MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 05, 1994 AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Nora Patterson, Vice Mayor David Merrill, Commissioners Fredd Atkins, Mollie Cardamone and Gene Pillot, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: : None PRESIDING: Mayor Nora Patterson The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:02 p.m. city Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED #1 (0053) through (0077) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Remove under Scheduled Presentations, Item No. V-1, Presentation Re: Lido Beach Renourishment Project, per the request of Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer B. Remove under Unfinished Business, Item No. VII-1, Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the third amendment to agreement for engineering services, between the City of Sarasota and Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc., for the Lido Key Beach Renourishment Project, per the request of Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer On motion of. Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 20, 1994, AND MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 23, 1994 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0077) through (0083) On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve the minutes of the Regular City Commission meeting of June 20, 1994, and Special City Commission Meeting of June Book 36 Page 10666 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10667 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. 23, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 3. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 1, 1994, AND SPECIAL MEETING OF JUNE 27, 1994 - REPORTS RECEIVED; SET PETITION NO. 94-SV-2 FOR PUBLIC HEARING; SET PETITION NO. 94-CA-01 FOR PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD; SET PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3785 FOR PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD IN SEPTEMBER; HILLVIEW COMIERCIAL/OSPREY AVENUE AREA RIGHT-OF-WAY CONCEPTUAL PLAN TO BE PRESENTED BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 6, 1994; APPROVAL OF PS&D 94-I AFFIRMED (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (0098) through (0510) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Ron Annis, Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning (PBLP) Agency, came before the Commission. Mr. Annis presented the following items from the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's regular meeting of June 1, 1994: A. Petition No. 94-SV-2, request for vacation of a portion of Harmony Lane lying south of Block N, Bay View Heights Subdivision. Mr. Annis stated that Petition No. 94-SV-2 requests a vacation of an unimproved City right-of-way to allow abutting property owners to continue to maintain and use the property in its current state; that the existing 50 year old oak trees would be preserved; that the PBLP recommends approval of Petition No. 94-SV-2 to the City Commission; that easements to the City of Sarasota for utilities, Florida Power and Light for power lines, and GTE for telephone lines are required if the property is vacated. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to set for public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to set Petition No. 94-SV-2 for public hearing. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mr. Annis stated for the record that no one spoke before the PBLP contrary to the proposal. B. Proposed Code Amendment, Petition No. 94-CA-01, pertaining to Adult Congregate Living Facilities in the Residential Single Family (RSF) zone district. Mr. Annis stated that the proposed code amendment would eliminate the 1,200 foot distance requirement between Adult Congregate Living Facilities and permit the development of adult care homes with up to 16 residents to be adjacent to each other along Fruitville Road; that the petitioner is suggesting the following criteria be used to determine eligibility: 1. The adult care home is situated directly adjacent to another adult care home under the same management. 2. No more than three adult care home facilities may be operated by the same management company, consistent with State of Florida statutes and rules; and 3. Shared access shall be provided between adjacent facilities. Mr. Annis stated that the PBLP recognized that revisions altering the lot size may need to be considered in the future. Mr. Annis stated that the PBLP recommends to the Commission setting Petition No. 94-CA-01 for public hearing before the Planning Board and to advertise the ordinance with the elimination of the 1,200 foot separation requirement. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to approve a public hearing before the Planning Board at the next available meeting. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the Planning Board normally sets their own public hearings? Ms. Robinson stated noi that drafting of an ordinance is usually required; therefore, the PBLP requests Commission authorization to set a public hearing before the PBLP. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to set Petition No. 94-CA-01 for public hearing before the Planning Board at the next available meeting. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. C. Proposed Ordinance No. 94-3785 pertaining to Boat docks. Mr. Annis stated that the PBLP recommends to the Commission setting proposed Ordinance No. 94-3785 for public hearing before the Planning Board at its September meeting to obtain further public input on various aspects of the ordinance. Mayor Patterson stated that she was not aware that the Commission was required to approve the setting of public hearings before the PBLP. Ms. Robinson stated that there was concern that the Commission was anxious to pass this ordinance; that setting the ordinance before Book 36 Page 10668 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10669 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. the Planning Board would delay the process. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to set proposed Ordinance No. 94-3785 for public hearing before the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting in September. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. D. Proposed improvements for the Hillview Commercial/Osprey Avenue area right-of-way. Mr. Annis stated that the PBLP requests the opportunity to review from an urban planning standpoint the proposed improvements relative to the Hillview Commercial/Osprey Avenue area right-of-way to determine how the public improvements would affect the surrounding community; that the PBLP feels that the item should have come before the PBLP since the zoning, use of corridors and roadways, etc., interrelate and affect long term planning in the area. Mayor Patterson stated that the Administration's recommendation apologizes for overlooking the PBLP's input on the issue, but does not recommend returning the item to the Planning Board because of the time constraints associated with the project. Commissioner Pillot stated that the matter has been brought to the attention of the Administration and will be handled differently in the future; that this important project is on a tight schedule involving several agencies; that substantial public input has been received on the project. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve the Administration's position and to proceed with the tentative schedule of presenting the conceptual plans before the City Commission on September 6, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. E. Preliminary Site and Development (PS&D) Plan 94-I - Florida West Coast Symphony building located at 709 N. Tamiami Trail. Mr. Annis stated that the PBLP had a special meeting on June 27th to consider PS&D 94-I; that PS&D 94-I permits the expansion and renovation of the Florida West Coast Symphony building a leased property of the City of Sarasota; that the PBLP found PS&D 94-I consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and the Tree Protection Ordinance and recommends approval subject to any lease agreement/amendments being approved by the City Commission. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to affirm the PBLP recommendation for approval of PS&D 94-I subject to any lease agreement/amendments being approved by the City Commission. city Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration would like to be in a position to issue building permits immediately to assist the Florida West Coast Symphony in completing construction prior to their season opening; that the Florida West Coast Symphony Board plans to approve a new lease; that the lease is over 40 years old and will require time to "clean it up". Commissioner Pillot as maker of the motion and Commissioner Cardamone as seconder agreed to include the administrative issuance of building permits in the intent of the motion. Mayor Patterson restated the motion as to approve PS&D 94-I allowing construction to commence prior to any lease agreement modifications being made and approved by the City Commission. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to accept the report of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's regular meeting of June 1, 1994, and special meeting of June 27, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 4. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2 = ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-747) ADOPTED; - (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (0520) through (0547) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 94R-747 in its entirety. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-747, appropriating $3,000 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (forfeitures) to provide a minimum number of signs for new neighborhood watch groups; etc. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt Resolution No. 94R-747. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson recognized John Mikos, Sarasota County Property Appraiser, who was present in the audience. Book 36 Page 10670 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10671 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson stated that public hearings are advertised for 6:30 p.m. Since it was not that time, there was a consensus of the Commission to hear Citizen's Input at this time. 5. CITIZENS' INPUT (AGENDA ITEM VI) #1 (0590) through (0790) Edward Harding, 420 Golden Gate Point, Suite 5, came before the Commission, and read a prepared speech to the Commission in regard to certain Commissioners' comments and participants' conduct regarding the recent Regatta to Cuba sponsored by the Sarasota Sailing Squadron. Mr. Harding stated that a lawyer has offered legal services "pro bono" to take action to cancel the lease between the City of Sarasota and the Sarasota Sailing Squadron should the Commission instruct City Attorney Taylor to run up the taxpayers' tab by starting a cancellation action. Mr. Harding referred to the title and letter date of various considerations he had previously requested of the Commission on which City Manager Sollenberger should get started at once. Mr. Harding distributed copies of his speech, a letter regarding Payne Park, a letter concerning the Central Library, and a letter in response to a letter sent to him by Mayor Patterson. (Copies are on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk). Mayor Pillot requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. Mr. Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. 6. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 94R-749, RENAMING ALDERMAN STREET FROM U.S. 301 TO OSPREY AVENUE TO BROTHER WILLIAM GEENEN WAY; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (0805) through ( / Commissioner Pillot stated that Brother William Geenen, founder of Senior Friendship Center, relocated to Sarasota in 1973 and established a program which has provided excellent service helping the elderly; that Brother Geenen was elected Provincial of the Midwest Province of the Brothers of Holy Cross and has relocated his primary office and residence to Indiana; that Brother Geenen's contributions to the people of Sarasota are well known; that Friendship Centers have now extended physically well beyond Sarasota, and even more as a model throughout the nation, began in the City of Sarasota more than twenty years ago; that the Senior Friendship Center recently celebrated its 20th Anniversary, and it seems appropriate to recognize Brother Geenen's contributions to the people of Sarasota and beyond by renaming Alderman Street from Osprey Avenue to U.S. 301 where the Senior Friendship Center is located; that this section of the street does not adjoin or provide direct access to any other facility; that the use of the street will remain unchanged; that the section of the street east of U.S. 301 should still be called Alderman Street to continue honoring the Alderman family for whom the street was named. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing and the following people came before the Commission: John Mikos, 2001 Adams Lane, stated that he has had the pleasure of working with Brother William Geenen for approximately 12 years and has witnessed Brother Geenen's dedication to humanitarian efforts, especially involving the elderly, in the Sarasota community; that Brother Geenen raised private funds to build the Senior Friendship Center and his dedication and vision in the leadership organized approximately 1,200 volunteers and 120 paid and volunteer staff for the Senior Friendship Center in Sarasota. Mr. Mikos urged the Commission to seriously consider honoring a gentleman who has contributed enormously to the Sarasota Community by naming the street Brother William Geenan Way. Kathy Schersten, representing herself, stated that she is speaking for herself and as a Board member of the Senior Friendship Center; that she has watched the wonderful work Brother Geenen has done for the community expand throughout the State; that Brother Geenen has provided the best agency for the aging in this area by using private funds and minimum public funding; that renaming Alderman Street to Brother William Geenen Way on the section of the street where the Friendship Center is known and located would be an appropriate way to honor Brother Geenen. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 94R-749 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt Resolution No. 94R-749 renaming Alderman Street from U.S. 301 to Osprey Avenue to Brother William Geenen Way. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if the Laurel Park Neighborhood had been notified of this proposed street renaming? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the President of the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association was notified; that no response has been received. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that Brother William Geenen should be honored; however, he is not sure renaming this section of Alderman Street which is primarily a parking lot is an appropriate honor; that it is important to obtain input from all parties in an area Book 36 Page 10672 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10673 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. when a street name is changed; that other and better honors may be appropriate; that a committee should be set up to determine whether renaming this section of Alderman Street is the most appropriate honor the City could bestow on Brother Geenan. Commissioner Pillot stated that the section of Alderman Street proposed for renaming provides direct access to the main entrances of both Senior Friendship Center buildings; that testimony by two individuals involved with the Senior Friendship Centers and Brother Geenen affirms that the renaming of the street is an appropriate honor. Commissioner Cardamone stated that naming this street after an individual who has favorably served the community is a very suitable and lasting honor; that she supports the motion. Commissioner Atkins stated that he will support the motion; that this honor is the beginning of something worthy that Brother Geenen has earned through his work in the community; that the Laurel Park Association would have voiced concern previously if there was a problem with renaming this section of Alderman Street. