is now being requested to make the same change to the Police Pensions Ordinance. Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 96-3948 on first reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 96-3948 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Dupree, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 96-3948 on first reading. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 13. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSAL BY SARASOTA COUNTY TO INCREASE ROAD IMPACT FEES THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF PROPOSED SARASOTA COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 96-053; ETC. - RESPOND BACK TO THE SARASOTA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THAT THE CITY COMMISSION FEELS IMPACT FEES SHOULD BE DIFFERENT AND SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER IN THE URBAN VERSUS SUBURBAN AREAS OF SARASOTA COUNTY AND REQUEST THE PROPOSED IMPACT FEES NOT BE IMPLEMENTED WHILE THE CITY AWAITS A RESPONSE FROM THE COUNTY (AGENDA ITEM IV-5) #1 (2364) through (2830) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City participates through an Interlocal Agreement with Sarasota County for the collection of road impact fees; that the County has proposed an increase in the impact fees and set County Ordinance No. 96-053 for public hearing on July 23, 1996, at 1:30 p.m. at the County Administration building; that the Agreement authorizes the City Commission, in its capacity as the Facility Service District Advisory Committee, to hold a public hearing on the proposed rate increase and to provide the County with minutes of or a detailed report on the public hearing. Dennis Wilkison, Assistant Planning Director, and Clarke Davis, Transportation Engineer, Sarasota County Government, came before the Commission. BOOK 40 Page 13442 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13443 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. Mr. Wilkison stated that the proposed changes the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners will be considering are the culmination of a two-year effort; that two years ago the County funded a $350,000 local trip characteristic study to obtain local data that lowered residential road impact fee calculations; that the nonresidential impact fees have not been updated since 1991; that in July in 1994, the County Commission adopted revised impact fees for residential only; that action on proposed nonresidential impact fees was deferred until the new trip generation data was developed by the Sarasota-Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) transportation model and a road impact fee mitigation program could be implemented; that the proposed ordinance includes the MPO data and an improved method for calculating road building costs in the County; that the increase in building costs is the primary reason for the increase; that the proposed ordinance raises the road capacity cost relied upon by the County for construction from $104 for nonresidential and $140.88 for residential to $174.43 per vehicle mile in both cases; that in addition to the public hearing held by the County Commission on July 23, 1996, at 1:30 p.m., in the North County Administration Center, a second public hearing will be held on July 30, 1996, at Venice City Hall. Commissioner Merrill stated that in his opinion, making improvements to Tuttle Avenue could have been far less expensive than a complete rebuilding of the roadway; that the lane widths are close to expressway standards; and asked if the County has considered reducing the standards for the roads to reduce building costs? Mr. Wilkison stated that Sarasota County constructs roads to high standards: enclosed drainage, sidewalks, bike paths, etc.; that individual cost components was one of the items reviewed by the 15- member Public Facilities Financing Advisory Board (PFFAB), which met from May to October 1995; that the PFFAB recommendation to the County Commission did not include a reduction in those standards; that the issue was not discussed at the County Commission workshop held on June 13, 1996. Commissioner Merrill stated that mitigating the impacts a particular land use has on future growth and on adjacent streets is the theory behind impact fees; that, for example, impact fees collected in downtown Sarasota should not be utilized to fund road improvements in Venice; and asked if the County's plan calculates impact fees in such a manner that the fees collected in downtown Sarasota are not spent elsewhere in the County and thereby perceived as a tax? Mr. Wilkison stated that six facility service districts were established when the Sarasota County Road Impact Fee Ordinance was adopted, two of which are in the unincorporated area; that the facility service districts for the cities of Sarasota and Venice were established as part of the dual taxation settlement; that the fees collected in the municipal districts are used in those facility service districts; however, the Ordinance provides authority for the County Commission to spend road impact fees collected in the City of Sarasota on a road project in an adjacent district if a benefit to the residents paying the impact fees can be demonstrated; that the municipalities provide input as to how the impact fees should be allocated when the County's Capital Improvement Program is reviewed annually; however, impact fees must be used to serve the demand of new growth, not existing residents. Commissioner Merrill stated that road impact fees associated with an office building in downtown Sarasota are not calculated based on the impacts of that particular office building but based on Countywide statistics. Mr. Wilkison explained the calculation which incorporates a blend of local trip characteristics (trip length and trip rate) and national averages. Mr. Wilkison stated that the Ordinance includes a provision for the adjustment of impact fees by the County Transportation Administrator if an applicant applying for a building permit can demonstrate the information used to calculate the impact fee is not appropriate; that such an adjustment was made for the Burns Court Cinema. Commissioner Merrill stated that if those road-widening projects required in the City of Sarasota are slated as MPO projects, not City projects, could the argument be made that the City of Sarasota spends minimal funding on road widenings and, therefore, should not have impact fees? Mr. Wilkison stated that the best manner in which to address that situation would be for a trip characteristic study to be performed for the City of Sarasota; however, such studies are very expensive and could result in higher impact fees in the City for two reasons: 1) higher costs associated with constructing roads, specifically land costs and 2) longer trip lengths; that the City is a central place which draws trips in from outside the boundaries of the City; that those longer trip lengths may result in a higher impact fee than the impact fees calculated on a Countywide average. Commissioner Dupree stated that the existing road impact fees, which are extremely high, hinder the City's ability to attract new businesses and to retain established businesses that want to relocate; that the proposed County ordinance will not benefit the City of Sarasota; that the trip length through the City of Sarasota is significantly less than the trip length through the entire County; that a middle ground between the existing and proposed rates should be considered or the proposed ordinance rejected. BOOK 40 Page 13444 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13445 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. Mayor Cardamone stated that she shares Commissioner Dupree's point of view. Commissioner Patterson stated that PFFAB recommended that the road impact fee motor fuel tax credit calculations be based on a 25-year time period and a fuel consumption of 16.85 miles per gallon (MPG), which is a nationally derived statistic; that the County decided to use a 20-year time period and a fuel consumption of 20.82 MPG, which is a locally derived statistic; that the factors utilized by the County minimize rather than maximize the credit applied. Mr. Wilkison stated that the recommendations transmitted by PFFAB in September 1995 were discussed in a County Commission workshop on June 13, 1996; that the approach to determine road capacity costs recommended by PFFAB, resulting in a capacity cost of $174.43 per vehicle mile, was accepted; that PFFAB also recommended a 25-year rather than a 20-year motor fuel tax credit; that the existing nonresidential credit period is five years; that the County Commission decided to retain the currently adopted policy of a 20- year credit which had been implemented for residential impact fees in 