Book 35 Page 9737 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 1993 AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Gene Pillot, Vice Mayor Nora Patterson, Commissioners Fredd Atkins and David Merrill, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: Commissioner Mollie Cardamone PRESIDING: Mayor Gene Pillot The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 1. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY #1 (0025) through (0028) There were no Changes to the Orders of the Day. 2. PRESENTATION RE: DISTINGUISHED BUDGET AWARD AND THE CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING TO THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT #1 (0030) through (0205) R. B. "Chips" Shore, Manatee County Clerk of the Circuit Court and representing the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) of the United States and Canada, came before the Commission and stated that GFOA is one of the largest and oldest organizations in the United States for governmental officials; that the Association was founded in 1906 to help establish uniformity in state and local government accounting practices. Mr. Shore stated that the goals of the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award are to encourage improvement in a government's overall budget and procedures and to continuously improve the quality of the budget document; that the governing body and taxpayers of the City of Sarasota should be very proud of the fact that the City's budget document was judged one of the best in the United States and Canada. Mr. Shore stated further that the name on the award is Gibson Mitchell, City Finance Director; however, one person can never be responsible for the output of a product. Chris Lyons, Deputy Director of Finance accepted the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. Mr. Shore stated that by meeting the standards of the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is a more useful and understandable tool for the citizens of the City of Sarasota, the media, and others; that reports receiving this certificate provide detailed information on the financial aspects of the City; that the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award and the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting goes a long way in the consideration by the bond rating agencies when looking at a community's bond rating. Mr. Shore presented the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to David Flatt, Accounting and Payroll Manager, and Judy Wallace, Accounting Supervisor. 3. PRESENTATION RE: EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR SEPTEMBER, 1993 = JANICE E. DOCKING, HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALIST = DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES #1 (0207) through (0340) Bill Davenport, Director of Human Resources, came before the Commission and introduced Janice Docking. Mr. Davenport stated that the City was very fortunate when Ms. Docking decided to work for the City; that Ms. Docking's work is primarily in the area of compensation classification and personnel records; that Ms. Docking is active in the City's Total Quality Pérformance program as a Team Leader, Team Facilitator, and was recently selected to be one of the few people who will be trained to provide training to future City employees who enter the Total Quality Performance program. Mr. Davenport continued that Ms. Docking is active in the community as president of the Altrusa Club, a professional women's service organization, and serves on the Operations Committee for the Sarasota French Film Festival. Mayor Pillot presented Janice E. Docking with a plaque and certificate for Employee of the Month for September 1993 in appreciation of her unique performance with the City of Sarasota and congratulated her for her outstanding efforts. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES = APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 4, 1993; MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 7, 1993 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEMS I-1 AND -2) #1 (0358) through (0369) On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Sarasota City Commission Meeting of October 4, 1993 and the Special Sarasota City Commission Meeting of October 7, 1993. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Book 35 Page 9738 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9739 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. 5. BOARD ACTIONS - REPORT RE: PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 12, 1993 = CONFIRMED THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION OF VIRGINIA HOFFMAN AS THE ARTIST FOR THE MAIN STREET PROJECT; DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO WORK UP A CONTRACT WITH MS. HOFFMAN THAT TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION A RETAINER FEE, COMMENCEMENT FEE, AND FEE UPON ÇOMPLETION; : DIRECTED THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE TO MEET WITH VIRGINIA HOFFMAN TO DECIDE WHETHER TO CHANGE THE FOUNTAIN STRUCTURE TO INCORPORATE THE ART OR PROCEED WITH SNOWBALL FOUNTAINS, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS MAY BE NECESSARY SUBJECT TO COMMISSION APPROVAL; DIRECTED THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO PROVIDE INFORMATION FROM THE AESTHETIC ENRICHMENT PLAN TO THE COMMISSION: TABLED MOTION REGARDING APPROVAL OF ROBERT BEARDSWORTH MEMORIAL (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (0370) through (1588) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Frank Colson, Chairman of the Public Art Committee, came before the Commission. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she was concerned that the Public Art Committee (PAC) had not been presented all of the challenge she felt the Commission wanted the PAC to be given; that the additional option the Commission wanted the PAC to consider was conventional fountains with the artwork as part of the water element; that it seemed evident from the Minutes of the PAC Meeting of October 12 that the Committee was told that the fountains were to be snowball fountains and not made aware of the additional fountain option with the artwork as part of the water element. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that it was his understanding that the recommendation of the Public Art Committee was to be limited to the art piece itself; that he apologized for the misunderstanding. Mr. Colson stated that the Committee understood that there were going to be two snowiall fountains; that the Committee wanted to clarify two pieces of sculpture located in an integrated portion of where the so-called snowball fountains were going to be; that he feels it is irrelevant whether there are snowball fountains or not; that the Committee wanted to make the point that the artist should make two significant pieces of sculpture, presumably integrated with the water form, because of the prominent location and size of the pieces. Mr. Colson presented the following items from the Public Art Committee's Special Meeting of October 12, 1993: A. Main Street Improvement Project Sculptures - Selection of Artist Location and Number of Pieces of Artwork Proposed Shell Design on Fountain Pedestals Mr. Colson stated that the Committee recommends Virginia Hoffman to the Commission to be the artist for the entire Main Street project; that the Committee recommends there be two pieces of artwork for the Main Street project; that the Committee recommends that the artwork be located in the fountain area; and that the artist comes up with a design or plan. Mr. Colson continued that the Committee recommends that the decorative shell design be eliminated from the six pedestals. Mr. Colson stated that the Committee recommends that the contract for the artist be used by the City Commission for future projects of similar nature; that the contract for the artist for the art project at Selby Five Points Park be looked at as an integral part of this contract; that the Committee recommends that funds for the artwork be separated into three categories: (1) retainer fee upon the selection of the artist, (2) commencement fee upon acceptance of the design, to include a full scale model upon commencement, and (3) completion, at which time the balance is due upon completion of the project. Commissioner Merrill stated that he wanted to make certain that the Committee feels it has had the latitude to make sure that whatever is put in the area is going to be good; that the Public Art Committee is willing to put its stamp of approval on this project. Mr. Colson stated that was correct. Mr. Schneider stated that the Administration's recommendation is to accept the Art Committee's recommendations as presented tonight and to confirm the selection of the two snowball fountains. Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether Mr. Colson supports having two snowball fountains? Mr. Colson stated that he would like a more open option as suggested earlier by the Vice Mayor. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to confirm the Public Art Committee's recommendation of Virginia Hofiman as the artist for the Main Street project; and that the Administration work up a contract with Ms. Hoffman that takes into consideration the phases recommended by the Art Committee. Mr. Schneider stated that the contract will be between HLS Companies, Inc. and the artist. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Book 35 Page 9740 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9741 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved that the Public Art Committee reconvene with the artist to decide whether to change the structure of the fountain to incorporate the piece of art or proceed with the Administrative recommendation; that possible budget adjustments may be necessary, subject to Commission approval. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration would like this decision moved along as quickly as possible because the contractor needs a decision in November. Mayor Pillot asked whether the Public Art Committee could report to the Commission at the November 1 meeting? Mr. Colson stated that was possible. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. B. Memorial for Robert Beardsworth Mr. Colson stated that the Public Art Committee recommends that the Commission approve the proposal for the artwork memorial for Robert Beardsworth to be located on St. Armands Key. Mayor Pillot asked the nature of the sculpture. Mr. Colson stated that the sculpture was an abstract form like an offset tractured ring on top of a concrete pedestal to be made out of Core 10, which is an iron that has 10% copper; that as the material weathers, it turns into a rich iron rust color; that the neighbors in the area are in favor of the memorial. Mayor Pillot asked the size of the sculpture. Mr. Colson stated that the sculpture would be about six feet high. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration supports the recommendation of the Public Art Committee. Commissioner Atkins asked whether the Public Art Committee felt it would be an acceptable policy for anyone who is able to purchase art in memoriam for someone do so and also asked whether the piece of art becomes the property of the City after dedication? Mr. Colson stated that these particular issues were not addressed; however, he feels these suggestions would be good to address. Ms. Robinson stated that these issues are covered in the Aesthetic Enrichment Plan which will be presented to the Commission at a later date; that basically the Public Art Committee stated that if someone wants to donate art to the City, it should be by a 5 to 0 vote by the Public Art Committee as well as a 5 to 0 vote by the City Commission. Commissioner Merrill stated that he feels the landscaping is wonderful and asked whether the sculpture material is the same as the rust piece of sculpture at Ringling Museum? Mr. Colson stated that was correct. Commissioner Merrill stated that the material stains the base and he is not a fan of this type of art; that he feels it just looks like rust. Mr. Colson stated that he is not averse to the material because the art form is the most important thing. Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether the Public Art Committee was endorsing the proposed memorial as a piece of art? Mr. Colson stated that the Committee endorsed it wholeheartedly. Vice Mayor Patterson moved to approve the Public Art Committee's recommendation. The motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Pillot stated that he is prepared to vote on the concept, intent, and purpose; however, before he votes in favor of the memorial, he wants to know what the material is going to look like. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve the two landscaped islands with memorial brass plaques and defer the decision on the piece of sculpture until a later date. Commissioner Atkins stated that he would like to see the report that the Director of the Planning Department mentioned before he supports this because he would like to know the direction the City is headed. Mayor Pillot stated that he is also concerned about precedent for the future. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Mayor Pillot (who passed the gavel to Commissioner Atkins), it was moved to table the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing process. Mr. Robinson stated that at this time the petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes; that he will time speakers and advise them when they have 1 minute remaining. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and be sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 6. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3729, PROVIDING FOR THE CONDITIONAL REZONING FROM I ZONE DISTRICT COUNTY Book 35 Page 9742 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9743 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. ZONING TO I ZONE DISTRICT CITY OF SARASOTA ZONING ON REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF GOODRICH AVENUE AND MYRTLE STREET, WITH STREET FRONTAGE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MYRTLE STREET OF APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET: SAID PARCEL IS KNOWN AS THE SCRAP-ALL RECYCLING CENTER WITH A STREET ADDRESS OF 1735 MYRTLE STREET; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 93-CO-05, MARK SCIME, SCRAP-ALL OF SARASOTA, INC.) ) PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED UNTIL NOVEMBER 1, 1993 MEETING (AGENDA ITEM IV-1) #1 (1590) through (2338) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that the Planning Department and Planning Board voted unanimously for this rezoning to "I"; that the property was annexed into the City in May; that the property was zoned "I" when it was in the County. Commissioner Atkins asked what the company does at this site? Ms. Robinson stated that she did not know. Mark Scott Scime, 4112 W. Osborne, Tampa, Florida, came before the Commission and stated that he represents the petitioner, Scrap-All of Sarasota, Inc., who owns the property; that Scrap-All conducts a metal breaking and recycling process in the building with a wooden wall surrounding the building. Commissioner Atkins stated that he is concerned about the residences across the street and how early the business begins operation as well as how late in the day the business operates; that he feels there has been no regard for the residents of the area; that he feels this is another "dumping" of unwanted businesses on the peripheral of a minority neighborhood; that he is going to vote against this because he would like to see Myrtle Street become more of a community. Mayor Pillot asked how far Scrap-All is from the Booker School complex? Commissioner Atkins stated that it was approximately 50 yards. Mayor Pillot asked what would happen if this rezoning is not approved as proposed? City Attorney Taylor stated that this property started out in the annexation format pursuant to a Preannexation Agreement which was required in order to get municipal services. Sarah Schenk, Assistant City Attorney, came before the Commission and stated that this property was placed in an Impact Management Area (IMA) in the Comprehensive Plan for Industrial Zoning approximately a year ago with the understanding that the petitioner would request an actual rezoning; that the Department of Community Affairs has statutes that say the City cannot apply all zoning codes to the property until the owner applies for an actual rezoning to City zoning; that the County zoning is Industrial "I" with a permitted use. Mayor Pillot asked whether the City was legally compelled to grant this zoning? Attorney Schenk stated that the City can deny the request if the reasons for denial are clearly stated because there is a presumption that the property is appropriate because the Comprehensive Plan put the property in an IMA for Industrial use. Attorney Taylor stated that the City could find the property nonconforming if the property was found to better fit another zoning classification that would not permit this particular use; that with proper justification, he thinks an alternative zone could be selected if the "I" zone is considered by the Commission to be inappropriate. Attorney Schenk stated that the owners entered into a Municipal Services and Preannexation Agreement that provided water service to the property; that the City required the owners to file an annexation petition as a condition to providing water to the property; that the annexation petition was approved on April 19, 1993. Mayor Pillot asked whether the City was required to approve this particular zoning and use because of the approval of the annexation petition? Attorney Schenk stated that no particular zoning is mentioned in the agreement. Attorney Schenk stated that the City entered into the Municipal Services and Preannexation Agreement with the owners on May 14, 1992. Mr. Scime stated that this is the fourth hearing for this property; that it was always his understanding and his client's understanding that Scrap-All would be able to enjoy the same zoning it had before annexation; that a new building was constructed in 1992 with the County zoning; that it was found that City water service was available closer to the property during construction of the building; that the owner then entered into the Preannexation Agreementi that the owner paid the City $15,000 and constructed the water line that was needed; that there was no public objection during the annexation hearings; that the property is completely buffered with landscaping and fence. Mr. Scime stated that if the owner had known that the City would not allow the property to be used as Industrial property in the Book 35 Page 9744 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9745 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. future, the owner would have connected to the County's water rather than be annexed. Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether the property was built out to capacity? Mr. Scime stated that it was not; that currently there is a 12,000 square foot building on two acres. Commissioner Merrill stated that he feels it is incompatible to have Industrial property next to residential property. Attorney Taylor asked whether it would be acceptable to the Commission if this item is held over until the next meeting to allow him to confer with the Administration and the Planning Department concerning whether or not there is any other viable option with reference to this property? Commissioner Atkins stated that he did not have a problem with the Administration looking into this situation and readdressing it at the Commission's next meeting. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that he would advise that the public hearing be opened and a motion requested to continue the public hearing until the next meeting. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to continue this public hearing until the Commission's next meeting. Ms. Robinson stated that this is a conditional zoning and the City could work with the applicant; that various conditions could be applied to this site specifically; that pertormance restrictions could be placed on the site. Commissioner Merrill stated that he feels the issue is whether the nuisances of the Industrial use can be eliminated. Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether the property had been vacant prior to Scrap-All beginning its operations? Mr. Scime stated that the property was formerly a tile manufacturing plant. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion to continue the public hearing until the Commission's meeting of November 1, 1993. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 7. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 93-3733, PROVIDING FOR THE CONDITIONAL REZONING FROM OPB ZONE DISTRICT AND RMF-4 ZONE DISTRICT TO COP ZONE DISTRICT ON REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A PARCEL OF LAND LYING ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FRUITVILLE ROAD AT LOCKWOOD RIDGE ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1.03 ACRES, A/K/A 3200/3210/3220 FRUITVILLE ROAD; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 93-CO-03, DON LAWSON, WARSKIP ENTERPRISES) - PASSED ON FIRST READING CONTINGENT UPON REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S TREE CONCERNS, BY SECOND READING, a BY A PERSON APPROVED BY THE ADMINISTRATION AND THAT THE PERSON WILL BE SELECTED WITH THE LEAST EXPENSE POSSIBLE TO THE BUILDER (AGENDA ITEM IV-2) #1 (2339) through (3197) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that the property in question is located at the southeast corner of Lockwood Ridge and Fruitville Roads; that the property is in an Impact Management Area (IMA) for Commercial Office Park (COP); that the Planning Board and Planning Staff voted unanimously for COP. Commissioner Merrill asked whether the City's tree ordinance was strong enough that most of the Live Oak trees could be saved on this property? Ms. Robinson stated that 11 oak trees would be saved. Commissioner Merrill stated that if only a small amount of root structure is left, the trees might die; that he feels the City should either give the developer the freedom to cut trees down or make sure that trees "saved" are really saved. Don Lawson, architect, representing the, petitioner, came before the Commission and stated that the property has some very beautiful trees and it is the developer's intent to keep the trees; that everything is being done to work around the existing trees; that the layout of the site is based solely on the intent of saving the trees. Commissioner Merrill asked whether at least half of the drip zone' 9 under the trees were being saved? Mr. Lawson stated that a procedure that has been successful is a strong pruning of trees before equipment enters the site in order to accustom the tree to activity; that based on the site plan, 17 trees are to be saved with 5 trees to be removed. Mr. Lawson continued that the majority of the trees are adjacent to parking areas which makes it easier; that the developer will stay as far away from the trunks of the trees as possible. Commissioner Merrill asked what the grade change would be? Mr. Lawson stated that the only grade change is related to the building pad, which is away from all the trees; that the grade change has been manipulated to be away from the trunks of the trees and to go away from the trees. Commissioner Merrill stated that he would like to hear from someone on the City Staff as to whether saving the drip zone was required when this was reviewed. Book 35 Page 9746 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9747 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot asked whether it is feasible for a horticulturist to be selected by and responsible to the City Administration but paid by the petitioner to answer Commissioner Merrill's concerns? Commissioner Merrill stated that he feels this is an excellent idea. Ms. Robinson stated that David Johnston is the landscape architect for the City. Mr. Lawson stated that it is difficult to tell a client that they must use someone the City tells them to use when looking at a particular issue; that he would rather see the selection of an expert left up to the individual petitioner if the City is going to start a policy of having an arborist or expert in trees give the Commission reports. Commissioner Atkins stated that the Commission wants to work with the developer; however, the Commission is concerned with saving as many trees as possible. Tim Litchet, Zoning Chief, came before the Commission and stated that the inspectors try to look at issues conservatively; however, he feels a detailed analysis that the Commission is requesting would be better done by someone like David Johnston (landscape architect). Vice Mayor Patterson stated that the County has staff qualified in this area that are not consultants; that perhaps the City could work with the County staff on this issue. Mayor Pillot stated that he would have no objection to having the County staff provide the expertise. Commissioner Merrill stated that he would support Norm Easey (County Forester) if he could present an opinion on this matter. Mayor Pillot stated that the Commission seems willing to approve this proposed ordinance with the contingency that the trees will be evaluated by a competent expert with the expense to the builder to be the least that can be done. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3733 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 93-3733 on first reading contingent upon review of the tree concerns, by second reading, by a person approved by the Administration and that the person will be selected with the least expense possible to the builder. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0) : Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Commissioner Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 7:24 p.m. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3749, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 25 SOUTH WASHINGTON DRIVE, HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS THE CASA DEL MAR, AS A STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 93-HD-19, HARTIG) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #1 (3198) through (3298) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Mikki Hartig, representing the owner, came before the Commission. Ms. Robinson stated that the Historic Preservation Board and the Planning Staff approved the historic designation of the structure located at 25 South Washington Drive unanimously. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3749 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 93-3749 on first reading. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (3 to 0): Atkins, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3750, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 3529 JACINTO COURT, AS STRUCTURES OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 93-HD-20, HARTIG) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #1 (3300) through (3365) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Mikki Hartig, representing the owner, came before the Commission. Ms. Robinson stated that the proposed ordinance is for the historic designation for a structure and a garage; that the Historic Preservation Board and Planning Staff recommend approval of this designation located at 3529 Jacinto Court. Book 35 Page 9748 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9749 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. Ms. Hartig stated that the Ms. Caroline Kennedy, the property owner, is present in case the Commission has any questions. Commissioner Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 7:26 p.m. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 93-3750 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 93-3750 on first reading. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 10. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1 - ITEMS 1 THROUGH 7 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEMS III A-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, AND -7) #1 (3367) through (3423) City Manager Sollenberger stated that Item 1 should read "Bird Key Improvement Association. 1. Approval Re: Authorize the City Attorney to prepare a lease agreement with the Bird Key Association to lease two (2) parcels located on each side of the entrance to Bird Key and the median on Bird Key Drive between Seagull Lane and the entrance 2. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 94-3745, amending Chapter 37, Water and Sewers, Article II, Rates and Charges, by providing for the establishment and transfer of Impact Fee credits under certain circumstances; providing for automatic repeal after three years; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. 3. Approval Re: Set for Public Hearing proposed Ordinance No. 94-3753, amending Chapter 31, Personnel, of the Code of the City of Sarasota (1971), incorporated by reference in Chapter 24, of the Code of the City of Sarasota (1986), Article II, General Employees' Pension Plan, amending Section 31-18, subsection A. to provide for amended election procedures; amending Section 31-21 to clarify the return of accumulative contributions in the event of reemployment; amending Section 31-26 to improve and offer alternate forms of death benefits; adding Section 31-35 to provide for direct transfers of eligible rollover distributions; providing for severability of provisions; repealing all ordinances in conflict herewith; etc. 4. Approval Re: Authorize amendment to the Cooperative Funding Agreement with the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and the Manasota Basin Board as outlined in Amendment #1 5. Approval Re: Authorization to negotiate Interlocal Agreements leading to the funding and implementation of an emergency potable water interconnection between the City's water utility and the water utility of Manatee County 6. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County, for the distribution of Local Option Gas Tax Revenues 7. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract to Wharton-smith, Inc. (Bid #93-120) in the amount of $1,582,000, for construction of 3 million gallon ground storage tank and degasifiers with odor control On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1 Items 1 through 7. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins,. yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 11. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2 = ITEM 1 (ORDINANCE NO. 93-3699) = ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (ORDINANCE NO. 93-3742) = ADOPTED; AND ITEM 3 - (ORDINANCE NO. 93-3744) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEMS III B-1, -2, AND -3) #1 (3425 through (3510) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance Nos. 93-3699, 93-3742, and 93-3744 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 93-3699, amending Chapter 27, Pollution, Article IV, public water, by adding thereto a definition for site of industrial activity; by making it unlawful to discharge enumerated wastes into a municipal separate storm sewer system; by regulating discharges from sites of industrial activity; by prohibiting discharge of anything other than storm water into the separate storm sewer system; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) 2. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 93-3742, providing for the designation of the structures Book 35 Page 9750 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9751 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. located at 1910 Datura Street, historically known as the Anna Cosden Berry House, as structures of historic significance pursuant to the historic preservation ordinance of the City of Sàrasota; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 93-HD-18, Hartig) 3. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 93-3744, providing for the designation of the structures located at 2027 McClellan Parkway, historically known as the Lyle House, as structures of historic significance pursuant to the historic preservation ordinance of the City of Sarasota; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 93-HD-17, Hartig) On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2 Items 1 through 3. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yesi Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 12. SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS (AGENDA ITEM V) #1 (3511) through (3515) There were none. 13. CITIZENS' INPUT = REFERRED REQUEST OF MRS. TRACI DINGESS TO PURCHASE HER HUSBAND'S ORIGINAL POLICE BADGE TO THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION = REFERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATION. THE REQUEST TO INCREASE THE FEE FOR OWNER-INITIATED DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES 50 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER FROM $100 TO $200, WITH $100 PUT INTO A HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND (AGENDA ITEM VI) #1 (3516) through #2 (0395) Traci Dingess, 2121 55th Avenue Drive East, Bradenton, Florida, came before the Commission and stated that her husband recently resigned from the Sarasota Police Department; that she requests that the Commission assist her to purchase her husband's original Police badge; that her husband was with the Sarasota Police Department for over 10 years and resigned because he disagreed with the direction in which the Police Department was headed; that her husband believed in enforcing the law for all; that her husband has received many awards during his career, one of which was the Mayor's Citation. Mrs. Dingess continued that she has called Public Safety Director Lewis, Police Services Bureau Chief Jolly, and City Manager Sollenberger to try to find out what she needed to do to purchase her husband's badge; that the only response she received was from a secretary at Director Lewis' office who told her that Chief Jolly would handle this request; however, she received no response from Chief Jolly; that she contacted her attorney who called Chief Jolly; that she was then told that she could have a replica of the original badge; however, a replica has no sentimental value. Mrs. Dingess stated that she would like to know why retiring police officers are given the option to purchase their badges; that she knows that last month officer Stan Hayes resigned and was allowed to buy his original badge. Mr. Sollenberger stated that Chief Jolly told him that it is the policy of the department not to sell badges to resigning officers, although Director Lewis allowed Stan Hayes to purchase his badge; that he will find out why the department's policy was departed from for Mr. Hayes; that he would like to discuss this matter with Director Lewis and Chief Jolly before a final determination is made. Commissioner Merrill stated that he feels this matter should be referred to the City Manager with a recommendation coming back to the Commission. It was the consensus of the Commission to refer this matter to the City Manager who will make a recommendation to the Commission. Mikki Hartig, 3708 Flores Avenue, came before the Commission and stated that she wanted to discuss the $400 application fee for nominations for historic designation which was adopted by the Commission last month; that since the adoption of this fee, the Historic Preservation Board (HP) and some nonprofit historical groups in the community are working to see how they can assist in the procedures and some of the projects that the overworked City Staff has been handling. Ms. Hartig stated further that over the past couple of years, the demolition process for Code violations in the City has been stepped upi that the process in the past was that any structure 50 years of age or older (slated for demolition) goes before the Historic Preservation Board for review of a possible 45-day stay; that henceforth only Florida Master Site files that were included in the historic site survey will be reviewed by the HP Board instead of all structures 50 years of age or older. Ms. Hartig continued that the current application fee for a demolition of a structure is $100; that she suggests that with regard to City-initiated demolitions that the fee remain $100; however, asks that the Commission explore the possibility that the application fee for owner-initiated demolition for structures that are 50 years of age or older be increased to $200, with $100 of the fee placed in a revolving fund for historic preservation projects. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she feels Ms. Hartig's suggestion is a good idea; that she suggests that this issue be referred to the Administration for study. Mayor Pillot stated that he agreed. Book 35 Page 9752 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9753 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. Ms. Hartig stated that when the historic designation application fee is implemented January 1, she hopes that the plaques will be ordered expeditiously when a historic designation is completed because some people have been waiting for eight months for their plaques. 14. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - REPORT RE: JOHN RINGLING CAUSEWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT = MOTIONS OF COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 4, 1993 TO BE REPORTED AT THE MPO'S PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 25, 1993; REQUESTED FINANCE DIRECTOR TO PROVIDE DISCOUNT RATE FIGURES FOR THE NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #2 (0396) through (1284) Dennis Daughters, City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that based on the action of the Commission at the public hearing at the Commission meeting of October 4, 1993 the Administration requested the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to return to this meeting with responses to the Commission's questions. Nancy Bright, Project Manager with FDOT, and Dick Combs, Project Manager for Greiner, Inc., came before the Commission. Ms. Bright stated that the Commission had requested the following information: detailed economic analysis of the No Build alternative Mr. Combs stated that the residual value of the No Build alternative for the remaining 25 years useful life of the existing bridge is $6,827,000. Commissioner Merrill stated that 25 years is one-third of the life of a new bridge and asked whether the cost was one-third. Mr. Combs stated that the cost was not one-third; that there are some things that do not have residual value; that the figure is computed on the bridge structure, fill material, and retaining walls; that other items such as curbs, striping, sidewalks, lighting, drainage, etc. are part of the cost but do not have residual life. Commissioner Merrill stated that he finds fault with the analysis and feels it is lacking. Mr. Combs stated that the analysis used is the one prescribed by the American Association of Transportation Engineers when calculating residual value. Mayor Pillot asked why the residual value was not calculated before Commissioner Merrill raised the issue? Ms. Bright stated that the chart that FDOT presented to the task force, City, and boards of the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) was a chart of expenditures over 75 years for the bridge options; that the chart was not intended to be a life cycle cost analysis. Ms. Bright stated that one issue is that the Ringling Causeway Bridge has a structural and functional obsolescence that the decision to build a replacement or not to build a replacement is based upon other issues and is not strictly an economic decision; that the other issues include the availability of federal funds, the actual ratings, and the dependability of the bridge; that the economic part of the decision is which alternative will be built if a replacement bridge is built. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she feels that the chart of expenditures presented to a group of citizens to determine whether it was more feasible to go with a No Build alternative versus various other alternatives were meaningless as expenditures and not the way an economist would analyze or justify a decision. Mr. Combs stated that the figures on the No Build alternative were not presented in a way to allow someone to make a decision between the No Build alternative and the other alternatives; that the chart attempted to show there are dollars that need to be expended with a No Build option, which includes rehabilitation and that the maximum life available to the existing bridge is 25 years; that the chart attempted to make the playing field as level as possible. Commissioner Merrill asked how much a new bridge is expected to cost in 25 years? Mr. Combs stated that it would be $33.6 million. Commissioner Merrill asked whether a discounted cash flow analysis had been done. Mr. Combs stated it had not. Commissioner Merrill stated that the City's Finance Department knows how to calculate discounted cash flows and suggests that the Finance Department provide the figures. the maximum vertical clearance possible while maintaining a 3% grade and existing length Mr. Combs stated that if the bridge touchdowns remain the same as they are now, the maximum vertical clearance is 21 feet with 3% grade. Commissioner Merrill stated that the existing bridge is 21 feet with only a 2% grade. Ms. Bright stated that the current bridge has a 2.3% grade. Mr. Combs stated that the low member elevation between the 90 foot span of horizontal clearance is 17% feet and the peak is 21 feet; that the new 21 foot bridge option is being