BOOK 52 Page 23955 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE JOINT SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION AND COUNTY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING OF SEPEMBER 17, 2002, AT 2:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Carolyn J. Mason, Vice Mayor Lou Ann R. Palmer, Commissioners Richard F. Martin, Mary J. Quillin, and Mary Anne Servian, City Manager Michael A. McNees, City Auditor and City Auditor and Clerk Robinson, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor Sarasota Board of County Commissioners (BCC) : Chair Nora Patterson, Vice Chair Shannon H. Staub, Commissioners Paul H. Mercier, David R. Mills, and Jon E. Thaxton, County Administrator James L. Ley and County Attorney Jorge L. Fernandez ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Mason The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III(b) of the Charter of the City of Sarasota by Mayor Mason at 1:59 p.m. at the City Commission Chambers. 1. SHERIFF'S OFFICE ACCREDITATION OF THE CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS CENTER (AGENDA ITEM I) CD 1:59 through 2:06 Mayor Mason stated that first Agenda item concerns the Sarasota Sheriff's Office National Accreditation of the Consolidated Communications Center Communications Center). County Administrator Ley stated that a degree of concern regarding the operation and effectiveness of the Communications Center existed in previous years; that the City created a Blue Ribbon Committee to address the concerns; that several improvements have occurred. William Balkwill, Sheriff, Sarasota County Sheriff's Office, came before the Commission and stated that the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office operates the Countywide 911 center and the consolidated dispatch center known as the Communications Center; that in August of 2000, based on complaints from both the Sarasota Police Department (SPD) and City residents, the City Commission notified former Sheriff Geoffrey Monge of the creation of a Blue Ribbon Committee (Committee) established to review the performance of and provide recommendations concerning the Communications Center; that the consideration of the SPD assuming dispatch responsibilities which had been turned over to the County during the 1996 consolidation was discussed; that concurrently the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners (SBCC) notified former Sheriff Monge of dissatisfaction with the performance of the Communications Center; that the BCC considered not renewing the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office contract to operate the Communications Center; that the majority of the problems within the Communications Center included a severe turnover rate and management practices; that as Sheriff- Elect, he began working with former Sheriff Monge to address the issues; that re-establishing confidence and providing accountability for the Communications Center was critical; that as the newly elected Sheriff, the national accreditation process was established as a long-term goal; that the initial accreditation process began in January 2001, under the direction of Major Terry Lewis, Sarasota County Sheriff's Office; that the accreditation process requires a significant commitment to meet 214 standards which require two sources of documentation to prove the Communications Center is in compliance. Sheriff Balkwill continued that in August 2002, two assessors from the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies spent five days inspecting the Communications Center for compliance with the 214 standards; that the assessors spent several hours observing the actual operations of the Communications Center; that the assessors indicated the Communications Center had passed the inspection in an outstanding manner and is fortunate to have such a dedicated and knowable staff; that the Communications Center is one of three centers in the State and one of 18 in the Nation to become nationally accredited. Sheriff Balkwill further stated that the success is a direct result of the Communications Center staff; that Captain Dario Valente is in charge of the operations of the Communications Center; that Lieutenant Ron Rossnagle, SPD, was assigned full time to the Communications Center early in the accreditation process as part of the management team; that Lieutenant Rossnagle's assistance and expertise has been invaluable; that Battalion Chief Michael Tobias, Sarasota County Fire Department, is also a member of the management team; that Battalion Chief Tobias has been instrumental in the changes in the Communications Center. BOOK 52 Page 23956 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 23957 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. Sheriff Balkwill stated further that the assistance and positive attitude of David Harrawood, Executive Director for Emergency Services, Sarasota County, and the tireless effort of Debbie Gailbreath, head of the Communications Center accreditation team are appreciated; that support by both the City and County Commissions during the process is appreciated; and congratulated the dedicated Communications Center staff for an outstanding performance 24-hours per day, 7 days a week, in assisting citizens and visitors of the community. Sheriff Balkwill further stated that a letter dated August 13, 2002, regarding the accreditation results was previously sent to both the City and County Commissions; that efforts will continue for the Communications Center to remain one of the top centers in the Nation. Mayor Mason stated that the letter regarding the accreditation results has not been received. Sheriff Balkwill stated that he was unaware some Commissioners did not receive the letter; that Vice Mayor Palmer called and City Manager McNees sent a letter to the Sarasota Sheriff's Office with congratulations; that a copy of the letter will be provided. County Commission Vice Chair Staub stated that a recent broadcast of Inside Sarasota County Government on AccessSarasota, Channel 19, featured the Communications Center; that the interviews were excellent; that the explanation of the accreditation process was clear to the public; that several citizens will have the opportunity to view the continuous broadcast of the program; and congratulated the Sarasota Sheriff's Office for their efforts. 2. LIDO POOL COUNTY COMMISSION APPROVED ENDORSEMENT AND SUPPORT OF THE LIDO POOL SUBJECT TO RENECOTIATIONS OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ; COUNTY TO JOIN THE CITY IN PUBLIC OUTREACH TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE OF THE REPLACEMENT OF THE LIDO POOL; AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATION TO CONTINUE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CITY RELATIVE TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT SPECIFICALLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW LIDO POOL AND PROVIDE AN UPDATE OF THE PROGRESS OF THE NEGOTIATIONS TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION WITHIN 60 DAYS (AGENDA ITEM II) CD 2:06 through 2:58 City Manager McNees referred to the Agenda backup material regarding the Lido Pool and stated that options to repairs and/or restore the Lido Pool were presented to the City Commission at its September 16, 2002, Regular Commission meeting; that the City Commission unanimously voted to conduct meetings with the public including residents from the City and County to solicit input regarding the future of the Lido Pool and the entire Lido Beach area; that the remaining historic amenity in the area is the pool itself; that a pool has always been at the location; that a high priority for the City Commission is the replacement of the pool; that several options to repair and/or restore the Lido Pool are available; that refurbishing the old pool costs significantly more than installing a new pool; that the cost for a new pool is approximately $400,000 to $450,000; that the City is requesting some type of financial contribution from the County; that discussions have occurred with the County which have resulted in the understanding the County is willing to contribute up to $125,000 toward repairs and/or restoration of the Lido Pool; that the City Commission is requesting the County Commission to consider a larger contribution as the County was not required to operate and/or maintain the Lido Pool facility for over one year and possibly for an additional year. County Administrator Ley stated that a meeting was held with the City Manager following concerns expressed by members of the community and joint concerns expressed by the City and County Commissions; that the County indicated a willingness to split the difference up to a maximum of $125,000 in the cost to refurbish the pool; that City and County Staff met jointly with the County Health Department to determine a common understanding of the minimal requirement to refurbish the Lido Pool; that contributing to the refurbishment raises a variety of policy issues for the County; that the County is involved in partnerships with other communities such as Venice, Florida; that consistency among the communities is necessaryi that the County has avoided approximately $50,000 in costs associated with the operation and repairs of the Lido Pool to date; that some budgetary areas are available to explore if the County desires to increase the contribution; however, the County must evaluate its ability to partnership with others and the possibility of setting a precedent. City Manager McNees stated that any attractive amenity created in the Lido Beach area gains more than Citywide usagei that a number of Lido Beach users are from outside the City limits; that the usage of the area is one of the main reasons the City BOOK 52 Page 23958 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 23959 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. is interested in discussing the County's contribution to the restore the Lido Pool. County Administrator Ley stated that the Parks and Recreation Interlocal Agreement between the City and County recognizes the County operates the City park facilities for the benefits of multiple users of the facilities. County Commission Chair Patterson stated that the interlocal agreement between the City and the County has been in place for a long time; that the City and County jointly developed additional tennis courts in the past; that the capital improvement costs were shared as the tennis courts benefited both jurisdictions although located in the City; that the Lido Pool is slightly different as a result of narrow usage; that the narrow usage rather than setting a precedence is the concern; that the County has contributed to numerous City projects which has already set a precedent; that the issue is whether installing an attractive facility will increase the usage; and asked if County Staff concurs with City's estimated cost for replacing the Lido Pool. John McCarthy, General Manager, Sarasota County Parks and Recreation, came before the Commissions and stated that the City and County agreed to the cost; however, the cost could increase dramatically with other pool amenities; that the issue is for the City and County to decide to repair the existing pool, complete refurbishment of the existing pool, replace the existing pool with a similar pool or evaluate a similar pool situation existing at another park such as Arlington Park. County Commission Chair Patterson stated that the original County estimate to refurbish the Lido Pool was $250,000, half of which, or $125,000, the County was willing to fund; and asked the County's current estimates for refurbishing the pool and/or replacing the pool with a similar pool? Mr. McCarthy stated that the County and City estimates are coming closer together; that a total refurbishment of the pool including relocating the pump, relocating the electric system out of the basement of the pool into a separate building, and reworking the main drain were not included in the original estimate of $250,000; that the additional costs compared to the least expensive cost to replace the pool are close. County Commission Chair Patterson asked the exact amount of the difference or if the County Staff is in agreement with the City's estimate? Mr. McCarthy stated that County Staff is in general agreement; that the County estimates the cost to refurbish the Lido Pool at approximately $350,000 to $500,000 based upon projects and not specific quotes from venders. County Commissioner Mills stated that the Lido Pool project is supported; however, the cost is a concern; that the County cost per user of the Lido Pool is $22 per person verses a cost of $1 person for