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 7. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3807, TO CONDITIONALLY REZONE FROM RMF-1 ZONE DISTRICT 2 RSF-4 ZONE DISTRICT ON REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOTS 8.10.12.13.14.15.16.17.18 19,20, AND 21, BLOCK G, IRVINGTON HEIGHTS UNIT NO. 2 REPLAT, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 23, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND LOTS 3,4,5,16,17 AND THE WEST 22 FEET OF LOT 6, A SUBDIVISION OF THAT PART OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 EAST OF S.A.L. RR, SEC. 18-36-18, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK I, PAGE 39, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA; FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE AUGUSTINE QUARTERS; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (PETITION NO. 94-CO-05, COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION. FRANKLIN) (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (1205) through (1534) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission, and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 94-3807 conditionally rezones from RMF-1 Zone District to RSF-4 Zone District a parcel approximately 2.8 acres, located west of Orange Avenue, east of Leon Avenue, north of 19th Street, and south of 22nd Street, formerly known as the Augustine Quarters; that the Development Review Committee verified that applicable City Codes have been met; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency found proposed RSF-4 zone district and Preliminary Site and Development Plan 94-G consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and unanimously recommended approval to the City Commission. Jack Conway, Community Housing Development, Bruce Franklin, ADP, and Dorothy Clark, Leon Avenue Neighborhood Association President, came before the Commission. Mr. Conway stated that this proposed ordinance is a step in the process of moving the Leon Avenue Redevelopment project forward; that the Community Housing Corporation (CHC) has been working with the Leon Avenue Neighborhood Association and Bruce Franklin; that one or two more events will take place before the CHC takes possession of the property to build houses; that construction of the project will be in two phases; that Phase One involves building 15 houses on the property to face Leon Avenue; that Phase Two will be brought to the Commission for approval at a later date; that construction is tentatively scheduled to commence in August; that September 10th has been tentatively scheduled for a formal event on the site. Ms. Clark stated that the Leon Avenue Neighborhood Watch Association is very pleased with the progress made by the CHC in regard to molding their neighborhood; that the Leon Avenue Neighborhood Association has worked closely with the CHC; and that future plans are being developed to clean up the Leon Avenue neighborhood to welcome the new housing development. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3807 by title only. Commissioner Atkins stated that this project is one of the most happily accepted projects on which he has had the experience to work. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3807 on first reading. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3811, AMENDING CHAPTER 33, TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLES, SARASOTA CITY CODE, PROVIDING AUTHORITY TO TRAFFIC ENGINEER TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN STREETS AS LOCAL STREETS AND ESTABLISH 25 MPH POSTED SPEED LIMITS ON LOCAL STREETS AND RESIDENCE DISTRICTS MAKING FINDINGS AS TO NEED; DEFINING TERMS; PROVIDING FOR THE Book 36 Page 10674 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10675 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF: REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #1 (1546) through (2051) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, and Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission. Mr. Mohammed stated that the City Attorney's office was directed to prepare an ordinance which would authorize the City Engineer to erect signs notifying the public of 25 mph speed limits; that studies and investigation have concluded that a 25 mph speed limit is necessary, legal, and entorceable on local streets in residential districts; that proposed Ordinance No. 94-3811 amends Chapter 33 to establish 25 mph speed limits on local streets and allows the City Engineer to post signs. Slides were shown on the overhead projector and Mr. Mohammed stated the following four alternatives developed to accomplish the goal of reducing the speed limit to 25 mph on residential streets throughout the City of Sarasota: Alternative #1: The posting of signage adjacent to major roads, at their entrances to the City, to inform motorists of a 25 mph speed limit on all streets unless otherwise posted. Alternative #2: The posting of 25 mph signs on residential streets presently posted with 30 mph signage. Alternative #3: The posting of 25 mph signs on all residential streets presently posted with 30 mph signage, additionally on streets meeting minimum requirements established within the report. Alternative #4: The posting of 25 mph signs on all residential streets Citywide. Mr. Mohammed stated that the Administration recommends Alternative #3; that the cost for replacing all existing 30 mph signage and erecting 440 new signs would be $42,000 and would result in a $9,300 annual maintenance cost to the City. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3811 on first reading and approve Alternative #3. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3811 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3811 on first reading and approve Alternative #3. Commissioner Cardamone stated that photographs depict a current proliferation of signs on local residential streets; that she is concerned with posting 440 new signs. Commissioner Cardamone asked how posting the signs would be handled? Mr. Mohammed stated that existing posts will be utilized when possible; however, in order to be enforceable, the signs will have to be erected in accordance with Florida State Statutes Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he shares Commissioner Cardamone's concern; that the Commission should approve the 25 mph signs, but common sense should be used on the new sign placement, i.e., placement could be delayed in certain areas which are not experiencing a problem or requesting a 25 mph speed limit sign. Commissioner Pillot stated that enough signs should be placed to be enforceable under applicable laws. Mayor Patterson referred to the criteria listed in the 25 mph Speed Limit Report and asked if streets which do not meet the listed criteria will be entitled to signage? Mr. Mohammed stated that the criteria is not part of the ordinance. Mayor Patterson stated that qualifying streets requesting a 25 mph sign will receive one; that qualifying streets rejecting a 25 mph sign may not receive one; and that non-qualifying streets requesting a 25 mph sign will not be prevented from receiving one. Mr. Mohammed stated that is correct. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the placement of new posts for signs should be minimized; that eligible existing signs and posts should be relocated to meet the requirements of speed limit sign placement in order to incorporate more than one sign per post. Mr. Mohammed stated that this could be accomplished; that many signs, i.e., crime watch signs, do not have strict placement criteria. Mr. Daughters stated that the only strict criteria is that the street must be a designated residential street. Mayor Patterson restated the. motion as to pass proposed Ordinance 94-3811 on first reading and approve Alternative #3. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Book 36 Page 10676 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10677 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3813, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE, ARTICLE XIV, MOBILE HOMES AND MOBILE HOME PARKS, DIVISION 2, SARASOTA MOBILE HOME PARK = RULES AND REGULATIONS TO INCORPORATE THEREIN THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 90-3416 PERTAINING TO THE PURCHASE OF MOBILE HOMES AND DENSITY REDUCTION WITHIN THE PARK; AMENDING THE MOBILE HOME PARK RULES AND REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE THAT A LOT WITHIN THE PARK MAY ONLY BE RENTED BY A PERSON WITH LEGAL TITLE TO THE MOBILE HOME TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE PARK: CHANGING THE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE A NOTICE OF CHANGE IN LAND USE WHICH SHALL REQUIRE THAT ALL RESIDENTS OF THE MOBILE HOME PARK VACATE THEIR LOTS AND REMOVE THEIR MOBILE HOMES BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, EXCEPT FOR THOSE RESIDENTS WHO WERE RESIDENTS OF THE PARK ON JULY 16, 1990; PROVIDING THAT PERSONS WHO WERE RESIDENTS OF THE MOBILE HOME PARK ON JULY 16, 1990 MAY REMAIN AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHANGE IN LAND USE UNDER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COMMISSION: SPECIFYING THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN SHALL BE CHANGED TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECREATIONAL USE OF THE MOBILE HOME PARK LANDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH DATE OF JULY 16, 1990, AMENDED TO JULY 16, 1994 (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #2 (2053) through #3 (1860) Mayor Patterson asked if there was a volunteer willing to translate the opening remarks in Spanish for the benefit of the Spanish- speaking members of the audience? Yolanda Beltran-Halstead came before the Commission and translated City Manager Sollenberger's comments into Spanish. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City Commission passed an ordinance in 1985 to reduce density in the SMHP for public safety reasons; that during the five-year scheduled sunset period, 73 mobile homes were purchased by the City; that another ordinance to reduce density in the SMHP was passed in 1990; that actions taken in 1990 intended that owner/occupants of mobile homes on or before enactment of the 1990 density reduction ordinance should be allowed to remain in the park and should not be evicted; that the City has purchased 192 mobile homes since adoption of that ordinance; that turnover in ownership of mobile homes since 1990 has averaged 100 per year; that a decision was made by the Florida State Supreme Court to strike down provisions which required mobile home park owners to either pay for or relocate mobile homes owned by people affected by a change in land use; therefore, the statues reverted back to the 1985 six-month requirement for notice of a change in land use. Mr. Sollenberger stated that infrastructure capital investments necessary for the park's continued operation are foreseen in the range of $0.5 million to $1 million dollars; that this investment in not economically wise for a park comprised of mobile homes reaching the énd of their useful lives. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the ordinance does several things: 1. Provides notice of intent to change the land use from residential to recreation and open space. 2. Requires that effective September 30, 1999, all residents except those who were owner/occupants on or before July 16, 1990, must leave the park. 3. Requires the SMHP residents to show evidence of ownership in the form of a State of Florida Vehicle Title Certificate and to display the current State of Florida Motor Vehicle decal. 4. Provides grounds for eviction if a mobile home owner fails to notify the park manager of his or her intent to sell a mobile home. Mayor Patterson stated at this time there are 36 people signed up to speak on this issue; and asked how the Commission would like to handle the input. Commissioner Pillot stated that the speakers should be asked to limit their comments; that persons who have signed up to speak in Spanish should be allowed to have the essence of their comments translated into English for the benefit of the Commission; however, all English comments should not be translated into Spanish. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a speaker with translator should be required to adhere to the five-minute time limit, translation included. At Mayor Patterson's request, Ms. Halstead translated the procedure determined by the Commission for persons who have signed up to speak. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Maria Bernal, 2100 SMHP #237, stated that the latin residents have the following questions: Book 36 Page 10678 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10679 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. 1. What happened to the money which has been paid by residents of the SMHP for lot rent? 2. Why isn't the lot rent being used to make the repairs in the SMHP? Mayor Patterson asked Mr. Sollenberger to respond to the questions. Mr. Sollenberger stated that $1 million dollars worth of repairs are necessary; that approximately $150,000 to $200,000 has been used to purchase mobile homes in the SMHP over the last several years; that this money has come from lot rents. Ms. Bernal stated that many of the residents who purchased homes after 1990 want to know why they weren't told there would be a removal; that discussions were held with the former park manager with no mention of the removal of 193 mobile homes; that people have invested their savings in these mobile homes; that occupants are being required to move their units out of the SMHP; that many occupants have low paying jobs and do not have $2,000 or $3,000 to move out; that she wants to know what is going to happen to the people who cannot economically afford to move out of the SMHP? Mr. Sollenberger stated the only question to which he can respond is why people weren't notified of the City's intention to close the park after 1990; that the City developed a density reduction program based on the law at the time which required mobile home park owners to purchase or pay for relocation of mobile homes when a change in land use occurred; that the original goal was to reduce the number of units to 275 within 10 years; however, within the past year, the law has been struck down as unconstitutional and changed the situation; that the City, as the owner, now is only required to give six months notice of a change in land use and the necessity to relocate; that the City is taking a more generous approach by giving five years notice of the change in land use and necessity to relocate. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Commission conducted a public hearing in February 1990 at the SMHP; that the Commission promised the current occupants that they would not be forced to move; that those homes would only be moved out of SMHP as the occupant left the park of their own free will; that the Administration added several months to that date and used the date of July 16, 1990, for residents who would be privileged to stay. Rosa Guturrez, 19th Street SMHP, as translated by Emma Bustamante, stated that occupants would not have spent $20,000 to purchase mobile homes if they knew they would be thrown out of the SMHP; that the City should provide a place for the occupants to relocate their mobile homes if the City needs a park because the occupants have no where to move. Nicolas Vasquez, 205 SMHP, speaking for himself, Susana Ramon, and Moisas Vargas, as translated by Emma Bustamante, asked what the City plans to do when the time comes for the occupants to move? Mayor Patterson stated that occupants will have five years to make their own arrangements for housing; that some potential housing assistance is available; that the City is not proposing to take the responsibility to find housing for the occupants of the SMHP. Mr. Vasquez stated that they agree to move from SMHP in five years, but asks the City not to charge rent for those five years so that money can be saved to acquire new housing; that the City can keep the mobile homes; that the City could purchase the mobile homes at a reduced cost; that all the money they have invested in their mobile homes should not be lost, because they have no where to go; that a good contract is requested from the City explaining how the City will handle their move and, if need be, they are ready to go on a hunger strike with their families which it seems is what the City wants because the City wants them to be out on the streets; that they don't want to go to extremes; that they don't want any violence; that they just want the Commission to understand what they are doing and to offer them a good contract or resolution for thier removal; that nobody likes their things taken away from them. Cheryl Walsh, 216 SMHP, stated that she is speaking for herself and her neighbors; that several people have moved into the SMHP after the date specified; that she moved into the SMHP in February 1994 and was assured that the SMHP would not be bought out and she would not have to move; that she has moved 18 times within the last four years; that she has not been able to work due to a divorce and car accident; that she and her neighbors have put a lot of work and finances into making SMHP their home; that many occupants of the SMHP are living on disability and limited income; that many of the mobile homes are old and could not withstand being moved out of the SMHP; that she is a single woman ineligible for welfare and doesn't know what she- would do if she was forced to move; that the SMHP doesn't have a high crime rate; that the SMHP is family-oriented; that the SMHP is a safe neighborhood of which the residents are proud and do not want to lose; that she doesn't know what she would do if the City took her home; and requested, "Please don't take our homes, please let us keep our homes. Ms. Walsh presented the Commission with a petition signed by citizens petitioning against losing their homes. Gilberto Vaquera, 2100 SMHP 1823, as translated by Yolanda Beltran- Halstead, stated that since the land is what the City needs, the City could move the occupants to another park if the City cannot afford pay for the mobile homes; that the occupants have worked years to purchase their mobile homes; that it may be easy for the Commission to put the occupants out on the street, but it was not Book 36 Page 10680 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10681 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. easy for the occupants to attain what they have; that there are many (latin) occupants who do not want to be pushed into desperation of doing something they really don't want to do; that he has two children and a wife expecting a child; that the occupants are willing to do whatever is necessary to stay in the SMHP; that the Commission should look into their conscience and put themselves into the place of the occupants; that the mobile homes purchased for $10,000 will be worthless if movement is attempted; that the City has a responsibility to the occupants at the SMHP. Mr. Vaquera continued that the park manager has been asking for the titles to the mobile homes immediately; that payments to the owners have been made for years, but the titles will not be released until the mobile homes are paid in full; that the City should have notified the occupants earlier of the situation sO that other solutions could have been found; that he hopes the Commission remembers that children are involved. Randy Hans, 1001 10th Street, stated that he moved into the SMHP in 1991; that the occupants do not want to move; that the mobile homes are the occupants' condominiums; that violence, dope, and crack cocaine are not problems at the SMHP; that the City can't be $1 million in debt for the SMHP; that the SMHP is fine; that he paid $10,000 for his mobile home and he does not want to be thrown out; that the City should provide the occupants with another site in a park in the City if they want the occupants to relocate; that the City doesn't have the right to kick the occupants out to nowhere; that the homeless rate in the City is starting to improve but will increase if the SMHP occupants are thrown out; that a lot of violence will occur if the City kicks the occupants out of the SMHP; that the City is doing the wrong thing. John Kinnecom, 2100 SMHP #1229, read a prepared speech (a copy is on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk) which stated that he is a resident of the SMHP and a registered voter in the City of Sarasota protesting against passage of this ordinance; that society is plagued with issues such as homelessness, elderly persons on fixed incomes at or near poverty level, and a service economy with many workers at minimum wage; that the SMHP provides a place for many economically challenged residents of the City of Sarasota to call home; that these people work in local businesses, clean homes, mow lawns, and fix cars for Sarasota residents; that many of the SMHP residents are war veterans, grandmothers, and immigrant families trying to provide a future for their children; that the SMHP has evolved into a low-income housing project with independently owned units; however, unlike other low-income housing projects, the SMHP is clean, decent, and safe. Mr. Kinnecom continued that the present income generated by the 400 units at the SMHP is approximately $0.5 million per year; that the City could use that income to purchase land for a park elsewhere; that the Mission Harbor site would make a beautiful park. Mr. Kinnecom further stated that this proposed ordinance is discriminatory in nature; that it does not apply the law equally to all tenants; that his lease is identical to all other SMHP occupant leases, but now a termination date will be applied to it by a four year retroactive change; that the portion of the ordinance requiring residents who purchased their mobile homes after July 16, 1990, to leave the SMHP in 1999 should be struck; that the City should be fair and change the dates to exempt all present existing owners; that a date, i.e., 50 years in the future, should be chosen to close the facility. Juan M. Garcia, 2nd Street SMHP #212, as translated by Yolanda Beltran-Halstead, stated that the City Administration is to blame for what is happening tonight; that the park manager was aware of mobile homes being purchased and did not inform the buyers of the City's intent; that he supports his neighbors' comments previously stated. Humberto Nava, 2100 SMHP #330, as translated by Yolanda Beltran- Halstead, stated that he purchased his mobile home three months ago; that he was not told of the City's intent; that he will lose all the money paid for his mobile home; that the City should pay the occupants the money expended or allow the occupants to stay at the SMHP rent free until the eviction date. Mary Meyer, 2716 Marlette Street, stated that people who buy mobile homes at the SMHP have contact with the park manager and are provided rules and regulations; that she was provided rules and regulations on June 30, 1994. Ms. Meyer referred to the rules and regulations and cited the following: Page 23 - The park owner has no definite future plans to seek a change in the use of the land comprising the Sarasota Mobile Home Park. Whereas the operation of the park has traditionally provided an affordable housing alternative for citizens of the City. Whereas the City of Sarasota will use the revenues generated by the Sarasota Mobile Home Park to fund the infrastructure improvements within the park. Density reduction by the purchase of mobile homes and the removal of the same from the park and by relocating remaining homes within the park. Density reduction will be obtained through voluntary attrition. Tenancy in which the park residents Book 36 Page 10682 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10683 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. voluntarily decide to leave the mobile home park. Ms. Meyer stated that these statements which are received upon occupancy lead occupants to believe they will be allowed to remain in the park; that many of the occupants paid more money than they should have for their mobile homes; however, the mobile homes were purchased because the location is a low crime area and provides walking access to stores by occupants who do not have vehicles; that many people in addition to the SMHP occupants present tonight, i.e., elderly occupants unable to attend and the surrounding business owners, will be affected by this change. Ms. Meyer continued that the Commission is in charge of the SMHP, and has an obligation to its tenants; that an arrangement should be made with the tenants; that the entire meeting should have been translated into Spanish. Ms. Meyer presented signatures to a petition which reads as follows: At the time of purchase of my mobile home, I was interviewed and approved. At no time was I ever informed that because my purchase was after 1990, I would have to leave the park. My mobile home is my home and my investment and I would lose everything if this ordinance is passed. All of the undersigned are protesting this ordinance, the owners before 1990 and after 1990. Please reconsider and help us. Fred DuBois, 2100 East Laurel Street, 527 SMHP, stated that he came to Sarasota in 1951; that he purchased a mobile home in the SMHP three months ago for future retirement purposes and was not informed of the City's intent; that he is a former City Manager of a city in Florida; that he lives at and manages a $20 million complex on Longboat Keyi that reduction in units at the SMHP for safety reasons were wise, step-by-step considerations; however, the proposed ordinance as drafted was done with stupidity and arrogance on the part of the Commission. Mr. DuBois continued that it may cost $0.5 million to upgrade the 50-year old infrastructure at SMHP, but the lot fees at the SMHP generate over $1 million annually; that the County receives funds from stickers and the State from the licenses of the units at the SMHP; that there is no reason why with proper management a portion of this income could not pay for the infrastructure improvements necessary to bring the park up to a standard which would be a positive reflection for the City of Sarasota; however, the Commission wants to close the SMHP and make it a park; that trees can't pay taxes and trees can't vote for Commissioners. Mr. DuBois further stated that residents of the City are expected to support the services and amenities of the Cityi that there is no other two square block area in the City generating the revenue that the SMHP currently generates; that the SMHP supports the downtown area and the inner structure of the rest of the City, i.e., the shops, the merchants, the hospital, etc.; that the Commission should make a model out of the SMHP and satisfy the needs of the people who are the maids, yard keepers, and clerks in the stores of the City by retaining a place for these service people to live; that there was very little thought given and very little heart concerned with the future prosperity of the City and these citizens who have made it what it is today when the wording of the proposed ordinance was drafted. Commissioner Atkins left the Commission Chambers at 8:08 p.m. Commissioner Pillot stated that the previous speakers have been courteous and heartfelt, making a positive and deep impression on him; that he finds it regrettable that Mr. DuBois' anger and use of words like stupidity and arrogance has made it difficult for him to continue feeling that way; that his father resided at the SMHP for 15 years; that he has a deep heart for the SMHP; that he fought for it in 1990 and is prepared to fight for it tonight because he remembers the love his father received for 15 years on 16th Street. Commissioner Atkins returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:10 p.m. Thomas Holland, 2100 Laurel Street, stated that many of his questions and concerns have already been addressed; that he would like to know the maximum and minimum funding allotted for the purchase of mobile homes; that the City should borrow the money, if necessary, from the County to move the occupants from the SMHP; that he wonders where the money generated by the SMHP has gone; that he agrees with the speaker who suggested applying the present date forward to the ordinance; that the occupants of the SMHP are registered voters who pay the Commissioners' salaries; that the $250,000 set aside to buy mobile homes should not have been transferred to a redevelopment fund for the City of Sarasota. Mr. Holland continued that the City could offer to pay half of the cost of relocating to lessen the burden on the occupants forced to move; that he wonders if the remaining occupants will be burdened by a substantial increase in lot fees to compensate the lost revenue once the 193 mobile homes are removed from the SMHP in 1999; that the Commission should reconsider passing this ordinance because each of the owners of the 193 mobile homes will have good grounds for a lawsuit. Emma Bustamante, 7294 Cloister Drive #10, stated that she coordinated a tutoring and recreation group at the SMHP in January 1994; that the City was notified that the group was using the park Book 36 Page 10684 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10685 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. area for soccer team activities; that the team arrived one Saturday to a torn-up field; that a college student being tutored was sent to discuss the matter with the City; that the woman who was a City representative told him "that's the future, you can't live in the past" and showed him plans depicting buildings in the SMHP area with no mobile homes, but hardly a park; that the City knew the group was utilizing the park area for soccer activities, but didn't bother to notify the group. Ms. Bustamante continued that 40% of the affected families are hispanic; that the Commission should review the numbers; that the SMHP does not have crime, drug abuse, although most low-income parts of the City have those elements; that forcing the occupants to move will force them into those type of crime-oriented neighborhoods; that the SMHP should not be eliminated, it should be used as a role model and copied throughout the City; that no other low-income area works like the SMHP. Ms. Bustamante stated that she was disturbed by the Commission's comments which mentioned that all 36 people who had signed up to speak would not be allowed to speak; that citizens have a right to speak; that the citizens should be allowed to speak for the five minutes allotted even if it takes all night. Mayor Patterson stated that Ms. Bustamante misunderstood the comments; that the Commission does not deprive any citizen from speaking at a public hearing or on any agenda item permitting citizens' input. Ms. Bustamante stated that non-English speaking citizens have a right to speak even without an interpreter. Mayor Patterson stated that Spanish-speaking citizens have come before the Commission tonight with an interpreter and no one has been deprived of their right to speak; that she did not state that Spanish-speaking citizens would not be afforded an opportunity to speak before the Commission. Michael Ortiz, 7637 Cove Terrace, stated that he is an attorney in Sarasota; that he is not representing any one; that the City has a strong contingency of people who will be affected by what the Commission decides tonight; that the Commission needs to look into their conscience to realize who they are affecting by this ordinance; that although he is hispanic, he cannot feel what the people present are feeling because he is successful and not in fear of being evicted which makes him wonder if the Commission can; that he requests the Commission to consider what they are doing. Mr. Ortiz continued that legally he feels the ordinance as drafted has some equal protection problems; that the proposed ordinance creates two classes of people people residing in the park before 1990 and people residing after 1990; that some people are being evicted and others are not. Gigi Pennock, Lot 35, 5th Street SMHP, stated that she has resided at the SMHP since 1989; that $2,000 worth of improvements were recently made to her mobile home prior to receipt of the notice stating that the City plans to close the SMHP in five years; that the occupants who will be forced to move should be compensated for the investments in their homes; that Mr. Gerkin told her that the affected occupants would probably be compensated for the appraised value of their mobile home minus the amenities; that the affected occupants are hurting; that the