calculated as a clear span at 21 feet. Book 35 Page 9754 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9755 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. the maximum grade with a 28 foot vertical clearance Ms. Bright stated that they would like to modify this question by adding "with existing touchdowns." Mr. Combs stated that the grade would be 4%. A slide was displayed that showed the change in the touchdowns with the existing grade with a 28 foot bridge at a 3% grade. Mr. Combs stated that the new touchdown point of a 28 foot bridge with a 3% grade would be approximately 266 feet to the west of the existing touchdown; that the elevation of the bridge by the house on Bird Key closest to the bridge would be approximately 25 feet above the existing ground line and approximately 6 to 8 inches for the next closest house. percentage of bridge openings with a 28 foot vertical clearance compared to alternative E1 (bascule with 21 foot clearance) Ms. Bright stated that 12% less boats would require the bridge to open with a 28 foot bascule structure. Commissioner Merrill asked how the 12% less boats could be translated into bridge openings? Mr. Combs stated that if the bridge openings goes back to an "on demand" schedule, the number of openings would be reduced by 12% with a 28 foot bridge. percentage of power boats that will pass under a 28 foot bridge without requiring an opening Ms. Bright stated that the boat survey that was done did not log the types of vessels; therefore, she does not have an answer. vertical clearance and maximum grade of the bridge on SR758 (Siesta Drive) Mr. Combs stated that the bridge plans indicate that the Siesta Drive bridge has a vertical clearance of 21 feet; that the grade on the west side of the bridge is 4%; that the grade on the east side of the bridge is 2.3%; that the difference in grades is due to the fact that the Intraçoastal Waterway (ICW) is skewed closer to the west side. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that as a member of the MPO, she would like to request that an economic analysis be done by someone familiar with the type of calculations that Commissioner Merrill talked about. City Engineer Daughters stated that the MPO Technical Advisory Committee approved a motion 7 to 4 to approve a bridge with a 28 foot vertical clearance with a 3% maximum grade. Commissioner Merrill asked whether the Commission would support having the Finance Department provide the discount rate figures requested? Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she would support this. Mayor Pillot stated that he would support asking the City Manager for such a decision. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he approved requesting the Finance Director for such figures. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the MPO is holding a public hearing on Monday (October 25) and the City's position regarding the bridge replacement needs to be presented; that he recalls that the Commission preferred that the existing bridge to be repaired rather than to be replaced and asked whether that is correct? Commissioner Merrill stated that he feels the Commission's motions (from the October 4 meeting) should be reported to the MPO as stated. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS = DISCUSSION RE: PROPOSED AGENDA FOR THE NOVEMBER 22, 1993, SPECIAL MEETING REGARDING CRIME AND ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES IN THE CITY OF SARASOTA = DIRECTED THE CITY MANAGER TO INCLUDE VARIOUS SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS IN THE AGENDA AND PLAN A FOLLOW-UP MEETING TO FOCUS INTERNALLY WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT (AGENDA ITEM VII-2) #2 (1289) through (2613) City Manager Sollenberger stated that he would like the Commission to advise whether they would like any modifications to the proposed agenda for the Special City Commission Meeting of November 22, 1993 regarding crime and illegal substances in the City. Commissioner Atkins stated that if all the City wants to talk about is the corrections side of the crime issue, the proposed agenda would be good; however, crime has other causes that do not pertain to committing the crime; that when the Commission talked about a community summit on crime, he thought institutions such as the Chamber of Commerce, Sarasota Memorial Hospital, education, mental health organizations, recreation and parks organizations, Boys Club, Girls Club, YMCA, Ministerial Alliance, School Board, Argus Foundation, and the County government were to be included because everyone is needed. Commissioner Atkins continued that since a similar meeting was held last week by the Taxpayers Association, he feels the proposed agenda would be repetitious; that he feels the community needs to talk about solving problems or impacting positively on the City's future with less violent crime and less crime period in the City. Book 35 Page 9756 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9757 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Atkins stated that over the past few weeks he attended the Juvenile Commission on Crimes Task Force meeting in Clearwater Beach; that he is on the Crime Task Force for the Florida League of Cities; that everywhere he goes, people are talking about the whole picture and not just targeting crime, because crime is driven by lack of training, education, jobs, recidivism, and treatment. Mayor Pillot stated that he agrees with Commissioner Atkins that the emphasis of the meeting should be on a plan to eliminate crime in Sarasota. Commissioner Merrill stated that Commissioner Atkins is correct that the problem is much more than just the corrections side; however, he is worried that Commissioner Atkins' suggestion is taking on a Herculean effort that in reality may not be able to be delivered; that he is looking for the areas that the Commission can impact in the City of Sarasota; that he wants to hear what it is felt needs to be done from the people the City hires that are most involved in crime. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she supports what Commissioners Atkins and Merrill are saying; however, she does not believe these things can be achieved on a City-wide level unless the Commission wants to change the thrust of how monies are expended in the City of Sarasota; that if the Commission brings in the service organizations of the County that work with the youth of the community, she feels the organizations will say the programs can be expanded if the City will fund the programs. Commissioner Atkins stated that he feels the City must present the situation to the County so that the problem is faced by everyone. Commissioner Merrill stated that he feels the first step should be taken internally with the City's Police Department. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she feels the answer is how to make the solutions attractive enough so that people will reach out to help themselves; that the tools needed are not an easy equation at which to arrive. Mayor Pillot stated that he strongly supports Commissioner Atkins because he feels if organizations are not invited to the meeting, it may be felt that the City does not want them to help resolve the issues; that if various organizations are not present to hear the questions raised by law enforcement, including the FBI and others, then the community will never get the answers; that the Commission can at least be the catalyst to get the involvement underway. Commissioner Merrill stated that it takes years to change family values and the destructive nature of welfare; that if something is going to be changed short term for the safety issue, it is by law enforcement and corrections; that he feels drugs are the problem, that unemployment was high during the Depression; however, the level of crime was not as high. Commissioner Merrill stated further that he suggests that the Commission has a second meeting to ask for the perspective of the Police Department. Commissioner Atkins stated that he tells people that if it wasn't for God, his mother, and CETA (Comprehensive Education & Training Act), he would not be a City Commissioner. Commissioner Atkins continued that by progressively addressing the holistic problem, the City will need less police officers. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she would support a community meeting if the topic of discussion is limited to substance abuse because she feels it would bring the discussion to a more manageable level. Commissioner Atkins stated that he feels an agenda can be set up sO that all the people included in the proposed agenda and the people he mentioned earlier are given five to eight minutes to make presentations; that perhaps two minutes could be allowed to present the problem as they see it and five minutes to give the Commission some solutions; that this information could be pooled together to be presented to the community; that then the City Police Department could be taken to task about its part. Mayor Pillot stated that he feels family values have a great impact; that he feels the City Commission can take leadership within the community to do more to help with family values than it can to stamp out drugs. Commissioner Merrill stated that he would like a second meeting held to focus internally to ask the Police Department where money is being spent and why and how is it helping the big picture. Mayor Pillot stated that the Commission has proof at the table about family values; Commissioner Atkins is a community leader and a person who works with youth and he said that God and his mother made him what he is today. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she feels the County Sheriff should be included in the meeting on November 22. Commissioner Atkins stated that he agreed. Mr. Sollenberger stated that in summary the Commission is looking at more than one meeting; that the first meeting is to look at the holistic problem; and asked when the Public Safety Department is to present a plan to eliminate illegal substances. Commissioner Atkins stated that he thinks that the Public Safety Director can present the overall plan at the first meeting and Book 35 Page 9758 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9759 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. follow up with the "nuts and bolts" details at a subsequent meeting. It was the consensus of the Commission to agree with the suggestion of Commissioner Atkins. 16. UNFINISHED BUSINESS = REPORT RE: STATUS OF THE MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT = PEDESTALS IN THE MAIN STREET PLAZA AREA TO BE CONVERTED INTO PLANTERS; RETAINED THE 149 SHELL MEDALLIONS IN THE MAIN STREET PLAZA AREA; RECONSIDERED THE VOTE TAKEN EARLIER THIS EVENING ON THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE REPORT TO REMOVE THE SHELL MEDALLIONS FROM THE SIX ARTWORK PEDESTALS; INCLUDED THE SHELL MEDALLIONS ON THE SIX PEDESTALS EARLIER APPROVED FOR REMOVAL (AGENDA ITEM VII-3) #2 (2615) through (3449) Dennis Daughters, City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the concrete sidewalk on the north side of Main Street from Gulf Stream Avenue to Orange Avenue is completed; that the concrete sidewalk on the south side of Main Street is being removed at Orange Avenue; that the sidewalk work on the south side will proceed westerly toward Gulf Stream Avenue; that this is being done to accommodate some drainage facilities that need to be installed near Gulf Stream Avenue; that the bricks are on site and a test section will be done tomorrow on the south side of Main Street where the First Union Bank had been located; that once the methodology is acceptable to the City, the bricks will be installed beginning at Orange Avenue on the north side of Main Street. Vice Mayor Patterson left the Commission Chambers at 8:40 p.m. Mr. Daughters stated that the Commission had asked about the effects of the project on parking; that before the project there were 131 parking spaces (on Main Street) from Gulf Stream Avenue to Orange Avenue; that after the project there will be 130 parking spaces. Mr. Daughters continued that two decisions need to be made regarding the action taken on the Public Art Committee's recommendations; that a decision has been made not to put any art on the pedestals; that he needs to know whether the Commission wants the pedestals capped or turned into planters. Commissioner Atkins stated that he feels that if a flat top is put on the pedestals, kids will be jumping on them with skateboards; that he suggests turning the pedestals into planters. Vice Mayor Patterson returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:42 p.m. Mr. Daughters stated that four planter type pedestals are currently in the plan and six pedestals will have artwork on top. It was the consensus of the Commission to convert the four pedestals into planters. Mr. Daughters stated that regarding the action taken earlier this evening in accepting the recommendation of the Public Art Committee to eliminate the shell medallions on the six pedestals because there are a lot of shell medallions in locations other than the six pedestals for artwork; that a grand total of 149 shell medallions are in the area of the artwork; that he needs to know if the Commission wishes action to eliminate all the shell medallions or only on the six pedestals. Commissioner Merrill stated that he thinks eliminating the ornamentation will make it bland. Commissioner Atkins stated that he agrees. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to refer the issue of shell medallions to the Public Art Committee. Commissioner Atkins stated that he supports keeping the shell medallions. Commissioner Merrill stated that he agrees. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she wanted the shell medallions removed because she feared there was going to be artwork of a modernistic nature on top; that she is concerned that the medallions will be screwed on the way the medallions on the planters at the bayfront are. Mr. Daughters displayed a diagram of the pedestals on the overhead projector and stated that the shell medallions are precast concrete medallions affixed to the wall with epoxy; that the medallions will be somewhat recessed. Mayor Pillot called for the vote on the motion to refer the issue of shell medallions to the Public Art Committee. Motion failed (4 to 0): Atkins, noi Merrill, no; Patterson, no; Pillot, no. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to retain the 149 shell medallions. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to reconsider the vote taken earlier this evening on the Public Art Committee report to remove the shell medallions from the six artwork pedestals. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Book 35 Page 9760 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9761 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to include the shell medallions on the six pedestals earlier approved for removal. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Commissioner Atkins stated that the construction crew has been doing a great job of keeping the site clean and he wants to compliment the crew on this. Commissioner Atkins continued that he has still not seen the local labor that the company was supposed to hire. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that he received an employment report from Goodwill Industries today; that the report indicates that as of October 14, 22 people had been hired for the project; that more are to be hired today; that he will provide the Commission with a written report later this week. Commissioner Atkins asked whether the report had the names of those hired? Mr. Schneider stated that it did. Commissioner Atkins stated that he would like to see the names of those hired. Mayor Pillot stated that several weeks ago he spoke to the producers of a film being done in the area; that the producers said they were working with The Downtown Association and law enforcement to plan a Christmas parade to be part of the film. Mayor Pillot asked whether the parade was still being planned? Paul Thorpe, Executive Director of The Downtown Association, responded from the audience that he has not heard any more about the parade. Mayor Pillot asked whether the construction on the Main Street project would interfere with a parade if it comes about in mid-December? Mr. Daughters stated that construction will be underway; however, based on the schedule provided and the progress so far, he feels the majority of construction that would affect spectators at a parade would be completed by mid-December. Mayor Pillot asked whether the city Manager, along with the Engineering Department, would make sure that these types of things are coordinated with The Downtown Association and the people producing the film? Mr. Sollenberger stated that he believes a schedule has been developed for the filming which he will get in order to work out the coordination. 17. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 36 OF CITY CODE "VEHICLES FOR HIRE" - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-4) #2 (3455) through (3651) City Manager Sollenberger stated that this issue was before the Commission previously; that at that time the Commission had a variety of questions; that the Police Department, in consultation with the City Auditor and Clerk, has prepared an analysis of the proposed ordinance changes; that after having met with representatives: of the taxicab industry, the City is primarily looking at a deletion of the aspects of the regulation which involved the Police Department and the issuance of identification cards; that the responsibility for identification cards will be placed with the cab companies through the Department of Law Enforcement. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that it seems that the responsibility for enforcement is being shifted to the City Auditor and Clerk; that she would like to know where the fees mentioned will go. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the enforcement responsibility was not being shifted to his office; that before a license is issued, he will be required to make sure that each driver has had a background check; that he does not feel it will take that much more time than currently because there are certain things the cab companies must bring before a license can be issued. Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether the fees collected go into the General Fund. Mr. Robinson stated that was correct. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot I yes. 18. UNFINISHED BUSINESS = APPROVAL RE: TONY SAPRITO PIER REHABILITATION (R.F.P. #93-129) = APPROVED ADMINISTRATIONIS RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD CONTRACT TO JACKSON & ASSOCIATES GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC.; AUTHORIZED MAYOR AND CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE CONTRACT; WAIVED THE BOND REQUIREMENTS: AUTHORIZED THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE A "CHANGE ORDER" FOR DELETION OF THE BOND (AGENDA ITEM VII-5) #2 (3653) through #3 (0223) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration makes the following recommendations: (1) award the bid to Jackson & Associates, (2) waive bond requirements for a savings of $1,500, (3) partially funded through the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) reimbursements for storm damage from the March storm and approximately $29,000 from the Local Option Sales Tax. Commissioner Atkins asked whether the Administration felt comfortable with the lowest bid, since these is a considerable difference between the bids? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the City Engineer was comfortable with the negotiated bid. Commissioner Merrill stated that there were only two bids and asked whether it was felt the bids were competitive? Book 35 Page 9762 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9763 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. Dennis Daughters, Director/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that he thought the bids were the best the City could do; that the work is somewhat specialized. Ron Blago, 7442 Manatee Street, came before the Commission and stated that he is a charter captain and salt water fishing guide who works out of Hart's Landing; that it will be good to see the pier fixed in time for the season; that he is concerned about the access road which goes to the pier; that the road was washed out in the same storm that damaged the pier; that he wants to know if the small wooden dock adjacent to the access road that was destroyed will be replaced? Mr. Daughters stated that it is intended to improve the access roadway; however, not to an extreme high standard; that it is intended to replace the wooden dock also; that these repairs will be made simultaneously. Mr. Blago asked whether there is a timetable of when the project will be finished? Alexandrea Hay, Assistant City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the project is scheduled to be completed two months from now, plus or minus a week. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 19. NEW BUSINESS = DISCUSSION RE: PROPOSAL TO LOCATE A CELLULAR PHONE 150 FOOT TOWER ON A PORTION OF THE SOUTHSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROPERTY = APPROVED INITIATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD ON COORDINATION OF SCHOOL PLANNING TO INCLUDE REVIEW OF STRUCTURES IN EXCESS OF A SPECIFIC HEIGHT WITHOUT REGARD FOR SOUARE FOOTAGE: AUTHORIZED THE CITY MANAGER TO CONTACT THE SCHOOL BUPERINTENDENT AND ASK THAT A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE CITY AND SCHOOL BOARD BE CONDUCTED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) #3 (0224) through (1452) City Attorney Taylor stated that a question has arisen over the Interlocal Agreement between the City and the School Board which gives the City the right under Florida Statute to look at educational facilities when being constructed in order to make a determination that the affect of the location of said facilities is not injurious to a surrounding neighborhood; that the facility to be constructed is a 150 foot self-supporting single pole tower with a 12 by 28 foot prefabricated building to house radio equipment for the school district as well as Cellular One. Attorney Taylor continued that in his opinion, the Interlocal Agreement did not contemplate this precise type of addition on the property; that it is obvious that the Agreement is intended to give the City Commission an opportunity to check for adverse impacts when something is going to be built by way of an educational facility; therefore, his interpretation is that although the Agreement may not expressly provide for a review of this, in keeping with the intent of the Agreement and the applicable Florida Statute that the Commission ought to be given the opportunity to discuss the proposal and make a decision as to whether or not the Commission needs input on this proposal from the School Board, Cellular One, and conduct a public hearing to receive public input. Attorney Taylor stated further that he recommends that the Commission authorize his office to request an amendment to the Interlocal Agreement from the School Board sO that in the future the City can generically refer to activities of an educational nature as being anything that would adversely impact a neighborhood, whereas now there is an exemption based on square footage, which does not apply to this situation. On motion of Commissioner Merrill and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve initiation of an amendment to the Interlocal Agreement with the School Board on Coordination of School Planning to include review of structures in excess of a specific height without regard for square footage. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. City Manager Sollenberger stated that if there is a decision to proceed with the proposed project, he encourages a discussion between the City and the School Board and Cellular One for the inclusion of some communication facilities for the Police Department; that Battalion Chief Robins spoke with Mr. Rozeman of Cellular One today of the need for a UHF Police receiver antenna which could be accommodated by this tower. Attorney Charles D. Bailey, Jr., and Paul Rozeman with Cellular One, came before the Commission. Attorney Bailey stated that Mary Kumpe, the consultant for the school system in working with the neighborhood on the compatibility of the facility, is present tonight as well as Jim Crissman, Director of Information Management Central Support Services for the school system. Attorney Bailey stated that Cellular One needs a site within a specific geographic area bounded specifically by Orange Avenue, Hillview Drive, Shade Avenue, and Bee Ridge Road; that currently there is a transmitter on top of the NationsBank building; however, the southern sector of the City is not covered sufficiently. Attorney Bailey continued that the Cellular One system is used for 911 calls and disaster relief; that there are only two providers of cellular services on the west coast of Florida. Book 35 Page 9764 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9765 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. Attorney Bailey stated that Cellular One has reached agreement with school officials to place the facility on the campus of Southside School in coordination with the principal, John Spielman; that the school will receive $14,000 per year in addition to four computer learning centers; that the neighbors have been consulted three blocks north and three blocks south of the site, consistent with the City's requirement. Attorney Bailey stated that the proposed facility is technically exempt under the Interlocal Agreement by virtue of being under 1,500 square feet; that the exemption was primarily negotiated in the Interlocal Agreement toward the placement of a portable classroom; that under the Interlocal Agreement a public hearing is not required for even a new school, much less a tower. Mayor Pillot asked whether the School Board intends to hold a public hearing? Attorney Bailey stated that the School Board is required to conduct a public hearing because a lease of a small tract of land on the campus of Southside School is involved. Vice Mayor Patterson asked the diameter of the proposed pole? Mr. Rozeman stated that the base of the tower will be six feet in diameter; that the top of the tower would be three feet in diameter. Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether the proposed tower is the same tower that the Board of Adjustment turned down for a variance at the corner of Siesta Drive and U.S. 41? Mr. Rozeman stated that was correct. Attorney Bailey stated that these types of facilities are essential and must be placed within a certain area; that property zoned G Governmental) does not require a variance and is the most suitable property for this type of facility. Commissioner Atkins stated that he is concerned because Southside School has the smallest campus in the entire school system; that he thinks the rest of the schools should be offended by Southside School receiving $14,000 per year from Cellular One at the expense of everyone else; that he thinks the money should be equally distributed to all the schools. On motion of Vice Mayor Patterson and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to set this issue for public hearing with the stipulation that the same noticing criteria used for the neighborhood meeting be used. Motion failed (2 to 2): Atkins, no; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, no. Commissioner Merrill stated that he does not know of anywhere else to place the proposed tower; that he may end up voting to approve the site. Commissioner Merrill asked what would happen if the Commission voted not to allow the tower to be built anywhere? Attorney Bailey stated that the issue was level of service as the number of subscribers grows; that if the facility is of sufficient concern to the Commission, he would withdraw the School Board's request for no public hearing by the City Commission. Attorney Taylor stated that his feeling and advice to the City Manager was that at a minimum the City Commission ought to be given the opportunity to make a finding of no adverse impact. Mayor Pillot asked why an amendment to the Interlocal Agreement was necessary if the Florida Statute does not prevent the City from having a stand on such issues? Attorney Taylor stated that the area of contention is whether the tower is exempt; that his argument is based upon carrying out the intent of the State Statute as well as the spirit of the Interlocal Agreement. Jim Crissman, Director of Information Management Central Support Services for the Sarasota County School Board, came before the Commission and stated that the tower will be for joint use; that the tower will not only support cellular phone communications, but will be used in the instructional support mechanism of Southside School; that there would be corresponding towers for each of the schools within the school district for the same purpose of instructional television. Mayor Pillot asked whether it would be feasible for the City Manager to negotiate use of the tower for Police Services? Mr. Rozeman stated that would be feasible. Vice Mayor Patterson asked whether the move for provision of educational television in the school system was going to be toward towers rather than by cable or fiber optics? Mr. Crissman stated that was correct; that the school system is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to operate through microwave frequency for instructional purposes; that the facilities to deliver frequency through fiber will not be in place in a realistic time to begin utilization. Attorney Bailey stated that receiver sites are all over the County; that the transmitter site is already constructed on the campus of Sarasota County Technical Institute. Vice Mayor Patterson asked how tall the facility was at the Technical Institute? Mr. Rozeman stated that it is a 300 foot tower. Mayor Pillot asked whether the City Manager should contact the School Superintendent to request that the School Board's public hearing be held jointly with the City Commission? Attorney Bailey Book 35 Page 9766 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9767 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. stated that there is a Joint Meeting between the School Board and the City Commission scheduled for November 8. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she would like for the City to hold its own public hearing. On motion of Mayor Pillot (who passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Patterson) and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to authorize the City Manager to contact the School Superintendent and ask that the City and School Board conduct one joint public hearing for the convenience of both bodies and the public. Commissioner Merrill stated that he feels the motion for a joint public hearing would solve the concerns of the City holding a public hearing. Vice Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried (3 to 1): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, no. Vice Mayor Patterson returned the gavel to Mayor Pillot. Mayor Pillot stated that Mary Kumpe (in the audience) had stated that people living within 500 feet of the affected site were contacted in the survey undertaken by her. Mayor Pillot stated that he would like to request that the City Auditor and Clerk notify the Public Art Committee of the Commission action taken regarding the shells subsequent to the presentation made by the Chairman of the Committee. Mr. Robinson stated that he would do sO. 20. NEW BUSINESS = APPROVAL RE: SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING, A PERMIT FOR THE ERECTION OF BEACH PROTECTION DEVICES = INSTRUCTED THE CITY MANAGER TO CONSULT WITH THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT TO DETERMINE WHETHER A FEE WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR A RECOMMENDATION FROM COUNTY PERSONNEL; THAT IF THERE IS A FEE INVOLVED, ASK THE PETITIONERS TO PAY IT: SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #3 (1464) through (2416) City Manager Sollenberger stated that this item is for shoreline protection along Big Pass; that Section 6-23 (c) (2) of the Code provides "Where properties are located on the waters of the Gulf of Mexico or the waters of passes, seawalls, groins and other beach protection devices shall be erected only by special permit of the city commission, upon it being proved by the permittee at a public hearing held for such purpose that such beach protection works are necessary to prevent such erosion, are properly designed to prevent erosion of the property on which they are to be erected, and will not adversely affect adjacent and nearby properties. Mr. Sollenberger continued that the City does not have Staff expertise to advise the Commission to confirm the permittee's case as being the fact; that he recommends that the petitioner pay for a City selected consultant report relative to the requirement of Zoning Code Section 6-23 (c) (2) and set this issue for public hearing. Bill Hewes, Director of Building, Zoning, Housing and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that he contacted the petitioner to ask whether he would agree to pay for a City selected consultant; that the petitioner seemed surprised because he felt that everything that needed to be done had been done. Don and Heidi Kirchman, 3944 North Shell Road, came before the Commission. Mr. Kirchman stated that when he and his wife first decided that they wanted to place a rock revetment on their property to protect it from erosion, they came to the City Building Department and got all of the requirements as to what needed to be done; that he hired a surveyor and a consulting engineer firm, who in turn came to the City Building Department and were given the same requirements; that he and his wife, the surveyor, and the consulting engineer went through the Army Corps of Engineers and every person that the City said needed to give permission to have the revetment erected. Mr. Kirchman continued that permission was given by all contacted and permits were granted or exemptions were given; that they have spent several thousand dollars paying for certified consulting engineers and surveyors to do what the Building Department asked in preparation for a permit. Mr. Kirchman stated that he feels they have spent enough money; that he does not like other people spending his money; that if he has to pay for a consulting engineer, he prefers to choose the engineer himself; that he had asked Mr. Hewes to show him the new requirement in writing; that Mr. Hewes told him that there was no "in writing" requirement, no Code to back up the new requirement, and no ordinance for the requirement. Mr. Sollenberger stated that an expert is needed to advise the Commission in order for the Commission to make a finding that the revetment is properly designed to prevent erosion of the property. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she would like to see a diagram of which properties have rocks in this area and which ones do not. Commissioner Atkins left the Commission Chambers at 9:57 p.m. Mr. Sollenberger stated that an inlet management plan for the City was done; that the inlet management plan for this area does not frown on this type of revetment; that he thinks the plan actually supports such revetments. Book 35 Page 9768 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9769 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Atkins returned to the Commission Chambers at 9:59 p.m. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to instruct the City Manager to consult with the County government to determine whether a fee would be necessary for a recommendation from County personnel; that if there is a fee involved, ask the petitioners to pay it; and set for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. Commissioner Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 10:01 p.m. 21. NEW BUSINESS = ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 94R-690, APPROVING A PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD TO A PUBLIC STREET FROM A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 1938 SEVENTH STREET: SETTING FORTH FINDINGS; DIRECTING THAT THIS RESOLUTION BE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY:; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) #3 (2418) through (2575) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 94R-690 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Patterson, it was moved to approve proposed Resolution No. 94-690. Vice Mayor Patterson stated that as far as she knows there are no allegations of negative impact to surrounding properties; however, a division of property is facilitated that might not otherwise occur. Commissioner Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 10:03 p.m. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Code requires City Commission approval of private access roads; that he believes that the standard to be looked at is whether or not the proposed development utilizing a private access road out of necessity will adversely impact a neighborhood or will it promote the development of the neighborhood; that the Planning Department and the Building Department determined that this did not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (3 to 1): Atkins, yes; Merrill, no; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 22. NEW BUSINESS = ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 94R-689, REQUESTING SARASOTA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISBIONERS TO REQUEST THE UNITED STATES CORPS OF ARMY ENGINEERS TO COMMENCE THE 1993/94 MAINTENANCE DREDGING OF NEW PASS IMMEDIATELY; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-4) #3 (2576) through (2632) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 94R-689 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Merrill, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 94R-689. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): : Atkins, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 23. BOARD APPOINTMENTS - SELECTION RE: TWO CITY RESIDENT MEMBERS TO THE SARASOTA COUNTY STORMWATER ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITIES ADVISORY BOARD = SELECTED EVA J. SMITH AND JAMES O. RUSSELL, JR. (AGENDA ITEM IX) #3 (2635) through (2732) Vice Mayor Patterson stated that she nominated Eva J. Smith to the Stormwater Environmental Utilities Advisory Board because of her substantial background in community service and environmental issues endorsed by the League of Women Voters of Sarasota County. Commissioner Merrill stated that he nominated James O. Russell, Jr. and Phillip J. Smith to the Stormwater Environmental Utilities Advisory Board. Mayor Pillot asked who supported Eva Smith. Vice Mayor Patterson, Commissioner Atkins, and Mayor Pillot answered in the affirmative. Mayor Pillot asked who supported Jim Russell. Commissioner Merrill, Commissioner Atkins, and Vice Mayor Patterson answered in the affirmative. 24. REMARKS OF COMMISBIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA = REQUESTED A CURFEW FOR NORTH LIDO BEACH PARK AND KEN THOMPSON PARK CONSISTENT WITH THE CURFEWS OF OTHER CITY AND COUNTY PARKS AND BEACHES (AGENDA ITEM X) #3 (2735) through (3006) VICE MAYOR PATTERSON: A. stated that she feels the City spends substantially more per capita on health care than the other members of Healthcare Sarasota; that she would like a further analysis of the reason for this; that perhaps this analysis could be presented to the Commission in February at the Commission Workshop on Benefits. Book 35 Page 9770 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. Book 35 Page 9771 10/18/93 6:00 P.M. B. stated that approximately six to eight months ago a resident of Lido Shores suggested that North Lido Park be given the same type of curfew that other beaches in the County have; that she recently received a letter from the Director of Lido Shores requesting that a curfew be enacted because of "public nudity, sexual intercourse in the park, loud music, screaming in the night, and fires set in the woods. Commissioner Merrill stated that the curfew at Ken Thompson Park is 8:00 p.m. which he feels is too early. Commissioner Atkins stated that he was against the 8:00 p.m. curfew at Ken Thompson Park right from the beginning. It was the consensus of the Commission to request enacting a curfew for North Lido Beach Park and Ken Thompson Park to be consistent with the curfews of other City and County parks and beaches. COMMISSIONER ATKINS: None COMMISSIONER MERRILL: None MAYOR PILLOT: A. stated that he wanted to commend Police Chief Jolly for his careful attention and solid action on policing; that he wanted to thank Chief Jolly for sending copies of memorandums to the Commission. 25. OTHER MATTERS /ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) #3 (3007) through (3037) CITY MANAGER SOLLENBERGER: None CITY ATTORNEY TAYLOR: None CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: A. stated that he wanted to remind the Commission that there will be a Workshop on Solid Waste in the afternoon on Tuesday, October 26; that on October 28 there will be the Special Commission Meeting on the Comprehensive Plan at 7:00 p.m. 26. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #3 (3040) The Regular Meeting of the Sarasota City Commission of October 18, 1993 was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. R GENE M.. PILLOT, MAYOR ATTEST: Billy E Rebenson BILLY EG ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK Book 35 Page 9772 10/18/93 6:00 P.M.