the Arlington Park Pool; that improvements to the area are supported; that the cost to the County should be capped; that the County's contribution is limited whether the pool costs up to $1 million or not. City Commissioner Servian stated that the City estimated the County's annual maintenance is $125,000 for the Lido Pool which has not occurred for over a year; that the City has also estimated approximately $110,000 of required improvements which were the responsibility of the Countyi that the County has not spent the estimated $235,000 to maintain the operation and usage of the pool; that the hope is to come to an agreement to increase the County's contribution of $125,000; that utilization of the Lido Pool would increase if the area was rebuilt consistent with the desires of the community; that the Lido Pool has not been properly advertised or maintained to provide an attractive use; that the City and the County cannot expect the public to utilize a facility if no one knows the facility exists; that the County is requested to reevaluate the figures and recognize the amount of funding which would have been spent on pool maintenance and increase the contribution for the refurbishment and/or replacement of the pool. County Commissioner Thaxton asked if the $50,000 service and maintenance fees the County which would have incurred during the year the pool was shut down is a reoccurring figure for fiscal year (FY) 2002/03? County Administrator Ley stated yes; that the $50,000 includes the operational costs, personnel costs, and maintenance. City Commissioner Martin stated that the replacement cost of the Lido Pool is $400,000. County Commission Chair Patterson stated that the understanding is the replacement cost of the Lido Pool is $450,000. BOOK 52 Page 23960 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 23961 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. City Manager McNees stated that the replacement cost of the Lido Pool is approximately $400,000 to $450,000. City Commissioner Martin stated that the understanding is the County is willing to split the replacement cost of the Lido Pool based on the current discussion; that the continued discussion of the $125,000 figure is unclear; that visibility of the pool, landscaping, and the chain link fence around the Lido Pool were installed by the City prior to the County's assuming the responsibility for the parks; that an advanced pool with various water fountains and pavilion for the future were discussed; however, the main focus of the current discussion is the $400,000 to $450,000 to refurbish the Lido Pool; that the City desires a joint City/County public process to determine public opinion. County Administrator Ley stated that the County's offer is not to exceed $125,000 based on splitting the original $250,000 estimate. County Commissioner Mercier asked if maintenance problems for the Lido Pool are addressed in the interlocal agreement? Mr. McCarthy stated that the installation of a new pool is beyond the maintenance and operation and is considered a capital improvement; that the interlocal agreement indicates the City and/or County can provide capital improvements individually or jointly; that the interlocal agreement does not hold the County responsible for capital improvements; that discussions have occurred regarding the amount of maintenance which constitutes capital rehabilitation of a facility; that the County's decisions regarding interlocal agreements have implications for all the various municipalities with which the County has interlocal agreements. County Commissioner Mercier stated that sometimes the usefulness of a facility is exhausted sO the time is to move on; that the questions are if the County would be discussing building a new pool on Lido Key in the absence of the Lido Pool, if the Lido Pool is the best place for the citizens of the County to spend $400,000, and if a better place exists for the citizens to enjoy a pool? Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the usefulness of Lido Pool is not exhausted; that the location is historic; that much of her youth was spent at the Lido Pool; that the area was recently visited and the location is appropriate; that the area is one of few in the State to include a pool near the ocean; that the area was once and could still be a wonderful tourist attraction; that input from the community is necessaryi that the City has suggested partnering with the County to talk to the community; that the community will provide supportive or nonsupportive feedback regarding the Lido Pool; that the hope is the City and the County will continue discussing an appropriate contribution to the refurbishment; that the County should support the City's request for community input. County Administrator Ley stated that some precedent has been set in the past regarding partnerships; that interlocal agreements establish a division of responsibility; that the County has not contributed to any City project over and above the required interlocal agreement; that contribution to the Lido Pool will set a precedent; that the interlocal agreement is the avenue to address the Lido Pool if the County and City desire to rearrange the partnership in some wayi that shifting of responsibilities may be necessaryi that the City/County relationship regarding the Lido Pool should be handled in an interlocal agreement. County Commissioner Thaxton stated that the capital improvement cost of the Lido Pool is not the issue; that the difference between spending $125,000 to $200,000 is minimal; that the cost of the annual maintenance and operation exceeding the capital improvement is the issue; that the cost per user for the Lido Pool is high; that the cost of the maintenance of the pool should be clear to the public; that chlorine and salt are two of the most aggressive chemicals on earth; therefore, the cost of maintaining the Lido Pool is significant; that supporting the restoration of the Lido Pool within the interlocal agreement is good advice. County Commission Vice Chair Staub stated that obtaining public input to determine community interest is supported; that the capital improvement, annual maintenance, and operational costs should be Clear to the public; that $400,000 sounds high; that the public should not assume the money is available; that reevaluating the interlocal agreement is supported; that other partnerships such as the skateboard park are occurring which provide an opportune time to reevaluate the interlocal agreement; that additional financial information regarding future maintenance costs is necessaryi that many hotel pools currently exist on the beach to provide a guide; that the County should determine its obligation and if the obligation to repair the pool was met; that BOOK 52 Page 23962 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 23963 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. the deferred maintenance and replacement costs of the County's obligation should be determined. City Commissioner Quillin stated that a discussion concerning the City/County interlocal agreements is on the Agenda; that a large capital expense is required to maintain a pool; that a report from the County regarding project capital improvements for park facilities covered under the interlocal agreement has never been received; that the lifespan of equipment should be included in interlocal agreements; that the Lido Pool is the last vestige of the Lido Casino which is part of the history and heritage of Sarasota; that the location could be a key area for the community to meet and enjoy activities; that community input is desired; that a public/private partnership might result for the area; that certain amenities should be provided for tourists; that an open- mindedness of both Commissions is desired; that the Lido Pool is an amenity for the residents and visitors of Sarasota; that the County should join the City in a joint City/County public process to determine public opinion. City Commissioner Servian stated that discussions regarding the future of the Lido Pool would not be occurring if the County had maintained the pool; that $10,000 in damage occurred to the pool from Tropical Storm Gabrielle which could have been handled quickly; that the pool could have been up and running once repaired; that the pool has been closed for a year and is a disgrace to the community. County Commission Chair Patterson asked for clarification regarding the $10,000 in repairs. Mr. McCarthy stated that the County was aware of the need to remarcite the entire pool prior to Tropical Storm Gabrielle; that the pool should be remarcited once every ten yearsi that the County remarcited the pool in 1992 and invested $100,000 in repairs for the pool after the interlocal agreement was signed; that Tropical Storm Gabrielle flooded the pump and electrical room; that the estimated cost of repairs at the time was $6,000; that the County was prepared to move forward with the repairs; however, discussions with the County Health Department resulted in other repair aspects of the pool; that the main drain of the pool is a direct suction drain which is an extreme safety hazard and does not meet current regulations; that the pool contains a copper gutter system which caused immediate discoloration of the new marcite; that the County hired a structural engineer to evaluated the structural integrity of the pool as a result of the number of repairs necessary; that the dive tower and the pump room are not structurally sound; that the amount of repairs was discussed with City Staff by the County Health Department; that having a direct suction main drain is no longer possible; that the gutter and curb system is not typical of a community pool and is an additional safety concern. County Commission Chair Patterson stated that she is not in agreement with the rest of the County Commission regarding the Lido Pool; that the Lido Pool Facility was always packed; that the Lido Pool Facility was the only site with a public pool and the beach nearby when her daughter was young; that Lido Key has never been an area with lots of children; however, the Lido Pool was always packed with children from all over Sarasota; that the Lido Pool has the potential for high usage; that a joint City/County public process to determine public opinion is supported; that increasing the $125,000 contribution by another $100,000 is supported up to a limited amount; that community outreach to solicit public opinion should be endorsed by the County Commission. County Commissioner Mills stated that joining the City in a joint City/County public process to determine public opinion is supported; however, the pool should be replaced; that determining an amount the County is willing to contribute should be established prior to obtaining public opinion; that the hope is a decision to replace the pool with a certain level of County contribution will be established. On motion of County Commissioner Mills and second of County Commissioner Thaxton, it was moved to endorse and support to some financial degree the replacement of the Lido Pool. County Commissioner Mercier stated that the motion cannot be supported; however, obtaining public input is supported; that more information regarding operational and maintenance costs, and revisions to the interlocal agreement is necessary. On motion of County Commission Vice Chair Staub and second of County Commissioner Thaxton, it was moved to amend the motion to make endorsement and support of the Lido Pool subject to renegotiations of the interlocal agreement. County Commission Chair Patterson asked for clarification of the amended motion. BOOK 52 Page 23964 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 23965 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. County Commission Vice Chair Staub stated that by voting in favor of the motion if amended as indicated, the County is supporting to some financial level replacement of the Lido Pool; however, the support will not be confirmed until the interlocal agreement is renegotiated to satisfy both jurisdictions; that setting a precedent is a concern. County Commissioner Mills stated that the County has already set a precedent by contributing to the skateboard park in North Port, Florida; that the amendment to the motion is confusing; and asked if renegotiating the interlocal agreement is imminent? County Administrator Ley stated that the interlocal agreement is being offered as a tool to renegotiate the County's participation in the Lido Pool project. County Commission Chair Patterson stated that the estimated cost to replace the pool is approximately $480,000; that the hope is the County will decide on a level of financial participation. County Commission Chair Patterson called for a vote on the amendment to the motion to make endorsement and of the Lido Pool subject to renegotiations of the interlocal agreement. Motion carried (3 to 2): Mercier, yes; Mills, no; Staub, yes; Thaxton, yes; Patterson, no. County Commission Chair Patterson called for a vote on the main motion to endorse and support to some financial degree the replacement of the Lido Pool as amended by making endorsement and support subject to renegotiations of the interlocal agreement. Motion failed (3 to 2). Mercier, no; Mills, no; Staub, yes; Thaxton, yes; Patterson, no. County Chair Patterson stated that a motion with a financial maximum is suggested. On motion of County Commissioner Mills and second of County Commission Chair Patterson, it was moved for the County to participate in the replacement of the Lido Pool project at the level not to exceed $200,000. Motion failed (3 to 2). Mercier, no; Mills, yes; Staub, no; Thaxton, no; Patterson, yes. On motion of County Commission Vice Chair Staub and second of County Commissioner Mercier, it was moved for the County to join the City in public outreach to discuss the issue of the replacement of the Lido Pool. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Mercier, yes; Mills, yes; Staub, yes; Thaxton, yes; Patterson, yes. County Commissioner Thaxton asked if the $125,000 is still directed toward the Lido Pool Project? County Administrator Ley stated yes. City Commissioner Quillin asked if the level of financial participation is still open for negotiation? County Commission Chair Patterson stated that all issues regarding the Lido Pool project are open for negotiation. County Administrator Ley stated that the opportunity to work together exists. County Commissioner Thaxton stated that giving the impression the majority of the County Commission is opposed to the reconstruction of the Lido Pool is not the intent; that the intent is for the County to participate in the reconstruction through the interlocal agreement; that amending the interlocal agreement should not take a long time. County Administrator Ley stated that renegotiating the interlocal agreement should not take long as both sides are willing to be fair regarding the trade-offs. On motion of County Commissioner Thaxton and second of County Commissioner Mercier, it was moved to direct the County Administration to continue negotiations with the City relative to the interlocal agreement specifically with reference to the construction of a new Lido Pool. County Commission Vice Chair Staub asked if the maker of the motion will consider adding the County Administration provide an update of the progress of the negotiations to the County Commission within 60 days. County Commissioner Thaxton stated the time frame of 60 days is acceptable. County Commission Chair Patterson stated that the original interlocal agreement must have been negotiated prior to the construction of the additional tennis courts? BOOK 52 Page 23966 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 23967 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. County Administrator Ley stated that construction of the additional tennis courts was a project which was worked on for a long time; that the contribution to the North Port skatepark was through a challenge grant which the County made available to everyone; that financial participation should be though an interlocal agreement. County Commission Chair Patterson called for a vote on the motion to direct the County Administration to continue negotiations with the City relative to the interlocal agreement specifically with reference to the construction of the new Lido Pool and provide an update of the progress of the negotiations to the County Commission within 60 days. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Mercier, yes; Mills, yes; Staub, yes; Thaxton, yes; Patterson, yes. City Commissioner Quillin stated that discussion of City/County Interlocal Agreements is on the Agenda; that several of the interlocal agreements are old and should be reviewed; that the hope is the County will remain open-minded as issues are being discussed; that the City and County Commissions are to serve the public. City Manager McNees stated that the terms capital and maintenance in the interlocal agreements seem to be a problem; that the City and County disagree as to the meaning of each; that viewing the interlocal agreement as some type of union negotiation is a concern; that the interlocal agreement should be approached as a stand-alone agreement regarding capital improvements and maintenance rather than a bargaining tool. City Commissioners Quillin and Servian concurred. County Commission Vice Chair Staub stated that the intent of voting for the motion regarding the renegotiations of the interlocal agreement is to specify replacement, maintenance and capital costs. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the specific discussions concern the Lido Pool; however, renegotiating the interlocal agreement is a broader issue; that the possibility of delays to restore the Lido Pool resulting from renegotiations of the interlocal agreement is a concern. County Commissioner Mercier stated the hope is the interlocal agreement is not a bargaining tool; that the interlocal agreement is in the interest of everyone. City Manager McNees stated that the deterioration of the Lido Pool has occurred; that a renegotiated interlocal agreement will address issues which have not occurred. County Commission Vice Chair Staub stated that an amendment could be added to the current interlocal agreement to address the replacement of the Lido Pool. County Administrator Ley stated that a variety of issues should be clarified in the interlocal agreement; that the purpose of an agreement is sO both parties understand the other's position; that a consideration is generally provided if one party requests something from the other party; that the consideration can be in a variety of forms; that the consideration could be accepting the County's definition of capital improvement; that the consideration could be for the County to drop certain facilities for which the County has held responsibility for from the existing agreement; that determining a figure to restore the Lido Pool which is acceptable to all parties is not negotiating the original agreementi that a consideration to resolve issues is an acceptable means of negotiation. City Commissioner Martin stated that the issue of the Lido Pool has been thoroughly discussed; that the discussion should move forward to the next Agenda item. 3. SCAT (SARASOTA COUNTY AREA TRANSIT) TRANSFER STATION (AGENDA ITEM III) CD 2:58 through 3:08 County Administrator Ley stated that the County will present a status report regarding the development of a design concept for the Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) Transfer Station on Lemon Avenue. Thomas Wilcox, Public Works Facilities Planning General Manager, Sarasota County, came before the Commissions, referred to an architectural model of the SCAT Transfer Station and stated that the cooperation between City and County Staff has been outstanding; that the project is more than the SCAT Transier Station; that the Lemon Avenue Reconstruction Project is part of developing the SCAT Transfer Station; that an interlocal agreement is being negotiated to place the horizontal design of BOOK 52 Page 23968 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 23969 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. the SCAT Transfer Station in the roadway sO only one contractor will be involved with the development of Lemon Avenue; that the Professional Services Review Committee (Review Committee) includes voting representatives from the City, County, and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT); that the SCAT Transfer Station is completely funded by FDOT; that on August 8, 2002, the Review Committee held a meeting and selected and ranked three architects in the following order: First - Seibert Architects, P.A. Second - Carl Abbott Architects Third = Guy Peterson Office Architecture Mr. Wilcox stated that Seibert Architects, P.A., developed the architectural model before both Commissions; that a contract with Seibert Architects, P.A., is being negotiated and will be brought before the County Commission on November 12, 2002; that two representatives from Seibert Architects, P.A., are in the audience to respond to questions if desired; that the Project Manager for the County will be Jack Rees, Public Works Construction Projects Administrator, Sarasota County. County Commissioner Mercier stated that development of the SCAT Transfer Facility is exciting; that being able to retrofit the facility to meet the needs of the community in 5, 10, and 15 years at a minimal cost is desired. City Commissioner Servian asked the time required to complete construction once the contract is negotiated and approved by the County Commission? Mr. Wilcox stated that a construction completion date is part of the negotiations; that the time required to complete construction is part of the selection process for the top three architects; that the original architect proposals indicated 23 months to complete construction; that the County has expressed a desire for a shorter length of time for completion. County Commission Chair Patterson referred to the architectural model and asked which structures are located to the west of the proposed SCAT Transfer Facility? Mr. Wilcox stated that the structures located to the west are structures the architect inserted to show the impact of buildings for the area. City Commissioner Martin stated that the SCAT Transfer Station was discussed at the May 7, 2002, Joint City/County meeting; that the importance of architecture representative of a civic building rather than an industrial building was discussed; that both City and County Staffs are commended for their efforts. County Administrator Ley stated that trusting the City and County Staffs in the selection process is appreciated. County Commission Chair Patterson referred to the architectural model and asked if the model is reflective of the proposed design? Mr. Wilson asked the opinion of both Commissions regarding the displayed architectural model. County Commission Chair Patterson stated that the model is wonderful. City Commissioners Servian and Quillin concurred. Mr. Wilson stated that constructing a facility which is maintenance free and secure is a goal for the design; that the area is an open transfer facility; that buses can pull up under the roofs without subjecting passengers to weather. County Commission Vice Chair Staub asked the location of the restrooms? Mr. Wilcox stated that offices and restrooms are located in the main transfer area. City Manager McNees asked if the architectural model is to scale? Mr. Wilsox stated yes. City Manager McNees stated that the architectural model is very tall. City Commissioner Quillin concurred and stated that the structural design on the top of the building adds to the height. BOOK 52 Page 23970 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 23971 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. City Commissioner Servian stated that the structural design on the top of the building looks like a pigeon coup. City Commissioner Quillin stated that reevaluating the structure on the top of building might be necessary. Mr. Wilcox stated that reevaluating the structure on the top of the building may be necessary to minimize maintenance. 