1994. Mr. Wilkison continued that the lower the MPG, the greater the credit and the lower the impact fee, with all other factors being equal; that currently, road impact fees use a methodology wherein national MPG data by vehicle type are applied to a local vehicle fleet mix for Sarasota Countyi that the local fleet mix is derived from data on motor vehicles licensed in Sarasota County; that County staff believes the difference in local versus national MPG calculations is primarily due to the lower percentage of large trucks, i.e., semi-tractor trailer or combined vehicles, in the local vehicle fleet; that substantial funding was expended in FY 93/94 to obtain local information; that the County Commission voted to retain the use of the local rather than the national MPG. Commissioner Patterson stated that operation of commercial vehicles is necessary to support construction, one of the more major industries in the County. Commissioner Patterson continued that she supports the City being assessed impact fees at a substantially lower level than the County; that a legal opinion received from the City Attorney indicates the City has an ability to collect its own impact fees if a specific process terminating the interlocal agreement is followed; that approximately five years ago, she had requested the County Commission to consider a two-tiered approach to establish different impact fees for urban and suburban areas, with the urban areas having a lower assessment; that she still supports this concept; that the County responded that legal staff advised a two- tiered approach was not possible; that a comparison of surrounding- area road impact fees, included in the Agenda material, reflects the use of a two-tiered approach in Manatee, Pinellas, and Hillsborough Counties; and asked if the issue has been further discussed or policy decisions made by the County Commission regarding a two-tiered approach? Mr. Wilkison stated that to his knowledge no discussions have been held or policy decisions made. Commissioner Merrill asked if the numbers put forth accurately reflect the cost of impact in the City of Sarasota? Mr. Wilkison stated that based on the information available the answer is yes; that one area of extensive discussion among the PFFAB's Technical Committee and the full PFFAB membership was how land currently in governmental ownership should be addressed in the road capacity component; that based upon samples reviewed by the County's Transportation Department, the calculation assumes a ratio of 56% new right-of-way to 44% right-of-way already in government ownership required to construct roads; that this percentage is viewed as generous, therefore, generating a lower impact fee which is expected to increase over time; that the ratio of new right-of- way required for road construction versus land already in government ownership in the City of Sarasota was not specifically addressed. Commissioner Merrill stated that the proposed ordinance raises impact fees by 46% for office uses and 26% for hotel uses; that the major reduction in residential impact fees experienced in 1994 was appreciated by the development community; however, major changes in impact fees are frustrating to general contractors and developers; that a new methodology is proposed in the ordinance; and asked if future changes in impact fees more closely associated with inflation can be expected rather than changes in methodology resulting in inconsistent increases, i.e., a 30% increase after two years? Mr. Wilkison stated that the nonresidential road impact fees have not been updated since 1991; that the vehicle mile cost proposed in 1994 would have increased impact fees for general office uses by 79%; that the proposal reviewed by the County Commission in May 1995 would have increased impact fees for office uses by 68%; that the 46% increase is lower than increases which would have resulted from previously presented proposals. Mr. Davis stated that increases would be sensitive to right-of-way costs as the calculation includes an average per-square-foot cost for residential, commercial, and other rural-type land; however, future increases in impact fees should track inflation if fluctuation in the right-of-way cost percentage is minimal. BOOK 40 Page 13446 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13447 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Merrill asked if the City Manager believes the numbers put forth accurately reflect the cost of impacts by development in the City of Sarasota? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the road impact fee increases proposed are significant; that consideration of a two-tiered approach has been raised; that the cost of road development inside the City would be more expensive than in the County; that the actual trip lengths in the City may differ; that the only items referenced as potentially generating different impact fees in the City were land costs and trip lengths, which are questionable; however, the City has not performed any technical studies on which a qualified answer could be based; that the County has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to obtain local data; that he would not recommend the City's pursing the costly studies referenced earlier by Mr. Wilkison to determine the accuracy of the numbers. Mayor Cardamone asked for the road impact fees associated with an office building which is demolished and rebuilt? City Manager Sollenberger stated that an impact fee credit would be allowed for previous uses on site; that, for example, the impact fee credits for the lumber company buildings on the 10th Street property referenced during discussions with Key Packaging Company would have been in excess of the impact fee requirements for an industrial plant; that credits are based on the size: and type of the land use; that incremental additions in cost could be anticipated with redevelopment in the downtown core area as office buildings larger than those replaced would most likely be constructed and square footage is a component of the impact fees. Commissioner Patterson asked for a listing of the projects towards which the impact fees collected by the County have been applied. Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission, and stated that a total of $1.377 million in City impact fees has been collected by the County since 1991; that funding has been appropriated for the following City projects: 200,000 Bay Road Project (widening near Publix) 300,000 Myrtle Street - U.S. 301/U.S. 41 (preliminary design) 65,000 Administrative Fees (County staff) 565,000 TOTAL APPROPRIATED Commissioner Patterson stated that she understood road impact fees could not be used on the Myrtle Street project since the capacity will not be increased. Mr. Mohammed stated that although Myrtle Street will be constructed as a two-lane project, the County will acquire right-of-way sufficient for four lanes. Commissioner Patterson stated that the City Commission voted against the concept of widening Myrtle Street; and asked if $300,000 is being appropriated for the acquisition of right-of-way for future four-laning? Mr. Mohammed stated no; that the County is appropriating the funds for preliminary design of the project; that the intent is to utilize Federal funds through the MPO to construct the road. Commissioner Patterson stated that most of the City's road projects involve resurfacing or noncapacity-related improvements, i.e., sidewalks; that the use of road impact fees collected in the City has been minimal over the past six years for this reason. Commissioner Merrill stated that the City Manager indicated that credits associated with prior uses lower impact fees in redevelopment areas; that although redevelopment credits assessed on the 10th Street property exceeded the impact fee requirement, Key Packaging Company plans to locate in Manatee County where less expensive land and lower taxes were found; and asked how important road impact fees are in the pace of redevelopment in the City of Sarasota City Manager Sollenberger stated that the proposed rate schedule reflects significant increases for hotels and corporate headquarters, two of the types of uses the City is attempting to attract; that high road impact fees do not encourage but rather create a disincentive for development; that the City's redevelopment area qualifies for the County's Impact Fee Mitigation Program; however, funding is dependent on alternative County sources and providing quality employment is a requirement; that, for example, a corporate office structure would qualify for a 50% reduction in the impact fees subject to the availability of funding under the Program; however, a hotel would have difficulty meeting the criteria set forth in the County ordinance with respect to quality employment. Commissioner Merrill referred to a comparison of road impact fees; and stated that the proposed impact fee for hotel use, on a per-square-foot basis, is lower than general office, medical office, large shopping center, or general restaurant; that the proposed fee of $789 per room is lower than those in Pinellas, Hillsborough, Charlotte, and Lee Counties. Mayor Cardamone stated that the Commission has declared the desire for hotel development in the City of Sarasota; that impact fees are viewed as a penalty. BOOK 40 Page 13448 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13449 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. Mayor Cardamone continued that hotel use increases from $626 to $789 per 1,000 square feet (SF); that general office increases from $2,000 to $2,920 per 1,000 SF. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if Myrtle Street is within the City limits? Mr. Mohammed stated that the portion of Myrtle Street located in the City limits is between the railroad tracks and U.S. 41; that the portion between the railroad tracks and U.S. 301 is within the County; however, funding is being allocated for design of the entire roadway, of which a major portion is in the County. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that $812,000 of the $1.377 million collected has not yet been appropriated towards a City project; and that a large portion of the $300,000 appropriated for Myrtle Street applies to right-of-way outside the City limits. Commissioner Patterson stated that completing the preliminary design will assist the County in moving Myrtle Street higher on the MPO priority list and ultimately gaining funding for the project from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Mr. Mohammed stated that is correct; that Myrtle Street is low on the MPO priority list; that appropriation of funding for engineering or right-of-way acquisition for the Myrtle Street project will not be considered for at least 10 years. Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: John Brady, (PFFAB board member) 5922 Cattleman Lane, Suite 103 (34232) representing Gulf Coast Builders Exchange (GCBE), stated that the general design of the road impact fee formula is a widespread problem which has evolved out of the court systems and not with State enabling legislation; that the impact fee calculation is basically a cost formula, not a benefit-minus-costs calculation that yields a net benefit of cost upon which impact fees should be based; that the benefits of economic development and especially commercial and industrial development are not factored into the calculations; that the ratio of cost for services to commercial or industrial developments is 60 to 70 cents per $1.00 of revenue; that the 30 to 40 cent difference, which yields a net benefit to the County, is not factored into the impact fee calculation; that commercial/industrial development is further subsidizing residential development and in addition paying exorbitant road impact fees; that quantifying the benefits yielded should be addressed or conservative variables and values of variables used in the impact fee calculation, e.g., the 25-year capitalization period and use of the lower national MPG as recommended by PFFAB. Mr. Brady continued that under the proposed road impact fee schedule, impact fees on a 50,000-square-foot office in Sarasota County would cost $194,500 plus a service charge of 2.25% versus a cost of $34,000 to $47,000, including the service charge, in Manatee County; that having impact fees which are four to six times greater creates a competitive disadvantage for Sarasota County; that the proposed increase to $1.23 per square foot for office use is almost double the $0.68 per-square-foot cost in Manatee County and exceeds their highest fee of $0.95 per square foot for office; that a 150,000-square-toot shopping center in Sarasota County will cost $945,600, plus a service charge, versus $61,350 to $84,000 in Manatee County, creating a multiplier disadvantage of 11.3 to 15.5 times; that the multiplier disadvantage created for general light industrial is 7 to 12 times. Mr. Brady further stated that the proposed schedule increases road impact fees for houses of worship by 43%, day care centers by 46%, hospitals by 36%, and research centers by 76%; that the difficulties in expending impact fee collections has been mentioned; that the economic impact statement prepared by the County budget department is indicative of the County's unwillingness to recognize economic benefits and does not reference the economic effects on comercial/industrial development by the proposed increases in the impact fees. Mr. Brady further stated that the taxpayers have every reason to support reducing or eliminating impact fees in Sarasota County; that commercial and industrial development provide benefits and help support the tax base. Mayor Cardamone stated that a developer would have to possess a great desire to build in Sarasota when substantially lower costs could be paid to build 10 miles to the north. Mr. Brady stated that the City of Sarasota, not Sarasota County, should be allowed to pick and choose the type of developments desired; that the ability to establish different policies and a separate impact fee schedule should be pursued by the Commission. Commissioner Merrill stated that the importance of impact fee rates on development and redevelopment is not clear; that Key Packaging Company would have paid no impact fees based on the credits permitted; that the total impact fees required in the City are quite often far lower than in the County; that certain uses, i.e., restaurants and shopping centers, follow residential development regardless of the costs associated with construction; that commercial development in the community is viewed as extensive by many people; that a shortage of commercial space is not being experienced although the impact fees are high; and asked Mr. Brady if his point is that impact fees are driving away development or just driving up costs? BOOK 40 Page 13450 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13451 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. Mr. Brady stated that depending on the type of uses and the vacant land available for those uses, the rate of the impact fees could create problems; that Windemuller Technical Services is a good example of a business that relocated out of Sarasota County to southern Manatee County and took advantage of lower ad valorem and sales taxes, the savings from which after a short period of time will cover the cost of the impact fees paid. Commissioner Merrill asked if the cost of impact fees was a factor in the decision to relocate? Mr. Brady stated that the cost of impact fees was a key element of their decision to move to Manatee County. Commissioner Merrill stated that land acquisition costs in Manatee County are less expensive; that Key Packaging Company found land in Manatee County for 25% less than in Sarasota; that he is attempting to determine whether impact fees are the key driving force behind businesses locating or relocating in Manatee County rather than Sarasota County or if land costs, a far bigger number, is the reason. Mr. Brady stated that GCBE has addressed both views; that the shortage of land in north Sarasota County, driving up land prices, is a problem; that assessing impact fees 5 to 15 times greater than Manatee County exacerbates the problem. Commissioner Dupree asked the number of impact fee categories and if the various land use types are based on the same data? Mr. Brady stated that the formula established by the County is applied to determine the impact fee; that different sources of data are used in the formula; that the trip characteristic study prepared for the County indicated trip lengths out of south County were significantly longer than trip lengths out of north County; that the trip rate and trip length data from the County's study could be utilized and supplemented to develop a separate, more appropriate formula for north County, including the City of Sarasota; that the fee schedule includes numerous land use categories, but single family, general office, shopping center, and general light industrial are the four land use categories for which a partial comparison of existing and proposed road impact fee schedules have been prepared by the County and focused upon by the press; that other land uses were referenced earlier. Mr. Brady continued that the road impact fee for a day care center will increase to $5,700 per 1,000 square feet; that he had recommended the impact fee remain consistent until the day care land use type is researched in more detail; that although adequate evidence was presented to support a review of day care centers and that the statistics used in determining