BOOK 37 Page 11479 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 13, 1995, AT 3:00 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 10 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 8:49 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PRESENTATION RE: CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF THE THREE PARTY AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE PROPOSED DOWNTOWN LIBRARY LOCATION : APPROVED; DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO DRAFT A LETTER TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF LOCATING THE CENTRAL LIBRARY AT THE DOWNTOWN SARASOTA LOCATION (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0030) through (2587) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the action before the Commission is a request for approval in concept of the three-party agreement concerning the library location; that last spring, the City Commission requested that the County Commission reconsider the location of the downtown library on the Mission Harbor site; that the County Commission authorized the County Administrator to explore the issue and the feasibility of various downtown sites; that the City had offered its Lemon Avenue parking Jot provided that the County replace the lost parking spaces; that the County Administrator's report to the County Commission in July 1994 recommended a site at Five Points which involved a three-party public/private partnership for exchange of properties; that the County Administrator was authorized to pursue the feasibility of the concept; that following the County Administrator's July report, the City Commission authorized him to explore the feasibility of the concept; that his examination involved obtaining appraisals on a variety of property and working out a three-party exchange agreement between RISCORP, the City and the County. Mayor Patterson recognized Sarasota Board of County Commissioner Bob Anderson who was present in the audience. Mr. Sollenberger displayed a location map on the overhead projector and explained the terms of the agreement which included RISCORP acquiring and transferring to the County all properties comprising the library site facing First Street, including the Goodyear building, two restaurants, 100 N. Pineapple Avenue, plus RISCORP's parking lot on the northwest corner of Second Street and Central Avenue; that the City conveys to the County its parking lot south of Second Street between Central Avenue and Pineapple Avenue and the triangular piece of property between Cocoanut Avenue and Pineapple Avenue and First Street, where Milo's Master Tailor is currently located; that negotiations are currently underway on the restaurant site; that the land values used are based on the appraisals which have been prepared for all the properties. Mr. Sollenberger stated that originally, the City was to convey its Lemon Avenue parking lot to RISCORP which would have reduced the amount of cash required from the City; that the property would have been incorporated into a public/private parking structure arrangement; however, the benefits would have been shared parking primarily after hours, and the City would have lost a long-term equity position in meeting future parking needs; therefore, that concept was discarded; that retention of the Lemon Avenue lot for surface parking provides the City with the option to meet future parking needs when economics and the demand in the area indicates it is feasible. Mr. Sollenberger displayed and explained a matrix titled "Analysis of Library site Transaction" on which the dollar values for the properties transferred and received were reflected for each of the three parties; and stated that the County would transfer the Mission Harbor site, with an appraised value of $3.127 million to the City; that the City would have an excess land value of $2.3 million that would have to be distributed to the County and RISCORP; that the County would receive the Goodyear building, the two restaurants, 100 N. Pineapple Avenue, and the Central Avenue parking lot from RISÇORP and the Second Street parking lot, the Milo's Master Tailor site, and $126,00 in cash from the City; that RISCORP would receive $2.174 million in cash from the City; that the total cash transfer by the City amounts to $2.3 million which would have to be borrowed and repaid when the Mission Harbor site is sold; that the result is a balance in values and land for all three parties. Mr. Sollenberger continued that negotiations for the restaurant properties have not concluded; that the $750,000 value placed on the restaurants in the matrix is an estimated value; that completion of the negotiations on the restaurant properties may affect the land values presented. Mr. Sollenberger stated that in the original concept, the $920,000 appraised value of the Lemon Avenue parking lot would have left a cash balance in the amount of $1.38 million for the city to pay RISCORP; that RISCORP was willing to act as banker for the balance with repayment from the City to be from future tax increment revenues; however, when the City's parking lot was withdrawn from BOOK 37 Page 11480 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11481 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. the agreement and the cash balance became $2.3 million, RISCORP agreed only to act as banker for the $1.38 million and expected the city to provide the $920,000 in cash; that financing would have been at RISCORP's cost; that the proposal was examined and a determination was made that it would be preferable for the City to undertake a loan for the full $2.3 million since the City can normally borrow at a lower rate than a private concern; that issuing capital appreciation notes or bonds has been researched as a potential source of financing whereby no payments would be made on principal or interest during the term of the loan which is anticipated to be five years; that the notes would be repaid from the sale of Mission Harbor to a developer; that preliminary discussions have been held with the City's Financial Advisor, John Haylett, who is present to answer particular questions in this regard. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the three-party agreement includes a provision that the City and County would agree to negotiate to provide structured parking over the surface parking at the northwest corner of Central Avenue and Second Street at the City's request; that a provision is also included in the agreement that the City and RISCORP would negotiate or discuss a shared parking arrangement after hours in the parking structure RISCORP would construct on its property; that conveyance of the properties in the transaction is conditioned upon the City rezoning and vacating the alley between First and Second Streets and Central and Pineapple Avenues prior to closing; that the County has asked that the City consider processing a petition to vacate a portion of Second Street abutting the properties conveyed to the County to provide a unified piece of property; that the Administration feels that request requires a study to determine the impact on circulation; that the decision to vacate Second Street is discretionary with the City and not a requirement of the agreement, however, the rezoning and vacating of the alley would be required for library development; that the County agrees to consult with RISCORP on the exterior design of the building and all three parties agree to work together to plan public amenities for the immediate area since RISCORP will be making a major building investment in the vicinity of the proposed library; that a provision for repurchase was included in the agreement at the request of RISCORP; that RISCORP and the City receive the right to repurchase property conveyed to the County at cost of acquisition if the library is not built, and the County would have the right to repurchase the Mission Harbor site from the City; that the risk associated with the repurchase provision is limited for the City; that the County's repurchase right will terminate on the earlier of January 31, 1997, or, as stated in the additional draft agreement, the date upon which the County commences construction of the library at the Five Points site; that closing on the properties is anticipated in November 1995; that the County plans to commence construction on the library sites early in 1996. Mr. Sollenberger continued that the advantages associated with the transaction include: 1) the City will be able to oversee the destiny of redevelopment on the Mission Harbor site, and 2) the library will be centrally located at Five Points and will create an important civic space that confirms the City's image as a community of arts and culture. In conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Sollenberger cited the following from a letter dated February 10, 1995, written by Frank Folsom Smith, AIA, President of the Folsom Group: You have the opportunity to approve a library on Five Points Park which will be the cultural and information linchpin between the theater and Arts district and the business and retail community. This represents the culmination of a dream that a number of us have envisioned for years-- since R/UDAT (Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team) first proposed Five Points Park. You also have the opportunity to acquire and control a hugely important site in the CBD (Commercial Business District) across form the Civic Center. You can then define exactly the mix of land uses and land forms that you deem compatible with the Civic Center and Rosemary district that is in critical need of development and issue an RFP (Request of Proposal) for appropriate private development of the site. and the following from a letter dated February 6, 1995, written by William Halstead, AIA, President of the Florida Gulf Coast Chapter of the American Institute of Architects: Because of the careful planning of the Vision plan, our Chapter of the AIA supports the proposed library downtown location because of its enhancement to be part of the "Cultural Center" of the City of Sarasota. Mayor Patterson asked if the agreement provided to the Commission is a draft or final copy of what will be signed? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the document is currently in draft form; that additional revisions are anticipated; that conceptual approval is requested after which the final details will be worked out and brought back to the City and County Commissions for approval. Mayor Patterson referred to page 12 of the Three Party Exchange Agreement on which the County's option to repurchase the Mission Harbor site is addressed and stated that the narrative provided to the Commission indicates that the County's repurchase rights will not be placed on record in the official records of Sarasota County, therefore the City could go forth and sell the Mission Harbor BOOK 37 Page 11482 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11483 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. property; that although constructive notice may not be given to the purchaser because the repurchase rights will not be recorded, the exchange agreement would still be legally binding if the property were sold; that liability to the City may exist for specific performance if the County exercises its repurchase rights on a property the City no longer owned; that a clause indicating that the repurchase rights of the County would terminate upon sale of the Mission Harbor property should be included. City Attorney Taylor stated that he has not been involved in the meetings concerning the exchanged agreement, but tends to agree with the Mayor's comment. Mr. Sollenberger stated that discussion held by Mike Connolly, City Attorney's Office, and Steve DeMarsh, Office of the Sarasota County Attorney, relating to that item resulted in the agreement change whereby the County's right to repurchase would expire upon commencement of construction of the library; that he would be hesitant to market the Mission Harbor property prior to termination of the County's repurchase rights; that a conceptual report from the County Administrator indicates construction would start in January or February 1996; that once the site decisions are made, the County will begin design of the library and bid the project; that the anticipated construction start date is feasible. Mayor Patterson asked if the City Manager's projection is that the City would wait at least one year to market the Mission Harbor property? Mr. Sollenberger stated that is correct; that taking title to the property is not contemplated until November 1995 due to various procedures which need to be undertaken; that a vacation and a rezoning to the Governmental (G) Zone District is necessary on the alley site prior to the closing and is a condition of the exchange agreement. Mayor Patterson stated that she is attempting to determine the period of time during which the City would be paying interest on a property for the purpose of resale although the process of reselling that property could not begin until a date certain. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the City would take possession of the Mission Harbor property in November 1995; that marketing could hopefully begin by February 1996. Mayor Patterson asked if a safeguard for the County experiencing a delay has been included in the exchange agreement? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the exchange agreement provides repurchase rights for the parties if library construction does not begin by January 31, 1997; that repurchase would include recovery by the City of its holding costs, including interest costs, as well as the purchase price of the Mission Harbor propertyi that the only thing lost by the City would be the time spent on the project. Commissioner Cardamone stated that once the final agreement is approved by the City and County Commissions and signed by all three parties, discussions on the uses for the Mission Harbor property, the approach for selling it, etc., should begin; that the city should not wait to receive title to the property to begin entertaining requests from developers. Mr. Sollenberger stated that after a final agreement is reached, the Administration would request that an RFP be developed; that he plans to meet with members of the private sector to develop and ensure that the RFP is consistent with the market; that the RFP will take time to develop; that the City will be in a better position at the closing in November 1995 to judge whether the County will meet the anticipated construction start date. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the appraisals have not been provided to the Commission; and cited the following from the narrative included in the Agenda packets: Mission Harbor appraised at $3.1 million, though the County paid $2.6 million for it. The appraiser assigned a higher value to the property for highest and best use Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the property is currently zoned residential; and asked if the property was appraised for commercial use? Mr. Sollenberger stated that he thinks the appraisal was based on a mixed use; that the Commission rezoned the parcel for a lower value; however, the property appraiser did not appraise it based on zoning, but on his interpretation of the highest and best use of the property. Vice Mayor Merrill asked for clarification of the following statement in the narrative: The City's pledge to pay these notes would be non ad valorem revenues. Mr. Sollenberger requested that John Haylett, the City's Financial Advisor, and Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, come before the Commission to address Vice Mayor Merrill's question. Mayor Patterson stated that she understood the City had no stream of income to pledge, which is why a capital appreciation note was recommended. BOOK 37 Page 11484 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11485 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. Mr. Mitchell stated that a source of revenue has to be pledged by the City to the insurance company and bond holders regardless of the method of financing; that non ad valorem revenue would be pledged. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that a pledge of non ad valorem revenue could negatively affect the General Fund; that if that does occur, taxes would have to be raised to pay the debt. Mr. Mitchell stated that was not necessarily correct; that by pledging non ad valorem revenues the City is not pledging full faith and credit of the City but rather all other revenues generated by the City, i.e., utility and franchise taxes; that a determination as to what kind of financing would be best has not yet been made; that capital appreciation notes or bonds, whereby interest would accrete up to the maturity, were mentioned in the narrative; that no revenue stream to pay principal or interest on the notes would be necessary until the date of maturity at which time a "bullet" or payment in full would be required. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the narrative states that capital appreciation notes are being explored; and asked what revenue stream would be used if capital appreciation notes are not used? Mr. Haylett stated that capital appreciation notes are an important option being explored; that the City has other options, but capital appreciation notes would allow principal and interest payments to be deferred for five years. Vice Mayor Merrill asked if Mr. Haylett was indicating that revenue sources would not have to be appropriated since payments would not be made annually? Mr. Haylett stated that the City intends to secure A-rated bonds; that a pledge of revenue to payoff the bonds is necessaryi that the City intends to pledge non ad valorem revenues, but would not be appropriating funds because payment is not due until the fifth year. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he understood Tax Increment Financing (TIF) dollars and City redevelopment funds were originally anticipated for use with the Mission Harbor property endeavor; that he realizes the County needs some of the public land owned by the City to construct parking lots and other public uses; that, perhaps, the City should consider leasing or deeding the land to the County; however, floating bonds and transferring land to the County to purchase the Mission Harbor property which has to be sold does not seem appropriate; that the County has a larger debt capacity than the City to borrow $2.3 million; that the County could sell Mission Harbor as easily as the City could; that the City would still have full enjoyment of the properties without involvement in the arrangement; and asked why is the City involved? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the concept was pursued after the Administration outlined it to the Commission and there was no indication that the concept was not supported; that the arrangement has its advantages and some risk; that the main advantage is that the City is in a position to pursue its own destiny on the redevelopment of the Mission Harbor propertyi that the County is planning two libraries at a cost of $18 million; that retaining the Mission Harbor property would budgetary strain the County with their objective to build two libraries. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the Commission previously stated its intention to sell the Mission Harbor property to a private developer; that the parcel is currently zoned residential; that the City would most likely be petitioned for a conditional rezoning; that a site plan requiring Commission approval would be brought forth during the conditional rezoning process; therefore, the Commission would have a major influence on what is developed on that parcel through the City's Zoning Code, regardless of who owns it. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the Commission has a greater ability to influence development of the property by sitting as a Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to discuss the content of an RFP and development agreement; that in that respect, the City could specify the type of uses desired and set a variety of standards; that the City's past strategy of using the CRA to finance a variety of infrastructure improvements to make the downtown more attractive which in turn stimulated private investment has been successful; that owning the Mission Harbor property is the best way for the City to get what they want in terms of development. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the City's desire has to be quantified before it can be pursued; that there is much discord in the community as to what kind of development may be wanted on the Mission Harbor site. Vice Mayor Merrill continued that he questions the City's involvement since the County can do what is being asked of the City; that the original plans changed considerably over time, i.e., the concept of having one Central Library in downtown Sarasota has been changed and a big library is planned for Clark Road; that the Commission should focus on whether the exchange agreement is the best option for all City citizens; and asked if the City is assisting the County's process or if the City is the driving force? Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the option of retaining the Selby Library as a branch library and building an additional new branch library at Fruitville and McIntosh Roads may better serve the residents throughout the entire City than expending taxpayer's dollars to replace a library that is already located in the City; BOOK 37 Page 11486 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11487 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. that the same amount of dollars could be expended, but the result would be two libraries within the City limits; and asked if that option had been explored? Mr. Sollenberger stated that he was not asked to explore that option; that he views the relationship between the City and the County as participants; that he believes the City has some culpability as a driving force; that the City Commission did request that the County Commission reconsider placement of the Central Library on the Mission Harbor property and to review alternative locations in the downtown area. Commissioner Atkins left the Commission Chambers at 3:47 p.m. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the issue of two City libraries should be addressed if the City is considered the driving force and in-charge. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the City is not in charge of the library location decision; however, the County has been responsive to the City's requests; that since he has been City Manager, Commissions have favored a downtown site for the library; that the issue raised by Vice Mayor Merrill should be discussed among the Commission. Commissioner Atkins returned to the Commission Chambers at 3:49 p.m. Mayor Patterson stated that she has concerns with appraisals, which the Commission has not seen, being used as a basis in the exchange agreement; that the City paid in excess of $986,000 for the property appraised at $827,000 in the matrix; that the Mission Harbor property is appraised at $3.1 million although the County paid $2.6 million for it; that she questions whether the vacation of streets will be paid by the City for which no value has been considered. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the City acquired the Second Street parking lot in a declining market and paid $200,000 less than its appraised value in 1990; that appraisals are based on past sales; that the prices plummeted drastically after the City's purchase, thus lowering land values in the area; that the RISCORP purchase of the Southeast Bank property from the Resolution Trust for little over $2 million has materially affected the appraisal values of the City's land in the area. Mayor Patterson stated that she is aware of the fluctuating marketing conditions; however, the $3.1 appraised value of the Mission Harbor property is not based on its current zoning; and asked if the value is based on one large commercial piece of property with the necessary streets vacated? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the appraised value takes into account the property as a unified piece of property. Mayor Patterson stated that, basically, the value the City will add to the property after acquisition is being included in the appraisal. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the County actually contributed toward the purchase of the Second Street parking lot since the City financed the purchase with TIF dollars; that TIF dollars are a combination of City and County taxes; that in his opinion, the County would still be contributing to the amount paid for the Second Street lot even if it is acquired at a lower value. Mayor Patterson referred to the restaurants for which negotiations have not concluded; and stated that the property owners of the Paradise Cafe and Emphasis which are currently located on the desired parcel of land are not very willing to sell; that the City or County could pursue eminent domain in which certain risks are inherent, i.e., the purchase price could be higher after a court procedure during which compensations may be awarded for the termination or relocation of businesses; and asked how the issue is projected in the exchange agreement? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the three-party agreement was developed on the basis that negotiations between RISCORP and the restaurant property owners would have been completed, thus making RISCORP the property owneri however, that arrangement has not come to fruition and is an element of fine tuning necessary before a final agreement can be presented to the Commission for approval; that the restaurant property will be acquired by RISCORP or the County; that the City is not actively involved in the negotiations for purchase. Mayor Patterson asked if the proposed $2.3 million cash transfer from the City is a fixed price or could it fluctuate upward depending on the expenses involved in acquisition of the restaurant properties? Mr. Sollenberger stated that cash transfer needs to be finalized; that the request before the Commission is for conceptual approval. Mr. Sollenberger stated that he failed to mention earlier that Gateway 2000 also forwarded a letter to the City in support of the Mission Harbor property coming into City ownership for redevelopment purposes. Vice Mayor Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 3:55 p.m. The following people came before the Commission: BOOK 37 Page 11488 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11489 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. Betsy Kelley, 930 North Tamiami Trail #507 (34236), stated that the City, the County and RISCORP are working together to finalize a three-party agreement that would benefit all three entities; that representatives are looking out for the best interests of the each of the three entities; that the City's citizens deserve and need the end result of the endeavor which will be a library downtown which the citizens can reach, get to, and enjoy. Vice Mayor Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 3:58 p.m. Harriet Oxman, 888 Boulevard of the Arts (34236), distributed to the Commission a copy of her prepared speech which stated that although she is a member of the Board of Directors of The Friends of the Selby Public Library, her statements are as a private individual; that the library issue has become a public relations disaster; that taxpayers feel they have not only been kept in the dark about the process but that their opinions are being ignored; that virtually no effort by the City or the County has been made to sell the proposed agreement; that public officials have not made an effort to correct misinformation as it has been disseminated for example: The Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported that the library at Five Points would be 50,000 square feet although the actual square footage proposed is closer to 40,000 square feet and the Selby library has 31,000 square feet. The Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported that the City will pay $2.1 million to RISCORP for the library site properties, although the figure will be at least $2.3 million. Ms. Oxman continued that there has been no mention of how the parking problem around Five Points will be solved or if and how library patrons will be given priority; that the planned multi- level parking structure may have been heard tonight by citizens for the first time who are wondering if it will be financed by the County funds earmarked for the library construction; that the public wants more of this type of information; that many suspicions have been raised because the public is not being informed. Ms. Oxman stated many citizens tend to agree with the following excerpts taken from a letter to the editor which appeared under the heading "Library deal is our of control" in the February 4, 1995, edition of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune: The library controversy should not be over land deals, tax breaks, and dollar amounts, but whether there should be two libraries built at all. Building a branch library downtown, spending millions of taxpayers' dollars, destroying existing businesses, will benefit only RISCORP and its friends on the Commission. There is a self-serving, irresponsible arrogance here that overrides any real concern about Sarasota's libraries. Ms. Oxman continued that the ideal plan would be for a state-of-the-art, high-tech, main library to be built on the Mission Harbor site, the site that the County originally purchased for that purpose and on which the main library would have been built had the City not intervened; that there is a real danger that nothing will be built on the Mission Harbor property. Ms. Oxman further stated that the City Commission is allowing the main library, which currently resides and rightly belongs in the City, to be sited outside the City limits sO the Commission can speculate on land with taxpayer money. Ms. Oxman requested that the Commission reject conceptual approval of the three-party agreement or delay voting on the issue for one month to provide for full citizen input. Dorothy Hawkins, 609 South Owl Drive (34236) stated that as an avid user of the current Selby library, she feels the Commission is doing something that is terrible for the City of Sarasota; that one main resource library is necessary in the City; that a branch library should be located in the northeast part of Sarasota; that the Selby library is overflowing and in danger of being lost to a major wind storm; that many of the educated, retired people utilize the library; that the "wheeling and dealing" surrounding the proposed three-party agreement concerns her; that the Mission Harbor property should be used as the site for the main library since it is centrally located and would have adequate parking; that the main library should not be sited on Clark Road by Interstate 75; that the City taxpayers have contributed toward the funding for library construction and deserve a main library at a site which can easily be accessed; that many of the City's citizens in the northern portion will go to the main library in Bradenton rather than a branch library downtown or a main library on Clark Road. Ms. Hawkins continued that the public has not been appraised of the particulars associated with the Clark Road location; that construction in 20 years of a pediatric hospital has been planned on the property proposed as the site for the library; that a City of 6,000 people is planned for that area; that those people should pay for their own library; that the Commission was elected to run an effective government for the City's citizens; that she does not feel the Commission is doing their job. BOOK 37 Page 11490 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11491 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the siting of the library is not the responsibility of the City of Sarasota; that the Commission would love to see the main library sited in the City of Sarasota; that Ms. Hawkins' charge of dereliction of duty by the location of the main library was not appropriate; that placement and siting of the library is not the job of the City Commission; that Ms. Hawkins should address the County Commission with her concerns regarding the placement of the main, central library. Elizabeth McCall, 964 Alameda Lane (34234), stated that she has been a library volunteer in archives for 20 years and has volunteered in the Genealogy Department at Selby Library for 7 years; that the taxpayers do not have to pay to staff the Genealogy Department; that 36 volunteers from the Genealogical Society recorded 2,459 hours last year at the Selby Library; that books, microfiche, compact diskettes and a computer were donated or purchased by members of the Genealogical Society. Ms. McCall referred to a scrapbook which contained various publications and correspondence from 1991 forward regarding the library issue; and stated that construction of the library was to begin in 1993; that it is 1995 and discussions are still being held on the issue. Ms. McCall distributed to the Commission a copy of a prepared speech which stated that as a City taxpayer for 50 years, she objects to the purchase of the Five Points property as the location for a main library for the City of Sarasota; that floating a bond issue for the purchase would increase taxes and create a hardship for her as well as many other citizens on fixed incomes; that the City receives substantial taxes from the proposed property; that revenue will be lost and the City will bear the cost of tearing down the currently sited buildings; that traffic congestion will be unbearable; that the Five Points site has less parking available than is currently available at the Selby library site; that the proposed location leaves no room for future expansion of the library; that various functions, i.e., the archives and museum and genealogy departments have been proposed for transfer to the Clark Road site and the Library administration has already been removed from the original plans; that the continuous whittling down of functions by the County Commission will result in a much smaller facility at the Five Points site; that the two library buildings are already slated below the recommended size; that the genealogy department needs three times the current space at Selby, but will receive only twice the space; that use of compact, movable shelves will be necessary to meet the anticipated shelf space; that only one section of the compact shelving opens at a time, therefore, patrons will be forced to wait for someone to complete their browsing before another section can be opened; that the Genealogy Department is currently part of the Reference Department; that researchers and historians will be greatly hampered when the two departments are separated. Ms. McCall continued that an All Children's Hospital, affiliated with the one in St. Petersburg, is anticipated on the Clark Road site; therefore, only a 20-year lease on the land is available for the library; that a library to last 100 years or more should be built on a site which has room for expansion and parking and has a beautifully landscaped area in a park-like setting. Ms. McCall continued that it is preposterous that a City and County as affluent and culturally rich as Sarasota would let the limited library resources that currently exist remain far below State and National standards. Ms. McCall further stated that the citizens of Sarasota would have had a nearly completed main library if the City Commission had not intervened; and requested that the City Commission, the ones who created the discord regarding the library location, reject the proposed exchange agreement. Commissioner Cardamone asked the City Manager for a response to the comment made by Ms. McCall regarding fewer parking spaces at the proposed Five Points site. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the County has not prepared a site plan, but preliminary estimates indicate that 166 parking spaces would be provided without vacation of a portion of Second Street or 183 with the vacation; that the library is planned to be 50,000 square feet on two levels; that the net usable space is estimated to be 40,000 square feet; that the Zoning Code requirement for off street parking in the Commercial Central Business District (C-CBD) is one space for each 350 square feet of usable space; therefore, the requirement would be 114 spaces. Mary Quillin, 407 Cocoanut Avenue (34236), stated that the City passed a resolution asking that the County find an alternative location for the library site to make the Mission Harbor site available for commercial development; that the proposed developer was the Courtelis Company; that the groundbreaking for the library on the Mission Harbor site was scheduled for November 1994; that the Commission is responsible for the position the City is in right now regarding the library location; that the downtown north area was voted as the area for siting the library; that the people supported the downtown north location; that the Commission went against the people. Ms. Quillin continued that the Mission Harbor property is on the tax rolls for $1.8 million; that the County paid $2.052 million plus the hundreds of thousands of dollars in back taxes due on the property which brought the purchase price of the County up to $2.6 million; that the three-party agreement being reviewed by the City Commission is not the same agreement that the County Commission conceptually approved; that the constant changes regarding the agreement concern the citizens; that the agreement BOOK 37 Page 11492 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11493 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. protects one entity RISCORP. Ms. Quillin further stated that the $2.3 million disclosed is just the tip of the cost to the City taxpayers; that no value was applied to the alley vacation as a cost differential; that Five Points has been looked at by various groups; that the proposal will ultimately cost the city of Sarasota over $9 million; that a 30 year bond was issued for the $30 million City investment to redevelop the downtown area; that RISCORP will recoup its cost for the Central Avenue parking lot, but the City will receive a valuation of $709,000 for the Second Street parking lot which was purchased for over $900,000, not including the improvements made with TIF dollars. Ms. Quillin cited the following from an article in an edition of the Bradenton Herald which was published one year earlier: The time has come to support the Mission Harbor site for the Central Library. Planning for the eventual east side branch could continue. Further delay can only lead down to a path where public needs become secondary to private development interests. Ms. Quillin quoted the following from the Florida Appellate Court: An open government is crucial to the citizens ability to adequately evaluate the decisions of the elected and appointed officials. Judiciary cannot create a privilege of confidentiality to accommodate the desires of local government. Ms. Quillin stated that she is putting the City on notice that she has been denied access to public records; that review of information regarding the Mission Harbor site and the property appraisals used in the three-party agreement has been requested; that she has a letter from City Manager Sollenberger stating that the Florida Statutes denies her access to files in his office that have to do with "project library." Dan Lobeck, 450 South Shade Avenue (34237), representing Growth- Restraint and Environment Organization (GEO), stated that the Commission should sense a certain amount of public alarm and outrage regarding the idea of siting a County library near an existing library or near potential future development since the City Commission asked the County to change what would have been a major state-of-the-art library within the City of Sarasota; that the Commission previously asked the County to change their plans; that it is equally important to ask the County to change these plans; that Vice Mayor Merrill's suggestion of gaining two libraries rather than one makes a lot of sense, but the proposed three-party agreement does not; that the public has questions as to what is being hidden from them since records have been denied; that the City Manager referenced appraisal values in his matrix; that he has not been able to determine appraisals have been completed for the Goodyear and 100 North Pineapple Avenue properties; that copies of the appraisals used to determine the valuations have been requested from the City and the Countyi that the custodians of records for the City and the County stated that the figures presented were obtained over the telephone from RISCORP representatives; that RISCORP doesn't own any of the properties; that the properties are personally owned by Mr. William Griffin of RISCORP; that the proposed agreement is with RISCORP and undefined "related entities" who will not be signing the agreement; that the Commission is being requested to conceptually approve signing an agreement with parties that are not parties to the agreement. Mr. Lobeck continued that based on appraisals the restaurants were presented at an estimated value of $750,000; that, on behalf of Mary Quillin, he pursued the public records law and obtained the restaurant appraisals from the County; that the County initially withheld the information, but decided to release the materials; that the two appraisals total $890,000; that the discrepancy in figures is substantially since the Commission is being requested to commit conceptually to the purchase of the properties for the cost expended by RISCORP; that the interest on the $2.3 million has not been disclosed; that the Goodyear property has been reflected with a value of $700,000 although it was mortgaged for $525,000; that RISCORP's involvement as a middle man is not necessary. Mr. Lobeck further stated that the City is not positioning itself well; that the Mission Harbor property may not sell; that the City may be forced to cut deals which may not be in the public's interest to recoup the money expended on the proposed arrangement; that the price paid for the Mission Harbor site may not be attainable within five years; that the City could be asked to waive concurrency; that the issue relates to prudent financial dealings; that the Commission does not have adequate information to vote yes on this item. Commissioner Pillot stated that the City Manager's oral and