4. COUNTY MASTER FACILITIES PLAN - CITY COMMISSION DIRECTED THE CITY ADMINISTRATION TO PURSUE THE POSSIBILITY OF A JOINT VENTURE WITH THE COUNTY AT THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING SARASOTA POLICE DEPARTMENT FACILITY, TO PROVIDE A REPORT BACK TO THE COMMISSION; AND TO HAVE AN ANALYSIS OF A JOINT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN INCLUDING THE FUNDING NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THE ANALYSIS BROUGHT BACK TO BOTH COMMISSIONS WITHIN 90 DAYS; COUNTY COMMISSION DIRECTED THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION TO EXAMINE A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE CITY'S POLICE DEPARTMENT FACILITY AND TO HAVE THE ANALYSIS OF THE JOINT FACILITY BROUGHT BACK TO BOTH COMMISSIONS WITHIN 90 DAYS (AGENDA ITEM IV) CD 3:08 through 3:44 County Administrator Ley stated that a brief overview of the County's Sarasota 2050 Master Plan (Sarasota 2050) was presented to the City at the May 7, 2002, Joint meeting of the City Commission and the Sarasota Board of County Commissioner (SBCC) ; that the County requested the opportunity to work with City Staff regarding the City's future of the Sarasota Police Department (SPD) facility. David Bullock, Deputy County Administrator, Sarasota County, came before the Commissions and stated that discussions have been held with City Staff regarding the City's SPD facility; that the County will be expanding the Court facilities within 8 to 10 years; that the County will be out of Court space at the end of 10 years; that time constraints drive the County to search for a solution to immediately develop approximately 20 years of Court capacity; that associating new Court facilities with the existing Judicial Center is essential from a cost perspective; that security mechanisms are currently in place; that future Court facilities will cluster around the existing Judicial Center which is in close proximity to the Sarasota County Jail, the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office, the SPD, the State Attorney's Office and the Public Defender's Office; that two options to expand the Court facilities are: Option A SPD Building remains and build a new Judicial Center adjacent to the Terrace Building; and Option B = Sarasota County purchases the SPD Building and property and builds a new Judicial Center. Mr. Bullock continued that the County's Facilities Master Plan is complete; that the County is prepared to take action to begin the process of expanding Court facilities by the end of 2002; that discussions with City Staff have included the City's ability to engage in an analysis to determine if the SPD building and property can be utilized for expansion of the new Court facility; that the Courts are the driving force for expanding County facilities; that most of the Downtown construction by the County has been associated with the Criminal Justice System; that for example, the renovation of the Courthouse, construction of the new Judicial Center, construction of the new Sarasota County Jail, and significant renovations to the Terrace Building are a result of Court expansion; that the question is if the time is right for the City to consider an alternative for the SPD building; that discussions have occurred regarding a joint use facility which could be accomplished by constructing a larger Court tower; that the County must make a decision by the end of 2002 to begin the process to meet the needs of the Courts. City Manager McNees stated that the County is willing to pay approximately $10 million of differential costs between Options A and B to acquire the SPD building; that the question is whether an economy of scale exists to construct a joint facility; that the City is not ready to sell or construct a new SPD building; that the City could always sell the property to a willing buyer other than the County. Mr. Bullock stated that the County evaluated the cost to construct an extra two stories of a new building for the possibility of housing the SPD facility; that the numbers do not make constructing the extra stories a favorable option; that a several million dollar difference exists between demolishing the one story building and constructing a new facility on the west side Judicial Center and demolishing the SPD building and constructing a joint use facility on the east side of the Judicial Center; that the County is interested in discussing BOOK 52 Page 23972 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 23973 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. alternatives for the SPD building when the City decides to demolish and/or rebuild the a new facility. County Commission Chair Patterson referred to Exhibit VI-2, Cost of Options chart included in the Agenda backup material and asked the reason for the approximate $6 million difference between Options A and B for the line item of Parking Structure and County Garage? Mr. Bullock stated that several differences exist between Options A and B; that the estimated cost to acquire the SPD building in Option B is $6,259,181; that the cost to construct a six-level Judicial Center on the east side of the current Judicial Center is $32,888,260 verses $15,005,357 to construct a four-level wing addition to the Terrace Building on the west side of the current Judicial Center; that the construction of two extra stories for the SPD facility will require special adaptations which will cause the costs to increase. County Commissioner Mills stated that an SPD facility will require a holding cell and special wiring; however, the reason for such a large difference in the cost to construct both buildings is unclear. Mr. Bullock stated that one reason for the large increase is the height of the building; that the increase from four to six stories adds significantly to the cost of construction; that security, access, and special design needs of the SPD facility also adds to the cost. County Commission Chair Patterson stated that the County is unlikely to construct two additional stories to accommodate a new SPD facility in addition to purchasing the current SPD facility from the City for approximately $6 million. Donald Moultney, General Manager, Long Range Facility Planning, Sarasota County, came before the Commissions and stated that specifics to the conceptual plans of Options A and B are difficult to determine. County Commission Chair Patterson stated that the approximate $10 million gap between the $50,478,525 for the total cost of the four-story Option A and the $60,286,263 for the total cost of the six-story Option B is a concern; and asked the reason the County would pay to construct two additional levels to accommodate the SPD in addition to paying approximately $6 million for the existing SPD facility? Mr. Bullock stated that constructing the six-story facility does not replace the SPD facility; that the proposal is to construct a Court tower; that space for the SPD facility will be an additional cost. County Commission Chair Patterson stated that the understanding was the difference between the $32,888,260 six-story building and the $15,005,357 four-story building is for the construction of the SPD facility. Mr. Bullock stated no; that the cost difference is for constructing two additional levels. Mr. Moultney stated that discussions regarding a joint facility between the City and the County have not been detailed; that the figures before the Commissions are for the County's expansion costs for a new facility; that the only figure related to the City is Option B for $6,259,181 as an approximate amount to acquire the SPD facility; that the purchase of the building is one issue and construction of a facility is another. City Commissioner Quillin stated that the understanding is the only reason the County is interested in housing the SPD is the possibility of a joint venture with the City. Mr. Moultney stated that the County is interested in expanding Court facilities at the current SPD location. City Commissioner Quillin stated that previous discussions regarding a possible joint venture for a new facility between the City and County were held; that the SPD would be located on the first two floors of the new Judicial Center; that some type of crossover was also discussed; that paying the City for the existing SPD facility plus constructing a new facility is very generous of the County. Mr. Bullock stated that Options A and B are representative of two different locations for constructing a new Judicial Center; that the two concepts should not be interpreted as the difference of constructing a new SPD facility; that the four- story Option A includes relocating the Constitutional Officers from the Terrace Building to make room for the Court Administration; that the six-story Option B includes keeping the Constitutional Officers in the Terrace Building and constructing BOOK 52 Page 23974 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 23975 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. an additional two floors for support services for Court Administration which otherwise would have been in the Terrace Building; that the City would receive approximately $6 million from the sale of the SPD facility; however, the ability to construct a new SPD facility in another location or utilizing two additional floors of the new six-story Judicial Center for a cost of $6 million is unknown. City Commissioner Quillin stated that the cost factors should be explored by the City. County Administrator Ley stated that the County is requesting the City explore cost options; that the County will ultimately be the buyer of the existing SPD facility. Mr. Moultney stated that City and County Staff discussed a possible joint venture for the SPD to utilize the first two floors of the New Judicial Center with Courtrooms above; however, County Staff was not encouraged to pursue a joint venture; that a joint venture is still an avenue which could be discussed. City Commissioner Quillin stated that a joint venture option should be pursued; that a new location for the SPD facility would be necessary if the existing SPD facility is sold to the County; that the SPD should be next to the Sarasota County Jail; that long-range planning and a possible joint venture should be evaluated. Mr. Bullock concurred; and stated that the depth of planning necessary to integrate the SPD facility with the next expansion and coordinate parking will require approximately one year of serious planning; that the County does not have a year to wait. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that long-range planning is necessary; that the location of the existing SPD facility next to the Sarasota County Jail is appropriate; that the City and the County should move forward to determine if a long-range joint project is feasible. On motion of City Commissioner Quillin and second of City Commissioner Servian, it was moved to direct the Administration to pursue the possibility of a joint venture with the County at the location of the existing Sarasota Police Department facility and provide a report back to the Commission. County Commission Vice Chair Staub stated that delaying long- range planning for the County is not an option; that the County will be moving forward by the end of the year. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that comments from the City Administration would be appropriate; that a joint venture seems inevitable. City Manager McNees stated that making a decision within the County's timeframe will be difficult but could possibly be accomplished; that the County has already completed some preliminary studies to determine the feasibility of a joint venture; that a joint venture would make sense if two stories of the new Judicial Center can be constructed under the approximate $6 million designated for the purchase of the SPD facility; that lowering the County's differential cost of approximately $10 million between Option A and Option B is unlikely; that the business needs of the City and County are currently different. City Commissioner Quillin stated that the intent of the motion is for the Administration to provide figures back to the Commission; that a joint venture with the County should have been on a long-range plan within the City years ago; that the SPD facility is costing the City a tremendous amount of money each year for maintenance. City Commissioner Martin stated that at the May 7, 2002, Joint meeting of the City Commission and the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners, the City approved the following motion: On motion of City Commissioner Palmer and second of City Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to authorize the City Administration to work with Sarasota County concerning a facilities plan to consider all governmental facilities, including the City police facility. City Commissioner Martin stated that the direction has been previously given; that the necessity to make the motion again is unclear; that the new motion will be supported if the more specificity is necessary. Mayor Mason called for a vote on the motion to direct the Administration to pursue the possibility of a joint venture with the County at the location of the existing Sarasota Police Department facility and provide a report back to the Commission. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yesi Servian, yes; Mason, yes. BOOK 52 Page 23976 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 23977 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. On motion of County Commissioner Mills and second of County Commissioner Mercier, it was moved to direct the County Administration to examine a cooperative agreement concerning the City's Police Department facility. County Commissioner Mills stated that working with the City in a joint venture makes sense; that the urgency of constructing a new Judicial Center can be compared to the urgency to open a library in 1990 and constructing a new bridge in 1991. County Commission Chair Patterson stated that the motion on the floor is not clear as to if the intent is to consider a cooperative agreement for the currently planned or anticipated long-term expansion. County Commissioner Mills stated the motion is related to current expansion; that the City and County have the opportunity to take action; that the City's current SPD facility is antiquated and desperately requires upgrading. County Commission Vice Chair Staub stated that an estimated length of time for an analysis is necessary to support the motion; that an analysis which could take approximately 60 to 90 days is not worth delaying the County's long-range planning process. County Commission Chair Patterson asked if an analysis has already been completed? Mr. Bullock stated that an analysis with the costs from the City's perspective has not been completed. City Manager McNees stated that the only money the City would have available to construct a new SPD facility is the approximate $6 million or more the current SPD property is worth; that the money to construct the extra two stories does not exist if the City does not sell the property; that a $6 million cash lost exists if the property is not sold. County Commissioner Mills stated that the City would receive the $6 million if the County builds the facility. City Manager McNees stated that is correct; however, the gap of $10 million between the total cost of Option A of $50,478,525 and the total cost of Option B $60,286,263 for the County is not narrowed; that the City will gladly take the $6 million and allow the County build a new SPD facility for the City. County Commission Chair Patterson stated that the question is the length of time required to obtain figures to determine if a narrowing of the $10 million gap is possible. County Administrator Ley stated that obtaining figures could be accomplished in 60 days; however, the County would require a contribution to the resources necessary to obtain the figures; that the services of an expert skilled in determining estimates is required; that an appraisal might be necessary; that replacing the City's SPD facility for $6 million will be difficult; that the figures could be determined in 60 days; however, the next question would be to determine if the City can identify funding above the $6 million to provide the County an assurance to begin a joint venture. City Commissioner Quillin stated that the City and County could provide an analysis within 60 to 90 days; that a realistic figure to replace the SPD facility is necessaryi that the last estimated figure to replace the SPD facility was approximately $10 million; that the City would have to find funding for a $4 million difference between the $10 million to construct the facility and the $6 million received for the property; that financing $4 million for a new SPD facility is an option. County Commission Chair Patterson stated that the $6 million purchase price for the SPD facility will not likely be reduced. County Commissioner Mills stated that the disruption to the Constitutional Officers and additional soft costs associated Option A should be considered. County Commission Chair Patterson called for a vote on the motion to direct the County Administration to examine a cooperative agreement concerning the City's Police Department facility. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Mercier, yes; Mills, yes; Staub, yesi Thaxton, yes; Patterson, yes. On motion of County Commission Vice Chair Staub and second of County Commissioner Thaxton, it was moved to have the analysis of the joint facility brought back to both Commissions within 90 days. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Mercier, yes; Mills, yes; Staub, yes; Thaxton, yes; Patterson, yes. BOOK 52 Page 23978 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 23979 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. County Commission Chair Patterson asked if the City will also be performing an analysis of cost for a joint facility. City Commissioner Quillin stated that the analysis should be a joint effort. County Administrator Ley stated that the City and County will have to provide details in a coordinated effort sO both Administrations can provide a report back to the Commissions. On motion of Vice Mayor Palmer and second of City Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to have an analysis of a joint facilities master plan including the funding necessary to accomplish the analysis brought back to both Commissions within 90 days. City Manager McNees stated that the City's half of a study will cost approximately $10,000 to $15,000. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the City is sharing the cost with the County in an effort to move forward with long-range planning. City Commissioner Quillin stated that the analysis should include short and long-range planning. County Administrator Ley stated that a short-range analysis will create the information necessary for a long-range analysis. City Commissioner Quillin stated that the analysis is necessary to provide information to determine both short- and long-range planning. Mayor Mason called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. 5. FIRE CONSOLIDATION ISSUES (AGENDA ITEM V) CD 3:44 through 3:52 County Administrator Ley stated that the County has been attempting to comply with the City's Fire Consolidation Ordinances for the past several years; that the arrangement concerning fire impact fees requires Administrative action only; that no action by the City Commission or the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners is necessary. Brian Gorski, Fire Chief, David Harrawood, Executive Director for Emergency Services, and Jane Ross, Fire Marshall, Sarasota County, came before the Commissions. Fire Chief Gorski stated that County Staff is interested in working with City Staff regarding the determination and collection of fire impact fees; that the proposed interlocal agreement allows for collection of fire impact fees in the City to fund the increase in capacity for expansion of fire and Emergency Medical System (EMS) services in the City limits; that the process entails calculating the fire impact fees on new construction; that a fire impact fee is determined and attached to building plans; that the City has agreed to accept the responsibility of collecting the fire impact fees which will be deposited into a separate account in accordance with the interlocal agreement; that the County has utilized fire impact fees since the 1980s; that the majority of the builders in the County are accustomed to paying the fees as well as the methodology of the calculation; that two separate rates for residential and non-residential developments are charged; that the County's fire impact fees are one of the lowest compared to other Cities and Counties in Florida. Fire Marshall Ross stated that the rates for fire impact fees are calculated by the type of construction utilized with an Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating on 1,000 gallons per minute of a structure; that the rate is $161 for residential homes of one, two, and three units; that above three units is considered commercial multi-unit residential and is calculated by the amount of square footage and construction type of the building; that six types of construction exist; that tactical fire fighting depends on type of construction of a building; that the probability of a large dollar loss to a structure is minimal with a Type One concrete block construction compared to a Type Six wood frame construction; that rates are easily calculated; that a breakdown of the calculations are provided to the developers; that the majority of the developers in the County are accustomed to paying the fire impact fees; that the County is interested in working with the City in the determination and collection of fire impact fees. Fire Marshall Ross continued that the calculation of non- residential fees is for four units or more; that for example, the calculation of a 100,000 square foot quadruplex with Type Five construction would result in fire impact fees of $2,600; that a Type One construction of the same quadruplex would result BOOK 52 Page 23980 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 23981 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. in fire impact fees of $1,400; that fire impact fees are less for better construction. Fire Chief Gorski stated that the County is currently in the process of developing an interlocal agreement regarding the City's collection of fire impact fees; that City Staff has been fully cooperating with the processi that implementation of the collection of the fire impact fees is anticipated to begin within the next several weeks. Vice Mayor Palmer asked for clarification of the separate account for the collection of the fire impact fees and the utilization of the collected fees within the City limits. Fire Chief Gorski stated that the proposed interlocal agreement indicates City collected fire impact fees will be utilized for increase in capacity and expansion of fire services of the five existing fire stations within the City limits; that the fire impact fees will be utilized for the facilities, not personal. Vice Mayor Palmer asked if the fire impact fees would be utilized as capital for equipment? Fire Chief Gorski stated yes; that the fire impact fees will be utilized for apparatus, fire stations, and equipment. City Commissioner Servian asked if the fire impact fees could be utilized for training? Fire Chief Gorski stated that the fire impact fees can be utilized for training on new equipment. County Commission Chair Patterson stated that clarification of fire impact fee credits would be appreciated; that for example, no fire impact fee would be charged to replace a house for another house which is the same size; however, to replace a 100,000 square foot non-residential structure with a 200,000 square foot non- residential structure a credit for the first structure against the second would exist. Fire Marshall Ross stated that is correct; that the fire impact fee credits are structured the same as other impact fee credits. City Commissioner Martin asked if the comparative analysis from other communities regarding fire impact fees could be provided? Fire Chief Gorski stated that the information will be provided. County Administrator Ley stated that the intent of the presentation is to update both Commissions of the cooperative relationship between the City and the County in the process of developing an interlocal agreement to collect fire impact fees in the City. County Commissioner Mills asked if the interlocal agreement has been signed and if action by the Commissioners is required? Chief Gorski stated that the interlocal agreement between the City and County regarding the collection of the fire impact fees is being finalized; that no Commission action is required at this time. 6. JOINT CITY/COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING (AGENDA ITEM VI) CD 3:52 through 3:53 City Commissioner Quillin stated that having a joint City/County Planning Board meeting was discussed at the May 7, 2002, joint City/County meeting; and asked the reason a meeting has not been held? County Administrator Ley stated that the understanding is the chairs of both planning boards have been in contact with each other and have been coordinating an agenda; that letters requesting the joint meeting were sent to both planning boards; that a meeting is in the process of being scheduled. 7. CITY/COUNTY INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS (AGENDA ITEM VII) CD 3:53 through 4:05 City Commissioner Quillin distributed a list of all interlocal agreements between the City and the County and copy of an electronic mail received from a constituent in the Arlington Park neighborhood indicating necessary maintenance at Arlington Park; and stated that she requested the discussions of the City/County interlocal agreements be added to the Agenda; that the last time the interlocal agreements were reviewed is unknown; that reviewing the interlocal agreements to insure modifications are not necessary is suggested; that capital improvements are scheduled for Arlington Park; that a maintenance issue regarding the building at Arlington Park is a concerni that reviewing the interlocal agreements may address certain maintenance issues BOOK 52 Page 23982 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 23983 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. before maintenance becomes a required capital improvement such as occurred with the problems with Lido Pool. County Commission Vice Chair Staub asked if the purpose is to agree to the meaning of maintenance verses capital improvements to apply to all the interlocal agreements? City Commissioner Quillin stated yes; however, other interlocal agreements such as for stormwater should be reviewed for other reasons as well. County Commission Vice Chair Staub stated that reviewing all the interlocal agreements is considerable for both Administrations; that reviewing a smaller list of priority interlocal agreements provided by the City is a suggestion. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the City Commission has previously directed the City Administration to examine the interlocal agreements; that the interlocal agreements should be reviewed based on priority; and asked if the review process has begun? City Manager McNees stated that City Staff is currently reviewing a number of interlocal agreements; that numerous interlocal agreements exist; that the review process will take some time. City Commissioner Quillin stated that the intent of the list of interlocal agreements is to indicate the large number of agreements between the City and the County. City Commissioner Servian stated that knowing the City Administration is reviewing the interlocal agreements is satistactory; that both Commissions are aware of problems with some of the interlocal agreements; that reviewing the interlocal agreement regarding Parks and Recreation should be a priority. City Manager McNees stated that attention is always drawn to areas of friction such as parks and recreation facilities; however, cooperative work is achieved through several other interlocal agreements. Mayor Mason stated that keeping communication open between the City and the County will diminish several issues; that the suggestion is for the County Commission to direct the County Administrator to also review the interlocal agreements. County Administrator Ley stated that the interlocal agreements are a guide to the strong daily working relationship between the City and the Countyi that interlocal agreements are continually reviewed as issues arise; that the number of interlocal agreements the County has with the City of Sarasota times three is the number of agreements the County has with other municipalities; that several of the interlocal agreements were time limited and for specific projects; that the Administrations should determine which interlocal agreements are closed and/or completed. Mayor Mason stated that the interlocal agreement regarding stormwater should be reviewed. City Commissioner Quillin stated that the intent of the discussion is for the Administrations to be aware of the necessity to review the interlocal agreements. County Commission Chair Patterson stated that several of the interlocal agreements listed have been updated recently including the stormwater interlocal agreement; that the County Administration should address the concerns regarding the maintenance of Arlington Park indicated in the electronic mail distributed. City Commissioner Quillin stated that the neighborhood near Arlington Park is very active and communicates concerns to the City Commission. County Administration Ley stated that communication between the two Administrations is necessary at the time concerns such as Arlington Park are raised; that the Administration cannot respond if the information is not known. City Commissioner Martin distributed a list of the Agenda suggestions from the County's Planning Commission to the City and County Commissions; and stated that suggestions from the City's Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) will be forthcoming and distributed to the County Commission. 8. SARASOTA TROLLEY (AGENDA ITEM VIII) CD 4:05 through 4:15 City Manager McNees stated that both Commissions will hear a presentation by the Transportation Management Organization (TMO) during the week of September 23, 2002, regarding recommendations to salvage a functional trolley system; that the City Commission allocated $75,000 in the fiscal year (FY) 2002/03 budget to BOOK 52 Page 23984 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 23985 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. maintain a useful trolley system for the Downtown area; that practical suggestions such as the merging of existing routes will be presented; that the City is requesting the County to remain open-minded regarding the continuation of the trolley; that the County previously requested the City to financially contribute to the trolley; that the City has budgeted funds to assist with the continued operation; that the hope is to move toward a better functioning trolley system. Mayor Mason passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Palmer and left the Chambers at 4:06 p.m. County Commission Vice Chair Staub stated that the opportunity to meet with the Executive Director of the TMO was appreciated; that communication between the City and the County regarding the future of the trolley is wonderful. County Commissioner Mercier stated that the City Commission is commended for budgeting for the trolley; that the community tends to look toward the County for different endeavors; that the citizens of the community would be better served if cities such as the City of North Port, the City of Venice, and the Town of Longboat Key assisted in the different endeavors. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that County Commissioner Mercier chaired the committee reviewing the trolley system; that his efforts are appreciated; that several local groups in the community are attempting to foster the commitment to continue the trolley; that the hope is the City can continue discussions with the County regarding the continuation of the trolley; that the City does not want to lose the trolley. County Commission Chair Patterson asked the possibility of utilizing Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds for operation of the trolley. City Attorney Taylor stated that the possibility exists; that the operational expenses of the trolley are a proper use of TIF funds; however, the funding must support something in the Community Redevelopment Area; that research is necessary to determine if ties exists to provide TIF funding. County Commission Chair Patterson stated that utilizing TIF funds is controlled by the City; that the brief presentation by the Executive Director of the TMO indicated the possibility of the trolley being seasonal; that the reason for discontinuing the trolley in the off-season is to reduce the trolley expense to a financially manageable level for the County and the City; that the City has a limited General Fund budget; that new construction in the City may afford the opportunity for the City to utilize TIF funds; that the TIF fund may be more generously funded than the General Fund. City Commissioner Martin stated that discussions were held with the City Attorney regarding the utilization of TIF funds for the trolley; that the newly created Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Advisory Board will be implementing a work plan which could include addressing the trolley. Mayor Mason returned to the Chambers at 4:11 p.m. Vice Mayor Palmer passed the gavel to Mayor Mason. County Administrator Ley stated that limiting the operation of the trolley to the tourist season is a practical idea and can be continued if successful; that the trolley has not been provided an opportunity to succeed in a small wayi that limiting the trolley to the season will indicate if growth is possible. County Commission Vice Chair Staub stated that a kick-off to promote the trolley at the beginning of the season should occuri that all the City and County Commissioners should ride the trolley and then perhaps have a kick-off dinner to draw attention to the trolley. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the Trolley Trot in 2001 was attended; that the event was wonderful; that the trolley traveled all over the community; that several people attended; that a major kick-off for the trolley is supported. The Commission recessed at 4:13 p.m. and reconvened at 4:27 p.m. 9. HOPE VI GRANT (AGENDA ITEM IX) CD 4:27 through 5:23 Rudy Vazmina, Executive Director, Housing Authority of the City of Sarasota (HACS) and Joseph Hudgins, Chairman of the HACS, came before the Commissions. Mr. Hudgins stated that several members of the HACS are present; and recognized Paul Thorpe, Jacquelyn Paulk, and Peggy Roberts in the audience. BOOK 52 Page 23986 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 23987 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. Mr. Vazmina referred to a computer-generated slide representing fiscal year (FY) 2002, HOPE VI Revitalization Program Initiative for HACS throughout the presentation and stated that Congress has appropriated $492.5 million nationwide for FY 2002, HOPE VI; however, the funding requests of the individual Housing Authorities are capped at $20 million; that Demolition Grants will be available; that a $40 million Nationwide grant will become available through a separate HOPE VI Notice of Fund Availability; that recipients of the HOPE VI Grant will be required to implement a Neighborhoods Networks Initiatives program; that $5 million will be available nationwide for computer centers, on site access, and training resources for a Neighborhoods Networks Initiatives program; that an option available for residents to consider on relocation is the Section 8 Tenant-Based Assistance program; that $30 million will be available nationwide for necessary relocation for proposed revitalization; that the Section 8 Tenant-Based Assistance program does not preclude an individual from returning to the revitalized location if desired. Mr. Vazmina continued that the deadline date and location for the HOPE VI Grant is November 29, 2002, on or before 5:15 p.m. at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in Washington D.C.; that the HOPE VI Grant application scoring point system has increase to 114 points maximum; that the preliminary HACS score should be 90 points or more to be competitive; that HUD will not rate or rank the application if the application fails to meet any of the following twenty-eight threshold requirements: 1. Eligible applicant to the Notice of Fund Availability; 2. Application received by deadline, date, and time; 3. Standard certifications submitted (curable) 4. Disclosure of prior HUD assistance at targeted development (s); 5. Provide third party professional certification of: a. Realistic hard development cost; b. Economically viable preliminary plan; C. Reasonable projects soft costs (developer fees, Public Housing Authority administration, consultant overhead, general conditions); 6. Each applicant can submit only one HOPE VI revitalization application for one property; or 7. Close proximity property for multiple projects within 1/4 mile of each other; or 8. Proposed scattered sites must be within one square mile or within hard edges of a neighborhood; and 9. Cannot apply for new funds for units previously funded even if inadequately funded (N/A); 10. Applications to develop market rate or affordable units that do not qualify as replacement units will be disqualified; 11. Application must meet separability requirements (feasibility of targeting a portion of a project); 12. Public Housing Authority cannot be designated a "troubled" 13. Applicant has obligated 90% of it FY 1998/99 Capital Funds (HACS complies); 14. Applicant cannot have open inspector general HOPE VI audit findings (N/A); 15. Applicant with existing HOPE VI must have met performance requirements (N/A) ; 16. Applicant must certify that they have procured a developer; 17. Application must include an Administrative and Compliance Checkpoints Report as provided in the application kit; 18. Applicant must certify that it will implement operation/management principles and policies of 24 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 966.3; 19. Applicant must submit an architectural and engineer certification that targeted project (s) meet severe physical distress criteria (in process); 20. Application must include commitments that meet the match requirement (not leverage) (5% of HUD provided funds); 21. Application must include certification of resident training and public meetings held (3 minimum 5 optimum) (in process of scheduling) ; 22. Applicant must certify that it has completed a relocation plan that complies with the Uniform Relocation Act; 23. Applicant must comply with Fair Housing and Civil Right Laws (HACS compliant) BOOK 52 Page 23988 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 23989 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. 