affects of this ordinance should be given serious consideration; that closing the park will hurt the adjacent Ringling Shopping Center and area businesses; that her heart goes out to the people of hispanic descent and elderly citizens who have no other means to get around the City; that the affected occupants should be compensated; that "these people need help, please help them." Zeta Hayes, 1160 Florida Avenue, stated that she is a native of Sarasota and a disillusioned taxpayer; that at one time she was poor, discouraged, ill, and lived on the streets; that a kind couple from the SMHP took her in and provided shelter, food, and hope; that with the help of this couple and the wonderful SMHP community, she regained her confidence and strength to venture out on her own; that the Commission is now trying to remove this productive and happy community through various ordinances and replace it with another park; that she voted for each of the Commissioners sitting at the table with the trust that they would serve Sarasota citizens, rich and poor, to their best advantage, not to build more overbudget parks. Ms. Hayes continued that further Commission action to dislodge and uproot the well adjusted non-problem causing citizens of the SMHP would be unsympathetic, selfish, uncaring, unrealistic, unappreciative, self-serving and ridiculous and as such would represent an abomination and discrimination towards certain citizens in the community and thus humanity. Yolanda Beltran-Halstead, representing the Hispanic American Alliance, stated that several months ago she learned about what was going to happen at the SMHP and attempted to steer people away from purchasing the mobile homes; that many Hispanic Americans want to purchase homes at the SMHP because the prices of the mobile homes are more affordable than single-family homes; that many of the occupants have to work two jobs to afford their units; that Sarasota has limited low-income housing which needs to be expanded; that she steered several families who had intended to buy at the SMHP in another direction; however, many of the families she tried to inform did not believe her; that the families assumed that the management would inform them if the City had plans to Close the SMHP; that management did not inform them, and many of those families purchased mobile homes at the SMHP. BOOK 36 Page 10686 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 36 Page 10687 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Ms. Halstead continued that the majority of the hispanic citizens present in the audience are clients of the Hispanic American Alliance; that she hopes the City has a plan for relocation; that many of the people who will be forced to relocate have already relocated to the SMHP from other properties which have been demolished to beautify the City, i.e., houses on the west side of U.S. 301; that some of the 38 people who were forced to move from Orange Avenue relocated to the SMHP; that those same people will be forced to move again; that previous properties were rental; however, these occupants have worked two jobs to purchase the mobile homes they live in now; that the mobile homes may not look like much to some people, but to the occupant it's a palace. Commissioner Cardamone asked for clarification on the counselling Ms. Halstead provided to some of the residents at the SMHP. Ms. Halstead stated that she convinced some of the people not to purchase homes at the SMHP; however, a few people didn't believe what she was telling them; that those people relied on the responsible City Administration to inform or warn them (if the City had plans to close the SMHP and force residents to leave in the future); that the City Administration did not inform or warn the purchasers against buying the mobile homes, thus why would the purchaser believe her? Commissioner Cardamone asked if Ms. Halstead personally believed that the mobile homes were bought or sold at fair market value? Ms. Halstead stated that the mobile homes were sold for a lot more than they were worth. Commissioner Cardamone asked if Ms. Halstead thought the purchasers understood the contract for deed sale? Ms. Halstead stated that the purchasers did not, but the sellers probably did. Epitacio Flores, 2100 SMHP 5th Street Lot 11, as translated by Yolanda Beltran-Halstead, stated that he is hoping the Commission can look into their conscience and realize that this is a problem affecting human beings who have worked hard to obtain something; that he is one of the affected occupants; and requested that the Commission listen to what has been stated tonight. Hermelinda Ibarra, 2100 SMHP #231, as translated by Emma Bustamante, stated that she supports the positions previously presented; that the City should pay for the occupants' mobile homes or find another place for the occupants to live; that a solution for this problem is necessary because many children are involved; that she has faith in the Commission and in God that help will be provided. Mayor Patterson asked what price was paid for Ms. Ibarra's mobile home? Ms. Ibarra stated $12, ,000. Mayor Patterson asked how much of the $12,000 was paid to the previous owner? Ms. Ibarra stated that $10,500 has been paid in total; that a down payment of $3,000 was applied and payments on the balance have been made over the past two years. James Ericsson, representing Federation of Mobile Home Owners, stated that he is the President of the Federation of Mobile Home Owners (FMO) in Sarasota County, District 8; that he is not speaking for the occupants, but he has represented them in the past; that he is present to be sure that the Administration is accurately following Florida Statute 723 with regard to the proposed ordinance; that Florida Statute 723.061 requires one year's notice for a change in land use, not six months; that the only part of the statute that was changed came about through litigation in the Second Judicial Circuit in Lakeland due to park owners wishing not to do what the original statute stated; that the section requiring a mobile home park owner to pay for damages and the actual costs and set up fees to move the evicted mobile homes is the part of the statute that disappeared; that the section regarding notice of application for the change in zoning remains the same; that any home owner affected by the City's change in zoning has the right to appear before the Zoning Board. Mr. Ericsson cited the following from Florida State Statute 723.083: No agency of municipal or local, county or state government shall approve any application for rezoning or take any other official action that would result in removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in a mobile home park without first determining that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile home owners. Mr. Ericsson stated that the people present tonight are asking for someplace to relocate; that he wants to make sure that the Commission is doing what it should for the SMHP residents. Mr. Ericsson continued that the prices, stated as paid for mobile homes at the SMHP are ridiculous; that the price of a normal mobile home has decreased substantially since hurricane Andrew hit Florida; that mobile homes in Sarasota's Classier parks have decreased by 508. Mr. Ericsson further stated that the FMO has legal counsel for the situation; that the FMO has spoken with Robert Gerkin, Director of General Services, and intends to follow the situation closely to make sure something is done for the SMHP residents; that he suggests that the Commission follow Florida Statute 723; that the State Legislature has been reviewing Bills to restore the section concerning the closing of mobile home parks and the effect on BOOK 36 Page 10688 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 36 Page 10689 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. mobile home owners; that State Senator Keiser introduced a bill at the last legislative session, but it was not reported out of committee; that the bill is being rewritten and will probably be reported out of committee; that the bill will require a one-year eviction notice stating the change in land use, provide residents a 90-day period to challenge the land use change, require compensation for park-required improvements which the owner loses when the mobile home is dismantled, and require compensation for appurtenance the homeowner has added; that there is much to be considered before closing a mobile home park; that the people at the SMHP need something; that the SMHP could be made into a fine park in the City. Commissioner Pillot asked for clarification on the statement that no person should be move or park closed unless there are adequate spaces to which to move them. Mr. Ericsson restated Florida Statute 723.083. City Attorney Taylor stated that special legal counsel was hired to advise the City on the issue after legal precedent was set in the Tarpon Springs case where the FMO was also represented by counsel; that the City is at the initial point of taking an action at this time; that notice is about to be given and from that point forward the City is guided by what is in the State Law applicable to this situation; that the special counsel was specifically asked about the Florida Statute 723.083 provision; that the response by special counsel was that the provision didn't apply in this particular situation. Mr. Ericsson stated that the statute was ruled unconstitutional in only one judicial district; that another judicial district may rule it constitutional. Mayor Patterson asked Mr. Ericsson if he realized that the City did not set the over-inflated mobile home prices to which he referred nor did the City receive any of the dollars from those sales? Mr. Ericsson stated that he did; that the occupants chose a place to live and paid the going price for a mobile home; however, he knows of four mobile home parks in the County where a single-wide, two bedroom, single bath mobile home on a piece of property with a lower lot rent than at SMHP can be purchased for $6,000. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that these alternate sites would then meet the provisions of the statute. Mr. Ericsson stated that alternate sites are available for purchase in the County; however, the six mobile home parks located within City limits are full. Manuel Oviedo, 6th Street SMHP Lot #9, as translated by Emma Bustamante, stated that he supports what has previously been stated; and that he does not understand the City's motive for increasing the lot rent every year. Mayor Patterson left the Commission Chambers at 8:46 p.m. Irene Vazquez, 2100 SMHP #1743, as translated by Emma Bustamante, stated that her problem is the same as expressed by others; that many occupants sacrificed much to purchase their mobile homes instead of renting property and fearing that a landlord could throw them out at any time; that the SMHP is security for the occupants and their children; that when she purchased her mobile home, no one informed her that she would have to move out. Mayor Patterson returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:48 p.m Commissioner Cardamone asked Ms. Vazquez if it ever occurred to her that when she purchased her mobile home, she would be renting the land from the City? Ms. Vazquez stated that she was aware that she was renting the lot; however, she would not have bought the mobile home had she been told the lot could only be rented for a limited time. Maria Concepcion Bernal, 2100 SMHP #2010, as translated by Emma Bustamante, stated that she purchased her first mobile home in March 1993; that she purchased another mobile home in March 1994 and sold her first mobile home to another family; that she was not informed of the City's intent when she notified the office of this transaction; that she paid $13,500 for her new mobile home; that the person to whom she sold her original mobile home will also be affected by this proposed ordinance. Commissioner Cardamone left the Commission Chambers at 8:56 p.m. Ascencion Martinez, 2100 SMHP, as translated by Emma Bustamante, stated that he is before the Commission to support his group's plans and to defend maintaining his mobile home; that a place for people to live should be more important to the Commission than a park; that he recently received one letter evicting him in five years and another letter increasing the lot rent; and asked why the rent was being increased at the same time occupants are being evicted? Commissioner Cardamone returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:58 p.m. Argentina Hernandez, 2100 SMHP #618, as translated by Yolanda Beltran-Halstead, stated that he is the affected party who purchased Ms. Bernal's mobile home in March; that he made a $3,000 down payment on the mobile home; that he has paid $4,000 to-date; that he had no contact with the park manager, but a SMHP representative informed him that he could not purchase another BOOK 36 Page 10690 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 36 Page 10691 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. mobile home which had two bedrooms because he has three children; that he went into $14,000 debt for his children and family; and asked if he will be required to pay the $800 worth of taxes if the City throws him out? Mayor Patterson stated that the $800 is for sales tax on the purchase of the mobile home; that the tax is a State tax and not a property tax paid to the City. Diamantina Rodriguez, 2100 SMHP 2039, as translated by Emma Bustamante, stated that she has the same concerns as previously stated; that the children while on school summer vacation have been cleaning up the SMHP; that the mobile home court area is sO small that removing two mobile homes would serve no purpose; that she hopes the Commission supports what the occupants need. Ed Harding, 420 Golden Gate Point #5, requested that Yolanda Beltran-Halstead be allowed to read in Spanish the letter previously presented to the Commission regarding Payne Park. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order, a speaker's allotted time cannot be passed to another speaker. Mayor Patterson stated that the consensus of the Commission was to deny Mr. Harding's request; that he could circulate his letter in the audience if sO desired. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3813 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommendation is to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3813 on first reading. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation. Commissioner Cardamone stated that this is an emotional issue; that although the Commission has heard from speakers opposed to the Administration's recommendation, she has heard from several people in the community who support the recommendation; that the emotions of the issue made it difficult for those individuals to come before the Commission and speak; therefore, she will attempt to speak for them in an effort to represent all of the residents of the City. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the City is a landlord; that there is a temporariness in any form of renting or leasing; that the City owns the SMHP land; that by inclusion of the word "mobile" in the term mobile home, the purchaser should expect that the unit is movable; that the views and expectations of the 50,000 citizens paying property taxes regarding the rights and use of the SMHP land must be considered. Commissioner Cardamone continued that the SMHP land is currently being used illegally; that the Payne family donated the land for recreational use only; that the violation of the conveyance of that gift has bothered her and many other citizens in the City of Sarasota; that the donor's son approached a previous Commission troubled that the City was using the land for a use other than what was intended; that she would like Commission discussion on the following issues: 1. that the land use is illegal; 2. that the park does not meet the City Code requirements for single family homes; and 3. that the condition in which the SMHP is kept has raised objections by many citizens. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the mobile homes at the SMHP are placed in extremely close proximity; that she is concerned with the dangers to the families if a fire were to occur in the SMHP; that this concern was one of the original reasons for the change in density and the attempt to lower the number of units in the SMHP. Commissioner Pillot stated that he will not support the motion; that the City Commission does have an obligation to honor the wishes of the donor of the land; however, the issue has not been pressed; that a fair amount of the land has been vacated for use as a park; that the condition of the SMHP has improved; that the Commission has discussed for many years the issue of affordable housing for which there has been considerable support and interest; that the SMHP has provided much needed affordable housing; that the City Commission knew in 1990 that the SMHP would be phased out; that the City was unable to honor its commitment to purchase the mobile homes, and the homes were sold to other tenants; that he would support grandfathering in all current occupants as of today and providing clear information to future potential buyers of the risk associated with purchasing a mobile home at the SMHP. Commissioner Atkins stated that he was on the Commission in 1990 when this difficult issue was raised; that he understands the 1990 situation and the Payne donation advocacy for returning the SMHP land to its legal use; however, the City neglected its responsibility to inform purchasers of what the future would bring; that he cannot support the eviction of occupants who purchased Book 36 Page 10692 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10693 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. mobile homes after 1990 with no understanding of the City's intent to close the SMHP; therefore, he will vote against the motion. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that an official date certain has never been determined; therefore, the Administration could not inform individuals when the park would be closing; that a date certain needs to be determined; that he is intrigued by Commissioner Pillot's suggestion of using a current date to determine which occupants will be allowed to remain and on which date no new occupants would be allowed to move in; that he is willing to support the proposed ordinance because it is a compromise and a decision must be made to determine a date certain when the SMHP will Close. City Attorney Taylor stated that it is obvious by the value of the mobile homes being sold that the owners are selling the City's land; that the State Statute which operates to protect mobile home owners virtually ties up the City's land in perpetuity; that a date certain of closure applicable to all tenants would affect the value placed on the right to occupy a lot; however, the City cannot legally stop the mobile home owners from selling their units even if a date certain is established for closure; that the City's only option has been to purchase the units for sale; that an alternative date for the park to close could be established past September 1999. City Attorney Taylor continued that he is concerned that the City may not actually be closing the SMHP under the statutory definition if as of a certain date the park is closed but all current residents are grandfathered for life; that special counsel is necessary for a legal determination. Mayor Patterson stated in response to inquiries about the SMHP revenue that the funds in the past were used to purchase mobile homes from the SMHP owners until last year when the money was put into the general fund which pays for public services. Mayor Patterson stated that she has been advocating for several years that if the aim of the City in the future is to close the SMHP, that a date certain should be determined; that no matter what date the Commission picks people will lose money; that overinflated prices were paid for the mobile homes based on a misunderstanding that a perpetual right to keep the mobile home on someone else's land existed. Mayor Patterson continued that she does not support grandrathering people in at the SMHP; that she supports setting a date further than five years in the future, i.e., ten or fifteen years, to close the SMHP; that extending the date to ten years would give people ten years to amortize their investment; that she has proposed this at the Commission table previously when the Commission wrestled with this problem and as she spoke about why the City was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on overpriced mobiles homes; however, she never heard any other Commissioner say. they would support (entirely closing the park at a date in the future); therefore, shé will vote in support of the ordinance because it is the only option available to her. Mayor Patterson continued that if other Commissioners would support a further out date, she would be willing to extend the life for all people of their tenure in their homes to that date. Commissioner Pillot asked if the ordinance would still be legally acceptable if the Commission changed only the date of July 16, 1990, to another date? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to amend the motion to include changing the date of July 16, 1990, to July 16, 1994. Mayor Patterson stated that she would be willing to support that amendment if the ordinance omitted the remaining language and just stated that in 1994 the SMHP would close; that Commissioner Pillot is looking to close the park but to keep some people in the SMHP until a Commission makes other arrangements or decides to close the park; that she would like to look into the future and know that the City will have its land returned at some point. Commissioner Pillot stated that the amendment allows more people to stay in the SMHP once it is closed; that over a reasonable period of time owners will move out of the park and density reduction will occur; that if the amendment passes the Administration would be directed to make it clear, in the prominent languages of the park, that no vested rights apply beyond September 30, 1999, to people who purchase mobile homes in the SMHP on or after July 16, 1994; that the only change proposed to the ordinance is to respect families living in the SMHP today. Mayor Patterson stated asked if the impact of the amendment is that anyone who purchased mobile homes between (July 16, 1994, and September 30, 1999) would have to remove their mobile home by September 30, 1999. Commissioner Pillot stated that the purchaser would have to remove the mobile home under the same conditions currently proposed in the ordinance, only the purchasers registering with the management would have the City's intent explicitly explained to them. Commissioner Cardamone asked what arrangements would be made to assure that purchasers between July 16, 1994, and September 30, 1999, totally understand the effects of the ordinance? City Attorney Taylor stated that a new prospectus will be prepared if the ordinance passes; that the new prospectus will be provided Book 36 Page 10694 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10695 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. to all new occupants of the SMHP; that the rules and regulations will be modified to reflect the ordinance as required by State Statute. Mayor Patterson stated that essentially the Commission is saying the park is closed, but all current residents are allowed to stay to some indefinite date; however, in real life terms the occupants are only given a five year tenure in the park to sell, will, or gift, etc., their mobile homes. City Attorney Taylor stated that per this proposed ordinance, the decision of accommodation will be made in the future; however, the City can't accomplish anything, and the properties won't come into a proper value perspective without a date certain set to cease new entrants into the SMHP. Mayor Patterson stated that would be provided by (the proposed ordinance). Commissioner Pillot asked City Attorney Taylor if the only thing the amendment accomplishes is to increase the number of families who do not have to vacate the SMHP in five years? City Attorney Taylor stated that is correct. Commissioner Cardamone asked for the turnover rate of occupants since 1990. Mr. Sollenberger stated that 391 mobile homes changed ownership from 1990 through May 23, 1994, of which 192 were purchased by the City. Commissioner Cardamone asked what the City spent on the acquisition of the 192 homes? Robert Gerkin, Director of General Services, came before the Commission and stated that the City spent approximately $750,000. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the residents of the City have paid the cost for removing 192 mobile homes from SMHP. Mr. Sollenberger stated that was not correct; that the buy out program was financed through rents paid by the residents of the SMHP. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the City would continue a buy out program if the motion with the proposed amendment passes, and if it could be included in the proposed ordinance that the City would no longer continue the buy out program? Mr. Sollenberger stated he proposes continuation of the buy out program. City Attorney Taylor stated that the proposed ordinance continues the buy out program set forth in previous ordinances, subject to funding availability. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the City's incapability to purchase the mobile homes because of infrastructure improvements afford the occupants the right to sell their mobile homes to someone else who could come back in 1999, although provided a prospectus of the City's intent, and create similar problems experienced since 1990? Mr. Sollenberger stated that under the proposed ordinance, if amended as proposed, anyone who purchased a mobile home after July 16, 1994, would be placed on notice by the City and provided a prospectus with explanation; that these occupants would sign an acknowledgement of being advised that they must vacate the SMHP by September 30, 1999, which would be a major difference in circumstances from those of today. Mr. Sollenberger continued in regard to the buy out program and infrastructure improvements that the Commission would address and make an annual determination on where to appropriate the revenue generated by the SMHP; that if it were more of a priority to invest in infrastructure improvements, then the dollars may not be available for the buy out program. Commissioner Cardamone stated that it is very important to have the citizens aware of the ramifications of the Commission's discussion. Vice Mayor Merrill cited page 6 of the proposed ordinance with the change included as follows: Residents of the SMHP who were residents on or before July 16, 1994, may within the discretion of the City Commission, remain after the effective date of the change in land use. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if the Commission has to rescind the closing of the park to allow those people to remain? City Attorney Taylor stated that some affirmative action would be necessary by the City Commission. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if the City would be required to allow the people who bought between 1994 and 1999 to remain? City Attorney Taylor stated no; that purchasers of mobile homes sold by any current owner between July 16, 1994, and September 30, 1999, would only be allowed to remain at SMHP until September 30, 1999. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that although slightly less turnover than experienced over the last five years can be expected, this proposed ordinance as amended is a good compromise; that passing the proposed ordinance may be passing a decision onto another Commission, but this Commission is taking a big, important step by setting a date certain. Mayor Patterson restated the amendment to the motion as to change in proposed Ordinance No. 94-3813 the date which refers to the Book 36 Page 10696 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10697 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. residents who will be allowed to remain after September 30, 1999, from July 16, 1990, to July 16, 1994. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the amendment. Amendment carried (4 to 1). Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, no; Pillot, yes. Mayor Patterson restated the main motion as amended to support proposed Ordinance No. 94-3813 with the July 16, 1990, date changed to July 16, 1994. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson requested that Yolanda Beltran-Halstead come before the Commission and translate in Spanish the Commission's decision as follows: that those occupants who now own mobile homes at the SMHP will be allowed to remain; however, if a current owner gives, sells, or wills their mobile home to another individual, that individual will have to leave the SMHP on September 30, 1999. Mayor Patterson asked City Attorney Taylor for clarification of what residents would be allowed to remain; that she understands that by current ordinance residents of the SMHP must be owners. City Attorney Taylor stated that the ordinance uses the word "resident"; that the overall structure of the rules and regulations of the SMHP states that residents must be owners. Mayor Patterson stated that Ordinance No. 94-3813 does not change the owner/occupant requirement; that current occupants who do not have titles to their mobile homes should obtain the title from the person to whom they have been making payments; that the individuals from whom the mobile homes were purchased should be willing to provide a title, because they will not be allowed to continue to realize an income for that purchase price otherwise. Commissioner Pillot requested that his statements be translated into spanish. Ms. Halstead translated the following: "If you have bought your mobile home up to now, you will not be told to leave, however, get a title if you don't already have one. If you don't have a title now and need help, go to the management either at City Hall or at the mobile home park and they'11 help you with this. That you don't need to worry anymore because you are grandrathered in just as much as the people who lived there since 1960." Mr. Sollenberger stated that a statement in English and Spanish will be supplied to the current occupants explaining the Commission's action. Mayor Patterson asked for clarification of the implications in regard to those occupant who currently do not possess a title to their mobile home. City Attorney Taylor stated a decision on how to handle the title situation needs to be made at the Commission table; that although the residents may not have legal title, i.e., title document, they have an equitable title by virtue of the processes and the paperwork; that he suggests allowing the current resident who does not possess a title a certain amount of time in which to obtain the title; that the City cannot force the titleholder to give up the title certificate, although doing so is in their best interest because it protects the status of the person purchasing the mobile home. Mayor Patterson stated that previous ordinances do not recognize contract for deed purchases as ownership; that the titleholders refusing to give title who are not currently living at the SMHP have a worthless thing; that the only way those individuals can continue to collect on their sale is by passing title as you would on a normal piece of real estate. City Attorney Taylor stated that is what he tried to convey; and asked what the Commission wants to see happen? Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he wants the occupants to be owners. Mayor Patterson stated that she wants the occupants to be owners which was requested at the last meeting regarding this subject. City Attorney Taylor asked if the Commission wants the occupants to be owners as of tonight? Mayor Patterson stated that the consensus of the Commission is for occupants to be owners as of July 16, 1994. City Attorney Taylor stated for clarification that those people who have the title document in hand as of July 16, 1994, are the people covered by the ordinance. Mayor Patterson stated that July 16th is a close date; that in all fairness some time should be allotted to obtain the titles; however, there must be a deadline; that if a deadline is not set, the owners will have no reason to pass the title. Mr. Sollenberger stated that problem could be resolved through the Administration. Book 36 Page 10698 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10699 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson stated that she wants a proposal brought back to the Commission; that the Commission's intent on owner-occupancy was clear in previous minutes. City Attorney Taylor stated that a proposal can be brought back prior to second reading. 