BOOK 37 Page 11273 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 1995, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Nora Patterson, Vice Mayor David Merrill, Commissioners Fredd Atkins, Mollie Cardamone and Gene Pillot, City Manager David Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Nora Patterson 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. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 19, 1994, MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 1994, AND MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 30, 1994 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0030) through (0035) Mayor Patterson asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes. Hearing no changes, Mayor Patterson stated that the minutes of the regular City Commission meeting of December 19, 1994, and the minutes of the special City Commission meetings of December 12, 1994, and November 30, 1994, were approved by unanimous consent. 2. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED #1 (0035) through (0077) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Remove under Public Hearings, Item No. IV-2, Resolution No. 95R-782, making certain findings as to Petition No. 95-MI-01; to convey certain real property referred to as East Avenue, etc., per the request of the petitioner James E. Toale, as agent for Samuel Zell, Trustee. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that this resolution will be rescheduled for public hearing on January 17, 1995. B. Remove under Unfinished Business, Item No. VII-1, Proposed Ordinance No. 94-3818, regarding vehicle valet service, per the request of City Attorney Taylor C. Remove under Consent Agenda No. 2, Item No. III-B-2, Resolution No. 95R-777. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Resolution No. 95R-777 has already been adopted. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 3. BOARD ACTIONS REPORT RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1994 REPORT ACCEPTED: AFFIRMED THE PBLP APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION 95-SE-1; SET PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3836 FOR PUBLIC HEARING; ISSUE OF PBLP AUTHORITY TO SET PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE PBLP REFERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR A REPORT BACK: TABLED MOTION TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO WATER ATTENUATION UNTIL A REPORT CLARIFYING THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE IS RECEIVED FROM THE PBLP (AGENDA ITEM II-1) #1 (0077) through (1202) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Judson Boedecker, Chairman of the Planning Board/Local Planning (PBLP) Agency, came before the Commission. Mr. Boedecker presented the following items from the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency's regular meeting of December 7, 1994: A. Special Exception Petition 95-SE-1 Mr. Boedecker stated that the special exception is to permit two existing adult care homes (Beverly's Geri-Inn, Beverly's Geri Inn Too) to expand to 12 residents each; that the parcels located at 15 Dade Avenue and 16 St. Lucie Avenue are zoned Residential Single Family (RSF-2); that the PBLP found Special Exception Petition 95-SE-1 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommends Commission approval. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends affirmation of the PBLP approval. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to affirm the PBLP approval of Special Exception Petition 95-SE-1. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. B. Ordinance No. 94-3836 - Package Liquor Stores BOOK 37 Page 11274 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11275 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. Mr. Boedecker stated that William Hewes, former Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, originally recommended that the definition of package stores be changed to exclude supermarkets, drug stores and convenience stores; that Mr. Hewes' proposal was perceived as too aggressive; that the PBLP preferred exempting package stores located within any Commercial Shopping Center Zone District from the distance requirements found in Section 6-25(c) of the Zoning Code; that the large parking lots surrounding shopping centers provide the required buffering to residential areas; that the PBLP found Ordinance No. 94-3836 consistent with the Sarasota City Plan and recommends Commission approval; that the approval was recommended (3 to 2) with Members Annis and Lindsay voting "no" because they felt the issue warranted a public hearing before the PBLP for additional input. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the PBLP's recommendation was to eliminate the distance requirement only in the large commercial shopping centers? Mr. Boedecker stated that CSC-N (Neighborhood), CSC-C (Community), and CSC-R (Regional) Zone Districts would be exempted. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the statement of "large parking lots" providing the required buffering from residential neighborhoods may not be accurate in the all the CSC Zone Districts. Ms. Robinson stated that the smallest of the three CSC Zone District designations is the CSC-N which requires a minimum of 10 acres; that Colonial Shopping Center on Lime Avenue at Fruitville Road and the shopping center on Ringling Boulevard at Lime Avenue are two of the smaller shopping centers that would be exempted. Commissioner Cardamone stated that portions of large shopping centers are also located in close proximity to schools and neighborhoods. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends setting proposed Ordinance No. 94-3836 for public hearing. Mayor Patterson stated that she attended the Coalition of city Neighborhoods meeting at which the proposed ordinance was obliquely addressed; that the issue resolved by the PBLP was unclear; that the Coalition of City Neighborhoods have suggested that churches and schools be notified of the public hearing; that this request should not create a burden on the Administration; that an adequate mailing list of churches could be obtained from the yellow pages. Mr. Boedecker stated that the proposed ordinance is restricted only to those establishments selling beer and wine as an accessory use, i.e., Kash-N-Karry. Mayor Patterson stated that the Zoning Code identifies a store, i.e., Publix, as a package store which it clearly is not; that the proposed ordinance is reasonable; however, the distance requirement as it pertains to schools and churches would be eliminated; therefore, those entities should be noticed. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to set proposed Ordinance No. 94-3836 for Public Hearing. Mr. Sollenberger cited the following from the memorandum from Mark D. Singer, City Attorney's Office, dated 11/16/94. This proposed ordinance exempts package liquor stores for the sale of alcoholic beverages located in CSC-N, CSC-C, or CSC-R Zoning Districts. Mayor Patterson asked if that means a complete package store selling any kind of liquor would be allowed within a shopping center? Mr. Sollenberger stated that his initial understanding was that beer, wine, and liquor would be allowed; that the memorandum as cited indicates the same interpretation. Mr. Sollenberger asked City Attorney Taylor for comment. City Attorney Taylor cited the following from page 2 of the ordinance drafted on 10/26/94: The distance restrictions set forth in subsection (c) shall not be applicable to package stores for the sale of alcoholic beverages located in the CSC-N, CSC-C or CSC-R zoning districts. City Attorney Taylor stated that the proposed ordinance as drafted is not restrictive to beer and wine. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the presentation has been unclear; and asked if further information will be provided by the Administration at the public hearing? Ms. Robinson stated that the ordinance originated from the Building and Zoning Department; that Timothy Litchet, Acting Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, will be making the presentation at the public hearing. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Southgate Publix relocation issue, relating to the sale of beer and wine, and the Midtown Plaza restaurant issue, relating to an adjacent, upscale, beer and wine store, have driven the development of this ordinance; that a good presentation is necessary for the Commission to make a proper BOOK 37 Page 11276 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11277 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. decision; that the language is apparently simple; however, the ramifications should be known so "flood gates" are not opened as the City attempts to accommodate some legitimate and very limited needs. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion to set proposed Ordinance No. 94-3836 for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson stated that PBLP minutes continually indicate that City Commission approval is necessary for a public hearing to be set before the PBLP; that the time frame associated with the Southgate Publix relocation issue made it impossible for the PBLP to request permission from the Commission, subsequently hold a public hearing on the matter, and present a finding to the Commission in a timely manneri that the PBLP should be allowed to schedule their own public hearings on tough and controversial issues. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Commission previously requested an Administrative review of the PBLP procedure relative to setting PBLP public hearings. Mayor Patterson stated that there was a consensus of the Commission to refer the issue to the Administration for a report back on actions taken by the Commission relating to the PBLP's authority to set public hearings before themselves. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he does not recall the Commission placing restrictions on the PBLP with respect to holding hearings; however, the Administration will provide the Commission with a report for clarification. C. Retention Ponds Mr. Boedecker stated that the issue of retention ponds was addressed because of the pending Walgreens Plaza rezoning petition; that members of the PBLP have been concerned with commercial projects utilizing adjoining residentially zoned property to meet stormwater retention or parking requirements; that the PBLP requests an ordinance be prepared to address appurtenances such as retention ponds or landscaping which might be required by the Zoning Code or Land Development Regulations; that the PBLP felt this issue was significant and should not be delayed until the comprehensive update of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) takes place; that the PBLP voted unanimously to proceed with a code amendment to address the use of residentially zoned land for water attenuation by commercial projects. Mayor Patterson asked if the PBLP's intent is to have a code amendment prepared to allow or disallow the activity? Mr. Boedecker stated that the PBLP has not made a decision; however, the tenor seemed to be headed in the direction of disallowing the activity. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the opinion of the former Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, was that storm water retention on residential property is not a land use; however, the City Attorney rendered the opinion that it was a land use decision; and asked for discussion on the proposed Walgreens Plaza issue. Mr. Boedecker stated that the PBLP recognizes that the requested code amendment would not pertain to the pending Walgreens Plaza petition; that the issue is being addressed to prevent similar situations from occurring in the future. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Zoning Code contains no express wording to address the water attenuation question raised; that William Hewes, as the Building and Zoning Administrator, had ruled previously on another project and, again, made the determination regarding the proposed Walgreens Plaza that water retention is a utility, and, therefore, not a land use; that the proposed Walgreens Plaza development proceeded based on that determination; that several months later, the propriety of Mr. Hewes' interpretation regarding the water attenuation was questioned, and an opinion from the City Attorney's office was requested; that the opinion from the City Attorney's office was contrary to that of Mr. Hewes. City Attorney Taylor continued that the request for a code amendment is to include specific language in the Zoning Code relating to a commercial development using residential property for water retention purposes in the future; that substantial legal issues exist as to the integrity of the process and the application of the City Attorney's opinion; that the code amendment is not being requested for applicability to the proposed Walgreens Plaza development which has progressed based on Mr. Hewes' interpretation. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the error which was made should be corrected prior to the proposed Walgreens Plaza development progressing further with its site plan; that residential property should be used for the location of houses. City Attorney Taylor stated that his memorandum of October 26, 1994, in response to the question of whether the position taken by the City Attorney's office on the water retention issue could be enforced is included in the agenda packet; that based on review of all the issues raised on behalf of the property owner and developer, his response was, "no"; that the attorneys for the BOOK 37 Page 11278 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11279 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. owners and developers of Walgreens Plaza interposed strong objections to applying the City Attorney's interpretation based on the timing of the opinion with reference to the planning of the subject project, and the legality of a change in the City's position five months after the property owner had acted in reliance upon Mr. Hewes' interpretation which was confirmed in writing; that Mr. Hewes strongly felt his determination from a building official's standpoint was the correct interpretation. City Attorney Taylor continued that he has recently received information from an attorney, on behalf of concerned persons that reside in the area of the subject development, who feels the result of a lawsuit would be favorable to the City; that the issue is a legal matter; that he made a judgment call; that when his memorandum was written, he did not feel the City had a strong enough case to support litigation. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he can foresee problems if retention ponds are allowed on residential property; however, certain areas of the City, i.e., Fruitville Road, have commercial projects which abut single-family areas; that undeveloped land could serve as a buffer in those types of situations; that circumstances and the areas in which residentially zoned property could be used for water retention purposes as a buffer should be considered. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the City's position on this matter should be pursued since there was a disagreement between Mr. Hewes and City Attorney Taylor; that she agrees with Vice Mayor Merrill regarding situations similar to Fruitville Road; however, residential property within the City is at a premium; that residential property used for water retention should be considered as a land use. Commissioner Cardamone continued that her involvement in the water retention issue relating to the proposed Walgreens Plaza started when Mr. Hewes first rendered his opinion, prior to the initiation of a site and development plan; therefore, she is not involved in any Snyder conditions in bringing the subject up for discussion; that the Commission needs to further review the City's position regarding the Walgreens Plaza issue. Mayor Patterson stated that background information on water retention interpretations from both City and County jurisdictions should be provided when the code amendment is brought before the Commission for consideration. Commissioner Pillot asked if the requested code amendment would stop the proposed development on the U.S. 41/Bahia Vista Street property? City Attorney Taylor stated that the code amendment would not stop the proposed Walgreens Plaza development. Commissioner Pillot asked if the subject property would be exempt from a code amendment if adopted? City Attorney Taylor stated that is correct; that it is highly probable that a change in law with regard to a developer who has reached a certain point in a process would be ruled invalid as applied to that particular development; that the water retention issue should be addressed and clarified in the Zoning Code for future use, but should not be applied to the subject site. Mayor Patterson stated that the Commission is being asked to authorize development of a code amendment that will not affect the referenced property; that a second issue relates to what position the City should take regarding its previous interpretations of the Zoning Code which is an issue that would apply to the referenced property. city Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration supports the PBLP's recommendation to proceed with clarification of water retention areas in the Zoning Code by preparing an ordinance. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to request the City Attorney's office to prepare the appropriate ordinance and set for public hearing before the PBLP. Mayor Patterson restated the motion as to request the City Attorney's office to prepare an ordinance to clarify that residential land cannot be used as a retention area for commercial projects. Mr. Boedecker stated that the PBLP has not made a decision on the direction of the ordinance; that the PBLP decision will be based on public and City Staff input. Mayor Patterson stated that the PBLP should meet prior to requesting the City Attorney to draft an ordinance. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to table the motion until the PBLP reports back to the Commission with more specifics for inclusion in an ordinance. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to accept the report of the PBLP's regular meeting of December 7, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson stated that the Chairman of the Public Art Committee is present to make a Board Report; however, it is past 6:30 p.m., the time scheduled for public hearings; and asked City Auditor and Clerk Robinson if there were members of the public signed up to speak at the public hearings? BOOK 37 Page 11280 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11281 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that at this time, no one has signed up to speak at any of the scheduled public hearings; therefore, hearing the Public Art Committee report at this time would be acceptable. There was a consensus of the Commission to postpone the public hearings until after the Public Art Committee Board report is received. 4. BOARD ACTIONS: REPORT RE: PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE'S REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 30, 1994 - REPORT ACCEPTED; SET ORDINANCE NO. 94-3824 FOR PUBLIC HEARING WITH REVISIONS TO BE MADE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE ADMINISTRATION (AGENDA ITEM II-2) #1 (1245) through (2204) Jane Robinson, Director of Planning and Development, and Leslie Ahlander, Public Art Committee Chairman, came before the Commission. Ms. Ahlander presented the following items from the Public Art Committee's (PAC) regular meeting of November 30, 1994: A. Ordinance No. 94-3824 Ms. Ahlander stated that proposed Ordinance No. 94-3824 amends the Zoning Code pertaining to the Public Art Program and reflects recommendations that were proposed in the Aesthetic Enrichment Plan; that the PAC reviewed the proposed ordinance; that two changes were proposed relating to the removal of public art and the replacement of public art once it is removed; that the PAC requests that a public hearing be scheduled as soon as possible. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to set Public Art Ordinance No. 94-3824 for public hearing. Mayor Patterson stated that the proposed ordinance requires that 0.5 percent of public structure expenditures, i.e., parking lots and parks, be dedicated to public art; that she questions why the same demand is not being made on private facilities. Mayor Patterson continued that the proposed ordinance provides the Public Art Committee with the sole authority to approve privately funded public art on a public site; that, for example, a piece of artwork funded by RISCORP for location in Five Points Park would be approved by the PAC with the Commission having no "veto" power. Ms. Ahlander stated that she assumed the PAC's approval would be referred to the Commission automatically. Mayor Patterson stated that the intention stated by Ms. Ahlander should be included in the ordinance. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he has similar concerns; that approval of public art should not delay issuance of building permits to a private developer who has substantial investment in a project; that his concerns have not been resolved; that he is not convinced that public art mandates which are common in cities across America have created an excellence in public art; that in order to gain his support, the ordinance should put forth the Aesthetic Master Plan as an advisory document urging developers to display public art. Mayor Patterson asked if there is currently an ordinance in effect mandating a 0.5 percent contribution of a private enterprise to public art on their own premises and gives the PAC, together with the property owner, the sole authority to approve that public art? Ms. Robinson stated that the ordinance referenced is applicable in the Central Business District and Theater and Arts District. Commissioner Pillot stated that he agrees with Vice Mayor Merrill; that he is not supportive of the ordinance in its total, present form; that more of an advisory aspect should be included. Mayor Patterson stated that there is a three Commissioner consensus that art being placed on public land come before the Commission for approval. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she supports giving the PAC with their professional view of art the authority to make decisions concerning public art on private property; however, the final decision for public art on public property should rest with the Commission. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion to set Public Art Ordinance No. 94-3824 for public hearing. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. B. Presentation of sculpture for Bayiront Park Ms. Ahlander stated that at the May 2, 1994, City Commission meeting, Virginia Hoffman, Artist, was given six months to produce models and raise private funding for a sculpture at Bayfront Park; that the time period ended on November 2, 1994; that no report was made to the Commission subsequent to November 2; that on December 22, 1994, the Engineering Department advised that the $12,000 previously available for public art at Bayfront Park was committed for other purposes; that the PAC feels sculpture is necessary at the Bayfront area; and requests Commission consideration of a sculpture project in the future if funding becomes available. BOOK 37 Page 11282 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11283 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. Mayor Patterson stated that funding is no longer available; that the Commission is not in a position to address public art at the Bayfront at this time. Commissioner Cardamone asked for clarification of the purposes for which the funds earmarked for public art were used? City Manager Sollenberger stated that a change was processed with the Economic Development Administration (EDA) for use of the funding in other areas of the project when Virginia Hoffman failed to produce a proposal and a model prior to the expiration of the 6- month time frame initiated by the Commission; that the Administration feels the issue is closed. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated $20,000 was originally allotted for artwork; that 80 percent of the funding came from the EDA; that $11,825 was applied to art or items classified as art; that the remaining $8,175 was reverted to the General Fund and was expended on other elements of the project. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the six-month period for the artist recently expired; however, no funds are available for public art at the Bayfront if the Commission's desire was to go forward with a project. Mr. Sollenberger stated that art of little significance could be created with the meager amount of funding budgeted; that the budget was originally estimated based on a fish/fountain concept; that the fountain area demands signature pieces of artwork; that the cost for signature artwork far exceeds the $8,000 of funding which remained; that the fountain area should be designated as suitable for public art; that a benefactor may wish to contribute public art to that area in the future. C. Van Wezel sculpture base and Memory Path Ms. Ahlander stated that coloring of the Van Wezel sculpture base has been resolved to the satisfaction of the Van Wezel Foundation and the artist. Ms. Ahlander distributed copies of a letter received from Athena Tacha, creator of the Memory Path artwork, displayed an aerial view slide of the Memory Path at Five Points Park on the overhead projector, and stated that the Memory Path was featured in an exhibition by Lucy Lippard, Contemporary Critic. Ms. Ahlander continued that many lawsuits by artists have been won regarding changes or movement of their artwork; that Ms. Tacha has expressed she does not want the Memory Path relocated. Mayor Patterson asked for clarification of the resolution reached regarding the Van Wezel sculpture? Ms. Ahlander stated that the sculpture has been polished with the base painted a grayish shade of purple darker than the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) building; that the lighting has been improved; that the artist and the Van Wezel Foundation have been informed that the City is responsible for the maintenance of the sculpture. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City has performed work in the sculpture area; however, it is his understanding that the Van Wezel Foundation has underwritten the maintenance costs. Ms. Ahlander stated that David Davis, creator of the Van Wezel sculpture, wrote numerous letters to the Van Wezel Foundation; that none of the letters were acknowledged since the Foundation did not realize the upkeep was their responsibility; that the Foundation did not forward the letters to the City so the issue could be resolved; that the responsibility of maintenance needs to be clarified. Commissioner Pillot referenced the base of the sculpture and cited the following from the minutes of the PAC meeting of November 30, 1994: Mr. Kowal confirmed that it was added after the original installation. He stated that it was added by the artist and not by Van Wezel. Commissioner Pillot stated that the statement is inaccurate; that an artist does not have authority to add something to public property; that the base was designed and sculptured by the artist with approval of the officials that govern the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall. Commissioner Pillot continued that he compliments, commends, and agrees with the statements of Ms. Ahlander, as reflected in the minutes, that PAC meetings should not be used to air personal grievances which are then written into the minutes as though representing the feeling of the entire Committee; and that the PAC's time should not be taken up with extraneous matters that do not relate to the agenda. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to accept the report of the PAC's regular meeting of November 30, 1994. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson requested City Auditor and Clerk Robinson to explain the public hearing process. Mr. Robinson stated that at this time petitioners have 15 minutes to address the Commission and BOOK 37 Page 11284 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11285 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. 5 minutes for rebuttal; that any citizen who has signed up to speak has 5 minutes. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3841, TO CONDITIONALLY REZONE FROM RMF-5 ZONE DISTRICT TO G ZONE DISTRICT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: LOT 11, BLOCK 12 AND LOT 11, BLOCK 13, ST. ARMANDS DIVISION OF JOHN RINGLING ESTATES AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 30 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA AND THAT PORTION OF FILLMORE DRIVE VACATED BY ORDINANCE 95-3842 AND, APPROVING PRELIMINARY SITE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN 94-R IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE CONBTRUCTION OF A SURFACE PUBLIC PARKING LOT IN A G ZONE DISTRICT, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN: ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-CR-CO-10, CITY OF SARASOTA) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-I-A) AND 6. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING RE: SECOND READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3842, TO VACATE A PORTION OF FILLMORE DRIVE (80 FEET WIDE) EXTENDING FROM THE SERVICE ALLEY TO THE WEST OF LOT 11, BLOCK 12, AND THE SERVICE ALLEY NORTHWEST OF LOT 11, BLOCK 13, TO THE INTERSECTION OF MONROE DRIVE AND S. ADAMS DRIVE, LYING WITHIN THE ST. ARMANDS DIVISION OF JOHN RINGLING ESTATES SUBDIVISION, PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 30 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA; MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN: ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-CR-SV-03. CITY OF SARASOTA) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-I-B) #1 (2204) through (2379) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Commission previously passed proposed Ordinance Nos. 95-3841 and 95-3842 on first reading and continued the public hearing to second reading; that the ordinances pertain to the following: 1. Rezoning of the multi-family property to the Governmental (G) Zone District; 2. A preliminary site and development plan (PS&D) in conjunction with Item #1; 3. Vacating the segment of Fillmore Drive which bisects the two, triangular pieces of property; Mr. Sollenberger continued that materials requested by the Commission between first and second readings have been provided. Mayor Patterson re-opened the public hearings on proposed Ordinance Nos. 95-3841 and 95-3842. Mayor Patterson stated that the information sheet explaining what had been presented to the St. Armands Neighborhood Association was inadvertently omitted from the December 19, 1994, Agenda packets; that the information sheet has been forwarded to the St. Armands Residents Association; that Nancy Cook, President of the St. Armands Residents Association, has confirmed receipt of the document and that it satisfies their concerns raised at the December 19 meeting. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed both public hearings. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance Nos. 95- 3841 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot, and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance Nos. 95-3841. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance Nos. 95- 3842 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Pillot, and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance Nos. 95-3842. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 7. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 94-3837, AMENDING CHAPTER 24, PERSONNEL, ARTICLE II, PENSIONS, DIVISION 2, FIRE, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; AMENDING SECTION 24-44 OF THE CODE TO PROVIDE FOR A TWO STEP CLAIMS PROCEDURE: PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID: PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT: ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-3) #2 (2386) through (0296) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson, Fire Pension Board Secretary/ Treasurer, stated that the Sarasota City Code currently provides for a three step procedure for firefighters filing a claim for benefits; that the Fire Board Attorney recommended a housekeeping measure to combine steps one and two as one step; that proposed BOOK 37 Page 11286 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11287 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. Ordinance No. 94-3837 simplifies the language and provides for a two step procedure for filing a claim for benefits. Commissioner Pillot asked if the Fire Pension Board supports the change? Mr. Robinson responded yes. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends adoption. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 94-3837 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins, and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 94-3837 on first reading. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 8. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3847, AMENDING CHAPTER 16 OF THE SARASOTA CITY CODE, RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE, ARTICLE II, COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS AND SOLID WASTE, TO AMEND THE IMPOSITION OF CHARGES PER MONTH FOR THE COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE; AMENDING CHAPTER 37, WATER AND SEWERS, ARTICLE II, RATES AND CHARGES, TO AMEND THE UNIT OF MEASUREMENT FOR GALLONAGE CHARGES FOR WATER CONSUMED; TO AMEND THE ASSESSMENT OF MONTHLY UNIT SERVICE CHARGES; TO PROVIDE THAT WATER AND SEWER SERVICE SHALL BE DISCONNECTED FOR NON-PAYMENT SIXTY DAYS AFTER RENDITION OF THE DELINQUENT BILL: TO PROVIDE THE CITY MANAGER WITH DISCRETION TO LENGTHEN THE TIME PERIOD PRIOR TO DISCONNECTION: TO SPECIFY THE RATE OF INTEREST ASSESSED ON UNPAID WATER AND SEWER SERVICE BILLS; PROVIDING THAT A LIEN AGAINST PROPERTY FOR UNPAID WATER AND SEWER BILLS SHALL BE DISCRETIONARY, RATHER THAN MANDATORY; PROVIDING CONDITIONS FOR LETTERS OF CREDIT IN LIEU OF A CASH DEPOSIT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY OF PARTS HEREOF IF DECLARED INVALID; PROVIDING FOR REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT: ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH LANGUAGE TO BE ADDED BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READINGS; ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE AT SECOND READING THE AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF BY THE CITY LAST YEAR FOR UNCOLLECTED ACCOUNTS; (AGENDA ITEM IV-4) #1 (2471) through #2 (0296) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the last annual external audit of the City identified concerns in utility billing practices and related inconsistencies with the existing City Code. William Hallisey, Facilities Operation Manager, and Duane Mountain, Streets, Landscape Maintenance & Solid Waste Manager, Public Works Department, came before the Commission. Mr. Mountain stated that proposed Ordinance No. 95-3847 will do the following: 1. Ensure utility billing practices are consistent with City Code; 2. Ensure no conflicts exist with long-standing utility billing practices for Solid Waste/Water & Sewer; and 3. Provide consistency with utility billing practices of other local Utilities. Mr. Mountain continued that a revised Utility Billing Office Procedures Manual is being completed with a final draft expected by April 30, 1995; that the proposed ordinance does not affect the current rate structure. Mr. Hallisey stated that the proposed ordinance addresses deposits and the following two areas: 1. Billing Mr. Hallisey stated that currently, Solid Waste customers are charged on a monthly basis for service provided in excess of 15 days; that the charge is assessed in arrears; that the proposed code amendment specifies that charges per month be assessed for any month the account is active for five days or more and payable in advance. Mr. Hallisey continued that currently, the gallonage charged to Water & Sewer customers monthly for actual use is rounded down to the nearest thousand gallons of use; that the final bill is rounded up to the nearest thousand gallons of use; that the proposed code amendment specifies that charges per month for actual use be rounded down to the nearest hundred gallons of use, and the final bill rounded up to the nearest hundred gallons of use; that this provides the customer with a more accurate bill reflecting actual usage. Mr. Hallisey further stated that the Water & Sewer Monthly Service Charge is currently billed if service has been provided for 15 days or greater without regard to actual number of gallons used; that the proposed code amendment specifies that the Water & Sewer BOOK 37 Page 11288 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11289 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. Monthly Service Charge be assessed for any month the account is active for 5 days or more and payable in advance for all new customers; that the charge will be assessed if 1000 gallons of water is used regardless of the number of days service has been provided. 