24. Applicant must comply with desegregation or other court orders related to Fair Housing (N/A); 25. Evidence of site control for proposed off-site replacement housing; 26. Preliminary market assessment letter for proposed market rate housing; 27. Local official certification of proper zoning; Mr. Vazmina stated that rezoning considerations for density differences at several locations are currently in progress; however, rezoning will not be complete prior to the deadline for the HOPE VI Grant application. 28. Demonstration of proposal appropriateness in the local housing market relative to other alternatives. Mr. Vazmina continued that some of the twenty-eight thresholds do not apply to the HACS; that a match requirement from other sources greater or equal to 5 percent of grant funds awarded is required to supplement the HOPE VI Grant; that a Community and Supportive Service dollar for dollar match is required if more than 5 percent of the HOPE VI Grant is utilized for Community and Supportive Service activities; that Community and Supportive Service activities include: Health Services Childcare - Job Training - Employment GED - After school programs Others Mr. Vazmina stated that the HOPE VI Grant leverage must be firm commitments over and above the amount documented as a match; that documentation regarding leverage is slightly different from the 2001 requirements; that documentation required is not conditional with reference to a commitment on anything other than receipt of the HOPE VI Grant; that for every $1 received from the Federal Government, the HACS would require $3 of local leverage in order to receive a seven point maximum for development leverage; that leverage items which can be considered are: Low-income housing tax credit - Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) - HOME Partnership Investment Act (HOME) - State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) - Federal Home Loan Bank Fannie Mae Mr. Vazmina continued that a five point maximum can be achieved for newly generated Community and Supportive Service for HOPE VI Grant activities; that a two point maximum can be achieved for both anticipatory and collateral leverage; that anticipatory leverage is revitalization activities carried out in previous years in anticipation of the HOPE VI Grant; that collateral leverage is physical redevelopment activities underway or projected for completion before October 2007 which will enhance the HOPE VI Grant community. Mr. Vazmina further stated that the targeted community for the HOPE VI Grant is Newtown; that the eligible sites are the 128 unit Janie Poe Housing Development, 60 units at Orange Avenue, and 100 units at The Courts; that a density issue of the Janie Poe Housing Development may pose a problem with the application process. Mr. Vazmina stated further that several funding considerations exist if the HACS is not a recipient of the HOPE VI Grant as follows: 1. Capital Fund Financing Mr. Vazmina statèd that HUD provides an annual funding for the HACS' Capital Fund Program for modernization, repair, or replacement activities; that the annual amount of $1,059,222 is not sufficient to conduct major initiatives; therefore, the HACS could borrow against future annual grants for large scale renovations; that the HACS could combine other capital resources or tax credits to modernize or replace public housing. 2. Mixed Finance Approach Mr. Vazmina stated that the resources available to the HACS are Capital Fund Program, on-going operating subsidies, Section 8 BOOK 52 Page 23990 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 23991 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. pledge vouchers, and building/land assets; that the HACS can combine available resources with local government resources from HOME, CDBG, Section 108 Loans, homeownership programs, economic development programs, or tax foreclosed properties for redevelopment for a mixed financial approach; that the HACS could also secure debt and equity financing such as Low-income housing tax credit, tax-exempt bond financing, Federal Home Loan Affordable Housing Program or Fannie Mae. Mr. Vazmina continued that revitalizing neighborhoods is achieved by the community working together as a group. County Commissioner Thaxton referred to number twenty-seven of the twenty-eight thresholds regarding the certification of proper zoning and asked if the Janie Poe Housing Development requires rezoning and an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan)? Mr. Vazmina stated that the process to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan has begun; that the Future Land Use Classification for the Janie Poe Housing Development is currently Multiple Family (Moderate Density); that the amendment is to change the Janie Poe Housing Development to Multiple Family (Medium Density) to comply with other criteria within the application for the HOPE VI Grant; that the understanding is the final approval for the amendment may not occur until November 2003; that the certification of proper zoning is not applicable to all applicants; that the HACS is attempting to further clarify the threshold requirement. County Commissioner Thaxton asked if the amendment problem is unique to the Janie Poe Housing Development? Mr. Vazmina stated yes; that the Orange Avenue and The Courts units are correctly zoned; however, the configuration of the housing at the two locations is worse than at the Janie Poe Housing Development; that the density units per acre at the Janie Poe Housing Development is the issue. County Commissioner Mills stated that he spent a large amount of time working on the first HOPE IV Grant; that several community meeting were attended; that he traveled to Washington D.C. during the process and was told the HOPE VI Grant would not be received; that the lobbyist seemed to know who the recipients of the HOPE VI Grants were prior to the awards being announced; that a second attempt was made; that communities are in competition for the HOPE VI Grant; and asked the difference between the current application and prior unsuccessful applications? Mr. Vazmina stated that the reason for the $20 million cap on individual Public Housing Authority requests is to spread Federal funding to smaller cities; that Congress is concerned millions of dollars of HOPE VI Grants are not being utilized in a timely fashion; that Congress is affording smaller communities the chance to receive the funding; that preparedness is a factor and the difference between the previous and current applications; that the HACS would not have a chance at the 2002 HOPE VI if not for the preparation from the application process of 2001. Mr. Hudgins stated that a debriefing was held with HUD during the 2001, application process; that the 2001 application was extremely competitive; that the HACS was six point away from meeting the threshold of receiving the HOPE VI Grant; that the HACS could not demonstrate enough market rate rent properties for low income individuals; that HUD advised a higher market rate could be achieved through running classified ads in the newspapers; that the Newtown Front Porch Community was not implemented in 2001; that hopefully the City will have implemented the Newtown Front Porch Community by the time the application is submitted; that the HACS is encouraged by the amount of professionalism and efforts to achieve the HOPE VI Grant for 2002. City Commissioner Servian referred to the discussion regarding other mixed financial approaches in the event the HOPE VI Grant is not received and asked if the Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program is capped? Mr. Vazmina stated yes; however, the capped amount is unknown; that the possible mixed financial approaches are highly competitive; that the values obtained for the HOPE VI Grant application will assist in completing applications such as the HOME, CBDG, or Section 108 Loans for a mixed financial approach. City Commissioner Servian asked the name of the developer being utilized for the revitalized area? Mr. Vazmina stated that the highest ranked developer is the Telesis Corporation; that the HACS is in the process of BOOK 52 Page 23992 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 23993 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. negotiating a contract with Telesis Corporation; that HUD must review all contracts as part of the application process. County Commissioner Mercier stated that the School Board of Sarasota County (School Board) recently requested support from the County to bring computers into the community; that the County is attempting to bring additional computers to the North County Library; that a duplication of effort is occurring; that many organization trying to do good are tripping over each other; that live/work in the community is important; that number twenty-five of the twenty-eight thresholds regarding evidence of site control for proposed off-site replacement housing is a concern; that he has witnessed a community destroyed with redevelopment; that the Newtown community is one of the true communities left in Sarasota; that generations can identify with others as to who married who when; that relocating people out of the Newtown area for redevelopment, who may not return is a concern. Mr. Vazmina stated that live/work is a type of housing which includes residences on top and retall/commercial below; that a live/work area is not strongly emphasized for the 2002 application process; however, a live/work community is appealing; that computer opportunities are a valuable asset. County Commissioner Mercier stated that the Commissions are being asked to commit 5 percent which is equal to $1 million of the $20 million HOPE VI Grant and in other criteria 15 percent; that the community resources should be evaluated; that he is not opposed to the optimism in obtaining the HOPE VI Grant; that utilizing the funds for small accomplishments rather than spending funds to attempt to obtain a larger amount of funds is a suggestion; and asked if the HACS has explored the possibility of utilizing funding on a smaller scale? Mr. Vazmina stated yes; that the alternatives will always stay the same; that the HACS desires to combine community resources in an attempt to use the resources as leverage for larger resources. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the City Commission had previously requested the HACS to provide the funding amount necessary for the HOPE VI Grant match prior to the end of the budgeted fiscal year (FY); that the City Commission is at the end of the budget process; that $10 million was committed between the City and County for FY 2001/02; that the FY 2001/02 funding would not have been available if the grant had been awarded; and asked the realistic amount of funds the HACS is requesting? Mr. Vazmina stated that the funding is conditioned upon approval of the application; that budgeting is difficult. Mayor Mason stated that the HACS did not receive the Notice of Fund Availability in January 2002. Mr. Hudgins stated that a development plan of the HACS should be presented to include the new application thresholds and the rezoning issues; that HUD is aware of the short time frames; that HUD is also aware of the communities which can be ready in a short period of time. County Commission Chair Patterson stated that CBDG funds are Federal funds; and asked if CBDG funds are acceptable for the matched dollars. Mr. Vazmina stated that CBDG funds can be utilized for match or leverage. County Commission Chair Patterson stated that at some point the HACS will be requesting the City and County to endorse the plan; that the hope is the plan will be clear. Mr. Hudgins stated that any one funding request is not in a specific yeari that a funding request is over the duration of a project; that the duration of a project could be over the course of five years; that the average duration of a project is two to three years; that Bradenton, Florida was awarded a HOPE VI Grant in 2000; that the project in Bradenton will not be complete for another 12 months. County Commission Chair Patterson stated that the HACS is commended for attempting to receive the HOPE VI Grant again; that obviously small communities succeed or else Bradenton would not have received the grant; and asked the exact action the HACS requires from both Commissions. Mr. Vazmina stated that the HACS is providing the Commissions with a report of the progress in attempting to obtain the HOPE VI Grant; that the HACS is not requesting funding at this time; however, the information regarding future matches and leverages is being provided; that the County Commission previously made a commitment regarding the private activity bonds which can be BOOK 52 Page 23994 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 23995 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. considered either a match or a leverage; that the leverage is considered a rating criteria; that the new application requirement regarding the point system promote readiness and preparedness. Mr. Hudgins stated that the HACS must achieve a 90-point rating out of a possible 125-point rating. County Commission Chair Patterson stated that the opening at 17th Street has become a City priority; and asked if the HACS is following the progress of 17th Street through the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and if 17th Street would be helpful to the application? Mr. Vazmina stated yes. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Newtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan is in the process of being adopted; that the HACS is one of the largest property owners in the Newtown area; that the Newtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan will require an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Vazmina stated that the HACS will share comments with the City Commission during the implementation process of the Newtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan; that the HACS discussed the density issues regarding the HOPE VI Grant application with City Staff; that the HACS also emphasized the crucial nature of the Newtown Front Porch Community designation. City Commissioner Quillin stated that the HACS' density issue regarding the Janie Poe Housing Development will become a City initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment with the adoption of the Newtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan; and asked the number of acres of the Janie Poe Housing Development? Mr. Vazmina stated that the Janie Poe Housing Development is approximately 13 acres. City Commissioner Quillin stated that the 13 acres may meet the threshold requirement; that 10 acres and below is considered small scale. Mr. Vazmina stated that the Newtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan is supportive of the initiative of HOPE VI Grant; that the HACS participated in the Newtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan process in an effort to promote a mixed income environment for the neighborhood. City Commissioner Quillin stated that the first attempt of the first HOPE VI Grant was for the revitalization of Cohen Way in the 1990s; that the HACS is one of the largest land Owners in the Newtown area; that action not being taken by the HACS in the Newtown area will be a detriment to the Newtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Hudgins stated that the HOPE VI Grant is the cornerstone and the foundation of the Newtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan. City Commissioner Quillin stated that the Newtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan and the HOPE VI Grant work hand in hand; that the City designated certain resources to the HOPE VI Grant initiative in FY 2001/02 and could have designated resources for FY 2002/03; that finding funding is difficult once the budget has been passed. Mr. Vazmina stated that the City will not be identifying funding if the HOPE VI Grant is not received; that identifying funding in advance is difficult without knowing if the grant will be received. Mayor Mason stated that the HACS has been a willing participant from the beginning regarding the Newtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan; that the HACS cannot control the time HUD sends out the Notice of Fund Availability; that the timing is frustrating; that receiving the information prior to the budget process is desired; that she is hearing an overall commitment for the City Commission to assist in the HOPE VI Grant initiative; that the HACS is encouraged to evaluate the possibility of holding special meetings to further the HOPE VI Grant initiative; that special meetings have been held during prior HOPE VI Grant application processesi that special meetings can provide both Commissions specific funding requirements. Mr. Hudgins stated that a commitment for funding will not be required until the next budget cycle; that funding would not be required for at least 12 months if the HACS was awarded the grant; that the HACS will not be notified of the award until March or April of 2003; that six months of contractual agreements would follow. County Commissioner Mills stated that Mr. Hudgins is commended for his time spent on the HOPE VI Grant initiative program, the BOOK 52 Page 23996 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 23997 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. HACS and with the County Planning Board; that the community owes him a debt of gratitude for his efforts. 10. OTHER MATTERS/REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA (AGENDA ITEM X) CD 5:23 through 5:35 CITY COMMISSIONER QUILLIN: A. stated that a discussion was held with the County Commission Chair after viewing the Accesssarasota, Channel 19, AccessSarasota) broadcast of the September 16, 2002, Regular City Commission meeting, regarding the historic preservation planners position; that the City has been notified of the County's intent to withdraw technical support beginning October 2002; that the County Commission Chair was unaware of the County withdrawing the support; and asked the status of providing continued technical support. County Administrator Ley stated that in 1993 the City established the historic preservation program; that the City Manager at the time requested the County Administrator provide County support Staff of 8 to 10 hours per month on a trial basis until the time became over burdensome to County Staff; that providing the support became over burdensome by 1996; that in 1998 the Board of County Commissioners requested a letter be written to the City suggesting the possibility of consolidating the City and County programs; that sporadic discussions occurred and the issue did not proceed; that in 2000, Community Services initiated discussions with City Staff regarding the provided support was having a significant impact on the County's ability to run its own historic preservation program; that three options were suggested: 1. The County take over the Cities historic preservation program; 2. The City contract with the County to provide the continuation of the support services; or 3. The City hire its own staff. County Administrator Ley continued that a verbal agreement between City and County Staff was reached approximately 18 months ago; that the County will continue to provide support until October 2003; that the County has been providing the support services on a voluntary basis in an attempt to assist the City's program; that the voluntary support service has increased and has become burdensome; that providing the support is effecting the County's ability to meet its own needs. Mayor Mason asked if support service will be provided until October 2003? County Administrator Ley stated yes; that support service will be provided until October 2003. City Commissioner Quillin asked if the historic preservation department is supported by the County's General Fund? County Administrator Ley stated yes. City Commissioner Quillin stated that the City taxpayers are County residents who also support the County's General Fund. County Administrator Ley stated that the issue is a dual-taxation argument. City Commissioner Quillin stated that the support requested is only 8 to 10 hours per month. County Administrator Ley stated that the support has well exceeded 8 to 10 hours per month. County Commission Vice Chair Staub stated that the discussion regarding the three options is recalled; that the understanding was the City would be communicating back to the County regarding the options. County Commission Chair Patterson stated that the majority of the historic resources are located in the City; that the County would not have much of a historic preservation department if the City of Sarasota and the City of Venice were precluded from the program; and asked the reason the program would be less burdensome if the County took over the entire program. County Administrator Ley stated that offering to run the program would require a policy and budget decisions supported by the County Commission; that running the program is not the preferred option; that the City desires to maintain its own program. County Commissioner Mercier stated that the County and the City could be experiencing a failure to communicate. BOOK 52 Page 23998 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 23999 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. City Manager McNees stated that discussion regarding the continued support occurred with the former City Manager; that the County provides services Countywide which the all taxpayers pay for; that understanding the manner in which one service triggers a dual- taxation issue is unclear; that a dual-taxation agreement exist; that a lawsuit also occurred related to dual-taxation; that discussions between both Administrations should continue. County Commission Chair Patterson stated that the providing support services is not precluded from a dual-taxation issue; that the County Administration is simply indicating the support services provided have not been raised as a dual-taxation issue. County Administrator Ley stated that a settlement agreement exists regarding the dispute over dual-taxation; that dual-taxation should be revisited; that the County should not absorb the cost of continuing the support services on the basis of the dual-taxation argument without reviewing the dual-taxation settlement agreement. City Manager McNees stated that the City is not raising a dual- taxation issue; that the County is providing a service for which the Countywide taxpayers are paying; that the County is proposing to discontinue the service; that the City will be happy to discuss the issue. County Commission Vice Chair Staub asked if the County service is provided for the City of North Port and the City of Venice? County Administrator Ley stated that the service is not provided to the City of Venice; that the County has recently agreed to provide the historic preservation support services again to the City of North Port; that a rationale and an agreement process is in place in which two parties accepted tradeoffs; that the amount of services provided, for example in Parks and Recreation, offset the cost of the dual-taxation issue; that the dual-taxation issue has to be discussed in the context of the dual-taxation settlement agreement. County Commission Chair Patterson stated that Parks and Recreation were never a part of the dual-taxation issue. County Administrator Ley stated that a context existed in which the dual-taxation issue was resolved; that the context would have to be opened up again. City Commissioner Martin stated that the County's Historical Division which is supplying the support services is located in a City-owned building which pays $1 per year to lease the facility; that the arrangement is positive; that the City Commission has added a historic preservation element to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the City Commission has tentatively agreed to fund the position for the FY 2003/04 budget; that on-going discussions regarding the issue were unknown. County Administrator Ley stated that the County will continue to provide the support services until the City is able to fund the historic preservation planner position. City Commissioner Quillin stated that the community is proud of its natural resources; that natural resources in Sarasota County have been growing tremendously; that City and the County should insure resources stay well funded. Mayor Mason thanked the County Commission and County Staff for meeting on behalf of the City Commission. County Commission Chair Patterson thanked the City Commission and City Staff for meeting on behalf of the County Commission; that the meeting resolved several issues. City Commissioner Quillin asked if the next meeting will be held in six months? County Commission Chair Patterson stated that the hope is the next meeting will be sooner than six months. 11. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XI) CD 5:35 There being no further business, Mayor Mason adjourned the Joint City Commission and County Commission Special meeting of September 17, 2002, at 5:35 p.m. - 1 1 1 Carlin CAROLYN J. MASON, MAYOR ATTEST: € : BILLY E. ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK BOOK 52 Page 24000 09/17/02 6:00 P.M. p