MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 1, 1994, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Nora Patterson (arrived 6:04 p.m.), Vice Mayor David Merrill, Commissioners Mollie Cardamone and Gene Pillot, Deputy City Manager V. Peter Schneider, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: Commissioner Fredd Atkins and City Manager David Sollenberger PRESIDING: Mayor Nora Patterson Vice Mayor Merrill called the meeting to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:02 p.m. Reverand J.D. Hamel gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED #1 (0039) through (0079) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Remove under Special Presentations, Presentation Re: Retirement Award to Donald H. Grant, First Class Firefighter Paramedic, Fire-Rescue Bureau, Public Safety Department with 25 years of service. B. Remove under Scheduled Presentations, Item No. V-1, Presentation Re: Lido Beach Renourishment Project. Mayor Patterson arrived in the Commission Chambers at 6:04 p.m. C. Remove under Unfinished Business, Item No. VII-1, Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Third Amendment to Agreement for Engineering Services between the City of Sarasota and Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc., for the Lido Key Beach Renourishment Project. D. Add to Unfinished Business, Item No. VII-6, Report Re: Main Street Improvement Project, per the request of Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. BOOK 36 Page 10772 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 36 Page 10773 8/01/94 6:00 P.M. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): : Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 2. PRESENTATION RE: RETIREMENT AWARD TO PETER DOUTHIT, LIEUTENANT FIRE/RESCUE BUREAU, PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT, WITH 23 YEARS OF SERVICE #1 (0108) through (0206) James Frazier, Battalion Chief of Fire-Rescue Bureau, and Peter Douthit, Lieutenant, Fire-Rescue Bureau, came before the Commission. Battalion Chief Frazier stated that Peter Douthit is retiring from the Fire-Rescue Bureau after more than 23 years of service; that Lt. Douthit was one of the first paramedics in the City of Sarasota Fire-Rescue Bureau; that Lt. Douthit's superior service has helped bring the City's Emergency Medical Service Department into the stature it currently enjoys; that the citizens of Sarasota have been well served by Lt. Douthit. Battalion Chief Frazier congratulated Lt. Douthit on his retirement. On behalf of the City Commission, Mayor Patterson read the Retirement Award in its entirety and presented Lt. Douthit with a plaque. 3. PRESENTATION RE: RETIREMENT AWARD TO KENNETH E. KNUTSEN, METER READER, UTILITIES DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, - WITH 32 YEARS OF SERVICE #1 (0206) through (0300) William Hallisey, Facilities Operation Manager, and Kenneth Knutsen, Meter Reader, of the Utilities Division, came before the Commission. Mr. Hallisey stated that Kenneth Knutsen is retiring from the Utilities Division of the Public Work Department after more than 32 years of service; that Mr. Knutsen started his employment with the City of Sarasota as a laborer in 1961 and shortly thereafter transferred to the Utilities Billing Office to serve as a Meter Reader for the remaining years of his employment. Mr. Hallisey congratulated Mr. Knutsen on his retirement. On behalf of the City Commission, Mayor Patterson read the Retirement Award and presented Mr. Knutsen with a plaque. 4. PRESENTATION RE : EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JUNE, 1994 CLEO P. KLEER, COMPUTER OPERATOR II, INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT #1 (0300) through (0337) Robert Campbell, Information Services Manager, and Cleo Kleer, Computer Operator II, came before the Commission. Mr. Campbell stated that Cleo Kleer has served the City for nearly ten years; that she displays a courteous and professional attitude at all times, always showing consideration for the needs of others, even if it means altering her own work schedule to help coworkers; that Cleo performs night-shift computer operations which is one of the most important duties in the Information Services Department. Mr. Campbell congratulated Ms. Kleer on receiving this award. Mayor Patterson presented Cleo Kleer with a plaque and certificate for the Employee of the Month for June 1994 in appreciation of her unique performance with the City of Sarasota and congratulated her for her outstanding efforts. 5. PRESENTATION RE: MAYOR'S CITATION TO THE COACHES OF CARDINAL MOONEY HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS SOFTBALL TEAM FOR THE RECENT DESIGNATION AS THE 1994 FLORIDA STATE SOFTBALL CHAMPIONS #1 (0372) through (0460) On behalf of the City Commission, Mayor Patterson read in its entirety the Mayor's Citation recognizing the team's recent designation as the 1994 Florida State Softball Champions and commending the Head Coach, Assistant Coach, and Manager for their leadership, time, and effort devoted to the team. Leslie Black, Head Coach, and Gregg Hassler, Assistant Coach of the Cardinal Mooney High School Girls Softball Team, came before the Commission. Mayor Patterson presented individual citations to Ms. Black and Mr. Hassler. 6. PRESENTATION RE: MAYOR'S CITATION TO CARDINAL MOONEY HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS SOFTBALL TEAM FOR THE RECENT DESIGNATION AS THE 1994 FLORIDA STATE SOFTBALL CHAMPIONS #1 (0470) through (0615) Leslie Black, Head Coach, and Gregg Hassler, Assistant Coach of the Cardinal Mooney High School Girls Softball T'eam came before the Commission. On behalf of the City Commission, Mayor Patterson read in its entirety the Mayor's Citation which recognized the team's outstanding achievements in winning the Class 2A Florida State Championship. Mayor Patterson presented individual citations to the following team members who were present in the Commission Chambers: Dawn Book 36 Page 10774 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10775 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Backhus, Alene DeCaria, Lauren Hassler, Beth Johnson, Michelle Matteoli, Cheryl Muth, and Christie Olivieri. 7. PRESENTATION RE: MAYOR'S CITATION TO THE COACHES OF SARASOTA HIGH SCHOOL SAILORS BASEBALL TEAM FOR THE RECENT DESIGNATION AS THE 1994 FLORIDA STATE BASEBALL CHAMPIONS #1 (0615) through (0710) On behalf of the City Commission, Mayor Patterson read in its entirety the Mayor's Citation commending the dedication, hard work, enthusiasm, and leadership put forth by the coaches in guiding the Sarasota Sailors to victory in the 1994 Class 5A Florida State High School Baseball Championship and applauding the team's USA Today triple crown achievement including USA TODAY's Coach of the Year. Clyde Metcalf, Head Coach, and Ted Lyke, representing the Assistant Coaches of the Sarasota Sailors, Sarasota High School's Baseball Team, came before the Commission. Mayor Patterson extended her congratulations and presented individual citations to Head Coach Metcalf and Assistant Coach Lyke of the Sarasota Sailors. 8. PRESENTATION RE: MAYOR'S CITATION TO SARASOTA HIGH SCHOOL SAILORS BASEBALL TEAM FOR THE RECENT DESIGNATION AS THE 1994 FLORIDA STATE BASEBALL CHAMPIONS #1 (0710) through (1007) Clyde Metcalf, Head Coach; Ted Lyke, Assistant Coach of the Sarasota Sailors, Sarasota High School's Baseball Team came before the Commission. Mayor Patterson read in its entirety the Mayor's Citation recognizing the team's outstanding accomplishments in winning their sixth Class 5A Florida State Championship, and achieving a rare triple crown in the USA TODAY High School Baseball Poll by achieving the Number "1" ranking; the Player of the Year, Doug Million; and the Coach of the Year, Clyde Metcalf. Mayor Patterson extended her congratulations and presented individual citations to the following team members who were present in the Commission Chambers: Josh Allison, Bobby Barnes, Doug Blosser, Andy Jensen, Matt Jones, Mike Metcalf, Bobby Seay, Paul Stryhas, Bobby Villadoniga, Chad Wandall, Todd Wilson, and Johnny Whitesides. Mayor Patterson stated that she has just returned from representing the City of Sarasota at a weekend of baseball with the Chicago White Sox; that the games didn't hold a candle to the excitement she witnessed during the Sarasota Sailors' State Championship game. 9. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 18, 1994 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM 1) #1 (1034) through (1087) On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second Commissioner Pillot of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the minutes of the Regular City Commission meeting of July 18, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 10. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD'S REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 12, 1994 - REPORT ACCEPTED; PETITION 94-HD-12, PETITION 94-HD-17, PETITION 94-HD-18, AND PETITION 94-HD-19 = SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING; NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION OF THE MUNICIPAL AUDITORIUM LOCATED AT 801 NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (1092) through (1188) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and William Merrill, Chairman of the Historic Preservation Board, came before the Commission. Mr. Merrill stated that the Historic Preservation Board recommends approval by the City Commission for the following petitions: Petition 94-HD-12 - 1716 Oak Street Petition 94-HD-17 - 2846 South Riverside Drive Petition 94-HD-18 - 451 Woodland Drive Petition 94-HD-19 - 76 South Washington Drive On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to set Petitions 94-HD-12, 94-HD-17, 94-HD-18 and 94-HD-19 for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Florida National Register Nomination Proposal Mr. Merrill stated that it was the consensus of the Historic Preservation Board to support the National Register Nomination of the Municipal Auditorium located at 801 North Tamiami Trail; that a consensus was taken because a quorum was not present at the time of the vote; that the Certified Local Government Act requires a local government opinion on whether the property should be nominated. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the National Register Nomination for the Municipal Auditorium. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Book 36 Page 10776 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10777 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to accept the report of the Historic Preservation Board meeting of July 12, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she is impressed with the wealth of well-prepared information which is received from the Historic Preservation Board in association with the requests for approval of Historic Designations; that the public interested in Old Sarasota should have the opportunity to read the wealth of information provided. Mr. Merrill stated that information, slides, and pictures are on file at City Hall and are available for viewing by the public. 11. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE'S REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 8, 1994 - REPORT ACCEPTED; SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING THE CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE AESTHETIC ENRICHMENT MASTER PLAN AND THE CIVIC CENTER SITE LOCATIONS (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #1 (1235) through (1380) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Leslie Ahlander, Chairman of the Public Art Committee (PAC), came before the Commission. Aesthetic Enrichment Master Plan Ms. Ahlander stated that the proposed Aesthetic Enrichment Master Plan, designed to make amendments to Public Art Ordinance No. 89- 3340; that this originally identified 10 site locations for public art on public property; that the Public Art Committee approved 15 changes to the proposed Master Plan including the additions and deletions made by the City Commission on February 1, 1993. A Site location for public art at the Civic Center Ms. Ahlander stated that 8 primary site locations and 10 alternate site locations for public art in the Civic Center area were added to the Aesthetic Enrichment Master Plan; and that 3 administrative recommendations were approved. Ms. Ahlander continued that the map will be updated by the Engineering Department to show the 8 original primary sites relocated as necessary to accommodate plantings, lamp posts, and other obstructions. Ms. Ahlander - requested that changes and modifications to the Aesthetic Enrichment plan be set for public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to set the changes and modifications to the Aesthetic Enrichment Master Plan and the Civic Center site locations for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to accept the report of the Public Art Committee meeting of June 8, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 12. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 8. AND 9 - APPROVED; ITEM NO. 1 - REFERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR A REPORT BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING ON REVISIONS TO THE LEASE REGARDING DELIVERY TRUCKS (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #1 (1380) through (1607) Mayor Patterson requested that Item No. 1 be removed for discussion. 2. Approval Re: Sarasota Housing Authority payment in lieu of taxes for the fiscal years ending March 31, 1993 and 1994, in the amounts of $8,839.19 and $9,713.65 3. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 94-3817, amending Chapter 33, Traffic and Motor Vehicles, by adding thereto Article V, Combat Automobile Theft Program, which shall provide definitions, create the Automobile Theft Program, create the enrollment procedures for enrollment into said program, establish procedures for termination of enrollment into said program, and determine the lack of civil liability for implementation of said program; making findings as to the propriety for said program; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; etc. 4. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sarasota and the School Board of Sarasota County to provide crossing guards for Booker High School 5. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract to Shirley Land Development, Inc., Bradenton, Florida (Bid #94-96), for the construction of Ken Thompson Parkway 6. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract to Gator Asphalt Company, Bradenton, Florida (Bid #94-100), for the construction of Citywide Traffic Abatement Speed Humps Book 36 Page 10778 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10779 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. 7. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract to Central Florida Contractors, Inc., South Pasadena, Florida (Bid #94-112), for the construction of Municipal Sidewalks, Phase I 8. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Second Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with J.L. Cooley and Associates, Inc., for.t the North Trail Median Beautification Project 9. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute an Easement for Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) Monitor Well On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 2 through 9 inclusive. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 1. Approval Re: Five year extension to the O'Leary's Lease and Concession Agreement Lillian O'Leary, representing O'Leary Coastal Rentals, came before the Commission and stated that the provision included in the renewal lease pertaining to tenants and suppliers driving into Island Park and parking will create difficulties for the subject tenant in regard to delivery of propane fuel to the site; that the kitchen at the site requires propane fuel; that the supplier must enter Island Park to deliver the propane fuel; that the current lease prohibits vehicles from parking on the leasehold, but allows for delivery vehicles to park on the leasehold for such period of time as reasonably necessary to make a delivery so long as the vehicles are not parked on the grass; Mrs. O'Leary stated that the lease renewal prohibits all vehicles from driving into Island Park and parking; that propane fuel delivery is necessary to operate her business; and cited the following language from the First Renewal Agreement, Paragraph 14. Parking and Deliveries: "Should Tenant fail to strictly adhere to the requirements of this paragraph, said failure shall be deemed to be a material breach hereof and shall place Tenant in substantial noncompliance with the terms of this Agreement." V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that the City can accommodate Mrs. O'Leary's request for approved truck access to deliver propane fuel to the site. Mayor Patterson asked if any motion to approve this lease would include the ability to bring propane delivery trucks to the leasehold? Mr. Schneider stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that parking and vehicle delivery could be based on approval by the Administration rather than specified as propane fuel delivery; that wording should be established prior to Commission approval of the lease renewal. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to refer the lease agreement back to the Administration for a report at the next meeting regarding the vehicle delivery issue. Mayor Patterson asked if the current lease will remain in effect until the lease renewal is addressed at the next meeting? Mr. Schneider stated that the current lease is effective until September 31, 1994. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 13. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-757) ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-758) ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-760) ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3798) ADOPTED; AND ITEM 5 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3799) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #1 (1607) through (1708) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 94R-757, 94R-758, 94R-760 and Ordinance Nos. 94-3798 and 94-3799 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-757, approving the admission of Pinellas County, Florida into membership in the First Florida Governmental Financing Commission; providing certain other matters in connection therewith; etc. (Title Only) 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-758, affirming the action in recognizing the Southwest Florida Police Benevolent Association as the exclusive bargaining agent for the job classifications of Criminalist I, Criminalist II, and Criminalist III; affirming the City Manager delegating responsibility and authority pertaining to collective bargaining; etc. (Title Only) 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-760, amending Resolution No. 94R-749 to rename Alderman Street between Book 36 Page 10780 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10781 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. U.S. 301 and Osprey Avenue to Brother Geenen Way; etc. (Title Only) 4. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3798, amending Chapter 30, Sarasota City Code, to delete therefrom certain designated interstate highway connectors and certain designated major arterial streets; to add, alphabetize, and modify certain designated interstate highway connectors and certain designated major arterial streets to include both streets names and route identification numbers; to delete, alphabetize and modify the names of certain minor arterial streets; making findings as to need; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; etc. (Title Only) 5. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3799, amending Chapter 16 of the Sarasota City Code, Recycling and Solid Waste by revising the fees for removal of solid waste; providing for repealing of ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) - On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2, Items 1 through 5 inclusive. Mayor Patterson requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 14. PUBLIC HEARINGS (AGENDA ITEM IV) There were no scheduled public hearings on the agenda. 15. SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS: PRESENTATION RE: REQUEST THAT DOGS BE ALLOWED AT BAYFRONT/ISLAND PARK - PASSED A MORATORIUM TO LIFT THE BAN ON DOGS ALLOWED IN THE BAYFRONT/ISLAND PARK UNTIL SEPTEMBER 6, 1994; ADMINISTRATION TO 1) CONSIDER PLACING CONTAINERS AT APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS FOR DISPOSAL OF WRAPPED DROPPINGS, 2) MEET WITH INTERESTED PERSONS TO PROPOSE AND PREPARE REGULATIONS, ORDINANCES, ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES, ETC. TO ASSURE A CLEAN AND HEALTHFUL PARK FOR EVERYONE'S USE, 3) EXAMINE THE EXISTING LEASH LAW, 4) MONITOR THE CONDITION OF THE PARK BETWEEN 08/02/94 AND 09/06/94, AND 5) REPORT BACK TO THE COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 (AGENDA ITEM V-2) #1 (1725) through #2 (0261) Elise Matthes, Ann Andrews, Joe Swanson, and Steve Belack, representing the Island Park Dog Owners Association, came before the Commission. Ms. Andrews read a prepared speech (a copy is on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk) which requested that the order to enforce the No Animal Ordinance for Island Park be held in abeyance while a workable solution to meet the community's needs is developed. Ms. Andrews stated that animal owners must provide for their animals' functions and exercise on a daily basis; that this cannot be put off while alternative solutions are researched; that the use of Island Park for pets has been an established precedent for more than twenty years; that the animal owners acknowledge the responsibility of adhering to the leash law and cleaning up after the animals; that a Sarasota County Humane Society survey reveals that 63% of Sarasota County households are a dog or cat pet household. Ms. Andrews stated that Commission consideration is requested to reopen Island Park to animals pending discussions, and to direct City Staff to establish a committee to work out the details of a program to satisfy the needs of the majority which includes developing clearly defined regulations to be posted in designated areas; and that the Island Park Dog Owners Association is willing to bear the cost of posting signage of the regulations. Mr. Swanson distributed a copy of an article featured in the June 1991 edition of DOGworld which reports on the benefits associated with establishing designated areas for dog owners to take their dogs. Mr. Swanson stated that he recently spoke with the author of the article, Patricia Gail Burnham, who verified that in the three years since the article was published, many other communities have implemented and experienced success with the reported approach. Mr. Swanson requested that the Commission review the article prior to making a determination on this issue. Ms. Matthes stated that she is the President of Sarasota in Defense of Animals; that the organization believes that animals have rights to enjoy outdoor parks with a responsible guardian; that Sarasota citizens and their animal companions have utilized Island Park at the Bayfront for over twenty years; that the elderly, the handicapped, and single females comprise many of the users who walk their dogs; that the Commission is requested to lift the ban on dogs in the park and afford the dog owners the opportunity to make the necessary changes to assure the park's cleanliness and safety. Mr. Belack stated that he has located his boat at Marina Jacks for 23 years; that his 11 year-old dog has been walked at Island Park since it was 11 weeks old; that Island Park is an ideal animal designated park; that many boat owners mooring in the offshore waters must come on shore to exercise their pets and bring them to Book 36 Page 10782 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10783 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. veterinarian appointments; that the No Animals Ordinance in effect at Island Park subjects these individuals to fines for breaking the law each time they come on shore. Herbert Quinn, Chairman; John Browning and Jo Rita Stevens, Board Members of the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board came before the Commission. Mr. Quinn read a prepared speech (A copy is on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk) which stated that the intent of the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board was for the good of the community as a whole and not to deny anyone of any right; that the Commission has now received an excerpt of the minutes from the July 14th Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board meeting, but was not aware of the full discussion held by the Board on the subject of pets roaming freely in Bayfront/Island Park on July 18th when they banned dogs from the park; that the Board recommended banning animals in the park as the first, quickest step to alleviate the problem associated with animal droppings throughout the park; that it was further recommended that this posting remain in effect only until a "pooper-scooper" ordinance could be developed and implemented; that the aesthetics of the park is one concern; however, public health and sanitation is a greater concern which must be considered. Mr. Browning stated that the Board's desire is to have a "pooper scooper" law enacted throughout the City; that the problem of animal droppings is not limited to park areas; that many irresponsible pet owners fail to clean up after their pets which creates a problem for the entire community; that an ordinance is necessary to be able to enforce cleaning up of animal droppings; that he supports making City parks available for pet use once an ordinance is in effect requiring animal owners to act responsibly. Mr. Quinn added that animals are banned from all County parks. Ms. Stevens stated that the Board members were of the opinion that developing and implementing a "pooper scooper" ordinance would take approximately one year; therefore, an interim solution was supported; that much citizen concern has been raised; that she hopes a solution to the Citywide problem will be forthcoming. Mayor Patterson stated that Commissioner Pillot has, a proposal to present regarding this issue; that presentation of that proposal would be appropriate at this time. Commissioner Pillot stated that he received many calls from citizens in favor of lifting the ban of dogs at the Bayfront; that the input received during those telephone conversations is the basis for his proposal; and that the health and safety of people has to be the paramount issue in everyone's mind. Commissioner Pillot distributed a copy of and cited the following eight-item proposal for consideration: 1. That the Commission declare a moratorium on the ban of dogs at the Bayfront from tomorrow until the first Commission meeting in September on September 6, 1994; 2. That the Commission request all dog walkers to cooperate by cleaning up their pet's dropping; 3. That everyone help to "remind" others to clean up their pet's droppings : politely and without altercation; 4. That all pet owners who bring pets to any public area obey the existing leash law; Commissioner Pillot stated that the Commission may want to review the existing leash law. 5. That the Administration have containers put in appropriate locations as soon as possible for wrapped droppings to be placed; 6. That between now and September, the Administration invite and meet with interested persons, including members of the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board, to propose and prepare regulations, an ordinance, enforcement procedures, and other relevant procedures to provide for reasonable use by pet owners and, at the same time, assure a safe, healthful, and clean park for everyone's use; 7. That the Administration institute regular monitoring of the conditions during this five-week period; and 8. That the Administration bring recommendations to the Commission on September 6th for regulating the presence of dogs on the Bayfront after September 6, 1994. The following people came before the Commission: Fred Bennett, 770 South Palm, stated that he opposes lifting the ban of dogs at Island Park; that he and his wife walk along Island Park which they consider to be the crown jewel of Sarasota; that Island Park was becoming a latrine for dogs prior to the ban; that dogs should not be allowed to run wild and loose throughout such a beautiful park; that he has been walking at Island Park for several years and has never seen any dog owner Clean up after his/her dog; that he witnessed a dog defecating on the sidewalk and asked the dog owner to remove the feces; that the dog owner was rude and unreceptive to the idea; that dog owners should have been cleaning Book 36 Page 10784 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10785 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. up after their dogs for the past twenty years; that many of the dogs that frequent the Island Park are unleashed by their owners and are allowed to roam and defecate throughout the park; that dog owners will not follow their dogs behind trees to clean up feces. Mr. Bennett continued that a place should be designated for dog owners to take their dogs; however, he objects to using the downtown park as a latrine for dogs. Anthony Albano, representing Essex House, stated that the dog owners who frequent Bayfront/Island Park allow their dogs to run loose without a leash; that the City does not enforce the leash law at Baytront/Island Park; that he frequents the park daily and has witnessed instinctual behaviors exhibited toward females by dogs which are allowed to run free throughout the park. Mr. Albano continued that sand installed for the Fourth of July Celebration was left on the end of the island for three weeks and became a haven on which dogs defecated and urinated; that he reported to the City that the sand smelled and had drifted onto the walkways; that City personnel relocated the smelly sand from the walkways back onto the grass. Mr. Albano further stated that he has noticed that dog owners who are obeying the "No dogs allowed" posting at Island Park are now walking their dogs along U.S. 41; that an appropriate area to designate for dog activities would be the grass area along U.S. 41 between Ringling Boulevard and Mound Street; that this would also serve as a deterrent to the homeless currently sleeping in the trees along that area; and that a "pooper scooper" and stronger leash law should be implemented and enforced throughout the City of Sarasota. Diane Diamond, distributed copies of approximately 1500 signatures collected over the past week supporting a petition which reads as follows: "We the below signed residents of Sarasota are against the proposed ordinance to ban animals from Bayfront park. As responsible animal owners, we will promise to follow a loose leash law and pick up any litter left by the animals." Ms. Diamond stated that dog owners' consciousness have been raised; that a creative opportunity exists to develop a plan to designate exercise areas within the park and in other areas of the City; that the population in Sarasota is growing extremely fast; that the dog population is expanding with that growth which is why this issue is becoming a bigger problem than it has been in the past. Ms. Diamond continued that the Island Park Dog Owners Association is prepared to select a committee to meet with the City Staff if Commissioner Pillot's proposal is accepted. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he supports Commissioner Pillot's proposal; that he also supports referring the homeless issue to the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board for review; that many of the calls he received regarding the ban of dogs at Baytront/Island park also mentioned the homeless issue; that the City needs to do something about the vagrant presence in the park. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she had also received calls regarding the homeless situation which exists at Bayfront/Island Park; that lighting for the park has been approved and hopefully will create a. safer feeling for citizens who use the park in the evening hours; that she supports Commissioner Pillot's proposal; however, she would like to add a ninth item to the proposal. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved refer to the Administration the eight-item recommendation of Commissioner Pillot including a ninth item which would have those interested parties, who support or oppose dogs in the park, review the current leash law and make suggestions for modifications. Mayor Patterson stated that the moratorium on the ban of dogs requires action other than referring the item to the Administration and asked Commissioner Cardamone, as maker of the motion, if passing the moratorium was included in the intent of the motion? Commissioner Cardamone stated yes. Mayor Patterson restated the motion as to: lift the ban on dogs at the Baytront/ISland Park from August 2, 1994, through September 6, 1994, that all pet owners who bring pets to any public area obey the existing leash law, cooperate by cleaning up their pet's dropping, and remind others to clean up their pet's dropping; that the Administration consider having containers for wrapped droppings placed in appropriate locations; that the Administration meet with interested persons to propose and prepare regulations, ordinances, enforcement procedures, etc., as necessary to assure a clean and healthful park for everyone's use; that the Administration examine the existing leash law; that the Administration monitor the condition of the park between August 2, 1994, and September 6, 1994; and that the Administration report back to the Commission at the September 6th Commission meeting. Book 36 Page 10786 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10787 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the task force selected by the Administration to study alternate solutions should be a balanced committee comprised of members of the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board, and individuals and organizations who spoke favorably and nonfavorably at the meeting tonight. Commissioner Pillot stated that the condition of the park will be monitored over the next five weeks; that he will vote to reinstate the ban with adequate enforcement if the Commission finds on September 6th that the proposal has not worked; that he hopes the interested parties will band together and prove over the next five weeks that his proposal is a solution which can work long term. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she added the additional item to the proposal because unleashed dogs running and playing in packs throughout the park causes her concern for the safety and welfare of the elderly, small children, and people in general who are walking in the park. Mayor Patterson stated that she visited Baytront/Island Park on the first day the "No Dogs Allowed" signs were posted; that she viewed approximately 15 unleashed dogs running and playing in the park; that some of the unleashed dogs were a great distance from their owners and several of the dogs defecated in the park; that she did not witness any dog owners cleaning up after the dogs; however, she did not observe a huge collection of dog droppings throughout the park; that she grew up in New York City where a leash law was instituted to control the amount of dog droppings scattered around the City; that the leash law was enforced and dog owners continually informed other dog owners of the existing law; that leash laws work for the benefit of the community. Mayor Patterson continued that she reviewed the City of Sarasota's leash law after witnessing the unleashed dogs at Baytront/Island Park; that the City's leash law specifies that no leash be longer than 8 feet, but allows for a dog to be unleashed if the dog is" in reasonable control of the owner; that reasonable control is defined as being within 300 feet of the owner; that the entire length of a football field is 300 feet; that the leash law should be reviewed and modified; that the Administration should examine the leash law and report back recommendations to the Commission. Mayor Patterson further stated that the City spent several million dollars improving the Bayfront and connecting it to the downtown area to make it appealing to tourists, shoppers and residents; that tremendous cooperation from the dog owners will be necessary to make an alternative to banning the dogs from the park work so the community can live in harmony. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion as previously restated. Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Commissioner Cardamone left the Commission Chambers at 7:35 p.m. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Commission in 1986 passed an ordinance which allows for posting of "no consumption of alcoholic beverages" in sections of parks; that the ordinance gives the police the right to enforce open-container laws on the City rights- of-ways; that police enforcement of the ordinance has been successful in addressing the homeless issues previously existing downtown; however, such an ordinance is not enforced within the parks. Vice Mayor Merrill requested that the issue of posting sections of Bayfront/Island Park as "no consumption of alcoholic beverages I be referred to the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board as a possible means of addressing the homeless issue at the park. Commissioner Pillot and Mayor Patterson supported Vice Mayor Merrill's suggestion. 16. CITIZENS . INPUT (AGENDA ITEM VI) #2 (0275) through (0501) Ed Harding, 420 Golden Gate Point, came before the Commission, distributed a copy of a letter addressed to the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board written by Dr. Hans Wiehler regarding the Gesneraid Research Foundation's (GRF) proposed Rain Forest and stated that Dr. Wiehler's research is one of the best kept secrets in the City of Sarasota; that the Parks and Recreation Board appears to be out of control; that he attended the scheduled Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board meeting in June with Dr. Wiehler; that only three Board members were present at commencement of the meeting; that a fourth Board member arrived approximately one hour later; that the Board showed interest in Dr. Wiehler's research; that an objection raised by a representative of Selby Gardens was mentioned by one of the Board members; that the rain forest project is an entirely different concept than those used at Selby Gardens; that four Board members were present at the July meeting; that the proposed rain forest was the only item scheduled under Old Business on the July agenda; that one Board member requested that the project come as a recommendation to the City Commission only when all Board members were present to vote on the recommendation; that he does not understand why the Board had to wait to vote since a quorum was present. Mr. Harding continued that the City should consider granting Dr. Wiehler a lease similar to the $1.00 per year leases provided to Mote Marine and the Pelican Man; that Dr. Wiehler's proposed rain forest project is a worthwhile concept; that biosphere rain forests are located in other areas of the United States; however, Dr. Wiehler proposes to create, here in Sarasota, the first open rain forest in the United States. Mr. Harding briefly explained the proposal for incorporating a rain forest at the Franklin Manor property. Book 36 Page 10788 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10789 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Mr. Harding referred to a letter received by Mayor Patterson in response to his proposal for consolidation between the City and the County; and asked when the fire consolidation committee was formed? Mayor Patterson stated that the committee was formed in April with an implementation target date for consolidation of October 1995. Mayor Patterson further stated that V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, can be contacted for further information. Commissioner Çardamone returned to the Commission Chambers at 7:43 p.m. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he was intrigued by the rain forest concept; however, he did not pursue the project based on concerns raised by scientists at Selby Gardens in association with an open rain forest project, i.e., freezing; that a letter from Selby Gardens was forwarded to the City Commission listing the concerns of their scientists; that Mr. Harding may want to obtain a copy of that letter; that scientific data refuting the concerns raised would have to be presented for him to consider pursuing the project further. 17. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX REFERENDUM ELECTION - APPROVED LIST OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS TO SUBMIT TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #2 (0501) through (0594) V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that the County Administrator has requested a list of possible projects which could be funded under the Local Option Sales Tax (L.0.S.T) in the event a five-year extension from FY 2000 to 2004 passes on the November ballot; that the Administration presented a potential list of possible projécts at the July 18, 1994, City Commission meeting to obtain City Commission input; that the input received by the Commission on that date has been incorporated into the potential project list (A copy is on file in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk) ; that the potential project list has been revised into the format requested by the County Administrator and includes an estimated cost and a brief description listed under one of the following subheadings: 1) Neighborhood Improvement Program, 2) Park Improvements, 3) Downtown Improvements, and 4) Other Projects; that the potential list must be submitted prior to the scheduled discussion on the subject at the County Commission public hearing on September 13th; that the potential projects on the list are not binding and could be modified by the Commission if the referendum passes; that Commission approval is requested for the Administration to submit the potential list of L.0.S.T. projects to the County. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve and authorize submission of the potential list of L.0.S.T. projects to the County Administrator. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the City Commission is not taking a position at this time on whether the infrastructure surtax should be extended; that the City Commission is presenting a list of projects which may be supported if the surtax is extended. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 18. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 94R-756, APPROPRIATING $91,500 FROM THE UNRESERVED GENERAL FUND BALANCE TO FUND CONSULTANTS THAT WILL PROVIDE TECHNICAL SERVICES IN THE FORMULATION OF A PROPOSAL TO BE USED IN NEGOTIATING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A FRANCHISE EXTENSION FOR THE CITY'S CABLE OPERATOR = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #2 (0594) through (0685) V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that the questions raised by the City Commission at its July 18th regular meeting regarding this item have been addressed by the Administration; that the consortium concept was associated with the regulation of the basic tier rate and was abandoned when the County decided not to pursue the rate regulation; that the County has expressed an interest in proceeding with renewal of their franchise agreement on a schedule similar to the City's; that a shared consultant fee with the County will be pursued by the Administration. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 94R-756 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt Resolution No. 94R-756. Mayor Patterson requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 19. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 94R-759, APPROPRIATES $225,705 FROM THE UNRESERVED GENERAL FUND BALANCE TO FUND THE UPDATE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VII-4) #2 (0692) through (1900) V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that at the July 20, 1994, City Commission budget workshop, the Administration was directed to proceed with this proposal to appropriate $225,705 out of FY 93-94 excess earnings to fund the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) update; that Resolution No. 94R-759 approves the Special Appropriation. Book 36 Page 10790 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10791 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 94R-759 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to adopt Resolution No. 94R-759. Commissioner Cardamone asked if this appropriation is the final approval of the LDRS update? Mr. Schneider stated yes; that the proposal on the LDRS update which was previously presented to the Commission will be initiated if the proposed resolution is adopted. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she supports the LDRS update; that she is concerned that the project be completed as soon as possible; and she would like to make the following statements for consideration: 1. The selection process of a consultant is very important; that involving members of the community in the selection process should be considered; that the consultant will be the key to the success of the entire project; 2. The time schedule should be strictly followed; that many projects take longer to complete than necessary; 3. The City Commission should be given constant updates on the progress of the project; and 4. The City Commission should be afforded an opportunity to provide input and concerns on the formation of the LDRs, and to appoint an ad hoc committee, representing various groups of people who constantly use the LDRS, to work with the consultants and the Planning Department Staff. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Planning Board is a key element of this process; however, the Planning Board has other matters of business to address in addition to the LDRS update; that she is open-ended on how an ad hoc committee should be formed. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he agrees with the general intent of the comments made by Commissioner Cardamone, especially in regard to the time schedule; that the Vision Plan has taken longer to complete than anticipated; that he is on record as not supporting the LDRS update; that he has extreme concerns that the new ideas being sought by architects, developers, and planners are just another way to break around exclusions and expand intensified uses; that the concept of zoning is exclusion; that the purpose of the Zoning Code is to keep certain uses out of inappropriate areas; that he does not support appointing an ad hoc committee of people who constantly use the LDRs to assist in its rewrite; that the main reason why the architects, developers, and planners want to rewrite the LDRS is to make money for themselves; that the neighborhoods should be involved in the process, not the people who use the Zoning Code. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she shares those same concernsi that her reference to rewrite means updating, modernizing, computerizing, and condensing the modifications to existing codes thereby reducing the bulk of the current Zoning Code book; that she has not looked at the LDRS as an opportunity, for new ideas to be presented and included; however, there are neighborhood protection issues not currently included in the Zoning Code which need to be reviewed. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he supports the intent described by Commissioner Cardamone. Mayor Patterson stated that she does not support appointing an ad hoc committee to update the LDRs; that the LDRS update is proposed to be completed over a two-year period; that the Special Appropriation funding completes the project funding and will be used to hire two full-time employees for two years to assist the Staff in the rewrite; that the rewrite cannot be completed rapidly; that changes to the Zoning Code need to be brought to the Commission and to the Planning Board for discussion on the potential impact of the specific change; that she is concerned with "laws of unintended consequences"z that inadvertent changes in the LDRS may occur if the Commission is not clear on the meaning of the new verbiage; that she is concerned that two years may not be an adequate time to complete the LDRS update process. Mayor Patterson asked if an ad hoc committee was included as part of the Administration's presentation? Mr. Schneider stated no. Mayor Patterson stated that the public, including architects and planners, have ample time to express their concerns as the Planning Board and then the City Commission address the issues; that she envisions the LDRs update to be the intents of the Commissions and the Planning Boards over the past twenty years, put into a workable form. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she realizes the process of updating the LDRS is a scheduled two-year process; that her concern is with a two-year project turning into a five-year project; that the hired consultant will perform the actual rewriting of the LDRs; that her intention was not for an ad hoc committee to assist in the rewriting; that she envisioned the ad hoc committee working as community representatives of neighborhood people; that she did not intend that architects and developers be included on the committee; that an ad hoc committee need not be appointed if there is no Commission support; that her main concerns are with the LDRS update being completed properly by a well-selected consultant within the two-year scheduled time frame. Book 36 Page 10792 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10793 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson stated that the consultant selection process is usually handled by Staff; and asked how Commissioner Cardamone envisions the members of the community being involved in the selection of the consultant? Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Planning Board could be part of the public in the process of selecting the consultant; that she had not envisioned a specific group of members. Mayor Patterson proposed that the selection process of the consultant follow the normal criteria used by Staff in selecting consultants; and that the top three candidates and a sample of their related work be presented to the Commission for approval. Mayor Patterson asked if there was Commission support for her proposal. There was a consensus of the Commission to have the top three candidates with a sample of their related work presented to the Commission for approval. Vice Mayor Merrill requested that Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, come before the Commission to express what she envisions as the purpose of the LDRS update. Ms. Robinson stated that the purpose is to update the Zoning Code; that the City has zone districts that are not logical in certain areas, i.e., Hillview Street is zoned Commercial Neighborhood (CN) which does not work and should be updated. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Hillview Street example may be a rezoning issue not rather than a Zoning Code update issue. Ms. Robinson stated that another example is the Commercial Business Newtown (CBN) zone which was created because the existing zone did not meet the redevelopment needs of the Newtown Business District; however, that was a combination of Zone Districts., Ms. Robinson stated that new uses, i.e., cellular phone towers, recycling, etc., will be updated in the Code; that home occupations, parking and landscaping requirements, and various setback requirements will be addressed; that the proposed Conservation District will be a difficult issue to address with regard to non-residential uses. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the examples mentioned sound like new ideas; and asked what percentage of the funding for the update will be for new ideas versus taking the existing code and its set of ideas and rules and putting it on a computer and making it easier to comprehend? Ms. Robinson stated that most of the funding is for updating. Mayor Patterson asked Ms. Robinson to define the term updating. Ms. Robinson stated that a new idea may surface through the LDRS update, i.e., a new zone district which would be completed later; that a policy about a neighborhood might warrant a new zone district; that the proposed Conservation District is an update of a Residential Zone District. Ms. Robinson continued that it is difficult to determine exactly what will be done until the Zoning Code is thoroughly reviewed; that many inconsistencies exist within the Code which need to be reviewed; that making those inconsistencies consistent is an example of updating the Code. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the architect or developer community may present ideas which are contrary to the ideas of most of the public who may not be present when such ideas are presented; and asked how the process will be kept under control? Ms. Robinson stated that the Planning Department and the Planning Board are familiar with what the community wants; that the two Staff members who work with the community on an ongoing basis have been designated to keep the update on track; that the Request for Proposal (RFP) will describe the intent of the update; that the Commission will be required to approve the RFP before it is advertised. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that R/UDAT (Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team), which was the first redevelopment plan developed in the City in over 10 years, received a lot of public input; that the Redevelopment Plan which was an extension of R/UDAT had some public input; however, the pubic input on the Vision Plan was poor and has dwindled; that he is concerned that the public may be bored with continuously expressing their input on development planning; that the public input received on the LDRS update may come only from special interest groups. Ms. Robinson stated that the Planning Department, Planning Board, and City Commission will be the lead agents in determining what is good or bad with the City's Zoning Code; that consultants will be retained to assist in the development of proper solutions. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission may determine during the process that the LDRS update is not what the Commission is expecting; and asked what kind of contracts will be signed with the consultant and the temporary full-time employees hired to assist with the LDRS update? Mr. Schneider stated that contracts will not necessarily be entered into with the two temporary full-time employeesi that the City is under no obligation with temporary employees hired without a contract; that the consultant would be hired on an agreement based primarily on the scope of services; that the consultant's agreement would include a not to exceed figure and a termination provision. Book 36 Page 10794 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10795 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the consultant's agreement will be based on phases of work completed? Mr. Schneider stated that the scope of services will be structured in phases with checkpoints not only at each of the phases but within the phases to make sure the progress is on schedule; that the Administration will control the work of the consultant. Mayor Patterson stated that three Commissioners are stating they do not want drastic changes in the land uses; that she agrees that Hillview Street is a commercial area and the current LDRs are not productive to maintain the character of the area; that those LDRS need to be updated and a zone district may or may not be necessary to address the situation; that there is concern that this process may be difficult to control and could turn into something the Commission may wish was never started; that over $0.5 million has been committed to the Vision Plan process which has not been controlled and the Commission would like to stop; that a phased approach may provide an opportunity to stop the LDRS update process if the Commission determines the process is unproductive or proceeding in an unintended direction. Mr. Schneider stated that can be accomplished. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that his main concern regarding the LDRS update has not been the major expenditure, but the process; that there is a majority of the Commission who have a clear concern that the process remains under the Commission's control; that he is prepared to vote for the motion on the table after hearing the concerns expressed by other Commissioners. Vice Mayor Merrill continued that the key will now be drafting an RFP which incorporates all the safeguards; that the phasing aspect and the consultant selection process to include the Commission are excellent ideas. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission should keep in mind that a considerable savings associated with attorney fees for rewriting and drafting ordinances are anticipated with the completion of the LDRs update; that the LDRs update should be considered as a review of existing codes, collated to be user friendly; that new ideas are not the thrust of the LDRs project; however, new ideas necessary for a City which is built out will surface. Commissioner Cardamone continued that she is concerned with the Impact Management Areas (IMAs) which make it difficult for the Commission to revise or vote against IMA designation issues; that the IMA process does not promote development; that she hopes the IMA process will be reviewed during the LDRs update. Mayor Patterson stated that Commissioner Cardamone is the third Commissioner to comment on the IMA process within the past year. Mayor Patterson requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 20. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: THREE CROWNS AND AZURE TIDES MOTEL = AUTHORIZED $100,000 OF FUNDING TO DEMOLISH THE THREE CROWNS BUILDINGS IF THE ADMINISTRATION DEEMS IT NECESSARY (AGENDA ITEM VII-5) #2 (1900) through (3215) William Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that a proposed schedule and plan for the rehabilitation of the Three Crowns Hotel has been submitted; that the project schedule anticipates a twenty-month completion time frame with preliminary construction to commence in December 1994; that the project schedule is feasible and the property owner should not have difficulty meeting the schedule; however, approval or a waiver on the project is required by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) since the property is in front of the Coastal Construction Line; that the project schedule allows 90 days for DEP review; that the timetables for State agencies are not within the control of the property owner or the City; that the review may take longer than 90 days. Mayor Patterson asked if the appropriate bond will be posted prior to the Code Enforcement Special Master hearing scheduled for August 18, 1994? Mr. Hewes stated that $120,000, which includes 20% over the $99,000 demolition bid, is required to post bond; that Daniel Joy, Attorney for the Three Crowns, has reviewed the necessary bond language and was instructed to shop for the bond; that Attorney Joy has implied that arrangements for a cash bond will be made if a bond cannot be secured by the August 18th hearing date. Mayor Patterson asked why the Staff has reported an estimated demolition cost of over $300,000 for the past two years when only $99,000 is required to demolish the Three Crowns buildings? Mr. Hewes stated that the cost of demolition could not be determined until bids were received; that one bid received was $200,000 and the other bid was $99,000; that no trace of asbestos was found. Mayor Patterson stated that she wants to express real aggravation with the difference in the Staff's reported estimate in the past and the actual demolition cost; that the $300,000 estimated cost of demolition and the potential cost of asbestos clean-up were one of the main reasons why the Commission was hesitant in pursuing demolition of the Three Crowns buildings; that $99,000 can be Book 36 Page 10796 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10797 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. compared to a small beautification project in the City; that she is outraged that the City has sat on a project which would have only cost $99,000 to demolish. Mr. Hewes stated that the City could not determine the cost of the demolition until the RFPS were sent out and bids were received. Mayor Patterson stated that she thought RFPS were sent out previously. Mr. Hewes stated that an RFPS was distributed with a contingency; that the bid received on that RFP was in the upper $200,000 range. Commissioner Cardamone stated that this Commission held firm that they would invest in the demolition knowing that it would cost $300,000; that she is annoyed that minimal funding was not expended to determine whether or not there was asbestos in the building; that the knowledge alone of no asbestos on the property could have changed the complexion of an issue the Commission has wrestled with for over 10 years. Mayor Patterson stated that these issues need to be pursued far more vigorously by the City Staff and Administration in the future; that it is startling to find out that the actual cost of the demolition is one-third of the estimated cost projected to the Commission by Staff. Mayor Patterson stated that she is concerned with the constant postponement of the deadline date for posting of the bond; that the residents on Lido Key perceive this as a put off attempt; that the Administration should take a firm stand before the Special Master on August 18th not to allow for a further delay. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Three Crowns property owners and the public will realize that the Commission is extremely serious about demolishing the buildings if the necessary funding is authorized. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to authorize $100,000 for the demolition of the Three Crowns buildings if the Administration deems it necessary. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mr. Hewes stated that the Azure Tides is currently under construction; that the work is proceeding in an expeditious manner. Commissioner Cardamone asked on which portion of the property the work is being performed? Mr. Hewes stated that the motel portion of the property which was boarded up is being restored. The following people came before the Commission: Shelley Lederman, representing the Half Moon Beach Club, stated that the letter received from the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk informing him of tonight's meeting incorrectly referred to him as a representative of the Lido Key Residents Association. Mr. Lederman stated that dealing with DEP is a timely process; that this could delay progress by an additional 90 days; that the City Staff has been lax, and the Commission must take a stronger stand on this issue; that the tourism industry desperately needs good hotel rooms in Sarasota and on Lido Key; however, the time frame and contingent stalling on this project should not be allowed to continue. Commissioner Pillot stated that the City Staff have had to work under difficult considerations trying to respect laws, regulations, and procedures; that the Staff has not been lax. Mr. Lederman stated that he has driven past the Three Crowns property daily for the past five years; that the property has progressively gotten worse; that recently work to secure the property has been done; however, the gate was open earlier today when he drove by the property; that the property is unsafe; and that the Staff has not enforced the statutes in place to watch over the property. Mayor Patterson requested that Mr. Schneider have a member of staff dispatched to inspect the property at this time. Mayor Patterson stated that the matter should be brought to the attention of the Special Master if a report is received that the property is not secured. Stanley Wolf, President of the Lido Key Homeowners Association, stated that many residents on Lido Key monitor the activities occurring at the Three Crowns property on a daily basis; that the property is wide open; that the property could be cleaned up for a week and still be a mess; that the residents are skeptical whether the Three Crowns can be rebuilt, but are happy to see the project progressing; that the Lido Key Homeowners Association appreciates what the Commission has done regarding the Three Crowns property issue. Commissioner Cardamone asked what recourse the Commission has if the property owners are found to be in violation of the stipulation order which stated that the property must be locked and kept safe from the public? City Attorney Taylor stated that the process is one step removed from Commission involvement; that the Special Master who is sitting in a quasi-judicial role is in charge of the process which includes issuing further orders as he deems necessary; that the Special Book 36 Page 10798 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10799 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Master is acknowledged as the sole judge of whether or not the project schedule is met or the buildings are demolished; that the property owners have no recourse to the normal court system; that the Special Master's ruling in this case will be final. City Attorney Taylor continued that problems associated with the scheduling of the project would be brought back before the Special Master for his orders; that any violation of the details as ordered in the stipulation would be brought to the Special Master and result in a fine. Mayor Patterson left the Commission Chambers at 8:45 p.m. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Mr. Lederman and Mr. Wolf have testified that the property is not secured 24 hours per day; that this information should be brought to the Special Master. Mr. Wolf stated the Three Crowns property is rectangle with a fence installed only along the street; that the Three Crowns property can be accessed from the Azure Tides at any time; that the property can also be accessed from the other side and from the beach; that the seven-story building which is falling apart is dangerous and should not be so readily accessible to the public. Vice Mayor Merrill requested that Mr. Schneider research what can be done under the existing laws to have the buildings secured. Mayor Patterson returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:46 p.m. City Attorney Taylor referenced his statement regarding violations resulting in a fine and stated that he has reviewed the stipulation which states, "the schedule must provide that the Property will be clean; the buildings will be closed and secure"; that it is a violation of the schedule if that is not taking place; that failure to comply with the schedule may trigger demolition; that the case should be brought back before the Special Master if the violation is verified. Mr. Hewes stated that the current work has focused on securing all the windows and doors and cleaning out the building; that a fence has not been erected and the existing fence is not providing the security for the building; therefore, the gate beingiopen or closed is irrelevant. Mayor Patterson asked what date the building was scheduled to be secured? Mr. Hewes stated that he understood the building would be secured by August 1, 1994; that he inspected the building early last week; that the building had been secured, but was broken into; that he inspected the building again on Friday; that the, building was secure with the exception of one access to the second floor which had been blocked, but was tampered with; that the Three Crowns Tower was secure on Friday; that boarding the windows and doors was the inference of securing the buildings; that this has been done; that the property owners have been cleaning the buildings and the property; that he has requested additional debris be removed, but the debris remaining on the property is minor compared to what existed previously. Mayor Patterson asked if the pool is cleaned? Mr. Hewes stated that the pool was cleaned and has a cover placed on it; that he is not satisfied with the pool cover and intends to discuss a more waterproof approach with the property owner; that the property owners have been working hard to meet the schedule. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Item #8 of the stipulation states, "the Property will be fenced on or before July 7, 1994." Mr. Hewes stated that there is no fence surrounding the property; that he has not been pushing for completion of the fence; that securing the buildings is what keeps people out. Mayor Patterson stated that all violations of the stipulation should be brought to the attention of the Special Master so he will have a full picture if the posting of bond has not been met by August 18th and a decision is necessary; that she opposes any further extension for posting of the bond. City Attorney Taylor stated that the security issue is one part of the agreement; that an order was issued by the Special Master on July 14, 1994, which states the following: that a hearing shall be held on August 18, 1994, at 8:45 a.m. in the city Commission Chamber, evidence will be considered to determine whether there has been compliance with the stipulation. Mayor Patterson stated that even if a fence is erected by August 18th the property owner would not have been in compliance with the schedule which stipulated that a fence be erected by July 7th. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission and interested citizens need to realize that it is in the best interest of the City to have the property owners complete the work and meet the project schedule; however, the City Staff should vigorously pursue all aspects of the Three Crowns property issue. 21. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT = APPROVED $6,000 EXPENDITURE FOR PAYMEN TO BRIAN BISHOP, BISHOP AND ASSOCIATES, FOR UNPAID SUBCONTRACTED Book 36 Page 10800 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10801 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. SERVICES IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (AGENDA ITEM VII-6) #2 (3216) through #3 (1423) Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission, displayed a construction progress schedule on the overhead projector and stated that the required completion date on the Main Street Improvement project was June 16, 1994; that he estimates actual completion of the project by November 1, 1994; that the last schedule received denoted a completion date of September 6, 1994, which would be impossible to meet; therefore, a new schedule has been requested. Mr. Daughters continued that work has recently been completed in the Plaza area between Gulfstream Avenue and U.S. 41; that the curb and gutter and base material for the roadway is in place; that the underground work, i.e., piping for the fountains, storm drains, and electrical, has been completed; that the excavation for footing various precast concrete work has started. Mr. Daughters further stated that complaints were received regarding the bicycle racks which were being installed on Main Street; that the bicycle racks were not functioning properly and the installation has been ceased; that a different manner of installing the racks has been developed which may require in-house installation at a future date. Mr. Daughters stated that frequent inquires have been received regarding the reinstallation of telephone booths; that the same number of telephone booths as in the past will be installed at similar locations; that Staff is working with GTE and the general contractor to have this installation accomplished; that the conduit has been completed; however, electrical power must be provided since telephone booths are required to be lit at night; that a cost to accomplish the electrical work is being negotiated with the contractor; that GTE will actually pay for the work, but the City will provide the electrical service to the telephone booth site. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the benches installed on Main Street look beautiful. Mr. Daughters stated that the benches are extremely heavy and have been bolted down to the surface to prevent theft. Mr. Daughters stated that he has received many favorable comments regarding the Main Street Project; that he has received no negative comments within the past two months. Mayor Patterson asked when the telephone booths would be reinstalled? Mr. Daughters stated that the date is dependent on receiving a reasonable price from the contractor for installation of the electrical service. Mayor Patterson stated that she has received numerous comments regarding the increased use of business and restaurant telephones by the public. accustomed to using the pay phones in the downtown area; that the Administration should expedite reinstallation of the telephone booths to relieve the impact on the businesses and restaurants along Main Street. Mayor Patterson asked if the contract with the general contractor demands a penalty fee when a schedule is not met? Mr. Daughters stated that a $655 per calendar day penalty clause of which the general contractor is clearly aware is provided in the contract; that the penalty clause has been in effect since June 16th. Brian Bishop, Bishop Builders, Inc., came before the Commission, and stated that he was subcontracted on January 3, 1994, by HLS Florida Landscape Systems, Inc., the original general contractor, to perform work on the Main Street Improvement Project; that the work completed met the expectations of his agreement with HLS; that an invoice for $6,000 was submitted for payment on April 11, 1994; that the request for payment has not been disputed, but payment for services has not been forwarded; that he has had endless discussions with City Staff regarding resolving the issue through the bonding company; that the bonding company refuses to discuss the invoice with him or his attorney and does not return his phone calls; that Mark Singer, City Attorney's office, has been telling him since April that the matter is close to resolution; that he finds it distasteful that the City continues to remit payments on the Main Street Project without resolving previous debts; that he requests Commission assistance to resolve this issue. Commissioner Pillot stated that he has had lengthy discussions on this matter with Mr. Bishop and Deputy City Manager Schneider; that the work performed by Mr. Bishop and the $6,000 payment due has not been disputed; that the issue is how to get someone to pay the amount due for Mr. Bishop's services; that he feels the City should pay the debt; that Mr. Bishop is a subcontractor who has been waiting 100 days for his money; that the amount is not large in the eyes of the bonding company, the general contractor, or the City of Sarasota; however, it is a significant sum for Mr. Bishop; that the City Attorney's office has advised that the City may not be able to collect the $6,000 from the bonding company if payment is made to Mr. Bishop, which leaves him in a moral bind; that on one hand, he is a Commissioner and a custodian of public funds who should not run a risk of expending funds which may not be recoverable; however, on the other hand, he feels it is unconscionable for this contractor, who has also volunteered and donated time to the City, to be kept waiting any longer for payment; that the City should pay Mr. Bishop and do everything possible to recover the $6,000; that his conscience rests with paying Mr. Bishop the money to which he is entitled; that he respects the advice of counsel; however, it is a risk he is willing to take in the matter of keeping faith with a person who has kept faith with the City. Book 36 Page 10802 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10803 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City did not contract with Mr. Bishop; that the City is under no legal obligation to pay for Mr. Bishop's services; that the City contracted with a general contractor who provided, as required by law, a payment and performance bond; that the payment and performance bond is specifically required to protect subcontractors from circumstances similar to Mr. Bishop's; that the bond provides for the payment of attorney's fees and costs to anyone who must file suit to collect on the bond. City Attorney Taylor continued that the situation is frustrating; that the City Attorney's office has attempted to assist Mr. Bishop by contacting the bonding company's attorney and writing letters on the issue; that the City Attorney's office is getting no better response than Mr. Bishop has received. City Attorney Taylor further stated that subcontractors cannot place a lien on City projects because the City is a governmental entity; that Mr. Bishop's services are covered by the statutory bond process which protects subcontractors who perform services for governmental entities; that the bond is not in place to repay the City; therefore, it may be difficult to recover the money from the bonding company if the City pays the invoice. Commissioner Cardamone asked if there is an additional step the Commission can authorize the City Attorney to take in resolving this issue through the bonding company? City Attorney Taylor stated that the City Attorney's office keeps asking the bonding company to do what is right in the circumstances, but keeps getting stonewalled as the subcontractor is being stonewalled; that he does not think the City Attorney's office has any legal standing to go in on behalf of the City to ask that the bonding company pay a subcontractor who has a direct cause of action under a bond which was provided to protect that subcontractor from situations such as this. Mayor Patterson asked Mr. Bishop if he has hired an attorney to represent him on this issue? Mr. Bishop stated that his attorney prepared a suit; that against his attorney's wishes, he forestalled the suit to speak before the Commission; that the bonding company will not communicate with him; that the recommendation from Mr. Singer is to sue Frontier Bonding Companyi that as a taxpaying citizen, he is concerned that suing Frontier may cost the City more in Staff and legal expenses than the $6,000 payment due to him; that he is also concerned that the City continues to disperse money to a company which has not been paying its subcontractors. City Attorney Taylor stated that if the Commission decides to pay the debt it will be out of their own good auspices. because they have no legal compulsion to do sO. Mayor Patterson asked for a response on continuing to disperse payments to the general contractor? City Attorney Taylor stated that Mr. Bishop's debt is not the City's contractual obligation; that the City has a contract with the general contractor. Mayor Patterson stated that there were other claims by subcontractors which were settled. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if this is the last bill outstanding from the changeover situation which occurred with the bonding company after HLS filed bankruptcy? Mr. Schneider stated that he is not aware of any other claims which have not been paid; that the other subcontractors had formal agreements with HLS; that Mr. Bishop's arrangement was different. Mr. Bishop stated that he contracted with HLS; and showed the Commission a purchase order which denoted Main Street Project and Bishop Builders, Inc. Mr. Schneider stated that the difference is a purchase order versus a formal contract. Mr. Daughters stated that to the best of the Administration's knowledge there are no other outstanding claims from the original general contractor, HLS; that this $6,000 bill is the last claim; that Mr. Bishop was repairing the storefronts which were considered damaged by the project; that contractors are required to carry liability insurance to cover such damages; that HLS submitted some of the claims for the work Mr. Bishop completed and the insurance company paid those claims; that HLS did not forward those funds to Mr. Bishop; that the bonding company, Frontier Bonding Company, has taken the position that the situation is a liability insurance problem; therefore, not associated with the bonding company; that the insurance company is taking the position that it is a bonding company issue. Mr. Daughters continued that all contractors include money under the mobilization line item in their original bid for anticipated damages; that the Engineering Department feels that this claim has already been paid since the City has paid 100% of the mobilization item. Mr. Bishop stated that HLS did not inform him that the work was an insurance claim when he was hired to complete the repairs; that obtaining payment through an insurance company was not the basis of his contract with HLS. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the City will have a penalty leverage over the bonding companyi and asked if there is any Book 36 Page 10804 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10805 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. implied understanding that the City will forgive any of the penalty? Mr. Daughters stated that letters have been sent to the bonding company informing them that the City plans to charge the accumulative daily penalty fee against further payments; that the bonding company has submitted information to the City arguing that a minimal amount of additional time on the project is due. Mr. Daughters continued that another point of leverage for the City is that the bonding company wants the City to accept the Main Street portion from Gulfstream Avenue to Orange Avenue separately and prior to completion of the entire project; that normally, the City only accepts projects in total; however, the City has agreed to accept the project in part if the work along that Main Street portion is 100% complete, acceptable to the City including completion of the remaining storefront damage, and excluding any payments due to the bonding company at that time for that Main Street portion of work. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the City has an abundance of leverage over the bonding company at this time; that the dollars are not fixed; that the bonding company wants the City to accept a portion of the project in advance and wants to negotiate the delays associated with the project; that the penalty fee estimated at $80,000 has not been decided upon at this point; that the City should advance the $6,000 to Mr. Bishop and negotiate with the bonding company to repay the amount in exchange for the City's cooperation. Commissioner Pillot stated that there are four parties to this matter: the bonding company, the insurance company, Mr. Bishop, and the City of Sarasota; that the City of Sarasota has considerably more clout to use to resolve this matter than does Mr. Bishop; that Mr. Bishop performed his work in good faith and has been a donator of services to the City of Sarasota; that the Commission has a moral obligation, not a legal obligation, to resolve this issue with Mr. Bishop. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to advance $6,000 to Mr. Bishop for payment of services performed on the Main Street Improvement Project. Mayor Patterson stated that she will not support the motion; that Mr. Bishop has not pursued the legal avenue his attorney has prescribed for him; that advancing payment to Mr. Bishop would not be pursuing the legal avenue prescribed to the Commission by the City Attorney; that viewing this invoice as a minimal amount relative to the totality of the City budget and to the totality of the project makes it easier for the Commission to morally support advancing the payment, but the principle is applicable to much larger sums of money; that she sympathizes with the subcontractor and supports the City leaving no stones unturned to assist Mr. Bishop in receiving payment; that leaving Mr. Bishop unpaid at the time the City signs off on the project would present a different set of circumstances which she may consider differently; however, advancing City funding as payment to Mr. Bishop is not a good precedent; that the reason why liens are not allowed on City projects is to ensure that the relationship of subcontractors is with the general contractor and not the City. Commissioner Cardamone asked for Mr. Daughter's opinion of the City using the mentioned leverage to recover the $6,000 from the bonding company if the payment were to be advanced to Mr. Bishop? Mr. Daughters stated that the amount of penalty dollars will be significant, but will be necessary as leverage on other issues if the City is to complete the project in a favorable position; that the issue, not the dollar amount, would be the difficult aspect of including the $6,000 as an additional element for which the City would have to leverage; that the $6,000 should have been paid by HLS through their liability insurance and HLS and its liability insurance company are no longer involved with the Main Street Improvement Project; that including the $6,000 recovery issue as an element would weaken the strength of the leverage on the other elements of City concern. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she is sympathetic to Mr. Bishop's situation; that this could be an example of a situation where a subcontractor goes bankrupt trying to cover the expenses incurred during a job for which he has not received payment; however, she agrees with Mayor Patterson that the Commission would not be as open to using the assets of the City to advance payment for a $100,000 contract which was in remiss, since a bonding company is obligated to cover the debt; that she would like the City to use its clout to make the bonding company take responsibility for its moral and legal obligation. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City is not near completion of the Main Street Improvement Project; that Mr. Bishop has aggressively pursued his claim; that there will be controversy with the bonding company over the $80,000 in penalty fees as well as other issues as the project is closed out; that he does not feel comfortable doing anything more to persuade the bonding company to remit payment to Mr. Bishop. Commissioner Pillot stated that he understands Mayor Patterson's concerns regarding the amount of the payment and the precedent- setting aspect associated with paying the claim; however, because it is affordable, an opportunity exists for the City to do what is morally correct in regard to a productive, contributing citizen of the community who has been hurt by agencies that won't accept responsibility and honor their obligation. Commissioner Pillot Book 36 Page 10806 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10807 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. asked City Attorney Taylor if the Commission is establishing a binding precedent by approving the advance? City Attorney Taylor stated no. Commissioner Pillot stated that if a subcontractor . were to come before the Commission with a claim for $100,000, $80,000, $50,000 or some other sum that is not affordable, he would not support advancing City asset for payment; however, the City has the opportunity to approve this affordable payment without establishing a precedent the Commission cannot later control. Mr. Bishop stated that he has been promised since April that the City would strongly lean on the bonding company to remit payment; that the concern of getting the project completed has overtaken the concern of paying subcontractors on the project; that he will have to sue Frontier Bonding Company if the Commission does not approve payment for his services; that Mr. Singer has stated that his time expended thus far is being charged back to the bonding company to be taken off the retainer; that the time charged back to the bonding company for the potential and/or upcoming lawsuit may generate further litigation in the future when the City tries to settle the final payment; that Mr. Singer informed him that his claim would be eligible for a portion of 10% of final payment withheld from the contractor at completion of the Main Street Improvement project; that this information is not consoling since many other organizations and legal agencies involved in the HLS fiasco will by vying for that same 10%. Mr. Bishop continued that as a resident of the city he feels it will cost the taxpayers more money for him to sue Frontier Bonding Company than for the City to advance him payment; that his attorney advised him that it will take time, but he will win the suit and be compensated for all legal fees, expenses, etc., associated with receiving payment. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that as a builder he understand why Mr. Bishop would rather avoid a lawsuit; that the. City has a substantial amount of negotiable dollars which need to be discussed with the bonding companyi that $6,000 is small relative to those dollars; that he agrees with the concerns which have been expressed by the Commission; however, it would be in the best interest of the City to pay the minimal amount due to Mr. Bishop, avoid the legal complications of a lawsuit, and recover the amount through pressure on the bonding company. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she has difficulty understanding why Mr. Bishop hesitates exercising his right to initiate the process of suing the bonding company. Mr. Bishop stated that he does not feel it is necessary to drag himself and all the City employees with whom he has had contact regarding the issue through a year-long, time consuming, and expensive process of suing the bonding company for payment which he was entitled to in February 1994. Commissioner Pillot stated that time is money to Mr. Bishop; that every hour he spends pursuing a law suit is an hour he cannot spend working; that the Commission has expended larger expenditures in the past to avoid lawsuits which would have cost the City more money to win than to settle; that Mr. Bishop's point of why he doesn't want to pursue a lawsuit may be justified as a similar concern; that he hopes the Commission takes appropriate action to pay this good contractor and good citizen. Mayor Patterson called for a vote on the motion to compensate Mr. Bishop for the $6,000 owed to him from his relationship with HLS. Motion carried (3 to 1): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, no. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she voted for the motion based on her support of the small businessmen in the community; that she hopes the City does everything possible to recover the $6,000. 22. NEW BUSINESS: PRESENTATION RE: CRIME STATISTICS AND CLEARANCE RATES FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF 1994 - NO ACTION TAKEN (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #3 (1434) through (1655) V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that a patrol vehicle was dispatched to observe and report on whether the Three Crowns property was properly secured; that verification of open doors and open windows has been received; that the Administration will take appropriate action. Gordon Jolly, Chief of Public Safety Police Services Bureau, came before the Commission and stated that Part I crimes which consist of murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault and battery, burglary, larceny and auto theft, were down 18% for the first six months of 1994; that violent crimes are down 15% and property crimes are down 19% compared to the same period in 1993. Chief Jolly continued that compared to the same period in 1993 narcotics arrests have increased by 44%, DUI arrests have increased by 46%, and traffic citations have increased by 20%; and that calls for service have remained relatively the same. Chief Jolly stated that the clearance rates refer to the percentage of cases which have been solved; that the City of Sarasota has met or exceeded the national average in clearing all Part I crimes; that the rape clearance rate for the six-month period was 120% and included clearing of previously reported cases; that the cyclical nature of crime is responsible for some of the continued downturn in the crime statistics for the City of Sarasota; however, this natural cycle does not account for the substantial 18% crime Book 36 Page 10808 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10809 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. reduction experienced during the first six months of 1994; that a great deal of the credit for the reduction must be given to the citizens of the City of Sarasota who are involved in the Neighborhood Watch and Weed and Seed Programs, as well as the continued fine work on the part of the men and women of the Sarasota Police Services Bureau. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Commission approved a Crime Action Plan earlier this year; and asked if an update will be presented to the Commission on the status of the Action Plan which included State, National, and local goals? Chief Jolly stated that an update to the Commission on the status of the Action Plan objectives will be scheduled for presentation in October 1994; that the Action Plan will be refreshed annually as the recommendations and actions specified are accomplished; that new problems and recommendations for dealing with those problems also will be added to the Action Plan annually. Commissioner Pillot stated that he has received positive comments on the success of the recent "Sting" operations; that appreciation and congratulations should be extended to Lt. Jack Viana for his efforts. Mayor Patterson complimented Chief Jolly on his leadership; and requested that the Commission's appreciation be relayed to the men and women of the Sarasota Police Services Bureau whose hard work contributed to the crime reduction in the City of Sarasota. 23. BOARD APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTMENT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY = APPOINTED ROBERT A. LINDSAY (AGENDA ITEM IX) #3 (1662) through (1986) Mayor Patterson stated Berta Lefkovich resigned from the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) effective July 1, 1994; that several people have applied for the position. Mayor Patterson requested nominations from the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone stated she nominates Robert Lindsay, who has served on the PBLP in the past, and desires appointment to provide a long-term perspective to the Board and to participate in the major code revision process. Commissioner Cardamone continued that Mr. Lindsay has a long history of involvement with the Zoning Code and could be an asset to the LDRS update. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the applicants are a group of excellent candidates. Vice Mayor Merrill stated he nominates Devin Rutkowski who has been a "mover and shaker" of new ideas before the City Commission and PBLP, and whose strength could be utilized on some of the most challenging issues of revitalizing the downtown area; that Mr. Rutkowski's neighborhood has been the driving force behind the Conservation District concept currently being reviewed by the City. Vice Mayor Merrill continued that appointing new members can bring new ideas to the PBLP. Commissioner Pillot stated that he agrees any one of the candidates would be an excellent addition to the PBLP. Commissioner Pillot stated he nominates Ernest Babb who has served on several boards and currently sits on the Board of Adjustment, and who, based on his knowledge, activity and involvement with the Commission, and the strength and ability of his research, would provide excellent service to the PBLP. Mayor Patterson stated that she agrees that the candidates are all people of special and great ability; that the choice is difficult. Mayor Patterson requested votes in support of Robert Lindsay: Cardamone, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson requested votes in support of Devin Rutkowski: Merrill, yes. Mayor Patterson requested votes in support of Ernest Babb: Pillot, yes. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that 80% of the current PBLP members represent District 2 with the other 20% representing the north side of the City; that there is no representation on the PBLP for District 3; that many planning issues require familiarity with the local or immediate area in which the planning takes place; that this will be the second time that members from District 3 have been denied equal representation on the PBLP; that two Commissioners support the nomination of Robert Lindsay; that no candidate will be appointed if one of the other Commissioners do not change their vote; that he will compromise his vote to have a representative elected; however, he asks for future consideration of the Commission to appoint a qualified member to the PBLP to represent District 3 which consists of 38% of the City. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he supports the nomination of Robert Lindsay. Commissioner Pillot stated that for a vote of unanimity, he will support the nomination of Robert Lindsay. Mayor Patterson stated that the nomination to appoint Robert Lindsay to the PBLP received a unanimous vote: Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Book 36 Page 10810 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10811 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. 24. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA - REFERRED THE ISSUE OF CLOSURE ON BUILDING PERMITS TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR A RECOMMENDATION: : ADMINISTRATION TO REVIEW THE POSSIBILITY OF FLASHING TRAFFIC SIGNALS AFTER CERTAIN HOURS; CITY ATTORNEY TO REVIEW THE OUESTION OF LIABILITY RESULTING FROM CONTAMINATION OF SOIL ON NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL; ADMINISTRATION TO HAVE AN EVALUATION PERFORMED TO PROVIDE MORE ACCESS FOR THE BUSINESSES ALONG SOUTH TAMIAMI TRAIL DURING THE SANITARY SEWER RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT; ADMINISTRATION TO REVISE THE WORDING PRIOR TO POSTING SIGNS AT THE SMHP; ADMINISTRATION TO REVISE THE WORDING ON THE SMHP NOTICE OF EVICTION PRIOR TO DISTRIBUTION: ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE A STATUS REPORT ON THE DRAINAGE SITUATION ON SIESTA DRIVE (AGENDA ITEM X) #3 (1986) through #4 (1187) VICE MAYOR MERRILL: A. stated that there is a problem in parts of the City regarding projects which have been under construction for some time but not completed; that permits should come to a closure; that people should not be allowed to continue building permits over a number of years completing minimal work during extended periods of time; that one particular project has been brought to his attention which has been under construction for five years and is an eyesore; that the property is not maintained, not mowed, and numerous neighbors have complained; that the Commission should authorize the Administration to review the options of dealing these types of issues, whether through voluntary compliance or an ordinance. Mayor Patterson stated that she supports Vice Mayor Merrill's proposal. Commissioner Pillot asked if the reterenced project is the one brought to his attention by Devin Rutkowski? Vice Mayor Merrill stated that is correct. Commissioner Pillot stated that he supports Vice Mayor Merrill's proposal. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to refer the issue of closure on permits to the Administration for a recommendation. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: A. stated that she promoted Devin Rutkowski as a member of Planning Board about a year and a half ago; that she is supporting Robert Lindsay now for the Planning Board; that she would like to utilize the services of Mr. Rutkowski on a "Conservation Board" which she envisions as assisting with the development of conservation districts. B. stated that she discussed with the Deputy City Manager the possibility of flashing yellow lights for traffic signals after certain hours versus red lights which stop traffic at intersections when there is no traffic; that in the past traffic signals on streets not heavily utilized would change to flashing warning signals at approximately 10:00 p.m. or midnight. Commissioner Pillot stated that a flashing red light means "stop and then go." H Commissioner Cardamone stated that she is interested in a flashing signal of whatever color which will allow traffic to move more quickly. Mayor Patterson stated that there was a consensus of the Commission to refer the issue to the Administration for a recommendation. C. stated that the recent murder in Pensacola of a physician at an abortion center reminder her of the discussions at Commission meetings about how to help the neighbors living behind a similar center in Sarasota; and asked how the city is dealing with the requirement that protestors remain 500 feet away from abortion centers? City Attorney Taylor stated that he has reviewed several cases rendered at the State Supreme Court as well as the Federal Court level involving the question of a "free or safety zone" around abortion clinics; that none of these cases involve ordinances enacted by a governmental entity but are rather injunctions brought by an interested party concerned about the impact of protesting; that the courts have reviewed whether the First Amendment restraints of reasonable time, place, and manner have been violated by the lower court injunction; that 300- or 500-foot buffers will not work at the clinic in Sarasota because the resulting location would be in the middle of the street, across the street or into a residential neighborhood; that the issue should be studied to determine the physical characteristics of each affected location, the problems to be addressed, i.e., amplified voice message, etc., and the distance limitations which can reasonably be imposed based upon travelled streets, residential neighborhoods, etc. Commissioner Cardamone stated that something should be done to protect the neighborhood in the area of the abortion center. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that parking restrictions have been imposed to make it more convenient for the neighbors but those restrictions do not eliminate the problem. Book 36 Page 10812 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10813 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson stated that the issue should be referred to the Administration to examine the physical area since the available options are not clearcut; that exactly what can be accomplished should be defined; and asked if the City can apply for an injunction once the desired result is defined? City Attorney Taylor stated that an injunction has been successfully sought in those situations in which large numbers of protestors have had an impact on the surrounding area or in which amplified voice messages are being used which render the doctors incapable of functioning and affect surrounding businesses; that the abortion clinic brought the injunction suit in those situations asking the court to impose certain restrictions and limitations; that he is not aware of a case in which injunctive relief was sought by a City, however, concerns for public health, safety and welfare would appear to support standing by the City of Sarasota if activities are occurring which require injunctive relief. Mayor Patterson stated that she supports referring the issue to the Administration. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he has not seen a problem at the location. Commissioner Pillot stated that the issue should be left to the courts to resolve. Mayor Patterson stated that neighbors in the area should be referred to Vice. Mayor Merrill to explain the issue so he can determine whether a problem exists. D. stated that she has heard concerns about the construction on the North Tamiami Trail in the vicinity of the Ringling School of Art and Design and also on the South Tamiami Trail in the vicinity of Sarasota High School; that the question being asked is why the construction is taking so long; that the construction was progressing rapidly but now appears to be slowing down; that many people are concerned about the construction on South Tamiami Trail because of the opening of Sarasota High School for the fall term. William Hallisey, Facilities operations Manager, came before the Commission and stated that the construction is: the Citywide sanitary sewer reconstruction project which will take. approximately one year to complete; that an effort was made to schedule construction to accommodate the needs of traffic control, particularly on the North Tamiami Trail and the section near Sarasota High School, however, problems have been encountered on the North Tamiami Trail, specifically contaminated soil associated with a gas station in that area as well as the weather; that it is anticipated the North Tamiami Trail will be paved from Whittaker Bayou to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Way this week, opening that portion of the road; that the next phase of the project to be completed over the next 60 days is the area north of MLK Way to 32nd Street; that relief is in sight; that the City is currently in the major restoration work phase of the project which is anticipated to be completed within the next two weeks; that the construction is very difficult because the road must be closed under strict regulations from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) . . Mr. Hallisey continued that the South Tamiami Trail is another phase of the sanitary sewer reconstruction project running concurrently with the North Tamiami Trail project; that the phase is scheduled for completion prior to the beginning of the school year; however, he cannot say that particular phase will be completed by the time school opens; that night work has been scheduled over the next couple of weeks to complete the section of the project crossing U.S. 41 and Bahia Vista Street; that the South Tamiami Trail project is approximately two months from completion. Commissioner Cardamone stated that merchants were notified on June 1st that the project would be completed by August, meaning that the project is way behind schedule. Mayor Patterson stated that she heard about the problems with the project several weeks ago from representatives of Exxon complaining access to their gas station was totally blocked; that some adjustments have been made for access, but it should be emphasized that as much consideration as possible be given to the businesses on the North Tamiami Trail. Mayor Patterson asked why the contaminated soil on the North Tamiami Trail phase would be the City's responsibility? Mr. Hallisey stated that it is not necessarily the City's responsibility; that the gas station is under enforcement action by Sarasota County Pollution Control; that the contamination has leached into the roadway area which the City is excavating and requires special handling and treatment. Mayor Patterson asked if the City can be reimbursed for the cost since the originator of the pollution is legally responsible? Mr. Hallisey stated that the City has not yet proceeded to the point of determining liability, however, there probably is a cause of action against the responsible party. Mayor Patterson stated that the City should pursue potential remedies now rather than after the fact. City Attorney Taylor stated that remedies should be pursued now in case there is any work that may affect the City's position. Mayor Patterson stated there was a consensus of the Commission for the City Attorney to review the question of liability resulting from the contamination. Commissioner Cardamone stated that businesses not affected by road construction do not realize the impact; that the three times major construction was done in front of her store during her 30 years in business in the same location, a major shutdown in business Book 36 Page 10814 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10815 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. resulted; that every accommodation should be made to open the businesses affected. Mr. Hallisey stated that the consulting engineer for the North Tamiami Trail project had a traffic engineer evaluate the barricade installation and provide suggestions for more access which could also be done for the South Tamiami Trail project. Mayor Patterson stated that there was a consensus of the Commission for an evaluation to be done. COMMISSIONER PILLOT: A. stated that he was surprised and disturbed by the interoffice memorandum of July 21, 1994, from Michael Connolly, City Attorney's Office, to City Manager Sollenberger concerning the Sarasota Mobile Home Park (SMHP) which is included in the Commission Information Memorandum; that Item 3 in the memorandum refers to the new prospectus which will indicate that the SMHP will be closed effective September 30, 1999; that Item 4 indicates the City must provide notice of eviction to all SMHP residents who were residents on July 16, 1994; that Item 6 states that the Park Manager post signs at all SMHP entrances giving notice that the City Commission in July 1994 made a determination that the SMHP will be closed effective September 30, 1999; that Item 7 refers to the possible necessity of litigation; that he can interpret the intent of the memorandum based on the language adopted by the Commission that "future Commissions may establish procedures, rules, regulations" under which the grandfathered residents, specifically those residents/owners on or before July 16, 1994, would remain in the SMHP after September 30, 1999; that there was nothing in the language adopted by the Commission stating that the SMHP would be closed September 30, 1999, nor that eviction notices would be given to people; that if he were a SMHP resident who sat in the Commission Chambers and heard the Commission vote to extend the "grandfathering" to residents/owners who were there on or before July 16, 1994, and not being familiar with the law or the language of ordinances, he would be very disturbed and upset by the July 21st memorandum; that he does not fault Mr. Connolly but it should be carefully clarified that those grandfathered residents/Owners are not going to be evicted on September 30, 1999, by contemplation of this Commission; that this Commission cannot say what a future Commission will do when the number of SMHP residents is so small as to make it unfeasible to operate; that he is concerned the language in the July 21st memorandum is so explicit as to cause great concern among people to whom concern should not be communicated. City Attorney Taylor stated that he reviewed his files to determine the progression of the language since the clause did not read the way it reads in the memorandum when the Commission first considered the issue in June; that the draft of this language was presented to the Commission and had an absolute statement that those who were residents/owners on July 16, 1990, which was later changed to July 16, 1994, would be grandfathered and may remain after the effective date of the change in land use; that he was of the impression that the Commission did not endorse that express language; that the language in the, drafts of the ordinance transmitted to the Commission on June 14th which was ultimately put before the Commission for public hearing and second reading of the ordinance is: "Those who were residents on or before July 16, 1994, may within the discretion of the City Commission remain after the effective date of the change in land use." City Attorney Taylor continued that there is no reference to the grandfather aspect; that the notices to the residents/owners are not as cryptic as the July 21st memorandum; that the exact language from the ordinance is used; that the City Attorney's office has been working with a lawyer from Tallahassee who is advising on the technical requirements of the statute in order to assure the "eviction notices" are done properly; that the term "eviction notice" is used because of the statutory requirements; that those notices were given to all residents of the SMHP; that he understood that the Commission said residents/owners are subject to eviction in 1999 but within the discretion of the City Commission in 1999 the residents/owners may be able to stay under such terms and conditions as the City Commission shall set at that time; that if the message has been twisted, it should be corrected. Commissioner Pillot stated that the language in the July 21st memorandum is explicit and does not speak to the discretion of future Commissions; that the signs which are to be posted by the Park Manager at all entrances providing notice that "the City Commission in July 1994 made a determination that the SMHP will be closed effective September 30, 1999, 1 are wrong; that if those signs are posted, they should be taken down; that the signs are unintentionally a gross violation of the faith with those people who sat at the Commission meeting and spoke to the Commissioners, either directly or through interpreters, at the July 5th public hearing. Mayor Patterson asked if a copy of the notices of eviction can be obtained? Robert Gerkin, Director of General Services, came before the Commission and stated that the notices have not been mailed and he can obtain a copy from his office. Commissioner Cardamone asked if a copy of the language of the sign to be posted at the entrances BOOK 36 Page 10816 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. BOOK 36 Page 10817 8/01/94 6:00 P.M. of the SMHP can be obtained? Mr. Gerkin stated that he does not have a copy of that language immediately available. Commissioner Pillot stated that many of the residents/owners do not have the privilege of understanding legal English language; that the Commission has an obligation to assure the language is clear and understood correctly. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he was aware the wording had changed in the ordinance; that he had used the word grandfathering" during a Commission discussion regarding the SMHP, and he was reminded that the Commission was not officially grandfathering anyone; that whatever is legal should be done; that he knew exactly what the ordinance read when he voted for it; that he supports these steps if they are necessary in order to implement the intent of the ordinance; that he agrees inflammatory language should not be used; that the Administration should meet with the SMHP residents to explain what the notice is and the legal technicalities; that he had a problem with the word "close" when the issue was first brought upi that he asked the City Manager if there was another word which could be used since the word "close" is not fully descriptive; that it was not possible to use another word because legally the park is being closed; that he supports the July 21st memorandum if it is necessary for legal reasons; however, he also supports that the language should be explained to the people and not be any more inflammatory than the issue might appear to be. Commissioner Pillot stated that it would astonish him if the City is required by Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, to give notice in the third quarter of 1994 of evictions for September 30, 1999; that this appears to be inane. City Attorney Taylor stated that the timing of the notice is to assure the City has put in place fair notice to current residents and newcomers sO that there is no question about what the City Commission has done, the timing of that action, and the finality of the action; that the City Attorney's office is concerned the Florida Legislature will close the gap in the spring session, meaning the state of the law pertaining to mobile home parks will revert back to the law prior to the court decision which opened current opportunity for mobile home owners to close their mobile home parks; that the time frame has been implemented to assure all official notices are given, all official document filings are done, etc., sO that the process is officially under way in accordance with the now-existing Florida Statutes before they are changed; that the City is also proceeding with the change in land use. Commissioner Pillot stated five years' advance notice also presumes that a future Commission will tell the residents/owners they must leave as of September 30, 1999; that this Commission does not know whether a future Commission will allow them to stay or require them to leave; that it is unconscionable to give notices of eviction to those people who were residents/owners on July 16, 1994, and he divorces himself from the action. Mayor Patterson stated that it is being assumed that the notice states "notice of eviction". City Attorney Taylor stated that the notice does state "notice of eviction"; that it is a statutory process and the express words of the statute are being followed; that the language of the statute is inflammatory language; however, the process for closing a mobile home park requires an eviction process under State statute. Mayor Patterson asked if the five years' notice is required because the rules have been changed for people who are now moving into the SMHP and to protect the change in land use by clearly stating the ultimate intent of the City Commission? City Attorney Taylor stated that is correct. Mayor Patterson stated that the action taken by the Commission was clearly understood; that the ultimate decision was left for a Commission five years from now; that the action was logical while stopping the sale of mobile homes from this date forward; that she will agree to the notices if they are required, however, an education program for the Spanish-speaking residents should be provided upon C distribution of the notices. city Attorney Taylor stated that one of the requirements with which the City was told to comply in order to give proper notice under the statute includes posting of a notice on each individual unit in addition to mailing notices to the resident/owners. Mayor Patterson stated that a copy of that notice should be provided to the Commission. Commissioner Cardamone stated that it is heart-stopping for anyone to receive a notice of eviction, however, the notice could be explained with a cover letter; that the statute addresses a mobile home park owner closing a park with six months notice; that the City is stretching the required notice out in the future in order to cover all the extenuating circumstances which makes the notice read worse; that she understands the need for the notice if the ultimate desire of the Commission is to completely close the SMHP. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City is required by State statute to provide eviction notices to all residents of the SMHP no matter what date they became residents; that the notice contains the provision in the ordinance that any resident/owner on or before July 16, 1994, may at the discretion of the City Commission be allowed to stay under such terms and conditions as are set by the City Commission. Book 36 Page 10818 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10819 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson asked if that language is included in the notice? City Attorney Taylor stated that the notice he prepared included similar language; that he drafted the notice for the Administration and it was to be translated into Spanish and the two versions were to be distributed; that he has not seen the notices that Mr. Connolly is referencing in his July 21st memorandum. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that all of this depends on how it is handled; that it was a unanimous vote to close the SMHP; that it is incumbent on the Administration to send out letters in advance and to hold meetings to prepare the people as to the legal process which must be followed in order to implement the Commission's action; that he wants to assure the process is done correctly sO that the Commission in five years does not have to go through the debate about whether the City failed to adhere to the law properly; that he sees no problem with implementing the action as long as the intent of the vote is followed; that he knew what he was voting on, stands by his vote, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to implement the Commission's action. Commissioner Pillot stated that he thinks he knows what he was voting on as well; that during the discussion, each Commissioner said it was important to honor the commitment made at the February 1990 meeting in the SMHP auditorium; that the commitment was that residents/owners who lived in the SMHP as of July 16, 1990, would not be forced to leave; that attrition would take over until such time as a future Commission determines it is no longer feasible to operate the SMHP; that residents/owners would be asked to leave at that time under such terms and conditions established by a future Commission; that he voted "yes" at the pubic hearing to what he thought was a good solution with the understanding, that: 1) all Commissioners wanted to honor the 1990 commitment, 2). the July 16, 1990, date was extended to July 16, 1994, and 3) the Commissioners recognized that the current Commission cannot nor should attempt to bind a future Commission, thereby, including the language "under terms and conditions a future Commission may determine"; that he supported the language because it made common sense; that this Commission said it will honor the 1990 commitment recognizing that a future Commission may, in its wisdom, have to determine that it no longer makes sense to keep the SMHP open because attrition has decimated its numbers. Mayor Patterson stated that she did not vote on the basis of honoring the 1990 commitment; that she voted thinking she will no longer be on the Commission; that depending on the circumstances existing at the SMHP, i.e., how many homes are left, etc., it is possible that the homes will be moved to a smaller part of the SMHP or the Commission in 1999 may close the park; that the discretion resides with the future Commission. Commissioner Pillot stated that this Commission understood a future Commission will have to make that decision; that the 1999 Commission will have information not available in 1994; that the 1999 Commission may determine the result of attrition is that it no longer makes sense to keep the SMHP open; that he would agree with that position and would vote for it if he were on the Commission at that time, since that was part of the tacit understanding of the February 1990 meeting; however, he does not recall any current Commissioner saying anything other than the commitment would be honored and it would be left to the wisdom and knowledge of a future Commission to decide when definitive action would have to be taken. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission used its strength to provide an absolute date which was not given by the 1990 Commission; that a date of September 30, 1999, was established to change the land use designation of the SMHP; that if the 1999 Commission wishes to keep the SMHP open, the land use would have to be changed which is a new set of circumstances; that she anticipates the 1999 Commission will not have many choices except how to manage the few people left in the park. Mayor Patterson stated that there could easily be 250 people left in the park, which is not a few people but rather a normal size and density for a mobile home park of 40 acres. Mr. Gerkin provided City Attorney Taylor with a copy of the notice of eviction. City Attorney Taylor stated that the notice paraphrases the statute; that there are two types of notices: one to be sent to residents/owners as of July 16, 1994, and one for those who came after that date; that the communication gives notice of Closure as of September 30, 1999, and indicates the purpose of the closure; that the notice to residents/owners as of July 16, 1994, reads in part: "You will be required to vacate the lot on which your mobile home is located on September 30, 1999. However, since you were an owner of a mobile home within the Mobile Home Park on July 16, you may, within the discretion of the City Commission, remain after the effective date of the change in land use under such terms and conditions as may be established by the City Commission." City Attorney Taylor continued that the reason for the statement about vacating the lot is that the notice further indicates a partial closure will require reconfiguration of the SMHP and, in that event, in order to accommodate open space, recreation, etc., it will be necessary for the resident/owner to relocate the mobile home within the park. Book 36 Page 10820 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10821 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Pillot stated that the notice should read that the resident/owner "might be" rather than "will be" required to vacate the lot; that resident/owners may not have to relocate in order to reconfigure park; that the notice should not read "by action of the City Commission"; that this may be misunderstood to mean the current Commission; that the notice should read "by action of the City Commission sitting in September, 1999". Mayor Patterson stated that Commissioner Pillot is correct; and asked if that revision can be made? City Attorney Taylor stated that the notices have not yet been distributed, therefore, the changes can be made. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that in regard to the 1990 commitment, he hopes any Commission would review commitments made by prior Commissions to any group of people and try to carry out those commitments; that he hopes the 1999 Commission will read the original minutes; that being aware of the commitments made in 1990, he would not have voted for anything which violated those commitments; that this Commission cannot bind a future Commission; however, this Commission did not violate the 1990 commitment. City Attorney Taylor stated that the two changes proposed by Commissioner Pillot can easily be made; that the statement "you will be required" was based upon the view that rearranging the SMHP was definite; that the language can be altered since rearrangement is not an absolute; that the reference "by the City Commission" can specify which City Commission. Commissioner Pillot stated that the notice does not indicate that it may be necessary to relocate some units from one lot to another if the number of units is small or for safety reason, etc.; that it simply states: "You may be required to vacate your lot"; that the notice should read: "You may be required to vacate your lot in the event that units or homes are moved from one lot to another in the park. I Mayor Patterson asked what would happen if a future Commission decides to close the park entirely? Commissioner Pillot stated that he is referring to what the notices being sent to residents/owners in August 1994 should state; that the notice states what a future Commission may do. Mayor Patterson stated that it is possible a future Commission may require people to move the mobile home units altogether from the park; that this should be stated in the notice if there is a legal requirement to do so and that statement should not be glibly changed. Commissioner Pillot stated that he does not consider it glib but rather being honest with people. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she does not want anything in the notice that will be a loophole tying the hands of a Commission in 1999; that the commitment made by this Commission is one thing, but another long process similar to what this Commission went through is not something she wants to see put on a future Commission; that the SMHP issue would not have been addressed again by this Commission if the 1990 Commission had written (definitive) language; that the steps taken by this Commission will be of assistance tothe 1999 Commission if they choose to close the park. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that this Commission should not tie the hands of the 1999 Commission. City Attorney Taylor stated that the ultimate issue which is very hard to reconcile is that the document is a notice of eviction required by State statute and, no matter how it is worded, the crux is the last paragraph which reads: "In the event of a total closure of the Sarasota Mobile Home Park, you will be required to vacate your lot on September 30, 1999, and this is a notice pursuant to Chapter 723.06(1), Florida Statutes, to that effect." Mayor Patterson asked if the wording is mandated by the statute? City Attorney Taylor stated that an eviction notice must be given for enforcement purposes; that the City has to file an eviction proceeding pursuant to that section of the Florida Statutes if the City has difficulty getting people out of the park who should have left; that the statute sets out the notice requirements in order to effectuate an eviction; that he does not believe an eviction based upon Closure of the park is the type of eviction normally contemplated, but the State statute makes no differentiation. Mayor Patterson stated that this would be simpler if a date were picked far in the future, however humane the Commission chooses to be, and simply say as of that date the park will be closed; that this machination would not occur and something coherent would be in place; that then the "eviction notice" would provide a definite date in future without creating the uncertainty of what a Commission might or might not do. Commissioner Cardamone stated that solution would have been ideal, but this Commission did not take that action. Mayor Patterson stated that the format required under the statute should be followed with a good education process; that no one knows how this will be handled by a Commission in 1999. Commissioner Pillot stated that he is not pleased; that while this Commission has no right nor expectation to bind future Commissions, each Commissioner has the expectation to stick by their own votes; Book 36 Page 10822 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10823 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. that he voted on the issue in 1990, and he recognizes other Commissioners who were not on the Commission and did not vote in 1990 were put in a spot; that he will not change. a vote or a stand he previously made until and unless new evidence comes forth requiring him to do so to be faithful to the responsibility of the office; that this has not occurred in his judgment, therefore, he will stick by his vote in February 1990; that he knows what is being said and why and he cannot quarrel with that fact, but he is not happy. Mayor Patterson stated she is not happy either because, no matter how the issue is handled, there will be a body of very upset people who do not understand the notice; that the five Commissioners who have lived through this process are still grappling to understand all the implications. Commissioner Pillot asked if signs are posted indicating the park will be closed as of September 30, 1999? Mr. Gerkin stated that the signs are not yet posted; that the signs are scheduled to be posted tomorrow morning. Commissioner Pillot stated that those signs should not be posted. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the problem encountered previously was that people came forward and said "You did not tell us." Commissioner Pillot asked City Attorney Taylor if the statute requires signs be posted? City Attorney Taylor stated that he believes the Commission asked for signs to be posted at the park entrances. Mayor Patterson stated that the wording on the signs should not state the park will be closed on September 30, 1999; that the Commission's discussion was for signs to be posted communicating that any owner who was not an owner of a mobile home prior to July 16, 1994, will be required to move that mobile home in 1999; that the intent by the Commission for posting the signs is to assure that someone does not inadvertently walk into the SMHP and purchase a $10,000 mobile home thinking the purchased mobile home can stay there forever. Commissioner Pillot stated that he supports the wording suggested by the Mayor. Vice Mayor Merrill asked for a restatement as to what the signs should read? Mayor Patterson stated "Those people who purchased a mobile home after July 16, 1994, will be required to move that mobile home on September 30, 1999." Commissioner Cardamone stated that the wording should be: "If you purchase a mobile home in this park after a specific effective date, you will be required to move it September 30, 1999." Commissioner Pillot stated that Commissioner Cardamone's suggested wording is correct and makes a good sign. Commissioner Cardamone asked what is going to be done about the rented mobile homes in the park? City Attorney Taylor stated that rental units are not permitted at the SMHP, but the rule has not been enforced; that he was of the opinion, once the notices were distributed and steps taken concerning the future of the park, that the people who were not resident/owners would be isolated and action would be taken to have them removed from the park. Mr. Gerkin stated that is correct; that the City is currently verifying mobile home ownership with the Motor Vehicles Department; however, people with a contract for deed can get a title to the mobile home with a lien applied against it. Mayor Patterson stated that a title with a lien is the same as a mortgage; that the resident/owners must obtain and provide the City with a title; that if the owners on the contract for deed will not release the title, it is probably because there is insufficient equity and the transaction is not really a purchase, but rather a rental. Commissioner Pillot asked if a contract for deed is really de facto ownership? City Attorney Taylor stated that a contract for deed is a form of ownership, being equitable rather than legal title. Commissioner Pillot stated that an individual has equitable ownership if they have a valid contract for deed even if they do not have the title and, therefore, should not be forced to leave the park. Mayor Patterson stated that she does not agree; that the individual may have put $50 down and, as far as she is concerned, they do not have equitable ownershipi that it depends on the amount of equity and requires a judgment call. Mr. Gerkin stated that the City will proceed with the eviction process if the residents have not applied for ownership or possess title papers; that the City has been approaching mobile home by mobile home for verification; that providing verification of ownership has not been problem thus far. Mayor Patterson stated that people who sold mobile homes on a contract for deed will give the residents title if they have any investment because otherwise the owners will have a mobile home in a park which cannot be rented and can only be sold for a five-year period. Commissioner Pillot asked if a person who buys a $10,000 unit by signing a contract for deed with $50 down and who moves in and makes monthly payments is considered and owner? City Attorney Taylor stated that he believes they are an owner although they are not a title owner in the sense of having a motor vehicle title; Book 36 Page 10824 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10825 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. that he is giving an opinion off the top of his head and would like to ask for some time to frame the question if it is important. Mayor Patterson stated that she is of the opinion this is a ruse to avoid the no-renter requirement. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City is not accepting as an owner a individual holding a contract for deed; that the City requires a legal State of Florida title certificate. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that if an individual does not get their contract for deed or title, they are out of the park in five years; that every person residing in the park has every incentive to obtain a title; that as the Mayor has stated, the owner of the mobile home has every incentive to provide title to the resident; that the key point is to determine who is currently residing in the mobile home and not let that resident change; that the identity of the mobile home occupant and whether they have a contract for deed or title must- be determined; that if those residents cannot show they are owners in 1999, the City must assume they are renters; that he is not concerned whether they get title today or in 1999; that this is not a big issue since the parties involved have an interest in transferring the title. Commissioner Pillot stated that he is comforted by the fact that the Vice Mayor said he is not concerned whether title is obtained today or by 1999; however, he thought Mr. Gerkin stated that people will be dispossessed if they do not have title today. Mayor Patterson said that is what was said and voted upon at the table. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission said to the interested parties: "Do you understand that you must go to the person who holds the contract and get title in order to stay in that park"; that it was clear to her it was an instant occurrence; that someone even said "We are talking about you must have title tomorrow." Commissioner Pillot asked if a title can be obtained when something is being paid for on payments? Mr. Gerkin stated no; that an individual receives an application for title in the same way an automobile is purchased; that the registration is received and a lien is filed against it and recorded at the Court House; that the problem occurring is that people are getting the contracts for deeds and not paying sales tax to obtain the titles. Mayor Patterson stated that people should be able to demonstrate that the legal sales tax has been paid in order to declare that they are owners; that perhaps whether the sales tax has been paid or not is the appropriate distinction. Mr. Gerkin stated that an updated decal - can only be obtained by registering the mobile home in their name and paying the sales tax. Mayor Patterson stated that July 16th had been established as the date by which people would have to acquire title, however, people may need more time. Mr. Gerkin stated that the Administration is helping people at the SMHP who require assistance in obtaining the titles. Mayor Patterson stated that she is glad Commissioner Pillot brought up this topic; that the City could have had a very unnecessary firestorm if the items had not been clarified. MAYOR PATTERSON: A. stated that she has received several calls about the drainage on Siesta Drive; that several homes have water in front of their homes for about 24 hours after heavy rains so deep the garbage people will not pick up their garbage; that affected residents are circulating a petition to present to the Commission; that she understands the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) surveyed the area in preparation of providing some relief; that she would like a status report on the item. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she has received comments from City residents north of Siesta Drive where the sand bar is located in front of their houses who are now experiencing a great deal of dog activity in the nearby park; that dogs are being walked and are swimming out to the sand bar, scaring away a nesting area of beautiful birds. Mayor Patterson stated that she has not heard that complaint; that she would like the names of the people who called Commissioner Cardamone so that she can talk to them; that this area is a little neighborhood where people would logically walk their dogs. 25. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) #4 (1187) through (1213) CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: : A. stated that a Special Meeting will be held on Monday, August 8, at 4:00; that Commissioners Pillot and Atkins will not be able to attend and, therefore, the three remaining Commissioners will have to be present to establish a quorum; that action is required on the contract for the North Tamiami Trail medians and the bids will not be opened until Friday. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that the second reading for Harmony Lane will also be on the agenda. Book 36 Page 10826 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Book 36 Page 10827 08/01/94 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that there appears to be nothing controversial on the agenda, therefore, the three Commissioners should be able to take action. 26. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XI) #4 (1214) There being no further business, Mayor Patterson adjourned the meeting at 11:04 p.m. Mora Atason NORA PATTERSON, MAYOR ATTEST: $ 3illy E Rebnsen BILLY, Eo ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK 7: