MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 1996, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Mollie Cardamone, Vice Mayor Gene Pillot, Commissioners David Merrill, and Nora Patterson, city Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's Office ABSENT: Commissioner Jerome Dupree and City Attorney Richard Taylor PRESIDING: Mayor Mollie Cardamone The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH, JULY 1996, DONNA L. WHITNEY, BUILDING TECHNICIAN II #1 (0035) through (0138) City Manager Sollenberger requested that Timothy Litchet, Manager, and Donna Whitney, Building Technician II, Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement Department, come before the Commission. Mr. Litchet stated that Ms. Whitney had been promoted to the position of Commercial Plans Coordinator last year due to excellent service provided to contractors and customers at the front counter; that a key supervisor became ill directly after Ms. Whitney's promotion to the new position; that Ms. Whitney combined the office supervisor's function with the duties of the new position in an exemplary manner for nine months; that Ms. Whitney's efficiency and friendliness has earned numerous compliments; that her initiative promotes a team spirit and is a great example of serving with excellence and pride. Mayor Cardamone presented Donna L. Whitney with a City-logo watch, a plaque, and a certificate as the July 1996 Employee of the Month in appreciation of her unique performance with the City of Sarasota; and congratulated her for her outstanding efforts. Ms. Whitney stated that serving the City is an enjoyable honor; that she will continue to serve with excellence and pride. 2. PRESENTATION RE: RETIREMENT AWARD TO RAFAEL PRIETO, GARDENER, PUBLIC WORKS, LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DIVISION, AFTER 15 YEARS OF SERVICE #1 (0133) through (0260) BOOK 40 Page 13534 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13535 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger requested that Duane Mountain, Streets, Landscape Maintenance & Solid Waste Manager; and Rafael Prieto, Gardener, Public Works, Landscape Maintenance Division, come before the Commission. City Manager Sollenberger stated that Mr. Prieto has often been observed hard at work at the Civic Center; that Mr. Prieto has been a committed employee who has been known to independently petition for more landscaping materials. Mr. Mountain stated that Mr. Prieto has worked for the City for nearly 15 years, with 6 years invested in the Public Works Department; that the city was fortunate to receive Mr. Prieto as an employee after the Parks and Recreation consolidation with Sarasota County; that Mr. Prieto's outgoing personality and efforts for the City will be missed; that congratulations are extended to Mr. Prieto on his retirement. Mr. Prieto stated that planting beautiful flowers and working for the City have been a source of joy and expressed thanks for the retirement award. Mayor Cardamone read the Retirement Award Plaque in its entirety and presented the plaque to Mr. Prieto. 3. PRESENTATION RE: NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY (NBC) VIDEO BROADCAST OF OLYMPIC TORCH RELAY ON JULY 4, 1996, IN SARASOTA #1 (0284) through (0435) Mayor Cardamone stated that NBC recorded a national broadcast of the July 4, 1996, Olympic Torch Relay in Sarasota which illustrates the spirit of the City on that memorable day. The video tape of the national broadcast showing the Olympic Torch Relay from Los Angeles, through the midwest, and arriving in Sarasota on July 4, 1996, demonstrated that some of the 9,000 people who carried the Olympic Torch did so on horseback, over water, on bicycle, and on a train and included interviews with the country's oldest, living Olympic gold medal winner, 92-year old Harrison Glancy, who swam relays in 1924 with Johnny Weismuller; 17-year old Barbara Kay Dennison who works with the homeless and the elderly; 23 year-old Cherace Peterson, who was born with spina bifida and is completely blind; Donald Dawkins, a paraplegic who skydives, scuba dives, and instructs the disabled; and 82-year old Al Wedlake, who ran in the relay after having lost a leg in a motorcycle accident at the age of 76. The video tape of the national broadcast showed the torchbearers running along Sarasota Bay and the ceremonies at the Ed Smith Sports Stadium where they received medals and proclamations from the City. Mayor Cardamone distributed pictures of Commissioner Patterson and Vice Mayor Pillot taken during the torch ceremony at Bayfront Park on July 4, 1996, and stated that the video tape presented a complimentary view of Sarasota. 4. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY - APPROVED #1 (0440) through (0458) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Remove New Business, Item No. VIII-1, Recision Re: The second portion of the adopted motion of August 5, 1996 to: 1) direct the City Attorney to develop an easement granting access across City-owned property as quickly as possible, and 2) authorize the City Manager to commence negotiations immediately regarding Mr. Allen's purchase of the appropriate part of city-owned property, per the request of Commissioner Merrill. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 5. APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 5, 1996 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0459) through (0464) Mayor Cardamone asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes. Mayor Cardamone stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the City Commission meeting of August 5, 1996 are approved by unanimous consent. 6. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANING AGENCY'S (PBLP) REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 10, 1996 = AFFIRMED PBLP APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION PETITIONS NO. 96-SE-04 (1630 MORRILL STREET) AND 96-SE-05 (MARINA JACK, INC.); SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING SPECIAL EXCEPTION PETITION NOS. 96-SE-07 AND 96-SE-11, (RADISSON LIDO BEACH RESORT), CONTAINING REVISED LANGUAGE (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (0467) through (1006) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Judson Boedecker, Vice Chairman, Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), came before the Commission. Mr. Boedecker presented the following items from the July 10, 1996, Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's regular meeting: A. Petition No. 96-SE-04 BOOK 40 Page 13536 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13537 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. Mr. Boedecker stated that this is a request for a special exception to permit an office in an historically designated structure located at 1630 Morrill Street; that the property is zoned Residential, Multiple-Family (RMF-3); that the PBLP recommends Commission affirmation of the PBLP Resolution approving the Special Exception subject to: 1) uses being limited to low intensity business and professional office uses such as an architect, draftsman, court reporter, interior designer, land planner, attorney, accountant, speech or occupational therapist; and other business and professional office uses with similar trip generation; and 2) the existing circular driveway being retained, subject to any variance. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to affirm the PBLP approval of Petition No. 96-SE-04. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. B. Petition Nos. 96-SE-05 and 95-PSD-J (Marina Jack, Inc.) Mr. Boedecker stated that this is a request for a special exception to permit non-governmental uses in a Governmental Use (G) Zone District; that Special Exception 95-SE-05 will include all uses previously approved and an expansion to the existing restaurant; that Petition No. 95-PSD-J is a Preliminary Site and Development Plan which has been submitted in conjunction with the special exception; that the parcel is located at 4 Marina Plaza; that the PBLP found Petition Nos. 96-SE-05 and 95-PSD-J consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and the Tree Protection Ordinance and recommends Commission affirmation of the PBLP resolution approving the Special Exception subject to the uses limited as follows: 1,050 square feet of administrative office space, 800 square feet of retail area, dinner boat not to exceed 158 seats, 6 charter boats limited to 6 passengers apiece, 6 pleasure boats limited to 6 passengers apiece, large charter fishing boats not to exceed 136 people, pleasure boat slips not to exceed 300, and the restaurant/oyster bar not to exceed 485 seats. Commissioner Patterson stated that her husband's law firm represents Marina Jack, Inc., and Jack Graham, Inc.; therefore, she declares a conflict of interest and will not vote on this item. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to affirm the PBLP approval of Petition No. 96-SE-05. Motion carried unanimously (3 to 0): Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. C. Petition Nos. 96-SE-07, 96-SE-11, and 96-PSD-K (Radisson Lido Beach Resort/Pool Bar) Mr. Boedecker stated that Petition Nos. 96-SE-07 and 96-SE-11 are requests for special exceptions to permit accessory uses to an existing hotel; that the uses include an outdoor patio dining area in conjunction with an existing restaurant and an outdoor pool bar on an existing pool deck; that the parcel is located at 700 Benjamin Franklin Drive in a Residential, Multiple Family (RMF-4) Zone District; that Petition No. 96-PSD-K is a Preliminary Site and Development Plan which has been filed in conjunction with Special Exception Petitions 96-SE-07 and 96-SE-11, indicating the location of the outdoor dining area and pool bar; that the PBLP found Petition Nos. 96-SE-07 and 96-SE-11 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommends Commission affirmation of the PBLP Resolution approving the Special Exception and Preliminary Site and Development Plan subject to: maximum seating in the pool bar of 24 pool bar hours to be: 11 a.m. to 8 p.m., Monday through Saturday & 12 p.m. to 8 p.m., Sunday maximum seating in the restaurant of 42 restaurant hours to be: 7:30 a.m. to 9 p.m., 7 days per week no outdoor music the petitioner to make application for a designated swimming area and posting of signs at petitioner's expense. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that neighborhood residents have made positive comments regarding the current Radisson Lido Beach Resort management; however, concern has been expressed regarding a possible change of ownership or management in the future, resulting in violations of the special exception's conditions; and asked if the special exceptions could be linked exclusively to the current petitioner, expiring if the property changes ownership, and if any other options exist to protect the City and the neighborhood? Ms. Schenk stated that City Attorney Richard Taylor, Attorney William Strode, Esquire, representing the petitioner, and a member of Staff met subsequent to the PBLP meeting; that the petitioner has proffered a revocation condition to the PBLP resolution, enabling the Commission to call a public hearing to revoke the special exception if the conditions are violated; that inserting the revocation condition in the PBLP resolution is the only option available to the City. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the revocation condition is enforceable? BOOK 40 Page 13538 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13539 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. Ms. Schenck stated yes; that the petitioner would have the right to a public hearing at which time the City would need to support a violation of the condition by presenting competent, substantial evidence. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the special exception could be attached to the ownership or management rather than the property? Ms. Schenk stated that the petitioner proffered attachment of the condition to ownership; however, such a condition would be subject to challenge as the City is regulating land use rather than land ownership; that tieing a special exception to ownership is not addressed by code requirements; however, case law specifies that special exceptions run with the land. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Board of Directors of the Lido Key Neighborhood Association, and other concerned neighborhood residents have expressed concerns regarding change of ownership and potential danger to swimmers created by boaters driving up to the beach to purchase drinks; that Attorney Strode revealed in an ex parte conversation that the petitioner is amenable to attaching the special exception to ownership. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to set Petition Nos. 96-SE-07 and 96-SE-11 for public hearing. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the revocation condition would be included in the resolution returned for public hearing? Commissioner Patterson stated that Attorneys Taylor and Strode have discussed arrangements to protect the neighborhood and the City; that the resolution will return with the appropriate language. Mayor Cardamone stated that ex parte discussion has occurred with neighborhood residents. Mr. Boedecker stated that the pool bar and restaurant are presented before the Commission in two separate petitions; that the outside dining area accessible only through the interior restaurant received no opposition from neighborhood residents. Commissioner Patterson stated that the outdoor dining petition has far less potential for abuse; however, both the pool bar and the outdoor restaurant are included in the motion; that enforcement of the two stipulations placed on the restaurant regarding the hours and the prohibition of outdoor music should be publicly addressed. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 7. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE'S SPECIAL MEETINGS OF APRIL 23 AND JULY 23, 1996 - RECEIVED; REFERRED ISSUES TO ADMINISTRATION FOR A REPORT BACK (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #1 (1010) through (1228) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development; and Katherine Hansen O'Connell, Vice Chairman, Public Art Committee, came before the Commission. Ms. O'Connell presented the following items from the April 23 and July 23, 1996, Public Art Committee special meetings: Storebacks Mural Project Ms. O'Connell stated that at the March 18, 1996, regular Commission meeting the Public Art Committee (PAC) was directed to review the feasibility of painting murals on storebacks located along the south side of the alley behind the First Street parking lot between Lemon and Orange Avenues and behind the Golden Apple Dinner Theater; that the Commission suggested the murals be painted by Ringling School of Art and Design students. - Golden Apple Dinner Theater Ms. O'Connell stated that at the April 23, 1996, PAC special meeting, a consensus was reached to reject a mural behind the Golden Apple Dinner Theater absent the help and cooperation of the Sarasota Opera. Main Street Storebacks in Alley between Lemon and Orange Avenues Ms. O'Connell continued that the storebacks in the alley between Lemon and Orange Avenues are inappropriate for a mural; that unanimous consent from the business owners is required as all properties are privately owned; that convincing a group of privately held businesses to agree on a specific style of mural is virtually impossible; that the different buildings suffer different degrees of degeneration; that physical difficulties would be experienced as the storebacks are constructed of various materials such as stucco, wood, and concrete; that the large number of utilities' items on the storebacks pose difficult design problems. Ms. O'Connell further stated that the bid from Siesta Key Decor & Associates, Inc. estimates the cost at $12,950 for the following tasks: 1) pressure Clean complete area, 2) patch/repair holes in block or stucco, 3) prime/seal back of stores and walls on roof, and 4) paint same area, two tone to off-set doors and windows; that the City would have to remove all vines on the walls, cut back any trees; and remove pipes, unused electrical lines, and electrical boxes on the back of walls prior to painting; that PAC recommends the BOOK 40 Page 13540 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13541 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. buildings be cleaned and painted in a single color due to the excessive cost and labor of the alternative solutions. C. Ringling School of Art and Design Students Ms. O'Connell stated that using students on a project of this magnitude is not advisable as professional experience is required. Ms. O'Connell continued that the PAC recommends the Commission authorize Staff to enter into discussions with the Downtown Association and the building owners to initiate a project to clean up and paint storebacks of buildings fronting the north side of Main Street between Orange and Lemon Avenues; that exterior maintenance is the responsibility of the building owners; that money can be invested in landscaping and embellishments to the buildings if the building owners can be convinced to donate financial aid and cleaning support; that the Main Street storebacks are not a suitable site for a mural. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to receive the Board Report of the April 23 and July 23, 1996, Public Art Committee special meetings; and to authorize Staff to initiate discussions with the Downtown Association regarding a project to Clean up and paint the storebacks of buildings fronting the north side of Main Street between Orange and Lemon Avenues and the Golden Apple Dinner Theater. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 8. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: ROSEMARY DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 23, 1996 - RECEIVED: CONCURRED WITH RECOMMENDATION TO NOT ACCEPT NEW PRESENTATIONS PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF LAND USE PLANNING SESSIONS; REFERRED ISSUES TO ADMINISTRATION FOR A REPORT BACK; RESCHEDULED AUGUST 27, 1996, IMA WORKSHOP TO 2 P.M. (AGENDA ITEM II-3) #1 (1230) through (1820) Donald Hadsell, Director of Housing and Community Development, and Daniel Bilyeu, Chairman, Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board came before the Commission. Mr. Bilyeu presented the following items from the Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board regular meeting of July 23, 1996: A. 1429 Sixth Street Mr. Bilyeu displayed a map showing the location of the property on the overhead projector and stated that at the July 23, 1996, Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board meeting, the Board recommended that the City property located at 1429 Sixth Street be sold to Larry Marlow and Jay Meyer to provide parking in conjunction with the rehabilitation of the Horne Grocery Building on Sixth Street; that the Board voted to refer determination of the sales price to Staff. Mayor Cardamone asked if the lots located at 1419 and 1429 Sixth Street are now City-owned property and if the Horne Grocery Building is located at 1421 Sixth Street? Mr. Bilyeu stated that is correct. Mayor Cardamone asked if the potential buyers desire to purchase the lots at 1419 and 1429 Sixth Street? Mr. Bilyeu stated yes. Mayor Cardamone stated that the City should have an easement across the property at 1429 Sixth Street to allow access to City-owned property at the corner of Seventh Street and Central Avenue; and asked if an easement exists across the two lots which will allow access to the City-owned property at 1402 Seventh Street? Mr. Bilyeu stated that Staff should be able to confirm the existence of an easement behind Horne's Grocery Building. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Administration should determine the sales price, and investigate the usefulness of an easement across the two lots proposed for sale, and report back to the Commission. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to refer to the Administration the proposed sale of 1429 Sixth Street and possible obtaining of an easement across the two lots. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the intent of the motion is to refer the entire matter to the Administration who may recommend against the sale or to accept the Rosemary District Advisory Board's recommendation to sell the property and refer only the matter of the easement to the Administration? Commissioner Patterson stated that the Administration's recommendation appears to sanction the sale of the property. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration requests referral of the matter absent a commitment to sell; that the City should review the petitioners' intended use of the Horne's Grocery Building; that any City property sold in the Rosemary District should concur with redevelopment efforts. Commissioner Patterson stated that the motion refers the entire matter to the Administration to return a complete package to the Commission. BOOK 40 Page 13542 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13543 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the motion: Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Future Land Use - Rosemary District Mr. Bilyeu stated that the Board took action to not accept any new presentations until land use planning sessions are completed. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to concur with the recommendation of the Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board to not accept any new presentations until the land use planning sessions are completed. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Colson Hotel, 1425 Sixth Street Mr. Bilyeu stated the Board recommends the Commission authorize the purchase of the Colson Hotel at 1425 Sixth Street through the authority of the Community Redevelopment Agency to eliminate conditions detrimental to the public welfare; that police reports of possession of narcotics, etc., indicate the property is a nuisance. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends that the Commission not take action until details of the purchase are reviewed; that the Administration agrees the Colson Hotel building poses a problem for the Rosemary District; however, the adopted redevelopment plan requires relocation benefits be paid to any residents dispossessed as a result of governmental action; that an economic analysis should be performed as the additional expense of relocation benefits could significantly increase the final cost of the purchase. Commissioner Patterson stated that standard procedures would give tenants six months to relocate; and asked if the relocation cost is a mandate of the Federal government or a stipulation voluntarily attached to the redevelopment plan by the City? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the reason for the relocation condition is unknown; however, the condition was attached to the redevelopment plan during the public hearing process; that State statutes will be researched to determine if the condition is a statutory requirement. Commissioner Patterson asked if Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are being utilized? City Manager Sollenberger stated that a combination of Local Option Sales Tax (L.0.S.T.) funds, which must be used for infrastructure purposes, and CDBG funds are involved. Commissioner Patterson stated that the City should research the reason for and possible means of extrication from the relocation condition. Mayor Cardamone stated that the Administration should research the reason relocation funding is required for transient occupants of a hotel; that hotel room users do not have rights equal to those of residents. Mr. Bilyeu stated that Section 163.362, Florida Statutes, states "the Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) must provide assurances that there will be replacement housing for the relocation of persons temporarily or permanently displaced from housing facilities within the CRA. 1 Mayor Cardamone stated that the Colson Hotel should not qualify as permanent housing; that the number. of arrests at the hotel may subject the property for action by the Nuisance Abatement Board. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation to postpone consideration of the purchase of the Colson Hotel until a Staff proposal is brought before the Commission. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. Mr. Bilyeu stated that the Commission's support of the Rosemary District Redevelopment Advisory Board and the commitment of $1.7 million is appreciated; that the Commission is invited to the 4 p.m., August 27, 1996, Board meeting to observe the planning process. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that an Impact Management Area (IMA) workshop is scheduled at 3 p.m. on August 27, 1996. Commissioner Patterson asked if the IMA meeting could be moved to 2 p.m.? City Manager Sollenberger stated yes. Mayor Cardamone stated there is a consensus of the Commission to move the Impact Management Area workshop from 3 p.m. to 2 p.m. on August 27, 1996. 9. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, AND 5 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (1807) through (1857) 1. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County for the distribution of Local Option Gas Tax Revenues for the period September 1, 1996 through August 31, 1997 BOOK 40 Page 13544 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13545 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. 2. Approval Re: Final Site and Development Plan for Petition No. 95-PSD-E for J.H. Floyd ACLF, 1809 18th Street 3. Approval Re: Award of purchase order contract to Gulfstates Industries, Inc., Holiday, Florida, (Bid #96-100) in the amount of $28,928 for roofing repairs and replacement at the City of Sarasota Public Safety Service Division, 400 N. Beneva Road, Sarasota, Florida 4. Approval Re: Placement of permanent Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall sign at the southwest corner of Tenth Street and North Tamiami Trail 5. Approval Re: Use of Mayor's name in the Mayor's Feed The Hungry Campaign On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 1 through 5. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 10. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM NO. 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 96R-910) = ITEM NO. 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 96R-914) ITEM NO. 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 96R-915) ITEM NO. 4 (RESOLUTION NO. 96R-916) ITEM NO. 5 (RESOLUTION NO. 96R-917) ITEM NO. 6 (ORDINANCE NO. 96-3956) ITEM NO. 7 (ORDINANCE NO. 96-3957) ITEM NO. 8 (ORDINANCE NO. 96-3959) ITEM NO. 9 (ORDINANCE NO. 96-3960) ITEM NO. 10 ( ORDINANCE NO. 96-3963 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (1865) through (2087) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 96R-910, 96R-916, and 96R-917 in their entirety, proposed Resolution Nos. 96R-914, and 96R-915 by title only and proposed Ordinance Nos. 96-3956, 96-3957, 96-3959, 96-3960, 96-3963 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 96R-910, appropriating $23,000 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (forfeitures) to fund a computer and video based training program and to provide officer training; etc. 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 96R-914, providing for the tentative award of a contract for the construction of the Urban Reuse Downtown Loop to Forsberg Construction, Inc., pursuant to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Wastewater Grants Program, subject to regulatory approval, and providing for subsequent execution of the contract documents by the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk; etc. (Title Only) 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 96R-915, providing for the tentative award of a contract for the construction of the Urban Reuse South Loop to Kuxhausen Construction Inc., pursuant to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Wastewater Grants Program, subject to regulatory approval, and providing for subsequent execution of the contract documents by the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk; etc. (Title Only) 4. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 96R-916, appropriating $869,200 from the interest earnings of the 1991 Water & Sewer System Revenue Bonds to fund the construction of the Downtown and South Loop of the urban reuse transmission main system; etc. 5. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 96R-917, appropriating $47,474.50 from the Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund (forfeitures) to fund safety equipment for Police Officers and provide certain specialized training; etc. 6. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 96-3956, amending Chapter 33, Sarasota City Code to revise speed limits on streets as set forth herein; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; repealing all ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) 7. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 96-3957, amending Chapter 14, to create a new Article VII consenting to the expansion of the boundaries of the Sarasota County municipal service taxing or benefit unit to include all lands within the boundaries of the City of Sarasota; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) 8. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 96-3959, amending Chapter 16 of the Sarasota City Code, Recycling and Solid Waste, adjusting recycling and solid waste collection rates for the purpose of operating and maintaining the solid waste management system of the City of Sarasota by establishing new rates for recycling and solid waste collection; providing for the severability of the parts hereof if declared invalid; providing for repealing of ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) 9. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 96-3960, annexing certain real property lying contiguous to the city limits into the corporate limits of the City of Sarasota, as petitioned by the City of Sarasota; said real property being described as follows; a portion of the Bobby Jones Golf Course that lies outside the city limits, consisting of approximately 48.9 acres, with a street address of 1000 Circus Boulevard; more particularly described herein; making findings; redefining the boundary lines of the City of Sarasota to include said real property; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 96-ANX-01, petitioner City of Sarasota) BOOK 40 Page 13546 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13547 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. 10. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 96-3963, amending Chapter 16 of the Sarasota City Code, Recycling and Solid Waste, by limiting the solid waste deposit fee to customers who are not also City water customers; amending Chapter 37, water and sewers, by adjusting the basic unit service charge applicable to commercial, industrial and other users, and by adjusting the billing of the unit service charge to new customers, and by increasing the required deposit; providing for the severability of the parts hereof if declared invalid; providing for repealing of ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1 through 10 inclusive. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Cardamone requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 11. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 96-3933, TO REZONE A CITY OWNED PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY CURRENTLY USED AS A FIRE TRAINING SITE, FROM RMF-1 ZONE DISTRICT TO G (GOVERNMENTAL) ZONE DISTRICT, SAID PARCEL LIES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CIRCUS BOULEVARD APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET EAST OF NORTH BENEVA ROAD, HAVING A STREET ADDRESS OF 874 CIRCUS BOULEVARD; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 96-RE-03, PETITIONER, CITY OF SARASOTA) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (2088) through (2260) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development came before the Commission, displayed a Zoning and Subdivision Map on the overhead projector, and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 96-3933 is a request to rezone from Residential, Multiple-Family (RMF-1) Zone District to Governmental Use (G) Zone District, a City-owned parcel, commonly called the Burn Building located at 874 Circus Boulevard, and currently used as a fire training site; that at the April 3, 1996, Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), meeting, the Planning Board found proposed G Zone District consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommended approval of rezoning Petition No. 96-RE-03. Commissioner Patterson asked if the City owns the property? City Manager Sollenberger stated yes; that the parcel is now used by Sarasota County as part of the consolidated fire district; that the Sarasota County School Board paid over $1 million for construction of the Burn Building; that the City owns the underlying fee title to the property; however, the School Board and the County maintain rights to the use. Commissioner Patterson stated that the property's use could not be substantially changed absent City Commission approval; and asked if that is correct? City Manager Sollenberger stated that is correct; that the entire property is impacted by fire rescue training uses. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the property has consistently been used for fire training purposes and should be rezoned to a G Zone District. Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 96-3933 on first reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 96-3933 on first reading. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 96-3933 on first reading. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 12. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 96-3958, TO REGULATE DOGS WITHIN ARLINGTON PARK: SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; DEFINING TERMS; REQUIRING THAT DOGS WITHIN ARLINGTON PARK BE ON A LEASH; REQUIRING THAT FECAL MATTER BE REMOVED; ALLOWING DOGS WITHIN SPECIFIED AREAS IN ARLINGTON PARK: AMENDING CHAPTER 10, SARASOTA CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO POSTING OF SIGNS IN PUBLIC PARKS WHERE DOGS ARE PROHIBITED PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF: REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT: ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (2265) through (3715) BOOK 40 Page 13548 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13549 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that proposed Ordinance No. 96-3958 will allow dogs within specified areas of Arlington Park subject to specific requirements; that Arlington Park is defined as that geographic area bounded by Floyd Street on the north, Briggs Avenue on the east, Hillview Street on the south, and Jefferson Avenue on the west; that the dogs will be required to be restrained by a leash, chain, or rope, not exceeding 26 feet in length, and will not be permitted in the playground area, all picnic areas, pool areas, office, gym, multiple-Purpose field and within the portion of the Park north of Waldemere Street; that the ordinance further requires that dogs not be allowed to enter or swim in the pond or pools located within the Park and that dog fecal matter be removed by wrapping in paper or plastic and be deposited in a trash receptacle prior to the dog owner leaving the Park. City Manager Sollenberger continued that Walter Rothenbach, Director, Sarasota County Parks and Recreation Department, has written a letter to the Administration opposing the proposed ordinance; that dog owners are alleged to have used the public drinking fountain in the park to provide water for dogs. Commissioner Merrill asked if the City maintains the public drinking fountain in Gillespie Park? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the fountain is maintained by Sarasota County Parks and Recreation Department. Commissioner Merrill stated that the fountain is frequently out-of-order and vandalized. Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Andrea Kass, 2709 Hillview Street (34239, stated that a petition with 106 names of neighborhood residents requesting the City to permit dogs in Arlington Park was submitted at the July 15, 1996, regular Commission meeting; that dogs should be allowed in the park for reasons of safety; that dog owners currently must walk dogs in the street as no sidewalk exists on Arlington Street; that a traffic hazard is created by elderly residents walking dogs in the street. Ms. Kass continued that dogs provide safety and pleasure for owners walking and exercising in the park; that women feel safer when accompanied by a dog when walking by thick vegetation; that walking a dog allows elderly residents to interact socially with neighbors; that simultaneously pushing strollers and trying to maneuver a dog on a leash while walking in the street can pose a risk; that residents who control their pets with restraint and reason should be allowed to walk their leashed dogs in Arlington Park. Lynn Livinghouse. 2723 Hyde Park Street, stated that allowing dogs to be walked in the park will provide exercise and fresh air for dog owners and pets; that dogs are no longer allowed to exercise or swim at the beach; that allowing dogs to be walked in the park will contribute to the good health of dog owners and their pets. Mayor Cardamone asked if neighborhood residents are willing to clean up after other residents' dogs who are in violation of the rules? Ms. Livinghouse stated yes. Ms. Kass referred to the letter submitted by Mr. Rothenbach and stated that the public drinking fountain has been vandalized and is often obstructed with gum; that the fountain could be removed as another fountain, located next to the gymnasium, provides adequate service. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if dogs witnessed swimming in Bird Key Park are violating regulations? City Manager Sollenberger stated that a report will be returned to the Commission. Commissioner Patterson stated that a City ordinance allows animals in Island Park to be brought to the water's edge on a leash, the leash unclipped, and the animals to swim in the water. Jane Sullivan, 2594_Arlington Street (34239), stated that dogs were permitted when Arlington Park was maintained by the City; that neighborhood residents were not notified at the time maintenance duties were transferred to the County and dogs were prohibited in the park under subsequent Ordinance No. 88-03; that a mother walking a dog while accompanying two small children riding on bicycles faces safety concerns from automobiles sharing the same roadway; that criminal activity has included gang activity, drug use, consumption of alcoholic beverages, and lewd and lascivious behavior; that teen-agers vandalize the park with graffiti and other destructive behavior; that the Police Department has been notified when criminal acts are witnessed. Ms. Sullivan continued that allegations of dogs killing baby ducks are inaccurate; that turtles and a small alligator in the lake are responsible for the destruction of baby ducks; that the park exists for all neighborhood residents, including dog owners who accept responsibility for pets; that long-time residents of Sarasota recall when dogs were allowed on the beaches; that dogs have recently been prohibited in Ken Thompson Park. Commissioner Patterson stated that dogs are allowed to swim at Island Park. BOOK 40 Page 13550 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. * BOOK 40 Page 13551 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. Ms. Sullivan stated that the water quality at Island Park is unfavorable. Lynn Reynolds, 2707 Hyde Park Street (34239), stated that social interaction occurs between neighbors when dogs are walked; that parents use the dogs to teach children proper behavior around animals; that negative comments are valid; that no one should have to step into a dog mess when walking or be intimidated by a large, loose dog running free; that dog owners who violate the rules should be educated and counseled by other dog owners. Ms. Reynolds stated that near collisions with young people on bicycles and calls to animal and bird rescue groups in response to water birds tangled in fishing line would never prompt the suggestion that bicycles or fishing be prohibited in the park; that reasonable restrictions should be placed on neighborhood residents walking dogs in the park; that the City has the right to expect responsible behavior. Frank Hill, 2237 South Tuttle Avenue, stated that neighborhood residents walking dogs are able to observe conditions in Arlington Park; that teenagers have been witnessed breaking baby duck eggs and shooting ducks with a pellet rifle; that acts of vandalism are reported to the Police Department; that leashed dogs will coexist harmoniously with joggers and bikers; that the Commission is requested to provide neighborhood residents the opportunity to demonstrate responsible behavior. Lorrie Muldowney, 2709 Temple Street (34242), stated that the proposed ordinance is viewed favorably; that allowing dogs in Arlington Park will encourage intensive use of the park; that responsible behavior will encourage the enjoyment of the park by all neighborhood residents. Kathleen Muldowney, 2709 Temple Street (34242), stated that parks should be for all people, including dog owners; that dogs of large breed require extensive exercise; that the City does not offer many opportunities for exercising pets; that the restrictions in the proposed ordinance are reasonable; that dogs should be kept on leashes; that dogs are man's best friends. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 96-3933 on first reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 96-3933 on first reading. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 96-3958 on first reading. Mayor Cardamone stated that the Director of Sarasota County Parks and Recreation Department is adamantly opposed to allowing dogs in Arlington Park due to problems experienced in other City parks when the city Commission overrode Sarasota County regulations; that City residents should follow the proper rules of pet behavior to prevent violations which could result in termination of services by the County; that the letter from Mr. Rothenbach alleges appalling behavior by dog owners; that neighborhood residents must accept the imperative to keep the park clean or the City will lose the right to control the use of the parks; that parks are made safer when used regularly by neighborhood residents; that the proposed ordinance is supported; however, imprudent behavior will result in irrevocable consequences. Commissioner Merrill stated that no problem has been witnessed in the nine years he has frequented Arlington Park; that neighborhood residents appear to be responsible; that the sensibly drafted, proposed ordinance will keep dogs away from playground, picnic, and pool areas. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes, Merrill, yes. 13. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 96-3965, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 47 SOUTH WASHINGTON DRIVE, SARASOTA, FLORIDA, HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS THE WILLIAM J. BURNS HOUSE AS A STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 96-HD-06, PETITIONER MIKKI HARTIG) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA IV-3) : #1 (3717) through #2 (0218) Jane Robinson Director of Planning and Development came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 3965 is to designate the structure located at 47 South Washington Drive, historically known as "The William J. Burns House" as a structure of historic significance; that at the July 9, 1996, Historic Preservation Board meeting, the Board recommended Commission approval of the historic designation based on Section 15-14( (1) (c), (d), and (e) of the Zoning Code; that the proposed ordinance was set for public hearing at the August 5, 1996, regular Commission meeting. Lorrie Muldowney, Sarasota County Department of Historical Resources Specialist, came before the Commission and stated that BOOK 40 Page 13552 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13553 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. the structure was built during the 1920's Florida land boom and is significant due to the embodiment of the Mediterranean Revival architectural style, the documentation confirming design by Thomas Reid Martin, a prominent local architect, and original ownership by William Burns, a famous detective; that Sarasota County Department of Historical Resources Staff recommends the house at 47 South Washington Drive for historical designation. Mayor Cardamone asked for a summary of Mr. Burns' history? Mikki Hartig, Historical and Architectural Research Services, representing Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Hughes, the owners of 47 South Washington Drive, came before the Commission, displayed slides of the house and surrounding property on the overhead projector and stated that the property is an exemplary example of the Mediterranean Revival architectural style in Sarasota; that the architect, Thomas Reid Martin, designed Burns Court, the Atlantic Coastline Railroad Depot, and several buildings at the Civic Center; that William Burns first came to Sarasota in March 1926 after having made acquaintance with John Ringling who persuaded Mr. Burns to build a winter home in the John Ringling Estates; that Mr. Burns used his international acclaim and reputation to promote Sarasota's development. Ms. Hartig continued that Mr. Burns was born the son of a tailor who eventually became the Police Commissioner in Columbus, Ohio; that interest in police work led to a career as a detective; that the New York Times called Mr. Burns the "the greatest detective of all time" and made comparisons to Sherlock Holmes; that the City of Sarasota closed all businesses for one hour during the funeral service attended by hundreds of residents in April 1932. Ms. Hartig displayed on the overhead projector slides of a courtyard entrance into a patio area, the kitchen area, the back of the house facing Sarasota Bay, French doors and a music room and stated that Mr. Martin used simple blocks with Mediterranean style embellishments; that terra cotta panels bordering the roof line contain animal motifs duplicated in interior details. Ms. Hartig further stated that a petition nominating the property to the National Register of Historic Places will be heard on Friday, August 23, 1996. Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Cardamone closed the public hearing. City Manager, Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 96-3933 on first reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 96-3933 on first reading. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 96-3965 on first reading. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes. 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: JOINT PROJECT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF SARASOTA FOR CHARETTE ON RINGLING CAUSEWAY REPLACEMENT BRIDGE AESTHETIC DESIGN = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-1A) AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. à 96R-918, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A JOINT PROJECT AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA PERTAINING TO THE RINGLING CAUSEWAY REPLACEMENT BRIDGE AESTHETIC DESIGN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-1B) AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: RESOLUTION NO. 96R-908, APPROPRIATING $192,000 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND TO FUND THE HIRING OF A CONSULTANT FOR THE RINGLING CAUSEWAY REPLACEMENT BRIDGE AESTHETIC DESIGN, APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION ON JUNE 3, 1996. THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WILL REIMBURSE $182,700 OF THIS AMOUNT; ETC. = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-1C) AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FIGG ENGINEERING GROUP REGARDING THE RINGLING CAUSEWAY REPLACEMENT BRIDGE APPROVED WITH INCLUSION OF LANGUAGE TO SPECIFY THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY TO DECIDE FINAL AESTHETIC DESIGN CONCEPT, TO REFERENCE THE BUDGETARY ESTIMATE OF $25.2 MILLION, AND TO SPECIFY FIGG ENGINEERING GROUP, WILL DETERMINE THE BUDGETARY ESTIMATE (AGENDA ITEM VII-1D) #2 (0219) through (2614) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that as approved by the Commission at its regular July 15, 1996, meeting, the Administration has requested the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to: 1) participate in the funding of the facilitator/ coordinator for BOOK 40 Page 13554 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13555 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. the design charettes for the Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge, and 2) postpone the due date for the City's decision on the type of structural system from September 1, 1996 to October 15, 1996; that Gerald Carrigan, Acting FDOT District Secretary, in his letter dated July 30, 1996, states support for the charette process to build consensus for the Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge project and the willingness of FDOT to participate in the funding of the charette; that Mr. Carrigan agreed to a 45-day extension; that the Joint Project Agreement between the FDOT and the City agrees that $182,700 of the $192,000 cost for professional services will be paid by FDOT; that the City must pay the $9,300 cost of the post-charette activities; that the City will reimburse FDOT for all payments in the event the selection of the aesthetic design does not occur. Mr. Daughters continued that proposed Resolution No. 96R-918 authorizes the Mayor and the City Auditor and Clerk to execute on behalf of the City, a joint project agreement as outlined by the City of Sarasota and FDOT relating to charettes for the selection of the aesthetic design for the Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge. Mr. Daughters further stated that the hiring of a consultant for the Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge aesthetic design was approved at the June 3, 1996, regular Commission meeting; that the consultant will cost $192,000, with $182,700 to be reimbursed by FDOT; that proposed Resolution No. 96R-908 will approve Special Appropriation No. 782 which provides the necessary funding. Mr. Daughters stated further that the Professional Services Agreement with Figg Engineering Group (FEG), will assist the City in determining the type of structural system and style of aesthetic design for the Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge project, including services as the aclitator/cordinator of the charettes, for a fixed-fee of $192,000; that the fee provides for the preparation and facilitation of two design charettes; that the first charette would be a two-day charette, tentatively scheduled for the week of October 28, 1996; that the second charette, during which lighting, railings, etc., would be addressed, will be a one-day charette, tentatively scheduled for the week of January 13, 1996; that the results of both charettes will be returned to the Commission for consideration of approval and then forwarded to FDOT. Mr. Daughters stated that two clauses are included in the joint agreement with FDOT: 1) the City must agree that the goal of the project is to achieve a complete aesthetic design concept in accordance with the time table provided and within budgetary guidelines established by FDOT, and 2) that the City must reimburse FDOT if an aesthetic design concept is not achieved during the charettes; that a question has been raised as to the reason the City must agree to the two Clauses when contracts for bridges between FDOT and the cities of Ft. Lauderdale and Daytona Beach were absent such conditions. Mr. Daughters continued that the situations are dissimilar; that the cities of Ft. Lauderdale and Daytona Beach did not initiate the charette process; that FDOT hired FEG as the design consultant for the two other projects, similar to the hiring of Kunde, Sprecher, & Associates (KSA), as design consultant for the John Ringling Replacement Bridge; that although both consultants were required to reach community consensus for the design, FEG used the charette process while Kunde, Sprecher, and Associates worked informally with the Aesthetic Task Team appointed by the Commission; that the Commission recently chose to acquire the services of a facilitator/ coordinator to implement the charette process subsequent the City's inability to produce a design acceptable to FDOT; that FDOT initially refused to fund the second process; however, a subsequent meeting between Staff and FDOT resulted in the State's willingness to participate in the funding conditioned with a clause designed to protect the State's investment. Mr. Daughters further stated that the City can meet the timetable; that the budget for construction funding is $25.2 million which FEG assures is sufficient to achieve a signature bridge; that higher figures previously quoted included engineering design and preliminary engineering; that the construction of the Broadway Bridge in Daytona Beach, similar in length and height to the John Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge is estimated at $21 million; that the 17th Street Bridge in Ft. Lauderdale is éstimated at a higher figure due to the bascule structural system. Mr. Daughters continued that Staff is confident the charette process will produce an acceptable signature bridge; that at least one FDOT representative will actively participate in the charette process; that FEG desires all five Commissioners to participate with 50 to 80 interested City residents; that the agreement requires FEG to work with the community and FDOT to arrive at an acceptable design. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Joint Project Agreement with FDOT compels the City to reimburse the State if the charette process does not produce a complete aesthetic design concept; and asked for clarification of a complete aesthetic design concept? Mr. Daughters stated that a complete aesthetic design concept does not include final engineering or construction design drawings; that detailed, conceptual drawings will be developed to enable FDOT's design engineers, Kunde, Sprecher, and Associates to produce the final engineering design. BOOK 40 Page 13556 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13557 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson asked if the Joint Project Agreement attaches the City's reimbursement liability to Commission approval of the aesthetic design concept? Mr. Daughters stated that is correct. Commissioner Patterson asked if the Commission has' authority to decide on an aesthetic design process absent consensus from the charette process? Mr. Daughters stated that the results of the charettes will be brought to the Commission for a final decision for or against approval. Commissioner Merrill asked which agreement contains the language guaranteeing Commission authority to make the final decision for or against the aesthetic design concept? Mr. Daughters stated that the language is contained in Exhibit "C," the Schedule of Activities provided by FEG. Commissioner Merrill stated that Exhibit "C" contains the following language: Present to City Commission the results of Charette 2 and final decision on aesthetic package. Commissioner Merrill stated that the language does not clarify if the final decision will be made by FEG or the Commission. Mr. Daughters stated that the results of the design charette will be presented to the Commission in November for a decision for or against proceeding to the next phase. Commissioner Merrill stated that the language should be clarified; that neither the FEG nor the FDOT agreements specifies the Commission's final decision-making authority in the event computerized voting at the charette results in an aesthetic design concept unacceptable to a majority of the Commission. Mr. Daughters stated that the last sentence of the paragraph entitled "Design Charette 1" in Exhibit "A" in the contract with FEG contains the following language: The CONSULTANT (FEG) will make a presentation to the City Commission following the first charette. Mr. Daughters stated that additional language should be inserted to clarify the Commission's authority to decide whether the charette process should proceed; that similar language should be inserted at the end of the paragraph entitled "Design Charette 2"; that the City Attorney will be consulted. Commissioner Merrill stated that bridge embellishments will determine the scope of the budget; that the same embellishments may be estimated at $250,000 by FEG and $500,000 by FDOT; that the City may request a particular hand rail and FDOT may assert that the hand rail will increase the cost to $25.6 million, in excess of the estimated budget; that FEG, who is responsible for creating the aesthetic design concept, has assured the City a signature bridge will be produced for $25.2 million; and asked the location of the language referencing the $25.2 million budget and who will determine the estimated budget? Mr. Daughters stated that the $25.2 million amount is not specifically mentioned in the agreements; that the budget is referenced in the Joint Project Agreement between the City and FDOT as follows: .and within budgetary guidelines established by the Department.. 2 Mr. Daughters stated that the $25.2 million amount is referenced in the Work Plan, a separate FDOT document. Commissioner Merrill stated that the amount for the project can be referenced from the Work Plan; that the agreement should be revised to include the dollar amount prior to signing the agreement; that the language should clarify that FEG and not FDOT will determine the budgetary estimate; that the City should ensure that an aesthetic design concept reached by consensus of the City will not be rejected as too expensive by FDOT; that the scenario should be avoided in which FDOT rejects an aesthetic design concept approved by charettes and the Commission as too expensive, implies the City is at fault for failing to reach consensus, and then bills the City for reimbursement of the $182,700 charette cost. Mr. Daughters stated that FEG will develop cost estimates on the aesthetic design concept during the charette; that FDOT could develop an independent cost analysis; however, the intent of the chàrette is to partner the City with both FDOT and FEG. Commissioner Merrill asked if the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has authority to override the City's decision for the aesthetic design concept? Mr. Daughters stated that he is of the opinion that the MPO could not veto a decision made by the Commission; that the MPO delegated decision-making power to the City. Mayor Cardamone stated that David May, District One Secretary, FDOT, promised the City several million dollars more than the $25.2 million budget quoted at this meeting; and asked the amount quoted previously by FDOT? BOOK 40 Page 13558 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13559 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. Mr. Daughters stated that the figure was approximately $28 million; that the Work Plan breaks the figures down between construction and engineering costs. Commissioner Patterson stated that the $28 million may not have included the engineering design; that the minutes should be reviewed to ascertain the offer made by Mr. May; that FDOT participation in the charettes would enable the State to voice, any objections to an aesthetic design concept prior to Commission approval; and asked if FDOT will be included in the charette process? Mr. Daughters stated that the City has received a verbal impression that FDOT or their consultants will attend the charettes; however, the verbal communication has not been placed into writing. Commissioner Patterson stated that a satisfactory conclusion to the aesthetic design of the John Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge must be reached; that Commissioner Merrill's concern is the Commission will find the aesthetic design concept reached by consensus to be