the fee are outdated and not based on local data, his impression of the County Commission's position was that one land use could not be singled out. Mayor Cardamone stated that one of the key industries the Economic Development Board targets as desirable and as providing quality employment is research facilities; that the impact fees for research facilities will increase substantially. Kerry Kirschner, former Mayor and City Commissioner, 1590 Gulfview Drive (34236), stated that the Argus Foundation has not taken a position on this issue as of yet; therefore, he is representing himself as a citizen of the City of Sarasota and his comments are specific to impact fees within the City as opposed to those imposed by the County. Mr. Kirschner distributed a copy of a prepared speech; and stated that the Commission should evaluate why and whether impact fees should be imposed in the City of Sarasota and what impact raising the fees will have on the City; that as proposed, fees for new research centers would increase by 76%, corporate headquarters by 24%, hotels by 26%, and single-family homes by 11%; that making new construction in those categories more costly is contrary to the City's efforts to attract hotels and quality employment for the citizens; that City Staff should not be required to juggle credits through contrived formulas to make affordable construction of new homes to replace eyesores, i.e., Augustine Quarters; that an impact fee of nearly $2,000 per home will be charged although improved services will not be received. Mr. Kirschner continued that the rationale that impact fees should pay. for sins of omission where communities have not planned or built infrastructure applies to Sarasota County but not to the City of Sarasota; that the City is built out, has plenty of water and sewer capacity, and has adequate police and fire services in place; that not one dollar is budgeted for new road construction in the Capital Improvements Program for the City's budget; that to date, no money raised from impact fees has been used for construction of City roads, other than those roads for which the County assumed responsibility as stipulated under the dual taxation agreement; that an increase in road impact fees in the City of Sarasota is not justifiable. Mr. Kirschner further stated that a key component of containing urban sprawl is to encourage development, commercial and residential, in the urban core where services and capacity are available; that eliminating impact fees in the City would provide incentive for new construction; that building the tax base is necessary to sustain the economic viability of the City of Sarasota; that retaining the proposed impact fee schedule could be detrimental to the continued health and welfare of the City of Sarasota; that new construction which imposes a burden on the BOOK 40 Page 13452 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13453 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. community above the City's current ability to serve should be expected to pay through stipulations to special exceptions or by contractual development orders but not through across the board impact fees; that incentives are required to attract investment and revitalization of the downtown core and build the tax base; that a decision to revisit the imposition of impact fees in the City of Sarasota will be go a long way toward enhancing the City's future economic well being. Vice Mayor Pillot requested that Mr. Kirschner comment on a two- tiered impact fee structure versus no impact fees in the City. Mr. Kirschner stated that based on the narrow use and ability to use the impact fees collected within the City and the Commission's desire to attract research centers and increase the tax base and use of office space in the downtown, having no impact fees would send an effective message that developments will be assessed on an individual basis, based on actual impacts, and not based on an impact fee structure that was adjudicated and limits the use of the funds collected to capacity-increasing improvements; that the City needs the flexibility that an impact fee structure does not allow. Commissioner Patterson stated that Mr. Kirschner was a member of the Commission which voted in favor of the County's collecting and setting policy for impact fees; and asked the rationale for that decision. Mr. Kirschner stated that he voted against the Interlocal Agreement; that legal intimidation was used; that the City was required to examine the use of impact fees if the County took responsibility for maintaining and constructing the roads stipulated in the dual taxation settlement. City Attorney Taylor stated that, basically, the Commissions were attempting to address and resolve many long-standing problems and the use of impact fees sounded good to the City Commission as the County had undertaken a lengthy process of studying the issue. Mr. Kirschner stated that his political interpretation at the time was that developers in the County were pressuring the County Commission regarding the lack of impact fees in the City creating an unfair economic advantage for those property owners in the City versus the County. Commissioner Patterson stated that, ironically, the economic advantages today are within the County which offers less expensive land and lower taxes both on property and utility services. Commissioner Patterson continued that North Port and Longboat Key do not participate in the County's impact fee structure; and asked if Venice participates and if so was that also an outcome of the dual taxation lawsuit? City Manager Sollenberger stated yes. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the decision regarding impact fees was made during his first year of tenure in office; that the details are not clear, but he recalls the issues of the dual taxation settlement, Tuttle Avenue, Bahia Vista Street, etc., were simultaneously on the table; and asked if Mr. Kirschner supports the Commission's starting the legal process of opting out of the Interlocal Agreement with Sarasota County for the collection of impact fees? Mr. Kirschner stated yes; that the lack of use of the collected impact fees calls to question the fairness of charging an impact fee. Mayor Cardamone stated that the dual taxation settlement issue was extremely important to the citizens; that support for an impact fee schedule by the former Commission, who sensed the City was growing, is understood; that the capsule into which the City has evolved was not envisioned. Bill Couch, 1819 Main Street (34236), representing the Sarasota Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber believes the level of road impact fees being proposed by Sarasota County will be a serious impediment to the beneficial economic development and redevelopment within the City of Sarasota and encourages the City Commission to take the steps necessary to mitigate the effect of the impact fees; that the City of Sarasota is essentially built out; that any increase in the tax base must come from an increase in the taxable value of property located within the City; that incentives, not disincentive such as impact fees, are necessary for the City to prosper; that the dollars generated through ad valorem real estate taxes are many times more than revenue generated from impact fees on the same property; that the Commission should not risk driving away a desirable project by setting artificially high impact fees. Mr. Couch continued that the Chamber encourages the Commission to take a new and fresh, hard look at the impact fee issue. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Commission is required to provide minutes of this public hearing to the County Commission; that discussion has been held about not increasing the impact fees and reevaluating the City's participation in the impact fee structure; that the minutes should reflect a clear position of the Commission. BOOK 40 Page 13454 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13455 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. Mayor Cardamone requested a motion in response to the County's request for a recommendation regarding the increase in impact fees proposed by the County. Commissioner Patterson stated that the rate of impact fees within the City of Sarasota is her specific concern; that a uniform rate of impact fees throughout the County is an encouragement of suburban sprawl being subsidized by urban areas; that Commission support to independently establish impact fees in the City is apparent, but if a motion directly relating to the impact fee schedule is required, the Commission should recommend the schedule not be passed and a two-tiered structure be examined. Mayor Cardamone stated that she supports eliminating impact fees in the City and specifying to the County that the City is built-out and that impact fees are a disincentive to attracting redevelopment and new housing construction; however, a direct response in opposition to the County's proposal should be the first in a series of motions. Commissioner Dupree asked the authority of the City Commission regarding the County's proposal? City Attorney Taylor stated that the City Commission is sitting in a special capacity as a committee appointed by the County to oversee and make comments regarding the impact fee structure applicable within the City of Sarasota, but the County makes the ultimate decision regarding road impact fees; that pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement the City has an ability to opt-out of the impact fee structure. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to respond back to the County that the city Commission feels impact fees should be different and substantially lower in the urban versus suburban areas of Sarasota County. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to amend the motion to include requesting that implementation of the impact fees proposed be delayed pending a response from Sarasota County to the City. Mayor Cardamone called for the vote on the amendment. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Commissioner Merrill stated that he supports fees to mitigate impacts; however, the term "fee" versus the term "tax" implies a service will be received; that the impact fee schedule proposed for the City of Sarasota includes no link between the fee and a service; that the impact fee issue is not new; that the substantial increases resulting from development and use of an alternative methodology are inexcusable; that the increases could have been phased in over a period of years; that the lack of road capacity projects in the City's budget and the impact fee credits referenced for the Key Packaging Company proposal indicates impact fees for service in the City would be lower than in the County; that the general residents should not be asked to subsidize development; however, identifying actual impacts to roads and developing an appropriate impact fee is required if road impact fees will continue to be assessed in the City. Commissioner Patterson stated that she agrees with the analysis made by Commissioner Merrill; that totally eliminating road impact fees may not be supported if the City independently establishes an impact fee structure; however, the existing impact fees assessed in the City are too high and should be addressed. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson restated the main motion as to respond back to the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners that the City Commission feels impact fees should be different and substantially lower in the urban versus suburban areas of Sarasota County and requests the proposed impact fees not be implemented while the City awaits a response from the County. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the City Commission's response will be transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners through the City Manager and County Administrator? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the presentation will be made at a County Commission public hearing; that a response from the Mayor would be preferable under these circumstances. Mayor Cardamone called for the vote on the main motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to direct the Administration and the City Attorney to begin the process required, including hiring a consultant, if necessary, for the City to opt-out of the County's impact fee structure and collection. Commissioner Merrill stated that the City Commission's response is not adversarial but points out something which may not have been focused on within the County's figures; that the impact fees in Hillsborough County are substantially higher in the urban area than in the suburban area; that varying assumptions in a formula produce different results; that the City of Sarasota has not been on a road-building campaign and assumes additional growth can be handled without building additional roads; that, hopefully, similar assumptions will be realized if the County reviews the issues as requested. BOOK 40 Page 13456 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13457 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. Mayor Cardamone stated that the impact fees collected within the incorporated area of the City of Sarasota are earmarked to be spent in the City of Sarasota and cannot be used by Sarasota County outside of the City limits. City Attorney Taylor stated that is not correct; that pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement, the County Commission, based upon certain findings, can divert road impact fees collected in the City for road projects in the adjacent district. Mayor Cardamone called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 14. CITIZENS I INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS - ADMINISTRATION TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE PERMITTING DOGS ON LEASHES IN ARLINGTON PARK; REPORT BACK REGARDING THE ELIMINATION OF THE ARLINGTON PARK AREA FROM THE SIDEWALK PROGRAM (AGENDA ITEM VI) #2 (2875) through (3757) The following people came before the Commission: Jane Sullivan, 2594 Arlington Street (34237) Andrea Kass, 2709 Hillview Street (34239), and Lynn Livinghouse, 2723 Hyde Park Street (34239), presented a petition signed by 106 people which stated the following: The following petitioners, residents and taxpayers of the City of Sarasota, respectfully request a variance of County Ordinance #88-03, which prohibits citizens from walking their dogs in Arlington Park. A variance has previously been granted for Island Park in April 1990, and has also been established at Bird Key, Gillespie, and Ken Thompson Park. We would also like to advise the Commissioners of the following: A. Many of the residents of the neighborhoods surrounding Arlington Park owned their property before this Ordinance was implemented, and purchased property with the right to walk their dogs in Arlington Park. B. There are few sidewalks provided in these neighborhoods, which forces residents to walk their dogs in the streets. C. Over the past several years there have been numerous incidents of criminal activity occurring in the park, and those of us who own dogs feel safer walking with them. Ms. Sullivan stated that dogs were permitted when Arlington Park was maintained by the City; that transfer of maintenance duties to the County resulted in Ordinance #88-03, which prohibits citizens from walking dogs in the park; that prior to County stewardship, many residents purchased property in the neighborhood due to the nearness of the park which provided play areas for children and a place to walk dogs; that neighborhood residents were unaware of County prohibitions until signs banning dogs were posted; that dogs must currently be walked in the streets creating hazards for senior citizens with impaired movement and eyesight; that mothers, accompanied by small children, have difficulty pushing carts down the street. Ms. Sullivan continued that a body was found in the park ten years ago; that a young woman has been raped and other lewd and lascivious behavior has been reported in the park; that a child was recently molested and teenagers have shot B.B. guns or thrown firecrackers at passerbys from behind bushes; that a dog provides a sense of safety for citizens walking in the park. Ms. Sullivan further stated that allegations of dogs destroying baby ducks are inaccurate; that turtles and a small alligator in the lake are responsible for the destruction of baby ducks; that neighborhood residents have witnessed teenagers smashing duck eggs on the sidewalk; that juveniles are responsible for more damage, including graffiti, than dogs. Ms. Sullivan stated further that neighborhood residents should have the right to determine the use of the park; that joggers and mothers with children feel safer when accompanied by a dog; that no problem should ensue if owners leash and clean up after their dogs; that one senior citizen living next to the park for thirty years has professed walking a dog to be her primary social interaction with other citizens; that the neighborhood residents are the citizens the City should prefer to frequent the park. Ms. Kass stated that her home is directly adjacent to the park; that the issue has become relevant with recent ownership of a puppy; that senior citizens, whose only social interaction occurs when walking a dog, should have the right to walk their pets in the park rather than in the streets which have no sidewalks; that the presence of a dog provides a sense of safety for citizens; that parents with infants have been witnessed experiencing difficulty maneuvering a stroller and a leashed dog on Hyde Park Street; that neighborhood dog owners keep dogs on leashes and clean up after them. BOOK 40 Page 13458 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13459 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. Ms. Kass continued that dogs will be kept out of playground areas; that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson sent the neighborhood residents copies of the ordinances allowing dogs on leashes in Island and Gillespie Parks; that the neighborhood residents of Arlington Park would be grateful for similar consideration. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the authority exists to permit the same privilege in Arlington Park as currently exists in Island and Gillespie Parks? V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that Island Park is maintained by the city and is not subject to County park rules; that the City passed an ordinance permitting dogs in Gillespie Park, which is maintained by the County; that the Commission has authority to pass a similar ordinance permitting dogs in Arlington Park. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to initiate the process to adopt an ordinance permitting dogs on leashes to be walked in Arlington Park, under the same conditions and rules governing Gillespie Park. Commissioner Merrill stated that the ordinance should prohibit dogs in the picnic and playground areas. Commissioner Patterson agreed. Mayor Cardamone stated that Staff and neighborhood residents can work together to develop a set of rules to maintain the park for the benefit of all. Commissioner Dupree stated that the prohibition of dogs in the park is disturbing; however, the lack of sidewalks is also a concern; and asked if neighborhood residents have requested sidewalks? Ms. Sullivan stated that although neighborhood residents requested sidewalks and a City crew began surveying the neighborhood, a neighborhood resident who was opposed to the installation of sidewalks succeeded in stopping the project. Mayor Cardamone stated that Arlington Street was supposed to be included in the sidewalk program; and requested that Staff return with a report providing the reasons sidewalks were not installed. Commissioner Patterson stated that a citizen may have submitted a petition demonstrating opposition to sidewalks by a majority of neighborhood residents; that a memo revealing the reasons the sidewalk program was discontinued on Arlington Street should be forwarded to the Commission when Staff presents the proposed ordinance; and asked if the County expects the City to enforce the no-dogs policy in parks? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the County ordinance at Gillespie Park was specifically amended by the City to permit dogs; that a similar process may be initiated for Arlington Park. Commissioner Patterson stated that neighbors of other City parks should be consulted to determine if a Citywide ordinance should be developed; however the Arlington Park residents' request is supported. Ms. Sullivan asked if dogs are allowed in Ken Thompson Park? Commissioner Patterson stated no. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that notice of the proposed ordinance will be sent to citizens listed on the petition and neighbors surrounding the park at the time of the public hearing. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 96R-907, GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A HEALING ARTS CENTER TO OPERATE IN TWO HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED STRUCTURES AT 636 S. OSPREY AVENUE IN THE RMF-3 ZONE DISTRICT, AS REQUESTED BY PETITION 96-SE-02; DESCRIBING TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #2 (3758) through #3 (0141) City Attorney Taylor stated that proposed Resolution No. 96R-907 contains additional language changes relating to conditions attached to the special exception as passed by the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP); that the proposed resolution, replacing the PBLP resolution, was developed to accommodate the Commission's earnest attention to the issue; that practitioners of the healing arts center will be limited to treating no more than one patient per hour on an individual basis; that no group sessions shall be conducted; that a practitioner or a caretaker/manager shall reside in one of the two historically designated structures; that the language was discussed with legal counsel for the petitioner who agrees to the additional conditions included in the resolution. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that citizen's input is not allowed on the resolution before the Commission. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends adoption of proposed Resolution 96R-907. BOOK 40 Page 13460 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13461 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution 96R-907 by title only On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution 96R-907. Mayor Cardamone 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. 16. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH FIGG ENGINEERING GROUP (FEG) AS THE FACILITATOR/ COORDINATOR FOR THE AESTHETIC DESIGN OF THE RINGLING CAUSEWAY REPLACEMENT BRIDGE - AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATION TO REQUEST ASSISTANCE WITH FDOT REGARDING FUNDING CHARETTES AND POSTPONING SUBMITTAL DATE FOR STRUCTURAL SYSTEM FROM SEPTEMBER 1 TO OCTOBER 15, 1996, AND NEGOTIATE FURTHER WITH FEG WITHOUT REDUCING SERVICES; DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION TO RESEARCH EFFECTS OF WIND SPEED ON BRIDGE DESIGN (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #3 (0142) through (0500) City Manager Sollenberger stated that on July 1, 1996, the city Commission approved the firm of Figg Engineering Group (FEG) as the Facilitator/Cor/Coordinator for the aesthetic design of the Ringling Causeway Bridge Replacement; that FEG's lump-sum, fixed-fee cost for services is $192,000, which includes approximately 1725 hours at various staffing levels for $159,000 and reisbursable/espenses for $32,900; that the cost is an overwhelming increase over presupposed estimates; that further negotiation with FEG is recommended; however, the City will be unable to meet the submittal date promised to FDOT if action on the Agreement for Professional Services is delayed; therefore, the Administration recommends authorization to: 1. Request the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to: A) participate in the funding of the charettes for the Ringling Causeway bridge; and B) approve postponing the due date for the City's decision on type of structural system from September 1 to October 15, 1996. 2. Further negotiate with FEG concerning the fixed-fee cost of $192,000 and the scope of services. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Administration's recommendation was explained to Linda Figg McAllister of FEG on Friday, July 12, 1996; that Ms. McAllister indicated that FDOT assisted in the funding of charettes at Daytona Beach for the Broadway Bridge and at Ft. Lauderdale for the 17th Street Bridge, both projects for which FEG also provided engineering design specifications; that the charette costs for both the Daytona and Ft. Lauderdale projects exceeded the costs estimated for Sarasota; that FDOT may assist with funding the design charette in Sarasota as a precedent was established when the other two projects were funded. Mayor Cardamone asked if the Administration believes that the City would receive a bridge design, absent engineering specifications, at the conclusion of the design charettes? City Manager Sollenberger stated yes; that FEG will provide the City with a conceptual design. Mayor Cardamone stated that FDOT's acceptance of the full cost of the design charettes is desirable. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration should concentrate on negotiations with FDOT; that the $192,000 cost of the design charettes is minimal within the context of the bridge's $28 million budget; that FDOT has experienced problems developing designs acceptable to the community and may be motivated to assist with funds for a conceptual design to enable the project to proceed. Commissioner Patterson stated that FEG's proposal is exciting; that Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer has done an excellent job organizing the project. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to authorize the Administration to: 1. Request the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to: A) participate in the funding of the charettes for the Ringling Causeway bridge; and B) approve postponing the due date for the City's decision on type of structural system from September 1, 1996, to October 15, 1996. 