2. Failure to Pay Charges Mr. Hallisey stated that some of the administrative practices currently utilized have been identified as inconsistent with the City Code; therefore, an attempt has been made to codify those practices; that the existing Code requires that service be disconnected for failure to pay charges within 30 days of billing; that 30 days is not a practical period in which to notify customers of disconnection; that the proposed code amendment extends that time period to 60 days; that language has been included to allow the city Manager discretion to extend the payment period in excess of 60 days in cases of financial hardship; that the guidelines for discretionary decision will be included in the revised Utility Billing Office Procedures Manual. Mr. Hallisey continued that customers with aged accounts have aggressively been pursued; that the number of aged accounts has been reduced by 20% in the last year. Mr. Hallisey further stated that the Code currently allows for the assessment of interest on unpaid charges for water, sewer, and solid waste service; however, the Code does not specify the amount of interest to be charged; that the proposed code amendment specifies that unpaid charges for water and sewer services shall accrue interest at the rate set by the Comptroller of the State of Florida, pursuant to Florida Statutes 55.03. Commissioner Atkins asked if the City can charge interest on an amount owed after service has been disconnected? Mr. Hallisey responded yes; and stated that, currently, any payment owed in excess of 30 day can be assessed an interest charge. Commissioner Atkins asked if assessing interest is a current City practice? Mr. Hallisey responded no. Commissioner Atkins asked if the proposed ordinance specifies the City will begin charging interest? Mr. Hallisey stated that the code amendment specifies the amount of interest to be charged; and basically sets forth that the City will commence the practice of assessing interest. Commissioner Atkins stated that customers' payments become delinquent when it is difficult to pay the current billing; that assessing interest will create a greater hardship. Commissioner Cardamone asked for clarification of the interest rate being proposed. Mr. Hallisey stated that the rate currently set by the Comptroller of the State of Florida is 1.0 percent per month; that the average customer using 5000 gallons of water monthly would be assessed approximately 60 to 65 cents per month. Mayor Patterson asked if the percentage set by the Comptroller is a mandated or allowable amount? Mr. Hallisey stated it is an allowable amount. Mayor Patterson stated that interest assessments serve as an incentive to pay bills on time; that entities typically charge interest on payments in arrears. Commissioner Pillot asked if the ordinance will refer to a rate established by a State agency rather than a specified amount, thereby allowing the rate to be adjusted as with "floating" interest rates? Mr. Hallisey stated that is correct. Mayor Patterson asked for the amount carried in the aged-accounts referenced as being reduced by 20 percent? Mr. Hallisey stated that approximately $141,000 was 60 days in arrears as of last month; that the amount is considered low for an annual revenue of approximately $26 million. Commissioner Pillot stated that the proposed ordinance properly provides the City Manager the authority to extend payment periods when he recognizes a justified reason and documented hardship; that in circumstances of legitimate hardship the City Manager should have the authority to waive interest. Commissioner Cardamone asked if a waiver of interest is included in the City Manager's discretionary authority pertaining to hardships? Mr. Sollenberger cited the following language proposed for Section 37-25, Failure to pay charges; Unpaid charges for water and sewer services shall accrue interest at the rate set by the Comptroller of the State of Florida, pursuant to Florida Statute 55.03. Mr. Sollenberger stated that his interpretation is that the charges will accrue interest with no discretion applicable; that the Code currently provides that interest may be charged at a rate set by BOOK 37 Page 11290 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11291 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. the City Commission; that non-assessment of interest was one of the items identified by the external auditors; that the proposed language is the Administration's recommendation to address the audit finding. Mayor Patterson stated that she expressed her concerns regarding the City Manager's discretionary authority at the December 19, 1994, meeting, when this ordinance was set for public hearing; that she spoke with Mr. Sollenberger on the subject subsequently; that discretion has been used in the past and should be allowed; that she understands the City Manager's desire to have the discretion codified so he is not overstepping his bounds by exercising discretion, but she has a real discomfort with the open-endedness of the ordinance; that the Administration's intent to include discretionary guidelines in the procedures manual is clear; however, reference should be inserted in the ordinance to require the City Manager to promulgate procedures that will become part of the City's policy. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he discussed the suggestion with the City Attorney; that inclusion of such language would be appropriate and could be included between first and second readings; that he recommends the proposed ordinance be amended as follows: The City Manager will promulgate administrative regulations dealing with the exercise of discretion for the time extension. Mayor Patterson stated that she is comfortable with that language. Commissioner Pillot stated that he supports the language. Commissioner Pillot asked if there was Commission support to add to the administrative regulations procedures by which the City Manager could waive interest payments? Mayor Patterson stated that the intent of the discretionary authority is to provide a customer, who is temporarily out of work or has experienced a hardship, with the opportunity to arrange a payment schedule on arrearage; that she does not think interest assessments should be waived; however, she is not affixed to assessing 1.0 percent monthly. Commissioner Cardamone stated that non-assessment of interest is a bonus received for paying bills on time; that interest should be assessed on late payments, regardless of the reason; that she is not interested in waiving the 1.0 percent interest. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the interest should be assessed if it is part of the ordinance. Vice Mayor Merrill asked for the total amount in aged-accounts written off by the City last year? Mr. Hallisey stated that he does not have an exact figure with him; that a certain amount is turned over to a collection agency on a monthly basis. Vice Mayor Merrill asked Mr. Hallisey to estimate the actual losses written off by the City. Mr. Hallisey stated that he is unable to speculate an amount. Mayor Patterson requested that the Administration provide the amount of loss the City writes off annually to the Commission at second reading. Commissioner Atkins stated that the Commission needs to understand that some people have financial problems, may be a paycheck away from poverty, and are not able to pay their bills on time; that the city Manager should have discretion to deal with families or individuals having problems paying their water bills; that the Commission needs to be less callus of people who may fall on hard times. Commissioner Pillot stated that there are circumstances in which good people find themselves behind a "financial eight-ball" for a period of time; that the City of Sarasota should be aware of those situations; that water service should not be disconnected when people are sincere in their efforts but experience difficulty making payments on time. Commissioner Cardamone stated that her water utility bill has been estimated over the past two months; and asked if the Utilities Department is short personnel to read meters? Mr. Hallisey stated that two Meter Readers have been promoted through Career Development; that certain portions of the City's utility routes have had water usage estimated over the past few months; that City utility meters are generally read every month; however, many entities read utility meters every three months. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that estimated readings have been successful during periods when there has been a shortage of personnel; that during the next budget sessions, the Administration should provide information on the cost effectiveness of reading water meters every three months. Commissioner Cardamone asked for an estimate of how many people are behind on water bill payments? BOOK 37 Page 11292 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11293 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. Mr. Hallisey stated that the City has approximately 18,000 customers; that 675 customers, or 4 percent, were 60 days in arrears when the last meter readings were taken. Mayor Patterson requested the Administration's recommendation. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 95-3847 on first reading with language as follows to be included between first and second readings: The City Manager will promulgate administrative regulations with respect to the exercise of discretion for the extension of payment periods. city Attorney Taylor stated that the authority of the City Manager has been mentioned twice; that "or his designee" has not been mentioned; and asked for clarification. Mr. Sollenberger stated that "or his designee" should be incorporated. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3847 by title only. Commissioner Cardamone asked for clarification of the language, "and to provide that a lien against property for unpaid water and sewer bills shall be discretionary I Commissioner Pillot asked if an unpaid water bill is that of a renter, how would a lien against the property apply? City Attorney Taylor stated that a lien would not apply; that the particular issue is addressed in the Florida Statutes. Commissioner Pillot stated that the majority of water bills that become delinquent may be by renters rather than owners, thereby making the provision mute. Mr. Hallisey stated that Commissioner Pillot has stated his answer; that the language was incorporated because the external auditor identified that the City Code provided wording that a lien shall be placed against a property. Mayor Patterson stated that the language in the proposed ordinance should reflect that a lien can be placed on property unless prohibited by law; that the lien would be automatic. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that two months of arrears for a customer whose average water bill is $50 per month would be only $100; that the City could expend more funds placing a lien on a property than the debt is worth if a lien is mandated; that the current wording, "may" should remain. Mayor Patterson asked if there is a procedure that is followed to place a lien on a property for non-payment? City Attorney Taylor stated that a document must be recorded in the Official Records of Sarasota County in order for purchaser's of the property to be on notice; that he is not familiar with the particular procedure followed. Mr. Sollenberger stated that language should remain, "may" to allow the placement of a lien to be discretionary; that the issue can be addressed in the administrative regulations; that business judgments will be made based on the size of the debt. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to amend the motion to include in the administrative regulations the City Manager's authority to waive interest assessed on unpaid water and sewer bills. Motion failed (3 to 2): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, no; Merrill, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, no. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 95-3847 on first reading. Mayor Patterson requested that city Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote on the main motion. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 9. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3852, PROVIDING FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 3540 ALMERIA AVENUE HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS THE DR. WILLIAM J. SHIELDS HOUSE, AS STRUCTURES OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO THE HIS- TORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (PETITION NO. 94-HD-20, MIKKI HARTIG) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-5) #2 (0300) through (0449) Lorrie Muldowney, Sarasota County Historical Resources Specialist, and Mikki Hartig, Petitioner, came before the Commission. Ms. Hartig stated that proposed Ordinance No. 95-3852, designates the main structure and garage located at 3540 Almeria Avenue, historically known as the Dr. William J. Shields House, as structures of historic significance; that the Historic Preservation Board, at its meeting dated November 8, 1994, recommended approval of Petition No. 94-HD-20 to the City Commission; that the Sarasota County Historical resources staff recommend approval. BOOK 37 Page 11294 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11295 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. Ms. Hartig displayed slides on the slide projector and explained the historic significance of the property. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends approval. Mayor Patterson opened the public hearing. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Patterson closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 95-3852 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill, and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 95-3852 on first reading. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 10. CITIZENS INPUT (AGENDA ITEM VI) #2 (0449) through (0451) There was no one signed up to speak. 11. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF TERMS OF RENEGOTIATED MARINA JACK LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND JACK GRAHAM, INC. - APPROVED CONCEPTUALLY AND AUTHORIZED THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE DEFINITIVE LEASE MODIFICATION (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #2 (0451) through (0698) Jack Graham, and John Strickland, Attorney representing Jack Graham, Inc., came before the Commission. City Manager Sollenberger stated that meetings were held with Lee Sullivan, Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Marina Jack; Mr. Graham; Attorney Strickland; and City staff concerning the renegotiation of the Marina Jack lease; that the outline contained in the Agenda packet accurately reflects the items negotiated between Marina Jack and the Administration; that one aspect of negotiation was the value of the property for rental revenue; that a report on the range of value was provided by Larry Sewell, State Certified General Appraiser, of Sewell, Valentich, Tillis & Associates; that the value range discussed by the City and Marina Jack falls within the value range recommended by Mr. Sewell; that Commission approval of the lease concept is requested so that the lease document can be completed in a timely manner without requiring numerous drafts and needless expense. Mayor Patterson stated that her husband is a partner in the law firm, Livingston, Patterson, Strickland & Weiner, P.A., which represents Jack Graham, Inc.; therefore, she declares a conflict of interest and will not vote on this item. Attorney Strickland stated that numerous sessions between Marina Jack and City Administration have been held since last August regarding the renegotiated Marina Jack lease; that an outline of the tentatively agreed upon proposal has been provided to the Commission for approval; that the proposal is fair and offers a "win win" situation; that Mr. Graham has expended over $30,000 in planning and other costs associated with negotiations for the lease; that conceptual approval of the terms of the renegotiated lease is requested as a good faith commitment from the Commission. Commissioner Pillot cited the following from the December 28, 1994, letter from Attorney Strickland and asked if his position remains the same: I would like to obtain from the City Commission at its January 3, 1995, meeting approval of the material terms of the proposed lease modification discussed at the recent meeting with Mr. Sollenberger. This would be an approval in principle subject to the preparation of a definitive document. Attorney Strickland stated that position stands; that direction is requested from the Commission as to whether they should go forward with the lease or retreat. Commissioner Pillot asked if the Administration holds the same position. Mr. Sollenberger stated that is correct. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to conceptually approve and authorize the City Attorney to draft the definitive lease agreement for Commission approval. Commissioner Pillot stated for clarification that the intent of his motion is to approve, in concept and principal, subject to the preparation of the proposed lease modification. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, abstained. 12. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN PATRICK BALL AND THE CITY OF SARASOTA FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 513 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, TO PROVIDE OFFICE SPACE FOR THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - APPROVED CONCEPT (AGENDA ITEM VIII-3) BOOK 37 Page 11296 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11297 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. #2 (0707) through #3 (0198) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Interlocal Agreement consolidating the County Housing and City Community Development programs was adopted by the City Commission on October 17, 1994; that locating adequate space for the consolidated departments is necessary; that Don Hadsell, Community Development Director, examined various locations to provide adequate office space; that the Administration recommends approval in concept of a lease agreement between the City and Pat Ball, owner of the former African Methodist Episcopal (AME) church building located at 513 Central Avenue; that Mr. Ball's property does not have the lowest rent of the various locations investigated; however, the lease cannot be viewed as strictly a business arrangement; that the Administration's decision is based on the City's opportunity to contribute toward and begin the revitalization of the Rosemary District; that the property owner would have the ability to finance renovation of the former AME church building and provide the area with lease space if a lease agreement is arranged with the City. Mr. Sollenberger continued that the Commission should be aware of the following aspects of the lease proposal: 1. The lease proposal calls for a five-year lease commitment by the City, therefore, the term of the lease will exceed beyond the term of the Interlocal Agreement by approximately 2.5 years. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the City will be taking a risk should the Interlocal Agreement not be extended; however, he foresees no reason why the Interlocal Agreement would not be extended at expiration. 2. Adequate parking for the 15 employees and clients does not exist on the 513 Central Avenue site; that the property currently has room for 3 vehicles. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the City owns property within the area and could request a variance from the Board of Adjustment; that the lease agreement would be subject to the City being able to obtain adequate parking to service the building. 3. Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) does not provide a bus line on Central Avenue. Mr. Sollenberger stated that a bus line operates on Cocoanut Avenue; that the County could make arrangements to serve the office with the SCAT system. Mr. Sollenberger continued that information and memoranda from Mr. Hadsell on the proposal has been included in the Agenda packets for Commission review; that the County Administrator is in agreement with the concept of locating the consolidated office on Central Avenue; that the Administration believes the risk is necessary to begin the revitalization process along Central Avenue; that the conceptual approval of the lease proposal is requested prior to expending further staff time on the project. Commissioner Pillot stated that three of the properties about which information has been provided to the Commission reflect net square footage; that the recommended property reflects gross square footage. Commissioner Pillot asked for clarification of the net square footage of the 513 Central Avenue property and for the net square footage needed for office space. Mr. Hadsell came before the Commission and stated that six restrooms of approximately 8 X 8 feet each and an elevator shaft would take up approximately 400 square feet. Commissioner Pillot stated that the remaining 7,000 square feet would be considered as the approximate net, usable square footage. Mr. Hadsell stated that was correct; that the gross figure was reflected because drawings on the building have not been prepared; that exact figures of the square footage cost could not accurately be projected based on net square footage. Mr. Hadsell continued that a space analysis was performed by the County when the GTE building was considered for the office location; that the County felt 4,000 square feet was necessary in that situation; however, that space analysis anticipated the use of restroom facilities and conference room facilities located elsewhere in the GTE building; that those facilities would have to be included in the space analysis of an individual office location. Commissioner Pillot stated that 500 