BOOK 38 Page 11987 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF HE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 3, 1995, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor David Merrill, Vice Mayor Mollie Cardamone, Commissioners Delores Dry, Nora Patterson, and Gene Pillot, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor David Merrill 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. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED #1 (0000) through (0030) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Please remove under Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No. III B-1, proposed Ordinance No. 95-3865, to conditionally rezone from Residential Multi-Family (RMF-3) Zone District to Government (G) Zone District and to approve Preliminary Site and Development Plan 95-PSD-E to permit an Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) on the following described property: lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Block E, City Park Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 151, of the Public Records of Sarasota County, Florida; etc. (Petition No. 95-CO-01, Petition No. 95-PSD-E, J.H. Floyd Sunshine Manor, Inc.) B. Please remove under Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No. III B-2, Ordinance No. 95-3866, to vacate a portion of Osprey Avenue lying between 18th and 19th Streets; and the vacate a portion of 19th Street to begin at the easterly right-of-way line of Osprey Avenue and 19th Street and extending west for a distance of 167 feet M.O.L.; etc. (Petition No. 95-SV-01, J.H. Floyd Sunshine Manor, Inc.) Mayor Merrill asked if the Commission had any objections to the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Mayor Merrill stated that hearing no objections, the Changes to the Orders of the Day are approved by unanimous consent. 2. APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 19, 1995 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0030) through (0035) Mayor Merrill asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes. Mayor Merrill stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the regular City Commission meeting of June 19, 1995, are approved by unanimous consent. 3. BOARD ACTIONS: : REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING (PBLP) AGENCY'S REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 7, 1995 = REPORT ACCEPTED: AFFIRMED PETITION NO. 95-SE-08; TO AGENDA DISCUSSION RE: EXCUSED ABSENCES AND EXPANDING PBLP MEMBERSHIP TO SEVEN MEMBERS AT A FURTHER COMMISSION MEETING; ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE COPIES OF PRIOR COMMISSION MINUTES RE: ENLARGING PBLP MEMBERSHIP TO SEVEN MEMBERS (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (0036) through (0226) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Chairman Judson Boedecker, Planning Board/Local Planning (PBLP) Agency, came before the Commission. Mr. Boedecker presented the following item from the PBLP's regular meeting of June 7, 1995: A. Petition No. 95-SE-08 Mr. Boedecker stated that Special Exception Petition 95-SE-08 is a request to permit McClellan Park Private School, Grades 6, 7 and 8, to utilize three classrooms in the First Church of God located at 845 South School Avenue in a Residential Multi-Family (RMF-2) Zone District; that the McClellan Park School Board identified a need to expand their existing facilities in order to provide a middle school; that no room for expansion is available at their current location, 1700 Seminole Drive, to accommodate this need; that in searching for space which would accommodate this expansion, it was found that the existing facility located at 845 South School Avenue, occupied by the First Church of God Sunbeam Mursery/Preschool, fits their needs; therefore, the McClellan Park School Board has applied for a Special Exception to utilize three existing classrooms in the First Church of God; that the PBLP found Petition No. 95-SE-08 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommended Commission affirmation of the PBLP Resolution to permit the Special Exception, subject to the number of students being limited to 15 per class. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she always appreciates receiving the PBLP's minutes; that in this set of minutes, it was noted that a discussion was held in regard to board attendance; that she has been concerned for several months about board attendance, regardless if the absences are excused or not; that one Board member has not attended 50 percent of the meetings; that it is a handicap to the Board to have a member not attend so many meetings. BOOK 38 Page 11988 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11989 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. Mayor Merrill asked Vice Mayor Cardamone if she would like to agenda this item for another meeting for further discussion. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that board attendance was discussed at a Commission meeting a few months ago; that excused and unexcused absences were discussed; that this problem occurs with several boards, not just the PBLP. Commissioner Patterson stated that board attendance should be an agendaed item at another Commission meeting; that the Commission could determine the allowable amount of meetings which could be missed; that a board member who misses more than an allowable amount of meetings designated by the Commission, would be discharged from the board; that the County follows this type of attendance procedure. Mayor Merrill stated that if there is no objection, the City Manager is requested to agenda board attendance for a future meeting. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if enlarging the PBLP membership to seven members could also be discussed at a future meeting. Mayor Merrill stated that enlarging the PBLP was a goal set at the Goal Setting Meeting. City Manager Sollenberger asked if both items should be agendaed as one discussion. Mayor Merrill stated that would be appropriate; that a recommendation should be provided by the City Manager in regards to board attendance. Commissioner Patterson stated that she thought a decision was already made regarding the issue of enlarging the PBLP to seven members; and asked if the Commission minutes related to board enlargement could be copied for the Commissioners. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to accept the report of the regular PBLP's meeting of June 7, 1995, and affirm Petition No. 95-SE-08. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 4. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD'8 REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 13, 1995 = PETITION NOS. 95-HD-02, 95-HD-03, 95-HD-04, 95-HD-05, 95-HD-06 and 95-HD-07 SET FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #1 (0257) through (0290) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission. Ms. Robinson presented the following items from the Historic Preservation Board's special meeting of June 13, 1995: A. Petition 95-HD-05 Ms. Robinson stated that the owners of the structure located at 501-13 Kumquat Court have applied for historic designation; that the property, now known as Resurrection House, was built in the mid-1920's and is typical Mediterranean Revival/Spanish Eclectic style architecture with Mission influence; that the Historic Preservation Board recommends to the City Commission approval of Petition 95-HD-05 based on criteria (1) (d) as contained in the City of Sarasota Ordinance No. 86-3019 Section 15-14. B. Petition 95-HD-02 Ms. Robinson stated that the owner of the structure located at 963 Indian Beach Drive has applied for historic designation; that the structure is a Dutch Colonial of the Colonial Revival style constructed circa 1922; that the Historic Preservation Board recommends to the City Commission approval of Petition 95-HD-02 based on criteria (1) (d) as contained in the City of Sarasota Ordinance No. 86-3019 Section 15-14. C. Petition 95-HD-03 Ms. Robinson stated that the owners of the structures located at 1913 Datura Street have applied for historic designation; that the structures are an example of the Spanish Eclectic Style Bungalow which was the most popular style built during Sarasota's boom years in the 1920s; that the Historic Preservation Board recommends to the City Commission approval of Petition 95-HD-03 based on criteria (1) (a), (d) and (e) as contained in the City of Sarasota Ordinance No. 86-3019, Section 15-14. D. Petition 95-HD-04 Ms. Robinson stated that the owners of the structures located at 1936 Grove Street have applied for historic designation; that the structures were built in 1925 using the distinct characteristics of the Spanish Eclectic Style; that the Historic Preservation Board recommends to the City Commission approval of Petition 95- HD-04 based on criteria (1) (a), (d) and (e) as contained in the City of Sarasota Ordinance No. 86-3019 Section 15-14. E. Petition 95-HD-07 Ms. Robinson stated that the owner of the structure located at 1658 Loma Linda Street has applied for historic designation; that BOOK 38 Page 11990 07/17/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11991 07/17/95 6:00 P.M. the Craftsman Style/Shed Roof Bungalow was constructed during the Florida Land Boom of the 1920s; that the Historic Preservation Board recommends to the City Commission approval of Petition 95- HD-07 based on criteria (1) (a) as contained in the City of Sarasota Ordinance No. 86-3019 Section 15-14. F. Petition 95-HD-06 Ms. Robinson stated that the owner of the structure located at 1858 Magnolia Street has applied for historic designation; that the home was built in the 1920s and is an exemplary masonry Craftsman Style/Bungalow representative of Florida Land Boom construction; that the Historic Preservation Board recommends to the City Commission approval of Petition 95-HD-06 based on criteria (1) (a) and (d) as contained in the City of Sarasota Ordinance No. 86-3019 Section 15-14. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to set petition Nos. 95-HD-02, 95-HD-03, 95-HD-04, 95-HD-05, 95-HD-06 and 95-HD-07 for public hearings. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to set Petition Nos. 95-HD-02, 95-HD-03, 95-HD-04, 95-HD-05, 95-HD-06 and 95-HD-07 for public hearings. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 5. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEMS NO. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 APPROVED (AGENDA III) #1 (0291) through (0307) 1. Approval Re: Authorize the City Attorney to prepare and the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute an amendment to the Contract Agreement between the City of Sarasota, George Palermo Architect, Inc., and Johnson/Peterson Architects, Inc., extending for one additional year, the architectural services for miscellaneous renovations and/or interior remodeling of various city-owned buildings 2. Approval Re: Authorize additional work to be performed by sonnson/Peterson Architects, Inc., for design services relative to improvements of the Public Safety Department building 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Administration to proceed with negotiating two (2) contacts with Ringhaver, Inc., Tampa, Florida, for the replacement and reconditioning of Wastewater. Treatment Plant Generators 4. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Amendment to the License Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the 8th Street Right-of-Way over Seminole Gulf Railway 5. Approval Re: Strategy for dealing with removal of trash receptacles from front yards 6. Approval Re: Refer to Planning Board the parking of commercial and industrial vehicles in residential zone districts On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda 1, Item Nos. 1 through 6 inclusive. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 6. CONSENT AGENDA 2: ITEM NOS. 3, 4, AND 5 - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-2) #1 (0308) through (0534) 3. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3871, amending Chapter 28 of the Sarasota City Code, Sales, Article I, Garage Sales expanding the prohibition against more than two garage sales in any, calendar year to include all residential uses; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; etc. (Title Only) 4. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3874, amending the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act; adopting by reference a Small Scale Development Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designated: 95-PA-06, pertaining to real property located at 2921 Floyd Street, as more particularly described herein; stating various finding of fact concerning the preparation and adoption of the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; etc. (Title Only) 5. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3875, amending the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act; adopting by reference a Small Scale Development Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designated: 95-PA-09, pertaining to real property located at 2141 Hansen Street, 3940 School Avenue, 3931, 3933, 3939, 3943-47, and 3951 Dearborn Avenue, as more particularly described herein; stating various findings BOOK 38 Page 11992 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11993 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. of fact concerning the preparation and adoption of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; etc. (Title Only) On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda 2, Item Nos. 3 through 5 inclusive. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Merrill, yes. Mayor Merrill stated that normally the public hearing would begin at this point but it is not 6:30 p.m. which is the advertised time for public hearing; that the Commission will continue on the agenda; and asked City Auditor and Clerk Robinson if anyone is signed up to speak under Scheduled Presentations or Citizens Input? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that no one is signed up to speak under Scheduled Presentations or Citizens Input. Mayor Merrill stated that the next item on the agenda is Unfinished Business which is a discussion of constructing a library on the Mission Harbor property. Commissioner Patterson stated that this discussion should be handled at the expected time; that the people interested in speaking on this topic may not be in the audience at this time. Mayor Merrill stated that if there is no objection, the next item on the agenda will be discussed. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she objects to taking items out of order when public input is expected; that she would approve postponement of the Mission Harbor item until 6:30 p.m. Mayor Merrill stated that the next item on the agenda will not require public input; that if there is no objection, Unfinished Business Item 2 will be discussed. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she has an objection. Commissioner Pillot stated that he concurs with Vice Mayor Cardamone's reasoning on postponing items which have public input; that the library issue is a controversial issue which should not be discussed prior to the public hearings. Commissioner Patterson stated that traditionally the Commission chooses issues to discuss prior to the public hearings which are not controversial; that perhaps the City Manager could provide his report at this time. City Manager Sollenberger stated that he has nothing to report. Commissioner Pillot stated that Unfinished Business Item 2 should be discussed. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: RESOLUTION NO. 95R-823, CREATING A CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE; STATING THE PURPOSE FOR ACTIVATING SAID COMMITTEE; SPECIFYING THE SCOPE OF THE CHARTER REVIEW; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #1 (0535) through (0597) city Attorney Taylor stated that Resolution No. 95R-823 creates a Charter Review Committee to consist of 10 members appointed by the City Commission; that the purpose of the Committee shall be to review the Charter to determine whether changes will be recommended to the City Commission for placement on the November 1996 ballot. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to adopt Resolution No. 95R-823. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read Resolution No. 95R-823 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot, and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to adopt Resolution No. 95R-823. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Merrill, yes. Mayor Merrill stated that if there are no objections, the next item on the agenda, the Palm Avenue Parking Restrictions, will be discussed. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she objects to discussing the Palm Avenue Parking Restrictions item at this time; that the Palm Avenue Parking Restrictions issue has controversy to the people affected by the recommended change; that people may arrive later in the meeting who want to speak on this issue. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that someone called the office demonstrating an interest in speaking on this issue; that the person would arrive after 8:00 p.m. to speak. Mayor Merrill stated that Items 4 and 5 of Unfinished Business may have public input; therefore, if there are no objections, New Business Item 1, Auditor's Management Letter, will be discussed. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the auditor was invited to speak tonight and was advised to arrive at 9:00 p.m.; therefore, the auditor is not present at this time. BOOK 38 Page 11994 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11995 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. 8. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: 1993-94 AUDITORS I MANAGEMENT LETTER - SEE ITEM 17 (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #1 (0633) through (0955) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the annual audit conducted by the external auditors includes a management letter which summarizes the findings of the audit; that the City is required to provide a written response to the Auditor General of the State of Florida within 30 days; that he and City Auditor and Clerk Robinson will forward the Administration's response to the Auditor General in order to observe the 30-day requirement; that the majority of the external auditor's comments dealt with the operation of the Utility Office which was not unexpected since problems were noted in last year's audit; that one remediation has occurred which is the adoption of an ordinance which deals with a variety of the findings; that two other remediations will occur: 1) development of a procedure for the Utilities Billing Office; and 2) complete revamping of the Utilities Billing System. Mr. Sollenberger continued that the Administration's recommendation is to submit the written response as revised with the new pages distributed to the Commission today. Commissioner Dry stated that copies of the original audit were received two weeks ago; that she read the audit with some trepidation because of some glaring issues which she noted; that unfortunately she was not able to read Management's response to the audit until receiving the Commission Agenda book last week; that new pages to the Auditors' Management Letter were provided just this morning; that some of the audit exceptions have been noted for the past several years; that some of the responses indicate some of the exceptions have been corrected or are being corrected; that she suggests, before signing off on the audit, a workshop should be held on this issue which is so important to the City; that it appears the City is continuously losing funds in certain areas with no one addressing these issues; that the Commission owes it to the citizens of Sarasota to have a cleaner audit; that this is no reflection on any Staff, per se; that computerized data that is available should be utilized; that a manual system with no cross over to computer data is not appropriate in this day and age. Commissioner Patterson stated that she requests an explanation of the response to the auditors' finding in the section under the Public Safety Department which is indicated on page 16 of the Auditors' Management Letter; that the auditors' finding indicated that an annual audit of fixed asset inventory was not performed in accordance with established proceduresi that the response noted was to see the section under Current Year Findings and Recommendations in the Auditors' Management Letter. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the response is listed on page 4 in the Auditors' Management Letter; that the City is working on better utilization of computer data; that Gil Leacock, Director of Public Works, and the auditor could provide further input later in the meeting. Mayor Merrill stated that it is now 6:30 P.M., the scheduled time to begin Public Hearings and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and five minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has five 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 RESOLUTION NO. 95R-817, DETERMINING TO ADOPT THE NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE ST. ARMANDS PARKING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT: SPECIFYING THE UNIT OF MEASUREMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT AND THE AMOUNT OF THE ASSESSMENT; DIRECTING THAT THE MAYOR SHALL CERTIFY THE NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT ROLL TO THE TAX COLLECTOR; DIRECTING THAT THE CERTIFICATION TO THE TAX COLLECTOR SHALL SPECIFY THAT THE NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT IS TO BE COLLECTED FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR OR IS TO BE AMORTIZED OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS; DIRECTING THAT THE NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT FOR EACH PARCEL SHALL BE POSTED ON THE NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT ROLL: ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (0956) through (1140) Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that a public hearing has been set to receive written objections and hear testimony for all interested parties prior to adopting the non-ad valorem assessment for the St. Armands Parking Special Assessment District; that 80 properties are located within the St. Armands Parking Special Assessment District; that the unit of measurement for the special assessment is based on the property owners' square footage of office or retail space. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to adopt proposed Resolution No. 95R-817. Mayor Merrill opened the public hearing. Gil Waters, 1580 Hillview Street (34239), came before the Commission and stated that he is a property owner on St. Armands, and chairman of the joint committee to assist in developing this program; that he, representing himself, supports the assessment on his property; that the assessment is two thirds of what was planned BOOK 38 Page 11996 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11997 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. when the program was developed; that the City's financial assistance has been critical and beneficial. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read Resolution No. 95R-817 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to adopt Resolution No. 95R-817. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot; yes; Merrill, yes. 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3872, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ACT: ADOPTING BY REFERENCE A SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREMENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATED: 95-PA-07, PERTAINING TO REAL PROPERITY LOCATED AT 220 NORTH LOCKWOOD RIDGE ROAD, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; SAID AMENDMENT CONSISTING OF EXPANDING SUB-AREA 3 ON FUTURE LAND USE MAP #12 TO PROVIDE FOR AN ELIGIBLE ZONE DISTRICT OF OFFICE PARK (OP); STATING VARIOUS FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 95-PA-07, JOEL FREEDMAN REPRESENTING JAMES C. RUTLEDGE, PETITIONER) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (1141) through (2695) Mayor Merrill stated that this is a reopening of a public hearing; and asked City Attorney Taylor if any limitations of presentation and discussion should be noted. City Attorney Taylor stated that this is a petition to amend Future Land Use Map #12 to add an Impact Management Area (IMA) permitting a rezoning to Office Park (OP) Residential Multi-Family (RMF-4) or less intensive Zone District; that this matter was previously brought before the Commission as part of the Comprehensive Plan process; that this petition was denied on May 10, 1995, when the Commission did not adopt the ordinance which would have implemented this change to the Comprehensive Plan; that Joel Freedman, Bishop & Associates, representing the petitioner, requested an opportunity for a reopening of the public hearing on the allegation that he had been surprised by the Planning Board/Local Planning (PBLP) Agency's recommendation which was made on this particular matter at the public hearing; that on June 5, 1995, the Commission chose to reset a public hearing; that the public hearing is being reopened; that the same petition presented at the May 10, 1995, meeting will be discussed; that Mr. Freedman can present only matters in rebuttal to what the Planning Department recommended; that the public can speak only on those matters raised by Mr. Freedman in rebuttal; that this is not an opportunity for everyone to begin at step one and rehash all the issues; that this is a limited hearing. Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that James C. Rutledge, Petitioner, has indicated that his intent is to seek a vacation of Serena Street and to erect a 30,000-sguare-foot office complex on a unified parcel including both this requested IMA and the existing IMA at the northeast corner of Fruitville and Lockwood Ridge Roads; that members of the PBLP recommended that the Commission approve adding the requested IMA to Future Land Use Map #12, but to limit the eligible rezoning district to OP and not RMF-4. Joel Freedman, Bishop & Associates, 78 Sarasota Center Boulevard (34240), representing James C. Rutledge, Petitioner, for Comprehensive Plan Amendment 95-PA-07, and James C. Rutledge, came before the Commission. Mr. Freedman provided a large map of the area to the Commission and stated that he did not have the ability to rebut the Staff's recommendation at the May 10, 1995, meeting; that Staff identified problems with certain policies within the Comprehensive Plan; that he is here to respond to the problems identified by Staff; that he will present graphics which demonstrates a way to mitigate the problems the Staff had indicated; that Staff indicated a problem with Land Use Policy 1.1; that Land Use Policy 1.1 connects closely with Housing Policy 1.4; that Land Use Policy 1.1 reads as: Sufficient acreage will continue to be reserved in the general land use categories to meet the needs of the projected population upon which the Sarasota City Plan is based. Mr. Freedman stated that Land Use Policy 1.4 reads as: Rezoning from residential to non-residential zone districts shall be conditioned on the adequacy and suitability of residentially zoned acreage to meet future housing needs . Mr. Freedman stated that the proposed IMA designation impacts the potential for 10-single-family lots being created and then potentially developed; that those 10-single-family lots would be north of Serena Street; that the loss of 10 lots will not jeopardize the City from meeting its future housing needs; that 10 lots are insignificant from the overall plan and loss of these lots would not hinder the City from meeting its housing needs; that the need for developable land for offices in the City does exist; that the low vacancy rates and most recent construction across the BOOK 38 Page 11998 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 11999 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. street from this location, indicates a market for office development. Mr. Freedman continued that an important word in Housing Policy 1.4 is suitability; and asked: 1) if this land is better used for single-family residential or for offices with adequate buffers; and 2) would owners of residential homes prefer to have offices in their front or back yards? Mr. Freedman further stated that Staff indicated that Land Use Policy 2.2 should be addressed; that Land Use Policy 2.2 reads as: The land uses which are potentially incompatible either due to type or intensity of use shall be buffered from one another through the provision of open space, landscaping, berms, site design or other suitable means. Where the application of such measures cannot mitigate the incompatibility between proposed and existing uses, the proposed use shall be prohibited. Mr. Freedman stated that this issue was the one of major concern to the Staff; that a discussion was held with the City's Public Works Department regarding the requirement for a utility easement to handle a force main between Bailey and Lockwood Ridge Roads if Serena Street is vacated; that the easement would be somewhere between 15 and 20 feet in width; that the petitioner is prepared to stipulate that the utility easement, along with a landscape buffer, would be located along the north property line and would be 50-feet wide; that, if the city requires a 20-foot-utility easement, the additional buffer would be 30-feet wide; that if the City requires a 25-foot-wide easement, the additional buffer would be 25-feet wide; that two conceptual plans were devised to illustrate both the location and benefits of the proposed 50-foot easement and buffer; that these plans also point out the petitioner's original position that the existing IMA was not of sufficient depth to best utilize the property; that 250 feet in depth exist in the current IMA; that 50 feet exists on Serena Street and the lots are 110 feet; that the property across the street, south of Fruitville Road, is slightly over 300 feet in depth; that the additional 50 feet is very important; that the petitioner can take 50 feet of Serena Street right-of-way and flip it to the back of the property, which creates a great buffer and provides an ideal property to develop. Mr. Freedman displayed maps of the area on the overhead projector and stated that Fruitville Road is to the south, North Lockwood Ridge Road is to the west and Serena Street, although not developed, runs through the center of the property; that the proposed conceptual plans include three office "pads" on the property: one towards North Lockwood Ridge Road, one in the center, and one on the eastern portion of the property; that plans for preservation of the trees on the property and outfalls for stormwater retention still have to be finalized; that an alternative to the proposal is to develop the property in the same way Jolson Drive has been developed, which is 10 individual single- family homes; that Serena Street would have to be built and would be connected to Beethoven Avenue if homes are built on the property; that in this event, the neighborhood to the north, which everyone is interested in preserving, would have a new access point via Serena Street. Mr. Freedman continued that another consideration is that access must be provided to the parcel at the east end of the property; that if the property is developed as proposed, access can be provided off North Lockwood Ridge Road which is the best scenario, off Fruitville Road which the Engineering Department probably would not like, or off a residential street (Jolson Drive and Beethoven Avenue) which the Planning Staff would not like; that he has located the access on North Lockwood Ridge Road at the minimum 150- foot distance from the intersection at Jolson Drive as required by the Engineering Department; that the 50-foot easement and buffer would be to the north of the property; that the drainage and retention would be placed at the back of the property; that another benefit is that the minister of the church located next door indicated the church would like to share in the use of the parking for their special events when it is not being used; that parking could be accessed through the same main access point from Fruitville Road. Mr. Freedman stated that it is interesting that the parcel across the street now being developed, just over 300 feet in depth, does make a difference as far as circulation, parking lot layouts, etc., are constructed; that Staff also commented on Transportation Policy 1.6 which reads as: The approval of deyelopment orders shall be subject to the availability of adequate levels of service (LOS) on impacted roads as defined by the policies of the Capital Improvements Element (CIE). Mr. Freedman stated that according to previous Comprehensive Plan Amendments, approval of an IMA is not a development order; that the petitioner will be required to undergo further concurrency analysis for the. conditional rezoning and Preliminary Site & Development (PS&D) review processes; that at the expense of the petitioner, a traffic ànalysis was conducted under the City's guidance, for this Comprehensive Plan Amendment; that the results of the traffic study demonstrate that this proposal has no negative impact on the affected roads' LOS, all of which are operating at or above the adopted LOS; that Staff had concerns regarding Transportation Objective 5 which indicates: BOOK 38 Page 12000 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12001 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. to continue to minimize the impact of the transportation system on residential neighborhoods . Mr. Freedman stated that the proposal does not impact the transportation system of the residential neighborhoods; that the current situation, assuming development of Serena Street occurs, would impact the existing neighborhoods by connecting Serena Street with Beethoven Avenue; that Staff also had concerns regarding Land Use Policy 1.3 which indicates: Petitions for rezoning shall be evaluated by the PBLP for. consistency with the Sarasota City Plan, including: all development or redevelopment or changes in zoning or IMA designation shall be evaluated with a view toward preservation of both the viability of and quality of life in existing neighborhoods. Mr. Freedman stated that the key words in Land Use Policy 1.3 are that the proposals should be viewed toward preservation of both the viability of and quality of life in existing neighborhoods; that noted in the Staff Analysis prepared for the PBLP on April 19, 1995, is: If a change were to occur in land use, an OP Zone District designation, but not Multi-Family Zone District designation, for this site has neighborhood support and is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies, provided that adequate buffers are provided and that Serena Street is vacated. Mr. Freedman stated that the proposal will not negatively impact the existing neighborhood and is consistent with the Sarasota City Plan. Commissioner Patterson stated that the buffer is 50-feet wide and the retention area is not located on that buffer; and asked if that is part of Mr. Freedman's stipulation? Mr. Freedman stated that is correct. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the following are made part of the record: 1. The following codes of the City of Sarasota are made part of the record: Zoning Code of the City of Sarasota; Sarasota City Code; Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sarasota (also known as the 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. 2. All documents made a part of the record of the April 19, 1995, PBLP meeting, as well as the minutes of that meeting. 3. All documents made a part of the record at the May 10, 1995, City Commission meeting, as well as the minutes and videotape of that meeting. Mayor Merrill reopened the public hearing. Ernest W. Babb, 1886 Bahia Vista Street (34239), came before the Commission and stated that this petition and its enabling ordinance was heard on May 10, 1995, and the Commission denied the petition; that the petitioner requested during Citizen's Input on June 5, 1955, that the petition be reheard; that the sole basis of the petitioner's request was that after the public hearing was closed, the PBLP's Staff presented opinions on the merits of the petition; that Staff presented specific reasons for their conclusions; that the petitioner alleges that Staff does not submit opinions during Comprehensive Plan Amendments, which is not true; that Staff and Administration do speak to Comprehensive Plan Amendments; that the Commission voted on June 5, 1995, to rehear the petition; that no motion to rescind the denial motion on the petition was forthcoming; that Robert's Rules of Order, Section 36, states a motion to reconsider is time limited and must occur on the same day the vote is taken; that the motion to rehear without prior notice to the public denied the public to protest the reopening of this issue; that a new ordinance was drafted for the rehearing and differs in form and substance to the initial ordinance; that the new ordinance is proceeding under Florida Statute 163.3187, 1994 supplement, and yet is applying modifications which were enacted in 1995; that if this were just a rehearing of the original petition, it should have proceeded under the laws that were under effect at the time it was heard; that the fact that the Administration is considering this under a new ordinance, and under Florida Statute revision for 1995, that this is, in fact, a new hearing of the petition which was denied; that the changed Statute will not allow the property to be considered, because the new use does not involve residential property; that the Florida legislature modified 163.3187 1C, which was signed on June 15, 1995, and states: a Small Scale Development Activity (SSDA) Amendment may be adopted only under the following condition: the proposed amendment involves residential land use of 10 acres or fewer with a density of 10 units per acre or less, singularly or in combination with any other land use category, not to exceed 10 acres in total; that the BOOK 38 Page 12002 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12003 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. proposed amendment does not involve the same property more than once per year. Mr. Babb stated that this property does not qualify under either of these provisions; that the new ordinance, in its fifth whereas, states that the Commission did not approve the adoption of the petition on May 10, 1995; that by any definition, this will be a second hearing and with a modified ordinance; that rehearing the petition is contrary to the City Commission's procedures under Robert's Rules of Order concerning the rehearing of decided motions; that the PBLP Staff does make recommendations regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendments; that the petitioner's claim of lack of due process is unfounded; that the public was not aware that the Commission would entertain a rehearing request and was not able to speak; that the petition does not qualify to proceed as a small- scale development; that the petition is being reheard in contradiction to Florida Statutes; that the petition did not come forward as the result of an approving sector study in which the public participated thus violating the City Comprehensive Plan; that the petitioner should provide a sector study which confirms that the area is amenable to the use desired, before continuing; that the petitioner must request a regular Comprehensive Plan Amendment, not a small-scale development activity; therefore, these proceedings are not in accordance with Florida law and the petition should be denied as was correctly done at the previous hearing. Mayor Merrill asked City Auditor and Clerk Robinson if the Commission violated Robert's Rules of Order by not reconsidering the motion? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a reconsideration would be made at the same meeting or the following day; that the reconsideration would be made by someone on the prevailing side; that the motion to pass on first reading failed; that at that meeting, no one moved to reconsider the vote; therefore, the ordinance was not adopted; that there was nothing to rescind at a later meeting because the Commission would have to rescind a motion that had been previously adopted. Mayor Merrill stated that Robert's Rules of Order was not violated; therefore, any action could be taken tonight. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission received a written communication from Mr. Babb which put forth his technical arguments which he explained earlier. city Attorney Taylor distributed copies of a written response directed to Mr. Babb and stated that the letter indicates, in summary, that he hears and understands all of the points Mr. Babb is raising; that he does not agree with Mr. Babb's conclusions; that he does not agree with Mr. Babb's comment that this proceeding was prohibited by recent legislation; that several bills were passed by the 1995 legislature pertaining to Comprehensive Plan Amendments; that one of the bills passed is Senate Bill 1659, which Mr. Babb was reading from; however, that Bill was also amended to strike out any provisions in it in which Mr.. Babb's was citing as being conclusive that this property could not proceed unless it remained a residential development; that the law changed twice during the 1995 legislative session; that there is no impediment to proceeding without any residential use within it; that he is not advocating this petition, but only clarifying that the Commission is not in error in proceeding with a rehearing; that at the close of the public hearing, the Commission may: 1. Determine, based on all the facts presented, that proposed Ordinance No. 95-3872 should not be adopted in which case the Commission may follow one of two options: a) Simply take no action; or b) Make a motion to deny the ordinance and pass the motion by majority vote. 2. Determine, based on all the facts presented, that proposed Ordinance No. 95-3872 should be adopted in which case a motion to adopt would be offered for a second. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning (PBLP) Agency Director has informed him that Mr. Freedman's rebuttal satisfactorily addresses the objections that the Planning Staff had previously made when making a recommendation to deny; therefore, the Administration recommends proposed Ordinance No. 95-3872 be approved. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Merrill closed the reopened public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3872 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to pass on first reading proposed Ordinance No. 95-3872. Commissioner Dry stated that the Commission is called upon to make serious décisions at a moment's notice; that in view of all the information Mr. Babb shared with the Commission, and the fact that the Commission just received City Attorney Taylor's memorandum, the Commission has not had time to digest all this new information; and asked if this item is somewhat different from what was previously denied? City Attorney Taylor stated that the rebuttal presentation explains the change about the enhanced buffering which is part of what has BOOK 38 Page 12004 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12005 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. been proffered tonight and was not in the original proposed ordinance; that Petition No. 95-PA-07 is not a new petition; that it is not starting the process all over again; that this is just a continuation of that same petition; that the memorandum to Mr. Babb did not have to be prepared and distributed tonight; that he could have handled each matter one by one as legal counsel; that he provided a written memorandum for the record in case of an appeal. Commissioner Dry stated that she appreciates that the information is in writing. Mayor Merrill stated that he has personal knowledge from neighbors in that area that they support this particular project; that these neighbors believe an OP Zone District on this property will better the neighborhood. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked City Attorney Taylor what specifically is different in the proposed ordinance? City Attorney Taylor stated that the prefacing (whereas) Clauses have substantially changed because the facts and circumstances have developed differently with this having come back to the Commission as a reopening of a public hearing; that a strike out of the effective date was made; that in terms of anything being changed as to what will be built on the property, the intensity of development, any of those things regarding on-land use, did not change. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that this is a procedural mess; that she is embarrassed that the Commission has gotten involved in this type of issue; that she has never seen a Commission have to wrestle with a rehearing after a denial; that she cast her vote opposing this petition because of the recommendations of Staff; that no neighborhood opposition has been heard or was presented to the Commission. Commissioner Pillot stated that as City Attorney Taylor indicated, an oral review could have been provided instead of the written memorandum to Mr. Babb; that he appreciates receiving a copy of this memorandum; that City Attorney Taylor's oral review of the letter was succinct; that the memorandum succinctly states that the Commission has the choice to take no action, make a motion to deny the proposed ordinance, and pass the motion by majority vote or approve the proposed ordinance on first reading; that he agrees with Commissioner Dry's concerns, but he believes succinct, clear and to the point recommendations from City Attorney Taylor and Mr. Sollenberger were provided; that he supports the motion on the table. Mayor Merrill restated the motion as it was moved to pass on first reading proposed Ordinance No. 95-3872. Mayor Merrill requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (4 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Dry, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 11. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS - ADMINISTRATION TO ADVISE MR. GOLDING ON THE SPECIFICS OF CODE ENFORCEMENT IN HIS NEIGHBORHOOD ADMINISTRATION TO ADVISE MR. GOLDING AS TO WHO PAID FOR POLICE ENFORCEMENT AT THE GRAND PRIX BOAT RACE ON JULY 1, 1995; ADMINISTRATION TO REPORT STATUS OF THESE ISSUES TO THE COMMISSION (AGENDA ITEM VI) #1 (2696) through (3035) Charles Golding, 736 North Jefferson Avenue (34237), came before the Commission and stated that he lives near the area of Fruitville Road, Sixth Street, Lime and Tuttle Avenues; that for the last year he has requested the Code Enforcement Department to rid the area of trash and overgrowth problems; that he wrote to Commissioner Patterson three or four times when she was Mayor; that he received replies from Commissioner Patterson indicating the work would be done, yet only a slight improvement was made after one of the letters was sent; that a street sweeper swept the street, but has not returned after two and a half months; that the three or four acre lot on the northeast corner of Lime Avenue and Aspinwall Street has not been cut in over a. year; that people are throwing trash on city right-of-way (ROW) along Aspinwall Street between Lime and North Jefferson Avenues; that the Colonial Village Shopping Center is one of the worse offenders; that cartons and papers were left behind stores to blow around the neighborhood; that Main Street does not have trash lying about since it is the showcase of the City; that his neighborhood has been declining for the last year and a half; that Fruitville Road between U.S. 41 and Beneva Road is a mess with trash; that he brought a large parcel of trash in this area to Commissioner Patterson's attention when she was Mayor and that parcel was cleaned up. Mr. Golding continued that the neighborhood has a policing problem; that Jefferson Pines Condominiums has had four car break-ins and one car stolen in the last two weeks; that he has not seen a patrol car pass through the neighborhood for the last 30 days; that during the Grand Prix Boat Race on July 1, 1995, St. Armands Circle and the beach were crowded with police; that the Grand Prix Boat Race is a private organization and he would like to know who paid for the police patrolling during the boat races. Mayor Merrill asked Mr. Sollenberger to advise Mr. Golding on the specifics of Code Enforcement in his neighborhood; that Mr. Golding should be advised as to who paid for police enforcement at the Grand Prix Boat Race on July 1, 1995. Commissioner Dry left the Commission Chambers at 7:19 p.m. BOOK 38 Page 12006 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12007 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson stated that all the letters Mr. Golding directed to her were received and referred to the Administration; that she is sure the Administration will meet with Mr. Golding to discuss this matter further. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked for a report back from Administration on the update of this matter at a future Commission meeting. 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: RECISION RE: RESOLUTION NO. 94R-716, ENCOURAGING THE COUNTY TO MAKE THE MISSION HARBOR PROPERTY AVAILABLE FOR POTENTIAL RETAIL DEVELOPMENT AND OFFERING THE CITY-OWNED LEMON AVENUE PARKING LOT AS A LIBRARY SITE CONDITIONED UPON THE COUNTY'S PROVIDING REPLACEMENT PARKING IN A PARKING STRUCTURE; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - RESOLUTION NO. 94R-716 AMENDED; ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE VISION PLAN TO THE COMMISSION (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #1 (3035) through #3 (0658) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the County Commission has asked the City's current position on the use of the Mission Harbor property for the downtown library location; that the letter from County Administrator John White, dated May 26, 1995, indicated the County has formally determined to pursue a two-library strategy in lieu of the single large library envisioned when the Mission Harbor property was purchased; that the Mission Harbor property was considerably larger than required for building a library, even with the single library concept; that a portion of the Mission Harbor property would be available for other purposes even if a two- library building is constructed; that he understands that progress with negotiations between restaurant and property owners adjacent to the Selby Five Points Park property have occurred; that the City should request another 30 days from the County Commission for the opportunity for negotiations to be completed; that the Mission Harbor property should be used for commercial use only without a library or entertain a split-use with commercial use and a library; that the City has supported a library in the downtown area; that in 1987 a joint study between the City and County was made; that the Commission offered the Lemon Avenue site to the County; that the site was not favorably received by the County; that the City Commission also offered to the County a location at the former Maas Brothers site; that the City may consider the Mission Harbor property if the Five Points Park site is not available for a library; that if the City totally dismisses the use of the Mission Harbor property, the chances for locating a library in the downtown area are seriously jeopardized; that the downtown area is amenable because of the central location; that the location may not be geographically located but is definitely centrally located to activity within the City which is a strong reason to retain the library in the downtown area; that the Administration's recommendation is to allow 30 days for further negotiations; that if negotiations do not work out, the City should consider a split use on the Mission Harbor property. Commissioner Dry returned to the Commission Chambers at 7:22 p.m. The following people came before the Commission: Harriet Oxman, 888 Boulevard of the Arts (34236), representing The Friends of Selby Library, stated that she is the President of The Friends of Selby Library; that The Friends of Selby Library has a membership of over 1,000 members; that The Friends of Selby Library support the compromise offered by four of the five members of the County Commission and in turn supported by the Library Advisory Board; that this compromise would place the new library for the City on one half of the Mission Harbor property leaving the other half for commercial development; that The Friends of Selby Library see no reason why all the City Commissioners would not opt for this compromise, but statements made to the press give little optimism that the City Commission will vote for the compromise this evening; that two points are obvious but bear repeating, if only for the benefit of the taxpayers: 1. There has been no viable offer made on the Mission Harbor property from any commercial developer for almost a year and a half; that this is not because offers have not been solicited; that it is because no one is interested in the property; that Saks chose to move into the Southgate Shopping Center; that Barnes and Noble will move into the Snelling Plaza; that Cobbs plans to build a theater complex on Ringling Boulevard near U.S. 301; that yet another developer plans to build at Fruitville Road and Interstate-75. 2. The taxpayers are clearly furious over the delay; that calls to her office, as well as letters to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, indicate that citizens want the bickering to stop and a library built. Ms. Oxman stated that the choice the citizens have is not the rosy scenario painted by the City; that another form of development will occur on the Mission Harbor property if a library is not built; that if history is any guide, the choice is either a library on the Mission Harbor property or a vacant lot; that if the City Commission votes against rescinding the resolution, the taxpayers should understand that the reason for further delay in the construction of the library is not the County Commission, not the Library Advisory Board, and certainly not The. Friends of Selby Library; that the reason for further delay will be clearly the sole responsibility of the City Commission. BOOK 38 Page 12008 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12009 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. Paul N. Thorpe, 47 South Palm Avenue (34236), representing the Downtown Association, stated that for the past several weeks the Downtown Association has met with groups of people involved in developing the Mission Harbor property as well as with the Five Points Park property owners; that some of the interested restaurant owners are in the audience tonight; that discussions with the restaurant owners included the issue of compromise with the County, the City and possibly Riscorp; that the restaurant owners are agreeable to making compromises; that choosing a library site has been in the works for nearly five years; that if the opportunity still exists to locate the library at the Five Points Park property, which has been noted several times in the City's Comprehensive Plan and authorized by the City Commission, it should be done; that the City asked the County Commission for use of the Mission Harbor property for economic development; that offers for developing the Mission Harbor property have been made; that the Publix Super Markets, Inc., is interested, as well as other companies, in the Mission Harbor property; that representatives from Publix Super Markets, Inc., have written letters to the city Commission indicating their interest in the Mission Harbor property; that talk does not just include a new library, but the talk includes the vision of the City; that after 36 public meetings involving over 600 people who actively participated, the City presented the Vision Plan Sarasota 2040 - the City of Your Dreams; that this citizen-inspired effort took over three years to design; that the citizens who helped create this blueprint, encourage the Commission to respect the wishes of this diverse group of citizens who worked very hard to make this vision a reality; that the Vision Plan is a plan document to serve as a guide to the redevelopment of the City; that the County seat is encouraged to take the major step to share in the vision of the people; that the Downtown Association encourages the City Commission to support, the Rosemary District, which is the designated area for economic development in the City of Sarasota; that the Mission Harbor property should be utilized for increased opportunities for economic growth which will benefit the County, the City and the School Districts; that the Downtown Association urges the City Commission to endorse having the main library be built at Five Points Park and to continue on with the three-party agreement as originally conceived; that the 2040 Vision Plan was endorsed by the City of Sarasota Planning and Development Department, the Downtown Association of Sarasota, the Gateway 2000 Advisory Board, the Ringling School of Art and Design, the North Trail Business Association, the University of South Florida New College, Sarasota County Chamber of Commerce, the Sarasota North Advisory Group (S.N.A.G.), the Sarasota County Arts Council, the Sarasota Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Newtown Area Business Association, the Sarasota Airport Advisory Board, the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association, the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association, the Gulf Coast Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, the Rosemary District Task Team, and the Artist Foundation of Sarasota; that this is an outstanding representation of the community of both neighborhoods and business organizations; that all these citizens are requesting that the city Commission follow what was designated in the 2040 Vision Plan. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked for further comment regarding discussions held with the restaurant and property owners adjacent to the Selby Five Points Park property. Mr. Thorpe stated that the Downtown Association has met with restaurant owners; that the owners are agreeable to negotiating the sale of their property. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the negotiating could be completed within the next 30 days? Mr. Thorpe responded yes; that the library will not be built within the next 30 days; therefore, since the opportunity is available to purchase the restaurant property, the City should allow the 30 days in order to see what occurs; that the Five Points Park location is amenable to a library since the park is pedestrian friendly, close to transportation, and in the heart of the business community; that no area is a more prime location for the library than the Five Points Park property. Commissioner Patterson stated that Mr. Thorpe is asking the City Commission to support a nebulous occurrence; that Mr. Thorpe is indicating the City Commission should support the library's location to be at the Five Points Park property without knowing how much parking will be available; that parking has been a bigger concern to most citizens, rather than the economic growth to the area; that parking should be a concern to all citizens; that who will pay for what is also a concern; that six-weeks ago the City Commission was asked by the County Commission to provide a response to supporting a library at the Mission Harbor property; that the other option on the County Commission's table is whether to renovate Selby Library or not; that she did not hear any answers to these business details during the last six weeks; and asked if concrete, instead of conceptual details, would be provided to the Commission if a 30-day extension were granted? Mr. Thorpe responded yes; that each group of people is only hearing bits and pieces of the whole issue since the City. Commission; the County Commission, Riscorp and the restaurant owners have. never met together to discuss this issue; that the original library concept included a 100,000-square-toot building with surface parking for 400 cars; that the County Commission has reduced the original library concept by half; that the planned library is now to be a 0,000-square-foot building with much less parking; that economically the City will not have an answer until negotiations with the restaurant owners are held. BOOK 38 Page 12010 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12011 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. Sue Holt, 716 Forestview Drive (34232), representing the Genealogical Society, stated that the Genealogical Society has over 300 members; that the Genealogical Room is located in the Selby Library; that the members unanimously voted for a library to be constructed on the Mission Harbor property; that she urges the City Commission to consider the Genealogical Society's opinion when casting their vote on this issue. Linda Holland, 617 Gillespie Avenue (34236), representing herself, the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association (GPNA) and the Downtown Association, stated that she is the president of the GPNA and a board member of the Downtown Association; that she attended all the Vision Plan meetings; that the GPNA supported the 2040 Vision Plan; that she observed and participated in discussions regarding the use of the Mission Harbor property; that she agrees with the Downtown Association's concern that the Mission Harbor property should be used for economic development which is critical for the GPNA neighborhood; that it is difficult for a neighborhood to get a "jump start" without an impetus to get it going; therefore, the use of the Mission Harbor property for economic development would certainly help that neighborhood; that she has been involved in downtown development; that Sarasota is very highly regarded because of its attractive and lively downtown; that Sarasota is envied by many cities wishing for the success Sarasota has had in revitalization efforts; that the achievements made so far must be sustained; that the momentum of revitalization must continue; that economic development of the Mission Harbor property and the redevelopment of the Five Points Park property could go a long way in keeping the revitalization going, particularly for the northern quadrant of the City; that she is a long-time advocate of improving the north side of the City; that the City must give serious consideration in taking advantage of an opportunity with the development of the Five Points Park property as a catalyst for the Central Avenue development which is critical; that she sat on the Sarasota Redevelopment Advisory Board in the late 1980s; that there was no guarantee then and there is no guarantee now; that decisions made at that time proved to be very good; that decisions made then have given Sarasota the downtown it has today; that the City must move forward on the library issue; that the City Commission should utilize the Mission Harbor property for economic development and give the Five Points Park property an opportunity to finalize. Dan Lobeck, 450 South Shade Avenue (34237) representing himself and the Growth-restraint and Environmental Organization (GEO), stated that he is a citizen and resident of the City not far from the downtown; that this is an opportunity for a landmark library to be located within the Cityi that the opportunity may be lost if the moment is not seized; that the offer made by the County Commissioners to place this landmark library on the Mission Harbor property should be accepted; that problems with the Five Points Park property have been numerous, well-aired and have not gone awayi that the main problem with the Five Points Park property is inadequate parking; that examining the demands on the current parking situation illustrates the parking problem will not go away; that additional delay may cause the County Commission to revert to its most recent position which is to remodel the Selby Library to meet the short-term needs of City residents; that the County Commission may place the primary emphasis on library construction in the unincorporated area of the County; therefore, the County may be one of only two counties in the entire United Stated that does not have its landmark library in the County seat; that the Mission Harbor property is an ideal location for the library; that the area is not economically viable at this time, but the library would help bring people to that area of town; that having the library as well as other development on the Mission Harbor property is the best of both worlds; that the property would include both commercial and public development; that the citizens have not requested a mega- mall built on the Mission Harbor property; that the people requesting commercial development are those people who will benefit from commercial development; that if a mega-mall was planned for development on the Mission Harbor property, he believes the citizens would protest because of concurrency and traffic problems; that segments of U.S. 41 and other surrounding roads are operating at a level of service (LOS) F through the entire affected stretch of roadway; that LOS F is the lowest rating possible, yet the LOS would be further hindered if a mall were built on the Mission Harbor property; that a grocery store would be amenable on half of the Mission Harbor propertyi that having a grocery store and library on the Mission Harbor property would revitalize the City's urban cores as opposed to the principal of urban sprawl; that allowing 30 more days for discussion is one more delay and one more chance to lose the opportunity to build a library on the Mission Harbor property; that he urges the Commission not to abandon this opportunity to further confusion and delay. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she is unaware that the County Commission has made a firm commitment for 50 percent of the Mission Harbor property; and asked Staff to comment on this. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he does not think the County Commission has made any commitments whatsoever; that the County Commission is simply asking the City Commission for its position regarding the Mission Harbor propertyi that he does not think the County Commission has decided to construct a library on the Mission Harbor property or renovate the Selby Library. Commissioner Dry stated that the May 23, 1995, County Commission minutes indicate that a 4 to 1 vote was taken on constructing two libraries within the County; that the motion was moved by County Commissioner Richards; that the motion stated that Staff be directed to contact the City Manager and inform him that the County Commission has determined to build a significant library to serve BOOK 38 Page 12012 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12013 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. the needs of the City of Sarasota; that the County Commission would like for the City Commission to determine whether or not they would object to building that library on a proportionate or appropriate portion of the Mission Harbor property, but leaving the remainder of the property available for tax-paying development. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that comments regarding 50 percent of the property being used for the library are not true. Commissioner Dry stated that is correct; that the City does not know exactly how much property will be used for the library. Barbara Cherry, 1701 North Tamiami Trail_(34234) representing the North Trail Association (NTA), stated that the NTA has consistently supported the preservation of the Mission Harbor property for commercial development; that lost opportunities have occurred by Barnes and Noble moving to the Snelling Plaza, and Saks locating to the Southgate Shopping Center; that as a business person, it is impossible to negotiate with something that is in such a tangle between the City and the County; that the Mission Harbor property could be so valuable to the entire north side of the City; therefore, the library should be placed elsewhere if a location is available; that the NTA recommends using the Mission Harbor property for economic development. The City Commission recessed at 7:54 p.m. and reconvened at 8:00 p.m. Drayton Saunders, 1807 Main Street (34236), representing Michael Saunders, Michael Saunders & Co., stated that he will read a letter submitted by his mother, Michael Saunders; that the letter states: as a business owner with a vital interest in the success of downtown Sarasota, and a student of the trends of cities nationally, is incredulous that the City Commission is even considering the Mission Harbor property for the library; that the natural and logical site for the library is the Five Points Park property which is the heart of downtown Sarasota; that the Five Points Park property is consistent with the City Vision Plan and all of the city Commission's prior actions; that a library at the Five Points Park property will create a lightening rod for downtown activity; that utilizing the Mission Harbor property for economic development would enhance the tax base of the City; that successful cities grow from the heart out not the perimeter in; that downtown vitality is synonymous with people; that every successful downtown in America has a thriving pedestrian orientation; that 1,000 people per day who presently use the library could become 1,000 potential daily purchasers of goods and services, thereby enhancing the business activity of existing merchants and creating a demand for additional shops; that locating the library at the Five Points property, the redevelopment of the Riscorp parcels will move forward which, combined with the library, will be a handsome anchor to Main Street; that the synergism created by this will trigger a strong demand for retail and will retain and increase the downtown employment base; that communities all over America are struggling with downtown redevelopment; that redevelopment is a difficult task and requires the commitment from many sources, both public and private; that others will not make a commitment to the downtown if the City Commission does not take a strong proactive stand at this critical moment in Sarasota's growth; that no one will believe there is any commitment on the part of the leadership of the City if the City Commission allows the library to be located on the perimeter instead of the heart of the Cityi that the city Commission should vote to construct the library at the Five Points Park property since it could be a long time before the City Commission again has the opportunity to advance the growth of downtown Sarasota in such a proactive, positive manner; that elected officials all over America are searching for ways to stop the decline and revitalize their downtowns; that most cities have limited alternatives; that the City Commission has an incredible opportunity at this time; that the City Commission should not squander this opportunity. Mary Quillin, 407 Cocoanut Avenue (34236), stated that she is past- president of the Downtown North Neighborhood Association (DNNA) i that she is currently the coordinator for the Downtown North Neighborhood Watch and is on the DNNA Board; that the DNNA is very familiar with this subject; that the DNNA has seen thousands and thousands of signatures and letters from citizens throughout the County supporting having the library built on the Mission Harbor property; that County Commissioners have asked their staff to learn how the City Commission feels about receiving only "half a loaf of bread"; that the other half of the loaf will go to tax-producing development; that her neighborhood embraces the possibility of a public/private partnership being built on the Mission Harbor property; that this partnership would include the library as well as tax-producing development; that development on the Mission Harbor property will be a spark and a hope for the desperately needed redevelopment for the downtown north; that the citizens of the downtown north neighborhood have worked hard in cleaning up crime, yet much more work is needed; that this proposed partnership is viable, it is not "pie in the sky", it is not a mega-mall, but it is real planning; that the possibility of this proposed partnership is exciting; that the library, whether 50,000-square feet or 100,000-square feet, with the parking, requires five acres of land; that the other development requires four and one half acres of land; that the Mission Harbor property is just the size needed for a commercial development and a library; that, over a year ago, she had requested that: 1) the City Commission rescind Resolution No. 94R-716; 2) direct the Administration to mend burned bridges with the Library Advisory Board; and 3) cooperation within her neighborhood for the redevelopment on the north side of the City should occur; that she again requests these three items of the BOOK 38 Page 12014 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12015 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. City Commission; that the city should not wait another 30 days to make a decision; that the City should support the County Commission's decision to give the City a "half a loaf of bread"; that the City should then work and strive to develop one of the finest libraries that the City can afford with an eye to the future; that the City will finally be in the 21st Century with the technology needed for the business community and the citizens of this fine City; that "half a loaf of bread" is better than none. Roy C. Smith, 5149 Boca Raton Avenue (34234), representing Sarasota North Advisory Group (S.N.A.G.), stated that this issue has been discussed several times before; that this is the third discussion about placing the library on the Five Points Park property; that several businesses have chosen to locate to other areas of the City because of feet dragging and not business-type negotiations in deciding how to utilize the Mission Harbor property; that he would like to see the City do what Mr. Thorpe has been doing all week which is meeting with the owners and talking to them; that he recommends negotiations be held with the developers interested in the Mission Harbor property; that the final decision will probably be that the library will be built at the Five Points Park property which was voted on and passed by both the City and County Commissions; that as a past member of the Sarasota Redevelopment Advisory Board, he recommends a board of this nature be utilized when making redevelopment decisions; that he would be happy to serve on a board such as the Sarasota Redevelopment Advisory Board; that 90 acres of undeveloped land exists north of town; that this land is not doing the City any good while it is undeveloped; that the land must be sold and developed; that only two commercial properties have been sold in the north end of town during the last two years; that S.N.A.G. recommends that the Mission Harbor property be utilized for commercial development, not for the library site. Jorge Tanieloff, 5348 Siesta Court (34242), stated that the library should be built on the Five Points Park propertyi that someone mentioned that the Mission Harbor property would provide only a "half a loaf of bread"; that the City will receive the "full loaf of bread" with the Five Points Park property; that having the library on the Five Points Park property would be an incredible asset and the beginning of a wonderful asset for this City; that the downtown needs something else and that something else should be the library. Debra Garrett, 1800 Second Street (34236), representing Publix Super Markets, Inc., stated that she owns Park West Realty; that Publix Super Markets, Inc., representatives have written several letters to the City Commission; that Publix Super Markets, Inc., representatives are interested in locating a new Publix Super Market on approximately four and one half acres of the Mission Harbor property; that the library would be built on the other portion of the Mission Harbor propertyi that Publix Super Markets, Inc., representatives believe a Publix Super Market and a library would have an impact on the area; that Publix Super Markets, Inc., representatives are active in the community; that having a Publix Super Market and a library on one site is a family affair; that the proposed building would be a free-standing Publix Super Market; that the library would have plenty of land to build upon along with room for future expansion; that the - Publix Super Markets, Inc., representatives are not interested in obtaining the entire Mission Harbor property, although the letters were written to the city Commission in that manner; that flexibility with the architectural design of Publix Super Markets is available; that Publix Super Markets, Inc., representatives believe a Publix Super Market would help clean up the area; that she and Publix Super Markets, Inc., representatives hope the City Commission will vote to place the library on the Mission Harbor property; that the Publix Super Markets, Inc., representatives, and thé City and County Commissions could work out a joint plan to utilize the adjacent land for a new Publix Super Market. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she was the recipient of a letter from Bill Curry, Vice President of Real Estate, Publix Super Markets, Inc.; that the letter indicated a desire by Publix Super Markets, Inc., to evaluate the Mission Harbor property; and asked if Ms. Garrett is a realtor representing the interest of Publix Super Markets, Inc., in this property? Ms. Garrett stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the land requirements necessary for a Publix Super Market is not addressed in the facsimile she received. Ms. Garrett stated that is correct; that her letters were kept "open" initially because of an interest of not going public; that she is here tonight to explain the plans the Publix Super Markets, Inc., representatives have in mind. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if a letter is available stipulating that the Publix Super Markets, Inc., representatives are only interested in four acres of land and building a free-standing store? Ms. Garrett stated that it will take four and one half acres to build a prototype of the Publix Super Market; that she could provide the Commission with a letter indicating the Publix Super Market, Inc., representatives are only interested in four and one half acres of land and building a free-standing store; that she has been working with the Publix Super Market, Inc., representatives as a tenant representative for eight years; that she locates sites for her tenants; that she would be happy to provide any letters in BOOK 38 Page 12016 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12017 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. writing from the Publix Super Market, Inc., representatives stating exactly what they are requesting. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that this conversation certainly lays to rest the idea that no offers exist for this property. Robert Levy, 1391 Sixth Street (34236), stated that he is a businessman, an investor and a small developer; that he was excited to hear about the interest in building a Publix Super Market in this area of town; that he was foolheartedly willing to see the entire Mission Harbor property available for economic development; that he also understands that many people would be happy to see the library placed at the Five Points Park property; that after months of foot dragging, the County Commission has returned to the ideà of building the library on the Mission Harbor property; that long discussions and negotiations with property owners were held regarding the Five Points Park property; that one restaurant owner indicated that it would help business having more people in the downtown area; that having the library in the downtown area would draw people to restaurants and shopping; that he supports further negotiations to discuss building the library at the Five Points Park property; however, foot dragging is damaging; that no more than 30 days should be given to complete negotiations with the owners of the Mission Harbor property; that seven or more months ago he believed a Publix Super Market and a library at the Mission Harbor property was a good idea; that a super market will not create additional traffic to the area; that on the contrary, people in this area must travel for miles to reach a super market; that the people could walk to a nearby super market; therefore, eliminating some of the automobiles on the road; that he supports giving the developers 30 days only to negotiate for the Mission Harbor property. H. Payne Breazeale, 5543 Waneta Place (34231), stated that citizens are getting impatient with the lack of decision making in regards to where the library should be built; that people involved with the library are getting impatient with all the time required to discuss the library issue; that if the Mission Harbor property is the fastest possible choice to get the City a new library, those people who's vested interest is in the library, are now choosing the Mission Harbor property; that it has taken a long time for everyone to argue their points of view on this issue; that building the library on the Five Points Park property should be the City Commission's choice, if the City Commission is dedicated to the downtown area; that a Publix Super Market could be built on the Mission Harbor property even if a library is not built at that location. Philip M. Dasher, 926 Boulevard of the Arts (34236), representing Marina Suites and 888 Management Corporation, stated that he is President of Marina Suites and 888 Management Corporation; that nearly all residents of Marina Suites agree the library should be built on the Mission Harbor property; that the residents of Marina Suites live and shop downtown and prefer to have the library downtown; that he has come to the Commission many times over the years and found the Commission unresponsive to the safety, traffic, property values and lifestyle concerns of the residents of the Marina Suites; that Mr. Sollenberger omitted the financial risk to the downtown Five Points Park property; that interest costs. on swapping land in expensive; that it is inappropriate to provide public funds to enhance private property downtown; that splitting the Mission Harbor property for a commercial/public use is amenable; that a supermarket is needed near the downtown area; that many other condominium owners in the downtown area favor the Mission Harbor property. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if anyone has heard anything further about resurrecting the three-party agreement between the City, County and Riscorp? Mr. Sollenberger stated that he has not mentioned the three-party agreement in the Administration's recommendation. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she has not sensed that the three- party agreement is a part of tonight's discussion. Mr. Sollenberger stated that this project could begin as soon as someone purchases the Mission Harbor property; that he does not believe the three-party agreement will prevail with the City Commission. Louise Hamel, 1520 Ohio Place (34236), stated that she lives in the LPNA neighborhood and works in the downtown area; that she loves the way the downtown area is growing; that it is essential to have a library in the downtown area; that people in this City do not walk from place to place; that people do not walk from the Quay to the downtown; that people would never walk from the Mission Harbor property to the downtown area; that the City needs to grow from the City center and outward; that having the library downtown would allow the City to flourish and grow and bring more people to the downtown area. Bob Roembke, 4346 Center Pointe Lane (34233), stated that he has been a County resident and property owner for 18 years; that he is appearing before the Commission in support of utilizing a portion of the Mission Harbor property for the new library; that for the past several years, a number of locations for a new library have been suggested, investigated, etc., but none compare to the Mission Harbor propertyi that both the Library Advisory Board and The Friends of the Selby Library have recommended the Mission Harbor property for the site of the new library; that the County Commissioners purchased the Mission Harbor property over two years BOOK 38 Page 12018 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12019 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. ago specifically for the new library; that on May 23, 1995, the County Commission voted 4 to 1 to build two 50,000-square-foot libraries; that one of the libraries would be constructed on a portion of the Mission Harbor property, and the second library would be built in East Sarasota near Interstate-75 which is a very wise compromise decision; that the County Commission also asked for the City Commission's favorable consideration and support for the decision to build two libraries; that the City Commission's favorable support and vote for a portion of the Mission Harbor location for the new library will be greatly appreciated by thousands of City and County citizens; that he thanks the City Commission and requests they move forward on this issue. J. P. Knaggs, 620 Corwood Drive (34234), representing Bijou Cafe, stated that he is the owner of the Bijou Cafe; that initially he did not feel the library should be placed on the Five Points Park property; that he did not feel a library would benefit commercial development in the downtown area; that the new concept introduced, which is expanding the Five Points Park property and expanding retail in the downtown area, makes the Five Points Park property an ideal location; that he appreciates the Commission moving forward on this issue; that negotiations should have a 30-day limit; that he volunteers his time to become involved in the negotiations made during the 30-day time period. Clarence Brien, 419 West Cornelius Circle (34232), stated that the library would not have adequate parking if it were built downtown; that parking is already a problem in the downtown area; that a newspaper article indicated the City would vacate two streets and close down businesses in order to accommodate having the library in the downtown area; that the ideal location for the library would be on U.S. 41; that businesses are being vacated along U.S. 41; that overgrowth is occurring near these vacated businesses; that the library should not be located on the Five Points Park property because this property should be used to tell the history of Sarasota; that pamphlets should be placed in receptacles around the Five Points Park property explaining the City's history to those walking through the Park; that building a convention center and a hotel in the John Ringling Towers (JRT) would make the people want to come to Sarasota; that the library should be placed on a location so that people coming to the convention center and the JRT would see the beautiful new building. Mark Smith, 5562 Capsaqua Drive (34242) representing the local Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), stated that he was a member of the Vision Planning Team; that during the time he worked on the Vision Planning Team, the Mission Harbor property was available for the library; that the Vision Planning Team did not choose the Mission Harbor property because the more logical location to place a library is in the heart of the city; that constructing a pedestrian plaza in the downtown area makes sense; that Central Avenue should not be vacated; that he encourages the City Commission to allow 30 days for negotiations; that placing the library in the downtown area would strengthen the image of the Cityi that a library in the downtown area would enhance the cultural hub which is being constructed. Sherry Simons, 988 Boulevard of the Arts (34236), stated that she is co-owner of the Emphasis Cafe; that citizens have changed their minds from one year ago of not wanting the library downtown; that one year ago a newspaper article reported that the Emphasis Cafe would be torn down in order to build a library on the Five Points Park property; that reading about having her Cafe torn down was news to her; that she was angry and upset after reading the newspaper article; that the situation could have been resolved one year ago if discussions had been held with her prior to the writing of the newspaper article; that now the library plans have changed; that this would not just be locating a library downtown, but it would include constructing other developments as well; that placing the library on the Five Points Park property would activate development to the downtown area with retail and cafes; that placing the library on the Five Points Park property would also allow for development of the Mission Harbor property; therefore, everyone wins; that directly across the street from the Five Points Park property is where Riscorp plans to construct a parking garage; therefore, parking should not be a problem; that placing the library on the Five Points Park property would be a bonus to the ambiance of the downtown area. Jim Friel, 904 Patterson Drive (34234) representing Paradise Cafe, stated that he is co-owner of the Paradise Cafe which is located on First Street near the Five Points Park property; that' the library should not be located on the Mission Harbor property; that the Mission Harbor property should be economically developed; that the Mission Harbor property could become a terrific tax base and could provide jobs for the community; that the. City's Vision Plan is very comprehensive, yet has never been shown to the public; that if the City Commission chooses to recommend to the County Commission not to place the library on the Mission Harbor property, but to place the library on the Five Points Park property, he requests that the County Commission deal directly with him in regards to his business; that he does not want a middle man negotiating with him; that he has already spent 10 months negotiating with Riscorp working as a representative of the County. Jerry Simons, 988 Boulevard of the Arts (34236), representing himself and Emphasis Cafe, stated that he came before the City Commission on February 22, 1994, to discuss the library issue; that headlines in the February. 21, 1994, newspaper had indicated Mr. Courtelis' interest in developing the Mission Harbor property. Mr. Simons continued that he indicated at the February 22, 1994, Commission meeting that the Mission Harbor property should have BOOK 38 Page 12020 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12021 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. only commercial development; that five months after that Commission Meeting, a newspaper article indicated that Emphasis Cafe would be torn down in order to develop the property for a library; that he still believes the Mission Harbor property should be utilized for commercial development and the library should be located on the Five Points Park propertyi; that constructing the library on the Five Points Park property is a unique opportunity to develop that area of the downtown; that this issue is more than just constructing a library on the Five Points Park property, but it could also be an opportunity for the Five Points Park property to become the new focal point in the City; that Emphasis and Paradise Cafes have not stood in the way of the negotiations with the Five Points Park property; that negotiations dragged on with Riscorp, but were then terminated; that no explanation of the termination was given by Riscorp representatives; that the Five Points Park property has been brought to the table again because it makes sense to locate a library there; that the Five Points Park property has been brought back to the table to utilize the location for both the library and redevelopment of the downtown area; that the County Commission is not approaching the City Commission with a renewal of a three-party agreement nor has the County Commission asked about the Five Points Park propertyi that the County Commission has requested that the City Commission comment on the Mission Harbor property; that he rebuts the following items which were discussed earlier: 1. that 1,300 members of two library organizations have been represented tonight; that one of the library organizations held a meeting several months ago, with approximately, 80 people in attendance; that 50 to 60 of those 80 people came from the 888 Boulevard of the Arts building, which is not representative of the entire City; 2. that it was indicated that the majority of the residents of the 888 Boulevard of the Arts building are in favor of constructing the library on the Mission Harbor property; that no surveys or petitions have been taken of the neighbors on this issue; that nothing is in writing which indicates the residents of the 888 Boulevard of the Arts building are in favor of constructing a library on the Mission Harbor property; and 3. that someone has come forward indicating an intent to develop the Mission Harbor property; that the Publix Super Market, which is currently located further up the Tamiami Trail, will close if a Publix Super Market is built on the Mission Harbor property; that the City would receive its "full loaf of bread" if developers were offered the Mission Harbor property. Betsy Kelley, 930 North Tamiami Trail (34236), stated that most cities build their libraries within the downtown areas; that this library issue has dragged along, and another 30 days will not cause a problem; that the library should be built on the Five Points Park property; that the Mission Harbor property should be utilized for commercial use which would be a tax base for the City; that more taxes would be generated from the Mission Harbor property than the Five Points Park property; that the library should be square with an elevator placed in the center of the building; therefore, every inch of every room would be usable; that an architect could design an ornamental front for the building in order to improve the ambiance of the area; that the Riscorp parking garage will be available for library patrons; that other businesses will move into the downtown area once the library is built; that citizens have been working for 8 years to improve this area of town; that the City has funds available and should spend this money to upgrade the downtown area. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to ask the County Commission to allow a 30-day period for negotiations to be held with restaurant and property owners; that a buyer of the Mission Harbor property should be identified; that an adequate price for the Mission Harbor property should be negotiated. Mayor Merrill asked if the City Commission is getting involved with finding a buyer for the Mission Harbor property? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is for the negotiation to continue for. the next 30 days; that he mentioned the issue of a buyer coming forward in order to deal with the void created by the absence of the three-party agreement. Mayor Merrill asked if Mr. Sollenberger is recommending that the city not resurrect the three-party agreement? Mr. Sollenberger stated that Mayor Merrill is correct. Commissioner Patterson stated that the City Commission was informed at the last Commission meeting that a vote could not be taken on the County Commission's letter without rescinding Resolution No. 94R-716; that Resolution No. 94R-716 is specific in that it addresses a specific offer made to the County Commission; that the three-party agreement should not have gone forward with Resolution No. 94R-716 on the books; that a 30-day delay would be pointless at this time unless the Commission requests that the City Manager pursue negotiations; and asked if Resolution No. 94R-716 should be rescinded before taking further action? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Resolution No. 94R-716 is still in effect; that the resolution consists of two parts; that BOOK 38 Page 12022 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12023 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. one part of the resolution requests that the Mission Harbor property be utilized for retail development; that the second part of the resolution offers the Lemon Avenue parking lot for a library location to the County Commission; that the resolution will have to be rescinded or amended. Mayor Merrill stated that another solution would be to offer a motion not in conflict with Resolution No. 94R-716; that the three- party agreement was not in conflict with Resolution No. 94R-716; that the three-party agreement was an addition to Resolution No. 94R-716. Commissioner Patterson stated that the property referred to in the newspaper articles is not the same property which was referred to in the resolution; that the Commission cannot authorize the City Manager to go forth and pursue negotiations for exchanging the parking lot behind Paradise Cafe as part of a deal. Commissioner Patterson asked City Auditor and Clerk Robinson what his ruling is as parliamentarian? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the resolution is still in effect. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to rescind Resolution No. 94R-716. Mayor Merrill stated that according to the Robert's Rules of Order, the Chair cannot accept a motion which conflicts with an existing motion; that if the motion were not in conflict with the resolution, the resolution would not have to be rescinded; that the issue that the City would offer to the County the site of the Lemon Avenue parking lot as a footprint for the library would not have to be rescinded; that in any negotiation, the Lemon Avenue site or any other site could be offered; that if the resolution indicated that the City encourages the County to build the library on that site, then the resolution would have to be rescinded; that the resolution is only offering the location to the County; therefore, a motion to build the library on the Five Points Park property would not be in conflict with this resolution. Commissioner Dry asked for clarification of Resolution No. 94R-716; that item 2 in Resolution No. 94R-716 states: the City offers to the County the site of the Lemon Avenue parking lot as the footprint for a main public library building on the condition that the County replace the lost parking lot spaces nearby at its expense in a parking structure : and asked if the City is still offering the Lemon Avenue parking lot to the County for a library site if Resolution 94R-716 fails recision? Mayor Merrill stated that the Chair can always be overruled by a majority vote; that his ruling is that the motion is not in conflict to the resolution. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Chair is not the ruler on parliamentary procedure and what Robert's Rules of Order state; that the Parliamentarian of the City makes that ruling; that a majority vote is not required to interpret Robert's Rules of Order, it requires the word of the parliamentarian as to whether the Mayor's interpretation is correct or not. Commissioner Pillot stated that he thought he heard the Parliamentarian say that Resolution 94R-716 remains in effect; that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson is nodding in affirmation of that statement; that he thought he heard the Mayor, with whom he agrees, state that the Chair would not recognize a motion in conflict with the resolution while the resolution was still in effect, which is also consistent with the ruling of the parliamentarian. Mayor Merrill restated the motion as to rescind Resolution No. 94R-716. Motion failed (3 to 2): Cardamone, no; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no; Merrill, no. On motion of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to amend Resolution No. 94R-716 by recommending to the Board of County Commissioners that they proceed with negotiations for the property necessary to construct a library at Five Points Park property and that the negotiations be concluded in 30 days. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Pillot asked the Parliamentarian if this motion is acceptable? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the motion is acceptable; and asked if Commissioner Pillot's intent is to amend the resolution? Commissioner Pillot stated that is correct. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the amendment to the resolution is following the correct procedure under Robert's Rules of Order. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to amend Resolution No. 94R-716 by adding language recommending that the Board of County Commissioners proceed with negotiations for acquisition of the property necessary to construct a library at Five Points and to conclude negotiations in 30 calendar days. BOOK 38 Page 12024 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12025 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson stated that two conflicting Clauses exist in the resolution; that one clause indicates the County should acquire property in order to build a library; that another clause offers a piece of property to the County Commission, and the City Commission is asking the County Commission to build the library on that donated property. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that when Commissioner Pillot made the amendment to Resolution No. 94R-716, he believed Commissioner Pillot was striking Item 2 and adding the new clause. Mayor Merrill asked if the Commission wants to revise the amendment to include the words "add and strike?" Commissioner Pillot stated that he apologizes for not making it clear to strike Item 2 and add the new clause; that the Parliamentarian is correct in his interpretation of the amended resolution. Mayor Merrill noted the approval of the maker and the seconder of the motion to include striking Item 2 in Resolution No. 94R-716. Mayor Merrill restated the motion as to amend Resolution No. 94R-716 by striking the existing Item 2 and inserting the following: "The City Commission recommends the Board of County Commissioners proceed with negotiations for acquisition of property needed for a library at Five Points and conclude the negotiations within 30 calendar days." Commissioner Pillot stated that Item 1 will remain in Resolution No. 94R-716 if the motion on the table passes, which is encouraging making the Mission Harbor property available for potential retail development; that a letter was received today from an interested party in Ohio wishing to develop the entire Mission Harbor property. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she takes objection to the people accusing the City Commission of being "wishy washy" on this subject; that one year ago a resolution was, unanimously passed regarding the Mission Harbor property; that the City Commission passed the three-party agreement; that the City Commission has not been indecisive on this issue; that the City Commission has not changed its position since this issue began; that this is the first opportunity in her 50 years as a library user, that a library will be placed in a part of town where a person could walk somewhere to have lunch and walk back to the library; that the City residents must be pro-active on this issue; that the City residents must notify the County Commission that a library should be built downtown; that 30 days is enough time to extend negotiations; that she is not interested in City money going into this effort; that the downtown library could be paid off from the proceeds of the Mission Harbor property if the County has a problem with money. Commissioner Dry asked if the amendment to the resolution is indicating that the City Commission is asking the City Manager to develop a proposal or continue reviewing proposals that have come before the City Staff? Commissioner Pillot responded, no. Mayor Merrill stated that the amendment has nothing to do with the City Manager. Mayor Merrill restated the motion as to amend Resolution No. 94R-716 by striking the existing Item 2 and inserting the following: "The City Commission recommends the - Board of County Commissioners proceed with negotiations for acquisition of property needed for a library at Five Points and conclude the negotiations within 30 calendar days." Commissioner Pillot stated that the only responsibility of the Administration is to transmit the amended resolution through the County Administrator to the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Patterson asked: 1) what happens at the end of the 30-day time period; and 2) does this resolution expire in 30 days? Mayor Merrill stated that, under Robert's Rules of Order, a time- specific resolution expires at the conclusion of the specified time period. Commissioner Patterson stated that city Auditor and Clerk Robinson and Mayor Merrill are nodding in affirmation that the resolution will expire at the conclusion of the specified time period according to Robert's Rules of Order; that she has mixed emotions about this library issue; that she believes a 30-day extension will not make a difference since the issue has been dragging on for so long; that the County Commission may have listened more favorably to this motion if the City Commission had not waited six weeks before placing the item on the agenda; that the City Commission has been consistent in voting on this issue; that the City had not expected the possibility of not having a new library built; that the City Commission discussions were always in regard to where the library would be built and how large the library should be; that she concludes the most important issue the City Commission should consider is whether the City receives adequate library facilities, not so much where the library will be located; that she was a minority vote against the three-party agreement; that her greatest fear, despite the very explicit nature of Commissioner Pillot's motion, is that the City will end up with an offer similar to the three-party agreement which she would vote against; that there will BOOK 38 Page 12026 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12027 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. not be three votes for the three-party agreement at the City Commission table; therefore, the County Commission may choose to build the library near Interstate-75; that she does not want to fund this library with City funds; that she does not want to give up downtown parking, which is currently scarce, unless the parking is replaced in some fashion; that people will poach upon a City parking lot; therefore, the library itself must have adequate parking, otherwise a parking shortage will occur; that the three- party agreement did not replace the lost parking; that the three- party agreement only reserves the right for the City, at the City's expense, to build a parking garage on top of the land being donated to the County; that she fears something will come back to the table in 30 days that she could not support; that she will not vote for the amendment, but may ultimately vote for what comes back. Commissioner Pillot requested that the Mayor and the Parliamentarian specify that the 30 days commence on July 5, 1995, since communication could not be sent to the County on July 4, 1995. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she does not believe the issue of choosing a site will come back to the Commission table after the 30 days has expired; that this issue was based on a courtesy extended by the County Commission for City Commission input on where to build the library; that she does not believe the County Commission would build a library without adequate parking; that she believes building a library on the Five Points Park property could begin sooner than on the Mission Harbor property. Commissioner Pillot stated that the City Manager pointed out to him that the next meeting time for the Board of County Commissioners is Tuesday, July 11, 1995; therefore, the Board would have no opportunity to react to this resolution until six of the thirty days have elapsed; and requested that the thirty-day period begin Tuesday, July 11, 1995, which is the first date the Board of County Commissioners could receive the resolution from the City Commission. Mayor Merrill stated that, hearing no objection, the motion will read "thirty days from receipt of notice by the Board of County Commissioners." Mayor Merrill restated the motion as to amend Resolution No. 94R-716 by striking the existing Item 2 and substituting the words: "The City Commission recommends that the Board of County Commissioners proceed with negotiations for acquisition of property necessary for a library at Five Points and conclude the negotiations within 30 calendar days from receipt of notice." Motion carried (3 to 2): Cardamone, yes; Dry, no; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that Mr. Knaggs indicated copies of the Vision Plan have not been available to the public; that she had previously asked Mr. Sollenberger to provide an overview of the Vision Plan; that discussion of the Vision Plan tonight did not seem appropriate; and requested. that Mr. Sollenberger provide the Commission with an overview of the Vision Plan. Mr. Sollenberger stated that an overview will be provided at a future meeting. 13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: PALM AVENUE PARKING RESTRICTIONS - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #3 (06594 ) through (0713) city Manager Sollenberger stated that Staff was asked to examine the three-hour parking restrictions on Palm Avenue because of a request from merchants located north of Main Street who requested that parking limits should revert to two hours; that members of the Downtown Association surveyed merchants on Palm Avenue south of Main Street and found a nearly even split between favoring two-hour and three-hour parking limits; that 13 merchants prefer two-hour parking or wish to remain neutral, and 13 merchants prefer three- hour parking limits; that three of the 13 merchants who prefer three-hour parking limits are moving their businesses away from this parking-restrictive venue; that a study was completed by staff from the Public Safety Department after the three-hour parking restrictions went into effect; that the results of the study indicate that: 1) numerous employees monopolize parking spaces which are intended for customers; and 2) overtime parking citations were reduced from 20-25 per week to 5-7 per week; that less citations are written because: 1) employees park for three hours, go to lunch, and return to the parking space for another three hours; and 2) enforcement is restricted to two times per day for three-hour parking while enforcement is made four times per day with two-hour parking; that the Public Safety Department supports restoration of two-hour-parking restrictions on Palm Avenue from Cocoanut Avenue to Ringling Boulevard. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to enforce the entire Palm Avenue area for two-hour parking. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to adopt Resolution No. 95R-823. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: CENTRAL AVENUE STOREFRONT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-4) #3 (0714) through (1615) BOOK 38 Page 12028 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12029 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Central Avenue Storefront Assistance Program is a part of the implementation of the Rosemary District Redevelopment Plan to provide funding from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds; that the guidelines were prepared by Don Hadsell, Community Development Director; that two property owners indicated an interest in participating in this program. Mr. Hadsell came before the Commission and stated that the Commission voted to amend the CDBG Funds to establish the Storefront Assistance Program; that the Storefront Assistance Program mirrors the Housing Rehabilitation Program; that the guidelines were reviewed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), as well as City Auditors, on an annual basis. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to establish the Central Avenue Storefront Assistance Program with the maximum loan at $50,000 with a 0 percent interest rate for a term of 10 year; that a match of $1 in private funds for every $1 in City-loaned funds is required; that the City is permitted to buy down loans from financial institutions which permit the applicants to receive an effective loan of up to $50,000 at a 0 percent interest rate for a term of 10 years with the required match, or the City can make direct loans to applicants; that the City is permitted to provide a grant for architectural services which do not exceed $3,000; that authorization should be provided to the City Manager in order to establish administrative regulations. to implement the Storefront Assistance Program. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the backup materials indicate that these loans made by the City must be approved by an advisory board comprised of City and County employees; that the size and composition of the advisory board will be established by the City Manager and County Administrator; and asked: 1) if Mr. Sollenberger has : a plan for this board; and 2) why does the advisory board only include City and County employees? Mr. Hadsell stated that a Loan Committee currently exists for the Housing and Rehabilitation Program; that this Loan Committee would be an appropriate vehicle to review the storefront loans as well. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the Loan Committee monitors the repayment and use of the funds? Mr. Hadsell stated that the use of the funds are monitored at the time the loan is made, and repayments are also monitored. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the Storefront Assistance Program could begin immediately upon approval of the Commission since the Loan Committee is already in place. Mr. Hadsell stated that is correct. Commissioner Dry stated that she has concerns about how the procedures are written for the Storefront Assistance Program; that it appeared the City had a problem with the previous Storefront Assistance Program; that she has a copy of the audit conducted on the previous Storefront Assistance Program; that audit findings indicated some major recommendations on how this program should be administered; that only one of those recommendations is included in the current Storefront Assistance Program; that the Storefront Advisory Board will be approving loans; and asked what happened to the Redevelopment Advisory Committee? Mr. Sollenberger stated that a Redevelopment Advisory Board previously administered the review of the Storefront Assistance Program; that the process was discontinued because the Redevelopment Advisory Board met only once per month, which was too much of a time lapse to receive answers to questions which came up. Mr. Hadsell stated that one member from each of the following departments was appointed to the Storefront Assistance Advisory Board: the Credit Union, the Building Department, the General Services Department, the County Clerk's Office, the County Building Department, and the County Finance Department. Commissioner Pillot stated that none of these people are under Mr. Hadsell's supervision. Mr. Hadsell stated that is correct. Commissioner Dry stated that the backup materials indicate the payments to the contractors will be made at 90 percent for those making partial payments and 100 percent for final payments. Mr. Hadsell stated that is correct; that the Storefront Assistance Program is designed to hold back a 10 percent retainer to ensure that the project is completed; that the checks are issued jointly to the. contractors and to the property owner; therefore, the property owner is required to sign off approval of the work completed by the contractors. Commissioner Dry stated that payments are usually made in three installments. Mr. Hadsell stated that 90 percent of the work completed to. date is paid; that if 50 percent of a $10,000 job were completed, the contractor would receive $4,500; that 90 percent of every partial payment paid to a contractor has a 10 percent holdback. Commissioner Patterson asked how many loans can be distributed with a $50,000 cap? BOOK 38 Page 12030 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12031 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. Mr. Hadsell stated that $300,000 is targeted for this program; that six $50,000 loans could be made. Commissioner Patterson asked if the total allocated for the Storefront Assistance Program is $300,000 per year? Mr. Hadsell responded, no; that $300,000 is allocated for the Storefront Assistance Program; that not all people will request $50,000 loans since that would be $100,000 in storefront improvements. Mr. Sollenberger stated that there is always the alternative to buy down bank loans which then allows leverage and offers more loans to more people. Commissioner Patterson asked to what percentage would the loans be bought down? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the loans would be bought down to 0 percent. Mr. Hadsell stated that a mechanism is involved in the buy-down process, which is used in the Housing and Rehabilitation Program; that a financial institution is contacted and asked what the monthly payment would be at a certain interest rate, which in this case is 0 percent, if the City's portion of a loan is $50,000; that the financial institution provides a loan which can provide a 0 percent interest rate for that term; that the City then provides a Grant for the difference which allows the City to provide two to three times as many loans. Commissioner Patterson stated that the loans are probably bought down by only a couple percent. Mr. Hadsell stated that a calculation is included in the backup materials; that the City's cost is $3,200 based upon an 8.5 percent mortgage on a $10,000 loan. Commissioner Patterson asked if: 1) Mr. Hadsell's example would buy down the whole life and amortization period of the loan; and 2) Mr. Hadsell's example is referring to a 10-year loan? Mr. Hadsell responded, yes. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation. Motion carried (3 to 2): Cardamone, yes; Dry, no; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. Mayor Merrill apologized to making a motion prior to public input; that the Commission could reconsider the vote after public input. The following people came before the Commission. Robert Levy, 1391 Sixth Street (34236), stated that some politicians and representatives of the public do not want to see public money spent for private entrepreneurs; that he developed the Renaissance Plaza at a time when no one would provide money for redevelopment; that his taxes were approximately $800 per year at that time; that his taxes are currently over $8,000 per year; that this tax money goes to both the County and the City; that he has had to fight to keep his property; that he has even bought a handgun and a German Shepherd to protect his property; that citizens cannot expect every business person to invest in the Central Avenue neighborhood; that hoodlums should not have the right to vandalize properties; that spending money to support projects where people want to do good for the community is not wasting taxpayers money; that he would pay double his taxes, if, in three years, he could be guaranteed that 90 percent of the Rosemary District would be rehabilitated. Mary Ouillin, 407 Cocoanut Avenue (34236), stated that she was very involved in the last Storefront Assistance Program; that she was one of the people instrumental in requiring an audit be done of the last Storefront Assistance Program because complaints were received from people who could not receive monetary assistance through the program; that she believes in the Storefront Assistance Program; that she has seen Storefront Assistance Programs work within communities; that Storefront Assistance Programs have been instrumental in helping revitalize tired areas; that she has seen similar programs work in neighborhoods where money is allocated to homeowners for street beautification and to improve City easements; that the programs which have worked had good administration, good procedures, and good, solid guidelinés to follow; that comments taken from Mr. Sollenberger's memorandum dated September 24, 1993, which was in response to Mr. Hadsell in regard to the 1993 Audit No. 9307 are: - thereafter, I plan to take the following recommendations to the Commission: 1. the Storefront Renovation Program will be terminated upon the expenditure of the remaining balance which is less than $2,000; 2. that any decision to renew the Storefront Renovation Program be made in the contents of the overall redevelopment program objectives defining the needs for storefront assistance; and 3. upon renewal of the Storefront Renovation Program, implement audit recommendations BOOK 38 Page 12032 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12033 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. calling for program policies to be adopted by the Community Redevelopment Agency's (CRA) resolution and operating procedures including involvement of the Development Review Committee be adopted as an administrative recommendation. Ms. Quillin stated that she has a copy of this memorandum in her files; that upon review of Mr. Hadsell's memorandum, and the guidelines the public would be required to adhere to in order to participate in a Storefront Assistance Program on Central Avenue, brought up several questions: 1. No definitions are provided for what is considered a storefront; that was a problem with the previous Storefront Assistance Program; 2. What are the parameters the City will follow in order to grant money for storefront renovation; 3. The memorandum indicates property must contain one or more conditions which contribute to the deterioration of the area; and asked what conditions must be met in order to qualify for eligibility in the Storefront Assistance Program? Ms. Quillin stated that a recommendation for the Storefront Assistance Program made in Audit No. 9009 conducted in 1990 indicates that architectural matters should be handled through the project petitioner; that architectural fees were a problem with the last Storefront Assistance Program; that the recommendations from the 1993 audit indicates no semblance; that this current Storefront Assistance Program does not tie in with what was learned from administrating previous Storefront Assistance Programs; that the procedures are not clear; that the City Auditor indicated that the findings have not been appropriately addressed in the current Storefront Assistance Program; that if an audit is done, the results should be integrated into future projects, which in this case, was not done; that she would like to see this program go forward; that she would like to see this document revised sO the average person understands what qualifications are required to receive storefront assistance; that the Storetront Assistance Program must be fair for everyone. Mayor Merrill asked if any Commissioners on the prevailing side wish to reconsider their vote? Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that there are clear differences between the management of this program and the Main Street Renovation Program; and asked if guidelines exist which will be provided to the Storefront Assistance Advisory Board? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the guidelines are included in the recommendation of the Administration. Mayor Merrill stated that the previous Storefront Assistance Program was free money, i.e., the money was not paid back by the store owners; that the current Storefront Assistance Program will have some sense of control since any money borrowed, must be paid back; that no interest is required on these loans, but having the Storefront Assistance Program loan money versus giving away money, should be less subject to abuse. Mr. Sollenberger stated that two Storefront Assistance Programs were administered within the City; that one Storefront Assistance Program was administered in the redevelopment area and the other one was administered on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) Way; that the MLK Storefront Assistance Program was administered by Mr. Hadsell and no problems with the Program were reported; that the MLK program was subject to HUD and CDBG audits, in addition to any other reviews; that he has confidence in Mr. Hadsell administering the program properly. Commissioner Patterson stated that Mr. Hadsell is currently administering a Housing and Rehabilitation Program which has not had the types of problems the Main Street Renovation Program incurred; that she voted against the current Storefront Assistance Program because $50,000 is too large a sum to allow for one person considering the amount of resources available; that the resources could run out quickly if only a few people request $50,000 for storefront renovation; that she has confidence Mr. Hadsell will handle any procedural problems which may occur. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: BAY ROAD/OSPREY AVENUE/VERSAILLES STREET IMPROVEMENTS FUNDING MECHANISM APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-5) #3 (1616) through (1975) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the City Commission approved the Administration's recommendation for funding the improvements on Bay Roàd, Osprey Avenue, and Versailles Street at the June 5, 1995, meeting. Mr. Daughters presented a map of the area on the overhead projector and stated that the original plan was that: The Bay Road Project East would be funded by Road Impact Fees with construction to be arranged by the Developer, the Paradise Group; The Versailles Street Project was to be funded jointly by the City and the Developer with construction to be arranged by the Developer; and BOOK 38 Page 12034 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12035 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. The Osprey Avenue Project was to be funded and constructed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) . Mr. Daughters continued that the City has been negotiating with the County, the Paradise Group, and the FDOT for the last month to accomplish these objectives; that the Administration presented a recommendation to the Commission in the Agenda materials which is to approve: 1) a Road Impact Fee Funding Interlocal Agreement with the County wherein the County would return $200,000 of Road Impact Fees collected within the City for use on the project, and 2) a Project Construction Agreement for Bay Road and Versailles Street between the City and the Developer. Mr. Daughters further stated that negotiations with FDOT have continued since that recommendation was made, and a memorandum was submitted to the Commission on June 30, 1995, explaining changes in the recommendation made since the Agenda material was prepared which are: 1) Not to enter into an agreement with the Developer for the Bay Road East Project but to work instead with the FDOT to build both the Bay Road East and the Osprey Avenue projects, and 2) To continue to work with the Developer to accomplish the Versailles Street Project; that the City or preferably FDOT could have a consultant design the Bay Road East and the Osprey Avenue projects in the fall of 1995 utilizing $100,000 of funding from FDOT which became available on July 1, 1995, for the 17th Street improvement project; that an additional $175,000 of FDOT funding will become available a year from now which could be utilized along with the $200,000 in Road Impact Fees from the County to complete the funding requirements for the Bay Road East and the Osprey Avenue projects; that the advantages of this alternative are: the cost would be slightly lower, the competitive bidding regulations would be met, and two construction periods instead of three would occur as the Developer is required to make the improvements of Bay Road West by the time a certificate of occupancy (CO) is issued to the Publix Super Market; that the Developer's intent is to make the improvements on Bay Road West very soon; therefore under the previous proposal, the three projects would be constructed separately; that under the alternate recommendation, Bay Road West would be improved at one time and the Bay Road East and the Osprey Avenue projects would be constructed simultaneously, resulting in two construction periods; that another advantage of the alternative recommendation is the three-laning of Osprey Avenue from Bay Road to Siesta Drive instead of just a left-turn pocket on southbound Versailles Street, which is part of the long-range transportation objective for that area. Mr. Daughters continued that a disadvantage of the alternate recommendation is a slower time period for the Bay Road East project; that he roughly estimates 14 months versus the originally planned 8 months; that the advantages strongly outweigh the disadyantages; therefore, it is recommended that the Commission take the following action: 1. Approve the second alternative funding mechanism indicated in the June 30, 1995, memorandum; 2. Approve the Road Impact. Fee Funding Interlocal Agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement; 3. Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the Chairman of the Metropolitan Planning organization (MPO) requesting the $275,000 from 17th Street be transferred to and used for the design and construction of the Bay Road/Osprey Avenue Project along with $200,000 Impact Fee funds from the City and County; 4. Support the amendment to the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) at the MPO meeting on July 24, 1995; and 5. Direct the Administration to renegotiate the Project Construction Agreement with Paradise Development Group for Versailles Street only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to support the recommendations presented by Mr. Daughters. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked how the recommendations fit in with the itizens/meignborhoa groups interest in road and traffic improvements? Mr. Daughters stated that the second alternative fits in better with citizens/meignborhod groups' concerns regarding road and traffic improvements; that the long-range congestion problems will be eliminated by three-laning Osprey Avenue; that the second alternative will accomplish this three-laning project much sooner than the original alternative could provide. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that she does not see a three-lane road on the map shown on the overhead projector. Mr. Daughters stated that the rendering is an old map; that at this time, the only requirement is to built a left-turn pocket at Versailles Street and/or Crossroads Shopping Center driveway on Osprey Avenue. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if the FDOT has reviewed and approved the three-laning project? Mr. Daughters responded yes. BOOK 38 Page 12036 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12037 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to accept recommendations 1 through 5, provided by Mr. Daughters in the June 30, 1995, memorandum. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. The City Commission recessed at 10:00 p.m. and reconvened at 10:05 p.m. 16. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: RINGLING CAUSEWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT - VEICIE/PEDEBTRIA: BARRIER REPORT RECEIVED: SUBMIT THE NEW MEXICO "TYPE A," THE WISCONSIN "TYPE F," AND THE RHODE ISLAND "2-BAR" VEHICULAR RAILINGS AND OREGON AND RHODE ISLAND PEDESTRIAN RAILINGS TO THE FDOT WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTARY FROM THE CITY ENGINEER/DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING (AGENDA ITEM VII-6) #3 (1976) through (2857) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the City Commission took action at the May 1, 1995, regular meeting to request that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) investigate alternatives to the standard "New Jersey Barrier" to accommodate the City's desire not to block the view of Sarasota Bay; that a letter was sent by the Mayor to the Florida Secretary of Transportation requesting that alternatives be investigated; that FDOT is delaying further action in response to the Mayor's letter pending the result of the action taken by the Commission at this meeting. Mr. Daughters continued that a letter was sent to the Departments of Transportation in all States outside of Florida, several Territories, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) surveying their experience with an open-type barrier; that 27 states, 1 territory, and the FHWA responded to the survey; that the report entitled Report Alternatives for Concrete Barrier Walls on the Ringling Causeway Bridge Replacement distributed earlier to the Commission depicts alternatives to FDOT's standard for concrete barrier walls on bridges, which is the barrier being proposed for the Ringling Causeway Bridge; that the alternatives presented provide a good view for automobile occupants; that bridge barriers must be crash tested and accepted by the FHWA; that some of the literature did not indicate whether the barrier used by the particular state has been crash tested and approved; that an indication in the report is provided as to the status of crash testing and approval where known; that the preliminary information obtained had been provided to FDOT a month ago and a copy of the report was furnished to FDOT a few days ago. Mr. Daughters stated that the Engineering Department staff does not specifically recommend a vehicle barrier railing or a pedestrian railing as the choice is largely based on aesthetics; that the Engineering Department staff favors the New Mexico "Type A," the Wisconsin "Type F," and the Rhode Island "2-Bar" metal railing with the Oregon. or the Rhode Island pedestrian railing because of the significant openness. Commissioner Pillot asked if any of the alternatives are not appropriate on bridges over salt water. Mr. Daughters stated that none of the states indicated whether the barriers were in use on bridges over salt water; that he is not certain whether any of the barriers would not be appropriate for use over salt water. Commissioner Patterson stated that the question could be resolved by examining the material and determining whether the material is prone to corrosion from salt air. Mr. Daughters stated that is correct. Mr. Daughters displayed renderings of the preferred barrier alternatives on the overhead projector and stated that the composition of the alternatives are the same as the proposed John Ringling Causeway Bridge which is: two vehicular lanes in each direction, a bicycle lane, a shoulder, a concrete barrier wall, an 8-foot sidewalk, and the exterior pedestrian railing; that the standard used by FDOT can be seen at the bridge under construction at Philippi Creek at the present time; that actual pictures of the various alternatives are provided in the report in addition to the computerized renderings. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked the height of the outside rail. Mr. Daughters stated that FHWA has a minimum height standard which he believes to be 42 inches. Commissioner Pillot stated that some of the alternatives are metal systems presumably over fresh water; and asked if the barrier alternatives must be metal and if that presents additional maintenance problems? Mr. Daughters stated that the barriers do not have to be a special material but rather can be regular steel; that some of the designs are made of aluminum; that the metal would have to be galvanized or protected from corrosion in some manner; that the galvanized poles can also be painted; that many traffic signal poles are painted galvanized steel. Commissioner Pillot asked if Mr. Daughters would support corrosion- resistant metal barriers over Sarasota Bay? BOOK 38 Page 12038 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12039 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. Mr. Daughters stated "yes"; that corrosion-resistant metal is presently being used in other locations on Sarasota Bay; that metal will hold up as long as it is properly maintained. Mr. Daughters stated that the various alternatives are merely different combinations of different size box beams and different spacing of the upright posts; that the Rhode Island "2-bar" barrier is in use on a bridge with a 5 percent slope, which will be the same as the John Ringling Causeway Bridge; that the bridge in Rhode Island also has a fishing pier at the end, which is very similar to the John Ringling Causeway Bridge, and the same railing was used on the fishing pier; that the bridge in Rhode Island has a raised sidewalk meaning that the edge of the bridge is 6 to 7 inches higher than the roadway and resulting in the loss of some water view; that the preferred alternatives are those without a raised sidewalk or curb; that the preferred railings are the Rhode Island or Oregon pedestrian railings, which are similar to a condominium balcony railing; that a summary of the alternatives in all the states is provided in the report; that the Departments of Transportation in some states do not have alternatives and requested copies of the report, indicating they may do something similar in the future. Mr. Daughters continued that the Administration recommends that the Commission select one or more of the vehicular railings, one or more of the pedestrian railings, and direct the Administration to submit the choice to FDOT for a final selection. Mayor Merrill asked if Mr. Daughters has a personal preference on the vehicular or pedestrian railings? Mr. Daughters stated he does not. City Manager Sollenberger stated that selection of any of the alternatives will demonstrate to FDOT that more than one state subscribes to a different standard which has been approved by FHWA; and that he recommends that at least two vehicular and two pedestrian railings be selected for transmittal to FDOT. Commissioner Patterson stated that she is having a hard time choosing because the differences among the alternatives are slight; that the Engineering Department did an excellent job on the report; that a great deal of work went into the report and the presentation was excellent; that she is delighted at the seriousness with which the Commission's request was addressed and with the results achieved; that she thanks the Engineering Department for the extensive effort which went into the report; that the choice as to whether all the alternatives or just selected alternatives should be presented to FDOT could be left up to the Engineering Department; that she is unable to aesthetically distinguish among the alternatives. Mr. Daughters stated that the three vehicular alternatives and the two pedestrian alternatives should be submitted to FDOT, providing flexibility to choose; that any of the recommended alternatives will work; that the percentage of air space in the "window of view" has been calculated for each of the three recommended vehicular alternatives and is above 75 percent view. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to submit the New Mexico "Type A," the Wisconsin "Type F," and the Rhode Island "2-Bar" vehicular railings and Oregon and Rhode Island pedestrian railings to the FDOT with appropriate commentary from the City Engineer/Director of Engineering. Commissioner Pillot stated that deaths have occurred from vehicles plunging into the Bay from the John Ringling Causeway Bridge; and asked if all the choices are adequate from a safety perspective? Mr. Daughters stated that safety is a major concerni that the recommended alternatives are safe; that the recommended alternatives have been FHWA crash tested; but there are various levels of crash testing and he is unsure which level of crash testing will have to be met by the John Ringling Causeway Bridge; that the John Ringling Causeway Bridge will have a low level of speed compared to an interstate highway; that any of the recommended alternatives should meet the required testing criteria by FDOT; that FDOT will have a choice if one recommended alternative only marginally meets the criteria. Commissioner Pillot asked that Mr. Daughters include in his report to FDOT that the recommended alternatives are the choice of the Commission aesthetically; however, it is also presumed that the recommended alternatives- meet safety standards of FDOT for this type of bridge. Mayor Merrill noted consensus of the Commission in including a statement to that effect in the letter to FDOT. Commissioner Pillot stated that it is important to be on record that the Commission is cognizant of the issue as deaths have occurred in the City in the, past; that he echoes the comments of Commissioner Patterson concerning the report, which is superb and is one of the best he has seen; that the report is worthy of national distribution. Mayor Merrill called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, yes. BOOK 38 Page 12040 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12041 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. 17. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: 1993-94 AUDITORS I MANAGEMENT LETTER = SEE ITEM 8; APPROVED; WORKSHOP TO BE SCHEDULED TO DISCUSS DETAILS (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #3 (2855) through # 4 (0580) Mayor Merrill stated that the Staff presentation on this item began earlier in the meeting; that citizens' comments will be heard prior to further discussion. The following person came before the Commission: Mary Quillin, 407 Cocoanut Avenue (34236), read a prepared speech which referenced areas of City operations the Commission should further investigate and areas the external auditors have continuously identified in past audits; indicated that during Fiscal Year 93/94, City Utilities "wrote off" $169,000 and Sarasota County Utilities "wrote off" $15,031.46; and stated that City Utilities has written off over $0.5 million dollars in the past four years. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Robert Armstrong and James Kading of Armstrong, Parent, Marlar & Company, the City's Certified Public Accountants, are available for questions. Mr. Sollenberger continued that Burton & Associates was hired to review the current utility billing application and make recommendations for enhancements; that the review concluded with the need to replace the billing system; that Burton & Associates also provided consulting services on the revised rate structure which will be proposed during the budget workshops; that replacing the billing system would also be an appropriate item for discussion during the budget workshops. Mayor Merrill stated that a statement was made that the City's uncollected utilities debt was $0.5 million compared to the County's $15,000; and asked if the Administration feels the City has a glaring inefficiency or if the comparison was unfounded. Mr. Sollenberger stated that data will have to be reviewed to provide a proper response. Commissioner Pillot stated that a write-off" refers to unpaid bills; that the City has a different economic base than the County; that a comparison of "write-offs" between the City and the County is, in his opinion, totally irresponsible. Commissioner Pillot continued that this audit is not severe based on his experience of reviewing 16 audits for which he, as a former Superintendent of Sarasota County Schools and as a City Commissioner for six years, has been partly held responsible; that the purpose of an external audit is not to commend agencies for financial management done well but to identify mistakes and offer corrections; that findings of fact in an external audit should not be minimized; however, based on previous experience with City audits, he feels the Administration will make the corrections responsibly, a word which not synonymous with perfectly and immediately. Commissioner Pillot further stated that the Commission is required to respond to and accept a State Auditor General's audit; that approving the management response is the prerogative of the Commission; however, an alternative has not been presented. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Mayor Merrill (who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Cardamone), it was moved to accept the Auditors' Management Letter and the management response thereto. Commissioner Dry stated that she also has had experience with audits; that audit exceptions are found in many organizations each year; that many audit reports also include findings on quality financial management; that external auditors often identify problem areas for which a resolve is expected within one year; that significant issues identified in the City's 93/94 Audit have been identified in the previous two or three audit years; that the information presented to the Commission indicates those issues are allegedly being corrected; that the Commission should not accept a management's response that areas are being corrected if those areas are continually identified by the external auditors; that in excess of $100,000 in city Utilities "write-offs" bothers her; that many of the "write-offs" identified are not attributed to bad debts but to poor management decisions; that the Public Safety Department's inventory list for which 433 fixed assets are unaccounted concerns her. Commissioner Dry continued that the Commission has been placed in the position of having to accept the current audit report to meet the deadline imposed by the State; however, in the future, she will not vote to accept a management response and Auditors' Management Letter in which problems that have continuously been identified are included. Commissioner Patterson stated that many of the issues identified in the City's 93/94 Audit were identified in the City's 90/91 Audit; that the original response to the audit, prepared by the City Administration, was disturbing; that responses to many of the issues identified by the auditors implied that the problems would not be addressed for correction; that the Administration has since revised those responsesi that the response currently submitted to the Commission indicates the issues will be addressed to make corrections. Commissioner Patterson referred to the issue regarding the Public Safety Department's fixed asset inventory; and stated that the report indicates that accountability for lost items can be resolved by avenues other than acknowledging the items are missing; and asked for clarification of the following statement: BOOK 38 Page 12042 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12043 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. Public Safety was able to account for substantially all of the missing assets either by locating the asset or by completion of the "Request for Property Disposition and/or Transfer of Capital Assets" form. Mr. Sollenberger stated that over a period of years, items which were aged, fully depreciated, and/or disposed were not properly recorded or removed from the Public Safety Department's inventory; that the majority of the items identified by the external auditors fall into that category. Commissioner Patterson asked Commissioner Dry for the purpose of her suggesting a workshop be held on this issue. Commissioner Dry stated that items of importance on which the Commission has many questions should be presented in a workshop setting; that the audit addresses key, operational elements of the City; that the Commission should be provided an opportunity annually to review the audit and the management responses prior to taking a formal vote to accept the Auditors' Management Letter. Commissioner Patterson stated that Commissioner Dry's request is reasonable. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that similar audit exceptions are identified each year; that scheduling a workshop as suggested would provide an adequate opportunity to discuss the Commission's views on such items. Vice Mayor Cardamone continued that the issue regarding the fixed assets in the Public Safety Department was discussed when she met with the City Manager to discuss the Auditors' Management Letter; that currently, only items with a value of $500 or higher are recorded as inventory. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the valuation limits of the City have been revised to correspond with State and County valuation limits which are set at $500 or higher. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that policies which establish procedures such as the valuation limitation on fixed assets are topics which could be discussed during a workshop. Commissioner Dry stated that the State valuation limit was $100 approximately 1.5 years ago. Commissioner Pillot stated that funding for personnel should be provided in the City's budget if recording inventory at a lower valuation is to be considered. Commissioner Patterson stated that the City's valuation limit was recently increased from $100 to $500; that the $100 valuation limit is preferable; that the Commission should further discuss the increase if changing the valuation limit is a policy issue. Vice Mayor Cardamone called for the vote on the motion to accept the Auditors' Management Letter. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dry, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. On motion of Vice Mayor Cardamone and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to schedule a workshop at the earliest convenience to discuss the details of the Auditors' Management Letter. Commissioner Patterson stated that scheduling a workshop to discuss details of an audit on which the findings and management responses have already been discussed does not seem to be the best use of the Commission's time; that scheduling a workshop prior to the next audit would be more appropriate and could be established as a policy. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the Commission should have an opportunity to discuss with the Administration the corrections which will be made over the next year; that the same corrections have been indicated in three previous audits; that the Commission should have a role in how the changes are implemented. Commissioner Pillot stated that a workshop should be scheduled to discuss with the Administration the expectations of the Commission; that an annual workshop prior to the formal vote on the Auditors' Management Letter would also be appropriate. Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the motion to schedule a workshop to discuss the details of the 93/94 Auditors' Management Letter. Motion carried (4 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Merrill, no. Commissioner Pillot stated that he was not feeling well; asked to be excused from the remainder of the meeting; and left the Commission Chambers at 10:55 p.m. 18. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EQUITY STUDY COMMISSION REGARDING OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FEES - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #4 (0572) through (0741) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Equity Study Commission has made recommendations regarding changes to the Occupational License fee schedule and to the Sarasota City Code, Chapter 19; that the Administration recommends approval of the Equity Study Commission recommendations and authorizing the City Attorney to draft an ordinance for public hearing. BOOK 38 Page 12044 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12045 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson stated that the recommendations result in an overall increase of $10,872 to the General Fund; that a policy decision is necessary since the Equity Study Commission also made a motion that any overages for occupational license fees created by the recommended changes set forth in the revised schedule be applied to reduce the license fees for merchants; that she thought the purpose of the Equity Study Commission was to find an equitable manner by which to revise the Occupational License Schedule and increase fees which have not been raised since 1981. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Cardamone, it was moved to approve the Equity Study Commission recommendations with the increase of $10,872 to the General Fund retained. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that the appropriate minutes are not provided for reference; however, she does not recall establishing the Equity Study Commission to increase fees and enhance the City's General Fund but rather to resolve inequities in the fee schedule, e.g., the fee per chair in a barber shop being less than that at a beauty shop. Commissioner Patterson stated that previously, State legislation prohibited municipalities from changing Occupational License fees to raise additional revenuei that revenues generated by Occupational License fees for many municipalities have remained the same since 1981; that the "Dudley Bill," passed by the Florida Legislature in 1993, provides a mechanism by which municipalities can increase fees and also provides a process for fairness that includes citizens' input. Mayor Merrill called for the vote on the motion to direct the city Attorney to draft an ordinance for public hearing reflecting an overall occupational license fee increase of $10,872. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Merrill, yes. 19. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 STORM DRAINAGE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS REPORT WITH SARASOTA COUNTY STORMWATER ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY (SEU) PROJECTED FIVE-YEAR SCHEDULE - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) #4 (0741) through (0890) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, and Richard Winters, Engineering Technician V, came before the Commission. Mr. Winters stated that in accordance with the City/County Interlocal Agreement, the City is to annually furnish a prioritized list of Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) to the Sarasota County Stormwater Environmental Utility (SEU) i that the 1995/96 Storm Drainage Capital Improvements Report contains: 1) the status of current projects prioritized to date, 2) two additional projects proposed for consideration, and 3) the SEU five-year plan. Mr. Winters continued that the following two projects have been requested for consideration: 1. Huron Lane/Erie Court Storm runoff from the subject streets does not flow to the canal at the north end of Aspinwall Street, flooding the parking lot of the adjoining condominium. 2. Faubel Street Diminished outfall to Bayou Louise has been heightened by expansion of the impervious area of the residences surrounding this street. Mr. Winters stated that certain projects are necessary to assure the proper sequence of construction to prevent flooding problems from occurring downstream of the higher priority projects scheduled to alleviate flooding; that funding for the design of the following projects has been requested: 7B Arlington Canal Improvements $34,000 for design $33,000 for right-of-way acquisition 7C Arlington Canal at Euclid Avenue $ 5,000 for design Mr. Winters stated that $80,000 of funding from the Manasota Basin Board - has been obtained but will be lost if the funds are not matched; that the SEU can borrow the funds necessary to progress with the projects, but according to the Interlocal Agreement, City Commission approval is required. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends adding the two proposed projects for inclusion in the CIP list and authorizing the SEU to borrow funds to prevent loss of matching funds which will keep the design process moving forward; that a total of $226,000 would be borrowed by the SEU. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Dry, it was moved to add the two proposed projects to the CIP list and to authorize the SEU to borrow sufficient funds to move forward on BOOK 38 Page 12046 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12047 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. the design process. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dry, yes; Patterson, yes; Merrill, yes. 20. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA - RETAIN REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE IN AUGUST: REFERRED ISSUE OF MOVING ITEMS FORWARD ON THE AGENDA TO THE CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK FOR A REPORT BACK ON PROCEDURE (ITEM X) #4 (0890) through (1570) COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: A. stated that on a recent trip to Savannah, Georgia, she and her husband attended a meeting of the Georgia Municipal Association, the equivalent to the Florida League of Cities, at which David Ruske, the son of Dean Ruske, former Secretary of State, was speaking together with a panel of notable individuals which included the heads of the Georgia State Senate and the Georgia House of Representatives and the head editor of the Atlanta Constitution; that Mr. Ruske is the author of the book to which Mayor Merrill refers when speaking about the possibility of consolidating the City of Sarasota with Sarasota County; that in his presentation, Mr. Ruske indicated that policies of certain States, including Georgia, are making cities obsolete whereas policies of other States, i.e., North Carolina, are making cities viable; that North Carolina's State policy mandates annexation of any urbanizing area to the nearest urban, incorporated area; that the average income in North Carolina cities is 20 percent higher than in the unincorporated areas; that Georgia has elected to form a Commission to examine those issues; that although urged by the Florida Association of Counties and Florida League of Cities, the Florida Legislature did not elect to form such a Commission; that the presentation was not advocating that cities "throw in the towel" but that those who cannot in the end overcome such State policies may be forced to consider consolidation; that along with the State and County, the City Commission, in determining policies and taking votes, should attempt to make this situation better. Mayor Merrill stated that when the City Administration aggressively pursued annexations, the citizens of Siesta Key voiced strong opposition; that encouraging a change in State policy to permit annexations of urbanized areas into a nearby incorporated area may not be the appropriate path to take; that his recent editorial advocated the creation of one metropolitan area, Sarasota County, operating under one government which, to him, would require dissolution of the City of Sarasota; that establishing a metropolitan area is essential; that he is open to exploring other directions by. which to achieve this objective. Commissioner Patterson - stated that forming a metropolitan government is not the same as consolidating in totality with the County; that the formation of a metropolitan government would achieve incorporation of the urbanized, unincorporated areas in North Sarasota County and areas not annexed; that intelligently informing the public about the issue is essential; that the issues raised regarding a consolidation are valid, but presenting that the issues cannot be resolved so the City should dissolve is premature; that the Legislature may consider changing State policies if enough citizens voice their support for the changes; that many people, including those holding municipal offices, are not fully aware of the situation regarding this issue. Mayor Merrill stated that establishing a "Blue Ribbon" committee within the community to develop and define an acceptable metropolitan government and presenting a Special Act to the local Legislative Delegation for State action, similar to what was dore in Duval County and Jacksonville, Florida, may be an easier approach than attempting to change State law. Commissioner Patterson stated that she is willing to entertain the approach presented by Mayor Merrill. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that establishing a "Blue Ribbon" committee should be reserved for consideration as a second step; that the first step should be an attempt to identify and make the corrections necessary to keep the City solvent; that Commissioner Patterson's remarks that some municipal officers may not realize the ramifications of the situation are valid; that she expressed similar remarks during the recent discussion regarding impact fees; that, for example, the Impact Fee Schedule developed by Sarasota County would not have been accepted if the issue had been fully understood; that in retrospect, a portion of the problems the City is currently experiencing can be attributed to that Impact Fee Schedule. COMMISSIONER DRY: A. stated that approximately ten cities were represented at the Florida League of Cities training seminar for newly elected officials she recently attended; that during the seminar, she learned many Commissions in Florida regularly schedule workshop meetings for topic discussion three or four days in advance of Commission meetings; that although the City Administration has attempted to adhere to her suggestion of distributing the Agenda packets three to four days in advance of a Commission meeting, problems on this agenda were still experienced BOOK 38 Page 12048 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12049 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. whereby additional materials were distributed to the Commission after she had already reviewed the originally distributed materials; that a continuance of this procedure should not be tolerated by the Commission; that items for which appropriate backup has not been provided when the Agenda packets are distributed should be removed and placed on the following Agenda; that items requiring immediate action should be the only exception. B. stated that workshops are an open arena for discussion and should be scheduled for important issues, i.e, Impact Fees, to provide adequate time for questions to be raised and answered prior to the Commission meeting; that Commissioners will be more informed at the time a vote is taken if workshops are held; that the Agenda Request sheets and backup materials provided in the Agenda packets do not adequately inform the Commission on important issues; that the procedure currently followed by the Administration forces the Commission to ask what much of the public considers to be "dumb" questions. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that over the past two years the majority of the Commission has consistently voted against scheduling workshops; that she appreciates being well informed in advance of a vote on an item which is difficult to comprehend; that with Commissioner Dry's vote, perhaps more workshops will be scheduled. Mayor Merrill stated that he has also heard from the public that the Commission appears to attend meetings unprepared; that former Mayor Gurney had initiated a specific, weekly scheduling of the City Manager's time for Commissioner questions; that attending workshops on numerous issues will require much of the Commission's time. MAYOR MERRILL: A. requested that he be informed, by a nod of the head or some other gesture, when Commissioners relinquish the floor. B. stated that the tradition of scheduling no meetings during the month of August will be followed if the Commission has no objections. Commissioner Patterson requested comment by the Administration. City Manager Sollenberger stated that accomplishing City business could be hindered if both meetings in August are suspended; that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Consolidated Plan has been advertised for adoption between August 1 and August 15; that during August the Administration plans to present an ordinance proposing a rate increase on utilities; that scheduling a regular meeting the first Monday in August and a special meeting for the second reading of the ordinance later in the week would be adequate; that the Administration recommends retaining the regular Commission meeting scheduled for August 7. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a workshop on August 14 has been scheduled to review the Land Development Regulations (LDRS). Commissioner Patterson stated that she will be out of town and unable to attend the August 7 meeting. Vice Mayor Cardamone stated that scheduling no meetings during the month of August makes for a horrendous Agenda the first meeting in September; that retaining the regular schedule during the month of August is acceptable to her. Mayor Merrill asked if the Commission had any objection to retaining the regular schedule. Mayor Merrill stated that hearing no objections, the Commission will meet the first and third Mondays during August. VICE MAYOR CARDAMONE: A. stated that items of public interest should not be moved forward on the Agenda and discussed prior to the public hearings which begin at 6:30 p.m.; that a procedure should be established regarding the use of time between 6:00 and 6:30 p.m. Mayor Merrill asked if the Commission had any objection to referring the issue to the City Auditor and Clerk. Mayor Merrill stated that hearing no objections, the Commission directs the City Auditor and Clerk to make a recommendation and report back to the Commission. B. stated that the City is investing substantial resources into the redevelopment of the Rosemary District; that the Commission should consider establishing a Redevelopment Advisory Board; that she plans to Agenda the item for discussion. 21. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS = DISCUSSION ON REZONING OF MISSION HARBOR SITE TO BE AGENDAED: SET PUBLIC HEARING ON 95-PA-05 (AGENDA XI) #4 (1571) through (1698) BOOK 38 Page 12050 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 38 Page 12051 07/03/95 6:00 P.M. CITY MANAGER SOLLENBERGER: A. stated that during the item regarding the Mission Harbor site, he failed to mention that without adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 95-PA-05 (Land Use Policy 1.3), the earliest the Mission Harbor property could be rezoned for commercial use would be November 1996; that rezoning could be delayed until June 1997; however, the recommendation submitted by the Planning and Development Department, if implemented, would allow rezoning at an earlier date. Mayor Merrill requested that the Administration agenda the rezoning of the Mission Harbor site for discussion. CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: A. stated that Comprehensive Plan Amendment 95-PA-08 has been rescheduled for public hearing at the July 17, 1995, regular Commission meeting. Vice Mayor Cardamone asked if a public hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment 95-PA-05 could also be agendaed at the next meeting. Mayor Merrill asked if the Commission had any objection to setting Comprehensive Plan Amendment 95-PA-05 for public hearing. Mayor Merrill stated that hearing no objections, 95-PA-05 will be set for public hearing at the next meeting. 22. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #4 (1700) There being no further business, Mayor Merrill adjourned the regular meêting of July 3, 1995, at 11:26 p.m. à DAVID MERRILL, MAYOR ATTEST:, Billu E Robenson BILLY R-ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK