BOOK 56 Page 28049 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 7, 2004, AT 2:30 P.M. AND CONTINUED TO JUNE 8, 2004 PRESENT: Mayor Richard F. Martin, Vice Mayor Mary Anne Servian, Commissioners Fredd "Glossie" Atkins, Danny Bilyeu, and Lou Ann R. Palmer, City Manager Michael A. McNees, City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Martin 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. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED, ; REMOVED CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1, ITEM NO. 2 CONCERNING MAJOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FOR DISCUSSION AS AGENDA ITEM VII-1 CD 2:34 through 2:39 City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Remove New Business Item No. XVII-2, Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 04R-1766, appropriating $136,000 from the unappropriated balance of the General Eund to provide funds for matching an Economic Development Administration Planning Grant for a Transportation Concurrency Management Area in order to proceed with land use changes in the Newtown Redevelopment Plan, per the request of Planning and Redevelopment Director Robinson. B. Remove Unfinished Business Item No. IV-4, Approval Re: Direct the Administration to negotiate with the Downtown Partnership a lease amendment that would address market based rental rate, use of lease revenue and reduce leasehold boundaries for the Lemon Avenue Mall and report back to the City Commission on the results of the negotiations per the request of Deputy City Manager Schneider. C. Add New Business Item No. XVII-6, Local Option Gas Tax Revenue Distribution Interlocal Agreement per the request of the City Manager. Mayor Martin presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: D. Remove Unfinished Business Item No. VI-2, Approval Re: Strategic and Operational Objectives for the Charter Officials for the balance of fiscal year 2003/04 and place on the Agenda for the July 6, 2004, Regular Commission meeting. E. Remove Unfinished Business Item No. VI-3, Approval Re: 2004-2008 Strategic Plan and place on the Agenda for the July 6, 2004, Regular Commission meeting. Commissioner Palmer referred to the proposed 2004-2008 Strategic Plan included in the Agenda backup material and stated that the Commission has previously discussed and reached consensus regarding inclusion of items such as historic preservation which are not included in the proposed Strategic Plan; that the Charter Officials should include the items in the Strategic Plan prior to the July 6, 2004, Regular Commission meeting for consideration of the Commission; that historic preservation should be included in the Strategic Plan. Mayor Martin agreed; and stated that any specific concerns regarding the items which should be added to the Strategic Plan can also be raised at the July 6, 2004, Regular Commission meeting. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. Mayor Martin asked if any Commissioner wished to remove an item from Consent Agenda No. 1 or 2. Mayor Martin requested that Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 2 concerning Major Transportation Improvement Projects be removed for discussion. BOOK 56 Page 28050 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28051 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 2, will be considered under New Business as Agenda Item No. VII-1, which will be heard in the afternoon session. 2. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM I) CD 2:39 There was no one signed up to speak. 3. APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 10, 2004, AND THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 17, 2004, = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM II-1 AND-2) CD 2:40 Mayor Martin asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes? Mayor Martin stated that hearing no other changes, the minutes of the Special City Commission Meeting of May 10, 2004, and the Regular City Commission Meeting of May 17, 2004, are approved by unanimous consent. 4. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE 'S REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 12, 2004 AND SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 25, 2004 DIRECTED STAFF TO CONTRACT WITH THE ARTIST BROWER HATCHER TO PROVIDE A PIECE OF PUBLIC ART FOR THE LEMON AVENUE PLAZA SITE; DIRECTED THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE AND STAFF TO WORK WITH THE ARTIST BROWER HATCHER REGARDING THE PIECE SUBMITTED FOR LEMON AVENUE PLAZA; ACCEPTED THE DONATION OF THE SCULPTURE "BIG FRAME 2" BY ARTIST MICHAEL DAVIS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE 'S RECOMMENDATION, i RECEIVED REPORTS (AGENDA ITEM III-1) CD 2:40 through 3:10 James Bowen, Chair, Public Art Committee, and John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the Commission. Mr. Bowen presented the following items from the May 12 and 25, 2004, Public Art Committee meetings: A. Lemon Avenue Plaza public art project Mr. Bowen stated that two of four finalists to the Call-to- Artists process submitted new proposals; that at its May 12, 2004, meeting, the Public Art Committee rejected the proposals submitted by Brower Hatcher and Archie Held, the two finalists who resubmitted proposals, by a unanimous vote of 5 to 0; that the reasons for rejecting the proposals will be provided. Mr. Burg referred to computer-generated slides indicating the Call-to-Artists process as well as the credentials, previous work, and new proposals submitted by the artists displayed on the Chamber monitors throughout the presentation and included in the Agenda backup material; and stated that the Call-to Artists process began with approval by the Commission on November 12, 2002; that 182 submittals were received by February 28, 2003, which was a large number; that over the course of several meetings, the Public Art Committee narrowed the submittals from 48 to 12 and then to four; that the four proposals were brought before the Commission at the September 2, 2003, Regular Commission Meetings; that the credentials, previous work and project requirements were also reviewed; that discussions took place regarding a water feature and seating; that a detailed chronology of the Call-to-Artists process is included in the Agenda backup material; that presentations of the proposals of the four finalists were made to the Public Art Committee on January 14, 2004; that the Public Art Committee brought a recommendation for a final selection before the Commission which rejected the proposals; that subsequently, the Public Art Committee requested the four finalists to include seating and a water feature in the proposals; that of the four finalists, two submitted new proposals; that the new proposals were reviewed by the Public Art Committee on May 12, 2004; that the Public Art Committee rejected both new proposals; that Staff's recommendation for an alternative process which was brought before the Public Art Committee on May 25, 2004, will be summarized during the presentation. Mr. Burg continued that the credentials of Brower Hatcher include fellowship recipient of grants and awards from: Ford Foundation Sainsbury Foundation, United Kingdom - Guggenheim Foundation National Endowment for the Arts Honorary Ph.D. from State University of New York BOOK 56 Page 28052 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28053 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Mr. Bowen referred to photographs of previous artwork by Brower Hatcher displayed on the Chamber monitors and included in the Agenda backup material; and stated that the previous artwork was the basis for selecting Mr. Hatcher; that the proposal ultimately submitted to the City was not of equal quality to previous artwork which was the primary reason for rejecting the proposal; that the previous artwork is considered intriguing and interesting; that the Public Art Committee blamed the process as the reason for receiving a proposal of lesser quality; and quoted a Public Art Committee member's comment, "the proposal received is a fairly trite solution." Mr. Bowen referred to a computer-generated model of Mr. Hatcher's proposal for artwork for Lemon Avenue Plaza displayed on the Chamber monitors, also included in the Agenda backup material; and continued that the proposal includes a water element with a four foot projection of water onto the piece; that the piece is in the form of a seashell; that the fountain is not traditional, is considered a trite image, and inappropriate for the Lemon Avenue space; that a more interesting piece was desired; that different views of the piece are indicated through computer-generated models; that the seashell has a stainless steel framework with copper panels, the footings are concrete, and the benches are stone and cast stone; that the copper is prepatined green-gray; that all hardware is stainless steel. Mayor Martin stated that the copper will have a green-gray patina; that the colors will likely be considerably different than indicated in the slides of the computer-generated model. Mr. Bowen agreed. Mr. Burg stated that the credentials of artist Archie Held are as follows: Undergraduate University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA) in painting, sculpture, graphic arts; Graduate UCLA sculpture; Jim Marcelius Memorial Scholarship Award for Sculpture; and Numerous group and solo exhibits. Mr. Bowen referred to photographs of previous artwork by Mr. Held displayed on the Chamber monitors and included in the Agenda backup material and stated that several of the pieces in Mr. Held's original submittal were interesting; that some Public Art Committee members did not believe Mr. Held's work would be suitable for the Lemon Avenue Plaza since only a version of the piece submitted would be used in the space; that the proposal finally submitted included bronze pieces standing 13 feet; that an overhead view of the piece indicates the water feature and the bronze pieces; that circles at the base of the piece represent lighting; that a diagram of the manner in which the fountain would operate is also included. Mr. Burg stated that after receiving the recommendation of the Public Art Committee on May 12, 2004, Staff notified both artists the proposals were rejected; that both artists indicated a suitable piece could be developed if an opportunity was available to work with City officials; that the competitive mode created by the Call-to-Artists process makes having a dialog with a client extremely difficult; that written requirements must be provided; that discussions cannot take place during the competition or the process would not be fair and equitable; that at a special May 25, 2004, meeting of the Public Art Committee, Staff presented the idea of inviting both artists to a joint workshop between the Commission and the Public Art Committee; that the artists could explain artistic philosophies and possible alternative directions; that the Public Art Committee did not support the idea. Mr. Bowen stated that the Call-to-Artists process had come to a point at which the City was receiving the proposals for artwork by default; that one artist dropped out of the process since the criteria for the water feature was not established at the outset; that criteria for a major water feature should have been established with the artist at the beginning of the process; that the artists were not aware the water feature was essential; that different artists may have submitted proposals if a criterion for a water feature were established; that a better piece of art could have been received; that the Public Art Committee is of the opinion starting over with the Call-to- Artists process will provide an opportunity to receive a more appropriate piece of art for the Lemon Avenue Plaza which is an excellent space in the Cityi that criteria should be established and a selection should be made based on the criteria; that the Public Art Committee recommends the City proceed through another Call-to-Artists for a piece of art for the Lemon Avenue Plaza which would include water as a major component. BOOK 56 Page 28054 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28055 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Commissioner Palmer asked if the Public Art Committee approved Mr. Hatcher's proposals from the beginning of the process? Mr. Bowen stated yes. Commissioner Palmer stated that Mr. Hatcher submitted alternate proposals; that the City should work with Mr. Hatcher; that Mr. Hatcher's artwork was originally acceptable to the Public Art Committee; however, the Public Art Committee has indicated the piece in the form of a seashell is not considered appropriate for the Lemon Avenue Plaza; that the necessity of proceeding through another Call-to-Artists is questioned; that the additional expense, timeframe and Staff time are concerns; that Mr. Hatcher, based on his portfolio, is considered an outstanding artist and can likely create a desirable piece for the Lemon Avenue Plaza space; that the belief is Mr. Hatcher is not certain as to the type of piece desired by the Public Art Committee and the Commission; that the Commission and Public Art Committee may not be certain as to the type of piece desired; that discussions should take place with Mr. Hatcher; that proceeding through another Call-to-Artists is not the desire; that Lemon Avenue Plaza will be completed soon; that issues concerning the water feature and seating can be resolved if the Public Art Committee has confidence in Mr. Hatcher; that a piece of art appropriate for the Lemon Avenue Plaza is the desire; that the belief is the appropriate artist has been identified; that the plan for the piece should be discussed with Mr. Hatcher. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the views expressed by Commissioner Palmer are shared; that many pieces created by Mr. Hatchet have been personally seen; that several pieces are in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; that she is originally from Philadelphia; that Mr. Hatchet's work is exceptional; that the Public Art Committee chose Mr. Hatchet as the artist for a reason, which is his work is considered outstanding and significant; that moving forward to work with Mr. Hatchet is supported; that the piece in the form of a seashell submitted for the Lemon Avenue Plaza is not opposed; that the piece could be excellent with some modifications; that some people may not be enamored with the shape of a seashell; however, a seashell is reflective of the City since the City is close to the beach; that an acceptable piece can be created if the Commission and the Public Art Committee work together with the artist; that time is short. Commissioner Atkins stated that identifying a signature piece for the City has become another struggle; that the finer details of the piece submitted in the form of a seashell were not known; however, the piece is pleasing; that the fairness of the Call- to-Artists process is questioned; that the process may not have been conducted fairlyi that the Call-to-Artists process became complicated; that a proposal would not be made until the second round of a Call-to-Artists if he were an artist; that the first Call-to-Artists is too often incorrect; that Mr. Hatcher's artwork has not been personally seen other than in computer- generated pictures; that going back through the Call-to-Artists process is being seriously considered; that other Call-to- Artists processes have been experienced; that the Call-to- Artists for Five Points Park was a fiasco; that no one seems an expert in conducting a proper Call-to-Artists. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the biggest concern is delaying the Lemon Avenue Plaza streetscape project; that a question is the effect on the Lemon Avenue Plaza streetscape project if the desire is to conduct another Call-to-Artists; that the piece submitted by Mr. Hatcher is preferred to the piece submitted by Mr. Held; that the piece submitted by Mr. Hatcher in the form of a seashell is supported; that painting the copper is a concerni however, the determining factor of working with Mr. Hatcher versus beginning the Call-to-Artists process again is the effect on contracts for work related to Lemon Avenue Plaza. Mr. Burg stated that the opportunity to coordinate and construct a fountain prior to the completion of Lemon Avenue Plaza has been missed; that regardless, lines for the water and drainage will be installed; that beginning another Call-to-Artists would delay the process between six and eight months, which is a significant delay but would probably not have significant impact on coordination with completion of Lemon Avenue Plaza; that the petina on the piece is not painted; that chemicals are used on the copper to advance the petina process rather than waiting 20 years for the copper to turn color naturally. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the description of the materials included in the Agenda backup material indicate the copper is pre-painted. BOOK 56 Page 28056 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28057 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Mr. Burg stated that the copper is prepatined through a chemical wash to obtain a greenish copper rather than waiting for natural weathering. Mayor Martin asked the cost of conducting a Call-to-Artists? Mr. Burg stated that the biggest cost to the City is Staff time; that the process is intensive; that considerable time which involves some cost is spent organizing and sending out mailings; that Staff costs have been previously estimated at $30,000. Mayor Martin asked the timing of the Lemon Avenue streetscape project and the contribution to public art by Casto-Zenith Venture LLC (Casto), the developer for the Whole Foods Centre project? Mr. Burg stated that the assumption is Casto will be patient and will wait until completion of the project; that the issue would be revisited if the artwork was moved to another site; that the contribution to public art by Casto is tied to the Lemon Avenue Plaza site. Mayor Martin stated that Mr. Hatcher's work is impressive; that the Public Art Committee was sufficiently impressed since Mr. Hatcher's work was ranked highly; that the piece in the form of a seashell submitted by Mr. Hatcher was initially exciting; that the look of the copper was a concern; however, the computer- generated slide of the piece indicates a significant play of light; that the Call-to-Artists process has been difficult for the community, the Commission, and the Public Art Committee; that the preference is to work with Mr. Hatcher to address the Public Art Committee's critique of the piece in hopes of satisfying the committee; that the process has already been difficult; that going back and beginning the process over is not supported. On motion of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to refer the issue of artwork for the Lemon Avenue Plaza back to the Public Art Committee to work with Mr. Hatcher to develop alternate proposals for the Public Art Committee to evaluate and for the Public Art Committee to bring back a recommendation to the Commission. Mr. Bowen stated that Staff's recommendation was to have a workshop, which was the only other alternative presented. Commissioner Palmer stated that a workshop is not being suggested; that the intent of the motion is to refer the issue back to the Public Art Committee to work with Mr. Hatcher to bring back proposals and a recommendation. Motion died for lack of a second. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second by Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to enter into negotiations with Brower Hatcher to complete the public art piece for Lemon Avenue Plaza and to move the proposal for the piece in the form of a seashell forward. Commissioner Palmer stated that the intent of the motion is not a source of concern; that the particular piece in the form of a seashell may not be appropriate, which is the reason for the request for the Public Art Committee to consider other options and bring back a recommendation; that entering into a contract with Mr. Hatcher is supported. Vice Mayor Servian stated that requesting additional proposals will take too long, which is a concern; that the submitted piece in the form of a seashell speaks well to the space and provides the Commission with the desired effect; that the piece provides a water feature, seating, and speaks to the community; that moving forward with the piece is desired. Mayor Martin asked if particular issues regarding negotiations with the artist are recommended? Vice Mayor Servian stated that the only concern is the schematic of the piece indicate beautiful shadings at night with lighting; that the details of the lighting should be discussed; that the piece should not be changed; that different lighting may be required sO the piece takes on different colors at night. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to divide the question to vote on the issues of: 1) directing Staff to contract with Brower Hatcher to provide a piece of public art for the Lemon Avenue Plaza site and 2) moving forward with the piece of artwork in the form of a seashell submitted by the artist Brower Hatcher for the Lemon Avenue Plaza. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. BOOK 56 Page 28058 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28059 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Mayor Martin called for a vote on the motion as divided regarding directing Staff to contract with the artist Brower Hatcher to provide a piece of public art for the Lemon Avenue Plaza site. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yesi Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. Mayor Martin called for a vote on the motion as divided regarding moving forward with the piece of artwork in the form of a seashell submitted by the artist Brower Hatcher for the Lemon Avenue Plaza. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, no; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. B. Donation of sculpture entitled "Big Frame 2" by artist Michael Davis Mr. Bowen stated that at its May 12, 2004, meeting, the Public Art Committee recommended by a unanimous vote of 5 to 0 the Commission accept the donation of the sculpture entitled "Big Frame 2" by artist Michael David; that the sculpture is the large frame displayed on the Bayfront in the Sarasota Season of Sculpture Exhibit; that the sculpture will remain in its current location for six months; that the Public Art Committee will investigate locations for placement of the sculpture which would have pedestrian traffic and a water view backdrop. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to accept the donation of the sculpture "Big Frame 2" by artist Michael Davis in accordance with the Public Art Committee's recommendation. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to receive the reports of the May 12, 2004, Public Art Committee's Regular meeting and the May 25, 2004, Public Art Committee's Special meeting. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yesi Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. 5. BOARD ACTIONS: APPROVAL RE: : PARKS, RECREATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADVISORY BOARD'S S REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 20, 2004 RECEIVED REPORT ; DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO: 1) PREPARE A RESOLUTION RENAMING 35TH STREET PARK TO FIREHOUSE PARK AND 2) PREPARE A MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE REASON THE MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN WAS NOT BROUGHT BEFORE THE PARKS, RECREATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADVISORY BOARD (AGENDA ITEM III-2) CD 3:10 through 3:19 Ed Freeman, Member, Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Advisory Board (Parks Board), and Duane Mountain, Supervisor of Maintenance and Service, Public Works Department, came before the Commission. Mr. Freeman presented the following items from the May 20, 2004, Parks Board meeting: A. Time limits on public input Mr. Freeman stated that discussions took place regarding time limits on public input; that the Parks Board decided by a vote of 4 to 1 to impose time limits on public input to three minutes per person; that the Parks Board voted unanimously 5 to 0 to allow extension of the time at its discretion. B. Renaming of 35th Street Park Mr. Freeman continued that the President of the Bayou Oaks Neighborhood Association and Staff of the Neighborhood Partnership Office appeared before the Parks Board and requested a name change of the park on 35th Street which is behind the fire station on Bradenton Road; that the request was to rename the park "Firehouse Park"; that the Parks Board recommended the Commission approve the name change from 35th Street Park to Firehouse Park by a vote of 5 to 0. C. Presentation of Cultural District Master Plan Mr. Freeman further stated that John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning and Redevelopment Department, presented the Cultural District Master Plan to the Parks Board; that a significant amount of discussion took place regarding the concepts of the Cultural District Master Plan; that the Parks Board would like the opportunity to review specific issues concerning the Cultural District such as site plans as developed in the future and the inclusion of more open space and reduction of surface parking; that the concern was the amount of open space may not be sufficient; that the Parks Board unanimously supported the Cultural District Master Plan by a vote of 5 to 0. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that a citizen, Stan Zimmei rman, previously raised the idea of establishing a Marine Advisory BOOK 56 Page 28060 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28061 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Board; that an individual with marine related background should be added to the Parks Board to address marine related concerns which come before the Commission. Mr. Freeman stated that the Parks Board discussed the possibility of adding an individual with marine related background in detail; that the Parks Board was concerned with the increased workload which would be created by taking on the additional step of addressing marine related concerns; that the Parks Board requested he meet with the City Auditor and Clerk to address the need for an individual with marine experience; that one suggestion was to add an individual from the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program as a member on the Parks Board; that some discussion took place regarding the length of time the Parks Board was willing to meet and the types of assignments which would be received by the Commission; that an occasional assignment from the Commission would not be too difficult; that a meeting will be conducted with the City Auditor and Clerk. Mayor Martin asked if the appointments to the Parks Board will be forthcoming? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that one vacancy exists on the Parks Board; that the number of applications is not sufficient to bring forth at this time. Mayor Martin stated that raising the issue of including an individual with marine experience on the Parks Board is important; that the Commission previously discussed the issue and suggestions were to appoint a subcommittee or an ad hoc committee of the Parks Board which could deal specifically with marine issues; that an individual on the Parks Board could act as a liaison. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the comments and ideas brought forth by the Parks Board during the discussion of the Cultural District Master Plan are appreciated; that approximately 3,250 people can be seated on three acres. Commissioner Palmer asked if the Manatee Protection Plan was brought before the Parks Board. Mr. Freeman stated no. Mayor Martin stated that apologies are extended for bringing the Cultural District Master Plan to the Parks Board after the fact; that the Parks Board has brought many ideas and constructive criticism to the Cultural District Master Plan which is considered quite valuable. On motion of Commissioner Bilyeu and second of Vice Mayor Servian, it was moved to receive the report of the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Advisory Board meeting of May 20, 2004, and to direct the Administration to prepare a Resolution renaming 35th Street Park to Firehouse Park. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. Commissioner Palmer stated that the reason the Manatee Protection Plan did not go before the Parks Board is requested; that the Manatee Protection Plan was brought before the Board of Adjustment, and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) but not the Parks Board, which is not understood. Mayor Martin stated that the Commission's consensus is requested to have the Administration prepare a memorandum explaining the reason the Manatee Protection Plan was not brought before the Parks Board and a procedure to avoid having a similar instance in the future. Vice Mayor Servian stated that a memorandum is sufficient. Commissioners Atkins, Bilyeu, and Palmer agreed. 6. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8, 9, 10, AND 11 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM IV-A) CD 3:19 1. Approval Re: Set for public hearing proposed Ordinance No. 04-4554, amending Chapter 2, Administration, of the Sarasota City Code, Article V, Boards, Commissions and Committees, by adding thereto a new Division 2.5, Youth Advisory Board; providing for the creation of the Youth Advisory Board as an advisory board to the City Commission; providing the membership requirements, appointment procedures and duties of the Youth Advisory Board; repealing ordinances in conflict; providing for severability if any of the parts hereof are declared invalid; etc. (Title Only). BOOK 56 Page 28062 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28063 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. 3. Approval Re: Authorize an amendment to the Sarasota Consolidated Plan to loan the Sarasota Housing Authority $975,000 in HOME funds for the Rosemary Park Condominiums and revise Homeless Strategy Number 2, Transitional Shelter, to provide for an application process. 4. Approval Re: Proceed with acquisition of property located at 2511 Washington Court in its current condition for the expansion of the Fredd "Glossie" Atkins Park. 5. Approval Re: Transitional Housing for the Homeless Program Policy Guidelines. 6. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract between the City of Sarasota and Ajax Paving Industries for the Pavement Milling and Resurfacing Project, Bid #04-29K in the amount of $884,190.30. 7. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the First Amendment to the Contract Agreement between the City of Sarasota and American Water Services Underground Infrastructure, Inc. for Lining of the Mainline Sewers, Bid #02-32M in the amount of $300,000. 8. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the First Amendment to Contract Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Altair Environmental Group to Clean & TV Test and Seal In Situ Point Repair, Bid #02-32M in the amount of $200,000. 9. Approval Re: Proposed schedule to put a General Obligation Bond Issue Referendum on the March 8, 2005 ballot. 10. Approval Re: Authorize the City Manager to execute the Tamiami Trail Florida Scenic Highway Corridor Management Entity (CME) Membership Agreement and authorize the CME Subcommittee to appoint a private sector committee member to serve on the head jurisdictional. 11. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Fourth Amendment to Lease and Concession Agreement between the City of Sarasota and O'Leary's Coastal Rentals, Inc. for an additional 5 years commencing October 1, 2004 and terminating September 30, 2009. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item No. 1 and Item Nos. 3 through 11. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. 7. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1746) - ADOPTED; ; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1762) ADOPTED : ITEM 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1764) = ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1765) - ADOPTED; ITEM 5 (RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1769) ADOPTED ; ITEM 6 (ORDINANCE NO. 04-4527) - ADOPTED ; ITEM 7 (ORDINANCE NO. 04-4546) ADOPTED; ITEM 8 (ORDINANCE NO. 04-4549) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-B) CD 3:19 through 3:24 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 04R-1746, accepting abatement of nuisance and cost reports pertaining to the removal of accumulations of junk, rubbish, trash or other offending matter; directing the assessment of a lien against all real or personal property owned by the violator for the amount stated therein; etc. (Title Only). 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 04R-1762, appropriating $1,500 from the unappropriated balance of the General Fund to fund the City of Sarasota's share of the 50th Anniversary Celebration of Brown VS. Board of Education at the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall on May 17, 2004; etc. 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 04R-1764, appropriating $50,000 from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund (110-082) to fund for one year, the Vice/Narcotics Unit expenses for special services, equipment, property rental, and cellular telephone charges; etc. 4. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 04R-1765, appropriating $50,000 from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund (110-082) to fund the investigative expenses to support activities calculated to enhance future drug trafficking investigations; etc. 5. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 04R-1769, appropriating $20,000 from the unappropriated balance BOOK 56 Page 28064 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28065 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. of the General Fund to provide funds for the replacement of the walking/jogging path in Arlington Park; etc. 6. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4527, to rezone property located at 1501 North Orange Avenue from the Medical Charitable Institutional (MCI), Residential Multiple Family-1 (RMF-1) and the Industrial Light Warehousing (ILW) Zone Districts to the Office Regional District (ORD) Zone District; said property comprising the campus of The Pines of Sarasota, Inc., consisting of approximately 17 acres; approving Site Plan Application No. 04-SP-11 which has been proffered as a condition of this rezoning depicting construction of Phase I of the Campus Master Plan for Pines of Sarasota, Inc.; providing for conditions of this rezoning; etc. (Title Only) (Application Nos. 04-RE-05 and 04-SP-11, Applicant Donald M. Lawson, AIA, of the Lawson Group, Inc., as agent representing The Pines of Sarasota, Inc., f/k/a Sarasota Welfare Home, Inc., owner). 7. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4546, to amend Ordinance No. 86-2976 sO as to substitute a corrected legal description for the portion of Third Street lying east of East Avenue and west of Halton Road which was vacated by Ordinance No. 86-2976; providing for severability of the parts hereof; etc. (Title Only). 8. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4549, providing for the designation of the structures located at 1944 Morrill Street, historically known as the Lemont House, as structures of historic significance pursuant to the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Sarasota; more particularly described herein; etc. (Title Only) (Application No. 04-HD-02, Applicant Mikki Hartig as agent representing Brett Jacobsen, owner). City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 04R-1762, 04R-1764, 04R-1765, and 04R-1769 in their entirety and proposed Resolution Nos. 04R-1746 and proposed Ordinance Nos. 04-4527, 04-4546 and 04-4549 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to adopt Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1 through 8, inclusive. Mayor Martin requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yesi Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes. 8. BOARD APPOINTMENTS RE: : COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - APPOINTED CAROLYN MASON TO THE SEAT DESIGNATED FOR A CITIZEN REPRESENTING A NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH CONTAINS 51 PERCENT OR MORE OF PERSONS DEEMED AS LOW OR MODERATE INCOME AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT HUD ; APPOINTED JOSEPH MILLER AND JON SUSCE TO THE SEATS DESIGNATED FOR CITIZENS AT LARGE (AGENDA ITEM V-1) CD 3:24 through 3:28 City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Tom Treend and Clay Long III, filling the seats designated for citizens at large, have resigned from the Community Development Advisory Committee; that Jetson Grimes, filling the seat designated for a citizen representing a neighborhood which contains 51 percent or more of persons deemed as low or moderate income as defined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), does not wish reappointment; that the Community Development Advisory Committee consists of 14 members with three members appointed by the Commission with the following qualifications: 1) two citizens at large, and 2) one citizen representing a neighborhood which contains 51 percent or more of persons deemed as low or moderate income as defined by HUD; that members appointed by the Commission should be residents of the City or own or be affiliated with businesses whose principal offices are within the City; that five applications have been received; that one applicant to serve as a representative of a low income neighborhood in the City and two citizens at large should be appointed to serve on the Community Development Advisory Committee. Mayor Martin stated that an April 9, 2004, memorandum to the Commission from Donald Hadsell, Director, Housing and Community Development regarding the Community Development Advisory Committee Appointments is included in the Agenda backup material. Mayor Martin requested nominations for the seat designated for a citizen representing a neighborhood which contains 51 percent or more of persons deemed as low or moderate income as defined by HUD. BOOK 56 Page 28066 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28067 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Vice Mayor Servian nominated former Mayor Carolyn Mason. Hearing no other nominations, Mayor Martin called for a vote on the nomination of Carolyn Mason. Carolyn Mason received five votes: Atkins, Bilyeu, Martin, Palmer, Servian. Mayor Martin announced the appointment of Carolyn Mason to the seat designated for a citizen representing a neighborhood which contains 51 percent or more of persons deemed as low or moderate income as defined by HUD. Mayor Martin requested nominations for seats designated for citizens at large. Commissioner Bilyeu nominated Kim Giaccardo and Joseph Miller. Vice Mayor Servian nominated Harold Simon as a representative of District 2. Commissioner Atkins asked the reason Jon Susce, who submitted an application, did not qualify for the seats designated for citizens at large? City Auditor and Clerk stated that Mr. Susce qualifies; that all the applicants qualifying for a seat representing a low income neighborhood are also qualified for a seat designated for citizens at large. Commissioner Atkins nominated Jon Susce. Mayor Martin called for a vote on the nominations for seats designated for citizens at large. Joseph Miller received 3 votes: Bilyeu, Palmer, Servian. Jon Susce received 3 votes: Atkins, Bilyeu, Martin. Mayor Martin announced the appointments of Joseph Miller and Jon Susce to the seats designated for citizens at large. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: : SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 04-4531, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA BY CREATING FOUR NEW ZONE DISTRICTS TO BE APPLIED WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN AREA OF THE CITY TO BE KNOWN COLLECTIVELY AS THE DOWNTOWN ZONE DISTRICTS; SAID DISTRICTS BEING THE DOWNTOWN CORE (DTC), DOWNTOWN BAYFRONT (DTB) DOWNTOWN EDGE (DTE) AND DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD (DTN) ZONE DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR USES ALLOWED OR ALLOWABLE WITHIN SAID DISTRICTS; ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS, PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND SIGNAGE STANDARDS TO BE APPLIED WITHIN SAID DISTRICTS; ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES TO BE APPLIED WITHIN SAID DISTRICTS; ADDING AND REVISING DEFINITIONS; ALL AS MORE FULLY SPECIFIED HEREIN; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 01- ZTA-04, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) ADOPTED WITH REVISIONS REFLECTED BY THE COMMENTS/ISSUES LIST DATED MAY 24, 2004, AND ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE WHICH WILL BE ADDED TO THE CATEGORIES OF AWNING, GALLERY, AND ARCADE TO CLARIFY THE PROPERTY OWNER WILL BE RESPONSIBLE NOT ONLY FOR THE EXPENSE OF REMOVING THE TREE BUT ALSO THE ADDED COST TO REPAIR THE AREA WHICH WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY AND WITH THE ADDITIONAL SENTENCE AT THE END OF NOTE 6 IN TABLE VI-1001, INDICATING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR RESIDENTIAL USE SHALL BE ISSUED PRIOR TO OR SIMULFANEOUSLY WITH A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR A NONRESIDENTIAL USE FOR A DEVELOPMENT ON A ZONING LOT OR ADJACENT ZONING LOTS WITH FRONTAGE ON BOTH FRUITVILLE ROAD AND FOURTH STREET AND SUCH ZONING LOT OR LOTS ARE UNDER UNIFIED OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL (AGENDA ITEM VI-1) CD 3:28 through 3:53 Mayor Martin stated that the item concerns second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4531, amending the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) by creating four new Zone Districts which will be applied within the Downtown and will be collectively known as the Downtown Zone Districts; and requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Redevelopment, came before the Commission and stated that the Downtown Code Comments/Issues List (Issues Matrix) included in the Agenda backup material identifies all the decisions made by the Commission; that the Issues Matrix includes a column with the specific responses from the Commission; that the Commission requested five changes which are noted in the Issues Matrix; that the first change concerns a revision to Section VI- 1002 (B) (1), Existing Buildings and uses, as follows: BOOK 56 Page 28068 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28069 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Existing buildings and uses which do not conform to the provisions of these regulations may continue as they are. However, if a prohibited use ceases for 24 consecutive months, the use shall not be reestablished. The Planning Director may grant one extension for an additional 12 months, provided the property owner applies for the extension at least 60 days prior to the end of the original 24 month period. Mr. Taylor referred to Map VI-1002, Retail Frontage, displayed on the Chamber monitors and continued that the second change is a revision to the Map indicating retail frontage is optional east of Orange Avenue; that the Map indicates required and optional retail frontages; that the language regarding the Map included in the Issues Matrix also indicates the change which will be incorporated into the text of the City of Sarasota Downtown Code (Downtown Code). Commissioner Palmer stated that the language regarding Map VI- 1002, Required Retail Frontage, included in the Issues Matrix contains a scrivener's error in No. 2, Optional Retail Frontage, which must be corrected. Mr. Taylor stated that the third change is a revision to Note 6, Residential Requirement on Fourth Street in Table VI-1001 as follows: A residential use is required along the south side of Fourth Street from Central Avenue on the west to East Avenue on the east to keep the residential character of Fourth Street. The residential use may consist of existing or new residential structures. Mr. Taylor continued that Staff of the City Attorney's Office has suggested an additional sentence at the end of Note 6 as follows: A certificate of occupancy for residential use shall be issued prior to or simultaneously with a certificate of occupancy for a nonresidential use for a development on a zoning lot or adjacent zoning lots with frontage on both Fruitville Road and Fourth Street and such zoning lot or lots are under unified ownership or control. Mr. Taylor further stated that the language requires a developer having unified ownership of property between Fruitville Road and Fourth Street to develop the required residential on Fourth Street concurrent with or in advance of any nonresidential use to the south; that the language would exempt the property owner with no control of the property to the north. Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that the hope is the language makes sense to the Commission; that an affirmative recitation in the Downtown Code is necessary. Mr. Taylor stated that the fourth change concerns the following additional language in Section VI-1005 (G) (3), Building Height for 2 new buildings above the 10 story limit in the DTC Zone District: 1) At least 50 percent of the building's gross floor area shall contain nonresidential use(s). 2) The applicant must sign a covenant to ensure at least 50 percent of the building's gross floor area will contain nonresidential use(s) for the life of the development. The City Attorney must approve the covenant as to form. The covenant must be recorded prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project. 3) Adjustments to 1 and 2 above are prohibited. Mr. Taylor continued that the following change will also be made to Section IV-1903(B), Regulations Which May and May Not be Adjusted: 2. Ineligible Regulations. Adjustments are prohibited for the following items f. Requirements applicable to the two new buildings which may exceed the 10 story height limitation in the DTC Zone District allowable under Table VI-1003, Building Height Exception. Mr. Taylor further stated that the fifth change is a revision to the existing text for the Downtown Edge (DTE), Downtown Core (DTC), and Downtown Bayfront (DTB) Zone Districts regarding awnings, galleries, and arcades; that the language is consistent; that tree removal and replacement is subject to Article VII, Division 3.1, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) and the BOOK 56 Page 28070 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28071 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM) ; that a June 7, 2004, letter to the Commission from Brenda Patten, Attorney, law firm of Kirk Pinkerton, regarding adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4531, on second reading on June 7, 2004, was hand delivered and requests consideration for an amendment to proposed Ordinance No. 04-4531; that the effective date of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4531, if adopted, would be June 7, 2004, and would preclude the opportunity for anyone from seeking a rezoning to an interim implementing Zone District. Mr. Taylor referred to a Map of the Downtown Zone Districts displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated further that the Map indicates a property on Palm Avenue north of Mound Street and south of Alderman Street; that the request is to make a specific amendment in a portion of Section 5, Effective Date, of the proposed Ordinance; that the amendment would allow this property to apply for rezoning to the Residential Multiple Family 5 (RMF-5) Zone District; that the request is being made on behalf of Attorney Patten's client, Mary Selby Botanical Gardens (Selby Gardens); that the Commission must make the decision; that the request involves a presumed need for a street vacation of Alderman Street and a rezoning to the RMF-5 Zone District which would allow up to 90 feet in height over a maximum of 25 feet or two stories of parking; that the building would be approximately 110 feet compared with the five stories allowed under the DTE Zone District. Attorney Fournier stated that the ordinance which adopted the amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) based on the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan (Downtown Master Plan) was reviewed since extensive transitional and invested right provisions were included; that any rezoning to a former implementing Zone District would no longer be allowed once proposed Ordinance No. 04-4531 takes effect which is immediately upon adoption by the Commission; that the Commission has the discretion to change the language, if deemed appropriate; that alternative language can be provided. Commissioner Palmer stated that the intent is for proposed Ordinance No. 04-4531 to take effect as soon as possible; that background concerning the circumstance of Selby Gardens and the recommendation of Staff is requested. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff is aware Selby Gardens has been working to rezone the property for some time; that Selby Gardens had time to file prior to the effective date of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4531; that a neighborhood meeting was necessary; that Staff is concerned with allowing a building which would exceed the allowable height in the DTE Zone District; that Staff has been attempting to protect the area surrounding Burns Court from intensive development; that much of the area is intensively zoned in the Commercial Central Business District (CCBD) Zone District; that Staff is attempting to mitigate the intensity in the height of the development in the area; that the issue concerns compatibility; that the manner in which to advise the Commission at this time is difficult since the request from Attorney Patten was received just prior to the meeting; that many issues exist such as the request to only rezone the one property and not others; that at this time, Staff cannot recommend moving forward with an amendment to proposed Ordinance No. 04-4531 allowing the request for a rezone to the RMF-5 Zone District for the subject property. Vice Mayor Servian stated that amending proposed Ordinance No. 04- 4531 to allow the request is not supported; that the concern is many other individuals may request rezonings to properties since rezonings to former implementing Zone Districts will no longer be allowed once proposed Ordinance No. 04-4531 is adopted; that making a change for one property owner is not a good idea. Mayor Martin stated that the entire rezoning effort will be weakened if requests for rezonings to former implementing Zone Districts are granted; and asked the consensus of the Commission regarding the changes to the Downtown Code as presented by Staff? Commissioner Palmer stated that clarification regarding the decision reached concerning the black olive trees on Main Street is necessary; that the black olive trees are not being removed; that a process is required to remove the black olive trees; that the black olive trees must be replaced if possible; and requested Staff to provide clarification regarding the decision of the Commission concerning the black olive trees on Main Street. Mr. Taylor stated that the EDCM requires that if a tree is removed, a new tree must be planted on Main Street in an opportunistic Location which is subject to interpretation; that the belief is opportunistic locations would be bulb outs and in places in which trees would not interfere with pedestrians and businesses; that the proposed language would allow a property owner to come forward and make a request for removal of existing BOOK 56 Page 28072 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28073 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. trees; that the Planning Director will make a decision on a case by case basis; that the understanding is someone would be allowed to remove a tree if no other is was available to erect an awning, gallery, or arcade; that removal of a tree would require planting a new tree in its place, or in an opportunistic location, or a contribution to the Tree Replacement Fund or relocation of the tree, which in the case of a black Olive tree, is not likely; that the draft Downtown Code also includes a provision for trees to remain if a business owner installing or constructing an awning, gallery, or arcade does not desire to remove the tree; that the draft Downtown Code includes provisions for administrative adjustment and also an adjustment which would go before the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) once the Downtown Zone Districts are in place; that the black olive trees will not suddenly be removed once the Commission adopts proposed Ordinance No. 04-4531. Commissioner Palmer stated that the draft Downtown Code also includes language indicating the property owner would incur the cost of removal of a tree, if requested. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct. Mayor Martin stated that a more specific policy such as species of trees available as replacement trees will be forthcoming; and asked for clarification regarding any necessary repairs to brick work and sidewalk if a tree is removed? Mr. Taylor stated that the understanding is the cost of removing the tree including repairs to the sidewalk will be the responsibility of the property owner. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the language concerning removal of a tree could be interpreted as from the surface trunk of the tree up; that roots are attached to the stump. Mr. Taylor stated that the cost for removal and replacement of the tree as well as repair to the sidewalk will be determined by the City; that the cost determined by the City will be the responsibility of the business owner. Commissioner Palmer stated that the language in the draft Downtown Code concerning responsibility for the cost of removing and replacing a tree as well as repair to the sidewalk should not be based on a simple understanding; and asked for clarification. Mr. Taylor stated that the belief is the language in the draft Downtown Code includes the provision the business owner will be responsible for all costs associated with removal and replacement of the tree as well as any necessary repairs to the sidewalk. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the language does not specifically indicate repair of the sidewalk is the responsibility of the business owner; that the language only indicates the business owner will bear the cost of removing the tree. Mr. Taylor stated that some additional language can be added to provide clarification; that Staff will include the additional language deemed appropriate if the Commission adopts proposed Ordinance No. 04-4531. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that having the City bear the responsibility for performing the tree removal may be appropriate sO the work is done properly; that the Administration and Staff can address the issue. Mayor Martin agreed; and stated that the idea is good since the trees are in public right-ot-way. Commissioner Bilyeu asked for clarification regarding the request from Attorney Patten. Mr. Taylor stated that the area in question is slated for rezoning to the DTE Zone District which allows buildings five stories in height. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the height of the building could potentially be 80 feet; and asked if the five stories are above parking and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements? Mr. Taylor stated no; that the building could be five stories; that the potential also exists for an attic with habitable space if having a knee wall of no more than four feet as well as construction of a tower; that a basement could also be included if not exposed more than four feet above ground level; that quite a bit of height can be achieved. BOOK 56 Page 28074 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28075 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that height is not as much a concern as the actual procedure. Vice Mayor Servian agreed. Mayor Martin stated that height is an issue; that a two story difference exists between the RMF-5 and the DTE Zone Districts. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the RMF-5 Zone District allows 90 feet above 25 feet of parking which equals 115 feet. Mr. Taylor stated that additional levels of habitable space are potentially allowed in the RMF-5 Zone District; that under the RMF-5 Zone District, 90 feet above parking is allowed; that the habitable space would be the 90 feet; that potentially nine floors could be above parking; that additional space could be developed under the RMF-5 Zone District but is not guaranteed; that the proposal would be required to go through the site plan approval process; that the subject property is currently designated in the Office Professional Business (OPB) Zone District. Mayor Martin stated that the understanding is a street vacation would be required. Mr. Taylor stated that the understanding is a discussion of a street vacation took place; that nothing has been filed; that the specifics of the proposal are not known. Mayor Martin stated that Staff does not typically bring forward recommendations for street vacations. Mr. Taylor stated that the street vacation would be an issue; that the extent of the issue is not known; that the height of the building would likely be an issue as well. Mr. Taylor continued that regarding the removal of trees, additional language will be added to the categories of awning, gallery, and arcade to clarify the property owner will be responsible not only for the expense of removing the tree but also the added cost to repair the area which will be determined by the City; that the City could be the entity performing the repair and the removal or can obtain an outside contractor. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the additional language which will be included is supported. Mayor Martin and Commissioner Atkins agreed. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 04- 4531 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Vice Mayor Servian, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance 04-4531 on second reading with revisions reflected by the Comments/Issues List dated May 24, 2004, and with the following additional changes: 1) the cost to a private property owner for the replacement or removal of trees and all other costs relating to sidewalks, etc., will be the responsibility of the property owner and 2) the certificate of occupancy for a residential use on Fourth Street will be required prior to the certificate of occupancy for the commercial use on Fruitville Road if parcels between Fruitville Road and Fourth Street are under unified ownership or control. Mayor Martin stated that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4531 is being supported under protest due to the misguided tree policy. Mayor Martin 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. Mr. Taylor stated that to clarify, Staff will provide the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk with an amended Issues Matrix and will produce a new document to forward to the Municipal Code Corporation; that the Downtown Code will also be amended to reflect the changes requested by the Commission. 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. FOR THE LIDO BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VI-5) CD 3:53 through 3:55 Mayor Martin stated that the next item is to approve the Fifteenth Amendment to the Agreement for Engineering Services between the City and Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc. for the Lido Beach Renourishment Project. BOOK 56 Page 28076 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28077 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the permit for the Lido Beach Renourishment Project requires the City to perform annual monitoring for three years; that the contract is with Coastal Planning and Engineering; that the funding amount is $48,877; that the Fifteenth Amendment provides for the engineering services required to conduct the 2004 Annual Beach and Offshore Monitoring Study, which includes: 1) the Beach Dune and Offshore Survey and 2) the Beach Pertormance Monitoring Report, all as required by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and as described in the scope of work which is included in the Agenda backup material; that the Administration's recommendation is to 1) approve the Fifteenth Amendment to the Agreement and 2) authorize the Mayor to execute the document. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to 1) approve the Fifteen Amendment to the Agreement and 2) authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the document. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: : AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SEND A LETTER TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) DISTRICT SECRETARY REGARDING THE CITY COMMISSION/S POSITION ON EACH OF THE EIGHT DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS REGARDING U.S. 301 FROM U.S. 41 TO NORTH CITY LIMITS - APPROVED WITH A CHANGE TO RECOMMENDATION NO. 5 TO INCLUDE A PEDESTRIAN SLEEVE AT THE INTERSECTION OF TENTH STREET AND US 301 RATHER THAN SIXTH STREET (AGENDA ITEM VI-6) CD 3:55 through 4:23 Mayor Martin stated that the item is to approve to send a letter to the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District Secretary regarding the Commission's position on each of the eight design review comments regarding US 301 from US 41 to north City limits; and requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, and Osama "Sam" Freija, Manager of Traffic Engineering, came before the Commission. Mr. Daughters stated that in November 2003, FDOT and their consultant completed the design of the US 301 project to the 60 percent level; that neither the 30 percent nor the 60 percent plans were submitted to the City for review and comment; that after two requests, the consultant provided one set of the 60 percent design level plans on April 6, 2004; that upon review, Staff discovered several items which were previously requested by the City were not addressed or were addressed but not included; that Staff believes a letter, approved and authorized by the Commission, should be sent to the FDOT District Secretary regarding the following eight items, which should include the detail provided in the May 28, 2004, letter to the Commission from the City Engineer, regarding Design Review Comments to FDOT US 301 from US 41 to north City limits, which is included in the Agenda backup material: 1. third southbound lane on US 41 through Luke Wood Park; 2. hump on US 301 at Fruitville Road removed; 3. streetlights which are decorative; 4. urban type sidewalks; 5. Sixth Street crosswalk and pedestrian sleeves at Oak Street, Main Street, Sixth Street, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Wayi 6. side street improvements; 7. stormwater drainage improvements; and 8. landscaping budget. Mr. Daughters referred to computer-generated slides of each project displayed on the Chamber monitors throughout the discussion; and continued that the suggestion is to briefly discuss each item and Staff's recommendation for each item; that the Commission's position regarding each item will then be requested; that Item 1 is regarding the third southbound lane on US 41 through Luke Wood Park; that the Engineering Department requested the third southbound lane through Luke Wood Park from Osprey Avenue to US 41 be included; that instead, the plans submitted to the City by Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) indicate the third lane approximately half way into Luke Wood Park and extending to US 41; that a pictorial view indicates Staff's recommendation for the third southbound lane from Osprey Avenue; that the entire distance could be done within the right-ot-way; that FDOT plans indicate the third southbound lane starting mid-way through Luke Wood Park and taking up a significant amount of the median; that quite a few of the large palm trees in the median would be lost; that the Commission should decide if the third southbound lane is supported as per Staff's recommendation, or per the FDOT plans, BOOK 56 Page 28078 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28079 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. or if constructing the third southbound lane at all is supported. Commissioner Bilyeu asked which party would be responsible for the costs incurred to construct the third southbound lane? Mr. Daughters stated that FDOT would be responsible for the costs in either case. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if the City would be required to identify funds if the third southbound lane was constructed per the recommendation of Staff? Mr. Daughters stated no; that the State would fund the entire project as part of the US 301 project. Mr. Freija stated that the City had the project in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for approximately $906,000; that FDOT recommended the City move the fund into the US 301 project. Mr. Daughters stated that approximately $906,000 is available for the project. Vice Mayor Servian asked the level of service in the segment of roadway? Mr. Freija stated that the level of service is deficient which is the reason FDOT warranted improvement to the US 301 and US 41 intersection. Mr. Daughters stated that the City also has a project on Osprey Avenue at US 41 which includes the installation of a second left turn lane southbound to eastbound US 41; that the project is similar to a project performed at Orange Avenue and US 41 a few years ago; that the second left turn lane and changing the signal timing will encourage Downtown traffic to use US 41 rather than continuing south down Osprey Avenue; that at this time, the traffic signals and laneage encourages or entices people to use Osprey Avenue; that the preference is for people to use US 41; that the volume of traffic on US 41 will increase during peak evening hours. Vice Mayor Servian stated that adequate turning radius for the third southbound lane on US 41 is not evident in the plan recommended by Staff; that the turn at US 41 and US 301 appears tight; and asked if the curve could be dangerous? Mr. Freija stated that the belief is the situation will be no different than presently exists; that the curve will be continuous. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the inside lane has a tighter curve. Mr. Freija stated that a separator will be constructed if a continuous right turn lane is constructed; that weaving is a concern of FDOT; that weaving can be minimized by appropriate signage and installation of a separator to make vehicular traffic continue in the lane if traveling southbound. Vice Mayor Servian stated that directional markings painted on the road will assist as well. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Commission was supposed to have been involved prior to completion of the 60 percent plans; that FDOT is currently not committing to the initial commitments which places the Commission in an awkward situation; that FDOT indicated the Commission's input was anticipated; however, an opportunity to provide input to FDOT is not being provided; that the eight projects are not opposed and should move forward; that the Engineering Department should move forward on behalf of the Commission to obtain the improvements; that otherwise, the City will have to pay for the improvements. Mr. Daughters stated that the views expressed by Commissioner Palmer are correct; that Staff was surprised to find out the projects were at 60 percent plan review and had not been submitted to the City; that the 30 percent plan had not been submitted to the City; that some extensive and verbal Staff discussions regarding the effort have taken place. Mayor Martin stated that Commissioner Palmer's recommendation is to approve all eight of the recommendations rather than to review each project. Commissioner Palmer referred to the May 28, 2004, memorandum to the Commission from Mr. Daughters regarding the Design Review Comments to FDOT concerning US 301 from US 41 to north City limits, included in the Agenda backup material; and stated that five additional projects have been added; that clarification is requested regarding the following additional project: BOOK 56 Page 28080 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28081 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. p. Conversion of one eastbound lane on Fruitville Road east of US 301 to a second eastbound to southbound left turn lane. Mr. Daughters stated that the five additional projects are part of recommendation No. 6 regarding side street improvements. Mr. Freija stated that the language should be changed to clarify the conversion should be westbound to southbound. Commissioner Palmer stated that based on the presentation and the information included in the Agenda backup material, the recommendations are supported; that the process should move forward at this time rather than to continue reviewing each recommendation. Mayor Martin asked the Commission's wishes regarding review of the recommendations? Commissioner Atkins stated that recommendation No. 5, regarding Sixth Street crosswalk and pedestrian sleeves at Oak Street, Main Street, Sixth Street, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Way is a concern since a crosswalk at Tenth Street is not included in the recommendation. Mr. Daughters stated that a request was made for enhanced pedestrian crossings at Sixth Street, Main Street, Oak Street and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Wayi that the pedestrian crossings at Sixth Street, Main Street, and Oak Street are part of the recommendations included in the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020; that rather than enhanced pedestrian crossings, simple parallel lines for pedestrian crossings in areas in which signals presently exist are indicated; that at Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Way, zebra type striping is indicated at the traffic signal; that no other enhancements are indicated; that FDOT performed a study regarding Sixth Street; that the analysis indicates traffic counts do not warrant a signal at the Sixth Street and US 301 intersection; that FDOT's policy is pedestrian crosswalks will not be installed if no traffic signal exists; that EDOT performed an analysis at Tenth Street which indicated the intersection of Tenth Street and US 301 would warrant a traffic signal; that FDOT is recommending a pedestrian crossing at Tenth Street and US 301 rather than at Sixth Street; that Staff's position is the Downtown Master Plan 2020 recommended Sixth Street should be one of the neighborhood pedestrian sleeve crossingsi that the Gillespie Park neighborhood, at least in recent past, indicated a desire not to have Tenth Street signalized since a larger volume of traffic all the way from US 41 to Orange Avenue would be enticed to use Tenth Street. Commissioner Atkins stated that the reality is traffic will increase wherever a signalized intersection exists; that the question is if the desire is for increased traffic on Tenth Street or Sixth Street; that Tenth Street is personally preferred; that the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association would probably prefer increased traffic on the edge rather than through the middle of the neighborhood if the situation was more closely reviewed; that including Tenth Street in the recommendation is supported. Mayor Martin stated that FDOT indicated warrants will not be met at Sixth Street but will be met at Tenth Street; that the logic is not understood. Mr. Freija stated that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 indicates Sixth Street as the pedestrian sleeve since Sixth Street continues as a pedestrian sleeve extending west of US 41; that Sixth Street does not meet warrants for a traffic signal; however, as Commissioner Atkins indicated, traffic from Tenth Street will be enticed onto Sixth Street if a signal, although not warranted, is installed; that FDOT is not willing to consider a signal if not warranted; that FDOT will not enter into a position in which a signal is installed to encourage more traffic solely sO warrants will be met at a later date. Commissioner Atkins stated that the intersection of Tenth Street and US 301 is becoming more dangerous; that a pedestrian crossing is encouraged at the intersection; that the issues concerning Sixth Street can be addressed through the Downtown Master Plan 2020. Mayor Martin agreed; and asked if the Commission has reached consensus concerning the eight recommendations and the recommendation of Commissioner Atkins for a pedestrian crossing at the Tenth Street and US 301 intersection which should be added to recommendation No. 5? Vice Mayor Servian and Commissioners Palmer and Bilyeu agreed. BOOK 56 Page 28082 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28083 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Mr. Daughters stated that recommendation No. 3 is regarding streetlights which are decorative; that initially, FDOT was requested to install decorative streetlights in the entire corridor from US 41 near Wood Street to the north City limit near Myrtle Street; that due to the high cost, Staff's recommendation is for two reduced corridors and number of lights through the Downtown and the Newtown areas; that the City will be responsible for funding streetlights over and above FDOT standard lighting; that the reduced amount of street lighting would cost approximately $250,000; that decorative streetlights will become a budgeted item for the year of construction for the project. Mayor Martin asked the reason to include decorative streetlights as a recommendation to FDOT? Mr. Freija stated that the amount of spacing between decorative lights and standard lights will be different and will, therefore, require some funds from the City. Mayor Martin stated that taking action at this time will obligate the City to spend $250,000, which is a concerni that the request is unfunded in the Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Commissioner Palmer stated that any of the decorative lights in the Community Redevelopment Area could be funded through Tax Increment Financing (TIF) dollars; that the hope is to receive an estimate as to the amount which could be funded through the TIF fund and the amount necessary from the General Fund. Mr. Daughters stated that construction is anticipated in three to four years; that the actual commitment for the funding would be two to three years. Mayor Martin stated that decorative streetlights are loved; however, making an obligation at this time especially with the uncertainty of the economy and the City's budget is a concern. Vice Mayor Servian agreed; and stated that the Commission would be pre-committing to supporting the project in a Euture CIP which may not be a good idea; that people frequently request improvements and projects; that the Commission responds by indicating the requests will be raised at the following year's CIP; that the requests are prioritized; that making a commitment to include the decorative streetlights in a future CIP will circumvent the process. Commissioner Atkins stated that the concern of the Commission is understood; however, the including the improvement at this time is supported; that determining if the modified or standard version of streetlights is supported can be discussed in the future. Commissioner Palmer agreed. Mayor Martin requested that Staff provide clarification. City Manager McNees stated that TIF funding will likely be available for at least half of the decorative streetlights; that supporting the project in a future CIP is appropriate since the improvement affects major gateways into the Cityi that the decorative streetlights were considered important by the Commission, particularly considering the redevelopment effort in the Newtown area; that every tool should be used to spark the redevelopment effort. Mayor Martin stated that the problem is every tool to spark redevelopment costs moneyi that prioritizing improvements is difficult; that the recommendation should remain; that the Commission can change the request in the future if deemed appropriate. Mr. McNees stated that some projects for the Newtown area which were not already prioritized in the CIP will likely be included in the CIP which is not considered a problem; that the redevelopment plan is under funded at this time; that no TIF District exists in Newtown. Mayor Martin stated that the redevelopment plan is ambitious and is more or less entirely unfunded; that prioritizing key projects is difficult; and asked the consensus of the Commission to move forward with Recommendation No. 3, regarding decorative streetlights. Vice Mayor Servian stated that moving forward with the recommendation is supported. Commissioner Atkins agreed. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve the eight recommendations from BOOK 56 Page 28084 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28085 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. the Engineering Department with the change to Recommendation No. 5 to include a pedestrian sleeve at Tenth Street rather than Sixth Street and to authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District Secretary regarding the City Commission's position on each of the eight design review comments regarding US 301 from US 41 to north City limits. Mayor Martin asked if the recommendations should be prioritized? Mr. Daughters stated that the items as listed are prioritized. Mayor Martin called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yesi Martin, yes. 12. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION RE: : USE OF PAYNE PARK AUDITORIUM BY HOME OWNER ASSOCIATIONS FREE OF CHARGE DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO OFFER THE USE OF PAYNE PARK AUDITORIUM MEETING ROOMS TO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS FOR MEETINGS FREE OF CHARGE (AGENDA ITEM VI-7) CD 4:23 through 4:35 Mayor Martin stated that the item is to discuss and request direction concerning use of Payne Park Auditorium by Home Owner Associations free of charge; and requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. Nancy Carolan, Director, and Pamela Hayes, Manager, Purchasing, General Services, came before the Commission. Ms. Carolan referred to her June 1, 2004, memorandum to the Administration regarding use of Payne Park Auditorium, included in the Agenda backup material; and stated that the Commission directed Staff to review the possibility of offering the use of Payne Park Auditorium to Home Owner Associations for meetings free of charge; that two factors were taken into consideration: operating costs insurance/risk assessment Ms. Carolan continued that an interesting concept for insurance/risk assessment has been developed which will be presented by Staff; that the current practice is for the patrons of Payne Park Auditorium to provide the City with general liability insurance and to name the City as additional insured; that the current amount of insurance is 9250,000/9500,000 general liability; that in the lease signed by the user, an indemnification and hold harmless clause is included for the City; that organizations requesting use of the facility which are not sponsored by the City are required to provide insurance coverage; that the City is self insured sO having the patrons of the facility provide liability insurance limits the City's exposure; that the patron's insurance would be called upon first to handle any claims arising from use of the property. Ms. Hayes stated that the concept of the transier risk philosophy may assist in mitigating the issue; that the exposure still exists; however, the risk is transferred to the user sO the City as an additional insured remains covered since the user is bringing exposure to the City; that research was conducted; that discussions were held with Risk Management Staff and research was conducted with Miami-Dade County, Miami, Florida, and the University of Florida; that both have a procedure to purchase a special event policy; that $100,000 is the insurance deductible for the Payne Park Auditorium propertyi that the City is self-insured which is the reason for transferring the risk and asking the user for the certificate of insurance; that the City would have $1 million of coverage which was determined through estimates; that discussions took place with the University of Florida and Miami-Dade County's broker, Arthur J. Gallagher and Company, which is a broker for Western Heritage Insurance Companyi that estimates as to the type of event were provided which were basically 15 to 20 business/home owner association meetings annually; that the minimum premium was quoted at $2,500; that a $500 per occurrence deductible was also quoted; that one deductible of $500 would cover multiple injuries; that the research conducted indicated some users were charged back a minimal fee to try to regain the minimum premium amount; that the policy could be purchased and the user not charged back; that the minimum premium regardless of the number of events would be fixed. Vice Mayor Servian asked the number of neighborhood associations requesting use of Payne Park Auditorium? Commissioner Bilyeu stated three, possible four neighborhood associations have requested use of Payne Park Auditorium. Vice Mayor Servian stated that Payne Park Auditorium is a large space in which to meet; and asked if any other locations are available? BOOK 56 Page 28086 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28087 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that utilizing the entire Payne Park Auditorium is not necessary; that a 408 square foot meeting area for 15 to 20 people to meet on a monthly basis is the request; that other meeting places exist such as the substation in Gillespie Park; that the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association meets in the substation and does not have insurance; that the Rosemary District Neighborhood Association meets on City owned property in the Rosemary District substation and does not have insurance; that many more examples can be provided; that the hope was to make the 408 square foot meeting room available; that a meeting room with an outside entrance is being requested; that use of the entire Payne Park Auditorium is not being requested; that perhaps a room air conditioning unit can be purchased for $150 if air conditioning only the meeting room is not possible; that other neighborhood associations meet on City owned property and do not have insurance; that four to six neighborhood associations would use the meeting room; that the Payne Park Auditorium is a community building and is the perfect place for people to meet; that the Payne Park Auditorium originally served as the community center and meeting place for residents of the Sarasota Mobile Home Park; that to clarify, neighborhood associations rather than home owner associations will be meeting in the space. City Manager McNees stated that the issue can be simplified; that the Administration will make meeting rooms available at the Payne Park Auditorium at no charge to the neighborhood associations until the meeting room at City Hall becomes available if the Commission provides the direction; that no further discussion will then be necessary. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the issue can be revisited once a meeting room is made available at City Hall; that many of the neighborhood associations have elderly members who do not wish to drive far from their neighborhoods to meet; that Payne Park Auditorium should be available for use by the community free of charge. Mayor Martin, Vice Mayor Servian, and Commissioners Palmer and Atkins agreed. Mayor Martin stated that Payne Park Auditorium will be redesigned in the future; that separate air conditioning systems will be necessary sO smaller meeting rooms can be cooled without having to cool the entire building. Ms. Carolan stated that separate air condition systems are part of the future renovation as well as an upgrade to the restrooms; that no access is available to the restrooms or concession area if a small meeting room is sectioned off. Mayor Martin stated that the renovation should be designed in an efficient manner and be useful to the community. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the understanding is one of the purposes of the classroom at the Federal Building was for use by neighborhood associations; that small groups could also meet in the boardroom at the Federal Building; that other neighborhood associations have approached local businesses requesting sponsorship for a room in which to meet; and asked if an attempt has been made to contact local businesses? Commissioner Bilyeu stated yesi that some non-profit associations were contacted; however, a room could not be located. Vice Mayor Servian stated that private businesses may be of assistance; that private businesses can benefit by allowing neighborhood meetings to take place in small areas of the business; that people will spread the word about the business which creates free advertising; that a couple of neighborhood associations meet in a small room at the Radisson Lido Beach Resort; that the Radisson is aware the neighborhood associations will bring more business; that allowing people to meet free of charge at the Payne Park Auditorium is supported. Mayor Martin stated that the issue has raised other questions of use of City properties and insurance requirements. On motion of Commissioner Bilyeu and second of Vice Mayor Servian, it was moved to direct the Administration to offer the use of Payne Park Auditorium meeting rooms to neighborhood associations for meetings free of charge. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yesi Martin, yes. Mayor Martin stated that the Agenda for the afternoon session has not been completed and the meeting has extended past the 4:30 p.m. deadline; and asked the wishes of the Commission? BOOK 56 Page 28088 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28089 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that one person has signed up to speak under Agenda Item VIII, Additional Citizens' Input Concerning City Topics. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the preference is to hear the person who has signed up to speak under Agenda Item VIII, Additional Citizens' Input Concerning City Topics and continue the remaining Agenda items to the evening session. Mayor Martin and Commissioner Atkins and Bilyeu agreed. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the remaining New Business Agenda Item VII, regarding the Metropolitan Planning Organization, will be heard during the evening session under New Business, Agenda Item VII. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to extend the meeting beyond the 4:30 p.m. deadline to hear the person signed up to speak under Agenda Item VIII, Additional Citizens' Input Concerning City Topics. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. 13. ADDITIONAL CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM VIII) CD 4:36 through 4:40 The following person came before the Commission: Lisa Wilson, Director, Emerald Forest, 2718 Bayshore Road (34243), distributed her June 7, 2004, letter with accompanying documents to the Commission, also signed by Ellen Maloff, ISA Certified Arborist, and Mary Ann Bowie, AICP, regarding City Natural Resource Protection; and stated that on behalf of the citizens of Sarasota and the ecosystems in the community, the Mayor and the Commissioners are commended for interest in preserving the City's natural resources and improving citizens' social and environmental well being; that in an effort to expand such environmental assets for the City the importance of a missing component of City planning, permitting, and development review is stressed; that the fate of all City decision mal king impacting natural resource assets is being compromised since the City has no ecologist or environmental council as part of the process; that the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan), Recreation and Open Space, Environmental Protection, and Neighborhood Plan Chapters address the importance of acquisition and development needs for public open spaces, lists action strategies for resource preservation, Bay restoration, tree and wildlife protection, reduction of impervious surface areas and preserving and protecting neighborhood aesthetics, identity, history, and unique natural features; that to best balance these goals against the continued development in the City, the community deserves and needs City environmental experts to include a Ph.D., an ecologist, or a nationally experienced environmental science specialist, an urban forest manager, and an ISI certified arborist for helping to identify the most important lands and environment assets remaining in the City. Ms. Wilson continued that without an environmental specialist and comprehensive analysis, a best management practice for critical environmental policies cannot be ensured; that 15 percent tree canopy remains in the City; that the urban ecological analysis performed by Sarasota County generated the data which indicated the City's tree canopy has been reduced from 30 percent to 15 percent between 1975 and 2002; that the County also estimated the economic value of the City's remaining urban forest tree canopy is $13.5 million; that the Commission is requested to review the letter and the materials including a quote from Dr. Meg Lowman, former Chief Executive Officer of Mary Selby Botanical Gardens, who is in support of preserving one of the City's remaining urban forests; that the Commission is also requested to consider establishing a new management plan for the City for evaluating the City's ecological assets to include people such as Dr. Lowman, Dr. Bruce Rinker, Selby Botanical Gardens, and Ed Freeman, The Nature Conservancy, to become more aware of the remaining ecological assets in the City before the ecological assets disappear. Ms. Wilson further stated that the Commission is also requested to consider using funding being proposed to subsidize private commercial development projects to instead purchase much needed green space for the community; that the City does not have sufficient green space for the community; that the Commission is encouraged to contact her regarding the issue; that the time afforded to speak is appreciated. The Commission recessed at 4:40 p.m. and reconvened at 6:00 p.m. 14. COMMISSION PRESENTATION RE : EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR MAY 2004 (AGENDA ITEM XII-1) BOOK 56 Page 28090 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28091 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. CD 6:03 through 6:10 Mayor Martin requested that Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, and Darlene Mayes, Administrative Specialist II, Engineering Department, employee of the month, join him and the Commission at the Commission table. Mayor Martin continued that the Engineering Department performs the crucial work keeping the City connected and safe in many ways; that the work of the Engineering Department is appreciated; that awarding and recognizing Ms. Mayes as Employee of the Month for May 2004 is pleasing. Mr. Daughters stated that introducing Ms. Mayes as the Employee of the Month is a pleasure; that Ms. Mayes has been employed by the City for approximately 15 and one-half years; that Ms. Mayes began her employment in the Public Works Department; that Ms. Mayes's customer service abilities are excellent; that Ms. Mayes is responsible for all Engineering Department correspondence, mail distribution, scheduling of all meetings, and managing of all the Engineering Department Staff schedules; that Ms. Mayes often works through lunches and breaks to accomplish her duties; that Ms. Mayes also works a second job to put her daughter through college; that Ms. Mayes is affectionately known as Dolly May; that her husband and family are present in the Chambers audience. City Manager McNees stated that the burden of dealing with irate and harried Administration and Commissioners who were flooded with telephone calls from business Owners facing severe interruptions fell on the Engineering Department; that Ms. Mayes courteously fielded the calls; that the entire Engineering Department is recognized in the Chambers audience; that a business owner sent cookies to the Engineering Department in appreciation of the manner in which information was disseminated regarding street closures; that Ms. Mayes and the entire Engineering Department are congratulated for the good work. Mayor Martin presented Ms. Mayes with a City-logo watch, a plaque, and a certificate as the May 2004 Employee of the Month in appreciation of her unique performance with the City of Sarasota; and congratulated her for her outstanding efforts and for serving with excellence and pride. Ms. Mayes thanked Mr. Daughters for the opportunity to advance her career and her supervisor, Karen Lusk, for believing in her and providing the courage to take the initiative; thanked her husband for standing by her; that family members and her pastor present in the Chambers audience are thanked; that the Engineering Department's staying an extra hour for the presentation is appreciated. 15. COMMISSION PRESENTATION RE: PROCLAIMING JUNE 21 THROUGH 27, 2004, AS FLORIDA WOMEN IN GOVERNMENT (FWG) WEEK (AGENDA ITEM XII-2) CD 6:12 through 6:16 Mayor Martin requested that the members of the Florida Women in Government, Inc., come before the Commission and stated that the Florida Women in Government, Inc., was developed in fiscal year 1963/64 by Dr. John E. Miklos at the request of city managers whose desire was to foster the development of professionalism among government employees and read in its entirety the Proclamation designating June 21 through 27, 2004, as Florida Women in Government, Inc., Week. Mary Jackson, President, Florida Women in Government, Inc., thanked the Commission, the Administration, the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk, and the City department heads for the support and encouragement in the effort to provide a positive influence in government, community, and each individual participant. 16. COMMISSION PRESENTATION RE: PROCLAIMING JUNE 16, 2004 AS SARASOTA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS APPRECIATION DAY (AGENDA ITEM XII-3) CD 6:16 through 6:19 Mayor Martin requested that Georgina Clamage, Chair, of the Sarasota Association of Realtors Community Outreach Committee, and Kurt Singleton, Chief Executive Officer, and Nick Figlow, President, Sarasota Association of Realtors, join him at the Commission table and stated that the Sarasota Association of Realtors goes above and beyond in performing community service; and read in its entirety the Proclamation designating June 16, 2004, as Sarasota Association of Realtors Appreciation Day; and thanked the members for the work serving the community. Mr. Figlow thanked the Commission for the excellent City in which to sell real estate; that Ms. Clamage and Mr. Kyburz performed a great job in the Brush Up Sarasota Program; that the Community Outreach Committee is very dedicated; that the Brush Up Sarasota is an opportunity to give back to the community BOOK 56 Page 28092 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28093 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. which is well-loved; that naming a day for the Sarasota Association of Realtors is an honor and is appreciated. 17. SCHEDULED PRESENTATION RE: PRESENTATION RE: RATES FOR CITY REGULATED TAXICAB SERVICES REFERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATION: FOR EVALUATION AND A REPORT BACK TO THE COMMISSION (AGENDA ITEM XIII-1) CD 6:19 through 6:26 Mayor Martin stated that the presentation concerns the rates for City regulated taxicab services. Timothy Goodwin, General Manager, Diplomat Transportation, Inc., came before the Commission and stated that Yellow Cab of Sarasota joins Diplomat Transportation, Inc., in the petition. Mr. Goodwin continued that the last time local taxi rates were raised was almost four years ago; that the cost of gasoline in the last year increased over 28 percent; that the cost has increased an additional ten cents per gallon in the past three weeks; that the gasoline expense is borne by the taxi drivers; that approximately 95 percent of the taxicabs in Sarasota are leased from the owners; that the taxi drivers have absorbed operating increases during the past few years; however, the gasoline cost has severely impacted the drivers; that a taxi driver drives between 200 to 400 miles daily; that some taxi drivers must provide insurance; that insurance rates have increased over 57 percent since 2002; that the average meter drop and the average rate per mile are in excess of $2 in cities in Florida with populations under 100,000; that taxi companies across the country are petitioning local governments for increases in rates; that taxi drivers cannot continue to make a living with the increased expenses; that the loss of taxi drivers who cannot make a living results in fewer taxicabs on the streets which increases the response time for the customers. Mr. Goodwin further stated that the requested rate increase does not benefit the corporations which own the taxicabs; that the rate increase will benefit the drivers; that idle taxicabs can be returned to service if a sufficient income is provided by raising the rates. Mr. Goodwin stated further that the requested increase to the passenger is modest as follows: 3 Miles 5 Miles 10 Miles 20 Miles Current Rate $7.10 $10.60 $19.35 $36.85 Proposed Rate 8.70 13.00 23.75 45.25 Difference $1.60 $2.40 $4.40 $8.50 Mr. Goodwin stated that a 20 mile trip usually requires driving an empty taxicab back to the original zone. Mayor Martin stated that the Commission's consensus is to refer the matter to the Administration for evaluation and a report back to the Commission. 18. SCHEDULED PRESENTATION RE : PRESENTATION RE: REPORT BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE HANDS OF HERITAGE MULTICULTURAL FESTIVAL COMMITTEE RECEIVED REPORT; DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO ADDRESS THE REQUESTS OF THE HANDS OF HERITAGE MULTICULTURAL FESTIVAL COMMITTEE AND APPROVED APPLYING THE REMAINING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,551.54 IN THE BUDGET FOR THE 2004 EVENT (AGENDA ITEM XIII-1) CD 6:26 through 6:35 Chaplain Tom Pfaff and Stephania Feltz, Committee Members, Hands of Heritage Multicultural Festival Committee, and Mark Marvell, General Manager, The Back Lot, came before the Commission. Ms. Feltz stated that the presentation is to provide a report concerning the City of Sarasota 100th Anniversary Grant Hands of Heritage: Multi-Cultural Fair expenditures indicating good stewardship of the funds; that the desire is to continue the Multicultural Festival; that the Commission is invited to participate in the future Multicultural Festivals. Chaplain Pfaff stated that financial information is included in the Agenda backup material; that the information has been shared with the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk and the fiscal agent, the Community Foundation of Sarasota County to ensure accuracyi that due to the generosity of the City, the actual cash requirements were less than budgeted; that $1,551.54 remains in the fund. Ms. Feltz stated that another Hands of Heritage Festival will be conducted; that the festival will be named Sarasota's BOOK 56 Page 28094 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28095 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Neighborhood Block Party and will occur on Saturday, November 13, and Sunday, November 14, 2004; that the festival will be conducted in The Backlot of a neighborhood; that fun, food, and family activities will be free of charge; that the festival is an opportunity for families to celebrate cultural heritages and recognize the diversity in Sarasota. Chaplain Pfaff stated that a five-part invitation is presented; that Mayor Martin, Vice Mayor Servian, and Commissioner Palmer participated in the 2003 Multicultural Festival parade in 2003; that the Commission is invited to attend and participate in the 2004 Sarasota's Neighborhood Block Party. Ms. Feltz stated that the City is requested to support a proclamation to allow the event to be City-sanctioned. Chaplain Pfaff stated that the expectation is to have a parade not only on the campus of The Backlot but potentially parading outside The Backlot; that assistance will be requested from the Administration to determine the best approach for a route and to provide advice regarding security. Ms. Feltz stated that the hope is to have a City Liaison from the Neighborhood Partnership Office. Chaplain Pfaff stated that the hope is the Commission will consider the vision of an annual event; that the $1,551.54 left from the previous event will provide the seed capital for the contemplated 2004 celebration; that the Commission is requested to allow the use of the remaining funds for the 2004 event. Mayor Martin stated that hearing the Commission's consensus, the Administration is directed to address the requests of the Hands of Heritage Multicultural Festival Committee; that the 2003 festival was an excellent event; that an additional event is pleasantly anticipated. Commissioner Atkins asked if an opportunity to apply for funds from the Tourist Development Council or the Arts Council has been considered? City Manager McNees stated that the Commission can by consensus approve applying the remaining funds in the budget for the 2004 event. Mayor Martin stated that hearing the Commission's consensus, applying the remaining funds in the budget for the 2004 event is approved. Mayor Martin that the Hands of Heritage Multicultural Festival was a labor of love and provided fun; that a spirit of community was demonstrated; that knowing another festival will occur is pleasing. Mayor Martin 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. 19. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1760, APPROVING CITY INITIATED APPLICATION NO. 04- PA-01 REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CHAPTER OF THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN (1998) TO INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE THE IMPLEMENTATION SECTION OF THE SARASOTA COUNTY MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AS PART OF THE SARASOTA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ; SAID MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN INCLUDES "BOAT FACILITY SITING CRITERIA" APPLICABLE TO MARINA CONSTRUCTION AND EXPANSION; AUTHORIZING THE TRANSMITTAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT; ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 04-PA-01) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM XIV-A-1) CD 6:35 through 7:29 Mayor Martin stated that proposed Resolution No. 04R-1760 approves City initiated Application No. 04-PA-01 to amend the Environmental Protection Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) to incorporate by reference the BOOK 56 Page 28096 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28097 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. implementation section of the Sarasota County Manatee Protection Plan which includes boat facility siting criteria; opened the public hearing; and requested that Staff come forward. David Smith, AICP, Senior Planner II, Planning and Redevelopment Department, and Amy Meese, Project Scientist, Environmental Services, Natural Resources, Sarasota County, came before the Commission. Mr. Smith stated that Ms. Meese was the Project Manager for the Sarasota County Manatee Protection Plan (Manatee Protection Plan); that Staff of the Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement Department are in the audience to answer any questions regarding boat permitting if desired; that Application No. 04-PA-01 is a large scale amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the public hearing is a transmittal hearing; that the decision of the Commission will be to send the amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and other State reviewing agencies for comments; that an adoption public hearing will be conducted in approximately four months; that Application No. 04-PA-01 is a City initiated text amendment to add a new Action Strategy 1.12 to the Environmental Protection Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan adopting by reference an Implementation Section of the Sarasota County Manatee Protection Plan; that the Manatee Protection Plan includes two sections: the Manatee Protection Plan and a Boat Facility Siting Plan; that the Boat Facility Siting Plan includes location criteria. Mr. Smith referred to maps included in the Agenda backup material indicating locations for boat facilities in Sarasota Bay and the Gulf of Mexico; and stated that not recommended, conditional, and recommended areas for boat facilities are indicated on the mapsi that the Manatee Protection Plan includes the entire County but is not yet in effect for the City; that the Manatee Protection Plan will not be in effect in the City until the City adopts the Manatee Protection Plan; that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission will utilize the Manatee Protection Plan as a data source in reviewing boat facility permits in the City; however, the Manatee Protection Plan is currently not in effect for the Cityi that many benefits will derive from adoption of the Manatee Protection Plan; that the Manatee Protection Plan strengthens environmental protection policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that approximately one year ago, the City applied for the State's Local Government Comprehensive Planning Certification Program which, unfortunately, was not received; that one drawback to the City's Comprehensive Plan is the lack of a Manatee Protection Plan in the environmental policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the Manatee Protection Plan also includes many protective measures for reducing threats to the endangered manatee; that the Manatee Protection Plan will provide more predictability in the permitting of boat docks in the City. Mr. Smith continued that adoption of the Manatee Protection Plan will allow development in the City classified as Development of Regional Impact (DRI); that the City will be exempt from the DRI process if the plans are consistent with the Boat Facility Siting Plan; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) recommended denial of Application No. 04-PA-01 at its May 12, 2004, meeting due to the lack of complete information regarding the Manatee Protection Plan; that an adoption public hearing can be held in the future if the City approves transmittal to the DCA; that the recommendation is to allow for an additional review of the Manatee Protection Plan by the PBLP. City Manager McNees stated that providing an overview of the project would be helpful for the two new Commissioners who have not seen the two previous presentations. Ms. Meese stated that the Manatee Protection Plan is a component based document; that elements of the plan were completed since the Governor's initiative to produce a Manatee Protection Plan; that over the last three years, all the different components were brought together to become the Sarasota County Manatee Protection Plan; that the process has been ongoing for over a decade; that speed zones were imposed in 1991; that speed zones are not proposed in the Manatee Protection Pian; that County Staff asked the State if recommending additional speed zones was required and the State indicated no additional speed zones were required; that the County elected to leave the speed zones intact as developed in the Manatee Protection Plan as the Federal Government found no areas of inadequate protection in the County. Ms. Meese displayed slides concerning the Manatee Protection Plan on the Chamber monitors throughout the presentation and stated that the goals of the Manatee Protection Plan are to: provide a useful and broadly supported Plan; meet the objective of protection of manatees and their habitat; BOOK 56 Page 28098 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28099 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. consider the impact of boat facility siting on the community to meet regulatory requirements; consolidate and coordinate the different agencies and groups responsible for development review of sited boat facilities. Ms. Meese continued that in 1989, a gubernatorial initiative identified 12 key counties to develop Manatee Protection Plans; that the State Legislature formalized the requirements for Manatee Protection Plans in the 2002 Legislative Session; that Section 370.12, Florida Statutes, specifies requirements of a Manatee Protection Plan and due dates for compliance with the statutory requirements; that Sarasota County has an ecologically significant manatee population; that a strategy has been developed to comply with Section 370.12, Florida Statutes; that all the local municipalities, the public, State and local governments, and Mote Marine Laboratory and Aquarium were involved in the development process of the Manatee Protection Plan. Commissioner Palmer stated that the requirement is for the counties to adopt the Manatee Protection Plan by July 1, 2004; and asked the timeframe for the City to coordinate with the County? Ms. Meese stated that Section 370.12, Florida Statutes, does not specify a timeframe for the Cityi that State officials have advised in a County Manatee Protection Plan any incorporated municipality which does not adopt the Manatee Protection Plan will be treated as if not covered; that the City will be treated as a non-covered entity until such time as the City takes action; that the City will be subject to the rules, regulations, and injunctions of the State and the City; however, no benefits will be derived. Ms. Meese continued that many public meetings were held during the development of the Boat Facility Siting Plan and the Manatee Protection Plan; that each public meeting was associated with a comment period; that the Manatee Protection Plan is available on the County's web site and all reference desks at County libraries; that an intergovernmental team comprised of representatives of all the municipalities including the City provided feedback; that reports of two public meetings were provided to the Commission, the State, and the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners; that recently the Board of Adjustment was provided a copy of the Manatee Protection Plan. Ms. Meese further stated that the history of the Manatee Protection Plan project commenced with the 1989 gubernatorial initiative; that for the past ten years, components of the Manatee Protection Plan have been accomplished such as establishing speed zones, working on educational materials and signage, etc.; that contracts were entered into with Mote Marine Laboratory and Aquarium and the State in December 2000 to develop the Boat Facility Siting Plan, which was delivered to the State in 2001; that the Manatee Protection Plan was submitted to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission in June 2003; that in September 2003, the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners adopted the Manatee Protection Plan; that State approval was subsequently received; however, the State excluded the variance procedure incorporated in the Manatee Protection Plan as the procedure undermined the effectiveness of the Manatee Protection Plan and did not meet required objectives. Ms. Meese stated further that the Boat Facility Siting Plan applies to five slips or more which pertain to multi-family or commercial facilities; that the Boat Facility Siting Plan does not apply to single-family boat slips; that County ordinances allow two slips on a single-family property; that neighbors can join to install one boat slip structure; that the Boat Facility Siting Plan provides for manatee protection only; that other existing regulations and provisions work in concert with the Boat Facility Siting Plan; that the Boat Facility Siting Plan does not supercede existing regulations and contains a built-in review cycle for additional data and information which becomes available. Mayor Martin asked the manner in which duplexes or fourplexes are regulated? Ms. Meese stated that properties with less than five dwelling units will be covered under existing regulations. Vice Mayor Servian asked the definition of a building review cycle? Ms. Meese stated that the Boat Facility Siting Plan contains a built-in review cycle which indicates every five years the Boat Facility Siting Plan will be reviewed for effectiveness; that a built-in abbreviation mechanism exists providing for the County to incorporate changes prior to the five year review cycle if the status of the manatee changes. BOOK 56 Page 28100 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28101 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Vice Mayor Servian asked if the Manatee Protection Plan and Boat Facility Siting Plan are Federal mandates? Ms. Meese stated no; that the Manatee Protection Plan is independent of Federal regulation; however, the US Fish and Wildlife Service endorsed the State's approval of the Manatee Protection Plan although under no obligation to do so; that the Federal Government has reviewed the Manatee Protection Plan and determined the Manatee Protection Plan adequately protects Manatees and meets Federal objectives for protection. Ms. Meese continued that the initial strategy was to consider zoning and land use which was a concern; that zoning and land use regulations were sO restrictive to preclude few boat facilities in the County which was unacceptable; that use of the waterway by natural resources and manatees cannot be controlled; that manatee inhabited areas are areas which are most restricted for boat facility siting; that secondary use areas contain the most flexibility for boat facility siting; that the process followed a logical chain based on manatee population. Commissioner Palmer stated that a speaker at the May 12, 2004, PBLP meeting indicated limitations exist on sitings particularly regarding marinas; that marinas are only allowed at Lido Beach and Ken Thompson Parks in the City; that the proposed Cultural District Master Plan contemplates a boating facility at Centennial Park; that Lido Beach and Ken Thompson and Centennial Parks are all public locations; that no ability exists to site a marina at any private frontage on Sarasota Bay. Ms. Meese stated that the recommendations are based on the data regarding manatee habitat; that although the variance procedure was set aside by the State, a variance process exists for siting a proposed facility; that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the US Fish and Wildlife Service will consider site specific characteristics and the merits of the facility and provide a recommendation based on the consideration. Commissioner Palmer stated that a concern is only public locations are recommended; that installing boating facilities at a private location will require a variance process; that locations have been identified which may entertain the development of marine facilities. Ms. Meese stated that some conditional siting areas are within the City and can be permitted with certain conditions. Vice Mayor Servian stated that a significant amount of shoreline included in the Manatee Protection Plan is private. Commissioner Palmer stated that the meaning of the terms "priority" and "secondary use" is unknown. Vice Mayor Servian referred to the map displayed on the Chamber monitors and stated that sites which are not recommended for boating facilities and sites which are recommended are indicated; that the recommended areas extend from the Hyatt of Sarasota Hotel boat basin to near the County line, along New Pass, at the south end of Lido Key, and along Ken Thompson Park; that all the conditional sites are along the northeastern side of Bird Key and along the remainder of the shoreline with the exception of one conditional area; that a concern is the identification of conditional siting areas may affect the establishment of a mooring field. Mr. Smith stated that the map indicates possible sitings for five to. nine boat slips; that conditional siting areas indicate the location of boating facilities can be approved but additional facilities such as educational kiosks, recycling requirements, etc., may be required. Ms. Meese stated that the PBLP indicated a distinction is not made between sail boats and motorboats; that the motor to sail ratio is a criterion considered for conditional siting; that a facility is regarded more favorably with a reduced motorized ratio; that changes were made based on input received at previous meetings; that the tip of New Pass was originally designated as conditional siting area and is currently recommended; that the northeast side of Bird Key was originally designated as a conditional siting area; that an effort was to open siting potential in the City. Ms. Meese continued that the County is complying with the requirements of the Florida Statutes; that a County implementation ordinance was adopted to eliminate redundant comprehensive plan amendments; that a County ordinance is in effect to allow the use of the Manatee Protection Plan; that amendments to the Apoxsee, the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, will be considered through the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process; that the Florida Department of Community BOOK 56 Page 28102 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28103 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Affairs (DCA) has supported the strategy to avoid redundancy; that other codes which may be in conflict will be updated. Ms. Meese further stated that the single site representing an entrapment hazard in the County is located in the City; that a culvert collapsed in the roadway between St. Armands Circle and Lido Keyi that the State has approved replacement of the culvert with an exclusion device as proposed by the City and County; that the County is currently attempting to secure a grant for the monofilament line recycling strategy. Ms. Meese stated further that speed zones and entorcement were a concern of the PBLP; that currently the Manatee Protection Plan does not include any new speed zone recommendations; that signage enhancements and a guide to speed zones were addressed; that a subcommittee comprised of law enforcement officers from every municipality in the County as well as representatives of the State and Federal governments cooperated to develop law enforcement recommendations for the Manatee Protection Plan; that all were concerned regarding the number of officers and the amount of funding available for enforcement on the water; that a recommendation included in the Manatee Protection Plan is funds should be diverted to counties with adopted Manatee Protection Plans to assist in enforcing the rules; that the Manatee Protection Plan contains an assessment of law enforcement hours on the water and the areas law enforcement addresses; that a task force of the different stakeholders will be formed to address more of the coordination issues. Ms. Meese stated that the variance procedure in the Manatee Protection Plan is density-based; however, the State decided the variance procedure compromised the effectiveness of the Manatee Protection Plan and required consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service; that the next steps for the County are the EAR process and amendments to Apoxsee, the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, which will require approval by DCA. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission; referred to electronic mail correspondence (email) dated April 8, 2004, from Timothy Litchet, Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement to David Smith, Senior Planner, included in the Agenda backup material and indicating the State will administer the Manatee Protection Plan if adopted as proposed; and stated that the City will be required to prepare a separate Manatee Protection Plan at some cost and additional operational costs if the County's Manatee Protection Plan is not adopted by the City. Ms. Meese stated that the State is amenable to the City's adopting or incorporating the Manatee Protection Plan in the City's Comprehensive Plan by reference; that the City has the option to prepare its own Manatee Protection Plan; that the City would incur the cost of preparing a Manatee Protection Plan; that the cost of preparing the County Manatee Protection Plan was approximately $180,000 which was the administrative portion involving Mote Marine Laboratory and Aquarium to collect the information, the administration of the Manatee Protection Plan, and the public hearing process; that the $180,000 does not include costs for the previous ten years. Vice Mayor Servian referred to an email dated May 24, 2004, from Mr. Smith and which is included in the Agenda backup material and is a response to her email to Mr. Smith attempting to understand the impact of moving forward with the moorings due to the recommendations concerning conditional sitings; and asked if the recommendations have been evaluated to determine an impact? Mr. Schneider stated noi that the consultant for the submerged lands lease application process will address the issue of the conditional recommendations. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Manatee Protection Plan has not been presented to the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Advisory Board; that a concern is the timing requirements if the City desires to be included in the County Manatee Protection Plan; that review by the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Advisory Board is necessary. Mr. Smith stated that the two alternatives are to: 1) vote to not transmit the amendment to the DCA and direct Staff to present the Manatee Protection Plan to the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Advisory Board and report back to the Commission, or 2) vote to transmit the amendment to the DCA and during the interim prior to the City's adoption public hearing present the Manatee Protection Plan to the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Advisory Board for comments and return to the PBLP for review; that Ms. Meese can provide an additional presentation prior to the City's adoption public hearing if desired. The following people came before the Commission: BOOK 56 Page 28104 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28105 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Bob Soran, 403 Meadowlark Drive (34236), representing Jack Graham, Inc., stated that the Manatee Protection Plan has been in process for many years and should come to fruition and implementation; that he attended the two public hearings for the Boat Facility Siting Plan and three of the four County public hearings concerning the Manatee Protection Plan; that the Boat Facility Siting Plan is an integral and significant part of the Manatee Protection Plan; that all the public hearings were well- attended; that significant public input was received and is reflected in the Manatee Protection Plan; that everyone will not be satisfied with the proposed Manatee Protection Plan; however, a good compromise was reached; that the City should recognize the Manatee Protection Plan should be clearly understood between the County and the Cityi that a definitive line dividing the County and the City waterways does not exist; that meetings have been conducted with the Florida Wildlife and Conservation Commission which controls the Endangered Species Act and receives significant input from the various Manatee Protection Plans; that the Florida Wildlife and Conservation Commission indicated the County's Manatee Protection Plan is one of the better plans received from any jurisdiction in the State. Mr. Soran continued that the previous Director of the DCA, Colleen Castille, who is currently the Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, has commented the Manatee Protection Plan is a good plan and her Staff was impressed with the amount of work and forethought which went into the Manatee Protection Plan; that the County has done well in bringing the Manatee Protection Plan forward with significant hard work; that the hope is the City would benefit from the hard work and not be required to reinvent the effort; that a permit was recently received to significantly expand the marina at Marina Jack which is in a conditional siting area; that the County Manatee Protection Plan assisted in securing the permit as all the requirements were identified; that virtually no construction of boating facilities is occurring in Manatee County as Manatee County has not adopted a Manatee Protection Plan; that special conditions associated with the Marina Jack permit include a kiosk which is already in place, monofilament line recycling, recycle bins, and displaying videotapes in the dock master's office regarding manatee protection; that protecting the manatees is the reason for conditional siting locations; that the Commission is encouraged to move the Manatee Protection Plan forward to the DCA; that the City has received significant input regarding the Manatee Protection Plan; that expending funds for a separate Manatee Protection Plan is not encouraged. Stan Zimmerman, 2469 Novus Street (34237), stated that adopting the Manatee Protection Plan will modify the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan); that the Manatee Protection Plan is not a resolution or an ordinance but is rather a fundamental document which will be added to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the Manatee Protection Plan document is in excess of 200 pages; that the Manatee Protection Plan is a serious issue; that much has been discussed regarding process but little regarding content in the Manatee Protection Plan; that the content is disturbing; that a high school debate coach would advise setting the terms of the debate leads halfway to victoryi that one of the primary terms in the Boat Facility Siting Plan is egregiously in error and is used throughout the Manatee Protection Plan; that the term is the word "mooring"; and quoted the definition of the term "mooring" from the List of Definitions of the Boat Facility Siting Plan: A location where one vessel is berthed or stored when not in use. Types of moorings identified by Antonini (1998) include anchorage, beached or blocked dry stack, hoist ramp, seawall, trailer, or wet slip. Mr. Zimmerman continued that sailors are specific about terminologies; that a marina, rack storage, and a trailer are not moorings; however, throughout the Manatee Protection Plan every place a boat may be stored is called a mooring which leads to ironic passagesi and quoted Section 11.6.2, Data Trend Observation, from the Boat Facility Siting Plan as follows: The Sarasota County waterway shore line is near the saturation point with respect to moorings. Mr. Zimmerman further stated that Sarasota Bay is not saturated with moorings; that the type of poor definition and poor content permeates the Boat Facility Siting Plan; that Figure II.42 of the Manatee Protection Plan indicates the only places for proposed marine facilities, including dock launching ramps and other marine uses, are public land on south Lido Key, Ken Thompson Park, and the shore line from the John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art and New College; that all other sites are designated as conditional; that the conditions are unknown; that boating facilities must be constructed on public land if the Manatee Protection Plan is incorporated in the City's Comprehensive Plan; BOOK 56 Page 28106 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28107 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. that no private marina development will occur; that only one private marina exists in the City but is on the verge of closing; that every other marina in the City is on City-owned property; that an exemption from the requirement to file a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) was granted to the Sarasota Sailing Squadron; that obtaining an exemption from the DRI requirement is not a significant difficulty. Mr. Zimmerman stated further that five minutes to speak does not provide sufficient time to provide critical commentary on the content of the Manatee Protection Plan; that the PBLP unanimously recommended denial of transmitting the Manatee Protection Plan to the DCA at its May 12, 2004, meeting; that voting against manatee protection takes courage as protecting the manatee is everyone's desire; however, the PBLP voted against the Manatee Protection Plan due to fundamental flaws which will haunt the City for a long time; that the City has the capability and the talent to develop its own Manatee Protection Plan which is sensitive to the City's needs; that directing Staff to prepare a Manatee Protection Plan and not transmitting the County Manatee Protection Plan to the DCA for approval is recommended. There was no one else signed up to speak. Ms. Meese and Mr. Smith came forward. Ms. Meese stated that a concern of the PBLP was regarding clarification of the restriction in the Manatee Protection Plan concerning vessel draft of one foot clearance; that the intent of the restriction is to protect bottom lands and sea grasses; that the one foot clearance is from the deepest portion of the vessel to the bottom or the sea grass which is consistent with the Sarasota County Water and Navigation Control Authority regulations and a standard similarly required by the State; that another concern was no Environmentally Sensitive Lands Protection Program (ESLPP) sites exist in the City; that the ESLPP can acquire lands in the City; that recently a new site was added in the City; that an additional site is recommended for incorporation in the ESLPP in the City; that the Commission previously voted unanimously to support the ESLPP referendum despite the fact no ESLPP lands were proposed in the City at the time. Mayor Martin stated that the Commission will receive a presentation concerning ESLPP sites in the City at the June 21, 2004, Regular Commission meeting; that numerous sites will be presented and identified. Ms. Meese continued that the issue of the variance procedure was previously addressed; that the Manatee Protection Plan does not recommend speed zones; that the PBLP questioned the determination of the five or more slips threshold for review by the State and Federal governments; that recommended and conditional sites for new facilities are based only on manatee information; however, other information can be taken into consideration; that Mr. Zimmerman indicated conditions have been removed from the Manatee Protection Plan which is inaccurate; that conditions remain in the Manatee Protection Plan; however, the Manatee Protection Plan indicates other reasonable conditions may be considered such as providing education, establishing a motor-sail ratio, etc.; that the Manatee Protection Plan may streamline the process of installing new marinas as all requirements and information are contained in one document; that the definition of mooring has been addressed often; that the term "mooring" as a nautical term is understood; that much of the data regarding facilities in the Manatee Protection Plan is from the work of Gus Antonini who utilized the definition of mooring as contained in the Manatee Protection Plan; that the term mooring in the Manatee Protection Plan is a colloquialism rather than a nautical term; that the City has the option to develop its own Manatee Protection Plan; that the Manatee Protection Plan can be updated as necessary. Mayor Martin closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 04R-1760 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve proposed Resolution No. 04R-1760 authorizing transmittal of Application No. 04-PA-01 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). Vice Mayor Servian stated that significant time and effort has been expended in developing the Manatee Protection Plan; that questions were answered through email and the current presentation; that having all the information in one document to streamline installing boat facilities is pleasing; that reinventing the effort is not appropriate; that the time and effort in developing the Manatee Protection Plan are appreciated. BOOK 56 Page 28108 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28109 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Commissioner Atkins stated that based on the presentation and reading the Manatee Protection Pan, a safety net is provided for the City to continue to monitor the process; that moorings on properties other than City-owned properties will be good. Commissioner Palmer stated that the City should consider points made by Mr. Zimmerman; that the City is currently attempting to establish a mooring facility at the Bayfront; that a concern is the Manatee Protection Plan may preclude establishing a mooring facility; that a sufficient answer was not received regarding private marine facilities which consist of five slips or more; that the definition regarding recommended and conditional siting locations for boating facilities consisting of five or more slips is not understood; that a concern is adopting the Manatee Protection Plan may result in foreclosure of the opportunity for development of boating facilities in the private sector; that a concern is adopting a plan which allows boating facilities only on public land; that the Commission should move forward with the Manatee Protection Plan; however, the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Advisory Board should review the Manatee Protection Plan; that the PBLP should be afforded the opportunity for re-review prior to final adoption; that a concern is the Manatee Protection Plan was not presented to the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Advisory Board prior to presentation to the Commission. Mayor Martin asked the status of the mooring field and if a conflict exists between current plans and the Manatee Protection Plan? V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that a response is not known; that the mooring field will be consistent with the Manatee Protection Plan. City Manager McNees stated that the conditional nature of the docks which may have five or more slips is conditions may be imposed specifically for the protection of the manatees which is reasonable as the area is significantly manatee-sensitive: that the intent of the Manatee Protection Plan is the reason for the necessity of the Boat Facility Siting Plan. Mayor Martin stated that conditions rather than prohibitions will be imposed. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the Manatee Protection Plan should have been presented to the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Advisory Board prior to the Commission; that a safety net will be provided by adopting the Manatee Protection Plan; that the definition of mooring includes an anchorage which the City is attempting to establish. Mayor Martin stated that the Manatee Protection Plan is a tool which allowed expansion at Marina Jack; that comments have also been received indicating the County Manatee Protection Plan is one of the best in the State. Mayor Martin requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote on the motion to approve proposed Resolution No. 04R-1760 authorizing transmittal of Application No. 04-PA-01 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes. 20. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 04-4538, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE (2002 ED.) AS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY ORDINANCE NO. 02- 4357; AMENDING THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING CODE (2002 ED.) TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATIONS AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE II, DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION, ; DIV. 2, DEFINITIONS; ARTICLE IV, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES : DIV. 9, CONDITIONAL USES; SEC. IV-903, STAFF REVIEW AND REPORT I AND SEC. IV-904, PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: DIV. 10, SUBDIVISIONS/PIATS, SEC. IV-1004, PLANNING BOARD REVIEW; : ARTICLE VI, ZONE DISTRICTS; DIV. 1, GENERAL; SEC. VI-102, ZONE DISTRICT MAP AND GENERAL REGULATIONS; DIV. 2, SINGLE- - FAMILY ZONE DISTRICTS; SEC. VI-203, RESIDENTIAL USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; DIV. 3, MULTIPLE- - FAMILY ZONE DISTRICTS; SEC. VI-303, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; DIV. 4, L OFFICE ZONE DISTRICTS; SEC. VI-403, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; DIV. 6, PRODUCTION INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL ZONE DISTRICTS; SEC. VI-603, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; DIV. 7, SPECIAL PURPOSE ZONE DISTRICTS; SEC. VI-702, PRIMARY USES; ARTICLE VII, REGULATIONS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY ; DIV. 2, OFF- STREET PARKING AND LOADING; SEC. VII-204, NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED AND BICYCLE STANDARDS; DIV. 3, TRANSITIONAL BUFFERS, 1 LANDSCAPING AND VEGETATION; SEC. VII-303, BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AND INSTALLATION STANDARDS; DIV. 6, USE STANDARDS; SEC. VII-602, SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN USES; DIV. 13, WATERFRONT PROPERTY AND DOCKS; SEC. VII- 1302, DOCKS; : REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING BOOK 56 Page 28110 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28111 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF; ETC. - ADOPTED (TITLE ONLY) AND SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 04-4547, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE (2002 ED.) / AS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY ORDINANCE NO. 02-4357; AMENDING THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING CODE (2002 ED.) FOR PURPOSES OF CLARIFICATION AND REVISION: ARTICLE IV, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES; : DIV. 2, GENERAL PROCEDURES; SEC. IV-202, NOTICES AND PUBLIC HEARINGS; DIV. 5, SITE PLAN; SEC. IV-505, CITY COMMISSION REVIEW; DIV. 6, VARIANCES ; SEC. IV-608, EXPIRATION OR REVOCATION OF APPROVAL; DIV. 8, SEC. IV-804, HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD REVIEW; ARTICLE V, VESTED RIGHTS AND NONCONPORMITIES; DIV. 1, SEC. V-104, NONCONFORMING USES; SEC. V-105, NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES; SEC. V-107, NONCONFORMING ACCESSORY USES AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; DIV. 2, SEC. V-201, INTENT; SEC. V-202, EXISTING NONCONPORMITIES PRESERVED; SEC. V-203, EMINENT DOMAIN, NO CREATION OF NEW NONCONPORMITIES; SEC. V-204, RELOCATING OF A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, ; SEC. V-205, DESTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES; SEC. V-206, FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND FIRE SAFETY REGULATIONS; ARTICLE VI, ZONE DISTRICTS; DIV. 4, OFFICE ZONE DISTRICTS; SEC. VI-403, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; DIV. 5, COMMERCIAL ZONE DISTRICTS; SEC. VI-503, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; ARTICLE II, DIV. 2, SEC. II-201, DEFINITIONS DIV. 6, PRODUCTION INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL ZONE DISTRICTS; SEC. VI-603, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; ARTICLE VII, REGULATIONS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY, DIV. 2, OFF- STREET PARKING AND LOADING; SEC. VII-204, NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED AND BICYCLE STANDARDS; SEC. VII-206, OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN SPECIFIC ZONE DISTRICTS; DIV. 9, SEC. VII-903, RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 04-ZTA-01) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM XIV-A-2) CD 7:29 through 7:44 Mayor Martin stated that the public hearing is the second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4538 to amend the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) and to provide clarifications; opened the public hearing; and requested Staff to come forward. Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Redevelopment, came before the Commission and stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) conducted a public hearing on March 24, 2004, to receive public testimony on Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 04-ZTA-01; that proposed Ordinance Nos. 04-4538 and 04-4547 contain 12 scrivener corrections and 11 substantive changes to clarify or amend existing provisions in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that significant discussion occurred at the public hearing regarding location maps in association with public hearing notices; that the recommendation is to withdraw the item regarding location maps due to the complicated nature; that the item can be brought back in the next cycle of proposed zoning text amendments; that Staff will continue to send maps with the public hearing notices as in the past. Mr. Taylor stated that a correction in proposed Ordinance No. 04-4547 is required; that the following words should be added to Section IV-505 (B), Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), as indicated in Section 3 of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4547: or site plans within the Downtown Resident Overlay District filed pursuant to Section VI-906 (D), Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) Commissioner Bilyeu asked if non-conformities are addressed? Mr. Taylor stated yes; that non-conformities are addressed in Section 6 of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4547. Commissioner Bilyeu asked for clarification regarding non- conforming use in and outside the Downtown area if a building is destroyed. Mr. Taylor stated that the Downtown Code will deal with non- conformities differently than the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that people will be requested to come into gradual compliance as remodeling commencesi that the remodeler would be requested to install the required window percentage regardless of the percentage of remodeling; that the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) has been amended outside of the four Downtown Zone Districts and provides a building is considered demolished if 75 percent of the market value is destroyed rather than the previous 50 percent of the assessed value; that compliance with the new standards is required if the loss of 75 percent of the market value occursi that the update to the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) inadvertently treated demolition through a natural disaster differently than the intentional destruction of a building; that the current Zoning BOOK 56 Page 28112 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28113 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Code (2002 Ed.) allows a building intentionally destructed to rebuild to its prior non-conforming density; that the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) does not allow for rebuilding at the same density if a natural disaster destroys a building; that the intent is to correct an LTOL which was inadvertently created in 2002. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that requirements in the Downtown are different than requirements elsewhere. Mr. Taylor stated that the requirements will be correct at the time rezoning is complete. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Martin closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 04-4538 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 04-4538 on second reading. Mayor Martin requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 04-4547 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 04-4547 addressing Items 3 through 12, to withdraw Item 2, and adding language to Division 5, Section IV-505 (B), Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) as indicated by Staff. Mayor Martin requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Servian, yes; Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes. The Commission recessed at 7:44 and reconvened at 7:58. 21. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 04-4541, AMENDING CHAPTER 22, SARASOTA CITY CODE, TO CREATE ARTICLE II, PARK PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS, i PROHIBITING THE USE OF PUBLIC PARKS BY A GROUP OF SEVENTY- FIVE OR MORE PERSONS WITHOUT A PERMIT; SETTING FORTH A PERMIT PROCESS; PROVIDING FOR APPEALS ; AMENDING CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE III, CLOSING OF PUBLIC PARKS DURING DESIGNATED HOURS, SECTION 22-28 TO ALLOW THE USE OF A PUBLIC PARK WHEN CLOSED PURSUANT TO A PERMIT TO BE ISSUED ACCORDING TO THE PERMIT PROCESS SET FORTH IN ARTICLE II; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM XIV-A-3) CD 7:58 through 10:58 Commissioner Palmer did not return to the Chambers at 7:58 p.m. Mayor Martin stated that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 prohibits the use of public parks by groups of 75 or more persons without a permit. Mayor Martin continued that Commissioner Palmer is not feeling well and is monitoring the meeting on television in a City Hall office and will return to the Chambers to cast a vote. Mayor Martin opened the public hearing and requested that Staff come forward. Mark Singer, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 is presented to the Commission; that a similar ordinance was presented to the Commission a year ago and was defeated by a 3 to 2 vote; that the number of people allowed to congregate is increased from 50 in the previous ordinance to 75; that the proposed Ordinance provides a group of 75 or more must obtain a permit from the City Manager or designee pursuant to the requirements of the proposed Ordinance and the rules adopted by the City Manager; that a proposed Administrative Regulation along with a Park Use Matrix is included in the Agenda backup material; that the City Manager can adopt the rules in accordance with his rule making power if proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 is adopted; that a Park Use Matrix will be incorporated in the Administrative Regulation; that Administrative Regulations provide flexibility for the Administration to make changes as necessary in the rules to effectively implement an ordinance; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 is modeled from the Chicago, Illinois, Park District ordinance which was considered and approved by the US Supreme Court in 2002. Attorney Singer continued that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 is not intended to prevent freedom of expression, but is intended to BOOK 56 Page 28114 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28115 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. protect the City's interest in preserving the parks and open spaces; that the Chicago Park District is not the only jurisdiction which has passed and have the Courts approve park régulations; that the City of San Diego, California, has a ordinance which limits the use of parks without a permit to 75 persons; that Fairfax, Virginia, has an ordinance requiring a park permit for 75 or more persons; that Fauquier County, Virginia, has a 75 person permit rule; that the Village of DeForest, Wisconsin, and the City of Shoreview, Minnesota, also have similar regulations; that Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has the same regulation; that the City of Oakland, California, has a regulation which requires a permit for 49 or more; that the City of New York, New York, has a requirement for a permit for 20 people or more; that the National Forest Service has a regulation requiring permits for 75 people or more; that the Cities of Orlando and Tallahassee, Florida, do not allow for any outdoor public assembly regardless of number without a permit; that the necessity for reasonable regulations to protect park space is one which has been considered throughout the country by large and small communities; that many communities do not have any regulations; that the question is if the Commission desires to adopt a permitting process to protect City parks. Attorney Singer further stated that all groups of 75 or more people who desire to use a City park will be subject to the park permit requirements; that park permits deal with the number of persons using the park rather than the purpose of the use; that the content of the occurrence in the park is considered; that exempting political demonstrations has been suggested; that an exemption causes the same difficulty as a prohibition; that an exemption renders a regulation as no longer content-neutral; that the concept of content-neutrality is not to ask the expression of the gathering; that asking the length of the gathering, if special equipment will be used, if food will be served, etc., are legitimate questions sO the Administration can determine reasonable restrictions to the permit; that an event involving several hundred people for five or six hours will be treated differently than an event of 70 people for one hour; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 is a reasonable manner to protect the parks. Mayor Martin stated that asking the purpose or the sponsoring entity of a group is precluded to remain neutral. Attorney Singer stated that is correct; that an ordinance can fail by virtue of the language or application; that an otherwise constitutional ordinance can be nonetheless unconstitutional if applied in a particular circumstance or circumstances; that a draft of an application for the permit has not yet been prepared; that asking if an event will be a religious service, the denomination, or the particular religious group would not be appropriate; that caution must be exercised to ensure the permit requirements are tailored toward the nature of the activity such as cooking or music. Attorney Singer continued that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 will apply to the picnicker and the soccer player as much as to the political activists as well as to religious food giveaways, family reunions, weddings, and free musical performances; that to determine if a permit is required, all one must do is ask the number of people who will attend; that to be upheld as a constitutional content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation, the regulation must not restrict substantially more speech than is necessary to further a legitimate public interest; that one of the most important aspects of a time, manner, and place restriction is if an alternative means of communication exist; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 pertains only to the City parks; that the City parks are an important public forum; that other places exist for expression; that the most common forums are the sidewalks and the streets to the extent allowed under traffic regulations; that the proposed Ordinance will not prevent any large group of people from marching from Downtown to St. Armands Circle in a single file along the sidewalks or from walking around the sidewalks on St. Armands Circle holding placards and expressing views; that the perception may be the proposed Ordinance affects the ability to utilize the traditional public forum of the parks; that depriving the use of parks as a public forum is not the intent; that applying for and obtaining a permit is required; that a previous problem was the length of the permit processi that a 45 day permitting process was objectionable as 45 days is stifling to a spontaneous demonstration; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 allows 15 days to issue a permit; that no deadline exists for application; that the City's interest is to protect its parks; that the permit process is not designed to prevent the use of the parks but rather to ensure the use of a park is consistent with the nature of an active park versus a passive park, the size and facility, and parking capacity; that a large factor in the Park Matrix is the amount of parking at a particular park; that a small park such as Pineapple Park does not have sufficient parking for an event consisting of 100 people; that the Administration must determine the suitability of events at parks; that alternative BOOK 56 Page 28116 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28117 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. avenues of communication and use of parks exist; that the proposed Ordinance provides for a denial of a permit but also provides for reapplication; that a mechanism is provided to allow for reconsideration for alternatives; that no fee is associated with the permit application; that having no fee promotes the correction of a problem; that, for example, if a person requests the use of the pavilion in Gillespie Park which is already reserved, the request for a permit may be rejected; that a suggestion may be to use another area of the park. Vice Mayor Servian stated that Section 22-22(d) (8) of the proposed Ordinance provides for use of alternate locations available in the public park or at another public park; and asked if the language can reflect the closest public park? Attorney Singer stated yesi that the language can be reflected in the Administrative Regulation rather than in proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that the language should reflect the Closest park with similar capacity. Attorney Singer stated that the Commission can decide if the language change should be included in proposed Ordinance No. 04- 4541 or the Administrative Regulation; that the proposed Ordinance is intended to promote the public health and safety by ensuring in the appropriate circumstances sufficient parking, litter control, sanitary facilities, and protection against damage to public properties; that regulations of the use of a public forum which ensures safety and convenience of the people are not inconsistent with civil liberties but are one of the means of sateguarding the good order upon which civil liberties ultimately depend; that the object of the permit system is to coordinate multiple uses of limited space to assure preservation of park facilities, to prevent uses which are dangerous, unlawful, or impermissible under park rules, and to assure financial accountability for damage caused by the event; that to allow unregulated access to all comers could easily reduce rather than enlarge the park's utility as a forum for speech; that the proposed Ordinance has been modeled from the Chicago Park District regulation; that many small communities have enacted regulations to protect parks; that the Park Use Matrix does not have a line item for public demonstrations; that a line item should be added to indicate the particular parks which will be suitable for large groups to engage in any type of demonstrative conduct; that the test to determine if a park is suitable for large activities is parking. Vice Mayor Servian stated that parking problems can be circumvented by providing buses. Attorney Singer stated that is correct; that the Park Use Matrix is a guide in the regulation of the proposed Ordinance. Mayor Martin stated that Arlington Park can accommodate up to 1,500 people; however, parking is not sufficient for 1,500 people; that people may walk to a park in the middle of a neighborhood. Attorney Singer stated that the City Attorney's Office receives questions regarding activities concerning free expression; that free expression has become a heated issue; that the City Attorney's Office was asked to draft a proposed policy for the City relative to freedom of expression; that a policy is requested to implement all rights of expression at any time; that the policy will be completed soon. Commissioner Atkins asked if the policy will be compatible with proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541? Attorney Singer stated yes; that the policy will deal with entering and exercising rights of free speech and assembly on City property; that the policy will be no employee shall restrict or otherwise prevent any person from exercising rights of free speech and assembly unless in sO doing the person violates any Federal, State, or local law or ordinance or unreasonably interferes with another person's use or enjoyment of the premises; that the City Manager will develop policies for all City facilities such as the Ed Smith Sports Complex, the Municipal Auditorium, etc.; that the intent of the policy is to convey free expression is important in accordance with the laws and the rights under the State and Federal Constitutions as long as no State or Federal laws are violated; that violating laws of the City also violates public policyi that City leaseholders will be requested to adopt a policy similar to the policy being prepared for the City. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the first two paragraphs of the proposed Ordinance are disturbing; that the language indicates the Ordinance has been prepared due to receipt of complaints; that the preference is the language should indicate the Commission supports and encourages free speech in the community; that the language should indicate the City is concerned regarding protecting parks and providing access to and equal use of public park facilities BOOK 56 Page 28118 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28119 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. and pavilions, proper sanitation, litter control, noise control, and the coordination of City-owned parks; that the proposed Ordinance is not an imprudent reaction but is an opportunity to protect public parks rather than being a result of citizens' complaints. Mayor Martin agreed. Commissioner Atkins stated that the language indicates the truth. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 should begin with positive language indicating free speech is encouraged and should not be onerous or discourage people from speaking but be relative to protection of the parks. Mr. Schneider stated that the Commission will consider action only on the proposed Ordinance; that the Administrative Regulation is a procedure developed by the City Manager; that the Park Use Matrix was updated subsequent to the initial presentation to the Commission; that Bayfront Park cannot be used for community events as inadequate parking exists for Marina Jack customers;- that a lease provision with Marina Jack is to provide adequate parking; that Staff is conducting a count of the number of people who use the Steigerwaldt-Jockey Fountain, also called the children's fountain, and the playground which contributes to the overload of parking; that the Parks Use Matrix will be regularly updated; that for example, additional property was acquired for Fredd Atkins Park subsequent to the preparation of the Parks Use Matrix which may require an update regarding the use of the park; that the City has established demonstration rules in a one-page form for which signature is optional; that the demonstration rules merely allow the City to inform the Sarasota Police Department a demonstration will occur; that the demonstration rules will continue and are not affected by the proposed Ordinance. Commissioner Atkins asked if demonstrations can be conducted at a park? Mr. Schneider stated that demonstrations in a park will be precluded by the proposed Ordinance. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that demonstrations of 75 or more participants cannot be conducted in parks. Mr. Schneider stated that is correct. Mayor Martin stated that demonstrations of 75 or more participants in a park will require a permit. Mr. Schneider stated that is correct. Mayor Martin stated that the use of premier parks is being limited due to inadequate parking; that indicating the use of buses or trolleys to transport people to parks can be indicated on the Park Use Matrix to promote increased use of the parks. Commissioner Atkins stated that Marina Jack is installing additional docks which will increase parking demands. Mr. Schneider stated that more vehicles will park at Marina Jack. Mayor Martin stated that Commissioner Atkins is addressing specifically Marina Jack's increased docking capacity. Mr. Schneider stated that Marina Jack has been granted permits for additional boat slips; that the City's contractual obligation remains to provide adequate parking. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the Park Use Matrix indicates Centennial or Whitaker Gateway Parks have no permitted uses. Mr. Schneider stated that Centennial Park will not accommodate parking for 75 people; that only 13 or 14 vehicle parking spaces exist; that the remainder of the parking spaces are reserved for boat trailers. Vice Mayor Servian stated that events may be permitted at parks which have inadequate parking if the people are transported by bus or water taxi. Mr. Schneider stated that is correct. Mayor Martin stated that the Park Use Matrix can be updated to indicate an event can occur in a small park if transportation is provided. Mr. Schneider stated that the Matrix will be updated. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if a vehicle cannot be parked in a boat trailer space? Mr. Schneider stated that vehicles should not be parked in boat trailer spaces. BOOK 56 Page 28120 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28121 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the Park Use Matrix indicates no events of 75 or more people are permissible at Laurel Park; that many events of over 75 people have been observed. Mayor Martin stated that neighborhood events are conducted at Laurel Park; that many people walk from the neighborhood. Mr. Schneider stated that the issue is lack of parking at Laurel Park; that use of Laurel Park by 75 or more people can be accomplished if transportation is provided. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if the only complaints received regarding use of parks concerned Gifts from God in Gillespie Park? Attorney Singer stated that the only known complaints are complaints heard at public hearings and complaints made to the Sarasota Police Department. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the only public complaints personally heard concerned Gillespie Park. Attorney Singer stated that complaints regarding Gillespie Park were predominant; that some complaints were received regarding Arlington Park. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if problems have occurred with events of 75 or more people other than Gifts from God? Mr. Schneider stated that the answer is unknown; that for example, complaints were received regarding people picnicking with loud music at Whitaker-Gateway Park; that the number of people attending is not known; that problematic parks are Closed between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Vice Mayor Servian stated that complaints have been made regarding Whitaker-Gateway Park concerning large groups, loud music, and play equipment for children; that a permit process will regulate activity. Mayor Martin stated that groups at Whitaker-Gateway Park are usually under 75 people. Vice Mayor Servian stated that large groups have been observed at Whitaker-Gateway Park. Commissioner Atkins stated that the experience with Whitaker-Gateway Park is three or four different events occur which may occasionally merge; that a large number of people at the park does not necessarily translate to only one event; that multiple events occur at Whitaker Gateway Park. Mayor Martin stated that noise issues can be handled by the Sarasota Police Department; that the Park Use Matrix will not be included in the proposed Ordinance; that the Park Use Matrix should be modified to provide more effectiveness. Mr. Schneider stated that the current discussion is to ensure the Park Use Matrix is an effective tool. City Manager McNees stated that the Park Use Matrix is neither a part of the proposed Ordinance nor a part of the Administrative Regulation which should be emphasized; that the Parks Use Matrix is a guideline; that Staff's effort is not to exclude people from parks but rather to find a method to conduct an event at a particular location if possible and, if not, identify an acceptable alternative location; that Staff's intent is to assist people in conducting events, not to prevent events; that the attempt is to balance issues regarding usage of the parks in an appropriate manner. Mayor Martin stated that maintaining and ensuring parks are available for everyone is important; that the tone of the preamble of the proposed Ordinance should have a more positive tenor. The following people came before the Commission: John Saunders, 4439 Maceachen Boulevard (34233), stated that the City Attorney's Office has a file of complaints from citizens regarding the problems associated with the use of public parks located in the City by large groups; that the file is labeled "Park Regulations Ordinance No. 03-4433"; that he reviewed the file and found the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association has petitioned the City for "relief from conflicts" concerning the activities of Gifts from God ministries at Gillespie Park; that the conflicts are: 1) the activity, and 2) the weekly use of the facility and the ability of others to use the same facility; that the necessity to assure availability of City parks to all residents and visitors is respected; that no one group should have exclusive use of a park for a specific time period; that park area residents may dislike others' use of the park; that the residents must understand the price paid for living near a park; that the Gifts from God issue regarding Gillespie Park has BOOK 56 Page 28122 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28123 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. been resolved; that no complaints from any other residents near City parks were observed in the file in the City Attorney's Office; that disagreements can be resolved without imposing any further restrictions on citizens' rights to peaceably assemble; that no reason exists to impose unconstitutional restrictions on the right to peaceably assemble in public parks citywide if complaints are received regarding only one City park; that limiting citizens' right to peaceably assemble is not appropriate despite the US Supreme Court's ruling regarding the City of Chicago's use permits; that any government employee at any level of government attempting to pass a law or ordinance which would limit the right to peaceably assemble is not supported; that laws exist to handle the types of disagreements which may occur such as Gifts from God and the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association; that sweeping, unconstitutional, and restrictive ordinances are not necessaryi that better entorcement of existing laws is necessaryi and quoted from proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541: Whereas, the City Commission has received numerous complaints from citizens regarding the problems associated with the use of public parks . Mr. Saunders continued that Gillespie Park is the only park referred to in the City Attorney's Office file and the complaints in the file refer to the activities of Gifts from God only, and which has been resolved; that the rights of all should not be restricted due to the complaints of the few. Jennifer Wilson, 435 Seeds (34237), representing Coalition of City Neighborhood Association, stated that the Coalition of City Neighborhood Association (CCNA) reviewed proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 at its June 2004 meeting; that 21 of the 31 Neighborhood Associations were in attendance; that she was instructed to attend - the current meeting to indicate the CCNA supports approval of the proposed Ordinance; that she went through the special permit process at the time she was a member of the Greater Downtown Sarasota Action Team; that the Greater Downtown Sarasota Action Team had a $60,000 annual budget; that special permit applications are not a laborious or time consuming task; that expending funds on fire ant control and dumpsters was not the desire; however, funds were expended to assist in preserving the parks subsequent to events; that members of the CCNA support the residents in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association; that the proposed Ordinance is appreciated; that the proposed Ordinance is important to the residents of the City; that the CCNA appreciates the partnership with the City in working toward preserving, protecting, and enhancing the City. Anthony Lorenzo, 955 42nd Street (34234), stated that the proposed Ordinance does not allow for spontaneous gatherings; that he can be arrested if he and ten friends assemble and are joined by 65 other people; that Section 22-22(d) (2) of the proposed Ordinance provides for the ability to require a security deposit, application fee, or liability insurance, which would create a cost prohibitive barrier for non-profit, religious, and political groups; that Section 22-22 - (d) (8) provides the City Manager can move groups to other parks or remote locations which would prevent access to specific neighborhoods; that Section 22-22(d) (10) of the proposed Ordinance provides a permit may be denied if the activity of the applicant would present danger to the health or safety of the applicant, other users of the public park, or government employees; that such a clause has been abused by othér cities to preclude certain groups; that the reason for the proposed Ordinance is not understood as the Gifts from God issue has been resolved; that the US Supreme Court ruling is a result of a group in Chicago conducting a Hemp Fest; that none of the Commissioners may agree with the principle of the cannabis or marijuana prohibition being illegitimate and not a right of the government to enforce on people; however, the thought is all of the Commissioners would support the right to stand in a park and discuss the issue; that the Chicago ordinance was formulated to prevent the Hemp Fest; that he represents the Sarasota Chapter of the Florida Cannabis Action Network which opposes marijuana prohibition; that public parks are used often for Hemp Fests and Free Speech festivals; that many city managers use the permit process in a discriminatory fashion against groups which are disliked. Tansy Crane, Eighth Street (34236), stated that a question is if the proposed Ordinance is a good use of City funds; that the premise of the proposed Ordinance is based on fear; that the power to regulate through law enforcement is the premise; that people gathering without a permit is being viewed as problematic; that review of the permits will be subjective; that a question is the reason a taxpayer in the City cannot enjoy a group gathering of more than 75 people without paying a fee; that the proposed Ordinance is a blatant breach of First Amendment rights; that the US Supreme Court approval of the Chicago ordinance is an isolated case; that the manner in which to work through issues of complaints, noise reduction, parking, etc., should not be regulated by law enforcement; that citizens should BOOK 56 Page 28124 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28125 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. communicate to solve problems; that the proposed Ordinance will have negative repercussions; that regulation by law enforcement can create a negative atmosphere; that the Commission is requested to consider the proposed Ordinance may not be appropriate; that the Ordinance is not necessary. Jane Armstrong, 1141 Ocelot Road, Venice (34293), stated that she served on the Sarasota County Natural Resources Parks and Recreation Advisory Board ten years ago; that she is sensitive to protecting the parklands; that the County has a tremendous array of public lands; that protecting parks and public lands from abuse is good; that the proposed Ordinance contains gray areas which are subject to interpretation; that interpretation can be abused to prevent certain groups from receiving a permit; that a concern is the proposed Ordinance may set a precedent initiating similar legislation Countywide; that the Sunday Drum Circle event on Siesta Key has occurred for many years which may be affected by the proposed Ordinance; that the concern is all events are being lumped into one category; that the issues of health, sanitation, litter control, noise, etc., are all issues which can and should be addressed by existing laws; that the right to gather and speak publicly has lately been relegated to safe zones if the message as viewed by permitters was considered too confrontational, that the collision of ideas deserves the freedom to speak out and to assemble; that the Commission is urged to carefully consider any additional regulation which would limit the use of public space. Demetra McBride, 1633 Starling Drive (34231), stated that she is speaking as a representative of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a citizen of the City; that a Summary Decision was rendered in Thomas versus Chicago Park District, No. 00-1249, 534 U.S. 316 (2002) (Thomas decision) by the Supreme Court; that the ruling specifically excluded and did not supercede or overrule Niemotko versus Maryland, 340 U.S. 268 (1951) (Niemotko case); that laws should be made for the ages; that the Commission supports the Park Use Matrix as a guideline although vague and lacking specificity; however, the Matrix is not a procedure; that decisions will be made ad hoc; that anticipating 40 people attending an event and 80 people attend will be problematic; that an amorphous nature exists with an ordinance applying to groups of 75 or over and covering and grouping together different types of activities; that the City has a legitimate interest in safeguarding and preserving the integrity and the aesthetics of the parks; that everyone enjoys parks and are not subject to diminution of the enjoyment due to the inconsideration of other people; that Justice Felix Frankfurter in the Niemotko case indicated the absence of specific guidelines and the absence of specific procedure bestows the power of censorship on one person or a small group of people; that insurance may be required; that the appeals process is a lengthy and potentially elastic process which seems to preclude the possibility for political parties and political speech; that regulating all the dangers, pratfalls, and possibilities which are unacceptable under the Constitution is not necessary; that only one problem is apparent which must be addressed and remedied; that the wording of some of the provisions of the proposed Ordinance is problematic; that the language should indicate a person will not be granted an application if a material misrepresentation was knowingly made on an earlier application; that people should not be penalized for an innocent misrepresentation; that an analogy is lead nets and draglines which were five miles long to catch swordfish were outlawed many years ago since turtles, whales, and other creatures living in the ocean were also caught; that the proposed Ordinance will entangle many related issues. Jessica Gilbengerten, General Delivery, Sarasota Post Office (34230), stated that she lived in Chicago for 17 years and people still urinate in the parks; that parks are not safe at night; that a particular issue should be solved; that additional security and sanitary facilities would have alleviated problems at Gillespie Park; that poor planning has led to inadequate parking in the City; that sanitary facilities are necessary in parks; that cleanliness and safety are necessary; that permitting will not resolve problems; that a group of only 15 people require sanitary facilities; that the parks should be useful; that waste receptacles and sanitary facilities can solve problems in parks; that the City's explosive growth must be recognized; that the City must prepare correctly for the future; that determining who broke the rule will be difficult if a party of 50 people is joined by another 30 people; that a question is if an entire church is responsible if too many people attend a church sponsored event; that a rain date should be provided in the permitting process; that the interview process is a potential liability; that problems should be addressed on a case-by-case basis; that limiting the use of a park due to parking capacity is problematic; that a vehicle number rather a people number should be considered; that improving the parks is necessary rather than limiting the use of the parks; that organizing a club was contemplated comprised of landscape architects, orchid specialists, botanists, aquatic plant specialists, etc., to meet monthly in the parks to add flora and BOOK 56 Page 28126 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28127 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. fauna which would attract more people and to serve as a educational avenue; that permitting and fees would limit the ability of the club to function. Tony Stefan, 2325 Admiral Way (34231), stated that the minutes of the March 15, 2004, Regular Commission meeting were reviewed; that the minutes reflected additional time is required for the public to comment on the park permitting issue; that the proposed Ordinance will not be voted on at the current meeting which is appreciated; that the hope is the proposed Ordinance will not be adopted at the next public hearing; that the information provided is incomplete; that a concern is a copy of an application was not included for public comment; that the Park Use Matrix was not properly prepared for public review and comment; that another public hearing would be appropriate prior to adopting the proposed Ordinance; that the issue being addressed once again is surprising; that over a year ago a public hearing addressed free speech; that a better manner to solve the problem at Gillespie Park should have been determined since discussions concerning free speech continue to be raised, which is unfortunate; that the proposed Ordinance refers to a permit and special permits; that the language should be consistent; that conflict exists in the language which refers to the discretion of the City Manager to require an application fee; that the Administrative Regulation indicates no fee shall be required; that language should indicate no fee will be required; that giving the City Manager the discretion to require insurance is opposed; that the current City Manager's discretionary procedures are not being diminished; that solving problems with a permit process is surprising; that the Commission is urged to not adopt the proposed Ordinance. Mayor Martin stated that Mr. Stefan indicated the Commission is not going to vote on the adoption of the proposed Ordinance; that the Agenda Request for Agenda Item No. XIV-A-3 indicates the Administration's recommendation is to set the item for public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the item was advertised to adopt the proposed Ordinance on first reading. Mayor Martin stated that the Agenda Request is incorrect. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that the recommendation on the Agenda Request was made at introduction and was not changed; that a change should have been made. The following people came before the Commission: M. Frances Eckstein, 3606 Clark Drive (34234), stated that the instinct is the proposed Ordinance should not be adopted; that the concern of City officials over large gatherings in a park is understood; that an issue is regarding political speech and the right to assemble; that political speech and the right to assemble is generally spontaneous; that people at spontaneous gatherings are usually responsible and do not destroy public property; that spontaneous political gatherings should be exempt from permitting; that the Country and Constitution are valued. Grissim Walker, Jr., 4516 Camino Real (34231) representing Sarasota-Manatee Chapter ACLU, stated that he attended the public hearing at the May 5, 2003, Regular Commission meeting regarding adoption of an ordinance for park permitting; that he is a resident of the County and maintains an office in the City; that the current proposed Ordinance is less offensive to civil liberties than the original proposal; however, the ACLU continues to believe the proposed Ordinance is an unnecessary move and fundamentally unconstitutional, that the Chicago park ordinance was tested by a significantly large event; that many reasons for approving an ordinance may apply and be suitable but may become unconstitutional as applied to a different situation; that the City has never had an event of such magnitude as the contemplated Chicago event; that the order of magnitude must be considered; that a heavily used park can have hundreds of people from a number of groups; that Gillespie Park is effectively a regional park; that the Gifts from God gathering does not occupy all of Gillespie Park; that an actively used park generates issues of litter, noise, etc.; that 75 people gathering is significantly different from the event contemplated in the Thomas decision; that a number substantially higher than 75 should be imposed if the Commission feels an ordinance is required to protect the parks; that a gathering of more than 75 could occur through the confluence of several smaller events; that a danger to the public safety would require an amount of people substantially larger than 75; that a time, place, and manner standard exists; that in some cases restrictions may be placed on free speech due to other considerations; that the Commission is urged to consider changing the scale of the Ordinance if the Commission adopts the proposed Ordinance; that insurance requirement has been discussed; that large organizations can afford umbrella policies; that purchasing BOOK 56 Page 28128 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28129 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. an umbrella policy is difficult for small organizations; that a disparate impact is imposed on small organizations; that the Park Use Matrix is included in the proposed Ordinance; that Section 22-22 (d) (9) of the proposed Ordinance provides denial of a permit as follows: the proposed use or activity is inconsistent with the classification or uses of the public park, as set forth by administrative rule . Mr. Walker continued that the language allows discretion by City officials; that standards should be explicit in an ordinance; that the application for permit should be presented to the public; that Section 22-22 (d) (10) of the proposed Ordinance provides a permit may be denied if the activity of the applicant would present danger to the health or safety of the applicant, other users of the public park, or government employees; that such a clause has been abused by other cities to preclude certain groups. Charles Mamhant, 6362 Gateway Avenue (34237), was no longer present in the Chambers. Mary Anne Bowie, 4455 Greenwood Street (34235), representing Bowie Urban Planners and Sarasota Green Connection, was no longer present in the Chambers. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to extend the meeting to complete the current Agenda Item. Mayor Martin stated that the Commission will have an unfinished Agenda; that the Commissioners are meeting June 8, 2004, from 3:00 p. m to 5:00 p.m. as the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) ; that the Commission meeting could continue subsequent to the CRA meeting. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that people are signed up to speak regarding Agenda Item XIV-A-4. Mayor Martin called for a vote on the motion. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson asked if a time certain for the continuation of the meeting should be established? Mayor Martin stated that the public hearings will continue at 5:00 p.m., June 8, 2004. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the suggestion is to address the unfinished business first and subsequently at a time certain conduct the public hearings; and asked if the Order of Business can be changed? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated yes; that a motion can be made to change the Order of Business; that the time can be set for 6:00 p.m. for the public hearings. Vice Mayor Servian as the maker of the motion, with the approval of Commissioner Bilyeu, as the seconder, amended the motion to extend the meeting to complete the current Agenda Item and reçonvene June 8, 2004, subsequent to the completion of the Community Redevelopment Agency meeting and beginning with unfinished business and conduct the remaining public hearings beginning at 6:00 p.m. Motion carried (3 to 1): Atkins, no; Bilyeu, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. Leslie Freeman, 3072 Spirea Street (34231), was no longer present in the Chambers. Bill Van Allen, 2503 Java Plum Avenue (34232), representing the Libertarian Party of Sarasota County, stated that he is often questioned as to the reason for the desire to be a politician; that the response is the desire is to be a statesman rather than a politician; that the difference between a statesman and a politician is a statesman says the same thing in fewer words; that the attempt will be to speak as a statesman. Mr. Van Allen continued that Attorney Singer indicated the intent of the proposed Ordinance is not to prevent freedom of expression; that unintended consequences often result from legislation which is passed; that the primary problem with the use of parks has been the Gifts from God issue; that Gifts from God will no longer be using Gillespie Park; that a question is the cost of freedom of assembly; that no dispersions are cast regarding current City officials; however, the City Manager under this ordinance will exercise sole control over freedom of assembly; that an insurance requirement will limit freedom of assembly to people with means; that park facilities should provide parking based on the square footage of the park; that the role of government is to protect the rights of all, not to restrict the rights of some groups of people to benefit or appease another group of people; that laws to control neighbors will be used to control other neighbors; that BOOK 56 Page 28130 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28131 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. the issue of reciprocal rights is important; that freedom of assembly as a privilege can be revoked at will. Mr. Van Allen continued that freedom of assembly as a right cannot be infringed without constitutional consequences; that freedom of assembly is not addressed in the Bill of Privileges but guaranteed under the Bill of Rights; that protection of City property is a function of the Sarasota Police Department; that sufficient laws have been enacted to prohibit public urination, littering, excessively loud noise, etc.; that enforcing existing regulations will resolve problems; that freedom is not always tidy regarding cleanliness of the parks; that the City should use a reservation system rather than regulating or prohibiting through restraint of an ordinary manner of behavior; that the proposed Ordinance will result in govermment-owned parks which are not open to the public; that the government parks will be parks citizens are permitted to use if the City Manager desires to allow the use; that the proposed Ordinance suggests behavior similar to the former Soviet Union; that the Commission is urged not to adopt the proposed Ordinance. R. K. Mattern, 2400 Wood Street (34237), stated that the Commission is reminded the US Supreme Court has been prone to some grave errors in judgment in the past such as the Dred Scott decision indicating a black man was determined as three-fifths of a man due to being black which led to the War Among the States; that the US Supreme Court does not have the right to amend the Constitution; that the proposed Ordinance invalidates the accuracy and appropriate usage of the word public and infringes on the people's right to utilize a public property managed for the community; that the adoption of the proposed Ordinance will violate the inalienable rights of the people contained in the Constitution of the US; that the privilege of the people to peaceably assemble will not be infringed; that the Bill of Rights does not address privilege; that the Bill of Rights cannot be altered or changed by the Commission or any body other than Congress; that the right by law, code, or ordinance to alter rights to assemble in as many numbers chosen is not subject to any Commission; that the ability of people to hold public office is respected and admired; that the primary contractual obligation of an elected body is to the people; that the designers of the proposed Ordinance are not elected officials; that the designers may consider the contractual obligation is to the business interests; that parking is a red herring; that the Bill of Rights did not address freedom of assembly based on the size of an area; that using size as a primary means to infringe on the rights of people to gather in numbers does not undermine the health and welfare of other people in a significant way and is insulting; that the opportunity to speak is appreciated. Linda Holland, 617 Gillespie Avenue (34236), Vice President, Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association, stated that the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association supports approval of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541; that the Gillespie Park issue is a preoccupation regarding Proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541; that other neighborhoods are concerned regarding use of parks; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 is not about free speech or the right to assemble; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 concerns protection of City parks and the surrounding neighborhoods; that the hope is reason and logic will prevail in the Commission's decision. Jim Theriault, 7275 Manatee Street (34243), Chairman, Libertarian Party of Sarasota County, stated that the arguments regarding proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 are moot; that the issue being addressed is Gillespie Park; that review of the City Attorney's Office's complaint files indicated the only complaints concerned Gillespie Park; that the Gillespie Park issue was addressed thoroughly a year ago; that a representative of Gifts from God indicated Gifts from God is in the process of a capital campaign which will be conducted until the entire amount of funds for the land and building are obtained; that the campaign should be concluded in 2005; that Gifts from God will break ground at the time the cost of the land is paid; that Gifts from God will continue to conduct services in Gillespie Park until completion of the Gifts from God project; that Gifts from God will comply with the law and any ordinances; that Gifts from God's mission is "to love them until they ask why"; that enacting an ordinance antagonistic to the spirit of the Constitution of the US which devotes an entire section to the right of the people to peaceably assemble is not desired at this time; that the Commission is essentially attempting to enact provisions of a private property nature which is supported for private property; that the spirit of peaceful assembly should not be restricted especially since no compelling public interests of health or safety are at issue; that absent any compelling issue of public interest the belief is the proper function of the Commission is to honor the spirit of the right to peaceably assemble and not to look for precedent in distant states and cities to attempt to restrict and confine the citizens of Sarasota; that the mantra should not be "what can we BOOK 56 Page 28132 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28133 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. do next to further restrict and control our citizens?", but rather "what should we refrain from doing or do to promote freedom and justice for all of our citizens?" as promised in the State and Federal Constitutions; that people in neighborhoods desiring private property rights and control of the parks, should purchase the park; that doing sO would allow for the preferential treatment of private property Owners; that the Commission is urged to vote in denial of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541. Bill Holland, 800 Gillespie Avenue (34236), stated that he lives adjacent to Gillespie Park; that the uses and abuses which occur in Gillespie Park are observed on a daily basis; that the abuses have been well-documented; that similar problems will develop in the other approximately 40 parks owned by the City unless oversight is exercised for large groups; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 is necessary to control large groups and will assist in making all the parks enjoyable for nearby citizens and park visitors; that the rules contained in Ordinance No. 04-4541 make sense and the hope is proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 will be adopted. Mike Wayne, 2300 Paulstan Court (34237), stated that he is a homeowner in Sarasota; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 is opposed; that the City must take positive steps in addressing issues such as the Gifts from God problems; however, adopting an Ordinance which sets forth a blanket of regulations regarding the group and number of people who may use a public park is a violation of the Constitutional Amendment which guarantees the right of the people to peaceably assemble; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 is based on a US Supreme Court decision in which a permit was denied for a rally for a particular group; that the group had previously been granted some. permits and denied others; that the group indicated the denial was based on the subject of the rally which was the legalization of marijuana; that the US Supreme Court's Summary Decision was based on the procedures of the reason the permit was denied and not the framework of the law and the permitting process; that the City is developing a law which sets conditions on the right of the people and large groups to peaceably assemble in a public park; that the constitutionality of the issue will be challenged which will result in an unnecessary waste of taxpayers' dollars; that although other cities in Florida have ambiguous and dated laws which pertain to permits, no local cities require permits for park use; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 contains a questionable loophole concerning insurance requirements which could be used to deny or delay a permit; that the application and permit procedures are unnecessary bureaucratic burdens to Staff; that more important topics and problems should be addressed; that the public has not had an opportunity to review the application for permit contained in the ordinance; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 is not necessaryi that the opportunity to speak is appreciated. Charles Senf, 2346 Pelican Drive North (34237), stated that discussion indicated Arlington Park is rated to accommodate 1,500 people; that the Park Use Matrix should rate parks by accommodation; that a question is if a ratio indicating the number of people per square foot exists; that a suggestion is to amend the preamble clauses in proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 to indicate public health and safety is the concern and not complaints from the citizens; that the City can emulate the Congress by naming ordinances for the people which inspire the legislation; that ordinance could be called "Mrs. Holland's Opus"; that Gillespie Park has been visited often; that Gifts from God gatherings have been observed; that the Gifts from God gatherings usually do not consist of 75 people; that neighboring residents of Gillespie Park were interviewed and no complaints were received; that the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association is a small group of people; that a door-to-door survey of residents has never been conducted; that no arrest reports exist regarding public urination in Gillespie Park; that rewriting the Ordinance is suggested as follows: Groups of 75 or more shall not be denied access nor use of our public parks unless the City Manager shall demonstrate such gathering will constitute a real and present danger to the public health, safety, or welfare of the public in general. Mr. Senf continued that a condition can be imposed to require notice of a gathering must be provided to the City Manager if the issue concerns public health and safety; that 38 responses to invitations were received for a recent meetingi however, 104 people attended which would have been a violation if the meeting was conducted in a public park. The Commission recessed at 10:00 p.m. and reconvened at 10:10 p.m. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that three considerations regarding BOOK 56 Page 28134 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28135 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. insurance requirements are: 1) if the applicant proposes to bring into the public park any equipment or material which may increase the potential liability of the City such as a stage platform, wired sound system, propane cooking devices, etc., 2) the nature of the proposed activity such as an athletic event, and 3) any special circumstances which create a liability exposure for the City to a greater degree than through the normal everyday use of the park. Attorney Singer stated that the public speakers are complimented; that the speakers made important points; that the Commission faces a difficult decision; that the Commission is concerned regarding Constitutional issues; that some speakers were concerned the US Supreme Court was incorrect in the determination of the Thomas decision; that recently the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a decision regarding Martha Burke and the National Council of Women's Organizations who filed a lawsuit against the Augusta-Richmond County Consolidated Government over an ordinance which was passed essentially by Augusta, Georgia, in advance of the 2003 Masters Golf Tournament (Martha Burk, Chair, National Council of Women's organizations, National Council of Women's Organizations, et al. versus Augusta-Richmond County, Consolidated Government, Augusta- Richmond County Commission, et al., No. 03-11756); that the ordinance provided no public demonstrations or protests consisting of five or more persons on any sidewalk, street, public right-of-way, or other public property within Augusta will be allowed unless a permit has been issued; that in determining the regulation was unconstitutional, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals indicated the regulation applied only to public demonstration or protest, and therefore, was not content-neutral and required the strictest scrutiny which can be applied to any regulation; that a regulation which applies to or exempts a certain protected activity renders the ordinance subject to significant Constitutional challenge. Attorney Singer continued that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the Majority Decision addressed the Augusta ordinance and compared the ordinance to the ordinance involved in the Thomas decision; that the ordinance in the Thomas decision requiring a permit for all public assemblies was determined content-neutral and not directed to communicative activity, but rather to all activity conducted in a public park; that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the Majority Decision indicated the Augusta regulation would have passed the test of content-neutral if similar to the ordinance in the Thomas decision; that in the Concurring Opinion, Justice Rosemary Barkett went into more detail indicating the ordinance in the Thomas decision sets forth 13 narrowly drawn, reasonable, and definite standards for the denial of a use permit for large groups of persons over 50 people in busy Chicago parks; that, in contrast, the ordinance passed in Augusta allowed the Sheriff to deny a permit to groups one-tenth the size of groups regulated in the Thomas decision in all public places for any reason which raises public safety concerns; that unlike the Thomas decision which requires a finding that the intended use or activity would present an unreasonable danger to health or safety, the Augusta ordinance allowed the Sheriff to deny a permit if the belief is, whether reasonably or not, the activity may raise a public safety concern; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 was patterned from the criteria in the ordinance involving the Thomas decision; that the expectation is a challenge to the proposed Ordinance, if passed, would be heard by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals; that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals would uphold proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541; therefore, the opinion is the proposed Ordinance is Constitutional; that the decision should not be made based on concern over Constitutionallty, that a significant body of law should provide confidence proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 will be upheld by the Courts; that the focus should be on the question of the necessity of a legitimate public safety issue for proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541; that the ordinance should be passed if a legitimate necessity exists for permits issued to groups of 75 or more for the parks; that the ordinance should not be passed if determined not necessary. Vice Mayor Servian asked if the goal of protecting the parks can be accomplished by a reservation system rather than a permitting system? Attorney Singer stated that a review conducted by the City Manager's office to determine if a reservation or a permit is appropriate would be the same. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the number of persons has been an issue; and asked if 75 is a reasonable number, or if an increased number would be more appropriate, and if 75 people could cause irreparable harm to the parks? Mr. Schneider stated that no magic number exists; that the Commission as policymakers should determine a comfortable number. BOOK 56 Page 28136 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28137 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Attorney Singer stated that 75 was the most comon number indicated in the ordinances researched countrywide; that national collective experience has determined 75 is a reasonable threshold to accommodate a group with special facilities. Vice Mayor Servian stated that nationwide research is a good frame of reference. Mayor Martin Closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 by title only. Commissioner Palmer returned to the Chambers at 9:45 p.m. On motion of Commissioner Bilyeu and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to deny proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 on first reading. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the reason to revisit an ordinance regarding permitting for park use was the concept of a public entity using a public park for a business on a weekly basis; that he personally cannot set up a business in Gillespie Park making and selling furniture on a weekly basis; that residents of Gillespie Park would continue to object if Gifts from God used Gillespie Park with a permit; that having the City Manager setting policy is a concern; that the primary reason for establishing a policy is to prevent use of public lands as a business; that reserving use of a park is supported; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 is not supported as written; that 500 or 600 people could create a problem in any park; that the number of people each park can accommodate should be indicated; that additional public discussion should be conducted; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 is not supported. Commissioner Atkins stated that he is the district Commissioner of the Gillespie Park neighborhood citizens; that the hope was to prevent the negative issues between Gifts from God and the Gillespie Park neighborhood residents; that a process other than restricting rights should be considered; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 is badly written; that a pretense can be made the ordinance does not address a single issue, a single neighborhood, and a single situation; that the ordinance poses a difficult situation and is not supported; that the hope was to satisfy the active group in Gillespie Park who advocate restriction of use of the park unless permission is granted. Mayor Martin stated that the most egregious concerns regarding waste disposal have been resolved; and asked the agreement reached with Gifts from God? City Manager McNees stated that Gifts from God was requested to provide additional trash receptacles and has complied; that no other requests or agreements were made. Mayor Martin asked the reason portable sanitary facilities were not required? City Manager McNees stated that the reason for not requiring portable sanitary facilities is not known. Mayor Martin asked if Gifts from God was required to provide liability insurance? City Manager McNees stated that no authority exists to request liability insurance. Mayor Martin asked if activities occur at Gillespie Park which may require liability insurance? City Manager McNees stated yes. Commissioner Palmer stated that the issue is the future of the City's parks; that the issues are the public health, safety, and welfare; that rights are not being denied; that protecting the rights of everybody is the intent; that City property should be protected; that the restrictions contemplated by proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 will be beneficial to everyonei that restriction of freedom of assembly is not the intent; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 is not an attempt to deal with the content of gatherings, but rather an attempt to deal with issues of the impact of large crowds on the parks and public safety and welfare of people attending the gatherings; that no attempt is intended for the Administration to be restrictive; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 is an attempt to protect the City's assets and the rights of all the citizens of the City; that limitations are based on the appropriate use of the public facilities; that prohibiting public assembly will not occur; that the proposed Ordinance does not restrict or confine other than particular uses which require restriction, confinement, and protection; that the proposed Ordinance is a protection for the BOOK 56 Page 28138 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28139 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. citizens, neighborhoods, and parks; that the comment made regarding naming legislation after a proponent is disturbing; that coming to the Commission table to beleaguer by personally attacking someone or to violate the City's Code of Public Conduct is totally inappropriate; that the proposed Ordinance is not Ms. Holland's Opus; that the issue is one of concern- to the City and Gillespie Park; that no onerous responsibility should be placed on any particular individual; that the proposed Ordinance is a Citywide issue; that the comments are appreciated; that adopting proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 will indicate support of protecting parks; that the City Attorney's Office has presented an ordinance which reflects ordinances passed in other communities which set 75 as the number to require a permit; that the number which will require a permit can be changed in the future; however, the motion to deny should be defeated and a motion made to approve proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the motion to deny is not supported; that the responsibility is to protect the City's assets; that the preamble paragraphs of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 are disliked and should be changed in a more positive manner to reflect the intent is to protect the City's assets; that the proposed Ordinance provides no one group will have exclusive use of a park; that the issue of potential liability exists with certain activities; that the proposed Ordinance ensures liabilities will be addressed; that liability insurance will assure taxpayers will not be required to defend a - lawsuit; that the proposed Ordinance is not an infringement on freedom of speech or the right of assembly; that the streets and sidewalks can be utilized for protests and demonstrations; that the right for protests and demonstrations must be preserved; that the proposed Ordinance is not an infringement on the right for protests and demonstrations; that the proposed Ordinance is to protect the public assets; that the motion to deny is not supported; that moving forward is suggested. Mayor Martin stated that the motion to deny is not supported; that further public discussion is not supported; that one of the convincing points is Reverend Butterfield of Gifts from God indicated the provision in the proposed Ordinance conducting an activity in an alternate area in the park does not pose a problem; that the proposed Ordinance should incorporate preserving the parks and about assuring the parks are available for all citizens; that public spaces are more burdened as the City's density increases; that ensuring the parks are preserved in a manner which is not a burden to taxpayers but also useful to all members of the community is a concern; that the proposed Ordinance should be user friendly; that the parks should be useful and user friendly; that obtaining a permit from the City and subsequently go to the County for a reservation is disturbing; that supporting the proposed Ordinance is difficult unless a one stop process is possible; that the lack of definition in the application and the Administrative Regulation is a concern; that laws and regulations are required to address concerns; that the proposed Ordinance is not punitive but provides a manner of being fair for the common good; that a danger of misusing or abusing legislation always exists; that the motion to deny is not supported. Mayor Martin requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote on the motion to deny the adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541. Motion failed (3 to 2): : Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, no; Palmer, no; Servian, no. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 on first reading with amended language to indicate the following: Whereas, the City Commission supports and encourages free speech in the community. Whereas, the City Commission is concerned with protecting the public parks and with providing access to or equal use of public park facilities and pavilions, proper sanitation, litter control, and noise and coordination of City owned parks; and a copy of the application for permit is provided and the Park Use Matrix is refined at second reading. Commissioner Palmer stated that the understanding is the City will notify the County a permit has been issued for use of a park to alleviate the necessity of two stops. Mr. Schneider stated that the County has its own reservation form; that County reservation forms can be maintained at City Hall and faxed to the County; that the County can fax reservation applications to the City. BOOK 56 Page 28140 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28141 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Mayor Martin stated that cooperating with the County regarding reservations should be incorporated in the motion. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the motion is amended to direct the Administration to coordinate with the County to alleviate the requirement of a two-step reservation process. Commissioner Palmer stated that the understanding was cooperation with the County was addressed. Mayor Martin stated that cooperation was not addressed. Vice Mayor Servian stated that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 does not address cooperation with the County. City Manager McNees stated that the understanding is review of the application form and revisions to the Park Use Matrix are desired; that the suggestion is not to make a motion to adopt the application form and revisions to the Park Use Matrix as the intent is to have flexibility as part of the Administrative Regulation; that changes can be made to the Administrative Regulation and the Park Use Matrix without the necessity of a public hearing. Mayor Martin stated that the intent is a copy of the application for a permit be provided and the Park Use Matrix refined at second reading. Vice Mayor Servian stated that approval of the application for a permit and the Park Use Matrix as refined at second reading is not the intent. City Manager McNees stated that the motion indicated approval. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that providing a copy of the application form and refinement of the Park Use Matrix is for informational purposes. Mayor Martin stated that the request is to better define the Park Use Matrix and provide a copy of the application for permit. Commissioner Atkins stated that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 is a thinly veiled ordinance which will create problems in the future; that the justification proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 is in the best interests of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens is doubted; that a threat to any health, safety, and welfare of the citizens has not existed; that the adoption of the proposed Ordinance is a masquerade; that disguising the intent is unfair; that the people should know the intent is to strip rights to use a park without an approval from the City Manager; that the truth should be told; that the proposed Ordinance is a peculiar manner of posturing through a process which has a better remedy; that problems could have been resolved regarding Gillespie Park use; that no complaints have been received regarding parks other than Gillespie Park; that a rule for everything can be made if the desire is to plan for every catastrophe which may occur in the City. Commissioner Bilyeu agreed and stated that Attorney Singer prepared an excellent ordinance; that the hard work put forth to develop proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 is appreciated; that over 75 people events in the parks have not caused problems in the past; that adopting the proposed Ordinance is a big mistake; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 is not supported. Vice Mayor Servian stated that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 may have been instigated by problems with one particular park; however, 21 of 33 neighborhood associations have endorsed the proposed Ordinance; that a single park in a single neighborhood is not the issue; that the Gillespie Park neighborhood has been maligned. Commissioner Palmer stated that some of the comments made by Commissioner Atkins are a concerni that proposed Ordinance is not an attempt at a masquerade to deceive the community; that characterizing proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 as a masquerade is disturbing. Commissioner Atkins stated that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 began with the truth and now the lie has been told. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the City of Sarasota cannot be compared with Chicago or San Diego; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 is not supported. Mayor Martin stated that addressing an ordinance regarding park permits a second time was surprising; that Proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 with the suggested changes provides a comfort level. Mayor Martin called for a vote on the motion to pass proposed Ordinance No. 04-4541 on first reading with indicated changes. BOOK 56 Page 28142 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28143 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Motion carried (3 to 2): : Bilyeu, no; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Atkins, no. Mayor Martin stated that two public hearings will be opened and subsequently continued to June 8, 2004, at a time certain of 6:00 p.m. Mayor Martin opened the public hearing regarding proposed Ordinance No. 04-4548 to amend Chapter 37 of the Sarasota City Code (1986 as amended) (City Code), Water and Sewers, and adjust water and sewer rates. Mayor Martin stated that the Commission's consensus is to continue the public hearing regarding proposed Ordinance No. 04-4548. Mayor Martin opened the public hearing regarding proposed Ordinance No. 04-4551 to amend Chapter 30, Article V, Division 3 of the Sarasota City Code (1986 as amended) (City Code) to provide no singular newsrack shall be placed, installed, or maintained within 500 feet of any modular newsrack. Mayor Martin stated that the Commission's consensus is to continue the public hearing regarding proposed Ordinance No. 04-4551. The Commission recessed at 10:58 p.m. and reconvened at 6:00 p.m. on June 8, 2004. 22. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 04-4548, AMENDING CHAPTER 37 OF THE SARASOTA CITY CODE, - WATER AND SEWERS, ADJUSTING WATER AND SEWER RATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPANDING, REPAIRING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING THE WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA BY ESTABLISHING NEW RATES FOR WATER CONSUMED : PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID i PROVIDING FOR REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM XIV-A-4) CD 6:08 through 7:04 Mayor Martin stated that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4548 amends Chapter 37 of the Sarasota City Code (1986 as amended) (City Code), Water and Sewers, adjusting the water and sewer rates, opened the public hearing, and requested that Staff come forward. William Hallisey, Director, Douglas Taylor, Deputy Director of Utilities, Public Works Department, and Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission. Mr. Hallisey stated that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4548 proposes an adjustment to the water and sewer rates of two percent to take effect September 1, 2004, and two percent to take effect September 1, 2005; that the purpose of the rate increase is to expand, repair, operate, and maintain the City water and sewer system; that the rate under the philosophy under which the City has been operating for the past seven or eight years is a pay-as- you-go philosophy adjusting the rates in time to maintain sufficient cash on hand to not only maintain and operate the water and sewer system but to accumulate funds to pay for ongoing capital requirements; that periodically bond issues are required for major projects; however, capital for projects of $500,000 to $1 million generally are funded through the utility rates; that a good news/bad news scenario is a potential existed for a three percent recommendation for a rate increase; that the recommendation has been reduced to two percent; that the cost increases are generally running approximately 3.16 percent for operation and maintenance costs projected for the next yeari that the major increases in costs are triggered by increases in medical and fuel in addition to typical inflationary costs; that the rate target for increase in expenditures has been 3.5 percent; that traditionally rate increases have been less than 3.5 percent; that the rates are sufficient to fund operation and maintenance costs; however, the rates must be adjusted periodically to keep up with inflation. Mr. Taylor stated that security enhancements have been installed; that post 9/11 items were added to last year's budget and the proposed budget to address infrastructure security; that savings will be realized in electricity reduction at the water treatment plant which is a direct result of the recently completed retrofit of the reverse osmosis plant which is factored in at approximately an eight percent reduction in electricity expense at the water treatment plant; that power savings will be realized as a result of the Florida Power and Light Energy Conservation Project recently completed; that changes have been made such as lighting retrofits, adding variable frequency drives to pumps at the water treatment plant, and constructing a generator interconnect with the utilities administration building and the emergency generator at the wastewater treatment plant which will provide added capacity in the tropical storm season; that the south elevated tank on Bee Ridge Road will be painted in 2005; that the north tank will receive touchup paint as part of regular maintenance; BOOK 56 Page 28144 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28145 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. that increased amounts of environmental monitoring being required for permits from the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) results in increased costs to accommodate new permit conditions; that conversion of the power grid at the Verna Wellfield is in the final phase. Mr. Taylor continued that eliminating the overhead power pole system and placing the power grid underground will be completed in the next budget yeari that the funding of the inflow infiltration into the wastewater collection system is an ongoing expense for which more funds have been budgeted than in past years; that an allocation is for capital improvements to lift stations and adding capital to the water distribution system will continue; that the bond issue contemplated was due to an understanding from the FDEP regarding the wastewater permit concerning improving surface water quality standards discharged into Whitaker Bayou; that the perception was a complete ultra-violet disinfection system for the wastewater treatment plant would be required at a cost approaching $4.5 million to replace the chlorine gas system used since the plant was constructed in the 1950s; that hundreds of ultra-violet bulbs are used in the systems and must be replaced periodically which is a significant capital and maintenance expense; that alternative less expensive and less technically sophisticated means exist for water treatment; that nine months to one year of data gathering will be required for a study to determine the best method of water treatment; that samples in the receiving water in Whitaker Bayou over the seasons will be gathered; that postponing the bond issue is recommended; that methods to generate additional capital will be further analyzed; that a force main will be constructed in 2005 at Lift Station 52 associated with the sewer overflow during the rainy season which is a $750,000 project; that a project will provide increased capacity in the water distribution system between St. Armands Circle and Ken Thompson Park; that an eight inch water line installed in the 1950s will be replaced which is an $850,000 expensei that the City has had discussions with the Town of Longboat Key regarding participation in the project for a potential emergency water interconnect associated with the increase in the transmission capacity. Vice Mayor Servian asked if the project will be coordinated with the St. Armands Stormwater Project? Mr. Taylor stated yesi that the proposed project includes construction of a new water line which would run from the intersection of Adams Drive and North Boulevard of the Presidents on St. Armands Key north to Ken Thompson Park. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the stormwater project is scheduled to go through the median of North Boulevard of the Presidents. Mr. Taylor stated that an advantage in the construction of water lines is the technology of directional boring to avoid obstacles such as stormwater drains. Mayor Martin asked if the St. Armands Circle and the interconnect project is a substantial capital cost? Mr. Taylor stated yes; that the cost of construction of the water main is $850,000; that upgrading the main size to meet fire flows is essential throughout the water distribution system. Mayor Martin stated that the construction is required to meet fire flows rather than lawn irrigation and excessive uses. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct. Mayor Martin stated that the construction will benefit the redevelopment of the Lido Shores area. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct; that the construction will also benefit the Ken Thompson Park area. Mr. Hallisey stated that noting the sizing of the water main meets the City's requirements is important; that any increased sizing of the water main to meet the Town of Longboat Key requirements will be paid by the Town of Longboat Key; that the Town of Longboat Key will pay 100 percent of the cost of crossing New Pass to connect to the City water main; that the Town of Longboat Key remains interested in pursuing the project; that funds expended by the City will benefit only City customers. Commissioner Atkins stated that he is interested in selling excess water and sewage to other customers; and asked the current source of water for the Town of Longboat Key? Mr. Hallisey stated that the Town of Longboat Key receives water from Manatee County; that the interconnect with the Town of Longboat Key is strictly for emergency situations which is similar to the interconnects the City has with the County to supply the City should an emergency occur. BOOK 56 Page 28146 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28147 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that a significant project is the compost plant; that the compost plant was completed in 1987; that a portion of the facility processes the biosolids from the wastewater treatment plant; that the biosolids are pressed into a cake and the cake is placed in the composting facility; that the presses are approaching 20 years old and require replacement; that the presses will be replaced with centrifuges at a cost of $1.7 million to provide an additional 20 years of life; that the centrifuges will produce a dryer product which requires less sawdust to make compost and will allow participation in regional biosolids handling facilities which require a dryer product; that Staff is interested in the potential for a long term agreement allowing the City to no longer be in the composting business; that the composting plant is operating effectively; however, the composting plant is a unique installation to have at a wastewater plant in the center of a populated area; that moving the biosolids cost effectively to a regional processing facility will be considered. Mayor Martin stated that the City has had discussions with the County regarding development of a biosolids disposal system. Mr. Taylor stated that the County has issued a Request for Proposals and will be entering into an agreement a vendor building a facility in Polk County. Mayor Martin stated that disposal in Polk County would involve only transportation costs of the dryer product to the new facility. Mr. Taylor stated that transportation and processing costs will be incurred; that the balance in costs must be evaluated. Commissioner Atkins asked if the reason the water treatment and composting facilities generate an increased unpleasant odor is due to the age of the facilities? Mr. Taylor stated that the facilities are not operated any differently than in the past; that the odor varies from day to day. Commissioner Atkins stated that the periods of the odor have lengthened in the past year. Mr. Hallisey stated that odor control is difficult; that a study was conducted to identify any off site odors; that an enhancement to the odor control system was completed in the past year; that the current odor emanates from the compost plant; that the prevailing wind conditions during the spring and fall shears the odor off site; that odor control is diligently pursued; that one suggestion is to enclose the open portion of the compost plant which would be a major undertaking; that participating in regional biosolids disposal will allow shutting down the compost plant which will alleviate odors. Mr. Taylor stated that due to the implementation of the Downtown Code and Downtown Zone Districts a water and sewer capacity study of the area from Mound Street to Tenth Street and Shade Avenue to the Bayfront has been undertaken; that the capacity of the water and sewer system will be analyzed to determine if projected demands in the Downtown area will be accommodated; that a work program has been instituted regarding areas which may require larger water mains; that Staff has reviewed a 90 percent draft of the water capacity portion of the project prepared by a consultant which is excellent. Vice Mayor Servian stated that learning a study of water and sewer capacity has been conducted is pleasing as people are concerned new development will cause a water shortage; that people must be informed the City has a sufficient water supply for the future. Mr. Hallisey stated that the City is in a unique situation for Southwest Florida as the City has excess capacity in the water and sewer system; that the reason for the excess capacity is the Federal Government had many programs in place to help utility systems in cities such as Sarasota upgrade capacities in the 1980s; that the City's plan was to consider its ultimate build out; that the water, sewer, and wastewater plants were constructed in the 1980s and were sized to meet the anticipated growth; that significant growth is occurring and the City's wellfields have the capacity to meet the future growth. Mayor Martin asked if all costs associated with water and sewer operations are covered by usage rates? Mr. Taylor stated yes. Mr. Hallisey stated that the facilities are maintained at the required level to meet all regulatory compliances; that Staff considers the future to ensure positioning the utilities to meet the demands of the future; that requesting rate increases is not pleasant; however, the City does not have an expanding customer base of any consequence to generate additional revenues; that BOOK 56 Page 28148 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28149 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. additional revenue sources are continually researched; that a review of the current impact fees will be presented to the Commission in 90 to 120 days; that capital funds to upgrade utilities derive from impact fees; that a study will be conducted to determine if impact fees should be adjusted to fund future capital projects associated with Downtown growth. Mayor Martin stated that impact fees would be associated with the Lido Shores and Ken Thompson Park areas; that potentially the projects requiring additional capacity can finance the entire project; that Staff will analyze the projects to determine who will provide the financing. Mr. Hallisey stated that is correct. Commissloner Atkins stated that the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District is also bearing the brunt of some of the contemplated utility projects; and asked if TIF funds can be utilized for the utility projects? Mr. Mitchell stated that the utility system is a self-supporting enterprise fund; that funds from the General Fund or TIF funds are not used. Commissioner Atkins stated that the question is if TIF funds can be utilized to assist in deferring costs. Mr. Mitchell stated yes; that TIF funds can be used for a project within the TIF District. Commissioner Atkins stated that the Downtown is in the TIF District; that as much TIF funds should be expended on projects in the TIF District as possible sO the community can reap benefits. Mr. Hallisey stated that the utility work on the Lemon Avenue Streetscape project is funded by TIF funds; that TIF funds can be a future source for expenditures in Downtown. Commissioner Atkins stated that every project in the TIF District should utilize TIF funds or impact fees; that a concern is developers are the only ones receiving TIF funds. Mayor Martin stated that Commissioner Atkins's comments are appreciated; that the Commission has requested expansion of the Master Plan 2020 to address issues regarding expenditures in the City other than real estate development. City Manager McNees stated that funds available from the TIF District will be used to the best advantage. Mr. Hallisey referred to a document entitled Rate Comparison displayed on the Chambers overhead monitors and included in the Agenda backup material and stated that the City's utility rates are competitive with rates in the area; that representatives from Siesta Key, the City of Venice, and Sarasota County indicated rates will be adjusted in the current budget cycle. Commissioner Bilyeu asked the reason Manatee County utility rates are significantly lower than others? Mr. Hallisey stated that Manatee County has a well planned and well built utility system; that Manatee County is one of the few counties and utilities in the country to receive significant subsidies from the Federal Government to build the Manatee County dam in the late 1970s which provides an inexpensive supply of water. Commissioner Atkins stated that Sarasota County was invited to participate in the building of the Manatee County dam and regional wastewater treatment facilities; that Sarasota County opted out of participation, which is the reason the County usage rates with the Aqua Sources are sO expensive, and a significant burden to people in the poorest communities. Mr. Hallisey referred to a Customer Satisfaction Survey displayed on the Chambers overhead monitors and stated that 95 percent of the City's customers indicated utility services excellent to good which has been consistent for many years. Mr. Mitchell stated that in preparing for the new bond issue, the bond issues which are already outstanding were considered to determine if refunding would be appropriate; that refunding the 1993 series bonds and an advance refunding of the 1995 series bonds will result in a net present value savings in excess of $300,000; that the Preliminary Official Statement must be amended; that authorization will be requested for refunding the bonds at the June 21, 2004, Regular Commission meeting. The following people came before the Commission: BOOK 56 Page 28150 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28151 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Maria Walker, 203 Katelyn Cove (34237), stated that she recently relocated to the City to care for her father; that the cost of living in the City is significantly higher than Manatee County; that a decision was made to live in Sarasota; that she moved to an impoverished neighborhood which was all she could afford; that four percent is not significant to many people; however, four percent is significant to low income people; that condominium owners in the City do not pay deposit fees for water use; that she was required to pay a $150 deposit for water; that the $150 fee is retained by the City for one year; that the fee is retained for an additional year if a payment is late; that the deposit fees should be considered as a resource for funding rather than a rate increase; that many people do not receive a refund of the deposit as many people live from paycheck to paycheck; that electric bills are based on a rate for usage under a specific amount and a different amount for usage above a specific amount; that the same amount of water is not used as a condominium owners who pays the same rate; that a person who owns a $1.5 million home and waters grass and fills a swimming pool pays the same rate; that rates should be based on usage; that considering alternative resources for funds is suggested; that the cost of living in Sarasota may result in the necessity of relocating to Venice or Manatee County; that the Commission is requested to vote against the rate increase. City Manager McNees stated that rates are based on usage; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4548 provides for three escalating rates based on usage; that the deposit structures are governed by covenants in bonding requiring the City to hold a certain amount of money on deposit; that the mechanisms for handling and refunding are promises made to the bondholders; that no alternative exists to the promises made to the bondholders; that the City has a limited ability to control rates without causing the cost of borrowing to increase. Mayor Martin asked if interest is paid on the deposits? City Manager McNees stated no; that the interest funds return to the utility system and attributes to the lower rates; that paying interest to the customer would result in the revenue being short the amount of the refund, which would require an increased customer rate; that accounting for interest would require additional administrative costs. Mayor Martin asked if the usage rates could be decreased to lessen the burden for people who use only a basic amount of water? Mr. Hallisey stated that the City has attempted to maintain the tiers low enough to alleviate abuses of wasting water prior to the penalty trigger; however, many members of the community have four or five people in a household and an analysis over the years indicated an average use; that the tier is maintained at 12,000 gallons to preclude inadvertently penalizing people with large families; that the tier is appropriate sO the people who are least capable of paying higher fees receive the lowest rate available; that a fixed charge and a usage charge are imposed; that the fixed charge is a readiness to serve charge which funds capital debt and fixed operating expenses which cannot be recovered from a gallonage charge; that a gallonage charge is a charge every individual pays on a per thousand basis; that people who abuse water use pay a higher rate. Vice Mayor Servian asked if condominium owners pay a fixed charge? Mr. Hallisey stated yes; that a fixed charge is imposed for every 6,000 gallons of water used; that the fixed charge was instituted a number of years ago to equalize and create a level playing field to ensure multi-unit charges are similar to the charges assessed for a single-family unit; that the fixed charge is considered an equivalent residential unit. Vice Mayor Servian stated that each individual condominium owner is not paying a monthly fee for water. Mr. Hallisey stated that the condominium owner is indirectly paying; that the entire condominium is billed. Vice Mayor Servian asked if the condominium is billed by unit? Mr. Hallisey stated no; that condominiums usually have only one large meter; that the large meters pay a heavier fixed charge due to the heavy demand on the system; that for every 6,000 gallons of usage of a unit charge is paid, which is the equivalent to the unit charge of a residential single-tamily. City Manager McNees stated that the City engages a financial expert who studies water usage rate structures to ensure allocations are appropriate; that users will not be required to pay more than a fair share; that the incremental premiums BOOK 56 Page 28152 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28153 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. charged are significant; that. the first increase is approximately 40 percent over the base rate and the second is approximately 70 percent over the base rate. Mr. Hallisey stated that the City has entered into certain bond covenants with which the City must comply; that little latitude is allowed in formulating the rate structure to assure compliance with the bond covenants; that the City must prove all customers pay for water; that providing free water service is not allowed; that the City's current methodology has met the tests within the industry; that the primary test is determining sufficient funds are received from the rate structure to pay future debts. Vice Mayor Servian asked if a deposit is collected from multi- family units? Mr. Hallisey stated yes. Vice Mayor Servian asked if the deposits are proportional? Mr. Hallisey stated yes; that many condominiums never receive a refund of the deposit. Mayor Martin stated that a question is if the City does everything possible to assure progressive, fair, and considerate treatment of all the citizens; that basing water usage rates on the anticipated use by a large family is not understood; that large families could be granted an exemption or allowance; that charging everyone the same regardless of the amount of water used such as for landscaping and swimming pools is questioned; that water conservation should be encouraged; that an incentive for water conservation should be provided; that for instance, a $100 rebate was offered toward the purchase of a low flow toilet in the past; that the incentive is no longer offered; that individuals should not be penalized with water rates based on excessive use by others. City Manager McNees stated that 12,000 gallons of average water usage was determined from an analysis of use by a large familyi that engineering standards and analyses of typical family use are applied in determining average use; that water conservation is directly counterproductive to maintaining lower rates; that water conservation is analogous to keeping prices down by limiting the number of customers; that the incremental increases in rates for increased water usage is a form of conservation as a financial incentive is created to use less water; that conservation will not reduce rates as less consumption will occuri that fixed costs remain unchanged; that a price increase will be required; that conservation to avoid future capital construction is a worthwhile objective; however, conservation will not reduce water rates. The following people came before the Commission: Michael Brown, 1772 Laurel Street (34236), was no longer present in the Chambers. R. K. Mattern, 2400 Wood Street (34237), was no longer present in the Chambers. Ruthie Meeks, 2409 Leon Avenue (34234), stated that her water bills increase monthly; that she receives disability and Social Security payments; that increased charges cause a financial difficulty; and asked if the Commission has any suggestions? Vice Mayor Servian asked if assistance programs are available for citizens with disabilities? City Manager McNees stated that hardship programs do not exist within the utility system; that the practice is to match people with the appropriate social service agency in the Countyi that the City's billing office could be contacted to obtain information regarding the appropriate office to provide assistance. Ms. Meeks stated that the Commission's advice is appreciated. City Manager McNees stated that the Staff of the City Manager's Office will identify the proper County agency to contact. Commissioner Atkins stated that Ms. Meeks indicated the water bill increases each month; that the exterior and interior water systems should be checked for leaks; that Staff should be informed an inspection is necessary. Mayor Martin stated that one dripping faucet can cause significant increases in water and sewer use. Richard Shelton, 526 South Osprey Avenue (34235), stated that Sarasota County charges 20 percent more for water than the City; that the City is doing a good job. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Martin closed the public hearing. BOOK 56 Page 28154 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28155 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 04-4548 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Servian, it was moved to pass Ordinance No. 04-4548 on first reading. Commissioner Atkins stated that over the past 15 to 20 years, he has worked with Staff to keep the water and sewer bills as low as possible; that the City does its best to avoid increases and is encouraged to continue to monitor rates and usage; that utility rates are vitally important for the citizens of the City; that the City was fortunate former Mayor Ken Thompson had good foresight for future water demands 40 years ago; that the City is better prepared than most municipalities in the area. Vice Mayor Servian agreed. Mayor Martin requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote on the motion to pass proposed Ordinance No. 04-4548 on first reading. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes. 23. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 04-4551, AMENDING CHAPTER 30, ARTICLE V, DIVISION 3, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA TO PROVIDE THAT NO SINGULAR NEWSRACK SHALL BE PLACED, INSTALLED OR MAINTAINED WITHIN FIVE HUNDRED FEET (500 FT.) OF ANY MODULAR NEWSRACK; i THEREBY INCREASING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED DISTANCE BETWEEN SINGULAR NEWSRACKS AND MODULAR NEWSRACKS BY 250 FEET FROM THE CURRENT REQUIRED SEPARATION OF TWO HUNDRED FIFTY (250) FEET TO FIVE HUNDRED (500) FEET; ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM XIV-A-5) CD 7:04 through 7:13 Mayor Martin stated that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4551 concerns newsracks in the City, opened the public hearing, and requested that Staff come forward. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and asked if proposed Ordinance No. 04-4551 has been advertised for public hearing? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4551 was advertised May 28, 2004. Mr. Schneider distributed copies of pictures of newsracks and stated that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4551 provides that no singular newsrack shall be placed, installed or maintained within 500 feet of any modular newsrack, thereby increasing the minimum required distance between singular newsracks and modular newsracks by 250 feet from the current required separation of 250 feet to 500 feet; that during the Main Street construction, singular newsracks were readjusted as the newsracks were removed from the eastern side of Main Street; that a number of singular newsracks were placed in the area west of Orange Avenue and were previously converted to modulars; that the City worked with the industry representative, John Annis, Retail Sales Manager, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, who is present in the Chambers audience for questions if desired. Mr. Schneider referred to an April 20, 2004, letter from Mr. Annis to the City Manager's Office, included in the Agenda backup material, indicating support of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4551; and stated that singular newsracks within 500 feet of another will be removed; that several new sites will be selected for modular newsracks; that the recommendation is to pass proposed Ordinance No. 04-4551 on first reading. Vice Mayor Servian asked the reason the newsrack program is not expanded within the entire City? Mr. Schneider stated that groups of freestanding newsracks are addressed in the entire City; that the distinction is the City can only apply proposed Ordinance No. 04-4551 to newsracks on public property. Mayor Martin asked the number of years City Staff has dedicated to the newsracks issue? Mr. Schneider stated that Ordinance No. 99-4152 was passed on March 6, 2000; however, three years was necessary to complete proposed Ordinance No. 04-4551. Mayor Martin asked the number of modular newsracks in the City and if groupings which have not been addressed remain in the City? Mr. Schneider stated that the only groupings on public property are the two groupings of newracks on the cutouts on north US 41; that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) will close BOOK 56 Page 28156 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28157 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. off the cutouts; that Staff will contact FDOT to determine the time closing of the cutouts will occur. Mayor Martin stated that groupings of newsracks will be replaced by modulars throughout the City. Mr. Schneider stated that is correct; that Staff should be informed if groupings of newsracks are observed on public property. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Martin closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 04-4551 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to pass Ordinance No. 04-4551 on first reading. Mayor Martin requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes. 24. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM XV) CD 7:13 through 7:14 The following person came before the Commission: Richard Shelton, 526 South Osprey Avenue (34235), stated that the Sarasota Herald-Tribune previously produced a good weekly column concerning meetings of the City and County; that more people should be aware of meetings; that the Commissioners are requested to ask the Sarasota Herald-Tribune to run the weekly column again. 25. NEW BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE : PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1763, SUPPORTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION REQUIRING THE PERIODIC REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF ALL SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM XVII-1) CD 7:14 through 7:20 Mayor Martin stated that proposed Resolution No. 04R-1763 supports an amendment to the Florida Constitution requiring the periodic review and approval of all sales tax exemptions and exclusions in the State of Florida. Commissioner Palmer stated that the amendment is self- explanatory; that support of the Commission is requested; that the amendment involves sales taxes and imposes a requirement on the legislature to evaluate the taxes periodically to determine if the taxes should be sunsetted. Mayor Martin asked if proposed Resolution No. 04R-1763 is based on a Sarasota County resolution? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that proposed Resolution No. 04R-1763 is based on the Florida League of Cities Resolution. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 04R-1763 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 04R-1763. Commissioner Atkins stated that an additional tax burden could be imposed on those citizens less able to afford any additional taxes; that the current exemptions will likely continue to exist. Commissioner Palmer stated that the amendment involves exemptions for food, medicine, and health care, etc.; that the basic requirements of life will remain exempted; that the amendment will sunset exemptions which will force the Legislature to re-enact appropriate exemptions. Mayor Martin stated that significant tax dollars are lost due to exemptions. Vice Mayor Servian stated that $11 billion more in taxes are exempted than are collected; that the legislators will be required to justify any exemptions. Commissioner Atkins stated that an amendment to the Florida Constitution is frightening and will be difficult to achieve. Mayor Martin stated that John McKay, State Senator for District 26, addressed the cluttering of the Florida Constitution with frivolous amendments; that some amendments to the Florida BOOK 56 Page 28158 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28159 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Constitution have been disturbing; that Senator McKay indicated the Florida Constitution requires the State be fiscally responsible; that inappropriate tax exemptions are not fiscally responsible. Vice Mayor Servian stated that Florida collects $17.5 billion in sales taxes and exempts $25 billion. Mayor Martin called for a vote on the motion to adopt proposed Resolution No. 04R-1763 and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (4 to 1): Servian, yes; Atkins, no; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes. 26. NEW BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1767, APPROPRIATING $85,000 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPAIRING AND REPAINTING LIGHT POLES, THE ENTRY ARCH, BENCHES AND PLANTERS, ALONG WITH RESURFACING THE PARKING LOT AT THE BAYFRONT ; ETC. ADOPTED WITH THE PROVISION THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANÇE OF THE GENERAL FUND WILL BE REI IMBURSED BY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING FUNDS WHICH WILL BE FORMALIZED BY AN AGREEMENT ; APPROVED THE AWARD OF THE PORTION OF BID NO. 04-29K WHICH REFERENCES THE PAVING AND RESURFACING OF THE PARKING AND ROADWAY AREAS IN BAYFRONT PARK TO AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $45,702.75 (AGENDA ITEM XVII-3) CD 7:20 through 7:31 Mayor Martin stated that proposed Resolution No. 04R-1767 appropriates $85,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of the General Fund for the purpose of resurfacing the parking lot, painting of entry arch, benches, planters, and the addition of site amenities at Bayfront Park. William Hallisey, Director of Public Works, came before the Commission and stated that the request is brought forth at this time but is also included as a budget item in the fiscal year (FY) 2004/05 proposed budget; that a bid was awarded to a paving company for Citywide paving which included the paving in Bayfront Park at a preferential rate; that many requests have been received from the public to update Bayfront Park as no improvements have been made since 1991. City Manager McNees stated that the request is presented mid- year as the item was originally requested in the FY 2003/04 budget; however, the request was not granted; that due to the disrepair of Bayfront Park and favorable prices received for updating, the recommendation is to adopt proposed Resolution No. 04R-1767. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that a concern is utilizing funds for the General Fund rather than Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds. City Manager McNees stated that no TIF funds are available. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that funds can be obtained from the General Fund which can subsequently be reimbursed with TIF funds; that the Administration indicated TIF funds will be used in the TIF District; that proposed Resolution No. 04R-1767 is not supported. City Manager McNees stated that future TIF funds will be available; that TIF funds are currently at a deficit as funds have been disbursed with the promise of repayment; that Staff recommends allowing TIF funds to renourish until appropriate funds are available; that borrowing against TIF funds in the future is not recommended unless allocated toward specific projects meeting the "but for" test to create revenue which would not otherwise exist; that borrowing against future TIF funds for capital projects is possible but is not recommended by Staff. Vice Mayor Servian stated that identifying a source of funds for repaving Arlington Park was difficult; that identifying funds for repaving Bayfront Park is not perceived as difficult; that TIF funds should be used in the TIF District; that borrowing $85,000 and repaying the TIF fund is preferred; that using funds from the General Fund is not appropriate as other areas of the City can benefit from the money. Mayor Martin stated that use of TIF funds should be emphasized. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that borrowing from the General Fund with repayment by TIF funds is acceptable. Mayor Martin stated that revenue will accrue to the TIF fund in one year. Mr. Mitchell stated that revenue will accrue in two yearsi that the TIF fund has a deficit of $2 million; that in the year 2005, the TIE fund will have a deficit of $1.2 million. BOOK 56 Page 28160 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28161 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. City Manager McNees stated that the difference in the proposed Bayfront Park project and the Arlington Park project is Staff reviewed the Arlington Park project and concluded Arlington Park meets the City's standard based on the level of service of other pathways in the park; that investing funds for paving a park with an acceptable level of service was not recommended; that Bayfront Park does not meet a minimum standard and requires significant updating and repair. Mayor Martin asked if a contract has been awarded for the $50,000 for resurfacing? Mr. Hallisey stated no; that the resurfacing is a component of the bid. Mayor Martin stated that the necessity of resurfacing Bayfront Park is questioned. Mr. Hallisey stated that the surface has deteriorated; that a potential exists for trip and fall accidents; that the highest priority is repainting; that the second priority is painting the furniture; that the lowest priority is resurfacing; that the reason for requesting the resurfacing at the present time is to leverage the resurfacing into the project; that the $50,000 bid is a good value. Commissioner Atkins asked if the TIF funds could repay the General Fund in two years? Mr. Mitchell stated yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 04R-1767 in its entirety. On motion of Commissioner Bilyeu and second of Vice Mayor Servian, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 04R-1767 with the provision the unappropriated balance of the General Fund will be reimbursed by Tax Increment Financing funds which will be formalized by an agreement. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yesi Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Vice Mayor Servian, it was moved to approve the award of the portion of Bid No. 04-29K which references the paving and resurfacing of the parking and roadway areas in Bayfront Park to Ajax Paving Industries, Inc., in the amount of $45,702.75. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yesi Palmer, yesi Servian, yes; Martin, yes. 27. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: : BRIDGE OPENING SCHEDULE OF THE BRIDGES ON THE BARRIER ISLANDS INCLUDING THE LONGBOAT PASS BRIDGE, THE NEW PASS BRIDGE, THE ANNA MARIA BRIDGE AND THE CORTEZ BRIDGE - AUTHORIZED STAFF TO PREPARE A LETTER FOR SIGNATURE BY THE MAYOR SUPPORTING THE REQUEST TO LIMIT BRIDGE OPENINGS TO EVERY 30 MINUTES (AGENDA ITEM XVII-4) CD 7:31 through 7:36 Mayor Martin stated that the discussion concerns the opening schedules of the bridges on the barrier islands including the Longboat Pass, New Pass, Anna Maria, and Cortez Bridges. Commissioner Bilyeu referred to an April 14, 2004, letter to him from Carol Whitmore, Mayor, City of Holmes Beach, Florida, included in the Agenda backup material, indicating support is requested to approach the US Coast Guard and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for relief by increasing the times between drawbridge openings. Mayor Martin stated that bridges currently open every 20 minutes; that the request is to support changing the schedule to open every 30 minutes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that an exception is the Longboat Pass Bridge which opens on demand; that the request is for the Longboat Pass Bridge to open every 30 minutes. Mayor Martin stated that the request is for all bridges to open every 30 minutes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Servian stated that no resolution is provided for adoption; and asked if adopting a resolution is necessary or if a letter in support will suffice? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a letter would be adequate. Osama "Sam" Freija, Manager of Traffic Engineering, Engineering Department, came before the Commission and stated that the Cities and Counties cannot control the timing of bridge openings; that the US Coast Guard is in control of bridge openings; that the BOOK 56 Page 28162 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28163 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. issue of bridge openings regarding the Cortez Bridge began at the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) level; that the Town of Longboat Key, the City of Holmes Beach, and the Island Transportation Planning Organization (ITPO) brought forth the issue due to the level of service experienced on the roadways as a result of the bridge openings; that a letter of support is requested from each municipality to the County to request the US Coast Guard change the timing of the bridge openings. Mayor Martin stated that no City or County jurisdiction exists; however, support can be provided. Mr. Freija stated that support is requested. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson agreed. Vice Mayor Servian asked if a letter indicating support will be sufficient? Mr. Freija stated that letters of support have been provided in the past. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the Commission can authorize a letter be written to Sarasota and Manatee Counties. On motion of Commissioner Bilyeu and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to authorize for signature by the Mayor a letter to the County supporting the request to limit bridge openings to every 30 minutes. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Staff of the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk and Engineering Department will prepare a letter for the Mayor's signature. 28. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION RE: : STATUS REPORT RE: : RITZ- CARLTON DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AUTHORIZED THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO PREPARE A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REFLECTING AGREEMENT CONCERNING ADDITIONAL MATTERS BY THE DEVELOPER AND CITY STAFF AS A RESULT OF RECENT DISCUSSIONS AND TO BRING THE SECOND AMENDMENT BACK FOR INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMISSION (AGENDA ITEM XVII-5) CD 7:36 through 7:41 Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that the First Amendment to the Development Agreement with the developers of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and Condominiums contains a provision requiring a status report be presented to the Commission May 1, 2004, to ensure the improvements to the transportation infrastructure in the vicinity would be completed; that the Commission did not take final action on the recommendations in the Downtown Mobility Study until a month later than anticipated on April 19, 2004; that approval was sought and received for a one month extension to present a status report. Attorney Fournier referred to a June 3, 2004, memorandum to the Commission included in the Agenda backup material regarding improving the level of service at the Gulf Stream Avenue and US 41 intersection between Fruitville Road and Gulf Stream Avenue which can be achieved by the following: 1. Construction of a new continuous southbound to westbound right turn lane from US 41 to Gulf Stream Avenue; 2. Closure of the eastern side of the US 41 and Gulf Stream Avenue intersection to provide additional signal time to the eastbound to northbound movement; and 3. Installation of a left turn lane for southbound traffic on US 41 to turn left onto Main Street and a corresponding left turn lane opposite the lane for northbound traffic on US 41 to turn left into the Bayfront Park and Marina Jack area. Attorney Fournier continued that an additional meeting will occur with the representatives of SLAB, LLC; that authorization is requested to prepare an agreement for the Commission's review prior to the public hearing. Commissioner Palmer asked for clarification regarding the Closure of the eastern side of US 41 at Gulf Stream Avenue. Attorney Fournier stated that the closure of the eastern side of US 41 must be resolved; that clarification will be provided at the future meeting with the representatives of SLAB, LLC. Commissioner Palmer stated that the indication to the Commission was the eastbound lane to Cocoanut Avenue and Main Street would remain open and westbound side would be closed. BOOK 56 Page 28164 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28165 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Mayor Martin stated that the Florida Department of Transportation has not yet approved the modifications. Osama "Sam" Freija, Manager of Traffic Engineering, came before the Commission and stated that stated that the direction received from the Commission during the adoption of the Mobility Study was to partially close the intersection; that the cost of a full closure will be requested from SLAB, LLC; however, the partial closure will proceed. Commissioner Palmer asked the reason SLAB, LLC, will be charged for a full Closure if only a partial is required? Mr. Freija stated that the funds will be utilized after the left turn lanes are constructed. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to authorize the City Attorney's Office to prepare a Second Amendment to the Development Agreement reflecting the agreement concerning additional matters by the Developer and City Staff as a result of recent discussions and to bring the Second Amendment back for introduction to the Commission. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. 29. APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX REVENUE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF SARASOTA, SARASOTA COUNTY AND THE CITY OF VENICE APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM XVII-6) CD 7:41 through 7:48 Mayor Martin stated that the request is for approval to authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Local Option Gas Tax Revenue Interlocal Agreement with the City of Sarasota, Sarasota County, and the City of Venice. City Manager McNees stated that Section 336.025, Florida Statutes, provides a mechanism through Interlocal Agreement for Counties and Cities accounting for more than 50 percent of the population in any County to distribute statewide and local gas taxes by a formula which considers the population in each jurisdiction; that a default distribution mechanism is provided in the Statute which is less favorable for the City than an Interlocal Agreement; that signing the Interlocal Agreement based on the population distribution formula is in the City's best interest; that the current Interlocal Agreement will expire soon; that Staff has verified the population numbers and percentages; that the City of Venice, Florida, will join the Interlocal Agreement as an additional City is required to meet the 50 percent population requirement of the total incorporated area of population; that the City of Sarasota no longer meets the population requirement alone; that the recommendation is to approve the Interlocal Agreement. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve the Interlocal Agreement for the Distribution of Local Option Gas Revenues and to authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute same. Commissioner Palmer stated that the City's population as a percentage of the County's population is continually decreasing which is frustrating; that the impacts to the City are growing as the population percentage and revenue are decreasing. Commissioner Atkins stated that an additional concern in the next two or three years is the City may be the second largest City in the County; that the population of City of North Port is quickly catching up to the City of Sarasota which must be addressed in the future. Mayor Martin stated that the City of Sarasota has significant cultural amenities, beaches, water activities, etc., which receive a disproportionate use by the region and are a growing burden. Mayor Martin called for a vote on the motion to approve the Interlocal Agreement for the Distribution of Local Option Gas Revenues and to authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute same. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. 30. APPROVAL RE: MAJOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (TIP), CONGESTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CMS) AND TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT (TD) PROJECTS PRIORITIZATION LISTS AND DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO PURSUE FUNDING THROUGH THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANI! ZATION (MPO) AS PROJECTS PRIORITIZED APPROVED AND DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO PURSUE FUNDING THROUGH THE SARASOTA/MANATEE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION AS THE PROJECTS PRIORITIES LIST INDICATES (AGENDA ITEM XVII-7) CD 7:44 through 7:48 BOOK 56 Page 28166 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28167 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Commissioner Atkins stated that the item was pulled from Consent Agenda No. 1 to obtain clarification regarding the status and description columns in the chart entitled Major Transportation Improvements Project Priorities (TIP) included in the Agenda backup material. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, and Osama "Sam" Freija, Manager of Traffic Engineering, Engineering Department, came before the Commission. Mr. Freija stated that transportation priority number 1 is 12th Street; that years ago, 17th Street was included in the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Prioritization list; that subsequently, 17th Street was determined not a priority; that 12th Street received funds during fiscal year (FY) 2001/02 for a Project Design and Environmental Study (PD&E) at which time the Commission directed 12th Street as the top priority project; therefore, 12th Street was traded with 17th Street at the MPO level in the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Work Tentative Program to receive funds for construction in the future. Commissioner Atkins stated that the $504,000 was traded and 12th Street was ranked higher in priority. Mr. Freija stated that the $504,000 was taken from the 17th Street project; that 12th Street was ranked higher in priority at the MPO level. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Vice Mayor Servian, it was moved to approve the Major Transportation Improvements Project Priorities, Congestion Management System Project Priorities, and Transportation Enhancement Project Priorities, and to direct the Administration to pursue funding through the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization as the Projects Priorities list indicates. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yesi Servian, yesi Martin, yes. 31. COMMISSION BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS (AGENDA ITEM IX) CD 7:49 through 7:55 COMMISSIONER ATKINS: A. stated that the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Sarasota Housing Authority was attended as a substitute for Vice Mayor Servian; that members were most enthusiastic about the anticipation of receiving the HOPE (Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere) VI grant; that subsequently, the hopes were dashed as the grant was not received. B. stated that he attended the initial meeting of the Tourist Development Council; that the group is excellent and anticipating future work encompassing the entire region. VICE MAYOR SERVIAN: A. stated that she attended the Board meeting of the Economic Development Corporation of Sarasota Countyi that a facilitator introduced an economic development plan which is excellent; that she serves on the Banking and Finance Subcommittee; that an additional meeting will be held to discuss funding; that the issue regarding occupational taxes will likely be addressed; that on August 6, 2004, presentations regarding projects relating to economic development will be provided by the municipalities; that the Administration was requested to direct a Staff member to provide the presentation; that the Economic Development Corporation Board is an exciting group of public and private individuals who have valuable expertise; that the update to the economic development plan is anticipated. Mayor Martin stated that hearing from Vice Mayor Servian and Commissioner Atkins regarding tourism and economics in the future is favorably anticipated. MAYOR MARTIN: A. stated that a seat is held on the Sarasota County Coastal Advisory Committee which reviews the West Coast Inland Navigation District grants; that recommendations are made to the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners (BCC); that two grants were submitted by the City in 2004 and both were approved; that one request was for $161,500 to replace a marine patrol vehicle, update life vests and radar guns, continue the derelict vessel BOOK 56 Page 28168 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28169 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. removal funding, and to provide funding for boat lifts and security fencing; that the second grant was for $75,000 for approximately 40 percent of the anticipated cost of the Bayfront mooring fixtures at the designated mooring field; that the remainder will be requested in the next fiscal year; that the grants are a result of the progress on the submerged lands lease; that the requests will be forwarded to the BCC and addressed on June 16, 2004; that Staif does an excellent job of preparing the grant requests. B. stated that the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program has a grant program; that four grants have been allocated to City projects; that the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program is undergoing a conversion to an interlocal entity; that the County approved the signing of the interlocal agreement; that all jurisdictions have signed the interlocal agreement which will be celebrated in October 2004. 32. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA - DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE CONCERNING REGULATIONS FOR SEGWAYS AND REPORT BACK; DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO REVIEW THE COMMISSIONERS' TRAVEL BUDGETS FOR REALLOCATION AND REPORT BACK (AGENDA ITEM X) CD 7:55 through 8:23 COMMISSIONER BILYEU: A. stated that the issue of Commission travel expenses should be placed on the Agenda of the June 21, 2004, Regular Commission meeting. Mayor Martin stated that his and Commissioner Bilyeu's travel budgets are exhausted. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that funds can be obtained from the unappropriated fund balance of the General Fund which will require a resolution. Mayor Martin stated that funds have been obtained from the General Fund in the past. City Manager McNees stated that the Commissioners may contribute any unused travel funds to other Commissioners. Vice Mayor Servian stated that funds can be reallocated rather than appropriating funds from the General Fund. Commissioner Palmer agreed. Mayor Martin stated that the first and best option is reallocation of travel funds; that hearing the Commission's consensus the Administration will review the Commissioners' travel budgets for reallocation and report back. VICE MAYOR SERVIAN: A. stated that Sarasota Chrysler-Plymouth on US 41 is selling Segways in volume to people who rent the Segways to individuals; that the concern is no permitting process, licensing, insurance, and safety regulations are in place; that the existing guided tours are excellent; that Attorney Fournier suggested the Commission refer the issue to the Administration. Mayor Martin stated that the concern is shared by the Commission; that the Commission's consensus is the Administration should address the issue concerning regulations for Segways and report back. B. stated that disappointing news was received regarding the HOPE (Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere) VI grant; that the HOPE VI grant was not received; that a telephone call was placed to Rudy Vazmina, Executive Director, Sarasota Housing Authority; that a debriefing will be provided by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) which she will attend; that the City should be involved in the review process. Mayor Martin stated that a representative from Sarasota County should also attend. Vice Mayor Servian agreed and stated that a report regarding the reason the HOPE VI grant was not granted is necessary as soon as possible. Mayor Martin asked if Staff of the City or County will attend the debriefing? BOOK 56 Page 28170 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28171 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. City Manager McNees stated that appropriate Staff from the City and County will attend the debriefing. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Commission must know the reason the HOPE VI grant was not awarded prior to addressing another plan of action; that the situation with the Janie Poe public housing complex must be remedied; that the Administration should follow up through Vice Mayor Servian and Commissioner Atkins concerning information which has been received. Vice Mayor Servian stated that an attempt was made to contact the City's representative of the Sarasota Housing Authority; that no information has been received; that information would have been shared if received. Commissioner Palmer stated that cooperation and collaboration must exist between the Sarasota Housing Authority, the City and the County; that the residents of the Janie Poe public housing complex must not be abandoned; that a plan of action as well as more information is required. City Manager McNees stated that plans are being developed; that Mr. Vazmina was on vacation last week and will be returning soon; that the best information available will be obtained; that an alternative plan exists for the Janie Poe public housing complex; that an opportunity to regroup is necessary; that information will be torthcoming. Mayor Martin stated that an engagement with a developer exists; that a plan for the Janie Poe public housing complex has been developed over several months. Commissioner Palmer stated that a plan has not been seen. Mayor Martin stated that a plan has not been presented; however, plans are being developed. COMMISSIONER ATKINS: A. stated that not receiving the HOPE VI grant is a disappointment to the Cityi that the manner is which the notification was received is also disappointing; that the Commission must receive a thorough investigation and report on the present condition of the Janie Poe public housing complex; that the City should move toward condemning the Janie Poe public housing complex; that the City was requested to wait for seven to eight years and allow people to live in a deplorable condition which is not fair; that the City has been cooperative; that he was assured the HOPE VI grant would be awarded; that hope no longer exists; that the health, safety, and welfare of the people living at the Janie Poe public housing complex is a concerni that the City must move aggressively toward remedying the situation as soon as possible. Mayor Martin stated that the City and County committed funds as leverage for the HOPE VI grant; that a commitment of funds and services remain; that the key is to remain committed. COMMISSIONER PALMER: A. stated that Vice Mayor Servian, Commissioner Bilyeu, and she attended the Neighborhoods, USA (NUSA) meeting which was excellent; that the Neighborhood Preservation and Enhancement program which is based on Florida Statutes allowing an organizational establishment of a neighborhood association to act similar to a homeowners association was discussed; that the Washington Park neighborhood in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, has formed a neighborhood association; that the Neighborhood Preservation and Enhancement program requires development of a plan; that the Neighborhood Preservation and Enhancement program could be a mechanism to assist with code enforcement and other problems neighborhoods are experiencing; that the Neighborhood Preservation and Enhancement program establishes a separate district which provides code enforcement and the ability to contact landlords and property owners. Commissioner Palmer distributed a copy of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, regarding Neighborhood Preservation and Enhancement; and continued that a copy should be provided to the Department of Neighborhoods; that the Coalition of City Neighborhoods Association (CCNA) was provided a copyi that subsequent to review, consideration of a Neighborhood Preservation and Enhancement program could be placed on a future Commission Agenda. Mayor Martin stated that Commissioner Palmer's attendance at the current meeting despite being ill is appreciated and has been helpful to the Commission. BOOK 56 Page 28172 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28173 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. MAYOR MARTIN: A. stated that an informal Commission Workshop is scheduled for June 14, 2004; that the scheduling and length of time of the Commission's meetings should be addressed; that Vice Mayor Servian indicated upon review of the current Agenda backup material, the meeting would likely extend to 1:30 a.m. to complete the Agenda; that the Commission has discussed meeting during daytime hours and to end meetings at a certain time; that items which are not heard by the ending time of the meeting would continue to the next day; that the Commission directed the Charter Officials to review the Commissioner's schedules as well as to make recommendations; that addressing the problem is preferred rather than handling the issue in a haphazard and embarrassing manner. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that he will be unable to attend the June 14, 2004, Commission Workshop as the meeting was scheduled after a prior commitment to attend a conference. Commissioner Palmer stated that after the last discussion, Staff was requested to send a request to each of the cities involved with the Manasota League of Cities for a schedule indicating the times meetings are held; that the information would be interesting; that some communities conduct meetings at night or have all day meetings; that many ways to conduct meetings are available. Mayor Martin stated that the key is to consider the Commissioners' schedules and preterence for scheduling meetings. Vice Mayor Servian agreed and stated that the preference is to find a way to meet earlier in the day with an ending time at 6:00 p.m.; that any remaining items should continue to the next day. Mayor Martin stated that Agendas are often not received until Thursday; that Monday mornings are required to review the material, which should be considered; that the situation of an unreasonably lengthy meeting should not occur again. B. stated that the Juneteenth celebration is approaching; that the organizers have raised the possibly receiving City funding to assist with the celebration; that Sarasota County has obligated $1,500; that sponsors in the community have pledged in excess of $10,000; that other possibilities for funding were researched such as excess funds from funds provided to Sarasota Openly Addresses Racism (SOAR) ; that unfortunately, no excess funds were available; that neighborhood grants are not available at this time; that discussions have taken place with the organizers to become involved with the neighborhood grant process; that the Commission is requested to consider appropriating $1,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of the General Fund to support the Juneteenth celebration for 2004; that the request is unusual; however, the neighborhood grant cycle is a concerni that neighborhoods in District 1 do not always benefit from neighborhood grants; that the City should work with the communities to assist the neighborhood with becoming involved in the neighborhood grant cycles in future years. Vice Mayor Servian stated that contributing $1,000 to the Juneteenth celebration is supported. Commissioner Atkins stated that contributing $1,000 to the Juneteenth celebration is supported; that any organizations can apply to the Tourist Development Council and also to the Sarasota County Arts Council for smaller entities funds; that the City should provide assistance sO thresholds for other applications can be met in the future. Mayor Martin stated that the City's Neighborhood Partnership Office has many resources for citizens. Commissioner Palmer stated that a one-time appropriation is supported; that a concern is appropriating funds to one group will result in other groups requesting assistance; that setting a precedent is not desired. Mayor Martin agreed and stated that the appropriation for the Juneteenth celebration is a one-time occurrence. C. asked for clarification regarding scheduling of an affordable housing work group meeting with Sarasota County. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a meeting will be scheduled. BOOK 56 Page 28174 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28175 06/07/04 2:30 P.M. Mayor Martin asked if the County is requesting a workshop? V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager came before the Commission and stated that the County requested an hour for the workshop; that Staff decided to combine the request to meet for an hour with another workshopi that the intent is to receive a presentation of the report regarding affordable housing; that the Commission can provide direction regarding further workshops, if necessary. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Advisory Board was requested to provide advice regarding the Affordable Housing Trust Fund; that one member of the CRA Advisory Board will bring back a report; that the CRA Executive Director is requested to follow up on the report; that policies should be in place as soon as possible. 33. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) CD 8:23 through 8:24 CITY MANAGER MCNEES: A. stated that questions were received from Staff since the Federal Government is closing offices on Friday, June 11, 2004, in honor of the late former US President Ronald Reagan; that the best honor of the legacy of President Reagan is to provide the taxpayers a full day's work; and asked if the Commissioners have any suggestions? Commissioner Palmer asked which governmental offices will close for the day? City Manager McNees stated that offices are being closed randomly rather than universally. Vice Mayor Servian stated that a full day's work is an appropriate honor; that closing City Hall will cost the taxpayers significant funds. Mayor Martin stated that the Commission's consensus is City Hall will remain open Friday, June 11, 2004. 34. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XVIII) CD 8:24 There being no further business, Mayor Martin adjourned the Regular meeting of the City Commission of June 7, 2004, continued to June 8, 2004, at 8:24 p.m. on June 8, 2004. / Ruckuur RICHARD F. MARTIN, MAYOR ATTEST: I3ily E Rolrson BILLY EP ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK BOOK 56 Page 28176 06/07/04 2:30 P.M.