10. CITIZEN'S INPUT - AUTHORIZED THE ADMINISTRATION TO 1) WORK WITH THE SKI-A-REES TO DETERMINE REASONABLE PLACEMENT OF SIGNS, 2) PROCEED WITH THE NECESSARY CHANGES TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE, 3) PROVIDE REASONABLE LATITUDE ON ENFORCEMENT UNTIL THE ORDINANCE IS CHANGED sO THAT THE SKI-A-REES' SHOWS CAN CONTINUE - (AGENDA ITEM VI) #3 (1870) through (2615) Kevin Winklemeyer, representing Sarasota Ski-A-Rees, came before the Commission and stated that he is the past president of Sarasota Ski-A-Rees; that the Ski-A-Rees are requesting Commission assistance on either an exemption from the sign ordinance or a special permit that would allow the Ski-A-Rees to use signs and banners to promote their free ski shows. Mr. Winklemeyer stated that the Ski-A-Rees have been performing free ski shows in the City of Sarasota for over 35 years and have always been allowed to display signs to inform the public about the shows; that the signs are neat and displayed only on the weekends for 10 winter and 8 summer shows. Mr. Winklemeyer stated that signs were displayed for a free ski show scheduled on June 11th; that Mr. Marlow Cook, who has complained previously to the Commission, contacted the Ski-A-Rees requesting that the signs be removed; that a police officer also came to the site; that the signs were removed immediately; that consequently, only 15 people attended the June 11th show; that previous summer attendance has averaged 500 per show; that the average attendance at winter shows is between 1,000 and 1,200; that 30 people attended the June 18th show when one sign was displayed at a Texaco station. Mr. Winklemeyer continued that the Ski-A-Rees work with many charitable organizations in the community; that a fund-raiser show for the Special Olympics was planned for June 25th; that all involved were disappointed that signs could not be displayed to promote the free ski show and raise money for the Special Olympics. Mr. Winklemeyer further stated that the Ski-A-Rees is an amateur water ski show organization with over 120 members; that the Ski-A- Rees are the Florida State Ski show Champions and the Southern Regional Ski show Champions for the past five years; that the Ski- A-Rees are extremely active in the community and work with many worthy, non-profit, charitable organizations; that the Ski-A-Rees travel to the Boys and Girls Sheriff's Ranch, a place for delinquent children who have run into problems, and teach the children how to ski and work together as a team to accomplish something; that the skiers take a personal day off from work one Friday annually to perform a free ski show for the public elementary school system; that Marine Patrol Officer Doug Peters, Police Services Bureau, speaks to the children regarding boat and water safety prior to the ski show; that a dream weekend was organized by the Ski-A-Rees last year for terminally-ill cancer patients; that the children with approximately two months to live were flown to Sarasota from St. Louis for a dream weekend consisting of hotel accommodations, food, a cook out and party; that the Ski-A-Rees teach Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts how to ski for which they receive a merit badge; that the Ski-A-Rees entertained children from Manatee Abused Children's center on boats for a day; that special shows are performed for Mote Marine, the Easter Seals, Selby Library; that fund-raiser shows are performed for Big Brothers and Big Sisters and Cerebral Palsy; that all funds collected by passing the hat among the audience are forwarded to these agencies. Mr. Winklemeyer stated that the Ski-A-Rees are requesting an exemption or special permit to display signs advertising the free ski shows; that the Ski-A-Rees will be unable to continue providing the community services it has provided in the City for over 35 years if banners and signs cannot be displayed. Commissioner Cardamone stated that people will not attend the free ski shows if the Ski-A-Rees cannot place banners and signs to advertise them; that in turn, no money can be raised for organizations; that there is no charge for the shows; that the only funds collected are from passing the hat in the audience; that the Commission must provide some assistance to this non-profit organization which supports the community. Mayor Patterson asked if the Ski-A-Rees advertises their free ski shows? Mr. Winklemeyer stated that one line of advertisement is published in the Sarasota Herald Tribune's booklet entitled, The Entertainment. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Ski-A-Rees formerly performed at the downtown Bayfront where people could see the shows occurring; that due to space restrictions and City improvements at the Bayfront, the Ski-A-Rees relocated to Ken Thompson Park; that he supports providing an exemption or alternative to allow the Ski-A- Rees, purely a charity, to display banners and signs. Commissioner Pillot stated that he agrees with Vice Mayor Merrill. Book 36 Page 10700 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10701 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson asked for clarification on why the Ski-A-Rees relocated from the Bayfront. City Manager Sollenberger stated that too many boats were in the area of pertormances; that a lease hold was obtained at Ken Thompson Park. Mr. Winklemeyer stated that the Ski-A-Rees site has always been located at Ken Thompson Park; that the ski-shows were moved from the Bayfront because the sailboat owners wanted to moor their boats at the site where the ski shows were performed; that the attendance drawn at the Bayfront site was only 100 people per show, whereas, major attendance is drawn to the Ken Thompson Park site. Commissioner Cardamone stated that show attendance improved substantially when the ski shows relocated to Ken Thompson Park. Mr. Winklemeyer stated that is correct; that the Ski-A-Rees received donations from sponsors in the community to make major renovations at the Ken Thompson Park site. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the Ski-A-Rees are performing in a residential neighborhood? Mr. Winklemeyer stated that the Ski-A-Rees perform behind Mote Marine on Ken Thompson Park. Mayor Patterson stated that waterfront homes face the site; that impact from an attraction which draws 1,000 spectators is felt by all residents who live along the main travelled show areas. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Ski-A-Rees has been in Sarasota for 35 years; that concerns heard from residents regarding banners and signs which were tattered, torn, and placed everywhere eliminated the use of right-of-ways for all signs and banners, including those which have a positive effect on the community; that she supports granting a permit to the Ski-A-Rees; that other organizations may request similar permits which could be addressed at the time of request. Mayor Patterson stated that a change in the ordinance would be necessary; that the sign ordinance states that signs and banners cannot be displayed or placed along the right-of-ways; that the sign ordinance does not address who can and cannot place signage. City Manager Sollenberger stated that is correct; that a complaint was brought to the Commission regarding non-enforcement of the sign ordinance by the City; that the Administration can deal with the Ski-A-Rees as an exception with Commission guidance to do so; that an ordinance change takes time to process; that an interim decision should be determined if the Commission decides to assist the Ski-A- Rees with this year's scheduled summer program. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to authorize the Administration to 1) work with the Ski-A-Rees to determine reasonable placement of signs, 2) proceed with the necessary changes to the ordinance, 3) provide reasonable latitude on enforcement until the ordinance is changed so that the Ski-A-Rees shows can continue. Mayor Patterson stated that Mr. Cook was not the only citizen with concerns regarding enforcement of the sign ordinance; that she had attended an St. Armands Neighborhood Association meeting attended by 100 to 150 people who were not pleased with their neighborhood being used to advertise an attraction which draws 1,000 people several times a year to see ski shows; that the people felt that other neighborhoods weren't subject to having banners displayed throughout; that the people also didn't want banners displayed in their commercial neighborhood, as St. Armands is regarded. Mayor Patterson continued that she recalls the Commission discussion in regard to prohibiting Ski-A-Rees and Mote Marine from displaying banners as being in support of choosing a few specific locations which were not opposite homes or in medians around homes where the banners and signs could be displayed; that she suggests the Administration develop a proposal based on those guidelines rather than allowing placement of signage in all areas. Commissioner Cardamone asked at what locations Ski-A-Rees have traditionally displayed their signs and banners? Mr. Winklemeyer stated that four banners and two A-frame signs have been displayed; that two of the four banners are displayed in the median at the intersection of Ringling Boulevard and U.S. 41; that one of the A-frame signs is displayed at Bird Key Park; that the other banner is displayed in the median prior to entering St. Armands. Mayor Patterson stated that the neighborhood is opposed to the banner at the entrance to St. Armands. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a set of standards, i.e. type and condition of signage and specific locations, should be determined to allow charitable organizations supporting the community to place signage in the City. Mayor Patterson restated the motion as giving guidelines (regarding the sign ordinance) in a referral to the Administration. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: 1994 SAILING REGATTA TO Book 36 Page 10702 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10703 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. HAVANA, CUBA AND INTENTION OF THE SARASOTA SAILING SOUADRON TO SPONSOR FUTURE REGATTAS - NO ACTION TAKEN (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #3 (2640) through (1423) Commissioner Pillot stated that the Commission has received a letter from the Sarasota Sailing Squadron subsequent to his placing the item on the agenda; that he initially made several statements to the public regarding the Sarasota Sailing Squadron sponsoring the Regatta to Cuba; that it was not responsible for him to request that the Sarasota Sailing Squadron pay for the additional police protection required at the launching of the Regatta to Cuba; that the Sarasota Sailing Squadron did not request additional police protection; that it was appropriate that police protection be provided in case of potential harm or misconduct; that it was the City's responsibility to protect the public in general; therefore, he withdraws that request and believes it was not intelligently presented. Commissioner Pillot continued that he has no right to direct the Sarasota Sailing Squadron regarding membership; however, his concern with how the City's public property was used by Mr. Winters was adequately addressed by the Sarasota Sailing Squadron's letter. Commissioner Pillot further stated that he was concerned with future sponsorship by the Sarasota Sailing Squadron of trips which could be expected to violate a federal law; that journalists confirmed that expenditures were made in Cuba by the participants of the Regatta which violates federal law; that the Sarasota Sailing Squadron has stated that they will not sponsor any future programs that could potentially result in a violation of federal law. Commissioner Pillot further stated that one unresolved concern remains; that prior to the sailing of the Regatta to Cuba a presentation was made to the Commission; that members of the Sarasota Sailing Squadron and representatives of the Hispanic/American community of Sarasota addressed the Commission with differing points of view regarding the potential benefit and/or harm of the voyage; that he feels the Hispanic/American community including Cuban/American citizens have a greater direct knowledge of the conditions in Cuba from family members still residing in Cuba with whom they are in communication; that he would appreciate hearing the points of view of the two representatives of the Sarasota Hispanic/American citizenry wishing to speak. Mayor Patterson stated that it was 10:30 p.m. and several people were signed up to speak on this item. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission has a lengthy agenda to complete and requested that the speakers limit repetitive comments to agreement or disagreement and elaborate only on comments which have not previously been made. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the citizens' comments should be relative to City Commission actions. The following individuals came before the Commission: Doran Cushing, 800 34 Avenue South, St. Petersburg, stated that he is the publisher of a sailing magazine which covers the Florida area and a former member of the Sarasota Sailing Squadron; that the Regatta to Havana, Cuba was a courageous and worthy gesture of friendship between 500 individuals freely deciding to travel to Cuba; that Bob Winters merely created the opportunity for these participants; that some American dollars were left in Cuba by participants who tagged along with journalists freely spending money as the law allows; that the Commission should sanction the press for using the loophole in the federal law which gave them special privileges not afforded to most Americans; that no apology is necessary for the event which carried thousands of pounds of humanitarian aid to Cuba; that the Commission may want to ban Coke, Joy dish detergent, and DelMonte can goods from the local markets and United Airlines from the airport because those business are dealing in Cuba. Mr. Cushing continued that every nation in the United Nations has condemned the U.S. embargo against Cuba repeatedly; that three other countries who rely heavily on U.S. aid have voted with the United States in favor of the embargo: Israel, Albania, and Paraguayi that all of Europe, South America, and Central America not only oppose the embargo but trade freely and are investing heavily in Cuba; that every citizen in the world, except Americans, can freely spend money in Cuba. Mr. Cushing further stated that the reputation of the Sarasota Sailing Squadron has been most tarnished by backing down to the same 1960s Cold War rhetoric from the vocal and comfortable Cuban/American element who want the United States to fight their battle for them; that the City Commission and the Sarasota Sailing Squadron should take a leadership position in human rights and endorse a bond between the people in Cuba and the people in Florida; that the City Commission should not act as judge and jury on this issue. Milton H. Galvez, representing the Alliance for a Democratic Cuba, distributed and read a prepared speech to the Commission (a copy is on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk) that stated his views on Cuba and commended the leadership of Commissioner Pillot in holding the Sarasota Sailing Squadron responsible for their actions. Mayor Patterson stated that the agenda item is the Sailing Regatta to Havana, Cuba; that the Commission is addressing a specific issue with regard to its authority over City land and its lease with the Sarasota Sailing Squadron; that this is not a forum to discuss international affairs; that this meeting is a business meeting of a political body with 45 minutes remaining to complete its agenda; that the Commission has a generalized policy of allowing the public Book 36 Page 10704 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10705 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. to speak to any agendaed item; however, she will rule out of order speakers who come and take five minutes to read a political statement which should be given during the Citizens' Input portion of the meeting. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the public is speaking on items unrelated to the agendaed item; that as applicable under Roberts Rules of Order, he would like to object to the consideration of this item. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the presentation has already been made; therefore, an objection under Roberts Rules of Order is inappropriate. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill it was moved to table discussion on this item. Motion died for lack of second. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that political discussion is being presented before the Commission on the embargoes to Cuba. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the item was placed on the agenda by a Commissioner; that the item has been presented by the Commissioner that brought the item to the table; that the Commission allows input on each item; that it is the Mayor's responsibility to direct the speakers' discussion toward the subject. Mayor Patterson requested that speakers devote their speech to the specific agenda item and not to Cuban/American affairs. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Sarasota Sailing Squadron has answered all of Commissioner Pillot concerns; however, she does not agree with his comments regarding the lease of the Sarasota Sailing Squadron; that the Commission has in the past expended more than four hours of time on an issue over which the City Commission has no control; and that she realizes the Commission must allow the discussions to continue, but she agrees that the Mayor should direct remarks toward the subject. Vice Mayor Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 10:53 p.m. Julia Aires, 2444 Goldenrod Street, stated that since the Commission has seen fit to make a judgement on the Sarasota Sailing Squadron other valid issues arise which should be heard. Ms. Aires distributed and read a prepared speech to the Commission (a copy is on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk) that stated her views on the U.S. embargo on Cuba and commented on various observations made during her February 1993 trip to Cuba. Henry Kemp, 5281 Isla Key Boulevard, St. Petersburg, stated that he participated in the Regatta to Cuba; that he is not a member of the Sarasota Sailing Squadron; that viewing the tragedy occurring in a neighboring country was educational; that he forwarded a letter to the Commission stating that the people in the western hemisphere need to assist their troubled neighbors; and that members of the press incorrectly portrayed Commissioner Pillot as a bad guy. Julio Claret, representing Hispanic American Association. Inc., distributed a translated copy of a Cuban article published in Granma regarding Bob Winters and presented and read an addendum to the Position Paper presented to the Commission on May 2, 1994 (Copies are on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk) which expressed six additional observations regarding the Sarasota to Havana sailing. Mr. Claret stated that the Hispanic American Association recognizes Commissioner Pillot for his leadership, clear understanding, and for articulating with courage and eloquence many difficult issues; and that the Hispanic American Association thanks the Commission for listening to all points of view. Manny Rasco, representing Freedom for Cuba Commission, St. Petersburg, stated that a Sarasota Sailing Squadron member, Ed Harding, told him tonight that another race to Cuba is planned for December; that the Board of Directors of the Sarasota Sailing Squadron never raised any objections to Mr. Winters' public statements regarding the race being a protest of the U.S. embargo on Cuba; that two newspapers reported that Castro's custom agents confiscated the humanitarian aid; that he resents being accused by some of the Regatta participants of being a terrorist trying to put bombs in the sailboats; that the St. Petersburg Sailing Squadron cancelled its race last year after receiving the same pertinent information which was presented to the Sarasota Sailing Squadron; that the Regatta participants violated the U.S. embargo repeatedly; that no protest was made by the participants regarding the barbed- wire fencing with posted armed guards which prevent the average Cuban from shopping at the Marina Hemingway. Mr. Rasco continued that the Sarasota Sailing Squadron has issued a letter of apology, but their behavior cannot be excused; that the Sarasota Sailing Squadron knew and were shown documented evidence of what was to occur; that the Sarasota Sailing Squadron chose to violate the federal law; that the Cuban community is not willing to forgive the Sarasota Sailing Squadron for their actions. Mr. Rasco further stated that he would like to thank the St. Petersburg, Clearwater, and Sarasota Yacht Clubs for refusing to participate in this event. Osvaldo Cruz, M.D.. representing the Cuban/American community and Coalition for a Democratic Cuba, distributed and translated a Cuban newspaper article from the Granma (a copy is on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk) which reported the success of the Book 36 Page 10706 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10707 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Sarasota-Havana regatta and listed the race winners awarded by the Club International of Sarasota. Mr. Cruz stated that several weeks ago many people participated in what developed as a marked controversy; that Bob Winters encouraged the breaking of the U.S. embargo on Cuba; that the Sarasota Sailing Squadron sponsored the illegal trip; that the Cuban/American community and the Coalition for a Democratic Cuba unsuccessfully tried to convince those involved to abandon their plans; that legal and humanitarian reasons to postpone the trip were presented to all parties involved, including the City Commission; that a strange mix of frustration, guilt, and hope was simultaneously felt when the participants reached the Marina Hemingway; that it was difficult to think of a decent explanation to give their families and friends on the island after receiving countless letters and phone conversations in which loved ones in Cuba requested that Americans not contribute or condone such activities; that the Cuban/Americans hoped that once in contact with the impoverished island and the governmental officials the sailors would experience first hand what the Cuban/Americans had tried to convey to them. Dr. Cruz continued that it is painful that the Sarasota Sailing Squadron, Mr. Winters, the Passers of Peace, and indirectly the city of Sarasota involved themselves in an unnecessary political battle by not validating the Cuban/Americans' advice and allowing the Regatta to Cuba to take place; that the crude reality of the issue has been exposed; that the outcome of this situation should serve as a deterrent force to never again allow similar adventures to take place from the beautiful, quiet City of Sarasota; that this Regatta has occurred at the expense of the taxpayers and has created discrepancies and division in the community. Dr. Cruz further stated that the Coalition for a Democratic Cuba accepts the apology of the Sarasota Sailing Squadron and the current position of the City Commission and praises the leadership of Commissioner Pillot who had the necessary vision to understand the humanitarian reasons demanding the cancellation of the Regatta to Cuba; that the Coalition for a Democratic Cuba has requested and will pursue a federal investigation of the parties involved. Sam Blanco, 1330 Deer Hollow Boulevard, stated that the City Commission gave the Sarasota Sailing Squadron the benefit of the doubt; that things did not turn out as the Sarasota Sailing Squadron presented; that the repercussions the Sarasota Sailing Squadron has experienced from the trip to Cuba has created a good reason to provide the letter which was recently written; however, he is concerned with how the Sarasota Sailing Squadron will react in the future once the repercussions wear off; that the Commission should take affirmative action making it clear that the Sarasota Sailing Squadron will not be allowed to sponsor any future trips which could potentially violate federal laws; that the Sarasota Sailing Squadron has already made one bad decision, and the Commission should not leave future decisions in their hands. Ozzie Hernandez, 4785 Riverwood Circle, stated that it has been proven that an organizer of the Regatta to Cuba had a business interest with the Cuban government; and asked if the City Commission will continue to support people who have been lured by the Cuban government to promote similar trips to Cuba? Bruce Cook, participant of the Regatta to Cuba, stated that he would like to thank Bolb Winters for affording him the opportunity to meet the most decent, kindest, wonderful people who are suffering grievously because of the U.S. embargo; that his humanitarian aid was not confiscated by the Cuban government; that he feels delivering his humanitarian aid to a needy Cuban family was worth expending minimum U.S. dollars on cab fare. Commissioner Cardamone asked if he delivered aid to a specific family? Mr. Cook stated that the majority of humanitarian aid was delivered to a specific family for a friend of Julia Aires; that the remaining humanitarian aid was distributed to people on the streets of Havana. Ed Harding, 420 Golden Gate Point, stated that the Cuban/Americans send their relatives $500 million annually; that the 400 participants spent approximately $22,000 while in Cuba; that he is organizing Florida Sailors for Humanitarian Cuban Aid expected to sail to Cuba in September or December 1994; that no pressure by Cuban government was experienced while docked in Cuba; that the Cuban people need America's helping hand; and that the Commission has authority to cancel the Sarasota Sailing Squadron lease at any time. Vice Mayor Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 11:12 p.m. Commissioner Pillot stated that his concerns have been met by the Sarasota Sailing Squadron's letter; that he has confidence in the integrity of Douglas Kresge as Commodore and his colleagues at the Sarasota Sailing Squadron who stated in their letter: The Sarasota Sailing Squadron will neither sanction, sponsor, assist, nor condone any future sailing events involving Cuba until such time as official relations between the United States and Cuba change; and In recognition that the organizer of the Sarasota to Cuba race has conducted himself in a manner detrimental to the best interest and welfare of the Sarasota Sailing Squadron, the Board of Directors has unanimously voted to Book 36 Page 10708 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page. 10709 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. revoke Bob Winters' membership in the club. Commissioner Pillot stated that with respect to what happened prior to July 5, 1994, with the Sarasota Sailing Squadron, as it affects the City Commission, he feels the matter is closed and well satisfied. 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3814, CALLING A REFERENDUM OF THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA SHALL BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT EACH PERSON ELECTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION, WHEN TWO OR MORE PERSONS OUALIFY AS A CANDIDATE, SHALL BE REQUIRED TO RECEIVE THE SUPPORT OF A MAJORITY THE VOTERS CASTING VOTES FOR THE CITY COMMISSION SEAT TO BE ELECTED EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF AN AT-LARGE SEAT WHEN BOTH SEATS HAVE NOT BEEN FILLED BY THE ELECTION OF CANDIDATES WHO HAVE RECEIVED THE SUPPORT OF A MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS AFTER A SECOND ELECTION; SCHEDULING SAID REFERENDUM FOR SEPTEMBER 8, 1994; SETTING FORTH THE TEXT OF THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE CHANGING THE DATE FOR THE ANNUAL SELECTION OF A MAYOR AND VICE-MAYOR: SPECIFYING THE REFERENDUM QUESTION; ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THE CHARTER AMENDMENT, IF APPROVED; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #4 (1415) through (1500) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3814 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 94-3814 on second reading. Commissioner Atkins stated that this ordinance is a mistake, ill- conceived, and based upon the advice of those who lost a legal challenge on the same issue in the past. Commissioner Cardamone stated that it is important for the City's representatives to be elected by majority vote. Commissioner Atkins stated that it is important to be elected at all; that there were no opportunities for minorities to be elected to the City Commission prior to 1985. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson stated that it is now 11:17 p.m. and requested the wishes of the Commission in regard to finishing the agenda. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to continue the meeting to complete the agenda. Motion died for lack of a second. 13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: SETTING OF MILLAGE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994-95 AS PROPOSED IN THE CITY MANAGER'S BUDGET - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-4) #3 (1526) through (1800) Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission, and stated that the Commission approved an operating millage rate of 5.339 mills per $1,000 for FY 93/94; that the operating millage presented in the proposed FY 94/95 budget remains at 5.339 mills per $1,000; that the Debt Service millage levy proposed is 1.235 mills per $1,000 which is .011 mills lower than FY 93/94; that the total millage is 6.574 mills per $1,000 compared to 6.585 mills for FY 93/94; that the Truth In Millage (TRIM) Bill requires the proposed millage rate for ad valorem taxes be measured in terms of the rolled-back rate. Mr. Mitchell presented the Preliminary Certification of Taxable Value report from the Property Appraiser and stated that the rolled-back rate is 5.275 mills per $1,000; that the rolled-back rate is the millage rate necessary to yield the same ad valorem tax revenue as generated in FY 93/94; that the proposed operating millage of 5.339 represents a 1.21% increase over FY 93/94; that the Administration's recommendation is to adopt a preliminary millage of 5.339 mills per $1,000 as previously presented in the proposed FY 94/95 budget. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve a preliminary operating millage rate of 5.339 and Debt Service millage levy of 1.235 for FY 94/95. Commissioner Pillot stated that two public hearings will be held in September as required by law in order to permit the public to provide input concerning the budget; that the Commission may decrease but not increase the millage in September; that the proposed millage is a minimum rate and adoption of this rate will disenfranchise any member of the public who wishes to suggest additional provisions and/or services; that by law the Commission may not increase the millage once the Certification of Taxable Value is submitted to the State. Mr. Mitchell stated that the millage can be increased after submission of certification only if every citizen in the City is notified. Commissioner Pillot stated that the millage can easily be decreased in September by majority vote of the Commission; that he suggests adopting a millage higher than what is proposed in order to provide the public an opportunity which would not otherwise exist to request additional services; that the Commission can vote in September to roll the millage rate back to 5.339 or any other Book 36 Page 10710 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10711 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. amount lower than the adopted rate; that adopting a higher preliminary millage will provide more freedom to the public at the public hearings than will adopting the 5.339 millage. Mayor Patterson restated the motion as to adopt an operating millage rate of 5.339 and a Debt Service millage levy of 1.235 mills per $1,000. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, no; Patterson, yes. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to extend the meeting to complete the agenda. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: TABLED MOTION OF JUNE 23, 1994, TO SEND A LETTER TO THE SARASOTA COUNTY COMMISSION (1) EXPRESSING THAT THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE CENTRAL LIBRARY OF THE COUNTY SITED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, AND (2) RECOMMENDING THAT THE MISSION HARBOR SITE BE USED FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - MOTION OF JUNE 23RD REMOVED FROM THE TABLE; MOTION TABLED WITH AN AMENDMENT ON THE FLOOR (AGENDA ITEM VII-5) #3 (1800) through (2218) Mayor Patterson stated that this item is a motion that was tabled at the June 23, 1994, meeting of the City Commission. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to remove the motion of June 23, 1994, from the table. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson stated that she requested this item be placed on the agenda after a telephone call from Kay Rossman, President of the Friends of the Selby Library, advised her that the Library Advisory Board was going to propose to move the Central Library from the City to an area near I-75; that the Central Library of the County houses the research facilities and books, the high technology computers used for research, special collections, etc.; that it is important for the Central Library to remain in the City, preferably downtown; that a motion was passed unanimously at the June 23rd City Commission meeting to send a letter to Fran Bourne, Chairman of the Sarasota County Library Advisory Board, expressing that the Commission would like the Central Library to remain in the downtown Sarasota area or at least within the City limits; that the same message should be communicated to the Sarasota County Commission; that there does not appear to be unanimity on the Commission as to where in the City the Central Library should be located, but there is unanimity it should remain within the City limits. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated the motion made at the June 23rd Special City Commission Meeting and on the table as follows: On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to send a letter to the County Commission 1) expressing that the City Commission would like to have the Central Library of the County sited within City limits, and 2) recommending that the Mission Harbor site be used for economic development. Mayor Patterson stated that she has concerns about this motion because the City Commission is sending mixed signals to the County Commission; that her preference is to send a letter communicating only the first part of this motion; that the public perceives the message as an either/or proposition on the part of the Commission; that she prefers the Mission Harbor site be used for the Central Library rather than lose the library completely. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to amend the motion to delete the second section of the main motion. Motion died for lack of a second. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the County Administrator will be making a report concerning the library to the County Commission on Tuesday, July 12, 1994; that the County Commission has extended an invitation to the City Commission to attend the meeting; that the City Commission may wish to postpone action until after the discussion at the July 12th County Commission meeting. On motion of Mayor Patterson, who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Merrill, and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, who passed the gavel to Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to amend the motion by deleting the second section of the motion. Commissioner Cardamone restated the amendment to the motion as removal of item 2) recommending that the Mission Harbor site be used for economic development. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she maintains a serious interest in having the Mission Harbor site used for economic development even if the Central Library is part of the site; that not recommending this to the County Commission is contrary to the direction the City Commission has taken in the past. Commissioner Pillot stated that without the recommendation of using the Mission Harbor site for economic development, the site is not appropriate for the Central Library; that the Commission is in agreement with the first section of the main motion; however, he will not support a motion without the second section included. Book 36 Page 10712 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10713 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson stated that she had originally proposed specifically, "If the Mission Harbor site is chosen for the Central Library, the remainder of the property be used for economic development. I Vice Mayor Merrill stated that County Commission and the public know the position of the City Commission; that the proposed letter will not matter a great deal. On motion of Mayor Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to table the motion and amendment. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: REPORT OF FUND-RAISING REOUEST BY THE THREE-PARTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE JOHN RINGLING CENTRE FOUNDATION, FIRST SUNSET DEVELOPMENT, INC. AND CITY OF SARASOTA AND RENEWAL OF PERMIT EXTENSIONS IN RECOGNITION OF THE FOUNDATION HAVING MET THE INITIAL FUND-RAISING GOAL = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-6) #4 (2218) through (2307) City Attorney Taylor stated that George Dietz, Attorney, on behalf of First Sunset Development, Inc., has indicated that the date for continuation of the building permits should be December 31, 1994, rather than December 7, 1994, as previously indicated; that the agreement between First Sunset Development, Inc., and the John Ringling Centre Foundation has been amended to reflect a December 31st date; that the question presented is whether the Commission will approve the time extensions for the building permits so as to coincide with the next funding deadline of December 31, 1994. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve the extension of building permit/approyals on the agreement with the John Ringling Centre Foundation and First Sunset Development, Inc., to December 31, 1994. Mayor Patterson stated that the John Ringling Centre Foundation has met its current fund-raising deadline; that the Commission has received a memorandum indicating the dollars raised to date; that this amount includes a grant of approximately $600,000 given by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) which was supported by Vice Mayor Merrill and herself as members of the MPO; that the grant is specific to the construction of sidewalks and landscaping outside the building; that the Commission will have to decide at some point whether the grant qualifies as renovation dollars. Mayor Patterson restated the motion as to approve the time extension related to building permits and to change the date of the three-party agreement to December 31, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 16. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT = APPROVED REVISED PORTHOLE ILLUSTRATION OF THE CHANGING SHORELINE (AGENDA ITEM VII-7) #4 (2307) through (2391) Commissioner Pillot stated that the porthole illustration was shown individually to each of the Commissioners by Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve The Changing Shoreline porthole illustration as presented. Mr. Daughters came before the Commission, and presented a photocopy of The Changing Shoreline porthole illustration with the shoreline consolidated into one drawing and modified as specified by the Commission. Commissioner Pillot stated that he commends everyone who participated in the development of the porthole illustration; that those involved listened to all Commissioners' opinions, and the result is excellent. Mayor Patterson stated that she will vote against the motion because she does not like the porthole illustration. Mayor Patterson restated the motion as to approve the model of The Changing Shoreline porthole illustration as presented to the Commission. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, no. 17. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1865 LAUREL STREET = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #4 (2391) through (2400) City Manager Sollenberger stated that he requests authorization to enter into negotiations to acquire the property at 1865 Laurel Street. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to authorize the Administration to negotiate for acquisition of the property at 1865 Laurel Street. Mayor Patterson stated that members of the public have complained about not hearing the items on which the Commission is voting; that discussion can be brief if a long explanation is not necessary, but some explanation should be given before a motion is made to vote on an item. Book 36 Page 10714 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10715 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson asked if the Administration intends to obtain an appraisal on the property? Mr. Sollenberger stated yes; that funding is through Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) dollars and is included in the FY 94/95 budget on which a public hearing will be held; that an appraisal is required as part of the CDBG process. Mr. Sollenberger continued that the report on the zoning issues involved in the conservation districts will be provided at the City Commission meeting of July 18th. Mayor Patterson restated the motion as to authorize negotiating for the acquisition of the property at 1865 Laurel Street. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 18. NEW BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 94R-750, AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A GRANT APPLICATION FOR $20,000 OF STATE FUNDS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES FOR TREE PLANTING ON THE BEN FRANKLIN MEDIANS; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #4 (2400) through (2448) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 94R-750 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 94R-750. Mayor Patterson restated the motion as to approve filing a reimbursement grant in the amount of $20,000 for tree planting on the Ben Franklin medians and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 19. NEW BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 94R-748, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO IMPLEMENT A FORMAL EMPLOYEE SUGGESTION PROGRAM FOR GENERAL EMPLOYEES AND CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA, FLORIDA, EXCEPT AS MAY BE NEGOTIATED BY THE CITY MANAGER WITH RESPECT TO IMPACT, IF ANY, ON EMPLOYEES FOR WHOM COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS REQUIRED; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) #4 (2448) through (2933) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 94R-748 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 94R-748. Commissioner Atkins asked who completes the "My Idea Worked" Form which is part of the program? William Davenport, Director of Human Resources, came before the Commission and stated that the employee making the suggestion fills out the initial form; that another form titled "Evaluation Checklist" will be completed by the person conducting the evaluation of the suggestion; that suggestions will be referred to the Director of the department where the change will be taking place and he/she will either complete the "Evaluation Checklist" or refer it to someone in the department for investigation and evaluation. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she likes the title "My Idea Worked" which is a very positive approach; that this type of program encourages employees to work better for the City. Mr. Davenport stated that this program arose from the work of a Quality Team in the Public Works Department; that Public Works employees working with a facilitator developed the framework for this program; that their aim was to develop something appropriate for the Public Works Department; that the Quality Council reviewed the program and felt it was good enough to be modified and extended to the entire City; that the program is a grass-roots program arising out of the City's Total Quality Performance (TQP) System. Mayor Patterson stated that dollars are rewarded in this program based on 10% of the monetary savings to the City; that often it is hard to determine whether an idea will save dollars until the idea is implemented; that there are many programs involving fees or policy changes which the Commission has adopted and which have not produced the dollar savings anticipated. Mayor Patterson asked at what point the cash award of up to $2,500 is determined and awarded? Mr. Davenport stated that the program has flexibility; that in some cases, the amount of savings may be Clear when the suggestion is approved and a decision can be made at that point; however, additional data would be necessary before a decision on the amount of the award is made if the amount of savings is not clear. Mayor Patterson stated that it would be beneficial to receive a semi-annual report on the ideas submitted and the dollars actually saved or projected to be saved. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the incentives will be paid out of the actual cash savings generated; that no funds are budgeted for incentives. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she would also like to see the Book 36 Page 10716 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10717 07/05/94 6:00 P.M. kinds of ideas generated whether approved for the "My Idea Worked" Program or not. Mayor Patterson restated the motion as to approve Resolution No. 94R-748 which authorizes the City Manager to implement a formal employee suggestion program for general employees and civil service employees of the City and requested the City Auditor and Clerk to proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson requested that Mr. Davenport relay to the appropriate parties that the Commission was very pleased with the program. 20. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA = ADMINISTRATION TO SEND A THANK YOU LETTER ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION TO PAUL THORPE AND THE DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION (AGENDA ITEM X) #4 (2933) through (3060) COMMISSIONER PILLOT: A. stated that he is grateful for the privilege of having listened to the Mayor speak at the Fourth of July ceremony held at Gillespie Park which was sponsored by the Hispanic American Alliance in honor of the United States and freedom fighters around the World; that he encourages the Commissioners and the Administration to get a copy of the Mayor's speech, delivered in a superb manner, and the message is worth reading; that he was extremely proud to listen to the Mayor and to notice that a number of people in attendance became "misty eyed". MAYOR PATTERSON: A. requested Commission consensus for the Administration to send a letter to Paul Thorpe, Executive Director of The Downtown Association on behalf of the Commission thanking them for their hard work raising money and organizing an excellent Fourth of July Fireworks display. Mayor Patterson stated there was consensus of the Commission to have a letter sent to The Downtown Association. B. stated that the City is looking very good and she compliments the City Manager. City Manager Sollenberger thanked Mayor Patterson and stated that he will share the compliment with the staff because they are the people doing the work. COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: A. stated that she stayed downtown for dinner at a restaurant on Main Street after the Suncoast Offshore Races boat parade; that a street sweeper on both sides of the street followed by a worker with a broom sweeping the street arrived within thirty minutes of the parade ending; that the area was cleaned up within an hour; that the Administration is to be congratulated for a job well done. 21. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII. #4 (3069) There being no further business, Mayor Patterson adjourned the meeting at 11:58 p.m. Floro Aotluse 1 NORA PATTERSON, MAYOR < ATTEST: Billy E olensor BILLY E. CROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK 1 Book 36 Page 10718 07/05/94 6:00 P.M.