written presentations clearly stated that the $750,000 value for the restaurants was estimated. Mr. Sollenberger stated that an asterisk was included in the matrix to denote that the $750,000 value for the restaurants was an estimate, exclusive of relocation costs; that the relocation costs have been included in the appraisals. Mr. Lobeck stated that the relocation costs have been excluded from the appraisals. Mayor Patterson stated that she would be interested in reviewing the appraisals. BOOK 37 Page 11494 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11495 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. Mr. Sollenberger stated that appraisals have not been obtained for the Goodyear and 100 North Pineapple Avenue properties; that the values are based on the price paid by RISCORP this year. Ernest Babb, 1886 Bahia Vista Street (34239), stated that the City's taxpayers should not be burdened with additional, unnecessary costs associated with the relocating the library; that the County owned the Mission Harbor property on which the library was originally sited and budgeted for the building; that approval of a site plan was all that was required by the City; that the new proposal has the City involved with extra expense to the City's taxpayers and a cost greater than the zero sum proposal in the agreement; that costs will be associated with rezonings, street vacations, and re-utility locations; that utilities are located under Second Street and the alley; that building a new parking garage will have costs associated that have not been budgeted in the City Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Mr. Babb continued that the City should not be involved with land speculation which is the province of the private sector; that this type of acquisition and speculation is not part of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the City's planners included the concept of a large shopping center on the Mission Harbor property in the City's 50 Year Vision Plan; however, the Vision Plan elements have not been incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency was not part of the Vision Plan; that changes to the Comprehensive Plan must be endorsed by the City's land planning agency. Mr. Babb further stated that he doesn't understand how a concept that is so specific in detail as to accomplish the end result of acquisition of the Mission Harbor property by the City can be considered legal in light of the method which must be followed to achieve it; that the Commission is being requested to approve more than a concept; that approval of the request will create a binding, legal agreement between the three parties involved; that the City Commission will then sit as an unbiased body to hear in a quasi-judicial manner the very elements necessary to achieve the goal approved in the three-party agreement; that the Commission will have decided before the issue has been placed before them that the elements of the agreement should be implemented; that this is obviously a stated bias which cannot be overcome when the public comment is heard during the site plan and rezoning public hearings on the applicable ordinances. Commissioner Cardamone requested that the City Manager respond to the cost inference made by Mr. Babb. Mr. Sollenberger stated that closing costs have been calculated at approximately $17,000; that utility relocation costs associated with the alley would be an expense of the County; that the provision in the three-party agreement that the City and County will negotiate an agreement to allow the City to construct a parking structure over the property at the northwest corner of Central Avenue and Second Street is not a commitment by the City to build a parking structure but preservation of an option for the future. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the County, acting as petitioner, would be responsible for the specific costs associated with Comprehensive Plan amendments, rezoning, and infrastructure? Mr. Sollenberger stated that the agreement will have to be reviewed for a specific answer to Commissioner Cardamone's question. Commissioner Cardamone requested comment from the City Attorney as the comments made regarding the quasi-judicial process. City Attorney Taylor stated that there is no ready precedent on which to base an answer to the question raised; that the Snyder decision does not work well in many circumstances; that the situation where the City has entered into a contract and must sit as a quasi-judicial body would be one of the oddities associated with the court decision; that he is aware of no jurisdiction in the State of Florida, under those circumstances, that has declared themselves to have a conflict of interest and brought in an outside entity to make the decision; that the practical answer, whether it be comfortable or uncomfortable, is that the City Commission would be faced with a quasi-judicial proceeding on the issue. Mr. Babb stated that he saw no indication in the three-party agreement that the County would bare the expense for the relocation of utilities, etc. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the expense associated with vacating the alley would be addressed when the vacation is pursued; that the City has always required that any utility relocations necessary because of a vacation be born at the cost of the parties for whom the right-of-way is vacated; that relocation of utilities would not be a cost to the City; that the agreement is specifically states that the City will assist the County in providing reviews of the rezonings and Comprehensive Plan amendments, but does not specifically address the issue of fees. Jencie Davis, 1420 Fifth Street (34236), stated that she has been a resident of downtown and a City taxpayer for 53 years; that location of the library downtown is an appropriate site and would enhance the many improvements made to the downtown over the years; that children and adults from Jefferson Center, McCown Towers, and Cohen Way could walk to the downtown library; that she supports locating the library downtown for the benefit of the city of Sarasota citizens young and old. Roy Smith, representing Sarasota North Action Group (SNAG), 5149 Boca Raton Avenue (34234), stated that he is President of SNAG; BOOK 37 Page 11496 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11497 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. that the County Commission voted on the location of the new libraries last month; that the three-party agreement is a good business move for the City and a win situation for the blighted area represented by SNAG; that the proposed development by RISCORP along with a new library at the end of Central Avenue will be an asset for the community; that the issue has had tremendous public input and discussion; that SNAG supports City Commission approval of the three-party agreement concept and directing the City Manager to further pursue it. John Doggett, 810 Central Avenue (34236), stated that an inordinate amount of discussion on the library issue has taken place; that the Commission unanimously passed a resolution last year requesting that the County Commission look at alternative sites for the new library location; that the four attending City Commissioners conceptually approved the Rosemary District portion of the Vision Plan in November; that a public/private partnership was pursued; that many naysayers did not support the Main Street redevelopment project; that the Main Street project has been completed and downtown Sarasota is thriving; that the library issue needs to be resolved; that the three-party agreement between the City, County, and RISCORP should be conceptually approved; that the project will assist the City of Sarasota in growing and being brought into the 21st Century where it is a safe place for all to work and play; that the proposed redevelopment by RISCORP and the location of the library could start the redevelopment of Central Avenue all the way to Newtown; that many people are tired of waiting for a resolve to the library issue. Barbara Cherry, representing North Trail Association, 3907 Bay Shore road (34234), stated that many of the business citizens interested in this three-party agreement being pursued could not attend this afternoon's meeting; that her Association supports economic development on the Mission Harbor site; that the location of the library downtown is an excellent choice; that businesses contribute to the City's tax base which needs to be increased; that both economic development and a new library are needed in the City of Sarasota; that the North Trail Association supports approval of the three-party agreement. Glenda Mock, representing North Trail Association, 1701 North Tamiami Trail (34234), stated that the choice of a downtown location as the new library site is a safer location for the children of the City of Sarasota; that the main road near the Mission Harbor site is U.S. 41, a federal highway, which could create a dangerous situation for young children; that she supports approval of the three-party agreement. Richard Morris, 447 South Washington Drive, stated that the new library is critical to the future of the City of Sarasota, not the location nor the attractiveness of the building, but the items which are inside; that the $18 million library which the City of Sarasota citizens could have had has become a library between $5 to $8 million; that the delay has caused the City to lose a great deal of money for its new library; that the community's children will suffer through the proposed library which will be nothing more than a reading room and will not be able keep up with the emerging cybernetic world of technology; that society is creating a country of information "have and have nots"; that the "have nots" will not be able to compete unless society is willing to invest in computer space to train these individuals how to utilize the information superhighway and databases; that 50 computer terminal and database tables are necessary in a library to adequately train the City's residents, including retired citizens and school-aged children, who do not have computer access or on-line services at home; that businesses are locating where the work force is trained; that businesses will locate in the City of Sarasota if the work force can be trained; that in the near future, libraries will have the capability to connect the community with many of the on-line services necessary to keep the community a viable society; that the City will make a big mistake if the investment in the community is not made. Mr. Morris continued that something does not sound right when a County, as an entity, avoids being straight-forward in purchasing the Five Points property and directly hires a private entity to act on its behalf; that the library should be sited where it can expand to become the finest library in the State of Florida and give the children who will be here in 2110 the ability to compete economically and intellectually with the rest of the country. Peter Genersich, representing himself and the North Trail Association, 4644 North Tamiami Trail (34234), stated that he grew- up, lives and manages a resort/motel on North Tamiami Trail; that making the Mission Harbor site available would give the city an opportunity to spur new development on North Tamiami Trail, the gateway to the City of Sarasota, and would be a catalyst to the entire Sarasota area; that the City's tax base is decreasing and new development on North Tamiami Trail has not been seen in years; that a branch or main library in the downtown area would benefit and enhance redevelopment in the downtown core; that his main concern is that the Mission Harbor property be used for redevelopment to save North Tamiami Trail. Mr. Genersich continued that potential patrons calling from Illinois to make reservations consider North Tamiami Trail as a "bad area of town"; that this should be of concern to everyone. Paul Thorpe, representing The Downtown Association. 