MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 2003, AT 2:30 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Lou Ann R. Palmer, Vice Mayor Richard F. Martin, Commissioners Fredd "Glossie" Atkins, Danny Bilyeu, and Mary Anne Servian, City Manager Michael A. McNees, City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Palmer The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(a) of the City of Sarasota Charter at 2:30 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM I) CD 2:30 through 2:31 There was no one signed up to speak. 2. APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE OF THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 17, 2003, AND THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 21, 2003 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM II) CD 2:31 through 2:32 Mayor Palmer asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes? Mayor Palmer stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the July 17, 2003, Special Commission meeting and the July 21, 2003, Regular Commission meeting are approved by unanimous consent. 3. BOARD REPORT RE: PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE - S REGULAR MEETINGS OF JUNE 17 AND JULY 9, 2003 - APPROVED THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE TO RELOCATE THE SCULPTURE "] ENCORE T TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK LOCATED AT SEVENTH STREET AND EAST AVENUE; APPROVED THE RELOCATION OF "GARDEN SCULPTURE 3" TO THE CITY HALL GROUNDS ON THE CORNER OF ORANGE AVENUE AND FIRST STREET; APPROVED THE PURCHASE OF " PHOTON II"; RECEIVED REPORTS OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE' S REGULAR MEETINGS OF JUNE 17, 2003 AND JULY 9, 2003; RECEIVED REPORTS (AGENDA ITEM III-1) CD 2:33 through 2:45 BOOK 54 Page 25942 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25943 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. George Haborak, Chairman, Public Art Committee, and John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning Department, came before the Commission. Mr. Haborak presented the following items from the June 17, 2003, Regular meeting of the Public Art Committee: A. Relocation of the Sculpture entitled "Encore" Mr. Haborak stated that the Public Art Committee recommends moving the work of art entitled "Encore" from the G.WIZ (Gulfcoast Wonder and Imagine Zone) playground to a new park at the corner of Seventh Street and East Avenue; that G.WIZ indicated location at the playground area is a safety concern and requested removal of the art; that the neighborhood association representing residents in the vicinity of the proposed location supports the move. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to approve the recommendation of the Public Art Committee to relocate the sculpture entitled "Encore" to the neighborhood park located at Seventh Street and East Avenue. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): : Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Servian, yesi Palmer, yes. B. Relocation of the Sculpture entitled "Garden Sculpture 3" Mr. Haborak stated that the Public Art Committee recommends the placement of the sculpture entitled "Garden Sculpture 3" by artist Doris Leeper on City Hall property at the corner of Orange Avenue and First Street; that the sculpture was originally at Five Points Park; that the sculpture was vandalized and subsequently repaired; that the Public Art Committee recommended moving the sculpture to a safer location; that the sculpture was moved to the corner of Pineapple and Lemon Avenues; that due to a change in the traffic pattern on Lemon Avenue, the work of art must be relocated; that a survey was conducted for a visible, safe area; that the recommendation is to place the art on City Hall property at the corner of First Street and Orange Avenue; that the Public Works Department would be responsible for moving the art; that the Public Art Committee requests moving the art to the City Hall site on or before September 10, 2003; that the Florida Neighborhood Conterence is being held in Sarasota in September 2003; that a tour of the Public Art in the City will be conducted; that having the sculpture on City Hall grounds will be helpful as City Hall will be a key site for the tour of Public Art. Mayor Palmer asked if estimates of costs are available and if the Public Works Department can accomplish the move? Mr. Burg stated that Staff has an estimate of costs which is within budget; that Staff has been working with the Public Works Department; that moving the sculpture prior to September 10, 2003, may not be possible; that moving the sculpture is not required until the commencement of the Lemon Avenue Streetscape construction in early 2004; that Staff is not prepared to move the sculpture in September 2003. City Manager McNees stated that the ability to move the sculpture by September 2003 is unknown; that Staff will attempt, but cannot promise, to move the sculpture by September 2003. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the current location of the sculpture is acceptable. Mr. Burg stated that is correct. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Martin, it was moved to approve the relocation of "Garden Sculpture 3" to the City Hall grounds on the corner of Orange Avenue and First Street. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yesi Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. Vice Mayor Martin referred to the Agenda Requests included in the Agenda backup material and stated that the costs are estimated at $3,230 for relocating the sculpture entitled "Encore" and $2,990 for relocating the sculpture entitled "Garden Sculpture 3." Mr. Haborak presented the following item from the July 9, 2003, Regular meeting of the Public Art Committee: Purchase of the Sculpture entitled "Photon II" Mr. Haborak referred to a photograph of "Photon II" displayed on the Chamber monitors and stated that the Public Art Committee is proposing the purchase of a work of art entitled "Photon II" by artist Dennis Kowal; that the work of art is nine feet tall; that the art is crafted from aerospace aluminum which requires no maintenance; that no signs of rust or deterioration exist on the sculpture after one year of display on the Bayfront at the Van BOOK 54 Page 25944 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25945 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) ; that the only maintenance issue is washing the art annually if necessary; that the design of "Photon II" is the latest in a series of sculpture projects the artist has completed over many years; that the piece represents an ever changing appearance reflective of an age of symbols and knowledge; that the location of the artwork on the grounds of the VWPAH results in an hourly change of light as the sun travels over and around the sculpture, generating a constant and fascinating silhouette of colors, patterns and shapes; that the artwork complements the architectural features of Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall; that in 1997 or 1998, the Public Art Committee and the Commission agreed "Photon II" is an appropriate work of art for the City's Public Art program; that "Photon II" makes a great addition to the City's permanent collection; that the artist has work represented nationally in locations such as Boston, Massachusetts, Chicago, Illinois, etc.; that in the year 2000, "Photon II" received the Florida Department of State's Cultural Affairs Millennium Award; that "Photon II" meets the aesthetic qualities favored by the Public Art Committee; that at its July 9, 2003, meeting the Public Art Committee approved by a 4 to 2 vote the purchase of the sculpture entitled "Photon II"; that in the year 2000, the Public Art Committee and the Commission approved a Public Art policy statement; that recommending approval of the purchase is consistent with the policy statement; that the policy indicates the following criteria for Public Art purchased from the Public Art Fund: 1) the location on public property and 2) the purchase of non-site specific, moderately priced, small to medium sized works by primarily regional artists; that the Public Art Committee's recommendation is consistent with the policy; that the policy has five categories of Public Art: 1. the direct purchase of works of art from artists, 2. works of art commissioned or purchased through developers located on developer land, 3. works of art purchased by developers located on City property and works of art for a specific site, for example, Lemon Avenue, 4. art purchased through a call to artists, and 5. works either loaned or donated to the City. Mr. Haborak continued that the recommendation of the Public Art Committee at the July 9, 2003, meeting is consistent with the City's Public Art policy. Commissioner Servian asked for clarification of the funding source and available funds for the purchase. Mr. Haborak stated that a balance of approximately $123,000 is in the Public Art Fund; that $70,000 was set aside for the call to artists for the Lemon Avenue Plaza; that the estimate for contingencies for the call to artists and the relocation of the sculptures is $10,000; that in October 2003, the Public Art Fund will receive an additional $30,000; that Staff has recommended the funds for the purchase of "Photon II" be divided between FY 2002/03 and FY 2003/04. Commissioner Servian stated that approximately $30,000 will remain in the fund for the year FY 2003/04 subsequent to the purchase of "Photon II." Mr. Burg stated that is correct. Commissioner Servian stated that including the chronological list of actions with regard to "Photon II" in the Agenda material is pleasing; that in 1996, the Public Art Committee recommended "Photon II" as an important and appropriate piece for the Cityi that the location on the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall grounds is beautiful; that a means to accomplish the purchase over a two year process is pleasing. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to approve the purchase of "Photon II.' Mayor Palmer stated that the purchase is not supported; that the process is a concern related to neither the artist nor the artwork; that the artwork is beautiful; that the process utilized is a concern; that Staff was not originally supportive of the purchase; that calls to artists are normally conducted to purchase art with Public Art funds; that the recommendation to purchase art with Public Art funds without issuing a call to artists is a bad precedent to set. Mayor Palmer called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yesi Servian, yes; Palmer, no. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to receive the reports of the June 17 and July 9, 2003, meetings of the Public Art Committee. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. BOOK 54 Page 25946 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25947 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. 4. REPORT RE: : HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD'S S REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 8, 2003 = RECEIVED REPORT; DIRECTED THE CITY ATTORNEY' S OFFICE TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE (2003 ED.) TO PROVIDE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR HOUSE MOVES WITH APPEALS OF THE DECISION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (AGENDA ITEM III-2) CD 2:45 through 2:50 Thomas Luzier, Chair, Historic Preservation Board, and John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning Department, came before the Commission. Mr. Luzier presented the following item from the July 8, 2003, Regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Board: Building Permits for House Moves Mr. Luzier stated that the Historic Preservation Board unanimously approved by a 5 to 0 vote to recommend applications for building permits for relocation of homes in the City be approved administratively by the Director of Building, Zoning and Code Entorcement with appeals through the Board of Adjustment; that the recommendation is the result of the recent offer to save an historical residence by the developer of the Metropolitan condominium complex at 1153 and 1163 Gulf Stream Avenue, 1156 First Street, and One North Tamiami Trail; that the Weissgerber House is located at 1156 First Street; that the developer of the Metropolitan condominium complex has offered to relocate the Weissgerber house or to accept applications for moving the house; that the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Board is intended to remove any barriers to facilitate the process as the process for relocation is typically longer than the timeline provided by the developer and as the Historic Preservation Board must operate under Florida's Government-in-the-Sunshine laws. Mr. Burg stated that on July 30, 2003, the Board of Adjustment also voted unanimously to recommend the Commission amend the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) to provide house move permits be reviewed and determined administratively by the Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, with appeals to the Board of Adjustment. Commissioner Servian quoted Agenda Item V(D), Amending the Rules of Procedure for Persons Granted Party [Status], of the July 8, 2003, Historic Preservation Board meeting minutes, as follows: Discussion was held relative to amending to the Rule of Procedure for persons granted party status; Commissioner Servian requested clarification of the phrase "granted party status." Mr. Luzier stated that the language is a result of the hearings relating to the application for the designation of the Gulf Beach Motel; that the phrase refers to affected parties. On motion of Vice Mayor Martin and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to direct the City Attorney's Office to draft an ordinance amending the Zoning Code (2003 Ed.) to provide for administrative approval of building permits for house moves with appeals of the decision to the Board of Adjustment. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yesi Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. Mayor Palmer referred to Agenda Item V, Unfinished Business, of the minutes of the July 8, 2003, Historic Preservation Board meeting as follows: A. Amendment to Zoning Code allows for administrative approval for minor work B. Amendment to Zoning Code providing for a process for de- designation of historic buildings D. Amending the Rules of Procedure for Persons Granted Party [Status] Mayor Palmer asked if the recommendations concerning A, B, and D will be presented to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency and subsequently to the Commission? Mr. Burg stated yes; that amending the Zoning Code (2003 Ed.) is a lengthy process; that the first step is to combine a number of other amendments for presentation to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency. Mr. Luzier stated that the Historic Preservation Board appreciates the leadership of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency in the ongoing dialog regarding saving and restoring the Weissgerber house and in attempting to facilitate the timeline. Mayor Palmer stated that Staff and other interested citizens have expended significant time regarding the Weissgerber house; that BOOK 54 Page 25948 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25949 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. four petitions to move the Weissgerber House are before the Board of Adjustment, which hopefully indicates the house will be saved. Vice Mayor Martin stated that recent media coverage indicated City cemeteries are in disrepair; that the effort to restore and provide the history regarding the Rosemary Cemetery is known; that archeologists from New College of Florida participated in the project; and asked if the Historic Preservation Board would consider focusing discussion on methods to encourage restoration of cemeteries located in the City? Mr. Luzier stated yes. Mayor Palmer stated that the understanding is the cemeteries are not City-owned cemeteries but are in the City. On motion of Vice Mayor Martin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to receive the report of the July 8, 2003, Regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Board. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. The Commission recessed at 2:50 p.m. into a Special meeting as the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and reconvened at 3:00 p.m. 5. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, AND 7 APPROVED ; ITEM NO. 5 = REMOVED AND WILL BE CONSIDERED UNDER UNFINISHED BUSINESS AS AGENDA ITEM VI-4 (AGENDA ITEM IV-A) CD 3:00 through 3:05 Commissioner Servian requested that Item No. 5 be removed for discussion. 1. Approval Re: Set for public hearing proposed Ordinance No. 03-4417, amending Chapter 10, Beaches and Waterways, of the Sarasota City Code, by adding thereto a new Article IV, Water Taxis; providing the procedures for issuance, revocation, suspension and renewal of a water taxi permit; providing regulations for the operation of water taxis; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for severability if any of the parts hereof are declared invalid; etc., (Title Only) 2. Approval Re: Set for public hearing proposed Ordinance No. 03-4488, amending Chapter 21, Offenses, of the Sarasota City Code to create Section 21-7 regulating amateur boxing, kickboxing, or mixed martial arts events at premises that serve alcohol, are licensed to serve alcohol, or charge admission fees unless such events comply with specified rules and regulations; adopting by reference Sarasota County Ordinance No. 2003-064, as codified in Sections 10-1 through 10-11, inclusive, of the Sarasota County Code; to providing for a finding that Sarasota County Ordinance No. 2003-064 is not in conflict with any City ordinance; providing for penalties; providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of parts hereof if declared invalid or unenforceable; etc. 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract between the City of Sarasota and Mastec North America, Inc., (Bid #03-47M) for traffic signalization services. 4. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Seawall and Access Easement between the City of Sarasota and the State of Florida Department of Transportation, an agency of the State of Florida for the purpose of constructing a seawall and access roadway over a small portion of the City's Bird Key. 6. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Second Contract Amendment between the City of Sarasota and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for engineering services. 7. Approval Re: Listed enhancements to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Park subject to approval of proposed Resolution No. 03R-1638 in the amount of $30,000. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Martin, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Item No. 5 will be considered under New Business as Agenda Item XIII-1 which will be heard in the evening session. BOOK 54 Page 25950 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25951 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. Mayor Palmer asked if the Orders of the Day can be changed to hear Item No. 5 under Unfinished Business as Agenda Item VI-4 in the afternoon session? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the Commission Rules of Procedure could be suspended by a two-thirds vote. Mayor Palmer stated that suspending the Commission Rules of Procedure is not normally desired; that a bad precedent could be established. Commissioner Servian stated that the subject of Item No. 5 which concerns a lease for the concession for the food service at the Bobby Jones Golf Complex does not require a public hearing; therefore, the Commission Rules of Procedure could be suspended if desired. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Commission has discussed the possible revision of the Commission Rules of Procedure; that the Commission Rules of Procedure will be reviewed for possible revisions and a recommendation will be presented to the Commission. Mayor Palmer stated that a motion can be made to suspend the Commission Rules of Procedure if desired. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Martin, it was moved to suspend the Commission Rules of Procedure to hear Item No. 5 under Unfinished Business as Agenda Item VI-4 in the afternoon session. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. 6. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1628) - ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1635) - ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1636) ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1637) - ADOPTED; ITEM 5 (RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1638) - ADOPTED; ITEM 6 (RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1639) - ADOPTED; ITEM 7 (RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1640) = ADOPTED; ITEM 8 (RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1641) - ADOPTED; ITEM 9 (RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1645) - ADOPTED; ITEM 10 (ORDINANCE NO. 02-4401) - ADOPTED; ITEM 11 (ORDINANCE NO. 03-4453) ADOPTED; ITEM 12 (ORDINANCE NO. 03-4443) - ADOPTED; ITEM 13 (ORDINANCE NO. 03-4444) - ADOPTED; ITEM 14 (ORDINANCE NO. 03-4445) - ADOPTED; ITEM 15 (ORDINANCE NO. 03-4446) ADOPTED; ITEM 16 (ORDINANCE NO. 03-4447) - ADOPTED; ITEM 17 (ORDINANCE NO. 03-4449) = ADOPTED; ITEM 18 (ORDINANCE NO. 03-4451) - ADOPTED; ITEM 19 (ORDINANCE NO. 03-4452) ADOPTED; ITEM 20 (ORDINANCE NO. 03-4483) - ADOPTED; AND ITEM 21 (ORDINANCE NO. 03-4484) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-B) CD 3:05 through 3:21 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 03R-1628, adopting a schedule of fees and charges for the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); said fees and charges are applicable to the issuance of tree removal permits and to the Replacement Tree Fund required by Article VII, Regulations of General Applicability; Division 3.1, Tree Protection, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), adopted as Ordinance No. 02-4401; etc., (Title Only) 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 03R-1635, adopting a schedule to process administrative amendments to the Comprehensive Plan [a/k/a Sarasota City Plan (1998) as more fully specified herein; authorizing City Staff to proceed in accordance with said schedule; etc., (Title Only). 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 03R-1636, appropriating $5,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of the Community Redevelopment Trust Fund to provide funding for legal fees for the Plaza at Five Points project. 4. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 03R-1637, indicating support for the Lido Beach Erosion Control project and ability to provide the necessary local fund match; setting forth findings; etc., (Title Only) 5. Adoption Re: : Proposed Resolution No. 03R-1638, appropriating $30,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of the General Fund to cover the funding gap created by the addition of alternatives for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Park (CIP Project #RP.46.0). 6. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 03R-1639, appropriating $10,980 from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund (110-070) to provide matching funds to be applied toward the 2003 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant. BOOK 54 Page 25952 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25953 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. 7. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 03R-1640, appropriating $1,000 from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund (110-070) to provide funds for a donation to support the Florida Missing Children's Ceremonies to be held in Tallahassee on September 8, 2003. 8. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 03R-1641, appropriating $10,000 from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund (110-070) to provide funds for a donation to support A Child is Missing Program. 9. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 03R-1645, appropriating $2,625 from the unappropriated fund balance of the Community Redevelopment Trust Fund to pay for services rendered by real estate research consultants in connection with the Sarasota Herald Tribune Tax Increment Revenue Analysis. 10. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 02-4401, amending the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) to set forth regulations for the protection of trees; setting forth findings as to intent and purpose; amending Article II, Definitions and Rules of Construction, Division 2, Definitions; Sec. II-201, Definitions, to define terms related to tree protection; amending Article VII, Regulations of General Applicability, to create a new Division 3.1, Tree Protection, containing: Sec. VII- 309, Administration and Purpose; Sec. VII-310, Prohibiting Removal of a Grand Tree; providing for exemptions; Sec. VII-311, Prohibiting the Sale, Purchase or Planting of Prohibited Trees; Sec. VII- 312, Protecting Trees During Development; Sec. VII- 313, Trees Abutting Public Property; Sec. VII-314, Trees Planted Within Utility Easements; Sec. VII-315, Suspension of these Regulations During Emergencies; Sec. VII-316, Requiring a Permit Prior to the Removal of Trees; Sec. VII-317, Licenses and Insurance Required; Sec. VII-318, Exempt Trees; Sec. VII-319, Procedures for the Issuance of Tree Removal Permits; Sec. VII-320, Criteria for the Issuance of Tree Removal Permits; Sec. VII-321, Procedures for Denial of Tree Removal Permits; Sec. VII-322, Conditions of Tree Removal Permits: Requirement for Replacement Trees or Payment of a Minimum Fee into a Replacement Tree Fund; Sec. VII-323, Revocation of Tree Removal Permits; Sec. VII-324, Schedule of Fees and Charges; Sec. VII-325, Fines for the Unlawful Removal of Trees; Sec. VII-326, Enforcement; Sec. VII-327, Removal of Damaged or Dead Trees; amending Article IV, Development Review Procedures; Division 6, Variances; Sec. IV-606, F, Standards for Review; enables the Board of Adjustment to grant variances as incentive for tree preservation; amending Article IV, Development Review Procedures; Division 7, Administrative Appeals; Sec. IV-702, C, Application/Notice of Appeal, Procedures for the Filing of Appeals to the Board of Adjustment; amending Article III, Decision Making and Administrative Bodies; Division 2, Planning Board; Sec. III-201, I, Powers and Duties; I, Review of Site Plans for Tree Protection and J, Tree Protection Agreements; setting forth transitional rules; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; etc., (Title Only). 11. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 03-4453, amending the Sarasota City Code by the repeal of Chapter 35, Vegetation; Article II, Tree Protection, consisting of the following sections : Sec. 35-21, Definitions; Sec. 35-22, Tree Removal-Permit Required; Sec. 35-23, Same- Exemptions; Sec. 35-24, Same-Permit Procedure; Sec. 35-25, Same -Criteria for Granting Permits; Sec. 35-26, Same-Permit Conditions; Sec. 35-27, Same-Revocation of Permits; Sec. 35-28, Same-Appeal; Sec. 35-29, Prohibited Trees; Sec. 35-30, Protection of Trees During Development; Sec. 35-31, Trees Abutting Public Property; and Sec. 35-32, Emergency Tree Removal; setting forth findings; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc., (Title Only) 12. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 03-4443, amending the Future Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sarasota [a/k/a the Sarasota City Plan (1998)] to allow secondary schools on properties classified on the Future Land Use Map as "Multiple Family-Moderate Density, "Multiple Family-Medium Density" and "Multiple Family-High Density" in accordance with Comprehensive Plan Amendment BOOK 54 Page 25954 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25955 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. Application No. 02-PA-09 as more fully specified herein; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; etc., (Title Only) 13. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 03-4444, amending the Recreation and Open Space Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sarasota [a/k/a the Sarasota City Plan (1998) to delete Action Strategies 1.2 and 1.4 and to add a new Objective No. 6 with ten new implementing action strategies providing that the City shall develop, maintain and improve upon its recreational system of parks, trails and open spaces by implementing the Parks + Connectivity Master Plan; to add a new map to be identified as Illustration R-6, Parks + Connectivity Master Plan; to revise Action Strategy 1.5 to reflect the completion of the Gulf Coast Heritage Trail System and to express support for its continuation; to add a new map delineating the Gulf Coast Heritage Trail System to the Recreation and Open Space support document to be identified as Illustration R-7; in accordance with City initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-05 as more fully specified herein; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; etc., (Title Only) 14. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 03-4445, amending the Future Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sarasota [a/k/a the Sarasota City Plan (1998)] to update the list of implementing zone districts for each of the Future Land Use Classifications to reflect the new zone districts that were adopted by Ordinance No. 02-4357 in accordance with City initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-06 as more fully specified herein; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; etc., (Title Only) 15. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 03-4446, amending the Future Land Use and Housing Chapters of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sarasota [a/k/a the Sarasota City Plan (1998)] to delete Action Strategies providing for the preparation of optional Public Safety and Design chapters in accordance with City initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-07 as more fully specified herein; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; etc., (Title Only) 16. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 03-4447 amending the Environmental Protection Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sarasota [a/k/a the Sarasota City Plan (1998)] to revise Action Strategy 3.4, "Shoreline Pedestrian Access" and Action Strategy 3.2, "Shorelines;" and also amending the Recreation and Open Space Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to revise Action Strategy 1.7, "Gulf and Bay Access in Non-Residential Development" in accordance with City initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-08 as more fully specified herein; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; etc., (Title Only) 17. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 03-4449 amending the Future Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sarasota [a/k/a the Sarasota City Plan (1998)] to create the Downtown Residential Overlay District which will allow potential dwelling unit density increases of up to 200 units per acre for residential multi-family developments within the Overlay District while retaining a maximum dwelling unit density of 50 units per acre for the entire Overlay District; in accordance with City initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 02-PA-11 as more fully specified herein; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; etc., (Title Only) 18. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 03-4451, amending the Future Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sarasota (a/k/a the Sarasota City Plan [1998]) to change the Future Land Use Classification of a 0.80+ acre parcel of vacant property located on the west side of Dearborn Avenue and having a street address of 3924, 3928, 3936 and 3944 Dearborn Avenue from the Sarasota County Future Land Use Map BOOK 54 Page 25956 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25957 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. Classification "Medium Density Residential" to the City of Sarasota "Community Commercial" Future Land Use Classification; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; etc, (Title Only) 19. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 03-4452, amending the Future Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sarasota (a/k/a the Sarasota City Plan [1998]) to change the Future Land Use Classification of a .49 acre parcel of property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Coconut Avenue and 10th Street from the "Community Office Institutional" Future Land Use Classification to the "Community Commercial" Future Land Use Classification in accordance with Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-01; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of the parts hereof; etc., (Title Only) 20. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 03-4483, conditionally vacating that certain westerly 7 feet of the 60 foot wide Lemon Avenue right-of-way between First Street and Second Street plus that certain easterly 12 feet of the westerly 19 feet of the 60 foot wide Lemon Avenue right-of-way between First Street and Second Street plus those certain portions of the 60 foot wide First Street right-of-way, the 60 foot wide Second Street right-of-way and the 60 foot wide Central Avenue right-of-way lying within 20 feet of the southerly, northerly and westerly boundary lines, respectively, of block 12, plat of Sarasota, all as is more particularly described herein; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for severability if any of the parts hereof are declared invalid; etc.. (Title Only) 21. Adoption Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 03-4484, providing for the rezoning of the parcel of real property more fully described herein located on the west side of Lemon Avenue between First Street and Second Street; from the Governmental" (G) Zone District to the "Commercial-Central Business District" (C-CBD) Zone District; approving Site Plan 03-SP-19 which has been proffered as a condition of this rezoning to permit the construction of a mixed use development including a 36,000 square foot grocery store, 26,344 square feet of street level retail space, 96 residential condominium units and a four level parking structure containing approximately 300 public parking spaces; providing for additional conditions of the rezoning and site plan approval as more particularly described herein; providing for severability of the parts hereof; etc., (Title Only) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos 03R-1628, 03R-1635, 03R-1637, and 03R-1638 and proposed Ordinance Nos. 02-4401, 03-4453, 03-4443, 03-4444, 03-4445, 03-4446, 03-4447, 03-4449, 03-4451, 03-4452, 03-4483, and 03-4484 by title only and proposed Resolution Nos. 03R-1636, 03R-1638, 03R-1639, 03R-1640, 03R-1641, and 03R-1645 in their entirety. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Martin, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1 through 21, inclusive. Mayor Palmer requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: SKATE PARK AND OPERATION PLAN - RECEIVED REPORT (AGENDA ITEM VI-1) CD 3:21 through 3:40 Duane Mountain, Supervisor of Maintenance and Service, Public Works Department, and Larry Hobbs, Risk Manager, came before the Commission. Mr. Mountain referred to the Draft Skate Park Work Plan displayed on the Chamber monitors indicating Staff or a volunteer will monitor the site during all hours of operation; and stated that the Commission requested an update on the Work and Operating Plan for the Payne Park Skate Park; that the material included in the Agenda backup material are drafts; that the plan is a work in progress; that helmets, knee and elbow pads will be required, which is prudent; that no bicycles will be allowed; that no food or drinks will be allowed within the skating area; that an adult BOOK 54 Page 25958 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25959 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. must accompany children under the age of ten; that younger children require more attention which Staff is not prepared to provide; that the age limit may change; that the park is closed if the skate surface is wet or if lightening occurs in the area; that a registration and waiver form must be completed before admission; that the City Attorney's Office is preparing the registration and waiver form. Mayor Palmer stated that a person under a certain age cannot waive liability; that two signatures sections should be in the registration and waiver form, including one for the young person to agree to obey the rules, and one for the attending adult. Mr. Mountain stated that the suggestion is good; that a representative of the City of North Port indicated the North Port Skate Park is seldom used before 12:00 noon; therefore, Staff set the hours of operation as follows: June 1 through August 31 12:00 noon to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday 12:00 noon to 7:00 p.m. Sundays September 1 through May 30 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Friday 12:00 noon to 9:00 p.m. Saturday Commissioner Servian stated that the skaters may want to be at the park earlier than 12:00 noon before the intense heat. Mr. Mountain stated that Staff will be flexible and can adjust the hours of operation if required. Commissioner Atkins asked the reason the park is closed at 9:00 p.m.? Mr. Mountain stated that no specific rationale existed except, as a parent, a 13 year old should be home by 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Atkins stated that adults will use the park; that 9:00 p.m. is early for some individuals. Mr. Mountain agreed; and stated that flexibility with the hours of operation is required; that the hours can be adjusted once a clientele is established; that nine months of operation will indicate the clientele and users; that in the fall the park will open at 3:00 p.m. and close at 7:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, as school will be in session. Vice Mayor Martin asked the reason for the late hour of opening on Sundays from September through May 30? Mr. Mountain stated the hours of operation on Sundays can be changed to 12:00 noon to 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if the park will be lighted? Mr. Mountain stated yes. Mayor Palmer stated that being flexible with the hours of operation is necessaryi that Staff will establish the times and subsequently adjust the times appropriately. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the recommendation is to allow no children under the age of ten in the park without an adult; that many skateboarders observed in the Downtown area are younger than ten years old; that the skaters under ten years old will continue to skate Downtown if not allowed in the park; that the age of eight is suggested. Mr. Mountain stated that determining the proper age limit is difficult. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the park should be inclusive for most skaters. City Manager McNees stated that an eight-year-old skating down Main Street is not under a parent's or the City's supervision; that an eight-year-old in a skate park with a supervisor on duty is under the supervision of the City which is a significant difference. Vice Mayor Martin stated that skating will continue on Main Street which is a problem and partly a reason for providing the skate park. City Manager McNees stated that having the skaters under the pseudo-supervision of a City employee is an improvement which is not suggested; that the concern is parents may turn skaters loose and have the City babysitting the skaters. BOOK 54 Page 25960 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25961 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. Mr. Mountain stated that a signed, notarized waiver must be executed if an adult does not accompany the skater; that the waiver can be signed on site if an adult accompanies the skater. Vice Mayor Martin asked if bicycles will be allowed in the park? Mr. Mountain stated that the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board will make a presentation at the next Regular Commission meeting regarding allowing bicycles in the park. Vice Mayor Martin asked if Staff has observed other parks to determine if allowing bicycles has positive or negative results? Mr. Mountain stated yes; that representatives of several parks have been contacted; that allowing bicycles in the park remains a mixed feeling; that the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board, will make a recommendation to the Commission. Commissioner Atkins asked if the City will allow parties in the skate park during or after hours? Mr. Mountain stated that a possibility exists to have parties in the skate park; that a fee may be imposed if the party is after hours; that allowing parties in the skate park is a good idea. Mayor Palmer stated that skate parties are a good idea as long as others are not eliminated from using the skate park. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the requirement for helmets and elbow and knee pads is good; however, pads for the palms of the hand are also suggested; that the age limit should be 12 or 13; that the hours of operation can be adjusted; and asked if skaters will have identification cards once the registration is completed? Mr. Mountain stated that children historically lose identification cards; that photographic identification will be maintained electronically. Commissioner Atkins stated that parents should have the ability to curtail some activities of children if desired; and asked if a parent can inform skate park Staff the child is not allowed to skate on a particular day in the event a parent decides a child is skating enough each week and wishes to eliminate two or three days of skating to allow for more study? Mr. Mountain stated that Staff will have a telephone on site allowing for inquiry regarding a skater's presence at the park; that parenting should be left up to the parents. Commissioner Servian stated that the concern is imposing many onerous rules and regulations prior to the opening of the skate park; that overkill should not occur; that the ten year old age limit is comfortable; that many skateboarders observed Downtown appear to be eight, nine, or ten years old; that the initial ten year old age limit is good; that the park will provide good, wholesome fun; that the park will not expose dangers to young children; that skateboarders of all ages should be encouraged to use the park; that the ability to electronically access a photograph is personally liked; that often children pretend to be somebody else; that being flexible with the hours of operation will be helpful; that during the initial stages of the operation, comment cards could be provided for the children and parents to indicate concerns, likes, desired changes, etc.; that Staff can report back to advise status after approximately three months of operation. Mayor Palmer stated that the Commission should be open-minded to provide Staff flexibility; that a reasonable age limit should be established; that micro-managing the operation of the park is not the intent; that the idea of a comment card is excellent; and asked the intended provisions for security? Mr. Mountain stated that a volunteer or Staff member will be at the park to monitor the site at all times; that a telephone is available to call for assistance; that the proximity of the park to the Police Department building is an advantage. Mayor Palmer asked the number of Port-0-Lets which will be placed in the park? Mr. Mountain stated that the Department of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement requires four, two for the handicapped and two for the non-handicapped. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if an individual must be 18 years old or over to sign a waiver? BOOK 54 Page 25962 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25963 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. Mr. Mountain stated that is correct; that an individual must be 18 years old or over to sign a waiver; that a parent or guardian must sign a waiver if the individual is under 18 years old. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to receive the Skate Park Work Plan report. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yesi Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE : CITY OF SARASOTA VERSUS VISIONAIR - DIRECTED THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ENGAGE CLYDE WILSON, ATTORNEY, LAW FIRM OF WILSON JAFFER, P.A., TO MOVE FORWARD WITH LITIGATION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST VISIONAIR (AGENDA ITEM VI-2) CD 3:40 through 4:12 Peter Abbott, Chief of Police, Gerald Lacertosa, Lieutenant, Sarasota Police Department (SPD), and Clyde Wilson, Attorney, law firm of Wilson Jaffer, P.A., came before the Commission. Commissioner Servian asked if potential litigation is typically discussed in an attorney-client, out-of-the sunshine meeting? City Attorney Taylor stated that litigation is not pending; that the purpose of attorney-client, out-of-the sunshine meetings is to report to the Commission regarding matters related to litigation; that an attorney-client, out-of-the sunshine meeting will be held. Mayor Palmer stated that prior to the meeting, advice was solicited from the City Attorney who indicated all matters are discussed in a public meeting until a lawsuit is filed, at which time an attorney-client, ut-of-the-sunshine meeting can be held. Chief Abbott stated that in 1999, the SPD engaged VisionAir to provide a technology software application to conduct studies of criminality, develop reports, inferences, and plan deployments; that the product did not perform according to expectations; that, thankfully, Lieutenant Lacertosa prepared a contract with a strong money back guarantee if the system did not perform satisfactorily; that the SPD is researching the advisability of pursuing action against VisionAir as $700,000 was invested in the system which is no longer used. Lieutenant Lacertosa stated that the SPD entered into an agreement with VisionAir in 1997 to obtain a complete package to allow report writing by computer from police vehicles; that currently a non-VisionAir system is installed in police vehicles and is working well; that at the time of purchase, the SPD required a total system to revamp the SPD's Records Management System to be Y2K compatible, produce a paperless reporting system, provide checks and balances, and ensure crimes are properly reported and credited; that the SPD and the City Attorney's Office negotiated a good contract on behalf of the City with a money back guarantee; that significant efforts were expended to make the system work; however, the system did not perform to the satisfaction of the SPD; that the crime statistics were not reliable; that the SPD had no confidence in the system; that VisionAir failed to meet implementation deadlines. Lieutenant Lacertosa continued that the SPD terminated the agreement with VisionAir in mid 2001 and attempted to invoke the money back guarantee; that VisionAir refused to refund the money; that Attorney Wilson has been working with the City Attorney's Office offering guidance, is in charge of his firm's national practice in computer, internet, and high technology litigation, has handled cases in technology controversies in over 40 states, the District of Columbia, and several foreign countries, and has been featured in articles on computer litigation in such national newspapers as The Wall Street Journal, The Christian Science Monitor, and local and regional newspapers; that Attorney Wilson's cases have been featured on television shows including 60 Minutes, 20-20, and Inside Edition; that the American Banker publication carried a cover story naming Attorney Wilson as one of two experts available to bankers dealing with the computer industry; that Attorney Wilson won an eight figure verdict setting a national record in computer related litigation in 1988, has written a book entitled "Winning Techniques for Computer and High Tech Litigation,' and is an expert in the technology field. Attorney Wilson stated that approximately 100 technology contracts have been negotiated; however, none of the contracts contained a money back guarantee; that the SPD and the City Attorney's Office deserve significant praise for the contract negotiation with VisionAir; that the best warranty clause for the user side was provided; that the contract provides a good basis for monetary recovery; that the City Attorney's Office indicated VisionAir did not argue the system did not have problems nor about the money back guarantee but rather tried to establish a waiver argument, which was interesting as on the one hand VisionAir indicated the cancellation was premature before BOOK 54 Page 25964 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25965 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. VisionAir could fix the software and subsequently indicated the cancellation was too late as the City continued to pay for the system and allow VisionAir to work; that VisionAir's suggestion is the City acted too soon and also acted too late and is therefore precluded from any claim; that the possible success of the argument is not known. Attorney Wilson referred to his July 15, 2003, due diligence letter to the City Manager included in the Agenda backup material; and stated that the letter was prepared with the knowledge the letter would be a matter of public record; that a delightful finding is VisionAir appears financially strong, allowing an ability to collect; that publications indicate VisionAir general revenues were $24 million in 1999, over $19 million in 2000, and over $19 million in 2001; that other police departments are having similar problems with VisionAir. Attorney Wilson referred to a December 2002 article entitled "Law and Orders" in the Business North Caroline magazine; and stated that finding the article was delightful; that the article indicates VisionAir hired a new Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Dan Crawford, in May 2002 as the company was going in the wrong direction; that the new CEO fired the existing management team and brought in his Own management team; that the new CEO made some interesting admissions about the company's operations in the December 2002 article and quoted the article as follows: In May the company brought in a new CEO, Dan Crawford, to take it back to public safety roots. He's candid about the wrong route that the company took. Our customers were feeling a bit neglected, Crawford admits. Rightfully SO. We did less than a stellar job of delivering to their expectation in the past two or three years. Attorney Wilson stated that VisionAir performed less than a stellar job for the City; that one of VisionAir's problems was significant personnel turnover; that the City has a strong contract and an expenditure of approximately $730,000 which is otherwise non-recoupable; that the alternative is to walk away from the $730,000 expenditure; that the belief is the City would be well served to bring litigation; that he has volunteered to reduce his hourly rate dramatically for the case; that his normal hourly rate in technology cases is $375 per hour; that an agreement has been reached to represent the City at $250 per hour to make the representation palatable; that the understanding is attorneys' fees are of concern to the Commission at the moment; that the concern has been addressed in the best known manner. Attorney Wilson continued that the contract between VisionAir and the City has a one-way attorneys' fee clause indicating the City will collect if successful but VisionAir will not collect if successful in a lawsuit; that cases in the State have determined a one-way attorneys' fee clause is not possible and becomes a two-way attorneys' fee clause; that attorneys' fees over and above any recovery generated can be collected; therefore, reimbursement of attorneys' fees should be possible if the City wins the lawsuit. City Attorney Taylor asked if recovery is considered collectable? Attorney Wilson stated yes; that his law firm was requested to do a limited due diligence was and placed on a budget; that the budget was exceeded; that the difference between the budget and actual expenditures was absorbed by his law firm; that everything planned for litigation has not been accomplished due to the limited budget; that the Commission can indicate no further action should be taken at any time; that VisionAir claims the City has not paid all the fees due, which is not a good strategical assertion but is theoretically possible; that nevertheless, the Commission could determine any litigation is becoming too much of a burden, settle the case, and move on. Mayor Palmer asked the process, the time frame, and the projected outcome? Attorney Wilson stated that litigation is difficult to predict, unlike drawing a will; that a lawsuit would be filed against VisionAir; that shortly after filing the lawsuit, contact would be made to open settlement discussions; that the hope is the new direction of the new CEO would result in VisionAir's desire to enter into a good settlement; that the possibility of a settlement would be opened early and pursued early; that some pleading fights can be anticipated; that discovery would occur; that a significant number of depositions of City Staff is not anticipated; that the expectation is the case would not go to trial. Mayor Palmer asked the status of the current SPD communication system and equipment? BOOK 54 Page 25966 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25967 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. Chief Abbott stated that a new system has been in place for approximately two years and is working well. Commissioner Servian stated that she previously worked for a large software development firm which designed and installed systems in banks; therefore, the other side of defending a position is understood; that the quote from the new CEO of VisionAir could be argued as an admission of less than stellar performance and an indication of a return to the company's roots; that relying on the indications in a magazine article as the basis of a lawsuit is an uncertainty; and asked if the letters sent in 2001 by the City to VisionAir referenced in Attorney Wilson's letter dated July 15, 2003, were sent with the approval of the City Attorney's Office? City Attorney Taylor stated that no personal recollection exists regarding approval of the letters. Lieutenant Lacertosa stated that the original June 14, 2001, letter from former Police Chief Gordon Jolly terminating the relationship was not approved by the City Attorney's Office; that the second November 9, 2001, letter from City Manager McNees was prepared by the City Attorney's Office. Lieutenant Lacertosa continued that VisionAir promised a new release of software which was never received; that in July 1999, the former CEO of VisionAir promised a new release version would be delivered in October 1999; that the release had not yet been received by the year 2000; that the City notified VisionAir of the intent to discontinue use of the VisionAir software and terminate the relationship with VisionAir in June 2001; that subsequently, VisionAir proposed to install an update to the system; that the City Manager then notified VisionAir of the intent to terminate the contract in November 2001. Commissioner Servian stated that the two letters are a concern and asked if any problems are envisioned? Attorney Wilson stated that VisionAir may make an argument concerning the City's termination of the contract; that the June 2001 letter did not, in his opinion, violate the contract; that if an error occurred, the error is a harmless error as VisionAir attempted to install new releases at other locations but the new releases did not work; that the new release would not have worked at the City even if the City had waited for VisionAir to install a new release; that the previous CEO of VisionAir was fired in September 2001; that the June 2001 letter is not a major concern. Mayor Palmer stated that the SPD went back to using the Legacy equipment a long time ago and has not used the VisionAir equipment for quite a while. Chief Abbott stated that is correct. Commi ssioner Servian asked if any municipalities using the VisionAir system are happy with the system and if a copy of Attorney Wilson's resume could be obtained? Attorney Wilson distributed copies of the following: his professional resume his book entitled "Winning Techniques for Computer and High Tech Litigation, . the December 2002 Business North Carolina article entitled "Law and Orders. I Attorney Wilson stated that the article in the Business North Carolina is interesting; that complete reliance cannot be placed in the statements included in the article; however, the new CEO of VisionAir indicated a concern regarding neglect of customers, which would certainly appear as an admission against the interests of VisionAir; that VisionAir has been sued by the City of Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Sumpter County, South Carolina, regarding the same system; that information concerning other lawsuits will be learned in the discovery process. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if the situation would warrant a class action suit? Attorney Wilson stated that the type of case does not lend itself to a class action suit, particularly as the City likely has a better contract than anybody else; that VisionAir may be tempted to settle with the City due to the contract to avoid any bad publicity; that he has been involved in cases in which purchasers of software use the same attorneys; that assuming no conflict of interest, depositions can sometimes be used in several different cases or discovery can be exchanged; that the attorney involved in the Grand Rapids, Michigan, lawsuit will be contacted; that contact has been made with the attorney handling the South Carolina case; that information can be exchanged, saving time and money. BOOK 54 Page 25968 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25969 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that $730,000 could provide for ten police officers. Lieutenant Lacertosa stated that other agencies are using the VisionAir system; that the other agencies have a significant amount of frustration with the system; that no one is really satisfied with the system; however, a number of other agencies do not have the funding available to go to another source; that the City is fortunate in having a good Management Information Systems Staff which recommended keeping the older system in case the VisionAir system was not satisfactory; therefore, the City was able to terminate the partnership with VisionAir and go back to an older system which has subsequently been revamped. Vice Mayor Martin asked if the new CEO of VisionAir could be contacted to determine if a settlement is possible? Attorney Wilson stated that the attorney representing the City would be ethically required to deal with the attorney representing VisionAir if VisionAir has an attorney involved; that beginning settlement negotiations quickly before filing a suit is a concern as VisionAir could file suit in North Carolina and the City would be required to litigate in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, which would be extremely expensive compared to litigating in Florida; that any suit should be filed soon. Mayor Palmer asked the recommendation of the City Attorney's Office? City Attorney Taylor stated that the City's claim should be pursued; that the Administration also recommends pursuing a claim. On motion of Commissioner Bilyeu and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to engage Clyde Wilson, Attorney, law firm of Wilson Jaffer, P.A., to move forward with litigation proceedings against VisionAir. Commissioner Atkins stated that the situation should be closely monitored; that if not closely monitored, the situation could get out of control and the City could be facing a significant problem in two or three years in terms of litigation expensesi that supporting the action initially is a concern; that the Commission should be clear regarding the expectation of being kept informed at every stage and the monetary commitment required at every stage of the process; that supporting this action is not really desired. Commissioner Servian stated that she is also very concerned about the litigation costs the City has incurred over the last few years and has vocally opposed some of the expenditures; that an attorney-client, out-of-the-sunshine meeting should be scheduled quickly to establish initial disbursements if the motion passes; that frequent updates are desired sO the Commission is aware of exactly the status and the amount of the expenditures; that extreme caution regarding additional expenditures should be exercised as VisionAir is making $19 to $20 million a year and could sit back and let the case take as long as possible; that VisionAir may not want to settle and may want to drag the case out and force the City to withdraw, which is a significant concern; that the motion will be supported if the case can be closely monitored. Attorney Wilson stated that he is a life-long citizen of Sarasota; that bad publicity concerning the issue of attorneys' fees is not desired; that the intent is to assure no one is embarrassed by attorneys' fees. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that knowing Attorney Wilson is one of the main reasons for making the motion. Mayor Palmer stated that Attorney Wilson's resume is impeccable in his field; that Attorney Wilson will provide excellent legal representation for the City; that the City cannot just throw $730,000 away due to costs involving other litigation; that obviously, the City will closely monitor the costs; that an attorney-client, out-of-the-sunshine meeting will be scheduled as soon as appropriate to discuss the details; that the City should move forward with the lawsuit as considerably more expense will be involved if a lawsuit is filed elsewhere; that litigating in North Carolina is not desired. Mayor Palmer restated the motion as to direct the City Attorney to engage Clyde Wilson, Attorney, law firm of Wilson Jaffer, P.A., to move forward with litigation proceedings against VisionAir and called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yesi Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Servian, yesi Palmer, yes. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: : AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE AMENDMENT TO THE LANDSCAPING FUND AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND BOOK 54 Page 25970 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25971 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. PCL CIVIL CONSTRUCTORS, INC., RELATIVE TO LANDSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS TO THE NEW JOHN RINGLING CAUSEWAY BRIDGE APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VI-3) CD 4:12 through 4:26 William Hallisey, Director of Public Works, and Duane Mountain, Supervisor of Maintenance and Service, Public Works Department, came before the Commission. Mr. Hallisey stated that the Amendment to the Landscaping Fund Agreement between the City and PCL Civil Constructors, Inc. (PCL), is proposed for cost efficiency and effective construction of landscape improvements to medians, landscape, and park areas at the new John Ringling Causeway Bridge; that PCL has performed work for the City in the past under a contract to relocate waterlines on Tony Saprito Pier; that PCL's work on the project was satisfactory; that PCL is currently mobilized in the area; that not being required to coordinate a separate contractor with the work PCL is currently performing on the new John Ringling Causeway Bridge results in efficiencies; that having a portion of the work performed by a separate contractor would require closing some traffic lanes of the new John Ringling Causeway Bridge, causing traffic delays; that the proposed Amendment is timely; that PCL proposes a competitive cost for the work; that Staff reviewed the specifics of the proposed work; that another contract to complete all the landscaping will be presented subsequent to the removal of the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge. Mayor Palmer stated that prior to the meeting, the Administration was requested to investigate and provide a report concerning removal of the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge, which should be considered prior to finalizing the proposed Amendment; that many requests have been received from members of the community regarding the retention of the east portion of the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge for a fishing pier. City Manager McNees distributed copies of the minutes concerning Agenda Item VII-3 regarding the use of the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge from the November 6, 2000, Regular Commission meeting; and stated the issue arises every three or four yearsi that at the November 6, 2000, Regular Commission meeting, Staff referred back to the minutes of the February 5, 1996, Regular Commission meeting; that the same information was provided at both meetings as follows: the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge has some serious structural deficiencies requiring correction as a retrofit, reconstruction, or maintenance issue; estimates to maintain the bridge were high; - little support from the community was demonstrated; navigational issues existed; and the retained portion of the John Ringling Causeway Bridge will not be aesthetically compatible with the new bridge. City Manager McNees stated that at the previous two meetings, the Commission decided not to retain a portion of the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge; that Staff's recommendation is to take no further action at this time. Mayor Palmer stated that maintaining, retaining, and repairing a portion of the existing Ringling Causeway Bridge for a fishing pier will probably be expensive; and asked if cost estimates have been prepared? City Manager McNees stated no; that Staff has no specific cost estimates; that estimates were apparently developed in 1996 or 1999; that Staff has not seen any current estimates; that funds for maintaining a fishing pier are not included the City's Capital Improvement Program. Mayor Palmer stated that two County Commissioners recently expressed an interest in developing a recreational facility at the John Ringling Causeway Bridge site. City Manager McNees stated that the understanding is Staff does not have any. financial information concerning retention of a portion of the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge. Commissioner Atkins stated that not retaining a portion of the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge for a fishing pier is a concerni that more specific information is desired; that ensuring the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge is safe for pedestrian traffic is important; that other bridges such as the Green Bridge in Palmetto, Florida and the Skyway Bridge in Tampa, Florida were in disrepair and yet survived as fishing piers at the time replacement bridges were constructed; and asked how the existing BOOK 54 Page 25972 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25973 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. John Ringling Causeway Bridge can be used for vehicular traffic if in such terrible shape? Mayor Palmer stated that a report regarding financial information, structural issues, etc., was requested. City Manager McNees stated that the requested report cannot be provided quickly. Mayor Palmer stated that the understanding is estimates were prepared and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) previously provided the information to the City. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the information included in the Agenda backup material from the previous two Commission meetings can be researched. Commissioner Servian stated that the FDOT must have funds allocated for the demolition of the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge; that the funds set aside for the Gandy Bridge in Tampa, Florida were significant; that FDOT's willingness to provide the City a portion of the demolition funds to restore the eastern portion of the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge for a fishing pier is not known; that an answer cannot be received in one or two days; however, time is of the essence as construction of the new John Ringling Causeway Bridge nears completion; that interest as to the reason for demolishing the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge is being raised as completion of construction becomes closer. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that part of PCL's contract with FDOT includes demolition of the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge. Mayor Palmer stated that sufficient information concerning the possible retention of a portion of the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge is not currently available; that the timeframe is advancing; and asked the Commission's general consensus? Vice Mayor Martin stated that the feasibility retention of a portion of the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge should be determined; that he is not convinced retention is not feasible. Commissioner Servian agreed; and stated that many historical features are being lost in the City; that the possible retention of a portion of the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge for a fishing pier is an opportunity which should be explored; that the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge will not be demolished for five or six months. City Manager McNees stated that the demolition of the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge will commence in approximately six weeks. Commissioner Servian stated that the understanding is demolition of the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge will commence in December 2003. Mayor Palmer stated that the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge cannot be demolished in six weeks as the new John Ringling Causeway Bridge will not be open. Commissioner Servian stated that the new John Ringling Causeway Bridge will not be open until mid-September 2003. Mayor Palmer stated that preliminary information is required; that the community and the Commission are asking for information. City Manager McNees stated that action other than preparing estimates is required; that immediate and drastic intervention with the FDOT would be required; that PCL indicated demolition of the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge will commence the instant traffic can be diverted to the new John Ringling Causeway Bridge; that total demolition of the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge will not occur in one day; however, time must be made up to meet construction deadlines; that demolishing the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge will be a priority to make up for lost time; that immediate contact with the FDOT is necessary to determine the feasibility of retaining a portion of the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge. Mayor Palmer stated that the Commission is requesting the necessary agency or entity be contacted to determine the feasibility as a strong interest exists in the community to retain the eastern portion of the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge for a fishing pier; that opposition may exist but has not been heard; that many in the community support retaining a portion of the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge; that public discussion has not occurred; however, information is required. Commissioner Atkins stated that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson can research the information provided the Commission in previous BOOK 54 Page 25974 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25975 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. Commission meetings; that FDOT can be contacted for information; that a Special Commission meeting is scheduled for August 8, 2003, at which time discussion regarding the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge can continue. Mayor Palmer stated that expending significant Staff time is not desired; that the ability to receive the information by August 8, 2003, is not known. City Manager McNees stated that the date of commencement of demolition of the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge, i.e., in less than six weeks or in six months, can hopefully be determined. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Martin, it was moved to extend the meeting to compete the remaining items on the Agenda. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yesi Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. Mr. Mountain referred to drawings of the proposed landscaping at the John Ringling Causeway Bridge displayed on the Chamber monitors and stated that the proposed Amendment is to complete the landscaping in the eastern median and plant palm trees along the northern edge of the new John Ringling Causeway Drive; that the remainder of the work is grading, constructing the Tony Saprito Pier parking lot under the new John Ringling Causeway Bridge, and constructing the sidewalk system; that the remaining items are the responsibility of FDOT and will be performed in the same timeframe; that work on the west side of the new John Ringling Causeway Bridge will be the same; that the proposed Amendment provides for performing all the sidewalk work, constructing all the hardscape, and reconstructing the western end of the Bird Key parking lot; that the eastern end of the Bird Key parking lot was destroyed during construction by PCL, which will be required to reconstruct the area; that simultaneously replacing the Bird Key parking lot will result in a cohesive work effort; that the proposed Amendment is uncomplicated and will speed up the work; that Staff will present another contract with PCL to the Commission as FDOT has determined the existing seawall around the west end of the pier abutment is no longer necessary; that FDOT intended to replace the seawall with riprap which removes the park users' access to the water; that Staff requested FDOT replace the seawall and pay for the work; that FDOT agreed to pay for reconstruction of the seawall with the condition the City perform the on-going maintenance; that $600,000 of work includes work at end of the John Ringling Causeway Bridge and also work on the caps of the seawall; that Staff will report back with another agreement for a contract with PCL; that the requested work is landscaping, concrete work, etc., which will be completed while PCL is working on other construction in the area. Mayor Palmer asked if any portion of the proposed Amendment would be a problem if a resolution is reached regarding retention of a portion of the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge? Mr. Hallisey stated that the proposed Amendment is a unit price contract which could be impacted if the reconfiguration of the parking under the eastern end of the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge is changed; that as the proposed Amendment is a unit price contract, decisions can be reached in the future; that constructing the parking lot will not be the first component of the project; that PCL and Staff can prepare a cost estimate if the eastern end of the existing John Ringling Causeway Bridge is retained. Vice Mayor Martin asked if Bird Key Park will only be repaved and not curbed? Mr. Mountain stated that is correct; that Bird Key Park will be repaved, painted, and upgraded. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the concern of the windsurfers is beach access and staging; and asked if the landscaping will be designed to facilitate continued use by the windsurfers? Mr. Mountain stated that access is not addressed in the proposed Amendment but will be in a future contract. Vice Mayor Martin asked the placement of the 22 palm tree planters? Mr. Mountain stated that the palm tree planters will be placed on the eastern edge of the John Ringling Causeway Bridge; that the planters are pieces of concrete culvert; that the palm trees must be planted in planters as the grade is steep. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Martin, it was moved to authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Amendment to the Landscaping Fund Agreement between the City of Sarasota and PCL Civil Constructors, Inc., relative to landscape enhancements to the John Ringling Causeway BOOK 54 Page 25976 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25977 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. Bridge. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND FLORIDA FOOD & ENTERTAINMENT, INC. (RFP#03-51M), TO OPERATE THE CONCESSION AT THE BOBBY JONES GOLF COMPLEX CONCESSION FOR A FIVE (5) YEAR PERIOD WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW FOR TWO (2) ADDITIONAL FIVE (5) YEAR TERMS - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VI -4) CD 4:26 through 4:40 Raymond Grady, Manager, Bobby Jones Golf Complex, and Michael Connolly, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission. Commissioner Servian stated that the Item was pulled from Consent Agenda No. 1 as evaluating the Bobby Jones Golf Complex (BJGC) was discussed at the July 16, 2003, Commission Workshop concerning the budget; that a workshop will be scheduled at some time to determine if the City will maintain the entire BJGC; that contracting with an outside organization to manage the golf courses and pay the City a fee may be considered; that many options are available; that entering into a contract with a concessionaire for five years with the option for two additional five year terms is a concern; that five years is a long time for a concessionaire; that a five year contract is not supported; and asked if an alternative for a shorter term contract of two years with a renewal is possible? Mr. Grady stated that he has been involved with concessionaire contracts for approximately 15 years; that BJGC has had five tenants since 1988; that the restaurant was leased to an outside contractor for the first time in November 1988; that he has been involved with all subsequent agreements with concessionaires; that the City originally arranged for five year contracts with renewals contingent upon acceptance of both parties; that five years was chosen for the term of the contract as substantial capital improvement investments are made by the concessionaires, who then require time to recoup the investment; that one to three years is too short a time to recoup the investment. Commissioner Servian asked the type of capital improvements Florida Food and Entertainment will install? Mr. Grady stated that Florida Food and Entertainment made suggestions in the proposal submitted to the City; that the actual capital improvements will be determined through the contract negotiations with the City; that a clause in the contract provides for no fault termination of the contract with six months' notice; that the City Attorney's Office prepared the original concessionaire contract and all subsequent amendments which have served the City well; that the concessionaire contract can be terminated by either party with no fault prior to the expiration date with six months' notice; that for example, the current concessionaire was given a six month notice of termination of the contract in February 2003; that the termination is to become effective August 28, 2003; that neither party is to blame. Commissioner Servian asked the difference between two and five years if a contract can be canceled without cause? City Manager McNees stated that the City is not obligated to re- bid the concession for five years if the concession is successful; that the contract can be terminated if the concession is not successful. Commissioner Servian stated that the contract was not provided to the Commission for review; therefore, the six month no-fault notice provision was not known; that the City is being asked to negotiate a contract; that sufficient alternatives to terminate the contract should be provided, particularly if other options for BJGC will be pursued after the Commission Workshop. Attorney Connolly stated that the language in the existing contract providing for no-fault termination by either party with six months' notice will be included in the contract with the new concessionaire. Mayor Palmer stated that including a summary of a contract in the Agenda backup material in the future would be helpful and appreciated. Commissioner Atkins asked the reason a new concessionaire would stay if BJGC has had five concessionaires in the past? Mr. Grady stated that BJGC has had five concessionaires in 15 years; that a good proposal was received from the selected concessionaire; that five good proposals were submitted; that one previous concessionaire was a tenant in the restaurant for seven years; that the problems have not been due to a lack of support BOOK 54 Page 25978 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25979 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. from the golfers or the local community; that contracts have been terminated for not abiding by contractual provisions or violations of accounting practices or State law; that none of the tenants voluntarily left; that the tenants would not have wanted to remain if the concession were not successful; that turnover has not been due to a lack of revenue. On motion of Commissioner Bilyeu and second of Vice Mayor Martin, it was moved to enter into negotiations for a five year contract with Florida Food and Entertainment, Inc., and that the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk be authorized to execute same. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if the termination clause will be included in the contract? Attorney Connolly stated yes. Mayor Palmer called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yesi Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. 11. ADDITIONAL CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM VII) CD 4:40 There was no one signed up to speak. The Commission recessed at 4:40 p.m. and reconvened at 6:00 p.m. 12. COMMISSION PRESENTATION RE : EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JULY 2003, LEONARD J. SCHERRY (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) CD 6:00 through 6:03 Mayor Palmer requested that City Manager McNees introduce the Employee of the Month for July 2003. City Manager McNees stated that recognizing each month a City employee as employee of the month is a pleasure; that the award is significant; that the Engineering Department consists of high quality people which is reflected in the quality of work produced by the City Engineer; and requested that Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, and Leonard Scherry, Engineering Technician V, Engineering Department and Employee of the Month for July 2003, join him and the Commission at the Commission table. Mr. Daughters stated that Mr. Scherry began his career in the Public Works Department in 1995, transferred to the Engineering Department in 1998, was promoted to Engineering Technician IV one and one half years later and was again promoted to Engineering Technician V two and one half years later; that a major part of Mr. Scherry's responsibilities involve reviewing plans for new projects; that a July 25, 2003, letter in support of Mr. Scherry's work was received from Gregory Cogan, Contractor's Services, Inc., expressing appreciation for the dedication and high quality service provided by Mr. Scherryi that the letter indicates the service provided by Mr. Scherry far exceeded service normally received from most governmental departments in other cities. Mr. Daughters continued that Mr. Scherry spent is a member of the military reserves and three months protecting the port in Miami in 2001, immediately following the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, on the United States and was called up for the service for the Iraq conflict, serving for over three months earlier in 2003; that Mr. Scherry was sorely missed by everyone in the Department; that upon his return, Mr. Scherry became immediately involved and followed projects through to completion; that the Engineering Department considers Mr. Scherry a valuable asset and member of the Engineering team; and recognized the Engineering Department employees present in the Chamber audience. Mayor Palmer stated that the efforts of Mr. Scherry and the entire Engineering Staff are appreciated; that Mr. Scherry has performed an incredible job; that Mr. Scherry truly serves the Engineering Department and the City with excellence and pride, presented Mr. Scherry with a City-logo watch, a plaque, and a certificate as the Employee of the Month in appreciation of his unique performance with the City of Sarasota; congratulated him for his outstanding efforts; and requested the audience provide a round of applause for Mr. Scherry and the Staff of the Engineering Department present in the audience. Mr. Scherry thanked the Commission; stated that his success is due to the assistance of Engineering Staff and family support; and recognized his daughter Vada Marie in the audience. Mayor Palmer stated that the efforts of the entire Engineering Staff are appreciated; and recognized Staff of the Engineering Department present in the Chamber audience. BOOK 54 Page 25980 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25981 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. 13. COMMISSION PRESENTATION RE: RECOGNITION OF AWARD PRESENTED BY SISTER CITIES INTERNATIONAL ON JULY 25, 2003, IN ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HONORING THE SARASOTA SISTER CITIES ASSOCIATION FOR BEST OVERALL PROGRAM (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) CD 6:03 through 6:06 Mayor Palmer stated that the presentation is in recognition of the award presented by Sister Cities International on July 25, 2003, in St. Louis, Missouri, honoring the Sarasota Sister Cities Association for the Best Overall Program. Linda Rosenbluth, President, David Plaskett, Treasurer and Betty Plaskett, Grants Chairman, Sarasota Sister Cities Association, came before the Commission. Ms. Rosenbluth stated that presenting the award to the City on behalf of the Sarasota Sister Cities Association is pleasing; that the award represents the Best Overall Program throughout the Country; that 20 awards are given by Sister Cities International; that the Sarasota Sister Cities Association received the award for Best Overall Program in a city with a population of up to 300,000; that the award was given at a special luncheon; and distributed the Sister Cities International 2003 Annual Awards Program booklet to the Commission. Ms. Rosenbluth stated that the Sister Cities International Delegation visited the City in October 2002 and attended the kickoff of the City's 100th Year Anniversary Celebration on October 14, 2002; that on October 14, 2002, the Cities of Sarasota and Dunfermline, Scotland, signed a Sister Cities Agreement, which was an exciting event; that the support provided by the Commission is appreciated. Mayor Palmer stated that the efforts of Ms. Rosenbluth and the entire Sarasota Sister Cities Association is appreciated; that the visit from the Sister Cities International Delegation during the kickoff of the City's 100th Year Anniversary Celebration on October 14, 2002, was an incredible event; that an entire week was spent with the Sister Cities International Delegation; that the Commission had fabulous experiences with delegates from all over the world; that the event was personally heartwarming; that the commitment and fabulous work performed by the Sarasota Sister Cities Association is appreciated. 14. COMMISSION PRESENTATION: : ADOPTION RE: MEMORIAL RESOLUTION NO. 03R-1642, RECOGNIZING THE PASSING OF WILLIAM MORRIS HEREFORD, FORMER CITY OF SARASOTA MUNICIPAL JUDGE, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, CIVIC LEADER AND CITIZEN OF THE COMMUNITY - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) CD 6:06 through 6:10 Mayor Palmer requested that the Carolyn Hereford, wife of William Morris Hereford join her and the Commission at the Commission table for the presentation. Mayor Palmer stated that Memorial Resolution No. 03R-1642 recognizes the passing of William "Bill" Morris Hereford; that many people knew Mr. Hereford; that Carolyn Hereford is employed with the City in the City Manager's Office; that Mr. and Mrs. Hereford were a marvelous couple and have been committed and devoted to each other for many years; that the loss is unfortunate; that the Commission's thoughts and prayers are with Mrs. Hereford; and read Memorial Resolution No. 03R-1642 in its entirety. Mayor Palmer continued that Mr. Hereford was an attorney in Sarasota for 40 years, a judge in Small Claims Court and Sarasota Municipal Court, a legal studies instructor, and a licensed mediator and arbitrator; that Mr. Hereford was President of the Sarasota Community Blood Bank and Suncoast Sertoma, Vice Chairman and Director of the Easter Seal Society, a founding Director of the Sarasota Tiger Bay Club, Director of the Sarasota Jaycees, and Member of the Sarasota County Hospital Board as well as being a member and on the vestry of the Church of the Redeemer-tpiscopalr that Mr. Hereford's death is a distinct loss to all of the citizens in the community; that Mr. Hereford will be truly missed by everyone. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to adopt Memorial Resolution No. 03R-1642. Mayor Palmer requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes, Servian, yes; Atkins, yes. Mayor Palmer presented Memorial Resolution No. 03R-1642 to Mrs. Hereford and stated that presenting the plaque is difficult; that the dedication to the community by Mr. and Mrs. Hereford for sO many years is appreciated by everyone. BOOK 54 Page 25982 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25983 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. Mrs. Hereford stated that the recognition honoring her husband is appreciated. Mayor Palmer requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing sign-up process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that all persons wishing to speak at the public hearings are requested to complete a Request to Speak form; that speakers at the non quasi-judicial public hearings will have five minutes to speak; that speakers will be timed and will be advised when one minute remains; and repeated for the benefit of those present in the Chambers the Pledge of Public Conduct as adopted by the Commission as follows: We may disagree, but we will be respectful to one another. We will direct all comments to issues. We will avoid personal attacks. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. Mayor Palmer recognized John Matosky and Eagle Scout candidates from Sarasota Troop 23 present in the audience as part of the Eagle Scout badge requirement process; requested the Eagle Scouts stand and be recognized; and stated that having the Eagle Scouts present in the Chamber audience is pleasing; that the hope is young people attending Commission meetings may aspire to political careers. 15. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE : 2003 BUREAU OF JUSTICE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT = (AGENDA ITEM X- A-1) CD 6:12 through 6:21 Mayor Palmer opened the public hearing; and stated that the public hearing concerns the Bureau of Justice Assistance 2003 Local Law Entorcement Block Grant. Peter Abbott, Chief of Police, and Gerard Lacertosa, Lieutenant, Sarasota Police Department (SPD), came before the Commission. Chief Abbott stated that the Bureau of Justice Assistance has determined the City is eligible for the 2003 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant award amount of $109,796; that the City will contribute $10,980 in a match amount making, the total award $120,776; that Lieutenant Lacertosa is responsible for writing the application for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant. Lieutenant Lacertosa stated that funds received from the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant have traditionally been utilized toward the Program of Sarasota Court Watch, Inc. (Sarasota Court Watch), Drug Court, the Weed and Seed Program, technology for specialized equipment within the SPD, and specialized Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) equipment; that the Bureau of Justice Assistance requires at least one public hearing be held regarding the proposed use of the grant funds to encourage public attendance and participation; that the application period opened August 4, 2003, and closes August 28, 2003; that the only request for funding thus far is from Sarasota Court Watch which will be honored; that allocation of funding to other sources has not yet been determined. Commissioner Servian asked the amount funded to Sarasota Court Watch? Chief Abbott stated that the exact amount is not known at this time; that funding will be consistent with the allocation percentage made in 2002; that commitments for funding are allocated by percentage rather than by a specific amount since the amount of the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant could increase or decrease. Mayor Palmer recognized Bob Brachle and the other Sarasota Court Watch volunteers present in the Chamber audience. Commissioner Atkins asked the 2002 recipients of the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant? Chief Abbott stated that a list is not available at this time but will be provided to the Commission. The following person came before the Commission: Linda Holland, President, Sarasota Court Watch, Inc. 617 Gillespie Avenue (34236), stated that notes were prepared to provide the Commission with reasons Sarasota Court Watch, Inc. should receive an allocation from the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant; that Sarasota Court Watch will be receiving an allocation which is pleasing; that appreciation is extended to the SPD; that Sarasota Court Watch works closely with the SPD; that thanks are extended to everyone who attended the Court Watch Partnership BOOK 54 Page 25984 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25985 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. Conference on July 25, 2003; that the proclamation given at the conference was appreciated; that representatives from Gainesville, Tallahassee, St. Petersburg, West Palm Beach, and Fort Pierce, Florida, have Court Watch type programs and participated in the conference; that representatives from Chattanooga, Tennessee, have initiated a Court Watch program and participated in the conference; that thanks are extended to the Commission for continued support and participation; that the Sarasota Court Watch program is excellence and keeps the community safe; that everyone attending the conference recognized the importance of having a Court Watch program; that thanks are extended to Chief Abbott and the SPD for continued support. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Palmer closed the public hearing. 16. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 03-4462, AMENDING CHAPTER 18, HUMAN RELATIONS OF THE SARASOTA CITY CODE TO IMPLEMENT ARTICLE I, SECTION 5, OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA PROHIBITING DIS SCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF AGE, COLOR, DISABILITY, GENDER, MARITAL STATUS, NATIONAL ORIGIN, RACE, RELIGION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR VETERANS STATUS IN THE AREAS OF HOUSING, EMPLOYMENT AND PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION. ; TO PROVIDE FOR A DECLARATION OF POLICY; TO PROVIDE FOR DEFINITIONS ; TO CREATE A HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD AND TO PROVIDE FOR ITS COMPOSITION, FUNCTION AND JURISDICTION; ; TO SET FORTH THOSE ACTS WHICH CONSTITUTE UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES; TO PROVIDE FOR EXCEPTIONS THERETO; TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION IN THE SALE OR RENTAL OF HOUSING; TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION IN THE PROVISION OF BROKERAGE SERVICES; TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION IN THE FINANCING OF HOUSING OR IN RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS; : TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION IN LAND USE DECISIONS AND IN PERMITTING OF DEVELOPMENT ; TO PROVIDE FOR EXEMPTIONS ; TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION IN THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS ; TO PROVIDE FOR EXEMPTIONS; TO ADOPT THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990, THE REGULATIONS ADOPTED THEREUNDER AND THE FLORIDA AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACCESSIBILITY IMPLEMENTATION ACT BY REFERENCE; ; TO PROVIDE THAT ANY VIOLATION OF SUCH ACTS SHALL BE A DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE; TO MAKE UNLAWFUL CERTAIN DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES ; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID OR UNENFORCEABLE, ; ETC. = PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH THE INCLUSION OF STEP FAMILY IN THE DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE (AGENDA ITEM X-A-2) CD 6:21 through 7:01 Mayor Palmer opened the public hearing and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462, amending Chapter 18, Human Relations, of the Sarasota City Code (1986 as amended) (City Code) was submitted to the Commission by the Ad Hoc Committee Concerning Non-Discrimination (Ad Hoc Committee) and is to implement Article I, Section 5, of the Charter of the City of Sarasota prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age, color, disability, gender, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, or veterans status in the areas of housing, employment and public accommodation; that the draft of proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462 was submitted by the Ad Hoc Committee at a joint workshop with the Commission on May 13, 2003; that on June 26, 2003, public informational meetings were held at the Municipal Auditorium; that on July 21, 2003, the Commission voted to set proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462 for public hearing; and requested that Staff come forward. James Merritt, former Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee, Mark Singer, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, and Kurt Hoverter, Director of Human Resources, came before the Commission. Attorney Singer stated that presenting proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462 to the Commission is a pleasure; that on November 5, 2002, City voters approved a