2. Further negotiate with FEG concerning the fixed cost of $192,000 and the scope of services. City Manager Sollenberger stated that FDOT may participate in negotiations with FEG. Commissioner Patterson stated that the services offered in the proposal by FEG instill optimism that a conceptual design can be BOOK 40 Page 13462 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13463 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. attained; that reducing the scope of services offered in the proposal by FEG is not acceptable. City Manager Sollenberger asked if the Commission's direction is that the Administration's efforts should be focused on obtaining funding assistance from FDOT? Mayor Cardamone stated there is a consensus of the Commission for the Administration to proceed as stated by City Manager Sollenberger. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Mayor Cardamone distributed to the Commission a document containing historical data from the Sarasota Storm Surge Monitor System, received from Sarasota County Emergency Management, dated January 7 to January 10, 1996. Mayor Cardamone stated that the data reveals that at 1:30 p.m. on January 7, 1996, the wind speed, approximately 15 feet above the roadway of the John Ringling Causeway Bridge, began at 33 miles per hour (mph) with 44 mph gusts, and advanced, with fluctuations, to 53 mph with 65 mph gusts at 5:10 p.m.; that according to the County meteorologist, the data indicates the leading edge of a cold front moving across the community during the wintertime; that similar data could be recorded preceding a thunderstorm during the summer; that a thunderstorm is relatively quick; however, cold fronts progress over a fairly long period of time; that additional turbulence factors also exist; that FDOT should provide the City with information regarding standard precautions for a bridge with a roadbed level of 70 to 74 feet above the water, which sustains high wind conditions for hours; that the information is necessary to enable the City to manage the bridge properly during turbulent weather conditions; that the wind speeds indicated in the document may not occur daily; however, the conditions are not a rare occurrence; and asked if the Commission agrees obtaining such information from FDOT should be pursued? Mayor Cardamone stated that hearing no objection, the Administration is directed to research effects wind speed may have on a bridge design. 17. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPOINTED GEORGIA NICHOLSON (AGENDA ITEM IX-1) #3 (0515) through (0546) city Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the recent appointment of Ernest Babb, to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency has created a vacancy on the Board of Adjustment. Commissioner Patterson nominated Georgia Nicholson for appointment. Hearing no other nominations, Mayor Cardamone announced the appointment of Georgia Nicholson to the Board of Adjustment. 18. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: CIVIL SERVICE/ GENERAL PERSONNEL BOARD - APPOINTED CAROLYN MASON (AGENDA ITEM IX-2) #3 (0548) through (0618) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the term of Clinton Jones expired in May 1996; that Mr. Jones served two full, consecutive terms and is not eligible for reappointment; that of the two applicants submitted on a previous Commission agenda, one lives outside the City limits and the other has moved outside the City limits. Commissioner Dupree nominated Carolyn Mason for appointment. Vice Mayor Pillot nominated Ron Baty for appointment. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the nominations. Carolyn Mason received four votes: Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Cardamone, yes. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that Mr. Baty, a retired Captain of the Sarasota Police Department, although he does not live in the City, was nominated as his vast experience in the Police Department would aid the Civil Service Board which is highly involved with Police matters; however, Carolyn Mason is well-known and highly respected; and requested permission to change his vote, making Carolyn Mason's nomination unanimous. Mayor Cardamone announced the appointment of Carolyn Mason to the Civil Service Board. 19. REMARKS OF COMMISBIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA: DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION. TO: PLACE COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION ON UPCOMING AGENDA; DETERMINE IF SCAT TERMINAL WILL MONOPOLIZE PARKING AT FIRST STREET AND LEMON AVENUE AND CONTACT COURTHOUSE ASSOCIATES, LTD. FOR INPUT REGARDING THE MAAS BROTHERS SITE; CONTACT KEY PACKAGING COMPANY FOR FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS REGARDING RELOCATION TO CITY-OWNED 10TH STREET PROPERTY; RETURN REPORT WITH CALCULATIONS FOR PHILLIPPI CREEK BASIN ASSESSMENTS REPORT ON POTENTIAL FOR PHYSICAL EXPANSION OF NEWTOWN RESOURCE CENTER /POLICE: INVESTIGATE RAILROAD MAINTENANCE OF 15TH STREET DITCH; REPORT ON ESTABLISHING NO-WAKE ZONE IN GOLDEN GATES POINT AREA; REPORT ON PROGRESS OF TUTTLE AVENUE AND SOUTHSIDE VILLAGE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS (AGENDA ITEM X) #3 (0620) through (1425) BOOK 40 Page 13464 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13465 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: A. stated that a City mechanism which allows the Community Housing Corporation (CHC) to exchange impact fee credits from locations other than the one at which a project is being implemented is about to expire. City Manager Sollenberger stated that a sunset provision was attached at the time of approval, limiting the ordinance to three years. Commissioner Patterson stated that the price of housing is negatively affected by impact fees; that the fees should be stabilized to encourage new and better residential housing in the City; and requested Commission support for placing an item on a future agenda to preserve the mechanism allowing the CHC to exchange impact fees from location to location until the current policy for impact fees is revised. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Commission placed the sunset feature on the ordinance to allow the organization to establish a record of performance over a three year period; that the CHC has been a successful program. Commissioner Merrill stated that renewal of the sunset feature is preferable to removing the provision entirely. Mayor Cardamone stated that hearing no objection, the Administration is authorized to draft and set for public hearing, an ordinance extending the sunset provision for the CHC to exchange impact fee credits between locations. B. requested the status of negotiations to relocate Key Packaging Company to the City-owned 10th Street property? City Manager Sollenberger stated that Earl Smith, President, Key Packaging Company, was contacted per direction received at the July 1, 1996, regular Commission meeting and offered the 10th Street property on a long-term lease basis for approximately $1 per year; that Mr. Smith has not contacted the Administration after requesting time to review the offer. Commissioner Patterson stated that Mr. Smith would be investing a substantial sum in a new plant; and asked if the Administration indicated that a 50-year lease could be made available? City Manager Sollenberger stated that a 50-year time frame may not have been discussed; however, the long-term and no-cost nature of the offer was clearly indicated to Mr. Smith; that the Administration could contact Mr. Smith again to clarify the long-term nature of the offer. Commissioner Merrill stated that a lease option, offering a no-cost, 20-year lease could be negotiated. Mayor Cardamone stated that the location of the work force should be identified. Commissioner Dupree stated that most of Key Packaging Company's employees were recognized as Sarasota residents during a recent tour of the plant. C. stated that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has allocated a $1.2 million land acquisition grant to Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) to renovate and redevelop its downtown passenger transfer facility at First Street and Lemon Avenue; that the current facility is on City-owned land for which the City has never been reimbursed; that the acre of land sought by SCAT to build the new facility will monopolize much of the parking available in the vicinity. Mayor Cardamone stated that building a multi-story parking facility is possible. Commissioner Patterson stated that the grant includes $1.5 million designated for facility construction and $1.2 million for land acquisition; that $1.2 million would fund construction of a 200-car parking garage; that the amount of parking which would be eliminated if an acre of land is withdrawn for exclusive use should be investigated. Commissioner Patterson continued that the First Street and Lemon Avenue area is prime land for future development; that SCAT has rated the former Maas Brothers parking lot as equally attractive as the First Street and Lemon Avenue site for a transit facility; and asked if Courthouse Associates, Ltd., the owners of the property, could be contacted to determine if a SCAT terminal would be beneficial or destructive to the proposed development at the former Maas Brothers site? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the issue will be researched. Mayor Cardamone stated that a discussion should be scheduled regarding the SCAT bus facility D. referred to a letter, dated July 8, 1996, from David Sollenberger, City Manager, to John Wesley White, County Administrator, which raised objection to the stormwater capital improvement assessments for 1997 being calculated for the Phillippi Creek Basin project on Equivalent Stormwater Units (ESUS) based upon comparisons of runoffs for agricultural, vacant land, and urban parcels, BOOK 40 Page 13466 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13467 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. contrary to the provisions of the Interlocal Agreement (for) Consolidation of Stormwater Management Within the City of Sarasota; that the Basin residents were assessed substantial fees last tax year; and requested a report comparing the amount currently paid by the City on an ESU basis with the amount which would have been paid by following the formula designated in the Interlocal Agreement? City Manager Sollenberger stated that a comparison will be forwarded to the Commission. COMMISSIONER DUPREE: A. stated that a letter has been received from the North County Educational Assistance Program, submitted by Bruce Franklin, President, Board of Directors, requesting the City permit physical expansion of the Resource Center/Police Sub-Station, located at 1782 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way; that a sketch attached to the letter illustrates the preliminary expansion design; and requested Commission support to authorize the Administration to meet with Mr. Franklin to determine requirements and have the request presented to the Commission. Mayor Cardamone stated that there is a consensus to authorize the Administration to meet with Mr. Franklin and to submit a Staff report addressing physical expansion of the Resource Center/Police Sub-Station, 1782 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Way. B. stated that a commitment by the railroad to cut overgrown weeds along railroad tracks has not been honored; that a call received from a resident on 15th Street east of Central Avenue addressed overgrown weeds in a ditch in the vicinity; and requested Commission support to authorize the Administration to investigate a remedy to the problem. Mayor Cardamone stated that the railroad is responsible for maintaining the track; and asked if the railroad is currently keeping the area clean? City Manager Sollenberger stated no; that the number of complaints received have motivated the City to cut the overgrown weeds and bill the railroad for reimbursement. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that a citizen at a Rotary Club meeting held at the Sahib Shrine Temple reported a ditch beside the Temple which required trimming; that the City Manager discovered the ditch to be the responsibility of the County; that David Mills, Commissioner, Sarasota Board of County Commissioners, and a Rotary Club member, was contacted and expedited the County's cutting of overgrown weeds along the ditch. City Manager Sollenberger stated that maintenance of ditches is part of the County's responsibility under the Inter-Local Agreement for drainage utilities. Commissioner Dupree stated that the railroad's apathy in maintaining tracks is a cause for concern; that the cross-ties, spikes, and rails are not replaced; that a locomotive has been witnessed swaying back and forth while proceeding down the track; that another locomotive was reported going off the track completely; that potential danger exists in the possibility of a train derailing and harming a group of children gathered to watch the train passing. VICE MAYOR PILLOT: A. stated that a subpoena was delivered to his office at City Hall several weeks ago for the trial of a former City employee scheduled for the weeks of July 22 and July 29, 1996; and asked if any other Commissioner has been subpoenaed? Mayor Cardamone, and Commissioners Dupree, Merrill, and Patterson stated no. MAYOR CARDAMONE: A. stated that a letter was received from a citizen residing on Golden Gate Point addressing jet skis operating in the vicinity of Hart's Landing; that the Commission has repeatedly discussed the accelerating jet skiing problem which is becoming a faster, wilder sport generating dangerous hazards; that a jet ski speed-limit zone has been proposed by a citizen; and requested Commission support to direct the Administration to return with a report addressing the problem. Commissioner Patterson stated that she produced photographs indicating the presence of manatees in the area to substantiate the claim that a lower speed-limit should be established. Commissioner Merrill asked if the Commission could prohibit jet skiing by declaring the area a manatee zone? City Attorney Taylor stated that the State will allow neither a manatee zone nor a local speed limit to be established as speed limits must be in accordance with State statutes. BOOK 40 Page 13468 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13469 07/15/96 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson asked if the City could implement six-mile-per-hour zones? City Attorney Taylor stated that the State will not allow the posting of a six-mile-per-hour-zone. Mayor Cardamone asked if a no-wake law regulating boat speeds could be established in the Golden Gate Point area. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City could apply for a no-wake zone; however, the geographical location must be justified to qualify as a no-wake zone. Mayor Cardamone stated that the City should be able to establish a no-wake zone as many citizens use the docks, beaches, and seawalls and children also swim in the area. Mayor Cardamone stated that there is a consensus of the Commission to request a report back from the Administration regarding establishment of a no-wake zone in the Golden Gate Point area. B. requested a report back from the Administration regarding progress of road construction on Tuttle Avenue south of Fruitville Road; and stated that several citizens have endured a full year of disruptive construction in front of their homes. C. requested a status report regarding Southside Village; and stated that no work was accomplished for a week; although large bulldozers sat idle obstructing parking. D. stated that a citizen whose car was illegally parked and consequently towed was charged a $100 redemption charge; and asked if the amount is excessive? Commissioner Merrill stated that the citizen also contacted him; that he will send a copy of the State law which regulates fees for towing and redemption of cars to the citizen. E. stated that a request has been received from the Welcome Wagon, a commercial entity, for the City to proclaim a Welcome Wagon Week; and asked the Commission's views regarding proclamations for commercial entities. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that no commercial entity made the request during his term as Mayor; that requests for commercial promotions could be endless if a proclamation is granted for one commercial entity. Commissioner Patterson stated that her name was included on a letter included in a Welcome Wagon package, welcoming new residents to the City of Sarasota; that the Mayor may wish to consider something similar. Commissioner Merrill stated that the decision is within the Mayor's discretion. 20. OTHER MATTERS (ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) #3 (1427) through (1468) CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: A. stated that a complete text of the proposed 1996 Charter is required by law for publication in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune; that the newspaper gave an estimate of $5,800 to $7,800 for an insert to be published in the edition circulated within City limits on Sunday, July 28, 1996. 21. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (1469) There being no further business, Mayor Cardamone adjourned the regular meeting of July 15, 1996, at 10:00 p.m. hulce Clscle MOLLIE C. CARDAMONE, MAYOR w1 ATTEST: A E, mo M BLLLY, E.CROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK - - BOOK 40 Page 13470 07/15/96 6:00 P.M.