square feet could be estimated for a conference room, and, therefore, 4,500 square feet would be necessary; that the placement of the consolidated department on Central Avenue makes sense; that the 645 Central Avenue property reflects 4,500 net square footage at a less than half the annual rental cost of the 513 Central Avenue property. Mr. Hadsell stated that 645 Central Avenue is the Penix building; that the Penix building was examined in detail; that the building currently houses a viable business that would be relocated to the back portion of the building, if the city were to lease office space at that location; that the visual impact along Central Avenue would be minimal and the City would not be making an architectural statement on the street; that the funding for several of the consolidated department's programs will increase dramatically; that additional staff is anticipated; that the 4,500 square feet of the Penix building would limit the opportunity for expansion; that he BOOK 37 Page 11298 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11299 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. would be uncomfortable locating the office in an area of less than 5,000 square feet. Commissioner Pillot asked for the lease term associated with the Penix building? Mr. Hadsell stated that a lease term was not discussed since the property was not considered further. Commissioner Pillot asked how the $37,000 savings between $35,000 and $72,000 in rental costs would spent if the Penix building were chosen as the location? Mr. Hadsell stated that the funding would be applied to programs. Vice Mayor Merrill referred to the following total costs over three years as reflected in the back-up material and stated that the former AME church building's (513 Central Avenue) total cost is 50 percent more than that of Nations Bank: Colonial Village Nations Bank 513 Central 645 Central $235,042.80 $197,000.00 $302,827.00 $281,959.00 Mr. Hadsell stated that the total cost differential between the two Central Avenue properties over a three year period is not substantial. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the former AME church building requires substantial improvements; that the City would be negotiating with Mr. Ball on a building that is not in place; that the Nation's Bank building is a completed structure requiring limited improvements and parking would not be an issue. Vice Mayor Merrill asked for clarification on the Administration's proposal to meet the parking needs at the 513 Central Avenue property (former AME church). Mr. Hadsell stated that angle parking on one side of Fifth Street with parallel parking placed on the other side would provide 21 parking spaces which would adequately meet the needs currently projected. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that a redevelopment approach focusing heavily on government as the redevelopment activity was used by Fort Myers, Florida, eight years ago; that Fort Myers has experienced dismal results; that he recently travelled to Durham, North Carolina; that driving through the city he passed a building identified as a "homeless shelter" in the same vicinity as a building identified as a "public housing authority"; that the location of those buildings in close proximity indicated to him that the area was a lower-priced area of the city; that locating the Community Development and Housing Department on Central Avenue may send the same signal to private investors; that the City should not be enforcing that stigma if the goal is to redevelop the area; and asked if the Administration considered the symbolism of locating the Community Development and Housing Departments in the redevelopment area? Mr. Hadsell stated that the concept has been discussed; that the City is attempting to eliminate the impediments to allow private investment in the neighborhood; that locating the office in the Rosemary District would make a statement to the neighbors, residents, and businesses, that the City will be a player in the redevelopment efforts; that citizens feel the City has not stood behind previous plans or visions for redevelopment of the Rosemary District; that locating the office on Central Avenue will send a clear signal that the City seriously supports the redevelopment. Mayor Patterson asked if other public parking will be displaced by creating angle parking on Fifth Street reserved for use by the consolidated departments? Mr. Hadsell stated that Fifth Street is rarely utilized for parking. Commissioner Atkins stated that public parking does not currently occur on or north of Fifth Street; that the majority of pedestrian and vehicular traffic occurs on the Fifth Way alley; that he supports the concept of utilizing the former AME church to stimulate economic development in the Rosemary District; that statements have been made that redevelopment cannot occur while a gutted, blighted building remains in the area; that part of the City's commitment is to stimulate growth in the area; that the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program is designed to stimulate not only economic development but also housing development; that the Commission should move forward with the redevelopment of the Rosemary District by approving the conceptual lease as recommended. Commissioner Pillot stated that location of the office at 513 or 645 Central Avenue would have the same general effect; however, the 513 property (former AME church) comes with the risk of a $180,000 general fund obligation if the interlocal agreement is not extended. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the former AME church makes a statement as the neighborhood is entered; that as a critic of the building and its "bombed out" appearance, she is delighted that the property could become the cornerstone of the neighborhood redevelopment with the City making a commitment for its use; that she understands Vice Mayor Merrill's concern of locating social services in one vicinity of which the City should be cautious; however, redevelopment of the former AME church will serve as a BOOK 37 Page 11300 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11301 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. signal to the community that the City has a vested interest in the real estate market. Commissioner Cardamone cited the following from the back-up material and asked for clarification: Following the expiration of the last option, or in ten years, the City will have the opportunity to purchase this building for $1.00. Mr. Hadsell stated that the Administration attempted to make the lease arrangement as sound a business proposition as possible; that the City will be, in a sense, paying for the cost of renovation, therefore, the opportunity to purchase the building and take title was included. Mr. Sollenberger stated that in response to Commissioner Pillot's concern, the general fund may not be the source from which the $180,000 obligation, if necessary, would be paid; that the Community Development Department would still require office space if the Interlocal Agreement was not extended; that the possibility of subleasing the property is skeptical, but could be an option; that CDBG funds could be available to locate other uses in the building; that the general fund was indicated in the back-up material, but alternatives would be structured to avoid that occurrence. Mayor Patterson stated that there are volumes in the word s skeptical"; that over a 10-year period the City will have paid $720,000 in rental costs for the purchase of a building with no parking; that the memorandum reflects, Class "B" rental space was located for between $12 and $13 per square foot; that a sign on U.S. 41 advertises 10,000 square feet of commercial space for $9 per square foot; that Class "B" commercial space in more desirable areas with parking and utility and grounds maintenance charges included in the lease are available for $8 per square foot; that she has a problem with the degree to which the City will be overpaying market value in order to "get a foothold in the area"; that the analysis provided by the Administration is so flawed that it is difficult for her to support the proposal; that net square footage of three comparable buildings is compared to the gross square footage; that three buildings are compared to a building with no parking; that the value of the option on the 513 Central Avenue property (former AME church) is predicated on a current structure value of $150,000 and a 10 percent per annum interest; that $150,000 is overestimating the worth of the building in its present status; that she is also concerned with the $180,000 obligation if the Interlocal Agreement is not extended. Mayor Patterson continued that the office space is necessary because of the consolidation of the City and County departments; and asked why the County will not be required to participate with the City in taking the additional 2.5 year risk if the consolidation of the departments is not successful? Mr. Sollenberger stated that per the Interlocal Agreement, the City has the responsibility for renting the office space; that the Interlocal Agreement would have to be renegotiated if the Commission wanted the risk split between the City and County. The following people came before the Commission: Mary Ouillin, 407 Cocoanut Avenue, distributed and read a prepared speech which contained the following comments and questions: Mr. Hadsell incorrectly reflected the remodeling cost of 645 Central Avenue in his analysis. The 1994 real estate taxable assessment values are as follows: 513 Central Avenue (former AME church) $ 38,888 645 Central Avenue (Penix building) $408,474 500 Central Avenue (Antique Warehouse) $ 93,441 Why wasn't the property located at 500 Central Avenue, known as the Antique Warehouse, pursued? Ms. Quillin stated that Mr. Hadsell had stated the 500 Central Avenue building was "not worth it" because the asking price for the building was $125,000 and $400,000 worth of renovations were necessaryi; that the property is owned by First Federal Saving & Loan Association in Englewood, an entity which may find it to their advantage to improve the property with a favorable lease from the City. Vice Mayor Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 8:25 p.m. The City "found" 21 parking spaces for 513 Central Avenue (former AME church) for the City's use, but would not "find" parking when a group of citizens proposed using 513 Central Avenue for a daycare center. Where are the Staff/office space requirements used when City Staff was sincerely inquiring throughout the City for available office space? Is there a need for 7,400 square feet of office space? How can Staff justify comparing utilities and janitorial charges as equal costs when the size of the sites vary between 4,500 and 7,400 square feet? BOOK 37 Page 11302 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11303 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. Why is there a lease provision for Mr. Ball to collect the differences in taxes between those assessed in 1996, after rehabilitation is completed and the annual property taxes incurred until the options expire in the year 2004? Will the City make provisions for others who develop their properties in the neighborhood at inflated rates? Were the 193 properties owned by the city, i.e., the White Sox Club House at Payne Park and the South County Administration building, researched for office space? Ms. Quillin stated that the Downtown North, Central Avenue District is worth a risk and an appropriate area for an office of Housing and Community Development; however, the Commission is responsible for how the City's tax dollars are spent and those dollars should not be spent wastefully; that the City should reinvestigate the properties at 500 and 645 Central Avenue (Antique Warehouse and Penix building) i and requested that the concept not be approved by the Commission. Vice Mayor Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:29 p.m. Mayor Patterson asked for clarification of the reference in the memorandum regarding property taxes. Mr. Hadsell came before the Commission and stated that January 1996, the year after the property will be improved, was viewed as the base line for property taxes; that the lease contains no escalation for increases of inflation or taxes; that the City would pay the difference in real estate taxes that increase after 1996. Mr. Sollenberger requested a response to the statement made regarding the 500 Central Avenue property (Antique Warehouse) . Mr. Hadsell stated that the Antique Warehouse building was examined by two architects hired by the City and County to determine the cost of renovation; that the cost estimates received were between $550,000 and $930,000 including the $125,000 cost of acquisition; that the property is currently five 21-foot wide store fronts with four bearing walls; that the entire composition of the building would have to be changed for use as office space; that both architects felt the bearing walls would have to be removed which is what makes the renovation costly; therefore, the Administration chose to recommend the shell approach available in the former AME church building (513 Central Avenue). Mayor Patterson asked if the City will be required to maintain the property at 513 Central Avenue once renovation has been completed? Mr. Hadsell stated that maintenance of the building is still under negotiation; that the initial discussions with Mr. Ball had him accepting the responsibility of maintenance; however, his attorneys have requested review of that item. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Antique Warehouse building (500 Central Avenue) could provide space for storefront establishments; that the building should remain unaltered. Jack Conway, 528 El Vernona Avenue, stated that he lives in the subject neighborhood and is a concerned citizen; that the vacated area has potential; that he was pleased with the Commission's decision to dedicate resources to the Central Avenue Corridor; that the citizens organized themselves with the Police Department and formed the Police Resources Center; that the Center is important, now operational, and located in the Joe Penix building; that the City formulated a Committee which meets weekly under the direction of John Lewis, Director of Public Safety, to address community problems; that as a citizen, not a Community Housing Corporation officer, he has been working with Joe Penix, Sarasota County School Board, Sarasota County Technical Institute, Goodwill Industries, and other entities to develop a job-training facility program for location in the Penix building (645 Central Avenue); that the program will become a reality when a lease is arranged whereby Mr. Penix can obtain bank financing to perform improvements and renovation. Mr. Conway continued that the Antique Warehouse building (500 Central Avenue) is a ready, structurally sound building which could house five businesses once investors get a feeling that the community will be regained; that Joe Penix and Robert Levy, with his efforts on the corner of Sixth Street and Central Avenue, have made attempts to better the community; that the City would be making a dramatic and positive statement of leadership and support by moving the City's Community Development Department into the center of an area slated for redevelopment; that with that incentive, the community and citizens of the area will produce results; that realization of the RISCORP, Sarasota County, and City of Sarasota proposal for the downtown library will have a dramatic effect on Central Avenue; that the potential of an artisan live/work area in the vicinity of 10th Street is being examined by Creative Development of Visual Arts (CDOVA) ; that the recommended office location is in the middle of this district and is the key to stimulating growth in the area; that he urges the Commission to support the conceptual approval of the lease agreement for the property at 513 Central Avenue (former AME church) Commissioner Pillot asked if Mr. Conway was supporting a lease of the Penix building (645 Central Avenue)? Mr. Conway stated that his comments referred to his involvement with Mr. Penix, the Sarasota County School Board, and Sarasota County Technical Institute on another project to locate a training center in the Penix building; that hopefully, the elements of that BOOK 37 Page 11304 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11305 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. project will come together by the end of next month; that projects at both 513 and 645 Central Avenue (former AME church and Penix building) would be the most beneficial to the area. Robert Levy, 1391 6th Street, stated that he has supported redevelopment of the Rosemary District for the past eight years; that every little step should lead toward the achievement of that goal; that the rental figures per square foot on 513 Central Avenue were not clear; and asked for the cost per square foot based on net square footage? Commissioner Pillot stated that the net square footage of 513 Central Avenue (former AME church) can be estimated between $14.00 and $15.00 dollars per square foot. Mr. Levy asked if the Community Housing Corporation (CHC) would be responsible for the electricity? Mayor Patterson stated that the City and the County would be responsible for paying the cost for electricity; that the CHC is irrelevant to the project which is why Mr. Conway spoke as a citizen. Mr. Levy stated that leasing office space in the Central Avenue area will demonstrate that the City and County support redevelopment of the area; that the small difference in rental cost should not be an issue; that locating an office on Central Avenue will benefit the entire community; that he supports the proposed lease agreement and intends to participate in the redevelopment projects and help develop the entire area. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she was aware of the efforts to place a training center in the Penix building and was surprised to see 645 Central Avenue included in Mr. Hadsell's report. Mr. Hadsell came before the Commission and stated that he had one comment in rebuttal to the statements put forth regarding the Penix building; that the City is attempting to utilize a building on Central Avenue as the office location for the Community Development and Housing Department in an effort to visually improve and initiate the redevelopment of that area; that the visual and architectural improvements provided as a result of leasing the Penix building would not be substantial; therefore, the property was viewed as a business decision without the philosophical elements applied. Commissioner Pillot requested that Mr. Conway come before the Commission to offer his opinion on the probability of the Penix building (645 Central Avenue) being used for the educational/training center? Mr. Conway stated that the probability is very good; that the center is being envisioned as a training facility for the building industry, body shop industries, and other job-producing industries, throughout the Sarasota area; that the Sarasota County Technical Institute has provided Mr. Penix with a letter of intent; however, School Board support is necessary for a lease agreement; that Janice Mee, School Board Member, supports the project and intends to present it to the School Board; that Goodwill Industries and Manasota Industry Council have been approached for their participation as the lead agencies; that a solid group of entities are involved in and support the project. Commissioner Pillot asked if Mr. Conway is aware of the Superintendent of Schools' position on the project? Mr. Conway stated that he has not discussed the project with the Superintendent of Schools; however, Steve Harvey, Director of the Sarasota County Technical Institute, fully supports the endeavor; that he is more than hopeful that the project will become reality. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he took the lead in having the consolidated Community Development office located in a Central Avenue propertyi that Mr. Hadsell and Robert Kirce, Deputy County Administrator, both examined the potential locations; that the Penix building (645 Central Avenue) was not chosen for the reasons stated previously by Mr. Hadsell; that there are strong indications that the project involving the School Board will be located in the Penix building; that he agrees with Mr. Conway that two rehabilitated, operational properties on Central Avenue would be the most beneficial. Mr. Sollenberger continued that the City's point of business regarding a lease arrangement on Central Avenue is community development; that a lease on the former AME church building (513 Central Avenue) which would be acceptable to a financial institution is necessary for rehabilitation of that building to take place; that the Administration's recommendation is to support the conceptual lease agreement for 513 Central Avenue as a means to spark the redevelopment of the Rosemary District. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to approve the concept of entering into a five-year lease with Pat Ball for the property located at 513 Central Avenue for $72,000 a year. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Nations Bank property is clearly a better financial decision for office location; that the $100,000 saved in rental costs could be donated to the Rosemary District businesses for renovation purposes; that leasing space for a major social service agency could cause revitalization of a building, but not of an area; that an article featured in a September issue of Newsweek explained how a city in Connecticut, as part of redevelopment, is attempting to eliminate the concentration of BOOK 37 Page 11306 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11307 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. social service agencies; that the redevelopment aspect expressed in support of the proposed lease agreement is not realistic; that supporting a lease agreement for the former AME church property located at 513 Central Avenue would be a financially irresponsible decision; that he supports leasing the Nations Bank building and donating $100,000 to the businesses in the Rosemary District for renovation purposes. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Nations Bank building would be a better financial decision; however, he has been persuaded by the comments heard that locating the Community Development and Housing office at 513 Central Avenue would make a major statement to the Rosemary District community and provide the possibility of two projects moving forward in that area. Commissioner Pillot asked if the property at 513 Central Avenue will be restored to respect and honor the former AME church architecture? Pat Ball, owner of the property located at 513 Central Avenue, came before the Commission, distributed an artist's rendering of the former AME church, and stated that the exterior renovations will be sympathetic to the original decor and view of the AME church. Commissioner Pillot stated that he is concerned with the City's potential liability associated with the fourth and fifth years of the proposed lease agreement if the Interlocal Agreement is not renewed; and asked Mr. Ball if he would consider further discussing the terms of the lease to address a lease of less than 5 years if the Interlocal Agreement is not renewed? Mr. Ball stated that the issue can be discussed; however, the initial bank analysis showed that a minimum of a 5-year lease would be required to qualify for the bank financing necessary to perform the renovations. Commissioner Pillot asked if Mr. Ball would be open to a 3-year lease if a financial institution would accept a 3-year lease? Mr. Ball stated that he would be open to that scenario. Commissioner Pillot stated that the city purchased the property where Laurel Park is now located from a member who was then on an advisory board of the City; that an issue was raised regarding a possible conflict of interest; that at the time, he felt the situation did not represent a conflict of interest or an issue of concern; however, the person, unfortunately, resigned from the advisory board; that Mr. Ball is a member of the Historical Preservation Board; and asked City Attorney Taylor for comment to avoid a similar issue being raised with this proposed lease agreement. City Attorney Taylor stated that the resignation of the referenced advisory board member made the situation referred to a moot issue; however, he reviewed the Florida State Statute which deals with conflict of interest; that a conflict in circumstances would only apply where the advisory board member is a public officer of the State or a political subdivision of the State, not of a city; that his review of the situation has been limited; however, he does not feel the proposed agreement would present a conflict of interest. Mayor Patterson stated that the City Attorney should review the minutes regarding the purchase of the Laurel Park property; that she recalls the issue of concern involving City policy or regulations that required a waiver from the Commission. City Attorney Taylor stated that he has not had the opportunity to review the city's ordinances concerning board members; that he will do a review and raise the question if necessary; that if a City ordinance is applicable, waiver by the Commission upon public disclosure of the person with the conflict is provided for under the related section of the Florida State Statutes. Mayor Patterson stated that the rental costs in the proposed agreement are approximately 20 percent over market value; that the city has the possibility of incurring 2.5 years of rental obligation if the Interlocal Agreement is not renewed; that a tax forgiveness is included although the aim of purchasing the building is to upgrade the values in the area to approximate the amount of rent the City will be paying; that another value is attached by providing parking, at some point, on other City-owned property; that there is a difference between subsidizing a rent and paying substantially over market value and subsidizing an area through infrastructure improvements; that she justified the Main Street Project in the downtown as a real community value to all Sarasota citizens; that she realizes there is a fine line between the two projects; however, she cannot justify a yes vote on an item which includes expenditures of dollars on rental costs which are at least 20 percent over market value and by which the City has the potential of incurring a 2.5-year rental obligation with no possibility of subletting the space for anywhere near the amount of rent being paid. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, no. 13. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, AND 5 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III-A) #3 (0198) through (0210) BOOK 37 Page 11308 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11309 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. 1. Approval Re: Authorize the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to be set for public hearing expanding the boundaries of areas in which skateboarding is prohibited 2. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Quit Claim Deed between the City of Sarasota and Sarasota Day Nursery Inc., finalizing the property swap for the property located along the 17th Street right-of-way 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Administration to sell the lot and structure located at 3015 Pershing Avenue for $9,000 to Mr. & Mrs. Jeffrey Poole On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Items 1 through 3 inclusive. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 14. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-775) - ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R-777) - REMOVED UNDER CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY: ITEM 3 (RESOLUTION NO. 94R- 784) - ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (ORDINANCE NO. 95-3845) = ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM III-B) #3 (0210) through (0270) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 94R-775 and 95R-784 and Ordinance No. 95-3845 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 94R-775, accepting abatement of nuisance and cost reports pertaining to the removal of accumulations of junk, rubbish, trash or other offending matter; directing the assessment of a lien against the property described in each abatement report for the amount stated therein; etc. (Title Only) 3. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 95R-784, accepting abatement of nuisance and cost reports pertaining to the removal of accumulations of junk, rubbish, trash or other offending matter; directing the assessment of a lien against the property described in each abatement report for the amount stated therein; etc. (Title Only) 4. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3845, to approve the Preliminary Site and Development Plan to permit the use of an existing structure (in a TAD Zone District) as an "Inn" and to approve interior renovations to allow 16 room/suites, a manager's office and a restaurant (under 3000 square feet) to serve continental breakfasts to guests; said property lies on the east side of North Tamiami Trail at Fourth Street, A/K/A 332 North Tamiami Trail; more particularly described herein; etc. (Title Only) (Petition No. 95-PSD- B, Barbara Stephens) On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2, Item 1, 3, and 4. Mayor Patterson requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 95-3851, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE, ARTICLE XI, SIGNS, TO PROVIDE THAT THE CITY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, SHALL BE EMPOWERED TO REMOVE ANY POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SIGN PLACED IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PROMULGATE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE PROCESS OF REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF ILLEGAL POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SIGNS: : REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; ETC. - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) #3 (0269) through (0284) On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to set proposed Ordinance No. 95-3851 for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 16. NEW BUSINESS: ADOPTION RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 95R-789, DECLARING THE COMMISSION'S INTENT TO REQUEST THAT THE FLORIDA MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION PROPOSE A SPECIAL LAW PROHIBITING THE TAKING OF ALL HARVEST OF LIVE MOLLUSKS AND ECHINODERMS (EXCEPT OYSTERS, HARD CLAMS, VENUS CLAMS, BAY SCALLOPS, AND COOUINAS) FOR APPROVAL AND ENACTMENT BY THE FLORIDA STATE GOVERNOR AND CABINET; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) = TABLED PENDING A RESPONSE FROM MOTE MARINE LABORATORIES (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) #3 (0288) through (0428) Mayor Patterson stated that this item was placed on the agenda at the request of an Anna Maria Island Commissioner; that huge amounts of sea urchins and sand dollars, etc., are being harvested off the shores of Anna Maria Island, Holmes Beach and Bradenton Beach; that Anna Maria Island, Holmes Beach, and Bradenton Beach, with the support of the Bradenton City Commission, have passed resolutions to prohibit the harvesting of live shellfish within their city limits; that the Sarasota City Commission has been requested to consider passing a like resolution so the item as presented to the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission will encompass as large an area as possible on the west coast of Florida. BOOK 37 Page 11310 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11311 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 95R- 789 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill, and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 95R-789. Commissioner Cardamone asked if Mote Marine Laboratories or any environmentalists have been contacted regarding this item? Mayor Patterson responded, no. On motion of Commissioner Pillot it was moved to table proposed Resolution No. 95R-789 pending Mote Marine Laboratories being contacted by the Administration and a non-negative response being received. Vice Mayor Merrill, as maker of the main motion, stated that was the intent of his motion. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yès; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 17. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA - COPIES OF A MEMORANDUM FROM POLICE CHIEF JOLLY TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE COMMISSIONERS (AGENDA ITEM X) #3 (0428) through (0468) COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: A. asked if a response has been received regarding the discrepancies in the information on legislative action provided by Gordon Jolly, Chief of Police Services Bureau, Public Safety Department which were noted at the Sarasota County Legislative Delegation Meeting in Venice on December 21, 1994? Mayor Patterson stated that she spoke to Police Chief Jolly after he spoke to Shirley Brown, State Representative; that Police Chief Jolly indicated that Representative Brown's office confirmed the fact that the legislation under discussion had not been passed but had been stalled in Committee; that a letter has been written to Representative Brown and Senator John McKay reaffirming those items in which the City has an interest in pursuing before the Legislature; that City Manager Sollenberger will be asked to review the letter before mailing; that a copy of the memorandum from Police Chief Jolly concerning the issue will be forwarded to the Commission. 18. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XII) #3 (0468) There being no further business, Mayor Patterson adjourned the regular meeting of January 3, 1995, at 9:11 p.m. oa Atl NORA PATTERSON, MAYOR ATTEST: Rilly E Robnson BILLY EPT ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK BOOK 37 Page 11312 01/03/95 6:00 P.M. FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Patterson, Nora Sarasota City Commission MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: 707 Freeling XXcrrY - COUNTY 1I OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: Sarasota Sarasota City of Sarasota DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: January 3, 1995 XX ELECTIVE 3 APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 142.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal fother than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the offiçer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. CE FORM XB 10-86 PAGE 1 IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. Yous should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsiblé for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, Nora Patterson hereby disclose that on January 3, 1995 19. (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) XXi inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of by whom I am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: A motion was made and adopted to approval conceptually the terms of the renegotiated Marina Jack Lease Agreement between the City and Jack Graham, Inc. My husband is a partner in the lawfirm that represents Marina Jacks, a marina and restaurant located at Bayfront Park. 1H95 Hoa Alien Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES $112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. CE FORM 8B - 10-86 PAGE 2