change to the Charter of the City of Sarasota by creating Article I, Section 5, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age, color, disability, gender, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, or veterans status in the areas of housing, employment, and public accommodation in the City. Attorney Singer continued that on January 21, 2003, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 03R-1579 creating the Ad Hoc Committee and appointing ten members to serve; that Mr. Merritt was elected Chair and authored the Final Report which is included in the Agenda backup material; that the City's Human Resources Department is charged with administratively implementing proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462 if approved by the Commission; that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462 was reviewed in detail in a May 13, 2003, joint workshop with the Commission; that the Commission directed the Administration to schedule public informational meetings; that the process included the development of a brochure concerning the proposed Ordinance highlighting frequently asked questions; that the brochure along BOOK 54 Page 25986 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25987 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. with an invitation to one of the two special public informational meetings held on June 26, 2003, at 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m. at the Municipal Auditorium was sent to over 5,500 occupational license holders in the City; that the meetings were sparsely attended. Attorney Singer further stated that on July 21, 2003, the Commission voted to set proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462 for public hearing; that two clarifications have been incorporated as a result of the public meetings; that the hard work of the Commission and the Ad Hoc Committee to communicate the proposed Ordinance to the community is the reason for minimal public responsei that the decision of the Ad Hoc Committee to recommend the proposed Ordinance be modeled after the State and Federal Statutes concerning civil rights and fair housing which are modeled after Federal Statutes was a wise choice; that employers who are governed by prohibitions against aiscrimination based on various protected classifications other than veterans status and sexual orientation are only subject to State or Federal law if having 15 or more employees; that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462 reduces the number to five employees; that an effort has been made to communicate the reduction in the number of employees to the public and to employers in the City to allow sufficient time for comment; that one comment received during the public meetings indicated employers as a general rule prefer to attempt to mediate or settle issues surrounding employment related problems privately rather than publicly; that as a result, Section 18-20(f) of proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462 pertaining to conciliation has a new subparagraph (6) which authorizes private settlement discussions and settlements and a new subparagraph (j) has been created to permit a voluntary dismissal by the complainant; that the changes to the proposed ordinance will promote and encourage voluntary settlements of complaints. Attorney Singer stated further that the definition included in the section of the proposed Ordinance addressing sexual orientation is modeled after larger governmental entities in the State; that the City of St. Petersburg, Hillsborough County, the City of Miami and the City of Gainesville, Florida, have similar ordinances protecting discrimination due to sexual orientation; that the Ad Hoc Committee recommended the definition for sexual orientation which was determined to best suit the City's needs; that Section 18-18 (h) of proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462 pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Human Relations Board has been revised and a new subparagraph (i) has been created to clarify the Human Relations Board has the authority to receive and investigate complaints but Commission approval would be required to initiate its own investigations; that the efforts and hard work of Mr. Merritt and the Ad Hoc Committee are appreciated; that the time the Commission has offered to Staff to prepare the proposed Ordinance in a timely manner is also appreciated; that the expectation going forward is for the City Auditor and Clerk to advertise for persons desiring appointment to the Human Relations Board if the Commission ultimately adopts the proposed Ordinance; that a list of potential candidates for seats on the Human Relations Board is expected to be presented to the Commission in September 2003 for appointment; that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462 will take effect October 1, 2003; that the Human Relations Board will then meet to organize and elect a Chair and Vice Chair; that any acts of discrimination occurring prior to October 1, 2003, are not subject to proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462. Mayor Palmer thanked and expressed appreciation to Mr. Merritt for guiding the Ad Hoc Committee through the process. Mr. Merritt stated that the quality of the work of the Ad Hoc Committee is largely due to the excellent guidance received in meetings held with Attorney Singer who attended every meeting and assisted tremendously; that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson and his Staff provided excellent support early in the process; that Mr. Hoverter and his Staff also provided immense support; that tremendous support was received from community members who worked on proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462; that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462 as submitted is pleasing. Mr. Hoverter stated that administrative procedures are in place to move forward with proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462 once adopted; that a significant amount of support has been received from other communities with similar ordinances; that other communities have been willing to share processes, forms, paperwork, and other administrative necessities which the City will be required to provide. The following people came before the Commission: Rick Martin, 2301 Ringling Boulevard (34237), representing Purmort and Martin Insurance Agency, stated that he has been a resident of Sarasota since 1934; that he is speaking in favor of proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462; however, the proposed Ordinance as applied to small business is a concerni that the proposed Ordinance should apply to employers having 15 or more employees BOOK 54 Page 25988 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25989 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. rather than employers having five or more employees; that the insurance premium for coverage related to employee discrimination is $600 to $1,000, perhaps more, plus a $10,000 deductible; that the proposed Ordinance could pose a serious hardship to small businesses; that apologies are extended for raising the issue at this late time; however, the issue has just recently come to his attention. Vice Mayor Martin requested clarification regarding the insurance deductible for small businesses. Mr. Martin stated that the insurance deductible is necessary if an insurance rider is included as protection against accusations of discrimination. Ester Rachwal, 4975 Southern Wood Drive (34241), representing Florida Family Association, stated that the Florida Family Association is opposed to including the term "sexual orientation" in proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462; that otherwise, the proposed Ordinance is supported; that the method of review chosen will prove complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation will be frivolous, worthless, and a waste of taxpayer moneyi and distributed a report entitled "Evaluation of the City of Tampa's Sexual Orientation Discrimination Cases from 1991 through 2002"; that not one complaint filed in Tampa's 12 year history of the sexual orientation provision was proved valid by the court or city officials. Ms. Rachwal continued that Mr. Merritt has indicated a desire to hold a seat on the Human Relations Board; that the Human Relations Board must be balanced and not have representation from only one groupi that Christians should be involved as well; that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462 should only apply to businesses having 15 or more employees; that Christian individuals believing sexual orientation is against Christian principles are at a disadvantage. Mayor Palmer stated that sexual orientation is part of the requirement of the Charter Amendment concerning on-Discrimination which was passed by the voters of Sarasota and is the reason for being included in the proposed Ordinance. Mary Ciner, 1714 Waldemere Street (34239), stated that the Commission is requested to pass proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462 on first reading. Dai rwin Blix, 3731 Prairie Dunes Drive (34238), stated that he is a property owner and business person in the City and an interested party; and read a prepared letter to the Commission indicating he is not excited about being before the Commission at this time; that a series of events recently occurred which are seriously concerning; that he has been advised to make the events public; that the City held a public meeting on June 26, 2003, at the Municipal Auditorium; that the public and local business were invited to ask questions concerning proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462; that he presented a hypothetical scenario describing a situation after following the sexual orientation non-discrimination rules; that his religious rights would be violated by endeavoring to follow the proposed Ordinance, thereby creating a constitutional problem. Mr. Blix continued that he was personally threatened while talking with one of the advocates of the proposed Ordinance following the public informational meeting; that the individual indicated he would be a great person of whom to make an example; that the comment was understood as an economic threat; that some people in a vehicle next to one of his business establishments were observed the next dayi that he offered assistance not immediately recognizing the driver; that the driver sped off upon his approach to the vehicle; however, the driver was recognized as another advocate of the proposed Ordinance; that the belief is his business was being monitored in possible preparation to follow through on the threat received at the public meeting. Mr. Blix further stated that due to the original threat and follow through by another individual, the presumption is at least two people were conspiring to either intimidate him or to contrive a way to make him an example; that the City should not condone either of the scenarios; that the expectation is the City should protect his rights of free speech and to practice his faith. Commissioner Servian asked the type of business in which Mr. Blix is engaged. Mr. Blix stated that he operates a retirement center and owns rental property. BOOK 54 Page 25990 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25991 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. Mr. Blix continued that he opposes proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462, due to his concerns regarding the sexual orientation portion of the proposed Ordinance; that the only real purpose of the proposed Ordinance is to provide protection for discrimination against sexual orientation; that Federal and State Statutes protect individuals with complaints against racial discrimination or any other right protected by the US Constitution; that discrimination cases concerning veterans have not been seen for 25 years; that all other aspects of the proposed Ordinance are in reality window dressing to dilute the sexual orientation clause; that he does not discriminate against any individual and is known to assist people with special needs; that his conservative Christian beliefs clearly teach that only a man and a woman should be joined together in marriage; that sexual relationships of any kind outside of marriage are wrong and should not be encouraged by government; that hundreds of millions of evangelical Christians in the County and around the world, including President George W. Bush, the Pope, and people having no religious affiliations share his views. Mr. Blix further stated that a representative of the City provided statistics which have not yet been personally confirmed; that 73 percent of the small percentage of residents who voted is not a mandate; that the vote was not well publicized, sufficiently debated or held at a time in which most voters are drawn to the polls; that only those with a strong liberal bias were motivated to vote; that individuals with businesses in the City are most affected by the proposed Ordinance but could not vote since residing in the Countyi that the entire form of City government is suspect if based on the opinions of sO few; that he opposes discrimination and the complications and expense of unnecessary rules and regulations created by big government; that he is not in favor of the government attempting to legislate its understanding of morality; that many conservatives and all libertarians would likely oppose a law based on sexual orientation; that the US Government recognizes a compelling State interest to encourage traditional family life which is accomplished through tax benefits; that the low rate of child birth in the Country and most western countries is contributing to the most challenging problem in history which is the continuing decreasing age group supporting an ever increasing age groupi that a compelling governmental interest for the proposed Ordinance is not understood; that the present day demographics make a compelling governmental interest to support families. Mr. Blix stated further that businesses would be in an undesirable situation if, for normal business reasons, a layoff was necessary and a person of homosexual orientation was terminated; that the person would naturally tend to assume his or her sexual orientation was the reason for being laid off; that the safer alternative would be for the business to lay off someone of a traditional family orientation rather than to risk time, money, and publicity of a sexual discrimination suit; that many homosexuals desiring quiet lives without sexual orientation being questioned are actually hurt by the proposed Ordinance; that sexual orientation has never personally been an issue with regard to consideration of hiring or renting to an individual. Diana Hamilton, 533 Osprey Avenue (34236), stated that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462 is supported; that the length of time undertaken for the City to have such an Ordinance is curious; that freedom for one is freedom for all as is the converse; that people are all part of one human family; that the time has come for everyone to accept and honor the truth not only in minds but also in hearts; that the Commission is requested to vote unanimously to pass proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462; that she was raised in the back woods of Tennessee; that she is not a Christian but is a spiritual person and has read the Bible; and stated the following are favorite biblical phrases: Judge not lest ye be judged; Love thy neighbor as you would yourself; and Do one to others as you would have them to do unto you. Ms. Hamilton continued that freedom is the most important thing in this Country; that citizens must be ever vigilant to keep freedom alive and should take every chance to speak up for freedom; that the hope is the proposed Ordinance will lead to a better understanding for all citizens and opens the door for more people to have conversations about the types of issues included in the proposed Ordinance. There was no on else signed up to speak. Mr. Merritt, Attorney Singer, and Mr. Hoverter came forward. Mr. Merritt stated that the concern regarding 15 versus five employees is an issue which was discussed in an extremely thorough manner throughout the process; that testimony was received from attorneys specializing in labor laws and in representing employersi that testimony was also heard from local BOOK 54 Page 25992 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25993 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. business