unacceptable, while her concern is the charette will fail to achieve a consensus in which case the Commission has the responsibility to make a final decision on the aesthetic design concept; that a consensus should be reached by the Commission to avert the City's inheriting a $182,700 reimbursement liability. Commissioner Merrill stated that the final decision-making authority on the aesthetic design concept should be clarified in writing; that City residents should not pay for an aesthetic design concept reached by consensus of Longboat Key or Sarasota County residents. Commissioner Patterson stated that the charettes were assumed to be limited to City residents; and asked if the Commission can determine who will take part in the charette? Mr. Daughters stated that Commission directive will determine the composition of the charettes; that the list of 158 names includes Longboat Key residents who do business in the City; however, the majority are City residents. Mayor Cardamone stated that the Joint Project Agreement between the City and FDOT contains the following language: In the event the selection of the aesthetic design does not take place, the City will reimburse the Department for all payments made to the City by the Department.. Mayor Cardamone stated that FEG will be hired to conduct a charette process funded by the City; that failure to achieve a consensus should be assumed by FEG and not the City; that a consensus cannot be mandated; however, according to the agreements before the Commission, FEG will be paid notwithstanding success or failure to reach consensus. Mr. Daughters stated that the contract does not specify that FEG will forego payment if consensus is not reached. Mayor Cardamone asked if FEG will conduct a third charette at no cost if consensus is not reached in the second design charette? Commissioner Patterson asked if the timetable would allow a third charette? Mr. Daughters stated that the answers to both questions is no; that Exhibit "A" of the FEG agreement contains the following language: The CONSULTANT will coordinate with the Florida Department of Transportation to assure that the selected design is carried through and will assist with periodic presentations to the City Commission. Mr. Daughters stated that the language refers to presentations of designs to be brought before the Commission after the aesthetic design concept has been chosen; that language could be added to specify the intent of the contract is to reach a consensus. Mayor Cardamone stated that the reimbursement condition was not included in contracts with Ft. Lauderdale and Daytona Beach; that attaching Commission acceptance of an aesthetic design concept to reimbursement of the fee is a cause for concern as the City should not be compelled to fund a failure. Commissioner Patterson stated that the John Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge has been an embattled issue for the community; that a consultant cannot be asked to guarantee a consensus as a condition for being paid; that FDOT's condition is undesirable; however, the Commission cannot transfer the liability to FEG; that the Commission should vote for or against the Joint Project Agreement; and asked Mr. Daughters to what extent Gene Figg, FEG Engineering Group will be involved in the design charette process? Mr. Daughters stated that Gene Figg and Linda Figg Mccallister will dedicate a great deal of time to the design charette process. Commissioner Patterson stated that the quality of FEG and their history of successes makes the risk worth taking. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that a definition for consensus does not exist in the agreements; that the consultants cannot be expected to bring in a consensus unless consensus is defined in some sensible and feasible way; however, total confidence exists that the BOOK 40 Page 13560 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13561 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. charettes will result in the presentation of an aesthetic design concept acceptable to the Commission; that the package brought before the Commission at this meeting encourages an optimistic outlook. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot, and second of Commissioner Patterson, it was moved to approve the following: 1. The Joint Project Agreement between the FDOT and the City, wherein the FDOT agrees to pay $182,700 of the $192,000 cost of the professional services of FEG subject to the terms in the Joint Project Agreement; 2. Adoption of proposed Resolution No. 96R-918 (allowing the Mayor and the City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Joint Project Agreement. 3. Adoption of proposed Resolution No. 96R-908 (appropriating $192,000 from the Unappropriated Fund Balance of the General Fund to fund the hiring of a Consultant for the John Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge Design. 4. Agreement for Consultant Services between FEG and the City, wherein FEG will assist the City in the determination of the type of structural system and style of aesthetic design for the project, including services as the facilitator/ coordinator of the charettes for a fixed fee cost of $192,000; to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. 5. Inclusion of language in Exhibit "A" in the contract with FEG to specify the Commission's authority to make the final decision for or against the aesthetic design concept; inclusion of language referencing the budgetary estimate of $25.2 million; inclusion of language to specify that FEG will determine the budgetary estimate of the completed aesthetic design concept to ensure that the City is not liable to reimburse FDOT $182,700 in the event FDOT rejects the aesthetic design concept. 6. Confirmation by Staff that the City's decision of the aesthetic design concept will not be overridden by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Mayor Cardamone stated that Staff should ask FDOT to remove the reimbursement clause from the Joint Project Agreement; that she will vote against the motion unless the clause is removed. Commissioner Merrill stated that controversy is unavoidable; that a conscious decision will be made by the Commission either to accept the aesthetic design concept produced from the charettes or reject the consensus and pay the $182,700; that a budget-driven problem may occur if FEG estimates costs differently from FDOT; that the Commission will be compelled to make a tough decision constrained by the budgetary estimate; that the $182,700 reimbursement condition will encourage the community to focus on reaching a clear consensusi that the logic behind FDOT's stipulation is understood. Mayor Cardamone stated that the design charettes are viewed with optimism; however, the pressure from FDOT is unwarranted. Commissioner Patterson stated that the FDOT inserted the reimbursement liability condition as a deliberate incentive; that the State had previously invested a substantial sum of money to achieve a consensus from the Commission; that the FDOT risks being accused by the MPO of allowing the city to manipulate the State if another large sum of money is invested and the Commission rejected the proposal again; that FDOT is vulnerable to criticism and the logic behind the stipulation is understood. Mayor Cardamone asked if FDOT had been approached about removing the potential reimbursement condition? Mr. Daughters stated that FDOT was contacted after the reimbursement condition became an issue; that Mr. Carrigan was asked to clarify the purpose of the clause and answered that the condition was inserted to provide an incentive to accomplish an aesthetic design concept in a timely manner. Mr. Daughters continued that FDOT is confident a design will be achieved; that FDOT has discussed the charette process with districts involved in similar processes and is encouraged by proven successes, especially in Ft. Lauderdale whose community was far more embattled than Sarasota's; that the $182,700 potential reimbursement clause in the Joint Project Agreement is an incentive for the City to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion. Commissioner Patterson stated that the City should receive the full budget amount promised by FDOT; and asked if the budgetary estimate quoted by David May, District One Secretary, FDOT, could be researched prior to the Mayor's signing of the contract? Mayor Cardamone stated that higher dollar figures were quoted by FDOT in the original package presented by FDOT. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the information was contained in the minutes of the May 13, 1996, workshop and read the following excerpts: BOOK 40 Page 13562 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13563 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. Mr. May stated that in an effort to resolve the current situation and proceed with the project, FDOT is willing to consider a segmental box design as an option, even though the budget may be overextended. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Mr. May gave costs of various base, truss-shaped, classical, and segmental box structural systems; that the segmental box structural system was estimated at $29,393 million. Commissioner Patterson stated that the City should be informed the reason the figure was reduced to $25.2. Mayor Cardamone stated that the motion on the floor contains many implied assumptions. Katherine Hansen O'Connell, member, Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge Aesthetic Task Team, came before the Commission and stated that the agenda distributed among the public does not offer details of the appropriation of $192,000 to fund the hiring of a consultant for the John Ringling Causeway Replacement Bridge; and asked if the Commission was presented documents which detail the costs. Mayor Cardamone stated that the Commission has many pages of contracts. Ms. O'Connell asked if members of the Aesthetic Task Team would be included in the list of residents invited to the design charettes? Commissioner Patterson stated yes. Donald Blivas, President, American Institute of Architects (AIA), Foundation for Excellence in Architecture (The Foundation), came before the Commission and stated that the Foundation formed an alliance with FEG to produce a world-class bridge for the City; that the slides of bridges designed by FEG, shown at the July 1, 1996, regular Commission meeting, impressed those in attendance; that the Foundation and FEG are engaged in daily communication as a world-class charette is necessary to produce a world-class bridge; that the Foundation is interviewing individuals to help Mr. Figg and his staff, and investing time and money into reserving the conference space, Eurnishing the boat, etc. Mr. Blivas stated that a consensus will be reached; however, consensus does not equal unanimity; that a majority of those participating in the computerized voting will achieve a consensus after FEG creates a concept acceptable to the majority of the charetté group; that the Commission, the FDOT, and many members of the local community will be involved. Mr. Blivas continued that FDOT inserted the reimbursement clause to avoid censure from the MPO; that the project has languished for three years absent pertinent action; that FDOT is funding FEG's fee, the Foundation is contributing time and money, and the City is investing manpower and dollars; that FDOT is concerned that FEG will produce a wonderful bridge which the Commission may once again choose to reject; that FDOT is being asked to spend $182,700 and the Commission is requested to accept the agreement based upon FEG's background and prior accomplishments. Mr. Blivas further stated that FEG is one of the premier bridge builders in the United States; that FEG understands FDOT and governmental budgets; that FDOT is asking the Commission to approve the aesthetic design concept that will be presented by Mr. Figg and has the right to expect reimbursement if the Commission rejects a design produced after sO much preparation and expense; that the reimbursement condition is reasonable and logical; that the Commission has seen Mr. Figg's work and should feel comfortable. Commissioner Merrill stated that Mr. Daughters presented a $25.2 budgetary estimate while Mr. May had previously estimated the segmental box structural system would cost $29 million; that the Kuykendall Design was rejected by FDOT as too expensive; and asked if $25.2 million is sufficient? Mr. Blivas stated that FEG has the capability to achieve a consensus for an aesthetic design concept within budgetary restraints; that Mr. Figg has designed enough bridges to warrant the community's faith. Commissioner Patterson asked if Mr. Figg is aware of the $25.2 million budgetary figure and the length of the bridge? Mr. Blivas stated that Mr. Figg has received extensive engineering information from Staff and FDOT and knows the length of the bridge. Mr. Daughters stated that the $25.2 million budgetary estimate was discussed with Mr. Figg today who also verified the $21 million budgetary estimate for the Broadway Bridge in Daytona Beach. Commissioner Patterson asked if the $25.2 million includes all the engineering which has already been accomplished? Mr. Daughters stated no; that the $25.2 million is construction dollars only. Commissioner Merrill stated that the $29 million budget quoted by Mr. May appears to be the one being referenced; that the $25.2 million is the amount for construction after the engineering costs are deducted. BOOK 40 Page 13564 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13565 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. Mr. Blivas stated that the engineering fee was estimated at nearly $3 million. Commissioner Patterson stated that Staff should verify that all parties are following the same budgetary estimate. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the discussion at this meeting has been instructive; however, the Commission is being asked to vote approval of agreements with FDOT and FEG and to appropriate the money to do so; that the timetable indicates the notice to proceed is scheduled in two weeks. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to call the question. Mayor Cardamone asked if the main motion on the floor encompasses the language proposed by Commissioner Merrill for inclusion in the Joint Project and FEG agreements? Vice Mayor Pillot stated yes; that he withdraws the motion to call the question. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 96R-918 by title only and 96R-908 in its entirety. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the motion to: approve the Joint Project Agreement between FDOT and the City; approve the agreement for contractual services with Figg Engineering Group; adopt proposed Resolution Nos. 96R-918, authorizing the execution of the Joint Project Agreement, and 96R-908, appropriating $192,000 from the Unappropriated Fund Balance of the General Fund; and include in the agreement the proposed language for clarification. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Commissioner Patterson stated that thanks is extended to the Foundation and to Mr. Blivas. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the City would not have arrived at the current stage of progress without the Foundation. Mayor Cardamone stated that hearing no objection, the Commission will take a break. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: STATUS OF THE PROPOSED NOISE ORDINANCE - RECEIVED STATUS REPORT, DIRECTED CITY ATTORNEY TO RETURN WITH A ROUGH DRAFT OF A NOISE ORDINANCE, AND DIRECTED STAFF TO CONDUCT FURTHER DECIBEL READING EXPERIMENTS (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #2 (2617) through #3 (0425) Mark Singer, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that at the August 5, 1996, regular Commission meeting, the City Attorney was directed to draft an ordinance restricting outdoor amplified music without a total ban and to secure consultation as deemed appropriate to draft the ordinance properly; that a clear, unambiguous, easily enforceable ordinance is required to comply with the Constitution and place a property owner or business owner on notice of what would be considered a violation; that outdoor amplified music in Downtown should be prohibited after specified hours. Mr. Singer continued that the language must be clear and unambiguous; that property owners must be able to understand what constitutes a violation; that constitutional requirements of equal protection prohibit writing exceptions which allow some businesses to be excluded from the regulations; that the State recently attempted to pass a clear, unambiguous statute prohibiting boom bboxes from passing cars by stating a noise from a passing car, audible from 100 feet, should be cited as a violation; that the Department of Motor Vehicles enacted regulations enabling law enforcement officers to determine what constitutes a violation; that Lee County enacted a noise ordinance, based on the State Statute and the regulations; that the ordinance was recently ruled unconstitutional by the Second District Court of Appeals; that the courts are reluctant or unwilling to allow amendments to codes prohibiting noise, unless the noise is determined a breach of peace; that a well-detined, easily enforceable mechanism is required to determine the point at which a breach of peace occurs. Mr. Singer further stated that the City Attorney's Office recommends the proposed ordinance include definitions of amplified music; that decibel regulations can be drafted but are difficult to enforce as the operator of the equipment must be properly trained and the equipment sophisticated enough to determine a violation has occurred; that decibel readings will not measure thumping-beat sounds; that the City's past ordinance including both decibel regulations and the loud and raucous standards was nullified by the local court which declared that two standards cannot be used simultaneously; that the more stringent of the two standards must be used; that Gainsville and Orlando have adopted both standards in language which enables law enforcement officers to cite violations of the loud and raucous standard even if the decibel readings have not been violated. Mr. Singer continued that the lower courts will not oppose a broad standard, such as loud and raucous, when issued by the United States Supreme Court; however, despite the High Court's assertion that everyone understands loud and raucous, in reality, the standard is subjective; that many cities in Florida are faced with similar problems; that drafting an outright ban after a specific hour is one certain remedy. BOOK 40 Page 13566 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13567 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson stated that some noise levels offend residents at any hour; and asked if the memo from Russell Pillifant, Deputy Chief, Sarasota Police Department has been reviewed? Mr. Singer stated yes. Commissioner Patterson stated that Deputy Chief Pillifant is recommending a decibel limit of 78 decibels. Mr. Singer stated that the City can write an ordinance which prohibits decibels exceeding certain measurable limits; however, the easiest thing to enact and enforce is a time limitation; that a noise ordinance with decibel readings can be drafted; however, enforcement and proof is more difficult. Commissioner Patterson asked if loud and raucous could be defined as anything above 78 decibels? Mr. Singer stated that the language could be drafted to presume anything above a certain decibel reading to be loud and raucous. Commissioner Patterson stated that a police officer has difficulty determining what is loud and raucous. Mr. Singer stated that one difficulty with the decibel standard is that anything below the decibel measurement will be presumed not to be loud and raucous; that an ordinance could retain the loud and raucous standard as well as a decibel measurement standard and prosecution could occur even if the decibel limit was not exceeded but the noise is loud and raucous. Commissioner Patterson asked if an ordinance stating that anything above a certain decibel reading would be considered loud and raucous could also impose time limits? Mr. Singer stated yes. Commissioner Patterson continued that at no hour in Davis, California, a university town, can any but the most minimal noises be heard outside fraternity houses where parties are in progress; and asked the measures taken by Davis, California to achieve a quiet environment? Mr. Singer stated that the Davis, California noise ordinance was received today; that the ordinance will be studied and enforcement officials contacted; that the ordinance contains the following combination of factors: 1) sound amplifying equipment is defined, 2) decibel readings are specified, 3) time limitations prohibit any outside amplified noise or violations of decibel readings. Commissioner Patterson asked for a copy of the Davis, California noise ordinance. Commissioner Merrill stated that the memo from Deputy Chief Pillifant indicates that 78 decibels were acceptable to the residents of Dolphin Tower; however, a normal conversation is 45 decibels; that a great deal of background noise must have existed for 78 decibels to be acceptable; that 65 decibels are registered when standing on the edge of a busy four-lane road; that the proposed ordinance must define what is acceptable. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the 78 decibel reading heard at Dolphin Tower was taken at the Lemon Coast Grill; that the decibel reading may not be acceptable at another location; that the 78 decibel standard was not recommended by Deputy Chief Pillifant; that the memo indicates only that the 78 decibels were acceptable at Dolphin Tower when the measurement was taken at the Lemon Coast Grill. Mayor Cardamone stated that a 78 decibel standard would be unbearable for an individual in close proximity to the sound. Commissioner Patterson stated that the report indicates the 78 decibel reading was taken at 10:30, Friday, August 16, 1996, at both the Lemon Coast Grill and Dolphin Tower; and asked if a decibel reading was taken at Dolphin Tower? John Lewis, Chief of Police, Sarasota Police Department, came before the Commission and stated that two readings were conducted; that the engineer provided by the Lemon Coast Grill was unable to achieve a good reading on the balconies at Dolphin Tower due to additional sounds interfering with the music from the Lemon Coast Grill; that a complaint was received when the sound exceeded the 78 decibel reading; that Dolphin Tower residents accepted the sound level at 78 decibels or lower; however, the same decibel reading would have been too loud if heard at the source. Commissioner Merrill asked for clarification of the following language in the memo: .the decibel reading at the Dolphin Tower showed no appreciable difference and in fact was constant throughout the evening registering in the low 70s. Chief Lewis stated that the decibel readings recorded at Dolphin Tower remained the same when the readings at the Lemon Coast Grill fluctuated; that although a complaint was filed when the sound level at the Lemon Coast Grill was increased, the sound engineer's equipment did not change; that the difference was apparent to the human ear but did not register on the meter on the balcony at Dolphin Tower. Commissioner Patterson asked the meter reading when no music was played? BOOK 40 Page 13568 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13569 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. Chief Lewis stated that some decibels would have been recorded from traffic noise. Commissioner Merrill stated that the proposed ordinance should focus on defining clear decibel regulations and a time limit of 12:30 p.m. or 1 a.m. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot, and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to accept the status report and direct the City Attorney to return with an acceptable draft for the proposed ordinance restricting amplified music. Joyce Mintzer, Dolphin Tower, came before the Commission and stated that the 78 decibel reading at Dolphin Tower should be clarified; that a north wind existed on Friday evening, August 9, 1996 the night the decibels were measured; that a 78 decibel reading may not be acceptable with a different directional wind as the sound was still heard despite the weather conditions; that the sound may have been considered acceptable; however, if the wind is from the west, a 78 decibel reading could be unbearable. Ms. Mintzer stated that the testing was conducted only one night under those particular conditions; that Peter Hickman, President, Dolphin Tower Condominium Association, stated that a 70 decibel reading would be more acceptable. Commissioner Patterson stated that the motion on the floor does not specify a decibel level; that bars in Close proximity to residential areas must be considered as the proposed ordinance will be applied City-wide; that Staff should return to the Lemon Coast Grill and Dolphin Tower and conduct the same experiment, using lower decibel readings, on two additional evenings. Ms. Mintzer stated that Dolphin Tower is at least 1,000 feet from the Lemon Coast Grill. Mayor Cardamone asked the measures taken by the Lemon Coast Grill to abate the noise since the August 5, 1996, regular Commission meeting? Chief Lewis stated that the owners informed Police Officers on August 9, 1996, that the insulation material should be installed within three weeks; that the owners of the Lemon Coast Grill have called Dolphin Tower residents to attempt to regulate the noise level. Chief Lewis continued that the wind was blowing away from Dolphin Tower the evening the experiment was conducted; that a 78 decibel reading may have been intrusive if the wind had been blowing toward the Tower. Commissioner Patterson asked if Staff could be directed to perform two additional decibel reading experiments with different wind directions before a final recommended decibel level is reached for insertion into the proposed ordinance? Commissioner Merrill stated that the direction to Staff could be inserted into Vice Mayor Pillot's motion. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that he has no objection to the addition to the original motion. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the motion on the table is to accept City Attorney's status report, bring a draft of an acceptable ordinance back to the Commission, and direct Staff to perform two additional decibel reading experiments under weather conditions with different wind directions before a final recommended decibel level is reached. Vice Mayor Pillot continued that no ordinance could be supported which specifies decibel readings as wind direction, location of the building, and location of the individual listening to the noise are all factors of determination; that a residence across the street or within one block would be negatively affected by 70 or 78 decibel readings registered at the site of the music; and asked how a decibel reading can be inserted into the proposed ordinance unless maximum decibel reading is measured at the site of the recipient of the noise? Mr. Singer stated that the courts will not allow ambiguous language which fails to inform the property or business owner, who is generating the sound, the location the decibels are being registered; that the court nullified the Sarasota City Code provision that loud and raucous noise is prohibited from being heard across residential property lines as business owners cannot be expected to know the location of residential property lines; that decibel readings must be measured from either the property line from which the noise is emanating or a specified distance from the property line to allow the business owner to take his own measurements. Mr. Singer continued that the proposed ordinance could indicate decibel readings are to be measured at the plane of the nearest adjacent property; that an enforceable ordinance must specify both the measurements for the decibel reading allowed at, and the distance from, the source of the sound. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the key to the issue is the distance from the source of the sound at which the measurements can be taken; that a measurement taken next to the amplification equipment would be too close while two miles from the source of the noise would be too distant; that the property line of the source of the BOOK 40 Page 13570 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13571 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. sound should be specified as the location at which the decibels will be measured. Commissioner Patterson stated that the measurement could be taken at the sidewalk. Mr. Singer stated that the experts may advise the noise measurement be taken as close to the source as reasonably possible to eliminate the potential for ambient noise from other sources complicating the reading measurement. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that an ordinance allowing a measurement of 78 decibels 100 yards from the source of the music would force residents living closer to relocate; that the proposed ordinance should draft a decibel measurement which is both defensible and protective of the rights of residents; that measuring the decibels at the property line of the source of the noise may be acceptable. Mr. Singer stated that either an expert or a written report from an expert will explain the rationale for the distance and decibel measurements during the first public meeting at which the proposed ordinance is presented. Mayor Cardamone asked if the City Attorney will bring back a rough draft prior to public hearing? Mr. Singer stated that a draft will be returned to indicate the City's direction with the experts; that useless public debate will be avoided by excluding reference to decibel readings and focusing on distance issues; that decibel readings may be ready for discussion when the proposed ordinance is brought back for introduction. Mayor Cardamone stated that the City Attorney is expected to bring back language prohibiting amplified music during specified times. Commissioner Patterson stated that the Lemon Coast Grill is an unenclosed structure while the Gator Club is enclosed; that outdoor amplified music was the initial focus of the proposed ordinance; that an enclosed building causing no problem should not be cited for music drifting out the doors; and asked if only exterior establishments are being addressed or is the proposed ordinance being drafted to prohibit music heard outside any establishment? Mr. Singer stated that the prohibition would be on outdoor amplified music; however, the decibel requirements would be applied City-wide; that only outdoor amplified music would be prohibited by time restrictions. Mayor Cardamone stated that the terms "noise" or "sounds" should be used in the proposed ordinance. Mayor Cardamone called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 0): Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 16. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: LIGHTING OF THE BASKETBALL COURTS LOCATED IN THE ORANGE AVENUE PARK, PIONEER PARK, AND GILLESPIE PARK - DIRECTED ADMINISTRATION TO RETURN A REPORT (AGENDA ITEM VIII) #3 (0429) through (0541) Commissioner Patterson stated that a series of informal discussion meetings with Commissioner Dupree have expanded to include many community organizations, the Mayor, and Jack O'Neil, Commissioner, Sarasota Board of County Commissioners; that lighting City basketball courts at night for young people was suggested at the July 11, 1996, recreation discussion meeting; that Commission support is requested for referring the issue to the Administration to return with a report including costs, funding opportunities, and results of consultation with neighborhood residents to establish the hours during which the courts will be lit. On motion of Commissioner Patterson and second of Vice Mayor Pillot, it was moved to direct the Administration to return with a report on the details and feasibility of lighting the Orange Avenue Park, Pioneer Park, and Gillespie Park basketball courts. Commissioner Merrill stated that the motion refers to three different parks; that neighborhood residents have complained about the noise and congregating of children at the lighted basketball courts in Arlington Park. Commissioner Patterson stated that another neighborhood may find lighting the basketball courts to be a wonderful idea; that Orange Avenue Park, Pioneer Park, and Gillespie Park will be the subject of the Administration's focus; that the thrust of the original meetings between Commissioner Dupree and herself were to provide some or more recreational opportunities in northeast Sarasota as parents in those neighborhoods lack the economic means to provide activities for their children. Mayor Cardamone called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 17. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA - DISCUSSED LONG-RANGE FINANCIAL STUDY (AGENDA ITEM X) #3 (0542) through (3079) COMMISSIONER MERRILL: BOOK 40 Page 13572 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13573 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. A. stated that the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners will be addressing the proposed 15-year stormwater assessment fee of $103 for the Hudson Bayou Basin at an upcoming public hearing; that the City has not officially voted on the issue; and asked if the Administration could attend the County's public hearing to express the City's concerns? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the proposed assessment fees have been calculated by the County in a manner incompatible with the provision of the Interlocal Agreement requiring assessments for capital improvements to be levied on the basis of area; that the County's method of calculating the fees is based on Equivalent Stormwater Units (ESUS) which the County decided to be the best method several years ago; that the Administration will make a recommendation to the Commission at the September 3, 1996, regular Commission meeting and will distribute pertinent information to the Commission prior to the meeting. Mayor Cardamone asked when the County's public hearing is scheduled? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the County's public hearing is scheduled for Thursday, September 5, 1996; that the material will be furnished to the City Commission in advance of the September 3, 1996, regular City Commission meeting, allowing time to study the question prior to a vote. Mayor Cardamone asked if the calculation method is used Citywide? City Manager Sollenberger stated yes. Commissioner Patterson stated that consideration of the issue should include possible alternative funding for the area affected by the assessment for stormwater improvements in the Phillippi Creek Basin, which currently has a large levy; e.g., a 1,100 square foot house in Tamaron will be assessed $160 per year for improvements; that residents of the Phillippi Creek Basin will not appreciate also paying a portion of the assessment fees for the Hudson Bayou Basin. Commissioner Patterson continued that a distinction in the levy is supposed to made between City and County properties; that her home is being assessed as if in the County according to a recent mailing received from the County; that a determination should be made as to whether all of Siesta Key, including the portion within city limits, has been designated in error as being within the County; that any possible errors in calculating fees for City residents should be investigated. COMMISSIONER PATTERSON: A. stated that the jet ski issue on Golden Gate Point has come before the Commission at various times; that in addition to creating a nuisance for the neighborhood residents, the jet ski problem is producing marketing problems for newly developing properties in the area and threatening an unrealized tax base for the City; that a petition received from Golden Gate Point will be provided to the rest of the Commission and the Administration; that the petitioner suggests prohibiting boat launching from Hart's Landing; however, many residents with small boats enjoy launching boats at that the location; that the City has been advised the illegality of discriminating against jet skis; and asked if the Administration could return with an innovative suggestion. Mayor Cardamone stated that a neighborhood resident has reported the installation of posts and a cable along the referenced beach by an unidentified individual resulting in a reduction of the jet ski problem; that the posts and cable have been installed in a professional manner; that the problem should be solved by enforcing an existing "idle speed limit" regulation within a designated distance from shore. Commissioner Patterson stated that the City should devise a way to enforce the law. Commissioner Merrill stated that closing down the boat ramp at Hart's Landing will result only in relocating the jet ski problem to Bird Key and Key Thompson Parks, both in close proximity to residences; that a speed limit close to shore should be enforced. B. stated that the City's excess sewer capacity, annexation of parcels in the County's targeted sewer area, and the formation of a metro government or consolidation are all different sides of the same issue recently addressed in a series of Sarasota Herald-Tribune articles; that providing sewer capacity to the County could stop annexation efforts and ultimately force the City to consolidate; that additional information regarding metro- governments is necessary; that the positives and negatives of selling the City's excess capacity to the County should be examined closely; and requested Commission consideration of appointing a citizens' committee comprised of City residents with financial and legal expertise to analyze the issues referenced and to make a recommendation to the Commission. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that assigning specific tasks to a committee could be supported; that a committee assigned specific tasks, i.e., conducting a long-range study forecasting future costs BOOK 40 Page 13574 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13575 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. of municipal services and to determine possible and specific infrastructure requirements, answering questions raised in the editorial referenced, would be productive; however, a citizens' committee absent specific goals for compilation of data would produce doubtful results. Commissioner Merrill stated that a protessional, objective study of the issue is supported. Mayor Cardamone stated that assigning a committee the task of addressing the long-term economic viability of the City could be supported. Commissioner Patterson stated that a report on long-range projections is supported but should be developed by Staff rather than citizens; that she is suggesting a citizen's committee that would focus on reviewing data compiled by the Administration regarding the proposed bulk wastewater treatment service agreement with the County which would eliminate the City's ability to annex unincorporated areas in the future, and provide input to the Commission after asking questions and receiving additional information from Staff regarding future rates and the County's targeted sewer areas. Mayor Cardamone stated that the Commission should review the report developed by the Blue Ribbon Task Force appointed by the County to analyze septic tank problems. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the study examined financing the replacement of the Phillippi Creek Basin septic system with a central sewer system; that the report would serve as a valuable reference document. Mayor Cardamone stated that the requirement to obtain 51% support of the residents in an enclave makes annexation efforts difficult. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that consolidation with the County is not supported; that he supports retaining a qualified professional consultant, without a time constraint, to perform a long-range study on the economic viability of the City, as outlined in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial, and to produce a report on which the Commission can base a decision. Mayor Cardamone stated that she agrees with Vice Mayor Pillot; that preparation of long-range projections 20 years into the future is customary for city governments and large corporations. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Breen Consortium Report highlighted many of the City's problems and concluded that the City must either raise taxes or cut services; however, the Report did not provide guidance or solutions for consideration; that the city is currently in the redevelopment or stagnation cycle; that annexation is a possible solution if State laws regarding annexation can be changed; that pursuing a professional, objective study is an excellent idea. Commissioner Patterson stated that she supports a professional, objective study; however, a citizens' committee should be appointed to examine the issues and provide a recommendation to the Commission regarding the sale of excess sewer capacity to the County. Commissioner Merrill stated that both the citizens' committee and the professional, objective study are supported. Commissioner Patterson stated that the County is currently requesting a decision from the Commission regarding sewer capacity to service Oyster Bay. Mayor Cardamone stated that the Commission postponed hearing Staff's recommendation regarding annexation at the budget workshops. Commissioner Patterson stated that the data presented by Staff during the budget workshops differed from the consultants' data which had previously been presented to the Commission; that entering into an Interlocal Agreement for bulk wastewater treatment service is a critical issue for the City. Commissioner Patterson stated that Commissioner Merrill has voiced support for a citizens' - committee; and asked if a third Commissioner supports the concept. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that citizens' input is valuable; however, the opinions of a group of lay citizens on the sewer issue are virtually predictable. Commissioner Patterson stated that the newspaper articles indicated the County Commission is ready to consolidate and consider a metro government; however, a point which appears to have been missed and was not discussed by the County Commission is that the authority of elected city officials are not transferred to the county commission in a metro-government consolidation; that the metro-governments are complex, vary, and the commissions often consist of 40 elected officials who represent the interests of the public; that the public does not have a clear understanding of a metro-government. Mayor Cardamone stated that similar action in Jacksonville resulted in a commission comprised of 29 people at one tablé; that every borough and subdivision is represented by an elected councilman; that 29 people attempt to govern under the restraints of the Florida Sunshine Law. BOOK 40 Page 13576 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13577 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Patterson stated that the State Legislature is assembling a Commission on Local Government II, consisting . of 21 people to examine issues such as annexation; that the commission's report which is expected within two years may recommend serious changes to the annexation laws; that major decisions which could affect the City's ability to annex in the future should not be made until the commission's report is produced, and the final State policies regarding annexation are known. Mayor Cardamone requested Commission support to forward a letter or an editorial to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and address various issues regarding the series of articles published including: 1) the comparison of Sarasota to Indianapolis, Indiana, Jacksonville, Florida, and Nashville, Tennessee, which are large cities, and not to cities of like-size with similar financial status, 2) inaccuracies, i.e., the millage rate reported, and 3) the omission of an article describing communities in the State which have been empowered through incorporation. Mayor Cardamone stated that at a recent meeting of the Florida League of Cities, the Mayor from the Village of Wellington, a newly incorporated city, explained that one reason incorporation was pursued was because considerable taxes were being paid to Palm Beach County for limited services. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the articles were well-researched and well-written; however, the comparisons to large cities with declining downtowns and greater populations were irrelevant and unrelated to Sarasota; that data on comparable governmental areas may or may not exist; that a letter from the Mayor indicating the articles were well-researched and well written but unrelated to Sarasota due to specifics would be supported. Commissioner Patterson stated that all Commissioners have written op ed pieces from time to time for the newspaper; that she doesn't think one Commissioner can write an op ed piece or a letter to the editor that comes from the Commission unless the document is written as a group and all names are listed under the text. Commissioner Merrill stated that the articles which highlighted built-out cities were fair; that the Village of Wellington is a wealthy suburb of Palm Beach and similar to Longboat Key; that middle-income neighborhoods are virtually non-existent on Longboat Keyi that such communities do not face the problems of an old built-out central city from which the wealth is fleeing; that the articles described the life cycle of a city when old middle-income neighborhoods deteriorate and become low-income housing for the entire community; that a central city such as Sarasota will face problems never experienced by Longboat Key; that the article addressed the issue fairly; that consolidation and annexation are both difficult as trends similar to Sarasota are evident in cities across America which are inhabited by either the lower income or the wealthy. Commissioner Merrill continued that he viewed the articles as fair; that the Mayor and each Commissioner could write individual pieces to the editor; that pursuing further, public debate on this issue is supported. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that he does not intend to write an individual editorial; that the City's having a deteriorated core is not accepted. Mayor Cardamone stated that she does not intend to write an individual editorial and agrees the articles were well written and the data regarding Indianapolis and Jackshonville accurate; however, the subject was raised with the Commission as numerous citizens have referenced the article and questioned why Sarasota was compared to such cities. Commissioner Patterson stated that the City's attention should focus on the people being represented; that Sarasota, which is an inner city and a business center, has similar problems, on a smaller scale, to larger cities; however, the likelihood of achieving a favorable consolidation is substantially less than with larger cities because a smaller portion of the consolidated body would be represented; that consolidation appears to be a solution which would only benefit the wealthiest neighborhoods; that the neighborhoods which require attention to remain viable would not adequately be addressed through consolidation; that a comparison of the funding allocated to law enforcement in the County and the City was referenced in the newspaper articles noting that approximately $370 per capita is spent on law enforcement in the City; however, the additional $170 per capita which the County spends on law enforcement in the City was not included; that a similar level of funding would not be expended for law enforcement within the City after consolidation unless a Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU) was established; therefore, the City would be left with an excess burden of police, old bond issues and obligations for pension, retirement, etc; that a substantial improvement in the City's position through consolidation from the perspective of an average citizen is not apparent; however, she will remain open minded. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that Commissioner Patterson's point is valid; that the fire consolidation is working to the advantage of the wealthier or higher-valued neighborhoods; that, for example, as a property owner in Harbor Acres, based on the square-footage of his residence, he will be assessed a fire fee of approximately $400 per year and, through the reduction in millage proposed in the FY 96/97 budget, will realize a savings of nearly $1,500 in property taxes; that a net savings of $1,000 is expected; that property BOOK 40 Page 13578 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. - s BOOK 40 Page 13579 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. owners in other areas of the City will pay more; that similar results are likely if other consolidations occur. Commissioner Merrill stated that alternatives to consolidation are more difficult to achieve; that although the City concentrates efforts on the Rosemary District, Newtown and Gillespie Park neighborhoods, those neighborhoods will not change; that an entire City cannot be revitalized; that code enforcement and maintenance efforts will improve a neighborhood, but will not dramatically affect the tax base as low-income people have to reside somewhere; that more low-income housing becomes necessary when a community grows; that older neighborhoods tend to provide that housing, which is evident in the Bobby Jones Apartments, the Midwest Arms Apartments, the Carolina Estates neighborhood, and the neighborhoods around Cornelius Circle and Tarpon and Mackerel Streets; that statistics indicate the lower 10 percent of populations live in lower-income sections of a community; that the County population which at one time was 100,000 has increased to 300,000, thus increasing the lower 10 percent of people searching for lower-income housing from 10,000 to 30,000; that lower-income families moving into neighborhoods with the lowest price housing is a trend which cannot be reversed; that as lower-income housing is not being provided in the County, older middle-income neighborhoods of the City will continue to develop as such; that the transition is occurring rapidly in many neighborhoods in District 3; that the City does not appropriately expend funds or take preventive methods to avert decline in such neighborhoods, but waits until the area has declined and then focuses efforts on revitalization; that a change in the State laws regarding annexation would be beneficial, but is unlikely; that he agrees the City's negotiating power with the County regarding consolidation is limited by size; however, some action is necessary; that doing nothing is the worst option the Commission could choose. Commissioner Patterson stated that consolidation should not be pursued at a time when the City's millage will decrease over the next two to three years; that the tax structure of the City will not be high compared to other cities unless expenditures increase; that the public will view the extra police protection, landscaping beautification, etc., worthy of and accept the additional tax paid unless the millage rate rises to the higher level experienced in prior years; that the City would currently have no political clout in a consolidation negotiation; that targeting areas for improvement would be more prudent than surrendering to the County at this time as nothing would be gained from consolidation. Commissioner Merrill stated that consolidation is achievable at this time; that at some point issues of power will intrude, e.g., when the populations of the City and County become significantly different making the chances of a City Commissioner being elected to the Board of County Commissioners remote; that Derek Bok, President of Harvard University, wrote a series of essays identifying power as the main issue in consolidation; that racial issues and economic-class issues become more acute as a city is built-out and begins declining; that an entirely different set of power issues arise if consolidation is not pursued while the populations of the City and County remain similar; that the County may reconsider the wisdom of consolidating with a City in decline; that, for example, Detroit, Michigan, or Washington, D.C., could not attempt to consolidate with their metropolitan areas. Commissioner Patterson stated that the City could dissolve at that point. Commissioner Merrill stated that in reference to expenditures increasing, the Commission recently received two charts from the Police Department reflecting a decline in the crime statistics for the Rosemary District and the Newtown areas but increases in criminal activity in the East Sarasota Neighborhood, specifically on East and Lime Avenues, which will require additional law enforcement; that the Commission recently voted 3 to 2 in favor of providing the full reduction in millage proposed; that as the fiscal control of the Commission changes, votes to increase millage to provide additional police protection for troubled areas will be more readily cast; that the millage rate should have reduced by approximately one-third with the Parks and Recreation Consolidation, but instead, the savings were used to hire additional police officers; that in his opinion, the savings from the fire consolidation will be consumed over the next ten years through increases in law enforcement as neighborhoods east of Tamiami Trail continue to experience the apparent transition which can clearly be viewed. Mayor Cardamone stated that the favorable transition which has occurred in Laurel Park during the past three years is also apparent; that optimistic views are held regarding the potential for revitalization of downtown neighborhoods; that improvements to properties have resulted in increased property values, enhancing the tax base for the City; that a similar improvements are evident in Gillespie Park. Commissioner Merrill stated that neighborhood revitalization requires the relocation of low-income residents; that increases in property values are directly related to the income of the residents, which is the reason for the transition which has occurred in Laurel Park; that the concept of revitalization related to tax base requires a change in the people who live in the neighborhood. Commissioner Patterson stated that the City's having a 20% lower income than the County is not accepted as a permanent condition; that the concept of lower-income individuals concentrating in the BOOK 40 Page 13580 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. BOOK 40 Page 13581 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. City is also not accepted; that poverty is not evil; however, concentrating people with few opportunities in one area is not desirable. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Comprehensive Plan references the County's providing low-income housing for County residents; however, a law cannot be passed restricting residence only to low- income people who work in the City; that every community should supply a full-range of housing; that limiting the City to low- income housing creates a problem. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that well-maintained $40,000 housing is possible. Commissioner Merrill stated that the City should ensure through code enforcement that existing lower-income housing is well- maintained; however, lower-income housing will not enhance the City's tax base; that, in addition, statistics reflect that lower- income neighborhoods have the highest crime rates. Commissioner Patterson stated that the County does not employ code enforcement as stringent as the. City; that marginal neighborhoods will decline under consolidation; that a greater problem will result in the lower-income neighborhoods if the City consolidates with the County, but the County does not make an equal investment in law enforcement; that the police budget comprises approximately 65% of the annual City budget; that the neighborhoods will deteriorate further if the service is reduced. Commissioner Merrill stated that safety, a service provided to the residents by government, is less expensive in the County because of the nature of their neighborhoods; that the City's higher crime rate results in expending more expensive efforts to produce a lower service of safety than the County. Commissioner Merrill stated that the Sheriff's Office has a substation in the Newtown Estates and other low-income areas under County jurisdiction; that the response times are no different than the city in those areas; that aggregate statistics on the County may indicate a lower level of service, but by a comparison of neighborhoods with similar characteristics the staffing is comparable; that the County would be compelled to schedule sufficient staff in every neighborhood to respond to the calls. Commissioner Patterson stated that children who fall from bicycles have waited 40 minutes before staff from the Sheriff's Office has arrived; that the Commission should schedule an informal discussion on the subjects of consolidation and annexation. MAYOR CARDAMONE: A. stated that at 5 p.m., Monday, August 26, 1996, at Selby Gardens, a community event will honor the City's Olympic Gold Medal winner, William "Tripp" Douglas Schwenk, III, who will sign autographs; that United Way and Selby Gardens are sponsoring the event; that the Commission should attend the ceremony. B. stated that a memorandum from the City Attorney addressing Sarasota County road impact fees requires Commission attention; that the Commission should decide what action the City should take. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Planning Department is conducting a study on road impact fees which will be brought to the Commission upon completion. Commissioner Patterson stated that the City should delay action until after the November elections when new County Commissioners may be elected. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the issue could be scheduled for discussion when the City meets with the Board of County Commissioners after the elections. 18. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #3 (3080) There being no further business, Mayor Cardamone adjourned the regular meeting of August 19, 1996 at 10:30 p.m. ralt Can E MOLLIE CARDAMONE, MAYOR SOTE A ATTEST: 5 3 WE Rabense BILLY 8. ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ) 2. BOOK 40 Page 13582 08/19/96 6:00 P.M. FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME--FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Nora Patterson Sarasota City Commission MAILING ADDRESS THE GOARD, COUPICIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON 707 Freeling Drive WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: k CITY. - 1 COUNTY 1 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL: SUBDIVISION: Sarasota Sarasota City of Sarasota DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: *: ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; presented use although the of this particular form is not required by. law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary on greatly whether depending you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 412.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal fother than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of but must disclose interest, the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. CE FORM *IS (-K6 n IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. Yous should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST 1, Nora Patterson hereby disclose that on August 19, 0520 19. 96 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) x inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of by whom I am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: Board Actions, Item II-1(c), Petition 96-SE-05, to permit a non-governmental use in a Governmental (G) Zone District. The Petition was filed by Jack Graham, Inc. My husband's law firm represents Jack Graham, Inc. August Aillson 2, 1996 Mos Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES $112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. CF FORM RR 1A.X6