47 South Palm Avenue (34736), stated that over one year ago, for economic reasons to benefit the City of Sarasota, the city Commission unanimously voted to request that the library site be relocated from the Mission Harbor property; that the diverse group from the private sector that came forward in support of the Commission's decision to BOOK 37 Page 11498 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11499 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. move the library site included: the University of South Florida, the Ringling School of Art, the North Trail Association, SNAG, The Downtown Association, etc.; that redevelopment at the Mission Harbor site could benefit North Tamiami Trail and the City of Sarasota; that the City Commission had no involvement in the County Commission's decision on the size of the libraries to be located on Clark Road and downtown; that a 60,000 square-foot building was originally designed and fit on the downtown site; that the County Commission made the decision to move the main library to the southeast part of the County; that those in support of a larger- size library in the downtown containing the technical necessitates, should campaign with the County Commission. Mr. Thorpe continued that the Downtown business community, the North Trail Association, and the Chamber of Commerce stand behind the Commission's previous decision and support conceptual approval of the three-party agreement to get the job done. Vice Mayor Merrill left the Commission Chambers at 5:01 p.m. Robert Levy, 1391 6th Street (34236), stated that he fully supports the three-party agreement, although some people view that RISCORP is getting a better deal; that one party always does a little better than the others in a business deal; that gaining possession of the Mission Harbor property will enable the City to use property as a catalyst in redeveloping, the entire North Sarasota area; that the Friends of the Selby Library were not concerned with the neighborhood surrounding the Mission Harbor site on which the library was originally sited, but only with their own interests; that the Commission has voiced support of redevelopment of the Small Area Plan; that the Commission's apprehension on spending taxpayer money is understood; however, spending money on the Central Avenue and the North part of Sarasota will be an investment by which the City could reap the benefits; that he supports the Commission approving the three-party agreement; however, the Mission Harbor property should not be sold to a developer who will delay development for 10 years or more; that the potential developers should be evaluated to determine which developer could best provide the City with a development that will work for the benefit of the entire City and, also, enhance and increase the City's tax base; that the City's tax base will not suffer and could increase substantially if the three-party agreement is approved and the sale of the Mission Harbor property is handled properly. Vice Mayor Merrill returned to the Commission Chambers at 5:03 p.m. Commissioner Pillot stated that the Commission is being asked whether or not the Administration should proceed with the preparation of a final three-party agreement; that a final document will be presented to the Commission on March 6, 1995, if the agreement is conceptually approved tonight; that discussing specific language would be appropriate at that time; and asked the Administration if his statements were correct. City Attorney Taylor and Mr. Sollenberger stated they were correct. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to conceptually approve the three-party agreement concerning the proposed downtown library location. Commissioner Cardamone referred to the resolution approved by the City Commission on February 7, 1994, which was to relocate the library site to make the Mission Harbor site available for commercial development in the context of potential for retail development; and stated that she is a business merchant accustomed to spending money to make money; that a slogan used during her campaign for Commission election was, "decisions must save dollars and make sense"; that tonight's decision is one of the most important decisions the Commission will make regarding money, control, and redevelopment; that the risk associated with the exchange agreement provides a major opportunity for the City to control major happenings in a "sore thumb" section of the City located close to the downtown core; that she will vote yes on the motion to show optimistic support in ensuring the successful future of the entire area from Main Street to Central Avenue to 10th Street down to the Bay and up again on Main Street, where many of the City's cultural amenities are located; that a prior Commission's optimistic, pro-redevelopment of the downtown area proved to be successful; that risky decisions helped to return Main Street to an area of economic success; that with completion of the projects put forth in the three-party agreement, the two locations which will need attention to create a continuous package of the amenities in the surrounding downtown area are development of the Mission Harbor site and the redevelopment of Central Avenue for which the Commission has committed funding; that gaining control of the 10-acres of land known as the Mission Harbor property will enable the City to determine what will be the best and highest use possible on that site; that she will support the motion to approve the three-party agreement. Commissioner Atkins stated that he has been an advocate of and has struggled with ideas to make North Tamiami Trail along Sixth Street and Central Avenue a catalyst for generating the interest and investment in the rest of the community since the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District has been created; that he is saddened in knowing that, as his term as a Commissioner comes to an end, his visions for the Mission Harbor or Central Avenue areas have not come to fruition, although much positive change has occurred within the City of Sarasota; that the Mission Harbor property and the Central Avenue Corridor are important parts of the surrounding City of Sarasota community in complementing the downtown core; that the three-party agreement should be supported to create the opportunity for the City to be in control of development of the Mission Harbor property by creating an RFP document and pursing appropriate and BOOK 37 Page 11500 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11501 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. timely development; that he previously advocated placement of the new library at Fruitville Road and U.S. 301, but will compromise in supporting the proposal put forth in the three-party agreement for the betterment of the entire community. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that he had advocated placement of the library at Five Points and did not vote with the majority of the Commission for the original location of the library at the Maas Brothers site on U.S. 301 because he felt the library could lose its identity to and be dominated by the nearby County Administration facilities; that the process associated with siting a new library has taken many stops, starts, and turns, and has evolved into an unexpected three-party agreement; that the City's role in the three-party agreement is difficult to determine and, from his view, unnecessary; that all the County needs from the City in siting the library at Five Points is the City's parking lots and land; that the County can purchase the other necessary land from RISCORP directly; that there is no need for the City to purchase the land first; that the County can sell the Mission Harbor property; that there is no need for the City to purchase the land from the County and then resell it; that the exchange agreement has the City purchasing the Mission Harbor property for $3.1 million as a speculative venture to control the property; that the Commission should be focusing on the best library and best location for the library and addressing concerns similar to those voiced by Mr. Morris in addition to whether there are traffic or parking concerns at the proposed site; that an arrangement would be necessary for priority parking to provide easy access to patrons if a library is to be located downtown; that much of the success in the downtown area can be attributed to the City's purchase of parking spaces and the location of major office buildings in that area; that the City did not create the Penner Building, the Bank of Boston or the City Center buildings; that the downtown area was strongly in demand before redevelopment started; that the Regional/Urban Design Team (R/UDAT) process was started to make sure that the growth in the downtown didn't get out of control; that the focus of R/UDAT was not to have the government step in because the downtown was dying, but rather to control the growth; that he thinks the Mission Harbor site will develop only as fast as market forces will allow regardless of government intervention; that the City would serve only to subsidize the cost if a developer was unable to pay full market value or, ironically, the City could purchase the property from the County for $3.1 million and then sell it to a developer being financed by the County for a conference center; that the city does not need to step into the arena; that the County only needs parking lots and land from the City. Vice Mayor Merrill continued that a large sum of money is being spent to rebuild and expand a library by 10,000 square feet; that the same funding could be used to remodel the current Selby library and build a new library at Fruitville and McIntosh Roads; that the 38 percent of City residents that live in District #3 would be better served by having two libraries; that his decision on this issue is based purely on the issue of libraries which need no City involvement; that he would vote to assist the County by providing the City land necessary to locate the library at Five Points; that the County could keep the Mission Harbor site and sell it; that the City's involvement in the property exchange is not necessary. Commissioner Pillot stated that he supports the comments made by Commissioner Cardamone and Commissioner Atkins. Mayor Patterson stated that she will vote against the three-party agreement proposal; that she originally supported the Mass Brothers/Main Plaza site for all of the County facility buildings, including the new library, as an economical site with available transportation access; that the Five Points site does not provide convenient vehicle access, although visually and for foot traffic the site is excellent. Mayor Patterson continued that the County purchased the Mission Harbor property on which to site the new library; however, the Courtelis Company, a shopping center developer whose proposal she thought was quite unique, was interested in purchasing the site; that she was the Commissioner who brought forth the idea of petitioning the County to delay building a library on the Mission Harbor site to provide the Courtelis Company with a chance to make an offer; that mixed reactions from the public on the Commission's decision to do so were received; however, she felt the specialness of the Courtelis project would bring people into the area, increase the prosperity of the North Trail area, and outweigh all the disadvantages; that the offer made by Courtelis Company was insufficient and the proposal became a dead issue; that the issue then became whether the City would be interested in acquiring the Mission Harbor property; that the City cannot afford to purchase the Mission Harbor property; that the City does not have $2.3 or $3.1 million available at this time; that resources and dollars have been expended in the TIF District to the point where City tax dollars have been expended to supplement it; that the resolution unanimously passed by the City Commission provided a catalyst for the County to split the library facility in two; that to many people the County's decision was dismaying; that relocating the archives that speak of the history of Sarasota, much of which is wrapped up in the City, to the library sited at Interstate 75 and Clark Road is very distressing; that looking at the possibility of not getting the type of high technology that the future library of the City may demand is distressing to her, but she has enough faith that the County will want to provide adequate facilities in the City; that the City does not have control over where the County sites the library location. Mayor Patterson further stated that the Five Points site is not big enough and probably not affordable for a large library which may be part of the process driving the County's decision to split the library; that she has been approached by a large number of people for whom she has a great BOOK 37 Page 11502 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11503 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. deal of respect that feel deeply committed that the City needs to control the Mission Harbor site and build the library at Five Points; that she looked closely to see if she could support the proposal, but, from her perspective, the City doesn't have the money; that the City's reserves will be at approximately $2.6 million due to an accounting change that requires the City to reserve and accurately reflect the amount of accumulated dollars for employee vacation and other leave; that borrowing a sum of money almost equivalent to the City reserves, without a source identified for repayment, makes it difficult for her to vote yes on the proposal; that she does not feel the taxpayers would vote favorably, if posed with the question, to raise City taxes sufficiently to acquire the Mission Harbor site; that the Commissioners who support the proposed concept do so because they feel it is the right and best thing to do for the future of the City; that she sincerely hopes their optimism is rewarded and City has the ability for the City to recoup the dollars expended; that she is committed to seeing North Tamiami Trail and the Central Avenue Corridor become viable places where people can live and businesses can thrive; however, she is too conservative to take the risk associated with the proposal set forth, and will vote no on the motion. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion to conceptually approve the three-party agreement. Motion carried (3 to 2): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, no; Pillot, yes; Patterson, no. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to direct the Administration to draft a letter from the City Commission asking the County Commission to reconsider placing the Central Library in downtown Sarasota. Mr. Sollenberger asked for clarification if the intent of the motion was to request an increase in square footage for the proposed library to be located downtown? Commissioner Cardamone stated that was correct. Commissioner Cardamone stated that when the Commission passed the resolution last year asking the County Commission to place the library downtown and reserve the Mission Harbor site for economic development, construction of two libraries or diminishing the Selby library activities and departments was not fathomed; that the activities of a Central library should be located in the City which is the population and business center. Commissioner Atkins stated that all the City Commissioners want is the main, Central library located in the City; that the motion put forth is an opportunity for the Commission to express that position and give the community the support and stimulus necessary to approach the County with the request to locate the main library in downtown Sarasota. Mayor Patterson stated that many individuals who spend numerous hours working or volunteering at the Selby library have stated that it is not an adequate facility, and the floor plan is not conducive to a good, modern library operation; therefore, the proposal put forth by Vice Mayor Merrill for two libraries within the City would not be an option she would support. Commissioner Cardamone stated that 20 years ago when the Selby library was sited on the Bayfront, the preferred site was Lemon Avenue and Main Street; that studies show that libraries should be placed where the people are located; that the two libraries previously built in the City of Sarasota did not provide easy access for citizens frequenting them to take a break and get a cup of coffee or a sandwich without getting into their car; that siting the new main library downtown will provide that opportunity and convenience. Vice Mayor Merrill stated that the library should be located where the people are located; that population locations for retail purposes would argue that Fruitville and McIntosh Roads would be a better site for a library than downtown, especially for the 38 percent of the City population that resides in District 3; that he supports the direction of Commissioner Cardamone's motion; however, he feels if the County does not place the main library downtown, the City would be better served with two libraries as he has proposed. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion to draft a letter to the County Commission requesting reconsideration of placing the Central library in the downtown Sarasota location. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. Mayor Patterson recessed the meeting at 5:44 p.m. and the Commission reconvened at 5:48 p.m. City Attorney Taylor left the meeting at 5:44 p.m. 2. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, AND 4 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM II-A) #1 (2643) through (2656) 1. Approval Re: Authorize the Administration to negotiate and the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Interlocal Agreement with Sarasota County for city utility work on the Phase II Tuttle Avenue Roadway Improvements Project 2. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Fourth Amendment to the Agreement between the Southwest Florida Water Management District BOOK 37 Page 11504 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11505 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. and the City of Sarasota for the Tuttle Avenue Reclaimed Water Transmission Line (P138) 3. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a Lease Agreement between the City of Sarasota and SECO Utility Corporation, for the City to obtain space for the installation, maintenance, and operation of certain equipment which will be utilized as a Police Communications System, on property of SECO Utility located at 700 Bell Road, Sarasota, Florida 4. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute the Second Amendment to Agreement with David W. Johnston Associates, Inc. (R.F.P. #93-33), for renewal of landscape architectural services for an additional one (1) year period On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Items 1 through 4 inclusive. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 3. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 95R-796) = ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (ORDINANCE NO. 94-3808) - ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (ORDINANCE NO. 95-3846) = ADOPTED; ITEM 4 (ORDINANCE NO. 95-3851) - ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM II-B) #1 (2658) through (2900) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 95R-796 and Ordinance Nos. 94-3808, 95-3846 and 95-3851 by title only. 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 95R-796, authorizing the City Manager to apply for a Highway Beautification Grant from the Florida Department of Transportation pertaining to median improvements on John Ringling Parkway; etc. (Title Only) 2. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 94-3808, amending Article IX, Nonconforming Lots, Uses, etc.; Division 4, nonconformity resulting from the exer- cise of the power of Eminent Domain, by providing for exemption from the Zoning Code for real property located on Tuttle Avenue between 17th Street and Hibiscus Street when Sarasota County has exercised it's power of Eminent Domain and has acquired or is in the process of acquiring a portion of an existing lot or parcel. Providing for the repeal of ordinances in conflict; providing for the severability of parts hereof if declared invalid or unenforceable; providing for a penalty for violations; etc. (Title Only) Commissioner Cardamone left the Commission Chambers at 5:55 p.m. 3. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 95-3846, amending the Sarasota city Code, Chapter 33, Traffic and Motor Vehicles, Article III, Enforcement of Regulations, to permit not only Officers to issue parking citations but others who have been lawfully so desig- nated; expanding the time to answer a parking citation from 48 hours to 14 days; assessing delinquency fees for failure to respond to parking citations; raising the threshold authorizing wheel locking to the existence of outstanding parking citation fines totaling fifty dollars or more, including late fees, and requiring the delinquent citations be at least thirty days old; deleting the City Auditor and Clerk's authority to summons violators who fail to pay parking citation fines; appointing the Code Enforcement Special Master for the City to conduct a post-wheel-locked hearing; increasing the wheel locking fee from twenty dollars to thirty five dollars; increasing the towing fee from twenty-five dollars to seventy-five dollars; expanding the authorization for wheel locking to include cars parked within city-owned parking lots; amending Article IV, stopping, standing or parking, Division I, generally, to provide that vehicles parked on two way streets must be parked with the right hand wheels along the right hand curb; clarifying the use of the term "adjacent parking space"; amending Article IV, stopping, standing or parking, Division 4, fines for parking violations, by deleting reference to the City Auditor and Clerk because parking enforcement is now administered by the Parking Violations Collections Division; revising the form to be used for parking violation citations; revising the form to be used for the notice of wheel locking; providing for the severability of the parts hereof if declared invalid; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) 4. Adoption Re: Second reading of 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 promul- gate administrative regulations pertaining to the process of removal and disposal of illegal political campaign signs; repealing ordinances in conflict; etc. (Title Only) Commissioner Cardamone returned to the Commission Chambers at 5:58 p.m. On motion of Vice Mayor Merrill and second of Commissioner Pillot, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2, Items 1 through 4 BOOK 37 Page 11506 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11507 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. inclusive. 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. 4. APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION. TO PURSUE FEDERAL FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION FOR LIDO BEACH RENOURISHMENT AND AUTHORIZE RETAINING MARLOWE AND COMPANY TO PROVIDE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS ASSISTANCE - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III) #2 (2903) through (3023) City Manager Sollenberger stated that this is an item requesting authorization for the Administration to retain Marlowe and Company to provide governmental affairs assistance to achieve authorization of federal government financial participation in the renourishment of Lido Beach; that the retainer would be $15,000 for the year, plus expenses, which should not exceed $200 per month; that the State has tended to give preference to federally funded projects in the allocation of State funding; that the Department of Environmental Protection originally listed Lido Beach as its third priority project for funding; that the Governor's Office has asked that beach projects be prioritized according to those which have federal financial participation and are associated with an approved inlet management plan, neither of which applies to Lido Beach; that obtaining authorization for a United States Corps of Army Engineers (USACE) project normally takes seven to ten years; that Marlowe & Company believe the process can be expedited, but the City needs to initiate the effort; that Marlowe & Company's services, as described in the letter of proposal submitted, would involve coordinating between the City's congressional delegation, congressional committees, and executive agencies; that Marlowe & Company has worked with the City in the past with positive results and has also provided effective assistance to the City of Venice in its beach renourishment project. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Vice Mayor Merrill, it was moved to authorize the Administration to pursue Federal Financial participation for Lido Beach renourishment using Marlowe & Company to provide Government Affairs Assistance as outline in the letter of proposal dated January 17, 1995. Mayor Patterson stated that it was clear as she sat in on the discussions held with Marlowe & Company and the City Manager that assistance from the Federal legislative delegation, U.S. Senators Bob Graham and Connie Mack and U.S. Representative Dan Miller, is imperative; that the Commission should contact them to lobby support for the Lido Beach renourishment project. Commissioner Pillot stated that congressman Miller is conducting a meeting in either Venice or Sarasota on March 17. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she would support authorizing travel for a Commissioner to visit Washington to speak with and present information to the Federal legislative delegation. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion to approve the Administration's recommendation. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 5. REOUEST RE: LETTER IN SUPPORT OF MAINTAINING BAY HAVEN SCHOOL OF BASICS PLUS AT ITS PRESENT LOCATION - AUTHORIZED THE MAYOR TO DRAFT, SIGN, AND SEND A LETTER OF SUPPORT (AGENDA ITEM IV) #1 (3024) through (3143) Mayor Patterson stated that a letter requesting the Commission's support was received from Bart Cotten, President of the Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores Association; that the Association is concerned with the potential elimination of Bay Haven School of Basics Plus; that the elementary school has been so successful, City children are on waiting lists to enter; and requested Commission approval to draft, sign and send a letter in support of maintaining Bay Haven School of Basics Plus at its present location. Commissioner Pillot stated that he was the Superintendent of Schools in Sarasota when the program was first developed; that the program has been supported for 15 to 18 years. On motion of Commissioner Pillot and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to authorize the Mayor to draft, sign, and send a letter of support. Commissioner Cardamone stated that "walking" schools in City neighborhoods are important; that the Sarasota County School Board should be requested not to close any City neighborhood schools. Mayor Patterson stated that the thrust of the letter concerning Bay Haven School of Basics Plus should not be diluted; that she will close the letter with an indication that the Commission would hesitate to lose any City neighborhood schools. Mayor Patterson called for the vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Cardamone, yes; Merrill, yes; Pillot, yes; Patterson, yes. 6. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA: (AGENDA ITEM X) #1 (3164) through (3378) BOOK 37 Page 11508 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. BOOK 37 Page 11509 02/13/95 3:00 P.M. MAYOR PATTERSON: A. that she has received three inquiries from small business people in the Main Street area who have lost their parking permits for the most convenient parking spaces, and have been moved to other spaces, and are being told that payment which was previously acceptable in monthly increments must now be paid in advance for six months or one year to retain the newly leased spaces; that she has spoken with V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, and expects a report will be forwarded; that the bulk of the city lot spaces are being leased to banks; that banks which have parking lots, and by zoning have an obligation to provide parking, are more substantially funded than the small business people; that the City is subsidizing the cost of the parking permits the City encourages the businesses owners to obtain; that, as a City taxpayer, she wants the small businesses to receive that subsidy rather than the banks; that The Downtown Association has also received similar complaints; that she is concerned with the issue. Commissioner Cardamone stated that she has received complaints on the issue. Mr. Schneider stated that the Administration will provide the Commission with a report; that a situation occurred in that the parking permit allocation limit was exceeded; that the situation has been resolved, and the merchants that were displaced have been allocated parking permits. Mayor Patterson stated that her concern is with the owners of small businesses being required to pay fees for multiple months in order to reserve a permit for a parking space or spaces. Mr. Schneider stated that the Administration will review the matter and forward a report to the Commission. 7. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) #1 (3378) through (3475) CITY MANAGER SOLLENBERGER: A. stated that the John Ringling Centre Foundation (JRC) notified him that difficulties associated with the release of State grant funding is being experienced based on the demolition agreement as structured between the City, First Sunset Development, Inc., and the JRC; that he, City Attorney Taylor, and Commissioner Pillot have been invited to attend a meeting scheduled by the JRC on February 15, 1995. Commissioner Pillot stated that official representation of the City falls in the seat of the Mayor; that he would be willing to attend the meeting with the consent of the Mayor. Mayor Patterson stated that Commissioner Pillot has full support to attend the meeting. 8. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM VI) #1 (3476) There being no further business, Mayor Patterson adjourned the Special Meeting of February 13, 1995, into the scheduled City Commission Workshop at 6:10 p.m. Moto llss NORA PATTERSON, MAYOR ATTEST: Blle E Roberisen BILLY EROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK BOOK 37 Page 11510 02/13/95 3:00 P.M.