owners; that the issue was discussed at the public meetings; that the Ad Hoc Committee strongly felt the number of employees should remain at five; that the proposed Ordinance addresses the possibility of a family owned business and allows more than five employees as long as the employees are all family members; that no family member of the owner of such a business is counted; that the employee count would be two if five family members work in a family owned business and two non-family members were employed as well; that the proposed Ordinance provides leeway for smaller businesses many of which are family owned; that the Ad Hoc Committee after thorough review and discussion unanimously voted to keep the number of employees at five which the Commission is encouraged to support. Attorney Singer stated that the State legislature passed laws since certain categories such as race, color, creed, etc., needed protection in the areas of public accommodation, housing, and employment; that the City has a Charter amendment; that most communities having similar ordinances do not have charter amendments; that employment discrimination on the basis of any of the protected classifications is prohibited in the City regardless of the number of employees; that the proposed Ordinance indicates a business is subject to the complaint process if having five or more employees which does not mean discrimination is allowed if a business has only four employees; that rather, an avenue for complaint is not available; that the Commission may decide to change the number of employees in the future; that discrimination on the basis of any of the protected categories regardless of the number of employees is prohibited by the City's Charter. Commissioner Servian referred to the definition of "Employee" included in Section 18-37, Definitions, of the proposed Ordinance; and stated that step family members are not included in the definition and should be added. Attorney Singer stated that the provision for step family members could be included in the proposed Ordinance without having to re- advertise if the Commission desires. Mayor Palmer asked if the Ad Hoc Committee discussed the inclusion of step family members in the definition of "Employee"? Mr. Merritt stated that the belief is the definition for "Employee" included in the proposed Ordinance was derived from existing State Statutes. Attorney Singer stated that the definition is not identical to the definition included in the State Statutes; that a broader definition of immediate family was developed; that expanding the definition would be simple. Mr. Merritt stated that the Ad Hoc Committee would likely agree with the change to include step family members in the definition of "Employee." Mayor Palmer closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Martin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462 on first reading. Vice Mayor Martin stated that passing proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462 on first reading is a proud moment not only for the Commission but also for the community; that the wealth of the community is in its diversity; that the proposed Ordinance is reasonable; that the work of the Ad Hoc Committee is exemplary; that passage of the proposed Ordinance indicates discrimination will not be allowed in the community; however, additional problems still remain; that segregation still exists in the community; that the proposed Ordinance will assist in making the community aware and will hopefully change the hearts of the citizens; that supporting proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462 is a proud feeling. Commissioner Servian asked if the intent is to include step family members in the motion? Vice Mayor Martin stated yes. Commissioner Servian stated that thanks are extended to the Ad Hoc Committee and Mr. Merritt for the hard work regarding the proposed Ordinance; that thanks are also extended to Michael Shelton who brought the initial language for the proposed Ordinance forward and worked diligently to ensure the language was incorporated into the proposed Ordinance; that the citizens who overwhelmingly voted in support of the proposed Ordinance BOOK 54 Page 25994 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25995 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. are appreciated; that the number of citizens voting may not seem large but is approximately the same number voting for the Commissioners; that the lack of more participation at the polls is unfortunate; that the number of voters was high considering the normal number in an off-year election; that thanks are extended to the speakers who came before the Commission both in favor and in opposition to the proposed Ordinance; that the opinion of everyone is respected; that freedom of speech is the beauty of living in the City and in the Country; that the primary goal of a city and a commission is to protect the health, welfare, and safety of all citizens which is the reason for supporting proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462; that the Commission was urged early on in the process not to be a leader regarding the inclusion of diversity in discrimination laws; that a host of cities across the Country are recognizing the importance of diversity of which the City of Sarasota is now included; that for the City to have taken the lead concerning non-discrimination is a source of pride. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that consideration of proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462 was a struggle due to his faith as a Christian; that the sin is disliked but the sinner is loved which was the approach taken in consideration of the proposed Ordinance; that the proposed Ordinance probably neglects quite a few people; that he has been on the reverse side of discrimination; that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462 is supported; that a desire is to have had an opportunity to obtain additional information regarding business insurance premiums; that small businesses are the backbone of the Country and should be allowed to make a decent living; that the proposed Ordinance should include more categories; that discrimination exists against the rich, the poor, the homeless, and the unattractive which is a shame; that all Christians everywhere are encouraged to continue to pray; that the hard work of the Ad Hoc Committee and of Staff is appreciated; that the City should move forward to implement proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462. Mayor Palmer stated that the Charter Amendment concerning Non-Discrimination was supported by a large majority of the voters regardless of the percentage of turnout; that 73 percent is a wide margin of support; that everyone is proud the City will not be a community in which discrimination is allowed; that the Commission may not consist of representatives from every background; however, the Commission represents backgrounds of Christian, Jewish, Catholic, black, white, male, and female which was not true in prior years; that no women, blacks, or Jews sat at the Commission table in years past which is important to remember; that Commissioner Atkins was the first black Commissioner but not a member of the Commission until 1985; that the community is changing; that people of every classification are included in the proposed Ordinance; that the proposed Ordinance addresses equal rights and mon-discrimination for every person living in the City; that the City's voters believed in the importance of the Charter amendment; that the Commission unanimously supported the Charter amendment; that the hope is the Commission will unanimously support proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462. Mayor Palmer restated and called for a vote on the motion to pass proposed Ordinance No. 03-4462 on first reading with the inclusion of step family members in the definition of Employee and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes. 17. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM XI) CD 7:02 There was no one signed up to speak. 18. COMMISSION BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS (AGENDA ITEM XIV) CD 7:02 There were no Commission Board or Committee reports. 19. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA = ADMINISTRATION WILL BRING BACK A REPORT REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED DOWNTOWN CODE (AGENDA ITEM XV) CD 7:02 through 7:17 BOOK 54 Page 25996 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25997 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. COMMISSIONER SERVIAN: A. stated that the recent Florida Conference of the American Institute of Architects held in the City was attended; that a two-day charrette was held in which the proposed City of Sarasota Downtown Code (Downtown Code) was tested; that a report will come back which should provide significant information; that some things worked beautifully and some did not; that tunneling effects were created on the streets which the Commission should review; that a suggestion is to request Andres Duany, Principal, FAIA, Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company (DPZ) to review the proposed Downtown Code while being written and to provide occasional review to ensure the City is travelling down the correct path; that DPZ is not included in any discussions concerning the proposed Downtown Code; that requesting DPZ to review the proposed Downtown Code is a small investment. Mayor Palmer stated that the responsibility for implementation of the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020) reverted to the City after being developed by DPZ; that the City has communicated with DPZ as the process for the Downtown Master Plan 2020 has moved forward; that DPZ consulting services are expensive. City Manager McNees stated that DPZ has been engaged in the past; that discussions should take place with Planning Staff prior to making a decision to engage DPZ in development of the proposed Downtown Code; that the Administration will report back Staff's findings to the Commission. Commissioner Servian stated that a recommendation could be included in the report as to if Staff recommends consulting DPZ as the proposed Downtown Code moves forward. Mayor Palmer stated that DPZ has been in touch with Staff during the development of the proposed Downtown Code; that additional contact has been made with DPZ; that a problem with additional contact is not seen if deemed appropriate. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the charrette, which was excellent, was videotaped; that DPZ provided the City with the SmartCode which was used as a model for the proposed Downtown Code; that the assurance desired is if the proposed Downtown Code is truly modeled after SmartCode. Commissioner Servian agreed. Vice Mayor Martin stated that providing a report back from Planning Staff regarding the proposed Downtown Code is a good idea. COMMISSIONER ATKINS: A. stated that the City should develop a method to encourage developers to take advantage of the Enterprise Zone to provide affordable housing in the Cityi that additional marketing toward the effort is necessaryi that incentives could be attached to development applications to encourage developer contributions to affordable housing; that similar discussions took place between 1985 and 1987; that the problem has not changed; that expensive projects are being constructed in the City; that the developers of the projects can assist the City in addressing the needs of the poor and disadvantaged; that the Commission is requested to contemplate the issue and provide direction to the Administration to research options for affordable housing which are acceptable to developers and in the best interests of the citizens of the City. B. stated that the July 26, 2003, meeting organized by the Public Works Department at Fredd "Glossie" Atkins Park was attended; that the purpose of the meeting was to address concerns about and renovations of the park; that the meeting was great and was well attended; that tremendous ideas were brought forth; that John Hawthorne, Redevelopment Specialist, Planning and Redevelopment Department, contributed positively to the meeting and left the meeting well respected by individuals present; that individuals present at the meeting indicated support regarding the idea of providing a fishing pier at the John Ringling Causewayi; that the idea is good and should be researched. Mayor Palmer stated that the meeting was also attended along with Police Chief Peter Abbott; that Commissioner Atkins did a fine job directing the meeting along with the Director of Public Works; that good input was received. BOOK 54 Page 25998 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. BOOK 54 Page 25999 08/04/03 2:30 P.M. C. stated that no additional work has been accomplished on the fence at the Urbaculture Site; that the chemical evaluations concerning the Urbaculture Site are necessary for the public meeting which will be scheduled. Mayor Palmer stated that the City committed to the Newtown area to hold a public meeting regarding the Urbaculture Site; that the understanding is a meeting was already scheduled. City Manager McNees stated that the report from the Sarasota County Health Department is being finalized; that the belief is a tentative date for a meeting was scheduled; that the detail concerning the meeting will be addressed tomorrow. Mayor Palmer stated that the Newtown area community is waiting for a response. City Manager McNees agreed; and stated that the City is waiting for the scientific information from the Sarasota County Health Department; that the meeting cannot be held without the chemical evaluations. MAYOR PALMER: A. asked the status of the joint meeting which was planned with the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners regarding affordable housing; and if the meeting has been rescheduled? Vice Mayor Martin stated that the meeting was postponed; that the theory was to have a joint meeting at the time the HOPE (Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere) VI Grant is awarded. Mayor Palmer stated that affordable housing is an issue with or without the HOPE VI grant; that not moving forward with a joint meeting with the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners to address affordable housing is a concern; that affordable housing was identified as a major focus of the Commission during a retreat two years ago; that impact fees on increased density in the Downtown was recently discussed; that incentives to assist with affordable housing should be researched; that affordable housing was also identified as a concern during the Strategic Planning Process. Mayor Palmer continued that Sarasota County is considering waiving impact fees in the Enterprise Zone; that the City should research the possibility of waiving water and sewer impact fees; that the City Manager has previously indicated the issue should be researched. B. asked the status of the Strategic Planning Process? V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that a session with Staff is scheduled with James Stansbury, the facilitator, on August 25, 2003; that the purpose is to compile the actions and strategies which will support the desired results agreed upon by the Commission in the last Strategic Planning Workshop. Mayor Palmer asked the date the Commission will become further involved in the Strategic Planning Process? Mr. Schneider stated that more information will be provided after the August 25, 2003, session with Staff; that the hope is Mr. Stansbury will provide a solid framework for Staff; that a final draft of the Strategic Plan will be brought back to the Commission. C. stated that unfortunately, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Certification which provides for less State and Regional review oversight of certain comprehensive plan amendments for select certified local governments was not approved by the State; that David Smith, Senior Planner, Planning and Redevelopment Department, did an excellent job in preparing the documentation in support of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Certification. 20. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XVII) CD 7:17 There being no further business, Mayor Palmer adjourned the Regular meeting of the City Commission of August 4, 2003, at 7:17 p.m. R U ANN R. PALMER, MAYOR 975 s ATTEST: nal E Robenson "BELLY : ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK BOOK 54 Page 26000 9.0 08/04/03 2:30 P.M.